Revision as of 05:13, 4 June 2007 editHeimstern (talk | contribs)Administrators16,881 edits →[] reported by [] (Result:): need timestamps← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:18, 4 June 2007 edit undoHeimstern (talk | contribs)Administrators16,881 edits →[] reported by [] (Result:): article protectedNext edit → | ||
Line 1,309: | Line 1,309: | ||
*Please provide diffs, not just timestamps, and a version reverted to. Thanks. ] ] 05:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC) | *Please provide diffs, not just timestamps, and a version reverted to. Thanks. ] ] 05:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
===] reported by ] (Result:)=== | ===] reported by ] (Result:article protected)=== | ||
*] violation on | *] violation on | ||
Line 1,318: | Line 1,318: | ||
* 3rd revert: , | * 3rd revert: , | ||
* 4th revert: | * 4th revert: | ||
**Article protected by {{admin|Phaedriel}}. Petri Kohn strongly urged to stop edit warring. ] ] 05:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
=== Example === | === Example === |
Revision as of 05:18, 4 June 2007
Administrators: please do not hesitate to remove disputes to user talk pages.
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 |
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
- See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
- If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.
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
- Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
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
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:Johnsome reported by User:ThuranX (Result: 24h Block)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Henry Ford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Johnsome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 22:14, 27 May 2007.
- 1st revert: 12:27, 28 May 2007
- 2nd revert: 14:42, 28 May 2007
- 3rd revert: 17:33, 28 May 2007
- 4th revert: 13:49, 29 May 2007
Although technically just outside the 24 hour period, The user has shown ZERO willingness to talk, there is NO reason to assume anythign will change unless the user is forced to. Further, please note this, where he tried to violate me for 3RR. His edit has been reverted by two users, and his actions addressed by more. Thank you.ThuranX 20:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Edits are disruptive enough to warrant a block despite the 4 reverts lying within a 25h instead of a 24h period. Signature 22:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Ned Scott reported by User:White Cat (Result: Pages protected)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cool Cat (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ned Scott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: N/A
- 1st revert: 21:30, 28 May 2007
- 2nd revert: 17:04, 29 May 2007
- 3rd revert: 00:25, 29 May 2007
- 4th revert: 00:31, 29 May 2007
User has reverted 3 admins closing the MfD. I also request a rereview of #User:Ned Scott reported by User:White Cat (Result: No block) on this page. User has "recreated" a page deleted bu five different admins. -- Cat 01:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- What are you up to, Cat? Do you see why some may find this whole username change obnoxious? You have changed many of your old signatures (albeit to have those changes reverted). You bring this up at WP:ANI. It went to WP:MFD. It came here, to WP:ANI/3RR. I rejected your previous 3RR piece here. And made a note of my rejection at WP:ANI. The MfD has been closed. And protected. Your old userpage has been deleted. And protected from recreation. And now it's back here, at WP:ANI/3RR (without you even bothering to modify the timestamps). What more do you want, Cat? Do you want a hand-written apology from Ned? Ned tarred and feathered in the town square? You seem to have gotten most of what you asked for, save retribution. Shall I give you retribution? No, the purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment; you will have to suffice with just your victory. As the previous reviewer, I perhaps should ignore this request and let another admin handle it. But I cannot in my good conscience let you waste yet another admin's time with this ordeal. Your username has been changed, your old userpage deleted. That's a wrap; time to move on. -- tariqabjotu 23:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ned Scott has waisted everyones time. I question your objectivity in reviewing the past and this 3rr case since you clearly are an involved party. Ned Scott continued to disrupt due to your last review.
- In order for me to be victorious there should be a war. I am not engaged in millitary warfare.
- -- Cat 00:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Zeraeph reported by User:Psychonaut (Result: 24h Block)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Goebbels children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zeraeph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- 1st revert: 22:29, 29 May 2007
- 2nd revert: 22:58, 29 May 2007
- 3rd revert: 23:17, 29 May 2007
- 4th revert: 23:22, 29 May 2007
User is continually removing a cited paragraph, or just the citation.
- As he/she removes the citation in each edit, he/she indeed has conducted more than 3 reverts. Considering that he/she has accused another user of "writing ficton" and has an extensive block log for personal attacks and another 3RR vio, I have issued a 24h block to as I see the chance of things getting out of hand. Signature 00:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Sir james paul reported by User:Not a dog (Result: Warning)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sir james paul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 19:31, 27 May 2007
- 1st revert: 19:34, 27 May 2007
- 2nd revert: 19:49, 27 May 2007 (personal attack in edit summary)
- 3rd revert: 22:17, 28 May 2007
- 4th revert: 22:37, 28 May 2007
- User has been blocked twice in the past for 3RR violations of similarly contentious edits on Evolution, and is forcing the issue again. Might not technically be within 24 hours, but he's knowingly and purposefully gaming the system to try to force his edits. This can't be acceptable behavior. Not a dog 01:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- No violation of the three-revert rule, but given the incivility and past history with this article, editor has been warned regarding behavior. Seraphimblade 02:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Sarah777 reported by User:SqueakBox (Result: 24h Block)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Britain and Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Time reported: 01:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- 1st revert: 17:01, 29 May 2007
- 2nd revert: 18:10, 29 May 2007
- 3rd revert: 18:26, 29 May 2007
- 4th revert: 18:35, 29 May 2007
She has since revetred 3 times more and knows what she is doing , SqueakBox 01:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, I reverted it once by mistake. User:Sarah777 corrected my mistake. Thanks Gold♣heart 01:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Can you give a diff for the mistake please? As then I can replace it with one of the 3 other urls, SqueakBox 01:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hi SqueakBox, this should be the one. Gold♣heart 01:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- It wasnt included in the report, SqueakBox 01:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please provide diffs to all four reverts, above you only provided three diffs. Yet, I was able to see from the page history that Sarah has egaged in an edit war that warrants administrative action. I have issued a 24h block to calm things down. Signature 02:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Adam1090 reported by User:Scorpion0422 (Result: Adam1090 commended)
- Three-revert rule violation on
WWE Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Adam1090 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 19:37, 29 May 2007
- 1st revert: 22:07, 29 May 2007
- 2nd revert: 01:09, 30 May 2007
- 3rd revert: 01:26, 30 May 2007
- 4th revert: 01:31, 30 May 2007
Copyright issues are not subject to the three-revert rule, editor was replacing a fair-use image with a free one. However, I will look carefully to see if any of those putting the fair-use image back in, in violation of our fair use policy, need to be blocked. Seraphimblade 02:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Smee reported by User:Lsi john (Result: Page protected)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Large Group Awareness Training (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Smee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Smeelgova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) : Time reported: 03:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- 1st revert: diff1
- 2nd revert: diff2
- 3rd revert: diff3
- 4th revert: diff4
- 5th revert: diff5
- 6th revert: diff6
- 7th revert: diff7 ADDED - after initial report.
This editor has a contentious edit history and already been blocked for 3RR violations 5 times by this board: as Smeelgova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Smee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The user is edit warring with multiple editors.
Lsi john 03:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Not 3RR violation
This user seems to habitually want to get me blocked, and it is inappropriate. A simple review of the DIFFs and a perusal of the article's history itself will see that I have provided context for the citation, and in addition to that I will not revert this information again. I have changed the nature in which the citation is given. These are in fact not "6" reverts, but if anything 3, which I apologize for, but sourced citations were being removed from the article. In any event, as the context has been given for the citation appropriately, there will be no more reverts for that. Whether or not User:Lsi john will continue to edit war on that article is irrelevant, for I will not be a party to it. Smee 03:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
- User:Lsi john does not seem to understand, I changed his original research tag which was laid over the whole entire article, instead to the one word that he had a problem with "psychological", and by the way, this was not a revert. However, if someone thinks that my changing of his tagging as OR the entire article, to the only word that he has an issue with "psychological" was some kind of revert, I will be more than happy to self-revert that. I will continue to not revert this user anymore on this article, as I have stated above. Smee 04:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
- SELF REVERT, As stated above, I do not wish to revert this user on this article at all, and will not in the future. Evidently he feels that my changing his tagging of the entire article as OR, to the one word that he thinks is OR, was a revert, so I have Self-Reverted here, and will not revert this user. Smee 04:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
- Justanother's rationale doesn't make sense: (The idea that we would list where a term is referenced in other books and articles is unencyclopedic, adds nothing, and I will stop just short of saying it is silly.) To the contrary mentioning the use of LGAT in textbooks discussing the issue is quite encyclopedic and adds relevance to the term/article.
- Lsi john doesn't explain how the reference doesn't match either in his edit summary or on the talk page.
- Lsi john repeats his last action.
- Lsi john appears to have forgotten that the article is about LGATs in general, since he earlier appeared to feel that singling out Landmark in the article was unfair given all the LGATs out there. Talk:Large Group Awareness Training#Landmark in LEAD
- At best this is a misunderstanding of the WP:3RR rule by Lsi john, at worst a pattern of WP:HARASS which could be forming here. Anynobody 04:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Page protected
Since both of you have been having disputes over the page since quite a long time, the only appropriate course of action would be to protect the page while the parties can discuss and resolve dispute on the talk page of the article. The article protection duration is of 48 hours. — Nearly Headless Nick 05:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- This is not the same article as previous reports. This is a problem with the editor, not the article. Smee followed me to Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji? (book) as well and is picking at my edits (check the edit logs there). I agree with Anynobody, I'm not sure I understand 3RR at all, when 7RR isn't a violation. I'm not warring, I'm only 2RR there.Lsi john 05:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Pattern of abuse by Smee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (formerly Smeelgova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
This is about a long-term pattern of abuse, tendentious editing, and ownership of articles. Smee merrily went 3 reverts with me over my thought-out edit that contributed to the article and then merrily continued edit-warring with one, perhaps two, other editors. This is not about the article; this is about one editor that refuses to "get it" despite multiple blocks. When Smee is invested in an article, no-one with an "opposing" POV to her "cult-fighter" persona (or a neutral POV for that matter, or often even a more reasonable editor with views closer to hers, like User:Wikipediatrix or User:BTfromLA) is allowed to edit there. This has to be addressed. Please, Mr. Admins, do your job. Page protection will handle nothing. This is about a pattern by one POV-pushing editor, User:Smee. --Justanother 10:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Smee (formerly Smeelgova) at work; WP:OWN; WP:BITE
- New user makes a nice edit in an unsourced section.
- User:Smee (formerly User:Smeelgova) reverts with edit summary "rvv" and then "welcomes" the newbie with a vandalism warning. --Justanother 12:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- The User has just received a more friendly welcome message from myself. The edit was indeed non-vandalism.
- But. The larger concern here is that mutually reinforcing vendettas and contribution stalking may be developing between Smee and other editors, which has more damage potential than a fourth revert. Should this be taken to another forum? User conduct RfCs are procedurally dreadful, but some mediation appears needed. I would say that the "not an entitlement" aspect of 3RR seems to be lost on Smee. Marskell 12:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- There seems to be more evidence of retaliatory behavior against User:Jossi on WP:COIN. - Crockspot 12:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, Smee has been edit warring with User:Jossi on several articles and this latest report to WP:COIN smacks strongly of retaliation to me. Lsi john 12:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Smee has been WP:BITING me since I arrived. But my complaints have been pushed aside in Good-Faith assumptions about this edit warrier. Lsi john 12:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, Smee has been edit warring with User:Jossi on several articles and this latest report to WP:COIN smacks strongly of retaliation to me. Lsi john 12:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have posted a timeline of the 3RR pattern here for anyone who wants the tedious task of observing time stamps and dates and seeing the pattern. Smee wasn't 4RR. Smee was 7RR and I was 2RR. The only 3RR block that I've ever had, came over 24 hours AFTER I had Stopped editing in an article (clearly punitive). Yet Smee has been blocked 5 times and still continually avoids preventative 3RR blocks. I'm beginning to wonder what the 3RR rule is for. Lsi john 12:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have ended the discussion on WP:COIN. This is troubling editing behaviour. Marskell 12:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Jbolden1517 reported by User:Muchness (Result: Page protected)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Lolita (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jbolden1517 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 22:09, 25 May 2007
- 1st revert: 01:43, 30 May 2007
- 2nd revert: 02:27, 30 May 2007
- 3rd revert: 02:44, 30 May 2007
- 4th revert: 03:04, 30 May 2007
- Diff of 3RR warning: 02:52, 30 May 2007
- Between the first and second reverts, two interim edits were also made by the reported user (, ). The second, third, and fourth reverts added these edits back in addition to reverting to the previous version from 25 May.
- Between the third and the fourth reverts, the page was moved to a non-standard parenthetical clarifier with an edit summary that I would characterize as disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point.
You'll notice #4 is on a new page and #1 and #2 don't match (aren't the same version of the article (see all the fashion material) jbolden1517 03:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- A reversion is a reversion, whether it's in whole or in part. And moving a page to a silly title does not make it a different page.--Cúchullain /c 03:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Adding a bunch of new content is not a reversion. jbolden1517 03:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Its borderline so I self reverted as much as I can. jbolden1517 03:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Page was protected by After Midnight. Seraphimblade 05:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Migospia reported by User:Rockpocket (Result: 24 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Animal testing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Migospia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 09:26, 28 May 2007
- 1st revert: 11:08, 29 May 2007
- 2nd revert: 11:27, 29 May 2007
- 3rd revert: 16:09, 29 May 2007
- 4th revert: 18:39, 29 May 2007
- 5th revert: 20:33, 29 May 2007
- User not new, but 3RR warnings were made on edit summaries: Rockpocket 05:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
24 hours. Seraphimblade 05:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Cole435 reported by User:ThuranX (Result:warned)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Two-Face (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Cole435 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 16:32, 27 May 2007
- 1st revert: 23:20, 28 May 2007
- 2nd revert: 22:24, 29 May 2007
- 3rd revert: 22:56, 29 May 2007
- 4th revert: 23:00, 29 May 2007
- 5th revert: 23:16, 30 May 2007
- 6th revert: 17:47, 31 May 2007
User refuses to use talk, relies upon OR determinations of popularity, and in his last conflict, offered to 'bust a cap' in the next person who argued with him. I didn't give a 3RR warning, but he's not a newer user, and his stubborn insistence along the WP:ILIKEIT line makes him unlikely to change. As such, a block's definitely needed. I got so frustrated, I vio'd 3RR myself, but immediately self-reverted. However, he needs to stop. ThuranX 04:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I have added a 5th revert, just outside of the 24 hour mark, and without him signing in. However, signature phrases in his argument' very camp', arguments to recentism, and genreal comments regaring Two-face being a serious character indicate it's the same editor, tryign to WP:GAME 3RR. I can go through a checkuser if needed, please let me know at my talk. ThuranX 04:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I have now added a 6th revert in this slow boil. He's been reverted and on contact with another editor, User:DrBat, and hasn't listened to that editor either. Please put a halt to this. He violated 3RR, and got nothing, and continues to revert war despite opposition. ThuranX 23:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- And yet no one warned him? I am personally unwilling to block editors if I think they may not be aware of the rule, so I've just left a warning. If another admin is willing to block, OK. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Warnings are NOT required for non-new users, for one, and for two, given his lack of intent to use talk pages, nor respond to interactions from others, I doubt it's effectiveness anyway. ThuranX 20:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Myanw reported by User:60.240.255.213] (Result:no vio)
- Three-revert rule violation on
] (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Myanw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Not three, but eight seperate reverts in one 24 hour period. Wheel-warrior extraordinare.
- These reverts were of vandalism. Anon making this report was adding a disparaging message about Asperger syndrome. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
User:74.116.118.230 reported by User:Stephan Schulz (Result:31 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Timothy F. Ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 74.116.118.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 11:38, 30 May 2007 (Removal of longstanding external link to SourceWatch)
- 1st revert: 13:49, 30 May 2007
- 2nd revert: 13:57, 30 May 2007
- 3rd revert: 14:03, 30 May 2007
- 4th revert: 14:52, 30 May 2007
- Diff of 3RR warning: 14:38, 30 May 2007
Comment: IP user may not actually have seen warning, but also ignores request for discussion on talk via edit summary. Semiprotection might be an option.
- User clearly edit warred; no reason to block out other anons. Blocked for 31 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
User:80.250.128.5 reported by User:Makalp (Result:24h Block)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 80.250.128.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 07:41, 30 May 2007
- Warning to user :13:55, 30 May 2007
- 1st revert: 12:43, 30 May 2007
- 2nd revert: 13:49, 30 May 2007
- 3rd revert: 13:55, 30 May 2007
- 4th revert: 14:00, 30 May 2007
- 3RR vio - issued 24h block. Signature 22:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
User:67.81.154.219 reported by User:Chocolatepizza (Result: 31h Block)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Elazar Shach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.81.154.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 12:01, 6 March 2007
- 1st revert: 12:56, 29 May 2007
- 2nd revert: 09:47, 30 May 2007 (This also involved his leaving of a personal attack in the edit summary)
- 3rd revert: 11:26, 30 May 2007
- 4th revert: 11:31, 30 May 2007
- Diff of 3RR warning: 13:50, 17 August 2006 (They are the same person, see comments below.
This user is removing the sourced paragraph of
Chabad representatives dismissed the comparisons, noting that whereas the Sabbateans deliberately violated religious laws on the assumption that a "new Torah" would emerge during messianic times, Chabad preached that only strict adherence to tradition would bring the redemption. Chabad also claimed that its veneration of the rebbe was not at odds with Jewish tradition.
and adding unsourced and pov content.
I believe that this ip is User:DavidCharlesII is the ip based on his blanking of the ip's warnings http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:67.81.154.219&diff=prev&oldid=118545159 and the ip blanking of his sockpuppeteer tag http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:DavidCharlesII&diff=prev&oldid=116798822 and http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:DavidCharlesII&diff=prev&oldid=116783319 which was his first edit. Chocolatepizza 15:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- It should be noted that the reverts are also removing unsourced, anecdotal, probably false, defamatory content regarding R' Shach and the Lubavitch yeshiva, which is not subject to 3RR from what I recall. -- Avi 15:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- However the paragraph quoted above is sourced and not defamatory and should not have been removed. Chocolatepizza 16:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Violation of 3RR and personal comments in edit summary - issued 31h block. Signature 22:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
User:70.109.54.8 reported by User:Gamaliel (Result: 24h Block)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Lee Harvey Oswald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.109.54.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- 1st revert: 19:22, 29 May 2007
- 2nd revert: 21:19, 29 May 2007
- 3rd revert: 22:13, 29 May 2007
- 4th revert: 23:36, 29 May 2007
- 5th revert: 09:58, 30 May 2007
- Diff of 3RR warning: 00:25, 27 May 2007 by User:Jossi
Soon after this report was submitted, another revert was made by User:67.142.130.27, who is likely the same individual as User:70.109.54.8 based on past edits and talk comments. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 16:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Pretty clear case of 3RR vio. I have issued a 24h block. Signature 17:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Dacy69 reported by User:Azerbaijani (Result:72h Block)
User Dacy69 is on revert parole:
He has only one revert per article per week, yet on the Heroes of Azerbaijan article, he revert three times within a two day period.
Heroes of Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dacy69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- 1st revert: 2:18 May 28, 2007
- 2nd revert: 3:58 May 30, 2007
- 3rd revert: 18:48 May 30, 2007
As you can see, on May 28 he reverted once to reinsert Babak into the article, then on May 30, he again reinsert the person back into the article twice (two other reverts). He has also just personally attacked me, implying that I dont even have a medium intelligence level: .Azerbaijani 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I did not make revert - I added information with NEW supplementary references and made minor fixes. And I did not insult - what you implied it is up to you. Diffs can be checked. And speaking frankly you going after me and reporting is close to Wiki harassment. --Dacy69 22:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thats still a revert. You've been on Misplaced Pages for a long time, you know the rules. Dacy69 knows the rules, do not let him mislead you. You reverted all three times, it doesnt matter if you added anything, it still a revert. You cant hide reverts by adding information on top of the revert. The historical section was removed three times, along with Babak, and you re-inserted it three times...Thats called a revert. You clearly violated your parole, just admit it.Azerbaijani 22:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- It was not - if text is removed and I am coming to reintroduce it with new references and new text - it is not revert. That is clear. This is my first series of editing (3) and second (4). and compare now initial and final text. In between user:Richfife came leaving quite insulting comment against the country --Dacy69 22:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages rules clearly state: A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, undoing page moves (sometimes called "move warring"), undoing administrative actions (sometimes called "wheel warring"), or recreating a page.. You cant make excuses for clearly violating your parole.Azerbaijani 22:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Three reverts in two days do not constitute a violation of the 3RR. Yet, there seems to be a rather slow edit war in progress on this article. I have not issued a block but advise both parties to use the talk page instead of edit warring-even if it is at a crawling pace. Signature 22:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
This is not a regular 3rr report, its a parole violation report. Please read the case carefully. And I'm not edit warring in that artile, in fact, I havent made a single revert yet on that article.Azerbaijani 23:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I see. Sorry for the mistake. I have issued a 72h block for parole vio. Signature 23:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
User:67.142.130.43 reported by User:Gamaliel (Result: 24 hrs)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Lee Harvey Oswald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.142.130.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- 1st revert: 13:50, 30 May 2007
- 2nd revert: 14:00, 30 May 2007
- 3rd revert: 14:15, 30 May 2007
- 4th revert: 14:41, 30 May 2007
- Diff of 3RR warning: 14:21, 30 May 2007
User:67.142.130.43 is almost certainly a block-evading sockpuppet of User:70.109.54.8, who was blocked today for reverting the same edits in the same article.
This user has now started reverting as 67.142.130.26.
User:Giovanni33 reported by User:MONGO (Result: Page protected)
- Three-revert rule violation on
State terrorism by the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
While just a bit over 24 hours and only consisting of three precise reverts...3RR is not an entitlement...
- 1st revert: 13:55, 29 May 2007
- 2nd revert: 02:04, 30 May 2007
- 3rd revert: 03:16, 30 May 2007
- 4th revert: 14:53, 30 May 2007
- Block log...Giovanni is well aware of the three revert rule Discussion regarding his edit warring on the same article was most recently on May 26, 2007 based on repeated efforts to force his POV into the article over concensus , , --MONGO 20:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I object to this report because it singles me out when Mongo himself has reverted three times, as well, for his POV in this edit conflict with me and several other editors. Indeed many of us have (which I agree is not a good thing) however, if you look at the talk page, I have been the most active trying for forge a consensus and stop the edit conflicts, asking people to please talk about it instead of just reverting blindly. For Mongo to revert 3 times himself yet try to get me blocked for doing the same thing seems to me to amount to trying to gain an advantage in the edit conflict. That is not what this place is for. I have not violated the 3RR as he admits, and if I should not have reverted 3 times, he should not have either, nor the many other editors in this latest edit conflict. I should not be singled out, esp. since I did not violate the 3RR rule.
Mongo's 4 reverts, just over 24 hours based on repeated efforts to force his POV into the article over concensus (actually consensus is split):
- 1st revert: 07:37, 26 May 2007
- 2nd revert: 07:46, 26 May 2007
- 3rd revert: 18:36, 26 May 2007
- 4th revert: 12:30, 27 May 2007
Giovanni33 21:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Page protected for one week. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- That is probably best. I don't like "trying" to get someone blocked for 3RR, but while I stopped my very short lived edit war, which was also with an IP trying to add the same stuff Giovanni was, Giovanni has persisted and he was at 3RR on the same article just a few days ago.--MONGO 21:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Page protected for one week. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Smee reported by User:Lsi john (Result: 72 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Holiday Magic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Smee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: Lsi john 20:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC) formerly Smeelgova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Smee is also 3RR at Children of God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) against another editor.
We're Back!
Earlier today 7RR didn't earn a block. So Smee has decided that he can revert war in Holiday Magic and Children of God now too.
This contentious editor has a LONG HISTORY of edit warring, and seems to love to revert everything I do.
He has been blocked by this board '5 times already as Smeelgova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Smee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
He's now at 3RR in TWO articles.. which IS a violation, since Smee keeps pushing the limit.
The last time, the admistrator assured me that Smee would 'take the warning'.. but that clearly has not happened.
note to admin: PLEASE scroll up and read the 7RR report above, including the previous 3RR timeline: here
The last block was for 48 hours.
It doesn't matter what article I edit, Smee is going to revert everything I do until I hit 2RR and have to stop.
Lsi john 20:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Blocked for three days, less for his most recent reverts and more for a troubling pattern of repeated reverting in general. See Smee's user talk for further explanation. Marskell 22:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
User:97.99.137.82 reported by User:FateClub (Result: 24h Block)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Vicente Fox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 97.99.137.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 13:54, 31 May 2007
- 1st revert: 16:40, 30 May 2007
- 2nd revert: 11:06, 31 May 2007
- 3rd revert: 11:08, 31 May 2007
- 4th revert: 12:38, 31 May 2007
- 5th revert: 12:59, 31 May 2007
- 6th revert: 13:53, 31 May 2007
- 7th revert: 13:54, 31 May 2007
- Diff of 3RR warning: 13:03, 31 May 2007
- Quite obvious case of a 3RR vio. 24h block to stop edit war. Signature 00:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Raphaelaarchon aka User: 71.100.1.7 reported by User:R. Baley (Result: 24 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Glenn Greenwald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Raphaelaarchon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 03:24, 30 May 2007
- Diff of 3RR warning: at 02:47, 31 May 2007. 5 Reverts made under the anon IP 71.100.1.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)as indicated by this difference. Also request page semi-protection as this user has edited under at least one other anon IP address. R. Baley 04:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Please provide diffs of the reverts. Seraphimblade 04:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Differences are
- 1st revert: 01:58, 31 May 2007
- 2nd revert: 02:05, 31 May 2007
- 3rd revert: 02:30, 31 May 2007
- 4th revert: 02:38, 31 May 2007
- 5th revert: 02:43, 31 May 2007.
User:melonbarmonster reported by User:Komdori (Result: No violation)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Liancourt_Rocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). melonbarmonster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 03:55, 23 May 2007
The article has gone through significant change since this revision due to the recent name change, but the reverts he's pushing were present in that revision, as well as more recent revisions (that was an easy recent one to find since he had made one of the reverts in that revision as well). The changes might seem small, but are especially controversial (especially revert 3 and 4).
- 1st revert: 08:21, 30 May 2007 removed by an English speaker
- 2nd revert: 17:25, 30 May 2007 removed by an English speaker
- 3rd revert: 20:30, 30 May 2007 added back administered
- 4th revert: 01:55, 31 May 2007 removed and administered (to the other side)
- 3RR warning: Been blocked for 3RR, incivility, and personal attacks multiple times, 3RR specifically for three times since 1 March. Last time was a week long block for repeated 3RR violations starting on May 15. Since coming off this block, he is evidently still intent on edit warring, blowing right past the 3RR limits as well as continuing the personal attacks (eg here).
Third "revert" isn't, I can't find the text "and administered" in any earlier version. That would indicate this is a new edit, not a revert. Seraphimblade 04:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, here's the diff he was undoing. Per consensus we had discussed that "administered" was too strong a word on one side awhile back so we replaced it, but he undid this diff effectively by reinserting the word administered. --Cheers, Komdori 04:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
User:71.100.1.7 reported by User:Astanhope (Result:)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Glenn Greenwald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.100.1.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 20:58, 30 May 2007
- 1st revert: 20:58, 30 May 200
- 2nd revert: 21:05, 30 May 2007
- 3rd revert: 21:30, 30 May 2007
- 4th revert: 21:38, 30 May 2007
- 5th revert: 21:43, 30 May 2007
User:Epeefleche reported by User:Tecmobowl (Result:No violation)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Sandy Koufax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Epeefleche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 03:17, May 31, 2007
- 1st revert: 01:38, May 31, 2007
- 2nd revert: 02:58, May 31, 2007
- 3nd revert: DIFFTIME
No violation. Incorrect format anyway. --Woohookitty 08:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Lear 21 reported by User:MJCdetroit (Result:warned 24h)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Template:Infobox Country (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lear 21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 21:02, 26 May 2007
- 1st revert: 03:03, 30 May 2007
- 2nd revert: 10:16, 30 May 2007
- 3rd revert: 11:55, 30 May 2007
- 4th revert: 03:22, 31 May 2007
- 5th revert: 11:55, 31 May 2007
- No technical vio, as the user skirts four in 24 hours each time. I have advised Lear that the 3RR is not an entitlement to three reverts every 24 hours. Update if the edit war continues, as a block will then be needed.
- Your warning at 13:16, 31 May 2007 had no affect.
- No technical vio, as the user skirts four in 24 hours each time. I have advised Lear that the 3RR is not an entitlement to three reverts every 24 hours. Update if the edit war continues, as a block will then be needed.
- 6th revert: 16:38, 31 May 2007
- <sigh>. 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
User:SaltyBoatr reported by User:Ultramarine (Result:24h)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Right to bear arms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SaltyBoatr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 17:39, 25 May 2007
- 1st revert: 20:35, 29 May 2007
- 2nd revert: 21:13, 29 May 2007
- 3rd revert: 02:25, 30 May 2007
- 4th revert: 13:59, 30 May 2007
- Diff of 3RR warning: 15:27, 12 May 2007
- Also continues to revert after this, creating new 3RR violations, although not in the same 24 hour period as above.Ultramarine 21:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Blocked for 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Bjewiki reported by User:Chrisjnelson (Result: No block / article protected)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Template:Philadelphia Eagles staff (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bjewiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- 1st revert: 16:17, May 31, 2007
- 2nd revert: 16:23, May 31, 2007
- 3rd revert: 16:26, May 31, 2007
- 4th revert: 16:27, May 31, 2007
- While I realize I am in violation of the 3RRV rule, I would like it noted that because they disagreed with my legitimate edit User:Chrisjnelson (who has several previous 3RRV violations), and User:Pats1 teamed up to revert my legitimate edit 2 & 3 times each, for a total of 5 times. While I realize that is not a technical violation of the 3RRV rule, it certainly violates the spirit. Bjewiki 22:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe in your own little fantasy world. My past violations are irrelevant here considering I didn't commit and infraction here. Further, Pats1 and I have had no discussions about this subject on Misplaced Pages or off it so if we both are making the same change we feel is the right one, then it doesn't matter. Neither of us have violated 3RR in this case, and you have. It doesn't matter what kind of spirit it was in. Sorry.Chris Nelson 22:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- No block. All of you where edit warring. Don't do it or you all will be blocked for disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Well that's an illogical conclusion. I thought you guys had rules for a reason, but I guess not.Chris Nelson 00:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Edit wars accomplish nothing. Revert once if you must, to show your disagreement, and then engage in discussions to resolve the dispute. If you cannot resolve it, pursue WP:DR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- "you guys" includes you. This is Misplaced Pages and the policies are made by the community. Read WP:3RR to understand the nuances. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- For now, I think it would be best to fully protect the template. Hopefully, that will get you guys to go to talk page and DISCUSS. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Kellen` reported by User:Abe.Froman (Result: No violation)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Veganism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kellen` (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 2007-05-31T17:44:40
- 1st revert: 2007-05-31T00:21:56
- 2nd revert: 2007-05-31T01:07:09
- 3rd revert: 2007-05-31T17:27:42
- 4th revert: 2007-05-31T17:43:12
(See report below) same article, same user.
- Same responses to Abe. His changes were previously rejected by editors of the article. Migospia's changes were akin to vandalism, being undiscussed, and improperly marked as minor. Other changes were by anon/new editor who also did a large amount of blanking. Kellen 00:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- This is absurd. We have a 3RR violation, and a chronic article edit warring user. Admins do.... Nothing. Abe Froman 03:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Kellen` reported by User:Migospia (Result: No violation - Article semi-protected for 1 week)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Veganism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kellen` (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- 1st revert: 05:21, May 31, 2007 rv anon IP
- 2nd revert: 06:07, May 31, 2007 rv anon IP
- 3rd revert: 06:21, May 31, 2007 rv new user User:Starfish2
- 4th revert: 22:27, May 31, 2007 rv edit by User:Migospia
- 5th revert: 22:43, May 31, 2007 rv edits by User:Abe.Froman
- If I can make a comment, Kellen was reverting the blanking of large swaths of the article, and should not be blocked for his actions. Consensus on the talk page has been to include this material. I would have reverted it had I seen it before him. The article for Veganism attracts periodic bursts of soapboxing, and this is yet another instance of it. Cheers, Skinwalker 23:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm not an admin: It looks like the first three reverts were pseudo-justified due to anon-ip and new user account. The last 2 reverts, however, were against more established editors. This is not entirely an article vandalism-protection issue. (I replaced the diff's for easier verification). Lsi john 23:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: The 4th was marked as minor, yet removed a huge swathe of sourced content. Possible cause to consdier it vandalism per WP:MINOR and hence WP:3RR excempt? Rockpocket 00:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm not an admin: It looks like the first three reverts were pseudo-justified due to anon-ip and new user account. The last 2 reverts, however, were against more established editors. This is not entirely an article vandalism-protection issue. (I replaced the diff's for easier verification). Lsi john 23:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Migospia blanked a large section of the article without cause or discussion. Abe followed up, also by blanking a large section of the article. As skinwalker points out, consensus has been to include this material. I believe Migospia thinks I'm involved in her block yesterday for edits to Animal testing, which I am not, although I did seek to encourage her to learn from the block rather than accuse a conspiracy and make personal attacks. Kellen 00:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey I blanked harmful edits to an aritcle, back to the previous state so don't do this!--Migospia☆ 01:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Hey hey you guys can't all of a sudden make excuses to bend the rules saying they are pseudo-justified it does not matter who she reverted, non were vandalism so therefore violated the 3RR--Migospia☆ 00:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Migospia☆, I apologize for not making my initial post clear that I'm not an admin. Your reaction is understandable, but unnecessary. And, significant edits which repeatedly remove significant amounts of material by an anon IP, followed by the same edit from a new user, could easily be viewed as vandalism. The admin will be able to check the IP and be able to see what was going on. Lsi john 00:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a violation here. The first three reverts really do appear to be reverts of vandalism or test edits, large-scale blankings with no explanation in the edit summary, and made by an anon or very new account. I think most editors would have interpreted those as vandalism or tests. The last two were clearly content reverts, since a rationale for the blankings was provided in the edit summary, but that doesn't violate the 3RR. I would encourage the parties here to pursue dispute resolution if necessary rather than edit warring. (And whoever's logging out to make those edits-that's a really, really bad idea. 3RR applies per -person-, not three logged in, log out, and make three more.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraphimblade (talk • contribs) Hypercite so when I did legit edits and reverts I get blocked 24hours plus, but when Kellen makes harmful edits and keeps reverting all of a sudden its no violation! It should state that wikipedia considers admins higher priority than other users as well as the admins can get away with pretty much anything and if you are friends with an admin the same goes--Migospia☆ 01:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
(e/c) Rockpocket's reasoning seems accurate here. Several of the reverted edits removed large portions of contents from the article, paragraphs that seemed well sourced and had been stable prior to that episode. To prevent anonymous blanking, I'm also semi-protecting this article for a period of time sufficient to discourage this behavior. I also urge both Migospia (specially Migospia) and Kellen to engage in discussion before proceeding with this edit dispute. Phaedriel - 00:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
They were not well sourced which is my point, and I tried before and after my edits with Kellen but I just cannot seem to get through--Migospia☆ 01:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Migospia☆, let me say this VERY GENTLY. Two admins have ruled. Pushing the issue won't change that, but could prompt a deeper investigation to see what might be going on related to the anon IP edits. At the moment everyone is assuming good faith. I recommend that you AGF as well and let this go. Lsi john 01:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Lsi john- PLEASE STOP commenting on mine, they ruled this way because of you --Migospia☆ 01:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- The paragraphs you removed were incredibly well cited. Kellen 01:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
No like in the vegan talk they aren't--Migospia☆ 01:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, this is getting way out of line. This is not the appropriate place to contest our decision. Further comments will be removed. If you wish to continue this discussion, please do so at my talk page or yours, Migospia. Thank you. Phaedriel - 01:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- This is absurd. We have a 3RR violation, and a chronic article edit warring user. Admins do.... Nothing. Abe Froman 03:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Please take this up with the deciding admin. This is not the place to continue this discussion. Thank you. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
User:203.70.54.205 reported by User:HongQiGong (Result:24h)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Nanking Massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 203.70.54.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- 1st revert: 2007-06-01 02:47:50
- 2nd revert: 2007-06-01 03:07:52
- 3rd revert: 2007-06-01 03:57:25
- 4th revert: 2007-06-01 05:31:13
- 3RR warning: 2007-06-01 05:06:52
- 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Mikesmash a.k.a. User: 24.16.211.40 reported by User:Doczilla (Result: Warning)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Hulk (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mikesmash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 16:26, 29 May 2007
User keeps reinserting "Gravage Hulk" section.
- 1st revert: 22:35, 31 May 2007 as User: 24.16.211.40
- 2nd revert: 23:32, 31 May 2007 as User: 24.16.211.40
- 3rd revert: 02:54, 1 June 2007 as User: 24.16.211.40
- 4th revert: 03:03, 1 June 2007 as User:Mikesmash
- 5th revert: 03:11, 1 June 2007 as User:Mikesmash
On his talk page, User:Mikesmash acknowledges that he is also User: 24.16.211.40. He says we was unaware of any rules he might violate by making 5 edits, and yet it seems very odd that only after the 3rd revert (and right after) did he then log in as Mikesmash. (A warning is probably more appropriate than a block. Despite the convenient timing of when he logged in, we can't read minds.)
- The discussion on the talk page of Mikesmash (talk · contribs) gives the impression that he was not aware of the three-revert rule until someone brought it up after his fifth revert. If he proceeds to revert-war now, he will be subject to a block. -- tariqabjotu 16:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
User:TingMing reported by User:John Smith's (Result: 4 days)
- Three-revert rule violation on
New Party (Taiwan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TingMing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 05:17, 31 May 2007
- 1st revert: 01:07, 1 June 2007
- 2nd revert: 05:09, 1 June 2007
- 3rd revert: 05:27, 1 June 2007
- 4th revert: 06:59, 1 June 2007
On the fourth revert, TingMing removed all reference to Taiwan. In all cases he has edit-warred with other users over having "Taiwan" in brackets. He has been warned in the past about 3RR and is an established user.
TingMing has also reverted Education in Taiwan four times in the last 24 hours. John Smith's 10:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Four days might even be a bit lenient given the disruption he appears to be causing in multiple locations, but four days should give enough time for the results of the request for checkuser to come in. -- tariqabjotu 16:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Aivazovsky reported by User:Atabek (Result: 7 days)
- User:Aivazovsky has been placed on revert parole (1 revert per week) per ArbCom decision here . He violated this parole at Azerbaijan page, while continuously attempting to remove link-references to UN resolutions. 15:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 00:16, 31 May 2007
- 1st revert: 10:56, 31 May 2007
- 2nd revert: 13:45, 1 June 2007
- Comment:
- Aivazovsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked for violating his revert parole for the sixth time. -- tariqabjotu 16:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Dacy69 reported by User:Azerbaijani (Result: No violation)
Note: This is an Arbcom parole 1rr violation revert, not a regular 3rr violation report
User Dacy69 is on revert parole:
He has only one revert per article per week. He was recently blocked for violating his parole by making 3 reverts within two days on the Heroes of Azerbaijan article. That still did not deter him. His first edit after being unblocked was another partial revert on the same article.
Here is the previous report which resulted in a block:
Heroes of Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dacy69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- His revert: 14:55 June 1, 2007
This means that he once again violated his parole, as he did not wait 1 week since his last revert before making a new one. This brings the total up to 4 reverts within a 3 day period on the same article, even though his Arbcom parole clearly says that he can only make 1 revert per week per article.Azerbaijani 15:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I think the ArbCom should review the case given the behavior of User:Azerbaijani. He has been constantly edit warring, POV pushing, insulting and not assuming good faith against users based on nationality. This is despite the fact that most users after ArbCom turned to constructive editing, this one is only engaged in angry edit warring with several contributors at a time. Atabek 15:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- (Why are you even commenting on a arbcom violation report?) Read Misplaced Pages rules, WP:AGF does not apply to you or anyone else in the Arbcom (obviously not, because we were all in an Arbcom). I have not edit warred in any article. Infact, I still have not made a single revert on the Heroes of Azerbaijan article, even though there are items I dispute. Look at my user page, I have definetly contributed an immense amount to Misplaced Pages. Also, the only people editing based on nationality are Atabek and his pals here on Misplaced Pages. Besides, Atabek, another reason why WP:AGF does not apply to you is because of your constant attacks (personal attacks as well), your use of sock puppetry (User:Tengri), stalking users (such as myself, obviously, as he is commenting on something that has absolutely nothing to do with him), stalking users (such as myself, obviously, as he is commenting on something that has absolutely nothing to do with him), among other things...
- Oh and by the way, here is what Edit warring his (from Misplaced Pages): An edit war is when two or more contributors repeatedly revert one another's edits to an article.
- Please tell me Atabek, where have I repeatedly revert another persons edit? Infact, this whole Arbcom parole (1 revert per week per article) was set up so that we wouldnt be able to edit war, and we cant unless we want to break the parole. Atabek, dont waste your time trying to manipulate people by making false accusations.Azerbaijani 15:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Revert to which version? That's a link to the current version of the article. -- tariqabjotu 15:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- My mistake, your right, but he still made a partial revert by removign the term Iranian. As you can see, Ali inserted the term Iranian (see here:) and obviously Dacey removed it, which is a partial revert.Azerbaijani 15:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- This is quite a stretch. All information in an article was added by someone, but we are not expected to count the removal of even a single word as a revert. I find it hard to believe Dacy intended to revert anyone, but rather just make a change to the article. -- tariqabjotu 16:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Robin Redford reported by User:Cquan (Result: 24h Block)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Nathan Hamilton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Robin Redford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 17:04, 1 June 2007
- Diff of 3RR warnings:
- 1st warning 16:52, 1 June 2007
- 2nd warning 17:09, 1 June 2007
- 3rd warning 17:35, 1 June 2007
- 1st revert: 16:05, 1 June 2007
- 2nd revert: 16:37, 1 June 2007
- 3rd revert: 16:48, 1 June 2007
- 4th revert: 16:51, 1 June 2007
- 5th revert: 17:00, 1 June 2007
- 6th revert: 17:23, 1 June 2007
- 7th revert: 17:27, 1 June 2007
- 8th revert: 17:33, 1 June 2007
- Well not all 8 diffs above are to reverts to the same edition. There are, however, 4 reverts among the 8 diffs and there seems to be an edit war warranting administrative action on this page. I have issued a 24h block. Signature 19:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- I would point out that although they aren't all reverts to the exact same version, they all restore all or most of the article to an earlier version, and are, in effect reverts. DES 22:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
User:190.10.0.64 reported by User:G.A.S (Result:18 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Zakuro Fujiwara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 190.10.0.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:40, 1 June 2007(UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: Keeps on reverting infobox color to purple, where hex code of another color is used. (Similar history with multiple other articles.)
- 1st revert: 05:45, 1 June 2007
- 2nd revert: 15:56, 1 June 2007
- 3rd revert: 18:23, 1 June 2007
- 4th revert: 21:56, 1 June 2007
- Diff of 3RR caution: 16:37, 1 June 2007
- Diff of 3RR warning: 18:56, 1 June 2007
- 18 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
User:M.deSousa reported by User:Cfvh (Result:48 hr)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Hilda Toledano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). M.deSousa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 12:46, June 1, 2007
- 1st revert: 14:47, June 1, 2007
- 2nd revert: 17:39, June 1, 2007
- 3rd revert: 19:04, June 1, 2007
- 4th revert: 19:19, June 1, 2007
This user is a well-known vandal of articles regarding the Portuguese royal succession. He has operated under numerous IP addresses before returning to a user name using his real name (Manuel de Sousa). He should be banned permanently, if not then for a long time. Charles 22:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Also, at the article Carlos I of Portugal: (Differences between his three reverts) and at the article Pretender (Differences between his four reverts], "Poland" removal was done legitimately by me between his reverts and is unrelated to his edits). Charles 22:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- I also ask that it be allowed for editors to revert his edits without risking being banned via the 3RR because Manuel de Sousa's edits are disruptive and POV. Charles 22:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- This ought to be noted as well: Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of M.deSousa. Charles 22:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Blocked for 48 hours for the 3RR violation, this user clearly knows better. DES 23:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Stevewk reported by User:Reddi (Result: 60 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on Miscellaneous Works of Edward Gibbon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Stevewk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 10:36, 31 May 2007
I been trying to get the articles with the WP:MOS and asked him to read the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style ... no luck ... J. D. Redding
- Please provide diffs showing four reverts within 24 hours. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
These are the edit .. nothing new ... I think he forgot to take out a section heading in one of the edits .. so it's redlighted in one ... Diffs between his version ...
Current version which he changed here ...
He also stated he doesn't care about the MOS, ala
J. D. Redding 23:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I am going to try and post a better formatted summary below-Andrew c 01:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Original:20:52, 30 May 2007
- 1st:14:25, 1 June 2007
- 2nd:17:04, 1 June 2007
- 3rd:19:20, 1 June 2007
- 4th:19:25, 1 June 2007
- Diffs for Miscellaneous Works of Edward Gibbon
Original:11:36, 31 May 2007
- 1st:17:07, 1 June 2007
- 2nd:17:57, 1 June 2007
- 3rd:18:11, 1 June 2007
- 4th:18:35, 1 June 2007
- 5th:19:13, 1 June 2007
- 6th:20:32, 1 June 2007
- 7th:21:03, 1 June 2007
Original:11:22, 29 May 2007
- 1st:19:19, 1 June 2007
- 2nd:20:40, 1 June 2007
- 3rd:21:02, 1 June 2007
- 4th:21:12, 1 June 2007
- Blocked for sixty hours. The three-revert rule violations are overt and excessive. -- tariqabjotu 01:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Stevewk reported by User:Andrew c (Result: 60 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Edward Gibbon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Stevewk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 14:04, 30 May 2007
- 1st revert: 15:30, 1 June 2007
- 2nd revert: 17:03, 1 June 2007
- 3rd revert: 19:23, 1 June 2007
- 4th revert: 20:50, 1 June 2007
- 5th revert: 21:00, 1 June 2007
- Diff of 3RR warning: 19:57, 1 June 2007
- Comment: I am posting this report in addition to the one above because it is a separate article, and the report is properly formatted (sorry about the EST). The user was edit warring over how the article displays, by adding non-breaking space html to force indent paragraphs. There is also the issue of the line break in the middle of the paragraph (look for "history, not a special case admitting..." in the diffs). Also, code that broke up the reference sections into multiple columns was reverted on multiple occasions. I believe I have solved the desire to add the forced indents (I showed the user how to use a custom stylesheet), however these latest reverts were after the user talk page discussion. Also, the edit summarizes are simply deceptive. They state they are doing one thing did away with forced spaces for indents., but actually are re-introducing the mid-paragraph line break at "history..." and removing the column code for the refs.-Andrew c 01:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think he thinks that our only justified grievance is the hard spaces, and that's why the "did away with forced spaces" business; but he also hates infoboxes. Someone will have to explain to him about using article talk pages; I gave him a link to WP:BRD, but he archived it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Also on Outline of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):
- Version reverted to: 15:22 29 May
- 1st revert: 23:19 1 June
- 2nd revert: 00:40 2 June
- 3rd revert: 01:02 2 June
- 4th revert:01:12 2 June
- Note charming edit summary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Same as previous section. -- tariqabjotu 02:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Komdori reported by User:Melonbarmonster (Result: No violation)
- Three-revert rule violation on
User talk:Komdori (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Komdori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 12:38, 31 May 2007
- 1st revert: 13:05, 1 June 2007
- 2nd revert: 20:12, 1 June 2007
- 3rd revert: 20:29, 1 June 2007
- 4th revert: 22:17, 1 June 2007
Komdori's filed 2 3rr reports on my edits, last two were denied. In retaliation he has been shadowing my edits and making reverts on articles that he has never participated in such the kimchi article. I left a message on his talk page asking him to stop shadowing my edits. He has deleted my comments labeling it as vandalism. While I'm not entirely certain if Komdori's deletions of my comments is Modifying users' comments and/or Discussion page vandalism or stubbornness per WP:Van, in any case he has reverted away my comments 4 times. Thanks.melonbarmonster 23:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- The reverts you have provided are directly cited as "exceptions" to the three revert rule; specifically, "reverts done by a user within his or her own user space, provided that such reverts do not restore copyright violations, libelous material, or other kinds of inappropriate content enumerated in this policy or elsewhere." --Iamunknown 00:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't know that. Thanks.melonbarmonster 00:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Melon, come on, you leave insulting, race based remarks on my page and think it constitutes a 3RR violation when I remove them? You've been blocked for weeks at a time for 3RR, it's no surprise you've been gaming the system to try to stretch your limits. Any admin who investigates will see I was indeed involved in the discussion at kimchi, and at least three separate editors have been trying to keep your unilateral and incorrect change from sticking. Who's the stubborn one? Now it's clear why you stubbornly insisted on putting those comments on my page--you were trying to disrupt Misplaced Pages to prove a WP:POINT. --Cheers, Komdori 00:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Race based remarks?? Asking you to stop shadowing my edits is hardly racial. Check the reverts I'm referring to above. I don't care how you want to reason this out, just please stop following my edits and reverting them. Thanks.melonbarmonster 00:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- You've been spreading hate and calling me "Japanese" to other editors and in article talk pages. Even in the diffs you provided you spent a great deal of time discussing race. I have hundreds of pages on my watch list, hundreds on Korean subjects. We've only edited together on about three articles--if that's all you edit, it's not my fault you choose to edit about three articles total. That's not shadowing. Now that we've clearly established there was no 3RR violation, can you continue to argue somewhere else and avoid cluttering this page up? --Cheers, Komdori 00:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Race based remarks?? Asking you to stop shadowing my edits is hardly racial. Check the reverts I'm referring to above. I don't care how you want to reason this out, just please stop following my edits and reverting them. Thanks.melonbarmonster 00:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Melon, come on, you leave insulting, race based remarks on my page and think it constitutes a 3RR violation when I remove them? You've been blocked for weeks at a time for 3RR, it's no surprise you've been gaming the system to try to stretch your limits. Any admin who investigates will see I was indeed involved in the discussion at kimchi, and at least three separate editors have been trying to keep your unilateral and incorrect change from sticking. Who's the stubborn one? Now it's clear why you stubbornly insisted on putting those comments on my page--you were trying to disrupt Misplaced Pages to prove a WP:POINT. --Cheers, Komdori 00:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
This is not a violation of the three-revert rule for the reasons mentioned above (reverts were in user's own userspace). -- tariqabjotu 01:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Rodrigo_Cornejo reported by User:Humus sapiens (Result: Warning)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Settler colonialism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rodrigo_Cornejo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 15:27, 25 March 2007
- 1st revert: 11:36, 1 June 2007
- 2nd revert: 12:59, 1 June 2007
- 3rd revert: 13:24, 1 June 2007
- 4th revert: 17:25, 1 June 2007
- Diff of 3RR warning: 17:49, 1 June 2007
- Comment The user disregards practically every WP policy, including WP:CIV and WP:NPA: see User talk:Humus sapiens#No, we haven't been through this. The RV#4 was a violation of WP:POINT. ←Humus sapiens 01:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like some sort of explanation here because I cannot believe my eyes. Look at the timestamps above... I'm sure you're aware that the way this works is that the warning comes before the violation. You warned him at 01:49, 2 June (UTC) (your timestamps are so confusing; UTC-8? Is that Alaska?) and he has not reverted since. As for the incivility and personal attacks, I see none. If anyone was being incivil, it was you for suggesting he was a Nazi (unless I missed a portion of the conversation where he expressed that kind of sentiment). As for this (same) comment... um... have you looked at your userpage recently? He's off-base and incorrect here, but he does not appear to be as nefarious as you make him seem. No block from me unless you omitted a few details. -- tariqabjotu 02:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Of course I warned him before the report. I copy/pasted timestamps, please take a look at histories. Yes, UTC-8 is correct.
- Is there something wrong with my user page? I don't see what.
- The suggestion to "ask for the mediation of someone who isn't jewish" isn't just "off-base and incorrect" - it is offensive, uncivil and ad hominem. We don't put yellow badge on users, and pointing this out is not suggesting that he's a Nazi.
- 4 RVs but you are warning the reporter seems rather like an encouragement. ←Humus sapiens 02:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, you warned him before this report, but you didn't warn him before his latest revert. You warned him at 5:49pm (your time) and his latest revert was 5:25pm (your time). The point of the warning is to demonstrate that the user is aware of the three-revert rule, not to say "just warning you that you're going to blocked in a half hour". Thus, the warning does not work here; if he reverts again then it's blockable.
- No, there isn't. I'm merely saying that for someone who thinks his ethnicity is irrelevant, you aren't very discreet about your faith on your user page.
- He thinks you're biased because you're Jewish and the article is question is somewhat related to Judaism. It's a common misconception from Wikipedians: you're Muslim, so you can't contribute neutrally to the Islam article; you're European so you can't contribute to the European Union article; you're human so you can't contribute to the Homo sapiens article... the sentiment is off-base and incorrect, but it's not incivility. You are free to be offended, but I am also free to say that's a bit of a stretch. He was not saying you're Jewish just to be insulting; he was saying you're Jewish because he thinks (again... wrongly) that that makes you biased. No, Misplaced Pages does not require yellow badges, but users can, on their own accord, fill their user page with circumstantial evidence pointing to the fact that one is Jewish. You know... saying they observe Shabbat and having their wiki-contributions corroborate that. Or including a Talmudic quote... Or being apart of a few Judaism-related WikiProjects... if you don't like being identified as Jewish, no one is stopping you from changing your userpage. I myself don't look kindly upon slights based on ethnicity or religion, but this here was especially mild and hardly worthy of being considered a slight.
- The warning noted in the section header is the warning you posted at 5:49pm; there's no need to add an additional one because it would be redundant. -- tariqabjotu 03:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Then I guess my participation in Military history project makes me a warmonger. One's interests is one thing, self-identification is something different. We have specific policy against assumptions like that: WP:AGF. ←Humus sapiens 03:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oh c'mon. Are you suggesting assuming you're Jewish based on info on your userpage is a violation of WP:AGF? I sincerely hope your preceding comment was in response to something else... -- tariqabjotu 03:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Unless one clearly identifies himself, their personal matters such as religion (or lack thereof), ethnicity, etc. are nobody's else's business. ←Humus sapiens 03:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- He has been warned about 3RR before, in March, and on this very article: Jayjg 02:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Critikal1 reported by User:Paulcicero (Result: 48 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Montenegrin cap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Critikal1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 05:28, 31 May 2007
- 1st revert: 09:11, 1 June 2007
- 2nd revert: 10:59, 1 June 2007
- 3rd revert: 12:19, 1 June 2007
- 4th revert: 22:46, 1 June 2007
- 5th revert: 01:57, 2 June 2007
- The user has been blocked for forty-eight hours for violating the three-revert rule despite coming off a recent 3RR block. -- tariqabjotu 14:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Ralhazzaa reported by User:Gerash77 (Result: Protected)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Persian Gulf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ralhazzaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- 1st revert: Jun 2 from 00:04
- 2nd revert: Jun 00:55
- 3rd revert: Jun 2 02:23
- 4th revert: Jun 2 02:50
- 5th revert: Jun 2 04:45
- 6th revert: to Jun 2 06:57
Has been a member since 2005 - he should know better.
- The Persian Gulf article has been protected by somebody else instead. Again. -- tariqabjotu 14:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
User:220.127.90.111 reported by User:Komdori (Result:18h)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Balhae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 220.127.90.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 13:44, 29 May 2007
- 1st revert: 16:03, 2 June 2007
- 2nd revert: 17:21, 2 June 2007
- 3rd revert: 17:34, 2 June 2007
- 4th revert: 17:43, 2 June 2007
- Diff of 3RR warning: (first entry on their talk page) 17:38, 2 June 2007
- 18 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
User:12.158.190.38 reported by User:Ramsquire (Result: Protected)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Dealey Plaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 12.158.190.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
User appears to be a sock of User:70.109.54.8 who has been previously blocked. A quick check of their contributions show them to be making identical reverts to the same articles, in an effort to avoid WP:3RR.
- Please provide diffs to demonstrate violation. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- No need for a 3RR block here as the article has been protected. -- tariqabjotu 03:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Emeraude reported by User:172.201.118.102 (Result:warning)
- Three-revert rule violation on
British National Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Emeraude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 17:32, 2 June 2007
- 1st revert: 17:50, 2 June 2007
- 2nd revert: 21:06, 2 June 2007
- 3rd revert: 21:32, 2 June 2007
- 4th revert: 21:47, 2 June 2007
- I've decided in this case to make a warning rather than blocking, even though the user is clearly aware of 3RR. The reason is that it seems to me that the user believes the reverts to be exempt when they are not. If the revert war continues, I will not be able to do this again. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Golfer45 reported by User:Arcayne (Result: No violation)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Braveheart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Golfer45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): 22:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The editor is a long-time editor and is aware of 3RR. Simply, the editor is moving/removing the same content repeatedly under two IDs, Golfer45 and Kanaye, self-identified as the same person here.
- Comment: Arcayne, I believe you've made several mistakes. First, the "previous version reverted to:" is a link that leads to the Children of Men article, not Braveheart. Also, the 3rd and 4th revert is the same edit. This user has not violated 3RR. María (habla conmigo) 22:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see the four reverts; the last two diffs are the same. Additionally, I'm unsure how you know Golfer45 and Kanaye are the same person. -- tariqabjotu 02:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Aww crap. Sorry about that. Two thingsa at once I can handle. Apparently, not three. As for the two IDs being the same person, the editor revealed as much here. And I made the error; he was at three reverts, not four. My bad.
User:Michaelyoung83 reported by User:Digital Spy Poster (Result:no block)
- Three-revert rule violation on
SixHits_Digital_Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Michaelyoung83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 21:40, 2 June 2007
- 1st revert: 21:52, 2 June 2007
- 2nd revert: 21:59, 2 June 2007
- 3rd revert: 22:02, 2 June 2007
- 4th revert: 22:04, 2 June 2007
- 5th revert: 22:06, 2 June 2007
- Please provide diffs rather than oldids. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Links changed to diffs. Digital Spy Poster 11:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- OK. User has edited page in other ways since the vio, appears to have stopped removing the AfD tag. It looks like the issue is over, so I don't see a block as preventative. Update if user begins again. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Barnstormer1000 reported by FreedomAintFree (Result:indef)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Movement to impeach George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Barnstormer1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 05:54, 3 June 2007
- 1st revert: 06:05, 3 June 2007
- 2nd revert: 06:13, 3 June 2007
- 3rd revert: 06:28, 3 June 2007
- Diff of 3RR warning: 06:27, 3 June 2007 User received a similar warning on his Talk page from another user at 06:22. This user appears to be a single purpose account. This is the only article he has ever edited.
- Already indefblocked by AuburnPilot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Assault11 reported by User:Good friend100 (Result:protected)
- Three-revert rule violation on
List of tributaries of Imperial China ([[Special:EditPage/List of tributaries of Imperial China |edit]] | [[Talk:List of tributaries of Imperial China |talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/List of tributaries of Imperial China |history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/List of tributaries of Imperial China |protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/List of tributaries of Imperial China |delete]] | links | watch | logs | views). Assault11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 05:40, 21 May 2007
- 1st revert: Revision as of 03:03, 1 June 2007
- 2nd revert: Revision as of 00:36, 3 June 2007
- 3rd revert: Revision as of 00:49, 3 June 2007
- 4th revert: Revision as of 01:10, 3 June 2007
User has been deleting properly sourced information and he is making personal claims and opinions on the subject.
- The three reverts need to be from the same 24 hour period. --Cheers, Komdori 22:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- I still think that the user needs to be at least warned, since he has been persisting this for a while. Deleting sourced information is not allowed. Good friend100 22:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Warn him then; why file a 3RR report without a 3RR violation? You've also reverted three times, in less than an hour. Nobody benefits from edit warring; it actually necessitated protection, and now no one can edit. --Cheers, Komdori 23:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Were you going to edit something? In any case, Assault11 got his version of the article frozen and I have warned him before. He is even making personal claims.
Don't start a discussion here. Its not the right place anyways. Good friend100 23:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Article fully protected by another admin. No technical 3RR vio, but user should not have edit warred. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
User:89.100.51.244 reported by User:Sarah777 (Result:no vio)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Shankill, Dublin ([[Special:EditPage/Shankill, Dublin |edit]] | [[Talk:Shankill, Dublin |talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/Shankill, Dublin |history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/Shankill, Dublin |protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/Shankill, Dublin |delete]] | links | watch | logs | views). (Sarah777 21:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC))
User account created solely for the purpose of inserting POV into this article.
- Well, not technically a user account at all. But anyway, only 3 rv's given; need more than 3 for 3RR vio. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Ramsey2006 reported by User:LordPathogen (Result:no vio)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Talk:Elvira_Arellano (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ramsey2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I want to avert an edit war here... The above user attempts repeatedly to insert Mexican-American wikiproject and category tags into the article and talk page. I tend to agree with the comments of User:Crockspot in one of his edits to the article page, "The subject is neither American nor an anchor baby" and "It would be like applying the category "Presidents of the United States" to the Karl Rove article (from the Arellano talk page)." Ms. Arellano is a Mexican national only. If she were an American, she would not be notable by Misplaced Pages for she would not have problems with US immigration authorities. Her son is a US national. Accordingly, reference to Mexican-Americans for both the article and talk page should be deleted for her (Arellano) and instead added to the page created specifically for him by . This user seems to want to have it both ways but to do so is misleading, not honest and compromises the integrity of this article and its talk page.
- Only two reverts given here, insufficient for 3RR vio. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
User:WRK reported by User:Emerson7 (Result: Article protected)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Romualdo Pacheco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). WRK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
user User:WRK has made bad-faith efforts to expand the revert war to additional articles.
- The article has been protected, so there's no reason to block WRK (or you, who also violated 3RR). -- tariqabjotu 02:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
User:The way, the truth, and the light reported by User:Jayjg (Result: 48hrs)
- Three-revert rule violation on
List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The way, the truth, and the light (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- 1st revert: 02:05, 3 June 2007
- 2nd revert: 03:48, 3 June 2007
- 3rd revert: 22:03, 3 June 2007
- 4th revert: 02:04, 4 June 2007
- In the first two reverts, he removed Apollo moon landing hoax accusations from the list, an item he had removed before: The 3rd and 4th reverts are just simple reverts to previous versions of his. Has been editing tendentiously here (and elsewhere) for weeks now, and was blocked for 3RR on this very page a couple of weeks ago. Was asked to revert himself, but merely deleted the request. Jayjg 02:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- As he explained above, the reverts were not all to the same version. The 3rd and 4th reverts were of changed not explained on the talk page, given the controversy around this article all non-minor edits really should be - the last post to the talk page was made by me. This is not an attempt to edit-war on my part.
- Also, the last revert was of a change by FeloniousMonk that I seemed to be a misunderstanding on his part; I have posted to his talk page about it. Finally, I removed the request to self-revert after FM had already edited to a compromise version and thus made it moot.
- Additionally, Jayjg is currently in a dispute with me over a different article and would never have come to this article otherwise. The way, the truth, and the light 02:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Jay has done the right thing by bringing this possible violation here. Furthermore, who brings to the community's attention your alleged violation has no bearing on the material issue: whether you violated 3rr. Either you violated 3rr or you didn't, and since I've noticed you repeatedly RV'ing others at a number of articles I wouldn't be at all surprised if you did. I would rule on this filing myself, but I've edited the same article, but I can say to whatever admin decides to rule on this that you appear to be a serial reverter. FeloniousMonk 02:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Blocked for 48 hours for 3RR. Crum375 02:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Salmoria reported by User:Maggott2000 (Result:)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Tina Turner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Salmoria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
Warning given @ 02:10, 3 June 2007
- 1st revert:
- 2nd revert:
- 3rd revert:
- 4th revert:
- 5th revert:
- 6th revert:
- Please provide diffs, not just timestamps, and a version reverted to. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Petri Krohn reported by User:Turgidson (Result:article protected)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Soviet occupation of Romania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Petri Krohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- 1st revert: 04:08, June 3, 2007,
- 2nd revert: 06:03, June 3, 2007,
- 3rd revert: 01:26, June 4, 2007,
- 4th revert: 03:20, June 4, 2007
- Article protected by Phaedriel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Petri Kohn strongly urged to stop edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Example
<!-- copy from _below_ this line --> ===] reported by ] (Result:)=== *] violation on {{Article|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~ * Previous version reverted to: <!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to --> * 1st revert: * 2nd revert: * 3rd revert: * 4th revert: <!-- - * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion. Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. * Diff of 3RR warning: --> <!-- copy from _above_ this line -->Categories: