Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    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.

    Click here to create a new report


    Violations

    Please place new reports at the bottom.

    User:MrDarcy reported by User:Mykungfu (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on 20 September 2006


    User:MrDarcy (edit | [[Talk:User:MrDarcy|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MrDarcy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):



    • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)


    Time report made: 19:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User MrDarcy is removing Sockpuppet warnings from his user page as well as pages of various users he is accused with.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/robotam

    This is in violation of Wiki Rules

    "If the accuser has listed evidence against you, you are not allowed to remove the notice from your page for ten days. You are allowed to respond to each and every accusation on the evidence page but are not allowed to remove accusations"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry/Notes_for_the_suspect

    The violations can be viewed here...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=MrDarcy

    MrDarcy even left a comment..

    "The project page still exists as a record of the discussion, but the case itself is closed. Do not put the sockpuppet template back on any of our user pages. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC) " is seen here....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mykungfu&redirect=no

    Response: I have every right to remove vandalism to my own user space. The sockpuppetry case has been closed [1], and therefore, the notice should not be placed on my user page. In addition, User:Mykungfu has reverted my user page four times to restore the bogus notice, plus a fifth revert under an anonymous address, within the last few hours. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User MrDarcy is removing Sockpuppet warnings from his user page as well as pages of various users he is accused with.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/robotam

    This is in violation of Wiki Rules

    "If the accuser has listed evidence against you, you are not allowed to remove the notice from your page for ten days. You are allowed to respond to each and every accusation on the evidence page but are not allowed to remove accusations"

    Note - At the current time, MrDarcy's userpage is protected by me. Mykungfu is blocked 24 h for restoring the templates after I asked him not to (pending RFCU). Mykungfu is using his AOL-ness to evade the block. I urge no action against MrDarcy. Syrthiss 20:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=MrDarcy MrDarcy as well as Bearly541

    http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Bearly541 have been reverting pages in combination to avoid 3rr violations on various pages. They have also been removing warning in complete disregard to Wikirules. I recommend 24 hour block for MrDarcy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.70 (talk • contribs)

    MrDarcy continued making reverts after report was made.

    User:155.247.166.28 reported by User:Philip Baird Shearer (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Bombing of Dresden in World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 155.247.166.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Time report made: 09:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This is not a case of one change being reverted too time and again. Instead the user first made a small change which was reverted

    and has since continued to expand that small change despite two othe editors reversing the changes back to the original

    • 23:44, 11 September 2006 user:Rama's Arrow rvv
    • [ 00:44, 12 September 2006] user:Philip Baird Shearer Reverted to last version by Rama's Arrow. Too many changes too much new text without citations. dislike removeal of Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn POV to Stanton's POV.
    • [ 01:04, 12 September 2006] Philip Baird Shearer revert to last version by PBS. 155.247.166.28 my reversion was not vandalism and please see [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule]'
    • [12:45, 12 September 2006] Philip Baird Shearer Reverted to last version by PBS see talk page

    On the talk page in a section called Lack of focus are detailed why I think some of the changes made by 155.247.166.28 are unacceptable, that 155.247.166.28 should make small changes and get consensus for them and:

    The Wikipedia:Three-revert rule states: that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period. --Philip Baird Shearer 01:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    BTW 155.247.166.28 your admission in the history "(restored parts of introduction section, other minor changes)" is a violation of 3R rule but I will not enforce it or ask a neutral third party to enforce it.--Philip Baird Shearer 12:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

    There are entries by 155.247.166.28 on the talk page so 155.247.166.28 was informed about the 3R several times before the last valioation. As I am directly involved in this I would prefer that a disinterested admin looks at the case and block 155.247.166.28 for up to 24 hour if they agree with me that it is a violation of the 3R rule. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Shoushetzi reported by User:Grandmaster (Result: 8h)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Shusha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Shoushetzi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Time report made: 12:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    8h first offence William M. Connolley 16:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Viewfinder reported by User:Isarig (Result:24h)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Mount Hermon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Viewfinder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Time report made: 21:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User was warned after his 3rd revert [6], yet persisted in his revert war

    User has now also violated 3RR on Israel, with a defiant edit summary of "rv - and find an admin willing to block me for reverting POV pushers"[7]

    I have blocked this user for 24 hours. Reviewing the action of others.--Konstable 21:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The page may need protection, but because the argument is centred just over a very minor issue (one extra word and one extra category) I just left them a note on the article talk page asking editors to reach consensus before reverting.--Konstable 21:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LifeEnemy reported by User:Mantanmoreland (Result:already blocked)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).LifeEnemy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Time report made: 22:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Revert warring in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. User given friendly warning after third revert.[8] Response was an obscenity and a refusal to abide by 3RR. ("I will have to refuse.")--Mantanmoreland 22:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Already blocked by William M. Connolley for 3RR in the said article. --WinHunter (talk) 06:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:68.42.137.160 reported by User:DMacks (Result:24h)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Methane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.42.137.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 01:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Edit-warring against multiple editors: repeatedly inserting bogus data despite reverts from several editors, who have consensus and given citations from wiki and external refs that his edits are factually wrong. Warned on his talk multiple times against edit-warring and failure to obtain consensus for controversial edits.

    24h --WinHunter (talk) 06:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dicksg reported by User:Vsion (Result: 8h)

    Three revert rule violation on

    National Service in Singapore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dicksg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):



    Time report made: 16:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User has been warned clearly about 3RR violation [15] at 15:46, 14 September 2006, prior to his 5th revert, and has also been previously advised on various relevant wikipedia policies at User talk:Dicksg. --Vsion 16:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    8h William M. Connolley 18:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:74.112.105.78 reported by User:Perseverantia (Result:48h)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Krav Maga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 74.112.105.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • Previous version to revert to: [16]. (I have not made this revert as doing so would put me in violation of the 3RR, as well.)
    • 1st revert: [17]
    • 2nd revert: [18]
    • 3rd revert: [19]
    • 4th revert: [20]

    Time report made: 00:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: It believed that this IP address is a sock puppet for 69.196.61.55, who was reported previously for violation of the 3RR and received both an 8-hour and 48-hour block within the last few days. This belief is based on the nature of the edits, which are identical. In all cases, the user is posting commercial material about "Commando Krav Maga" copied directly from a website that is selling products and services. Despite the similar names "Commando Krav Maga" is not the same thing as Krav Maga, although this user is attempting to sell their system as an "improved" version of Krav Maga. I have been reverting their edits for a while now and have repeatedly attempted to engage them in a dialog with no success. Perseverantia 00:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    48h because this is a clear spamming attempt. --WinHunter (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mycats reported by JoshuaZ (Result:24 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Indigo Children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mycats (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):



    Time report made: 01:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User was warned [27] Note that User:Mycats is almost certainly also 216.193.146.206 and 216.193.146.193 who have both been repeatedly adding the image in and all three have made no attempt to discuss with any users despite repeated requests. As soon as I warned 216.193.146.206 that the user was close to 3RRV Mycats made the first of the edits listed above. Furthermore, both Mycats and 206 have made similar threats to the image talk page [28] [29] [30] [31] I would therefore recommend that both these IPs be blocked as well. JoshuaZ 01:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 24 hours. If anons revert the page - block them too. Vsmith 01:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Block extended to 48 hours due to block evasion by IP socks and blanking of warnings from user talk page. Vsmith 02:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:UtherSRG reported by User:154.20.161.143 (Result:24h for 154.20.161.143 and 24h for User:UtherSRG)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Paranthropus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). UtherSRG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Time report made: 01:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: The last five reverts were made with a 24 hour period. I tried to have a discussion with the user on the talk page, but they responded by saying "rv I tked, we disagreed, i have nothing left to say." This user is an admin and is well aware of the 3RR. I also warned them on the talk page that they were about to break 3RR as well[38]. I may also have broken the 3RR, but I would like to note the fact that UtherSRG was the first reverter. 154.20.161.143 01:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • One should note the addition of dditional text in response to the anon but that wasn't good enough for them. They continued to add the tag, while I had twice added references and removed the tags. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    154.20.161.143 is blocked for 24h because of 3RR and disruption. --WinHunter (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also blocked User:UtherSRG for 3RR violation, they violated it together.--Konstable 09:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    After much discussion on IRC, the user has been unblocked.--Konstable 10:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SpinyNorman reported by User:Humus sapiens (Result: 1 week)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Jews for Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SpinyNorman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Time report made: 07:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC) (23:48 PDT)

    Comments: SpinyNorman keeps removing "Christian" and "evangelical" from the intro. After my warning he made another (more POV) revert. I gave him a chance to self-revert [39] but he made it a mockery by denying that the #1 is a revert. He knows it is untrue (see his yesterday's edit for example). Disclaimer: I was among those who reverted him today, but I did not violate 3RR. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley 08:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I edit congflicted here with William. I hope he doesn't mind if I unblock, and reblock for 1 week - this is far from the user's first 3RR block and the point needs to be hammared home that such editing is unacceptable. --Robdurbar 08:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well-deserved IMHO. The user has a long history of disruptions. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Marmoulak reported by User:Torturous Devastating Cudgel (Result: 8h)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Iran-Iraq War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Marmoulak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 15:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Marmoulak has repeatedly removed a well sourced piece of material and he has also removed a disputed tag place in the article, making for his forth revert. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    8h William M. Connolley 15:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Getaway reported by User:Gamaliel (Result: Already blocked)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Sean Hannity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Getaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Time report made: 15:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Already blocked for another 3RR violation (see below). Extraordinary Machine 12:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RandomCritic reported by User:Kyaa the Catlord (Result:Protection)

    Three revert rule violation on

    136199 Eris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RandomCritic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • Previous version reverted to: Multiple versions.
    • 1st revert: [40]
    • 2nd revert: [41]
    • 3rd revert: [42]
    • 4th revert: [43]
    • 5th revert: [44]

    And probably more....

    Time report made: 16:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: RandomCritic removes references to Discordianism, although based on discussion, this is factual information suitable for inclusion in the article. He rolls back to older versions, or simply removes the information that does not suit his POV. Kyaa the Catlord 16:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There are only three reverts listed here. Gamaliel 16:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fourth added. Sorry, the below form only had spaces set for three. Foolish me. Kyaa the Catlord 16:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have protected the page to prevent the edit warring from continuing. Given that this user is engaging in significant talk page discussion, doesn't appear to be editing or interacting with other users in a combative way, and appears to be removing unverifiable speculation from the article, in my judgment a warning will be sufficient for this first offense. I have no objection if another administrator thinks a block is necessary, but I do not. Gamaliel 16:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Getaway reported by User:Gamaliel (Result:24h)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Fred Phelps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Getaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Time report made: 16:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Made accusations of "censorship" against another editor (not me) and has previously violated 3RR today (see above).

    Blocked for 24 hours. --Nlu (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Dudesleeper reported by User:Koavf (Result: No action)

    Three revert rule violation on R.E.M. discography.

    R.E.M._discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dudesleeper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Comments This user has refused to discuss on the talk page of the article or user talk. The last thing I did was post a {{disputeabout}} tag (without reverting the disputed content of the article), and put a comment on talk. He reverted with the edit summary "(Given up explaining now, will just keep reverting)" which is odd, considering he never did explain nor offer any sources. Please intervene. Thanks. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: For the admin's consideration. - Dudesleeper 22:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Further comments You'll notice Dudesleeper's belligerent, bad faith attitude at the above link to R.E.M. discography's talk, and evidence of vandalism. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RR2&User:RR3 reported by User:Bignole (Result:RR2 for 48h, RR3 indef)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Spider-Man 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RR2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & RR3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Time report made: 22:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • It is believed that RR2 and RR3 are the same individual, because they share the same name, revert the same edit made by RR2 original (which is also a personal attack that was removed). I have already reported them for sock puppetry, but I though I would cover all my bases and report them for everything they did, incase there isn't enough evidence for the socking, seeing as they continue to revert.Bignole 22:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WarpstarRider reported by Hbdragon88 (Result:protection)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Jessica Lee Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). WarpstarRider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):



    Time report made: 23:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Contentious edit warring on whether Jessica Lee Rose deserves her own article or not. Totally unacceptable behavior from both parties. WarpstarRider even reverted an AFD notice [60] even though it was clearly debated.

    No block is needed I think - new user, possibly not aware of 3RR, seems to have agreed to stop the war. Page protected by another admin already.--Konstable 13:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Marriedtofilm reported by Hbdragon88 (Result:protection)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Jessica Lee Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Marriedtofilm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):



    Time report made: 23:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Contentious edit warring on whether Jessica Lee Rose deserves her own article or not. Totally unacceptable behavior from both parties. THis rival the Angels and Airwaves battle.

    Same as the entry above. I think no block is needed.--Konstable 13:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lucaas reported by User:ScienceApologist (Result: No action)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Talk:Modern geocentrism (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Modern geocentrism|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lucaas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):



    Time report made: 00:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:User does not seem to understand that comments on talkpages may be refactored if consensus determines the comments to be unrelated to improving the article per talk page guidelines. User has already been blocked before for 3RR. --ScienceApologist 00:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I do understand refactoring of the talk page but it states in the policy that this is only if it is "entirely and unmistakably" irrelevant. Yet the large section being removed by ScienceApology contains many points by various editors. Nor was there any consensus to remove it from the talk page though there was some agreement about reverting the article itself and which I did not revert further and about which I instead went to the talk page.--Lucas 01:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The two sections were your critique of an unrelated issue: the Big Bang and cosmic inflation. Despite the misleading title you gave these sections, they were clearly not about the article in question and therefore "entirely and unmistakably" irrelevant. I refactored them to your talkpage and you removed them, they have just recently been restored by another user. --ScienceApologist 02:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Other users also discussed this in the section removed (one did quite alot research for it). The discussion itself was also about whether or not Big Bang, Inflation were or were not related to the scientific section of this article entitled "There is no special position". Your edit assumed the outcome of the discussion and declared by fiat that they were not related and then went on to remove the entire discussion that occured over some days with multiple editors! Lucas 13:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    All other editors involved in the issue agreed that the discussion was not relevant to improving the article and should not be held on its talk page. --LambiamTalk 19:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:222.153.35.178 reported by User:Lvthn13 (Result: 24 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Satanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 222.153.35.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):



    Time report made: 07:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Unregistered user who has started edit wars before, resulting in a short page lockdown. Refuses to use discussion page, or heed administrator warning to cease edit wars. Documented at Talk:Satanism; see administrator comments at bottom of page requesting cease to edit war. When page was unlocked, user began the same process of reversion without discussion.

    User:Arthur Ellis reported by User:Bucketsofg (Result:1 week)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Rachel Marsden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Arthur Ellis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Time report made: 11:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Requests for checkuser confirms that Craigleithian and Arthur Ellis are the same; there is currently an ArbComm case coming to a close in which Arthur Ellis is found to be guilty of abusive sock-puppetry (evidence here, decision here).

    The user's 3rd violation of 3RR. Blocked him for 1 week. And the sock Craigleithian has been used for nothing else, so has been blocked indefinitely.--Konstable
    Actually that's 4th.--Konstable 12:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, actually, it's at least his 9th: Arb Comm's finding of fact is that he is User:Ceraurus (blocked twice), User:Mark Bourrie ([Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella/Proposed_decision#Socks_of_Arthur_Ellis blocked twice]), and User:Isotelus (blocked once). And there were many blocks for 3RR by 40 or so temporary IPs that he used as socks (see list here) Bucketsofg✐ 14:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Someguy0830 reported by User:Yy-bo (Result: Not a violation)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Oven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Someguy0830 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):



    Time report made: 13:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Removal from the article argueable, but talk page contribution has been edited out as well; linked to OLDID version; same labelled as relevant version Talk:Oven. expansion template removed as well.
    Revision as of 20:20, 13 September 2006 (edit)

    User:Ltnte reported by User:Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) (Result: 24 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Han Chinese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ltnte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Time report made: 17:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Greier reported by User:Khoikhoi (Result: one week)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Talk:Transnistria (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Transnistria|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Greier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 17:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: The user is trying to post a large rant about another user William Mauco, in a separate thread. Please check Greier's block log. —Khoikhoi 17:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The thread was created by me. It was unjustifiably moved by other user to a different place, so that all the links I created on the talk pages of several users not to work anymore. Anyway the content is very, very interesting for any wikipedian bureaucrat. Please take some time to read it About Wikipedia user William Mauco. Greier 17:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I have retired from Wikipedia some time ago. I only camed to draw an alarm signal. Greier 18:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:FCYTravis reported by User:RalphLender (Result: No action)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Advocates for Children in Therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). FCYTravis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • Previous version reverted to: [73]
    • 1st revert: [74] Sept 16
    • 2nd revert: [75] Sept 16
    • 3rd revert: [76] Sept 16
    • 4th revert: [77] Sept 16
    • 5th revert: [78] Sept 16
    • 6th revert: [79] Sept 16
    • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)

    Note: User FCYTravis is an administrator who has abused his administrative priviledges and is acting in a manner not consistet with Wikipedia Policy. He has engaged in insulting other editors by name calling, continual reverts, using his priv to make edits to blocked pages, and he has refused to follow the findings of several polls. Furthermore he refused to mediate the dispute. Time report made: 21:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

    Those are not diffs. A quick look at the article history will show that the section in question (which is the subject of a long-term edit war over its appropriateness, neutrality and lack of sources) was reverted precisely the allowed three times within the alloted timespan. One, Two and Three. I will revert no more until at least the expiration of the specified 24-hour period. FCYTravis 21:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I further note that the above user is reverting my insertion of the "Not verified" template into the article. FCYTravis 21:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    FCYTravis has continued his edit war and continues to violate Wikipedia Policy. A quick look at the edit history will show that he continues to the the only one to have an issue with the content. He has ignored two polls and he refused mediation...he continues to abuse his administrator status. RalphLendertalk 21:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Why not provide the citation requested for the claims. If these are already noted, it should just be a matter of Ibid., though each citation needs to address each claim, specifically. El_C 21:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tecunre reported by User:Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) (Result:24h)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Han Chinese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tecunre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):



    Time report made: 00:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:


    User:65.30.152.217 reported by User:Atom (Result: 24 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Semen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 65.30.152.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: User changed from reverts to Linkimage revert so that diffs would not match

    User:125.60.241.90 reported by User:Wookipedian (Result:1 week)

    Three revert rule violation on


    Yoga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 125.60.241.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
    • 1st revert: [86] (maybe this one doesn't count as a revert, but there are plenty more below)
    • 2nd revert: [87]
    • 3rd revert: [88]
    • 4th revert: [89]
    • 5th revert: [90]
    • 6th revert: [91]
    • 7th revert: [92]
    • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) edit comment and talk page comment and another talk page comment and another (I guess the 1st talk page comment about 3RR violation was after the 1st report, but substantially before the last above-listed actions, and see below)


    Time report made: 05:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: I've never made such a report before - hope I'm getting it approximately right. The anon user is repeatedly deleting external links on various pages while accusing the links of being "spammy". That may be somewhat true, but the list of reference citations is also getting deleted from the Yoga page and the user is doing it over and over rather rudely.

    When making one of these edits, the anon user asserted that "I have already discuss this issue to the Arbitration Committee". Although this person is anon, I think it is clear that they are not a naive new user.

    Another vague reference asserting "This issue is been forwarded to Arbitration Committee" was made in a subsequent edit. I don't know what this refers to - I suspect it is misinformation.

    Note that the list of reference citations, not just the external links, is getting repeatedly removed from the article.

    The user has been informed of this report.

    Due to the high number of reverts and the lack of civility displayed, I have blocked the anon for 1 week.--Konstable 06:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much. I plan to now revert the last above-listed action by the anon, which will be my fourth revert on this page. I hope that is OK considering the background of my action. —Wookipedian 06:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Uknewthat reported by User:Dual Freq (Result:24 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on


    Hafele-Keating experiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Uknewthat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) [93]
    • Uknewthat removed warning from talk page [94]


    Time report made: 15:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User continually reverts equations and adds POV original research pertaining to GPS to the Hafele-Keating experiment article. Each edit is a series of 4 edits that removes equations and adds the OR. User is new and performed the same reverts in the past as an anonymous user. Article was semi-protected August 26, 2006 due to these same reversions. Dual Freq 15:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    24 hour block. Also reverted talk page warning removal. Vsmith 15:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a fairly new user so I need to ask. Will this block affect the validity of the RFC now occuring on User:Uknewthat? Cardamon 01:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pflanzgarten reported by User:After Midnight 0001 (Result: 24h)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Jim Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pflanzgarten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 19:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    This identical revert has been made many times by Pflanzgarten and sockpuppets over a period of months. He has repeatedly been asked to discuss changes, but ignores discussion and reverts in total. -- Ian Dalziel 19:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley 20:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:UnDeRsCoRe reported by User:Rob110178 (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on


    Rouge_the_Bat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). UnDeRsCoRe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
    • 1st revert: [http://]
    • 2nd revert: [http://]
    • 3rd revert: [http://]
    • 4th revert: [http://]
    • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)


    Time report made: 20:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Couldnt figure out how to include the revert versions. This page has been in an edit war for about 2 days now

    Impressively badly formatted. If you can't be bothered to work out how to do diffs, I can't be bothered to check your report out, and anyway its only some cartoon character that should probably be VFD'd anyway :-) William M. Connolley 21:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Fastifex reported by User:Merope (Result:8 hr block)

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


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


    • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) [99]


    Time report made: 21:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: After doing some work on double redirects, I warned this user against undoing the work of others by purposefully recreating a double redirect. I linked him to WP:2R and asked him to review the policy. He reverted the work again. His message on my talk page said that he believes he should be deliberately introducing a double redirect, and I left a message on his talk page that this was in violation of WP policy. He reverted again. I realize that I myself edited this article three times in 24 hours, and I understand that I am also responsible for violating 3RR. I will be more cautious in the future, and will follow protocol more closely.

    I would also like to note that this is not the only article he is reverting to create double redirects. A look at his contributions will show a number of edits creating double redirects after I had left a message asking him to stop.

    Other recent violations of the 3RR rule include:

    -- Merope Talk/Review 21:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This isn't 3RR, because its not within 24h or even close. But it does seem to be a rather pointless campaign against policy and several other users, so I think a short block to point that out is probably a good idea. 8h William M. Connolley 21:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it's very close to 24h; however, the other two I listed are within 24 hours. -- Merope Talk/Review 21:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Axam reported by User:Jeff3000 (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on


    Mellat_Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Axam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • Three revert rule warning diff: [108]


    Time report made: 22:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: : In addition to the 3RR, the user has made personal attacks which has been noted at Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard. -- Jeff3000 22:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He was also warned by another user [109], but has blanked his warnings [110]. -- Jeff3000 23:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note this logged out diff. Ansell 23:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:jeff3000 reported by User:Axam (Result: Axam blocked for 24 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on


    Mellat_Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jeff3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
    • 1st revert: [111] by Jeff3000
    • 2nd revert: [112] by Jeff3000
    • 3rd revert: [113] by Jeff3000
    • 4th revert: [114] by Ex-Nintendo Employee
    • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)


    Time report made: 22:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This user has been attacking and vandalizing the Mellat Park from the beginig. He has changed his user name (from Jeff3000 to Ex-Nintendo Employee) to avoid his 4th revert notice. His personal attack was deliberate. He changes the Iranian People to Iran which does not make any sense and has personnaly been attacking.--Axam 22:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Not, only has User:Axam gone far past 3RR, performed personal attacks, he has now accused people of sockpuppetry, when User:Ex-Nintendo Employee and myself are clearly different people. -- Jeff3000 23:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note, I have only done 3 reverts, and User:Ex-Nintendo Employee 2 reverts. Check user can clearly distinugish the two users. -- Jeff3000 23:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note that Iranian people is not the correct disambiguation as it refers not to the citizens of Iran, but a wider ethnic group that includes the Kurds and others. Please see the article for more details. -- Jeff3000 23:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There can be different ways to hide sicjpuppetry, asking your friends to do it for you. This is even worse than doing it yourself--Axam 00:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Jeff3000 seems to not understand that when we refer to Iranian people, all ethnic groups are included. In Tehran, the capital, the people are not only persian but turks, kurds, gilkais, mazandaranis, lurs etc. Thus the correct link should be toward Iranian people and not Iran, since it is not the country that acts but its citizen.--Axam 00:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked Axam for 24 hours for violating 3RR. There is clearly no other violation here. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:64.230.48.114 reported by User:JoshuaZ (Result: 8h)

    Three revert rule violation on


    An Inconvenient Truth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 64.230.48.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)

    [120]


    Time report made: 03:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This is possibly User:SpinyNorman who was blocked for a week for repeated 3RRV at this article and others and who made almost identical edits to these. JoshuaZ 03:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems likely that this is the same as 64.230.88.56, in which case a block isn't going to work... but I've done it anyway... 8h William M. Connolley 08:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Alecmconroy reported by User:Stick to the Facts (Result: No action)

    Three revert rule violation on


    Stormfront (website) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Alecmconroy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)


    Time report made: 09:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Continues to revert the same sentence over and over - sentence has 11 cites, no non-NPOV argument, no argument to delete it at all. Has been warned. Not a new user.

    Another badly formatted report, which I've partly fixed. At least one of your reverts listed is a removal of pure vandalism [127]. I suggest that you go through and remove the junk from your report, and put the times in as you are supposed to. Better still, examine your own actions in this William M. Connolley 09:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    In my defense, only two of these edits are genuine reversions, relevant to the content dispute that's on-going.
    • The 1st & 4th edits cited here were reversions of simple vandalism by an anonymous IP user.
    • The 2nd edit restored material that had been inadvertantly deleted.
    • The 3rd edit restored material that had been deleted for being uncited, and provided citation for that material.
    The 5th and 6th edits ARE genuine reversions, resulting from a content dispute. User:Stick to the facts has added this material repeatedly. Four different users have deleted it, and it has been extensively discussed on talk.
    I sincerely believe I have acted in good faith, and I have great respect for Wikipedia policies. If my edits violated policy (or even if you just feel they were inappropriate), let me know, and I will immediately self-revert and apologize.
    --Alecmconroy
    • Even after WMC fixed the report, your diffs remain unclear. While I did notice he made a few reverts today, I'm willing to overlook these in light of the potential for my recent edits to resolve the dispute, and providing no further reverts are made by the editor in the next 24 hours. El_C 11:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But is it a matter of 'overlooking it in the interests of peace', or did I not do anything wrong? In my mind, I made two edits which consciously reverted the page in question, to prevent the insertion of material which, after much discussion, had a pretty substantial (4-1) consensus against it. I did this based on the understanding that my other edits were not reversions, and that the appropriate thing to do in the situation was to make the edits I did.
    Blocking aside-- should I not have done what I did? This edit war seems to be have concluded, but for the future-- DID I do anything wrong, such that you're willing to overlook it? Or did I do what you're supposed to do? --Alecmconroy 23:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Szhaider reported by User:Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk (Result: 8h)

    Three revert rule violation on


    Abrar-ul-Haq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Szhaider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)


    [132]

    Time report made: 14:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    8h. Possibly one of the more trivial edit wars William M. Connolley 18:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:William_Mauco reported by User:MariusM (Result: No action)

    Three revert rule violation on


    Transnistria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). William_Mauco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)


    Time report made: 19:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Diffs not Oldids please. What was there about "These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is" that you found difficult? William M. Connolley 20:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sory, I corrected.--MariusM 21:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Errrm, you seem to have confused "edit" with "revert" and have simply listed all edits. Why is [141] supposed to be a revert, for example? William M. Connolley 21:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I took out spelling corrections from the list, however, there are still more than 3.--MariusM 22:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Will314159 reported by User:Isarig (Result:24 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on


    Neo-Fascism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Will314159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)

    User is not new, knows about 3RR, and has been blocked for 3RR violations before [142], and has been warned not to violate 3RR on this page before his 4th revert.


    Time report made: 04:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User repeatedly inserts claims from a personal blog, despite having been reverted on this issue by at least 4 different editors, all of whom have explained theirs reasons on the the article's Talk page. Having failed to convince the others of his position on Talk, User:Will314159 has stopped discussing the issue, and resorts to blind reverts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Israig (talk • contribs)

    Second offense, though the previous was a while ago - 24 hours.--Konstable 11:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dan534 reported by User:BlankVerse (Result: 8h)

    Three revert rule violation on

    RMS Queen Mary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dan534 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) [144]


    Time report made: 05:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    There has been a revert war going on at RMS Queen Mary. This is the first of two or three 3RR reports I will be doing.

    All of the edits by User:Dan534 involve deleted the following link: http://www.sterling.rmplc.co.uk/visions/index2.html. There are 5 reverts in 13 hrs 43 minutes. note: Since two out of the three total edits done by probable [[Wikipedia:sockpuppet}]] user:Johnpedder did the exact same edit, it is really 7 reverts within 15 hrs 20 minutes. BlankVerse 05:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    8 h William M. Connolley 08:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CThornton reported by User:BlankVerse (Result: 8h)

    Three revert rule violation on

    RMS Queen Mary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). CThornton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) 02:45, 18 September 2006

    Time report made: 06:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    There has been an edit war going on at [[RMS Queen Mary between a number of new editors and some anon IPs.

    All of User:CThornton's edits have been to add the following link, http://www.sterling.rmplc.co.uk/visions/index2.html, to the External links section (and sometimes deleting the official Queen Mary link, http://www.queenmary.com/ at the same time). In the reverts above, the forth edit in a row is always a 3RR violation, and the last five are within 24 hrs.

    8h William M. Connolley 08:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]



    User:John Spikowski reported by User:Roguegeek (Result: 24 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on


    Panotools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). John_Spikowski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):



    Time report made: 09:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Go through the history and you will see there are a lot of other forms of more severe vandalism that have taken place tonight by this user, but this one will get the quickest results right now. Hopefully this is all it will take for them to understand Wikipedia policies and help them become a constructive editor instead of the destructive one they were tonight. Roguegeek 09:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • "Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed (necessary for new users)." Why did you not add the warning as instructed? "These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs" Why did you add oldids & not diffs as instructed? 24 hours. El_C 11:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the first time I've had to deal with a situation that couldn't be worked out in a discussion. I'm sure there were mistakes I made in trying to report this user (as it was my first time). The more information you could give me, the more effective I will be if the situation ever comes up again (which it hopefully wont). Thanx. Roguegeek 15:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ikonoblast reported by User:Hkelkar (Result: 24 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on


    Votebank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ikonoblast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users):This user is not new.


    Time report made: 10:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:This user has been blocked for 3rr violations before (see block log). Plus, if one looks at his edit summaries, he has clearly not observed WP:Civility and has made accusatory attacks both against myself and the other involved user User:Gamesmasterg9. While technically, the first and last reverts are 26 hours apart (not 24), it seems to me that he is clearly violated the spirit of WP:3RR by engaging in persistent revert-warring with User:Gamesmasterg9 over the issue of merging the article in question with another article.As a reference to his attitudes, I point the admin to the talk page Talk:Votebank where Gamesmasterg9 has provided what seems to me to be adequate reasons for his position, and Ikonoblast (formerly User:Holywarrior) has responded pejoratively to him and with persistent incivility, lending weight to the point that he intends to revert-war further.Hkelkar 10:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with User:Hkelkar on the need to block User:Ikonoblast. This is not the first time he has engaged in egregious edit wars. Previously, he violated the 3RR on the article Mamta Kulkarni [150], but he gave up on that issue, so I let is slide. He has an unfortunate habit of treating edits to pages created by him as personal violations, and I have no doubt that he will indulge in such behaviour again, if unchecked.Gamesmaster G-9 20:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Waya 5 reported by User:Chappy84 (Result:24 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on


    Galatasaray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Waya 5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Time report made: 11:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User Waya 5 keeps on removing legitimate information (claiming it's vandalism) about Glatasaray's history including the rivalry with english clubs, which is part of galatasaray's history and also keeps on reverting the scoreline of the UEFA Cup final to Galatasaray 1-4 Arsenal here even though the original scoreline was 0-0 with glatasaray winning 4-1 on penalties shown here, He seems to want the page exactly how he wants it set out and to not allow anyone else to alter the page. --Chappy84 11:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No {{3RR}} or other warning were given to someone who seems like a relatively new user. But because of the added lack of civility I have blocked this user for 24 hours.--Konstable 11:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:220.246.167.18 reported by User:J.L.W.S. The Special One (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on


    Chelsea_F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 220.246.167.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)


    Time report made: 12:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Chelski is a derogatory and insulting nickname for Chelsea, used by Chelsea haters to suggest Chelsa succeeds only because of money. An anonymous POV-pusher has repeatedly inserted "Chelski" into the Nickname(s) section of the infobox. After he violated 3RR, I reported him to an admin, who promptly semi-protected the article. The anonymous POV-pusher then attacked my talk page.[155][156] For attacking my talk page, I think he should be blocked for more than the usual 24 hours. I would appreciate it if my talk page was semi-protected as well; this is not the first time it has been attacked by anonymous vandals. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked this user for only 24 hours because this is an IP. And as far as I can tell it has only been used for this guy for a total of 24 prior to the block. If he comes back with abuse he can always be re-blocked.--Konstable 13:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JimRaynor55 reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on Star Wars canon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JimRaynor55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 14:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: JimRaynor55 has demanded that his own views be given precedence in the Star Wars canon article, and refuses to admit any discussion or links in the article to a differing viewpoint. He has continually reverted good-faith efforts by other editors who have tried to improve the article to include relevant information. User demands explanations from other editors, and then ignores them once given. This situation has been going on for some time, and the user has been warned for personal attacks and vandalism in the recent weeks, and has skirted the boundaries of 3RR since being warned about that as well. This is the first time he's actually violated 3RR, though. MikeWazowski 14:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hookerj and User:DanV reported by User:Will (Glaciers melting in the dead of night) (Result: 8/24h)

    Three revert rule violation on


    Stupid Girls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DanV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Hookerj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Continual edit warring for the past hour, see [161] here
    • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)


    Time report made: 19:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    8/24h William M. Connolley 21:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The_Hungry_Hun reported by User:ابراهيم (Result: 16 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on


    Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The_Hungry_Hun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here and on his talk-page too

    Time report made: 22:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: He has been adding a picture in "Conquest of Mecca" section of Muhammad article since last three days. All those revert are about adding the same picture in the article. Count: (above 5 and then) 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12 and the list continue... (see his contributions)

    Btw 6-10 all above reverts are carried out in one day and hence that was another violation of 3RR. Once again he is adding the same picture.

    He has been properly warned twice. Please stop him for this reverts flood.

    User:Y2kcrazyjoker4 and User:68.163.201.96 reported by Hetar (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on


    Template:Mariano Rivera. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users): User:Y2kcrazyjoker4 is clearly aware of the 3RR as he warned 68.163.201.96 not to break it in this edit: [173]


    Time report made: 06:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:67.116.242.125 reported by User:Coredesat (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on


    2005_Pacific_hurricane_season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.116.242.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users): [178] (no diff available)


    Time report made: 07:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Anon keeps attempting to add a button bar to 2005 Pacific hurricane season against consensus. I reverted twice. --Coredesat talk! 07:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No prev version: why was first edit a revert? William M. Connolley 09:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Afrika paprika reported by User:HolyRomanEmperor (Result: 24h)

    Three revert rule violation on


    Pagania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Duklja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Afrika paprika (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):



    Time report made: 08:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: The User is leading a content dispute but refuses to discuss at the corresponding talk pages (Talk:Duklja, Talk:Zahumlje, Talk:Travunia) and agreed to discuss only to an extent at Talk:Pagania. Responds only at his personal talk page, but lately he didn't discuss there either.

    24h William M. Connolley 09:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Machocarioca reported by User:alidoostzadeh (Result: protected)

    Three revert rule violation on


    Anousheh_Ansari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Machocarioca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):



    Time report made: 09:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    This user has been block two or three times [187] and he understands wikipedia policy. Check the record on his talk page. The user removes quotes from ABC news, USA today , Reuters as he wishes! He refuses to discuss it in the talkpage before editing. Removing valid information from Reuters, USA today, ABC news without discussion on the talk page seems like vandalism. Also the comments from the user is less than friendly. For example he says: Do not remove the correct facts YOU. ABC and USA Today are completely wrong, of course! Read and try understand Helen Sharman's article, please[188] and YOU are wrong. You have no reason, just wrong sources (as many of them often are).) . He does not provide a source for his material and just claims that he can is absolutely right and I am wrong and ABC and Reuters are wrong as well! --alidoostzadeh 09:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I support this report, as Machocarioca (talk · contribs · count) has been reverting the article (which is a highly visited article at the moment since Anousheh is in orbit), rejecting the sources, claiming they are wrong (!) --K a s h Talk | email 11:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Article is currently protected: no block William M. Connolley 20:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Homy reported by User:Jefffire (Result: 8h)

    Three revert rule violation on Homeopathy


    Homeopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Homy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) [196]


    Time report made: 12:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User has also been repeatedly inserting crank physics, but this is the clearest 3rr violation. English does not appear to be the users first language. Jefffire

    Comment: the expression crank physics is also used by moderator user:Geni Please control WP:SOCK. history Homeopathy: cur) (last) 10:52, 20 September 2006 Geni (Talk | contribs) (rv back to verison without cranck physics) --Homy 13:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC) Link:[197][reply]

    I think I'm being accussed of being a sock puppet of Geni. Jefffire 17:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    8h William M. Connolley 20:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:24.60.85.190 reported by User:TenebraeTenebrae (Result: 24h)

    Three revert rule violation on 08:58, 20 September 2006


    Marvel Comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.60.85.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • Previous version reverted to: [198] Revision as of 08:58, 20 September 2006 (edit)
    • 1st revert: [199] :04, 20 September 2006
    • 2nd revert: [200] 08:48, 20 September 2006
    • 3rd revert: [201] 08:53, 20 September 2006
    • 4th revert: [202] 08:58, 20 September 2006
    • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)


    Time report made: 13:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Several editors, including User:Bayerischermann, User:CovenantD and and User:Charlesknight have left posts on this anon-IP's talk page, to no avail. He was temporarily blocked by User:Steel359 at 21:24, 17 September 2006, but came right back when his 48 hours were up. He is a non-stop vandal, clearly dismissive of the rules, with the only intent being to spread links to his personal blog. Since blocking only made him so obstinate that he's 3RR'd, and since he doesn't seem to have any interest in making worthwhile contributions, it might be time to think about banning this IP. -- Tenebrae 13:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Slightly dodgy, this. I've blocked, but not CovenantD, although C has broken 3RR too, not too sure of the immunity status of rm linkspam William M. Connolley 20:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:86.142.208.76 reported by User:Demiurge (Result:24h)

    Three revert rule violation on Bangor, County Down


    Bangor, County Down (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 86.142.208.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) [203]


    Time report made: 15:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Keeps reinserting an external link in violation of WP:EL ("Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research"). Very unconstructive attitude, including personal attacks [204]. Warned about linkspam multiple times User_talk:86.142.40.188, User talk:86.142.204.152 Demiurge 15:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    2006-09-20T16:10:25 Guinnog (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "86.142.208.76 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3rr, pov pushing, personal attacks) William M. Connolley 20:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mykungfu reported by User:Mr. Darcy talk (Result:24h)

    Three revert rule violation on User:MrDarcy (my user page)


    User:MrDarcy (edit | [[Talk:User:MrDarcy|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mykungfu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)
      • User is clearly aware of 3RR rule, as he attempted to report me for a violation earlier today on this page: [210]


    Time report made: 20:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User has been harassing me with bogus sock-puppetry allegations for several days. (I have no idea why; I don't know this user at all and I haven't been editing often for the last few months). S/he opened a sock-puppet case against me [211]; the case was closed, so I removed the sockpuppet template from my user page. The case page doesn't actually include any evidence against me; it appears to be targeting three other users. Frankly, I'm just sick of the harassment. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note - At the current time, MrDarcy's userpage is protected by me. Mykungfu is blocked 24 h for restoring the templates after I asked him not to (pending RFCU). Mykungfu is using his AOL-ness to evade the block...but at the same time we can't block aol ips for more than 15 minutes. Syrthiss 20:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:William_Mauco reported by User:MariusM (Result:Warning)

    Three revert rule violation on Transnistrian referendum, 2006


    Transnistrian referendum, 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). William_Mauco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)

    Not a new user. However, I warn him [218]


    Time report made: 21:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    This user want to have a "veto" right in all Transnistria-related articles. This is why he keep reverting evrything he don't like.–MariusM 21:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I added the 6th revert.--MariusM 21:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Experienced user who broke the rule but I will give a severe warning and benefit of the doubt here, as the reverts were fairly minor. Robdurbar 11:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BertWoodall reported by User:Ryūlóng (Result: 24 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on


    Northcentral_University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BertWoodall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):



    Time report made: 05:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This user has constantly been disrupting that he is claiming ownership of to the extent that he has blanked it, tried to get it deleted, and reverted back to his original draft. Ryūlóng 05:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    [[User:]]58.107.151.115 reported by User:RAW (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on Christadelphians


    [[:]] (edit | [[Talk:|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). VIOLATOR_USERNAME (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
    • 1st revert: [http://]
    • 2nd revert: [http://]
    • 3rd revert: [http://]
    • 4th revert: [http://]

    Here is history. 11:28, 21 September 2006 RAW (Talk | contribs) (page reverted. see discussion - there is consensus. Please sign in.) 11:23, 21 September 2006 58.107.151.115 (Talk) (Deletion of links without thorough discussion and consensus at talk page is vandalism) 11:19, 21 September 2006 RAW (Talk | contribs) (58.107.151.115 please sign in - you are in violation of policy. Please stop vandalising page) 11:18, 21 September 2006 58.107.151.115 (Talk) (Links should not be deleted without a thorough discussion on talk page) 11:14, 21 September 2006 Wikiadelphia (Talk | contribs) (58.107.151.115/ekklesiastic- it has been discussed- please read the link section in the talk page- please read wiki about linking to gain 'traffic'- please read owners of websites should not link) 11:10, 21 September 2006 58.107.151.115 (Talk) (Links should not be deleted without a thorough discussion on talk page) 11:05, 21 September 2006 Wikiadelphia (Talk | contribs) 11:04, 21 September 2006 Wikiadelphia (Talk | contribs) (Forum links are not within wiki guidelines- see talk page 58.107.151.115/Ekklesiastic- see three revert link) 10:58, 21 September 2006 58.107.151.115 (Talk) (Restored vandalised links)

    Person has reverted 5 times is less than one hour. Discussion page explains why links removed and there is consensus, but person continues to place them back including link to forum owned by them.

    Is this all the information you need? I wish to avoid a "war" so hope this will help. RAW 11:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:Ekajati reported by User:User:kt66 I report also myself

    see History and Talk pages of:

    Ekajati goes through the articles like a lumberjack I never had such a situation. I could found - except a quote to copyrights and some very view source problems - no good explained reason why she is that strict and repeating like a formular: "(rv per WP:LIVING, inadequately sourced negative material CANNOT remain on the page while you search for sources)" - however, a neutral look would be fine. I do not say I didn't make faults. --Kt66 21:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kt66 reported by User:Ekajati (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on


    Michael Roach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kt66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)

    [223]


    Time report made: 21:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Kt66 reported by User:Ekajati (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on


    Dorje Shugden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kt66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) see previous report


    Time report made: 21:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Kt66 reported by User:Ekajati (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on


    Kelsang Gyatso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kt66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) see previous report


    Time report made: 21:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:


    User:Sima Yi reported by User: Myciconia (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on


    Template:Major Canadian Conservative Parties (edit | [[Talk:Template:Major Canadian Conservative Parties|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sima Yi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)
    talk page

    Time report made: 22:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: New user, needs help understanding wikipedia procedure, I'm not out to get anyone. (-:

    Copy-paste-edit this for a new report

    ===[[User:]] reported by User:~~~ (Result:)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on 

<!-- If your signature has additional fonts, please enter your username manually -->

{{Article|}}. {{3RRV|VIOLATOR_USERNAME}}: 

<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

* Previous version reverted to:  [http://VersionLink VersionTime]
<!-- Use this for simple reverts. For more complex reverts, please include information 
about which previous versions are being reverted to. -->
* 1st revert: [http://]
* 2nd revert: [http://]
* 3rd revert: [http://]
* 4th revert: [http://]

*Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) 

<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

Time report made: ~~~~~

''' Comments:'''
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=77064509"