Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Number 6 (talk | contribs) at 12:47, 17 April 2006 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:47, 17 April 2006 by Number 6 (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

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

Click here to create a new report

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

Violations

User: 82.145.231.194

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

Reported by: Metb82 14:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: deleting information and making personal attacks with offensive language

User: Nixer

Previous version reverted to: 05:44, 31 March 2006
1st revert: 22:02, 3 April 2006
2nd revert: 00:36, 4 April 2006
3rd revert: 01:15, 4 April 2006
4th revert: 01:31, 4 April 2006

Reported by: Calton | Talk 01:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Attempts to continually insert "controversial British historian and publicist of strong anti-Soviet bias" into intro, and the same essentially unaltered criticism of the subject. --Calton | Talk 01:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours. User's twelfth 3RR violation which has to be some kind of record (I hope). (ESkog) 01:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Ndru01

Previous version reverted to: 1 April 2006
1st revert: 21:30, 1 April 2006
2nd revert: 02:44, 2 April 2006
3rd revert: 16:49, 2 April 2006
4th revert: 17:02, 2 April 2006

Reported by: Alienus 22:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: In addition to edit-warring, this user is violating OR and POV, as well as flatly ignoring consensus. They've been warned and reverted by multiple people on multiple articles but just don't seem to understand how things work here. In addition, the basic content itself is of highly questionable quality, besides the complete lack of citations and frequent lack of relevance. I am asking not only for a ban but for an admin to sit this person down and explain things to them in a way that will actually get through.

It's been over a day and I've seen no response, so I've moved this entry back to the bottom. Justice delayed is justice denied. Alienus 04:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems to have calmed down. Warned William M. Connolley 12:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It's calmed down because I didn't want to edit war with him, so I reported his actions and stopped reverting. Now that he hasn't been banned, I'm going to start working on content again, which will entail reverting his insertions. Let's see if this causes another edit war or whether your warning carries any weight witht his person. If he thinks you're ineffectual and just bluffing, I'll probably wind up posting another report here in a few days. Perhaps if we get to that point, there'll be a swifter and more decisive response. Alienus 14:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

User:71.131.245.179

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

Reported by: Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Repeated insertion of anti-semitic POV against multiple restoring editors.

No warning... can have a token 3h block William M. Connolley 12:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

User:NSLE and an unregistered user

I find it pretty troublesome for NSLE, who is an admin, to have revert war with another user. As I saw in the edit history, that unregistered user was only trying to make the format of the Chinese name and the Tamil name consistent. But NSLE treated it as vandalism - just because he didn't like the format that another user proposed, and reverted the article for more than three times. Every time he reverted the article, he restored an error in the "pinyin" romanization of the Chinese name. While " Xīnjiāpō Gònghéguó " should be two "words", he kept grouping them back into one "word", until I fixed that error for them. He stopped the edit that he didn't like by blocking the article. This is obviously an abuse of his admin power.

1st revert: April 1st, 2006
2nd revert: April 1st, 2006
3rd revert: April 1st, 2006
NSLE then abused his admin power and blocked the article: April 1st, 2006
4th revert: April 2nd, 2006
That guy was pissed, and NSLE abused his admin power again: April 2nd, 2006

Reported by: Alan 05:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Uhm, reporting this two days later? If you have a problem with conduct, an RfC would be more appropriate. .:.Jareth.:. 13:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's revert warring in particular ... perhaps it's just the popular perception against anonymous users, especially ones who don't provide edit summaries to see it as "vandalism", but that is unfortunate. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No edit war here.--Tdxi a ng 陈鼎翔 Contributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Kuban kazak

Previous version reverted to:
1st revert: 16:56, 4 April 2006
2nd revert: 21:39, 4 April 2006
3rd revert: 21:53, 4 April 2006
4th revert: 22:01, 4 April 2006

Reported by: 134.84.5.52 22:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Kuban kazak is persistently adding a city name in Russian language (Луцк) into the first paragraph of the article in front of Polish name. The Russian language name of the Ukrainian city has no value for the English Misplaced Pages; when translated from Russian into English the name of the city is Lutsk, which is exactly the same as a translation from Ukrainian into Russian.

KK is innocent (!?! :-). 134.84.5.52 is guilty: blocked 24h William M. Connolley 09:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

User: 82.154.45.142

Previous version reverted to:
1st revert: 02:17, 5 April 2006
2nd revert: 02:21, 5 April 2006
3rd revert: 02:31, 5 April 2006

Reported by: WarriorScribe 02:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You need 4 reverts not 3. Did you warn? William M. Connolley 08:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

User:JoeMele

Previous version reverted to: 07:49, April 4, 2006
1st revert: 14:39, April 4, 2006
2nd revert: 18:16, April 4, 2006
3rd revert: 21:34, April 4, 2006
4th revert: 21:49, April 4, 2006

Reported by: BRossow 04:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This user continues to revert the article in question following the removal of his name (added by himself) from the list of notable alumni of the school. He clearly is not notable by virtually anyone's standards, let alone those of WP:BIO. His reversions have lost numerous copyedits to the article in addition to the removal of his name from the list. He's dangerously close on Autism rights movement as well. He has brought his attacks to my own Talk page as well as the Talk page of the latter article. (Having said all of this, I recognize that I am close to 3RR myself but have no intentions of crossing that line, so no need to point it out. :-) ) ⇒ BRossow /_C 04:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Warned by CS on his talk; appears to have stopped William M. Connolley 08:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Pat8722

Previous version reverted to: 18:50, April 4, 2006
1st revert: 22:58, April 4, 2006
2nd revert: 23:01, April 4, 2006
3rd revert: 00:05, April 5, 2006
4th revert: 00:12, April 5, 2006
5th revert: 00:33, April 5, 2006

Reported by: Rhobite 04:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

RJII and pal Rhobite teemed up this evening to vandalize the libertarian page with a CIRCULAR definition of libertarianism. Rhobite has been reverting to the circular definition of RJII on grounds he does not like use of quote marks, or of dual accurate defintions. Rather than removing the quotes or removing one of the two dual accurate definitions, Rhobite and RJII have been maliciously and repeatedly reverting to RJII's CIRCULAR definition. Rhobite had/has a means to modify the use of quotes or to remove either of the accurate definitions if he chooses, by simply editing them out, instead he is reverting to the CIRCULAR defintion of RJII. I propose Rhobite be BANNED for vandalism.pat8722 04:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Rhobite and RJII is an odd partnership :-). Anyway, you've broken 3RR, have an 8h break William M. Connolley 08:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I just wish to add that pat8722 is the only one who appears to be of the opinion that the definition in question is circular. Several of us have tried to explain to him on the Talk page that in order for a definition to be circular, it needs to use the term it is defining within the definition itself, but Pat does not seem to understand this. At any rate, to describe the content changes RJII and Rhobite have made on that page as vandalism is disingenuous at best. --Serge 20:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

As I stated above, what I revoked was simple vandalism, therefore your revocation of my edit privledges violates the admin policy regarding 3rr revocations. As I am relatively new to wiki, please advice me on the procedure for requesting that your admin powers be revoked for very obvious abuse thereof (i.e. you were required to ascertain whether I had revoked simple vandalism as I had stated, before revoking my edit privileges.) pat8722 18:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend to contact an admin of your choice that you feel you can trust, who would talk you through the process and point you to the right pages. Most likely s/he would would tell you, that your edits were not reverts of simple vandalizm, but were "content dispute" - then s/he could point you to how such disputes can be resolved. Agathoclea 18:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Me and User:Hogtied

On Crystal Palace (chat site), an article that had unanimous consensus to merge in December 2005, but was recreated by a vandal and the vandalism went undetected for 5 months. I got rid of the vandalism, and Hogtied got rid of my reversions, saying I was a vandal. Of course we both think we were getting rid of vandalism, but we certainly breached 3RR. There's what 10 reverts each in an hour or so. Unfortunately, the excuse of ignorance doesn't cut it, as I gave him links that proved things, he just refused to look at them. I am happy to take my 24 hour block for it. We both should get one I think. 59.167.131.8 17:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, you're both blocked for 10 hours. Stifle 22:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

User: Eiorgiomugini

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

User: KarlBunker

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

- Let's see. One. Two. Three. And the fourth is...missing, so this isn't a 3RR. However:
- Previous version reverted to: 16:09, April 5, 2006
- 1st revert: 16:47, April 5, 2006
- 2nd revert: 18:17, April 5, 2006
- 3rd revert: 18:32, April 5, 2006
- 4th revert: 19:10, April 5, 2006
- That would be Eiorgiomugini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User:Sceptre blocked Eiorgiomugini for 24 hours. Stifle 22:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Jidan

Previous version reverted to: 22:18, 4 April 2006
1st revert: 22:33, 4 April 2006
2nd revert: 22:52, 4 April 2006
3rd revert: 23:04, 4 April 2006
4th revert: 19:31, 5 April 2006
5th revert: 19:31, 5 April 2006
6th revert: 21:18, 5 April 2006

Reported by: --ManiF 20:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User:Jidan knows the 3RR rule very well as he's was recently blocked for it, and was warned about it again yesterday. --ManiF 20:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I was the one who warned him yesterday, and I've been trying to keep tabs on several related disputes, this one included. While the evidence is clear that this user broke 3RR, it's not entirely clear that what he was reverting wasn't vandalism. He was reverting a page move after one user had put up a straw poll (concerning just such a move) and, just 18 hours later (after 4 pro's and no con's), he claimed 'consensus' was reached, and went ahead and moved the page, all the while accusing this user of being a 'vandal' for moving it back even the first time. It's definatly a sticky situation, so, to any admin reading this, I must suggest a further 3RR warning rather than a block outright. --InShaneee 01:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Cigammagicwizard

Previous version reverted to:
1st revert: 00:38, April 5, 2006
2nd revert: 02:25, April 5, 2006
3rd revert: 12:33, April 5, 2006
4th revert: 21:43, April 5, 2006

Reported by: ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 00:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User added a large number of pictures under fair use. They were removed as excessive and clutter-some to the article, and possibly a fair use violation. He's reverted them back in 4 times, and expressed intention to game the system "I know. I'm reverting less than 3 times a day. Didn't you notice? And, how do you know that other people are reverting more than 3 times. I've seen people do it but they won't get blocked" . User has been blocked before for bad-editing.

User is young (13?) and zealous and has made a lot of effort on a number of articles. However, he does need to learn a lot about wikipedia etiquette and article style. Garglebutt / (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Still needs his 24 hour block, user knew about 3rr, see the edit summarries. --Jaranda 02:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

- I blocked him for 24 hours. Just so you guys know, next time, please use UTC when putting the times up. Do not use the time zone that the user is in. That just makes it confusing. --Woohookitty 10:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

User: Eiorgiomugini

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

Reported by:KarlBunker 10:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit war, both blocked for 24 hours Sceptr e 10:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

User: Ragout

Previous version reverted to: 05:29, 5 April 2006
1st revert: 14:11, 5 April 2006
2nd revert: 02:05, 6 April 2006
3rd revert: 03:16, 6 April 2006
4th revert: 03:39, 6 April 2006

Comments: User:Ragout has admitted he violated 3RR on the talk page .

Reported by: Deuterium 10:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

~~Blocked Ragout for 24h.~~ Deuterium might have violated 3RR as well, I could only see 3 obvious reverts, but another admin might want to check as well. —Ruud 10:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Deuterium violated 3RR as well. Given the extreme lameness of the violations they're both blocked for 123 minutes. —Ruud 16:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Will Beback

Previous version reverted to: 03:28, 6 April 2006
1st revert: 03:29, 6 April 2006
2nd revert: 03:31, 6 April 2006
3rd revert: 03:33, 6 April 2006
4th revert: 17:45, 6 April 2006
5th revert: 17:50, 6 April 2006

Reported by: --Northmeister 18:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Will Beback has violated 3RR after following me to this article as he has done in the past with myself and others. He had no prior interest here and is attempting to disrupt the work of several editors with his agenda which amounts to harassment. He has violated 3RR today and does not engage in adding material but simple deletion. Instead of going to talk and discussing first, he simply deletes and calls one of my edits a 'cruft'. This is not assuming good faith on his part. Had he discussed in Talk matters would be worked out, as I prefer collaboration with other editors. I ask a block because of his behavior here and that he work with us in the future to improve the article if he has questions on my or anyone elses edits. I do not like revert wars which are started by simple deletes of other editors work without discussion first; though I can see deleting in this manner for anonymous edits or obvious vandals or sock-puppets of others. This is not the case though. Please enforce the 3RR here and admonish Will Beback on good faith with others. --Northmeister 18:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Will has reverted you twice, not four times. An edit is not a revert. Also, you should know that other Misplaced Pages articles cannot be considered sources/citations for information you're seeking to insert into another article. And describing de Gaulle as a "courageous war hero" is inappropriate and violates neutral point of view policies. Some people might think de Gaulle was a terrible coward; a neutral encyclopedia can't make a definitive statement like that. · Katefan0/poll 18:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. But, that is not the source of the problem. He reverted twice, plus three other times my material only. That is fact, and it is shown above. He did this without discussion, and since he knows I am more than willing to discuss and provide sources; he did this in-spite. Is that right? The obvious violation of 3RR "Reverting, in this context, applies to undoing the actions of another editor in whole or part..." is the case here. Had he simply changed the De Gaulle statement (which is POV, and needed revising) then that would be okay. But that is not in any way the case above and is a moot point for the record. --Northmeister 18:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Not only is there no 3RR violation, Will Beback should receive a commendation for removing POV and unsourced information.--Mr j galt 02:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sock-puppet's always have the same opinion don't they. Wow. --Northmeister 05:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Not even reverts Sceptr e 11:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Will is a model Misplaced Pages user who because of what he deals in (NPOV stuff), gets involved in lots of disputes. --Woohookitty 09:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Matt N

Previous version reverted to: 17:54, 5 April 2006
1st revert: 08:26 6 April 2006 "reverting troll edit"
2nd revert: 09:01 6 April 2006 "i think more of a general agreement is needed here"
3rd revert: 11:00 6 April 2006 "let's see your AU sockpuppets on the revert"
4th revert: 12:00 6 April 2006 "cry havoc and release the ugly and unloved males"

Reported by: Christopherlin 19:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: What happens when the reverts are fast enough that the 4th revert is made before any warnings are posted on user talk pages? --Christopherlin 20:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn per compromise. --Christopherlin 04:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Gerardm

Previous version reverted to: 03:02, 6 April 2006
1st revert: 08:49 6 April 2006 "added xenisucks.com, please see discussion page"
2nd revert: 09:21 6 April 2006 "xenisucks.com readded ... it is relevant information"
3rd revert: 11:22 6 April 2006 "xenisucks.com added ... it was removed by someone with considerably pro-Xeni bias"
4th revert: 12:55 6 April 2006 "xenisucks.com added ... it was removed again by someone who has consistently shown pro-Xeni bias"

Reported by: Christopherlin 19:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: What happens when the reverts are fast enough that the 4th revert is made before any warnings are posted on user talk pages? --Christopherlin 20:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

To be fair (and I don't think the reverts were a smart move on the part of Gerardm), the Strawpoll on the talk page was a 2-2 tie, up until I just added by support for inclusion, with reasoning. Whoever (MattN and yourself) was reverting Gerardm was pretty much doing the same thing GerardM was. --Kickstart70·Talk 21:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment in the straw poll. I think the whole issue got way out of hand. To clarify though, I commented out Gerardm's addition of the link once and pointed him to talk, where I was trying to get some civil discussion going toward some sort of neutral-ish consensus. --Christopherlin 21:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

If they stop when they get the warning, that's fine - the 3rr is meant to be preventative, not punitive. If the keep going, they earn a block. Some people will block even if the person hasn't been warned - if they have been around long enough to know better, for example. Other people will block for an hour or two to enforce a cool-off. It depends on the admin. But bear in mind, the aim isn't to punish misbehaviour, the rule exists to stop control edit warring. Guettarda 21:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hm... Okay. Thanks for the clarification. I've left a note on both users' talk pages, though Gerardm just readded the content that was removed from extlinks as a criticism section. Not sure what that means, though. --Christopherlin 21:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn per compromise on Talk:Xeni Jardin. --Christopherlin 06:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Monicasdude

Previous version reverted to: 20:17, 6 April 2006
1st revert: 21:05, 6 April 2006
2nd revert: 01:18, 7 April 2006
3rd revert: , 03:08, 7 April 2006
4th revert: 03:15 7 April 2006

Reported by: Calton | Talk 07:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Editor, subject of a Request for Arbitration, keeps inserting his own accusation -- a dubious accusation, phrased as a fact (see first revert, especially) -- into the original request, unattributed, rather than relying on his own section.

Blocked, 24h Sceptr e 11:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Mel Etitis

Previous version reverted to: 11:06, 6 April 2006
1st revert: 11:40, 6 April 2006
2nd revert: 15:41, 6 April 2006
3rd revert: 21:44, 6 April 2006
4th revert: 10:39, 7 April 2006

Reported by: ManiF 10:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Clear violation of 3RR. There is an ongoing dispute on Talk:Jami about the neutrality of a particular section of the article, in accordance with NPOV, but User:Mel Etitis keeps unilaterally removing the NOPV tag, despite the objections of three users. --ManiF 10:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Mel's a good guy, but this is pretty suspect. Blocked for 24 hours. --InShaneee 19:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to make too much of this but:

The first I knew of this was when I found that I'd been blocked — ManiF didn't have the courtesy to inform me (though he/she left an unrelated comment at my Talk page later), much less warn me of my oversight.
InShanee ignored an e-mail I sent him once I'd discovered the block.

I'm not saying that I should be treated differently because I'm an admin, but I'd have hoped that all editors would be told of 3RR reports, and would have their e-mails answered by the blocking admin.

(Incidentally, the NPOV tag was being replaced for no good reason, even after extra citations had been given and the two (not three) editors involved has ceased to engage in discussion at the Talk page. I regarded this as disruption at best, hence my removal of the tag.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

68.70.66.28 (talk · contribs)

Previous version reverted to: 07:31, April 6, 2006
1st revert: 14:25, April 7, 2006
2nd revert: 20:59, April 7, 2006
3rd revert: 00:49, April 8, 2006
4th revert: 00:56, April 8, 2006
5th revert: 01:03, April 8, 2006

Reported by: –Tifego_{06:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)}

Comments:

2006-04-08 07:22:46 Marudubshinki blocked "68.70.66.28 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 31 hours (whoa, chill out man!) William M. Connolley 11:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Rgulerdem

1st revert: 06:39, 8 April 2006
2nd revert: 06:42, 8 April 2006
3rd revert: 06:47, 8 April 2006
4th revert: 06:51, 8 April 2006
5th revert: 07:03, 8 April 2006

This user has been blocked many times already for violating 3RR on this article space.

Reported by: ॐ Metta Bubble 07:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

And more content reverting:

6th revert: 07:31, 8 April 2006
7th revert: 07:37, 8 April 2006 more blind reverting without discussion
8th revert: 07:41, 8 April 2006

Comments:

Blocked. Dmcdevit·t 07:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
A closer look at this editor's activities is probably merited. His recent spamming, about which he seems to be completely unrepentant, and his lack of main namespace edits in that past four weeks, suggests that he's primarily here to make mischief. I'll be watching him when he returns. --Tony Sidaway 10:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Jeffmichaud

Previous version reverted to: 06:37, 8 April 2006
1st revert: 08:06, 8 April 2006
2nd revert: 08:24, 8 April 2006
3rd revert: 08:34, 8 April 2006
4th revert: 08:40, 8 April 2006

Reported by: Cuñado - Talk 08:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I was making rolling edits while he was reverting. Cuñado - Talk

Seems fairly blatant, 24h William M. Connolley 11:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

User:=Axiom= / User:69.194.137.183

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

Reported by: KarlBunker 03:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:The last two are by User:=Axiom=, a near-certain sockpuppet of User:69.194.137.183. User:=Axiom= was created today, after User:69.194.137.183 had "used up" his 3 reverts for the day. He immediately jumped into the fray to restore the edit that User:69.194.137.183 (and no one else) has been pushing for days or weeks, causing 69.194.137.183 to be blocked for 3RR violations twice already.

Axiom has gone up to 4RR on his own now, rendering the puppetry moot. Blocked 24h William M. Connolley 09:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Brandubh Blathmac

Celtic F.C

Previous version reverted to:
1st revert: 02:18, 9 April 2006
2nd revert: 02:56, 9 April 2006
3rd revert: 03:11, 9 April 2006
4th revert: 03:17, 9 April 2006
5th revert: 04:30, 9 April 2006
6th revert: 05:57, 9 April 2006

Reported by: --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Irish-Scots

Previous version reverted to:
1st revert: 03:04, 9 April 2006
2nd revert: 03:52, 9 April 2006
3rd revert: 04:02, 9 April 2006
4th revert: 04:13, 9 April 2006
5th revert: 04:32, 9 April 2006
6th revert: 04:50, 9 April 2006
7th revert: 05:16, 9 April 2006
8th revert: 05:36, 9 April 2006
9th revert: 05:55, 9 April 2006

Reported by:--Boothy443 | trácht ar 09:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The user, aka Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk • contribs), often syas that he editing for pov, but changes the club patch image from the offfical image to the flag of scotland, as well as incerting , as i see it, extreme anti-catholic POV into the ther article. The use has the tendancy to to similar actions to other articles as well, see Irish-Scots and Eamon de Valera. User also used misleading edit summaries to mask his reversions, exapmles:

"deleted comment re meaning of "Scot", given universal ignorance by all sides re the matter,a nd POV re "Tony Blair's Labour Party" for 05:16, 9 April 2006 rv on Irish-Scot
"new book "Celtic's Paranoia -- Is It All In Their Minds?" included, overlooked for some reason", for 04:30, 9 April 2006 on Celtic F.C.
"one addition to List of Irish-Scots", for 05:36, 9 April 2006 or Irish-Scots

I don't think this is 4RR, since the 1st edit was not a revert. I'll warn, though William M. Connolley 09:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

However, subsequently thoroughly broke 3RR and would have been blocked, except blocked indef elsewhere William M. Connolley 16:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Deuterium

Previous version reverted to:
1st revert: 07:46, 9 April 2006
2nd revert: 08:29, 9 April 2006
3rd revert: 08:49, 9 April 2006
4th revert: 08:51, 9 April 2006
5th revert: 14:55, 9 April 2006

Reported by: Jayjg 15:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

5 reverts in 7 hours. These are obvious reversions; later version of page is in every case completely identical to previous, as the diffs show. He has been blocked for 3RR violation before (in fact, just three days ago, , and was still offered the opportunity to revert himself , but refused to do so. Jayjg 15:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Clear enough, 24h William M. Connolley 16:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Sciurinæ

Previous version reverted to:
1st revert: 13:35, 8 April 2006
2nd revert: 12:45, 9 April 2006
3rd revert: 16:23, 9 April 2006
4th revert: 16:39, 9 April 2006

Reported by:--Molobo 16:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC) I am not sure but I think it is possible that the user violated 3RR, please check. --Molobo 16:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Since these aren't withinn 24h, its not 3RR William M. Connolley 17:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I knew Molobo only provoked the revert war to drag me into a violation. The changes were reasonable and unchallenged by Molobo. Should I tell him on talk that, for example, his link to Fifth column goes to a teenie band? Molobo reverted all changes indiscriminately without an explanation. When someone reverts his changes indiscriminately, and happens to remove a war crimes, Molobo would from then on keep defaming him as Nazi atrocities denier. His latest vctim is User:Dr. Dan. He's completely indifferent whether someone agrees with him or not. See for example at 17th infantry division, where he keeps reverting despite having met with diagreement on the talk page. How did he finish the disagreement over the last block at German Empire? He made two comments on talk, which no one agreed with (they were ignored). I tried to discuss althout User:Sca said that Molobo cannot be reasoned with and Sca vowed to never discuss with Molobo again. What was Molobo's gesture of good faith to my attempt at a discussion there? Today he just reverted to his old version. Period. Please have a look at what Molobo reverted at the Selbstschutz article and whether his insupportable behaviour should be accepted. Sciurinæ 17:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Hipi Zhdripi

Previous version reverted to:
1st revert: 18:36, 8 April 2006
2nd revert: 02:21, 9 April 2006
3rd revert: 17:41, 9 April 2006
4th revert: 18:00, 9 April 2006

Reported by: Asterion 18:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This user has been disregarding the facts and showing little respect for the work of other wikipedians. He was offered valid sources to prove his POV wrong but has continued to ignore this. He has also left inflamatory comments on other users talk pages and is acting as if he owns the template. Asterion 18:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24h Sceptr e 14:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

He or She has been editing under a sock IP address: See here, here, here and here. I suggest an unspecified extension to the ban. Regards,Asterion 02:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The user also used a throwaway account while still under the 24h temporary block and proceeded to do several article namespace under the sockpuppet Vete (see and ). Asterion 21:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

User:216.194.2.108

Previous version reverted to: 12:25, 9 April 2006
1st revert: 18:13, 9 April 2006
2nd revert: 18:30, 9 April 2006
3rd revert: 18:33, 9 April 2006
4th revert: 15:26, 10 April 2006
5th revert: 15:28, 10 April 2006
6th revert: 15:36, 10 April 2006

Reported by: Demiurge 14:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Sockpuppet of Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs); see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Rms125a@hotmail.com. Demiurge 14:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Some of these reverts are from 216.194.5.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); probably sock given editing pattern/ip, both blocked for 24 hours. --He:ah? 19:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

User:The Psycho

1st revert: 13:08, 10 April 2006 The Psycho (rvv)
2nd revert: 13:10, 10 April 2006 The Psycho (rvv)
3rd revert: 13:12, 10 April 2006 The Psycho (rvv)
4th revert: 13:15, 10 April 2006 The Psycho (rvv)

Comments: This is part of an ongoing problem with this user who has been reported here (please do look at that) but action has not been taken there yet. At issue is this user attempting to hide evidence of his spamming ("Jews did WTC" on Gay Nigger Association of America, etc.), bad and false-fact edits (Digg, etc.), and repeatedly posting graphic images above and beyond what's needed to support articles (Lolicon, Hentai, etc.), by removing attempts to get resolution to these issues from his talk page. However, this is really an ongoing issue with this user, so I suggest looking through his contributions. --Kickstart70-T-C 22:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Although i dislike enforcing 3rr in user space, he has reverted good faith edits, warnings, and attempts at discussion 7 times in the last 24 hours, and given his edit history . . . i've blocked for 24 hours. --He:ah? 22:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he's back as AncorZonr, and on my own talk page as Easteregg --Kickstart70-T-C 23:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

And now a new user (Boatfarm) claiming he's a sockpuppet of me here --Kickstart70-T-C 23:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Jim Heller

Previous version reverted to:
1st revert: 20:29, April 10, 2006
2nd revert: 21:39, April 10, 2006
3rd revert: 00:03, April 11, 2006
4th revert: 00:14, April 11, 2006

Reported by: ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User is adding personal opinion to the article without references, and deleting material. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
User was previously banned for WP:NPA and continues with personal attacks such as "shameless editor". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

blocked for 24 hours. --He:ah? 00:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

User continues to edit under IP address 24.69.30.212. I request an extension of block to that IP address. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Done, essentially admitted to being a sock here. Blocked for 24 hours. --He:ah? 02:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

New IP on April 12th - 216.223.18.163 . I reverted. 209.6.189.247 05:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Space Cadet

Previous version reverted to: 18:41, 9 April 2006
1st revert: 11:18, 10 April 2006
2nd revert: 11:25, 10 April 2006
3rd revert: 00:04, 11 April 2006
4th revert: 00:25, 11 April 2006

Reported by: Kuban Cossack 00:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Reisertion of a biased, POV material (ie trolling), last revert was done specially to avoid block with additional "copyedits". --Kuban Cossack 00:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me, he know reverts his edit, so that is five reverts...btw this would be the fifth 3rr block, last time it was a week I believe...--Kuban Cossack

00:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

warned him, and he has reverted back to concensus version on his own. come back if he does it again. --He:ah? 00:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Just like me Space Cadet has been warned for a stream of unnecessary revert warring. Space Cadet reverts to Molobo's version on principle, no matter what. The rareness of his inclination made him the only person to endorse Molobo's version in Molobo's RfC. One could say that Space Cadet and I could have known better after Molobo was blocked for one month yesterday for needless revert warring but Space Cadet, of course, continued today. His insulting revert summaries are not uncommon, and even on talk pages you could tell that he doesn't mind offensive swearwords . He realised that he's violated the 3RR and then reverted back, but it is not manisfested in the rules that a self-revert absolves the offender after a 3RR violation, and it shouldn't be because it is not the "right version" that counts in the end but the act of disruption. Space Cadet has tried the same self-absolution last time, too. It wouldn't be reasonable to allow every offender to revert their versions back. So some consistency in that respect would be sensible. In the light of other blocks for edit warring that he received not too long ago, I suggest that a block for him of one day or more should urgently be reconsidered. Sciurinæ 02:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR isn't for punishment, it is for cooling down edit wars. It is rather troubling that almost all of his edits are reverts, but it seems to me that he made a good faith effort not to break the letter of 3RR, (but the spirit is another matter . . . ) As the edit war has stopped, there is no reason to block. I'd be more than okay with another admin reconsidering and blocking, but i'm not going to do it right now. --He:ah? 02:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Heah, if this was the only article and one would follow your way of thinking, there's no need for the 3RR because you might just as well protect the article and the edit war on that artcile is over. I fully agree that, eg, if an anon is responsible for a single act of vandalism but reverts it, he can go without a warning. But regarding the three revert rule the act of disruption, not the correct version, is decisive. I've seen admins breaking the 3RR unconsciously and getting blocked for that although they surely wouldn't have continued the war. According to your proposed logic, there wouldn't really be a need for blocking a three revert rule.

Let's look at who is responsible for the revert war. Without Molobo, Space Cadet was all alone there. Molobo didn't achieve consensus and everyone reverting to his version was put at a disadvantage because not only would four Russian editors have reverted it, but the other side also had an advantage in respect of the time. The only way Space Cadet could have achieved something would be the way of discussion. He never chose that way. When he reverted, he was reverted immediately. It was predictable. Still he continued without a reasonable end in view. At the end, logically he had one revert less than the other editor. He was fully responsible for a revert war that he could on no account win this way. He violated the three-revert-rule and therefore cannot only be blocked but according to generally accepted procedure should need to get blocked for consistency, no matter if he "self-revert"ed to another version as fifth revert or not.

Wouldn't it be preemptive? Well, look at what Space Cadet has now continued because he wasn't blocked: the revert war over Selbstschutz, again without discussing why he reverts my version, again with insulting edit summaries. Blocking him for the 3RR violation is therefore as preemptive as it can get. I fully agree that a second admin should reconsider the case. Sciurinæ 14:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

SC has self-reverted anyway, so shouldn't be blocked. OTOH both SC and Molobo have been gratuitiously impolite in the edit comments so can have 12h apiece for that William M. Connolley 14:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Aucaman

Previous version reverted to: 23:37, 10 April 2006
1st revert: 23:47, 10 April 2006
2nd revert: 00:00, 11 April 2006
3rd revert: 00:10, 11 April 2006
4th revert: 00:39, 11 April 2006

Reported by: Khoikhoi 01:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User has been blocked for 3RR three times in the past month. --Khoikhoi 01:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. --He:ah? 01:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Lou franklin

Previous version reverted to: 11 avril 2006 à 03:00
1st revert: 11 avril 2006 à 03:13
2nd revert: 11 avril 2006 à 03:17
3rd revert: 11 avril 2006 à 03:20
4th revert: 11 avril 2006 à 03:23

Reported by: Cleduc 03:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

This is a continuation of Lou franklin's campaign on Societal attitudes towards homosexuality (for which he's been blocked for 3RR seven times), except this time he's blanking the talk page to remove discussion that displeases him. Cleduc 03:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked him ~~for a week~~indefinitely. —Guan aco 03:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Shortened to a week by User:JesseW. —Ruud 09:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Naturtrina

Previous version reverted to: 09:16, 6 April 2006
1st revert: 07:34, 10 April 2006
2nd revert: 12:04, 10 April 2006
3rd revert: 06:15, 11 April 2006
4th revert: 08:36, 11 April 2006

Reported by: Ansell 09:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

The four reverts above are not quite within 24 hours (25 hours actually) however, they are not the first four reverts that they have performed to the Previous version listed. They have been consistently clearing progress on the page within that time period against the efforts of the other editors on the page to possibly discuss about it on the talk page.

5th revert: 08:52, 11 April 2006 performed by 62.171.194.8 to the same version is suspected to be a sockpuppet but cannot directly confirm that without a check user, which isn't necessary since they have 4 reverts anyhow.

Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud 09:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It is suspected that the following user, is violating the ban on this user, how do I get a checkuser to verify this? Ans e ll 00:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

User:86.143.244.193

Previous version reverted to: 12:44, 8 April 2006
1st revert: 11:00, 10 April 2006
2nd revert: 13:58, 10 April 2006
3rd revert: 14:59, 10 April 2006
4th revert: 10:41, 11 April 2006

Reported by: —Wh o uk (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Repeated attempt to insert POV material despite requests by admins/other editors to stop, with refusal to engage on Talk. Now breaching 3RR too.

Blocked 12h as a first offense. (ESkog) 11:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Pro-Lick

Previous version reverted to: 03:43, 11 April 2006
Revert no. 1: 08:09, 11 April 2006
Revert no. 2: 14:35, 11 April 2006
Revert no. 3 (partial, just 1st paragraph, with false claim of consensus): 15:12, 11 April 2006
Revert no. 4a (partial - removal of a photo, has done it before): 17:32, 11 April 2006
Revert no. 4b (Pro-Lick has done this one before): 17:35, 11 April 2006

Reported by: AnnH ♫ 18:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I personally don't count as separate reverts when a user makes a few partial reverts in a row and nobody has edited in between; it's just an easier way than doing a full page edit. That's why I've listed 4a and 4b instead of 4 and 5. To see that 4a really was a revert, please see here, here, and here. To see that 4b really was a revert, please see here and here.

See also here for account of disruption and sockpuppetry for block evasion, confirmed by checkuser. Then, please see Pro-Lick's comment on WP:AN/I made earlier today after his rival on the abortion article had been blocked for 3RR, where Pro-Lick requests that another admin would increase the block because Goodandevil had "done this before", and because he had "actively used random IPs for sockpuppetry." (I'm not sure that's true, by the way. Goodandevil edited from IPs because he had some problem logging on, but as far as I am aware, he did not try to conceal his identity, and informed us at some stage that the logging on problem had been sorted out.) AnnH ♫ 18:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Also made a fifth revert. Reinstated indefinite block. —Ruud 18:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

User:69.231.194.119

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

Reported by: Yankees76 19:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User and sockpuppet has reverted 9 times since April 3rd, despite requests for citations and warnings. Has openely declared "You can't stop me from editing. I'll just pick up a new IP address and move on" So far has engaged in edit wars using 2 IP addresses.

Possibly the most incompetently formatted 3RR report I've ever seen, but the problem exists: 69.231.194.119 and 69.231.202.36 blocked for 24h. However HD is nothing to do with this William M. Connolley 20:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

User:64.230.120.237

Previous version reverted to:
1st revert: 17:36, 11 April 2006
2nd revert: 19:34, 11 April 2006
3rd revert: 19:59, 11 April 2006
4th revert: 20:04, 11 April 2006

Reported by: Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

User:64.230.120.237 has been very disruptive, and has continually added information soley from one extremley biased source which happens to be the subjest of the article. After being warned not to violate the 3RR after third revert both on edit summary and on his talk page he tried to hide his last revert by changing to a previous version and writing "rewrote lead to be more precise" even though with a little investigation it is clear that was another obvious revert.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems quote unrepentant; 24h William M. Connolley 20:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Ilir pz

Previous version reverted to: 23:03, 10 April 2006
1st revert: 23:03, 10 April 2006
2nd revert: 10:12, 11 April 2006
3rd revert: 10:52, 11 April 2006
4th revert: 20:03, 11 April 2006

Reported by: Asterion 20:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 21:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

User:65.89.98.20 and User:Jgwlaw on Breast implant

Previous version reverted to: 18:33, 11 April 2006

re "1996 French" study

and deleting commentarry of "Spanish STOA" study in same table

there are other edits to the same section, but none amounting to 3 revertions of same text

Previous version reverted to: 18:33, 11 April 2006

re deleting out the "1996 French" study

and in same section the "1991-1994 United Kingdom study"

and again additional edits to same section reverting (<x3)

Reported by: David Ruben 01:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

This article is increasingly undergoing an edit war. I have tried in last few days to engage both parties on the talk page and suggested a bilateral ceasation of editing to the Breast implant#Rheumatology section's table for a couple of days whilst some consensus-building might be attempted in the talk page. I suspect User:65.89.98.20 is User:Droliver (the re-insertion edits are of this registered user and Jgwlaw's accusation in edit comments of being this editor are not being denied) who has engaged poorly in dialogue, has previously added mutliple study links (often without any citation detail markup). Meanwhile User:Jgwlaw is tending to over delete cited studies as feels POV to include without providing detailled study-by-study critisms (e.g. of study funding causing possible conflict of interests).

I suspect the general current medical consensus is that problems from implants has not been convincingly confirmed, yet the FDA's critisms of "pro-implant" studies over methodology problems remains and (to date) the FDA continues to ban silicone implants. Both editors, in my view, are trying to add useful info, but are being overprotective of their position, failling to discuss for consensus, verging on not assuming good faith and are rapidly notching up large number of edits/reverts - some cooling down needs to be forced on the situation (informal dialogue seems to be failing and RfC seems required - but that is a separate issue from these 3RR violations). David Ruben 01:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

My initial impressions are in accord with User:Davidruben's view. The edit warring over this article has lasted for quite some time, and appears to be escalating. I am placing a short block on the parties concerned, including the IP. This is intended to prevent further revert wars, as well as provide an opportunity to the editors concerned to think about their actions and how they might best engage in thoughtful discussion on the article talk page to arrive at a mutually acceptable version. Regards —Encephalon 04:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

User:70.132.44.78, User:70.132.39.202

70.132.44.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
70.132.39.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
70.132.6.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 01:28, April 6, 2006
1st revert: 20:12, April 11, 2006
2nd revert: 20:54, April 11, 2006
3rd revert: 21:07, April 11, 2006
4th revert: 21:30, April 11, 2006
5th revert: 21:42, April 11, 2006
6th revert: 21:48, April 11, 2006
7th revert, now as User:70.132.6.171: 22:08, April 11, 2006

Reported by: Rhobite 01:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Someone will need to watch out for this guy changing IPs. Rhobite 01:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Both blocked for 24 hours. --He:ah? 02:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This guy keeps changing IP addresses. He'll just keep dialing up and reverting forever.. Rhobite 02:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

new ip blocked, page s-protected. --He:ah? 02:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

User:71.161.193.55

Previous version reverted to: 20:20, April 10, 2006
1st revert: 11:56, April 11, 2006 as User:65.160.162.141
2nd revert: 17:09, April 11, 2006 as User:65.199.22.58
3rd revert: 18:12, April 11, 2006 as User:65.199.22.58
4th revert: 22:07, April 11, 2006 as User:65.199.22.160
5th revert: 00:54, April 12, 2006 as User:64.223.121.83
6th revert: April 12, 2006 as User:64.223.121.83

Reported by: Bkwillwm 02:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User from a rotating IP keeps making reverts on Bernie Sanders. The user is thought to be the same judging by the contents of the changes, and the user signs discussion on Talk:Bernie Sanders as User:71.161.193.55. The user has not been very open to discussing the claimed POV issues and trying to reach consensus. Reverts also remove material seemingly unrelated to the dispute. Since the user uses a rotating IP and is relatively new, a block might be difficult. I have given him a 3RR warning, but I'm involved in the dispute so one from an admin might help the problem and stop edit warring.

I don't currently have time to sort through this, but i have semi-protected Bernie Sanders. If another admin wants to figure who to block, that would be great . . . But given the IP hopping and my current lack of time that admin isn't me. (sorry). --He:ah? 02:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Very well, Bkwilliam, it seems that you have contacted an administrator in recruiting your friend Heah to protect the article so you may edit it and I cannot. Therefore, I have requested comments from Wiki peers, and would request you restore the deleted information until concensus can be reached. Also, I request that we call a truce, and refrain from further edits here until that time. Agreed? Straightinfo 08:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

There was no violation of the three revert rule, as Bkwillwm well knows, reversion of vandalism does not count toward 3RR, explicitly. I have addressed his complaint, several times. I found his complaint to be without merit, as he seems to feel that POV rule says that no comment which contains both sides of a dispute, when it relates to George Bush, is acceptible. This is not a violation of the POV rule, it is POV. Since ,User:Heah, you admit that you have not looked into this, a semi-protect that blocks me, but not Bkwillwm, is an abuse of admin power, and will be reported unless immediately removed. Straightinfo 15:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Please read our policy on vandalism. Neither "side" in this edit war is vandalizing anything, and thus the three-revert rule does indeed apply. I find Heah's action entirely appropriate given the dynamic IP which makes it impossible to block the problematic user. (ESkog) 17:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Ceraurus

Previous version reverted to:
Oth revert: 21:26, 10 April 2006 as Ceraurus
1st revert: 01:19, 11 April 2006 as 70.25.91.205 (sock-puppet of Ceraurus: see below)
2nd revert: 02:46, 11 April 2006 as 70.25.91.205 (sockpuppet, see below)
3rd revert: 23:22, 11 April 2006 as Ceraurus
4th revert: 00:52, 12 April 2006 as Ceraurus

That Ceraurus = Mark Bourrie see log under 22:57, 7 March 2006 here

That Mark Bourrie = 70.25.91.205 is established by CheckUser here

Reported by: Bucketsofg 02:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Earlier blocks for 3RR violations here as Mark Bourrie. His indefinite suspension for using sock-puppets to skirt 3RR was lifted on the understanding that he would limit himself to one account: here.

Ceraurus blocked indef, ip blocked one week --He:ah? 02:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Ceraurus should be blocked forever by me, but an indef. block seems warranted considering the agreement with Hall Monitor; if another admin wants to take a look at this, go for it . . . --He:ah? 02:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

User:AladdinSE

1st revert 17:54 April 11

(the revert added "who had a life-long commitment to Israel" ; the version reverted to was 12:59 April 10)

2nd revert 18:09 April 11

(the revert added "including East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights" ; the version reverted to was 17:19 April 11)

3rd revert 19:18, April 11

(the revert added "by prominent international human rights groups"; the version reverted to was 10:22 April 8: see first sentence, last paragraph of the International and legal background section)

4th revert 20:08 April 11

(this revert also added "by prominent international human rights groups"; the version reverted to was 19:18, April 11)

5th revert 20:15 April 11

(this revert also added "by prominent international human rights groups"; the version reverted to was 20:08 April 11)

Reported by SlimVirgin 03:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment

AladdinSE has been engaged in complex partial reverts, reverting five times in just over two hours on April 11. He was offered the chance to revert himself but didn't respond. He's familiar with the 3RR rule, has been blocked for it before, and had the rule fully explained to him when he objected to the block, and again some time later, and again at the beginning of this month. SlimVirgin 03:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hrs. FeloniousMonk 03:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply. SlimVirgin has been engaged in the same "complex" reverts, as we are in the middle of a content dispute regarding this article. Nevertheless, I was under the strong impression that the 3RR dealt with a 3 revert limit for the same edit, not unrelated threads. I'm assuming I was quite wrong. If this is the case, I apologize, and do not contest the block. As for being offered the chance to reverse myself, as my contributions will show, I was not editing on WP at the time SlimVirgin was so good as to have made the offer, nor at the time she proceeded with her effort to have me blocked. I have been here a while, and I care about my reputation. Obviously I would not knowingly expose myself to blockage, or the malice of editors who do not like me, out of sheer recklessness and disregard for the rules. I will only add, that I will make a suggestion at the 3RR Talk page that the 3RR rule should make more clear that it does not distinguish between unrelated edit reverting. Oh, one more thing. When I did see the block and SlimVirgin's warning, WP's database was locked for maintenance. I was only able to eMail FeloniousMonk that I had seen the comments and would reply later when WP was unlocked. I have just now found time to return.--AladdinSE 04:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

There are three separate discussions on your talk page about 3RR, two of them long ones, with a number of admins explaining the policy to you, and asking you to stop wikilawyering. See User_talk:AladdinSE#3RR, User_talk:AladdinSE#Block, and User_talk:AladdinSE#3RR. The policy page is pretty clear. SlimVirgin 04:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You'll notice that all of those 3RR issues you quoted all dealt with the same Yazid I article, and the same single disputed edit, not unrelated edits. I hope you'll agree I'm not an unintelligent person, and I still fell through the cracks here. It is obvious that the policy can use some polishing up to prevent my kind of mistake. In any case, if you wish to oppose me when I make this suggestion, you can do it at the policy Talk page. We need not clutter this noticeboard.--AladdinSE 04:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

User:216.194.0.15

Previous version reverted to: 15:36, 10 April 2006

1st revert: 20:00, 11 April 2006
2nd revert: 20:46, 11 April 2006
3rd revert: 15:42, 12 April 2006
4th revert: 16:16, 12 April 2006 Reported by: Demiurge 15:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Same POV warrior who was blocked under 3RR on Monday: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:216.194.2.108. Demiurge 15:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. If it's definitely the same user (despite differing IP addresses), then perhaps another admin may like to review this. Proto||type 15:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Northmeister

1st revert: 04:32, 12 April 2006
2nd revert: 04:41, 12 April 2006
3rd revert: 04:45, 12 April 2006
4th revert: 05:03, 12 April 2006
5th revert: 15:41, 12 April 2006
6th revert: 15:56, 12 April 2006
7th revert: 16:09, 12 April 2006
8th revert: 16:13, 12 April 2006

Reported by: Jayjg 16:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

As the diffs show these are straightforward reverts to various previous versions. Northmeister did do a self-revert after the 4th reversion, after being warned about 3RR, but has since reverted ~~once~~ ~~twice~~ four times. He's well aware of the policy, having been blocked for 3RR before. He's now reverting in the hopes of taking the 3RR block, and getting the page protected on his version. Jayjg 16:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I am upholding wikipedia policy against making changes to a policy page without discussion and reaching consensus. Slimvirgins unilateral change on April 10th was done without consensus. MY reverts are to uphold the original version prior to her change, until consensus is reached. Not to revert to my version or edit of her changes, but to the original, per policy on that page. I have also asked for page protection until consensus can be reached on this. --Northmeister 16:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Got it - you must continually violate policy in order to "uphold" it. Thanks for clarifying. Oh, by the way, Misplaced Pages is a wiki - pages change all the time. This is the "original version" of the policy; why aren't you reverting to that one? Jayjg 16:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  - Blocked for 24 hours, and page reverted to The Wrong Version, naturally. Proto||type 16:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: User:Charles Matthews also blocked, but for 3h; so I unblocked and reblocked for 24h. I'll tell Charles William M. Connolley 17:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

User:No More POV Please

1st revert: Revision as of 20:04, April 12, 2006
2nd revert: Revision as of 21:37, April 12, 2006
3rd revert: Revision as of 22:02, April 12, 2006
4th revert: Revision as of 22:23, April 12, 2006

Reported by: Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: New user. Almost the entirety of contributions consist of (now reverted) Irish POV pushing. Possibly another user (registered or anon) in disguise, as he is well-informed of wikipedia culture, although not well-informed enough to take his reverting to talk. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Not really warned. I left a 3RR warning at User talk:No More POV Please. Jkelly 23:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Also not really a 3RR violation as the first diff above is his initial edit, not a revert, and the second diff seems to me to be compromise-seeking after the initial edit was removed. Thus there are only two reverts listed above (the ones called "3rd revert" and "4th revert". Angr (talk • contribs) 05:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, on 5 occassions he made an edit pushing the same view on that article, 'though the 4 reverts there are not actually the same reverts. I admit it is open to interpretation, but I list it for those in power to make that interpretation and debate it. And Angr, I promise you your customary over-generous faith with POV-pushers will be shown to be wrong again. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 05:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Comandante

Three revert rule violation on Cuba.

Previous version reverted to: 20:53, 11 April 2006
1st revert: 21:25, 12 April 2006
2nd revert: 22:08, 12 April 2006
3rd revert: 22:31, 12 April 2006
4th revert: 01:18, 13 April 2006
5th revert: 01:30, 13 April 2006

Reported by: Bletch 01:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User has had an RFC previously placed against him for serial revert warring behavior, and failure to discuss his proposals and changes. --Bletch 01:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 08:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

User:NikX

Previous version reverted to:
1st revert: 00:39, 11 April 2006
2nd revert: 00:41, 11 April 2006
3rd revert: 02:10, 11 April 2006
4th revert: 12:15, 11 April 2006
5th revert: 12:57, 11 April 2006

Reported by: Ilir pz 09:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User strongheadedly continued the revert war, even though explanation was offered to him in the talk page. He refused to accept a compromise, but instead called a vandalism action all the edits that he did not like. He tends to mislead using "m"(minor edit) as if he is editing a little, but in fact he changes essential content from the text. His comments are like "yeah right" or "I wonder who uglified the article this way", etc.

I've corrected the name for you. Sigh. Rvs 1 and 2 would count as only one, because they are continguous. You know that from my talk page, so I'm rather unimpressed with your listing them both. 4 and 5 are reverts, cos they say so. Its not at all obvious that 1, 2 or 3 are reverts - which version do you think they are reverts to? William M. Connolley 12:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a way for this user, User:Ilir_pz to unfairly put the blame on someone else for its own behaviour, which got him blocked before. He has also shown no respect for the 3RR: Instead reflecting on the reasons why he got blocked, he left an unpleasant comment on his talk page, belittling the 3RR. Basically, there was no 3RR on NikX's edits as 4 and 5 were not reverts and 1, 2 and 3 are simply edits. Someone should take action against User:Ilir_pz for this, together with many other insults he has written. Asterion 14:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

User:64.185.45.196

Previous version reverted to: 13 April 2006
1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:
5th revert:

Reported by: Yahnatan 15:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

This user has a major grudge against this group and its founder. He/she continues to post the same thing with no evidence to back up their assertion. This has gone on for several days now.Yahnatan 15:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

12h for first offence. Gurch gets a stern warning William M. Connolley 19:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Smokingmaenad

Previous version reverted to: 01:52, 13 April 2006
1st revert: 03:11, 13 April 2006
2nd revert: 06:47, 13 April 2006
3rd revert: 18:08, 13 April 2006
4th revert: 18:27, 13 April 2006

Reported by: NTK 18:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The original edits by this user had already been hashed out on the talk page, and disregarded the consensus. NTK 18:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

8h for first offence William M. Connolley 19:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Ghepeu

Previous version reverted to: 20:17, 12 April 2006
1st revert: 20:58, 12 April 2006
2nd revert: 11:42, 13 April 2006
3rd revert: 17:00, 13 April 2006
4th revert: 18:53, 13 April 2006

Reported by: Ksenon 19:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

24h. But I admit to confusion as to why you think you're going to evade a block too: 24h William M. Connolley 19:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Rcox1963

Previous version reverted to: 21:17, April 6, 2006 UTC
1st revert: 16:54, April 13, 2006 UTC
2nd revert: 22:22, April 13, 2006 UTC
3rd revert: 22:31, April 13, 2006 UTC
4th revert: 23:32, April 13, 2006 UTC
5th revert: 00:15, April 14, 2006 UTC

Reported by: waffle iron 22:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Rcox user undid a week's worth of edits without explanation and then demanded to know why other people reverted it. He keeps deleting five or six paragraphs with his version of the page by accusing POV issues without listing them.
The user also changed the Countdown with Keith Olbermann page to his version of the KO page. He is also doing similar things to the Countdown page over the past week. --sigmafactor 22:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Not warned; i've gone ahead and done so. If he/she keeps it up come back. --He:ah? 01:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Had this to say after you reminded him about the 3RR

He claims that the articles resemble fan sites. In some areas, they do, but overall I find it pretty neutral. --D-Day 09:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

one more revert after his not so pleasant response to my warning, so blocked for 24 hours. --He:ah? 23:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Baba_Louis

Previous version reverted to: 05:31, 6 April 2006
1st revert: 05:25, 7 April 2006
2nd revert: 17:11, 11 April 2006
3rd revert: 22:31, 11 April 2006
4th revert: 17:22, 12 April 2006
5th revert: 00:39, 13 April 2006
6th revert: 18:04, 14 April 2006
7th revert: 19:36, 14 April 2006

Reported by: Hamsacharya dan 21:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Not all of these are within 24 hours. However, it is clear that despite 5 other users attempting to edit this article, and despite his reversions having been discussed ad nauseum in the talk archives, Baba Louis obstinately keeps reverting. He's also a confirmed sockpuppet of two other editors, and previously used this for vote/consensus stacking on this and other articles, .

User:Slappy Tahblappy

Previous version reverted to: 18:08, April 14, 200
1st revert: 18:26, April 14, 2006
2nd revert: 18:35, April 14, 2006
3rd revert: 21:08, April 14, 2006
4th revert: 21:20, April 14, 2006
5th revert: 21:55, April 14, 2006

Reported by: Pecher 22:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The user was warned on the talk page, but continued reverting. The 5th revert was about a different issue, but a revert, nevertheless. Pecher 22:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

6th revert: 22:06, April 14, 2006. The revert is about a yet another passage. Pecher 22:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
7th revert: 22:13, April 14, 2006 Pecher 22:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I see he continued reverting after being warned, so I've blocked him for 24 hours. SlimVirgin 22:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

User:68.14.154.242

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

Reported by: Jedi6-(need help?) 02:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This user keeps changing the picture of Darth Vader in the infobox despite several users disagreeing with him. He has been warned on his talk page to stop reverting and use the article's talk page but he hasn't listened .

24 hours --He:ah? 02:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Shaft121

Previous version reverted to: 19:58, 12 April 2006
1st revert: 21:32, 13 April 2006
2nd revert: 23:28, 13 April 2006
3rd revert: 10:28, 14 April 2006
4th revert: 20:52, 14 April 2006

Reported by: PKtm 05:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This user has actually made 8 reverts to the same page, same end result, since April 4 2006, with six of these coming in the last 2 days. The ones shown above are the most recent and are the first time that he has technically violated WP:3RR by doing four within a 24-hour period. His reverts come with next to no participation on his part in the copious discussion on the article's talk page at Talk:Danielle Rousseau. He has used profanity and personal attacks in edit comments and on this article's talk page, has erased civil and constructive comments (including 3RR warnings and block messages from this AND previous/unrelated altercations) left on his own talk page, etc., and has generally not responded to repeated requests (most of which he has now erased, but which are available through his talk page history) to enter into collaborative discussion on the issues.

48 hours for 3RR and edit summaries such as rv to seperate page due to everyone pissing about like fairies --He:ah? 07:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Straightinfo

Previous version reverted to: 02:24, April 11, 2006 UTC
1st revert: 18:55, April 14, 2006 UTC
2nd revert: 23:39, April 14, 2006 UTC
3rd revert: 17:02, April 15, 2006 UTC
4rd revert: 17:41, April 15, 2006 UTC

Reported by: waffle iron 16:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Appears to be aware of 3RR but justifies all reversions by claiming that other editors are vandilising the page. Has previously done similar things before registering an account. waffle iron 16:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

24 hours --He:ah? 17:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

User:195.92.67.75

Previous version reverted to: 00:44 April 14
1st revert: 16:26 April 15
2nd revert: 18:17 April 15
3rd revert: 18:40 April 15
4th revert: 18:46 April 15

Reported by: Kiand 17:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Was warned about it, been at this for literally months but this is the first time theres been 4 in 24.

Has just changed to 195.92.67.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Range block? --Kiand 18:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

And now 217.134.125.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Appears to be the range for backup dialup on Energis, his ISP. --Kiand 18:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The ISP seems to have users who make constructive edits; we may have to resort a block eventually but for now I have just sprotected the page; afraid of collateral damage. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 18:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

User:85.64.227.133

Previous version reverted to: 15:56, 14 April 2006
1st revert: 04:36, 15 April 2006
2nd revert: 21:50, 15 April 2006
3rd revert: 02:16, 16 April 2006
4th revert: 02:30, 16 April 2006

Reported by: Extraordinary Machine 02:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: 85.64.227.133 (talk · contribs) may be an IP used by Vorash (talk · contribs): as soon as Vorash stopped repeatedly reverting to a weeks-old version of the article without any discussion or explanation, the IP address took over and started reverting to the exact same version. Note that these reverts are completely and utterly blind: they undo whatever edits were made in the meantime, reintroduce a plethora of inaccuracies into the article (which had been removed by other editors), and remove references and important material. This has gone beyond a content dispute as those reverts made by Vorash and the IP (who may very well be one and the same, though this is unconfirmed) count as vandalism. Extraordinary Machine 02:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

24 hours. --He:ah? 03:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

User:64.185.45.196

Previous version reverted to: 14:16, 15 April 2006
1st revert: 09:51, 15 April 2006
2nd revert: 13:37, 15 April 2006
3rd revert: 20:03, 15 April 2006
4th revert: 20:28, 15 April 2006
5th revert: 23:13, 15 April 2006

Reported by: pm_shef 03:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User was warned with {{test-n}} templates rather than 3RR templates as I had initially reported it at WP:AIV but was told instead to report it here. pm_shef 03:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This user is blocked. Rx StrangeLove 04:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Androson

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

Reported by: Ned Scott 05:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the version reverted to? it's a lot of reverts, but i can't find the original version, so this just looks like one edit and three reverts from where i stand . . . (and Ned, you're one away as well.) --He:ah? 05:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I have refrained from doing any more edits because I am aware of that fact, although the issue isn't exactly clear as it says that the 3RR doesn't apply to vandalism correction. This user might not have reverted to an exact version of the page, but if you look, he's basically trying to revert to a version similar to the others, but now with a different image (since the previous image was deleted). Had the original image not been deleted this would be even more clear. Maybe a borderline issue, but it's pretty clear what he's trying to do. -- Ned Scott 05:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

nm, found the pic in question before the protect. blocked for 24 hours. --He:ah? 05:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Constantzeanu

Previous version reverted to: 12:18, 15 April 2006
1st revert: 19:47, 15 April 2006
2nd revert: 22:46, 15 April 2006
3rd revert: 00:44, 16 April 2006
4th revert: 05:32, 16 April 2006
5th revert: 18:13, 16 April 2006

Reported by: —Khoikhoi 05:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User knows about 3RR from here. —Khoikhoi 05:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Besides, user labels edits he disagrees with "Vandalism", see the edit summary of these edits. --Irpen

User:Constantzeanu (again)

Previous version reverted to:
1st revert: 05:31, 16 April 2006
2nd revert: 18:07, 16 April 2006
3rd revert: 21:16, 16 April 2006
4th revert: 21:21, 16 April 2006
5th revert: 03:26, 17 April 2006

Reported by: --Asterion 04:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: As for Khoikhoi's comments. User also warned to stop marking his reverts as minor edits here but chose to ignore it. --Asterion 04:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

User:OutRider2003

Previous version reverted to: 11:05, 15 April 2006
1st revert: 18:25, 15 April 2006
2nd revert: 20:50, 15 April 2006
3rd revert: 20:52, 15 April 2006
4th revert: 20:56, 15 April 2006

Reported by: Zsinj 18:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Originally reported on WP:RFI by User:McPhail. McPhail has initiated conversation on talk pages, but OutRider2003 blanks his user talk page as if it never happened. Currently the copyrighted image is on the article instead of the original free image.

User:LorenzoRims

Previous version reverted to: 23:06, 14 April 2006
1st revert: 14:24, 15 April 2006
2nd revert: 15:46, 15 April 2006
3rd revert: 12:42, 16 April 2006
4th revert: 13:38, 16 April 2006

Reported by: HeyNow10029 19:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The user seems dead-set on adding an external link of a blog he set up ( The Real World: Denver Blog) to the article. In the blog he posts about pictures of people who he claims are future castmembers on the next instalment of The Real World with no information to back those claims up - he just expects people to believe anything he writes and take it as fact. In the articles' discussion forum I led him to Misplaced Pages's policy on external links and verifiability, which the blog doesn't pass, but he continues to add the link to the article. As of now, the blog has three posts, two of which are dedicated to what he calls an edit war between him and Misplaced Pages. This is getting really juvenile. HeyNow10029 19:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Natsume Soseki

Previous version reverted to: 07:36, 16 April 2006
1st revert: 14:59, 16 April 2006
2nd revert: 19:58, 16 April 2006
3rd revert: 21:48, 16 April 2006

Reported by Wzhao553 22:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The user has violated WP:V by inserting a personal opinion sourced from a personal website found on Tripod. Despite repeated encouragement to maintain NPOV by finding a credible reference from a reputable source for his personal opinion, as opposed to a Tripod website, the user insists instead that removal of the Tripod website constitutes vandalism. --Wzhao553 22:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Stvjns

Previous version reverted to: 20:41, 15 April 2006

1st revert: 02:33, 16 April 2006
2nd revert: 21:01, 16 April 2006
3rd revert: 21:08, 16 April 2006
4th revert: 22:54, 16 April 2006

Reported by --BillC 22:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Multiple reverts of Crop circle, including four times within the last 24 hours as above. No edits to talk page. No response to warnings on his/her talk page. Only one edit summary (a taunt). --BillC 22:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you BillC, I had just prepared a nearly identical post. --Darkfred 22:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Piotrus

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

Reported by: Number 6 02:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The user is question is an admin, who should be fully aware of 3RR and whose attitude should be quite different. Nonetheless, the user ignores all words of reason and resorts to personal attack.

Well, well, well, I was wondering if Number 6 (talk · contribs) (no talk page, all edits up till now limited to POV pushing and revert warring at Red Army) would make his first edit to other page - and he did. His knowledge of Misplaced Pages procedures suggest sockpuppetry or at least disruptive trolling and I'd recommend appopriate action. In any case, I have not broken 3RR as my reverts today were not to my own version but to Irpen's compromise version from earlier today.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It is funny that you should be calling me names and accusing me of POV and other nonsense. All of this is true of you, not me. Your logic is fascinating: Number 6 knows something about wikipedia, ergo an “appropriate action” is recommended. Your lies about my edits are manifest to anyone willing to check my edits. However, I do admit that you did not formally violate 3RR in that article, even though the “compromise” version you’re referring to was hardly different from your original revert. Number 6 12:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Mark 2000

Previous version reverted to:
1st revert: 20:46, April 16
2nd revert: 1:07, April 17
3rd revert: 2:15
4th revert: 3:39, April 17

Reported by: JDoorj a m Talk 03:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I did a pretty thorough scrub of The Daily Show a few days ago. Today, User:Mark 2000 accused me of repressing the facts, and threatened to engage in "a war" if I did not clear further changes with him. I reverted his edits, because they were still just as editorial and rife with weasel words as they were when I took them out days earlier. I then moved his message from my talk page to the talk page of The Daily Show and explained that I thought his insertions required sources. Rather than comment in the discussion section (which my edit summary asked him to do), he reverted my changes with no edit summary of his own. I reverted his edits a second time, asking again that he comment on the talk page. He wrote on the talk page that finding sources was not his responsibility because his assertions were common knowledge. Rather than revert him a third time, I moved the content around a bit, and altered some of the language to bring it to a neutral point of view. He apparently did not accept my attempt at compromise and reverted a fourth time. I would ask that he be blocked for the standard 24 hours, that his last edit be reverted to the compromise I attempted to broker, and that an admin or multiple administrators take a look at the content in question to determine the best course forward with regards to making the article informative and neutral. JDoorj a m Talk 03:55, 17 April 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|USER_NAME}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to:  <!-- ALWAYS FILL IN THIS FIELD! -->
* 1st revert: 
* 2nd revert: 
* 3rd revert: 
* 4th revert: 
Reported by: ~~~~
'''Comments:'''
<!-- This is an *example*! Do not leave your report here - place it ABOVE the header"!!-->

Categories: