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 18:22, 27 October 2006 editWilliam M. Connolley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,008 edits User: 71.242.186.236 reported by User: Cindery 24h← Previous edit Revision as of 19:21, 27 October 2006 edit undoVinceB (talk | contribs)1,493 edits →[] reported by User:[] (Result: 3h)Next edit →
Line 1,206: Line 1,206:


Bit silly this. Still, 3h for now ] 18:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC) Bit silly this. Still, 3h for now ] 18:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
===] reported by User:] (Result:)===
<!-- If your signature has additional fonts, please enter your username manually -->

] violation on
{{Article|Administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary}}. {{3RRV|Juro}}:
<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- Use this for simple reverts. For more complex reverts, please include information
about which previous versions are being reverted to. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
<!--
* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3A84.9.211.122&diff=83967362&oldid=83960752
-->

Time report made: 19:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

''' Comments:''' Not mentioning in the resume box, that these are reverts. --] 19:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


==Copy-paste-edit this for a new report== ==Copy-paste-edit this for a new report==

Revision as of 19:21, 27 October 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

    Please place new reports at the bottom.

    User:Uknewthat reported by User:Justin (Result: 24 hours)

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

    • Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
    • 1st revert: 12:46, October 21, 2006
    • 2nd revert: 21:36, October 21, 2006
    • 3rd revert: 00:26, October 22, 2006
    • 4th revert: 02:54, October 22, 2006

    Time report made: 03:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC) User:Uknewthat has been previously blocked for WP:3RR on two occasions and blocked once for disruption. His entire edit history consists of adding POV and OR material to the Global Positioning System and Hafele-Keating experiment and his edits are the reason why these articles are currently semi-protected. See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Uknewthat for additional information on this user.

    I blocked him for 24 hours, not for the 3RR as such, but for continuing to add the OR. SlimVirgin 05:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

    User:Gstar4 reported by User:Hkelkar (Result: 8 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gstar4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here:04:21, 20 October 2006


    Time report made: 18:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User has also removed sprotected tag placed there by admins. He has been edit-warring on Khalistan in a similar manner and has not responded to my pleas for discussion.Hkelkar 18:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

    User:Snowolfd4 reported by User:Leuko (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Military use of children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Snowolfd4 (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:

    Time report made: 08:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User was already blocked for 3RR for 24 hours, now continues to edit war on the article to push POV edits. Leuko 08:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

    User:Bbb1992 reported by User:Panarjedde (Result: 12h each)

    Three-revert rule violation on Alexandroupoli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bbb1992 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    Time report made: 14:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • The user has been already blocked for 3RR violation
    • The comment of his 4th and last edit was (rv) this is my third and last reversion, for today
    • The revert is quite trivial
    • Yep, that's a violation and 12 hour block. Unfortunately for Panarjedde, he/she has also reverted 4 times in there and gets 12h as well. Stifle (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
      • That's a second violation (the first was a 24h block) and deserves a 12h block. Unfortunately for Panarjedde, he reverted 4 times in 48h, so he deserves a 12h block too. Thanks.--Panarjedde 12:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

    User:68.41.31.120 reported by User:Thor Malmjursson (Result: Sprotected)

    Three-revert rule violation on Bachmann_Thomas_and_Friends. User:68.41.31.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revers:
    • 6th revert:
    • 7th revert:
    • 8th revert:
    • 9th revert:

    Time report made: 16:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Discospinster and I have repeatedly warned this IP for the continued and persistent addition of information which is in direct contravention of Wikipiedia is not a crystal ball. The IP has repeatedly added information about upcoming products in this range of toys which they have been unable to give sources for, and have continuously ignored both Discospinster's and my own warnings.

    Seems to be a job for Mr. Semi-Protection. Stifle (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

    User:Zarbon reported by User:KojiDude (Result:Zarbon, 1 month; KojiDude:warned)

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

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

    Time report made: 22:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User has received numerous 3RR blocks before. He has an extremley bad WP:OWN issue as well. My suggestion would be a 2 week block, seeing as how this is the 4th offense, and after the 3rd he had created sock puppets to evade his block.--KojiDude 22:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

    I have blocked User:Zarbon for one month. I warned User:KojiDude to avoid edit-warring. Tom Harrison 23:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

    User:Capsource1 reported by User:Gdo01 (Result:24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Mike_Malloy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Capsource1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 23:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Started off as an IP user 71.194.175.20 claiming that an e-mail from the user led to the firing of Mike Malloy but offered no other explanation or citation. In addition the user added Rush Limbaugh links to the page. The user registered a user account and went on again to put Rush Limbaugh links on the page in addition to the revert. After that the user reverted multiple times as above and added a rant as of the 4th revert. I wrote on his talk page that the commentary belonged on the talk page. The user then proceeded to revert on the article page and add the same edit to the talk page. The user has shown no intent on cooperating and thinks that the rant is sufficient reason and rationale for the edits. Gdo01 23:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

    In addition the article currently needs a revert since I am also on the verge of violating 3RR. Gdo01 00:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    The user has reverted again with the rationalle that the edit has to remain until there is a decision. As above, a revert is again needed. Gdo01 00:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comment - I have also participated in reversion of this article, and have removed Capsource's edits now 3 times today, and am against my own 3R cap. I have also started and explained patiently on his talk page about the guidelines that make his edits improper. I hope someone can help here. Debivort 01:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

    Blocked for 3rr, but arguably vandalism because of the style William M. Connolley 09:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

    User:NBGPWS reported by User:Tbeatty and User:GabrielF (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on User:GabrielF/911TMCruft (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). NBGPWS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 04:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Procedural note - two reports on this matter were submitted nearly simultaneously by me and Tbeatty, they are consolidated here. GabrielF 05:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

    • This is a dispute over a user page, and an extremely controversial one at that. It co-ordinates editors with a particular outlook for AFD snowballs, which I can't differentiate from vote-stacking. The whole situation is really ironic, since the usual snowball swarm has now turned into a revert swarm of someone posting an article that you'd think they'd want to AFD. Anyway's I'm not even sure 3RR applies outside of article space, much less on a subpage of user talk page. At the least, Tbeatty's call for a LONG ban is inappropriate, unless he is referring to himself, in which case I fully endorse it. This is really a matter to be settled at RFC or at the Village Pump. Derex 05:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
      • User:Derex has decided to inject himself by repeating the reverts and not not signing them. Violating WP:POINT and disruption by trying to continue a revert war. --Tbeatty 06:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Special:Contributions/Derex is quite an interesting read. It should be noted that Derex has somehow been previously involved. Tuxide 06:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
        • What's interesting about it? I hadn't ever made an edit to that page at the time of this report. I do have strong feelings about the page, which I would think is pretty clear from my comments. So, what's your implication? If you've got something to say, I'd prefer you'd be clear. Derex 09:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
          • I'd tend to agree -- doesn't seem entirely pertinent to the matter at hand. I've been wrong before, but I don't think Derex is going to break 3RR anytime soon. Luna Santin 09:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
            • My implication was not whether Derex will violate 3RR (I have no reason to believe he ever did) but to question the validity of Derex's above comment. It is obvious that there are two parties here that just don't seem to like getting along with each other. In my opinion, the only clear, well-defined rule concerning behaving on Misplaced Pages is obviously WP:DICK, with policies like WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL, etc. that are just there to help people interpret it. I believe there's more to this than just a simple 3RR incident and what is being discussed here; therefore it is with much consideration that I believe this should've been brought up on WP:WQA instead of WP:AN/3RR. Tuxide 00:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
              • Sure, I think that's along the lines of what I was thinking, too -- there's obviously more going on here than a little 3RR. an RfC might be healthy, possibly MfD -- or hey, even the Mediation Cabal works. Things seem to have calmed down a bit, which I think is good for all parties; ideally, this little incident prompts discussion and eventually leads to a resolution of some sort to stop the bickering. There've been some interesting points and concerns raised by a few parties, here, so finding a good forum to explore them doesn't seem like a horrible idea. Luna Santin 00:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
              • Tuxide, thank you for clarifying. I think from my comment it was entirely clear that I had issues with the reverted page, and your diff points to a heated response to baiting over the same matter. Note that the diff also explicitly credits the complainant here, GabrielF, with good faith about the page in question. At any rate, yes the issue is broader than this, and NBGPWS was clearly reverting to make a POINT. I thank you being explicit, as a dismissive wave towards my general edit history seemed to imply that I'm a troll to be ignored, instead of an editor for over two years with over ten-thousand edits on hundreds of pages on dozens of topics. Derex 01:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

    User is disrupting a page in my userspace to make a point. GabrielF 04:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

    Note GabrielF brought this up on IRC before going to WP:AN/3RR. Although we weren't able to reach consensus over if 3RR applied to user subpages, within good faith I believe (if I'm interpreting WP:3RR#Reverting pages in your user space correctly) that 3RR indeed applies to user subpages that are not "yours" (project-related-wise). Nevertheless, apart from 3RR, NBGPWS was being flat-out uncivil in this incident. Tuxide 06:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

    NBGPWS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long history of disruption and reverts. His last block was for 1 week. This is a form of disruption and not just reverts of content. A LONG ban is called for.--Tbeatty 04:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

    On the one hand, this is a 3RR violation, and probably a WP:POINT problem. When I suggested a more productive means of resolving the dispute -- namely, MfD -- I was ignored in favor of continued disruption. On the other hand, it's out of article space. I'm not opposed if anyone cares to review this, but for the time being I've given NBGPWS a 24 hour block for continued disruption and edit warring. Luna Santin 07:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

    User:Vr6 reported by User:M100 (Result: indef)

    Three-revert rule violation on Jim_Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Vr6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

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

    Time report made: 11:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User:Vr6 also previously reported at as suspected sockpuppet of User:Pflanzgarten

    indef blocked as sock of User:Pflanzgarten William M. Connolley 19:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

    User:Panarjedde reported by User:Dppowell (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Julian the Apostate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Panarjedde (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:

    Time report made: 13:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: I'm primarily concerned with his edits to this article, but a review of his talk page and recent block log will show that this is part of a larger pattern of behavior for this user. Dppowell 17:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

    24h William M. Connolley 19:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

    User:Supreme_Cmdr reported by User:Ehheh (Result: 1 week)

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

    Time report made: 14:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User has been blocked for 3RR on this article multiple times, most recently for 72 hours on October 17. A few self-labeled reverts along with repeated removals of a SA link. Ehheh 14:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

    As seen from talk, what you and your friends are doing is making unwarranted edits to the article. Then when myself or another editor come in and revert, you folks punch back in the questionable edit, thereby trapping us in a 3RR rule. This mornings 3RR violation by WarHawk was caused by you. Even a notable editor JBKramer was almost caught by it until he reverted himself for an attrocious edit of yours that he removed. So, in this case, the 3RR were required and warranted Supreme_Cmdr 16:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

    Hmmm, how are we going to allow you to decide what is warranted? You are not trapped into 3RR by a yone but yourself. I've made this 1 week since last time was 72h; others feel free to review if thats felt a bit high William M. Connolley 17:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

    • It was a bit low by my feeling, but I think if Supreme_Cmdr doesn't lay off the Derek Smart article he's going to find himself before ArbCom in quick order. Stifle (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

    User:William Mauco reported by User:MariusM (Result:)

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

    20 oct 18:38

    • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here. Not a new user. However, I warned him:

    Time report made: 20:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User:William Mauco is a supporter of Transnistrian separatist government and he is pushing his POV through entire Misplaced Pages in Transnistria-related articles, where he want to have "veto" rights. In this particular case, he wanted to deny or to hide the fact, proven even by official Transnistrian site, that the majority of the leaders of separatist government are not native transnistrians (deleting also a refference to official EU site that he claims is not reliable), and to add a link at an online newspaper (Tiraspol Times) where himself is a collaborator see the end of article. 1st, 2nd and 4th reverts were about the problem of nativeness of transnistrian leadership, 3rd revert was about adding the link to "Tiraspol Times" with the misleading comment that consensus was reach 4 against 1. In fact, there were 4 editors (Me, User:EvilAlex, User:Bogdangiusca and User:Illythr) who express doubts against Tiraspol Times link and from those who support that link there are 2 with conflict of interest: User:MarkStreet (self declared editor of Tiraspol Times, as his user page) and User:William Mauco (writer for Tiraspol Times ). For 3rd revert, as previous version will qualify this: 20 oct 18:38--MariusM 20:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

    Misleading. Apart from the slurs and personal attacks, I wrote one (1) single, unpaid guest column on an OpEd page for an online newspaper. What that has to do with this particular 3RR, I don't know. I certainly wasn't pushing "my" column and the edits listed are not about the newspaper, so I don't see a conflict of interest. As for the reverts in question, one was just cleaning up after a vandal. And why are there two (2) previous versions here? One on 20 October and another on 22 October? - 07:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

    Later adition: edit warrior User:William Mauco is continuing the edit war with his 5th revert: 23 oct 21:36--MariusM 22:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

    Not in the same 24H period. Besides, in the end, the correct phrasing got agreed upon in Talk, and the issue is now behind us. At the current time, we have consensus on the proper sentence for the article. - Mauco 07:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    Technically, both sides should get a block for this. Both sides have violated the spirit of 3RR (although there may be some technical loopholes), and the edit wars seem to be ongoing, even if they are temporarily solved. The solution should be mediation, since I really don't believe blocking the users, or page protection, will solve this. Due to this, I'm not applying a block on anyone at the moment. 3RR and admin action is always open to you, but I really do recommend that you try solving it in a non-punitive way, since this won't solve the root of the dispute. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 09:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    Excellent point, Ronline: "The solution should be mediation". I tried twice this solution with Mauco, but he disagreed , . What can be done when facing such a disruptive behaviour, unwilling to compromise?--MariusM 11:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    If the user is unwilling to compromise, then mediation should be tried again. As a mediator, I will gladly take on this case, and ensure that Mauco complies with the spirit of dispute resolution at Misplaced Pages. But for that to happen, all personal attacks and a general spirit of division and bickering needs to stop. Ronline ✉ 12:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    I am absolutely certain that this is not a problem, Ronline. You know me: I didn't want to make this back-and-forth more polemic than it is already is, so I try to not to respond to some of the things said about me here. However, it should be noted that my objection to mediation in the cases mentioned (which involves the same user, but different pages) is not an objection to mediation in general, but to a very specific and narrow case where he didn't bother to follow any of the recommendations in WP:DR first. If anything, I am hoping that I can teach this colleague how to be a better wikipedian and maybe pay a bit more attention to the policies and the guidelines first. That would be good for all of us, myself included. - Mauco 18:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

    User:Antarcticwik reported by User:Asterion (Result:)

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


    • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

    Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. User warned here

    Time report made: 22:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Some edits made without previously login in. It seems to be some sort of vengeance campaign againts User:Al-Andalus who has been reverting User:Antarcticwik's controversial edits. The latter seems to believe that the former is Andalusian. Therefore, I presume this to be a revenge attack, which follows on a very strong racist personal attack here (in Spanish). Asterion 22:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

    User:NisarKand reported by User:Tājik (Result:)

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

    Time report made: 23:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:JonMoseley reported by User:Luna Santin (Result: 12 hours)

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

    Time report made: 05:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • While I regret reporting such a new user, their behavior is patently disruptive, adding blatant POV into an article; two editors have calmly tried to talk them out of this, but all edit summaries and talk messages have been completely ignored. I don't think we can work with this person if they refuse to acknowledge other editors and ignore any and all attempts at communication. Luna Santin 05:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

    User:DaffyDuck619 reported by User:DXRAW (Result: 48h)

    Three-revert rule violation on John_Cena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DaffyDuck619 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

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

    Time report made: 06:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User has had a Mediation Case: 2006-06-22 John Cena about the same edit before

    48h William M. Connolley 07:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


    User:MariusM reported by User:Mauco (Result:)

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

    Time report made: 08:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This is the first time that I ever report anyone for 3RR, although I have had plenty of opportunities to do so in the past. We currently have some serious differences of opinion (content disputes) on Transnistria. The page is controversial, and fortunately some editors (like User:MarkStreet) deliberately limit themselves to only edit in Talk, in order to seek consensus and let others handle mainspace edits. However, representing the opposite view, there are a couple of users who have teamed up to collaborate in active and deliberate edit-warring in mainspace. When one of them comes close to breaching 3RR, the other takes over. This is a daily pattern now. This has been going on for a while. One of them has even admitted to loving edit wars, and engaging in them out of boredom. The other has enlisted him to participate in circumventing 3RR and has then covered up the evidence of that afterwards. For these types of activities, they communicate in a foreign language which they share, and for other things - which is not disruptive - they communicate in English. In addition to using a foreign language to coordinate their 3RR circumventions, they also use private email, in order to make it harder for admins to determine what is going on. When done, they remove the evidence of this coordination, too. - Mauco 08:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

    Please note: In the above report, I am only reporting one of the two users, who alone has four reverts within a 24 hour period. If I had added also the reverts of the other member of the edit-warring team, then the number of violations would of course increase. - Mauco 08:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    No previous warning. Mauco is a well known edit-warrior, he started his activities at Misplaced Pages engaging edit wars with veteran users, in order to push propaganda for Russian chauvinistic Transnistrian government. I reported him 4 times for 3RR rule (he is the only one against whom I made such reports), but administrators were lenient with him in 3 cases , , and 1 case is still pending . In this particular case I was trying to remove plain fallacies from Misplaced Pages: it was claimed, by Mauco's edits, that Ethnic Moldovans are well represented in the leadership of Transnistria and that the majority of Transnistrian leaders are native born, while the refference given (the official biographies of the members of transnistrian parliament) prove exact the contrary (The majority is not native). Removing such plain fallacies is something that others editors have done as well, there is no place for conspiration theories here. Great minds think alike :-). I never before broke 3RR, he drove me to do this as he broke the rule himself and my previous attempts to enforce that rule on him were not taken in account by administrators, that gave me the feeling that this rule don't exist, the mood of administrators is more important than the rule. As I didn't received a previous warning, it will not qualify for a block.--MariusM 08:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    First of all, could you please stop reporting each other? This is an edit war that involves both sides. Since the edit war seems to be ongoing, the convention is that both sides should be warned or blocked. I personally don't believe in 3RR blocking, so I'm not going to block anyone. But I don't see how tit-for-tat 3RR reporting helps anyone. The point is that an edit war is going on that needs to be solved. Blocking for technical 3RR offences isn't going to help solve that, it's simply going to defer the problem. I do, however, issue a strong warning to User:EvilAlex and User:MariusM for what appears to be a form of collusion and "meatpuppeting". In particular, stealthy messages in Romanian calling on each other to revert really hinders the dispute resolution process, since it removes trust and also creates a situation where a complex content dispute is transformed into a clearly-deliniated and rather aggressive dispute between two discrete sides. My recommendation, particularly to MariusM and EvilAlex, is that you stop seeing the other side as "hostile and evil" (not quoting here) and hence necessary to outdo them at all costs. Try to understand, rather than to attack. Ronline ✉ 09:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    I mention also that I had problems with the plantiff in other Transnistria-related articles, I tried mediation but he refused , . As he refused mediation I consider him a vandal and what I have done is only a anti-vandalism work.--MariusM 19:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    Anti-vandalism work can be done anytime. If he refused mediation his edits can be reverted. --Wissahickon Creek 20:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    Ahem, this is highly ... Misleading. For every edit in mainspace on this matter there are 8 or 9 edits in Talk, in an attempt to seek consensus. This is hardly "vandal" behavior, as the edit log and edit summaries can show. Moreover, no mediation was sought in this matter. The user is misleadingly referring to two DIFFERENT articles, both of them old, where mediation was declined by me for the simple reason that the other, prior attempts at dispute resolution had NOT been followed first. Instead of following WP:DR, he went straight to formal mediation, something which I 'and WP:DR have a problem with because there are a series of methods which can and should be tried first. In summary: Neither of us are vandals or trolls. I am not, and he is not. There is a heated edit conflict and it seems that someone takes it personal at times, that is all. - Mauco 22:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    I refrained myself in editing Misplaced Pages for 24 hours (in fact, it was around for around 40 hours ) and I hope Mauco will do the same, either voluntarily or through an enforcement of 3RR rule imposed by administrators (I wonder why they are not doing their job, a 3RR report was filed against Mauco in 23 October and no decision was yet made).--MariusM 09:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

    User:Quizimodo reported by User:Endroit (Result: 24h)

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

    Time report made: 16:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: 3RR was violated on the bolding of the words East Sea, against consensus.--Endroit 16:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

    Oh no, its the SOJ again :-(. 24h William M. Connolley 16:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

    User:205.188.116.11 reported by User:SteveLamacq43 (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Triple_H (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 205.188.116.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 17:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Clear and persitant vandalism. SteveLamacq43 17:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

    2006-10-24T17:29:13 No Guru (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "205.188.116.11 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 hour (repeated vanfalsim) William M. Connolley 19:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

    User:Mattisse reported by User:Ekajati (yakity-yak) (Result: 24h)

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

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


    Time report made: 19:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

    24h William M. Connolley 19:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

    The dynamic IP range 81.117.200.* reported by User:JBKramer (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Deflation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 81.117.200.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) aka 81.117.200.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Time report made: 19:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Previously blocked for exact same violation, also blocked for disruption and trolling regarding this same POV edit. JBKramer 19:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

    Edit conflicts... anyway: blocked .27 and .37; maybe this will do? William M. Connolley 20:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

    User:Joegoodfriend reported by User:Aaron (Result:24h)

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

    Time report made: 20:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment I was about to post this incident myself when I noticed that MONGO already blocked the user. But there's something funny with the timestamps. He seems to have done another revert after he was supposedly blocked... Crockspot 20:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
      Already blocked by MONGO as you say. The timestamps look ok to me. Last revert was 2 minutes before block. - Aksi_great (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

    User:DJ_Clayworth reported by User:Humus sapiens (Result: no block)

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

    Time report made: 20:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    My apologies, it turns out Humus is right. I miscounted the number of edits. I will voluntarily refrain from editing from 24hrs as of now. If you wish to make it an actual ban that would be fair. DJ Clayworth 20:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

    I will forgive you; hopefully others too. Probably just leaving J4J alone will do William M. Connolley 21:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


    User:Nixer reported by User:Lysy (Result: 48 hours)

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

    Time report made: 21:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Sarner reported by User:RalphLender (Result:No violation)

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

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

    placed on article given to Sarner Time report made: 21:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This report is not of a true violation of 3RR (no 4th revert in 24 hours). RalphLender has been waging a revert war against me. He is under current investigation for being a sock-puppet with others who are also engaged in (and winning) this revert war. I believe this is the first time in this revert war that I have even reached 3 edits (and never four), despite considerable provocation (removal of legitimate editing tags) by the other side. If my editing conduct warrants, I would appreciate comment and guidance from an administrator. If not guilty of a 3RR, I would appreciate having Lender's entry on my talk page removed. Larry Sarner 22:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

    The accusation against me was considered by the Mediator to be provocative and unfounded. It has been reported as a violation of good faith and other Misplaced Pages policies and can be considered vandalsim. diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AMediation_Cabal%2FCases%2F2006-10-07_Advocates_for_Children_in_Therapy&diff=83472380&oldid=83464450

    "That was COMPLETELY unjustified. I think this shows that you will do almost anything to keep the article from the majority of editors. Nwwaew(My talk page) 11:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC) " RalphLender 23:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

    The above comment are an example of the extremely odd goings on by the group of editors of which "Ralph Lender" is a part, and of which the mediator may also have been a part, and I suspect, this 3RR report is a part. (The mediation, as one can see from the citation made above, was not about the Bowlby page, I was not a party, and the mediator was pushing to merge it with non-existent mediations.) I only mentioned the sock-puppetry above because it bears on the revert war being waged against me, and it may warrant investigation. Larry Sarner 08:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

    User:Mikedk9109 reported by User:DavyJonesLocker (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Triple H (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mikedk9109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 00:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Once again, the user refuses to listen to anybody elses opinion. He's been blocked for this twice in October already. DavyJonesLocker 00:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

    24h William M. Connolley 08:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

    User:Isarig reported by User:Tiamut (Result: no block)

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

    • For more complex reverts, please include information

    about which previous versions are being reverted to. -->

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:
    • 7th revert:
    • 8th revert:
    • 9th revert:


    Time report made: 00:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Isarig's behaviour in this regard has been very disruptive. I was happily editing the article in toto (badly in need of major revisions) before he came along and repeatedly reverted my well-sourced additions to an interpretation (his) unsupported by the citations I had placed there after he requested that I find sources for my statements. This edit war has hindered any further progress in the development of that article. On a closing note, please forgive any errors in the filling out of this report. It is the first time I read about 3RR and file a report. Thank you for your time and your services to the community. Tiamut 00:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

    Bogus report, which I don't know if we should attribute to the fact that this is a newbie user who does not understand 3RR, or if this is a personal attack by an editor who can't make a case for his edits on Talk, and has instead decided to try to use 3RR to silence me. In any case: is not a revert. is not a revert, but a 2nd consecutive edit by me, to my own version. The stretch is over a period of 6 days, during which I had not made a single edit in 3 of the 6 dyas, while Tiamut has made as many, if not more reverts to the same article. There is not a single instance there of 3 reverts in 24 hours, let alone 4.Isarig 02:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

    Additional information: Isarig often games with 3RR rules. He often make his 4th revert after 24 hours 5 minutes Nielswik(talk) 07:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

    Not in 24h, or even close William M. Connolley 08:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

    User:69.249.253.211 reported by User:John Broughton

    Three-revert rule violation on Randy Kuhl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.249.253.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Initial 3RR warning posted on talk page: 04:55, 25 October 2006 (this is not a diff; it was the first posting on the page, so a diff is not possible).

    Time report made: 14:10 25 October 2006

    Comments: User was warned twice on his/her talk page about 3RR violations. Warnings were also given by postings on talk pages of several articles (by another editor, not me) and in edit summaries. Use has neither

    User has also been doing repeated edits to section headings of "Controversies", in other articles; he/she seems to have something against one-word section titles in four different articles.


    Seems a bit pointless... 8h William M. Connolley 15:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

    User:88.110.190.21 reported by User:Khosrow II (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Arabs of Khuzestan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 88.110.190.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 23:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    2006-10-25T21:16:08 InShaneee (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "88.110.190.21 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3rr violation) William M. Connolley 08:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    User:Tbeatty reported by User:Sparkhead (Result: no block)

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

    3RR warning diff:

    Time report made: 03:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Revert #3 above also broke a reference link that had been corrected, which may indicate a lack of review of the diff before committing the revert.

    Revert #4 also reverted another unrelated edit.

    Note user has been involved in a continual revert war on the article in question, with previous recent reverts of the same text:


    Comment by Tbeatty A) this is a BLP issue and B) I self reverted my 4th edit. 20:11, October 25, 2006 before this was filed which makes this a non-violation. --Tbeatty 03:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comment by Sparkhead A) Not a BLP issue. If it were, note WP:3RR regarding BLP states: "Err on the side of caution: do not repeatedly remove material you consider defamatory unless it is blatant". Name of a person involved in an event who isn't the subject of BLP and is given in referenced sources doesn't seem defamtory, much less blatantly defamatory. B) WP:3RR regarding self reverts of a violation don't guarantee avoidance of a block. I feel the past edit history in this article is particularly relevant. Either way, the administrators now have all the information and they, as always, will rule on it. *Sparkhead 04:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    There are at least 2 other editors who believe it should be removed as a BLP issue as it adds no value and invades privacy. Regardless, I reverted my 4th revert after realizing I had missed the 4 revert window by 1 minute. Per the policy If you've broken 3RR by mistake and now realise it, or if another user has left you a talk page note pointing out that you've broken 3RR, then you can self-revert your change back to the "other version". In general, this should be enough to prevent you being blocked (though there are no guarantees). I have done this. --Tbeatty 05:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    Self revert is good enough, of course William M. Connolley 08:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    User:69.86.190.128 reported by User:Omicronpersei8 (Result: sprot)

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

    Time report made: 04:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: One user is IP jumping to push POV, and claims all reverts to his edits to be "vandalism". IPs used include 66.98.131.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 69.86.190.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and 70.85.195.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This has continued from yesterday and was the reason for the page being protected. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 04:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    2006-10-26T16:39:29 Srikeit (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Larry Craig: Anon vandalism ) William M. Connolley 18:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    User:Calton reported by User:Hanuman Das (Result:)

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

    • The last edit comment shows the user is aware of WP:3RR.

    I notice that you have left out "prev version", so its unclear if the 1st is a rv William M. Connolley 18:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Time report made: 14:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Cryogenesis reported by User:Pak21 (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Ooze (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Cryogenesis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

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

    Comment by Pak21 The issue here is the persistent readding of the information relating to the articles being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Abysmal ooze, for which there is no consensus whatsoever to merge.

    Comment by Rosicrucian Appears to be an attempt by User:Cryogenesis to own the article. He has accused both Pak and myself of vandalism and harassment for simply asking him to participate in the merge discussion and follow Misplaced Pages policy.--Rosicrucian 15:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    Time report made: 15:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    Not sure this is quite technically 3RR William M. Connolley 18:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    User:Gltl reported by User:M100 (Result: indef)

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


    Time report made: 15:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Sole use account reverting this article against consensus, suspected sock of http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Pflanzgarten as pattern of reverts appears identical. Some reverts have edit summary of "reverting vandalism"!!

    3RR; but as presumed sock, indef William M. Connolley 17:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    User:Asgardian reported by Doczilla 17:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC) (Result: 24h)

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

    Time report made: 17:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Sole user has kept reverting work despite consensus and with disregard to Misplaced Pages guidelines. Asgardian has continued edit wars over numerous Thor-related articles for the past month. (e.g.,

    24h William M. Connolley 17:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    User:JQF reported by User:Combination (Result: no block)

    Three-revert rule violation on Template:Wario series (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JQF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

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

    Time report made: 18:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Hello, person wrongly charged reporting. Let me be the first to say that the first two clamed reverts are reverts, pure and simple. However, the third is not a revert, as I was changing the data of what I had reverted to. I just didn't get a chance to finish it for a few hours as I had to leave my computer and didn't know it had been reverted until I tried to save it. Compair those two and you'll see what I changed. The fourth isn't a revert, again if you compair them you will see this to be true, but a complete overhaul of the data to merge to the two styles being "discussed". JQF 18:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    I'm inclined to judge #3 a revert, but not #4 William M. Connolley 20:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    User:NBeale reported by User:Sparkhead (Result: 24h)

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

    Warning: (no diff, first entry in talk)

    Time report made: 18:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    24h William M. Connolley 20:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comment, posted after result decision: For purposes of block review, note a 7th revert was made after the 3RR template was posted on the user's talk page:

    User:Nielswik reported by User:Isarig (Result:)

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

    User was warned about 3RR just a day ago, after he violated 3RR on another page:

    Time report made: 19:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User has a pattern of refusal to participate in Talk prior to reverting on contentious article.

    Prev version is more than a month old so I am somewhat reluctant to block on the grounds that the first rv is only technically so William M. Connolley 20:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: The first one doesnt count as revert

    User:NisarKand reported by User:Tājik (Result: 24h)

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

    Time report made: 21:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: The user was already blocked for 24h because of 3RR a day ago: , and should have been warned and informed about the consequences of his fast edits. Yet, he has once again violated the 3RR and is continuing to flood the article Afghanistan with unsourced POV. He is pushing his POV against the will of at least 4 other Wiki-Users. User:Ariana310 has suggested to report him to an admin . Tājik 21:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    24h William M. Connolley 08:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

    User:67.110.68.99 reported by User:Ace Class Shadow; My talk. (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Heroes (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.110.68.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    —There are probably more by now, but I don't want to get excessive.—

    • A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here: In the edit summary, here and on his talk page here

    Time report made: 22:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    24h William M. Connolley 11:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

    User:162.138.176.51 reported by User:72.75.76.29(Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Jim_Talent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 162.138.176.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 23:08, 26 October 2006

    Comments: There are more reverts by this user, almost certainly a sockpuppet for BZuckercorn. Notice the misleading comment trail.


    User:Nielswik reported by User:Isarig (Result: 24h)

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

    User was warned about 3RR just a day ago, after he violated 3RR on another page: User was subsequently reported for 3RR on this page, earlier today, for a violation of 3RR on this page, but the reviewing admin took a lenient approach with him (I guess that's the thanks you get for being lenient - the abusive editor spits in your face). A subsequent 3RR warning was given here

    Time report made: 03:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Given the user's brazen disregard for 3RR, and his continued violation after already being reported on this very page, it seems a long time out is required

    24h William M. Connolley 08:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

    User: 71.242.186.236 reported by User: Cindery

    4 reverts in less than 24 hrs, after reverting for days, with a warning and pleas to read to Wiki policies. All of the anon's edits are WP:VAIN vios--he's adding uncited, irrelevant autobiographical info about himself to an article that is not about him. He is sarcastic and refuses to discuss any changes in spite of messages sent to him. Cindery 07:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

    Terrible formatting, but 3RR, so 24h

    User:84.9.211.122 reported by User:BlueValour (Result: 3h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Ormskirk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 84.9.211.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 15:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: He varies between hill, ridge and low ridge but the effect is the same, and is unsourced - see Talk

    ref one from Gloglass. low ridge - ormskirk parish church lies at 53m above mean sea level - duggan et al call it a low ridge. Ref 2 involves the link to the map that you keep removing.--84.9.211.122 16:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

    Bit silly this. Still, 3h for now William M. Connolley 18:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

    User:Juro reported by User:VinceB (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Juro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 19:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Not mentioning in the resume box, that these are reverts. --VinceB 19:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

    Copy-paste-edit this for a new report

    ===] reported by User:~~~ (Result:)===
<!-- If your signature has additional fonts, please enter your username manually -->
] violation on 
{{Article|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{3RRV|VIOLATOR_USERNAME}}: 
<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to:  
<!-- Use this for simple reverts. For more complex reverts, please include information 
about which previous versions are being reverted to. -->
* 1st revert: 
* 2nd revert: 
* 3rd revert: 
* 4th revert: 
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
<!--
* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3A84.9.211.122&diff=83967362&oldid=83960752
-->
Time report made: ~~~~~ 
''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->
    Categories: