Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:51, 10 July 2005

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

Click here to create a new report

Violations

User:Vasile

• July 4: 7 reverts.
• July 1: 16 reverts.
• July 30: 11 reverts
• July 19: 6 reverts.

Apart from edits, reverts include repeated deletions of POV tags placed by other users. Gaidash 4 July 2005 19:45 (UTC)

User:Deeceevoice

Three revert rule violation on African American Vernacular English (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Deeceevoice (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 15:21, 23 June 2005 (difference only in spacing}
• 2nd revert 17:45, 23 June 2005 (difference only in spacing}
• 3rd revert 19:17, 23 June 2005 (slight difference)
• 4th revert 11:18, 24 June 2005 (difference only in spacing}
• 5th revert 17:12, 24 June 2005 (slight difference)
• 6th revert: 23:22, 24 June 2005 (slight difference)
• 7th revert: 16:00, 25 June 2005 (exact)
• 8th revert: 16:26, 26 June 2005 (exact)
• 9th revert: 18:01, 26 June 2005 (exact)

Note: I have amended the above list of diffs, which were (incorrectly) diffs between reverts and the previous version by another editor, when they should have been diffs between identical versions. I found nine reverts over a period of a few days. You can find different violations in there depending on where you count from. For example, reverts 1 to 4 are a violation, or 2 to 5. After that, they are a bit more spaced out. Those diffs are there more for information purposes. — Chameleon 29 June 2005 10:25 (UTC)

Reported by: SaltyPig 13:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• I'm baffled. Near as I can tell, that first so-called revert isn't related to any of the others. Checking the history, I see 4 reverts in 26 hours (from 07:03, 23 Jun 2005 to 09:18, 24 Jun 2005). --Calton | Talk 13:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I suppose a revert is a revert regardless of what you are reverting. But was she warned? Has she broken the 3RR before? Don't we normally warn people the first time? Guettarda 13:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It looks like SaltyPig and User:Deeceevoice are involved in an edit war here. Unless they are both willing to accept User:Noitall's compromise wording, I'd suggest warnings and page protection while they sort it out. Filiocht | Talk 13:35, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC

• the 3RR couldn't be more clear and concise: "Don't revert any single page more than three times within a period of 24 hours." there is nothing in the 3RR policy about a revert being "related to any of the others," nor is there anything about warning people the first time. the user i complained of violated the 3RR policy; i did not. from my first experience (this one), it looks like the automatic gateway intentions of the 3RR have been defanged with subjective, extra-policy warbling. i won't waste my time putting together a 3RR report again, only to hear, inaccurately, "I see 4 reverts in 26 hours...". Deeceevoice even used the word "restored" or "reverted" in each of the 4 edits listed above, which took place within 20 hours. suggest the commenters above read the 3RR policy. no, a block isn't guaranteed, but not acting for the reasons given is policy deviation. Deeceevoice isn't in an edit war with me; Deeceevoice, apparently with impunity, is in an edit war with everybody who edits the page in question. SaltyPig 12:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Netoholic

Three revert rule violation on Misplaced Pages:Spoiler warning (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Netoholic (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 17:24, Jun 22, 2005
• 2nd revert: 18:40, Jun 22, 2005
• 3rd revert: 20:09, Jun 22, 2005
• 4th revert: 15:08, Jun 23, 2005

Reported by: Radiant_>|< 20:15, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Three more:

• 5th revert: 14:16, 24 Jun 2005
• 6th revert: 15:52, 24 Jun 2005
• 7th revert: 16:09, 24 Jun 2005

These include some other text changes, but similarly to the previous ones delete all mention of the other two templates. Noel (talk) 20:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• This was two days ago, but he's made three additional reverts since then. Some of the reverts incorporate subtle rewritings rather than rollbacking from the edit history, but all are an attempt to force his opinion of the page (that only one template should be used for spoiler warnings) against consensus on talk page (that three such templates are in existence and they should all be explained here; this is backed by TFD consensus to keep those templates). Radiant_>|< 20:15, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• This was a mistake on my part (two days ago now). It was unintentional, but I'll ask to be excused because my effort was not to edit war, just to make sure the {{twoversions}} tag was left in place to prevent future edit warring while we were discussing. Why would someone acting in good faith remove such a tag? I ask admins reading this to simply refer this to my mentors, per the conditions of that mentorship arrangement. -- Netoholic @ 20:24, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Did you notice how up at the top of this page, it quotes the 3RR page as follows:

The 3RR .. does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every twenty-four hours. If you find you have reverted more than even once in a day, it indicates there is a serious problem

Please note the second sentence. How on earth could you not have known that you were in an edit war? You were edit warring, and you knew it. And your third and fourth edits, where you added the "twoversions" tag, didn't simply add that tag, it also included the very same reversion (removing those two templates) you'd done twice earlier that day.

(Not that I'm saying that Lifeisunfair (talk · contribs) isn't equally at fault - they are - but right here we're talking about you.)

Exactly which part of 'don't edit war' do you not understand? You need to find areas of Misplaced Pages to work on where aren't constantly provoking confrontations! Noel (talk) 20:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Intellectualprop2002

Three revert rule violation on Homosexuality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Intellectualprop2002 (talk · contribs) and aliases 205.188.117.66 (talk · contribs) 66.91.248.226 (talk · contribs):

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

Persistent AOL troll, consistently been reverted today by three separate users. Recommend 24 hour bans on various ips and username. Inserting original research and fringe book material into articles.

Reported by: 207.224.198.170 22:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Helicoid

Three revert rule violation on Aetherometry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Helicoid (talk · contribs).

• First insertion
• 1st revert
• 2nd revert
• 3rd revert
• 4th revert (partial)
• 5th revert (of another edit)

Reported by: Guettarda 05:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Last diff corrected 16:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)) (Ok, I'm an idiot. I think it's fixed now)

• User was warned about violating the 3rr , and has also engaged in personal attacks. Guettarda 05:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Blocked for twenty-four hours (I disregarded the last diff., though, as it didn't seem relevant). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, a revert is a revert, even if it's a revert of totally unrelated material...it's three reverts per page, so I thought it was applicable. Guettarda 14:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Guettarda, uh just to point out for the future, you accidentally cited the diff with "diff=0" (which is a dynamic link that points to the most recent edit of the page), rather than a static diff. That would explain the "irrelevance". I get confused by it sometimes as well. -- Natalinasmpf 16:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Oops, sorry, thanks (corrected). Guettarda 16:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Um, no — now it's unrelated to Helicoid. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • The anonymous editor in the last edit has rather the same editing style - ie. sudden removal of anything that makes aetherometry look bad without discussion, possibly a sockpuppet of Helicoid. Of course, that's just my thoughts. From what it looks like, from some of the comments on the vfd page, some of the aetherometry proponents are "calling their friends/relatives over" to revert the page, or to vote "keep" on its vfd. -- Natalinasmpf 18:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • I'm an idiot. Maybe I got it right now :| Guettarda 23:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The 3RR is indeed very broad — to my mind, much too broad. I can see good grounds for ruling out too many reverts of the same material, because there are very few occasions on which that might be justified; there are far more occasions on which a number of different reverts on the same page might be justified, though. As blocking is at the discretion of the admin involved, I generally use my discretion to black only when the reverts are of the same material.

Having said all that, my original comment wasn't very clear — sorry. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seems like 209.29.93.65 (talk · contribs) could be a sockpuppet of Helicoid, looking at his or her editing style. -- Natalinasmpf 08:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:209.29.93.65

This user itself has violated the three revert rule at least thrice in itself:

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

Ridiculous too, and over grammar, and continues to attack users over the basis of grammatical edits, the reversions itself not conforming to Misplaced Pages:Manual of style. -- Natalinasmpf 08:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

IP 172.134.132.223, 172.149.84.231

Three revert rule violation on George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 172.134.132.223 (talk · contribs), 172.149.84.231 (talk · contribs):

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

Reported by: --MONGO 11:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Anon was politely requested to participate in recent Rfc on the same issue and refused, commenting only during edits. Anon using mutiple IP's claiming it is due to his dial up service. Anon was also politely requested by at least 2 persons to create a user name but has yet to do so. User talk:172.149.84.231 It is also possible that this anon is also the same one that vandalized my user page ,. --MONGO 11:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• If its decided that I did, I'll certainly take my 24 hour block, but I do ask that those who consider this check the history, and perhaps with Slim Virgin as she has some knowledge of the situation. You may find the opposite of whats being claimed. -bro 172.149.84.231 12:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Also, could you please post the dif's, I believe thats whats asked for, as these were edits, not reversions. Thanks. -bro 172.149.84.231 12:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. I can't see that these count as reverts; three of them differ only in details, but one is significantly different.
2. There is no need for anyone to open an editing account. There are advantages for them, and it can make their lives easier, but it's entirely up to them, and they're not doing so is irrelevant to this issue. I might add that people editing from accounts used primarily for disruption are in no position to attack anons for being difficult to take seriously.
3. In any case, I can't see that 172.134.132.223 was warned about the 3RR beforehand.

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but we are discussing the material and it is summarily the same. Your unnecessary personal attacks as to my motivations are not what I would expect from someone entrusted to be an Admin...so, in keeping with your predisposed bias, I responded in kind on your user page.--MONGO 13:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I must admit to knowing about the 3RR. If my edits are considered to be reverts, I must then ask if the deleting of sourced, relevent content due soley to my not having created an account is vandalism. If this is the case, I don't believe my edits would count towards the 3RR. Regards. -bro 172.147.73.11 23:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, it does not count as vandalism (and so your reverts do count against the 3RR). "Vandalism" is (annoyingly) just about the most over- and mis-used term on Misplaced Pages. Please see Misplaced Pages:Vandalism for our definition of what counts as vandalism. Noel (talk) 16:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From the article you linked: Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature explicit and inarguable are not considered vandalism at Misplaced Pages. Since the bad faith nature -was- made explicit in admitted reverting based soley on the status as a nonlogged in user, it certainly does fit the definition. -bro 172.168.246.192 01:10, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would be akin to someone stating that they do not like your username, and that they would revert your edits until you change it. If that doesn't fall under the vandalism definition, I suggest it would be a good idea to revisit it. -bro 172.168.246.192 01:30, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Look at that line you just quoted: edits that do not make their bad-faith nature explicit and inarguable. Since I clearly do not agree that they are bad-faith, they are by definition arguable, and therefore by definition they don't qualify, right? Noel (talk) 03:14, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you hold the standard to be that no one argues it, it's useless just considering the person accused will dispute it. Putting that aside, I do find it odd that you don't consider blind reverts of anon users to be bad faith. Oh well, it is at least undeniably Misplaced Pages:Wikicrime, though I don't believe thats official policy. Hope you don't run into someone who doesn't like your name. :D -bro 172.165.17.51 28 June 2005 04:13 (UTC)

Again, there were no blind reverts and there certainly isn't vandalism on my part. Let me explain why...there is a standing Rfc on the exact passages you are editing. You were cordially invited to voice your opinion and comment there before you began editing the section...this would have made your efforts appear to be ones made in good faith. As Mel stated above, you certainly do not need a user name, but without one, regardless of your form of a username "bro", it is very difficult for others to keep track of your edits. The article is heavily vandalized and working outside of the norm as expected by the Rfc along with a lack of a username does not help you build a "name for yourself" good or bad, especially in a highly visited article such as this one. Furthermore, it is simple to track any IP right through the service provider to the exact computer and even the person or entity that pays for the service. Remember this when you utilize the web.--MONGO 30 June 2005 03:31 (UTC)

Ah, it seems you are still accusing me of that vandalism of your page. I would like to invite you to provide your evidence for such. I know quite a bit about TCP/IP myself, and would -love- to see your evidence. Your claim that you have a 'more accurate' way of showing where the vandal ip, and my ip's originate, if true, would keep you from branding me as the vandal. Nonetheless, I eagerly await the results. -bro 172.138.4.162 2 July 2005 08:07 (UTC)

Once you create a username and use only that to log in and edit....Interestingly, you now claim to know a lot about IP's, but I see below, you claim you have no knowledge of this. So which is it? Oh nevermind...you just go ahead and do whatever you want.--MONGO 2 July 2005 15:10 (UTC)

Actually, what I said below was that I didn't know where the tools were to track the location of the IP's, which immediately after I did find, and did myself. If that is 'claming to have no knowledge', then your comment wouldn't be absurd. Alas, thats not the case. Do you need some ice for that ankle sprain? That was a killer backpeddle. Good to know. -bro 172.162.182.69 3 July 2005 01:25 (UTC)

172, the link you provided is to an amateurish IP locator...be careful when you use the web.--MONGO 3 July 2005 05:42 (UTC)

Which would be why I asked for your 'professional' evidence. -bro 172.139.155.130 Misplaced Pages:Accountability--MONGO 4 July 2005 04:38 (UTC)

Swing and miss. Also, be a little more careful with your edits, you mangled my previous signature line. -bro 172.139.155.130 4 July 2005 07:48 (UTC)It was intentional...take this to my user page as your starting to look like a troll...do you have anything of substance to add to anything...that may be enlightening to anyone? Doubtful..Virginia Tech sure is Hokie...don't you think?--MONGO 4 July 2005 09:11 (UTC)

Wait, MONGO, you deliberately munge someone's signature line and then you call HIM a troll? --Calton | Talk 4 July 2005 10:46 (UTC)

Hah, you just outed yourself MONGO. More than a week ago I told you that I lived in Blacksburg, which, I'm afraid isn't totally true, and now you try to use that to show some kind of 'evidence'? It's now clear that I can't take you seriously. As for why not take it to your talk page, when you delete my comments there, and call them vandalism, I tend to not trust you to carry on a civilized conversation. Toodles. -bro 172.157.33.19 4 July 2005 22:04 (UTC)

In regards to the user page vandalism, it does seem that I share the same ISP as the vandal. Unfortunately, so do millions of other people. I believe it is possible to tell at least the area where the IP orginates, though I personally do not know how. If anyone does, I would appreciate your weighing in. Thanks. -bro 172.147.73.11 23:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

About IP location, this webpage (http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/city.ch) does resolve both the vandal, and my IP's to sterling, va. While I am in blacksburg, va, the tool isn't going to be all that accurate. I suppose the only thing I can refer you to is to look at my edits and communications with users and decide if you believe I did this (I didn't). -bro 172.147.73.11 23:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because you refuse to develop a simple user page and use only that for your log ins and contributions, no one can track you since every time you dial up, you are assigned another IP. People often do this to avoid the 3RR rule. The IP link you provide is significantly less accurate than the one I have at my disposal...reagrdless, if you create a username and no more vandalizing edits from your multiple accounts to my user page occurs, then you will have restored some faith on my part that your intentions are ones made in good faith.--MONGO 00:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This isn't the place for the discussion, I've responded on your userpage. I'll only respond here in regards to the now repeated accusation of vandalism. There has been none by me. The only accusation you've bothered to even link to, I have addressed. Your deletion of my comments on your talk page with the heading of "Sockpuppet and Vandalism" when there was nothing of the such does not reflect well on you. Other editors can see your actions there. -bro 172.147.73.11 00:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Ombudsman

Three revert rule violation on Andrew Wakefield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ombudsman (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 17:00, 24 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 17:50, 24 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 11:59, 25 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 13:34, 25 Jun 2005

Reported by: Antaeus Feldspar 17:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Edit summaries for these reverts include "anon has not established that his/her edits are in good faith". If Ombudsman cites the assume good faith policy to others in his edit summaries, and instructs others that they need to review it, then he has an obligation to comprehend and follow it himself. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can confirm it is a violation and the the USer is still reverting. I'm too involved to block.Geni 00:56, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

IP 65.190.2.200

• 65.190.2.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Three revert rule violation on Paperback Writer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 65.190.2.200 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 18:40, 25 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 19:43, 25 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 21:19, 25 Jun 2005

Reported by: Cbing01 02:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Claims that he/she is reverting to a better version of the article, but in fact is reverting to an earlier vandalism. Has been reported on the appropriate page for that as well. In addition, the reverts are destructive to the improvement process of the article, as he/she is removing the new format of Single infobox. Cbing01 02:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Philwelch

This user has removed the article's dispute heading on Puppet state (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which is a response to his original research, four times. His last edit erases the dispute heading, calling it "vandalism." 172 04:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My "original reserach" was originally posted by others. I've taken it upon myself to mark the relevant section as unverified and start the work of verifying it, while 172 would prefer to destroy the information entirely for reasons I cannot ascertain. After deciding to leave the article entirely, he felt like putting up a dispute tag, which was a redundant "parting shot". I've taken it upon myself to remove his vandalism. — Phil Welch 04:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

your defintion is not the wikipedia defintion of vandalism. At most POV pushing is all you can acusse 172 of. You have reverted outright 3 times and nearly 4 times. please try not to do it again.Geni 09:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:172

Three revert rule violation on Fidel Castro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 172 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 01:27, 25 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 01:30, 25 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 15:10, 25 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 21:54, 25 Jun 2005

Reported by: J. Parker Stone 05:17, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Please supply diffs, not history versions. And while you're at it, explain why your 4 reverts are not a violation of the 3RR. Guettarda 05:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have made 4 edits within the past 24 hours, but one of those is not a revert. J. Parker Stone 05:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

172 has made 4 reverts in ththe last 24 hours although not all of them are to the same version. Blocked for 24 hours.Geni 11:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I only count three reverts over that period by 172. Besides, there appear to be four parties reverting the page, so the obvious solution is to protect it, not start looking for someone to block. Unblocked. Mackensen (talk) 12:09, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is 4 reverts they are within 24 hours I would suggest you count with more care in future.Geni 12:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They aren't of the same content, and there are intervening edits. I count very carefully, thanks much. I would suggest that 172 remain unblocked, so as to facilitate a compromise. The article is protected, blocking 172 accomplishes nothing. Mackensen (talk) 12:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

reverts are per page not per version. Nothing on the WP:3RR suggests otherwise. 172 knew the rules and it is not a first offence. I understand that if you remeber the last time he was blocked you may not want to repeat the experence but we'll survive.Geni 12:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've confirmed that there were four reverts within a 24 hour period. I've blocked for 20 hours (24 less the 4 hours he was already blocked). Carbonite | Talk 12:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Trey Stone

Three revert rule violation on Fidel Castro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Trey Stone (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 05:17, 26 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 05:04, 26 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 04:32, 25 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 04:29, 25 Jun 2005

Reported by: Mackensen (talk) 12:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now, I'd like to clarify this report. These are not four reverts in 24 hours. These are four reverts in a hair under 25 hours. I see no reason to fetishize the 24 hour aspect–Trey Stone is clearly revert-warring and that sort of behavior shouldn't be tolerated. (Note that the 3rd revert is still a revert even though there's a one-word difference. The rest is the same.) Before another administrator blocks, I'll note that 172 is already blocked for a violation of the 3RR (which I disagree with, but I appear to be in a minority of one on the matter). If Stone is blocked (and it would hardly be the first time for him), then it will be 24 hours before we can start resolving the dispute on Fidel Castro. The article is protected, and will remain so until the dispute is resolved, as the parties involved have demonstrated that they can't handle having the page unprotected. I really wonder if blocking does any good at all in this situation. Mackensen (talk) 12:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Trey Stone shows a pretty clear history of breaking and gameing the rule.Geni 13:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

blocked until 08:26, 27 Jun 2005. Geni 14:10, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:70.48.250.150

Three revert rule violation on Scanderbeg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.48.250.150 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 18:39, 25 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 19:03, 25 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 09:35, 26 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 14:48, 26 Jun 2005
• 5th revert: 16:54, 26 Jun 2005

Reported by: IskanderBey 15:06, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments: I am kind of late with this, sorry as I am new and still havn't gotten used to the site much yet. I would like to report abuse in the Scanderbeg article. The person, no name, just an IP adress constantly changes the page at his will and does not even bother to try and debate his nor does he try to bring the proposed changes in the discussion page first, on top of this, nearly all of what he has written is assumed and not at all from a neutral point. He ignores the evidence I brought against him and constantly repeats himself. Also, I believe he is working under two different IP adresses 70.48.250.150 (t c) and another 65.95.60.89 (t c)}. However I have only used the 70.48.250.150 (t c) IP address. IskanderBey 15:10, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:65.182.172.13

65.182.172.13 (talk · contribs) has reverted the page Chicago-style hot dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) multiple times today and has exceeded the 3 revert rule. The user appears to be using sock puppet connections to have slightly different ISP numbers each time (such as 65.182.172.106 (t c) and 65.182.172.115 (t c)). --Alabamaboy 28 June 2005 20:36 (UTC)

User:69.209.x.x and User:69.222.x.x

Three revert rule violation on Apartheid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) most recently by 69.209.206.36 (talk · contribs):

• 09:55, 29 June 2005
• 09:08, 29 June 2005
• 08:39, 29 June 2005
• 07:56, 29 June 2005
• 07:44, 29 June 2005
• 07:34, 29 June 2005
• 07:03, 29 June 2005

Reported by: dewet|™

Comments: This user seems to be using dynamic IPs from Ameritech in Chicago — also see 69.209.193.213 (t c), 69.209.222.92 (t c), 69.221.63.132 (t c), 69.222.253.40 (t c) and 69.222.251.201 (t c) for the most recent examples, although the trail is fairly obvious from the article history. This article was unprotected today, after the previous round of edit warring with this user. Since then, he has already reverted it seven times so far, and this has been going on for at least two months now. Against concensus of over 10 regular editors, he refuses to budge and keeps on inserting his POV. I have reported this here before, during one of the previous rounds. This user has also sockpuppeted as AmYisrael (t c) (who was reported here and warned), TeamRevertViolation (t c), SlimVirginjayjgJpgordon3Rrules (t c), SlimVirginjayjgJpgordon (t c), FYI (t c) and Azure1 (t c), among others. dewet|™ 29 June 2005 08:15 (UTC)

He's reverted 9 times now. Jayjg 29 June 2005 16:24 (UTC)

Well, we can't block two /16's in a major metro area with many users on them, unless there's some dire need. Last time this user/page was up here, I protected it but TonyS lifted the protection almost immediately. Tony, this time, let's try it my way - I have protected the page, please leave it protected. Noel (talk) 29 June 2005 16:57 (UTC)

User:Bobbybuilder and User:GrandCru

I know that this is also a dispute/edit war-- will file dispute.

Three revert rule violation on Kuomingtang and Democratic Progressive Party for both editors.

Bobbybuilder (talk · contribs), GrandCru (talk · contribs): ,

Reported by: Penwhale 29 June 2005 08:26 (UTC)

Comments: GrandCru (talk · contribs) insisted that KMT is pro-communist which is absolutely not true. That was a major error, because his statement cannot explain the Chinese civil war.

GrandCru (talk · contribs) deliberately deleted the criticism towards DPP. The covered up version is just illogical looking at the current chaotic Taiwanese politics. GrandCru (talk · contribs) also claimed that DPP's formation was because a bunch of people are against the communism. That statement is also not true. DPP is a left wing party in the formation, and many founding members were even sympathisers of Taiwanese communists prosecuted by the KMT-ruled government then.

I reverted his works because those are just his POV without providing anything to back those up. By reverting his words he even accused me of being a communist. That's how biased he is. bobbybuilder 29 June 2005, 19:55 (UTC)

• I never insisted that KMT is pro-communist, just communist leaning - and it certainly is more communist than DPP. At any rate, I have ceased editing those two articles in a self-imposed cooloff period. Bobbybuilder, however is still reverting.--GrandCru 30 June 2005 01:11 (UTC)

By keep on reverting to his version, I do think he was insisting that KMT is pro-communist. "it certainly is more communist than DPP", that shows how malinformed GrandCru (talk · contribs) is, he didn't even understand the formation of DPP. Of course I had to continue reverting, even the other people GrandCru (talk · contribs) called for help can't agree with his extremely biased POV. This matter can put to rest at the moment, but I do hope someone else can also moniter those two pages in case people like GrandCru (talk · contribs) appear again and write baseless accusations. bobbybuilder 30 June 2005, 19:12 (UTC)

User:TJive

Three revert rule violation on E. E. Cummings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TJive (talk · contribs)

Article history

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

Reported by: BLANKFAZE | (что??) 29 June 2005 09:34 (UTC)

Comments:

• First up, I need to express an interest, as I have involved myself on Talk:E. E. Cummings. There are only 3 reverts; a fourth is needed before the rule is broken. Secondly, this reporting is being used as a weapon by User:Blankfaze in his ongoing effort to insist on British English (BE) spellings on this US subject-matter article. User:TJive's reverts are all to the American English (AE) version. My own view is that AE is more appropriate for this article, but that is beside the point. What really seems to be at issue here is Blankfaze's stated willingness to get involved in conflict to defend his position. I would ask this user to assume good faith here and look for another way of resolving this difference of opinion. Filiocht | Talk June 29, 2005 09:56 (UTC)
  • For the second time, this is not a "US subject-matter article". BLANKFAZE | (что??) 29 June 2005 13:55 (UTC)
    • What's next - you're going to claim that Horatio Nelson is not a UK-subject-matter article? This guy was born and lived in the US - how much more US-subject-matter can it get? (And note that I spell colour, harbour, honour etc with a "u", if you want to know where I'm coming from.)
      Plus to which, the last version before you started editing the article was in US spelling - note the "summarized". Looking at the history, I wonder if you're becoming somewhat possessive of the article, given the number of edits you have made. It's fine to be an fan of the man, but don't go overboard... (Like some other people we can think of, neh?) Noel (talk) 29 June 2005 17:06 (UTC)

• Sadly, policy is with TJive on this one. He should not be blocked. — Chameleon 29 June 2005 10:03 (UTC)
  • Why "sadly"? Filiocht | Talk June 29, 2005 10:11 (UTC)
    • Because I prefer Blankfaze to TJive. But we must follow policy. — Chameleon 29 June 2005 14:40 (UTC)
• As Filiocht noted, this isn't a 3RR violation since there isn't a fourth revert. Also, I don't believe that Blankface should have used the rollback link to revert TJive (on two occasions). American English does seem to be more appropriate for this article and certainly can't be considered "vandalism". If the matter can't be resolved on the talk page, it's time for an RfC. Carbonite | Talk 29 June 2005 10:04 (UTC)
  • I've suggested Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal on Blankface's talk page. Filiocht | Talk June 29, 2005 10:11 (UTC)
    • I should also note that the "first revert" was not a revert as I went through the actual article and discovered some other words that I had missed on a previous edit, though this may qualify as being close enough. --TJive June 29, 2005 11:14 (UTC)
• I must be losing my mind. I thought it was three to break. Hah. This insomnia of mine is taking its toll! BLANKFAZE | (что??) 29 June 2005 13:49 (UTC)
  • What I mean furthermore is that anyone should feel free to take this item off of this page, as it's irrelevant w/o a 4th revert. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 29 June 2005 13:55 (UTC)

Blankfaze has reverted the page to the BE version again, with the edit summary "combattez la bonne bataille" ("fighting the good fight"). Can someone who is not involved make a call on a version and protect this page to prevent a revert war and give time for the participants to calm down? Filiocht | Talk June 29, 2005 14:15 (UTC)

I myself am perfectly calm. However, I'm not sure this is the place to request protection, which I dislike generally, anyway. --TJive June 29, 2005 14:18 (UTC)

I'm not fond of protection, but this seems destined to turn nasty without some sort of cooling off period. I'd protect the page myself if it were not for the fact that I've become involved. Filiocht | Talk June 29, 2005 14:20 (UTC)

Blankfaze has now broken the 3RR and shows no sign of stopping. He should be blocked, perhaps just for an hour, to make him cool down. Page protection is undesirable. — Chameleon 29 June 2005 15:10 (UTC)

CORRECTION: I have not broken 3RR. I have three reverts in the last 24 hours. My last 4 reverts have been at 14:56, 29 June 2005, 14:07, 29 June 2005, 18:44, 28 June 2005, and 14:08, 28 June 2005. As you can well see, my fourth revert came 24 hours and 48 minutes after the first. Trust me, I am not going to break 3RR. I will time them carefully. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 29 June 2005 15:25 (UTC)

Given this, I think protection is infinitly preferable. As I have only edited thie page to revert some unrelated vandalism, I will protect in 10 minutes if nobody else does it first. Filiocht | Talk June 29, 2005 15:16 (UTC)

As Blankfaze has not actually broken the 3RR, and as he has given me an undertaking not to do so, I say lets wait until tomorrow and see what happens. Filiocht | Talk June 29, 2005 15:26 (UTC)

Blankfaze if you had continued that pattern I would have blocked just as I would have block anyone else who was gameing the rule. I have blocked people for breaking the rule by as little as three minutes. Why should a few minutes make so much difference?Geni 30 June 2005 00:22 (UTC)

I don't get this gaming the rule business. There has to be a cutoff somewhere and the cutoff is 24 hours. You cannot block someone for, say, making four reverts in 24 hours and three minutes. You'd have no policy to stand on. We have rules for a reason. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 30 June 2005 00:30 (UTC)

At the most basic level game would consists of adding a single bit of punctation. This is trivial to do so the rule would be utterly useless if we went for an ultra scrtict interpritation. So we must allow for some coverage of gameing the rule. So the question becomes how much? Some admins do it simply be comapreing the amount of the change but there are sometimes legit reasons for make lots of simular edits. Personaly I look at a users past history to see if there is a pattern or in your case they admit what they are doing. Of course in your case if you were against a halfway skilled or deterimed edit warriour you would already be up in front of arbcom with people pointing out parrelles to the Everking case (and there may have been a simular case involveing DR Zen) so the three revert rule is the least of your worries. People are blocked for gameing the 3 revert rule all the time. It seems to be acceppted practice.Geni 30 June 2005 00:58 (UTC)

It's protected and tagged. Hopefully things can be trashed out in talk. By the way, Blankfaze's timing his edits carefully is making use of a loophole to game the system, which is violating the spirit of 3RR and is just as bad. --khaosworks June 29, 2005 15:31 (UTC)

I concur with Khaosworks' assessment. Timing reverts to avoid breaking the letter of the 3RR is still decidedly disruptive. Blankfaze has been here long enough to know better, and I would not be inclined to defend him if he were to continue to game the system in such a manner. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 29 June 2005 17:37 (UTC)

User:Kurita77 on talk:Jihad

I am unsure if I have just committed a violation, but would like advice. How does 3RR pertain to enforcement of Misplaced Pages: No Personal Attacks and Misplaced Pages: Remove Personal Attacks policy when a user continually un-strikethroughs the removed personal attacks?Funnuraba! Ya-Ha! Kurita77(talk) 29 June 2005 15:39 (UTC)

we accuse one of the users involved of being a sockpupet in order to make sure the question remains purely hypothetical (ok so the answer within the rules of the three revert rule is that it does apply).Geni 30 June 2005 01:01 (UTC)

User:Gabrielsimon

Three revert rule violation on God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gabrielsimon (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 23:22, 29 June 2005
• 2nd revert: 23:31, 29 June 2005
• 3rd revert: 23:35, 29 June 2005
• 4th revert: 23:42, 29 June 2005

Reported by: --W(t) 30 June 2005 01:16 (UTC)

Comments:

• There's another 5 reverts by him after that, but I trust this is enough to get the picture. --W(t) 30 June 2005 01:16 (UTC)

Well, if these weren't enough, the 5 reverts after that make it obvious. He's been blocked for 24 hours - hopefully he'll take my suggestion to reflect and discuss to heart. Yes, I'm an optimist. --khaosworks June 30, 2005 01:26 (UTC)

• User justifies this as "the truth offends" or "deletionist was vandalism". A breif look at this history page will show this user has ran afoul of several editors. I was possibly a bit snippy with the spelling bits, but there is no attempt to fufill the burden of proof here. Some of these are not simple reverts, but overall gabrielsimon has definatly broken the 3rr.--Tznkai 30 June 2005 01:36 (UTC)

well he has but he has already been blocked.Geni 30 June 2005 01:40 (UTC)

User:Gabrielsimon (2)

Three revert rule violation on George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gabrielsimon (talk · contribs):

• 1st edit: 21:42, June 30, 2005
• 1st revert: 21:47, June 30, 2005
• 2nd revert: 22:04, June 30, 2005
• 3rd revert: 22:16, June 30, 2005
• 4th revert: 22:24, June 30, 2005
• 5th revert: 22:46, June 30, 2005 - this deals with another paragraph but is nevertheless a revert
• 6th revert: 23:01, June 30, 2005

Reported by: Rhobite July 1, 2005 02:58 (UTC)

Comments:

• Cyrius has now blocked Gabrielsimon. Thanks. Rhobite July 1, 2005 03:46 (UTC)

Rossnixon

Three revert rule violation on User talk:Rossnixon. Rossnixon (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: reverted to version without my notice
• 2nd revert: reverted again
• 3rd revert: and again
• 4th revert: and again

Reported by: brian0918&#153; 2 July 2005 04:35 (UTC)

Comments:

• User hasn't even attempted to contact me or anyone, just reverting my additions and ignoring my comments. User is also about to break the 3RR at Dinosaur, ignoring the discussion on the talk page, which is against his addition.
  1. Dinosaur revert 1
  2. Dinosaur revert 2
  3. Dinosaur revert 3
  • I've clearly let him know about the 3RR, and that his edits (and edit summaries) are contrary to the talk page discussion (which he has not been involved with at all), and he is freely reverting. Expect him to break the rule on this page as well. --brian0918&#153; 2 July 2005 04:35 (UTC)

No, I've only done 2 reverts, I think; plus adding a new reworded edit in hope of a compromise. RossNixon 2 July 2005 08:46 (UTC)

• Listen: The process is: Go to the talk page, discuss it with everyone else, come to a consensus on the proper wording, add it to the article page. The process is NOT: Ignore the talk page completely, add in your own personal version that talk page discussion has been against adding, keep reverting and not discussing at all. --brian0918&#153; 2 July 2005 15:26 (UTC)

Question from RossNixon: Aren't I allowed to remove vandalism from my own User Talk page? (Brian had been leaving messages implying that my article edits were "sandbox testing" errors). RossNixon 2 July 2005 08:46 (UTC)

• As I stated on your talk page the 2nd time you reverted, you can edit your user page all you want, but you can't just delete other user's comments on your talk page. --brian0918&#153; 2 July 2005 15:29 (UTC)
• It's extraordinarily incivil and close to vandalism to accuse someone on their userpage of making a test in this way when this was clearly not the case. In my opinion, justified removal. Please refrain from treating RossNixon and others in this way. Rossnixon is guilty of a less major offence. User:Brendanconway
  • I didn't want to be harsh, but wanted to let him know that I considered the edit vandalism: without any edit summary or any other comment, he added evolution to the list at Pseudoscience. Maybe someone needs to make a more appropriate template, rather than {{test}}, but it doesn't change the fact that he kept deleting my comment on his talk page (not his user page), rather than doing the civil thing and replying to it. --brian0918&#153; 5 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)

Rossnixon, again

Three revert rule violation on Dinosaur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rossnixon (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: Dinosaur revert 1
• 2nd revert: Dinosaur revert 2
• 3rd revert: Dinosaur revert 3
• 4th revert: Revert 4, with slight rewording to try to avoid the 3RR

Reported by: brian0918&#153; 2 July 2005 15:39 (UTC)

Comments:

• He has completely ignored my comments to him about the proper methods of having controversial content added to an article. He has completely ignored the talk page of the article, including not discussing at all, and ignoring all the discussion already there, which is completely against adding his view. This isn't wikinfo. You don't explain every minority view in every random article. He is now trying to play dumb, despite my constant notices to him on his talk page (he kept deleting the notices: see his other 3RR violation above). Expect him to continue re-adding this content without any discussion. --brian0918&#153; 2 July 2005 15:39 (UTC)

User:-Ril-

Three revert rule violation on Matthew 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -Ril- (talk · contribs)

• 1st revert
  1. Revert 1
  2. Revert 2
  3. Revert 3
  4. Revert 4

Reported by: SimonP July 2, 2005 13:27 (UTC)

Comments

• User used two different tactics, but they both had the effect removing the same chunk of content. Also similar behaviour on a whole series of pages, and also went over the 3RR on Matthew 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Matthew 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Matthew 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User was given a warning on their talk page, but reverting continued. - SimonP July 2, 2005 13:27 (UTC)

User:Anonymous editor

Three revert rule violation on Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Anonymous editor (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 03:09, 3 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 03:12, 3 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 03:13, 3 July 2005
• 4th revert: 03:16, 3 July 2005
• 5th revert: 03:17, 3 July 2005
• 6th revert: 03:23, 3 July 2005
• 7th revert: 03:25, 3 July 2005
• 8th revert: 03:27, 3 July 2005
• 9th revert: 03:30, 3 July 2005
• 10th revert: 05:00, 3 July 2005
• 11th revert: 05:21, 3 July 2005
• 12th revert: 05:26, 3 July 2005

Reported by: Zeno of Elea 3 July 2005 05:51 (UTC)

Comments:

• Those aren't diffs of reverts. You'll need to correct them. — Chameleon 3 July 2005 11:22 (UTC)

• I don't understand. The user accompanied every single edit (revert) with a comment begining either with "rm" or "remove," as seen in the diffs. The user blindly reverted all new edits, as I was making them. For each edit I made (in a particular section of the article, the user made a corresponding revert undoing my edits. Perhaps I have some misunderstanding of the term "revert." --Zeno of Elea 4 July 2005 03:45 (UTC)

As I understand it, it's more than 3 reverts of the SAME material. I don't think it counts if he's reverting individual edits, "blindly" or otherwise. --Calton | Talk 4 July 2005 05:12 (UTC)

No, any three reverts. If I add four different things to an article, and you remove each one in turn, then you're in breach of 3RR. But if you wait until I've added all four, then you revert them all at once, that's only one revert and legal (if not always nice). Mark 4 July 2005 05:26 (UTC)

User:Adam Carr

Three revert rule violation on Semyon Budyonny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Adam Carr (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 00:57
• 2nd revert: 04:08
• 3rd revert: 04:16
• 4th revert: 04:34

Reported by: Ruy Lopez 4 July 2005 04:08 (UTC)

Comments:

• User violated 3RR. He definitely knows better than to do this. Although it's beside the point, he is violating 3RR to change NPOV into POV, or at least what I and User:Everyking perceive as POV. He also says in the comments of the edit history that the 3RR should be enforced, so.... Ruy Lopez 4 July 2005 04:08 (UTC)

A typically shameless Lopez lie. My 3rd edit was very careful not to be a revert. In fact he reverted the article three times, but since I think the 3R rule is stupid I am not objecting. Adam 4 July 2005 06:03 (UTC)

• The first "revert" appears to be new content, not a revert. I can't find the same text in the history. Mark 4 July 2005 05:33 (UTC)

crony, dictator etc. are not new content. If we go four edits back from this edit, we can see Everyking removing this POV, which AC puts back. So the ally/crony, leader/dictator content is not new with these reverts. Ruy Lopez 4 July 2005 15:39 (UTC)

• Pot, kettle, etc. The page is protected. --nixie 4 July 2005 05:36 (UTC)

User:Miskin

Three revert rule violation on Extinct language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Miskin (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 15:02, 4 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 16:00, 4 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 20:26, 4 July 2005
• 4th revert: 21:03, 4 July 2005

Reported by: Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 4 July 2005 21:40 (UTC)

Comments:

• Miskin is of the extremely fringe opinion that Ancient Greek is not an extinct language, but merely an earlier stage of one single Greek language, which is still spoken. The majority view among Wikipedians and linguists in general is that Ancient Greek and Modern Greek are two distinct languages and that the modern one is descended from the ancient one, in much the same way as Modern English is descended from Old English. He's already made three reverts at List of extinct languages over this issue and is in violation of 3RR at Extinct language. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 4 July 2005 21:40 (UTC)

This is not a comment on Miskin's undoubted transgression: it is a comment on your "extremely fringe" remark. Apparently "extremely fringe" people sometimes get Nobel Prizes: "Dear friends, it has been granted to me to write in a language that is spoken only by a few million people. But a language spoken without interruption, with very few differences, throughout more than two thousand five hundred years". Duly reporting violations of Misplaced Pages policy is one thing, embellishing it with POV opinions is quite another. Best regards, Chronographos 4 July 2005 22:28 (UTC)

Elytis was a great poet. But if he truly believed his Greek language had "very few differences" from the Greek of two and a half millennia ago, he wasn't much of a linguist. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 4 July 2005 23:14 (UTC)

He evidently did, as he stated it in the most official way possible. His intimate relationship with the Greek literary heritage was such, that I would take his opinion over any non-Greek-speaking linguist: the latter remind me of a virgin sexologist. Chronographos 4 July 2005 23:35 (UTC)

"extremely fringe" people sometimes get Nobel Prizes: Ah, the good old-fashioned Appeal to authority, except that the authority in question, well, isn't. --Calton | Talk 5 July 2005 00:02 (UTC)

The majority view among Wikipedians and linguists? Chronographos 5 July 2005 00:10 (UTC)

User:Miskin II

Three revert rule violation on Demographic history of Macedonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Miskin (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 14:06, July 4, 2005
• 2nd revert: 17:06, July 4, 2005
• 3rd revert: 17:43, July 4, 2005
• 4th revert: 19:16, July 4, 2005
• 5th revert: 20:00, July 4, 2005

Reported by: VMORO July 5, 2005 06:50 (UTC)

Comments:

1) User Miskin is under the impression (or, to put it in other words, is firmly convinced) that the region of Macedonia comprises only Greek Macedonia whereas the other parts of the region (the Republic of Macedonia and Pirin Macedonia in Bulgaria) do not have the right to be included in the region. Consequently, he insists that the article Demographic history of Macedonia should include only information about Greek Macedonia and generally about the Greeks in Macedonia and wants to drop most of the material about other nationalities in the region. Again consequently, the settlement of Slavs and a branch of the Bulgars in Macedonia in the 6th and the 7th century, the descendants of which are the modern Macedonian Slavs and the Bulgarians, is not a settlement but only a "temporary invasion". He has quoted sources only about one of the changes he has made - the statistics of Hilmi Pasha, Amadore Virgilli and Golts - whereas the other ones are substantiated by statements that Macedonia is only the territory of Ancient Macedon (i.e. Greek Macedonia) and by allusions to football matches. VMORO July 5, 2005 07:06 (UTC)

Miskin asserts that Macedonia is only part of Greek history and that non-Greeks have no business there. It is impossible to discuss anything with a jingoist phanatic... Birkemaal 5 July 2005 20:49 (UTC)

• These are not diffs showing the reversions, but different revisions. Please correct. Bratsche July 5, 2005 21:00 (UTC)

Fixed; I also changed times from UTC+3 to UTC. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 5 July 2005 21:22 (UTC)

Miskin claims that he was blocked unfairly (i.e. unilaterally), and that after 30 hours his block is still in effect. Can somebody check this out? see User_talk:Dbachmann#Abuse. For the purposes of 3RR, it doesn't matter if he is a "jingoist fantastic". Everybody gets treated the same for breaking the rule. dab (ᛏ) 6 July 2005 14:03 (UTC)

When did his ban start and how long was it supposed to last? As of 02:55 UTC, 6 July 2005 he was back as User:147.102.230.151. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 6 July 2005 15:05 (UTC)

he seems to be unblocked now. As for his claim that others were equally breaking the 3RR, but not blocked, I suppose he'll have to present the diffs, I don't care enough to spend half an hour investigating this. dab (ᛏ) 6 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)

User:Tannin

Three revert rule violation on LimeWire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tannin (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 14:32, 6 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 21:52, 6 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 22:00, 6 July 2005
• 4th revert: 23:10, 6 July 2005

Reported by: Vorash 6 July 2005 23:46 (UTC)

Comments: Reverts disputed Category:Spyware 4 times in the last 12 hours.

• It takes a little while to find this in the diffs, but yes indeed, he made the same category change four times. -- Viajero | Talk 7 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)

User:Hogeye

Three revert rule violation on Anarchism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hogeye (talk · contribs):

• 1st version: 15:36, 6 July 2005
• 1st revert: 17:44, 6 July 2005 (partial revert)

• Quite old version: 14:44, 8 June 2005
• 2nd revert: 22:11, 6 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 22:22, 6 July 2005
• 4th revert: 23:36, 6 July 2005
• Latest revert: . The edit summary says it's to the version of 16:28, 17 September 2002
• Revert to that:

Reported by: cesarb 7 July 2005 00:05 (UTC)

I've blocked Hogeye for 24 hours due to the malicious editing detailed above. -- Hadal 7 July 2005 06:00 (UTC)

Comments:

• And many more. He's doing a lot of partial reverts, which can make figuring what is and what isn't a revert a bit of a challenge. Looks like he's trying to game the system and avoid getting hit by the 3RR. --cesarb 7 July 2005 00:05 (UTC)

• I would like to add that he is encouraging others to revert once he has "used up" his quota, which I believe constitutes "reverting as an editing technique" which also violate the 3RR. 03:11, 7 July 2005: Hogeye (RJ11, feel free to rv the whole article. I've done my 3 whole-hoggers for today.) Kev 7 July 2005 05:23 (UTC)

• And he has continued to revert (05:15) even after having been warned. (04:46) Kev 7 July 2005 05:23 (UTC)

• Explicit acknowlegement of gaming the system: (rv3. Darn. I'll have to find another way to edit next time.), followed by Here's a different one.. --Carnildo 7 July 2005 05:43 (UTC)

User:211.30.190.44

Three revert rule violation on Meme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 211.30.190.44 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 2005-07-06 17:08:28
• 2nd revert: 2005-07-06 18:18:10
• 3rd revert: 2005-07-06 18:30:54
• 4th revert: 2005-07-06 18:35:54
• 5th revert: 2005-07-06 18:43:35
• 6th revert: 2005-07-06 19:04:01
• 7th revert: 2005-07-06 19:12:34

Reported by: Bovlb 2005-07-07 00:14:46 (UTC)

Comments:

• User warned about 3RR 2005-07-06 18:52:20 Bovlb 2005-07-07 00:14:46 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 1 day. --cesarb 7 July 2005 00:19 (UTC)

User:Gabrielsimon again

Three revert rule violation on Wolf by User:Gabrielsimon

• 1st revert: 3:17
• 2nd revert: 5:28
• 3rd revert: 18:12
• 4th revert: 20:10
• 5th revert: 23:39

Reported by: Friday 7 July 2005 00:27 (UTC)

Comments: Wolf became protected because of this. 3RR violations are a behavior pattern for this user.

• Blocked for 24 hours. I have warned him on his talk page that if he violates 3RR again, the next block will be for 3 days. --khaosworks July 7, 2005 01:28 (UTC)

User:Hottentot

Three revert rule violation on Template:Current (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hottentot (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 00:07, 7 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 01:07, 7 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 03:02, 7 July 2005
• 4th revert: 04:33, 7 July 2005
• 5th revert: 04:36, 7 July 2005

Reported by: Netoholic @ 7 July 2005 06:53 (UTC)

Comments:

• Continues to revert even while begging others to engage in Talk page discussions. Been reverted by three different editors, and Talk page shows noone supporting his version. Of course, none of this really matters, since he reverted five times today. -- Netoholic @ 7 July 2005 06:53 (UTC)
  • I'm cutting him some slack because he may not realise that the proper approach is to leave it at the consensus version, then talk, then add the controversial edit if the consensus is reached. I've left a warning to that effect; one more time, he's blocked for 24. --khaosworks July 7, 2005 07:10 (UTC)
    • He is not a newbie user. His user page mentions that he's been here since Jan 2004, and he's had at least 5 user names. Looking into the history of those, this is not his first revert war. -- Netoholic @ 7 July 2005 07:30 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, but since he appears to have stopped reverting for the moment (probably asleep) and I've given the warning, let's see if he's stupid enough to step out of line again before coming down on him. --khaosworks July 7, 2005 07:45 (UTC)

User:El C

Three revert rule violation on User talk:Ruy Lopez (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). El C (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 00:42, 7 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 00:44, 7 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 00:46, 7 July 2005
• 4th revert: 00:50, 7 July 2005

Comments:

• and before someone tries to turn this against me (as happened last time) my first edit before El C's RVs is not a revert. J. Parker Stone 7 July 2005 07:58 (UTC)
• El C deleted this 3RR report from the page. -- Netoholic @ 7 July 2005 08:11 (UTC)

• Blocked for 48 hours. El_C 7 July 2005 08:14 (UTC)
  • Well, I appreciate Mr. C's (current) honesty on this matter. J. Parker Stone 7 July 2005 08:19 (UTC)

User:Michael999

Three revert rule violation on Trevor Blumas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Michael999 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 21:56, 6 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 08:08, 7 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 08:28, 7 July 2005
• 4th revert: 08:44, 7 July 2005

Reported by: <>Who?¿? 7 July 2005 13:04 (UTC)

Comments: User was asked to stop placing POV links on this article, as well as Hayden Christensen, he then reverted both articles soon after the request. Other users have rv'd his entries several times this month, on both articles. <>Who?¿? 7 July 2005 13:04 (UTC)

Day 2: User:Michael999 & User:67.80.19.94 - contribs - continues to revert:

1st 06:26, 8 July 2005 to Trevor Blumas

2nd 07:27, 8 July 2005 to Trevor Blumas

3rd 08:25, 8 July 2005 to Trevor Blumas

4th 08:36, 8 July 2005 to Trevor Blumas

1st 06:24, 8 July 2005 to Hayden Christensen

2nd 07:29, 8 July 2005 to Hayden Christensen

3rd 08:28, 8 July 2005 to Hayden Christensen

4th 08:39, 8 July 2005 to Hayden Christensen

Believe it is a sockpuppet, as the only contribs are to these two articles. As well as vandalizing

Talk:Trevor Blumas see diff: 07:35, 8 July 2005

Talk:Hayden Christensen see diff: 07:34, 8 July 2005

• I have not reverted last edits, as do not want to violate 3RR, even for vandalism. <>Who?¿? 8 July 2005 12:45 (UTC)

• Yes, OK — 24-hour block. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 8 July 2005 15:01 (UTC)

User:Netoholic

Three revert rule violation on Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Netoholic (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 16:17, July 7, 2005
• 2nd revert: 17:40, July 7, 2005
• 3rd revert: 19:53, July 7, 2005
• 4th revert: 21:16, July 7, 2005
• 5th revert: 21:36, July 7, 2005

Reported by: Radiant_>|< July 7, 2005 20:32 (UTC)

Comments:

• The page reads "Please do not change the wording of this page", but that does not mean that no new proposals may be added. Consensus and compromise, after all, are important, and creating a new proposal to address problems with a previous one may be useful (and if not, consensus is expected to vote it down).
  Netoholic is opposed to the entire proposal, as is his right, but that means he should vote against it - it does not mean he should be revert warring over the page. Radiant_>|< July 7, 2005 20:32 (UTC)
• The 4th and 5th edits are not reverts. Compare with the versions immediately before. Admins are reminded that my mentors (Raul654 and Grunt) should be contacted if there is a problem, and they will handle this. I think Radiant! is strectching the definition of revert pretty thin, especially considering he made four similar edits to insert this against the instructions on the page. Votes are not a moving target - get consensus on wording and then lock it in during the voting period. That vote is so screwed up and confusing, we're bound to end up with a result none of us wants. -- Netoholic @ 7 July 2005 20:59 (UTC)

User:FuelWagon

Three revert rule violation on Intelligent Design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). FuelWagon (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 12:31, 7 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 13:00, 7 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 14:45, 7 July 2005
• 4th revert: 15:41, 7 July 2005

Reported by: --goethean ॐ 7 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)

Comments:

• User:Goethean is also responsible for violating the 3RR. See below. -- BMIComp (talk) 7 July 2005 21:04 (UTC)
• User:FuelWagon, flushed with victory, is now confident enough to change a comment from merely rude to a direct personal attack. --goethean ॐ 7 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)

User:Goethean

Three revert rule violation on Intelligent Design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Goethean (talk · contribs). Fuelwagon has also violated the Three revert rule as reported above by Goethean. The 3RR states "In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally."

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Intelligent_design&oldid=18340259
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Intelligent_design&oldid=18342077
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Intelligent_design&oldid=18350840

Reported by: -- BMIComp (talk) 7 July 2005 21:04 (UTC)

These are three reverts - breaking the 3RR requires >3 reverts. Guettarda 7 July 2005 23:16 (UTC)

User:AI

Three revert rule violation on Free Zone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). AI (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 18:49, 7 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 19:31, 7 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 21:46, 7 July 2005
• 4th revert: 22:16, 7 July 2005

Three revert rule violation on Scientology controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). AI (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 19:04, 7 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 20:06, 7 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 21:44, 7 July 2005
• 4th revert: 22:18, 7 July 2005

Reported by: Antaeus Feldspar 8 July 2005 03:30 (UTC)

Comments:

User:P0lyglut

Three revert rule violation on Christianity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Noitall (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: Deletes my "monotheastic religion" to revert to his "Abrahamic religion" in beginning statement.
• 2nd revert: No description of change.
• 3rd revert: No description of change.
• 4th revert: No description of change.

Reported by: Noitall July 8, 2005 07:04 (UTC)

Comments:

• As for substance, this edit issue has been discussed extensively on the various related talk pages. P0lyglut has never even attempted to justify h/she edit on any talk page. --Noitall July 8, 2005 07:04 (UTC)
  • I've blocked them for 24 hours. For future reference, diffs are much more helpful than links to old revisions of the page. Thryduulf 8 July 2005 12:14 (UTC)

User:Netoholic

Three revert rule violation on Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Instructions (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Netoholic (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 14:05, July 8, 2005
• 2nd revert: 14:15, July 8, 2005
• 3rd revert: 14:29, July 8, 2005
• 4th revert: 14:44, July 8, 2005

Reported by: Radiant_>|< July 8, 2005 15:03 (UTC)

Comments:

• The page Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Instructions is supposed to detail the TFD process, but it was missing some parts (esp. on when and how TFD discussions are closed). So I went ahead and added them.

1. Netoholic finds a part he doesn't like and reverts it (#1).
2. I change the wording of the part he doesn't like to a compromise.
3. Neto then does a blanket revert of all my edits (including fixes in earlier content; #2).
4. I replace my additions.
5. Neto does a more careful revert of only the new parts (#3), and posts on my talk page that 'many people disagree with the specifics', without explaining who those people or the specifics may be.
6. I once more replace my additions, explaining that instructions on TFD are appropriate on the TFD instruction page.
7. Neto 'fixes' the problem by putting a strikeout on all additions (#4), stating that 'Many of the points in this section are disputed', again without specifying what points. He 'explains' this on the TFD talk page, stating that the information also applies to other pages and thus should not be here, and once more stating that some 'points are just flat out wrong and anti-wiki' without explaining what those points might actually be. His strikeouts include parts such as "Debates can be closed after seven days of discussion, at which point they are archived, and the template listed for further processing (e.g. orphaning/deleting, rewriting, or removing its TFD template if kept). Because of backlogs, the page may sometimes hold older discussions" which have been procedural for a long time.

• Radiant_>|< July 8, 2005 15:03 (UTC)

• Can anyone else spot the bigger pattern here? Radiant makes a change, I voice my concern that the change is not a good one, and he pushes into a revert war. Every interaction I've had with him is the same. Obviously, this is again not a 3RR violation on either side (striking out is not reverting). I just want to make this very important point here -- if you make a change (good faith ones even) and someone contests that change - DO NOT keep reverting. Let the oldest uncontested version stand for the time being and discuss. I invited him to discuss the addition on Misplaced Pages talk:Templates for deletion - he reverted rather than take that advice. -- Netoholic @ 8 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)
  • That is simply false. Netoholic tends not to raise a concern that changes aren't good ones, but instead simply reverts. As is the case here. This runs counter to the spirit of the wiki: it would stagnate if every addition would have to be discussed before it could be made. This isn't anywhere near controversial, and Neto hasn't pointed out a single thing wrong with my edits other than a general dislike. Besides, striking out is just as much a way of getting rid of something as blanking it, or doing something similar like putting it in a font too tiny to read. Claiming otherwise is simply gaming the system. Radiant_>|< July 8, 2005 17:02 (UTC)
    • Radiant says I "tend not to raise a concern that changes aren't good ones, but instead simply reverts". Isn't the revert and the edit summary by itself "raising a concern"? Between 14:05 and 14:44, I contact Radiant at 14:27 & 14:35 explaining my reservations. I also started the conversation on the Talk page. And what was Radiant! doing during this? Nothing. No replies to my comments, no talk page postings related to this. Just, as he put it, "mindless" reverts. -- Netoholic @ 8 July 2005 17:23 (UTC)

Both of you violated the spirit of 3RR but are familiar enough with the policy to be able to avoid actually breaking the rule. Discuss it on talk and please, neither of you revert again. violet/riga (t) 8 July 2005 22:46 (UTC)

User:Miklos Szabo

Three revert rule violation on Clay Aiken. Miklos Szabo (talk · contribs):

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

Reported by: · Katefan0 July 8, 2005 18:23 (UTC)

Comments: This new user is a Clay Aiken fan who has been upset that the article includes information on the rather widespread speculation that Clay Aiken could be gay. However, the current edit war centers around a related item, the article's link to "Openly Clay," a fan site for people who think Clay Aiken is gay and are fine with it. There has been a consensus to keep the gay popular culture speculation, as well as one to keep the Openly Clay link on the talk pages. However, now Miklos Szabo (as well as another user with suspiciously similar talk page habits, User:Marie Lavaux) have suddenly showed up and begun reverting the information, declaring that the consensus opinion is false. This article has been protected over this very issue in the recent past because anon users would come by and remove the information in a hit-and-run fashion. I wouldn't be surprised if Miklos Szabo isn't one of those former anons. It's highly disruptive to the article and frustrating for editors trying to act in good faith. Thanks for your consideration. · Katefan0 July 8, 2005 18:23 (UTC)

Now we have an anon coming in and doing the exact same thing. 66.173.235.43 (talk · contribs), immediately after Miklos Szabo got reverted the last time (and I warned him about the 3RR vio pending against him). · Katefan0 July 8, 2005 18:37 (UTC)

Anon user is at it again. 18:31, 8 July 2005 Hermione1980 8 July 2005 20:11 (UTC)

And another one -- may have to list this on WP:RFP. · Katefan0 July 8, 2005 21:04 (UTC)

User:Lapsed Pacifist

Three revert rule violation on List of Irish-Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 19:46, 08 July
• 2nd revert: 19:56, 08 July
• 3rd revert: 20:06, 08 July
• 4th revert: 22:49, 08 July
• 5th revert: 22:59, 08 July
• 6th revert: 00:04, 09 July
• 7th revert: 00:10, 09 July
• 8th revert: 00:21, 09 July
• 9th revert: 00:28, 09 July
• 10th revert 00:32, 09 July
• 11th revert 00:37, 09 July
• 12th revert 01:09, 09 July

Reported by: —chris.lawson (talk) 9 July 2005 05:26 (UTC)

Comments:

• Have tried asking politely multiple times that user cease this behaviour. Refuses to discuss on Talk page (either article Talk or user Talk) with any of the three editors who have questioned his actions. Filed RfC earlier this evening; reversions have gotten much worse since that time. User needs to be blocked for 24 hours while this gets sorted out.

User:Peter Lee

Three revert rule violation on User:Mario Roering (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Peter Lee (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 2:56
• 2nd revert: 10:00
• 3rd revert: 17:50
• 4rd revert: 22:11

Reported by: Jcbos 8 July 2005 22:39 (UTC)

Comments: Doing the same at NL.wikipedia. Jcbos 8 July 2005 22:39 (UTC)

User:Cognition

Three revert rule violation on Misplaced Pages:Community Portal (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Cognition (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 05:25, July 9, 2005
• 2nd revert: 06:38, July 9, 2005
• 3rd revert: 07:11, July 9, 2005
• 4th revert: 07:14, July 9, 2005

Reported by: Dmcdevit July 9, 2005 07:44 (UTC)

Comments:

• Keeps trying to put a reference to his Misplaced Pages:List of drug free Wikipedians on the Community Portal. Refuses to discuss the controversial move. --Dmcdevit July 9, 2005 07:44 (UTC)

As I have explained to this user on his talk page, the fourth edit does not constitute a revert. (See User talk:Dmcdevit) It was an attempted compromise. The previous edit summary complained about the removal of the Department of Fun Link. My forth edit came afterwards, and it was an attempt to address the concerns in the last edit summary by including both. I am sorry about the misunderstanding and will not edit that page again tonight untill responding to the concerns of Dmcdevit. Cognition 9 July 2005 09:14 (UTC)

The previous edit summary complained about the removal of the Department of Fun Link. Oh really? Then why did the summary on the first revert of you read rv; Misplaced Pages definitely does not take political positions on cannabis? You know very well what the issue was -- your continual reinsertion of your list; that is, four reversions of the SAME material. --Calton | Talk 9 July 2005 15:25 (UTC)

I said I regretted the confused way I handeled it. Please read Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith. Cognition 22:15, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Essjay & User:139.55.55.122

Three revert rule violation on Star_Wars_Episode_III:_Revenge_of_the_Sith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Essjay (talk · contribs) & 139.55.55.122 (talk · contribs) <see the history on the article due to the massive amount of edit warring by these two editors.>

Reported by: Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 9 July 2005 11:44 (UTC)

Comments:

• Violetriga has warned them on the talk page, see here -- Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale
• Essjay (and, it seems, one or two others) believe this to be vandalism. I do not, but have given them the benefit of the doubt for now and am discussing this with Essjay. The IP has been blocked for 12 hours. violet/riga (t) 9 July 2005 11:46 (UTC)

• Although i don't feel that this particular case was vandalism, there is reason to believe that the anonymous user in question was the same one who repeatably vandalized the page on George W. Bush. Although that doesn't justify the edit war, it is worth noting. --Blu Aardvark 9 July 2005 11:48 (UTC)

Based on the actions of 139.55.55.122 (talk · contribs) and 67.140.148.199 (talk · contribs), I'd say that they are one and the same. Note both vandalize Bush/Cheney, and both leave abusive edit summaries directed at Hadal (talk · contribs):

• diff "Hadal, GET THE HELL OFF THIS PAGE!!!!!"
• diff "Hey Hadal, its me from the Bush page,by the way, im a completeist star wars fan, lets roll."

Both were also involved in reverting Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. They should have been blocked as abusive socks, mooting this whole question. (They jointly reverted six times before Essjay's fourth revert.) Essjay should receive a small Wikislap on the wrists for feeding the trolls and for not making a request at WP:AN/I. Telling him "Don't do that again!" should be sufficient. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 9 July 2005 14:26 (UTC)

User:Alfrem

Has violated the 3RR on Libertarianism. 24 hour block imposed. Numerous warnings given, we have asked several times for a temporary injunction due to the disruptive behaviour but this has not been granted by any arbitrator. It has now led to Alfrem getting blocked for 3RR violation. Regrettably, it has had to have been myself that has done this: sure to be controversial as I was "involved" in the dispute. But it is a clear violation, and so I don't feel guilty about doing it. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 14:34 (UTC)

Don't feel guilty. He was also violating the 3RR on Template_talk:Elections, reverting a comment I wrote four times in about 8 hours. Dave (talk) July 9, 2005 15:26 (UTC)

User:-Ril-

Three revert rule violation on Matthew 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). -Ril- (talk · contribs):

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

Reported by: SimonP 20:24, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Has done the same across every page in Category:New Testament chapters. Has so far been reverted by three different editors (including myself), but has not stopped. - SimonP 20:24, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Note that the above is not true. I have only made the changes on John 15, John 20, Matthew 1, Matthew 2, Matthew 3, Matthew 4, and Matthew 5. There are other articles currently in the category. ~~~~ 20:48, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Note that this is in order to restore an NPOV warning, which SimonP has removed.

Also note that the other two of the "three different editors" were goaded into behaving in this manner by messages left on their talk pages by SimonP, so that he could circumvent 3RR by using proxy editors. ~~~~ 20:29, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I was not "goaded" into reverting the article (I'm at three times now, so that's all for now). I personally believe that the article is better at the version that SimonP also prefers, and made my own decision to revert. JYolkowski // talk 20:36, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

So why was it that you only did so just after this edit to your talk page, where SimonP writes "I have reverted him a couple of times....perhaps if another user did..." ? ~~~~ 20:44, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

• Blocked for twenty-four hours (it's a pretty extensive violation, but I'm not sure whether it would be right to extend the block for that reason). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:02, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you, 24 hours should enough. Theresa Knott sent him a fairly clear message that his actions were not acceptable, and since then the edit warring has mostly stopped. - SimonP 23:20, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually his edit warring completely stopped after I spoke to him (unless I made a mistake, but I was watching his edits). He seems to have,got on with other edits on unrelated articles, and possibly doing a spot of new pages patrol. I'm not sure that a block was actually necessary at all. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:45, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Update- SimonP also broke the 3RR. Rather than blocking him, I've chosen to unblock -Ril-. Hopefully these two users will repay my trust in them by cesing the edit war and engaging with each other on the talk pages instead. If they don't well we can always block the pair of them later. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

User:213.130.117.51

Three revert rule violation on Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 213.130.117.51 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 19:19, July 10, 2005
• 2nd revert: 19:31, July 10, 2005
• 3rd revert: 19:35, July 10, 2005
• 4th revert: 19:42, July 10, 2005
• 5th revert: 19:45, July 10, 2005

Reported by: Evil Monkey∴Hello 07:51, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• I blocked them for 24 hours. Evil Monkey∴Hello 10:35, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

User:Huaiwei

Three revert rule violation on ] (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Huaiwei (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 21:15, July 9, 2005
• 2nd revert: 07:51, July 10, 2005
• 3rd revert: 09:10, July 10, 2005
• 4th revert: 09:52, July 10, 2005

Reported by: Instantnood 10:05, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

blocked for 24 hoursGeni 11:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Instantnood

Three revert rule violation on category:Hong Kong literature. Instantnood (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 03:08, 9 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 03:53, 9 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 15:12, 10 July 2005
• 4th revert: 17:03, 10 July 2005
• 5th revert: 17:48, 10 July 2005

Reported by: --Huaiwei 10:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Please note the time stamps of the revert User:Huaiwei reported are not in UTC, and there is no fourth edit within a 24-hour period (see #the three revert rule). — Instantnood 10:48, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Does this mean you actually time your edits by the 24-hour limitation?--Huaiwei 10:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
    • one revert on the eigththen you have to go foward two days to get over three reverts.Geni 11:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

209.91.172.140

Three revert rule violation on Romath (user is presumed to be its subject).

• 1st revert: 12:45 10 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 13:05 10 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 13:14 10 July 2005
• 4th revert: 13:21 10 July 2005
• 5th revert: 13:40 10 July 2005
• 6th revert: 14:01 10 July 2005

Reported by: David File:Arms-westminster-lb.jpg | Talk 14:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The editor does not appear to have been warned before being reported.Geni 14:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Ted Wilkes

Three revert rule violation on Natalie Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ted Wilkes (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 18:52, 9 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 20:59, 9 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 00:17, 10 July 2005
• 4th revert: 16:04, 10 July 2005

Reported by: Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments: The User had already drawn editors' attention to the fact that I had reverted three times, and has been blocked for 3RR voiolations before. The diffs make it look like a revert war between the two of us, but the history will show that there four people involved. Three of them us involved in a dispute, but are prepared to compromise; each time that we do reach a compromise, Ted Wilkes sails in and deletes the whole passage. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Duckecho

Three revert rule violation on Terri Schiavo. Duckecho (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 03:52, 10 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 12:50, 10 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 14:15, 10 July 2005
• 4th revert: 15:00, 10 July 2005

Reported by: GordonWattsDotCom 15:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments: In his favor, Duck contributes well usually, and the reverts are not "technically" reverts, but sustentative edits with the intent to reverting certain material, while making minor changes, as I explain on Uncle Ed's page here at this diff's header. Even though Duck is a well-established editor, "This exception does not apply to reversions of well-established users just because you consider their edits to be "vandalism," as shown here: 3RR. However, I do not mean to suggest that the admins must arbitrarily block him. In fact, I recall that he was rightly critical of on admin whose name I'll keep secret, when this admin flew in and made edits without consensus or without making edit summary comments. (Plus duck was the one who put a link in to my court case, lol.) However, he is a part of the bigger problem here, and was the author of the proposal that went AGAINST consensus here, in which we all had agreed that Terri Schiavo would be described as "diagnosed" as PVS, not "as PVS." (Duck is an experienced editor who should've known better, and I admit that I didn't warn him in edit summaries, but I did warn him in talk here. --GordonWattsDotCom 15:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Report new violation