Misplaced Pages

• 4th revert: 02:54, 1 July 2006 —

This a revert of this edit (see casualty figure) by a different editor. El C insist her number (7) is correct and not the other editor (8) —

• 4th revert(as part of same edit block): 02:58, 2 July 2006 (edit summary says: " re-adding info" —

• • At the end of this long story you have restored the number you prefered (7) (after it was changed by an anon editor to 8) - This is a revert even if you have a long story to tell about it

• 5th revert: 03:03, 2 July 2006 —

• • You call it "an administarive rollback" but it is no more and no less than a revert to the content you prefer

• 6th revert: 04:03, 2 July 2006 (included a spelling error correction + a massive revert: —

• • Clearly a content dispute that you choose to resolve usinga revert and appliying your admin power to the editor withwhom you have the dispute with . It is quite telling that you admit it and everyone just stand on the sideline and cheer... Zeq 09:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Erm, yes? Why are we still discussing this. Why should he be banned, the threat has been removed. He is no longer disrupting the article. - FrancisTyers · 09:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not disrupt it at any point; Zeq did which is why he is now banned from it. El_C 09:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Precisely :) - FrancisTyers · 09:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Three reverts cheers for clarity! El_C 09:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• All the "cheerleading" that goes on here does not change the fact that there were 7 reverts (in 6 blocks) and one self-revert. reverts of "careless edits" and other euphamisms are just excuses for the simple fact: There was a clear violations (5-6 reverts) during 24 hours. Zeq 09:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• That is a falsehood which you are unable to demonstrate to anyone's satisfaction. There were three reverts and one legit WP:V rollback. El_C 09:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please don't accuse me of lying while above you have admitted to each of the reverts. Please Don't insult our collective intelegence. Zeq 10:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• I did not accuse you of lying, I said it was a falsehood which you are unable to demonstrate to anyone's satisfaction. El_C 10:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

And the good book says: "Blocks are a preventative rather than punitive measure used to prevent damage to Misplaced Pages by dealing with vandalism and enforcing bans and other Misplaced Pages policies." - FrancisTyers · 09:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• So this is the excuse now: Too much time have passed and there is no need in the Block ? Yes, there is El_C is still very active in the article and she feel such a strong ownership and sense of urgency about keeping it as she like (since it is about current event) A block would help her to cool down. Zeq 10:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, it's best to let this go. The diffs you supplied are not conclusive. The second one doesn't show the diff, the fourth one shows an edit from El C directly after another edit from El C, which means it's not a revert. One of them shows El C reverting an anon who inserted something with no source, and therefore was arguably vandalism. It's a feature of editing fast-moving news stories that it gets to be difficult to separate edits from reverts, because so many people are changing things, and then in addition there are anon edits that may be simple vandalism and therefore don't count. El C is not known as a revert warrior and should be given the benefit of the doubt where doubt exists, as it does in this case. SlimVirgin 11:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Slim, I hear you. One of the nice things about Misplaced Pages is that there is a complete record and it is clear to anyone who wants to look at it:

• No. 2 (which you say I did not provided the diff) is a full revert (I provided the diff that shows it is a complete revert from two edits ago, between them (use previous/next edit) you will see my edit and El_C edit)
• As for the 4th one it is exactly the type of behaviour that many "edit warriers" use insisting on their vesrion and not any one else.
• So with all due respect (and there is a lot) I disagree with your conclusion that this is a marginal issue. This is aclear violation and I am amsed: Do I have the only type of galsses that allow to see it - after all the record is clear and ton of excuses provided here: That the edits are not realted, that this is "an administrative function" etc... But the record is clear: 6 reverts in 24 hours. (should be counted as 5 because of the self revert or 4 if you buy the "adiminstrative revert") still 4RR is a violation of 3RR. I think the record need to be clear even if a block at this time is not the right remedy. (in this sense I agree with you that I should let it go) Zeq 15:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Rather than block this or that editor for 3RR, it would be better to protect the article for a couple of days, and let the engaged editors come to an agreement on how to resolve the dispute before unprotecting. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry.... I see that this is an article of current events... Given this I change my proposal to the following: for the next 7 days, all editors that have been edit warring to agree to be assessed under the 1RR rule. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This makes sense. Zeq 15:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no edit war involving myself, and it is best not to protect an ITN-featured articles. Zeq is/was being disruptive as is clear by the account above and the inflamatory and distortive manner in which it was depicted. El_C 16:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

What does one has to do with the other ? Here i am asking people to look at the facts :The record is clear, but only SlimVirgin bothered to actually review it . Slim made a small mistake which is human (or in case she is right I made a mistake which is also human) Zeq 16:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Greier reported by User:Tēlex (result: blocked 1 week)

Three revert rule violation on Template:History of Greece (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Greier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 12:10, 1 July 2006
• 1st revert: 20:27, 1 July 2006
• 2nd revert: 16:23, 2 July 2006
• 3rd revert: 16:37, 2 July 2006
• 4th revert: 16:48, 2 July 2006

Time report made: 16:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• User has violated the 3RR numerous times before. --Tēlex 16:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I reverted vandalism. Please see the content of my edits: if the link is called "Byzantine Greece", than it should redirect to the article Byzantine Greece, not to Byzantine Empire, not to Byzantine art, Byzantine emperors, etc... Isn`t that logical? 16:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Addendum: if you check his contribution history, you'll see he's been simultaneously revert warring against multiple users on at least five other articles. Your "article" (as you call it) is a purpose made one sentence stub, and the topic is covered more that thoroughly enough at Byzantine Empire. As I told you yesterday, please expand it for it to be in the template. --Tēlex 17:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've blocked User:Greier for one week. His block log suggests a long-term solution may be required. Tom Harrison 17:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Owwmykneecap reported by User:Demiurge (result: blocked 24 hours)

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

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 13:17, 29 June 2006
• 1st revert: 22:56, 1 July 2006
• 2nd revert: 16:47, 2 July 2006
• 3rd revert: 17:25, 2 July 2006
• 4th revert: 17:53, 2 July 2006

Time report made: 17:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Classic example of Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not for things made up in school one day. Warned at . Demiurge 17:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked for twenty-four hours. Tom Harrison 17:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Matyldalondyn and User:87.227.28.6 reported by User:Batman2005 {result: blocked 12 hours)

Matyldalondyn as well as his (probable) IP address User:87.227.28.6 have violated the 3RR rule on the Lukas Podolski page.

Edits for Matyldalondyn

• 1.
• 2.
• 3.
• 4.
• 5.

Edits for 87.227.28.6

• 1.
• 2.
• 3.
• 4.

Please do something about this as well as the sock puppetry being employed by this user to input trivia into an article that has been reverted by 3 or 4 users as dubious and unsourced. Time Report Made 22:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC) Batman2005 22:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

After toying with sprotect I've blocked both for 12h William M. Connolley 22:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Batman2005 reported by User:Seraphim (Result: )

Three revert rule violation on Lukas_Podolski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Batman2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 21:53, July 1, 2006
• 1st revert: 10:07, July 2, 2006
• 2nd revert: 13:41, July 2, 2006
• 3rd revert: 14:25, July 2, 2006
• 4th revert: 15:49, July 2, 2006
• 5th revert: 16:56, July 2, 2006
• 6th revert: 17:07, July 2, 2006

Time report made: 22:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Repeated removal of material from an article "choosing not to sing the German anthem when facing off against his native Poland, as in all games". Not simple vandalism, therefore it is a 3rr violation. Previous admin who looked at the situation only blocked the person who was reported by Batman2005 however he failed to also block Batman2005 who was also in violation of the 3rr. 22:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Its not 3RR if you're removing vandalism! Please see . I was removing vandalism from the article, as was stated in EVERY one of my edit summaries. Batman2005 23:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

From the 3rr page "In cases of simple vandalism that is clearly not a content dispute, the three-revert rule does not apply.", in this case it is not simple vandalism, it is a content related dispute and therefore not exempt from the 3rr policy. Just because you mark a revert as "rvv" does not make it not count as a revert. Seraphim 23:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does, it was not a content dispute, it was vandalism. Inserting dubious or unsourced information into an article continuously after being asked to cite sources is vandalism. Reverting vandalism is what I was doing and is not punishable under the 3RR. Batman2005 23:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, sockpuppetry to deceive and insert dubious information (as the users were doing) is vandalism as well, the reversions of which were clearly noted. Batman2005 23:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said to you earlier, only reverts of simple vandalism are waived, if you can find on the WP:VAND page a category of simple vandalism that fits the situation explain it and i'll gladly remove this and admit I was wrong. Seraphim 23:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

AND, you'll notice that earlier today I posted this problem on the noticeboard and had yet to receive action or further instruction. Thus, in an effort to disallow the vandals to continue to insert misinformation into the encyclopedia and to quickly deal with vandalism, I reverted. Batman2005 23:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding from Seraphim's talk page * Sneaky vandalism: Vandalism which is harder to spot. Adding misinformation, changing dates or making other sensible-appearing substitutions and typos. You'll notice that one editor asserted that Podolski never sings the national anthem before games (a fact which is supported by watching the games on television). The, now blocked, editors continued to add misinformation into the article, which is why I kept removing it as I, and two or three others, saw it as vandalism. Additionally, said users were given and opportunity to provide a source for their claim. Again, they chose to ignore and reinsert the vandalism. Batman2005 23:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sneaky vandalism is defined as vandalism that is hard to spot. Adding a sentence to an article over and over does not qualify as sneaky vandalism. Seraphim 23:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

it does when its misinformation, as this case was. Batman2005 23:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

What you should have done is do your 3 reverts and then waited for someone else to continue reverting, and if that means leaving the trivial information in the article for a few hours untill the admin gets around to blocking the user that's what must happen. That's what the 3rr says to do. Simply reporting someone does not give you a get out of jail free card. Seraphim 23:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• If its all the same to you Seraphim I think you have made your points and I think I have defended mine. I suggest we wait and see what an admin. will consider appropriate. I do think that you should assume good faith in the future and not immediately think that I'm trying to win an edit war. Batman2005 23:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Batman: S is probably correct. I don't see your edits as reverting simple vandalism. I'm inclined to just warn you this time, providing that you're prepared to promise not to do it in future. Only blatant vandalism counts; this wasn't William M. Connolley 09:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Imacomp reported by User:Seraphim (Result: )

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

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 17:19, July 2, 2006
• 1st revert: 17:30, July 2, 2006
• 2nd revert: 17:46, July 2, 2006
• 3rd revert: 17:58, July 2, 2006
• 4th revert: 18:15, July 2, 2006
• 5th revert: 00:41Z, July 3, 2006

Time report made: 23:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:User has now reverted 4 times attempts to unobsfucate the talk page, in particular so the user's comments aren't included in an unrelated section of the talk page. Seraphim 23:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Added fifth revert UK time.ALR 09:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Sir Paul reported by User:TJive

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

• 1st revert: 15:24, July 2, 2006
• 2nd revert: 16:43, July 2, 2006
• 3rd revert: 17:56, July 2, 2006
• 4th revert: 21:09, July 2, 2006
• 5th revert: 21:16, July 2, 2006

Time report made: 01:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Three of these reverts are listed as reverts and the others are clearly reverting to previous versions of the same material. He is not a new user and I informed him well ahead of my time (and especially in light in his incivility), that I would report if he went forward and broke 3RR; he ended up breaking it with two reverts beyond in a matter of a few hours. --TJive 01:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I encourage administrators to take a look at the background. Before I even addressed him, User:TJive labelled one of my contributions a "hit piece", and subsequently threatened to ban me. His uncivil demeanour during this whole affair is especially egregious given the time and effort that I put in my additions, and the demonstrably incorrect statements that this user has insisted in reinstating. Sir Paul 01:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

My comment that the article was a hit piece was made without regard to any contributor but rather the content, which has been going back and forth for weeks with political arguments about the subject. Today is only the second day I can recall ever editing the article whatsoever, and I had never heard of this user before nor particularly cared one way or the other whose contribution made the article biased and poorly written. Furthermore, his comments here are merely his provision of a justification for clearly violating revert policy, which was explained to him in advance and which he chose to flagrantly disregard. No matter how valid of a reason you think you have for continuing to revert in content disputes, policy says to stop at three. Period. --TJive 01:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I had always assumed that the three revert rule applied to reverts to a single earlier version of the article. I have now re-read the policy and it seems that this is not the case. If so, I am guilty of the accusation. I note, however, that the number of relevant reverts was three, not five, and that all of them were always openly acknowledged as such in the edit summary (“reverts” number two and four are ordinary edits). My last (“fifth”) revert, furthermore, reverted to a previous version of the article which was not the one disputed, but rather an attempt by me to retain TJive's additions while removing statements that were either factually false, poorly written, or misplaced. This version also reinstated quotes that were originally removed by users Gezza and Delworth, now permanently banned from Misplaced Pages. Writing this version, fact-checking the whole article and referencing the many unsourced allegations took me about two hours. I would have expected TJive to at least make an attempt to seriously consider my proposal. Instead, he immediately reverted, knowing that I didn't have any further reverts left. It is depressing to see Wikipedians using someone's position of comparative disadvantage to push their own political agenda, disregarding both quality and civility in the process. Sir Paul 02:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The two edits that you mention revert the same disputed introductory paragraph and would qualify as such even were it not so that reverts refer simply to the same version. There is no basis for claiming ignorance in that respect. --TJive 02:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have already told you that my original understanding of the three revert rule was that all reverts should be to the same earlier version of the article. This implies that two separate reverts that reinstate the same paragraph would not, in my understanding of the rule, count as reverts if the article versions to which they revert are different. Your unwarranted presumption of bad faith suggests, once again, that you are not interested in listening to the merits of my arguments or taking a look at the quality of my contributions. Sir Paul 02:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If you presumed that all reverts must be to the same version, the reversion (five times) of the introduction qualifies. Otherwise you could simply change a sentence (rather than half a dozen, which you did) and say that you weren't simply reverting. I did not believe you to be of low intelligence, so I am in fact assuming good faith by stating that this is an invalid argument of innocent intention. --TJive 02:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I rest my case. You have proven yourself to be unworthy of my time. Sir Paul 03:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

3 h as a first offence William M. Connolley 07:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Wiki-star reported by User:Daishokaioshin (result 1 week)

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

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable:
• 1st revert: 02:45, 3 July 2006
• 2nd revert: 03:00, 3 July 2006
• 3rd revert: 03:13, 3 July 2006
• 4th revert: 03:23, 3 July 2006
• 5th revert: 03:31, 3 July 2006
• 6th revert: 03:41, 3 July 2006
• 7th revert: 03:55, 3 July 2006

Time report made: 03:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Wiki-star is at it again. We've tried discussing things with him, we've taken a vote on the edits he has proposed, and he refuses to accept the results. He has declared that he is going to keep re-adding things because talking was "a collosal" failure. Meaning that it didn't go his way. He is a problem user, and will NOT be reforming any time soon. Daishokaioshin 03:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-star is hopeless. He is narrow minded and obviousley not willing to stop until he gets banned. Wiki-star should be banned indefinitly, because nothing else will get him to stop. No matter how much we prove him wrong, he just keeps saying he's right and keeps putting in false information. KojiDude 03:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Wiki-star: Nope! You're both so very wrong. Daishokaioshin cutted me off, and ordered me to stop talking because the discussion has come to an end. It's not just a vote, it's a vote with logical, and evidential reasoning, until the other party agrees. Not because talking things over failed, doesn't mean it didn't went your way. It could be because the other person or party were too stubborn, it could be that they refused or cut you off. It could've been a trillion things. But here you both are, trying to make it sound like i'm a criminal. Trying to be perfect liars and hypocrits about my actions. Tsk Tsk Tsk, shame on you both! If i do get banned, it would most definitely be for the better! Thanks anyways! Wiki-star 04:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-star, you have just perfectly described yourself. =)

It could be because the other person or party were too stubborn, it could be that they refused or cut you off. Sound familiar to anyone? KojiDude 04:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Diffs by User:Kevin Breitenstein since its an edit conflict on this report:

• 1nd revert: 01:52, July 3, 2006
• 2st revert: 02:04, July 3, 2006
• 3rd revert: 02:45, July 3, 2006
• 4th revert: 03:00, July 3, 2006
• 5th revert: 03:13, July 3, 2006
• 6th revert: 03:55, July 3, 2006

These are actual diffs I was going to provide for this report. The user violating 3RR has several blocks already, apparently. Kevin_b_er 04:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I blocked Wiki-star for one week as a repeat offender, KojiDude also broke 3rr on the page but I gave only a 3 hour block as first offence. Please stop edit warning. Thanks Jaranda 04:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Exploding Boy reported by User:r b-j (Result: 12h)

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

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime
• 1st revert: 03:27, 3 July 2006
• 2nd revert: 03:53, 3 July 2006
• 3rd revert: 04:28, 3 July 2006
• 4th revert: 04:37, 3 July 2006

Time report made: 04:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User:Exploding Boy apparently believes he owns the article. the talk page is full of people questioning his POV edits. he's been relying on the fact that none try to stand up to him. i tried to insert one word: "pejoratively" to describe the use of the word homophobia to apply to opponents of pro-gay political activism. just as opposition to the state of Israel does not make one an anti-semite, opposition to ACT-UP or similar does not make one a homophobe. r b-j 04:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, 12h William M. Connolley 07:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Ryulong and User:71.117.250.160 reported by User:SchmuckyTheCat (Result:Warnings to both )

Three revert rule violation on History of Microsoft Windows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 71.117.250.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime

1. (cur) (last) 00:31, 3 July 2006 71.117.250.160 (Talk) (show you sources on release vehicle ... that has never been discussed outside of MS campus (i work on campus))
2. (cur) (last) 00:30, 3 July 2006 Ryulong (Talk | contribs) (rvv: if you can't give me the source, then it is vandalism)
3. (cur) (last) 00:28, 3 July 2006 71.117.250.160 (Talk) (Your entry is also trite with speculation no? Here is a middle road which does not speculation release vehicle or feature details ... i do have source but none that i can give you.)
4. (cur) (last) 00:26, 3 July 2006 Ryulong (Talk | contribs) (rvv: you do not have a source for this information, which you could provide as the link or in the references. It is pure speculation.)
5. (cur) (last) 00:25, 3 July 2006 71.117.250.160 (Talk) (This is not vandalism it is correcting clear misrepresentation of the details on fiji. You guys need to stop trying to be wiki police and accept valid inputs here.)
6. (cur) (last) 00:21, 3 July 2006 Ryulong (Talk | contribs) (rvv)
7. (cur) (last) 00:20, 3 July 2006 71.117.250.160 (Talk)
8. (cur) (last) 00:18, 3 July 2006 Ryulong (Talk | contribs) (rvv: where is your source for all of this?)
9. (cur) (last) 00:17, 3 July 2006 71.117.250.160 (Talk) (→Windows "Fiji")
10. (cur) (last) 00:14, 3 July 2006 Ryulong (Talk | contribs) (rvv)
11. (cur) (last) 00:13, 3 July 2006 71.117.250.160 (Talk)

Time report made: 07:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: At first the IP editor, claiming to work at a MS campus, tried to correct mis-information, was reverted, then just removed all speculation entirely because this isn't crystal ball stuff and it isn't sourced to anything reliable. Both are long past 3RR.

• Neither of them was warned, warned both with the 3RR4 abakharev 07:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Lord Loxley reported by User:Cberlet (Result: 3h)

Three revert rule violation on User_talk:Cberlet (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lord Loxley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• 1st revert: 13:43, 3 July 2006
• 2nd revert: 13:46, 3 July 2006
• 3rd revert: 13:47, 3 July 2006
• 4th revert: 13:49, 3 July 2006

Time report made: 14:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Lord Loxley is well aware of 3RR, and has been warned before. See: .

• User:Cberlet has a problem accepting complaints and criticism on his talk page; he thinks he owns his talk page and has the right to delete them. He is a notorious POV-pusher throughout all articles he is fixated with. Common "hot buttons" are words like "Right" and "Conservative", but may entail a slew of tangential disputes. See and User_talk:Lord_Loxley#Histrionic.3F for my attempt to warn him about having a "mission" on the Misplaced Pages, because I have noticed off and on, just how obsessed his article editing has been with being a vigilante for the Left and trying to portray the Right as wrong. This person has an agenda and several people have voiced complaints, but he goes his own way and will not be stopped. When will he review WP:POINT, once and for all? Lord Loxley 14:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't edit war on peoples talk pages. See the rules. 3h William M. Connolley 15:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

User:193.254.155.48 reported by User:Zer0faults(Result: 8h)

Three revert rule violation on Iraq_Conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 193.254.155.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

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

Time report made: 15:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User has switched IP's to User:62.225.37.69 after being notified of 3rr report. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Iraq_Conflict&diff=61878722&oldid=61871978 User keeps attempting to add statements in violation of WP:OR. When asked for source he provides ones that do not support the Vietnam claim, only the second half. --zero faults 15:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

8h; but leave the content-type stuff out of it William M. Connolley 18:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Krms reported by User:Appleby

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

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

Time report made: 18:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: user warned about 3rr, wikipedia policy explained. same edit/revert at about a dozen articles. Appleby 18:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC) sorry, i edited the example, what an idiot. fixed example below, & the above links. i'm not sure what "previous version reverted to" is supposed to be, is that the version just before the first edit by the reverter? Appleby 18:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats 4 badly formatted diffs, of which 2-4 are reverts but its not clear that #1 is, becasue you forgot the version-reverted-to William M. Connolley 18:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Crockspot reported by User:212.221.184.243 (Result: )

Three revert rule violation on Template:Andy Stephenson. Crockspot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 15:07, 3 July 2006 Crockspot
• 1st revert: 17:13, 3 July 2006
• 2nd revert: 17:22, 3 July 2006
• 3rd revert: 17:44, 3 July 2006
• 4th revert: 18:38, 3 July 2006

Time report made: 19:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• User warned. El_C 20:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Rbj reported by Exploding Boy 20:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation and possible sockpuppetry on Homophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rbj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• . Here, Rbj reverts a different user's change, restoring his own preferred version of the article again. This is reverted by a different user. Meanwhile, an anon account creates a version very similar to Rbj's.
• --possible sockpuppet edit by User:72.92.148.186, whose first and thus far only edit was to restore Rbj's preferred version.

At issue here is that Rbj's preferred version has not been created by consensus. Even adding a single word (in this case "pejorative") ruins the neutrality of the article. Exploding Boy 20:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Not clear that rv 5 is a revert - it doesn't add "pejorative" as all the others do William M. Connolley 21:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Or more precisely, it changes it to "pejoratively." it is clearly enough a restoration of Rbj's preferred version. Additionally, the sudden appearance of a new account whose one and only edit is a restoration of another user's preferred version of an article is usually a reliable indication of sockpuppetry. Exploding Boy 22:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree that, in this context, "pejoratively" should count as a restoration of "pejorative." El_C 00:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Deucalionite reported by User:Fut.Perf. ☼ (Result: 48h)

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

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 3 July, 08:27
• 1st revert: 3 July, 15:32
• 2nd revert: 3 July, 18:02
• 3rd revert: 3 July, 21:12
• 4th revert: 3 July: 21:30

Time report made: 21:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• Several, complex reverts involving different material, but always re-instating the passage starting "This migration may have been caused...". 3rd offense within 2 months, has been fully aware of breaking 3RR, as shown by last edit summary. -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Can have 48 h for record, and William M. Connolley 21:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

User:71.198.78.191 reported by User:Mad_Macs

Three revert rule violation and possible sockpuppetry on Occidental_College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.198.78.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 3 July, 08:27
• 1st revert: 05:19, 3 July 2006
• 2nd revert: 05:00, 4 July 2006
• 3rd revert: 05:16, 4 July 2006

Anonymous user repeatedly adding own biased POV to article. Discussion has been initiated, but not responded to.

Time report made: 23:10, 3 July 2006 (PST)

User:Freedom skies reported by User:This Fire Burns (Result: )

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

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime
• 1st revert: 06:04, 4 July 2006
• 2nd revert: 06:09 4 July 2006
• 3rd revert: 06:16 4 July 2006
• 4th revert: 06:24 4 July 2006

Time report made: 06:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• user:Freedom skies is also violating WP:NPOV, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL on this article - see Talk:Indian nationalism,,,. This Fire Burns 06:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Report Example

Here's an example of what a listing should look like:

 ===] reported by User:~~~ (Result: )===
] violation on {{Article|PROBLEM ARTICLE/PAGE NAME}}. {{3RRV|VIOLATOR_USERNAME}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to, if applicable:  
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert: 
* 2nd revert: 
* 3rd revert: 
* 4th revert: 
Time report made: ~~~~~
'''Comments:'''