Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:32, 3 October 2007 editCaspian blue (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers35,434 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:35, 3 October 2007 edit undoSirFozzie (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users11,149 edits →User:Sennen goroshi reported by User:Melonbarmonster (Result: ): 48 hour blockNext edit →
Line 1,682:		Line 1,682:
	::Vet any request for protection/3RR on ] carefully... I just blocked ] as a ] sock (and User:Brandi Gibson). This cat has some serious trouble understanding his ]--] <sup>'']''</sup> 12:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)		::Vet any request for protection/3RR on ] carefully... I just blocked ] as a ] sock (and User:Brandi Gibson). This cat has some serious trouble understanding his ]--] <sup>'']''</sup> 12:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

	===] reported by ] (Result: )===		===] reported by ] (Result:48 hour block for Sennen goroshi)===
	*] violation on		*] violation on
	{{Article\|Korean cuisine‎}}. {{3RRV\|Sennen goroshi}}: Time reported: 05:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)		{{Article\|Korean cuisine‎}}. {{3RRV\|Sennen goroshi}}: Time reported: 05:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Line 1,768:		Line 1,768:

	:::::::shall we take this discussion to a talk page? I don't really think this is the place, feel free to make any accusations you feel are needed, but I will not respond to any more of your comments on the 3RR section - out of respect for the people who have to trawl through this, and try to make sense of it all.] 17:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)		:::::::shall we take this discussion to a talk page? I don't really think this is the place, feel free to make any accusations you feel are needed, but I will not respond to any more of your comments on the 3RR section - out of respect for the people who have to trawl through this, and try to make sense of it all.] 17:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


			:::::::I've run into this editor once before. 48 hour block, coming up, and a strong suggestion to start flying right before the blocks start escalating ] 17:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

	===] reported by ]===		===] reported by ]===

Revision as of 17:35, 3 October 2007

Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.
Administrators: please do not hesitate to move disputes to user talk pages.

v t e 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	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
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.

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

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
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Violations

Please place new reports at the bottom.

User:122.49.175.210 reported by User:Cyrus XIII (Result: 36 hours to Jun kakeko, 24 hours to IP )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 09:24, September 23, 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 17:38, September 23, 2007

Repeated reinsertion of information that several other editors either deemed improperly sourced or irrelevant to the article. Other (properly cited) content was removed in the process. - Cyrus XIII 19:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I took a very quick look at it and my thoughts are this: Issue at hand is the fact that while the English source does provide the band's name directly, the Sankei link (in Japanese) doesn't mention the group at all. Anyone else want to sort this out? - Penwhale | 19:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's right, the English source mentions the band, but only in connection with the fraudulent orders ("for producing promotional videos for such artists as "Dir en grey,""). Yet the IP based editor has repeatedly reinserted the information, that the fundings illegally obtained through these orders were particularly used to cover overhead costs of aforementioned band, which is inaccurate and thus unacceptable per WP:BLP. - Cyrus XIII 20:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This user has also been edit warring elsewhere (before the warning) inserting the same information on other pages: I would be less concerned if this was just an edit war, but it seems to be something more. Denaar 19:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 07:45, September 23, 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: see above

As data provided by WHOIS, as well as certain behavior patterns seem to match, could the reviewing administrator take a look at these previous 3RR violations and determine whether there is a genuine scope for relation? This would imply at least six 3RR violations from the same person. - Cyrus XIII 19:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The editor has since identified himself as user Jun kaneko (talk · contribs). - Cyrus XIII 01:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Based on the history of editor, 36 hours to main account, and 24 hours to IP. - Penwhale | 02:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Sciencewatcher reported by User:Taroaldo (Result: Protected.)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:
5th revert:
6th revert:

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

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

Diff of 3RR warning:

(Not a new user, but warning was placed. Can see the response on my Talk page.)

Sciencewatcher has continued to revert the removal of a controversial sentence which has had a citation request tag on it since May. Editors have attempted to engage this user on the article's talk page, but have not had success. Taroaldo 21:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was Taroaldo who reverted the information 3 times. I reverted it twice because he gave an invalid reason. The third time I added a citation, thinking this would satisfy him. When it didn't, I tried to discuss it with him on his talk page and the article's talk page, but he is being unreasonable and is now accusing me of breaking the 3RR rule, which I didn't do (in fact he broke the 3RR rule before he even put the 3RR warning on my talk page).

I would suggest you look at the CFS page as there are 2 edit wars going on. Taroaldo and another user are bullying me in order to try to keep their POV and no others on the page. --Sciencewatcher 21:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Protected, note on talk. Navou 22:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Barateiro reported by User:Videmus Omnia (Result: already blocked)

Three-revert rule violation on

Edit-warring over infobox photo on Monica Bellucci.

Diff of 3RR warning: diff

Reported by Videmus Omnia 21:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Ghirlandajo and User:Dbachmann reported by User:Moosh88 (Result: 24 hours to Moosh88 )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version 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 will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Diff of 3RR warning:

The information I have added on the above article has been removed for no reason by the two stated editors. One of the editors, User:Ghirlandajo has been blocked before for inciting a 3RR edit war, which is what I believe he is trying to do now. And User:Dbachmann is not holding himself to the higher standards of an administrator, nor is he neautral, nor does he cite the reasons why he reverted Moosh88 21:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't see any violation of 3RR on part of either User:Ghirlandajo or User:Dbachmann, however the actions of User:Moosh88 are clearly covered by this ruling of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2: Within just the last couple of days Moosh88 was engaged in massive canvassing, edit warring across multiple pages and incivility. I believe this requires the attention of admins. Grandmaster 07:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

bogus report. Moosh88 has been warned about canvassing before. --dab (𒁳) 07:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Before you file, remember that both sides will be looked at. While you could say that Dbachmann and Ghirl both might be gaming the system, you made four different

reverts here to this revision, so you're getting blocked for 24 hours. No actions to Ghirlandajo and Dbachmann at this time. - Penwhale | 08:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

- we are not "gaming the system". We are merely rolling back offtopic, unreliably sourced or unsourced additions. That the burden of defending these on talk is on Moosh88 is perfectly straightforward Misplaced Pages-as-usual. This is at best a content dispute, blending into fringe-warrior territory. --dab (𒁳) 10:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Peter Isotalo reported by User:Naacats (Result: Page Protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

I hope I did this right. This user is preventing any editing or discussion of the article. I placed a discussion and he deleted it. I requested citations, he removed them. He removed the neutral point of view tag I placed as well. While the 3 revisions didn't happen in 24 hours, he's been consistantly doing it, not only to me, but to anyone who tries to improve the article (which he originally wrote) I also see he's been reported for this before, in this very same article, and been banned for it.

Page Protected by Animum. You guys need to sort this out on talk page. Note that COI issues may be present. - Penwhale | 01:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'd just like to point out that Naacats is a pro-smoking activist who promotes his own website NAACATS (North American Association of Cigarette and Tobacco Smokers) and the article Smokers Rights in smoking articles across the board and has consistently removed links and slanted information that is deemed be too unfavorable to (tobacco) smoking. There's even been an appeal on the NAACATS website to assist in removing allegedly biased information about the health hazards of smoking. Peter 09:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User:141.161.98.98 reported by User:Mike.lifeguard (Result: No violation )

Three-revert rule violation on

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

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

Diff of 3RR warning:

The line was removed by Miguel1626 with a note on the talk page . This IP has repeatedly re-added the line despite warnings and suggestions to discuss changes on the talk page. – Mike.lifeguard | 00:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

3 reverts only. No violation. - Penwhale | 01:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Street20 reported by User:Chrisjnelson (Result: 24h )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 21:59, September 23, 2007

User:Street20 keeps undoing a correct edit on John Smoltz, replacing the player's years with the organization with the years he was healthy, which is not how it is traditionally done. So not only has user violated 3RR, his edit is incorrect. User has been engaged in discussion on talk page but has yet to respond. He maintains his edit is common but has not backed this up - because it is a false claim.►Chris Nelson 02:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You're both blocked 24 hours, since I rather suspect I know who that IP who conveniently intervened was. Prodego 02:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Request a checkuser, that's not me. I'm not the only one that's reverted him, his edit is wrong and most people know it.►Chris Nelson 02:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Per Dmcdevit, checkuser was ran and neither IP that reverted during the day was matched to Chrisjnelson. For that, I've unblocked him. - Penwhale | 03:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I did not want to be blocked for 3RR when I did not revert four times.►Chris Nelson 03:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Page protected. Discussion needed. - Penwhale | 02:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Quelt42 reported by User:Percy Snoodle (Result: 24 h block)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 02:29, 21 September 2007

Reverts within 24-hour period:

Warnings:

Diff of 1st 3RR warning (after 2nd revert): 10:29, 23 September 2007
Diff of 2nd 3RR warning (after 3rd revert): 11:15, 23 September 2007

User:Quelt42 added an external link to a Java implementation of Settlers of Catan, which was removed in line with WP:EL. He has reverted that and all subsequent attempts to remove the link. Listed reversions are not the only ones, but are the four that have come within a 24-hour period despite warnings. Percy Snoodle 09:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User was clearly and repeatedly warned, and is directly in violation of WP:EL as well as 3RR. I'll block for 24 hours; it'll be longer next time. Walton 13:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Estgeorge reported by User:GreenJoe (Result: No vio on Estgeorge, GreenJoe warned)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 10:23, 24 September 2007

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 will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Diff of 3RR warning:

He continues to inject his own POV, unreferenced opinion into the article. GreenJoe 14:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No violation by Estgeorge. GreenJoe on the other hand has 4 reverts. Since he's not warned, I will warn instead of block. - Penwhale | 14:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- The anon user was likely him. Thank for for giving me the benefit of the doubt. GreenJoe 17:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- I went and looked at the history, and the anon user went and did it again after this report. He's trying to skirt the 3RR rule. GreenJoe 17:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR reported by User:Giovanni Giove (Result: 24h to DIREKTOR, 72h to Giovanni)

Three-revert rule violation on

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

A short explanation of the incident.
I've tried different versions and I've tried an agreement (see history). All my edits in all the articles are regulary reverted by user Direktor, acting toghehter other users.. He refuse all the compromises, just imposing his POV as it is. Giovanni Giove 15:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This editor is very "POV" and has also violated the 3RR, as is evident in the History page of the article. He has NOT tried discussing and persists in making completely incorrect (and offensive) edits. He has been confronted by several editors (User:Zenanarh, User:Zmaj and myself) but refuses to stop pushing his POV. DIREKTOR 15:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

DIREKTOR blocked 24h for edit-warring. Giovanni blocked for 72h due to past history. - Penwhale | 15:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User:85.74.44.243 reported by User:El_Greco (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 13:33 Sept 21, 2007

1st revert: 5:42 Sept 24, 2007
2nd revert: 15:55 Sept 24, 2007
3rd revert: 16:11 Sept 24, 2007

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

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

Diff of 3RR warning: 16:12

85.74.44.243 continues to revert changed made through a discussion on the talk page about limiting the number of images on the Athens article. See also the above discussion: 85.74.151.103 The user not only continues to spam the article with images, the user now revert text, which has been spell checked and edited. The user continues to ignore that, and has done so before:85.74.252.219 back on Aug 31, 2007 He has also started on Thessaloniki See: Before Sept 21 After Sept 21 16:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Navou (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has blocked the user for a period of 24 hours for his/her disruption at Athens. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Arcayne reported by User:Viriditas (Result: )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 23:46, 24 September 2007

Arcayne is involved in a long term content dispute with User:Operation Spooner on Ronald Reagan and has been harassing him on his user and talk pages with multiple reverts in Operation Spooner's user space. Arcayne insists he is removing personal attacks, but according to WP:NPA this does not appear to be the case. The content in question appears to be a personal essay by Operation Spooner concerning ownership issues/strategies that neither mentions user names or points fingers. I made an attempt to rewrite the User content to satisfy Arcayne's concerns, who is convinced that the essay is about him, but I was reverted. My compromise attempt consisted of removing ambiguous wording and helping the User focus on addressing his own personal experience with WP:OWN, which is what his user page appeared to suggest (Please see my efforts). Having direct experience with writing portions of WP:OWN some time ago, and focusing on specific aspects that User:Operation Spooner describes, this task greatly appealed to me. As his block log shows, Arcayne is very familiar with 3RR. —Viriditas | Talk 01:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, let's put this into its proper perspective. Operation Spooner has been adding personal attacks on his user page for over a month, and has been advised of the NPA violations they constitute. Instead of removing them as requested by no less than three admins, he has actually expanded upon these personal attacks. I was removing them, as these updates occurred every time his edits in the Ronald Reagan article occurred.

Now, Viriditas, who I have had extensive personal conflicts with over the past year, and who I have ried very much to avoid as one of those people who make Misplaced Pages suck to edit. Yesterday, he began revising my edits in WP:Lead, and then began attacking my edits in both SPAM and San Francisco burrito, using uncivil language and personal attacks. He then accused me of wikistalking and harrassment and being a bad editor, and apparently just raining on his parade or whatever.

Magically, he shows up in the OperationSpooner user page and begins reverting my edits, calling himself a "diosnterested" and "neutral" third party. Clearly, he is not - and I was pursuing filing an RfC in regards to his long-term abusive and threatening behavior, but I am currently at work, and filing such is a fairly slow matter.

I contend that removing personal attacks is not subject to 3RR, and that I clearly explained my removal of the sections in question in the edit summaries. I am allowed to protect myself from personal attacks. - Arcayne () 01:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As well, i would note that I have revert my changes to Spooner's page (it took some time, as the database kept locking while the servers caught up), and wait for an admin to weigh in. This is to avoid appearing to edit war over what I still feel are personal attacks, and Viriditas' non-neutral wikistalking. I am too close to this to act neutrally myself, and am removing myself from the issue. Hopefully, an nautral admin will be better able to address the situation. As for Viriditas, I will address the wikistalking nad harrassm,ent through another noticeboard. - Arcayne () 01:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Please show evidence of Spooner's personal attacks that you removed, with quotes. Also, please show how my revision of Spooner's admittedly bizarre essay consisted of "personal attacks". These are Spooner's personal beliefs about his experience on Misplaced Pages, and you had no right to remove them. —Viriditas | Talk 01:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I have nothing to say to you outside of an RfC, Viriditas. You are cynically using this matter to wikistalk. I could name 6 other editors and admins who have counseled you about your behavior, and every time you ignore them. You have more in common with Spooner than you know. - Arcayne () 01:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing an example of your WP:NPA. Now, please show where Spooner has made them, particularly in my revision of his essay which focuses on ownership issues, not individual editors. —Viriditas | Talk 01:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, anyone taking a look at his user contributions would clearly be able to see that he would make an edit to the Ronald Reagan article, (usually get reverted) and then go about making a revision to his warnings for new users subject. As a great many were directed at me or User:Happyme22, I took them as personal attacks. At least three admins pointed out to him that these were personal attacks. Spooner promptly ignored them. Anyone looking at Viriditas' edit history will show that he showed up for the first time where I was editing to revet my edits after another clash on San Francisco burrito. - Arcayne () 02:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing the evidence of the personal attacks you claim to have reverted on Operation Spooner's user page. Can you please present them here? All I see is someone involved in a content dispute harassing a user in their user space and hiding under the "NPA" policy to bully and intimidate another user. Please present the personal attacks you claim Spooner made on his user page that forced you to violate the 3RR. —Viriditas | Talk 02:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have just learned that WP:RPA as a valid method for defending against personal attacks was rejected a little over a week ago after lengthy discussion. Unfortunately, I am at work at this time and cannot put together the diffs that would clearly show the relationship between Spooner's edits being turned down in the Reagan article and his updating of his section on warnings for new editors. As well, had I the time, i would be able to deomonstrate the correlation between Viriditas' wiki-stalking and subsequent insertion into the Spooner issue and clearly demonstrate that Viriditas was not acting as a "neutral party" but was in fact engaged in a pattern of harrassment. I won't spend too much time on the latter here, as this isn't the place for it (RfO or RfC is a better venue, I think), instead providing the background to indicate that Viriditas is not acting neutrally here, and in fact is as guity of breaking 3RR as he accuses me of being:

- Arcayne () 02:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I am going to comment about the Ronald Reagan article, which has prompted all of this. The lead was in decent shape about two weeks before becoming a FA on August 25, until Spooner added a highly detailed outline of Reagan's economic policies. Eventually, he and I whittled it down to an extra sentence, something we were both okay with. After passing the FAC, Arcayne and a few others joined the "team" of editors, and one of Arcayne's first edits was redoing much of lead, which included generalizing even what Spooner and I worked out and adding some more about his presidency. Eventually, Spooner readded in that lot about his economic philosphy, so the editors (including User:Info999, User:Rise Above the Vile, User:Brian Pearson, User:Stanselmdoc, User:Paul.h, Arcayne, and myself) came to a concensus saying that the material Spooner wanted is true, but was too detailed for the lead section per WP:LEAD, which says the lead should provide a general overview of the subject and not focus too much on one topic. Well, to say it frankly, Spooner rejected the entire concept of concensus, saying his version should stay in because he and I agreed on it before (see Talk:Ronald Reagan). An admin tried to explain to him that concensus was always changing, but I don't know what came of that. Arcayne even took the liberty of adding it into the Governor section to try and solve this problem! Anyway, we eventually compromised with Spooner, but he apparently seems to be going against that compromise and changing it again. Arcayne and many other editors have asked him to please explain why his material should go in the lead on the talk page, but the conversation usually warps into how someone is personally attacking someone else, and the "your wrong, and I'm right!" crap. Anyway, I don't know of this helps, but here's the story. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Best, Happyme22 05:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Tromaintern reported by User:Bignole (Result: 24 hours for sockpuppetry)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: - This version was a version agreed upon in a discussion that took place on the talk page. Tromaintern did not like the consensus and has decided to revert to their preferred version, even after being warned at 23:30, September 24, 2007 for reaching their 3 reverts for the 24 hour period.

- It may need to be noted that Tromaintern has been reported as a possible sock puppet of User:Ogabadaga, who was indefinitely blocked.

Blocked for 24 hours by Cuchullain for sockpuppetry. - Penwhale | 04:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

User:MattJanovic reported by User:Proper tea is theft (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 03:44, 25 September 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 02:59, 25 September 2007

New user continues to post lengthy, speculative text derived from from a site called yardbird.com into the lead. At least three editors have reverted the addition of this text, and two have expressed opposition to the addtion of this text on the talk page.

--Proper tea is theft 04:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Clear cut. Blocked for 24h. - Penwhale | 04:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Bearcat reported by User:Lonewolf BC (Result:Both users wanred )

Three-revert rule violation on

1st revert: 23:31, 24 September -- rv to version of 20:30, 22 September, wrt the section concerned (but adding a reference)
2nd revert: 00:10, 25 September -- rv to version of 23:31, 24 September
3rd revert: 00:39&00:47, 25 September -- rv to version of 00:10, 25 September, wrt use of "gay" rather than "homosexual"
4th revert: 00:58, 25 September -- rv to version of 00:47, 25 September

No warning given, but Bearcat is an admin and so should know better

A few days ago, in accordance with WP:BLP, I deleted unreferenced claims that Mercer is homosexual. Bearcat restored them once w/o a reference (outside the 3rr window), then again with a reference (1st revert, above), then reverted trimming of the material, and details of its wording. -- Lonewolf BC 06:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Lonwolf BC, you've also borken the 3RR rule, I've given you both a warning - please don't edit war. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Not that I can see. I'd be grateful if you pointed out what you see as a fourth revert on my part. (Here or my talkpage; it's all the same to me.) -- Lonewolf BC 16:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

User:82.29.19.133 reported by User:Court Jester (Result:24 hours )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

1st revert: 10:54, September 23, 2007 (UTC)
2nd revert: 16:39, September 24, 2007 (UTC)
3rd revert: 18:47, September 24, 2007 (UTC)
4th revert: 21:50, September 24, 2007 (UTC)
5th revert: 08:50, September 25, 2007 (UTC)

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

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

Diff of 3RR warning: 22:31, September 24, 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous user determined to place phonemic pronunciation guides, against relative guidelines, on a number of pages including Bourbon whiskey, Bourbon biscuit, Ciabatta, Johann Sebastian Bach, and other pages. Jester 10:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by allen3 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for 24 hours. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

User:RolandR reported by User:ILuvJajah (Result:48 hours )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 09:56, 6 September 2007

RolnadR has been blocked for 3Rr 3 times before.

Blocked for 48 hours due to previous blocks for edit warring. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

User:71.72.130.221 reported by User:Andrew c (Result:24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 14:35, 23 September 2007

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

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

Diff of 3RR warning: 10:40, 25 September 2007

The user has repetitively been inserting commentary into quoted text. I have tried to explain why this is problematic, and warned for 3RR. I am an admin, but because I was involved in the undoing, I am not going to use the tools myself to block, and would like an uninvolved admin to review the case. The last edit seems to be trying to accommodate my concerns, however all the user did was remove the quotes so it was no longer inserting the commentary into quoted text (however, removing the quotes is an issue in itself due to copyvio/plagiarism concerns, which is another issue entirely). Needless to say, the last diff still is inserting the same basic text.Andrew c 14:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

IP blocked for 24 hours, Andrew C warned. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Digwuren reported by User:Anonimu (Result:2 wks)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 13:59, 25 September 2007

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

User blocked for 3RR before, so he was aware of it.

Looks like User:Digwuren thinks he owns the article. He rejected any tag, and added references that don't cover the text they supposedly reference. I tried to put a version supported by sources (one of them being supported by Digwuren's proposed DYK) and to ask for further references to support Digwuren's claim, but I was reverted every time.Anonimu 19:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, clearly edit warring after repeated blocks. Blocked for two weeks. As Digwuren is involved in an Arbcom case, there may need to be some arrangement for him to be unblocked for participation in this. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, weird. There are two reverts on two different edits. First is clear antivandalism as somebody is removing sources inappropriately. And adding CN's. Even though they are not actually not even needed there. I don't know about the second topic. I don't think it was good idea to block. But what do I know, I guess 2RR goes against vandalism aswell. I would personally have requested page protection myself, as some editors just have grudge about the editor and wanted to remove the GA status from the article by using random tagging and starting editwar. It's sad to see that Digwuren fell a victim of the provocations. Suva Чего? 20:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  - I don't see any vandal reverts here. Also, even with fewer than four reverts, I'd have probably blocked since the user should know by now not to edit war after the many blocks he's received. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    - It's true that the first one is a bit questionable: while he removes the OR tag added by Irpen, he does also add a citation, so perhaps it's not best to count it as a revert. But this does not change the fact that he is edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
      - So was Anonimu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). His latest contributions to other related articles follow the same pattern. Also check his block log. That is the problem with those editors. They like plain template tagging to discredit articles (in this time to successfully remove the GA status) instead of trying to find consensus or actually add sources themself. Other article was editprotected until consensus is found. I think this kind of approach would have been better in this case aswell instead of doubtable one sided block. But as said before I am not the one to decide. Suva Чего? 21:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Digwuren's reverts (times in GMT)

removal of recently added OR tag at 06:39, September 25, 2007
same again at 10:59
same again 17:32
Same again 18:19
Same again 18:54 with abusive vandalism summary
Same again 19:51 again with abusive vandalism summary

OR tags were explained at talk and added by three different editors but Digwuren just ran a sterile revert war. It is 6RR not even a 3RR. --Irpen 21:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh damn, I forgot that there are tagteams. Ah, my bad. Sorry to bother. Suva Чего? 21:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The two first diffs are by Dihydrogen Monoxide, not me. What next -- sockpupped accusations and an RFCU based on sharing the two first letters of nick? Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 07:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User:74.77.222.188 reported by User:callmebc (Result: 24 hours to both)

Three-revert rule violation on

Talk:Killian_documents. 74.77.222.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

1st revert: 18:13
2nd revert: 17:18
3rd revert: 20:01
4th revert: 20:54

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

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

Diff of 3RR warning: 20:32

A short explanation of the incident. Callmebc 21:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess it depends on your viewpoint -- I'm either: 1) engaged in an edit war with a few anonymous IP addresses, possibly a sockpuppet or two, most especially a hothead at 74.77.222.18 who doesn't seem to think WP:BLP, WP:NPA WP:TPG and WP:CIV (for starters) have any bearing on Talk page "discussions"; 2) dealing with right wing vandals who don't want any updates made to certain articles near and dear to them; or 3) just having a lively Wiki discussion. Perhaps if I indicate what 74.77.222.18 keeps reverting, that might help: .

I looked into it, and both of you violated 3RR. For the record, the page was moved as an archival attempt by Gamaliel. Callmebc reverted 1 2 3 4 times. 24 hours each. - Penwhale | 22:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

User:17.221.13.236 reported by User:WikiDon (Result: Already blocked for vandalism)

Three-revert rule violation on

21:43, 25 September 2007 17.221.13.236
21:50, 25 September 2007 17.221.13.236
21:55, 25 September 2007 17.221.13.236
21:58, 25 September 2007 17.221.13.236
22:02, 25 September 2007 17.221.13.236

REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Libby%2C_Montana&action=history

Help! WikiDon 22:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Already blocked for 24 hours for vandalism. - Penwhale | 22:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

User:JerryGraf reported by User:Rogue Gremlin (Result: User Warned)

Three-revert rule violation on

Hugh Hefner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JerryGraf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC) JerryGraf did 4 reverts in a 24 hour period , after adding what is ment to be a negative statement about the biography of a living person, after i removed it he keeps reverting it back. Not to mention the comment should actually be on a different page as well. I did 3 in the 24 hour period. But he just did his 4th. And apparently has no plans on stoppingRogue Gremlin 21:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed malformed Request. will look into it. - Penwhale | 22:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

He barely skirted 24 hour range. As he has no warnings about 3RR yet, I've warned him. - Penwhale | 22:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Louie33 reported by User:Myanw (Result: Indef)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert: 19:05
2nd revert: 20:21
3rd revert: 21:11
4th revert: 22:19
5th revert: 22:26

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

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

Diff of 3RR warning: 21:53

Looks like User:Louie33 thinks he is the world expert regarding that matter so he feels free to add POV, and to remove sourced statements. - Myanw 22:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

~~You didn't exactly follow the template, but it could've been worse. 24 hours to Louie33, clear cut violation. - Penwhale | 22:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)~~

Changed to indef due to editor's declaration of wanting to own the article - Penwhale | 22:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Bob A reported by User:Skomorokh Result 24 hours

5 reverts in a 24 hour period on September 25th against longstanding consensus (user tried to remove all references to anarcho-capitalism from the Anarchism in the United States article). Check it out: 1st reversion 2nd reversion 3rd reversion 4th reversion 5th reversion Skomorokh 22:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Another malformed report, but this one is clear cut too. 24 hours. - Penwhale | 22:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

User:70.18.5.219 (Talk) reported by Modernist 01:04, 26 September 2007 (Result: Article Semi-protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

1st revert:20:23
2nd revert:20:31
3rd revert:21:20
4th revert:22:40

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Diff of 3RR warning:

I repeatedly asked this editor to discuss the issue in dispute on the talk page of the article at Talk:Frida Kahlo as did an administrator FisherQueen who issued a WP:3RR warning. After the warning he reverted again, leaving insulting messages in his edit summaries and finally a very insulting message on the talk page. Modernist 01:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I semi-protected article so a discussion can be generated. For the record, I don't think his edit comments or talk page comments are that bad. Couple with the fact that IP's been stale, I reasoned it's not worth blocking 24 hours. - Penwhale | 04:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Eusebeus reported by User:Alansohn (Result: Page protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

1st revert:
2nd revert: - note edit summary includes threat of "edit war"
3rd revert:
4th revert:

Despite clear consensus to the contrary, User:Eusebeus seems to be convinced that the Chris Conley does not meet standards of notability, despite the inclusion of multiple, reliable and verifiable sources. Suggestions to take this article to AfD have been ignored. This is the 14th time that User:Eusebeus has blanked the article into a redirect, undoing the work of at least 11 different Misplaced Pages editors who clearly believe that individual notability has been established. Alansohn 04:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Bull. Consult the talk page of the article in question. A slew of SP accounts have reverted, raising serious COI concerns. Eusebeus 04:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Page protected. I don't see SP involved in revert war, so take it to talk page. - Penwhale | 04:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Barring any further violations on this article by this user, I have no interest in seeing any of the required sanctions being applied to Eusebeus. However, the article needs to be restored to its status quo ante prior to Eusebeus' 4th revert here so that the article can be further improved and expanded, and so that any of the specific content issues he might raise on the talk page can be addressed. Alansohn 05:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    - You mean that the wrong version got protected, of course. Seraphimblade 05:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
      - Thanks for correcting my terminology. Alansohn 06:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Loansince reported by User:Nightscream (Result:Indefinitely blocked)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

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 will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

I edited the Coral Smith to remove the unsourced/POV stuff, improve the grammar, etc. Loansince reverted it, remarking in his Edit Summaries, "reverted unsourced info back to sourced information". (I added no unsourced info to the article.) When I tried to open a dialogue on his Talk Page, his only response was to blank his Talk Page, revert again, and remark in his Edit Summary, "find sources / this has been sourced". When I again tried to explain to him how things were done on WP, he reverted again with the Summary: "Nightscreem stop reverting. You find sources". When I tried again to speak with him, and repeatedly warned that he could be blocked for this behavior, he placed the following message on my Talk Page: "I'm writing this message here because it seems you have had a serious talking to by more users than just my self (up above) about adding unsourced contributions to wikipedia. The Coral Smith info you are adding into the article is unsourced and I have told you that repeatedly. Until you get sources for that info, stop adding it in and being so irritating." For the record, I have have been given no admonishments about unsourced info, nor has he told me this "repeatedly", nor have I been "irritating", or anything other than polite to him. Reading his Talk Page (or its history) will not only verify this, but will show other instances of his deliberately ignoring WP rules and consensus. Nightscream 09:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

A clear break but as Loansince is a new user and was (so far as I can find) not specifically warned about the three revert rule, I have given him a warning and guidance rather than blocking. Will continue to monitor the situation. Sam Blacketer 15:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

- Jpgordon has now banned Loansince indefinitely as a sockpuppet of a banned user. Sam Blacketer 21:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User:65.57.245.11 reported by User:Wgungfu (Result: 24 hours )

Three-revert rule violation on

Diff of 3RR warning: 10:42, 26 September 2007

Editor was warned on 3RR violation. Editor keeps trying to remove and/or alter reference material of publicly known Californian collector Scott Evans who runs AtariGames.Com and owns the Bradley Fighting Vehicle simulator in question, and has public page about it. Editor's IP is an open proxy in Colorado with long history of problems. Would like an sprotect on the page as well possibly. --Marty Goldberg 16:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Please also see the topic recently started on Battlezone's talk page. --Marty Goldberg 16:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

24 hours. Wgungfu - please be more careful about throwing the term vandalism around in edit summaries. This is a content dispute not vandalism. Indeed, perhaps the ip thinks there may be a BLP issue? The content you are defending is speculative as written and is perhaps inappropriate but that can be hashed out on the article talk page. I have not sprotected as there are constructive ip edits to this article. Spartaz 18:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem about the vandalism comment, I'll watch it. As far as speculative and BLP, I don't see how - Scott owns the machine in question and put up the page in the reference detailing his ownership and the machine. --Marty Goldberg 19:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I only looked at the deleted text and didn't follow the link. Spartaz 19:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Brendan.lloyd reported by User:Merzbow (Result: 72 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 2007-09-24T05:04:18

1st revert: 2007-09-25T04:36:22
2nd revert: 2007-09-25T18:38:44
3rd revert: 2007-09-25T22:04:44
4th revert: 2007-09-26T02:34:29

All edits remove "pled guilty" from the first paragraph. User is edit-warring against an edit he agreed to just a few days ago, after just coming back from a block for edit-warring. See this talk-page thread about the block. - Merzbow 17:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

72 hours Spartaz 18:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that all? Yeeyoho 01:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Thumperward reported by User:ViolentCrime (Result:reporter blocked as likely sock. Reportee warned. )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 19:57, 24 September 2007

1st revert: 18:58, 25 September 2007
2nd revert: 06:55, 26 September 2007
3rd revert: 17:19, 26 September 2007 DIFFTIME
4th revert: 17:26, 26 September 2007

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

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

Diff of 3RR warning: 17:24, 26 September 2007

There was also a fifth revert, of the exact section, at 17:15, 25 September 2007 : I warned Themperward that he is gaming 3RR by making his 4th revert at 24hours + 4 minutes, and he responsed with a dismissive comment. ViolentCrime 17:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

considering report Spartaz 19:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I think that violentcrime is a sockpuppet and have blocked them indefinitely. I have (will) warn Thumperward about the 3RR. Spartaz 19:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Wikimachine reported by User:Komdori (Result:48 hour block )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 21:22, September 21, 2007

Also violated (intentional gaming, three minutes outside 24h) on An Jung-geun.

Previous version: 19:45, 23 September 2007

1st revert: 21:30, September 25, 2007
2nd revert: 03:53, September 26, 2007
3rd revert: 04:07, September 26, 2007
4th revert: 21:33, September 26, 2007 - blind revert, removing changes of unrelated editors

User since 2005, clearly aware of 3RR, gaming the 3RR system while warning others . Continuous removal of category he disputes on these two articles. Other editor tried to reinsert, but eventually gave up when Wikimachine made it clear he was declaring an all out revert war and not interested in discussion. Wikimachine was blocked recently for 48 hours for blatant refusal to cooperate or discuss edits. He has a pattern of planning revert wars, trying to game the system recently saying, "When our 24 hrs limit is up, we can revert...back."

User:SqueakBox reported by User: 82.45.15.121 (Result:48 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: Multiple.

1st revert: 21:39 (26th)
2nd revert: 22:09 (26th)
3rd revert: 23:32 (26th)
4th revert: 23:58 (26th)
5th revert: 00:06 (27th)

Edit war. Block log reveals a history of similar behaviour. 82.45.15.121 02:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Two separate bursts of reverts, but one part is common to both. User has previously been blocked for revert warring on similar articles. He was active on the talk page but some of the changes were relatively minor which makes it worse in my view. I have blocked Squeakbox for 48 hours. Sam Blacketer 10:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The anon user has him/her self reverted 3 times and made what i can only describe as trolling comments here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3APro-pedophile_activism&diff=160720203&oldid=160661999. Seems like he tried to set Squeak up so he could then push his views in peace and the factt hat somebody reports while edit warring themselves makes me question the good faith of this anonymous user.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Pro-pedophile_activism&diff=160566522&oldid=160565773

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Pro-pedophile_activism&diff=160726383&oldid=160725340

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Pro-pedophile_activism&diff=160562657&oldid=160560070

Pol64 17:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Sunray reported by User:GreenJoe (Result:Warned)

Three-revert rule violation on

User talk:GreenJoe. Sunray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Previous version 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 will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Diff of 3RR warning: &

He keeps harassing me by reverting my talk page. I'm frustrated now by his behaviour. GreenJoe 02:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify on how his behavior is different from yours: . Additionally, it appears that you may have baited him with some of your edit summaries, such as and . —C.Fred (talk) 03:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that it is, but I did stop, he kept going, even after I asked him to stop. I didn't bait him, the first summary was the same one he used as well, if you look at his own talk page history. GreenJoe 03:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  - (edit conflict) He has gone ahead and stopped, and agreed to stop. I don't see where there's anything ongoing to be prevented by a block. —C.Fred (talk) 03:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    - I don't see that as an agreement to stop. He simply gave in, but he'd do it again. GreenJoe 03:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- The first example you gave is directly from here. GreenJoe 03:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If I may make an observation, I believe that much of this conflict would have been avoided had it not been for the abuse and misuse of various tags. Case in point, GreenJoe applied the edit war warning he cited above, despite the fact that Sunray had only reverted the removal of the Fraternities and Sororities section once - and had in fact made no edits at all in the preceeding 41 hours. One minute after placing the warning, GreenJoe deleted the section. Clearly, the warning did not apply. Sunray removed the warning from his talk page and restored the Fraternities and Sororities section. At this point, GreenJoe not only returned the edit war warning, but added a 3RR warning and a welcome/bad practices warning. Why this was done is a bit of a mystery. After all, as he had only just made his first revert in over 41 hours, Sunray was in no danger of violating 3RR. (I won't bother drawing a conclusion as to why one would place a welcome/bad practices warning on the talk page of someone who has been contributong to Misplaced Pages since 2003.) While I could go on (and will, if anyone believes it necessary), I think I have made my point. Now, in the interest of openness, I should add that within minutes of my first and only edit to the section, I too received an edit war warning from GreenJoe. In this respect, my experience is not dissimilar from that of NeilN. Victoriagirl 07:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Users editing content in their own user space is a specific exception from the three revert rule. Removing warnings is controversial and not to be undertaken lightly, and edit warring about them is disruptive and somewhat pointless. However, as Sunray seems to have accepted that he will walk away from the dispute and not revert, I have given him a warning. Sam Blacketer 10:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User:SEWilco reported by User:callmebc (Result:No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

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

Diff of 3RR warning: 01:13, 27 September 2007

Note that there was another revert by a short lived IP address: 14:10, 24 September 2007

A short explanation of the incident. Callmebc 05:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this so convoluted that I don't know if I can make it that short...but: User:SEWilco had added a new sub-section called "Mother's Day" involving an anecdote by an old friend of Bush, William Campenni, that appeared in some unknown form (there is no easy way to access the article -- the link SEWilco keeps using is broken) in the Washington Times, a conservative (well, actually right wing) newspaper a couple of years ago. Basically Campenni claims that one of the Killian memos in which Killian is ordering Bush to report to a physical has to be forged because, to quote Campenni, For the weekend that 1st Lt. Bush was supposedly ordered to report for his physical, May 13-14, 1972, the Ellington Air Guard Base was closed.. The problem is that the memo in question doesn't say that. It's dated May 4th and the exact quote is: "You are ordered to report to commander, 111 F.L.S, Ellington AFB, not later than (NLT) 14 May, 1972 to conduct annual physical examination." Also Campenni's claim that the base would be shut down that entire weekend, because of Mother's Day, appears to be unsupported by any other source.

So while Campenni claims that Bush was ordered to report on the weekend of the 13-14, the memo clearly says by the 14th, which was Bush's last day on base (according DoD records). A not so slight difference. But then SEWilco posts the assertion by referencing the Washington Times piece but actually using the wording from the memo -- which is fabrication, I do believe. SEWilco also adds that even if the memo was dated May 4th (a Thursday that year), it would not reach Bush by mail before the weekend -- which is not only wild speculation but is utterly nonsensical: bases have their own mail room, so the memo would just be put into Bush's mail box. Lastly SEWilco also adds that the address on the memo is wrong without providing a reference for that, and some Google searching indicates that the address is correct -- it's Bush's parents, and it shows up also in official records. See the talk discussion here .

I keep pointing these things out and removing the add, but SEWilco simply says that it's "verifiable" and then puts it back. So...

This may be a slow-burning revert war but one revert a day is really not close enough to 'gaming the system' on four reverts in a 24-hour period. This is no violation. The subject of the dispute isn't relevant here (don't continue the dispute on this page) but I advise you to check the source supplied and compare it with the paragraph as written so that you can come to a compromise. Sam Blacketer 10:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I had been blocked over another 3RR revert issue with another Killian wiki troublemaker, so I'm leery of reverting things too many times in a short period. If you check the Talk page thread, it's pretty clear that things have become circular -- the only available sources even dicussing the Washington Times piece only quote sections of it, but those sections don't match up with what SEWilco is claiming. It looks like pretty cut and dry fabrication to me. I'll revert, but he'll just put it back with the same "verifiable" recant wth the same broken link, despite my asking him over and over to supply that "verifable" evidence. The is nothing to compromise about, since he's just maliciously inserting some stuff that has no backing whatsoever and is making no attempt to be reasonable via Wiki guidelines. So I guess I'll end up here again shortly.... -BC aka Callmebc 14:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute where an editor does not have source material and is not accepting statements about what is in the source material nor how to get it. He has now stated that he is trying to force a 3RR. Apparently he also has read the 3RR instructions as well as he is reading the article Talk page. How well he will read the source material is not yet known. (SEWilco 17:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC))

User:Krsont reported by User:Shutterbug (Result:24 hours each, see below)

Three-revert rule violation on

This is the second time this users 3RRs on the same article, ignoring missing consent and missing coverage by WP:V and WP:RS for his robotic changes. The first time he was blocked accordingly (Diff here

Per 3RR rule the continuous revert does not need to be only within 24 hrs. Shutterbug 04:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Shutterbug 04:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh the humanity. Both Krsont and Shutterbug have three reverts in a short space of time, after previous warnings for revert warring. I might have blocked for gaming the system anyway but as all scientology articles are on article probation I have blocked them both for 24 hours under its provisions. Sam Blacketer 11:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Joaquín Martínez reported by User:McGeddon (Result:24 hour)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 09:47, 27 September 2007

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

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

Diff of 3RR warning: 10:58, 27 September 2007

User is pushing POV statements in the article - after being warned, his response was "go and use 3rr, it is an indication of liberal style to try and lock others out of debate". McGeddon 12:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 24-hours for edit-warring. Ronnotel 02:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Matthead reported by User:Piotrus (Result: 48 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 00:37, September 23, 2007

Matthead, a veteran of 2 3rr blocks, has now engaged in edit warring over a GA-candidate Kraków, pushing - against consensus - his version of the name as well as section headings (among other things). I hope that such a 6rr violation will merit some form of an escalation block - we even cannot work on the articles to meet GA reviewer concerns to due his revert edit conflicts. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 13:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I knew this would be coming. Please read Talk:Kraków. -- Matthead O 13:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Matthead has been blocked for 48 hours, as this is not his first offense. He saw this report, knew the jig was up, and 6RR is not acceptable no matter how right one believes they are. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Jcmenal reported by User:Corticopia (Result: No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 03:19, 27 September 2007 (original here)

Jcmenal added an additional level of regions (subregions) to what should be a simple regional template -- without discussing proposed changes first/at all and labelling changes as 'cleanup'. In the span of minutes, Jcmenal reverted my restorations of the simpler, alphabetised template. Each of his reverts supports a point-of-view regarding the classification of territories in this region or, more appropriate, the inclusion of Mexico in 'North America' alone (i.e., to the exclusion of other schemes). These issues have recurred elsewhere as well. User has been warned, and user hypocritically did the same. Corticopia 16:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Corticopia is lying in the report. Jcmenal didn't reverted 4 times as he alleges, he reverted 3 times and he did warned Corticopia about him being blocked several times in the past. Please check the history of the article before concluding anything, because this report is trying to fool the admins. AlexCovarrubias 23:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

'Comment' The report and diffs are self-evident, and I stand by it. Jcmenal simplistically 'warned' me after I did the same -- in an event, he not once discussed his edits throughout on the talk page. I boldly created the template scant days ago. As well, the commentator has also been blocked repeatedly, is currently on 1RR parole, and is one of a cohort of Mexican editors (in addition to the violator and Supaman89, who retaliated below, who has also been blocked and edits anonymously) who continually partake in boosterism and pernicious POV editing on Mexican-related articles or, similarly, by insinuating deprecating edits onto articles of 'competitor' countries (e.g., Brazil). Corticopia 03:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Corticopia keep your insults to yourself. My edits has no conflict with the current definition of Middle America (accepted even by Corticopia), in my last edit I changed Mexico's region and let it blank to avoid any problem. The Template's creator is not the Template's owner as Corticopia is trying to claim, Middle America comprises 3 regions (Mexico, Central America, West Indies) and Corticopia just would accept Contiental and West Indies in a try to include Mexico in Central America (which is a definition conflict). Corticopia reverted my edits 3 times as well. JC 01:32, 28 September 2007 (PST)

The user has not yet violated WP:3RR because there are not yet four reverts within 24 hours nor is there any severely disruptive behavior. I have also protected the page. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:More Truthiness reported by User:Crockspot (Result: 12 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

More Truthiness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), also editing as
66.7.37.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:
5th revert:
6th revert:

The second revert could be argued to be the correction of a mistake, but there is still a violation here. User was warned about 3RR yesterday.

Diff of 3RR warning:

Crockspot 19:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 12 hours. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 20:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Komusou reported by User:Pmanderson (Result: 24 hours)

See also "Contestation and 3RR from Pmanderson" below this. — Komusou

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 22:51 26th September

1st revert: 06:47
2nd revert: 17;54
3rd revert: 18:38
- Please note edit summary calling this content dispute vandalism
4th revert: 19:58
- Using Undo button.

This is a content dispute. Komusou appears to object to calling Wodehouse English although Wodehouse himself did, and insists on reverting to the clumsy "British writer of English origin". If there were a dispute whether Wodehouse were in some sense, say, Welsh, this would be a different matter.

Several editors have objected to this on the talk page, especially here; I have tried different texts. Both of us have edited the article at other points, but Komusou has exactly reverted four times at the point at issue. Please note that, although I have edited the passage four times myself, the first was not a revert, but an independent effort to clean up execrable English, and the third was intentionally a new idea, taken from the Britannica, in the hope it might assuage Komusou's eccentric concerns. Enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A solution may have been found to the content dispute; but please keep an eye on this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Contestation and 3RR from Pmanderson

I claim that Pmanderson did the 3RR he accuses me of. Here, a dual timeline will give a better picture than his truncated one-sided view. I have noted "E" his edits towards the controversial version (article saying only "was an English writer") and "C" my edits towards the compromise version (article saying "was a British writer from England").

Last versions of the competing older revisions:

E - 18:24, 9 September 2007 - the controversial revision Pmanderson will revert to
C - 22:35, 9 September 2007 - the compromise revision I will restore to

Events (UTC):

E - 22:58, 26 September 2007 - Pmanderson 1st revert to older version
C - 06:47, 27 September 2007 - my 1st restoration, citing talk page discussion
E - 17:20, 27 September 2007 - Pmanderson 2nd revert
C - 17:54, 27 September 2007 - my 2nd restoration, citing new talk page answer
E - 18:17, 27 September 2007 - Pmanderson 3rd revert
C - 18:38, 27 September 2007 - my 3rd restoration, informing that a WP:DR is pending
E - 19:30, 27 September 2007 - Pmanderson 4th revert
C - 19:58, 27 September 2007 - my 4th restoration (after considering both that he violated 3RR and that his removing a basic piece of sourced information from a compromise version was closer to vandalism than regular content dispute)
x - 20:26, 27 September 2007 - Pmanderson on talk page, gloating about 3RR

My claim summary: Pmanderson is the original 3RR violator, his first edit that day was a revert to an older version (reverting from a compromise version to a controversial one), thus he initiated the 3RR count on his first edit. I am basing myself on Misplaced Pages:Revert stating that "in the context of the English Misplaced Pages three revert rule, a revert is defined far more broadly as any change to an article that partially or completely goes back to any older version of an article." (Note: I was of course aware that Pmanderson had 3RR'ed but I dislike using 3RR as a tool for entrapping others or silencing opposition. Of course, Pmanderson avoided to notify me of his 3RR report. Since he is in the habit of trying to deflect blame by preventively accusing others of his faults, I am unsurprised by his deceptive report.)

Additional 3RR-related comments:

IMO, if the revert count isn't performed like this, but as Pmanderson would like it, then a warrior would always either get his way or force his opponent into 3RR, because the attacker would have his count always one point less than the article's defender. Counting so would actually *favor* edit wars rather than prevent them, because a premium would be given to any attacker for going against the status quo. (That may also be why Pmanderson gleefully attacked in this manner without actual discussion on the talk page, he hoped to mechanically come on top of a 3RR without having his first revert be noticed.)

I may also be blamable for my 4th restoration, so I want to explain:

His reverts aren't about a convoluted dispute, but a clear cut case of sourced content removal. His reverts are identical to someone who would repeatedly go and replace a lead "Joe is a Canadian writer from Quebec" with just "Joe is a Quebec writer" by deleting mention of the sovereign nation. Such as special case may not be "simple vandalism", but I think he is knowingly removing a basic and central information for a biography, the official nationality (British passport, there is no English passport just like there is no Quebec passport). It is thus both ethnic POV-pushing and a deliberate attempt at removing information and lowering the content of the lead section, thus closer to vandalism than to disputed encyclopedic edits.

This is not a case of my reverting between "B" for me and "E" for him (that would be regular content dispute). It is about my restoring "B and E" (complete and encyclopedic, superset of his version, compromise) against his just "E" (deletion of the official nationality, subset of my version, no compromise).

I would also point out his non-debate behavior: after he reverted to a controversial version, and I restored the compromise version while sending him to the talk page, he should have left the compromise version in place and focussed on the talk page debate. Instead, he never try to address or rebuke any point of the debate, simply dropping on the talk page a short note to the effect of "he is English because he is English" then going back to revert.

And since it's a vital criterion for "vandalism", I contend that his edits summaries show clear cut bad faith. For instance, his stating that the neutral and precise compromise "British writer from England" is "neither neutral nor precise" and replacing it with just "England" which is a subset neither neutral nor precise, shows him using the tactic of deliberately accusing the other party of precisely what he's doing at the same time. Hard for me to take this double-talk, and the rest, as anything else than clear bad faith.

I thought those points could be taken into consideration, maybe in a manner of considering that each of my reverts doesn't necessarily count for "1 full revert" but maybe "0.5 revert" (figuratively), for such a case that's not about delicate disputed points but restoring the very basic information of nationality that an encyclopedia should provide.

Conclusion:

My belief at this point is that either both of us should be considered 3RR (if each one of my reverts is counted for "1", then we both 3RR'ed, him first), or only him (if my revert count gets some relativization) – but not just me, since he initiated the 3RR. (Thank you for going through this, I realize it's rather lame and boring, but I believe that if we don't defend the basics such as official nationality, we're going nowhere.)

— Komusou @ 09:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Komusou is a rather new editor (since 4 May) and may not have been warned of 3RR before violating it. --teb728 19:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This edit was intended as a warning; and Komusou quoted WP:3RR shortly thereafter. But as long as he stops, I'm content. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I leave the substance of this report, and the tit-for-tat involved, up to the admins. As I said above: my first edit was a completely independent solution to Komusou's clumsy wording, independent of any editor of three weeks ago; my third edit was intended as a compromise, based on the encyclopedic wording of the Britannica. The present wording, which has the support of every editor on the talk page, possibly excluding Komusou, has neither adjective; I prefer it to anything I wrote. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

However, in checking whether this has been responded to, I find this edit by Komusou, which compares a mildly worded complaint about other edits of his to the proceedings at Guantanamo. Can someone please have a word with him? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. Pmanderson did not violate 3RR policy. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:75.112.134.14 reported by User:Alexf (Result:24-hour block )

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:
5th revert:
6th revert:
7th revert:
8th revert:
9th revert:
10th revert:
11th revert:
12th, 13th more of the same
14th revert:

The guy is on a rampage. He was warned about vandalism and about 3RR. Alexf 22:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Corticopia reported by User:Supaman89 (Result: No violation, page protected)

Three-revert rule violation and edit warring on

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

Previous version reverted to:

Corticopia has been edit warring and violating 3RR several times in the past as you can check here . He is a very uncivil user and uses bad words and profanity and personal attacks even on edit summaries and he has been blocked for that .

The 3RR policy says that constant edit warring and 3RR violations must be punished accordingly to the amount of times it has been repeated and this would be his 9th 3RR violation. He has been blocked for 1 month in the past. Much of his violations has not been reported because I guess the new users that he edit wars with don't know about this policy.

And the user is well aware of this and other policies, he just reported another user for 3RR but didn't report himself. Supaman89 23:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The Virgin Mary this editor isn't -- I would state the obvious if I actually reverted more than 3 times, which I didn't. Of course, this editor is retaliating against my report of his comrade above. Given the controversies surrounding these topics, Jcmenal should've known better than to not discuss edits beforehand: stupidly, he misleadingly tagged his POV retrofit of the template as 'cleanup', and falls back onto the crutch of the same tired rhetoric. As well, the reporter herein has also been blocked, edits anonymously (using a number of IPs), and is one of a clutch of boosterist editors (include Jcmenal) who have continuous challenges regarding Mexico's place (geographically, or through various metrics) in the Americas or on the world stage. 03:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corticopia (talk • contribs)

There is no violation on Corticopia's part, but I have fully protected the page. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:70.20.46.65 reported by User:IP4240207xx (Result:No violation)

Three-revert rule violation and edit warring on

User_talk:70.20.46.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Check history of User_talk:70.20.46.65, keeps making improper edits in articles, then when is warned, just BLANKS user page. 10 blanks from 24 SEP to 28 SEP.

This page is for reporting violations of WP:3RR and requires evidence in the form of specific diffs that constitute the violation. Please note as per WP:USERPAGE, a user has wide latitude to remove material from their own pages. Ronnotel 02:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:72.75.46.82 reported by User:Abd (Result:No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Special:Contributions/72.75.26.158 2 reverts, one edit which was actually an extensive revision including exact reversions but not stated as such. This edit was not a part of the original complaint (and not within 24 hrs).

Special:Contributions/72.75.46.82 4 reverts

Special:Contributions/72.75.48.229 4 reverts

User has not been specifically warned on the "user pages." User has different IP with each session, there is no reason to expect next login will have same IP, though it is possible.

The first set of six gave as a reason, "Avid proponent of other systems trying to change article," which is no reason for reversion at all, inappropriate material would be. Next four reverts gave no reason.

Notice was made of 3RR policy on Talk page after the first six reverts. User has posted to Talk page (from 72.75.46.82). Abd 06:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

These all appear to be good faith edits, I don't see anything that resembles edit warring. Once again, I urge you to assume good faith on the part of this user and to engage to find consensus. Also, please see the format of other successful reports on this page, it will make it much easier for the investigating admin in the future. In particular, list the specific diffs and the times they were made. Ronnotel 13:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

As per talk page, I suggest that Abd may want to seek help at WP:COIN to address what he believes may be biased edits from an editor with ulterior motives. Ronnotel 19:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Taharqa reported by User:Wikidudeman (Result: Page protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 04:09, 28 September 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 11:57, 28 September 2007

^^Not a new user, however note was still left warning of the reverts.

User:Taharqa continues to revert material added by another user to the Race and ancient Egypt article. NOTE, This would be the 9th 3rr violation from this user in the past 5 months. I believe this should be considered when determining duration of potential block. Longest was for 5 days. Wikidudeman 18:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This report is misguided for two reasons..

The page is now protected, pending discussion and compromise (which I've been pleading for from the beginning, even on his talk page).

He's guilty of the same thing.

^Removal of entire section..

^^These two are back to back (probably can count as one), reverting material that was removed..

2 of the last 3 concern the revisions that he's reporting on, and the last one is a removal of cited material that was restored only hours prior. All with in the past 24. I left him a message on his talk page, giving him the benefit of the doubt and pleading for discussion and compromise and he seemed hip to that actually.

With the protection, I feel that it will give us time to discuss any disputes and gain a bit of common ground, in the absence of edit warring or content disputes.Taharqa 20:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The page has been protected by MastCell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Also, I don't believe Taharqa violated 3RR. The first edit, to my knowledge, was not a revert. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That's incorrect, The first revert was this one which was in response to information added by User:SenseOnes. This is clearly a violation of 3RR. Wikidudeman 22:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. I should have looked at the size of text for each edit. It was clearly 4 reverts, but protection has done its job. No need for a 3RR block. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree, I left a note on your talk page. Wikidudeman 23:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

After looking at the history page, it appears that Taharqa made a straightforward WP:3RR violation, protecting the page is actually indirectly punishing Wikidudeman and the others editing that page for another editor's mistake. Anynobody 01:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a content dispute, not a mistake. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, a content dispute that resulted in a violation of the 3RR. I doubt Taharqa meant to violate it, so I'd call it a mistake. When an article says something we as editors don't like but two or more other editors support with references, we're not supposed to keep reverting. Anynobody 03:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

By my count only one editor has violated 3RR, so the editors are unable to edit the article in question as a result of one person's mistake...
1 (It is a revert, the info was added earlier by another editor. so it was a reversion)
Wikidudeman Corrected 1
2
Wikidudeman Corrected 2
3
Another editor corrected 3
4
Anynobody 03:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I know Taharqa violated 3RR. I acknowledged that earlier. This block will not help the discussion process at all. The sooner a resolution is made on the article's talk page, then the sooner the article will be unprotected. Nishkid64 (talk) 08:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User:122.163.102.174 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: User blocked)

Three-revert rule violation on

Logical connective (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 122.163.102.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 122.163.102.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 122.163.102.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) : Time reported: 21:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: 12:48, September 20, 2007

1st revert: 11:34, September 28, 2007 (as 174)
2nd revert: 13:08, September 28, 2007 (as 167)
3rd revert: 13:37, September 28, 2007 (as 102)
4th revert: 14:58, September 28, 2007 (as 102)

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

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

Pointless because he hasn't repeated IP addresses.

Repeated removal of Cullinane's crediting of text to his web site. I assume this means he's giving permission for the text to occur here. Otherwise, removal of the #Venn diagram tables may be required as a copyvio. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked the IPs for 24 hours per WP:3RR, and I have semi-protected the page (it dawned on me after I did the blocks that I could have just protected the page). Nishkid64 (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:142.68.12.214 reported by User:Kirkoconnell (Result: 1 week)

Three-revert rule violation on

Glace Bay. 142.68.12.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: 21:15, 28 September 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 01:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, The http://en.wikipedia.org/John_W._Morgan has been reverted many times. These reverts go to non-sencal down right silly vandalism. This person needs to be stoped. I could have 7 examples for this stuff.

Keeps reverting artciles to include either unsourced, unverifable information that means nothing to the article, or out right vandalizing pages. Kirkoconnell 01:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for 1 week for violating WP:3RR and adding misinformation. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Gnatdroid reported by User:Kmsiever (Result: No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 13:51, 27 September 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 15:13, 28 September 2007

I made several edits to the page in question. Some of the edits I made was removing external links from within the article. The user in question has reverted those removals three times. I wrote on his talk page regarding this and in the talk page of the article. Even after these two attempts to politely request he stop, he still reverted my changes. Kmsiever 02:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The user has not yet violated WP:3RR because there are not yet four reverts within 24 hours nor is there any severely disruptive behavior. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Brkic reported by User:RjecinaResult - not warned (still)

Three-revert rule violation on

1 revert
2 revert
3 revert
4 revert
5 revert

From 19:55 of 28 september user:Brkic is forcing that article must have statement from obscure book which is without confirmation on internet (or better to say google). Rjecina 11:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User not warned Spartaz 11:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for deleting your first decision but I will ask again that somebody look this because this time he has been warned and he has again reverted.

6 revert

It is possible to put this article in semi-protected mode for long period of time because it is popular with blocked users which are coming again and again. For this it is enough to see history page of article. Users User:Guivon and User:UstashkiDom are blocked, user:Skoa is vandal which nobody has asked to be blocked and now this. All in less of 40 days we are having 4 "new" users which play with article.--Rjecina 15:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Rjecina - you haven't warned them. They are a new user so a block without warning violates WP:BITE. If you want the page protected you need WP:RFPP. Go and warn them and then you can come back if they reoffend but you will need a new report. Do not reopen this again. Spartaz 19:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Anoshirawan reported by User:Raoulduke47 (Result: No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

This user, despite the fact that he has already been blocked three times for edit warring, continues to revert the Hotaki dynasty article to a version based on a work of fiction.

Here are some examples of his earlier reverts. I have not included all reverts, but you can check the the article history, the revert war goes back all the way through the month of july.

Here are his most recent reverts:

There has been an RFC for this article. All those involved agreed that Anoshirawan's version was wrong, and that his arguments were unconvincing, and yet he continues to revert the article mindlessly. This is the worst edit war I've ever seen and it's time someone put a stop to it.

He has also been revert warring on the Cuisine of Afghanistan article. Here are the reverts:

This time, in his haste to erase the word "Afghan", he has been reverting to a version where large portions of content have been deleted, thus badly disrupting the article.

He seems to have made reverting a way of life! It is clear from this and from his three previous blocks, that this user has no respect for the wikipedia rules of conduct. Isn't it possible to do something about this outrageous person?Raoulduke47 16:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

They have not violated 3RR at this time. They have 3 reverts spread over 3 days. This board is not a form of dispute resolution. Try and RFC or mediation. This report lacks timestamps and is very confused. Keep it short and simple in future please. Spartaz 19:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Strange, I thought this rule existed to prevent edit warring. I must have misread the part that says "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive". I don't know what you mean by "very confused", I've clearly exposed two separate edit wars, OK there are no time stamps, but you can check the times from each link. I was'nt suggesting you resolve any dispute, just put an end to the edit warring. But if you consider that 3-month long edit wars are OK, and you are content to let trolls screw up wikipedia, then that's your responsability.Raoulduke47 21:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Bramlet Abercrombie reported by User:Darana (Result: Final Warning)

Three-revert rule violation on

Warnings issued: n/a because user responded to another 3RR report three days ago.

A long history of edit wars without talking. I reported the user 3 days ago for 3RR for a separate violation but I withdrew it when I thought he was willing to discuss it. He tried removing other links along with these, but the above four are sufficient for a block. The user tries to time his edits to avoid 3RR/24hr and has been blocked before. (Details on the underlying issue are at Talk:Bhutan Times) --Darana 17:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC) (aka 24.61.222.132 or 71.181.46.151 when not logged in)

Note: Previous report was to the incident board here: --Darana 18:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going with a final warning at this stage. Spartaz 19:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Commator reported by User:Rainwarrior (Result:Warned Commator, page protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 08:48, 28 September 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 11:35, 29 September 2007

This is a repeat occurance of a prveious incident. Due to lack of other interested editors, a stalemate back and forth reversion between myself and Commator has been going on for a while; the issue is the inclusion or removal of references to several non notable things in a "tributes" section of the article. Recently Sdsds commented on the page asking for sources to assert notability, though this has been more or less ignored by Commator. Rainwarrior 18:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: after my warning, Commator has undone his fourth revert. So no rule has been broken. However, it would still be very useful is someone else would be willing to look at the situation and leave a comment. - Rainwarrior 18:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I have reverted my original block against Commator. I urge you both to avoid reverting each other edits and to engage in consensus building to resolve disputes. Ronnotel 19:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I have also fully protected the page. Guys, please resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That might help. - Rainwarrior 05:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Truthseeker81 reported by User:Arrow740 (Result: 48 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 21:31, 24 September 2007

There were some intermediate edits of mine which are unrelated. The main issue is that this user has been repeating this diff despite being told why it is unacceptable.

The user has already been warned, and then blocked for this exact same 3RR vio. He has been repeatedly told that using partisan websites and wikipedia for information then forwarding his own unsourced theories about the Bhagavad Gita is unacceptable. The user ignores posts to his talk page and does not use edit summaries, preferring to edit-war with myself and now another editor. Arrow740 19:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for forty-eight hours, per the evidence above. -- tariqabjotu 01:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User:65.110.155.53 reported by User:Stephen Turner (Result: 24hrs/IP, 24hrs/Moro )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

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

...

12th revert:

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

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

Diff of 3RR warning:
Additional warning on article talk page:

Anon user wishes a certain individual to be on the short list of alumni on University of Cambridge and keeps adding him. Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 24 hours, as well as Moro (talk · contribs) who also would appear to have edit warred with him. Kuru 01:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Brkic reported by User:Laughing Man (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 21:34, September 28, 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 12:08, September 29, 2007

Revert warring with controversial edits. // laughing man 23:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Wikimuppy reported by User:Caniago (Result: 12 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

User has been already warned twice:

- see comment on edit

Editor has been ignoring comments from three other editors at Talk:Indonesia that their additions to this article are not suitable.

(Caniago 16:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

I'm seeing roughly four 3rr specific warnings and at least five reverts. Despite wanting to 'talk', the last revert was with the comment 'right back at you', which does not indicate the editor has a grip on the policy. I've only blocked for 12 hours, and will unblock if he will refrain from any other article edits while a discussion takes place on the talk page. Kuru 16:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User:HAl reported by User:Kilz (Result:No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to:

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

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

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

Diff of 3RR warning:

A short explanation of the incident. Kilz 20:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

A discussion of this ciritism was conducted on the talk page of OOXML User HAl was against the inclusion of referenced information. I added the information. User HAl added a biased edit.his was used as the base article link. I edited the section to restore NPOV , adding more information from the reference. User HAl removed the referenced information below line 494(first revert in part) I explained the claim was referenced and replaced the blanking of it. User Hal removed the claim again I replaced and gave warning of 3rr. User Hal then made a 3rd revert of the edit in part below section line 494 User Hal's talk page has sections from other editors about reverting. Hal later reverted another editor within the 24 hour time for his 5th revert. Hals contributions should also be looked at. As a majority of them are removing anything he considers negative from the Office_Open_XML page. His bias editing is hurting WP:NPOV of the article as he will remove anything that he considers negative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilz (talk • contribs) 19:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no violation here. The first diff listed above is an edit and not a revert; HAl has three reverts, but the fifth diff is a different edit. Please continue to discuss edits. Sam Blacketer 08:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Hon203 reported by User:Hbdragon88 (Result:Indefinite block)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 15:55, 24 September 2007

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

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

Diff of 3RR warning: 21:17, 30 September 2007

Note: This user is very likely a sockpuppet of Qbzad (talk · contribs), who has been edit warring as far back as two weeks ago on the very same issues. This report was supposed to be for Ahmad Zahir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but he has only made three reverts on this article, though the edits of Qbzad go back furhter than that. 23:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Resolved, user has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. hbdragon88 02:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Anoshirawan reported by User:Hbdragon88 (Result:1 week, warn User:Hon203)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 07:51, 30 September 2007

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

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

Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

Edit warring with Hon203. hbdragon88 02:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked User:Anoshirawan for 1 week, warned User:Hon203, protected page. Ronnotel 03:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone else already indef blocked him for abusive sockpuppetry, though. hbdragon88 03:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

User talk:65.110.155.53 reported by User:Asyndeton (Result: 72 hours )

Three-revert rule violation on

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

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

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

Diff of 3RR warning .

Anon user wishes a certain individual to be on the short list of alumni on University of Cambridge and keeps adding him. asyndeton 17:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that user just returned from a 24 hour block for the same reversions. Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

72 hours

User:EditorEsquire reported by User:Brickexistab Result - reportee 24 hours, reporter indef

This user violated 3RR as noted below, on the Loyola Law School wikipedia page. He keeps removing a sourced quote.

No 1 07:24, 1 October 2007

No 2

no 3

no 4 18:24, 1 October 2007

After given a warning , he did it again and challenged me to report him for 3RR. See his comment "Go ahead" in his last edit. --Brickexistab 18:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

He posted a response on his talk page, which he forgot to link here. He seems to think that by adding these statistics, and the quote, we are engaging in a conspiracy to denigrate Loyola Law School. Keep in mind these are statistics from U.S. News and a quote from the school's own dean. I think he needs a reminder re: ownership of articles. --Brickexistab 18:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

EditorEsquire blocked 24 hours. Brickexistab blocked indefinitely for suspected sockpuppetry as has Uponsolid133 - both editors have appeared today and made the same reverts. Rather suspicious. Spartaz 19:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

RESPONSE BY EDITORESQUIRE:

The user, and others, is part of a cadre of people (perhaps even the same person under different user names) trying to use the Loyola Law School wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/Loyola_Law_School) to denigrate the school -- founded on the same biased motives that wiki editors rejected.

This dispute has been months in the making, dating from at least June 2006, when editors sought to include biased and non-encyclopedic references to "Loyola 2L" in the Loyola Law School wiki page. I submitted a request for third party review, all of which is in the Discussion page (http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Loyola_Law_School).

Loyola 2L references were found in violation of wiki standards for several reasons, all of which are detailed in my description and wiki editor comments in the Discussion page.

Now, people who apparently went to a competiting law school and are seeking to denigrate Loyola to bolster their own alma matter, are trying to re-insert the same line of discussion in the Loyola Law School wiki page. This time, it is the school's dean, being mischaracterized and quoted out of context for a subjective purpose (like in a legal brief), commenting on the Loyola 2L dispute which wiki already determined was in violation of its rules.

This reference has no place on wiki. It is not encyclopedic, not informative, out of context, cannot be presented subjectively, is the dean reacting to the attacks that wiki editors ruled were prohibited by wiki standards in the first place, and is clearly inserted for the purpose of denigrating the school.

Brickexistab's reporting of me is intended to stop me from policing the wiki page from his/her subjective and violative content.

And contrary to his/her assertion, which is out of context, I attempted to amicably resolve this with him/her by compromising on the content - which is clearly stated in the history page (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Loyola_Law_School&action=history). I stated: "the moment in the interest of resolving this edit war -- The reference to the dean is biased and I deleted. I kept the comparative statistics, but will agree to disagre for the moment" (from 18:11, 1 October 2007).

I should add that this is one of a number of attacks by users with a motive to hurt the school, by using the wiki page as airspace. For instance, in the discusion page, there is a dispute raised by a user Coolcaesar that the school is not "in" downtown. That dispute was really petty, and I suggested he/she write "near" or "adjacent to" downtown if he/she really believed it was an issue. The user never did that, but did chastize me for not looking at his/her user page which showed that he/she was a graduate of a law school with a higher bar pass rate than Loyola Law School.

I implore the wiki administrators community for help and guidance.

Thank you. EditorEsquire.

EditorEsquire 18:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Recury reported by User:Bencherlite (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

1st revert: 18:52
2nd revert: 19:25
3rd revert: 19:43
4th revert: 19:51
5th revert: 20:00

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

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

Diff of 3RR warning: 19:50

User:Recury would like the page to be a redirect to flatulence. Discussion in 2006 on the talk page Talk:Flatulence#Requested_move and Talk:Flatulence#Requested_move_.28June_2006.29 was not in favour; there was a recent AfD discussion on the article (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fart) in which User:Recury advocated redirection, but the outcome was a snowball keep. Recury is acting against consensus and has now made the same contested edit 5 times in just over 1 hour, claiming "policy trumps voting". Bencherlite 20:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

User has been blocked for 24 hours for violation of 3rr. --Kukini 20:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Rogue Gremlin reported by User:JerryGraf (Result:Three months for sockpuppetry)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

The 1st one he has was not a revert it was an edit as clearly seen if you examine what was done, Regimund had changed links to references and and what I did was clean up some of the wording, It clearly has nothing to do with the 3 reverts after it. Also he had included "who founded Playboy, continues to oversee Playboy Magazine as Editor-In-Chief." And as you can clearly see it was in was already in the same paragraph right above it. So I deleted that statement. So I did not make 4 reverts on the same material. Also to my knowledge there is NO LIMIT on editsRogue Gremlin 20:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

~~There is no violation of the three revert rule here; however both Rogue Gremlin and JerryGraf go up to three reverts and should step away from reverting. Sam Blacketer 08:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)~~
- Strike that because Rogue Gremlin was found by The Random Editor to have a sockpuppet, Posah-tai-vo. The sockpuppet has been blocked indefinitely and Rogue Gremlin has been blocked for three months. Sam Blacketer 08:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

User:EliasAlucard reported by User:Proper tea is theft (Result: 72 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 18:27, 1 October 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 19:06, 1 October 2007

User continues to reinstate section that has been removed by at least three editors (including me) over the past few days. Proper tea is theft 21:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Those edits are not reverts, they are all differing versions from each other; I worked on the article and added sources. Content was removed with invalid reasons on the article's talk page. I have explained myself extensively on the article's talk page. — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:57 01 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Yes they are. Don't edit war. --Haemo 01:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Severa reported by User:IronAngelAlice (Result: No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: Version Time

Diff of 3RR warning: 00:20, 2 October 2007

A short explanation of the incident: This user has repeatedly reverted edits made by consensus between several established editors. These edits were agreed upon in lieu of new citations and references. I asked for Severa to engage the rest of us in the Talk page, but there was significant resistance. I don't want to resort to Revert wars on a consistent basis.IronAngelAlice 00:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

- IronAngelAlice is suspected of using a sock account, User:Justine4all, to get around 3RR on several articles, including Abortion. Please see the evidence I have compiled at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/IronAngelAlice. -Severa (!!!) 00:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This page is for 3RR violations, which require 4 reversions in a 24-hour period. If there is sock puppetry, that will be handled at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser. Ronnotel 00:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

User:DaGizza reported by User:Randymcintosh (Result:Reportee warned, reporter and sock blocked)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 19:15, October 1, 2007

1st revert: Revision as of 00:30, October 2, 2007
2nd revert: Revision as of 00:37, October 2, 2007
3rd revert: Revision as of 00:39, October 2, 2007
4th revert: Revision as of 00:44, October 2, 2007
5th revert: Revision as of 00:49, October 2, 2007

Necessary for newer users: I dont think the member is a new member.

Editor Da gizza is reverting aidol repeatedly on Aishwarya Rai article. I think it is very rude. He has repeatedly reverted five times. I think this is violation. I request admins to please take a look and block this rude editor. Randymcintosh 01:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Aidol blocked 72 hours for WP:3RR and WP:SOCK. Page protected. User:DaGizza warned. Ronnotel 01:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Badagnani reported by User:Melonbarmonster (Result: No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 02:32, 30 September 2007

Has violated 3rr before on this article but I just warned him and didn't report in hopes of extending good faith and trying to engage editor in productive editing. He's been RW'ing even more since and I was going to let this one go too but he's not pulling back his RW'ing and is shadowing my edits even on little grammar fixes and reverting, I feel, punitively.melonbarmonster 04:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment. User has been blocked 3 times before for 3RR --slakr 04:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not sure I understand how the fourth is a revert; in fact, it is no kind of revert. In this edit, I simply added four words so that the sentence's meaning was completely clear. In the second and third, I reverted the addition of a contraction (unencyclopedic). I had to do this twice because, even though I explained my reason for removing the contraction in my first edit summary, the editor added the same contraction a second time, in effect reverting his/her own edit. In the first I broke a run-on, ungrammatical sentence into two. There were no motives on my part other than ensuring that the article's text was entirely grammatical. Badagnani 04:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- No violation here, but you should be more careful. If you know your edits are controversial, then restrict yourself to 3 edits a day. You CAN be blocked for only 3 reverts a day. --Haemo 01:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Shutterbug reported by User:Anynobody (Result: no action, the 3RR report is moot since Shutterbug has been pagebanned.)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: various versions which exclude certain sources/statements

1st revert:04:44, 2 October 2007
- 04:46, 2 October 2007
- 05:06, 2 October 2007
2nd revert:06:03, 2 October 2007
3rd revert:06:51, 2 October 2007
4th revert:07:11, 2 October 2007.

Other editors and I created a WP:LEAD section using WP:RS citations and quotes from references which reflect the sources in a NPOV way but not according to what Shutterbug believes. Through outright reverts and minor POV enhancements Shutterbug is making the article more pleasing to her POV. This is apparent in revert number 3, which was an odd occurence where the citation ended up contradicting the text after Shutterbug's edit. I added ref name="77biop3" as a citation saying the subject made a claim to have knowledge of nuclear physics, Shutterbug removed the text that this applied to ...or explain why past biographies cite knowledge of nuclear physics. Thus making it sound like the subject never made such claims, despite the fact that the citation refers to ...his understanding of nuclear physics. Anynobody 07:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody "forgot" to report himself, or better: his 4 or 5 double- and triple-reverts (2-3 edits reverted at a time), as well, and his continued adding of POV material to the article in the middle of all. Shutterbug 08:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Per the Article probation which the ArbCom has recently put scientology-related articles on, I have pagebanned User:Shutterbug for 30 days from these articles, including L. Ron Hubbard. See notification of and reasons for the ban here. This 3RR report is thereby moot, and no longer of interest. Bishonen | talk 11:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC).

I follow your logic, though I don't understand the ban for the talk pages. The whole idea of this 30-days ban was to get me to get agreement on talk pages before changing things in articles or meddling around with anti-Scientology editors. You shut that off now and made the whole thing a pure punishment drive. Shutterbug 16:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Traditional unionist reported by User:BigDunc (Result:Page protection)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 18:20, 1 October 2007

1st revert:

13:49, 2 October 2007

Editor keeps restoring unsourced material and refuses to provide citations. BigDunc 14:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Big Dunc and Traditional Unionist have both been edit warring. I have issued 3RR warnings to both editors, and left a further warning at Talk:Orange Institution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment BigDunc only made 2 reverts on this Traditional Unionist made 4, and refused to self-revert his last revert when asked to do so on his talk page and the article talk page.--Padraig 14:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the whole lot of you have been edit-warring, I have protected the page for a period of 7 days. Please discuss on the talk page of the article and derive consensus rather than reverting each other continually. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Wantthetruth? reported by User:Love-in-ark (Result:Page protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

1st revert: Revision as of 18:50, 1 October 2007
2nd revert: Revision as of 01:32, 2 October 2007
3rd revert: Revision as of 01:57, 2 October 2007
4th revert: Revision as of 10:11, 2 October 2007

Editor keeps restoring unsourced material even after 3 editors reverted his edits. Love-in-ark 15:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Page protected for 4 days. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

User:70.111.101.111 reported by User:MarnetteD (Result: 72 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Editor keeps adding unsourced POV (ie the editors) criticism of the series. I have added warnings to the editors talk page but they continue to put back in their opinion. I have refrained from removing it a third time to avoid violating the 3RR myself. I have not made a report at this page before so if there is anything that I have not done that needed to be done or done something wrong please let me know. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 20:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for 72 hours for violating WP:3RR and WP:NOR. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

User:70.176.144.149 reported by User:Benjiboi (Result: Page protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Anon IP keeps asserting gender pronouns ("He" instead of "She") and edit war has simply gone back and forth with little constructive dialog stalling article from positive attention. It also seems this may be spreading to other articles but i didn't want to wade in if this is simply a vandalism issue. Any help or ideas appreciated.

15th revert: Revision as of 00:20, 3 October 2007
14th revert: Revision as of 22:04, 2 October 2007
13th revert: Revision as of 18:07, 2 October 2007
12th revert: Revision as of 09:28, 30 September 2007
11th revert: Revision as of 00:31, 30 September 2007
10th revert: Revision as of 21:17, 28 September 2007
9th revert: Revision as of 06:52, 28 September 2007
8th revert: Revision as of 06:12, 28 September 2007
7th revert: Revision as of 05:30, 28 September 2007
6th revert: Revision as of 01:23, 28 September 2007
5th revert: Revision as of 05:08, 27 September 2007
4th revert: Revision as of 08:30, 25 September 2007
3rd revert: Revision as of 06:49, 25 September 2007
2nd revert: Revision as of 19:55, 24 September 2007
1st revert: Revision as of 07:38, 20 September 2007

Page protected. --Haemo 01:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User:82.27.39.34 reported by User:Strothra (Result: )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 02:07, 2 October 2007

1st revert: 02:21, 2 October 2007
2nd revert: 03:10, 2 October 2007
3rd revert: 19:42, 2 October 2007
4th revert: 21:22, 2 October 2007 (Partial revert - reversion of a newly added sentence that was added alongside a new ref.
5th revert: 21:53, 2 October 2007 (After I reverted his vandalism of removing a cited statement - in retrospect, it may have only been vaguely vandalism as his edit summaries do not indicate that he has access to the article cited though in this edit he clearly ignores the fact that there is a ref from The Independent).

Diff of 3RR warning: 02:28, 2 October 2007

Editor is continuously removing cited statements. Strothra 02:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Skybunny reported by User:Brandon Gibson

Three-revert rule violation on Brett Favre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Skybunny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 5:25, 02 October 2007 (UTC)

4 reverts from 3:20 to 4:51, 02 October 2007

1st revert: 161715741
2nd revert: 161720984
3rd revert: 161724703
4th revert: 161728215

This article has long been the subject of vandalism by numerous sockpuppets of suspended user User:Starwars1955, and standard wikipolicy is to delete them on sight. User:Brandon Gibson is one of many suspected sockpuppets Starwars1955 has used to aggravate legitimate wikipedia editors, and attempt to lure them into violating the 3RR rule. He is a new user, has no edits other than edits to this article, and refuses to discuss any changes he makes to the article. User:Skybunny is attempting to enforce Misplaced Pages policy, User:Brandon Gibson is attempting to interfere with this policy, and cannot even be counted on to place his 3RR request at the bottom of the page correctly. Snowfire51 03:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

When you break the rule you get suspended, I'm no suspect and all material I add to the page is cited with references. Everytime something is added, users Skybunny, Snowfire51, and Gonzo fan2007 revert it and call it sockpuppets of some starwars1955, well that's been well over a year ago and all the new users updating are being penned as this starwars1955, so knowone can add to the page, it's a lnchmob and against wikipedia policy, I'm no starwars1955 or a sockpuppet of any kind. When wikipedia was created it was to be a online public encyclopedia, now this page is being taken over by a few users, this is against wikipedia policy and action should taken against them, look at my edits to the Brett Favre page, they are legitimate, and they keep reverting back to incorrect number stats, so they can never be corrected because of a past user from over a year ago, Brett Favre's stats have to be incorrect forever, because they are not looking at my edits and deciding whether they should be there and correcting them themselves, they are reverting to incorrect material, it's redicioulous, you don't own wikipedia, it's a public encyclopedia and I have cits and refs and just because your not getting your way, you have no right to revert and break the 3RR and pen people as socks. Maybe the person you keep blocking is a simple person that has tried to edit here on Brett Favre amd you people keep blocking them so they keep going to the Brett Favre page, because it's unfair, I'm no starwars1955, and this is not right and something needs to be done about this, you don't own wikipedia, Thanks, --4 Brett Favre 04:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Brandi Gibson4 Brett Favre 04:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)--

User:4 Brett Favre is obviously, looking at his recent edits, another sockpuppet. User:Starwars1955 has difficulty remembering who he's logged in as, since 4 Brett Favre had no part in this 3RR discussion. Snowfire51 04:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I know who I sign in as, I'm no sock and I'm allowed to have multiple accounts, you can create 6 every 24 hours, do the math, I'm not a sock, and I signed my qoute genius. You are a controlling person trying to take over the Brett Favre page, that's against policy and user Skybunny reverted 4 times in a hour, that breaks the 3RR, --4 Brett Favre 04:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)4 Brett Favre4 Brett Favre 04:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)--

Freely admit more than three reverts in 24 hours, as per diffs:

3RR does not apply in cases of community banned/blocked users, as per WP:3RR#Exceptions, case 4. Users involved in the 3RR case described here have been blocked by a Misplaced Pages administrator in the 24 hours since the incident: see , , and . Checkuser/CheckIP has been submitted at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Starwars1955 to find additional sleepers/aged sockpuppets/IP ranges used by this individual. Suggest additional administrator block in the meantime of User:4 Brett Favre and User:Brandon Gibson , though by appearances, this individual has numerous puppets in reserve. Regards, Skybunny 04:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet, and the Brett Favre page is full of errors that you are reverting back to the errors, your making no attempt to correct them, you should be banned for life, but I'm not a sock and that's a fact, so your exception is void, Thanks, --4 Brett Favre 05:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)4 Brett Favre4 Brett Favre 05:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)--

Since I was mentioned above I felt compelled to comment. One interesting fact that I would like to point out is that User:Brandi Gibson stated that I have reverted her edit, although the only edits I have reverted were from other suspected socks. This is proof that we are dealing with the same person, just with different accounts. I admit that every time a new editor edits Brett Favre, which means someone without any prior edits, I get suspicious, but User:Starwars1955 does not make it difficult. It is amazing to me because I distinctly remember when I first started editing on Misplaced Pages, I had no clue what I was doing. These new "users" that are supposedly different people completely understand Wiki formating, Wiki policy, and how to edit all sorts of pages. I know that when I first came here to Misplaced Pages I had no clue what the 3RR was, let alone how and where to report one. User:Brandon Gibson's first edit, outside of the creation and editing of their own page was to report the 3RR, see here. This, along with the style, approach (always editing Brett Favre), arguments (always arguing about stats), and the way the person talks all show that this is in fact User:Starwars1955. I will continue to revert and tag any possible sockpuppets of this banned user. I also support User:Skybunny and any other user that reverts this vandalism. Thanks and feel free to contact me with any questions. --Josh Matthews 05:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a sock, the three users are taking control of the Brett Favre page, and it's a shame, but why doesn't Gonzo fan2007 take his efforts to correct the many mistakes that I fixed in the page with my last edits, because he doesn't care about it or the page, isn't it funny that none of them are doing that, I'm not a sock and they are making a big mistake, but whatever, he just created a good users page with all the users that are lynch mobbing the Brett Favre page, but they are getting away with it and the page is laughable, I supprised that a few non administartors are getting away with this and the continuous errors remain on the page, I'm not starwars1955, but starwars1955 created the playoff stats and added 13 of the records and milestones that are on the page, we have just updated them after every game, but he created them, what are you going to do, go back and delete all them cause he added them a year ago, no you can't revert those, to late, but I spent all day going back and he created them, but I'm not starwars1955 and have nothing to do with it, I'm just trying to correct the mistakes on the page, but you keep reverting them King Bee, Gonzo fan2007, Skybunny and Snowfire51, good job, the errors on the page really look educated, why don't you go to my last edit, see my changes and fix them yourself, or can Brett's correct number and stats never go on the page cause I put them there first and I'm not even starwars1955, this is so immature, but in the meantime, Skybunny broke the 3RR, Thanks, --4 Brett Favre 06:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)4 Brett Favre4 Brett Favre 06:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)--

Vet any request for protection/3RR on Brett Favre carefully... I just blocked 4 Brett Favre as a User:Starwars1955 sock (and User:Brandi Gibson). This cat has some serious trouble understanding his WP:BAN--Isotope23 12:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Sennen goroshi reported by User:Melonbarmonster (Result:48 hour block for Sennen goroshi)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 22:57, 1 October 2007

1st revert: 18:04, 2 October 2007
2nd revert: 04:17, 3 October 2007

Previous version reverted to: 08:09, 30 September 2007
3rd revert: 05:11, 3 October 2007(Sennen goroshi had been involved in previous RW's reverting "consumed" to "eaten" and reverting "tried" to eaten", etc..)

4th revert: 05:24, 3 October 2007 melonbarmonster 05:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: sennen has been participating in this article for the sole purpose of making anti-Korean edits in the controversial "Dog meat" section. Has never contributed to this article before but has engaged in POV edits tweaking words here and there and reverting to force his edits. Editors on different sides have disagreed editing this section a plenty, but this editor's reverts are disruptive and unproductive. Please help.melonbarmonster 05:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to make edits that are constructive, while I agree that there has been a heated discussion by many editors, when I have seen a looming edit war, I have attempted to keep my edits constructive, and instead of reverting the previous edit, I have tried to make an edit that concentrates on another aspect of the topic. Just because I made a few edits, does not = 3RR - the edits were not reverts, they changed many aspects of the article, NPOV/POV, wording, grammar, etc. I have tried to discuss these points when I saw an disagreement, but the person in question does not seem to respond.Sennen goroshi 06:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This seems rather petty for me to mention - however the editor reporting me has the habit of taking his reverts up to the limit of 3 on every edit, which might be within the rules of wikpedia, but not in the spirit of wikipedia. POT/KETTLE/BLACKSennen goroshi 06:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment:I coudn't agree more with Melonbarmonster. Sennen goroshi has not produced any constructive contribution on Korean-related article with his/her own intention. There are numberless trouble cause by the user. He or she has an obssession to degrade Korea with POV language including racil slurs all the times. --Appletrees 11:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are not unexpected, considering that you are two editors who seem to disagree with my edits, and dislike me taking issue with your pro-Korean/anti-Japanese edits. I have no issue with people disagreeing with my edits, but to use a 3RR complaint as a tool in a debate is a wastes the time of me/you/anyone who reads this. Your POV is just as strong and blatant as anyone else's your edits are just as provocative and disruptive and your nationalistic pride is glaringly obvious.

My edits were in my opinion designed to balance the articles, taking them to a neutral point, from their current highly pro-Korean POV, since I have started to edit Korean based articles, I have experienced nothing but people taking their 3 reverts in 24hrs, people team reverting, etc.

If I get banned for a while, it wont be the end of the world, but it wont solve anything - there will still be a world of disruption in these articles, and one editor who wishes to use the word "eaten" instead of "tried" being banned isnt going to solve a thing. If you want to remove the disruption you should look a little closer to home, there is a lack of compromise and totally stubborn attitude displayed by some editors that is the cause of the disruption, the lack of respect by pro-Korean editors who refuse to accept anything that does not portray Korea in exactly the light that they require, has more to do with the disruption than anything else.

I actually have nothing against Koreans or Korea, I am just unwilling to accept to constant POV regarding Korea, neither am I willing to accept the double standards with Japanese/Korean articles, if someone says anything negative on a Korean article - they are assumed to be a Korea-hating racist, but if someone removes a negative comment (such as Japanese murderers or Japanese facist) they are also deemed to be supporting every single war crime committed by Japan.

Ban me or don't - it won't make any difference to the constant disruption and bickering in these articles, if you want to remove the disruption everyone has to compromise and understand the opinions of others, or leave the editing to someone without any interests/bias/agenda relating to Korea/Japan.Sennen goroshi 14:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

one final note - the edits of the editor who reported me for 3RR

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Melonbarmonster

05:32, 3 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Empress Myeongseong‎ (murdering empress warranat criminal description.)
05:31, 3 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Comfort women‎ (POV at its worse. LOL.)
05:13, 3 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Korean cuisine‎ (POV tweaking reverted)
05:12, 3 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Korean cuisine‎ (→More deletions without discussion/consensus)
05:09, 3 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Korean cuisine‎ (Reference regarding "controversy" stays but stating dog is eaten is redundant.)
05:04, 3 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Empress Myeongseong‎ (Undid revision 161952547 by Sennen goroshi (talk))
05:04, 3 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Comfort women‎ (Undid revision 161952646 by Sennen goroshi (talk))
04:48, 3 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Empress Myeongseong‎ (Undid revision 161952310 by Sennen goroshi (talk))
04:47, 3 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Comfort women‎ (Undid revision 161951518 by Sennen goroshi (talk))
04:45, 3 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Category talk:Japanese fascists‎ (→Misapplication of category)
04:39, 3 October 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Melonbarmonster‎ (→Debate in Korean cuisine - take your bogus warning elsewhere. I'd rather not take part in baiting and trolling.)
21:16, 2 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Korean cuisine‎ (Redundant. Reference also doesn't support claims of controversy)

so well done melon, you managed to make 3 reverts on 3 different articles within 24 hours - are you trying to play the system and get as close to breaking the 3RR as possible?

now lets take it back a little further

04:01, 2 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Korean cuisine‎ (Redudant. There's no need to state the obvious)
03:59, 2 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Korean cuisine‎ (→Consumption of dog meat)
03:58, 2 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Korean cuisine‎ (There's nothing about each Korean consuming anything. Please don't make up things that aren't referenced.)
17:42, 1 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Korean cuisine‎ (that is not what the refernece states. LOL. the government survey gives breakdown of consumption frequency which clearly contradicts such a claim.)
17:25, 1 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Korean cuisine‎ (Redundant.)

you were a little careless that time and made 5 in 24hours. I have no issue with that, I didn't even consider making a report, I would rather discuss that reporting.

17:22, 27 September 2007 (hist) (diff) Japanese Sea Lion‎ (Combined references and text as well as deleting fraudulent claims. more on talk page.)
17:17, 27 September 2007 (hist) (diff) Japanese Sea Lion‎ (add this later when there's text to put under it)
17:12, 27 September 2007 (hist) (diff) Japanese Sea Lion‎ (→Range and habitat - fraudulent references deleted. "Occidentalism" doesn't state anything about Liancourt being "last confirmed breeding ground".)
17:08, 27 September 2007 (hist) (diff) Japanese Sea Lion‎ (LOL. I think Japanese archipelago and Korean peninsula already covers specific islands.)

that time was only 4 within 24hr.

I see no need for anyone to be banned, I certainly dont think my actions warranted a ban, and to be honest I would rather discuss things with Melon, than see him banned either - unless its a lifetime ban, with full IP banning as well, the problem is only going to rear its head again and again - but then again if I get banned, I think there are other candidates for a quick 'time out'Sennen goroshi 14:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, here is another blatant lie and absurd excuse of Sennen goroshi. There are not just two editors against your POV and anti-Korea edits. Did you already forget your bashes over me, Ledtim and many other editors contributing to Korean cuisine and culture, history? I've been watching your disruptive actions which cause numberless troubles and conflicts along with your highly offensive insults against Korean or Pro-Korean editors. Death curse and racial slurs are your representative specialty to attack your opponents. None believes you don't have an anti-Korean sentiment of hatred.

Moreover, Japanese facists and war criminals are not judged under the same evaluation as Korean independent activists whom you intentionally categorized as Korean terrorists, so people with common senses have removed the false accusations made by Sennen goroshi and input constructive contents. There are a lot of evidences that Sennen goroshi doesn't have any intention to balance between the Korean-related articles. I was so surprised to see your irrational contributions to which you implied the Korean director, Kim, Ki-duck as an animal abuser and referred comfort women as "chon prostitutes", Korean eating dog meat as Korean eating "cute puppy fresh" and minimized the assassination of Empress Myeongseong committed by the Japanese murderers and etc. Sennen goroshi denounces that I have anti-Japanese sentiment, but to be clear, I have just feeling against valdalists like Sennen goroshi. When the user doesn't get any supportive response from other editors, Sennen goroshi is simply using abusive languages. I request a wise and fair judge of sysops. --Appletrees 16:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As anyone can see, I am having to deal with balanced, unbiased people, who are well aware of NPOV, never make comments based on personal feelings and would never make an edit, a revert or a 3RR complaint out of malice. (sarcasm ends here) and regarding the Death Curse - I'm speechless.Sennen goroshi 17:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Speechless? You do owe me an apology regarding your abusive insults. You are the very biased person with not knowing NPOV. You've always make comments based on your personal feelings and make edit as you please. You seem to forget already what you bashed out, so I'll paste the your curse here.

I wonder how people with limited skills manage to perform simple tasks such as waking up in the morning and remembering not to stop breathing

See? Don't excuse yourself anymore. --Appletrees 17:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

shall we take this discussion to a talk page? I don't really think this is the place, feel free to make any accusations you feel are needed, but I will not respond to any more of your comments on the 3RR section - out of respect for the people who have to trawl through this, and try to make sense of it all.Sennen goroshi 17:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've run into this editor once before. 48 hour block, coming up, and a strong suggestion to start flying right before the blocks start escalating SirFozzie 17:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User:71.139.1.184 reported by User:CGijits

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 06:03, 3 October 2007

User:71.139.1.184 is disrupting the editing process. He/she fails to utilize the article talk page and is in violation of three-revert rule. User fails to recognize that a consensus version was established in March and June. His/her proposed changes must be discussed, as users like Cool Hand Luke are doing. In short, this user is not participating in a democratic way. CGijits 08:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User:58.181.249.244 reported by User:Caniago (Result: )

Three-revert rule violation on

IP editor keeps removing reliably sourced information about the percentage breakdown of ethnic groups in the province. This information is direct from the year 2000 Indonesian census. They have been warned here:

Caniago 08:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Abd reported by User:P-j-t-a (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: 03:38, 2 October 2007
- Note that the section on "Voting methods in Robert's Rules of Order" is reverted each time, even if other parts are not reverted to that exact version.

Diff of 3RR warning: 20:30, 2 October 2007
- Earlier proof that user is aware of the 3RR: 06:21, 28 September 2007 - note also the removal of administrator comments from this page.

Abd has accused me (while I was editing from my IP address) of POV-pushing for the Center for Voting and Democracy, with which I have only had a passing acquaintance several years ago. I was concerned about my IP address being associated with his accusations, and so I created this account. After I warned him that he violated 3RR, Abd accused me of being a sockpuppet, just as he has accused at least two other users and IPs. Beyond the accusations, Abd insists on his version against consensus. Abd is apparently an advocate of Approval voting, a competing method. He insists that the description of the new Robert's Rules of Order which recommends IRV in some circumstances be phrased in such a way as to downplay it, and removed from the lead where it has been for months at least. He also insists on removing mention of Arrow's impossibility theorem which states that all ranked election methods fail some formal criteria. In his zeal, he has broken 3RR several times. I warned him yesterday, and as you can see from the other link above that he certainly knows about it.

Even though he is on his 5th revert, I don't believe a lengthy block is necessary. I should think that a short block would let him know that 3RR is a serious rule and would help him be more careful about it in the future. P-j-t-a 14:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Neil reported by User:futurebird (Result: )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 01:25, October 3, 2007

User:JerryGraf reported by User:dead_velvet_elvis (Result: )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

Here is his previous warning from22:33, 25 September 2007

As of today his other warning is still on this page "3.22 User:JerryGraf reported by User:Rogue Gremlin (Result: User Warned)"

Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

A short explanation of the incident. This is the second time in less than a week this user has violated this policy. He was warned but has deleted it from his talk page. He was told by several editors what he was placing did not belong on the page. But refuses to stop putting it backDead velvet elvis 16:12, 3 October 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: 
<!--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 will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
*Diff of 3RR warning: 
A short explanation of the incident. ~~~~
<!-- copy from _above_ this line -->

Categories: