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 18:46, 3 June 2006 editAnonymous editor (talk | contribs)16,633 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 18:50, 3 June 2006 edit undoAnonymous editor (talk | contribs)16,633 editsmNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 984: Line 984:


::In both your last and first revert, you reverted the page back to an earlier version, so these are clear reverts. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC) ::In both your last and first revert, you reverted the page back to an earlier version, so these are clear reverts. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

::Funny since I didn't even check the earlier versions while making my first edit. Please show me another user's version where the made the exact same changes that I did, like removing extra material from the timeline. And whose version could I have reverted to when the last dozen edits are just making similar changes? You have reverted more times than I have in fact. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


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

Revision as of 18:50, 3 June 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:Zer0faults reported by User:Mr. Tibbs (result: stale)

    Three revert rule violation on Iraq War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zer0faults (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Mr. Tibbs 21:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Not sure if reverting to different prior versions all count towards one 3RR or not. -- Mr. Tibbs 21:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

    Not all of these are reverts if you view them you will see that sometimes only the 2nd paragraph was changed. Mr. Tibbs has constantly reverted my work wholesale. He did this again today after me and Anoranza came to a concensus on what should be in the overview. He then removed the work me and that user did and the concensus we came to. He also didn't even post anything on talk and just reverted again without stating a why. He calls it "cleaning up the intro" when he removes all mention of anything but WMD's from the Iraq War intro. He even goes onto use this for a summary "Revert to last version by Mr. Tibbs. Its not a consensus just because Zero says it is. See poll." The poll in question is one User:CBDunkerson informed him was not addressing the concerns of those opposing his edits. He asked for User:CBDunkerson view after the mediation cabal I requested went against his view here The person who took no the mediation went on to comment on the page that Mr. Tibbs should not exclude any reason but WMD's. He asked CBDunkerson and he said the same. He went on to ask User:Nescio to comment he also supported the same. Some of those edits are me and Anoranza trying to find a middleground and Mr. Tibbs is attempting to use them against me, however Anoranza did not complain cause in the end the version we agreed on was pleasing to both of us. Mr. Tibbs has stated on numerous times he has ceased assuming good faith, has told me I attempting a filibuster when told his survey did not meet the requirements of Misplaced Pages:Straw Polls. If you see the talk page he has refused any middleground I have offered almost as if he has sole domain of the article. You can even view 3 offers on the mediation page alone that were all refused wholesale. Mr. Tibbs indiscriminate reverts of my work and Anoranza's and User:Wombdpsw is horrible. I ask this article receive admin attention as User:CBDunkerson has stepped back as its a heated topic. I simply want more then WMD's mentioned in the overview as permitted by NPOV:Undue Weight, and I feel someone should look at Mr. Tibbs reverts as he doesn't even offer explanations, when asked. He has left snide remarks on summaries including "No one needs to pander to a filibuster.", on the Template: War on Terrorism page here He has even gone on to advocate other revert my work instead of just editing such as here User_talk:Añoranza#About_Iraq_War. This is obviously a bad faith notice as he has tried before and we both got blocked. --Zer0faults 22:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    Some of these aren't even reverts, they are me editing me, as in the case of "Revert #6" and "Revert #5" as the user being shown in #5 did not make the edits its showing I changed, I previously made them. #4 is the original expansion of the 2nd paragraph from Anoranza's which was lacking in facts. Even revert #1 is wrong as its me removing a paragraph that is entirely mentioned below in its exact contents in section "War Rationale" This is obviously a bad faith effort as Mr. Tibbs has not even attempted to review the evidence he brings, simply tagged all my edits as reverts and hoped the High number 7RR would be sufficient enough. I once again ask for an admins assistance in the Iraq War article as I am afraid Mr. Tibbs is attempting to insert Undue Weight. --Zer0faults 22:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

    Sorry - noone got to this in time; its now stale; no decision William M. Connolley 08:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    User:Miskin

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

    Nationalist revert warrior; four reverts in 17 minutes is enough. Reported by:Septentrionalis 23:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

    • Funny - see only three reverts. This is not a revert, it's a first time edit. You also have three reverts, so you're just as bad as him. I'd also like to ask some admins to comment on Septentrionalis's personal attacks (the one just above) and this. --Telex 23:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not sourced. You're taking the original and fitting it into your WP:OR interpretation of it. --Telex 00:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Despite what he says, there are only 2 reverts, a rewrite and some minor edits. Pmanderson on the other hand has 3 reverts and a clear personal attack . I'm not going to discuss the content dispute here, it's clearly not the right place. Miskin 00:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
      • If admins are going to take into account a description of vandalism as vandalism, they should also take account of Miskin's personal threats and trolling . Septentrionalis 15:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Guys, take it elsewhere. Sept, you're wrong about: 3RR, your PA's, and Miskin's "threats", plus your "trolling" quote is quite funny. Get yourself together and let's discuss this where appropriate. This happenning here is trolling and borders WP:POINT as well. Consider this a warning. Indeed, extreme measures can apply to such behavior, as described in WP policies and guidelines...  NikoSilver  15:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

    User:DreamGuy reported by User:Centauri

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

    Reported by: Centauri 12:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Consistently aggressive deletion of random article content by DreamGuy, without reference to talk page discussion, and accompanied by misleading edit summaries that also refer to other editors in strongly abusive terms.

    I self-reverted my own last edit, so not a real 3RR violation, per the policy. I should also note that User:Centauri's claims of misleading edit summaries are false, as I explained my edits accurately. In fact, this editor is making abusive ridiculous threats against me at the moment, pulling policies out of a hat at random he claims I have violated (you know, the typical, vandalism, blah blah blah). From his edit comments and posts on my talk page, it's clear he's not really trying to give friendly warnings about policies he understands and follows, but is instead hoping to toss out accusations in an attempt to bully me. I have warned him to not post on my talk page any more, but he continues to harass me there. A block might be in order if he keeps this up. DreamGuy 13:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    Comment. I have posted a comment and 3RR warning on the talk page of User:Centauri, who is probably not aware that he has himself reverted DreamGuy's talkpage 5 times in a few hours (when he adds new "warnings", he usually restores all the old ones, making these edits reverts). Now that I have explained this to him, I reckon he ought to be blocked iff he should continue his reposting pattern. Also, Centauri, instead of posting a storm of policy links to an experienced user (which is itself incivil), you had much better follow the common sense principle of walking away, when it has been clearly demonstrated that your messages on a user talk page aren't wanted there. After all, as Theresa Knott said once, DreamGuy removing the messages shows that he has read them; what more do you want? Bishonen | talk 14:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC).


    User:Ed Poor reported by User:ScienceApologist

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

    • Previous version reverted to: a number of different versions he wrote over the day.
    • 1st revert: 07:52
    • 2nd revert: 07:58
    • 3rd revert: 08:52
    • 4th revert: 09:24
    • 5th revert: 09:32

    Reported by: ScienceApologist 16:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User:Ed Poor seems to be back to his tendentious editting ways and is effectively reverting all editors who stand in his way. Ed is engaging in what the WP:3RR page describes as "making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting. "Complex partial reverts" refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time; this is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR." When warned about this, the user responded on his talkpage admitting to breaking 3RR.

    User:71.109.235.81 reported by User:Ohnoitsjamie

    Three revert rule violation on Bong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.109.235.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: OhNoitsJamie 20:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: As evidenced on the talk page of this article, this particular edit has been an ongoing issue, and does not represent the consensus. I'd previously placed a 3RR warning on the article's talk page. OhNoitsJamie 20:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

    User:8bitJake reported by User:FRCP11 (second report) (result - 24hr block)

    Three revert rule violation on Henry M. Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 8bitJake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comment: User refusing to compromise on talk page, despite multiple people from RFC disagreeing with him. Insists on deleting verifiable notable text, despite its being restored by four different editors.

    Reported by: FRCP11 22:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC), updated 05:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    Admin reply: The edits appear to have died down so I have placed a warning on User_talk:8bitJake. Kcordina 10:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    Comment: The problem continues, notwithstanding the warning. -- FRCP11 16:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    Admin reply: User now blocked. Kcordina 19:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    Comment: The problem with the same article and same reverts resumed immediately upon 8bitJake's return. See two reports below. -- FRCP11 21:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    User:Rtvl73 reported by User:Zerida Result: 12 hours

    Three revert rule violation on Egypt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rtvl73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: — · t 23:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Rtvl73 keeps removing content from the article with no explanation or discussion despite being asked not to . User was previously reverted by two other users . I made User:Rtvl73 aware of 3RR on talk page but user reverted for the fourth time anyway. — · t 23:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

    Blocked for 12 hours. I would greatly appreciate if another admin could please check that I did this properly as this is my first time dealing with a 3RR from the admin noticeboard. If you've double-checked my work, please just leave a quick comment here. --Yamla 02:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    Also, is 12 hours perhaps too much for a first 3RR block? --Yamla 02:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    User:209.135.115.121 aka User:Ndru01 aka User:Moonlight serenade reported by User:Hillman (result: 24h)

    Three revert rule violation on Morphic field (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 209.135.115.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    See:

    1. first revert 13:30, 30 May 2006
    2. second revert 14:57, 30 May 2006
    3. third revert 15:26, 30 May 2006 (several edits)
    4. fourth revert 16:00, 30 May 2006
    5. fifth revert 16:22, 30 May 2006 (two edits)
    6. sixth revert 17:49, 30 May 2006 (three edits)
    7. seventh revert 17:56, 30 May 2006

    Reported by: CH 01:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    This is not even a complete list; several reversions by this user are not listed. See also Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Ndru01 (2nd) ---CH 01:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    I see that Ndru01 (talk · contribs) has previously been previously blocked for violating WP:3RR in Morphic field. Another suspected sock, 64.187.60.98 (talk · contribs) has also been previouslyblocked for violating WP:3RR in Gnostic infomysticism. ---CH 02:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    24h William M. Connolley 21:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    He is back at it again today as 209.135.115.121 (talk · contribs) and 209.135.108.75 (talk · contribs). This user seems to have a well documented history of violations of WP:SOCK, WP:3RR and generally disruptive editing. Can some kind admin please look into this and help me take appropriate action? TIA ---CH 06:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    1. 1st revert 02:47, 31 May 2006
    2. 2nd revert 17:08, 31 May 2006

    User:Tenebrae

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

    Reported by: Facto 06:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User keeps inflating movie article with biased and inflammatory movie reviews and also inflates the cast list with minor characters and actors. Facto 06:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I do not see the diffs you provided as clearcut RVs, at least not all of them. They look like regular edits. Please try to resolve content issues at talk page. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens 07:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    User:Giovanni33 reported by User:Timothy Usher (Result: 3hr)

    Three revert rule violation on Talk:God (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Timothy Usher 08:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Besides the talk page shenanigans, this user has been edit-warring on the article, after posting an RfC and having all but one responding editors disagree with the unencyclopedic links he's been appending thereto. He has also supported his own edits and comments under the username User:Kecik. User has already been blocked several times for WP:3RR violations and puppetry.Timothy Usher 08:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: First of all this is not the article mainspace. The 3RR rule does not apply here. This is a dipute about the title of a heading in the talk page. I only corrected it to reflect the issue of consensus and the fautly math that it reported. The 3RR rule does not apply for correcting formatting issues and accuracy on talk pages as far as I am aware. Also, note that one of these I self-reverted when I realized he actually wrote somthing as opposed to simply restoring the incorrect math: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AGod&diff=56088897&oldid=56088816 Timothy's other comments are not true. Kecik has not been blocked many times. He is a good user and he is not my socketpuppet as a user check has already been done which confirmed no connection. So, no block "for puppetry" has ever been issued. Timothy is simply not telling the truth. Also, Timothy has persisted in being uncivil and making personal attacks against myself and this user, besides edit warring. The links I added are valid links for the external link section and topical.Giovanni33 08:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    The 7:2 count was, and remains, accurate.
    “...Timothy is guilty by the same logic of the 3RR violation for reverting 5 times over this issue.” - diffs?Timothy Usher 08:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    I look at at it and I may be wrong on this account so I removed that claim. But everything else stands. Your math was wrong. I counted 6 vs 4 so the ratio is 3:2, not 7:2.Giovanni33 08:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    Giovanni33, please stop altering prior comments, whether other editors', or your own after other editors have respondended thereto.Timothy Usher 08:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    Result: Blocked for 3 hours because it is a Talk page. However, the Three revert rule says "undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part". If I may suggest, you folks could post your versions at Talk and try to convince others without altering posts by other editors. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens 08:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    Comment When Timothy says that User has already been blocked several times for 3RR and puppetry, he is presumably not referring to Kecik, but to Giovanni, who was proved by checkuser to be using the account BelindaGong for extra reverts, extra votes, and extra support for his version. His block was extended when he accidentally signed a post while forgetting that he was logged on as Freethinker99, who had joined, had said he was new but agreed with Giovanni, and had then reverted to Giovanni's version while Giovanni was blocked for his BelindaGong puppetry. Through some oversight, the BelindaGong and Freethinker99 accounts were only given temporary blocks, although the standard practice is to block indefinitely in the case of established puppetry. So Timothy is telling the truth. As for Kecik, he has, from the start, behaved as a puppet whose only purpose at Misplaced Pages was to provide extra support and extra reverts for Giovanni. His seventh edit (one day after registering) was a vote for something Giovanni wanted, at a page he was unlikely to have found by chance. He was at Misplaced Pages for nearly four months before he touched an article where Giovanni wasn't looking for support. He currently has 42 article edits, 37 of which are reverts to Giovanni's version. Checkuser can only establish that it's not the same IP; it can't establish that there's no connection between the users. There is extremely strong linguistic evidence linking Giovanni to eight accounts which have supported him. AnnH ♫ 11:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    Comment As expected AnnH and Timothy tag-team with the personal attacks against me with their continued false allegations my alleged socket-puppets. I just take it as a sign of the weakness of their stance that they have to resort to bringing up this issue over and over no matter how old it gets or how irrelevant it is to a given issue. But, notice how AnnH can interpret what Timothy actually said so to conclude that he Timothy is telling the truth when he is not. He states things as a fact that are only negative bad-faith speculation, which I know is not true. Belinda, as I explained is my wife, and so that is why a user checked showed a connection. Since she is different person which I offered to prove many time (her name even is Belinda Gong), this makes her not a socketpuppet. I note that no one has taken me up on my questions about ohw to prove what Im saying is true. I think they know she is not a socketpuppet but prefer not to have this shown so the attacks can continue. This is assuming bad faith. Also, with my friend Freethinker, AnnH continues her deliberate distortion of known facts, even after I corrected her on numerous occasions, each time with a new twist. Notice her bad faith assumptions which don't make sense. She says I forgot I was using Freethiner's account and forgot to sign in with my own account while I was blocked. That is nonsense. I was at my friend's house to introduced him to Misplaced Pages and he was trying to resolve the dispute on the talk page of Christianity, and did NOT simply revert to my version. Like Belinda, Freethiner is a different person, and I only used his account to respond to a question on my own talk page. When I was questioned about any connection to Freethinker, I had nothing to hide and admitted it openly. Why would I do that if it was a socketpuppet? Why would I edit on my own talk page as myself if i were using his accounts after a userchecked was done showing a connection with me and my wife (only one). This is why it would make no sense to think he is my own socketpuppet, while I use his account to answering on my own page-- even if I logged-out of his account, and signed into my own. Its not logical. AnnH also leaves out some pertinent information. For example, the fact that Kecik and MikaM (and anyone else who supported my POV on the Christinaity page, including Sophia), were all user checked at the same time. The results? Only BelindaGong showed a connection to me. Ofcourse, BelindaGong is a separate person who lives with me. And while I never denied any connection to her (no one asked), it's true I did not want it to be known for various reasons, and I pretended to not know her in my interactions. However, even though I tried to hide a connection, the user checked exposed it. It did not expose MikaM or Kecik. Why? They were all checked at the same time. One would logically expect that if they were my puppets they would have also been discovered along with Belinda, who I did not want it known I was connected to in some way. Since my desire to have this connection hidden failed, then so would any others who were checked at the same time. Why would I use different methods at the same time? The edits occur both both users and myself not only at different times and at the same time that I edit, proving its not me going to different locations was argued. Lastly, with these editors, while I do agree support my POV, this is not proof they are not separate people, or have any connection to me in real life. Infact, I have discovered we do not always agree, either, and we do not edit all the same articles, nor to they come to my assistence at times you'd think I want to use them if I were the puppet master. In anycase, I have never had any socketpuppets, and for Timothy and AnnH to keep making this charge on talk pages, on noticeboard, and anywhere I post, stating their belief as it it were an established fact is both wrong and disruptive, esp. suspect given their POV conflicts with me, although I have to assume good faith. Laslty, I note that AnnH brings up the issue of a perm block for these users when they already left Misplaced Pages on their own accord about half a year ago, after the uncivil and insulting treatment they recieved at her hands, calling Freethinker a "meatpuppet" and blocking him without any warning. And, Belinda, I still can't convince to come back until she is able to prove herself as a real, distinct individual, who AnnH denied is even possible (despite my wiling to fax ID's. etc). I guess that some people still think that women who are married are not allowed a separate existence apart from their husband's.Giovanni33 12:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    User:Kenaz9 reported by User:Cyberjunkie

    Three revert rule violation on Prussia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kenaz9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: cj | talk 09:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:DreamGuy reported by User:Asatruer

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

    Reported by: Asatruer 13:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: 4th revert of Oblivion reference included in a batch of NPOV corrections

    • Decline. First, please use diffs and not just revisions so we can see the revert. Second, removal of link once in all that copyediting doesn't constitute reverting. If he's reverting to a previous version there, I'm not seeing it. .:.Jareth.:. 13:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry about the links. I corrected them to diffs. The edits are not exactly the same, but there is some consistancy in items in how they are changed and removed. For the 3RR the "reverts" do not have to be exact, do they? Asatruer 15:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    Ok, got it now, but the last edit seems to have been a while back. I'd suggest attempting some dispute resolution. .:.Jareth.:. 15:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    User:Ed_Smith reported by Reported by: 64.12.117.12

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

    Reported by: 64.12.117.12 14:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    User:Greier reported by User:Khoikhoi

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

    Reported by: —Khoikhoi 15:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Please check his block log. The last time he was blocked for 3RR was for 3 days, interestingly enough, it expired only half a day ago. —Khoikhoi 15:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Blocked. Since this is the 8th unique block for the same disruption, I've upped to a month. If another admin feels that's a bit much, feel free to adjust. .:.Jareth.:. 15:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    You should unblock him. He is innocent. --Preacher, or Princelet 15:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    Blocked indef since checkuser suggests this is block evasion. .:.Jareth.:. 15:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    User:Ahwaz reported by User:Bidabadi (result: no 3RR violation, no block)

    Three revert rule violation on Ethnic politics of Khuzestan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ahwaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    This is another malicious attempt to get me blocked. I have not broken 3RR in this article. There is no fourth revert.--الأهواز 17:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    This user has repeatedly blanked content on this page without any discussion on the talk page: and . Now he has put up a POV tag on the article , but has not explained why on the talk page.--الأهواز 17:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    Comment:User:Ahwaz has been previously blocked for violating 3RR. Bidabadi 18:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    There is indeed no fourth revert shown here. I have decided this user should not be blocked based on this report. I am taking no stand on any alleged vandalism, however. --Yamla 19:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    User:Ed Poor reported by User:Ashenai (result: no block)

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

    Reported by: Ashenai 19:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: I have not included several reverts by Ed that could be understood to be vandalism reverts or minor reverts with community approval (restoring innocuous sections lost in the edit war). Ed was warned about 3RR, but accused us of "baiting" him. He then proceeded to continue the edit war today, and is on the edge of a second 3RR violation today. Please note that it is difficult to tell exactly which of his edits are reverts, as he tends to add modifications to his reverts, and reverts to various versions, not always the same one. The reverts listed should be sufficient to establish the fact of the 3RR violation, however. --Ashenai 19:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    That was a nasty edit war, with many individuals (debatably) in violation of 3RR. The article has now been protected, and as blocking is a preventitive measure rather than a punitive one, I don't see a need to block for this offense. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    User:Butchpenton reported by User:Ladlergo (result: 12h)

    Three revert rule violation on American Civil Liberties Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Butchpenton (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Ladlergo 21:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Clear enough. 12h as first offence William M. Connolley 21:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    User:195.93.21.5 reported by User:Jhamez84 (result: no 3RR violation)

    Three revert rule violation on Michelle Marsh (model) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 195.93.21.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Jhamez84 21:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: A stubborn and unregistered user keeps making a minor edit so that this article says that the town of Royton is within the seperate and neighbouring town of Oldham - it is not, Royton is in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham (see the respective articles for verification). The motive of this kind of edit is unclear, but it just isn't factual and encyclopedic! I've tried to make this aware to them and also warned this user about the 3RR here. I believe a temporary block is appropriate here along with some kind of warning which should hopefully in turn halt this.... vandalism! Thank you, Jhamez84 21:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    Not a 3RR violation. You only list three reverts (and that's all that has been done), not the four required for a violation. Additionally, the three reverts span 44 hours, thus are not confined within the 24 hours for a 3RR violation. --Yamla 21:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    My apologies, I misread the dates - I suspect however I will be providing a follow up here about this user(inclusive of a fourth revert within 24 hours) shortly... Thanks for the swift response however, Jhamez84 21:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


    User:Ec5618 reported by User:PinchasC (result: 24h)

    Three revert rule violation on Apartheid (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ec5618 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Reported by: PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: I am posting this to notify the community that I am blocking this user for 48 hours for this 3rr violation. This is this users 3rd 3rr violation. PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    Blocked reduced to 24 hours as this user's 2cd 3rr violation block appears to have been a mistake. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 10:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    User seem to "own" this page to fit his political POV. there are actually more violations of 3RR not listed above. Is anyone blocking him cause he is not blocked despite the notice on his talk page Zeq 04:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    Looks blocked to me William M. Connolley 08:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    User:Pantherarosa reported by User:Paul Cyr

    User:Pantherarosa

    Three revert rule violation on User:Pantherarosa (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Pantherarosa (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Paul Cyr 00:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User keeps removing sock puppeteer tag. Paul Cyr 00:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm a little confused here as there are no accounts in Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Pantherarosa. I agree that he reverted in excess of three times, but I question if placing the tag on his userpage was perhaps, as he claims, baseless. At the same time, those tags should only be removed if they are in bad-faith. Let me go scan WP:ANI, as you said there was relevant discussion there, and see if I can get to the bottom of it. AmiDaniel (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Ah, sorry for the confusion. The categories were recently renamed due to some consensus at some vote thing, the page is here: . The blocked puppet was here: User:Abdulrahman Jaffer Al Zadjali. Although the blocking admin did not have enough evidence to publically accuse Pantherarosa, it is self evident. Basically, both accounts were created in the midst of my dispute with Pantherarosa which began attacking me, with Abdulrahman Jaffer Al Zadjali posting supportive messages on Pantherarosa's talk page. At the very least, there is enough evidence for Pantherarosa to be suspected of being a puppeteer. As for the discussion on AN/I, it was more a sub-discussion of a larger issue: . Right now I've been trying to get some admin involvement given Pantherarosa's actions, but it wound up on AN/I because of conduct by the admin on WP:PAIN which I feel was inappropriate. In the mean time, Pantherarosa has been reverting the tags even after I refered him/her to the discussion on AN/I. Paul Cyr 02:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
          • User:Abdulrahman Jaffer Al Zadjali has been blocked as a sockpuppet, but the blocking admin stated he would not speculate to whom the sockpuppet belonged. Contact the admin who blocked the puppet and ask him to add the tags to User:Pantherarosa, or you can request a CheckUser; but until an admin or a CheckUser confirms him as a sockpuppet master, I'd say it best not to tag his account. Making a couple of edits as an IP does not really count as sockpuppetry, at least not in my mind. I'm not going to administer any blocks or place blame anywhere--please just leave his userpage alone for now until you have sufficient evidence to support your claim. If you'd like to continue this discussion, please do so on my talk page, so as not to clog up the 3RR noticeboard. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
            • I understand your point, however, you said At the same time, those tags should only be removed if they are in bad-faith., since you are not blocking Pantherarosa for violating 3RR, do you feel that me placing the tag was in bad faith? Paul Cyr 02:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
              • I don't believe they were placed in bad-faith (otherwise I would be blocking you), but rather that there was a severe lack of communication. You believed it correct to tag his account as a puppet master believing you had sufficient proof, and he disagreed with your reasoning and reverted, believing your actions to be in bad-faith. In either case neither of you was attempting to be disruptive in my opinion. I'm also not saying that I disagree with your reasoning for believing him to be guilty of sockpuppetry, just saying there isn't conclusive proof either way as of yet, and blocking on these grounds would just add more fuel to the fire. If you would like for me to file a CheckUser for you, I'd be glad to, and if that turns up positive, then there will be no problem tagging his userpage and blocking him if he reverts the change. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    User:Vlatkoto reported by User:FunkyFly (result: 24h)

    Three revert rule violation on Jane Sandanski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Vlatkoto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 194.141.39.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) :

    Reported by:   /FunkyFly.talk_   05:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    24h William M. Connolley 08:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    User:212.138.64.176 etc. reported by User:Timothy Usher (result: 24hr range block)

    Three revert rule violation on Battle of Mu'tah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 212.138.64.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) etc.

    Reported by: Timothy Usher 08:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This suspected sockpuppet of User:Flashmorbid has been adding unsourced, highly POV material to the article, and refuses to engage on the talk page despite requests. In addition to the sockpuppet template, nearly all his addresses...

    ...have warnings of one sort or another. Most recently, he has been warned again about WP:3RR . I think it’s time to block the range.Timothy Usher 08:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    Agreed. Blocking the range 212.138.64.172/29 (212.138.64.172 - 212.138.64.179) for 24 hours as a first violation. If further anons nearby that range pop up and continue reverting, let me know. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    This user has returned as User:Falso to revert again.Timothy Usher 18:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    User:Appleby reported by User:Commonsenses (result: 48h, unblocked for rvv)

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

    Reported by:Commonsenses 15:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Oh no, not again... 48h William M. Connolley 15:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    This is a little bit of a mess. Appleby says he was rvv, and since Liancourt rocks redirects to Dokdo I'm accepting that William M. Connolley 20:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    User:For great justice.

    Three revert rule violation on Apollo moon landing hoax accusations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). For great justice. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Tom Harrison 16:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Blocked for 24 hours. --Lord Deskana 17:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    I'm a bit puzzled — there seems to be an indefinitely-blocked user For_great_justice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (no sign of contributions, but they may have been deleted), and now there's this one For_great_justice. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) note the full stop (or don't Americans say "period"?) at the end. I was thinking of increasing the block of For great justice. (just to 48 hours) because of his abusive comments on his talk page, but I'm wondering now is he a reincarnation of a banned user. AnnH ♫ 18:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    I normally just ignore personal attacks directed at me, especially by blocked users: taking action normally just fuels the attacks, and if I ignore them when they can only edit their talk page, it normally frustrates them more! Perhaps checkuser to establish the link between For_Great_Justice and For_Great_Justice. ? --Lord Deskana 19:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    I don't think a checkuser would be any good, as For great justice has no visible contributions. Also, s/he was blocked nearly four months ago, so there might not be any technical evidence available. AnnH ♫ 22:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    User:AlexPU reported by User:Kuban Cossack

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

    Reported by: Kuban Cossack 20:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Comments: Basically the editor continues to insert his heavily POV-laid version repeatedely (each time changing a few words to avoid 3RR. Including some extremely offensive edit summaries including:

    1. You just make such propaganda changes fucking again
    2. fuck propaganda and stylistic censorship!

    And on the talkpage including an explanation for his articles ] and describing a whole community as I mean Russians rampage Ukraine-related articles on a daily basis but don't care a fuck about their own country articles. Weird, pervert shauvenistic priorities

    Previously has been blocked for uncivility and has been reported (though not blocked) a second time here. If not block for 3rr can someone please teach this teenager a thing or two about civilised behaivour.--Kuban Cossack 20:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    Blocked. Alex has had more than enough warnings by now. Dmcdevit·t 20:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    User:8bitJake reported by User:FRCP11 (two violations) (result: 48h)

    Three revert rule violation on Henry M. Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 8bitJake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: 8bitJake was barred 24 hours on May 31 for reverting the same Henry M Jackson 8 times in a 24-hour period; he's deleted the administrator warning and penalty from his Talk page, and I'm told his talk page history has deletions of several other warnings and penalties. This time around, he's giving dishonest descriptions of his reversions, adding miscellaneous (and usually inappropriate) text, and breaking his edits up into multiple edits to make it more difficult for administrators to notice the violation. -- FRCP11 21:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    Reported by: FRCP11 21:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    Second violation by User:8bitJake

    Comment. He's also started a new revert war relating to whether there should be a subarticle about Patty Murray's political positions in the Henry Jackson article. -- FRCP11 21:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    Blocked for 48 hours as a fourth offense. Resumed edit warring immediately following expiration of previous block on the same article. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    User:Inigmatus reported by User:RandomP (result: No 3RR violation, no block)

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

    Reported by: RandomP 00:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This is not, as far as I can tell, vandalism, but it does make it impossible for anyone else to edit the article, at least according to my reading of WP:3RR

    These do not, as far as I can tell, appear to be reverts on his behalf. It seems to me that User:Inigmatus is making unique edits to the article which are then being reverted by User:RandomP. A violation of WP:3RR is reverting more than three times, not introducing more than three edits that are reverted. No block from me, but please try to contact the user and discuss the matter. Do not revert any further. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    User:Tony_Sidaway reported by User:Chcknwnm

    Three revert rule violation on Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Tony_Sidaway_3 (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Tony_Sidaway_3 (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tony_Sidaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 3

    Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 3

    Reported by: Chuck 05:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Tony has been performing partial reverts on both this RfC and it's accomanied talk page. He continues to revert to a version that does not contain signatures that he is displeased with. He is admin, and therefore already aware of thr WP:3RR. Chuck 05:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    I've reviewed every one of the diffs you provided, and no where have I seen Tony reverting to an earlier version, let alone reverting four times in 24 hours. His actions are, by all accounts, disruptive, and others have been blocked in the past for modifying others' comments; however, there is no 3RR violation here. I also think it would be a rather bad idea to block Tony from being able to respond in his own RfC without a very good reason. You may try copying this post to WP:AN/I to see if any other admins would be willing to block for disruption, but I'm not going to. Sorry. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    It was worth a try. Note: I'm not out to get Tony blocked, but to try to alert him to stop changing our sigs. Every other alternative, besides a block has been explored. I thought that his revisions would fall under being partial reverts and thus qualify for 3rr, guess I was wrong. to AN/I I go. Chuck 06:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    Yeah, complex partials maybe--I don't know; not enough for me to block. In boldface, the 3RR policy is "repeatedly undoing anothers actions is bad," which I think could likely be considered the case here, but in any case it's probably better suited for AN/I, where more admins and others will comment, even if it is within the margins of the 3RR policy. I'd still argue, however, that any block would be based upon disruption (specifically WP:POINT) rather than 3RR, and that blocking him from responding to his RfC is something that should be avoided. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    I agree with AmiDaniel- if a block is warranted, it's for disruption. Let's not worry about 3RR. Friday (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    User:Zora reported by User:Pecher (result: 12h)

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

    Reported by: Pecher 07:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: The 3rd revert was still a revert, even though the user did not mark it as such in the edit summary because the edit involved a re-insertion of the words "may have been", as it was the case with several other reverts. Zora is aware of the 3RR rule because she was already blocked for its violation. Pecher 07:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    Agreed. 12 hours should do. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    User:Bazzajf reported by User:Vashti 12:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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

    Reported by: Vashti 12:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Can we have some help here, please? At least three editors have been reverting him for two days, and despite his continually referring us to the discussion, he's plainly not reading it himself as no other editors agree with him. This is my first 3RR report, sorry if I messed it up any. *peers at the template* Vashti 12:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    Bazzajf has now also taken to altering my user page to push his POV, and reverting repeatedly there, too: , , , . --Stemonitis 14:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    Right to Reply I find this mildly disturbing. All I am doing is questioning the neutrality of a section in the article and in doing so, asking them to refer to the discussion page where we can discuss our point of views, hardly a gross act of reversion vandalism, if I am reported for re-inserting a neutrality mark on the article, then liekwise there are others guilty of taking it off 3 times in 24 hours, this strikes me as the lamest excuse to report someone ever, if you are unwilling to argue the points and just go pleading to administrators, it is a very sorry situation, in fact I feel sorry for you. Why don't you try reporting people who engage in gross acts of vandalism rather than wasting your time and being petty in reporting someone whose only wish is to discuss a topic and pursue my rational point of view. Please stop being so petty and channel your frustrations and energies effectively.

    You aren't demonstrating any desire to discuss, you're just insisting on your questionable point in spite of references and against every other editor working on the article. Please stop.
    I shall report you if you continue this charade, how can you say "You aren't demonstrating any desire to discuss" when everytime I use a neutrality mark I refer people to the discussion page where i have written several paragraphs supporting my view, I think the citation offered is very spurious and that is why i contine questioning the neutrality of said section until the section I am objecting to is objectively qualified and please stop using sockpuppets to support your petty point of view. Can I suggest to the administrator that this disruptive contributor Vashti be suspended for 24 hours so as to teach them to stop being so belligerent and offensive not to mention disruptive. Bazzajf 14:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    Vashti 13:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    Also, vandalising my user page is not likely to get you taken seriously. Vashti 13:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    To be fair, I plead guilty to that, that was merely a friendly jibe in order to to ease the tension that you are carrying into what were previously in any case, calm rational discussions.Bazzajf 14:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    If you believe that I'm using sockpuppets, you should most certainly report me. I encourage you to do so. Vashti 14:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    I wouldn't be as belligerently-minded as your good self and I don't let things that I have no control over bother me. You need to channel your energies effectively, you strike me as being full of bitterness with little to offer. Keep the chin up hey and if you need someone to confide in, feel free to drop me a line Bazzajf 15:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    User:Bazzajf has been blocked for 24 hours by Nlu for Personal attack, vandalism. Wales was this morning already full-protected by me due to the edit war. -- Kim van der Linde 08:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    User:Nescio reported by User:217.235.210.168 (result: 24h)

    User:Nescio

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

    Nescio (talk · contribs):

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

    Reported by: 217.235.210.168

    Comments: He entered discussion shortly, but then decided to use the direct approach.

    Bit odd, but 24h William M. Connolley 13:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    In all fairness, User:Nescio was discussing it on the talk page at the same time 217.235.210.168 reverted back the second time. Discussion was nowhere near exhausted when 217.235.210.168 chose to report. Nescio has a strong record of contributions to many articles and no record I know of of bad faith editing. This block might have been technically within policy, but I think it was premature. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 08:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    Premature block in my opinion too. User:Nescio is an experienced editor with a positive history of contributions. While the block is within policy, would have been good if there was discussion with Nescio prior to block. -- Samir धर्म 11:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    User:John Beyer reported by User:Scott Wilson (result: 3h)

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

    • Previous version reverted to: 13:29, 12 May 2006
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert

    Reported by: Scott Wilson 13:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Removing anti-mediawatch-uk external link. Username is the same as director of that organisation - an e-mail has been sent to mediawatch-uk to see if it is an imposter.
    • Still at it; has made a fifth revert.

    Bit of a shame you didn't warn him... still, he can have 3h William M. Connolley 15:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    User:Subwaynz reported by User:Llort (result: 24h, also for Lemonus)

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

    Reported by: Llort 14:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This user tried this tactic before on Wushu and was blocked for it.

    By me, too. well he can have 24h again, as can Lemonus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who would have got something for incivility even if he hadn't also broken 3RR William M. Connolley 22:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    User:Zdravko mk reported by User:FunkyFly

    Nikola Karev

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

    Lazar Koliševski (result: 24h)

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

    Reported by:   /FunkyFly.talk_   16:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Blatant; clearly knows what he is doing. 24h William M. Connolley 22:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    User:Ed Poor reported by User:ScienceApologist (result: 24h)

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

    Reported by: ScienceApologist 21:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Ed Poor (2) for examples of previous violations less than a week ago. --ScienceApologist 21:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    Agree entirely. This is now the second 3RR violation I've seen by Ed in two days; the last one went without a block as the article was protected instead. This time I think 24 hours is more appropriate. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    User:Andries reported by User:Goethean (result: 24h)

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

    Reported by: — goethean ॐ 21:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    Goethean is as guilty as I am. And in other respects he is more quilty because he posted off-topic messages on article talk pages in violation of wikipedia:talk page. Making announcement on talk pages of various articles to recruit people who share your POV to push your POV on another article is, I think, inappropriate. Andries 21:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    I did not originally post the messages. I merely undid Andries' deletion of the announcements. I am not aware of any policy that supports Andries' actions. — goethean ॐ 22:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    Actually, he's entirely right as far as 3RR goes. I'm afraid that, in order to be fair in these instances, it's going to be necessary to block you as well. I apologize, but that's the way it goes. You both reverted each other four times--that's 3RR both ways. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Agreed. I think twenty-four hours should do, though if he agress to stop, I'll remove the block. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    User:201.209.104.7/User:G.ELIECER/User:Guillen reported by User:Kimchi.sg

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

    Reported by: Kimchi.sg 00:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Guillen has already been blocked for a week (though I'll likely lengthen the block) for excessive disruption, G.ELIECER was blocked earlier today as a proven sock, and 201 was blocked for 24hrs for disruption/evading a block. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    User:For great justice. (result: 24h)

    Three revert rule violation on Apollo moon landing hoax accusations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). For great justice. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Tom Harrison 00:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC) Additional report by: Algr 07:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User:For great justice. immediately began disruptive edit-warring as soon as he returned from his previous 3RR block. With a series of straight reverts mixed with complex partial reverts, and hostile edit summaries, he has attempted to rewrite the article against consensus. Today's edit history is long and complex, and I could be wrong. I'd suggest that the admin not rely on my report, but also look carefully at the edit history. Tom Harrison 00:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Agree: User:For great justice. performed multiple reverts demanding references that were already present, and would not discuss the problem of the article straying from topic. (too much NASA, not enough Accusation.) Essentially, he was trying to turn the article into the kind of page it is supposed to be discussing. Algr 07:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    OK, 24h William M. Connolley 07:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    User:Ilir_pz reported by User:C-c-c-c

    Commments

    This user keeps on constantly revertingthe "Serbian topics" user box in the Demographic history of Kosovo page, he has not broken 3RR per say, but he has reverted almost 10 times in the last little while. , , , , , , , ,. This user cannot agree with neutral editors on the other pages, such as Kosovo. The page is currently protected, and the user is disagreeing with two uninvolved neutral editors who do not agree with his nationalist POV, here. he is against users Osli73, Reinoutr, Ahwaz, all uninvolved neutral editors. C-c-c-c 04:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    Decline. If the editor hasn't broken the 3RR, we can't do much here. Please try some of the steps in the dispute resolution process. Shell 06:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    However, if you read 3RR page, the following is written: The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing echnique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others. The fact that users may be blocked for excessive reverting does not imply that they will be blocked. Equally, reverting fewer than four times may result in a block depending on context.

    If a user makes sufficient reverts, 9 in this case, it may get them blocked. He has again, reverted 9 times, and not just based on what one user wrote, but multiple users. He is persistent, and unwiling to cooperate, as is obvious. Either protect the page or block him, but considering that he will probably be POV pushing on other pages, such as Kosovo, I would suggest that a small break from Misplaced Pages should be in order for this user. C-c-c-c 06:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    someone is back from a long break? :) ilir_pz 10:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    Too bad you're blocked :)) Cheers. C-c-c-c 18:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    Ilir pz again

    Three revert rule violation on {{Kosovo}}. Ilir_pz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: E Asterion 10:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    I encourage the admin to take a close look: The reverts are not done on the same text, last two differ from first two. Regards, ilir_pz 11:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    That does not matter. Reverts do not really need to be of the same part, as long as something is reverted. You can still self-revert as I advised you. E Asterion 11:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    I changed the content, for God's sake. That is not the same as reverting. You seem to not know the difference. ilir_pz 11:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    You still removed a province of Serbia and Montenegro. It does not matter whether you changed the wording from entity to province later on. You still reverted previous edits to remove this fact. This is obviously a 3RR+ case. E Asterion 12:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    Revert warrior with a history. Blocked for 24 hours. --InShaneee 17:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    User:UniverseToday reported by User:William Pietri (result: 12h)

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

    Reported by: William Pietri 06:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    12h William M. Connolley 07:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    In fact, as shown at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_investigation#New_requests, there is good evidence that this user has made several additional reverts to this article and others using a handful of sock puppets. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 07:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


    User:Thameen reported by User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg

    Three revert rule violation on Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Thameen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: 18:16, 1 June 2006
    • 1st revert: 17:36, 2 June 2006
    • 2nd revert: 14:35, 3 June 2006
    • 3rd revert: 15:11, 3 June 2006
    • 4th revert: 15:50, 3 June 2006

    Reported by: Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


    Comments: User:Thameen has repeatedly reinserting extreme pov in article despite being asked politely not to multiple times.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    Response from Thameen I have been facing a problem from the Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg. Whenever I make any edit to the article Child_suicide_bombers_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict He will immediately RV my edits. I asked him many times for cooperation and discussion of my edits. He never offered any cooperation. The only way I could do some sensible edits is to ptotect myself by RV. plz help me.

    Content dispute. Blocked for 24 hours. --InShaneee 17:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    User:GDP reported by User:Getcrunk

    Three revert rule violation on Misplaced Pages:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board. GDP (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:

    According to User:Anittas (who was the other participant in the edit war), User:GDP is a sock of User:Bonaparte, a banned user. (see )

    Reported by: getcrunkjuice 16:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    When I was told on my talk page I stopped. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AGDP&diff=56678529&oldid=56678442 --GDP 16:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    False accusations won't bring you credibility. You reverted my work, as if I'm not allowed to make an archive. Why? --GDP 16:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: I've notified the two users involved. -- getcrunkjuice 16:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    I am confused as to the nature of this statement? Is it directed at me? -- getcrunkjuice 16:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    No. It was for User:Anittas.--GDP 16:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    There's more information and comments at User talk:Getcrunk. -- getcrunkjuice 17:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg reported by User:Thameen 17:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    Three revert rule violation on Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Moshe-Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Reported by: Thameen 17:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


    Comments: I tried to add some NPOV to the above article but was each time RVed by User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg

    Six reverts in six days? That's funny indeed. Pecher 17:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


    User:CltFn

    Three revert rule violation on Muslim. CltFn (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: --a.n.o.n.y.m 17:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    Comments

    Blocked for 24 hours. pschemp | talk 18:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    User:Pecher reported by User:Faisal

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

    Reported by: Faisal 18:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This user has been banned twice because of 3RR (see his blocking log) violations and I have not reported him at least once. He keeps pushing his view on the articles. Is wikipedia failing in stopping him from not having more than 3 edits per-day? Please take some strike action that makes him stopped from continue violating 3RR. Thank you. --- Faisal 18:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    The first edit difference here was not a revert, but rather an addition of content subsequently removed by User:Anonymous editor. Pecher 18:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    User:Anonymous editor reported by User:Pecher

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

    Reported by: Pecher 18:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: The first revert related to edits by User:Yom in the intro concerning whether Muhammad was the founder or a "major figure" in Islam. The second and thord revert were removals of a sourced paragraph in the "Conquest of Mecca" section. The fourth revert was a re-insertion of the word "some" before the word "hadith" in the "Family life" section; Anonymous editor has already made the same edit during the day 17:24, June 3, 2006. Pecher 18:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    Really what makes my first edit a revert or my last edit? I see one edit that I made in the beginning which was changing a paragraph to a form that I wanted in the intro and removing extra details from the timeline (that was not a revert to any version). Then I see two reverts, and one edit entering a disputed tag.

    You may get very angry at editors but that's no reason to report them. I see that you've reported several editors whose pov you don't agree with on this same page. I also see you being reported. Please stop trying to trick the 3rr system. --a.n.o.n.y.m 18:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    In both your last and first revert, you reverted the page back to an earlier version, so these are clear reverts. Pecher 18:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    Funny since I didn't even check the earlier versions while making my first edit. Please show me another user's version where the made the exact same changes that I did, like removing extra material from the timeline. And whose version could I have reverted to when the last dozen edits are just making similar changes? You have reverted more times than I have in fact. --a.n.o.n.y.m 18:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    Report a new violation

    ===] reported by User:~~~===
] violation on {{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{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: