Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive9: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:54, 15 July 2005 editCalton (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users78,494 edits →[]: Battle of the Sockpuppets!← Previous edit Revision as of 03:59, 15 July 2005 edit undoJayjg (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators134,922 edits →[]: Centauri more likely a sockpuppet than NoPuzzleStrangerNext edit →
Line 401: Line 401:


As far as I can tell this whole song and dance routine is mostly about ] being unable to accept that not everyone agrees with his view of the world. --] As far as I can tell this whole song and dance routine is mostly about ] being unable to accept that not everyone agrees with his view of the world. --]

:Yes, that's what you said, Centauri, but no-one believed you, because the explanation was so implausible. Your edits, along with ], indicated that you were most likely a Gene Poole sockpuppet. In fact, the evidence for you being a Gene Poole sockpuppet is far stronger than for NoPuzzleStranger being a Wik sockpuppet. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 03:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


== Report new violation == == Report new violation ==

Revision as of 03:59, 15 July 2005

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

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

    Click here to create a new report

    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357
    358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164
    1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
    481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links


    Violations

    User:64.109.253.204 (I)

    Three revert rule violation on Irish American (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 64.109.253.204 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Deltabeignet 23:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User has been revert warring with Lapsed Pacifist over whether "Irish American" usually refers to Catholics. User has continued reverting after being warned, in addition to several personal attacks. (I have reverted him twice, which is more than enough for me.) Deltabeignet 23:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:Flowerofchivalry

    Three revert rule violation on Nanjing Safety Zone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Flowerofchivalry (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Hmib 02:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Please note that the version Flowerofchivalry reverted to is the same as his earlier version, except with User:John Smith's's grammar corrections and my NPOV and accuracy tags. -Hmib 02:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, this is at least the third, possibly fourth time Flowerofchivalry has violated the 3RR. If I remember correctly, all the former 3RR violations were on Iris Chang, the first and second resulting in Flowerofchivalry getting warned, (twice), third resulting in page being protected, and Flowerofchivalry being warned (again). Previous 3RR logged here. -Hmib 02:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
    • In addition to that, it's the second time he's been using anonymous IP addresses as sockpuppets of sorts, in order to circumvent 3RR. I think a warning will NOT be enough this time. -Hmib 02:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Please provide diffs, not versions, as it is hard to tell what exactly he is reverting from versions. --khaosworks 04:32, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
        • Corrected. I apologise for the oversight. -Hmib 04:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
          • Clear 3RR violation. I'd block for the usual 24, but I'd probably get accused of being biased because I'm a Singaporean Chinese. Someone else will have to take this one up. --khaosworks 07:54, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

    This user, Hmib, has been doing personal attack for a long time by various ways. This silly false report is just one of them. He actually submitted the RfC last month, and despite the fact he advertised about that to his Chinese people, no person from a third party left any single comment as of now. This is one of his frame-up instigated by another extremist user, User:Markalexander100. This user also has submitted false reports, but no one has responded either. Flowerofchivalry 07:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

    FoC, have you used either or both of those IP addresses? And is Pedant still your advocate? SlimVirgin 07:55, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    I'm blocking for 24 hours. This user has been warned repeatedly about 3RR. I've looked at the RfC, and there's evidence there of sockpuppetry to get round 3RR; some of the IP addresses used before resolve to the same area as those used here, and the ones mentioned above have been used only to repeat FoC's edits. He also made another revert to the same page after learning that this 3RR report had been submitted. I'll leave a note for him that he can e-mail me if he feels this is unfair. SlimVirgin 08:24, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    Flower has created another new account, User:HarryWilson. One edit, reverting to Flower's version on this article . Mark 09:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
    I've blocked the new account indefinitely and reverted to the previous version of the page. By rights, FoC should have his block extended. The problem is I have no evidence it's him. It could be someone trying to cause him a problem, for example. I don't myself believe that, but without some indication, it's hard to proceed. With the IP addresses, I could see that they resolve to the same areas as other addresses linked to FoC, but with a user name, there's nothing. SlimVirgin 09:39, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

    This is one of his false accusations to vanish opinions he does not favor from Misplaced Pages. He has used the same tactic before. He claims any reverts which prefer my edit is my reverts. This is one of the results that he believes everything he believes are the truth. He ignores all the disussion but start labeling.

    Besides, Hmib told Markalexandler100 to revert the same article when his limit was reached. This violates 3RR.

    --Flowerofchivalry 07:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:Germen

    Three revert rule violation on Prejudice (islam) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Germen (talk · contribs):

    Comments:

    • Despite having been previously warned on several occasions about the 3RR (see user's talk page), Germen is reverting the VfD tag from this article and then moving the tag to the lower down the page and reverting those who move it to the top. Axon 10:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:Dbiv

    Three revert rule violation on Prejudice (islam) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dbiv (talk · contribs):

    Comments:

    This nomination arises from my reverting vandalism by Germen who insisted on either removing the VfD tag placed on an article he was writing, or on putting the tag at the bottom of the article in contravention of deletion policy. All of the reverts were simple vandalism and none concerned the content of the article. David | Talk 11:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

    Quod licet iovi non licet bovi. Germen 20:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

    • Any Wikipedian may revert vandalism. Only an administrator may block. There comes a point when we can't allow continued disruption. Many of your edits are useful contributions. David | Talk 23:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:Adam Carr 2

    Three revert rule violation on Kevin Rudd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Adam Carr (talk · contribs):

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

    Comments In addition to the reverts, User:Adam Carr has been engaging in personal attacks in edit summaries and ignoring pleas to join the discussion on talk, both in edit sumaries and on Talk:Kevin Rudd. Cognition 14:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:Gabrielsimon

    Three revert rule violation on Mythology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gabrielsimon (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Wikibofh 14:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Blocked for 24 hours. Bratsche 19:36, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • At least the 5th 3RR violation in a month, and he gets blocked for 24 hours? That's no different than a first violation. Wikibofh
    • 22:44, 23 April 2005
    • 19:48, 14 June 2005
    • 18:22, 29 June 2005
    • 20:31, 30 June 2005
    • 18:24, 6 July 2005
    • 12:36, 12 July 2005
    This is ridiculous. Wikibofh 20:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Would it be appropriate to increase the block now? There must be a better solution. Bratsche 20:36, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Cognition

    Three revert rule violation on Craig Isherwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Cognition (talk · contribs):

    Comments:

    • LaRouche supporter constantly changing the description of a LaRouche activist. Blocked for 3RR violation only two days ago (see above).

    Reported by: Calton | Talk 16:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

    Calton and Adam Carr refuse to discuss their edits. See User talk:Adam Carr for his statement that he will revert any of my edits without even reading them. I will revert all edits to all articles on my watchlist by the LaRouche cult "editor" Cognition, or any other recognisable LaRouche editor. I will do this until either the LaRouche cultists are banned from Misplaced Pages or I am. I don't much care which, since an encyclopaedia which allows crackpot cultists to edit its articles is not worth writing for. This report is only an attempt to game the system in order to continue getting away without discussing their reverts on talk. Cognition 16:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

    Yes but you still chose to revert four times, he didn't, SqueakBox 16:22, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    Adam Carr did on Kevin Rudd. It is hypocritical to criticize me without calling for Adam Carr to be blocked for actually initiating these revert wars. Cognition 16:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Blocked for 24 hours. The fact that someone broke the rule on another article does not allow you to break it. The fact that someone "instigated" this edit war does not allow you to break the rule. The fact that someone doesn't discuss their revert on talk does not allow you to break the rule. Gamaliel 17:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
    • User:YeahRight picke up right where User:Cognition left off, simply reverting back to Cognition's versions. Therefore I blocked that account for 18 hours, about the same amount of time left in Cognition's 3RR block, on account of disruption. -Willmcw 23:45, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Now Adam's considering whether he wants to continue editing. This happened before because of HK. I know how he feels. SlimVirgin 23:52, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • Cognition's editing pattern so closely resembles HK that I think the ArbCom's February ruling applies:
          • Herschelkrustofsky is restricted to one account for editing. All other accounts showing the same editing patterns are to be blocked indefinitely
          • If Herschelkrustofsky is discovered to have created or edited using any other account, or has edited anonymously, that account shall be blocked indefinitely and Herschelkrustofsky shall be banned for up to one week.'
          • If, in the judgement of any administrator, Herschelkrustofsky or any user who is considered a sockpuppet of Hershelkrustofsky edits any article which relates to Lyndon LaRouche or inserts material which relates to Lyndon LaRouche into any other article he may be banned for up to one week. Any ban shall reset the one-year ban on editing LaRouche related articles and the ban on inserting LaRouche material into unrelated articles. A one-week ban may be imposed for use of a sockpuppet for any purpose; such a ban shall reset both bans.
        This foolisheness has been going on long enough, Cognition has shown that his sole interest is in furthering LaRouche theories, just like HK. -Willmcw 00:09, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
        I agree about the foolishness, but the problem is that HK was in California and Cognition is in Florida, and an IP check has confirmed that. We'd have to show either the use of open proxies or that HK has moved. I think we're going to have to go back to the arbcom and ask them for a new ruling, or an extension of the old one to cover Cognition. Snowspinner's also talking on the mailing list about whether someone needs to ask the arbcom to clarify their ruling that LaRouche publications are regarded as original research. I would say that's not necessary and that we do clearly have the right to remove LaRouche material on sight from non-LaRouche articles. But we also need the right to block users who persist in adding it, though we're currently allowed to block for disruption, and I see no problem in interpreting what Cognition's doing as disruptive. SlimVirgin 02:43, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
        Californians are allowed to travel and, if they've got the right papers, they are even allowed to leave the country. I don't think that an apparent geographic change of IP in any way rules-out HK. This editor showed clear familiarity with Misplaced Pages, has several of the same editing habits, the same interests, etc. The preponderance of evidence seems to be that this editor has the same editing pattern.-Willmcw 02:57, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
        Sure, I agree about the traveling and that it could be him. I found it interesting that Cognition gave him a barnstar and shortly thereafter he cooincidentally visited his page for the first time in months, and saw it. According to the wording of the arbcom ruling — "All other accounts showing the same editing patterns are to be blocked indefinitely" — Cognition ought to be blocked indefinitely, because there's no doubt that the account shows the same editing pattern. However, I don't think that's what the arbcom intended to say: I think they meant "shows the same editing pattern and is believed to be a sockpuppet of HK." It's this last part we can't prove. SlimVirgin 03:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • The language was written to cover the difficulty of proving sockpuppets. If necessary we can pull together a list of parallel edits, etc to prove the case. Just having a Florida IP doesn't even mean one is actually in Florida. It's not that hard to set up a midpoint IP, I hear. -Willmcw 03:11, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • A list of parallel edits would be helpful. If you want to go ahead with that, we can share the workload, so let me know. SlimVirgin 03:24, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

    User:216.213.99.100

    Three revert rule violation on Washing machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 216.213.99.100 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Essjay · Talk 19:35, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User wants Washing machine to be a disambig page between the article on the laundry device and an article on an album by the same name. I personally explained the situation on the article's talk page, and left the user notes (including a note warning him of 3RR) on his talk page, which he chose to ignore. Various other users have reverted his edits.

    Reported by: Essjay · Talk 19:35, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

    • It appears that the fourth revert was done before your message was recieved on the user's talk page. Given that, and the fact that once the message of Essjay's was read, the anon user changed the article in question to its previous, non-disambiguation state, I this is more of a newbie mistake than an actual violation. Bratsche 20:02, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Dcokeman

    Three revert rule violation on George_W._Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dcokeman (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: RyanFreisling @ 01:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Simple violation of 3RR. User wants 'FahrenHYPE 9/11' included in the GWB article, or to delete 'Fahrenheit 9/11'. Regardless of the strength of his/her conviction, such reverts are excessive and anticollaborative.

    Reported by: RyanFreisling @ 01:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

      • In my opinion, Dcokeman's reverts are excessive and aren't accomplishing much, except for disruption. However, it looks like he's at 3 reverts right now. It's somewhat difficult to tell from the diffs provided (especially the first two and the previous version). In the meantime, I've warned him and will keep an eye on the situation. Carbonite | Talk 02:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Thanks Carbonite. I checked the diffs and I believe they do show four distinct identical reverts (one of which included new content) and another that was a deletion, but I'm confident with your capable administration. Thanks! -- RyanFreisling @ 02:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
          • I suspect if I dig far enough into the article's history, I might come to the same conclusion, but I'm somewhat pressed for time and it is customary to warn on a first-time offense. Still, I strongly dislike when users game the system and will not be nearly so lenient should this behavior continue. Thanks for your confidence. Carbonite | Talk 02:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

    After an additional two reverts, I have blocked for 24 hours. Carbonite | Talk 23:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:Mansour

    Three revert rule violation on Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mansour (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Jayjg 05:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

    We can all see how bright you are. You have reverted 4 times!! So you are asking a user to be banned for three reverts in 24 hours when you yourself have done 4 reverts in the span of a fraction of 24 hours?!
    Blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violations and personal attacks. I've also blocked Mansour1 (talk · contribs), which is more than likely the same user. -- Hadal 05:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Has been notified of the 3RR and asked to self-revert. Is making rather abusive edit summaries and Talk: comments. His response to my request that he self-revert was not very encouraging: Jayjg 05:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
    Can some admins please look into this? I believe User:Jayjg (an admin) and User:Hadal (another admin) work together to support each other's abuse. Please review the edit logs of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. User:Jayjg is clearly abusing Misplaced Pages and working in concert with a number of other users to promote POV in Misplaced Pages articles. User:Mansour
    If you think either of us have abused our privileges, you're welcome to lodge a complaint. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Use of administrator privileges for more information. This page is not the place to air such complaints. I'm actually being rather generous tonight, in that I won't be blocking your IP unless you start vandalising or attempt to edit within the main article namespace. Please see the advice I gave you at User talk:Mansour#Misplaced Pages:Three revert rule. I really am trying to help here. -- Hadal 05:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
    And the reason that you banned Mansour for three reverts but you didn't ban Jayjg who has four reverts on the same article during the same dispute is?
    Three reverts? You made four at Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. I concede that you had only made three reverts at Afghanistan at the time of the block, but you did break the rule elsewhere. You're also continuing to revert Afghanistan and making personal attacks—which was also a reason for your block—so I will have to block your IP. Please take some time to cool off. -- Hadal 09:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:Jayjg

    Three revert rule violation on Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jayjg (talk · contribs):

    • For logs see the 3RR report immediately above, reported by the bright user himself in an entertaining example of self-incrimination.

    Reported by: None other than Jayjg himself in the 3RR report immediately above this one. - User:Mansour 08:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

    I've blocked Jayjg and your (Mansour's) IP for 24 hours. To Mansour: Please stop making personal attacks against other users, and please respect the block by not circumventing it to continue edit warring. -- Hadal 09:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • It looks like there are 4 reverts in a little over an hour. However, none of the edits are labelled as reverts, and I didn't inspect and compare the changes, so I can't say for sure. I do find it very disturbing, if true, that one contributor could be blocked for 3 reverts, but his admin opponent remains unblocked despite making even more reverts. Everyking 08:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
    Where are you getting "only three reverts" from? Mansour made four, as Jayjg detailed above. Furthermore, Mansour has made several personal attacks; he has also continues to make personal attacks and revert Afghanistan via IP. Jayjg had not broken the 3RR until later on; by that time I had stopped watching the articles. I will now block him for 24 hours, as he has indeed broken the rule. -- Hadal 09:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
    I see. So you had stopped watching that page by the time he broke the rule? So how did it work? You had that page on your watch list and as soon as you blocked the first user you removed that page from your watch list? It appears that you had blocked other users who were in a revert war with User:Jayjg and/or User:HKT before. They must just be lucky that you happen to "watch" the pages in which they get in revert wars. One more quesiton: Both Jayjg and HKT seems to be Jewish and ardently pro-Israeli (to the extent that they even "contribute" to Iran-related articles). Are you also a Jew by any chance? User:Mansour 09:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
    I temporarily "watch" most articles (those which I don't work on) the old-fashioned way, by refreshing their histories. I have a small watchlist for this reason; I find having a limited number to watch helps reduce wikistress. I had other wiki things to do today, so I did not check back until ca. 09:10 UTC. So sue me. I would think you (Mansour) would be happy now, as I've blocked Jayjg. Instead, you continue to question my integrity, and now my ethnicity! For the record, I have not (to my knowledge) blocked people in conflict with Jayjg or HKT before; but even if I had, you can be sure I would not be involved in the dispute itself. Jayjg and HKT's biases are their own business; I've declared my own biases on my userpage in the interests of full disclosure. I can only say that my biases were not a factor in this case (since when are leftists "ardently pro-Israel"?); however, I doubt I could ever convince you of this. I do have some Jewish ancestry, along with Moorish, Irish, and Anglo-Saxon. I'm a mutt—but why does that matter? -- Hadal 10:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
    Thank you for your thorough and slightly defensive explanation. Let me guess, you live in UK? Cuz you keep track of time in UTC. User:Mansour
    No, Canada: born and raised in Toronto. I used UTC because that's the default time displayed in Misplaced Pages. You could say that many Wikipedians have learnt to keep track of time in UTC, given all the time we spend here. -- Hadal 10:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
    Defensive? How is someone supposed to react to your vulgar Jew-baiting? Honestly, the trash that is tolerated on this site.... --TJive 10:27, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
    I have to agree with Mansour here. Nobody living in Canada thinks of time in terms of UTC. That puts your whole explanation under a question mark. Also your explanation about how you "temporarily watch" articles by refreshing didn't make sense. Why would you be watching that particular page by constant refreshes and stop watching it after blocking one side of the dispute? --RJW
    RJW, it's not a question of whether people in Canada think in terms of UTC. Hadal wrote it in UTC as a courtesy because that's what used here. He's explained what happened, so please assume good faith and accept the explanation. Do you have a user name, by the way?SlimVirgin 17:16, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
    I don't think he wrote it as a courtesy, he wrote himself "You could say that many Wikipedians have learnt to keep track of time in UTC". I seriously doubt too many people would buy that. I have used UTC timestamp based tools for a long time and I never think in terms of UTC. Regarding user name, I don't have one yet, but yours is certainly an inspiration. :) -RJW
    "I do find it very disturbing, if true". investigate, before expressing your disturbance. If you investigate and post unambiguous diffs here, even "admin opponents" will not go unblocked, as shown by Hadal. Stop suggesting (endlessly) that admins are protecting each other, unless you have clear evidence. Just because two people are admins doesn't mean they are less likely to want to block each other. dab (ᛏ) 09:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:198.93.113.49

    Three revert rule violation on Roy Lichtenstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 198.93.113.49 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Gamaliel 21:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • This is a simple dispute over how much to quote from a lengthy paragraph, but the anon user claims on the talk page that I have "a personal vendetta against me and is simply reverting my edit out of spite". Gamaliel 21:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Blocked for 24 hours, and noted at user's talk page. Bratsche 22:06, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

    User:134.161.144.50

    Three revert rule violation on George_W._Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 134.161.144.50 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: RyanFreisling @ 21:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Guy Montag

    Three revert rule violation on Israeli terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy Montag (talk · contribs):

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

    Reported by: Heraclius 00:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

    My so called third revert was actually a new version synthized with relevent information. It was not a blank revert. In all I have, reverted three times.

    Guy Montag 01:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:Jeus

    Jeus (talk · contribs) on Israeli terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

    Guy Montag 01:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:83.109.137.231

    Vandalism and Three revert rule violation on Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Anti-Semitism in Poland

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

    Reported by: --Witkacy 02:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:64.109.253.204 (II)

    Three revert rule violation on List of Irish-Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 64.109.253.204 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by Lapsed Pacifist 07:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments

    • User insists on blanking entries after receiving sources sought. Has been accused of double standards by User:Clawson for blanking entries with African ancestry. This user has also made a racist edit on Islam in Ireland. I have been involved in an edit war with this user on this article before, I have no wish to repeat this. User is currently aware of being in violation. Lapsed Pacifist 07:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:134.161.144.50

    Three revert rule violation on George_W._Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 134.161.144.50 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Rhobite 20:12, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • The same user was blocked for a very similar violation yesterday. Rhobite 20:12, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Already blocked for 48 hours for the 3RR and other violations by Gamaliel. Bratsche 01:54, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Centauri

    Three revert rule violation on Micronation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Centauri (talk · contribs):

    Centauri has the curious idea that because I have been alleged to be a sockpuppet, the 3RR doesn't apply when he reverts me. This is doubly funny since he himself is a proven sockpuppet of Gene Poole, whose Arbcom case in this very matter (i.e. concerning his constant self-promotion of his obscure "micronation" "Empire of Atlantium") was only abandoned because he "left". NoPuzzleStranger 02:31, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

    • This is a difficult case; a known sockpuppet of someone who was not sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee only because he "left", reverting a possible sockpuppet of someone banned from editing. I'll have to think about this, or maybe someone else can weigh in. Jayjg 02:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Battle of the Sockpuppets! (Well, maybe.) I suddenly envision a couple of those "Boxing Nun" handpuppets that the Archie McPhee catalog used to sell. --Calton | Talk 03:54, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment

    As far as I can see, the only real issue here is that banned editors are not permitted to edit. At all. MoPuzzleStranger is obviously the exact same person as Wik and Gzornenplatz, right down to waging edit wars that use the same faulty logic, convuluted, unwinnable arguments and paranoid rants, in the exact same articles and on the exact same subjects he was waging them on long before I even heard of Misplaced Pages, let alone started editing here. I mean, come on, it's not as if you need to look that far into his edit history to see the pattern.

    As to the accusation about me and Gene Poole being the same, I've already revealed on at least 3 different occasions on Misplaced Pages (the earliest being sometime back in January, I think), that while we are professional associates of relatively short term standing, and that - shock horror - yes, on one occasion he did actually log onto Misplaced Pages as me using my laptop - we are not the same person. And that can be supported by a basic IP check which no amount of ranting from NoPuzzleStranger can disprove. I'm also pretty sure there's a pretty wide difference between my contributions and his, outside our 1 or 2 areas of common interest, if anyone cares to look.

    As far as I can tell this whole song and dance routine is mostly about MoPuzzleStranger being unable to accept that not everyone agrees with his view of the world. --Centauri

    Yes, that's what you said, Centauri, but no-one believed you, because the explanation was so implausible. Your edits, along with Occam's Razor, indicated that you were most likely a Gene Poole sockpuppet. In fact, the evidence for you being a Gene Poole sockpuppet is far stronger than for NoPuzzleStranger being a Wik sockpuppet. Jayjg 03:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

    Report new violation