Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: 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 22:06, 30 January 2006 editDado~enwiki (talk | contribs)2,748 edits →[] (sock puppet [])← Previous edit Revision as of 23:20, 30 January 2006 edit undoFeloniousMonk (talk | contribs)18,409 edits + Agapetos_angelNext edit →
Line 1,563: Line 1,563:


Repeated offence, not the slightest inclination to use the talk page: blocked for 48h this time (please review if needed). ] 21:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC). Repeated offence, not the slightest inclination to use the talk page: blocked for 48h this time (please review if needed). ] 21:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC).

===]===

] violation on {{Article|Jonathan Sarfati}}. {{3RRV|Agapetos_angel}}:

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jonathan_Sarfati&diff=37329605&oldid=37314307 00:13, 30 January 2006
]
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
*6th revert:

Reported by: ] 23:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''


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

Revision as of 23:20, 30 January 2006

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


    Example

    User:BadUser

    Three revert rule violation on Articlename (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    BadUser (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: User:ReportingUser 14:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User will not listen to the consensus of the other editors. User:ReportingUser 14:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


    Violations

    User:-Inanna-

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

    Reported by: Khoikhoi 08:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: 3 revert rule means more than 3, so it seems that he is off the hook for now.Voice of All 18:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

    User has since reverted and has now violated the 3RR. --Khoikhoi 01:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:-Inanna- 2

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

    Reported by: Khoikhoi 23:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

    Has the situation been resolved, upon seeing User talk:-Inanna-? Elle vécut heureuse (Be eudaimonic!) 12:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    No, it has not. --Khoikhoi 17:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:Extreme Unction

    Three revert rule violation on Stem Cell Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Extreme Unction (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: OnwardsCS 16:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

    Abusive edit warring over controversial article, user should recuse himself, otherwise a block may be required, uncoperative editor, some what abusive, kind of a bully--OnwardsCS 16:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    I only see three reverts...do you have a fourth? —BorgHunter (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    Actually, not to worry, OnwardsCS. That article has been protected so no more reverts shall occur. —BorgHunter (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    Note that OnwardsCS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new account who seems intent on changing several stem-cell-related redirects into POV articles. Claims to "going back to consensus" appears specious since there are no talk pages for those redirects...so EU appears to be reverting simple vandalism. Don't know where the abusive part comes in, since there are no messages on the reporter's talk page. --Syrthiss 16:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

    There is no violation here, as the fourth diff shows an edit not made by ExtremeUnction. android79 18:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:OnwardsCS

    Three revert rule violation on Stem Cell Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by OnwardsCS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

    Reported by: Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 17:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: The last revert was performed by an anon IP. However, User:Kelly Martin confirms via CheckUser that the IP address in question was the same IP address used by User:OnwardsCS 12 minutes previously to edit the same article.

    As this user has reported me for a 3RR violation, I have not taken action against this user lest there be accusations of a revenge block. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 17:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

    I didn't see a warning on the talk page, or its history. Did I miss something?--Tznkai 18:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    See above listing. I'm reasonably sure that knowing enough about 3RR to try and report someone is understanding enough that a separate warning is not nessecary. --Syrthiss 18:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    This is true, I guess I have a tendnacy to be a softy with 3RR and warnings.--Tznkai 18:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    Where's the CheckUser evidence? This is pretty obvious, but I'd like confirmation before a block. android79 18:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    CheckUser evidence is never published. You have to take my word for it; if you aren't willing to, you can ask one of the other five CheckUsers on en to confirm my findings. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    I didn't need confirmation of the actual IP info, just confirmation that you said something about it. I didn't see a related request on WP:RFCU. android79 18:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


    User:Khoikhoi

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

    Reported by: Macrakis 23:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Revert war with -Inanna-, below. Neither one using Talk. I see that these two have been warring on other pages as well.
    • They both appear to have violated 3RR on Turkish people, but I don't have the patience to write up a full report....

    User:-Inanna-

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

    Reported by: Macrakis 23:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:87.239.90.151/User:Molobo

    Three revert rule violation on Germanisation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Molobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

    87.239.90.151 first adds this sentence at 16:54, 16. Jan 2006.

    Reported by: Sciurinæ 00:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments I've asked for Molobo and 87.239.90.151 be user checked here. I would love to hear the result and wait until Kelly Martin is back but he goes right into the next revert crusades and I want to go to bed and not check whatever Molobo put onto my talk page. So basically please have a look at the four reverts and act accordingly. If you also happen to have check user rights, please check the users and if they're the same, you can, of course, take the first three reverts into account. Last but not least, the other anon(s) on Germanisation may well have violated the 3RR, too. Sciurinæ 00:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

    I concur. Molobo is the most seasoned revert warrior I've ever met but admins seem to be lenient to his self-professed practice of logging in and logging off when 3RR needs to be evaded. --Ghirla | talk 13:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:Dionyseus

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

    Reported by: Danny Pi 04:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: I corrected grammar and added information to the article on Veselin Topalov numerous times. Dionyseus keeps reverting. Evidently he is a fan of this chess player and he feels that any negative information (no matter how relevant) must be ignored. Furthermore, he refuses to acknowledge a comma splice error, which is about as clear a grammatical mistake as one could possibly make.

    I'm only reverting the NPOV that DanielPi insists on inserting. The cheating allegation is a malicious rumor and no one has admitted to starting it. It could have been anyone from an ordinary spectator to even one of the other participants of the San Luis 2005 tournament, such unsourced rumors have no place in Misplaced Pages. As for the small issue of the comma error, I believe DanielPi is simply incorrect. Dionyseus 05:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    Both of you violated the 3RR. Any reasons why I shouldn't block you both? Both of you certainly need to be more civil. Agree to drop the issue and resolve it among yourselves, because both of you are at fault. If one of you feels strongly that consensus supports your revision, bring it up to the attention of the community, a noticeboard or on #Misplaced Pages, not continue reverting disruptively and pointlessly. Elle vécut heureuse (Be eudaimonic!) 06:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    Apologies if I have broken the rule. In fairness, it was I that ceased and desisted in this vicious cycle. It's no excuse, but I was not aware of the rule until I started hunting around for adjudication. With regards to the comma splice, this is a simple objective matter, which can be cleared up with a simple check on the Comma splice article. It is clearly bad grammar. As for the allegations of cheating, I'd like to provide the following links to support its inclusion: ], ], ], ], ]. Certainly not all chess players believe that Topalov cheated, but many well respected chess celebrities have taken the allegations very seriously. Furthermore, the accuser is, insofar as it is possible to establish, a participant in the tournament. This was big news in the chess world, and its omission is not justified. Dionyseus and I have tried to resolve the dispute via discussion- as you will see on the discussion page. However, it has clearly hit a road block. I would humbly request arbitration on the matter. As for my worth to the Misplaced Pages community, I cannot claim much; but I did author the original articles on Nemerov and Unsolved Philosophical Problems, which seem to have been reasonably well received. At any rate, I don't want this to get any more combatative than it already is, and I for one would appreciate a third party to aid in settling the matter (about the grammar if nothing else). Thanks. Danny Pi 02:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    Usually if content is disputed, it's better to put an NPOV tag on the article until it is worked out, or tolerate the omission of information if you so wish until it is worked out. Arbitration is a bit extreme. An RFC for the article would be most appropriate in this case. There are many steps in dispute resolution, and arbitration is the last, and most serious one. This is very minor. It doesn't matter whether the content again, is very significant - bring it up to the attention of other editors. Are you working it out? Hopefully there will be no edit wars? If then, the case can be considered closed. It's been past 24 hours. Elle vécut heureuse (Be eudaimonic!) 02:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    Understood. I have sought informal and third party adjudication. Posted an NPOV tag. Apologies if I did not go about this process in the right way. Not a seasoned pro at this quite yet. I should note, however, that of the two disputes, the grammatical one is not controversial at all. It is unmistakably an error, which really requires only superficial inspection from a third party.Danny Pi 03:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


    User:Kuban kazak

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

    Reported by: AndriyK 11:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Siddiqui

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

    Reported by: android79 19:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

    Blocked for 24 hours --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Accuratemedia

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

    Reported by: Tom Harrison 20:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Ravenflight

    Three revert rule violation on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Robin Artisson (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ravenflight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: —Ashley Y 21:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Dzonatas

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

    Reported by: —Ruud 00:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • I was not able to comment about the above blocks before Cleared as filed blocked me. I was not warned. The entries above are not identical reverts. The diffs show my edits are progressive. Please review the reverts that Ruud made at the same time in the above entries. — Dzonatas

    User:Rivethead28

    Three revert rule violation on Robin Artisson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rivethead28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: —Ashley Y 01:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Amusingly, he seems to believe that we are sockpuppets of each other. Then again, they all do seem to think that you're a woman. Madame Sosostris 01:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:Lupinespirit

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

    Reported by: —Ashley Y 02:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:212.72.149.84

    Three revert rule violation on Georgian people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 212.72.149.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Khoikhoi 06:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

    User warned.--Tznkai 08:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:Luka Jačov

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

    Reported by: Elephantus 22:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

    This looks more like a multi party edit war than a 3RR issue. I see two editors who need to be warned. Article is protected as soon as I'm done with warnings.--Tznkai 08:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:68.7.212.152/User:66.27.122.84

    Three revert rule violation on Ayn Rand. 68.7.212.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 66.27.122.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to:

    16:44, 17 January 2006

    Reported by: Alienus 07:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • There were additional reverts by this user since the 4th. I would have filed this sooner, but I was thrown off at first by their IP change. (The two IP's admit to being the same person but state that there was no intent to deceive.)
    • The user does not put comments on their changes, does not sign in the Talk, and does not seem to care that the text they're removing is properly cited and NPOV. I think this is more a newbie thing than outright malice. However, the apparent motivation is not innocent, either; they want to whitewash Rand by wiping out unpleasant facts.
    • I'd like this person to be educated on the need to avoid edit wars.

    User:FunkyFly

    Three revert rule violation on Miladinov Brothers article, not to mention that he is a possible sockpuppet of VMORO or AKeckarov.

    Reported by: Bomac 15:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments

    • I tried to make this article looks as neutral it can be, but this user reverts all the time. Bomac 15:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • "Looks neutral" in this case for Bomac means "untrue". His accusations in puppetry are false frivolos slander, and they are most likely influenced by his unwillingness to accept certain truths. FunkyFly 15:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

    I've blocked FF for 1 hour in the first instance. Now to look at the other side... William M. Connolley 17:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC). Wonderful. Ditto block for Bomac. William M. Connolley 17:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC).

    This page is clearly in the middle of a vast edit war, if anyone else cares to comment. William M. Connolley 17:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC).

    User:Zeq

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

    Reported by: —Charles P.  (Mirv) 15:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Blocked for 8 hours. Feel free to review. William M. Connolley 16:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC).

    User:Michael Snow

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

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

    Reported by: Mike (T C) 01:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Fxer

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

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:

    Reported by: Mike (T C) 01:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:


    User:Little Penguin

    Three revert rule violation on Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Little_Penguin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: —Locke Cole • t • c 05:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Engleham

    Three revert rule violation on Ludwig II of Bavaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Engleham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Maaya 14:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: I have tried to draw this user into the talk page but he ignores me and edit wars, reverting others' edits as "vandalism".

    User:R.Koot

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

    1st set of reverts:

    2nd set of reverts:

    Reported by: — Dzonatas 15:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    The second set is only 3 reverts. There are 4 in your first set, but not in 24h (and they were days ago). I can't see any basis for blocking under 3RR. William M. Connolley 18:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC).

    • The guidelines state that a user can be blocked for a fourth block just outside of 24 hours. It is explicit that it does not allow someone to block 3 times in a day and make another revert just outside of that day. In fact, it was over 24 and one half hours duration for four reverts. Surely, this "just out of the 24 hours" implies that the 24th hour is inclusive to the day. — Dzonatas
    • I have stated my point here that William M. Connolley finds it substantial that the 1st set is four reverts. Whereas, those were clearly identical reverts, unlike the edits I made for which I was blocked. Therefore, the implementation of blocks under 3RR is not consistent. — Dzonatas
    • This raises more than substantial concern. — Dzonatas 00:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The second set of reverts contains only 3, and the article is protected. Work out your differences on the talk page. We don't do tit-for-tat blocking. android79 00:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
        • There doesn't seem to be an obvious place to discuss this issue, so forgive me that I bring it up here. I've tried a few other place, they don't seem appropriate.
        • I didn't say to block tit-for-tat style. I said equal treatment. There isn't even 4 reverts under the reason why I was blocked. I shouldn't have been blocked. If you pass this off as "tit-for-tat" then you missed the point and you have ridiculed my effort here. — Dzonatas 14:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

    Please give up this nonsense. You were blocked for 4 reverts within 24 hours. R. Koot was not blocked because he didn't. Discuss further on the talk page of this article if you must. But better still: go talk to the people at comp sci & stop your edit war. William M. Connolley 15:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC).

    User:Ian_Pitchford

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

    • Previous version reverted to: Jan 19 20:51
    • 1st revert: 09:00
    • 2nd revert: 12:09
    • 3rd revert: 13:51
    • 4th revert: 14:22

    Reported by: Zeq 17:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Not only should the user be blocked for long time, he should not benfit from having the page locked for 5-6 weeks in the exact vesrion he wanted it (this was after all his goal) so the page protection must be converted to the version just before his 4th revert. Zeq 17:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Took the liberty of correcting the article link from Nakba (a redirect) to Palestinian exodus. This does appear to be a 3RR vio, but it's a bit rich for Zeq to be complaining about it, considering how his first action upon returning from his recent 3RR block was to perform exactly the same revert that got him blocked in the first place.
    As to the protection, well, there's no must about it; the protecting sysop may choose to do so (per Misplaced Pages:Protection policy), but doesn't have to. Considering that this is the second 3RR violation on this page in the last two days, and the edit war has been simmering for some time before that, I don't think it's a good idea. —Charles P.  (Mirv) 17:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

    Strikes me that Zeq has an issue with WP:CON and WP:NPOV deletionism, that Ian Pitchford is simply restoring well sourced content. Either way, the page has been protected and you should work out your content differences on the article's talk page, not by reverting. FeloniousMonk 17:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

    I am not going to go into a deep debate with you about this. The fact of the matter is that the article is strongly POV and I have twice offered to stay away from the article for two weeks so that the people who feel strong ownership anout tjuis article can make it NPOV. What you call "restoring well sourced content" is nothing more than what me and other editors complained for long time that does not belong on this article. Several editors in the past have just given up editing this article. Since instead of ganging up on me, you could help make the article NPOV. There is a clear policy about it and it should apply. Zeq 19:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

    Oh, and re blocked for a long time, 24 hours is in theory the maximum length of a 3RR block; sometimes this is disregarded, e.g. after a user's 10th appearance here, but not on the first offense. —Charles P.  (Mirv) 17:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

    I had some rather unsatisfactory emails with Zeq after his recent block; and as far as I can see IP hasn't been blocked before. OTOH IP seems to have 4 clear rv's (1-3 are clear; but 4 is one too) & I can't quite see why he shouldn't be blocked. William M. Connolley 18:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC).

    he has not been blocked before that is true but this is because in all his and Zero previous violation they were not blocked. It seems that if you are pushing palestinian propeganda on wikipedia and for that you violate NPOV and 3RR you do not get punished, actually you get a reward: The verion with the violation is the one getting frozen and protected. This is very nice and puts an intersting light on Misplaced Pages ability to apply rules equally. On the other one can argue that no one should have been blocked (including me yetrterday) because this whole problem results from two facts:

    • My request yeterday and before to protect the page was not complied with.
    • ArbCom refuse to even say if they will address the issue

    Zeq 19:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

    Despite disliking Zeq's tone (please stop all these must's) I still can't see why he shouldn't be blocked (nor do I see why he wasn't blocked last time): blocked for 8h. Feel free to review. William M. Connolley 19:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC).
    I am sorry if you don't like my tone. The only thing we "must" do is to apply policy equally. Zeq 20:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:Hogeye

    Three revert rule violation on Anarchism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Hogeye (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: FrancisTyers 18:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • I have admin powers, but I won't use them on an article I'm editing for content, that said the article could do with protecting again. This user does not edit harmoniously, the longer the ban the better. FrancisTyers 18:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

    Seems a fair cop guv. Blocked for 24h William M. Connolley 18:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:DreamGuy

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

    Reported by: DES 18:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Note that the key point is the repeated removal of the link to Aladin (magician), even if other changes were also made in the same edit. This is not quite a 3RR violation to date, no four of these reverts occur within a 24 hour period, but 5 reverts in less than 38 hours seems like excessive reversion to me. As I have been involved in this issue I will not be doign any blocks, even if a technical 3RR violation occurs. DES 18:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:Phase1

    Three revert rule violation on Muammar al-Qaddafi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Phase1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: malber 15:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User is preventing the addition of Category:Living people to an article about a person who is obviously still living. This category has been deemed vital to the continued success of the project by Jimbo Wales himself. Given that Qaddafi is a controversial figure, it is important that he be included in this category.
    Issue is being disccussed on talk page. --malber 14:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:SirIsaacBrock

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

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert: 15:32, 21 January 2006 called my edit vandalism, I assumed good faith because my edit was a redlink until I hit save on the in progress article.
    • 2nd revert: a few minutes later no edit summary.
    • 3rd revert: again, just minutes later after I tried to explain on both article and user talk pages.
    • 4th revert: 16:50, 21 January 2006

    Reported by: SchmuckyTheCat 23:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:SirIsaacBrock is attempting some sort of article ownership here. I wrote a new article, Cricket fighting, and included it in a list of blood sports and he's removing it. I've used both article and user talk pages to try and figure out what his beef is and ask for verifiability, etc. SchmuckyTheCat 00:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:SchmuckyTheCat

    Three revert rule violation on Blood sport (hunting) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Cricket fighting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Actually, I notice that Schmucky was in a revert war with User:SirIsaacBrock, who warned Schmucky to stop reverting pages or he would post a vandalism report, which he did do. I notice that Schmucky deleted the Vandalism report without permission The rv problem is Schmucky not SIB. Did the admin discuss this with SIB ? If SIB for 3RR and is suspended why is Schmucky not being suspended for 3RR ? Based on their discussions, Schmucky is incorrectly adding an article to Blood Sport article and Category Blood Sport, cricket fighting is not considered a blood sport ! I believe the Schmucky should be warned and SIB should not be punished. WritersCramp 02:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

    I blocked SIB for violating the three-revert rule. It looks to me like SIB reverted four times and Schmucky did not. Is that incorrect? Tom Harrison 03:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    Hello I see five for Schmucky 5 and 5 He is not always stating RV in his notes, he just states that he is re-adding the rv material. WritersCramp 03:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    Here's what I see:
    Schmuckey has not edited since. SIB violated the rule, Schmuckey did not. Tom Harrison 03:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    Blood sport (hunting) I see four easy ! WritersCramp 04:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    1. 23:50, 21 January 2006 SirIsaacBrock (rv - vandalism report filed)
    2. 23:33, 21 January 2006 SchmuckyTheCat (rv, see talk.)
    3. 23:30, 21 January 2006 SirIsaacBrock (rv to ISB - three revert rule - so no more or u will be reported !)
    4. 23:27, 21 January 2006 SchmuckyTheCat (rv, vertebrate animals only?)
    5. 23:21, 21 January 2006 SirIsaacBrock
    6. 23:19, 21 January 2006 SirIsaacBrock (rv to ISB - Cricket Fighting is not a blood sport !)
    7. 23:14, 21 January 2006 SchmuckyTheCat (cricket fighting, added to lsit)
    8. 23:12, 21 January 2006 SchmuckyTheCat (minor grammar clean, rm irrelevant category.)
    9. 22:32, 21 January 2006 SirIsaacBrock (rv vandalism)
    10. 22:29, 21 January 2006 SchmuckyTheCat (cricket fighting, added to lsit)
    In 10 Schmuckey added a link; That's not a revert. In 9 SIB reverted, taking the link out; That is a revert. Schmuckey's reverts are 7, 4, and 2. SIB's reverts are 9, 6, 3, and 1. Tom Harrison 04:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    Just for reference: I think that what I did should count but doesn't according to the way it's written and enforced. .
    I didn't game it this way, promise. I was writing Cricket fighting as a work in progress, and making wiki-links in various places and keeping several article copies in notepad, one article had the inuse template up. I assumed that my edit was removed the first two times because it was a redlink at the time of SIB's edits removing it. After it was saved as a real article though, I took real offense at it being called "vandalism" and then his attempts to re-define the term to exclude my edit. SchmuckyTheCat 06:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    Schmucky, I checked out your Cricket fighting article. Going by the base definition of a Blood Sport (that is, "a sport or entertainment that involves pitting one animal against another in a fight"), Cricket fighting is indeed such a sport. Your additions aren't vandalism. Daniel Davis 14:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)

    User:206.148.29.38

    Three revert rule violation on Survivor: Panama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 206.148.29.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Jtrost 04:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • This user is removing a link that is being used to cite a claim in the article because he thinks that the WP:EL policy is "inconsistant". You may view the article's talk page for ongoing communication between the other author and I during his reverts. I even mentioned the 3RR policy to him after the second revert and he still reverted it for a third time. I have not reverted his most recent revert because in doing so I too would violate this policy. However, I would like his edits reverted again because the website is being used to cite a very important claim in the article. Jtrost 04:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:Gmaxwell

    He has reverted Template:User freedom seven times despite repeated calls to stop from multiple editors. The version he is reverting to is far different from what the creators and users intended it for. I consider these edits to be an act of vandalism.--God of War 05:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

    • 1.
    • 2.
    • 3.
    • 4.
    • 5.
    • 6.
    • 7.
    • 8.


    • 05:38, January 22, 2006 Sean Black blocked "User:Gmaxwell" with an expiry time of 3 hours (Lots of reverts at Template:User freedom-needs to cool off) Jtkiefer ---- 05:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Note that I have protected the template. The then-standing version was Gmaxwell's, on which I protected without endorsement. However, since Gmaxwell is blocked, some other admin may wish to revert to before the whole 22nd Jan silliness. -Splash 05:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I've reverted to the version from before the vandalism, and added noinclude tags to fix it on userpages. Mark 12:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Looking over this page, it appears that a 3 hours block is slightly on the short side for edit warring? Noting of course, that we usually unblock if the person agrees to quit the behavior anyway. - brenneman 06:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Yes it is on the short side but you have to remember that blocks are not meant to be punitive. Jtkiefer ---- 06:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
            • I think you'll find that I am in fact the person who added that into the blocking policy. I do not see anything on either User talk:Gmaxwell or User talk:Sean Black that indicates that any discussion took place where Greg indicated that he would lay off. If we keep giving shorter blocks to cabal members (Tony Sidaway, Snowspinner, and now Gmaxwell) we should at least be honest and edit blocking policy to say "24 hours if for the little people". These are guys we should hold to a higher standard than normal. Giving them a slap on the wrist when they violate one of the siplest and most straight-forward policy we've got is very poor form. - brenneman 12:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
              • I'm also surprised by the length of the block, because he was engaged in vandalism, not just edit warring. I'd block him myself but I was involved in a dispute with him over an image recently. Three examples of the edits I see as vandalism: he changed a box supporting the American military to one supporting the Iraqi insurgents. He inserted an image of a woman "hogtied" and gagged into a box opposing fox hunting, and changed the fox hunting link to BDSM. On Template:Wikiproject Terrorism, he replaced the image of a terrorist with one of a nuclear explosion. SlimVirgin 12:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:70.86.172.178

    Three revert rule violation on Beslan school hostage crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.86.172.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and same person different IP 67.161.40.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): (His edits suggest he's using an IP anonymizer, as they show up in his pasted urls)

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

    Reported by: Sherurcij 18:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: He's been taking out the compromised discussion about the role of Abu Omar as-Seif, which has been widely accepted as an NPOV treatment by both sides for months, and refusing to stop. He's been asked to take it to the talk page, or to provide a source proving it isn't vandalism, and he instead replies that "terrorist sympathizers can go to hell" and that we're all Islamofascists for reverting his vandalism. He's also been quickly reverted when he vandalised Osama bin Laden, Pope John Paul II and been warned numerous times on User_talk:70.86.172.178

    You have a strong case here, so I will block them because their edit summaries border on vandalism; however, it becomes harder to block for 3RR because you had four reverts. So keep that in mind next time. Elle vécut heureuse (Be eudaimonic!) 19:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:Solidusspriggan

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

    Reported by: Ultramarine 07:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Parts of an ongoing campaign to remove sourced crtitical information from this page, even including templates. Also, some of the anonymous IPs edit very similar to Solidusspriggan. Ultramarine 07:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

    "Second revert" is a removal of the POV template placed without explanation, thus in bad faith. 4-th revert is not a revert at all. --Irpen 07:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    Simply false, explanation given in the edit summary. It is getting ridiculous when even a "POV-section" template is immediately reverted.Ultramarine 07:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

    Added another revert.Ultramarine 11:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

    These look like entirely different edits rather than reverts. The simple removal of your material doesn't constitute a revert unless the removing editor is changing the artilce back to their preferred version, or somtehing closely similar. In this case, in the diffs you provide at least, that is not happening. -Splash 15:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    Obviously immediately reverting my edits is revering back to his prefered version. Or is it now allowed to revert another user an infinite number of times?Ultramarine 16:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    The provide diffs showing no, or very very little, change between two edits. The diffs you show at present show widely different edits being made. I'm not going to play detective for you. -Splash 16:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

    Ok, here are the same reverts presented differently. This revert is not a total but almost, reverting almost all of the added sourced information about the famine:

    The other four reverts are simple, total reverts:

    I agree with you, thats 4 reverts. However: I've warned him on his talk page and he has promised to stop (and to improve his edit summaries). And he has left that article alone for now. If he repeats, block certainly. For now, I'm personally disinclined to block; others feel free to disagree with me if I'm being too lenient William M. Connolley 17:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC).

    User:Simonides

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

    Comments: This experienced POV-pusher broke 3RR within three hours from his first edit, introducing POV stuff to a well established article and calling unrelated editors who oppose him {e.g., Fred Bauder) "Stalinist buddies". Needs to be blocked to stop the carnage of the article. --Ghirla | talk 15:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

    You lied in your revert reasons, you lie on this page twice, and you label well-reasoned discussions which you do not participate in as 'carnage of article'. You really need a hobby. -- Simonides 05:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    Previous 3RR warning but nothing in block log; blocking 12h. Feel free to review. William M. Connolley 15:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC).
    Why not the usual 24? Are there mitigating circumstances? -Splash 15:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    First block, as far as I can see, so I've been moderate. But feel free to reset to longer if you think that appropriate. William M. Connolley 16:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC).
    I'm not usually sympathetic to established edit-warriors (as his contribs list appears to attest to him being), but I'll defer to your judgement. -Splash 16:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    Must be nice being blissful. -- Simonides 05:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:Supreme Cmdr

    Three revert rule violation on Derek Smart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Supreme Cmdr (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: User:Fox1 00:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User becoming increasingly combative over article (only article user contributes to), and seems to be openly flaunting 3RR policy. Not sure if a block is necessary, but a warning from an admin might help user's generally dismissive attitude toward policy. Fox1 (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    Supreme_Cmdr is continuing to revert the article and seems to have no intention of stopping, even going so far as to say "we can do this until the cows come home" in one of the revert's edit summary. Not only are his changes unilateral, but he is ignoring a clear majority shown at this mediation case. -- Hinotori 07:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    Looks like 4 reverts to me, but not exactly a "hot dispute" at present, so I'm inclined to regard this as "old business". I'll drop by and flash some lights for effect. Alai 07:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:134.161.137.162

    First 3RR

    Three revert rule violation on Animal Liberation Front (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 134.161.137.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Localzuk 00:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User refuses to let a discussion on the talk place to take place before a decision is made by the community on the use of a word to describe an action taken by the ALF.

    134.161.137.162 Second 3RR

    Three revert rule violation on Britches (monkey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 134.161.137.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Localzuk 00:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Same user as above. Different article using the same word.
    I agree this user has become annoying with his 3RR reverts. And he continues to disobey several Misplaced Pages policies. SWD316 01:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    The user has since reverted again to the version that now seems to be against the consensus of the community as per the discussion at Talk:Animal Liberation Front. diff. I have warned them again also. It appears that the user is not going to pay attention to the views of anyone but himself.-Localzuk 19:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    And again . The user will not listen. -Localzuk 19:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

    Blocked for 24h. Please note that 3RR applies to all: is hard to see as removing vandalism. William M. Connolley 19:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

    It is if it is against the will of the community though is it not? The discussion on the talk page at Animal Liberation Front is overwhelmingly in favour of 'removed' so the constant attempts to change it is vandalism?-Localzuk 20:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    It was questionable. Now that ...162 is blocked, you can revert any sockpuppets (I see ...161 is on, sigh) as often as you like. William M. Connolley 20:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC).
    How about a semi-protection of the page? It would prevent anon's from doing this sort of thing for a while.-Localzuk 20:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

    Hmmm. ...162 is back as ...161 (and isn't being very nice ), whom I've blocked too. And will probably be back as something else soon enough. I known nowt about range blocks, and am just off to the pub, so someone else may want to watch this one... William M. Connolley 20:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC).

    User:E Pluribus Anthony

    Three revert rule violation on {{ElectionResultsCA}}. E Pluribus Anthony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • The accuser, who also nominated this template for deletion, has not garnered a consensus for related edits: a near two-thirds majority supports keeping the template. I have also been actively discussing this on the related talk page with others, while ch has not. Also note that each of my edits are unique and were not effected through raw reverts.
    Madchester has issued 3 hour blocks for both Crotalus horridus and User:E Pluribus Anthony. User:Splash increased to 24 hours for User:E Pluribus Anthony, but won't inforce it, the shorter block will over ride it. Rx StrangeLove 01:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    Technical point: I didn't deliberately increase it, I just applied a standard 24hrs and then decided not to lift the shorter block. I didn't block Crotalus Horridus for the same reason. -Splash 01:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, sorry for the clumsy wording. Rx StrangeLove 01:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

    Multiple IP users

    Deleted pending request for consensus, and also I used bad formatting. Swatjester 01:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:172

    Three revert rule violation on Holodomor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Andrew Alexander 03:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

    Frankly, this report is trollish. Note the concert of users recruited by Andrew Alexander (Yakudza, Ultramarine, AndriyK) engaging in tag team reversions while ignoring the discussion on talk. A look at the article talk page will demonstrate that most good-faith editors on the page (such as Dietwald and Irpen) are obviously being deliberately marginalized by POV-warriors adept at gaming the system. I will be disappointed if an administrator decides to reward their bad behavior. An illuminating acount of the tactics used by Andrew Alexander, AndriyK and other Ukrainian nationalist POV warriors can be found at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK. 172 03:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

    • Page protected until dispute is settled, might be a good idea to add this to the ArbCom case.--nixie 03:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • For reference to those interested in the article, Irpen summarized on Talk:Holodomor the problem on the page much more effectively than I did above: We have enough evidence of many attempts to try to resolve this peacefully, much more than an RfC and mediation usually generates and this talk documents this very well ... What happened is that Andrew Alexander got a couple of buddies who got to this article either stalking myself or 172 and who resort to blind reversions without bothering to read the discussion. The latest entry by AndriyK to this discussion shows that he didn't read anything on this page. Yakudza and Ultramarine didn't write anything significant to this talk (if at all). So, attemting to find a compromise with users who don't even bother to read talk is pointless ... In the meanwhile, Yakudza, Ultramarine, AndriyK and whoever else who does nothing but reverting, please readup on this talk page. --Irpen 22:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC) 172 03:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    A 3RR violation report is "trollish"? And a then a repetion of a personal attack by Irpen certainly proves that, doesn't it? I am happy that the page finally got some admin attention, but what about 3RR?--Andrew Alexander 05:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    Go away, troll. --Ghirla | talk 07:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    Hope some administrators will pay attention to this as well. What's wrong with WP?--Andrew Alexander 17:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:Molobo

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

    Comments:

    User:Molobo is a determined POV-pusher whose output consists of little but reverts. He was already reported on this page (see above), but the admins let him go on his frantic revert crusade, because he usually spices his reverts with minor and meaningless changes of content, such as moving a sentence to and fro across the article. Just look at the history of his new innocent victim. It's amazing how the revert warriors may destroy an article history, making it quite useless for future editors. I hope someone will put an end to this insanity. --Ghirla | talk 18:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

    Blocked for 24. -Splash 18:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

    The article falls under Gdansk Vote is excluded from 3RR

    This page is affected by the results of the vote at Talk:Gdansk/Vote. The following rules apply in the case of disputes
    • For Gdańsk, use the name Danzig between 1308 and 1945
    • For Gdańsk, use the name Gdańsk before 1308 and after 1945
    • In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdańsk) and later Danzig exclusively
    • In biographies of clearly Polish persons, the name should be used in the form Gdańsk (Danzig) and later Gdańsk exclusively.
    • For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises.
    • Reverts to confirm with community consensus are excluded from the 3RR rule. Only the place names can be reverted exempt from the 3RR rule according to the outcome of this vote, additional changes fall again under the 3RR rule. Please use descriptive edit summaries.
    • Persistent reverts against community consensus despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Misplaced Pages:Dealing with vandalism. In case of doubt, assume good faith and do not bite newcomers.

    The detailed vote results and the vote itself can be found on Talk:Gdansk/Vote. This vote has ended; please do not vote anymore. Comments and discussions can be added to Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion anytime. This template {{Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice}} can be added on the talk page of affected articles if necessary.

    Reverts to confirm with community consensus are excluded from the 3RR rule In view of that i suggest unblocking. Molobo.

    Nonsense. Firtsly, you evade the block, hence it should be lengthened. Secondly, no local vote may overrule the policy. Gdansk vote is a local vote, 3RR is an official policy. --Ghirla | talk 07:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    Did your reverts only involve the naming? No. Sciurinæ 22:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:81.216.236.207

    Three revert rule violation on Lolicon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 81.216.236.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Ashibaka tock 19:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • This is a good-faith attempt to fix what he saw as an NPOV violation on Lolicon, but he didn't use the talk page and apparently didn't understand the 3RR warning given here. Ashibaka tock 19:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Nobody cares to block him? Ashibaka tock 16:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Looks like CambridgeBayWeather and umm another user whose name I've now forgotten in the few minutes since I read the talk page are trying to explain 3RR more to this user. FWIW, they have stopped reverting the Lolicon article and haven't posted anything since almost this time yesterday (when you made your report). --Syrthiss 17:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:Deathrocker

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

    Comments:

    User:ConservativeChristian

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

    Reported by: — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Repeated insertion of {{totallydisputed}} without discussion. Note that last revert was by User:GodsWarrior, a new user whose sole edit was to make the reversion after I warned User:ConservativeChristian about 3RR. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Please, when making 3RR reports provide diffs of near-straight reverts: I can find (as GodsWarrior), , . Then there's (also viewed as ). The last one only reinserts one of the two tags, but the text of WP:3RR does say "Reverting...may include edits that undo a previous edit, in whole or in part...", and I'm persuaded that the final diff does do that. So I will block both accounts for 24 hours. -Splash 07:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry; I thought I was doing it correctly. I normally block users myself but since I've been marginally active on Evolution before and reverted the user, I figured I should just report it. Are you staying I should have reported diffs in the style you just did? That's what I would have done, but the instructions at the bottom direct users to "From the article's History page, use diffs (links labelled "last"), not versions, and the "compare versions" button to clearly highlight the changes..." With the explicit directive to use "last" and not "compare versions", I reported it as above. Was this incorrect? — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Huh, so it does. I (maybe it's just me) find those kind of diffs irritating because people frequently make quite complex reverts and seeing them in amongst a not-really-revert diff is very hard, whereas seeing that their changes are all-but-one-word or something is quite easy in the kind that I presented. Of course, in your case, it's easy enough to see visually that the diffs themselves are identical, but that's still adding a layer of parsing to the admin paperwork. Perhaps we should change the instructions. -Splash 07:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
            • You know, now that I reread it, I'm not entirely sure whether it's saying to use the "compare versions" or not; it's definitely saying to use "last", though. I think changing it would be a good idea; in my opinion, the initial version should be a version of course, and the other four should be comparing versions. The wording should definitely be simplified. I'd prefer to let an administrator who patrols this board more often (like you) make the change, since you know what you look for. Comparing versions makes more sense to me, definitely. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:24.42.79.192

    Three revert rule violation on Toronto Maple Leafs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.42.79.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

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

    Thanks ccwaters 18:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


    User:TheRealFennShysa

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

    Reported by: Aaron 21:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Basically it's his way or the highway, even though both the list and the parent article are about speculative current events. Any additions anyone makes to the page get reverted by him. --Aaron 21:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm trying to present factual information, something Aaron doesn't seem to undertsand. He'd adding information based on supposition and hearsay. I'm deleting unsourced and unverifyable information. TheRealFennShysa 21:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Confirmation from actual station personnel do not count as "sourced" to him. Also, this template seems to apply to the article, in his mind, but not to the list:

    Template:Future channel In any event, a 3RR is a 3RR. --Aaron 21:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

    • They can't confirm anything, as there's nothing official to confirm. WP:V - Misplaced Pages should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research. One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher. You calling the station sounds a lot like original research to me. Show me a press release or a news item that explicitly mentions they are an affiliate, not that they "expect" to be one, and I'll be fine with the addition. As it stands now, you can't provide that. And before you changed the article, it did mention confirmed affiliates. TheRealFennShysa 21:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

    As Aaron says, 3RR is 3RR. A 24 hour block is in place. Sorry. howcheng {chat} 23:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:Shivraj_Singh

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


    Reported by: Lukas 15:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Blocked 24h. Incidentally your "version reverted to" appears to be wrong; but its 4R anyway. William M. Connolley 16:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC).

    User:BelindaGong

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

    Reported by: Wesley 17:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • BelindaGong is also believed to edit from the ip User:38.114.145.148, and to date has neither confirmed nor denied when asked.
    • When warned about reverting on her Talk page, BelindaGong indicated an intention to continue.

    Additional Comments from Musical Linguist:

    • The evidence for thinking Belinda is 38.114.145.148 (talk · contribs) is that that IP address made an edit which was signed Belinda, and that her BelindaGong account was created a less than an hour later. Both the IP account and the BelindaGong account made the same identical revert as their very first edit . In fact, she did eventually address the question, saying that she didn't know her IP address, but that a particular edit to the Christianity talk page from was probably hers. She appeared on Misplaced Pages when edits of User:Giovanni33 (who is even more in violation of 3RR than she, but it will take a while to gather the diffs) were being disputed, and does little other than revert to his version (even when it's a version with the semiprotected tag, and the article isn't semiprotected!) and support his arguments on the talk page, following him to vote at Talk:Transubstantiation (although he didn't ask her to on her talk page, and though she doesn't have e-mail enabled), and criticizing those who (while staying within 3RR) revert Giovanni's version. It's also interesting that three other brand new users appeared at the same time, making the same arguments/reverts, and showing up at the same articles. I don't think Belinda is Giovanni33, since his IP address (User:64.121.40.153) and her probable (semi-confirmed) IP address are in different cities, according to this. She may be a meatpuppet. The other three may be sockpuppets (I'm going to request a check later), but in any case, there's a lot of disruption going on, and Belinda and Giovanni both continued to revert repeatedly after being made aware of the rule. AnnH 18:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

    OK, this looks a bit of a mess (well the article edit history is) but I've blocked BG for 8 hours. The 4RR are there (even excluding the possible IP) but OTOH she has backed off since midday, and there appears to be evidence that she will stop . Feel free to review (Yes I mean that). William M. Connolley 20:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC).

    User:Robsteadman

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

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

    Reported by: Eoin 19:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: And many more reverts besides. The type of edit he is trying to put in doesn't (in my opinion and several other wikipedians) belong in the introduction.

    I blocked him for 24 hours. I note, though, that the diff for the first one is not a revert. Nevertheless, he did violate the rule, even though the diff is wrong. On looking into it, this is what I found:

    AnnH 20:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

    Re: The first diff - Ooops! My fault, sorry! Eoin 23:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:Hogeye 2

    Three revert rule violation on Anarchism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Hogeye (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: - FrancisTyers 19:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:24.248.212.133

    Comments:

    User:Giovanni33 combined with User:64.121.40.153

    Three revert rule violation on Early Christianity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Christianity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Transubstantiation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 64.121.40.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which he edits under when not logged in:

    Early Christianity

    As he has been reverting for several days, it is hard to choose four diffs. I am giving several. In some (but not all) cases, four in a row will be within a 24-hour period.

    Christianity

    In addition the following (from 01:31 to 18:51 on 22 January):

    are all reverts or partial reverts (though the last one was not a point of contention).

    Transubstantiation

    Reported by: AnnH 22:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC) with update at 01:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User:Giovanni33 is also User:64.121.40.153 (See here and here).
    • I warned him here, here, and here about the 3RR rule. I have also mentioned it frequently on the talk page of articles he edits (as have others), and I know he reads those talk pages.
    • See case of User:BelindaGong reported above.
    • This is my first time ever to report a 3RR violation. However, this user has continued unrepentantly despite numerous warnings from several users, and I don't think anything other than a block will stop him.
    • He does not use his IP address to circumvent the 3RR rule. He gets logged out without realizing it. There are concerns about sockpuppets who showed up to support him with no prior history at Misplaced Pages, but there is no evidence that he is any of those users.
    Blocked for 3RR vio and edit warring.--Tznkai 23:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

    Additional comment

    • Although Giovanni33 has was blocked after I reported his violations at Early Christianity, I have decided to go ahead and report his violations at Christianity and Transubstantiation as well, although I am not looking for an additional block. But because of his past behaviour, I find it unlikely that he will stop edit warring, so I think there should be a full record here, in case it is needed later. AnnH 01:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:Tznkai

    Three revert rule violation on Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Tznkai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: 128.226.198.62 00:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: I did infact revert several times, although I consider it reverting disruption, I'm willing to accept a block however if another admin disagrees. However, I'd appreciate it if my accuser decided not to hide behind an IP address.--Tznkai 00:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:JDG

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

    Reported by: Monicasdude 01:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Textbook violation; user has reinserted same previously deleted text four times in 8 hours. Identical text in all instances. Text previously deleted by two different editors. Fourth edit summary shows user is aware of 3RR violation, but denies it w/o explanation. Monicasdude 01:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

    This is the second spurious 3RR allegation made against me by this user. The edit he lists as "1st revert" is a page edit separated by months from my last activity on the article. By definition it is no reversion... This user, in his most recent RfC, was found to be in the wrong by a vote of 14-1, for just this sort of thing... If any Admin feels this is requires even a moment of his/her time, please contact me on my Talk page (I'll be active over the next 4 or so hours). JDG 03:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    Perhaps you could cite the part of the "definition" that exempts reversions to months-old text? Monicasdude 03:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    "Months-old" > 24-hours. Do you get it now? Plus, my edit of 17:12 does not revert to the same article as it existed in October. So, 1) it's not a revert and 2) it doesn't answer to the timeframe of the 3R Rule. JDG 03:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    Four reverts in 24 hours, restoring text originally deleted by two different editors. That other editors made unrelated changes in the interim is not relevant. Your first revert was a complex revert, in part because it incorporated intervening changes. But you still don't get a free revert under the rule just because you waited for other editors to make unrelated revisions. That's gaming the system, a releated violation. Monicasdude 04:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    Wrong. This was a restoration of one line in the article, months later and after dozens of edits. And the reason it needed to be restored was... your deletion of it! I'm done trying to get this sort of thing through your head. If an Admin wants to take this up with me, I'll be here. JDG 04:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    Textbook revert, as per the definition: "Reverting in this context means undoing the work of another editor. It does not necessarily mean going back into the page history to revert to a previous version. The passage you keep adding or deleting may be as little as a few words, or in some cases, just one word." And I was the second editor to delete the passage, after you reinserted it with a phony citation to a source that didn't support the claim. Monicasdude 05:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    I'm afraid you are one revert short, Monicasdude. A readdition of text months after does not qualify as a "revert". A revert has to be quite recent. If many edits take place after the initial revision, it is no longer a revert. However, JDG, I must chide you as the 3RR is an electric fence and you should generally stay away from it as much possible. Elle vécut heureuse (Be eudaimonic!) 05:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    That's an interesting interpretation, but it's not in the policy statement. And for good reason, because restarting a sterile edit war is even less helpful than starting a stale edit war. It hasn't been discussed much, because so few editors restart old, apparently settled disputes. Monicasdude 05:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you, Elle... I thought that buzzing sound was a fly. I'll try to give these fences wide berths, but you know it's difficult avoiding these guys with nuclear powered cattle prods and the ill will to use them. JDG 06:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:64.107.220.179

    Three revert rule violation on 1998-99 NBA season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 64.107.220.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: AJR | Talk 02:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Hour-long revert war between this anon and User:Dknights411, who also broke 3RR (see article history for a frankly rediculous number of reverts by both) but stopped immediatly and apologised upon being warned. I proposed a compromise wording based on what sources I could find with a quick google, which the anon promptly reverted. I tried to mediate and get some discussion going on Talk:1998-99 NBA season, but not even the cute kitten technique worked. AJR | Talk 02:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    Since they've apologized, I see no point in blocking. I've protected the article until they can work things out at the talk page. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:LeeHunter

    Violation on Islamic extremist terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). LeeHunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    • One:
    • Two:
    • Three:
    • Four, Complex Reverting:

    Reported by: Queeran 03:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:71.29.141.160

    Three revert rule violation on Michael Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    71.29.141.160 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Jwissick 05:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Note: appears to have been blocked by WHK: William M. Connolley 15:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC).


    User:Duncharris

    Three revert rule violation on Jonathan Sarfati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Duncharris (talk · contribs):

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert: 22:00, 27 January 2006 Duncharris m (Reverted edits by Agapetos angel (talk) to last version by Pgk)
    • 2nd revert: 21:47, 27 January 2006 Duncharris m (Reverted edits by Agapetos angel (talk) to last version by Duncharris)
    • 3rd revert: 20:11, 27 January 2006 Duncharris m (Reverted edits by Agapetos angel (talk) to last version by JoshuaZ)

    Duncharris, involved in edits, banned Agapetos angel for 3RRs on the third revert, only to then make a third revert himself(which he marked as 'minor', even though they are not minor revisions-they, instead, conflict with his POV).

    Reported by: 58.162.252.236 23:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This is not a 3RR violation, a user can revert three times. Once they revert the fourth time, then they are violating 3RR. Also, next time please include links to diffs. -Greg Asche (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

    As 58 was attempting to point out, I was banned on the third (not fourth) revert, where Duncharris was involved in the edits (he was reverting by placing disputed material back into the article, he didn't document talk at first, hasn't shown that the many instances of "some critics" in that section is cited, and he marked all these major reverts as minor). The main point, however, is that someone involved in editing shouldn't be blocking another (opposing) user, and certainly shouldn't be allowed to do it on the third revert. agapetos_angel 01:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    And people shouldn't be reporting non 3RR violations on the 3RR incidents page. If you have an (on-going) problem with the (earlier) incident, take it to AN/I or RFC. Alai 05:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    There were four edits by Agapetos angel - I was in the process of trying to determine whether the first edit was a revert to a previous version (and thus legit) and I was about to contact Dunc to make sure he hadn't made a mistake with the block when AA switched to the IP and reverted the page again. At that point, whether or not s/he had originally been guilty of a 3rr violation or not, s/he was not guilty of both block evasion and a 3 rr violation. Since then the user has been complaining about the "unfair" block. Guettarda 06:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    Ah yes, it all comes flooding back. At any rate, I think we're pretty safe in saying that the 3RR hasn't been lowered by case law to a 2RR for this article or otherwise, and so this isn't a violation of this non-rule. OTOH, I do agree that Dunc would be well advised to report any future vios here, rather than enforcing them himself, lest there be any appearance of a conflict of interest. Alai 07:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    Guettarda, Duncharris is guilty of a conflict of interest (and now so are you). Instead of accusing me in the article's commentary, I request that you come to talk in the article and justify where you 'see' sources that prevent that section from being original research (beyond links to the AiG website and True Origin, which do not) as requested in talk. I've asked GregAsche to please review the situation as well. (Just for the record, I did not revert in the first edit {see talk/history, rather than just jumping in on Duncharris' side, and you would have known that right away} or block evade/3rr {not my IP}. If this is your 'problem' with me, please drop it as invalid and look at the article with a professional eye, seeing that my point about original research is valid.) (copied from Guettarda's talk, so this inappropriate reporting ends here). agapetos_angel 00:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    It isn't a conflict of interest to block your sockpuppet/IP for block evasion and continued reversion after being blocked for a 3rr violation. As to whether Dunc's block was a mistake, or whether the first edit was a reversion to an earlier version - I was in the process of investigating the legitimacy of the block and was about to email Dunc about it when you chose to evade the block and revert the article again. So the investigation was rendered moot. Guettarda 05:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:KDRGibby

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

    Reported by: Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Repeatedly reinserting uncited material (e.g. this) into the article. I usually discuss instead of edit warring, but this would be pointless in this particular case - see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby for details. He has done this before - see . He has falsely accused me of reverting "five times" - in fact, I made an initial edit to remove blatant WP:NPOV/WP:CITE violations and then reverted his POV edits three times. See also what he thinks of our "socialist" admins:

    Update: User:Curps has since reverted and KDRGibby then did a 5th revert.

    User:Gidonb

    • Removing extenal links to official website of Barry Chamish . --Haham hanuka 10:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Removed per consensus on talk page. I refered the user several times to this discussion on the talk page, but he refuses to contribute, only puts his pet website upfront. Complainer is a serial POV pusher and well-known troll, frequently long-term barred from using Misplaced Pages. I have a full-time job just undoing the edits by him and other persons from the Israeli extreme right. I would like this matter to be thoroughly investigated and action to be taken, because I cannot go on contributing to Misplaced Pages without additional assistance. gidonb 11:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

    This all looks a bit of a mess. I don't see any consensus on talk page but I don't see any 3RR breaking by Gidonb either. Please specify the diffs, as per instructions. William M. Connolley 14:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC).

    The discussion and consensus were on Talk:Yitzhak_Rabin_assassination_conspiracy_theories#External_links. This is the other place where he tries to insert this link, but he referred only to this page in his awkward request in the Misplaced Pages name-space accusing falsely accusing me of WP:3RR (Haham hanuka is about as much banned as he is allowed to participate on Misplaced Pages). I offered Haham hanuka to join the discussion and add his opinion, but instead he reverts me every time. I am totally fed up with his troll behavior. That said, his friend who accuses me of murder is worse. I think that the admins can do somewhat more to protect me and my edits. See also for example his false accusation here . I think that all his latest edits and accusations should be undone and that he should be called to order for the umpteenth time. This is really a bad day for this discussion because those who know his political agenda pushing and my excellent record in POV addressing cannot edit today. I ask that Haham Hanuka will be blocked for a cool off period and that all his latest edits will be undone. gidonb 15:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

    I've blocked Haham hanuka (24h; previous violations) and Gidonb (8 hours) for pretty much the same revert war at Yitzhak Rabin assassination conspiracy theories. William M. Connolley 18:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC).

    User:Jimmy James

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

    Reported by: User:Αchille

    Comments: Suspected Lightbringer, every single edit is on Freemasonry and he's removed huge amounts of info SEVERAL times that I wont be listing, see: .

    As I write he has seven - 7 - edits he calls reverts in his editsummaries. Could something be done to stop him? WegianWarrior 14:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

    Appears to have been blocked indefinitely by Shanel as sockpuppet. William M. Connolley 17:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC).

    User:65.122.236.133

    Three revert rule violation on Big Spring, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 65.122.236.133 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: OhNoitsJamie 18:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User ignores suggestions from two editors that disputed section blatantly violates NPOV policies. Though two IP addresses are covered, they are both in the same range, and both appear in the talk page expressing the same sentiment. OhNoitsJamie 18:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

    Blocked for 8 hours; sadly even .133 is now up to 4RR even without the .3. I wasn't sure how long to block for... if they are determined, they'll probably just switch to another IP. William M. Connolley 19:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC).

    User:TuzsuzDeliBekir

    Three revert rule violation on Turkic peoples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), TuzsuzDeliBekir (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Khoikhoi 19:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User is deleting entire sections and insulting people. --Khoikhoi 19:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

    Blocked 3 hours for a first offence as a fairly new user (hmm, now I look, I must ask you to stop this meaningless revert war on his talk page is a bit suspicious for a new user...). For future use, can I suggest that you warn people on their second or third revert? William M. Connolley 19:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC).

    Wonderful. The 3h is no sooner up than he reverts again. 24h. William M. Connolley 23:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC).
    User has been evading his block at 139.223.14.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --Khoikhoi 18:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:158.143.151.125

    Three revert rule violation on Strabane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 158.143.151.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Demiurge 19:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Keeps inserting a factual inaccuracy into the article, and will not engage in discussion on talk page. Demiurge 19:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

    Blocked 8 hours. Feel free to review. William M. Connolley 19:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC).

    User:Nixer

    Three revert rule violation on Comparative military ranks of World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nixer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Latinus 19:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Look at Nixers block log - he has been blocked many times for 3RRvios and admins have started blocking him for weeks. Could we get one of those this time. I don't know what his problem is, maybe he doesn't understand the 3RR. Latinus 19:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Weeks might be over-egging it, but 24 hours and 48 hour blocks have been tried, seemingly to little effect. Blocked for 72 hours. Feel free to vary to taste, perhaps we'll get the magic number eventually. Alai 19:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:KDRGibby

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

    Reported by: Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Somewhat tempted to follow Alai and impose more, but settle for 24h. Feel free to review. William M. Connolley 20:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC).

    • I just blocked for 48 (acting independently from WMC, so his block will currently stand), and reckoned he was getting a bargain at that, candidly. 5 earlier 24h blocks for similar, uses "moronic" and other such delightful characterisations of opposing arguments on a semi-regular basis. Anyone else want to opine? Alai 20:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah... I think you're right (if there was doubt, this edit comment seals his fate; I copied it to his RFA page). William M. Connolley 20:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC).
    • OK, I reset the block to 48, then. Alai 20:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:Mike18xx

    Three revert rule violation on Honor killing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mike18xx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: a.n.o.n.y.m 00:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User keeps inserting original research which is the main issue here. I have warned him and asked him to discuss, but he blanked his talk page. Now he has started with personal attacks which is a problem and is starting on other articles too. I recommend a long block because of incivility and revert warring which started in edit summaries but has started on talk pages too - this one to an editor he only met on an article once.
    • Note that he usually calls some additional edits he makes to the article "grammar edits" but his version is still a revert even if it is accompanied by them. 3rr applies to the revert including the changes. I would take action here but I am also involved. --a.n.o.n.y.m 00:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:Voyevoda

    I don't know if this really counts as a violation of Three revert rule, though for sure it borders vandalism; Międzymorze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Voyevoda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Halibutt 00:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

    • Doesn't look remotely like vandalism is to me (rather, a very familiar-looking type of editing dispute), and if it's not a 3RR vio, what's it doing here? You don't label the above diffs, but it looks to me like one original edit, one reversion of the deletion of that edit, and three of the addition of a "fact" template. Which is technically a vio, but I'm just going to warn this time, as no-one had troubled to do so, or use the talk page (of course), so there may be some confusion in the mind of the editor of the application of the rule. Alai 02:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    Fair solution to me. Halibutt 14:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:Simonides

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

    Reported by: BlueGoose 03:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Not identical, but close enough. Blocked for 24 hours, esp. given this is indeed repeat business. I notice that Simonides from his talk-page comments seems to think that the above two reporters are acting in concert to "provoke" 3RR violations. (To which I counter, "so don't make 'em".) Alai 03:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • We weren't. Lots of experienced editors watch that page, is all. Wyss 03:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I express no opinion on the accuracy of said opinions, just repeating them for the sake of full disclosure (esp. given that S. won't be making them here for a while) and the convenience of anyone reviewing the block. Alai 03:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:65.94.130.76 (sock puppet User:65.94.129.80)

    Three revert rule violation on Bosnian Genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 65.94.130.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Asim Led 08:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

    • Diffs are a mess -- and in fact, aren't diffs at all -- but this is indeed four reverts for certain. Will block for 8 hours. (Use of anon IP makes it impossible to say if this a serial offender, or someone unaware of the 3RR, but seems unlikely to be a genuine newbie.) Please, anyone who is familiar with this pattern and has a better insight, review either way. Alai 08:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

    So we had this user that ended up blocked for violating 3RR and his only purpose on the article was to drag a dispute tag over the article, not necessarily to actually take time and discuss the issue (probably because he has no credible arguement). I have asked for an article to be reverted to the version before the 3RR violation and I have offered to discuss the issue on the talk page. What we got now instead is the article that is protected with a tag that serves no purpose other than to appease violators while no one is willing to touch the issue with the 10 foot pole. I ask you kindly one more time to revert the article. --Dado 22:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:-Inanna-/User:85.97.21.239

    Three revert rule violation on Turkish Cypriot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by -Inanna- (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

    Reported by: Khoikhoi 20:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments

    The last time this user was blocked it was for 2 days, so I suggest making it longer this time. I also request that an admin watch this page after this, because Inanna is known to use sockpuppets to evade blocks and violating the 3RR. --Khoikhoi 20:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:158.143.151.125 and User:158.143.182.49

    Three revert rule violation on Strabane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    158.143.151.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    158.143.182.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Reported by: Demiurge 21:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: same IP addresses were blocked yesterday for 3RR on same article, has resumed reverting despite this. Demiurge 21:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

    Repeated offence, not the slightest inclination to use the talk page: blocked for 48h this time (please review if needed). William M. Connolley 21:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC).

    User:Agapetos_angel

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

    ]

    Reported by: FeloniousMonk 23:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Report new violation

    Place new reports ABOVE this header, using the template below. Do not edit the template itself. See the example at the top of the page for full details. Take the time to do the job right to get the quickest responses. From the article's History page, use diffs (links labelled "last"), not versions, and the "compare versions" button to clearly highlight the changes between versions of the article and show what has been reverted. 

    ===]===
] violation on {{Article|ARTICLENAME}}. {{3RRV|USERNAME}}:
* Previous version reverted to: 
* 1st revert: 
* 2nd revert: 
* 3rd revert: 
* 4th revert: 
Reported by: ~~~~
'''Comments:'''
*
    Categories: