Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
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 oder 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:Violent-Ken-Masters reported by User:Oherman (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on M.U.G.E.N.

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

• Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. Warning on user page: [9]\ Warning on discussion page: [10]

Time report made: 00:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User keep inserting unencyclopedic content. This includes the report that the creators of "Pokemon" will sue people who shows YouTube videos of MUGEN, without proof. He also added personal attacks against MUGEN Guild in some of the reverts, and refuses to stop despite discussion.

User:Mardavich reported by User:RuthieK 18:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)(Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on List of Arab scientists and scholars. Mardavich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
• 1st revert: 13:41, 5 October 2006
• 2nd revert: 14:03, 5 October 2006
• 3rd revert: 14:10, 5 October 2006
• 4th revert: 15:23, 8 October 2006
• 5th revert: 23:48, 8 October 2006
• 6th revert: 11:28, 10 October 2006

• Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. -->

Time report made: RuthieK 18:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: <User has a quasi-racial view of what an arab is and has hijacked the article and wishes with a friend to apply it to the list. The list is inclusive an includes all scientists from the middle ages who contributed to science in the arabic language/arabic cultural world. It staes this quite clearly in the first paragraph of the article. The article is not about defining who is an arab (there are several definitions)- it is about recognizing contributions to a culture >

Errrmmmm.... OK, have another go; this time list 4 reverts not 3 and actually add in the diff links William M. Connolley 19:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Errrm excessively complicated....disgracefully so RuthieK 21:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Smeelgova reported by User:Mark1800 (Result:8hour block)

Three-revert rule violation on Landmark_Education#6. Rick Ross Institute (2004) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Smeelgova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
• Please note we are basically talking about a delete and an un-delete here. The problem is this page gets a lot of traffic.
• 1st revert: [11]
• 2nd revert: [12]
• 3rd revert: [13]
• 4th revert: [14]
• 5th revert: [15]
• There are more... The issue is that this is discussed here and the user seems to be ignoring requests to stop.

• Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. --> [16]

Time report made: 01:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The issue has been discussed here and the user seems to be ignoring requests to stop.

First offence, 8 hour block --Robdurbar 15:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Muggle1982 reported by User:Hkelkar (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on Udit Raj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Muggle1982 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: [17]
• 1st revert: [18]
• 2nd revert: [19]
• 3rd revert: [20]
• 4th revert: [21]
• 5th revert: [22]

• Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here:[23]

Time report made: 02:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:2 points:

1. While some of these edits are partial reverts, they are a clear example of edit-warring on the part of the user despite warnings provided to him
2. While they span an interval that is slightly longer than 24 hours, they are aclose enough to conclude that the user is violating the "electric fence" philosophy behind the 3rr rule and does not seem to show any tendency to discuss any issues in the talk page.Other users and I have tried to initiate discussions with him but he has responded with incivility WP:Civility in our talk pages.Hkelkar 02:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Update:He has been blanking warnings etc from his talk page[24] and [25].Hkelkar 02:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Update: he continues to blank other people's entries in the talk page of Talk:Udit Raj and persists blanking his own talk page.Hkelkar 03:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

2006-10-11T03:08:33 Alphachimp (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Muggle1982 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 6 hours (talk page blanking, disruption) William M. Connolley 17:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

User:HanzoHattori reported by User:PPGMD (Result: 8h)

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

• Previous version reverted to: 11:35, 5 October 2006
• 1st revert: 11:01, 10 October 2006
• 2nd revert: 12:56, 10 October 2006
• 3rd revert: 14:02, 10 October 2006
• 4th revert: 21:41, 10 October 2006

• Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. -->

Warned here: 3RR Warning and on article talk page.

Time report made: 02:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• Some reverts also reverted vandelism also PPGMD 02:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

rv3 appears to be just reverting vandalism William M. Connolley 07:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Selected the wrong diff updated with the correct 4th revert. PPGMD 14:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think he's right; but that doesn't justify 4R: 8h William M. Connolley 17:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Curandero101 reported by User:Jeff3000 (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Bayani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Curandero101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 12:27, October 10, 2006
• 1st revert: 04:12, October 11, 2006
• 2nd revert: 04:17, October 11, 2006
• 3rd revert: 04:21, October 11, 2006
• 4th revert: 04:24, October 11, 2006
• 5th revert: 04:28, October 11, 2006
• 6th revert: 04:37, October 11, 2006 by IP sockpuppet User:58.167.144.208 (note IP signed as Curandero101 in this edit)
• 7th revert: 04:53, October 11, 2006

• Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here. Warning Diff

Time report made: 04:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: No citations for additions. -- Jeff3000 04:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Add'l. Comments: IP edit is almost certainly sock-puppetry. I'm at four reverts already (oops). MARussellPESE 04:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are, which may yet get you into trouble. This should have been reported ages ago... anyway, 24h William M. Connolley 07:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

User:CyberGhostface reported by User:Mikedk9109 (Result: 12h each)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [26]
• 1st revert: [27]
• 2nd revert: [28]
• 3rd revert: [29]
• 4th revert: [30]

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. -->

Time report made: 20:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User insists on reverting other peoples edits. Thinks he owns the article. --Mikedk9109 20:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think I "own" the article. The only edits I have reverted are Mikedk9109's. The article refers to the character of Leatherface in all present incarnations. In the introductory paragraph (which basically outlines the character) Mikedk9109 frequently adds irrevelant information pertaining to only the remake. I reverted it as there is already a section dedicated to the remake, with explanations each time as to why its not needed.

I would also like to point out that I offered to do a mediation case with Mikedk9109 to settle this civilly but he ignored them and made this report after I wrote it. He wrote "I think mediation would be useless, seeing that we cannot get along."--CyberGhostface 20:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Cyber, I did not make this report after you tried to have a "meaidation" with me. After you reverted I reported you. You think you own this page, and have no respect for what other people try to do. You think you own it. I have suggested you look over WP:OWN but you simply blew it off, and made some excuse to say how you didn't think you owned it. You've reverted countless other users edits because they don't "suit" you, not just my edits. Which were perfectly valid by the way. --Mikedk9109 20:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Each time I reverted it I backed up it with logical reasoning, most of which to you never responded to. Trying to keep false information out of the page doesn't count as 'owning' it, especially since its only one type of edit which I have been reverting. If you post false, biased information to an article you can't expect it not to be reverted.--CyberGhostface 20:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That name is not false or biased. It is true. It is his alternate identity, and has to be included the intro. Your making new excuses every time I respond to try and turn this against me. Regardless, you've broken the 3RR. --Mikedk9109 20:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Its an identity thats only relevant for two out of the six films Leatherface has appeared in and is also featured down in the article. The article applies to Leatherface's character as it has been in all six films. He's only been referred to as Hewitt in two. Its like if someone makes a Dracula film and says his real name is Marten Vladimir. That name might be relevant enough for its own section, but it would be irrevelant and infactual if in the main header of the article it was written "Dracula, also known as Marten Vladimir is a character..." and so forth. Its important enough to be featured in the remake section, it is not important enough to be featured in the introductory paragraph which refers to all incarnations of Leatherface, not just the most recent. That's not excuses...its fact.--CyberGhostface 21:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

CyberGhostFace, why did you get drag another user into this conflict? That user has no business in this. Other than that, I'm done arguing, I'll just wait for the ruling. --Mikedk9109 21:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Because A.) I was getting nowhere trying to convince you myself, B.) Bignole is a major contributor to the article, and I figured his advice would be helpful in settling this, and C.) Because the article and Wikipedia itself is a collaborative effort and if I have any problems I have every right contact another party for assistance.--CyberGhostface 22:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This is stupid. You now *both* have 4R on the article... 12h each William M. Connolley 07:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

User:71.143.14.118 reported by User: AuburnPilot (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Margaret Spellings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.143.14.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [31]
• 1st revert: 16:08, 11 October 2006
• 2nd revert: 16:41, 11 October 2006
• 3rd revert: 18:01, 11 October 2006
• 4th revert: 18:23, 11 October 2006
• 5th revert: 19:30, 11 October 2006
• 6th revert: 20:01, 11 October 2006

• Necessary only for new users: Warned user of 3RR at 18:31, 11 October 2006

Time report made: 20:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Seems to be a serial spammer adding content about Linda Christas International Schools anywhere possible. AuburnPilot

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

User:Codex Sinaiticus reported by User:Cúchullain ^t/c (Result:No block)

Three-revert rule violation on Mi'kmaq language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Codex Sinaiticus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 17:07, October 10, 2006
• 1st revert: 18:41, October 10, 2006
• 2nd revert: 20:07, October 10, 2006
• 3rd revert: 08:26, October 11, 2006
• 4th revert: 12:44, October 11, 2006
• 5th revert: 14:44, October 11, 2006 (Here he added the disputed info back in under the edit summary "add'l info".)

• Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. --> Warning

Time report made: 20:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The user reverts with accusatory edit summaries, and responds abusively on the talk page to civil requests to back up his statements with sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not revert the last time after the warning, I tried to reflect the sources I brought up on the talk page for a compromise wording ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The user does respond agressively as a matter of course, here and elsewhere (also on my own talk page). I have suggested that he NOT SHOUT and tried to be conciliatory. Perhaps this will be a wakeup? -- Evertype·✆ 23:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A compromise? Right. At any rate, you don't need to be warned to know not to revert more than 3 times. I see you've been blocked for it before. That last time you just stuck the contentious material back in after being belligerant on the talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

no block has he didn't revert after warning, avoid the article for 24 hours though or I will reblock Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Kester Teague reported by User:Jaranda ^{wat's sup} (Result:24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on Cory Lidle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kester Teague (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
• 1st revert: 21:37, 11 October 2006
• 2nd revert: [32]
• 3rd revert: [33]
• 4th revert: [34]
• 5th revert: 22:04, 11 October 2006
• 6th revert: 22:11, 11 October 2006
• 7th revert: 22:56, 11 October 2006

• Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. -->

• warned but blanked 2 min later

Time report made: 22:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

There are many more reverts like 10+ but this is enough, keeps removing sourced info Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Nm BLocked by User:Pilotguy Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Cripipper reported by User:John Smith's (Result:protected)

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

• Previous version reverted to: 10:29, 11 October 2006
• 1st revert: 15:07, 11 October 2006
• 2nd revert: 20:39, 11 October 2006
• 3rd revert: 21:51, 11 October 2006
• 4th revert: 23:56, 11 October 2006

A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Time report made: 00:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Although later reversions made by Cripipper were not quite the same, they had the same effect as to remove reference to the role of Mao Zedong in the Cultural Revolution being reduced by the CCP. I myself acknowledged the point that sources were required and provided them. However Cripipper continued to revert, even after I had made an effort to reach a comprimise over a new version. He even declared that the sources were not "acceptable" and thus liable to be removed. Given such an attitude I'm afraid I feel I have to report him - I did warn him beforehand. John Smith's 00:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Please not that this is an edit issue that has been going on for almost a week now. Not only has John Smith's already broken the 3RR himself with regard to this today, he refuses to engage with other editors on this issue on the relevant talk page, instead choosing to decree from on high in his edit summary which edits he accepts and which he does not, instead of attempting to reach a consensus on the discussion pages. Cripipper 00:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I actually changed the entire position of the edited section, which had previously refered to the commission of the CR. I also added sources. Thus I have not broken the 3RR. I also explained what I was doing in the edit summary, as well as leaving a note on the talk page. You made the changes before reaching a "consensus" - I was merely providing some sources to resolve a query. Now you've moved the goalposts and claimed they're not good enough. John Smith's 00:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• You changed the entire position because it had been shown that the previous rvs you have been performing all week on other editors' changes were incorrect. Your first contribution to talk was about one hour ago, after a week of reverting these edits. What you finally replaced them with were sources which do not meet Wikipedia's verifiability standards. Accepting the deletion of the nonsense that was previously there and replacing it with slightly different nonsense referenced from nonsense is not improving an article. Cripipper 01:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Take it to the talk page, protected. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

User:The Hungry Hun reported by User:BostonMA ^talk (Result:no block)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [35]

Comment withdrawn by User:BostonMA

• 1st revert: 12:59, 11 October 2006
• 2nd revert: 20:42, 11 October 2006
• 3rd revert: 21:16, 11 October 2006
• 4th revert: 23:28, 11 October 2006

• Not a warning but a reminder that user had made 3 reverts -- User had already been blocked for 3RR violation on this page on a previous occasion. [36] (I have been a user since December 2005)

Time report made: 00:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: first diff, need to look at lower part of edit

The first revert looks like a vandalism revert as well of some unexplained blanking no block Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Please look at the first revert again. Adding the same image as the other reverts. --BostonMA ^talk 01:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

interest declared: following comment is from user under review

The first revert is clearly a vandalism revert - the picture in question just happened to be among the vandalized content. In your opinion, would the right way have been to undo all the vandalism except for the picture? That can't be the right way, can it?--The Hungry Hun 07:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes Hungry Hun, you are correct. It makes no sense to revert part of the previous changes. I see now that the first reversion should not count. My apologies. --BostonMA ^talk 14:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding the same image? Now, that takes nerve, for this image was already present: it is User:BostonMA who has been blanking it. User:BostonMA is the latest wave of a rising tide of fundamentalist editors who blank images of Muhammad on various articles, in his case without bothering to make an argument on talk - and even so, what can the argument be, other than that the image must be censored to make Wikipedia Halal? (struck inappropriate comments --BostonMA ^talk 14:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)) And the diffs show that the image is not the only thing that User:BostonMA saw fit to arbitrarily censor which HungryHun valiantly restored, knowing he was taking he risk of being reported here and possibly sanctioned by an admin less reasonable than Jaranda. If anything, this report only underscores the need to take action against users who adopt User:BostonMA's approach to editting Wikipedia: for every blip on the noticeboards there are two users who give up editting - really defending - these articles because there is no established mechanism for dealing with this madness, other than to stay glued to Wikipedia and revert them all day or the even more laborious path of arbitration. User:BostonMA should be blocked for his ceaseless and unashamed disruption. (struck inappropriate comments --BostonMA ^talk 14:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC) Observation Post 08:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Observation Post. I will respond to the comments you made here on your talk page. Anyone interested may see my response there. --BostonMA ^talk 14:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

User:221.132.112.133 reported by User:Siddiqui (Result:three reverts)

Three-revert rule violation on Memon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 221.132.112.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: [37]
• 1st revert: [38]
• 2nd revert: [39]
• 3rd revert: [40]

• Continously reverting on Memon, Sindhi Memon, Memoni language-->

Time report made: 00:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Only three reverts, you need four Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This user made three reverts in Memon and two in Sindhi Memon and Memoni language. I cannot revert him again without committing 3RR myself.

Siddiqui 01:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

User:218.185.94.226 reported by User:Marnanel (Result:48 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on Vagina. User:218.185.94.226:

• Previous version reverted to: 00:57
• 1st revert: 00:39
• 2nd revert: 00:50
• 3rd revert: 00:54
• 4th revert: 00:57

• Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. -->

Time report made: 01:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Blocked by another admin for 48 hours, next time for vandalism place it in WP:AIV. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Aminaa reported by User:Viewfinder (Result:12 hours)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [41]
• 1st revert: 16:31, 11 October 2006
• 2nd revert: 18:12, 11 October 2006
• 3rd revert: 21:45, 11 October 2006
• 4th revert: 00:25, 12 October 2006
• 5th revert: 00:30, 12 October 2006

Comments:

• The 3rd revert is a minor variation, all the other reverts are simple reverts. Was warned about 3RR violation in this edit summary, but insisted he was not in violation, using abusive language, but still continued to revert.

12 hours Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Alankc reported by User:User:Dtobias (Result:)

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

• Previous version reverted to: 16:58
• 1st revert: 18:54
• 2nd revert: 21:50
• 3rd revert: 22:00
• 4th revert: 22:14

Time report made: 02:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Seems to be part of an edit war with an anon user.

• I've protected the page in preference to blocks; hopefully they can quickly resolve the issue. It's the registered user who seems to be causing the problem. --Peta 02:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Resolved. --Peta 03:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Rbj reported by User:FeloniousMonk (Result:24h)

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

• Previous version reverted to: 15:33, 11 October
• 1st revert: 17:33, 11 October
• 2nd revert: 18:37, 11 October
• 3rd revert: 19:25, 11 October
• 4th revert: 20:08, 11 October

3RR warning _before_ this report was filed: 19:32, 11 October

Time report made: 03:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Alfred_Vella reported by User:DWaterson (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on University of Bedfordshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Alfred_Vella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 17:06, 11 October 2006
• 1st revert: 00:17, 12 October 2006
• 2nd revert: 10:12, 12 October 2006
• 3rd revert: 10:47, 12 October 2006
• 4th revert: 12:33, 12 October 2006

Time report made: 11:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I blocked Alfred Vella for 24h as he seemed unresponsive to attempts to talk this out. I will leave a message on his Talk page advising him to discuss on the article Talk page before edit warring. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Calgvla reported by User:Tekleni (Result:24h)

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

• Previous version reverted to: 05:12, 12 October 2006
• 1st revert: 06:44, 12 October 2006
• 2nd revert: 15:53, 12 October 2006
• 3rd revert: 15:58, 12 October 2006
• 4th revert: 16:07, 12 October 2006

• Proof user knew of the 3RR before the fourth revert: 16:01, 12 October 2006

Time report made: 16:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked for 24h, he has been warned several times for disruptive behavior and was blocked for 12h just two days ago. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

JCScaliger reported by User:Larry Dunn (Result:No block)

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

• Previous version reverted to: no exact version, as small changes are made each time, but the substance is continual reverts to changes to sections "Origins of Medieval Knighthood" (x5) as well as "Social Class" (x4).
• 1st revert: 11 October, 22:52
• 2nd revert: 12 October
• 3rd revert: 12 October
• 4th revert: 12 October
• 5th revert: 12 October, 20:31

Time report made: 21:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC) All dates are 12 October.

• The first is not a reversion.

• • What would it be called? I made some changes to the text here: [42] and he responded by deleting the sentence altogether.
    • That's a revision; perhaps not the ideal revision. Larry Dunn added the claim which seems to be at issue; perhaps it would be better not to discuss Ministeriales here altogether.

Septentrionalis 01:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

All right, I'll try that and see what happens.Larry Dunn 01:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• The second is a misrepresentation; the edit is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knight&diff=80914465&oldid=80914415 this diff of 00:10 12 october; which is a continuation of the same compound edit. No one else edited between them.

• • I did the comparsion from the end of the compound edit. The relevant part of the compound edit is here: [43]Larry Dunn 01:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • That's the same edit of 22;52; you don't get to count it twice. ( Septentrionalis 01:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, I see what you're saying. I've just deleted the reference to the ministeriales, as well as the section on social status that JCScaliger apparently found necessary because of the reference to them, so hopefully that will put an end to it.Larry Dunn 01:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see this exchange has come to something. Actually, this shouldn;t even count once; it's the basis for partial reversions, if anything. Septentrionalis 02:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow. What I do know is that, in a 24-hour period, this user changed edits I made four or five times as part of a debate over wording. My understanding is that behavior is prohibited by Wikipedia's user policy. I'd ask that an administrator take a look at this.Larry Dunn 04:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• The third diff of 13:56 is a substantial restoration of sourced material, but not an exact reversion; as this compound diff will show.
• The fourth diff of 17:31 adds a sentence of the form "X is possible, Y is also possible", where Larry Dunn added "X is possible".
• The fifth diff of 20:31 is a rewrite of JCScaliger's fairly extensive edit of 19:39.

By contrast, Larry Dunn's edits have been two exact reversions. compound diff 04;22 to 15:55 and compound diff 15:55 to 17:58. The first of these appears to be, on the points at issue, substantially a reversion to the edits he made when he first began to edit the article. Compound diff, 05:31 11 September to 04;22 12 October. Septentrionalis 01:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it possible to finesse a revert to look like a revision? My understanding from Sarah was that that is also not acceptable.Larry Dunn 01:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The 3RR rule cannot be broken by reverting one's own edits. If you had edited between 22:52 and 00:12 the next day, there might have been a partial reversion; but you did not. None of those tweaks can be counted. Compound reversions work like this:

User A edits to version 1.

User B edits to version 2.

User A edits to version 3.

User A then goes back to version 1.

The problem is going back to version 1 around someone-else's edit. That counts as one revert. Septentrionalis 01:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• No block, this isn't a 3RR violation. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Lordkazan reported by User:WarHawk (Result:Both users blocked)

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

• Previous version reverted to: 16:28

Time report made: 00:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocking both users for 24 hours for edit warring. Cowman109^Talk 00:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Ernham reported by User:Muchness (Result: 24h)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [44]
• 1st revert: [45]
• 2nd revert: [46]
• 3rd revert: [47]
• 4th revert: [48]

• Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Time report made: 00:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User is aware of 3RR policy[49] and has previously been blocked for a 3RR violation[50]. --Muchness 00:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

For someone that actually reads this, hopefully you have the time to actually read everything in context in the edits/summaries, which clearly demonstrate vanadlism, whether intentional or otherwise, thus no revert, only rectifying obvious vandalism. The user mark83 was in fact the only one to violate the 3RR in those exchanges, as at least one of his edits was clearly vandalism, again whether accidental or not. Additonally, another admin was semi-involved already, creating a sectionon in the talk page to avoid such edit wars. However, mark83 never seemed to care enough about the issues at hand to give his two-cents. Instead, this muchness fellow here reports me for supposed 3RRV, an interesting guy that appears to have never contributed to the wiki in question where the supposed 3RR occured, at least not in quite a long time(I didn't look through all of his/her history). It's all very curious, especially the corresponding neener-neener messages in my talk pageErnham 13:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I edited the page, removing a section. This was not a revert but a standard edit. [51]

• Ernham revert 1:[52]
• Mark83 revert 1:[53]
• Ernham revert 2:[54]
• Mark83 revert 2:[55]
• Ernham revert 3:[56]
• Mark83 revert 3:[57]
• User warned he will break 3RR by reverting again [58] at 00:50, 13 October 2006
• Ernham revert 4:[59] at 01:03, 13 October 2006

I have asked the user to stop calling me a vandal, it is wholly unacceptable. As for a dicussion having already taken place and me ignoring it, my last edit was at 00:53, 13 October 2006. The discussion did not begin to 04:13, 13 October 2006 [60] Mark83 14:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Definitely 3RR from E; I don't see any vandalism. M has 4 identical edits but its not clear the first is a rv. 24h for E William M. Connolley 15:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Jaranda reported by User:152.163.101.12 (Result: warning)

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

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
• 1st revert: 01:38, 12 October 2006
• 2nd revert: 02:05, 12 October 2006
• 3rd revert: 00:07, 13 October 2006
• 4th revert: 01:54, 13 October 2006

• Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. -->

Time report made: 02:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Some kind of revert war on the Brady Leaf page, it's the admin Jaranda vs two editors over should the article be a redirect or not, which I think it should not. 152.163.101.12 02:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Not technically inside 24, so warned William M. Connolley 15:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Siddiqui reported by User:Hkelkar (Result: 48)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [61]
• 1st revert: 09:59, 12 October 2006
• 2nd revert: 10:04, 12 October 2006
• 3rd revert: 10:07, 12 October 2006
• 4th revert: 04:05, 13 October 2006

• Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here: The User is not new.He's been a wikipedia editor for a long time.

Time report made: 12:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User has been edit-warring on multiple articles, including History of Pakistan.Hkelkar 12:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have four reverts on the same article.

• 1st revert: 01:38, 12 October 2006 (a revert of this edit)
• 2nd revert: 11:01, 12 October 2006
• 3rd revert: 11:05, 12 October 2006
• 4th revert: 11:09, 12 October 2006 (which you reverted back)

BhaiSaab ^talk 17:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

48h for S. H self-reverted. William M. Connolley 18:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

User:81.65.131.39 reported by User:ChrisGriswold (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on Decimation (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 81.65.131.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• User has repeatedly re-added list section based on a source prohibited by WikiProject Comics editorial guidelines and which violates the copyright of the publisher who first published the list. User has also repeatedly removed the {{unreferenced}} tag and citations in other sections, as well as the references section. User has been warned a number of times and has never discussed changes on talk page.
• 1st revert: 15:40 October 12, 2006
• 2nd revert: 15:55 October 12, 2006
• 3rd revert: 18:36, October 12, 2006
• 4th revert: 04:18, October 13, 2006
• 5th revert: 12:01, October 13, 2006

• 3RR warning

Time report made: 16:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Don't see why #5 is a rv William M. Connolley 22:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Sammyterry reported by User:XP (Result: 24h)

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

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5

There are more as well today scattered in history under other sections, but this one is most aggressive.

• Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. --> Notified user of 3rr policy on their talk page when issuing the welcome, and earlier let them know not to remove sourced content.

Time report made: 21:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This particular article has been reported previously I believe to the Foundation by User:Haisch, who is the subject of the article, so extra caution and speed is needed perhaps. · XP · 21:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

User is still at it. · XP · 21:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 21:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Barryispuzzled reported by User:Smatprt 22:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC) (Result:No block)

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

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
• 1st revert: 06:44
• 2nd revert: 18:24
• 3rd revert: 19:18
• 4th revert: 21:26

• Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. -->

Time report made: 22:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: [Barryispuzzled] has threatened to keep reverting my properly sourced additions "every night before he goes to bed" and has now engaged assistants to keep reverting in his absense. It has been noted by others that he and [alabamaboy] are attempting to "own the page" and their usertalk indicates they are teaming up on this harrassment. A read-thru of the discussion page will show that this is not his first altercation, and that new editors, such as myself, have been attacked, harrassed, and chased off the page. [barryispuzzled] also has cut off discussion after hastily assembling a "consensus" of those that agree with him, but ignoring numerous other users comments or suggestions.

The fourth edit isn't a revert. No block Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Fyslee reported by User:Levine2112 (Result:12 hours each)

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

• Previous version reverted to: 20:42, 13 October 2006
• 1st revert: 21:25, 13 October 2006
• 2nd revert: 22:28, 13 October 2006
• 3rd revert: 22:33, 13 October 2006
• 4th revert: 22:50, 13 October 2006

Time report made: 22:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Editor is initiating an edit war on three page simultaneously (Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, and NCAHF).

Comment: Levine2112 made his first revert before the first one of mine listed above, and thus made his 4RR immediately before I made my 3RR. If I did anything wrong, it was certainly unintentional. The whole thing is found at Quackwatch, where we were discussing the matter. I used Wikipedia policies to show that two links were in total violation of WP:RS, WP:EL, and WP:BLP, and therefore, since no one was responding with anything better than emotional arguments, I made a bold delete. That doesn't count in a 3RR, which only counts reverts, hence it being called 3RR, rather than 3DRR I'm trying to keep libel out of the articles, and Levine2112 and company are trying to include it. Motivations are totally different. -- Fyslee 00:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I have asked Fyslee to provide me with the DIFFs showing my violation as he charges. He has not been able to... because it doesn't exist. This is not the place to argue our edits, just his violation of the 3RR, which you can see in the four DIFFs provided above. Please also note that in my 3rd and final revert, I used the edit summary to warn Fyslee that we has on the verge of violating 3RR. It is hard for me to buy that his violation was, as he says, unintentional. He's an experienced editor here and should know better than use an edit war to push his POV agenda. Levine2112 00:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Both of you broke 3rr that I see, 12 hours each. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: (I'm involved, so I wouldn't consider overriding the blocks.) I think this needs to be taken to WP:BLP/Noticeboard when they come off 3RR (which is in a few minutes, if I read the time correctly), as User:Fyslee claims to be reverting WP:BLP violations. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What my report could have looked like

User:Levine2112 reported by User:Fyslee (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on Quackwatch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Levine2112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

To keep the edit history understandable, I'll list the edits chronologically but separately, since they count separately:

Bolen link (Quackpot Watch)

• Previous version (before my delete) reverted to: 20:49, 12 October 2006

-- Both links are there, and had been there for a long time. My examination of the rules, as I explained them in the discussion above, led me to delete one or both of them. They should never have been there in the first place.

• My first delete (not a revert) of the Bolen link -- 00:14, 13 October 2006. This was what Levine2112 reverted (his 1st revert below).
• My edit summary:

"self-published email newsletters even when posted on websites, are not allowed as external links or sources, except on articles about the author of the emails"

• His 1st revert: 00:20, 13 October 2006

I left the Bolen link, even though it involves libelous accusations that have, under forced depostion, been admitted to be "euphemisms."

Rosenthal link (QuackWatch Watch)

• Previous version (before my delete) reverted to: 20:49, 12 October 2006

-- Both links are there, and had been there for a long time. My examination of the rules, as I explained them in the discussion above, led me to delete one or both of them. They should never have been there in the first place.

• My first delete (not a revert) of the Rosenthal link -- 23:25, 13 October 2006. This was what Levine2112 reverted (his 1st revert below).
• My edit summary:

"Rosenthal site violates WP:RS

• His 1st revert: 00:24, 14 October 2006
• His edit summary:

"reinstating relevant critical link which provides not only opinion on subject but court documents and relevant news articles and interviews"

• My 1st revert of only the Rosenthal link: 00:28, 14 October 2006
• My edit summary:

"Bolen and Rosenthal sites violate WP:RS and WP:EL; use specific links to court documents in the article"

• His 2nd revert: 00:30, 14 October 2006
• His edit summary:

"Revert to revision 81295755 dated 2006-10-13 22:24:29 by Levine2112 using popups."

• My 2nd revert of only the Rosenthal link: 00:33, 14 October 2006
• My edit summary:

"Bolen and Rosenthal sites violate WP:RS, WP:EL, and WP:BLP; use specific links to court documents in the article."

• His 3rd revert: 00:38, 14 October 2006
• His edit summary:

"careful Fyslee... on the verge of 3RR"

• My 3rd revert of only the Rosenthal link: 00:50, 14 October 2006
• My edit summary:

"Same reasons apply. You just made 4rr. I'm discussing on talk."

It would appear that I was mistaken at this point. He was at 3RR, not 4RR, and so was I. My (belated) apologies!!

If my first delete is to be counted as my first revert, then the 3RR policy needs to be more clear. I don't recall ever having read this. If it is there somewhere, please point me to it.

Time report made: 21:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

COMMENTS

Context

NB: All of this was happening in the context of a discussion about External Links, where gross violations of WP:RS, WP:EL, and WP:BLP were discussed. I requested explanations of any errors in my reasoning, explanations based on Wikipedia sources, and not on emotional and other types of reasoning. I have not received them. I would like to understand these policies. If I have misunderstood them, then I have a right to have them explained properly as I have requested. The other editors should debunk by understanding using policies. If the policies are ambiguous or unclear, then they should be revised instead of censuring me or ganging up on me. I am certainly willing to abide by policies.

It was only after failing to receive explanations based on Wikipedia's policies that I began to delete the two links. I believed I had undebunked Wiki policies to back me up. The proper response to my deletions would have been to debunk my interpretation on the talk page, and not for Levine2112 to start an edit war, and then call in the troops when he had reached 3RR. Most of the editors on these articles hate the subjects of the articles and are doing what they can to create an undue balance of criticisms, and even without regard to their quality, using sites that violate WP:BLP.

Vastly different motivations

This is not about disallowing ordinary negative sites. Other sites with negative viewpoints are available and allowable, but these two sites are of the type that are expressly forbidden.

I am applying Wikipedia policies in an attempt to properly limit and control the use of libelous sites (limit and control libel), as required by the policies mentioned above. Levine2112, OTOH, is trying to get as much negativity in the articles as possible (promote libel), including dredging up the most disgusting packs of lies (proven under deposition) available.

Our very different motivations should be taken into account. If any error of judgment occurs, it should be on the side of limiting and controlling the use of libelous information here at Wikipedia, and not on the side of relaxing our standards. "We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." - Jimbo Wales.

Because these particular sites involve WP:BLP issues, these deletions are particularly sensitive, and the 3RR rule may not apply to my deletions and reverts, but still apply to Levine2112. This is a mitigating factor in my behavior. If I have erred, I have erred on the proper side.

Background info

My original delete (not a revert, and thus not counting), and Levine2112's subsequent reverts (starting an edit war, with his first revert counting as "1R"), all involved two different links on three articles, and thus counting was confusing in the heat of the battle, especially nearing 2 AM her in Denmark. I suspect that my miscount was because of a very similar situation occurring on the Stephen Barrett article at the same time.

I went to bed about 2 AM and did not read the later comments or see the 3RR block until the next (Saturday) morning. He writes from the LA area, and I write from Denmark, although I am originally from Southern California. We are working with a very large time difference, with me being nine hours ahead of Calif. time. I did not document the diffs, not because I couldn't, but because it was very late (early!). I'm taking the time to do it now. If my counting of edits was in error, then it was an honest mistake and certainly not deliberate. I expect Levine2112 to exercise good faith. If I was mistaken, and I seem to have been about his revert count, then I apologize. I still believe that I did not do a 4RR and should not have been blocked, especially in light of the WP:BLP issues involved. -- Fyslee 21:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Tekleni & Eupator & Clevelander & Hectorian reported by User:Calgvla (Result:Page Protected)

Three-revert rule violation on Armenia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tekleni & Eupator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
• 1st revert: [62]
• 2nd revert: [63]
• 3rd revert: [64]
• 4th revert: [65]
• 5th revert: [66]
• 6th revert: [67]
• 7th revert: [68]
• 8th revert: [69]
• 9th revert: [70]
• 10th revert: [71]
• 11th revert: [72] Sockpupet of Eupator IP address is located in Canada, Eupator's home.

• Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. -->

Time report made: 23:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:They are working together to remove the POV tag, there is an ongoing RfC the tag should remain

Too many people revert warning, page protected instead. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

User:KarlBunker reported by User:-- Selmo ^(talk) (Result:)

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

• 1st revert: 10:54, 12 October 2006
• 2nd revert: 12 October 2006
• 3rd revert: 11:20, 12 October 2006
• 4th revert: 22:04, 12 October 2006
• 5th revert: 13 October 2006

Time report made: 23:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User has asked to talk about the article before rolling back, however, duscussion turned into an "I'm right-your-wrong" marathon.

Comment: An administrator noted that KarlBunker violated 3RR. I have been trying to not respond in kind to him so I have not reported it. -THB 04:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Spartaz reported by User:Kevin Breitenstein (Result: 8h)

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

• Previous version reverted to: 07:41, 8 October 2006

This will be a little unconventional, I apologise, but the context is neccessary.

Not within the window I'm using, but shows point:

• • 15:21, 12 October 2006 spartaz: [73] his summary: "revert to version with correct tags for unverified images"

1. 03:45, 13 October 2006 70.52.72.33: [74] edit summary "rv"
2. 12:36, 13 October 2006 spartaz: [75] edit summary: "restore tag"
3. 15:08, 13 October 2006 spartaz: [76] edit summary: "revert to last version with correct tags for unverified images"
4. 16:15, 13 October 2006 spartaz: [77]edit summary: "This is my third revert. user:mikklai is being disruptive and removing tags on disputed images that WP:PUI requires them for disputed images"

Time report made: 01:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: At the RFCU on spartaz, the checkuser, UninvitedCompany, views the sockpuppetry as obvious. Thus, if the sockpuppetry is obvious, this is not only breaking the spirit of 3RR through an 'allotment' idealogy, but straight out lying about it. After the 3rd revert with an account, and 1 revert logged out, you say you've only done it 3 times, to escape the 3RR rule. Also note that a 4th revert was done by Spartaz's account a little under 45 minutes after the 24 hour window, not including the IP's revert. There's 5 reverts in a 25 hour period if we include the IP. Kevin_b_er 01:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

8h William M. Connolley 09:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Gamaliel reported by User:Tbeatty (Result:)

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

• 1st revert: 07:11, October 13, 2006
• 2nd revert: 15:09, October 12, 2006
• 3rd revert: 14:03, October 12, 2006
• 4th revert: 10:18, October 12, 2006

I was going to leave it as a simple polite standard warning on his talk page, but he deleted the warning as trolling. As I understand it, that is also a violation. I believe a 24 hour block is standard for this. --Tbeatty 01:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The fourth "revert" is a combination of two edits made twelve hours apart. There is no 3RR violation. Care to apologize? Gamaliel 03:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I errored on the 4th revert as I combined you sequential edits. Here is the actual 4th revert

• 4th revert: 22:15, October 11, 2006

and your fifth revert

• 5th revert: 00:04, October 11, 2006

I apologize for getting your 4th revert wrong. Are you going to wikilawyer that 5 reverts in slightly over 1 day is not a violation? Gaming the 3RR system is also a violation of 3RR rules. --Tbeatty 03:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Can't resist getting one last dig in even though you are clearly in the wrong, can you? And what exactly is your point here? It takes (at least) two to edit war. My reverts are "gaming the system", while yours are sainly and pure, of course. You were wrong about the violation, and I thank you for your apology, but now is the time for you to just let it go. The issue is resolved, the edit war you started is over. Gamaliel 03:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not in the wrong at all and I wouldn't be wasting my time here if I did. I removed defamatory material per WP:BLP. You are attempting to tag a single individual with a derogatory tag that is not supported by the facts or reliable sources. You failed to do it in the article and are now attempting to do it with the category system. When you reverted for the fourth time, I brought it to WP:BLP noticeboard where a compromise was offered. You reverted the compromise and were then reverted by another editor from BLP. When I attempted to warn you about reverting, you deleted the warning and said it was trolling. Any newbie would have have been blocked for 24 hours. Yet as an admin you seem to think edit warring, multiple reverts and warning deletion is acceptable. The edit war started when you added defamatory information to a living person. I have no idea if the edit war has ended as you seem to game the 3RR system and when the clock expires I have no idea what you will do. --Tbeatty 04:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

User:TwoHorned reported by User:Hkelkar (Result: 8 to 24h)

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

• Previous version reverted to: 16:49, 13 October 2006 and 17:59, 13 October 2006 both partial reverts amount to one full revert. See comments.
• 1st revert: 17:59, 13 October 2006
• 2nd revert: 18:17, 13 October 2006
• 3rd revert: 02:20, 14 October 2006
• 4th revert: 02:26, 14 October 2006
• 5th revert: 02:51, 14 October 2006 (as anonymous ip 81.57.10.83: He just logged off and did it).

Time report made: 07:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Each revert is slightly different, but all of them involve removing the word "researcher" as a characterization of the subject of the article with various bogus justifications provided.Hkelkar 07:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Did I forget to sign this? Oops. 8h, extended to 24h for anon editing William M. Connolley 15:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

User:67.190.44.85 reported by User:Sparkhead (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on Freddie Mercury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.190.44.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• 1st revert: Revision as of 21:55, October 13, 2006
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 22:34, October 13, 2006
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 23:54, October 13, 2006
• 4th revert: Revision as of 23:59, October 13, 2006

Time report made: 12:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This user also made 36 "mini-edits" in the space of 3 hours, including some other minor reverts (lost track), and had the changes reverted by four other editors. *Sparkhead 12:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No "prev version" so don't know 1st R is one. Any warning? William M. Connolley 15:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Wikima reported by User:-Justin (koavf)·T·C·M (Result: 8 / 48)

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

• Previous version reverted to: 15:15, October 13, 2006
• 1st revert: 15:46, October 13, 2006
• 2nd revert: 10:43, October 14, 2006
• 3rd revert: 11:34, October 14, 2006
• 4th revert: 11:40, October 14, 2006

Time report made: 16:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Note that two changes were made since the old version to which Wikima is reverting; he did not take out the refernce to subsidies, but keeps on deleting the ones to napalm. Note also that my edits have not simply been reverts, but additional scholarly sources per talk. I've tried to discuss this on the talk page, but it's going nowhere. Wikima prefers to simply delete this information instead of putting {{fact}} and insists that credible sources aren't enough evidence. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No: user koavf has reverted 5 times within 24 hours the changes done by wikima:

• 1st revert: 19:33, 13 October 2006
• 2nd revert: 03:49, 14 October 2006
• 3rd revert: 14:30, 14 October 2006
• 4th revert: 15:27, 14 October 2006
• 5th revert: 15:40, 14 October 2006

wikima has been discussing all the time and asking you not to revert his change and to bring evidence for the allegation of Napalm,but you koavf were not cooperative.--A Jalil 17:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks Jalil. I haven't seen that.
• I think koav shoudl have informed me. It is sad that he reacts this way.
• The topic on use of napalm is strongly disputed. I do dispute it
• I do a huge effort to discuss things
• I don't undertsand this action from someone who reverts almost every change that others do?

Cheers - wikima 17:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

8h for W (how can you say Please do avoid edit wars when you're edit-warring?). K gets 48 for edit-warring yet again, and will get a week nexxt time (in the unfortunate case of there being a next time) William M. Connolley 18:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I want report myself (Rex) and Ulritz (Result: 24h each)

Three-revert rule violation on Various terms used for Germans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Stahlhelm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Franconian languages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

I hope the administrators forgive me for not providing single diffs, but given the degree of edit warring it would be pointless.

• Stahlhelm: 6 reverts within 1 hour.
• Various terms used for Germans: 5 reverts within 2 hours.
• Franconian languages: 6 reverts within 2 hours.

Time report made: 18:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

I'm so tired of this user. I've tried everything, discussing, mediations and at this very moment even an arbcom case ... it doesn't matter, he does not react and it does not interest him. This user has started a crusade against me.

Nobody is doing anything about him or his behaviour, and he gets away with everything: insults gaming the system, ruining wikipedia.

Today I lost it. I could not stand his behaviour anymore. No matter how many references and sources I digg up that oppose him, no matter how wrong I prove him to be, no matter what I say, all I get are insults and reverts. People like him, honestly, should not edit wikipedia.

Please adminstrators, block me for the 3RR, block him, and please restore/protect the pages in question. Thanks in advance. Rex 18:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Not really whats for the best here. I've blocked you both for 24h, so if someone else wants to fix the pages, they will get a chance William M. Connolley 19:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Bov reported by User:Peephole (Result: 3h)

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

• Previous version reverted to: 07:59, 13 October 2006
• 1st revert: 23:21, 13 October 2006
• 2nd revert: 02:52, 14 October 2006
• 3rd revert: 19:38, 14 October 2006
• 4th revert: 20:20, 14 October 2006

Time report made: 19:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I reported user Bov for an earlier breach of 3rr on the same article. He was given a warning back then. [78][79]

3h William M. Connolley 19:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Copy-paste-edit this for a new report

===[[User:USERNAME_VIOLATION]] reported by User:~~~ (Result:)===
<!-- If your signature has additional fonts, please enter your username manually -->

[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on 
{{Article|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{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://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 2nd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 3rd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 4th revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up [[Help:Diff]] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
<!--
* Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here. 
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. 
-->

Time report made: ~~~~~ 

''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->