Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:50, 21 June 2007

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

Violations

Please place new reports at the bottom.

User:SeiteNichtGefunden reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: 48 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Improvised explosive device (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SeiteNichtGefunden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 13:46, June 18, 2007

• 1st revert: 17:49, June 18, 2007
• 2nd revert: 01:26, June 19, 2007
• 3rd revert: 15:57, June 19, 2007
• 4th revert: 17:19, June 19, 2007
• 5th revert: 01:26, June 20, 2007
• 6th revert: 14:14, June 20, 2007

 Clerk note:SeiteNichtGefunden recieved 24 hour block for 3RR and vandalism on 14 May, 2007. Evilclown93_(talk) 12:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours for repeat offense, tendentious editing, and consistently referring to edits restoring the consensus version as "vandalism". MastCell 20:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Mariam83 reported by User:Bouha (Result:24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Berber people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bouha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

• 1st revert: 06:17, June 20, 2007
• 2nd revert: 11:15, June 20, 2007
• 3rd revert: 11:26, June 20, 2007
• 4th revert: 11:34, June 20, 2007
• 5th revert: 11:42, June 20, 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 12:49, 18 June 2007

Please note that the user was warned about WP:3RR previously, but deleted this warning. This is the previous warning

Please also note that this seems to be the same person (in Houston) as was blocked as User:68.90.246.113 for this exceedingly offensive edit Bouha 12:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Bouha, interesting observation. On my personal page I found this edit on my personal page http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Collounsbury where at the end there is an offensive (no skin off my nose really, but...) usage in Arabic implying a slur against black Africans. (collounsbury 13:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

User previously warned about 3RR, but deleted message from talk page.  Clerk note: This is the diff of the 3RR warning. Evilclown93_(talk) 12:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the warning noted by Evilclown93 was the second such warning, and was given after the violation. The beforehand warning was given at 12:49, 18 June 2007, as shown at the links given by Bouha and (in more standard format) by me, above. -- Lonewolf BC 13:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

 Confirmed Blocked for 24 hours. Evilclown93_(talk) 15:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Mariam83 reported by collounsbury 12:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC) (Result:24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Maghreb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mariam83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 09:23 20 June, 2007
• 2nd revert: 10:24 20 June, 2007
• 3rd revert: 11:05 20 June, 2007
• 4th revert: 11:39 20 June, 2007
• 5th revert: 12:28 20 June, 2007
• 6th revert: 12:57 20 June, 2007
• 7th revert: 13:18 20 June, 2007
• Diff of 3RR warning: 11:46

 Clerk note: Please specify exact page, version reverted to, at least diffs of the 4 reverts, and if the user is new, a diff of a 3RR warning. Evilclown93_(talk) 12:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC) User refuses to discuss edits. UPDATE: Sorry first time have been moved to report.

 Clerk note: I've reformatted the report. Evilclown93_(talk) 13:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

 Clerk note: Now, as I have properly seen this, the result is a warning, as the 3RR warning was issued after the 7 reverts in this case, specifically. Evilclown93_(talk) 13:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that you are mistaken, Ec93, and that a mere warning to seems like quite an under-response, given the true circumstances. As may be seen from the below, Mariam83 was first warned about 3RR two days ago, was warned again after having made four of the seven reverts to Maghreb today, but then went on to make the other three of them anyway. This troublesome editor has been breaking 3RR left and right across several articles, after being warned against it on 18 June. She(?) has also been making POV edits to the point of vandalism and against consensus, making personal attacks and being generally disruptive. -- Lonewolf BC 14:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I am mistaken :(...It should be 48 hours. I'm alerting the first admin I see. Evilclown93_(talk) 14:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

First, apologies and thanks to Evilclown93 for the assistance on standardizing format. Second, wish to draw attention to the racist language that Bouha noted above in the separate complaint, as replicated elsewhere in talk pages. Quite inflammatory and odd. collounsbury 15:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC).

Mahgreb violation, put into standard format:

• 1st revert: 09:23, 20 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 10:24, 20 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 11:05, 20 June 2007
• 4th revert: 11:39, 20 June 2007
• 5th revert: 12:28, 20 June 2007
• 6th revert: 12:57, 20 June 2007
• 7th revert: 13:18, 20 June 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 12:49, 18 June 2007
• Diff of 2nd 3RR warning: 11:46, 20 June 2007

-- Lonewolf BC 14:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

 Confirmed Blocked for 24 hours. Evilclown93_(talk) 15:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Muntuwandi reported by User:XGustaX (Result:Article Protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Race and Genetics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Muntuwandi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:

 Clerk note: You should have the diffs of the reverts, as it easier to judge... Evilclown93_(talk) 14:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war. If he has reverted it 5 times, that means the other person has to have reverted at least 4 times. I think this is better to protect and talk it out, discuss it instead of block both parties involved. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Jinxmchue reported by User:Orangemarlin (Result: 48 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

D. James Kennedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jinxmchue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 17:23, June 17, 2007

• 1st revert: 08:13, June 19, 2007
• 2nd revert: 09:04, June 19, 2007
• 3rd revert: 19:33, June 19, 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 17:24, June 17, 2007

 Clerk note: The 3RR rule applies to every revert after the third one. Having 3 reverts in 24 hours, but not more, is not a violation. Evilclown93_(talk) 16:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours (repeat offense); there were several reverts after those listed above, including what appear to be 4 within a 24-hour frame, as well as a clear violation of the spirit of the policy and edit-warring against consensus. MastCell 21:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User: Ilya1166 reported by User:The Evil Spartan (Result: 48hr)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Estonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ilya1166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 12:46, June 20, 2007

• 1st revert: 13:53, June 20, 2007
• 2nd revert: 14:17, June 20, 2007
• 3rd revert: 14:31, June 20, 2007
• 4th revert: 14:44, June 20, 2007 (note, this edit is with his IP, 172.164.80.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): duck test says it's him, given the contributions on the same subject of WWII and pro-Russian POV).

• User has been previously blocked for 3RR (9RR in fact), and has been copiously warned for it (see talk page history; some conversation removed). I almost reported this user for violating 3RR just a few days ago, right after previous block, until I realized that he was reverting some clearly false information. This, however, is not clearly false, and he knows better, as he's been blocked.
• If the duck test is not enough to prove the IP is the same person (I think it is), I'll file something at WP:CHU, if need be. However, I believe the evidence is strong enough. The Evil Spartan 17:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's wait for the checkuser results: Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wassermann. The Evil Spartan 21:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You'll not get a confirmation that a certain IP is a certain user... That's private information. Thanks/wangi 21:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

For 3RR violation, and ban evasion, I most certainly will if it's the same person. The Evil Spartan 21:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's irrelevant, Ilya1166 (talk · contribs) alone has four reverts re-adding the category. Originally added by Daniil naumoff (talk · contribs), reverts: 1, 2, 3, 4. Blocking for 48 hours. Thanks/wangi 21:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well thank you. I hadn't realized that someone else originally added it first. The Evil Spartan 22:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User:67.142.130.43 reported by User:Gamaliel (Result:One IP blocked; another warned)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Lee Harvey Oswald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.142.130.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 14:16, 19 June 2007

• 1st revert: 13:19, 20 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 13:28, 20 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 14:04, 20 June 2007
• 4th revert: 14:22, 20 June 2007
• 5th revert: 14:53, 20 June 2007
• 6th revert: 15:03, 20 June 2007

This IP has already been blocked once for the same offense on the same article, and this user (see Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of 12.150.11.25) has been blocked under multiple IP addresses and his/her behavior has resulted in the semi-protection of this and other articles. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 18:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Another sysop blocked this IP and I warned 70.109.54.8, a suspected sock of same.--Chaser - T 03:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User:75.73.188.53 reported by User:Knverma (Result:)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Quixtar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 75.73.188.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 01:49, 20 June 2007 reverts the following edit: 00:59, 20 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 15:51, 20 June 2007 reverts the following edit: 08:51, 20 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 15:55, 20 June 2007 reverts the following edit: 08:32, 20 June 2007 (and the following two small edits)
• 4th revert: 16:04, 20 June 2007 reverts the following edit: 16:03, 20 June 2007
• 5th revert: 16:09, 20 June 2007, same as above
• 6th ervert: 19:00, 20 June 2007 reverts the following edit: 17:28, 20 June 2007 (same as second)

Request you to please also look at what disruptions were reverted. It appears to me that those disruptions were made only to block my IP? 75.73.188.53 19:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

And should some action not be taken for user who was constantly deleting information? 75.73.188.53 21:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Being a Quixtar distributor, 75.73.188.53 also has financial conflict of interest. This is apparent in his attempts to add too many corporate sites and claiming on talk page that he (or Quixtar?) is not able to sell products because of controversies like in this article, and his belief that this article should be used by people to know about cost effectiveness of products and other info for deciding whether to join the business. --Knverma 04:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User:JGoldwater reported by User:SigmaEpsilon (Result: 48hr)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Fred Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JGoldwater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 20-Jun at 15:28 UTC

• 1st revert: 20-Jun at 15:37 UTC
• 2nd revert: 20-Jun at 16:10 UTC
• 3rd revert: 20-Jun at 17:50 UTC
• 4th revert: 20-Jun at 18:11 UTC

• Diff of 3RR warning: 20-Jun at 17:29 UTC

User:JGoldwater reported by User:BigDT (Result: 48hr)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Fred Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JGoldwater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 18:08, 19 June 2007

• 1st revert: 12:28, 20 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 12:37, 20 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 13:10, 20 June 2007
• 4th revert: 14:50, 20 June 2007
• 5th revert: 15:11, 20 June 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 13:29, 20 June 2007

This user is a single purpose account, the majority of whose edits have been to add this loaded claim to a biography of a living person. Thompson, a radio talk show host for ABC, did a radio spot for a company. The co-founder of this company had legal problems 10 years ago. As soon as the story broke, this guy was shown the door. All radio talk show hosts do hundreds of commercial spots - this story has nothing to do with Thompson. All neutral editors who have examined it have opined that the edit is inappropriate in a BLP. (Innuendo, bias, and undue weight, even if sourced, have no place in a BLP.) This SPA insists on readding the claim repeatedly, including twice after being warned on the article talk page of 3RR. --BigDT 19:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Undog and User:208.45.160.83 reported by User:Haemo (Result: article protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Undog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 208.45.160.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 17:44, 20 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 16:44, 20 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 16:41, 20 June 2007
• 4th revert: 16:03, 20 June 2007
• 5th revert: 03:44, 20 June 2007
• 6th revert: 02:56, 20 June 2007

I'm reporting both these users, since they've been edit-warring basically non-stop on this article for the past two days. It's impossible to edit it under such a circumstance. I'm also worried about some of the incivility in edit summaries like "lol, you don't even understand it Mr. 46 counts of rape.", "Need paragraph to explain to kids and idiot racists that not every charge is true – as you and others try to imply", "What the hell is "insourced" info. I think you mean "unsourced" info? ".

The IP appears to be dynamic, and the edit-war is most of the recent history, so I'm protecting instead of blocking.--Chaser - T 01:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User:TheManWhoLaughs reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: resolved)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Batman & Robin (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). -- Tenebrae 22:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This editor has received several warnigns (some now on his archived talk page) for his behavior, and was blocked for 12 hours yesterday.

His first edit in this instance, flagged for fannish, non-encyclopedic tone, was made at 20:42, 19 June 2007 . His reversions follow:

• 1st revert: 16:53, 20 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 20:00, 20 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 21:57, 20 June 2007
• 4th revert: 22:30, 20 June 2007
• 5th revert: 22:34, 20 June 2007
• 6th revert: 23:04, 20 June 2007

I would like to say that I only reverted the article because im trying to help it. He is just trying to pick a fight with me because he thinks he can get me in trouble. TheManWhoLaughs 23:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Other sysops: No blocks yet, please. Trying to resolve this here first.--Chaser - T 00:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User:71.247.110.93 reported by User:Enviroboy (Result:)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Fellatio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.247.110.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 21:48 June 20 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 23:00, 20 June 2007

There's a technical violation here, but the IP is now discussing at his/her talk page and the article talk, so I'm inclined to let this go unless there's another reversion.--Chaser - T 01:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This user reverted six times in total (within less than 1.5 hours) but only once after I posted the warning. He/she now seems to be content with discussing the article rather than continuing the edit war. ~Enviroboy_Contribs - 17:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Misou reported by User:Stan En (Result: no block)

Scientology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Misou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 reverts within 8 hours by Misou !!! he was already warned. He filed a complain against RookZero and me here -- Stan _talk 01:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Technical violation, but Misou has gone to talk page, so let's see how this shakes out.--Chaser - T 01:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

ok just read your comments . I agree ! -- Stan _talk 01:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Itaqallah reported by User:Arrow740 (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Itaqallah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

All from June 20:

• 1st revert: 13:18 straight revert of this diff: 10:38
• 2nd revert: 21:11 reverting this diff: 03:21, June 18
• 3rd revert: 22:09 reverting the previous two diffs to this version: 21:11
• 4th revert: 23:27 He again removed the same two sentences from the Jihad section. He shoved something like them lower down the article, but this is still a revert.
• 5th revert: 23:47 where he undid part of this diff: from June 16th, where I added the word “worldwide.”

Itaqallah is a very experienced editor has been very active at this article for weeks, he just went too far today. Arrow740 01:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't checked the diffs closely but the first diff was discussed before in detail and a consensus was achieved. I don't call that diff a revert. The editor who added that has probably only one edit to this article. --Aminz 01:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Aminz once made that same change. I can dig it up if needed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrow740 (talk • contribs)

I apparently took the reverse position as Itaqallah took here. The issue was settled back then. --Aminz 01:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You two don't own the article. It's still a revert. Arrow740 01:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, you are really stretching it when it came to reverts. Every edit that removes so much as a letter is undoing part of another edit (because obviously someone had to put it there in the first place). Thus, to suggest someone is "reverting" an edit made a couple days ago is questionable. Itaqallah is not the only party that has been involved in edit-warring recently. I was considering protecting the article, but I don't believe that would be a good idea just two days before the article's supposed to make its Main Page appearance. On that note... can you all please simmer down, at least for the upcoming days? -- tariqabjotu 02:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well you guys are all being pretty lenient today. This is five solid reverts, but no block. Changing "worldwide domination" to "dominance" when I had changed it the other way a couple days ago is certainly a revert. Strange that you didn't block him, tariqabjotu. Arrow740 03:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Four very obvious reverts and another one which was not so obvious, but still a revert. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Tweak to 24 hours since the last two were consecutive and thus actually 4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with Aminz above that the first diff should definitely not be considered as part of an edit-war, which is what this page - and this rule - is for. There is now and has long been overwhelming consensus on Talk:Islam that Itaqallah's edit is correct. The notion that "Islam" means "peace" is nothing but a popular misconception. It is perverse to punish anyone for removing ranks falsehoods from mainspace even if they act alone: how much less sense this makes when the edit followed discussion and a clear and longstanding consensus. Indeed, I would be extremely surprised to learn that Arrow740 himself disagreed with this edit (do you, Arrow?) This is not WP:AN/GOTCHA!, and it should not have been included in this report. As the last two diffs were consecutive, that makes only three reverts: Itaqallah should be unblocked.Proabivouac 05:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Aminz argued for it before and it is possible to make a bad case for it from the sources. There have been revert-wars about this same topic recently. The point is that itaqallah has not followed the rules and is deleting sourced, topical material from Islam while simultaneously staying at 3 reverts in other places to keep blog postings in articles. Arrow740 06:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The 1st revert should be discounted per evidence presented here. → AA — 17:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Eleemosynary reported by User:Crockspot (Result: page protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

User:Willie Peter (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Eleemosynary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Eleemosynary has made at least eight reverts today to User:Willie Peter, all of them attacking three editors without cause or any kind of real evidence. I'm not well versed on the use of sock templates, but I believe that these are being improperly applied as well.

User has two previous blocks for 3RR, so is aware of the policy.

As a view of the diffs will show, each revert made restored warning templates to the above-mentioned user's (most likely, a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Crockspot) User page, and explanation of the actions to his Talk page. As restoring blanked warnings is reverting vandalism, 3RR does not apply. As restoring comments that elucidate warnings is not vandalism, 3RR does not apply. Alas, another attempt by Crockspot (and his various other identities) to game the system has gone down in flames.

User:Willie Peter is either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet created, most likely, byUser:Crockspot with the past 24 hours as a way to circumvent 3RR on the George Soros page. I have indicated as such on Willie_Peter's user page, and he has removed all the warnings on the talk and user pages using the exact same language and bluster that Crockspot usually does. Restoring warnings and reverting vandalism do not violate 3RR. This report is an attempt to game the system by Crockspot/Willie_Peter. Diffs to come. Stay tuned. Eleemosynary 03:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You're making some pretty bold claims with zero evidence to back it up. You're harrassing and attacking three editors in one edit. You need a time out. - Crockspot 03:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The diffs, and your edit history, give compelling evidence of your actions. I'm harassing no one, and I'm beginning to think one, and only one, editor is involved here, and it's you. Stop trying to game the system. You're going to continue to be called on it. Eleemosynary 03:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the diffs... the diffs... Which diffs were you referring to? My "bogus claim" is that you have repeatedly and still continue to revert another user's page. Oh, and that you continue to personally attack me and attempt to damage my good reputation. Do you guys plan these Jeremiah Johnson-esqe attacks over email, or what? Did you draw the short straw this week? - Crockspot 03:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You may want to review the George Soros talk page for the diffs in question. I'd be happy to post them here. Yes, I have reverted (and will continue to revert) your removal of warnings on your sock/meatpuppet's user page. Your removing them is vandalism. As for your "good reputation," nothing in your edit history points to this. As for your tirade, it appears you've grown frustrated with being found out. If you'd only refrain from trying to game the system, you might find your editing here less stressful. Cheers. Eleemosynary 03:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please some one stop this out of control vandal, Eleemosynary. Now the simple questions that begs in this is... no matter what article I choose to start to edit, those <owners> WP:OWN (in which Eleemosynary seem to be following that M.O.) will accuse me of being somebodies "sock puppet", Yes? So, please tell Eleemosynary stop being a WP:DICK Willie Peter 03:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC).

Wow... two full-throated (although incorrect) cites of Wiki policy from an account not yet one day old. You're fooling no one. Eleemosynary 03:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You must have watched to many Johnny Carson shows with Carnac the Magnificent. Do you place your RJ45 cable in you ear WP:Beans and pop these truths out? It's clear your agenda and any one with common sense can see.Willie Peter 04:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you even filed a checkuser request yet? I'd like to clear this up as soon as possible. You're wasting my time. - Crockspot 04:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Your breathless exhortations to "run a checkuser" on yourself have, thankfully, narrowed down your ruse. Thanks for letting us know you're actually using a meatpuppet. That should save some time. Eleemosynary 04:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you wiki-slander? I'm don't know Crockspot, never meet him, I don't have any outside contact with him. So, is this your way to bully new editors you don't agree with? It would seem you have been empowered to continue this, with out stop of control. So much for WP:AGF.Willie Peter 04:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Your grammar was better when you were posting as Crockspot. Eleemosynary 04:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Chaser, I see your point in protecting that page. The admins can sort out the diff history, and the serial blanking, before long. I'd ask you to keep an eye on meatpuppet Willie Peter, as he seems intent on blanking warnings, and even legitimate comments on this very page. To be continued. Eleemosynary 04:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone notice the "Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic." at the top of this page. Let's try to follow that.--Chaser - T 04:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No argument from me. I'm going to bed. - Crockspot 04:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've protected this page. This is a fairly pointless template when we have checkuser (which may or may not be appropriate here). Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets is that way.--Chaser - T 04:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks far more like a meatpuppet, as Crockspot has been running the "please run a checkuser on me" goad all evening. If Willie Peter appears again to continue reverting pages on which "Crockspot" and "Bellowed," are flirting with 3RR, that's gonna be pretty damning. Eleemosynary 04:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of flirting with 3RR, very nicely done just now, how you narrowly avoided violating 3RR on Bill Moyers. You seem to be an expert at it. You go sort your diffs now. I'm done here tonight. - Crockspot 05:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

And I didn't even use a meatpuppet. Thanks for stopping in to say you're "done" for the second time. Eleemosynary 05:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User:WookMuff reported by User:Thejermdotorg (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

LiveJournal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). WookMuff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

This is a long existing user that should know about the 3rr. --Jerm (/ _Contrib) 13:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for twenty-four hours, per the evidence above. -- tariqabjotu 13:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User:70.105.50.115 reported by User:Nescio (Result:)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Movement to impeach George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.105.50.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:

Despite my warning he violated 3RR user continues reverting while removing the warning which is evidence he has seen it. As an aside for the same behaviour the page was semi-protected several days ago because the IP then started alternating its address to circumvent 3RR. Maybe again semi? Nomen Nescio 15:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Otto4711 reported by User:172.144.51.199 (Result: no violation)

• Three-revert rule violation on

User talk:Otto4711 (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Otto4711 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 03:47, 21 June 2007

• 1st revert: 16:30, 20 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 16:33, 20 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 16:37, 20 June 2007
• 4th revert: 03:47, 21 June 2007
• 5th revert: 15:41, 21 June 2007

Comment: User is removing, not archiving, remarks citical of him. First Otto4711 removed the comments from the original poster, but when I restored them as a neutral third party, Otto4711 again removed them. He has reverted at least four times within less than 24 hours from 1630 on the 20th to 347 on the 21st. As can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Otto4711 this user has been blocked twice before for 3rr violations and also deletion review trolling (there is also some critism of the user's AfD editing on the talk page as well). The user should not remove warnings and address criticism from previously unblocked editors rather than just delete it.

Editors are permitted to remove warnings from their talk pages. Archiving is preferred, but there's no policy mandate. There's also a 3RR exception for userspace.--Chaser - T 16:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Estevanbonilla reported by User:Kingjeff (Result:)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Mexico national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Estevanbonilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

The 1st revert comes from this edit I made deleting news. Misplaced Pages is not here to provide news. News is against Misplaced Pages policy. Kingjeff 17:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Rillian reported by User:Jimfbleak (Result:)

This user keeps (five times so far) adding a spammy dab to Black Swan in addition to the existing dab. I could block, but since I've reverted twice, I'm a bit close. I'd welcome any assistance. Jimfbleak

User:Zeragito reported by User:Gyrofrog (Result:)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Ethiopia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zeragito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:

User is technically already in violation, but was not formally warned until after the 6th revert. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• 7th revert: -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• 8th revert:

P.S. I am not actively involved in editing Ethiopia, but I do keep it on my watchlist, and may be too closely involved to have blocked him myself. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Badagnani reported by User:TDC (Result:)

• Three-revert rule violation on

National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Badagnani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 16:26, June 10, 2007

• 1st revert: 15:48, June 21, 2007 re-insertion of outside article links I removed
• 2nd revert: 15:49, June 21, 2007
• 3rd revert: 15:54, June 21, 2007
• 4th revert: 16:08, June 21, 2007 – reverting my removal of “political bloggers” when only one is cited

Comment: As an experienced editor Badagnani should be well aware of the rules involving 3RR. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User:=CJK= reported by User:Bignole (Result:)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Hannibal Lecter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Example user (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Original version - Call his first edit the original version
• History

CJK was caught in an edit war with another editor. They both technically broke the 3RR in the heat of the moment, and were subsequently warned about said action. What I am reporting is CJK's disregard for that warning as he alone continued to play the revert game after his first warning. He was eventually warned more than once, because he blanked his talk page to make it appear as though no one had warned him.

Reverts

At this point, User:HalfShadow warned CJK for conducting an edit war on the page.

Reverts after the warning

• • Warned a second time
  • Blanked immediately

Reverts after warning (cont.)

• • Warned a third time
  • Blanked immediately

Example

<!-- copy from _below_ this line -->
===] reported by ] (Result:)===
*] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~
* Previous version reverted to:  
<!-- 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
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert: 
* 2nd revert: 
* 3rd revert: 
* 4th revert: 
<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning: 
-->
<!-- copy from _above_ this line -->

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring
• Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot