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 00:15, 21 April 2006 editDr.Gonzo (talk | contribs)891 edits →Violations: Medule← Previous edit Revision as of 00:24, 21 April 2006 edit undoIrpen (talk | contribs)32,604 edits →[]Next edit →
Line 908: Line 908:
::To back Irpen, I'll point out that ] has been pulling the same stunts on the ] page. There was no explanation for his gestures there, and the man did not even add a tag - he just erased text. ] 20:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC) ::To back Irpen, I'll point out that ] has been pulling the same stunts on the ] page. There was no explanation for his gestures there, and the man did not even add a tag - he just erased text. ] 20:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


I'd like to stress the importance of spirit of the law. Irpen significantly expanded the article, and I think that content creation should be rewarded, not penalized. And although he removed the tag four times (or rather 2 different tags twice each), in the meantime he has been expanding the article, and I don't see his opponent even explaining the tag addition in the talk page. Even if Irpen has broken 3RR (and this is disputed as the discussion shows) I certainly think that warning is enough and that such useful contributors should not be blocked unless they do something much more disruptive.--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 22:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC) ::I'd like to stress the importance of spirit of the law. Irpen significantly expanded the article, and I think that content creation should be rewarded, not penalized. And although he removed the tag four times (or rather 2 different tags twice each), in the meantime he has been expanding the article, and I don't see his opponent even explaining the tag addition in the talk page. Even if Irpen has broken 3RR (and this is disputed as the discussion shows) I certainly think that warning is enough and that such useful contributors should not be blocked unless they do something much more disruptive.--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 22:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Please everyone, let's get clear about the facts. '''Of the four edits''' pointed out by a troll and recited by William, '''only the last three fell within the 24 hour window at all!''' Here are the diffs pointed out by William in his 20:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC) post above
*The time of , indeed a revert, was '''18:14, April 20, 2006'''.
*The time of , also a revert, I admit, was '''18:07, April 20, 2006'''.
Please note that both "reverts" above, were just removals of the ''POV tag placed on an article without any explanation.'' I am sorry, but the POV tag says that the neutrality is disputed and refers the reader to a talk page for a discussion. The article have just been totally rewritten by me and there were not a single entry at talk page by the tag placers. Even if these two edits count as reverts, despite they were removals of tags placed in bad faith (no explanation was given), there were only two, not 4 reverts. I always try my best to avoid reverting good faith edits by good faith users. These were not the case. Let's now check the other diffs cited by William:
* made at '''07:46, April 20, 2006''', was not even close to a revert. This was a complete article rewrite using a new set of sources, all cited. Any tags, placed on the old version were inapplicable, because I made a new article out of it. In what way was this a revert?
*Let's now look at the , cited by William. Please care to check its timing: '''05:35, April 19, 2006'''.

That is '''way more than 24 hours away from the first diff above!''' Also, check the diff itself. The edit is replacing the "fact" tags with the sources I added to the reference list and changing some of the numbers in accordance to a new found citation. A while ago a user placed a bunch of "fact" tags on several statements in the article and added a "disputed" tag based on that. The original tag placer had all the time in the world to study my edit and, if he disagrees with facts, reinsert the tag, explaining at talk what was wrong with the new article I just wrote. It didn't happen.

In any case, there are no 4 edits within 24 hours, let alone 4 reverts, to speak about. The formal 3RR could not have been violated if there were no four edits of the same article within 24 hours! That a sock who placed the frivolous complaint simply didn't list times of the "reverts" ''should have alerted anyone who wanted to look at the matter''. Instead, we get the dispute about stern warnings and call for user:Irpen to be "more careful" and thankful for being "forgiven". There are two issues here:
*The letter of the 3RR law was '''not violated'''. That the compliant conveniently omitted time stamps in the diffs should have alerted anyone. Sadly, it didn't. I do realize that 3 reverts is not an entitlement even when 4 reverts were not made, so we are coming here to the second issue.
*While only two reverts (not even three) were made by me here, there was no content dispute. The "reverts" were removal of the POV tags when the tagger refused to explain his reasons at talk, despite asked.

And this brings us to the last questions.
*Mikka's saying that I should have been "more careful". I hope he, as everyone, can now see that I was careful here. Not that I don't make mistakes, but this was not the case.
*William placing a "stern warning" at my page, later partially retracted but still with a non-committed apology. I could see how nice it could feel to decide who to punish and who to spare, but getting into judging the issues requires an utmost responsible and careful approach. The simple fact that time stamps were not added should have alerted anyone. Studying the matter carefully before making a hasty decision should be a must. Yes, people a busy, but no one requires from any admin to enforce the 3RR. If one takes upon himself to enforce the rules whose misapplication is emotionally sensitive to the editors involved, he should take an extra time to study the matter.

We've seen the aggravation of some very respected editors involved into this very discussion for being illegitimately blocked on the sock/troll provocation when the blocking Admin didn't care to study the matter or was too eager to exercise the powers, either because those were newfound or because they were acquired too long ago to remember about the responsibilities that come with them.

Thanks to all for the attention and support and I hope the matter can be brought to a closure now. --] 00:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


===]=== ===]===

Revision as of 00:24, 21 April 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



    Violations

    User:195.92.67.75

    Three revert rule violation on TalkSPORT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 195.92.67.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Kiand 17:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Was warned about it, been at this for literally months but this is the first time theres been 4 in 24.

    Has just changed to 195.92.67.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Range block? --Kiand 18:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
    And now 217.134.125.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Appears to be the range for backup dialup on Energis, his ISP. --Kiand 18:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
    The ISP seems to have users who make constructive edits; we may have to resort a block eventually but for now I have just sprotected the page; afraid of collateral damage. Elle vécut heureuse (Be eudaimonic!) 18:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:85.64.227.133

    Three revert rule violation on Mariah Carey singles discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 85.64.227.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Extraordinary Machine 02:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: 85.64.227.133 (talk · contribs) may be an IP used by Vorash (talk · contribs): as soon as Vorash stopped repeatedly reverting to a weeks-old version of the article without any discussion or explanation, the IP address took over and started reverting to the exact same version. Note that these reverts are completely and utterly blind: they undo whatever edits were made in the meantime, reintroduce a plethora of inaccuracies into the article (which had been removed by other editors), and remove references and important material. This has gone beyond a content dispute as those reverts made by Vorash and the IP (who may very well be one and the same, though this is unconfirmed) count as vandalism. Extraordinary Machine 02:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

    24 hours. --He:ah? 03:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


    User:64.185.45.196

    Three revert rule violation on House of Yahweh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 64.185.45.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: pm_shef 03:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User was warned with {{test-n}} templates rather than 3RR templates as I had initially reported it at WP:AIV but was told instead to report it here. pm_shef 03:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

    This user is blocked. Rx StrangeLove 04:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:Androson

    Three revert rule violation on Hentai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Androson (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: Ned Scott 05:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

    What is the version reverted to? it's a lot of reverts, but i can't find the original version, so this just looks like one edit and three reverts from where i stand . . . (and Ned, you're one away as well.) --He:ah? 05:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    I have refrained from doing any more edits because I am aware of that fact, although the issue isn't exactly clear as it says that the 3RR doesn't apply to vandalism correction. This user might not have reverted to an exact version of the page, but if you look, he's basically trying to revert to a version similar to the others, but now with a different image (since the previous image was deleted). Had the original image not been deleted this would be even more clear. Maybe a borderline issue, but it's pretty clear what he's trying to do. -- Ned Scott 05:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    nm, found the pic in question before the protect. blocked for 24 hours. --He:ah? 05:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:Constantzeanu

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

    Reported by: —Khoikhoi 05:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Constantzeanu (again)

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

    Reported by: --Asterion 04:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: As for Khoikhoi's comments. User also warned to stop marking his reverts as minor edits here but chose to ignore it. --Asterion 04:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:OutRider2003

    Three revert rule violation on Dalip Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). OutRider2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Zsinj 18:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Originally reported on WP:RFI by User:McPhail. McPhail has initiated conversation on talk pages, but OutRider2003 blanks his user talk page as if it never happened. Currently the copyrighted image is on the article instead of the original free image.

    This is now very stale - I guess all the admins have been off on hols. OR has none of the last 100 edits, anyway William M. Connolley 19:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:LorenzoRims

    Three revert rule violation on The Real World: Denver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). LorenzoRims (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: HeyNow10029 19:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: The user seems dead-set on adding an external link of a blog he set up ( The Real World: Denver Blog) to the article. In the blog he posts about pictures of people who he claims are future castmembers on the next instalment of The Real World with no information to back those claims up - he just expects people to believe anything he writes and take it as fact. In the articles' discussion forum I led him to Misplaced Pages's policy on external links and verifiability, which the blog doesn't pass, but he continues to add the link to the article. As of now, the blog has three posts, two of which are dedicated to what he calls an edit war between him and Misplaced Pages. This is getting really juvenile. HeyNow10029 19:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

    Looks a bit stale now; no warning; I've warned LR; you should have William M. Connolley 19:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:Stvjns

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

    Reported by --BillC 22:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Multiple reverts of Crop circle, including four times within the last 24 hours as above. No edits to talk page. No response to warnings on his/her talk page. Only one edit summary (a taunt). --BillC 22:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

    Thank you BillC, I had just prepared a nearly identical post. --Darkfred 22:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

    12h for first offence but no obvious good work to compensate William M. Connolley 19:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:Piotrus

    Three revert rule violation on Red_Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Piotrus (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: Number 6 02:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: The user is question is an admin, who should be fully aware of 3RR and whose attitude should be quite different. Nonetheless, the user ignores all words of reason and resorts to personal attack.

    Well, well, well, I was wondering if Number 6 (talk · contribs) (no talk page, all edits up till now limited to POV pushing and revert warring at Red Army) would make his first edit to other page - and he did. His knowledge of Misplaced Pages procedures suggest sockpuppetry or at least disruptive trolling and I'd recommend appopriate action. In any case, I have not broken 3RR as my reverts today were not to my own version but to Irpen's compromise version from earlier today.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

    It is funny that you should be calling me names and accusing me of POV and other nonsense. All of this is true of you, not me. Your logic is fascinating: Number 6 knows something about wikipedia, ergo an “appropriate action” is recommended. Your lies about my edits are manifest to anyone willing to check my edits. However, I do admit that you did not formally violate 3RR in that article, even though the “compromise” version you’re referring to was hardly different from your original revert. Number 6 12:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

    Looks like 4R to me. 3h as a first offence William M. Connolley 18:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    Now this would be funny if it wasn't so sad. On one side we have a new user with no edit history or talk page and devotion to a single page, on the other - a well-respected contributor and an admin. And now the funny thing: the latter is blocked for violating not the 3RR, but some strange 2RR. Check for yourselves: 1st revert, 2nd revert, 3rd revert, which is also the current version. No 4th revert whatsoever. Of course I'm not impartial here, but it seems to me like William Connolley overreacted. I believe Piotrus should be unblocked ASAP. If not for his past contributions with this project and not for the benefit of a doubt, then at least for the fact that he has not broken the rules. //Halibutt 00:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    The block was short and I am back here, so this is not the question of unblocking but of fairness of block. To play the devil's advocate (against myself...) I'll note that there are two reverts carried by me on the previous day (for example, this one) that on a cursory glance may look like a basis for 3RR violation. However, as Number 6 pointed above himself, they are not the same, as my recent 3 reverts were to the compromise version we worked together with Irpen (). And I think that those two versions are far from 'hardly different' (). In any case, I have explained this in detail in am email I sent to William few hours ago, and I am no waiting for his reply.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    And not a Pole to begin with, right? Sheesz. Please stick your chauvinism where it belongs, with your lies about my "no edit history". It is a big relief that there are objective admins, so my case is not lost yet. Number 6 12:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    I'll put my side on the talk page William M. Connolley 14:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:Mark 2000

    Three revert rule violation on The Daily Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mark_2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: JDoorjam Talk 03:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: I did a pretty thorough scrub of The Daily Show a few days ago. Today, User:Mark 2000 accused me of repressing the facts, and threatened to engage in "a war" if I did not clear further changes with him. I reverted his edits, because they were still just as editorial and rife with weasel words as they were when I took them out days earlier. I then moved his message from my talk page to the talk page of The Daily Show and explained that I thought his insertions required sources. Rather than comment in the discussion section (which my edit summary asked him to do), he reverted my changes with no edit summary of his own. I reverted his edits a second time, asking again that he comment on the talk page. He wrote on the talk page that finding sources was not his responsibility because his assertions were common knowledge. Rather than revert him a third time, I moved the content around a bit, and altered some of the language to bring it to a neutral point of view. He apparently did not accept my attempt at compromise and reverted a fourth time. I would ask that he be blocked for the standard 24 hours, that his last edit be reverted to the compromise I attempted to broker, and that an admin or multiple administrators take a look at the content in question to determine the best course forward with regards to making the article informative and neutral. JDoorjam Talk 03:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

    I see some discussion on the talk page. I don't see any warnings about 3RR though. So Mark can have 3h as a warning William M. Connolley 18:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:Hipi Zhdripi/User:172.183.72.117 (again)

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

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

    Reported by: Duja 19:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

    'Comments: alghouth it's an anon user, it can be (easily?) tracked down to User:Hipi Zhdripi, (also sockpuppeting as User:Kanuni, User:Vete). No one else can write such, um, English. Duja 19:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

    For the moment, I've sprotected the article. I could block the IPs, but there is precious little point William M. Connolley 20:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:Alixus

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

    Reported by: gidonb 19:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Comments: I suspect that this newly created user is a sockpuppet of the person who under different identities tried and for a long time and sometimes succeeded through edit wars to delete or totally diminish the holocaust from the Germany page in the past. User also started personal attack on the talk page that is totally unfounded. The very personal style of this "new" user, as if he knows me a long time (I have protected in the past the very inclusion of the holocaust on the Germany page), sort of gives him away. gidonb 19:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

    3h as a first offence William M. Connolley 21:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    User also made personal racism related attacks against me on his talk page (and on the Germany talk page): The user who insists on adding material to a section which is already way too long is a Jew who is primarily engaged in Zionist POV pushing, as one can see from his contributions. Needless to say that except for being a Jew there is no truth in his remarks. I actively remove POV texts from Misplaced Pages, especially Zionist POV. See the award on my user page for some detail. It is the tip of the iceberg. I am disgusted by all types of racism and very active against it. I am partially of German decent myself. I thank User:Stephan Schulz for confronting user:Alixus with his misbehavior. gidonb 22:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:Nrcprm2026

    Three revert rule violation on Uranium trioxide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nrcprm2026 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    19:53, 17 April 2006

    Reported by: Dr Zak 19:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Continues despite warning and has been blocked before for revert warring on this article. The conflict over uranium-related subject matter is part of an arbitration case, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium.

    Replacing several statements supported by sources from the peer-reviewed scientific and medical literature which are being removed for no other reason than to obscure them and their obvious implication is reverting vandalism, which is defined as "... deletion or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia.... Not all vandalism is blatant, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism: Careful attention needs to be given to whether the new data or information is right or whether it is vandalism." A cursory glance at the edits in question show that I've merely been replacing, and expanding in some cases, the source-supported research being deleted. --James S. 20:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry, James, but you are involved in a long-standing content dispute on this page. As far as I can tell, this is just a continuation of it. 3RR is only suspended for simple vandalism. --Stephan Schulz 20:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

    I agree. This looks like a content war, and JS has broken 3RR. 24h. Because I have some history with JS (though not over this article) I shall list this block at WP:AN/I to allow it to be checked William M. Connolley 21:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:Sgrayban

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

    Reported by: 172 | Talk 20:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Continually reverting factual content that displays the Castro regime in a negative light. This user is also being disruptive on the talk page. This threat directed toward me is particularly telling: Yes I am keeping tract until you are gone from here. --Scott Grayban 19:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC) The user later made a bad faith report about my edits on Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism. 172 | Talk 20:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

    Disputed. I reverted there continued vandal of them removing the {{POV}} tag. User:172 has repeated flammitory statements in Talk:Cuba that the people trying to get a NPOV are communist propagandist and fidelistas and they will do anything defeat them. The medcabal has asked User:172 and User:CJK to stop reverting and they refuse to do so. Futher more the links above are of me reverting the {{POV}} tag back into the article Cuba which they are tring to remove. Consensus has not been reached and the 2 users mentioned are enforcing there POV. --Scott Grayban 20:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

    Trimming discussion. Sg has clearly broken 3RR, which applies to POV tags as to everything else except blatant vandalism. 8h as a first offence William M. Connolley 20:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:NColemam

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

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert: 20:26
    • 2nd revert: 20:49
    • 3rd revert: 21:39
    • 4th revert: 22:22

    Reported by: ____G_o_o_d____ 22:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    2006-04-17 23:48:52 Naconkantari blocked "NColemam (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3rr on Abortion) William M. Connolley 08:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:ER MD

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

    Reported by: Philip Baird Shearer 00:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: At first view it may seem as if these are not all similar reverts but a comparison of the latest revert against the original which others are reverting too shows that it is a very big edit which even with some sections replaced still delets a lot of text. 20:32, 17 April 2006 ER MD against latest revert 20:33, 17 April 2006 Shanel. The Shanel version is the same version as the one before ER MD started to edit the page earlier today: 00:09, 17 April 2006 202.63.40.214 compred with 20:33, 17 April 2006 Shanel --Philip Baird Shearer 00:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    This user has already been blocked for his massive deletions. Pepsidrinka 03:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:Goodandevil

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


    Reported by: Andrew c 00:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: G&E is edit warring over the first sentence of partial-birth abortion. While some efforts have been made to resolve this conflict on the talk page, G&E seems to jump the gun on resolution and simply change content without consensus. You can look at the talk page and see that weeks ago, G&E tried to get consensus to change the first paragraph after a string of edit wars stemming from the first paragraph, but that proposal was rejected. Ever since, a slow edit war has ensued, and today it seems the reverts have gone out of hand.--Andrew c 00:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:Skinmeister

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

    Reported by: Mangojuice 02:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Blocked 48h, as per User talk:Woohookitty William M. Connolley 09:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    I got the wrong end of the stick here, sorry. So... now I know what WHK really meant, 48h is too much; in fact SM and CD can share the 24h half each. William M. Connolley 11:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:O.P.Nuhss

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

    Reported by: GTBacchus 04:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User was edit warring over the long disputed inclusion of the word "death" in the definition of abortion. User was advised to use the talk page, but user's only contribution there was uncivil. It was also the user's only edit, besides the four reverts above, and user is a probable sock puppet of NColemam, above.

    2006-04-18 05:26:54 Natalinasmpf blocked "O.P.Nuhss (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (suspected sockpuppet) William M. Connolley 09:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:UCRGrad and User:TheRegicider

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

    UCRGrad

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:

    (as 71.198.58.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who manually signed as "UCRGrad" )

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

    TheRegicider

    • Previous version reverted to:

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


    Reported by: szyslak (t, c, e) 08:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User:UCRGrad is aggressively trying to add a disputed passage on hate crimes in the Inland Empire area of Southern California, in which UC Riverside is located. User:TheRegicider reverted him four times, and I reverted him once. This article was protected a little over a week ago, due to edit wars over other issues. On Talk:University of California, Riverside, there has been a lot of heated discussion between the two, with personal attacks and incivility all around, especially from UCRGrad. I think another page protection may be in order. szyslak (t, c, e) 08:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    As newbies, they can have a brief 3h block each, but I will extend it if they return to reverting William M. Connolley 11:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    Please please, william, I believe the politically correct term is edit count challenged. Thank You.

    User:Gamahucheur

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

    Reported by: cmh 18:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Dispute purports to be about archaic spelling. The aggressiveness with which the user is pursuing the debate on the article's talk page is stopping me from making the charitable assumption of good faith on his/her part. Note that 3RR has come up on the talk page and this user is aggressively reverting despite this. I have proposed an RfC on the article. I think the article needs to be temporarily protected from the user in order to allow the RfC to proceed calmly. -- cmh 18:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    Reverting continues. New threats of disruption of WP via "friends". -- cmh 19:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    8h for fairly persistent 1st offence William M. Connolley 20:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:Bertilvidet

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

    Reported by: 1652186 18:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    Not obviously 4 reverts; you should provide diffs not versions William M. Connolley 20:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    Fixed; Sorry about that. 1652186 20:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:154.20.148.186

    Three revert rule violation on Werner Herzog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 154.20.148.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Elephantus 18:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: I warned User:154.20.148.186 on his talk page, he's been reverting this page for several days without writing anything in Talk to support his claim. --Elephantus 18:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    24h William M. Connolley 20:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:212.18.236.179 and User:212.85.24.83

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

    Reported by: Urthogie 19:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Although user has a different IP address in the first revert, its the same person, as is made clear by the edit summaries. User also refuses to read essential policies concerning verification such as WP:V.

    Even if so, thats only 3R not 4 William M. Connolley 20:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:Rogerman

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

    Reported by: Dick Clark 20:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This is the result of an ongoing edit war where User:Rogerman and User:CaliforniaDreamlings have repeatedly performed simple reverts while refusing to engage in substantive discussion on the article talk page. This article was just unprotected yesterday by User:Katefan0.

    As someone involved with the article currently, there is a need to come to a consensus one way or the other, and Rogerman is aware of the violation which I chose not to report with the need for consensus in mind. While he has violated, and I'm not trying to step on DCM's toes, I would personally rather see some leniency in this case and allow Rogerman to at least have an opportunity to discuss on the talk page rather than having a 24 hour lag time in between. Just my two cents. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 20:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    I would defer to badlydrawnjeff if admins care to look the other way on this occasion. I am more interested in seeing the article improved than getting 24hrs of "justice" and then starting over tomorrow. Dick Clark 20:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    That's fine with me . . . i'll leave him a note to make sure he's aware that he violated 3rr.--He:ah? 20:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:Brian02139

    Three revert rule violation on Stubhub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Brian02139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Ben-w 00:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: I'm not sure if this qualifies exactly as vandalism or 3RR -- the user may have some axe to grind against the company in question, I don't know, but this is NPOV, original research, and I'm not too fond of the ad homininem attacks or vandalism of my user page either.

    I'll warn him and if he does it again, I'll block him. SlimVirgin 00:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    Brian02139 created a sockpuppet to continue reverting on Stubhub after being asked to stop, so he's been blocked for 24 hours for disruption, vandalism, 3RR, and sockpuppetry, and the sockpuppet account has been blocked indefinitely. I've also sprotected the page for a short period in case he comes back with more IPs. SlimVirgin 02:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    User: Walkerson

    Three revert rule violation on American Israel Public Affairs Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Walkerson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: 21:42, 18 April 2006
    • 1st revert: 22:03, 18 April 2006
    • 2nd revert: 22:41, 18 April 2006
    • 3rd revert: 23:10, 18 April 2006
    • 4th revert: 23:27, 18 April 2006
    • 5th revert: 00:00, 19 April 2006


    Reported by: Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:- This user was warned both on his personal talk page and on the article's talk page after the 4th revert, but chose to revert again. The only source for his additions are a propaganda website, although he claims there is corroborating sources he hasn't produced any.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    As he was warned, I'll block him for 24 hours. SlimVirgin 00:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    I've unblocked him after four hours because he says he didn't fully understand 3RR, and he's promised not to edit that article or talk page, or insert similar edits elsewhere, for 24 hours. SlimVirgin 04:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:Wikiwriter706

    Three revert rule violation on Law School Rankings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wikiwriter706 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: 23:49, 18 April 2006
    • 1st revert: 00:12, 19 April 2006
    • 2nd revert: 00:21, 19 April 2006
    • 3rd revert: 00:22, 19 April 2006
    • 4th revert: 00:26, 19 April 2006

    Reported by: Xoxohthblaster 00:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This user continues to reinsert references to the non-notable law school rankings concept "top fourteen" into this article. This issue has been discussed at length in the course of a deletion debate regarding an article on this very term: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/T14. The consensus was to delete this article on the basis that this is a non-notable neologism. A day or two later, this Law School Rankings article showed up with extensive top 14 discussion-- seems like a sneaky way to get around the earlier consensus for deletion. Xoxohthblaster 00:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    User currently has only 3 reverts in 24 hours, as a quick glance at the history makes clear. no block. --Heah? 00:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    User: Ben-w

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

    · Previous version reverted to: 08:56, 28 March 2006 · 1st revert: · 2nd revert: · 3rd revert: · 4th revert: · 5th revert: · 6th revert: · 7th revert: ·

    Reported by: Brian02139 00:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


    Comments: 3RR . I don't know, but this is NPOV, and I'm not too fond of the ad homininem attacks or vandalism of my user page either.

    Brian, I've already discussed this with Ben. He was reverting what he saw as your vandalism. I've also left a note on your talk page to that effect. Please discuss whatever your objections are on the article talk page. Cheers, SlimVirgin 01:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    Brian02139 created a sockpuppet to continue reverting on Stubhub after being asked to stop, so he's been blocked for 24 hours for disruption, vandalism, 3RR, and sockpuppetry, and the sockpuppet account indefinitely. I've also sprotected the page for a short period in case he comes back with more IPs. SlimVirgin 02:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:Nrcprm2026 (again)

    Three revert rule violation on Uranium trioxide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nrcprm2026 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Dr Zak 02:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Had been blocked for revert warring on this article less than 48 hours ago. The focus of the dispute between James and everyone else is whether combustion of uranium is relevant or not. There is also an emergent edit war on if a rather silly image should be included.

    48 hours. --Heah? 03:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:NYC5

    Three revert rule violation on Horace Mann School (New York City) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). NYC5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    1. (cur) (last) 02:45, 19 April 2006 NYC5 m
    2. (cur) (last) 02:45, 19 April 2006 NYC5
    3. (cur) (last) 02:35, 19 April 2006 NYC5 (→Rankings)
    4. (cur) (last) 02:33, 19 April 2006 NYC5 (→Rankings)
    5. (cur) (last) 02:26, 19 April 2006 NYC5 m (Please follow the Wiki Guidelines. This is not a page for boosterism.)
    6. (cur) (last) 02:20, 19 April 2006 NYC5
    7. (cur) (last) 01:48, 19 April 2006 NYC5 (→The Review)
    8. (cur) (last) 01:48, 19 April 2006 NYC5 (→The Review)
    9. (cur) (last) 01:41, 19 April 2006 NYC5 m (→The Cinemann)
    10. (cur) (last) 04:59, 18 April 2006 NYC5 (→Rankings)
    11. (cur) (last) 04:59, 18 April 2006 NYC5 (→Rankings)
    12. (cur) (last) 04:57, 18 April 2006 NYC5
    13. (cur) (last) 04:56, 18 April 2006 NYC5
    14. (cur) (last) 04:55, 18 April 2006 NYC5

    Reported by: CherryPop CherryPop 02:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)CherryPop

    Currently this report is a complete mess, Looking at NYC5 contribs, I only see 3 reverts not 4. Thanks Jaranda 03:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    Hadn't seen Jaranda's response above when i hit "edit" . . . you've only given a list of 14 edits, and i can only find two or three that are reverts, after searching through the edit history. I know it's annoying and time consuming, but please format this as demonstrated below, or it is difficult to find the reverts. a list of the times of the last 14 edits this user made doesn't in any way provide evidence that they reverted four times. And after going through the history . . . I don't think there are four. come back when there are, and please format it properly!! no block for now. --Heah? 03:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:69.108.50.39

    Three revert rule violation on 2003 Texas redistricting. 69.108.50.39 (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:
    • 7th revert:
    • 8th revert:

    Reported by: BehroozZ 05:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: 69.108.50.39 seems intimately familiar with Misplaced Pages procedures and "minor edits" as well as sockpuppetry, so is perhaps either a banned user or has a problematic account. Has continued to revert even after another user, also anonymous, noted a violation of the three-revert rule on discussion page.

    an edit is different from a revert. you have given a list of this users last 8 edits to the article, many of which were successive, and this doesn't in any way suggest that the user has reverted 4 times in 24 hours. People can edit as many times as they would like in any given period of time . . . I of course went to the history and checked the diffs as well, and i still don't see over three reverts in the last 24 hours, but it was kinda confusing. if you can format the above properly and convince me (or another admin) otherwise, go for it . . . (and please follow the below example and fomat it correctly!!) but right now, i don't see it, so no block. --Heah? 08:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    He's reverting. He's not editing. He's simply changing his copy back to what he had before. He's also mislabeling it as "rv." Because he's doing it in multiple steps, I simplified it for you:
    first reversion
    second reversion
    third reversion
    fourth reversion
    Thanks. BehroozZ 16:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    Those are versions. You need to provide *diffs*. Go to the page history; the "last" and "cur" and "diff versions" buttons are the ones you want William M. Connolley 18:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:Gidonb

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

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

    Reported by: Haham hanuka 09:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    I request that User:Haham hanuka, who was an extremely rich history in 3RR and other violations, will be blocked for frequent abusing the Administrator noticeboards to launch his false allegations against me. As you will see in the Germany history and his personal history, making false allegations against me is one of his major activities on Misplaced Pages. gidonb 18:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    Either of you fix the details of the diff-links above to prove either way. Agathoclea 18:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    . I notice you didn't post the times. Checking out the diffs, its clear that they are not within 24h. Gb: rather than discussion, it would have been more helpful of you to point that out. Anyway, complaint dismissed William M. Connolley 18:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    I did link the Germany edit history - that went unlinked - to this complaint and said there is no truth in this allegation. I did not check the individual links supplied by Haham hanuka. As you know, I am getting used to personal, racist and other attacks on Misplaced Pages as well as discriminatory treatment. It comes with editing contested topics. gidonb 19:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:Irishpunktom and possibly User:Netscott

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

    User:Irishpunktom

    Original research reverts (likely to obfuscate the issue)

    User:Netscott

    First version

    Reported by: Netscott 17:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:Irishpunktom has been notified of this report. Netscott 17:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Irishpunktom has been doing his best to keep out verifiable information on the infidel article via reverts. His motivation has been such that he's in fact reverted across two independent editors. Irishpunktom was less than civil in Personal Attackish editorial comment, "reverting known racist" directed towards the other editor.

    There is easily verifiable (just look at the link provided) original research in the current version that should be edited out. This would be the verifiable version (according to Encyclopedia Britannica and Kafir).

    I'm reporting myself as well for although I did make some minor changes in my diffs above, it could be argued that I violated 3RR in spirit (to establish a verifiable version) so depending upon the view of the admin(s) who read this I may indeed merit a blocking as well. Netscott 17:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    IPT has enough 24h blocks: 48h. You Nescott... ah what to do with you? Admire your honesty in reporting yourself? Give you a good kick for being pretty sure you were breaking 3RR but doing it anyway? Well... as a first offence, 8h (other admins may wish to review this) William M. Connolley 18:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    I was wrong: it wasn't N's first offence, he should have had 24h. But... both N and IPT have Promised To Be Good William M. Connolley 22:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:Ndru01

    Three revert rule violation on Morphic field (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ndru01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Alienus 21:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    This user has violated WP:3RR and was let off with a warning by a lax admin. As a result, he never learned that 3RR is the law, not just a good idea. He needs to be banned, and not just for a short period of time. Not only is this a violation of 3RR, but it is an example of a persistant habit of inserting personal essays into articles, violating WP:RS, WP:CITE and WP:OR, among others. He completely ignores consensus, no matter how many times other editors request that he source his text and otherwise maintain even the lowest level of acceptable quality. In conclusion, he needs banning and he needs it bad. Alienus 21:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    24 hours. (blocked, that is. a ban is something different.) --Heah? 21:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    (btw, i wouldn't call William M. Connolley lax. He's just better at assuming good faith than most of us are.) --Heah? 21:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    On his talk page, you said that he was blocked from one article. Is he blocked from one article or from editing altogether? — goethean ॐ 21:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    Ah, I see, the section heading is misleading. i meant that he was blocked due to his 3rr vio on morphic field, not that he was blocked from that article. I'll fix that. Sorry and thanks. --Heah? 23:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    Assuming good faith is only a virtue to the extent that good faith actually exists. As for Connelley, "lax" is definitely not the best word to describe him, but civility prevents me from being more accurate. In any case, Ndru01's blocked, so maybe this is the first step to learning how to get his edits kept. Then again, based on his responses on the Talk page, maybe not. If it turns out for the worse, I'm ready to file more reports. Alienus 04:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    User has evaded block using IP address. He was warned on his talk page. He then contuinued to evade block, adding original research and vandalism to article talk page. — goethean ॐ 17:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:71.212.31.95

    Three revert rule violation on Plame affair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.212.31.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: sigmafactor 23:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This user continues to add the NPOV tag to the Plame article without detailing any POV issues, even though more than seven editors have requested them. A consensus was reached that while the article isn't perfect because it is a current event, that the majority of the issues were corrected. Add to that that 71.212.31.95 (talk • contribs) has run the talk page in circles and only edits tags into the article and refuses to do any substantive edits him/herself. This is more than just a 3RR violation, but it isn't a content dispute. --sigmafactor 23:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    24 hours. --Heah? 23:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:Zarbon

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

    Reported by: Kafziel 00:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: I'd like to make it clear that this is not a content dispute; admin Woohookitty has stated (on Zarbon's talk page) that my edits are anti-vandalism as consensus has been firmly established. This user came off a week-long block today and started vandalising the article again. Has been blocked for 3RR violations before and says he doesn't care. Kafziel 00:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    User has been blocked for 1 week by Kungfuadam for 3RR. Thanks. Kafziel 00:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:Pnatt

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

    Reported by: Objectivist-C 00:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: He keeps removing the Beliefs / Political Parties (and occasionally Regional Politics) categories from the page, in spite of the general consensus of leaving them there until a userbox policy is set, and ignores requests to discuss the matter on the Talk page / his User page. He also has a history of vandalizing articles.

    • He has another revert war going on in Matthew Werkmeister as well.
      • Yes, this appears to be a problematic user. He is probably well meaning, but he is sloppy and not willing to discuss his edits. I will not block him myself, because I am somewhat involved in the revert war. I'll let an impartial admin get involved. -- JamesTeterenko 02:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    24 hours. --Heah? 08:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:68.46.186.126

    Three revert rule on Madonna (entertainer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.46.186.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

    Reported by: --Fallout boy 02:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:


    User:67.172.194.15

    Three revert rule violation on Star Sonata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.172.194.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: ---J.Smith 02:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Reverts actually boarder on vandalism. Large amount of sourced info removed and unverifiable info inserted. I'd really like an admin to look into this whole situation deeper as well. ---J.Smith 02:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    User is on his 5th revert now. ---J.Smith 05:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    Hasn't been warned, so i've gone ahead and done so. come back if he/she continues. --Heah? 08:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:81.159.12.112 and other IP addresses

    Three revert rule violation on Circumcision. 81.159.12.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Nandesuka 04:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User has not engaged in any substantive discussion on the talk page, despite attempts to engage. User has also edited from 81.159.10.202, and 81.159.14.95.

    Hasn't been warned, at least in this incarnation, so no block. If another admin wants to look at this again that's fine by me --Heah? 08:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:217.74.217.54

    Three revert rule violation on LOL_(Internet_slang) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 217.74.217.54 (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: Donald Albury 12:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User:217.74.217.51 and User:217.74.217.54 (!?) have been having a revert war. Would there be any justification for blocking both IPs? I suspect this is one person, or two working together at a school.

    As there are two IPs involved, I've sprotected. SlimVirgin 12:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


    User:60.240.88.48

    Three revert rule violation on American_and_British_English_differences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 60.240.88.48 (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: JackLumber 14:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Australian user keeping on reverting my changes for no apparent reason. Allegedly also known as 60.240.88.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

    I keep explaining to him my reasons, but he chooses to ignore them. He is also braking the three revert rule. 60.240.88.48 14:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    I did NOT break the 3RR. --JackLumber 14:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    Of coarse you did, even if your blinded to it. 60.240.88.48 14:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    If I did please show me when and how I did.--JackLumber 14:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    Okay here you go:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    60.240.88.48 14:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    And the 4th, you newbie? Lost in the mail?--JackLumber 14:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    The fourth as requested
    And please don't get nasty or personal. 60.240.88.48 14:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC) (striking by JackLumber)
    You are unfair and in bad faith, unless you are just kidding. That was restoring your own change because it was appropriate, not reverting to my previous version!!!!!--JackLumber 14:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    Okay I miss-read your change, excuse its late. 60.240.88.48 14:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    12h William M. Connolley 18:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:HereToHelp

    Three revert rule violation on Misplaced Pages:Community Portal (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). HereToHelp (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: Zzzzz 17:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: 4th revert on community portal breaks 3RR. an admin who doesnt know their own policy? i believe there is no special favours for admins. they then locked the page to "win" their argument. Zzzzz 17:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    I can't see any excuse. 8h for a first offence. But I can't say I approve of your part, though you did stop at 3R. William M. Connolley 18:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


    User:Irpen

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


    Reported by: Andrei George 18:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    That's plain ridiculuous. I rewrote the entire article from scratch yesterday and cited my sources. After that the user twice placed a POV tag. I removed it because it was not accompanied by any explanations at the talk page. He can't just through tags at the whim. A good faith explanation is required when placing a POV tag over a whole article. Besides, this new user seems very familiar. Likely a reincarnation of a certain permabanned editor. Will be more specific as I watch more of his edits. --Irpen 18:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    This contributor knows very well what is or not legal in Misplaced Pages. He constanly reverted my edits, he constantly deleted POV tags. He made it more than 4 times. He needs to be blocked since he is aware of the consequences of his edits. His personal attacks are not welcome also. He proofs to avoid rules of Misplaced Pages. --Andrei George 18:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    Now let's analyze the frivolous complaint:

    1. What he calls "first revert" was an edit made at 05:35, April 19, 2006. (note the time as well) I merely added references to back the numbers someone flagged with the "fact" tag and, as the numbers were sourced, removed a disputed tag
    2. What he calls "2nd revert" was a total article rewrite at 07:46, April 20, 2006. More sources were added and the summary called for any disagreements to be brought up at talk page
    3. What he calls "3rd and 4th reverts" are indeed reverts (as such there are only two reverts) and all I did was called whoever places a global POV tag over an article to explain the dispute at talk.

    As such, these four edits are not at all within 24 hours to begin with. Two of them are not reverts at all and the last two is a call for whoever places a POV tag to explain it at talk. The user places a global POV tag without explanation and assaults a whole bunch of articles with Bonaparte-style immature Romanian nationalism. Please consider whether such behavior warrants an action on its own. For details, see User:Bonaparte/sockpuppetry, user talk:Bonaparte/sockpuppetry and Sockpuppetry by Bonaparte. --Irpen 18:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    I don't think it is Bonaparte. `'mikka (t) 18:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    I had my doubts too but not for long. --Irpen 18:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    I don't much like all this. AG is clearly someones sock, the question is, whose. Please *don't* discuss that here though. Irpen gets a stern warning re 3RR. However, since I've felt obliged to protect the page, I don't feel inclined to block. Others feel free to review William M. Connolley 18:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    ...and I am hereby removing the "stern warning". There were only two reverts by Irpen. And place a stern warning upon Connolley for siding with trolls without checking facts. `'mikka (t) 20:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    Irpen has 3 definite reverts (, , ) and one which on reflection isn't really a revert. M, you should not unprotect and article that you've been reverting William M. Connolley 20:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    Please check your quotations. Of 3 refs, only two are reverts, one of them being a very formal classification, since the whole article was significantly rewritten. I am aware that people often lose track of edits/reverts and on a second thought I agree that Irpen must be more careful indeed. As for unprotecting, there is no edit war yet. `'mikka (t) 20:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    To back Irpen, I'll point out that User:Andrei George has been pulling the same stunts on the Transylvania page. There was no explanation for his gestures there, and the man did not even add a tag - he just erased text. Dahn 20:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    I'd like to stress the importance of spirit of the law. Irpen significantly expanded the article, and I think that content creation should be rewarded, not penalized. And although he removed the tag four times (or rather 2 different tags twice each), in the meantime he has been expanding the article, and I don't see his opponent even explaining the tag addition in the talk page. Even if Irpen has broken 3RR (and this is disputed as the discussion shows) I certainly think that warning is enough and that such useful contributors should not be blocked unless they do something much more disruptive.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    Please everyone, let's get clear about the facts. Of the four edits pointed out by a troll and recited by William, only the last three fell within the 24 hour window at all! Here are the diffs pointed out by William in his 20:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC) post above

    • The time of this edit, indeed a revert, was 18:14, April 20, 2006.
    • The time of this edit, also a revert, I admit, was 18:07, April 20, 2006.

    Please note that both "reverts" above, were just removals of the POV tag placed on an article without any explanation. I am sorry, but the POV tag says that the neutrality is disputed and refers the reader to a talk page for a discussion. The article have just been totally rewritten by me and there were not a single entry at talk page by the tag placers. Even if these two edits count as reverts, despite they were removals of tags placed in bad faith (no explanation was given), there were only two, not 4 reverts. I always try my best to avoid reverting good faith edits by good faith users. These were not the case. Let's now check the other diffs cited by William:

    • This edit made at 07:46, April 20, 2006, was not even close to a revert. This was a complete article rewrite using a new set of sources, all cited. Any tags, placed on the old version were inapplicable, because I made a new article out of it. In what way was this a revert?
    • Let's now look at the fourth diff, cited by William. Please care to check its timing: 05:35, April 19, 2006.

    That is way more than 24 hours away from the first diff above! Also, check the diff itself. The edit is replacing the "fact" tags with the sources I added to the reference list and changing some of the numbers in accordance to a new found citation. A while ago a user placed a bunch of "fact" tags on several statements in the article and added a "disputed" tag based on that. The original tag placer had all the time in the world to study my edit and, if he disagrees with facts, reinsert the tag, explaining at talk what was wrong with the new article I just wrote. It didn't happen.

    In any case, there are no 4 edits within 24 hours, let alone 4 reverts, to speak about. The formal 3RR could not have been violated if there were no four edits of the same article within 24 hours! That a sock who placed the frivolous complaint simply didn't list times of the "reverts" should have alerted anyone who wanted to look at the matter. Instead, we get the dispute about stern warnings and call for user:Irpen to be "more careful" and thankful for being "forgiven". There are two issues here:

    • The letter of the 3RR law was not violated. That the compliant conveniently omitted time stamps in the diffs should have alerted anyone. Sadly, it didn't. I do realize that 3 reverts is not an entitlement even when 4 reverts were not made, so we are coming here to the second issue.
    • While only two reverts (not even three) were made by me here, there was no content dispute. The "reverts" were removal of the POV tags when the tagger refused to explain his reasons at talk, despite asked.

    And this brings us to the last questions.

    • Mikka's saying that I should have been "more careful". I hope he, as everyone, can now see that I was careful here. Not that I don't make mistakes, but this was not the case.
    • William placing a "stern warning" at my page, later partially retracted but still with a non-committed apology. I could see how nice it could feel to decide who to punish and who to spare, but getting into judging the issues requires an utmost responsible and careful approach. The simple fact that time stamps were not added should have alerted anyone. Studying the matter carefully before making a hasty decision should be a must. Yes, people a busy, but no one requires from any admin to enforce the 3RR. If one takes upon himself to enforce the rules whose misapplication is emotionally sensitive to the editors involved, he should take an extra time to study the matter.

    We've seen the aggravation of some very respected editors involved into this very discussion for being illegitimately blocked on the sock/troll provocation when the blocking Admin didn't care to study the matter or was too eager to exercise the powers, either because those were newfound or because they were acquired too long ago to remember about the responsibilities that come with them.

    Thanks to all for the attention and support and I hope the matter can be brought to a closure now. --Irpen 00:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:Dardanv

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

    Reported by: Asterion 20:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Aside the obvious reverts, pay attention to offensive edit summaries. Asterion 20:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    At last an easy one :-). 12h for a first offence William M. Connolley 21:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:IP Address

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


    Reported by: Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Violation concerned reverting the removal of text by me and others (User:An_Siarach and User:Mais oui!). Firstly, the inclusion of an irrelevant link to Richmondshire, and secondly on irrelevant text regarding the later history of the same region. User is fully aware of 3RR (e.g. ), and has displayed himself to be highly uncivil (e.g. , ). - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    User has continued to revert even though he knows he has already been listed for violation of 3RR. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    I love being ganged up on; it's how those violate 3RR by proxy. Thanks for being fair; you pushing your own bigotry and ignorance about a place you have no connection to, but I do. I should make judgements about your own places of origin. That would make me a big man. IP Address 23:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    Another revert. So you saw your listing, and reverted again? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    Aside from the 3RR, your take on me doesn't mean shit. You can grow some fucking balls and go to your fucking library and learn a thing or two about the topic, or you can play these games and bullshit! IP Address 23:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    Let's say that calling people "troll" is not a personal attack...Your comrade in arms against Richmondshire is flawless. IP Address 23:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    The truth is, you think I'm encroaching on your territory and that England has no business in Norse-Gaels. If that's your position...so be it! IP Address 23:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    Blocked for 24 hours, not the first offence. Stifle (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:Merecat

    Three revert rule violation on Talk:2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Merecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: User:RyanFreisling @ 23:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This user, who already is the subject of an RfC, has been deleting the 'TrollWarning' tags I added to two specific discussion threads in which trollsome behavior is directly alleged. He has violated 3RR both in literal terms (4 reverts to a talk page in 24 hours), and in essential terms (without pause for consensus, he is ready to revert war even a 'talk' page, to prove a point). Please block. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    I count three. The first two being seperate tags. Oh, and it takes two to tango and so on and so forth... Arkon 23:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    Fixed. Can you confirm the count, please? The literal rule isn't 'exactly the same reverts', it's 'reverts'. There are four reverts by Merecat in 24 hours, on a talk page. You'll also notice I only reverted twice to Meercat's 4. I'd like to stay above revert wars and let the original content issue (the tag) stand for a more informed discussion. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    I still see three, but perhaps an admin will take the removal of the one tag in each edit on the first two as seperate. Arkon 23:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    Not a 3RR violation. Second revert was a self-revert, so doesn't count. Stifle (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    No it wasn't.I do appreciate your attention but I disagree. Merecat did not self-revert. Merecat reverted my edits alone, in four reverts. If I were interested in gaming 3RR, I would revert again, and force him to violate - but it's about the spirit of 3RR as well, and I believe in this case this behavior, 'on a talk page, is definitely a violation of the spirit of 3RR as well as the literal policy. In this case, my report and concern are about respecting policy. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    Ryan is making trouble on that page with vandal edits. He's inserting a page tag in a section as a taunt. Please review his comments on that page. Merecat 00:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:Jaranda and User:Chris2008

    Three revert rule violation on Three_6_Mafia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jaranda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Chris2008 (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: --205.188.116.70 23:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Edit war over a copyvio image in the article, --205.188.116.70 23:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

    I'm not blocking Jaranda over this one, the AOL IP who was re-posting was making insultive edit summaries upon removal of the copyvio and was blocked for 10 min. -- Tawker 00:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    Edit conflict, I ended up blocking Jaranda and Chris2008 for 8 hours each for 3RR violation, but Tawker correctly pointed out that removing a copyvio image (only) is/should be exempt from the 3RR (simple vandalism) and unblocked him. I also ineffectively blocked 205.188.116.6 for 15 minutes. Stifle (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

    User:Medule

    Three revert rule violation on Borovo Selo raid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Medule (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: Dr.Gonzo 00:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Revert war over inserting unverifiable and factualy inaccurate claims that are highly disruptive to the NPOV of the article. Does not want to discuss on Talk page and acts very much like a common vandal.

    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|USER_NAME}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to:  <!-- ALWAYS FILL IN THIS FIELD! -->
* 1st revert: 
* 2nd revert: 
* 3rd revert: 
* 4th revert: 
Reported by: ~~~~
'''Comments:'''
<!-- This is an *example*! Do not leave your report here - place it ABOVE the header"!!-->
     Categories: