Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) at 18:30, 11 February 2006 (→[]: Could be). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:30, 11 February 2006 by William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) (→[]: Could be)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

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

    Click here to create a new report

    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357
    358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164
    1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
    481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links



    Violations

    User:Netoholic

    Three revert rule violation on Misplaced Pages:Avoid using meta-templates (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Netoholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: —Locke Cole • t • c 23:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User has twice before been blocked for violating the 3RR, and is aware of the rule. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I ask admins to ignore this. I did not violate 3RR, nor game the system. Direct opponents of this very active proposal (see history) have tried deletion and removal of proposal tags to kill it, rather than argue on the merits. Developer Brion Vibber recently reviewed this proposal, and mentioned only a couple fixable changes he desired. Opponents of a proposal should not remove proposal tags - kind of like an admin shouldn't probably vote for an article deletion and then actually delete the page - it's a conflict of interest. Protection, with the accurate "proposed" tag, is preferable at the moment. -- Netoholic @ 23:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
      • The page in question was proposed, soundly rejected, forced into policy status based on claims of developer mandate, and removed from policy status when the lead developer (Brion) said there was no reason it should be policy. Ergo, the most accurate 'tag' would likely be {{rejected}}. Continued efforts to 'repolicify' the page are pointless in face of the fact that there is no significant need for the suggestions on the page and Brion has stated that he intends to get conditional logic built into MediaWiki "sooner rather than later"... which will make the entire issue largely obsolete, even if it weren't insignificant to begin with. Thus, continued fighting over it seems somewhat pointless. Leave it alone already. --CBD ☎ 00:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
      • You did violate 3RR, you just think you had a good reason to do so. Don't revert again, please. Babajobu 23:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I've blocked Netoholic for 48 hours. This is a violation on two of his arbcom-imposed remedies, a violation of the 3RR, and his last edit is disruptive and uncivil. Demi /C 23:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Netoholic claims that these were not reverts, and these arbcom-imposed bans do not apply. I disagree; nothing has been lifted, instead individual arbitrators have recommended a certain tolerance as long as Netoholic is not being disruptive. Since he is engaging in the very behavior these remedies were designed to stop, I consider that they apply. Nevertheless, this is not an edge case, the rules that everyone must abide by were violated, and by a serial violator, which is why I chose a longer block period. Demi /C 00:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I've added a 6th revert/edit diff. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:Badagnani

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

    Reported by: DTC 00:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This version took several weeks of discussion and the participation of 5 editors to come to a consensus that all involved agreed upon, for user:Badagnani to jump in now and start a new edit war is unaceptable.

    TDC consistently reverts without addressing why s/he is deleting valid interwikis (the reason for my edits was to restore them each time they were all removed); removing valid interwikis is wrong no matter how many reverts it takes. The consensus to delete links and interwikis was not agreed upon by me, and TDC does not "own" this article. Badagnani 00:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    That's still no excuse for reverting five times in one day, and as said, this is a compromise version. Ten Dead Chickens 05:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:62.23.29.196

    User deleted repeately leading image at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

    --KimvdLinde 01:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

    He's already blocked. Babajobu 01:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:202.129.12.14

    Three revert rule violation on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.

    • 1st revert: 21:19
    • 2nd revert: 21:21
    • 3rd revert: 21:23
    • 4th revert: 21:29
    • 5th revert: 21:31

    Reported by: Thparkth 01:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:patesta

    Three revert rule violation on List of Family Guy episodes. patesta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

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

    Reported by: Discordance 02:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • He is not only undoing content like reinserting episode details I have confirmed to be wrong, he is undoing formatting and blanking the reference section and so far not talking on the talk page. User:G11 has also broken 3RR trying to restore the page to its current state, I have informed them both on the talk page of 3RR and that they may both be blocked, I've only listed patesta here as he is the disruptive one verging on vandalism. Discordance 02:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    I gave him his warning, and told him if he reverts once more he'll be blocked for 24 hours. Babajobu 02:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:Deiaemeth

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

    Reported by: Saintjust 03:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:216.248.124.126

    Three revert rule violation on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 216.248.124.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert: 1:11
    • 2nd revert: 1:26
    • 3rd revert: 1:30
    • 4th revert: 1:32
    • 5th revert: 1:38
    • 6th revert: 1:41
    • 6th revert: 1:49

    Reported by: KimvdLinde 06:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Already done. Warned, ignored, blocked. Gamaliel 06:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:155.232.250.19

    Three revert rule violation on Syriac Genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 155.232.250.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Localzuk 11:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • The user refuses to add a reference for the changes they are making. Also, it appears they are coming in from many different IP addresses, such as: 155.232.250.19, 155.232.250.51 (close to 3rr on its own) and 155.232.250.35 (talk page only)
      • Please report violations using diffs, not version links. Also, easy on the bold, please. Seems to be currently short-term blocked, as it's a shared IP. I'll warn them if they edit that article again today, they'll be re-blocked. Alai 14:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:Roitr

    Three revert rule violation on Comparative military ranks of World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Roitr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: --Latinus (talk (el:)) 14:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Basil Rathbone

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

    Reported by: Vidkun 17:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • THIS IS OUTRIGHT DECEPTION THE ABOVE EDITS ARE NOT IDENTICAL AT ALL AND THEIRFORE DO NOT VIOLATE 3RR RULES. ALSO THE EDITORS LISTED BELOW CONTINUOUSLY COMBINE THEIR EDITS TO CIRCUMVENT THE 3RR RULES BY DELETING ANY AND ALL EDITS BY NON-MASONIC EDITORS. THIS IS EXTREMELY UNFAIR AND UNJUST.Basil Rathbone 13:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Rathbone is using misleading edit summaries to avoid pointing out changes, did multiple vandalizations

    Blocked for 24h, though not necessarily for the diffs you gave (which are against the current version... (err, I may be wrong about that...)) William M. Connolley 17:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC).

    Corrected the links, my bad.--Vidkun 19:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The reasons for the reversions were explained multiple times - the edits were not within the scope of the article or were unverifiable information, and his edits also included a copvio both in pictures and text. A lengthy discussion also came to naught, as Basil is more interested in pushing his POV than sticking to verifiable fact. MSJapan 21:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:Appleby

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

    Reported by: Endroit 19:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Blocked 72 hours. Hopefully he'll get the message -- alhtough I'd be remiss if I didn't warn Endroit and Nlu that nobody should be edit warring, really. Perhaps when this expires the apge should be protected to encourage some discussion instead of edit warring. · Katefan0/poll 19:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:Ardenn

    Three revert rule violation on Stargate_SG-1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ardenn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Monicasdude 19:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: 4 reverts in barely an hour (unexplained deletions of pertinent links from articles) that appear to be no more than random vandalism. Uses misleading edit summaries (e.g, marks deletions as minor and describes restoration of links as vandalism. Similar activities on other articles. Monicasdude 19:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

    • In my opinion, there it takes two to tango. Good job tricking an excitible user into exceeding the 3rr by reinserting links like , and following him around the encyclopedia! You win! Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Random deletion of pertinent links from an article, without explanation, is vandalism. Are you really saying that the vandal's excitability somehow excuses the vandalism, or should prevent its rectification? There was no rhyme or reason to these deletions; and the links in question were originally inserted by different editors. Maybe one of the deleted links was dubious, but the others were clearly pertinent. And more dubious links were left it, including one to a site that's little more than a more attractively formatted mirror of the Misplaced Pages article . This user is a vandal, no more, and shouldn't be defended in this fashion. And I think the fact that User:Ardenn is, right now, apparently running through every active AfD I've commented on lately and casting a boilerplate contrary vote should be a sufficient demonstration of bad faith, excitable editor or otherwise. Monicasdude 20:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The good news is, neither editor has actually broken the 3RR here. (Ardenn is correct that the first "revert" was not in fact one, though "tidying up" seems to be a euphemism for "arbitrary deletion". The bad news is, if you two keep this up, what the arbcom'll eventually do to you will make you beg to merely be blocked for 24 hours. ("Wikistalking" seems to be sufficiently vaguely defined as to take in cases like this, and "edit warring without reference to talk pages or regard to consenus" is an old favourite.) Please, calm it down, both of you. Alai 22:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:216.248.122.218

    Three revert rule violation on Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 216.248.122.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert: 1:52
    • 2nd revert: 1:57
    • 3rd revert: 1:58
    • 4th revert: 2:26

    Reported by: Valtam 19:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Had to clean up my formatting here.

    Blocked for 24 hours. Babajobu 20:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:Macedonian876

    Three revert rule violation on Macedonia (Greece) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Macedonian876 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: --Latinus (talk (el:)) 22:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Macedonian876 was revert warring with Makedonas (talk · contribs · block log) who has already been blocked for a 3RRvio, but the blocking admin didn't block Macedonian876. As the policy says that all parties should be treated equally, Macedonian876 should be blocked as well. I think it should be taken into consideration that Macedonian876 has probably been using sockpuppets to revert war as well (check the revision history). If this is so, it is because Macedonian876 knows of the 3RR because I informed him yesterday (check his talk page). --Latinus (talk (el:)) 22:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    This is currently being discussed between User:Jonathunder and myself. Jkelly 22:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    The diffs make the history clear. I have blocked User:Macedonian876 for 24 hours and posted a note on his talk page. Jonathunder 22:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:Alienus and User:Loxley

    Three revert rule violation on Multiple Drafts Model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

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

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

    Reported by: User:Noisy | Talk 01:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • I'm not going to pick sides, so I'm reporting both.
    • Thank you, concerned citizen. Me neither, so I'm blocking both for 24 hours. Neither were explicitly warned beforehand, though one did make a comment about blocking to the other, but as this was 18 reverts each, anything less would seem a little inadequate. If anything, I'm inclined to block for longer. Alai 03:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Observation: one of these users has posted a lengthy reply to my blocking message, largely a complaint about the other; the other has a talk page restructured around the fact that half of it's related to his dispute with the first. I think this one could run and run. I'd encourage informed editors to try to moderate the effects of this dispute, if possible (as well as on an admin-enforcement basis). Alai 16:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:-Inanna-/User:81.213.100.24

    Three revert rule violation on Turkish Cypriot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by -Inanna- (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

    Reported by: Khoikhoi 04:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments

    The last time this user was blocked it was for 2 days, so I suggest making it longer this time. I also request that an admin watch this page after this, because Inanna is known to use sockpuppets to evade blocks for violating the 3RR. --Khoikhoi 20:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

    • Blocked for 24 hours, without prejudice to anyone reviewing this for aggrevating circumstances if they want to make it longer (or hey, shorter...). Will absolutely re-block for longer if any further sockpuppetry or anonpuppetry occurs. Right now though, I have to sleeeeep. BTW, the IPs in your report are a little inconsistent, but the gist seems clear (they're the same ISP, though I assume from the ranges it's a large one). Alai 05:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:Serinity

    Three revert rule violation on John Lott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Serinity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Note: As can be seen from the above links, this user reverted to an old version, sometimes making cosmetic changes (for example, he reverted and changed the pixel size on an image in edit number 2. In edit number 4, he reverted, and followed it up by replacing one entry in his list by another).

    Also: I note that user lied in their edit summary. This edit, which was described as "rearranging sections. Putting up POV." contained wholesale deletions of much of the article.

    Also: 152.163.100.10 has been reverting to the same pages. Both began doing this almost simultaneously. Should be checked for sockpuppetry.

    Reported by:Pierremenard 06:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

    Update: Oh crap....I'm sorry to say that I just violated the 3RR rule myself in reverting above-mentioned user's edits. I've been waiting until 24 hrs passes since my first edit so that I can revert the unencyclopedic material added (user added stuff from the wikipedia talk page to the article), but my watch was off by 3 mins. --Pierremenard 08:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

    Oh dear... I'm going to warn both of you and suggest that you take it to the talk page before either of you edit again (that would be the smart thing i think). Remember: edit wars are bad. Sasquatcht|c 09:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    Pierremenard should be blocked entirely. In the brief time that he has been a registered user, he has gone around vandalizing the contributions of many other users. Just take a look at his editing history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.110.255 (talk • contribs)
    Not much of a vandal to me. In fact, seems to be a bit helpful Sceptre 11:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you. I'll also notein my defense that two other editors, including an admin, expressed the opinion that my fourth revert was undoing vandalism. --Pierremenard 19:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:Space Cadet

    Three revert rule violation on Nicolaus Copernicus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Space_Cadet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Reported by: Calgacus 09:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

    Yeah, I screwed up, but let me redo it. Space Cadet 09:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

    There:http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nicolaus_Copernicus&diff=38125823&oldid=38123351 Space Cadet 09:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

    heh, nice to see users solving their own problems for a change. Kudos to Space Cadet :-D no block nessacery Sasquatcht|c 09:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I would disagree. Because a user simply self-reverts when reported here for violating the 3RR, he or she should not go completely unpunished and be able to continue reverting elsewhere (which Space Cadet did ). The fact that Space Cadet apparently loves revert warring and was blocked twice for violating 3RR before should not decrease the sin, either. Sciurinæ 02:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    Blocking is not supposed to be a punishment. It is supposed to prevent disruption and damage to the encyclopedia. This user has decided to stop edit warring so does not need to be blocked. -Localzuk 18:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    Blocking is supposed to discourage destructive revert warring, which he permanently did, does and is going to do with this legal position. I'm not aware of the holy forth revert, a self-revert, that forgives the sin, but if it really exists, I'll make use of it in the same way the moment I should ever be reported in the future. If we were equal before the law, I would necessarily have to be treated equally. What's become of the three-revert-rule as "electric fence"? As you can see, Space Cadet was reported again. Having seen Space Cadet go unpunished before months ago, is it the third times he enjoys this impunity? Sciurinæ 19:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    Space Cadet does appear to be a revert warrior. He makes easy use of reverts, and rarely explains himself, and so his reverting is highly unproductive. However, he does normally make an effort to avoid slipping up and going over the maximum three reverts. His fifth revert above hardly merited Kudos (unless monitoring this page and trying to avoid a block merits such Kudos), because he resumed reverting after the 24hr period. I reported him again (below), but here he thought he had avoided it because, as he understands it, reverts to the same page can only be counted cumulitavely if they're exactly the same. I'm sure if his understanding was different, he would not have done it again so soon afterwards. - Calgacus 20:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:HeadleyDown

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

    Reported by: Metta Bubble 10:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Is 67.184.14.210 also you, Metta Bubble? KillerChihuahua 10:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

    Has been blocked for 24h for WP:NPA just now by JzG, anyway William M. Connolley 12:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC).

    User:216.248.124.210

    Three revert rule violation on Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 216.248.124.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Quite obvious, more than 4 reverts, all with the same edit comment "Pool 3 (Vote For Just One Cartoon without the Image of Mohammed)", see contribs. Appears to have been blocked before under a different IP.

    Reported by: Eloquence* 11:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

    Blocked for 1h as a first offence... errrm... which different IP? William M. Connolley 12:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC).

    User:Mike18xx

    Three revert rule violation on Protest Warrior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mike18xx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • 2006-02-05 06:43:06 FeloniousMonk blocked "Mike18xx (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (24 for 3RR at People of the Book and Protest Warrior, additional 24 for personal attacks in edit summaries William M. Connolley 16:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:Eggster and User:151.201.32.118

    Three revert rule violation on NiMUD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Online creation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Eggster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 151.201.32.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Atari2600tim 01:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC) (and updated to include Online creation later --Atari2600tim 08:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC))

    Comments:

    • I noticed that Eggster was reverting things without discussing them and referred to the earlier version as vandalism, while a simple glance will see that it's not. Reasons in favor of the 15:23 3 Feb 2006 version of the article last contributed by Thoric are written on the talk page by Thoric and myself, none of which have been addressed by Eggster. Reverted info is in regard to Locke/Eggster writing false claims about his own software and removing links to usenet articles on Google Groups (added by Thoric) that disprove his claims. <strike>Also his software is not public domain, but is worded in such a way as to imply so. One of his edits acknowledges that it is not public domain, yet he still changed it to say public domain.</strike>
    • Don't expect us to do content. As to the substance: if you think that Eggster and 151.201.32.118 are the same, please present some evidence. Oh, and please warn them on their talk pages. William M. Connolley 16:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC).
      • I know not to ask about you doing content, that was just an example of something that was getting messed up repeatedly for no apparent reason and isn't very relevant to this 3RR report. As far as I can tell, Eggster hasn't claimed to be the IP, but the IP has claimed to be Eggster. 67.165.85.111 also seems to be the same person because all that one ever did was revert... but I didn't list that because it didn't contribute to the 3RR violation since it was another day. I think the last one is in violation of the no personal attacks policy, but oh well.
      • Since there's not a post from Eggster saying "oh, that was me" (I didn't even think to ask... what kind of evidence do other people use? I don't think anybody would admit to it), here are why it's pretty clear that they're the same person:
        1. Here the IP refers to himself as Eggster. Eggster has edited other stuff and most likely would have looked at the talk page and seen someone else impersonating him and yelled at them if it wasn't him.
          1. Sorry to be picky, but that just says "Locke via eggster"; which could be interpreted in several ways, including being some text from a chap called Locke passed to the anon by eggster. Which implies communication, but not ness the same person. William M. Connolley 20:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC).
            1. That one edit on it's own looks like the anon is correcting a quote that Eggster posted which he got from Locke (as if Locke e-mailed Eggster, and then Eggster posted it verbatim, and then the anon wanted to point out that it was just a copy and paste and not Eggster's words); click previous edit twice and see that the anon is also the person who posted the quote to begin with though. For this interpretation to work, the message would have gone through Locke-->Eggster-->Anon-->Anon posting it to Misplaced Pages on their behalf, which is unlikely since Eggster has been active on Misplaced Pages lately, and Locke was active on Misplaced Pages in the past and is familiar with how to add discussion himself if he wants to. --Atari2600tim 01:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
        1. The reverts that were pointed out in this report thing have similar edit summaries (the IP and Eggster both feel that me not talking to Locke is evidence that his side is right), and are essentially both writing similar additions, which are promotion of his software. They're also reverting the same content without discussion, obviously, which is why this was posted here in the first place.
        2. In the edit history it has 151.201.32.118 responding to edit summaries that I addressed to Eggster; On Feb 2 I put at 00:29 "(Eggster, please contact Locke and ask him about what he has posted. He disagrees with you.)", he reverted to his version at 08:02 and put "(rv Email him yourself at heg@andrew.cmu.edu)" and at the same time removed the links to Locke's usenet posts which showed the opposite of what he wants to claim. In my summary, I said for Eggster to ask Locke for details because allegedly Eggster is just someone who talks to Locke, and Locke has allegedly stopped going to Misplaced Pages (presumably to take advantage of the not biting newbies policy).
      • Sorry about not putting warnings on his talk pages, I warned him last year when he was doing it with other names and am sure he is aware of it (why else would he have logged off before doing the later reverts?). I'll post some warnings on his pages right now. I guess I'll be seeing you again next week when he has some new names, I'll post warnings on all of 'em first I guess ;)
      • --Atari2600tim 18:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd like to add that this is certainly not the first time Eggster has repeatedly reverted this article on this point. I have provided him with numerous pieces of solid, clear evidence to the "official public release" date of the software in question, which he continues to ignore in favor of his own fragmented anecdotal claims. --Thoric 00:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:85.101.15.247

    Three revert rule violation on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 85.101.15.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Eixo 02:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Etc. Please stop him now.
    • 2006-02-05 02:55:22 Brendanconway blocked "85.101.15.247 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Continupus vandalism despite warning)

    User:Light current

    Three revert rule violation on Misplaced Pages:Verifiability (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Light_current (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Jayjg 00:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • His attempts to reverse longstanding and fundamental policy have been reverted by four separate editors (and counting). After making 3 simple reverts, started gaming the system by making complex and sometimes nonsense reverts. Has been warned about reverting and complex reverting , but continues to revert. Jayjg 00:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    Blocked for 24 hours. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


    User:Space Cadet (2)

    Three revert rule violation on Treaty of Welawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Space_Cadet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Reported by: Calgacus 03:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

    So the fourth revert is completely different, so where is the violation? Space Cadet 03:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    "Reverting... means undoing the actions of another editor", but I'm not a 3RR interpretational lawyer. I'm just reporting and I'll leave it to others to judge. - Calgacus 03:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    Blocked. If you're going to be a Revert Warrior you need to learn the rules William M. Connolley 20:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC).

    User:68.214.59.196

    Three revert rule violation on Arab European League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by 68.214.59.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

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

    Reported by: Pierremenard 04:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User has undone changes by other users at least nine times in the last four hours.

    I have been making new edits and improvements to an article being POV'ed by this complainer. --68.214.59.196 05:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    Blocked. Would get a warning, but for comment above, and edit comments claiming familiarity with brocedure. William M. Connolley 19:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC).

    User:Ricanboy718

    Three revert rule violation on Xuqa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Ricanboy718 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

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

    Reported by: Noah 06:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Ch'marr User:220.225.32.229 User:193.63.43.5 User:Ass12345

    Three revert rule violation on Enterprise resource planning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ch'marr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but the problem is really the vandalism that is being reverted:

    • Previous version reverted many times:

    See Reported by: User:AlMac| 10:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • If User:AlMac| reading the history correctly
    • Ch'marr is reverting to an earlier version in which some text has been lost, that was valid, but can be cleaned up later.
    • 220.225.32.229 had done mass deletion of stuff that I think belongs in the article
    • then 193.63.43.5 made a series of vandalism edits which Ch'mar reverted, then 193.63.43.5 made more input, of which the vast majority was vandalism, which Ch'mar reverted, and this continued 4 more times
      • User:193.63.43.5 had done a series of vandalism, in need of reverting, such as this , , , , ,
        • This edit is not vandalism but rather a shift in the appearance and content of the article, in which some of the content has validity, but some is a dramatic change that ought to be ironed out on the ERP talk page.
          • Honstly, I missed that edit. Personally, I wasn't going to pick through the vandal's edits to see if he 'hid' something legitimate in there :) However, it's not legitimate; it's a cut paste from this web page: . -- Ch'marr 18:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
            • Colour me stupid, that segment is actually a copy of the very same page (whether or not the 'planware' page is a copy of wikipedia or the other way around, I don't know). However, if you look at the diff, you'll see marks scattered around; the vandal just cut-pasted the display content into the edit. I don't think that's legitimate 'shift-in-appearance' :) -- Ch'marr 17:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • then Ass12345 got into the act, and now Ch'marr reverted both of them 5 more times before
      • Where 193.63.43.5 had changed one section to "it sucks", Ass12345 changed next section to say it also does
    • User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me got into the act and so far has only done 2 reverts, then
    • User:Shanes done one revert.
      • It is clear to me that 193.63.43.5 needs to be blocked, and many of us need education reminder on how to go about reporting incidents where persistent vandals are causing trouble.
    • User:AlMac| 10:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I wanted to make sure User:193.63.43.5 and User:Ass12345 had a chance to read the test2, 3 and 4 warnings before reporting them on WP:AIAV... makes for a lot of vandalism and reverts for two users, though. If I can handle the situation better next time, please drop me a note! (PS: Oo! I made a Admin Noticeboard page!! :) ) -- Ch'marr 17:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

    193.63.43.5 has been blocked as has Ass12345 and I don't see what Ch'marr has done wrong, he was reverting vandalism. It would have been a good idea for him to point out that he was, though :-) William M. Connolley 22:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC).

    Yes :) Perhaps that javascript needs a 'revert vandalism' option, rather than just 'revert' :) -- Ch'marr 23:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:Mel Etitis

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

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • More reverts: ,

    Reported by: -James Howard (talk/web) 13:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User has repeatedly readded linkspam list under guise of "Examples" despite fact he has been told established policy at Misplaced Pages:External links names this behavior as clearly inappropriate. Additionally, user has page removing new information to revert and re-add spamlist. User has stated, ad nauseum, list is necessary to understand article. I challenged assertion by stating if that were true, they could be turned into genuine references. User in question then, repeatedly over several months, deletes request for citations and re-adds spamlist. -James Howard (talk/web) 13:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
      Please don't mislead admins and don't bully valuable editors too. Posting here is not the proper way to promote your agenda. --Ghirla | talk 13:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
      This does not seem to be a 3RR violation from what I can see, rather a content dispute. This should be raised as a WP:WFC from what I can see. -Localzuk 13:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
      Well, content disputes are what usually lead to 3RR violations. But in this case, there was no 3RR violations; the reverts didn't happen within a 24-hour span. --Nlu (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
      You should use the talk page to discuss your difference of opinion with Mel Etitis instead of using the edit summary to accuse him of vandalism when the dispute is clearly a legitimate content dispute. Gamaliel 17:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:Skull 'n' Femurs

    Three revert rule violation on Freemasonry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Skull_%27n%27_Femurs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Vidkun 15:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • This user may also be using multiple accounts to hide edits and revisions, based on the following archived user pages for Blue Square and Skull 'n' Femurs
    • In addition, the edit of 10:43 used a misleading edit summary to revert to debated point of the last line of the Forget Me Not article, not simply an edit to the Organization Structure section

    2006-02-06 21:01:25 Banes blocked "Skull 'n' Femurs (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (personal attacks, edit warring, and pov issues) William M. Connolley 22:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:-Inanna-

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

    Reported by: —WAvegetarianCONTRIBS 01:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • That would appear to be three reverts (I conclude, on the basis that you're provided three diffs (which are something of a mess, btw). If this is improper tag-removal, you have the wrong page; if you're looking for confirmation of sockpuppetry, then determine if you have a basis for a request for checkuser, i.e. is there suspicion of contra-policy use of socks. Alai 03:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • It does look like 3. But bearing in mind the suspicions of sockpuppetry and previous blocks, I blocked Inanna for incivility for . Let me know if I've gone overboard. William M. Connolley 17:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:Molobo

    Three revert rule violation on Gdańsk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Molobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Reported by Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) File:UW Logo-secondary.gif 02:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC).

    Not really, the last edit you pointed out(4th) is entering new information about different states that had control over the city and doesn't revert your changes.Only the first three were reverts of your claims. --Molobo 02:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

    Quick! Your "new information" had already been removed as POV, and you restored it. I'm sure you've slipped up this time, but as I have no power over such things, I have to leave it to be judged by others. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) File:UW Logo-secondary.gif 03:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

    Please calm yourself-I don't know what you are talking about. The information on time as Free City is still there-just go on to talk on the page. --Molobo 03:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:Basil Rathbone

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

    Reported by: Vidkun 17:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Yet another revert war by Basil, immediately in the wake of a revert war, personal attack campaign, and vandalism in regards to the Forget Me Not issue. I personally left the forget me not section alone until the person who kept putting it IN stopped, as I was attempting to put in a counterpoint regarding the validity of the claims about the forget me not. However, neither party (User: Basil Rathbone and User:Skull 'n' Femurs, wish to deal with consensus on talk pages. There are two POVs regarding the forget me not claims, and both should be shown, IMO--Vidkun 17:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Seems to be at least 4RR, hence blocked again William M. Connolley 17:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC).

    User:TripleH1976

    Three revert rule violation on Jacob D. Robida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TripleH1976 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: 07:36, 7 February 2006 (comment: None of us knew Jacob Robida enough to say he was fascinated or obsessed with nazi imagery. I thought this encylopedia was suppose to be neutral.)
    • 1st revert: 18:26, 7 February 2006 (this one is a likely anon revert) (comment: Remove NPOV)
    • 2nd revert: 22:50, 7 February 2006 (comment: Did Jacob himself tell you he was obsessed with nazi imagery? If the answer is no, then you don't know his true feelings concerning the topic.)
    • 3rd revert: 23:01, 7 February 2006 (comment: removing image. Upon closer inspection I've realized this photo if a fake. The nazi images were inserted into it. Some low life has a lot of free time)
    • 4th revert: 23:14, 7 February 2006 (comment: removing it, because we dont know how this picture was obtained.)
    • 5th revert: 23:28, 7 February 2006 (comment: removing due to the fact that it comes from a queer-apologist site. Even in death Jacob should not be besmirched.)
    • 6th revert: 23:35, 7 February 2006 (comment: Do you honestly think a queer-apologist website is going to release something objective about him?)
    • 7th revert: 23:52, 7 February 2006 (comment: removing image. Not enough is known about it's authenticity. This is not vandalism.)

    Reported by: NTK 23:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Blocked for 24 hours. howcheng {chat} 00:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:Leyasu

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

    Reported by: Danteferno 00:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Revert war over band's genre, however this revert war has gone on for days with the same editor in subject.


    152.163.101.13 (talk · contribs) / 69.86.130.215 (talk · contribs)

    It looks to me that an anonymous user (152.163.101.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / 69.86.130.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has repeatedly reverted the Stony Brook University page to a version that contained a link that he favored, and then, once he ran out of reverts, logged into an AOL account to continue reverting. Due to my involvement in the reversion, I ask that sombody take a look at this to evaluate the situation. – ClockworkSoul 02:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

    • No point in blocking the 152 and 205 IP's as they are certainly AOL, 69.86.130.215 is not AOL but only has 2 reverts, but if hes the same user as the AOL one, block for a 3rr. Thanks --Jaranda 23:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:DrBat

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

    Reported by: AriGold 13:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

    I asked him to give up his image. If he persists, then I'll impose a block on him. howcheng {chat} 22:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

    AriGold; 1)I'll expect an apology from you when its confirmed the anon-IP isn't me.
    2)The fourth reversion happened a day later than the first three reversions (Feb. 8, while the first three were on the seventh). If I'm not mistaken, I thought the limit was 3 reversions per a day? If not, you broke the 3RR limit as well. --DrBat 23:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

    It's a limit of 3 reversions within a 24 hour period, not per calendar day. AriGold did indeed break it, but I'm hoping that instead of just doling out punishments the issue is resolved and we'll leave it at that. howcheng {chat} 00:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    Howcheng, reverting vandalism more than 3 times is a violation? All I was doing was reverting the picture back to its original form while DrBat kept reuploading and inserting versions of his picture that has just been deleted. AriGold 13:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    DrBat, if you are not 201.17.89.78, I do apologize. And you reverted it more than 3 times in 24 hours, which is a no no. AriGold 13:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    This isn't vandalism -- it's a content dispute over which image should be used. I'm assuming good faith that when DrBat says the new image is different from the deleted image, it's different. howcheng {chat} 17:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    This all started with two images. His image of artwork was deleted in favor of mine that was the comic cover. Then, he proceeded to reupload the artwork images and keep inserting it, and I kept changing it back to the comic cover. That is reverting vandalism, as far as I can tell. AriGold 19:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    It was deleted because you said that the image was modifed, which wasn't true at all (and despite all my proof, you refused to believe it until after the image was deleted). It was deleted on false pretenses. And the second image I uploaded was a different version (if you notice, it lacked the exposed nipple of the original version. I also posted both images on the WikiComics project post, if you want to compare.)
    And regardless, it wasn't vandalism. Vandalism is "any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia". If anything, your edits are vandalism for repacing high-quality images with poor, low-quality images. Why you insist on replacing decent images with ugly images that only hurt the article is beyond me.--DrBat 22:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    It was deleted because I said that the image was used on a comic cover and the consensus was that the cover itself was better use. I see you've been following what everyone has told you and gone and changed the pics to the actual covers, do you not understand that that was my point? I seriously wish you would understand that and we could move on. You are a great contributor and I think you took my challenge of your contribution too personally. AriGold 22:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    It wasn't personal, I just thought that your image was of a poor quality, and it detracted from the article. --DrBat 02:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:lumiere

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

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

    Reported by: Sethie 15:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:204.110.99.42

    Three revert rule violation on Mariah Carey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 204.110.99.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Extraordinary Machine 17:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:80.202.111.88

    Three revert rule violation on Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 80.202.111.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

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

    Reported by: Pepsidrinka 01:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

    2006-02-09 02:44:55 Anonymous editor blocked "80.202.111.88 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 31 hours (3rr twice, was warned) William M. Connolley 18:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

    Colle

    User:Colle has violated the 3rvt rule on the talk page of Safe Sex by reverting my comment 4 times (the last in part). I don't really want him blocked because overall he may be a good editor, but I believe I have a right to reply to a comment, and the repeated removal is infuriating. So if he does agree to revert himself I have no problem letting it go as I said on his talk. Chooserr 03:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

    You can see the full history . I, while not violating the 3rvt rule, probably should have let it go sooner, but this is my opinion and a reply to a statement on the same talk page. I believe this amounts to little more than censorship. Chooserr 03:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

    His fifth revert can be found if anyone is interested. Chooserr 03:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

    Oh and number is here if anyone is intent on serving justice. He is unlikely to revert himself and continues on reverting the page to his version. Chooserr 03:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:Leyasu

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

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

    Reported by: 220.239.77.250 14:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User has attempted to get away with reverts by making slight changes. It's essentially the same article.
    • User has a history of edit warring and conflict with other users.
    • User deems newer good-faith edits by others to be "POV" and "vandalism" and uses these as justifications for reverts.
    • A number of users are trying to make positive changes to this article but the constant reverting is stifling the process. Some have tried to reason with this user without success.
    • The revert in question is to a version with factual inaccuracies and spelling and grammar mistakes.
    Blocked for 48 hours this time considering he resumed his edit warring almost immediately after his last block expired. howcheng {chat} 17:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:Basil Rathbone

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

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

    Reported by: Ardenn 16:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User indef blocked as sock of arbcom blocked user. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:Zarbon

    Three revert rule violation on Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zarbon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Papacha 18:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User has a history of edit warring and conflict with other users.
    • User has an admitted sock puppet User:72.227.132.62 and two suspect IPs User:149.68.168.159 and User:149.68.168.136 make the same reverts and edits throughout this week, once on one topic of conversation in the synopsis of article, now in another. User:72.227.132.62 is the primary IP on this article causing the most strain.
    • Has said he has "no problem constantly resetting it. i can do it too, see who gets tired first".
    • Will not discuss reverts, insisting it be done a certain way. Says other users will have to "deal with it".
    • Has been caught using sock puppet to second his edits on the history page.

    Blocked User:72.227.132.62. Note that although User:72.227.132.62 claims to be Zarbon, I don't see Z claiming to be User:72.227.132.62. So I warned Z, just in case. William M. Connolley 20:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC).

    User:HeyNow10029

    Three revert rule violation on Kelly Clarkson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). HeyNow10029 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Extraordinary Machine 19:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Dzonatas

    Three revert rule violation on Template talk:WikiProject Computer science (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dzonatas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule violation on Template:WikiProject Computer science (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dzonatas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: —Ruud 21:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • On the talk page Dzonatas kept removing a comment, claiming it was a personal attack, which it clearly is not. He keeps changing the template itself from the one agreed upon on the talk page. Seems to be doing this just to be distruptive as he is not a member of the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R.Koot (talk • contribs)

    Blocked for 24h for 3RR on the Template. Not technically 3RR on the Talk because the first edit wasn't a revert, just a total waste of everyones time. Dzontas: please learn to get along with people. D's complaints about personal attack I judge totally unfounded. William M. Connolley 22:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC).

    User: 85.187.163.40

    Three revert rule violation on Template talk:WikiProject Bulgarians (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

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

    Reported by: Macedonia 01:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Has continually been puting in false information, claiming the non existence of a another ethnic group, which I have felt was a sense of racism/propaganda/hatred. My self (removed by FunkyFly 04:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)) have continued to remove this certain edit which may have caused some confusion or anger among readers.

    85.187.163.40 (talk · contribs) has no template talkspace contributions. Jkelly 01:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:Elerner

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

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

    Reported by: Joke 03:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Blocked for 24 hours. howcheng {chat} 07:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:Appleby

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

    Reported by: Endroit 10:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User:Appleby is a repeat offender of 3RR. After returning from a recent 72-hour block, he proceeded today to another edit war in the exact same East Sea (disambiguation) page where he broke 3RR twice before. He may have carefully evaded 3RR this time, but some of us had received warnings last time from admin User:katefan0, not to edit war. And so I refrained this time, but obviously Appleby hasn't.
    • I don't think Appleby is willing to communicate with us (or even listen to us) to reach any concensus. And some communication we already had in Talk:Sea of Japan shows that we are very far apart. Please discuss with admin User:Katefan0 what to do. I left a note with Katefan0 already. If you suggest mediation or arbitration, please lock this page (preferably at a concensus version) and we shall go into arbitration (or mediation) right away. Thank you.--Endroit 10:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

    Blocked (again) for however long he was blocked last time William M. Connolley 13:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC).


    User:Robsteadman

    Robsteadman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Repeated identical reverts to Jesus Blocked once for 3RR on this same page. not learning his lesson. Please block for longer period this time.

    • 1st insert:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2d revert:
    • 3d revert:
    • 4th revert:

    While last revert changed one word, it is, for all intents and purposes, a revert and he is clearly gaming the system and causing more toruble on the same page (just like before) Please block.Gator (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

    Now he's up to at least 3 reverts with "religous scholars" instead of "Christian scholars." That's at least 6 or 7 reverts of the same thing in my opinion. Please block and help bring peace to the article!Gator (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

    Blocked 24h. Jesus, Prince of Peace :-) William M. Connolley 16:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC).

    nb: there was some slight strangeness with a space before the username... hope that is fixed now. William M. Connolley 16:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

    I blocked him 48 hours instead since this was his second violation and he seems awfully aggressive in his comments. howcheng {chat} 17:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:149.150.236.125

    Repeated additions of image of Devil to Talk: Pope Pius XII. 

    Robert McClenon 20:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    Blocked for 24 hours. howcheng {chat} 17:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:69.129.82.150

    Three revert rule violation on Jehovah's Witnesses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User:69.129.82.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

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

    Reported by: Duffer 18:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    More edits:

    • 6th revert:
    • 7th revert:
    • 8th revert:

    please help. joshbuddy 21:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Link was removed as completely "off-topic" for the article on Jehovah's Witnesses. Its own description shows that it has nothing to do with Jehovah's Witnesses or the Watchtower, but is merely a personal site set up to attack a former associate of theirs. It's my understanding that that makes the link off-topic and irrelevant as a Resource link placed under Positive or Neutral Resources for the article. Unless wikipedia now allows for these sorts of links, I feel that the removal of the link was appropriate under Misplaced Pages guidelines, but will defer to the admins. You may also note that a separate link provided by the submitter concerning the Watchtower's teaching on 607 was never touched, as it IS on-topic and relevant to the article. Timothy Kline 22:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

    Link was removed 8 times without a single reason given. Tim, that is not appropriate Wikiquette (are you user:69.129.82.150?), and is a clear, and persistent (anon user was warned (and notified)) violation of WP:3RR. You may disagree with the links inclusion but you must talk these things out on the appropriate talk page when it is clear that others take exception to its removal. Duffer 23:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    I was unaware of how to insert a reason during the removal process, and apologize for not providing a reason at the time. I believe I have since properly noted my confusion at the inclusion of the link, at the talk page for the article on Jehovah's Witnesses, and now await any responses there. Even so, it does not appear that the link at issue serves as a resource pertaining to the article itself, so much as it unabashedly admits to being a site devoted to criticizing another website and little else--thus constituting itself less a proper resource for the article on Jehovah's Witnesses and MORE as a proper resource of criticism against the e-watchman site. However, this discussion would probably be better served at the talk page. I simply wanted to respond to the complaint against my actions (I didn't know about the 3-max edits at the time, but now do and will not violate it further) and apologize accordingly. Timothy Kline 23:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    I'm fine with that. Duffer 05:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:Sunday_Service

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

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

    Reported by: Ardenn 21:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

      • I would say possible sock, based on speed of edits, and that it was reversions back to blocked User:PM GL PA's edits. Additionally, subject has now made a false accusation on the vandalism page against me.--Vidkun 21:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

    There is no 3rr, the only reverts are the 2nd and 3rd. In the first he is changing the information in a section. In the 2nd and 3rd he reverts back to that change. In the 4th he changes a completly seperate section, and in the 5th he changes a ton. The amount of invalid 3RR reports that have been coming off of the Freemasonry and Freemasonry talk pages recently is alittle disturbing. Seraphim 22:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

    I'm not terribly familiar with Lightbringer's MO, but on a cursory glance it appears similar enough to me that I blocked 24 hours, pending David Gerard having a minute to look himself. · Katefan0/poll 22:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:Informativemiss and User:198.237.84.66

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

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:

    Reported by: Natgoo 21:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • I am sorry that you think I am User:198.237.84.66 because I have no idea about any of his/her previous edits. This is humorous, since that is not my IP address. -Informativemiss 22:01, February 10, 2006
    • So now I am three people? I am very confused. I reverted the links that I saw were deleted by someone "reverting." This seems like a personal attack.-Informativemiss 22:07, February 10, 2006
      • Disagreeing with your insistence on ignoring consensus is not a personal attack, and the consensus is that links to shock sites are not to be included in the article. You still reverted the addition of the links five times. Natgoo 23:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    In fact, your first edit was to revert that link. KillerChihuahua 00:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:199.29.6.2

    Three revert rule violation on Biblical inerrancy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User:199.29.6.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: KHM03 23:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Williamo1

    Three revert rule violation on Hyper-Calvinism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Williamo1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:

    Reported by: Lbbzman 01:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:KarlBunker

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

    Reported by: Br Alexis Bugnolo 02:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:Karl Bunker is claiming 3op rule, falsely to justify his vandalism. I have already warned him 2 times, and will warn him again, right after posting this.

    User:69.203.142.41

    Three revert rule violation on PlayStation Portable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.203.142.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by : Seraphim 07:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: He removed information from the article that was created via a discussion on the talk page, information that we feel to be NPOV and necessary to include because it is standard in all Game Console articles to have a blurb about marketshare. He's also removing the disclaimer that notes that sony only reports console's they have shipped not sales figures. Both are very POV changes. I placed the 3rr warning on his talk page, and he did it again without ever responding. Also the only edits the user has ever made are vandalizing Sony Playstation Series articles. Seraphim 07:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

    Blocked for 24 hours -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:Maria Stella

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

    Reported by: Chris 73 | Talk 08:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    First offence, but you warned her. 12h. William M. Connolley 11:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:Space Cadet (3)

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

    Reported by: Chris 73 | Talk 08:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Blocked 48h. Now to proceed upwards... William M. Connolley 11:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:Tasc

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

    5 reverts within a few minutes, also the reverts may be considered simple vandalism as he is removing valid content.

    this "valid content" is mentioned in the article. aparently you have been reading it. --tasc 11:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    All the other things mentioned in the introduction are also mentioned in the article. The idea of an introduction is to provide an overview of the article. The criticism for war crimes is misleading if only Sabra & Shatila are mentioned - when all the favourable things are mentioned the criticism also needs to be dealt with in an appropriate way. Anyway, this doesn't matter. You broke the rule. Bye bye, see you when you are unblocked in 24 hours. Perhaps you then are ready to discuss your edits.

    Both editors in violation. Page protected while they work it out. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

    it'd better to discuss everything before changing on such a controversial topic. --tasc 11:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:68.162.148.34

    Three revert rule violation on Online creation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.162.148.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Ehheh 17:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • He appears to be the same person as User:Eggster and User:151.201.32.118 in one of the earlier 3RR reports that still is on this page and hasn't been archived yet. A few minutes ago I gave a warning to 151.201.32.118 after he did 5 reverts, at which point he switched over to Eggster and has done at least 1 revert as Eggster, possibly more as I'm writing this. I'm not going to go to any effort to prove that it's a sock puppet since it'll just be the same as last time, but an admin can easily check. While logged in as Eggster, he has had warnings for multiple things in the past, and has blanked his talk page presumably thinking that everyone'll forget that he already had violated 3RR in the past and had been warned already. --Atari2600tim 17:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

    User:Agapetos_angel

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

    Reported by: FeloniousMonk 18:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • The 4th revert is a complex revert within an edit that attempts to disguise the restoration of User:Agapetos_angel's preferred wording.
    • This is the 3rd 3RR violation for User:Agapetos_angel at this article in the last 2 weeks
    • Page had been protected due to the actions of User:Agapetos_angel. User:Agapetos_angel filed misleading RfPP for unprotection, and was rv'ing again within 36 hours.

    I can see bits of #4 that could be considered reverts. But can you make them explicit, please? William M. Connolley 18:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC).

    Report new violation

    Place new reports ABOVE this header, using the template below. Do not edit the template itself. See the example at the top of the page for full details. Take the time to do the job right to get the quickest responses. From the article's History page, use diffs (links labelled "last"), not versions, and the "compare versions" button to clearly highlight the changes between versions of the article and show what has been reverted. 


    ===]===
] violation on {{Article|ARTICLENAME}}. {{3RRV|USERNAME}}:
* Previous version reverted to: 
* 1st revert: 
* 2nd revert: 
* 3rd revert: 
* 4th revert: 
Reported by: ~~~~
'''Comments:'''
*
    Categories: