Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

Violations

Please place new reports at the bottom.

User:81.155.34.127 reported by User:Mais oui! (Result:No action at this time)

Three-revert rule violation on John D. Mackay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 81.155.34.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 16:00, 24 November 2006 - note phrase "in pawn to"
• 1st revert: 09:27, 17 February 2007 - reverts to "in pawn to"
• 2nd revert: 09:57, 17 February 2007 - reverts to "in pawn to"
• 3rd revert: 10:11, 17 February 2007 - reverts to "in pawn to"
• 4th revert: 10:50, 17 February 2007 - reverts to "in pawn to"

• Diff of 3RR warning: 10:25, 17 February 2007

Comments: You have violated WP:3RR as well. Have you filed for checkuser to confirm that it is a sock of the user you are alleging it to be? Should we block you as well? — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I have not: please supply the diffs.

This User was banned last night, yet again for making personal attacks on me. They have used over 80 IP sockpuppet accounts to date. We did do a CheckUser several months ago, which confirmed that it was him, and the pattern of behaviour has continued, indeed degenerated, since then. Please review the actions of those IP addresses. CheckUser specifically says that we must use our common sense in establishing who is using multiple IP addresses. --Mais oui! 11:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[1], [2], [3], [4]. The first edit explictly says that it was a revert. Three revert-ruled breached. You should not revert-war even when you are reverting sockpuppets. I cannot take any action against the other user even if he is a sockpuppet, unless you provide evidence and are ready to get blocked yourself. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No, that is not a 3RR: please note that the first diff is at 08:12 on the 16th February, not the 17th. They are not within a 24 hour period.

I have provided the evidence that the IP adress did a revert to "in pawn to" 4 times in a 24 hour period: a crystal clear breach of WP:3RR. --Mais oui! 11:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

A difference of two hours? This can be equated with gaming the system. WP:3RR does not give you the right to keep reverting without trying to initiate discussion. Get other involved users to comment here. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is "gaming the system" it is User:Mallimak.

But OK, I will make a request that Admin User:Wangi (who, you will note, has also repeatedly reverted Mallimak's sockpuppet IPs) comments at this 3RR, and the Admin who blocked him last night. Anyone else you would like to get a comment from? Many, many Admins have had to deal with Mallimak's multitude of IP addresses. I am not going to waste my Saturday any further by spamming them all. --Mais oui! 11:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and on your point of "trying to initiate a discussion": we have tried on literally hundreds of occasions to reason with Mallimak. But you just look through his contributions and IP contributions: does that look like someone who is open to discussion to you? --Mais oui! 11:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I am responding both because MO posted a link to this discussion on my talk page, and in light of "Get other involved users to comment here" posted by Nick - given I was one of the reverters (on MO's talk page attacks made by the user) and someone who has followed this sitation from the start, it is probably useful I give my view. I have to say this one has gone on too long. A user who was attempting to push some sort of Orkney separatist view and running socks to do it. The user was found out, and has since, over numerous months, attempted to troll, goad and make personal attacks. To counter the "MO was gaming the system" type chatter doesn't sit with the facts - he is attempting to deal with someone who has a new IP address every day - has no interest in discussion and is now only interested in a personal attack and vendetta campaign. Hiding behind dynamically assigned IP addresses the person runs around making a fool out of the rules/policies/guidelines which all the rest of us follow. Frankly I don't know why this is allowed - I would say it is getting into the "contact his ISP" territory. The person isn't interested in discussion - if they were they would stick to their original account rather than hiding behind dynamic IP's. I can't say MO has handled the situation perfectly either, some of his actions have probably exacerbated rather than calmed the situation - that being said it doesn't excuse the blatant breaches of rules which Mallimak has consistently shown on countless occasions. Something has to be done. SFC9394 12:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This was going to go on Mais oui!'s talk page, but it's going here instead. MO suggested on his talk page an indefinite ban of Mallimak. Here's the problem with such a proposal as I see it:

1. Bans are not imposed likely. More evidence than supposedly coincidental editing patterns (a CheckUser, for a start) is needed, especially since there is the potential for a lot of collateral damage. It is somewhat unfair to block out most of wherever they might be editing from just to tackle one user.
2. Practicality. The ban would provide for no further punishment than can already be meted out for vandalism.
3. The principle of clean hands. MO's own behaviour is not exactly stellar, such as seemingly reverting any edit they disagree with on sight, or labelling other users as "abusive" without actually presenting any evidence (don't need to look far through the history to see accusations levelled at another user - get a RFCU done before throwing that around). There's even evidence of revert warring where the edit summaries are to the effect of "stop revert warring". It's a bit like telling someone to stop shooting at you while you unload an Uzi into their shin.
4. (*puts on devil's advocate hat*) At some point, someone is going to ask why it always seems to be MO on the receiving end of the "personal attacks" (given most of our long-term vandals don't discriminate), and if perhaps it's actually MO that has a problem. (*removes hat*)

Given this has gone on for 4 months, it's probably safe to say MO is fairly deeply embroiled in it, so much so that some might consider reverting such edits to be a potential conflict of interest. If the edits really are that bad, I would suggest MO flag it up and let someone else deal with it. Vandalism cannot be condoned, but there are some serious WP:OWN issues here. Chris cheese whine 13:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I admit that I am a sock puppet, but a sock puppet out of necessity, because Mais oui! got me blocked by repeatedly accusing me of being a sock puppet of Mallimak, and the admins believed him. I am in fact Orkadian. I just cannot stand by and watch Mais oui! be given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to continue with his behaviour. Here is a pertinent quote from my user page

I would agree that Mais_oui does indulge in edit warring, and attacking the contributions of other users. After I had nominated a Scottish template for deletion in favour of the British one- he responded by reverting all my recent edits with the comments- "rv English Nationalist" (see for example- [5]). Also any attempts to engage with the user and avoid edit wars is usually met with personal abuse- eg [6]. Astrotrain 13:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is littered with such comments about Mais oui! from independent users who are not sock puppets of some grand anti-Mais oui! sock puppet master. 81.158.167.80 15:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It would be nice if I, Orkadian,could be unblocked and allowed to edit under my own name, but then again, on past experience, Mais oui! would simply track me and revert my every edit. Here is another relevant quotation:

I don't wish to be drawn into the specific complaint raised by Mallimak. However, Mais oui! has also falsely accused me of sockpuppetry and now routinely reverts my edits simply because they are my edits, without any discussion or attempt to reach consensus. He is the only user against whom I have encountered these problems....Normalmouth 06:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I do wish the "Mais oui! problem" would be resolved. 81.158.167.80 15:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be a shame to have a prolific and well informed editor such as Mais oui! driven away or "disciplined" when simply trying to protect himself and the Wikipedia project as a whole from the constant vandalism and sustained attacks of one particular person, the attacks against him appear to have reached the ridiculous stage, the attacker appears to behave as if they are suffering from some form of OCD. Fraslet 17:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Fraslet, I believe you are confusing victim and perpetrator here. Mais oui! is far from being a well-informed editor, he is an ardent POV pusher who does not hesitate to attack any contributors who gainsay him. For example, Mallimak (whom Mais oui! has constantly accused me of being a sock puppet of, until the admins blocked me) initiated many well-informed Orkney-related articles, and was all set to add many more to Wikipedia (all to the encyclopaedia's benefit) until he fell foul of Mais oui!'s attacks, abuse and destructive editing. I am acquainted with "Mallimak" in true life, and I met him a few weeks ago in the Orkney Archive researching for one of his local newspaper articles. He told me that he has totally given up on Wikipedia, and since his experiences here advises everyone to be wary of the accuracy of its articles. This is all down to Mais oui!, I am afraid. 81.156.60.8 22:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC) (actually Orkadian)

I am not keen on being quoted in this matter- I have never called for him to be banned or blocked. In anycase, these matters are not relevant to 3RR and should be continued elsewhere. Astrotrain 17:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no time at all for "users" which show contempt for our policies, guidelines and procedures and continually come back from a multitude of IPs to continue making the same edits. If they want to be taken seriously then they should seek to discuss, not constantly repeat edits and aggravate. Thanks/wangi 10:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Wangi, You say "If they want to be taken seriously then they should seek to discuss, not constantly repeat edits and aggravate." Please tell this to Mais oui!. I have been forced to contribute via IPs as Mais oui! constantly accused me of being a sock puppet and the administrators (you, maybe) blocked me. 81.156.63.168 12:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC) (actually Orkadian)

Please note that the above series of redlinked IP addresses admits to being a sockpuppet of Orkadian. Please note that Orkadian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is blocked for being an abusive sockpuppet of Mallimak (talk · contribs): CheckUser - Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mallimak. See also Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mallimak. --Mais oui! 08:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This report has become both too stale and too complicated for action on 3RR. File a new report if there are any further violations or bring to ANI or dispute resolution if other problems continue. Newyorkbrad 19:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

User:NYScholar reported by User:Armon (Result:Withdrawn)

Three-revert rule violation on Middle East Quarterly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). NYScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 10:16, 16 February 2007
• 1st revert: 18:08, 17 February 2007
• 2nd revert: 18:39, 17 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 23:50, 17 February 2007
• 4th revert: 23:55, 17 February 2007
• 5th revert: 00:04, 18 February 2007
• 6th revert: 11:31, 18 February 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: [7]

Comments

NYScholar has made some minor changes to the version he reverts to which appears to be gaming. How minor they are becomes hard to tell because he marks all of his edits, including his reverts, this way. He been asked to stop that here and on the article talk page here.

The user is taking advantage of the current backlog in 3RR report enforcement, and reverting yet again, while continuing to deceptively label his edits as "minor". Isarig 22:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Withdraw Report I think it's too late to action this now, plus I inserted a terrible factual error here. This was not pointed out at the time, but I withdraw the request. <<-armon->> 02:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Report noted as withdrawn. Thank you. Newyorkbrad 19:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Nssdfdsfds reported by User:Catchpole (Result:No action in light of RfC)

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

First time I've done this so bear with me.

• Previous version reverted to: 14:39, 15 February 2007
• 1st revert: Revision as of 21:22, 15 February 200
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 10:56, 16 February 2007
• Second Previous reversion reverted to : 11:53, 16 February 2007
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 16:30, 16 February 2007
• 4th revert: Revision as of 21:10, 16 February 2007
• warned: [8], see User talk:Nssdfdsfds for earlier warnings.
• response: further revert (after 24hr) [9]

The first revert is not the same as 2,3 and 4.

"1st revert": I removed content that referred to an attack blog created against Anne Milton, asking Catchpole to "direct me to this consensus with a URL link? thanks". He left a message for me with the link at 21:46 [10], and added back the content. Having read this, I made no further edits to the page, while continuing to edit other articles that evening.

The next day user Fys added to Catchpole's edit a link to that attack blog: [11]

In reverts 2, 3, and 4 left the content in that was removed in revert 1, but removed the URL that had been added by Fys.

So there are two completely separate issues here. Issue 1, in revert 1 was mentioning the blog. Issue 2 in revert 2, 3 and 4 was including the URL of the blog. There's nothing whatsoever in common between 'revert 1' and reverts 2-4. This can easily be verified - the edit before revert 1 had no URL in it, and the edits before reverts 2-4 did. Revert 2-4 did not remove anything that was removed in revert 1, so they are not the same at all. Note that Catchpole was happy on 15/2/07 with mentioning the attack blog, but not linking to it, but following Fys' addition of the URL has decided more recently that the URL *should* go in there. These are separate issues, and responding with false allegations of breaking 3RR isn't helpful.

Catchpole left me a warning on my talk page claiming I'd broken the 3RR. I responded pointing out that this was wrong, as although I'd made four sets of edits within 23 hours and 48 minutes, the first was different from the other three, so there was no breach. After getting my response explaining this, he has for some reason still decided to waste my time by adding this report here that I've now had to respond to. Nssdfdsfds 18:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This report from several days ago has become stale. There is a pending RfC which hopefully resolve the underlying dispute without further edit-warring. Return if problems continue and reference this report. Newyorkbrad 19:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Deeceevoice reported by User:strothra (Result:Already blocked 24h)

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

• Previous version reverted to: 09:01, 14 February 2007
• 1st revert: Revision as of 14:20, 16 February 2007
• 2nd revert:Revision as of 16:38, 16 February 2007
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 04:37, 17 February 2007
• 4th revert: Revision as of 06:34, 17 February 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: Revision as of 09:47, 17 February 2007. An established editor anyway with a long block history for 3RR vios.

Comments

• Has already been blocked for 24. Heimstern Läufer 03:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Skyring reported by User:BenAveling (Result:24h)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [12] For eg. I can't say that there is a single version being reverted to. We've been trying to add some information for days, in different ways, and they all get reverted. This has been going on for days. Just FYI, [13] is the source that Skyring thinks is unacceptable. And yes, he has been warned about 3RR on the talk page of the article in question. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: [14] Revision as of 17:43, 18 February 2007 (edit) (undo) Skyring (Talk | contribs) (→Current Events - Remove poorly sourced and untrue rubbish again. As for the other, see Talk)
• 2nd revert: [15] Revision as of 12:50, 18 February 2007 (edit) (undo) Skyring (Talk | contribs) m (Remove poorly-sourced, untrue material under WP:BLP. If you want to reinsert challenged material, gain a consensus first, please.)
• 3rd revert: [16] Revision as of 12:05, 18 February 2007 (edit) (undo) Skyring (Talk | contribs) (→Attempted return to politics - She didn't attribute it to rape and pillage. This is quite untrue.)
• 4th revert: [17] Revision as of 10:00, 18 February 2007 (edit) (undo) Skyring (Talk | contribs) (This doesn't address the problems identified with the source, and the "attributed to" construction
• 5th revert: [18] Revision as of 09:24, 18 February 2007 (edit) (undo) Skyring (Talk | contribs) (→Quotations - remove rubbish. It's not notable, it's poorly sourced, and the quote is misleading.)
• 6th revert: [19] Revision as of 15:17, 17 February 2007 (edit) (undo) Skyring (Talk | contribs) (→Quotations - Rewording of DNA stunt quote doesn't overcome the problems. See talk.)
  • Blocked for 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer 03:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Somethingoranother reported by User:Gsd2000 (Result:48 hrs)

Three-revert rule violation on United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

• 1st: Revision as of 18:11, 18 February 2007
• 2nd: [20]
• 3rd: [21]
• 4th: [22]
• 5th: [23]
• 6th: Revision as of 20:06, 18 February 2007

Warning about reverting re England (user is simultaneously reverting UK and England): [24]

This user has already been blocked several times for 3RR violations.

Gsd2000 00:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked for 48 hours. User:Majabl also violated 3RR; has been warned. Heimstern Läufer 02:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This user is now using a sockpuppet to make the same edit [25] Gsd2000 04:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Kevin Murray reported by User:Ultramarine (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kevin Murray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 21:12, 17 February 2007
• 1st revert: 02:08, 18 February 2007
• 2nd revert: 20:08, 18 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 20:38, 18 February 2007
• 4th revert: 20:41, 18 February 2007
• 5th revert: 20:47, 18 February 2007
• 6th revert: 21:00, 18 February 2007
• 7th revert: 04:39, 19 February 2007
• 8th revert: 04:43, 19 February 2007
• Diff of 3RR warning: 20:55, 18 February 2007

Comments

First 5 reverts are not identical, but all involve restoring the long table at the end of the article seen in the first revert. Four of the reverts are simple reverts: [26][27][28][29]Ultramarine 05:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly edit warring against the consensus: 24h. yandman 11:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User:MoeLarryAndJesus reported by User:Athaenara (Result:24 hour block)

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

• Previous version reverted to: 19:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 19:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• 2nd revert: 21:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC) (User inserted own username in this revert.)
• 3rd revert: 22:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• 4th revert: 22:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• 5th revert: 22:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• 6th revert: 05:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• 7th revert: 07:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Diff of 3RR warning: 08:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• 8th revert: 17:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• 9th revert: 18:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• 10th revert: 20:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Another spate of reverts, nearly identical:
  • 11th revert: 15:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC) and 15:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • 12th revert: 16:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • 13th revert: 16:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • 14th revert: 17:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • 15th revert: 17:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

This article and its talk page are the only pages the user has edited since registering the ID 18:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC). The user has generated incalculable disruption, incivility, POV-warring in less than 48 hours. Wikipedia:Third opinion was to no avail. Problem posted on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#19 February 2007; user misrepresented situation there 04:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC) (though that noticeboard guideline specifically asks that discussion remain where it began).   Athaenara 05:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The warning was given an hour after the last reversion. As this is a new editor, maybe he was unaware of 3RR. Have we got anything showing he was made aware of it before the last reversion? yandman 11:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

8th, 9th and 10th reverts followed 3RR warning. Athaenara 20:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, My name is Seth Swirsky. Someone made an article of me which is quite extensive now (and of course, very flattering). Although I write songs and am an author, I also write political articles that "MoeLarryJesus" isn't a fan of (his vitriolic personal emails to me attest to this). Someone alerted me to his description of me as a "self-described conservative", which I am not. Nowhere on the internet do I describe myself this way. Actually, I am a self-described "Democrat in the Henry "Scoop" jackson tradition". There are two cites that I offer for this in the now long "talk section" regarding this dispute. I changed back, probably clumsily, as I don't really "know" wikipedia, the original description of myself, which is the correct one. He has reverted to what he claims I said I am, at least 7 times. Another editor has reprimanded him for this -- and Yandman suggested MoeLarryJesus needed to be made more aware that his constant reversions were not right. But, of course, today he has already reverted it back. I even offered a compromise to all of this just to stop wasting everyone's time, but he will have no part of it which leads me to suspect that he is obsessed with me personally --I'm the only page he reverts in the last 3 or 4 days. Scary (coupled with the emails). Can someone please read the talk pages and please (hopefully) ban him --it's really getting a bit distressing. Thank you for reading this. -- Seth Swirsky 18:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It is completely false that I have sent "SethSwirsky" any e-mails, and I consider that accusation to be libelous.

Yes, I am a new user, and I am reverting the edits both because an editor ruled^[*^] in my favor - see the history - and because MY EDIT is being reverted continually. Why does this "no revert" rule apply to me but not to this "Swirsky"? Is it simply because his ally Athaenara is more familiar with the system and complained first? His/her bias and unfairness is obvious, beginning with the fact that he/she is allowing "Swirsky" to post this unsupported allegation of "harrassing e-mails" on his/her talk page while deleting my responses denying same. MoeLarryAndJesus 22:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

→ There have been no rulings.^[*^] This was explained. The user's replies: first; second. — Æ. ✉ 03:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Athaenara writes: [Problem posted on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#19 February 2007; user misrepresented situation there 04:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC) (though that noticeboard guideline specifically asks that discussion remain where it began). Athaenara 05:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)] And yet Athaenara has no qualms whatsoever about carrying on a conversation with "SethSwirsky" on Athaenara's own talk page about the same discussion, while deleting my own attempts to respond there. The hypocrisy is positively mind-boggling! MoeLarryAndJesus 22:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like reversions from this user have continued onto the 20th. Sancho McCann 16:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, reversions have continued. User SethSwirsky has been busy doing reversions, also, and so have Sanchom and Athaenara. Again, why do only my edits seem to be an issue here? I have provided voluminous evidence and arguments for the accuracy of my edits. Isn't accuracy the end result Wikipedia desires? MoeLarryAndJesus 17:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to warn rather than block first-time 3RR violators but this is a truly extreme number of reverts and continued after multiple warnings. Blocked for 24 hours. Please resolve disputes on the talkpage without edit-warring. Newyorkbrad 20:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Tedblack reported by User:Nareklm (Result:No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on Great Fire of Smyrna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tedblack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• 1st revert: [30]
• 2nd revert: [31]
• 3rd revert: [32]
• 4th revert: [33] Nareklm 11:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm seeing reverts by other users, not the reported one. Heimstern Läufer 04:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Nomenclator reported by User:Skinwalker (Result:31 hrs)

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

• Previous version reverted to: 08:44, 18 February 2007
• 1st revert: 00:12, 19 February 2007
• 2nd revert: 07:38, 19 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 08:12, 19 February 2007
• 4th revert: 08:34, 19 February 2007

Comments

User is making controversial edits that are opposed by all other editors on talk page. He was blocked last week for 3RR as well. Thanks! Skinwalker 14:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Blocked for 31 hours. Heimstern Läufer 04:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Wrestlinglover420 reported by User:SaliereTheFish (Result:2x24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Ultimate Spider-Man (story arcs) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SaliereTheFish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 16:01, 19 February 2007
• 1st revert: 13:51, 19 February 2007
• 2nd revert: 13:55, 19 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 14:59, 19 February 2007
• 4th revert: 14:27, 19 February 2007
• 5th revert: 15:13, 19 February 2007
• 6th revert: 15:16, 19 February 2007
• 7th revert: 15:20, 19 February 2007
• 8th revert: 16:17, 19 February 2007
• 9th revert: 16:28, 19 February 2007
• 10th revert: 16:32, 19 February 2007
• 11th revert: 16:40, 19 February 2007
• 12th revert: 16:44, 19 February 2007
• 13th revert: 16:50, 19 February 20
• 14th revert: 16:52, 19 February 2007
• 15th revert: 16:54, 19 February 2007
• 16th revert: 16:58, 19 February 2007
• 17th revert: 17:02, 19 February 2007
• 18th revert: 17:28, 19 February 2007
• 19th revert: 17:31, 19 February 2007
• 20th revert (Yes, really): 17:39, 19 February 2007
• 21st revert: 17:42, 19 February 2007

Comments

User repeatedly deletes verified information, not because he thinks this information is unverified but as a vendetta against me for removing information he put in the article that was unverified. I have challenged him frequently for his irresponsible vandalism, and he merely hurls abuse at me. The member has been banned from editing this article before, and has a history of abuse towards others. He claims that he joined Wiki 'beacuse i refuse to back down'. I would suggest banning him from Wiki outright. SaliereTheFish 16:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is clearly a content dispute, so 24h each. yandman 18:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Kurt Leyman reported by User:Potaaatos (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on Battle of Stalingrad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kurt Leyman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: [34]
• 1st revert: [35] 15:51, 18 February 2007]
• 2nd revert: [36] 23:16, 18 February 2007
• 3rd revert: [37] 11:12, 19 February 2007
• 4th revert: [38] 16:41, 19 February 2007

Comments

The user has been blocked several times before for violating the 3rr rule. All of the users edits in the past several weeks have been reverted by many people in many articles. And the user is locked in an edit war in those as well. The user shows no understanding for wikipedia rules or policies. The user inserts material without a reliable reference, in this specific case "a movie that he saw". The user has made several personal attacks including calling me "ignorant". The user fully knows about the 3rr rule because he has been blocked several times for breaking it yet he continues to do so again and again Potaaatos 17:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm too involved to rule on this one but I will point out that there is more than 24 hours before the first and last revert. And really, both users are at fault here. There's about 2 days between Potaaatos' 1st and 4th revert but he's also been edit warring on that article. [39], [40], [41], [42]. Honestly, I think both should be blocked. Kurt is labeling legit edits as vandalism and Potaaatos keeps citing policy and not always correctly. it's a typical edit war. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 23:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If I may point out that I have never violated the 3rr rule and thus should not be blocked at all, and I have never been warned for anything ever. The main difference here is that he has several times violated the 3rr rule where as I have not. The policy which I have linked shows that all information that is added without a source may be removed. The User Kurt has been blocked several times, he is right now involved in several edit wars, and has been involved several times on this specific page and gotten reverted every single time in the past, like most of his edits do. Lets not get carried away by other things. Kurt has violated the 3rr rule several times and keeps on doing it over and over again. I myself have not violated it or been warned about it and my edits unlike Kurts were not within 24 hours but several days apart. And it is not a typical edit war at all. He, a user who has been blocked several times and has been reverted on every article he has edited in the last 2 weeks, has added unsourced and unverifiable information which I have removed. And am allowed to do so by wp:verPotaaatos 00:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually blocked him indefinitely as a sock of User:SuperDeng. This edit made it obvious. The "Woohookitty is evil!" and "Woohookitty is chummy with Kurt" stuff is pure Deng. It's like well if I am so chummy with Kurt, why did I just recommend his blocking above? Sigh. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 01:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Kurt Leyman is up to 6 reverts now. He does not appear to have any intention to stop nor to add a ref to the disputed addition. Disruptive. El_C 15:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User:81.227.105.32 reported by User:Montco (Result:1 week)

Three-revert rule violation on Geoff Hurst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and George Best (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
• 1st revert: [43]
• 2nd revert: [44]
• 3rd revert: [45]
• 4th revert: [46]

and

• 1st revert: [47]
• 2nd revert: [48]
• 3rd revert: [49]
• 4th revert: [50]

Comment User is adding links to sites that sell products related to the players in question. Neither site is affiliated with the players. Have attempted reverting the links, but failed. Finally left a warning and brought this here. I plead guilty to have violated it myself in dealing with this individual. My bad. I throw myself on the mercy of the court.Montco 17:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The user wasn't warned for 3RR. Why?--Wildnox(talk) 18:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I reverted 2 of his edits, as they do appear to be linkspam.--Wildnox(talk) 18:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Fugghedaboutit, he's clearly a linkspammer. 1 week as I'm not sure how static his IP is. If he crops up again, tell me. yandman 18:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User:194.144.111.210 reported by User:Wildnox (Result:4 months)

Three-revert rule violation on Nu metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 194.144.111.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 18:40, 16 February 2007
• 1st revert: 14:20, 18 February 2007
• 2nd revert: 21:23, 18 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 21:32, 18 February 2007
• 4th revert: 13:13, 19 February 2007

Comments

User has been blocked for 3RR four times and two times for vandalism. He has never entered a user or article talk page save for his own talk page to remove warnings and block notices. I don't think he has any intention to anything other than edit war on wikipedia. --Wildnox(talk) 17:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Waste of everyone's time. 4 months. yandman 18:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User:88.110.12.67 reported by User:Gsd2000 (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 88.110.12.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

User:Somethingoranother was already blocked for 48 hours for 3RR violations, and is currently blocked [51]. They then proceeded to use their anon IP to make the same reverts:

• 1st Revision as of 01:18, 19 February 2007
• 2nd Revision as of 14:22, 19 February 2007
• 3rd Revision as of 18:06, 19 February 2007
• 4th Revision as of 20:41, 19 February 2007
• 5th Current revision (20:44, 19 February 2007)
• 6th Revision as of 21:53, 19 February 2007
• 7th Revision as of 22:10, 19 February 2007
• 8th Current revision (22:24, 19 February 2007)

Comments

User:83.19.173.202 reported by User:HongQiGong (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 83.19.173.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• 1st revert: 2007-02-19 16:53:04
• 2nd revert: 2007-02-19 17:12:18
• 3rd revert: 2007-02-19 18:00:15
• 4th revert: 2007-02-19 18:15:57
• 5th revert: 2007-02-19T18:19:02

• Diff of 3RR warning: 2007-02-19 18:09:46

Three-revert rule violation on Republic of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 83.19.173.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• 1st revert: 2007-02-19 17:13:54
• 2nd revert: 2007-02-19 17:16:20
• 3rd revert: 2007-02-19 18:04:33
• 4th revert: 2007-02-19 18:21:15
• 5th revert: 2007-02-19 18:28:41
• 6th revert: 2007-02-19 18:55:41
• 7th revert: 2007-02-19 18:59:12

• Diff of 3RR warning: 2007-02-19 18:12:54

Comments

• I guess this is supposed to be a personal attack, but I've been called a "communist" in one of his edit summaries. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone blocked him for 24h. yandman 13:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

User:FunkyFly reported by User:MatriX (Result:)

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

• 1st revert: 00:22, 16 february 2007
• 2nd revert: 03:08, 16 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 18:41, 19 February 2007
• 4th revert: 18:47, 19 Febryart 2007
• 5th revert: 18:53, 19 February 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: He/she has been warned of 3RR violations many times before:[52], [53],[54] etc.

Comments

User FunkyFly has made 5 reverts on this page in the period between 16 and 19 February. Although he/she was careful not to make fourth revert, it is an obvious case of edit warring. He/she is not a new user and is aware that the 3RR is not an entitlement to three 'free' reverts per day. Edit warring is his/her style and that can be seen in the following articles history: [55], [56], [57] etc. MatriX 19:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No actual 3RR. Absolutely analogous edit pattern of MatriX.   /FunkyFly.talk_  19:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly a pottle-ket issue here. But boy, are they both black. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I am caucasian.   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Per Fut.Perf.'s observation, the choices here are to block neither or both. I'll invoke the rule of lenity and block neither, but both parties are warned and reminded to avoid edit-warring. Newyorkbrad 02:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Ideogram reported by User:Badagnani (Result:Warning, temporary article editing ban)

• Ideogram (talk · contribs) - 4RR at Dizi (removing valid Wikilinks despite requests to stop) (diffs: 1 2 34); repeatedly insulting other editor with "idiot" (1, 2, etc. Badagnani 20:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

First diff is not a revert. Sorry for calling you an idiot. --Ideogram 21:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: It's the same edit (i.e. removal of valid wikilink) four times. Badagnani 21:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not the way things work here. And it wasn't a valid wikilink, it was a double-redirect. --Ideogram 21:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You made the same edit four times within one hour. That is 4RR. It was not a double redirect but a simple wikilink to List of traditional Chinese musical instruments. In fact, it's not a redirect of any sort. Badagnani 21:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixing a double redirect multiple times would be housekeeping and would not violate 3RR in my opinion, but I don't see how this was actually a double redirect, so there is a violation. Still, it's not quite the same thing as edit-warring over content, and I would let it go with a warning but for the incivility. In lieu of a full block, Ideogram is requested to refrain from editing List of traditional Chinese musical instruments for 24 hours. Newyorkbrad 02:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience Newyorkbrad. As you know, I am short-tempered, but I have apologized to Badagnani. I doubt that I will edit List of traditional Chinese musical instruments again, and Badagnani and I will be able to mostly stay out of each others' way. --Ideogram 03:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Martinphi reported by User:Milo H Minderbinder (Result:No action)

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

• Previous version reverted to: various versions
• 1st revert: 18:50, 18 February 2007 reverted to 21:49, 17 February 2007
• 2nd revert: 23:36, 18 February 2007 reverted to 19:30, 18 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 15:18, 19 February 2007 reverted to 03:57, 19 February 2007
• 4th revert: 15:34, 19 February 2007 reverted to 15:18, 19 February 2007
• 5th revert: 16:45, 19 February 2007 reverted to same as above
• ...and a 6th revert, after he was warned and this was reported here: 18:00, 19 February 2007 reverted to same as above

Comments

Reversions to different versions, but reversions nonetheless. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The changes are sufficiently different that I am not convinced there is a 3RR violation. There is useful discussion going on on the talkpage. No action at this time, but please avoid edit warring. Return if problems continue. Newyorkbrad 02:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Piotrus reported by User:M.K (Result:No action)

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

• previous-version for 1st revert: Revision as of 19:15, 18 February 2007
• 1st revert: Revision as of 19:25, 18 February 2007
• previous-version for 2st revert: Revision as of 02:13, 19 February 2007
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 02:19, 19 February 2007
• previous-version for 3st revert:Revision as of 13:20, 19 February 2007
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 15:15, 19 February 2007
• previous-version for 4st revert: Revision as of 19:05, 19 February 2007
• 4th revert: Revision as of 19:05, 19 February 2007
• previous-version for 5st revert: Revision as of 22:11, 19 February 2007
• 5th revert: 22:45, 19 February 2007

Comments

Contributor user:Piotrus was active in reverting campaign for several days, removing various information, despite was asked not to [58],[59] Contributor already have block for 3RR violation [60] ; and he is admin so he perfectly know the rules. And the first block did not changed situation as we see. M.K. 00:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No 3 edits above share a common content change - they are concerned with several different content disputes. They are also spaced over 24h and not all are reverts - particulary nr 1 and 4 are primarily rewriting of content in an ongoing article expansion rather than any reverts (please note that I created the article recently), and nr 5 is a simply a minor copyedit - reverting vandalism or more likely a mistake per WP:LEAD manual of style - restoring referenced information that was mentioned in the lead and body and was removed from the main body without any explanation (lead is supposed to be a summary of information from the text, after all). I believe this is a bad faith report, particulary as it is bringing back a year-old block that was highly controversial (in the aftermath editors agreed it was made by a disruptive single-purpose sock), to further muddy the waters. PS. Nonetheless in order to cool down the tempers and reduce the threat of revert warring in this article, I have reverted my last edit to the article - although I do believe enforcing manual of style is outside the scope of 3RR in any case.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a clear violation anyway, but in view of the self-revert and the user's promise (see here) to stay off this article for 24 hours, no further action needed. Newyorkbrad 02:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, I do not want to challenge your authority but nutshell clearly states:Editors who revert a page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours also An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted.. Presented evidence clearly match these definitions. Contributor user:Piotrus above stated that edit no 1 is primarily rewriting of content lets see that particular editor did in this so called primarily rewriting of content he removed highly contested material - facts that killing squad consisted from various people (please see articles talk and you will notice this contributor's desire to avoid this infoamtion), in this edit" he removed and this fact - by Germans called Sondekommando as well as category links which were placed in the same day; and please explain why this particular contributor during so called primarily rewriting of content in the edit summary placed these words - rv POV pushing, rm see also (since the Holocaust template is here) as far as I know rv means revert not primarily rewriting of content. Lets analyze revert 4, which particular contributor claims also as primarily rewriting of content, before his revert this information was added: <tl|ref name=McQueen> MacQueen, Michael (2004). "Lithuanian Collaboration in the "Final Solution": Motivations and Case Studies" (pdf). Lithuania and the Jews The Holocaust Chapter (in English quote=When questioned by Polish authorities about what had motivated him to spend more than two months as a killer assigned to the execution squad at Paneriai and Borkowski said that he had no reason to mourn the Jews since antisemitism had been “beaten into his head” when he served in the Polish border guards before the war and he believed that the Jews were “parasites.”). UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM. p. 55. Retrieved 2007-02-19. {{cite web}}: Missing pipe in: |language= (help)CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link) served in it too.<tl|ref name=Bubnys2>Bubnys, Arūnas (2004). "Vokiečių ir lietuvių saugumo policija (1941–1944)" (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 2007-02-18. Daugumą būrio narių sudarė lietuviai, tačiau buvo keletas rusų ir lenkų.</ref> after so called primarily rewriting of content this information was removed a long side with the main information that killers were mix nationalities [61] there were also removed and various other information placed in the same day; and such reverts perfectly fits to the presented definitions of WP:3RR Editors who revert a page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours, except in certain special circumstances, are likely to be blocked from editing. also An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted.. And we came to another revert (no5) which contributor identifies as s a simply a minor copyedit - reverting vandalism or more likely a mistake per WP:LEAD manual of style - restoring referenced information that was mentioned in the lead and body and was removed from the main body without any explanation first of all contributor who removed this information left reasonable explanation Removed more weaseling, of which the statement has already been mentioned earlier in the article. Why the repitition? and definitely can not be classified as vandalism (Piotrus likes to accuse contributors of vandalism [62]), second provided source, which Piotrus claims restoring referenced information that was mentioned does not reference the formulation which was removed by Dr. Dan. And of course this is pure revert, and not exception as he trying to portray. But the most outrages of all his action was then he started to threaten to face block various contributors and accusations of disruptive actions and even now accusing me of bad faith. Newyorkbrad, you claimed that this is first night on 3RR board [63], could you ask more experienced contributors on 3RR to check this case. Because clearly particular contributor trying to avoid responsibility and threats from him makes assume good faith to be placed to minimum. M.K. 10:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Not a clear violation. - Darwinek 09:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Darwinek, you are not neutral in this case, because you also participated in revert campaign [64] and your close cooperation with user:Piotrus is well know to community to [65]. M.K. 10:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Learn Polish btw. YOU are that guy who ain't neutral. Your POV pushing and edit warring with other users is well-known throughout the community. - Darwinek 15:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the 3RR is to avoid edit-warring. By the time I saw this report, Piotrus realized that he could be perceived as having gone over the line, even though he believed he had not quite done so. Therefore, he voluntarily reverted his last change and said he would not edit the disputed article for at least a day. That means the edit war problem on that article ended before I was here and I concluded that a block would not serve to end an edit war on this article, it would just prevent editing on other articles. The policy that you quote also says that if an editor inadvertently makes too many reverts, he or she should acknowledge it and self-revert. I concluded that a block here would just be punitive, which is not why we have 3RR or this board. Piotrus has had the benefit of the doubt this time and he will not have it if he edits similarly again anytime soon. I will add that if you want to ask another administrator how he or she would have handled this report, that is fine. It would not be appropriate to impose a block so many hours later but if appropriate a further warning can be given and I would be glad to have another admin's analysis for my future reference. Newyorkbrad 11:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I admire your assumption of good faith. But let me remain me that particular contributor did not acknowledge his misconducts, even more accused here contributors of vandalism, accused me of bad faith; if you look at your talk he even accused involved parties both with reverts and with Holocaust revisionism-type claims in it. If contributor really wanted to solve the problem, he first of all should acknowledge that he breached 3RR rule, instead of continue to accuse others. He did not do this, this why he should be officially informed that he violated the rule and that other contributors could familiarize with it. The article itself deteriorating even now, just look at its talk page.M.K. 12:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The article deteriorating if that is what is happening is a separate matter. Please post to ANI if you would like another administrator to look at it and see if there has been bad user conduct there. Obviously certain types of comments are inappropriate quite apart from the matter of 3RR. (If you wish to respond further please come to my talkpage as we are filling up this board.) Newyorkbrad 12:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User:125.203.207.252 reported by User:Etimesoy (Result:No vio)

Three-revert rule violation on Korea under Japanese rule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 125.203.207.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: [66]

• 1st revert: [67]
• 2nd revert: [68]
• 3rd revert: [69]
• 4th revert: [70]

earlier ones:

• [71]
• [72]
• [73]
• [74]
• [75]
• [76]
• [77]
• [78]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [79]

Comments

He's pretty good at warning other people about reverting: [80] [81] [82] He is now using the IP User:125.204.39.85 [83] [84], and continuing to revert [85]

User was not warned until after 4th revert. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I am the user Etimesoy is talking about here. I want to document what is going on here as I fully expect it to arise again.

Over the last few days, I have started to work on the Korea under Japanese rule topic added a considerable number of references and removing uncited POV [86]. Users Etimesoy, OpieNn, Melonbarmonster, Oncamera, SuperFixerUpper and others appear to operating as fairly vigorous Pro-Korea propagandists to the point of extreme anti-Japanese racism, e.g. [87], [88], [89]. I would not necessarily go as far to state that they are meatpuppets but they share the same intention. I raise the issue of their pattern of revisions on a number of topics relating to Japanese-Korean issues and other editors. I am neither Japanese nor Korean.

I do not have at this moment the time to fully defend this accusation, nor sustain my suspicion of a meatpuppet team, but I think the pattern of my edits, and their revisions, is enough to establish this is a further attempt to block a broader discussion of the issues at hand. I also flag up a slightly dishonest use of the edit summary function to cover up the Pro-Korean lobby and anti-Japanese revisions and the possible creation of sockpuppet accounts performing the same functions [90].

I appreciate that any Korean-related issues are senstive but that does not mean that they are not covered with depth, detail and maturity. Thank you. 125.204.39.85

User:WJBscribe reported by User:88.110.12.67 (Result:No violation)

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

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
• 1st revert: 19 February 2007
• 2nd revert: 20 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 20 February 2007
• 4th revert: 20 February 2007
• 5th revert: 20 February 2007
• 6th revert: 20 February 2007

Comments

This user has reverted 6 times now on the United Kingdom article and has received a warning

Comment. I have reverted edits that appear to be vandalism, which is of course an exception to the 3RR rule. The IP editor in question is repeatedly deleting a section of referenced content and despite my requests has given no explanation for this. I have suggested the use of edit summaries but they continue not to be used. Similarly, there has been no explanation provided either on the article talkpage, my talkpage, or the IP editor's talkpage. It should also be noted that the IP editor has been labelled by a third party as a suspected sockpuppet of a user blocked for revert warring on the United Kingdom article (Somethingoranother). WjBscribe 02:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Completely spurious accusation. The reverts are also not even parallel; two of them are concerning completely different content than the other three. And here is no content dispute here, since the IP has never posted to Talk:United Kingdom or used any edit summary to explain the content removals. There's no reason to think that this is anything but cleaning up vandalism. — coelacan talk — 03:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. The accuser is causing major problems on United Kingdom, and they are already listed further up this article [91]. Someone please block then. Gsd2000 03:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

IP was blocked for 8 hours. — coelacan talk — 03:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User is operating from another IP now: [[92]] - can the range be blocked? Gsd2000 03:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Per the comments above, no violation. Newyorkbrad 03:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Thucydides411 reported by User:Merzbow (Result:24hr)

Three-revert rule violation on Juan_Cole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Thucydides411 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 2007-02-19T13:15:58 (for reverts 1 and 2)
• Previous version reverted to: 2007-02-19T17:51:42 (for reverts 3 and 4)
• Previous version reverted to: 2007-02-19T19:31:27 (for revert 5)

• 1st revert: 2007-02-19T17:51:53
• 2nd revert: 2007-02-19T18:03:59
• 3rd revert: 2007-02-19T18:10:08
• 4th revert: 2007-02-19T19:31:27
• 5th revert: 2007-02-19T19:47:33

• Diff of 3RR warning: 2007-02-11T07:55:15

Comments

This user continues revert-warring on this article after being warned just a few days ago by an admin after having been reported on this board for gaming 3RR. Reverts 1 and 2 both revert back to this edit he did today; you can see how all three edits remove the same large chunk of sourced material. Reverts 3 and 4 both revert back to this edit also performed today; you can see how all three replace "wikipedia articles" with "this wikipedia article". The 5th revert simply undid a change I just performed. - Merzbow 02:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Blocked for 24 hours: Clearly edit warring despite warning from Nearly Headless Nick. Heimstern Läufer 05:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Rameses reported by William M. Connolley (Result:Warning)

Three-revert rule violation on Martian global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rameses (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
• 1st revert: 2007-02-19T18:10:22 (marked as rv)
• 2nd revert: 2007-02-19T21:26:17 (marked as rv)
• 3rd revert: 2007-02-19T22:12:50 (not marked as rv, but removes major-bone-of-contention introduced by [93]
• 4th revert: 2007-02-20T08:10:47 (marked as rv)

This report has become too stale for a block, but I find that a violation occurred (unsurprising that the report was accurate given who the reporting party was, though that was not a factor in my decision). Please read and be sure to follow the three revert rule to avoid being blocked in the future. Newyorkbrad 19:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: 8h)

Three-revert rule violation on Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 21:39, February 19, 2007
• 1st revert: 07:45, February 20, 2007
• 2nd revert: 11:25, February 20, 2007
• 3rd revert: 12:50, February 20, 2007
• 4th revert: 13:29, February 20, 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 13:04, February 20, 2007

Comment by subject of complaint

I made an addition. After some intermediate disagreement, someone else rewrites it. This is the consensus that wiki is all about. Then a series of newbies with IP addresses either being actually different people or the same person using different computers, removes the rewritten material by the other editor without explanation, initially. I put it back. They do it again and again, and I put it back, each time clearly explaining why it belongs that any unbiased person would at least consider. Then ElKevbo says I violated a revert rule. I cannot believe reverting vandalism or whatever you want to call these out-of-policy cuts by newbie?/newbies? of someone else's work could violate any wiki policies. Jimbo Wales himself could not possibly look and say, well, the vandals cut someone's work repeatedly and this other person kept putting it back, so let's stop this other person from righting the wrongs done by the vandals, or whatever they are. With the series of edits by similar but different IP addresses, all with few edits under their/his/her belt(s), I did not know what to do besides restore the other person's material they kept taking down. Yes, I initially added some of the material, but it was completely redone, except an actual quotation, by a third party. This team of people or single person kept taking it down under the circumstances described. Please advise how to handle that kind of situation. Even now the material excised needs to be restored until policy is followed, but this ElKevbo action prevents that. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 19:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

8h William M. Connolley 20:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User:WD RIK NEW reported by User:Ultramarine (Result: 8h)

Three-revert rule violation on Race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). WD RIK NEW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 19:47, 19 February 2007
• 1st revert: 23:40, 19 February 2007
• 2nd revert: 05:30, 20 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 18:34, 20 February 2007
• 4th revert: 19:12, 20 February 2007

Comments

Revert 1,2, and 4 are simple reverts: [94][95][96] Revert 3 is somewhat more complex but reverts this edit completely: [97]. Experienced editor who has been promoting his version of this article for a long time, edits against consensus.Ultramarine 19:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

8h William M. Connolley 20:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Captain scarlet reported by User:Joeldl (Result:No vio)

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

• Previous version reverted to: 09:39, 19 February 2007
• 1st revert: 22:21 19 Feb 2007
• 2nd revert: 23:32 19 Feb 2007
• 3rd revert: 20:31 20 Feb 2007
• 4th revert: 21:16 20 Feb 2007

Comments

Although some of these reverts are complex, they are all done in large part with the intention of giving lesser priority to Canadian usage ("expressway", "while") and greater priority to British ("motorway", "whilst") and/or U.S. ("freeway") usage. The user argues that priority should not be given to Canadian usage.

I think it's too complex to be considered reversions, per se. No violation. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Attasarana reported by User:goethean (Result:24h)

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

• Previous version reverted to: 14:29, 19 February 2007
• 1st revert: 19:12, 19 February 2007
• 2nd revert: 14:01, 20 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 14:48, 20 February 2007
• 4th revert: 18:38, 20 February 2007

Comments

User is consistently, habitually, and long-termedly disruptive on this article. Has exhausted the patience of User:Nat Krause. — goethean ॐ 03:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I see 3 reverts. I do not see what's listed as the 1st revert is reverting to. It's not the "previous version reverted to" link. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. — goethean ॐ 18:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Attasarana continues to edit war on this article. Blocked for 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer 05:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Gen. von Klinkerhoffen reported by User:LizardWizard (Result:indef block)

Three-revert rule violation on Ejaculation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gen. von Klinkerhoffen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 16:19 Feb 20
• 1st revert: 18:59
• 2nd revert: 19:29
• 3rd revert: 19:43
• 4th revert: 21:00
• and more.

• Diff of 3RR warning: 22:20

Comments

He hasn't reverted again since being warned, but that may be because I only just changed the article away from his preferred version.

Blocked indef by Ryulong. yandman 13:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

User:86.35.121.75 reported by User:JuJube (Result:1 month)

Three-revert rule violation on University of California, Riverside (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 86.35.121.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 06:31, 20 February 2007
• 1st revert: 17:51, 20 February 2007
• 2nd revert: 02:35, 20 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 05:50, 21 February 2007
• 4th revert: 06:10, 21 February 2007
• 5th revert: 08:27, 21 February 2007

Comments

Constantly reverts to the (poorly-written) version done by Harvardme (talk · contribs), who is himself a suspected sockpuppet of SummerThunder (talk · contribs). They are most likely all the same person. User also refuses to discuss issues on the talk page and leaves mocking "I know you are, but what am I"-style edit summaries. JuJube 08:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for one month. Definitely a sockpuppet. And a static IP to boot. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Skinmeister reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result:1 week)

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

All reverts have the comment "rvv", and are reverts to approximately the same addition of unsourced pranks.

• Original 19:36, February 20, 2007
• 1st revert: 22:17, February 20, 2007
• 2nd Original 22:20, February 20, 2007
• 2nd revert: 22:58, February 20, 2007
• 3rd revert: 14:11, February 21, 2007
• 4th revert: 20:08, February 21, 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 23:07, February 20, 2007

Comments

I've reverted 4 times in 24 hours 4 minutes, but the version reverted to is itself a fifth revert at 24 hours 32 minutes, although I can't easily find the previous version. Still, there seems to be concensus among long-term Wikipedians that unsourced pranks should be immediately removed, although I don't want to claim an exemption from 3RR for reverting obvious vandalism. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the first time he's been blocked for edit-warring, so 1 week. The insertions were clearly unsourced original research, so I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it... yandman 17:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Chaldean reported by User:KALMANI (Result: 24 hours for both)

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

• Previous version reverted to: 15:59, 21 February 2007
• 1st revert: 02:35, 21 February 2007
• 2nd revert: 15:08, 21 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 15:47, 21 February 2007
• 4th revert: 15:59, 21 February 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 16:07, 21 February 2007

Comments

User:Chaldean keeps reverting to the same page he has written because he only wants his biased opinion. I've had wanted to contribute to the page in which I did but & including at least 3 sources but User:Chaldean keeps on deleting my contibutions & reverted three times to his biased material that is written by him. He has been vandalizing my talk page & telling me that I have been doing wron where in all reality he has been trying moderate the wiki with his biased beliefs & using intimadation/assault/negativity to anyone who helps. Please help because he has stirred away a lot of users from that subject & making them believe in whats not true. Thank You!--KALMANI 17:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Your links are not even working and I did not break the 3RV rule. I simply added a 3rd source. Your edits are plane vandelism and make no sense. I have tried to explain to you that the page is a Wikipedia:Disambiguation, but you refuse to comprehend this. I have further explain myself in the talk page, when you fasly accuse me of using baised sources. Also please note insluting me with comments such as so why dont crawl from underneath that rock & educate your little mind & explore the truth [98] wont get you nowhere. Refrain from doing this in the future. Chaldean 17:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, the first link works & it takes you directly to the source which is a pdf. Second of all, you insulted me by vandalizing the page with your biased resources & comments & erasing/deleting my contributions with verifiable sources. I've been very mature in trying to resolve this issue with you but you have been single-minded & one-way in your thinking. Remember again this wiki community is a collaboration of many not one. You have undoubtedly not researched the subject your commenting on & believing that what people have told you. You are here to help out other people in learning the facts not biased material from sources getting biased information. I did include my sources so you can research this material. By the way there is a library, internet, & books where you can find valuable information about the sources I have included & many more. You can contact the sources directly by emailing them or calling them directly through my first source. Please refrain from intimidating, criticizing, & threatening others who try to contribute to the wiki. One example of this towards me is I advice you to leave your Sterling Heights home and explore outside of Michigan.[99]. Second example where you try to intimidate & criticize others is this No offense, but who are you, a 15 year old in Austtralia, to tell the people in the homeland what is their identity [100]. Third example is Your edits are pure vandelism and dont make any sense or redundunt of whats already their. [101] where you misrepresent others who are trying to contribute & saying that they are vandalizing the page & the harassing them. This is not a mafia or a cult that you are trying to control. You can't just believe that by harassing, threatening, intimidating, criticizing & then vandalizing the contributing user. You will be blocked. Please refrain from doing this because all it does is cause more animosity between the parties. Don't think this is a tyranny. Don't harass me in not letting me or others in trying to contribute by telling us that we are vandalizing & telling lies & then telling us that you reported us to the mods or admins. This is not a kids game. Doesn't matter who you know or what you do, when somebody reads this & finds out what you are doing you will be banned & blocked. This will not get you no where. Believe me you don't scare me or don't think this will stop me from contributing to the community with facts. The wiki should be free from bias & tell nothing but the truth & not some theories that you believe in. As far the part about the Wikipedia:Disambiguation, you told me about that only once & then I entered that back in with my contributions as you can see here [102] & that you were right & I apologize about that. I had rectified that situation but you keep on telling lies about vandalism. You will respect others & in there contributions. The wiki has stated that good-faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia but you keep on reverting back to your biased info & not letting others contribute as you can see in the history of that article which is here [103]. By the way, you did break the WP:3RR, you at least reverted back to you biased info & deleted my contributing efforts at least four times. I warned you about it in your page plus I told not to vandalize my page but you kept on doing it & harassing me. I hope the Wikipedia admin resolve this & hand out your consequence accordingly. Thank You! --KALMANI 23:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a clear violation, so 24 hours. Kalmani, the diff you gave for the previous version wasn't correct, but I did find a previous version. Also, I had to fix your links, so please check your diffs and links carefully in future, as it saves admin time. Cheers. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Kalmani seems to have violated 3RR on the same page, so I'm blocking him for 24 hours too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Dariush4444 reported by User:Atabek (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on Safavid_Dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dariush4444 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• 1st revert: 18:50, 21 February 2007
• 2nd revert: 18:57, 21 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 19:01, 21 February 2007
• 4th revert: 19:06, 21 February 2007

Comments

Can someone also explain to this user that he needs to follow the Talk page, where discussion is going on the content. Thanks. Atabek 19:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

User Dariush is obviously new and was not aware of the 3rr rule. Atabek also failed to warn him of the 3rr rule as he is required.Azerbaijani 19:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)+

I agree. It should also be noted that Atabek himself broke the 3RR on the very same page. Tājik 21:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Dariush is not a new user and doesn't need to be warned. He has been blocked by Majorly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

User:64.229.158.254 reported by User:Bobanny (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Marc Lépine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 64.229.158.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• 1st revert: [104]
• 2nd revert: [105]
• 3rd revert: [106]
• 4th revert: [107]
• 5th revert: [108]

Comments

This user keeps changing the heading "Women killed" to "Murder victims" on both École Polytechnique massacre and Marc Lépine. It was an explicitly gender-motivated massacre.

24h. yandman 20:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

User:A.J.A. reported by User:RockMFR (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on Mike Huckabee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A.J.A. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 15:38, 20 February 2007
• 1st revert: 16:54, 20 February 2007
• 2nd revert: 15:52, 21 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 16:31, 21 February 2007
• 4th revert: 16:39, 21 February 2007

Clear violation; 24 hours. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Serafin/User:Snieg reported by User:Sciurinæ (Result:one month/indefinite)

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

• Previous version reverted to: 18:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC) edit made by User:Serafin

• 1st revert: 23:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Serafin
• 2nd revert: 01:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Snieg
• 3rd revert: 03:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Snieg
• 4th revert: 04:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Snieg
• 5th revert: 21:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Serafin
• 6th revert: 22:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Serafin
• 7th revert: 22:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Serafin

• A link that he is aware of the 3RR is shown in the CheckUser case

Comments

CheckUser confirmed that Snieg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Serafin are one and the same. The CheckUser case also provides more details about the background of the case and includes another 3RR violation, too. Because no blocking has happened as a result of the CheckUser as of yet and because Serafin has continued to revert on this page as you can see above, a report at 3RR seems necessary, especially because all of Jadger's previous previous reports at AN/I were largely ignored for no apparent reason (first report, second report, third, current report) and the same cannot be said of 3RR reports. Still I've posted another comment at AN/I explaining why Serafin should be blocked indefinitely or just for another month. But that's just a suggestion. It's entirely up to you. Sciurinæ 23:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Heimstern has blocked Snieg indefinitely and Serafin for one month, although I'm minded to undo the latter and block both indefinitely; the sockpuppetry is rampant and Serafin isn't an established editor. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

User:NYScholar reported by User:Isarig (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Middle East Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). NYScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 09:56, 20 February 2007
• 1st revert: 05:25, 21 February 2007
• 2nd revert: 07:45, 21 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 22:49, 21 February 2007
• 4th revert: 22:58, 21 February 2007

Comments

This user has already been reported for 3RR earlier this week on this same page[109], and was lucky that a backlog on the page enabled him to escape a block. He also engages in the deceptive practice of labeling virtually every edit, large or small as "minor" (and has been called on this by other editors - [110], as well as using false and misleading edit summaries - such as labeling his 4th revert above as "clarification" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isarig (talk • contribs)

Those listed are all reversions of my previous edits. Isarig is engaged in an editing war and he is continually reverting my work (as I have already documented earlier) in previous 3RR violations reports. He is disingenuously acting as if I am reverting his changes. See the talk page of Middle East Quarterly. He has a habit of accusing others of behavior in which he himself repeately engages: violations of Wikipedia:Etiquette, WP:NPA, W:3RR, and so on. He needs to be warned and blocked. --NYScholar 23:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

NYScholar also has a habit of writing "edit conflict" in his edit summaries when he violates 3RR, so that admins give him the benefit of the doubt. He is highly disruptive; posts very long, unreadable text to talk pages then complains that no one reads or responds to them; edits against consensus; changes citation information to his own idiosyncratic style then revert wars to retain them; makes frequent personal attacks; and in general almost always causes deterioration of article quality and talk page sanity. He's an editor in need of a break. I'd block him myself but I was recently in a content dispute with him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Registering very strong objections to unethical nature of the posts above. Slim Virgin is involved in an editing dipute in Daniel Pipes and has been involved in earlier editing disputes involving these users. She is not an impartial observer here. Not only could she not be allowed to block me (NYScholar) under these circumstances, she should not be engaging in commenting on this user or suggest that others should "block" me in her place (in other words, enlist help from others to meet her own involved goals). Armon, Isarig, and she have been reverting my work without prior discussion on talk pages now for several days. (She has a history of reverting and opposing my edits in other articles as well over a period of over six months.) She is an interested party in these editing disputes.

For the record: if I refer to having encountered an "editing conflict" in an editing history explanation, it is because that has occurred (editing box message), and I have attempted to post something but someone else's post intervened; such edits are taking place simultaneously. I object to Slim Virgin's dishonest and misleading characterizations of my work and me. As an administrator, such a user should know better than to get involved in this report; she is not impartial and should be making no value judgments about me and my work publicly in this way. As for insinuating or implying that others should "block" me; there is no justification for doing so. I edit only in good faith. --NYScholar 00:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I gave the user 24h for the clear violations of the 3RR rule. The user was already blocked for the 3RR violation, so I guess he is aware of the rule Alex Bakharev 03:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

User: 72.155.112.205 reported by User:HJensen (Result:sprotected)

Three-revert rule violation on Roger Federer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 72.155.112.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• 1st revert: 22:06, 21 February 2007
• 2nd revert: 22:43, 21 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 23:00, 21 February 2007
• 4th revert: 23:14, 21 February 2007

Comment: This anonymous user is doing the same disruptive edits as User talk:72.155.122.103 - probably same person. Among other articles hit by this behaviour are Andre Agassi, Lleyton Hewitt, Pete Sampras and Rafael Nadal.

I've sprotected as there are multiple anons needing to be reverted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! We will see whether it becomes necessary to report other, similar pages. --HJ 07:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

User: Lear 21 reported by User:Keizuko (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Berlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lear 21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 14:47, 21 February 2007
• 1st revert: 16:26, 21 February 2007
• 2nd revert: 17:33, 21 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 00:09, 22 February 2007
• 4th revert: 00:56, 22 February 2007

Comment: This user from Berlin is trying to present Berlin as the second most populated city in the EU, and reverts edits showing that Berlin is only the 7th most populated urban area in the EU. I see he was already blocked for 3RR in the Berlin article last August. This German user seems to have a very confrontational way to edit Wikipedia, see in particular Talk:France#France economy and Airbus industry. Keizuko 01:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I blocked User:Lear 21 for 24 hrs. Crum375 03:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

User:ElKevbo reported by User:John254 (Result:1wk)

Three-revert rule violation on Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ElKevbo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 07:32, 20 February 2007
• 1st revert: 16:21, 20 February 2007, by ElKevbo using 66.158.92.4 as a sockpuppet
• 2nd revert: 17:11, 20 February 2007, by ElKevbo using 66.158.92.4 as a sockpuppet
• 3rd revert: 18:00, 20 February 2007
• 4th revert: 18:45, 20 February 2007

Comments

A request for checkuser with respect to this incident has been completed -- see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ElKevbo. The results were "inconclusive" as to whether ElKevbo has been using IP addresses as sockpuppets to violate the three-revert rule. However, checkuser results only indicate the extent to which two users' IP addresses are related, and do not reflect the totality of the evidence as to whether a user has been engaging in abusive sockpuppetry. This limitation of checkuser results has been described by Jpgordon here. In this case, the fact that 66.158.92.4 was sufficiently related to the IPs used by ElKevbo to warrant an "inconclusive" checkuser finding, coupled with the chronology and tenor of the edits by ElKevbo and 66.158.92.4, provide excellent evidence that ElKevbo has engaged in abusive sockpuppetry to violate the three-revert rule. On 16:05, 20 February 2007, ElKevbo made this edit. He then made no other edits with his own account until 17:52, 20 February 2007, when he made this edit. Entirely during this period of time in which ElKevbo wasn't editing with his account, 66.158.92.4 made a series of edits related to Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006, the first such edit being effectuated on 16:21, 20 February 2007, and the last such edit being made on 17:37, 20 February 2007, as detailed in Special:Contributions/66.158.92.4. Note that 66.158.92.4 had not been used to edit Wikipedia for five days prior to these edits, and, as of the time of this report, hasn't been used since. The edits by 66.158.92.4 to the article itself ( [111] [112] ) were both pure reversions which removed a paragraph of text added by LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. Shortly thereafter, when 66.158.92.4 had stopped editing, ElKevbo repeated the exact same reversion twice ( [113] [114] ). Due to the egregious nature of ElKevbo's offense, violating the three-revert rule through abusive sockpuppetry, I would suggest that a block of an adequate length is warranted, notwithstanding the fact that the article is currently protected. Note also that LegitimateAndEvenCompelling was blocked for violating the three-revert rule on this article, primarily as a result of his reversions of edits by IPs that were apparently used by ElKevbo as abusive sockpuppets. As described in the three-revert rule, "In the cases where multiple editors violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally." Engaging in abusive sockpuppetry to violate the three-revert rule, however, is a far more serious matter than an ordinary three-revert rule violation. John254 01:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked User:ElKevbo for one week for 3RR violation using sockpuppets. Crum375 03:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

After discussion with all involved, I decided to give ElKevbo the benefit of the doubt and unblock. Crum375 11:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Jamesaxler reported by User:Tenebrae (result: 24hrs)

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

• Previous version reverted to: 14:47, 21 February 2007
• 1st revert: 22:17, 21 February 2007
• 2nd revert: 01:18, 22 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 01:22, 22 February 2007
• 4th revert: 01:34, 22 February 2007

Comment: A non-disinterested party, who identifies himself as this comic book's writer, Mark Ellis, continues to revert this entry to reinstall uncited opinion, self-aggrandizing hype, copyrighted images, and formatting contrary to editorial guidelines and the examplar of Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics. (Note: He says he is giving Wikipedia permission to run his copyrighted images, yet each bears a copyright mark, year, etc.)

A completely different editor, User:CovenantD, undid his fourth revert with the accurate edit summary "the previous version failed too many guidelines to list here." And with two editors now trying to correct this entry, User:Jamesaxler simply reverts a 5th time: 01:43, 22 February 2007 --Tenebrae 01:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hrs for 3RR violation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Lovelight reported by Aude (Result:1 week)

Three-revert rule violation on Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lovelight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 21:05 21 February 2007
• 1st revert: 21:13, 21 February 2007
• 2nd revert: 21:25, 21 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 23:28, 21 February 2007
• 4th revert: 23:53, 21 February 2007
• 5th revert: 23:59, 21 February 2007
• 6th revert: 00:08, 22 February 2007
• 7th revert: 00:16, 22 February 2007
• 8th revert: 00:40, 22 February 2007

Comments

User was blocked last week for 3RR. Continues to edit war in a disruptive manner. --Aude (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Not everything listed above is a revert, but I still counted 5. Block will be for a week. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, fixed the diffs (copied some links incorrectly). --Aude (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

User:DPeterson reported by User:Mihai cartoaje (Result: 8h)

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

• Previous version reverted to: 13:16, 20 February 2007
• 1st revert: 20:50, 21 February 2007
• 2nd revert: 23:04, 21 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 23:09, 21 February 2007
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mihai_cartoaje&diff=110060347&oldid=110028116 23:25, 21 February 2007]

• Diff of 3RR warning: 12:25, 1 December 2006

Comments

The 4th reversion contains some new text, but a lot of old text from the version reverted to. I gave up after the 4th reversion and left my talk page like that until writing this. --Mihai cartoaje 09:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What I see is a user recreating a blanked user talk page. Don't think that is a 3RR vio. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of the exemption for user pages is that a user is allowed to revert their own user space as many times as they see fit. I didn't think the privilege extended to the user and talk pages of other users. Perhaps I've got it wrong, since I don't have to act upon it on a regular basis. Chris cheese whine 11:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The background for this is that I am in a neutrality disagreement over whether there should be violence statistics in the schizophrenia article with special-purpose accounts, who have been calling my edits "vandalism", even though my edits were in good faith. I guess I shall have to mention the background next time to avoid misunderstandings. Chriscf, thanks for your support. --Mihai cartoaje 12:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fifth reversion in 24 hours: 13:27, 22 February 2007 --Mihai cartoaje 14:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't see why this isn't 3RR, and have blocked for 8h for it. Blanking a page is unappealing but permissible; DP has already been warned against repeated reverts on this page William M. Connolley 19:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

User:TJ Spyke reported by User:Chriscf (Result: 48h)

Three-revert rule violation on TNA Impact! (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TJ Spyke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 04:25, 10 February 2007
• 1st revert: 10:03, 22 February 2007
• 2nd revert: 10:13, 22 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 10:22, 22 February 2007
• 4th revert: 10:26, 22 February 2007

Comments

User already aware of 3RR (has been warned and blocked for it before). Moved the page against our naming conventions and MoS, move was reverted. Moved the page again, and then created an artificial edit history. Page move is reversible per ArbCom ruling. Chris cheese whine 10:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

48h William M. Connolley 11:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Permission to undo said 4th revert? Chris cheese whine 11:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Smeelgova reported by User:BabyDweezil (Result: No violation3 hour block)

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

• Previous version reverted to: 00:40, 13 February 2007
• 1st revert: 01:54, 22 February 2007
• 2nd revert: 02:07, 22 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 02:22, 22 February 2007
• 4th revert: 16:29, 22 February 2007

Comments

User engaging in persistent edit warring here and on other articles (Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture). BabyDweezil 16:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Edits are not the same. Please come back if warring continues. Glen 17:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

As was explained to me in a similar case, ""Reversions do not need to be identical in order to be considered reverts for purposes of 3RR" but "substantially the same." this was in reference to a block I believe you yourself imposed. Please explain the different reasoning at work in the current instance, which involved multiple reversions that are substantially the same. BabyDweezil 17:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Glen, there were (4) clear reverts. I can fix the diffs. If you pull the result I can do it here. Otherwise I can make a new report, your choice. Thanks. --Justanother 17:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

To any admin: Is it appropriate for me to remove the result and fix the diffs so that this can get a fair hearing by an admin? Smee 4RR'ed not one, not two, but three two different editors here! If I should not would one of you please do it then? Thanks. --Justanother 18:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The edits are sufficiently different that I agree with Glen S that action is not required. All editors are admonished to avoid edit-warring. Do not resubmit on these same diffs; return if problems continue. Newyorkbrad 18:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Brad. I added the correct diffs below that show 4RR and nothing else. This is repeated, habitual, and abusive behavior on the part of this editor. --Justanother 18:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are the corrected diffs showing Smee's edit-warring and clear reverts. I put him up previously for 5RR but he skated there and said that he wanted other editors should keep track of his 3RR vios for him. --Justanother 18:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 01:54, 22 February 2007
• 2nd revert: 02:07, 22 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 16:16, 22 February 2007
• 4th revert: 16:29, 22 February 2007

The above diffs are a very sneaky confusing (apologies) way trying to show that he has been making the same reversions (leaving out intermediate diffs) however the only relevant edits are these: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. 1 and 3 are the same (the addition of an EL), 2, 4 and 5 are ammendments to that external link (not the readdition of it again). If he had added the same EL 4 or more times then a violation would have occured. This is not even close. Two admins have agreed on this, how many opinions would you like? Glen 18:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sneaky? What are you talking about??!! I am showing that he REVERTED by showing that he restored an earlier version in each case. Is that not what "revert" means? And did he not revert (4) times? Why are you trying to make this about me. He reverted 4 times! I did it this way in apparent response to your letting a case of 4RR off the hook for whatever reasons I can only guess at. And given your stand on Scientology and the fact that you maintain a wildly anti-Scientology website, don't you think that you might have wanted to pass on this one as a conflict of interest? --Justanother 19:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Every action of mine is open for any editor to review at any time. However you've now had three administrators state there is no violation here. The reason for this is somewhat simple - there was no violation. What I do offwiki has no bearing on my actions here, and I resent the implication that it does. I think (given your statement above) that you lack a fundamental understanding of the 3R rule. Reread my comment with the numbered diffs. It explains the rationale. Glen 19:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I just found it odd that all of a sudden it was about me and I was "very sneaky". I resented that. And I think I had more grounds to resent it than you have resenting my suggestion that you recluse yourself from deciding for or against sanctions for edit-warriors in the Scn articles. But I tell you what. I will read up again on 3RR and what consitutes a "revert" and if I am wrong I will come back and say so and if I am right then I will post the 3RR on Smee either here or on AN/I. This will be later as I have a big job to finish in RL and I want to do this right. Does that sound fair? --Justanother 19:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

For some odd reason, the portion indicating the specific changes is not coming up for me on these diffs. Newyorkbrad 18:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The links are to the diffs between the users own edits, showing no change because he's reverting to exactly the same version he posted before. However, this does not appear to be a 3RR violation. The user has made 6 edits today, only 2 of which are reverts. --Tango 19:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please take another look, Tango. If User A makes a change then User C puts it back the way it was before then that is a revert and doing it repeatedly is editing warring and doing it (4) times is 3RR violation. In each case User A or User B made a change and User C (Smee) undid it. That is what a revert is, no? --Justanother 19:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I gotta tell ya: I gotta tell ya guys. That, at a quick look, my "confusing" way of showing diffs sure does seem to clarify that there are reverts happening. From Help:Reverting:

To revert is to undo all changes made to an article page after a specific time in the past. The result will be that the page becomes identical in content to the page saved at that time.

That sure looks like what my diffs show: that the edits made by Smee are reverts. Smee edits; page is now identical in content to an earlier time. Meets the strictest definition of revert. By strictest I mean most difficult to meet; most clearly a revert; most anything you please. I mean, I do not think that it should be necessary to jump through a hoop but "light it up, I'm ready!" That is all for now. Though I really wish someone would just give him the 24-hours he deserves and be done with it rather than continue enabling him. --Justanother 20:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. At least now I understand what your diffs were trying to prove. I would like to see other editors comment on the addition or deletion of that link rather than any more unilateral decision-making by anybody. Newyorkbrad 20:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well good, I am glad that I made myself clear (smile). Now are you saying that you are interested in the nature of the content dispute that Smee 4RR'ed over? Seems a bit off-topic, no? --Justanother 20:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to go through each of Smeelgova's edits to the article again, more slowly, this time:

1. [115] Reverting removal of the link (1 revert)
2. [116] Added description of line, not a revert
3. [117] Reverted removal of link and description (2 reverts)
4. [118] Added alternative description after original was removed, not a revert
5. [119] Reverted removal of some punctuation, very minor, but technically a revert (3 reverts)
6. [120] Reverted removal of 2nd description (4 reverts)

In my initial count I missed the 1st and 3rd reverts - sorry. I'd say one of the reverts was trivial, but it was technically a revert, so this is a 3RR violation, and I'm going to issue a 3 hour block (it doesn't deserve the full 24 hours by a long way). --Tango 21:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for taking the time to work through it. Have a nice day! --Justanother 21:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Getaway reported by User:Eleemosynary (Result:24h)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [121]
• 1st revert: [122]
• 2nd revert: [123]
• 3rd revert: [124]
• 4th revert: [125]
• 5th revert: [126]
• 6th revert: [127]
• 7th revert: [128]
• 8th revert: [129]
• 9th revert: [130]
• 10th revert: [131]

This user is engaging in persistent edit warring on many articles, attempting to insert extreme political POV into articles, screaming "censorship" at every turn, and using personal attacks in edit summaries. Eleemosynary 19:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Both User:Getaway and User:Jerimee violated 3RR. Both blocked 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer 23:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Jayjg reported by User:Mackan79 (Result: no violation)

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

• Previous version reverted to: 22:53, 14 February 2007
• Edit 1: 01:59, 21 February 2007 - Removes Reinhart paragraph
• Edit 2: 03:37, 21 February 2007 - Questionable
• Revert 1: 12:53, 21 February 2007 - Removes Reinhart paragraph
• Revert 2: 16:31 21 February 2007 - Removes Reinhart paragraph
• Revert 3: 04:08, 22 February 2007 - Removes Reinhart paragraph, Rosen, and more
• Revert 4: 15:54, 22 February 2007 - Removes Reinhart paragraph and Rosen
• Revert 5: 15:55, 22 February 2007 - "restores" category
• Revert 6: 17:35, 22 February 2007 - Removes Reinhart, Rosen, and restores category

First, note that Jay's last 4 reverts are within 24 hours, thus violating 3RR. Revert 5 restored the antisemitism category which had been removed two hours previously [132].

Second, note that Jay also reverted 6 times in less than 29 hours. Thus, even if Revert 5 does not count Jay's "Revert 4" and "Revert 6" narrowly escape 4 in 24 hours by three and one hours respectively.

Third, please note that Jay has at the same time added the same material to the WP:SS guideline four times in less than 24 hours despite my objections, under the pretense of "consensus," even though no other editor agreed with his change. [133]

In sum, I do not want to see Jayjg blocked, but am simply having a great deal of frustration in working with him across multiple pages. On WP:SS, it appears Jay intends to force the change unless I'm able to attract other editors who are willing to revert war with him. I find this troubling, and am not sure how to respond, other than to ask that a neutral admin evaluate the situation. Mackan79 20:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"reverts" 4&5 are one edit (as you obviously recognized), 3RR is about 3 reverts in 24 hours, not 4 reverts in 29 hours. As for WP:SS, one unique edit and 3 reverts does not count as 4 reverts. You know this. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not a 3RR violation. Mackan, please read the policy before reporting people. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to say that. Khoikhoi 20:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Four and Five were done separately, and reverted different material. As I said, even if they're not counted, though, Jayjg reverted 6 [Edited: 5 if they're combined] times in less than 29 hours. If there is any doubt, my request is again simply that the conduct be evaluated, which is my request in any case. If my report is incorrect, I apologize, but I don't see why. Mackan79 20:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned that SlimVirgin seems to have immediately called this no violation without an appropriate reason why. Khoikhoi, could you explain why this isn't a violation? Mackan79 20:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It was explained to you. There aren't four reverts in 24 hours; two of the diffs you put up (4 and 5) were back to back, making them one edit. This is just an attempt to cause trouble. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR states "that consecutive reverts by one editor are often treated as one revert for the purposes of this rule." I can think of many cases where that might be appropriate, but one involving blatant edit warring on multiple pages and at least 5 reverts in 29 hours either way does not strike me as such a case. Jay made several large complex reverts among those listed; I see no reason to give him more.

In any case, I think the main problem here is that of gaming at least 5 reverts over less than 29 hours. I would hope some neutral admin would have something to say about this. I would also appreciate not being accused of causing trouble for reporting a very obvious case. Mackan79 21:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

User:202.12.233.21 reported by User:Seraphim_Whipp (Result: no action)

Three-revert rule violation on System_of_a_Down (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 202.12.233.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 11:12, 21 February 2007
• 1st revert: 08:44, 22 February 2007
• 2nd revert: 10:11, 22 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 10:41, 22 February 2007
• 4th revert: 10:42, 22 February 2007

These reverts are all about genre.

Seems that anon has stopped. If the resumes reverting, we shall block. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Pertinent, though not 3RR: at 23:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC), 202.12.233.21 (talk) blanked a large portion of Talk:System of a Down. — Athænara ✉ 05:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Chriscf and User:Alansohn reported by User:Northenglish (Result: 8h each)

Three-revert rule violation on Springfield Park Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chriscf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 17:16, February 21, 2007
• 1st revert: 17:29, February 21, 2007
• 2nd revert: 18:30, February 21, 2007
• 3rd revert: 18:55, February 21, 2007
• 4th revert: 09:32, February 22, 2007 (partial revert: removal of lists)

  ... so, not a revert at all, then. Chris cheese whine 21:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• 5th revert: 12:56, February 22, 2007 (re-revert: list removal)
• 6th revert: 13:27, February 22, 2007
• 7th revert: 13:34, February 22, 2007
• 8th revert: 14:56, February 22, 2007
• 9th revert: 15:08, February 22, 2007
• 10th revert: 16:13, February 22, 2007
• 11th revert: 16:20, February 22, 2007
• 12th revert: 16:53, February 22, 2007

Three-revert rule violation on Springfield Park Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 16:14, February 21, 2007

• 1st revert: 17:24, February 21, 2007
• 2nd revert: 17:39, February 21, 2007
• 3rd revert: 18:50, February 21, 2007
• 4th revert: 13:12, February 22, 2007 (revert to [134])
• 5th revert: 13:12, February 22, 2007
• 6th revert: 14:48, February 22, 2007
• 7th revert: 15:04, February 22, 2007
• 8th revert: 16:19, February 22, 2007 (revert to [135])
• 9th revert: 16:49, February 22, 2007
• 10th revert: 18:18, February 22, 2007

Three-revert rule violation on User talk:Chriscf (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs). Chriscf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 18:06, February 21, 2007

• 1st revert: 19:01, February 21, 2007
• 2nd revert: 19:36, February 21, 2007
• 3rd revert: 12:35, February 22, 2007
• 4th revert: 15:51, February 22, 2007
• 5th revert: 16:15, February 22, 2007 (blanking a different warning message)
• 6th revert: 17:38, February 22, 2007 (blanking a dispute resolution effort)

Three-revert rule violation on User talk:Chriscf (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs). Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 19:00, February 21, 2007

• 1st revert: 19:15, February 21, 2007
• 2nd revert: 12:13, February 22, 2007
• 3rd revert: 13:44, February 22, 2007
• 4th revert: 17:57, February 22, 2007

What the hell? I'm being reported for 3RR on my own talk page for warnings that were totally bogus? Not to mention that most of the diffs you provide don't even match up to the "previous versions". Chris cheese whine 21:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverts don't need to be 100% identical to fall under 3RR, and don't need to all revert back to the same previous version. Where possible, I noted the differences between the reverts, but with so many in such a short period, it simply wasn't possible. I apologize on fourth one that you pointed out; I was confusing the Extracurricular list with the Administrators list. The fifth revert is a revert though, as you reverted to the version you created with the fourth revert, et cetera.

I strongly disagree with the "talk page bit being bogus" as William said. Users are not supposed to blank warning messages, especially since in this case the 3RR warning was clearly valid.

That being said, I reported this solely as a neutral third party (hence reporting both users), and hopefully an eight-hour block will be more than enough to cool heads. -- NORTH ^talk 22:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

8h each: there are at least 4 reverts each on the school page; the talk page bit is bogus though William M. Connolley 22:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to Northenglish, established users (both of these editors qualify) are not required to keep warnings, or anything else, on their talkpages; it is not best form to revert rather than archive a warning, but it's not blockable either, and edit-warring on another editor's userpage is hardly the way to calm down a dispute. And personally I would have probably both warned both of these users off this article and encouraged them to contribute elsewhere for awhile rather than blocking them outright, but that's probably just because thus far I seem to be the dove of the 3RR board. Newyorkbrad 22:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies; thanks for clarifying the talk page policy. I was including the talk page here not (solely) to scold them for violating 3RR there as well, but to indicate the seriousness of the situation to get the head cooling it needed. -- NORTH ^talk 23:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

User:RJASE1 reported by User:Von Klinker / User:Gen. von Klinkerhoffen (Result:Protected page)

Three-revert rule violation on Ejaculation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RJASE1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 04:14, 20 February 2007
• 1st revert: 02:39, 21 February 2007
• 2nd revert: 02:43, 21 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 05:17, 21 February 2007
• 4th revert: 14:02, 21 February 2007.

He has also made some reverts on 19th and 20th Feb., but I will not put details here - check history by yourself.

• Diff of 3RR warning: 05:23, 21 February 2007 (it is not on his talk page, but I am sure he read it - he states on his talk page: "If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there; I'll watch your page and reply when able.")

User:Halaqah reported by User:IronDuke (Result: No violation)

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

• 1st revert: 02:58, 21 February 2007 Removes blockquote of Farrakhan’s speech. Compare with this version.
• 2nd revert: 09:26, 21 February 2007 Adds NPOV tag. Compare with this edit
• 3rd revert: 14:35, 21 February 2007 Removes Jackson material (See previous version referred to in 1st revert for comparison)
• 4th revert: 17:17, 21 February 2007 Removes Jackson material (See also previous version referred to in 1st revert for comparison)

Comments: Halaqah has been blocked three times in the last two months or so for 3RR violations. See here.

He has made three more reverts since the above:

• 5th revert: 09:24, 22 February 2007
• 6th revert: 09:32, 22 February 2007
• 7th revert: 23:40, 22 February 2007

• There is an edit war going on in that article, but I do not see same reverts repeated to warrant a block. All involved editors need to stop editwarring. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I have protected the page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that reversions of different material still count, it doesn't have to be the same content reverted each time. Nonetheless, I appreciate your protecting the page. IronDuke 16:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Dannyg3332 reported by User:156.34.212.171 (Result: 8h)

Three-revert rule violation on Michael Stipe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dannyg3332 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
• 1st revert: 00:08, 22 February 2007
• 2nd revert: 02:49, 22 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 20:46, 22 February 2007
• 4th revert: 00:48, 23 February 2007
• 5th revert: 03:07, 23 February 2007
• 6th revert: 03:55, 23 February 2007

• Note: User:Dannyg3332 has been given a 3RR warning previously(among other warnings) but has been continually blanking any messages including warnings from his talk page. Has breached 3RR on several pages over the past few days. 156.34.212.171 04:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

8h William M. Connolley 10:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Proabivouac reported by User:ALM_scientist (Result:page protected, probably no violation)

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

• Previous version reverted to: 01:47, 12 February 2007
• 1st revert: 12:22, 22 February 2007 - a good-faith, non-revert edit which was self-reverted in response to this thread.Proabivouac 13:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• 2st revert: 20:47, 22 February 2007 - repair of month-old vandalism by single-issue sockpuppet User:Funnypop12,[136] says he needs a source in edit summs but this passage by Aminz is very well-sourced, and Funnypop12 does not appear on talk; restoral enjoys uncontested (including by ALM). Nevertheless, self-reverted per ALM, single-issue sockpuppet vandal Funnypop12 demands.Proabivouac 13:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• 3nd revert: 07:18, 23 February 2007
• 4rd revert: 10:43, 23 February 2007
• 5th revert: 10:53, 23 February 2007

Comments

All the edits are related to a very single picture in Muhammad article. First two are about the reverting back the caption of disputed picture and all other are related to restoring picture deleted by multiple editors. There are many other revert beside this 24 hours period mentioned above. Please see the history of the article. He is very old user and well aware of the rules (I even had warned him in the past but do not think to mention it here) --- ALM 11:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is the warning but once again he is old editor here.

First and second "reverts" are not reverts at all: first is removal of an unsourced, untopical, inaccurate and unencyclopedic caveat as established and undisputed (including by ALM) on talk; the second is the correction of an attribution which was similarly uncontested, and which gives ample witness to the cynicism underlying this report - the incorrect attribution of the image to the renowned scholar Al-Biruni, which I'd unwittingly promoted, and which if true would have made the case for inclusion that much stronger, I'd removed after this inaccuracy had been pointed out by anti-image editors in mediation. It's quite perverse that he'd now have this held against me. No one protested this good-faith correction at the time, and no one's thought to protest it since. Perhaps he'd like me to self-revert this false (and strongly pro-inclusion) information?

ALM is unable to gain consensus for image removal in mediation, while I and several others have only maintained the status quo against aniconistic edit-warriors and single-issue sockpuppets such as User:Funnypop12 in lieu of a resolution (ideally one which is in agreement of core policy in mediation, and I've not violated 3RR in doing so. Additionally, I was informed by admin User:HighInBC, who wrote the follwing on Talk:Muhammad:[137]Proabivouac 11:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Revert and removing material is same. First two were removing material and changing caption. All other are restoring picture which many people are removing. I think this is very fair case. If it has not been I never filed it and will take it back if it is not fair. --- ALM 11:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Just removing something from a page is not a revert unless it's part of an edit war. WP:3RR is meant to stop edit warring rather than to punish editors with whom you're engaged in a content dispute. The glee at the possibility of Proabivouac being blocked that you displayed on Talk:Muhammad#Edit_warring is simply disgusting. Beit Or 11:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

anti-image editors in mediation? Next think I will file is personal attacks case. Read WP:NPA now and consider it an official warning. --- ALM 11:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

A request for protection has been filed for this page earlier today. Without addressing the merits of this particular report, I fully support re-protecting this page as this is only way to stop the edit warring, which resumed as soon as full protection was lifted. Beit Or 11:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is exactly that the article is being constantly attacked by editors who care nothing for Wikipedia policy, or for obtaining consensus in ongoing mediation. A look at the edit history shows both that I am not the only one to have reverted these changes, and that User:ALM scientist has been more aggressive in this regard than anyone else. Despite his unsupported personally-delivered "warning" of several days agao, he was warned by an admin who knows the policy today,[138] and continued edit-warring regardless of this and of the administrator's warning on the talk page.Proabivouac 11:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

ALM has been edit warring on Muhammad for several months to remove the images of Muhammad from the page. Beit Or 11:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have never violated WP:3RR at all. You are welcome to file case. I am going to start working and will try not to check back. bye. --- ALM 11:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I intend to refrain from editting this article on behalf of "either side" for the next 24 hrs at least.Proabivouac 12:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, ALM, you're careful not to revert more than 3 times in 24 hours. Instead, you do the same reverts once or twice a day or once in several days over many months. Such persistent edit warring is still a violation of Wikipedia policies. Not to mention that your stance on the images is not based on any Wikipedia policy whatsoever. Beit Or 12:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, ALM, you're careful not to revert more than 3 times in 24 hours. Instead, you do the same reverts once or twice a day or once in several days over many months. Such persistent edit warring is still a violation of Wikipedia policies. Not to mention that your stance on the images is not based on any Wikipedia policy whatsoever. Beit Or 12:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC) I am not alone against the images. See the Talk:Muhammad/Mediation please --- ALM 12:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

See this recent disruptive WP:POINT edit by ALM scientist.[139]Proabivouac 12:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Update Self-reverted first two changes referenced above, to versions which are known to be false (for starters, Al-Biruni did not create this image, as I'd once thought before I was corrected in mediation, and no one is any longer saying that he did.) I'm not at all happy to do this, but neither do I wish to be blocked based on a misunderstanding (a very deliberate one on ALM's part.)Proabivouac 13:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Update - withdrawn[140] and refiled[141] bad faith report, see User talk:Proabivouac#3RR where ALM concedes that he (along with pretty much everyone else) agreea with the first two listed edits, yet here he in bad faith would hold them against me (note again that they have been self-reverted according to this report.)Proabivouac 14:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Update The page has been protected. Beit Or 18:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Admin comment — First of all, Proabivouac, I am guessing that you added comments to the report, for example, in the report of the "First revert", the words "- a good-faith, non-revert edit which was self-reverted in response to this thread" have been added. I admit I'm being lazy, and haven't checked the history to see who added that, but I hardly think it was ALM scientist, as part of his report. So, if you didn't do it, I apologize, but I think it would be better to put your comments or "defence" in a separate place from the accusation, just to make it clearer for people who are reading it.

If we take Reverts 3, 4, and 5, then there's no violation. So the question has to be whether 1 and 2 count as reverts. Since you self reverted, and since the page has been protected, I would strongly recommend against a block, even if they were found to be reverts.

The fact that 1 and 2 were not connected to the same material or dispute as 3, 4, and 5 is irrelevant when making a judgment about whether or not the rule was violated. However, it is by no means clear that removal of something always means a revert. If User:X adds a sentence to an article at 16:05, and User:Y removes it at 16:08, User:Y has certainly reverted. And if User:Y reverts three more times in the same 24 hours, even if they relate to a different passage, then he has violated the rule. However, if User:Y comes along to an article, finds a sentence that has been there for months, thinks it's misleading or unnecessary, and removes it, I would call that an edit, and not a revert, even though, technically, he is undoing what somebody added in August 2006! We occasionally see a user making three reverts, being reverted by others, and then, having "run out of reverts", adding a POV tag. If the page has existed for a few years, the POV tag has almost certainly been on it before, but we don't consider the addition to be a revert. However, if User:Y removes the tag, and User:Y immediately restores it, then User:Y has reverted. Whether or not User:X has would really depend on how long it had been there. If it had been there for weeks, and removed as a rusult of discussion at the talk page, in which most people agreed that there were no outstanding POV issues, the removal would not be a revert. If it had been added that day by someone with whom one was in an edit dispute, then the removal would be a revert.

So, it seems very likely that Reverts 1 and 2 are not reverts. If they are, then ALM scientist would have to have provided diffs for their recent additions, in the report, and not just diffs of Proabivouac removing material. Few admins are going to do all the research themselves; it's up to the reporter to make it easy to see the violations. My guess is that Proabivouac did not violate the rule. In any case, he self-reverted, and the page has been protected, so I receommend no further action. Musical Linguist 18:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Dreadlocke reported by User:Milo H Minderbinder (Result: 3h)

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

• Previous version reverted to: 00:38, 21 February 2007
• 1st revert: 00:48, 23 February 2007
• 2nd revert: 09:55, 23 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 10:38, 23 February 2007
• 4th revert: 11:08, 23 February 2007 (partial revert to version in 3rd revert)

Comments

Reversions are over two issues, removal of a tag and addition of an image. User was warned on talk page but removed as "false accusation" and "bogus warning". --Milo H Minderbinder 17:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no 3RR violation here. Please read the explainations below for each edit:

Response by User:Dreadlocke

• First one is not a “revert” it is an edit removing NPOV section tag per mediation results [142].

• 1st "revert": 00:48, 23 February 2007

• Second is the first revert of the NPOV tag re-addition, and it the first restoration of an image that was removed.

• 2nd "revert": 09:55, 23 February 2007

• Third entry is the second reversion of the NPOV section tag after it was put back against mediation results:

• 3rd "revert": 10:38, 23 February 2007

• Fourth entry is the second revert of the image removal, and it’s even identified as a “partial revert” which is not a revert.

• 4th "revert": 11:08, 23 February 2007 (partial revert to version in 3rd revert)

This is a false accusation, as I indicated to my accuser. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of an addition (and this was an addition made three edits earlier) is a revert, that first edit listed took the page exactly to an earlier version:[143]. And for the second revert, the POV tag was also removed - the first three are all reverts of the addition of the tag. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the one erroneous entry. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

3h William M. Connolley 19:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Daynnew reported by User:Seraphim_Whipp (Result: 3h vand)

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

• Previous version reverted to: 13:25, 23 February 200
• 1st revert: 13:25, 23 February 2007
• 2nd revert: 13:35, 23 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 13:39, 23 February 2007
• 4th revert: 13:39, 23 February 2007
• 5th revert: 13:45, 23 February 2007

Comments

Someone warned this user not to vandalise and they continued to do so.

This is vandalism not 3rr; 3h William M. Connolley 18:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yar but these changes are still reverts--Seraphim Whipp 22:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Three-hour block commenced 18:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC); expired by now. 04:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Apocalypze reported by User:Bignole (Result:warned)

Three-revert rule violation on Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Apocalypze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: [144] - added unsourced claims to article. Told to provide a source.
• 1st revert: [145]
• 2nd revert: [146]
• 3rd revert: [147]
• 4th revert: [148]
• 5th revert: [149]
• 6th revert [150]
• 7th revert [151]

Comments

User:Apocalypze has also replaced the entire article at one point hurling abuse. He has also risked me breaking the rule in his refusal to listen to my pleas of reading of WP:V and WP:CITE. WikiNew 21:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This revision as of 21:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC) looks like a 3RR warning.

In addition, this edit of Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors suggests user Apocalypze is intentionally inviting a ban. — Athænara ✉ 04:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• • User was warned after last revert: has evidently stopped. I have warned the user not to continue revert warring, nor to make personal attack or vandalize. Heimstern Läufer 06:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Armon reported by User:csloat (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Middle East Media Research Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Armon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 17:21, 22 February 2007
• 1st revert: 16:47, 23 February 2007 (reverted "Other Middle-east Translation Services" section)
• 2nd revert: 16:48, 23 February 2007 (reverted paragraph about MEMRI funding)
• 3rd revert: 16:51, 23 February 2007 (reverted paragraph about MEMRI mission statement)
• 4th revert: 16:52, 23 February 2007 (edit summary notes "re-added deleted cite")
• 5th revert: 17:01, 23 February 2007 (removing quotes from Whitaker and Taspiner and Hoffman and replacing with OR from Fisk; reverting to an older version of this paragraph)
• 6th revert: 17:03, 23 February 2007 (deleting this paragraph entirely, which reverts to version cited above).

This is a complex set of reverts of different paragraphs; I'm not sure if this is a technical violation but it sure seems to be -- at least it is certainly gaming the rule. Armon appears to be step-by-step reverting different parts of the page so they don't seem like reverts. He has been called on this by Jgui on the page as well as myself, since he does not seem to think it is necessary to discuss these things in talk. He simply reverts and provides cryptic (and sometimes misleading) explanations, assuming that everyone understands exactly what he means, and often accusing his interlocutors of bad faith. An administrator has started an informal mediation on this page, but Armon has so far declined to participate in that mediation and simply continues reverting with cryptic explanations on the actual page. csloat 00:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Complex, yes, but I count 4R's of the funding para William M. Connolley 14:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Danuel Chiswick (sockpuppet), User:Daniel_Chiswick (user account), User:76.211.254.144 (IP of user) reported by User:Gdo01 (Result:48H)

Three-revert rule violation on European Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 76.211.254.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 17:49, February 23, 2007
• 1st revert: 20:10, February 23, 2007
• 2nd revert: 20:22, February 23, 2007
• 3rd revert: 20:28, February 23, 2007
• 4th revert: 20:31, February 23, 2007
• 5th revert: 20:48, February 23, 2007
• 6th revert: 20:56, February 23, 2007
• 7th revert: 21:20, February 23, 2007

Comments

The user continues to revert to a version of the article that places "if ranked" after rankings for European Union. The editor says this is wrong because the EU is not one nation. This has been addressed by putting a footnote after the rankings that explains that the rankings are based on the assumption that you think of the EU as one entity. Apparently, that is not good enough for this editor who has reverted multiple times all the way back since February 19.

While writing on the discussion page the IP has declared themselves to actually be User:Daniel_Chiswick [152]. I gave the IP a 3rr4 warning on the IP talk page and the user decided to use a sockpuppet (User:Danuel Chiswick) to circumvent the 4th revert.

• As of 02:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC): blocked. 04:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Bastin8 reported by User:Sam Blacketer (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Kingdom of Great Britain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bastin8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 15:30, 23 February 2007
• 1st revert: 13:21, 24 February 2007
• 2nd revert: 14:15, 24 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 14:29, 24 February 2007
• 4th revert: 14:37, 24 February 2007
• 5th revert: 14:49, 24 February 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 14:53, 24 February 2007 (note: by User:Zzuuzz, after last revert). Bastin has been an editor since January 2005 so should know of the rule.

Comments

I am not involved in this dispute but the reverting seems to have gone too far. Bastin8 went on to file an RFC after his last revert listed above. I have also reported ArmchairVexillologistDon who has also broken the rule. Sam Blacketer 15:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 16:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

User:ArmchairVexillologistDon reported by User:Sam Blacketer (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Kingdom of Great Britain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 21:16, 23 February 2007
• 1st revert: 13:53, 24 February 2007
• 2nd revert: 14:26, 24 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 14:32, 24 February 2007
• 4th revert: 14:41, 24 February 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 14:53, 24 February 2007 (note: after last revert, by User:Zzuuzz). ArmchairVexillologistDon has previously been blocked for 3RR violations and so knows of the rule.

Comments

Was in a revert war with Bastin8 (see above). Sam Blacketer 15:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 16:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

User:M12592 reported by User:Imdanumber1 (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on R68 (New York City Subway car) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). M12592 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
• 1st revert: 01:13, February 23, 2007
• 2nd revert: 01:41, February 24, 2007
• 3rd revert: 11:48, February 24, 2007
• 4th revert: 00:42, February 25, 2007
• Diff of 3RR warning: 05:24, February 24, 2007

Comments

Suspected to be a sockpuppet of User:DCarltonsm@msn.com. Originally reported to WP:AIV by Imdanumber1 at 16:07, February 24, 2007 (UTC).

2007-02-24T16:44:39 Netsnipe (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "M12592 (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (

) William M. Connolley 16:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

User:72.155.113.55 reported by User:Tennis expert (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on Rafael Nadal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 72.155.113.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• 1st revert: 12:01, February 24, 2007
• 2nd revert: 12:42, February 24, 2007
• 3rd revert: 13:08, February 24, 2007
• 4th revert: 13:13, February 24, 2007
• 5th revert: 13:19, February 24, 2007

HIGHLY disruptive user. We need help. Thank you. Tennis expert 19:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sample violation report to copy

===[[User:NAME_OF_USER]] reported by [[User:YOUR_NAME]] (Result:)===

[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{3RRV|VIOLATOR_USERNAME}}:

* Previous version reverted to:  [http://VersionLink VersionTime]
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 2nd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 3rd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 4th revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
-->

;Comments: <!-- Optional -->

Note on completing a 3RR report:

• Copy the template above, the text within but not including <pre>...</pre>
• Replace http://DIFFS with a link to the diff and the DIFFTIME with the timestamp
• We need to know that there are at least four reverts. List them, and replace http://VersionLink with a link to the version that the first revert reverted to. If the reverts are subtle or different, please provide an explanation of why they are all reverts. Even if the reverts are straightforward, it's helpful to point out the words or sentences being reverted.
• Warnings are a good idea but not obligatory