Revision as of 17:28, 20 April 2008

Template:Moveprotected

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

Violations

Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.

Article Bălţi on the verge of a edit war

Could anyone, pls, help prevent this dispute degenerating into an edit war. Sorry for not putting this request through the proper channels, they are very slow in reacting. Hopefully, this very conspecous place would help get some of you interested to help us. Thank you very much. Dc76\ 11:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

User:GijsvdL reported by User:Guido den Broeder (Result: See result)

• Three-revert rule violation on Melody Amber chess tournament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). GijsvdL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: (not sure what exactly is meant here by 'previous')

• 1st revert: 09:27, 14 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 12:04, 14 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 21:59, 14 April 2008
• 4th revert: 06:19, 15 April 2008

Editor keeps removing references that are in full accordance with WP:COS, despite ample explanation on the talk page and several warnings. User is not disputing relevance (the other books in the series are kept) but insists that my name is not allowed to appear on the internet. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note Guido den Broeder is notorious on the Dutch wikipedia for selfpromotion and related problems. He's under strict supervision of a mentor, and currently blocked for two weeks. See here his track record on blocks. Regards, JacobH (talk) 07:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC) (sysop on Dutch wikipedia)

User:JacobH is a single-purpose account, taking part in the same edit war. Enough said. As explained already in 30 other places: I have no mentor, block is random by another mob member and is being dealt with. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Is_this_3RR.3F about this case. A EN.wiki sysop already states my reverts are valid. Note also that JacobH is not a single-purpose account. JacobH is a NL.wiki sysop. As an addition: NL.wiki arbcom has taken severe measures against Guido den Broeder for the same behaviour. He's also blocked at NL.wiki at the moment. GijsvdL (talk) 08:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No such measures have been taken. Since user keeps repeating this lie (check with nl:Arbcom, note that the previous random block was lifted by the Arbcom), can something further be done? Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Anybody may visit NL.wiki IRC to verify. GijsvdL (talk) 08:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The IRC is not a part of nl:Misplaced Pages. The Arbcom is.

Meanwhile, it has been confirmed (village pump) that these actions are also a violation of en:copyright, and I will treat them so. There are already Arbcom procedures at nl:Misplaced Pages against this mob for similar violations (note, however, that the cases are incessantly vandalized by same users, so again check with nl:Arbcom). I will add no more and await your decision. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

At IRC there are sufficient sysops online to verify that Guido is lying about the NL.wiki arbcom-decision. GijsvdL (talk) 08:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to try something different today: I won't block you if both of you just stop editing chess articles and use discussion to work out your disagreements. Both of you are not allowed to edit a chess article (Except to remove blatantly obvious vandalism/libel) until some progress is made between you. If you wish, I can help mediate the discussion. Scarian 09:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have clashed with Guido before (on the English Misplaced Pages), so I will not take any actions here. I just want to say that he does have a mentor on the Dutch Misplaced Pages, appointed by the Dutch ArbCom. Guido doesn't accept the mentoring, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. The main reason for his problems on the Dutch Misplaced Pages is self-promotion, just like here. And checking the VPP discussion started by Guido indicates that it has not been confirmed that the removal of these links (books written by Guido and published by his own company) is a copyright violation at all. My suggestion would be to warn GijsvdL to be more careful about the 3RR (it is unclear to me whether he was aware of this policy), and to strongly warn Guido den Broeder against inserting any form of reference or link to his own work or work of his company, to avoid running in the same trouble here as he has on the Dutch Misplaced Pages. Fram (talk) 09:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, please check with nl:Arbcom, also read up on Dutch law, and yes, GijsvdL was aware, he was warned several times and was already active on this page. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Dutch law is irrelevant here, I have checked the Dutch Misplaced PagesThe same arbcom page that undid your second-to-last block, only four days ago, also confirmed the mentoring], and could you point me to the place were GijsvdL was informed about our WP:3RR policy? It's unclear to me what you mean by "this page", but if you mean this page, then he hasn't edited it before your report here.Fram (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been informed about 3RR as follows: It is not currently 3RR (currently at 3) and if it was taken to 3RR I wouldn't block anyway, because it is clearly removing self-promotion. Those aren't references, they're just adverts for the books. Black Kite 23:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC) - GijsvdL (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

@Fram: You missed the Arbcom procedure where this so-called mentorship is contested. nl:Misplaced Pages falls under Dutch law, which says that a mentor can only be appointed if the pupil requests it. There is plenty of jurisprudence. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think nl: falls under Dutch law? It's hosted in the same way as all the other Wikimedia projects. The fact that it uses the Dutch language is entirely irrelevant for the jurisdiction. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have given the link where Dutch Arbcom, four days ago, confirmed the mentoring. You contest it, but I have seen no posts from either ArbCom or the mentor that contest it, so for the purposes of Misplaced Pages, the mentoring is still valid. As for Dutch law: that is completely irrelevant here. A website can have its own rules of participation. Dutch law also forbids the silencing (blocking) of people, but that does not apply to a private website. But you have accused GijsvdL of lying (see above), while he has done no such thing. You are blocked and a mentor has been appointed by the arbcom (which recently confirmed this). You can contest these measures, but to deny them and to accuse another user of lying for pointing them out is way out of line. Fram (talk) 12:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Discussion should not be taking place on this page. Please use a talkpage. Stifle (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• I have accepted user:Scarian's offer to mediate. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• User has refused Scarian's offer. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to say this in Dutch: waar in godsnaam gaat deze ruzie over? Jullie zijn aan het stoeien als twee kleuters in een zandbak. Hij begon, nee hij, nee hij, nee hij, ik vind je stom, jij bent stom, nee jij bent stom. Zien jullie zelf niet dat jullie van een mug een olifant aan het maken zijn? Als je bloeddruk zo hoog oploopt dat je je niet meer normaal kan gedragen, zorg dan dat je iets anders gaat doen. Ga de afwas doen, boodschappen, een spelletje, wat dan ook, alles behalve Misplaced Pages. Translated in English per a message left on my talk page: What the hell is this dispute about? You are fighting like two babies in a sandbox. "He started it, no he did, no he did, no he did, I don't like you, I don't like you." Can't you see that you're making a mountain out of a molehill? If your blood pressures rises to the point you can't behave properly, make sure you're gonna do something else. The dishes, groceries, a game, anything, but Misplaced Pages. Aecis 22:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• • To clarify, my previous comment in Dutch was a stern reprimande wrt the behaviour of both editors. I do think GijsvdL has a point though. Guido den Broeder has a habit, both here and on nl:, of inserting his own, self-published books as further readings. Those books are probably relevant and authoritative, so he probably remains inches within WP:COI. GijsvdL has objected to this. The merits of this objection should be assessed on the relevant talk pages, which appears to be taking place. But the response can never be to edit war to get the books in or out of the article, which is what both sides have done here. Aecis 22:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I have no such habit, thanks. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
      • You don't? A short selection: , , , and ? And the userfied, previously AFD'd User:Guido den Broeder/ME/CVS Vereniging, about the organization you co-founded, where you list yourself in the references no less than three times? And what about your consistent edit warring to remove information that doesn't conform to your personal opinion? See for instance nl:Myalgische encefalomyelitis and nl:Ongedifferentieerde somatoforme stoornis. Add to that the ridiculous accusations of vandalism and personal attacks. And what about this edit, where you told an editor you were editwarring with "I will see you soon." Can you not see how that can be felt as threatening? You weren't placed under mentorship for nothing, were you? There are no less than four threads about you over at nl:Misplaced Pages:Verzoekpagina voor moderatoren/RegBlok at the moment, and somehow this is everyone's fault but yours? Aecis 23:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Please strike out your comments. They are unrelated to this page and I find them offensive. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I would appreciate a ruling since user insists on further escalation. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
          • We don't like escalation, we just felt responsible to warn EN.wiki community about Guido. If EN.wiki enjoys his behaviour, no problem, please keep him here. GijsvdL (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have raised this issue on the conflict of interest noticeboard. This is more appropriate, since the dispute revolves around the allegation that Guido has violated WP:COI, and Guido's denial that he has done so. Any mediation and dispute resolution is most likely to come from that direction. This discussion has sunk to the level of flaming, so I recommend closing it. Aecis 22:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• A ruling has already been given by Scarian: . Therefore, this discussion is already closed. Furthermore, the page has been protected by AGK (expires 13:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC))). Please stop posting to this thread. If you have things to discuss, please find an appropriate place to discuss them. This page is not for discussion. Every post here takes up space on administrators' watchlists. If more 3RR violations occur, please list diffs according to the standard format. By the way, "previous" means "before", "earlier". In order to prove that something is a revert, you need to show that there was a version at an earlier time that's the same as (or similar to) what the person is changing it to. Otherwise, it might not be a revert but just an edit that puts in new information. The time on the "previous version reverted to" should be an earlier time than the times of the versions being compared in the diffs. That doesn't matter now for this report because Scarian has already ruled on it. (Edit conflict; non-admin opinion) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

UEFA Cup (Result: One user blocked)

Anyone with a spare half hour, the long running war over UEFA Cup related articles is ongoing, see UEFA Cup records and statistics. Protections such as that by 'B' at Valencia CF have had no effect, nor a short ban for User:Ultracanalla (more than this one user are involved, but he appears to be asking for an admin to become involved judging by his edit summaries) MickMacNee (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

For convenience, here are some links to the above-mentioned: article UEFA Cup records and statistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and article Valencia CF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and user Ultracanalla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A correct report would have filled a whole page, since nothing was done after the editors resumed warring following an 8hr block by your own hand, following the first correct filing. If anyone is interested in another incorrect filing: admin User:Oldelpaso must have either acted on this filing anyway, or saw the capital letter e/s tirades in recent changes, and has warned two editors since, and , of which Ultracanella broke tonight , and Fadiga09 reverted with the e/s if i get blocked, so do you. MickMacNee (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No violation (non-admin opinion). Although there's editwarring going on, I don't see 4 reverts within a 24-hour period on either of the two pages whose links I've listed above. I encourage all involved to discuss things calmly on the talk page rather than reverting repeatedly. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure edit warring within the technical limit is supposed to be actionable. Do you see any evidence that the users will discuss on the talk page, despite having been warned? Plenty of talk has happened with no result, now they just seem determined to take each other down, meanwhile the article gets reverted continually without a technical violation. And be aware, this is being done at other articles too. There comes a point where the technical interpretation of the policy and the correct use of filing template has to be put aside for the good of an article. If it goes on much further, I and I presume other non-admins will just unwatch it and let them get on with it. MickMacNee (talk)

I issued the warnings as a result of seeing edit warring on UEFA Cup on my watchlist. I hadn't realised it had spread to Valencia CF too. The prolonged nature of the edit warring means I wouldn't oppose a block even if 3RR was not technically breached, as both have continued to edit war despite receiving previous warnings and short blocks for it. By now they should both be aware that 3RR is not an entitlement. Lets see whether B's actions change anything. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Fadiga09 blocked 48 hours, Dustihowe warned, rollback removed, Ultracanalla warned. The cross-article edit warring is ridiculous. Protecting the article for a week didn't seem to do the trick. I have removed the rollback privilege from Dustihowe (talk · contribs), who was using it to revert war on Valencia CF. I have blocked Fadiga09 (talk · contribs) for 48 hours. He appears to be the only one to have violated 3RR of late. I left warnings on the talk pages of the other two. --B (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Light Defender reported by IP Editor 87.XXX (Result: Page protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on Never Forget (Musical) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Light Defender (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 9:01, 16 April 2008

• 1st revert: Revision as of 09:01, 16 April 2008
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 09:04, 16 April 2008
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 09:07, 16 April 2008
• 4th revert: Revision as of 09:09, 16 April 2008
• 5 th revert: Revision as of 09:31, 16 April 2008
• 6 th revert: Revision as of 09:34, 16 April 2008
• 7 th revert: Revision as of 09:36, 16 April 2008
• 8 th revert: Current revision (09:53, 16 April 2008)
• Diff of 3RR warning: Current revision (09:47, 16 April 2008)

This is only one example, the editor is trying to systematically remove any evidence that a musical is not endorsed by the band take that - he is removing material sourced to the times (a reliable source) from multiple articles. (I am a dynamic ip which is why I'm listed as 87.xxx.xxx 87.114.150.200 (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

PhilKnight has protected the article (expires 10:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)). Netsnipe has also protected article Gary Barlow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), (expires 11:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC))). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Rodhullandemu reported by User:Coppertwig (Result: No action)

• Three-revert rule violation on Talk:Deaths in 2008 (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 08:06, 16 April 2008

• 1st revert: 09:01, 16 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 10:57, 16 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 11:28, 16 April 2008
• 4th revert: 14:53, 16 April 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: (User is an administrator, therefore presumably aware of 3RR.)

This is the same incident as reported in the malformed report above. Rodhullandemu removed a comment from an article talk page four times, essentially the same comment each time. The comment is addressed to Rodhullandemu. Smurfmeister posted the original message; the message was restored 4 times by 3 similar IP accounts. Rodhullandemu alleges that the comment is vandalism and that an IP account restoring it is a sockpuppet of Smurfmeister. Smurfmeister is not a banned user, so I don't think it's a valid 3RR exception even if they're sockpuppets. I didn't find any suspected sockpuppet report. If the IP accounts are sockpuppets of each other, they've also violated 3RR.

The reverts by the IP accounts are as follows:

• 10:55, 16 April 2008 62.64.201.155
• 11:02, 16 April 2008 62.64.201.155
• 14:50, 16 April 2008 62.64.213.157
• 17:39, 16 April 2008 62.64.200.158 (This last one is the one which posted the above report, and

which Rodhullandemu alleges to be a sockpuppet of Smurfmeister.)

☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1. The start of it all: Talk:Mark_Speight#Death
2. Notification of problem: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive138#Revert_war_at_Mark_Speight
3. Support for my actions: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Update:_WP:POINT_disruption_at_Talk:Deaths_in_2008_-_Block_review_please
4. The locus in quo:Talk:Deaths_in_2008#Mark_Speight
5. Proposal by third party to block IP for disruption: Misplaced Pages:AN#Proposed_blocking_of_an_IP_user_.2862.64.200.158.29
6. IP is blocked by User:seicer:
7. Relevant policies/guidelines:

Misplaced Pages:Talk#How_to_use_article_talk_pages

Misplaced Pages:Talk#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable

• If this is an improper 3RR violation, I am a banana. And I note the editor in question has not taken up my suggestion to open an WP:RFC in relation to this. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 05:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note While the reverts were not strictly exempted from 3RR, I am minded to take no action on this because the IP and poster were making posts which bordered on personal attacks.  Deferred RFC. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

User:SaltyBoatr reported by User:Yaf (Result: 48 hour block )

• Three-revert rule violation on Right to bear arms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SaltyBoatr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 20:33, 11 April 2008

• 1st revert: 17:33, 17 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 17:40, 17 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 17:49, 17 April 2008
• 4th revert: 18:45, 17 April 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 21:38, 5 April 2008

Editor is continuously edit warring with other editors, attempting to WP:OWN this and other articles on the topic of firearms and is a well known tendentious and POV edit warrior on Misplaced Pages. He attempts to WP:OWN all articles which he patrols, while adding very little content. See the mediation to Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution article itself, the Gun politics in the United States article, the mediation to Hunting weapon, WorldNetDaily, ad nauseum histories. Also, see RFPP request.Yaf (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours for clear violation. User has been blocked before for edit warring on the same article. There also seems to be numerous editors reverting him/her. Obvious consensus against their changes? Scarian 19:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Anastrophe. reported by User:Anastrophe. (Result: No vio )

• Three-revert rule violation on Right to bear arms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Anastrophe. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): 20:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

i'm reporting myself in the interest of fairness per the block immediately preceding this, as believe i'm guilty of violating 3RR in response to User:Saltyboatr's reverts. Anastrophe (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Nej, at most you did 3 reverts apparently in line with consensus. No violation. (And don't let you conscience fool you into feeling guilty ;-) Scarian 20:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks. less about guilt than about being fair, and above-board. Anastrophe (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

User:12.18.63.233 reported by User:kww (Result: Blocked by RHaE)

• Three-revert rule violation on Deaths in 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 12.18.63.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 19:41, 17 April 2008 (23:41 UTC)

• 1st revert: 19:42, 17 April 2008 (23:42 UTC)
• 2nd revert: 19:45, 17 April 2008 (23:45 UTC)
• 3rd revert: 19:49, 17 April 2008 (23:49 UTC)
• 4th revert: 19:55, 17 April 2008 (23:55 UTC)

• Diff of 3RR warning: 19:51, 17 April 2008 (23:51 UTC)

The user's last revert was only four minutes after receiving the 3RR warning. It seems possible that the user stopped reverting when the user saw the warning. (Non-admin opinion) I've added UTC times to the above report. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've now blocked this user for a further 3RR breach after this report has been filed. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

User:71.100.12.251 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Malformed)

Multiple reversions by anon IP user with multiple IP addresses editing the article Analog hole.

• 15:08 April 17 - User:71.100.164.179 appeared for the first time today at the Analog hole article and added an external link to a "how-to" site.
• 17:05 - I deleted the link simply because it was a "how-to"; I didn't want the article to become a linkfarm.
• 17:57 - User:71.100.164.179 came back and restored the link.
• 17:59 - User:71.100.164.179 vandalized my user page.
• 18:22 - User:71.100.12.251 appeared and made a small change to the link's wording.
• 18:36 - I deleted the small change without examining it closely, I thought I was deleting the whole link.
• 18:39 - User:71.100.12.251 returned to restore the newer link text.
• 18:40 - I returned to delete the anon IP "how-to" link.
• 18:42 - I examined the remaining links more closely, evaluating them for their relevance. I found one that linked to a software application solution which appeared to fail WP:EL so I deleted it.
• 19:00 - User:71.100.12.251 returned to restore his own link.
• 19:07 - User:71.100.12.251 left a note on my Talk page including an accusation of WP:POV and a threat to spread my user name around.
• 19:09 - User:71.100.12.251 returned to restore the software solution link.
• 19:19 - I replied to my Talk page saying the links fail WP:EL
• 19:40 - I deleted both links again.
• 19:41 - User:71.100.12.251 came back to restore both links.
• 19:53 - I reverted both links
• 19:53 - I called for discussion on Talk:Analog hole#External links
• 19:54 - I went to User talk:71.100.12.251 and asked him to take it to Talk:Analog hole.
• 20:11 - User:71.100.0.75 appeared at the Village pump to complain about my POV pushing.
• 20:13 - User:71.100.0.75 restored both links
• 20:34 - I responded at Village Pump
• 20:40 - I responded further at Village Pump
• 20:44 - I deleted just the link to the software solution, awaiting discussion regarding the "how-to" link.
• 20:48 - User:71.100.171.52 appeared and restored the link to the software solution.
• 20:48 - User:71.100.171.52 tweaked the wording on the "how-to" link
• 22:33 - User:71.100.173.105 appeared and responded at Village Pump
• 23:19 - User:71.100.173.105 responded further at Village Pump
• 23:39 - User:71.100.173.105 responded further at Village Pump

Clearly, I myself am in violation of 3RR. I am willing to take whatever punishment is deemed suitable. What I would like most in this case is for the system to come up with a way to tame this anon user who is leapfrogging from IP to IP without ever having to answer to his wrongdoings such as his vandalism of user pages, immediate accusations of POV and his threatening attitude. Having multiple IP addresses insulates this user from warnings and 3RR. This user appears to feel that the rules are best applied to others.

• 3RR warning: Sole entry on Talk page

• Three-revert rule violation on Analog hole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.100.171.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Because of the dynamic IP, it seemed possible to me that the user had not seen the 3RR warning, so I posted information about 3RR to the article talk page at 00:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC) and in an edit summary in the article history at 00:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC). (non-admin opinion) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Binksternet reported by User:Coppertwig (Result: Protected. )

• Three-revert rule violation on Analog hole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 03:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 17:05, 17 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 18:36, 17 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 18:40, 17 April 2008
• 4th revert: 19:40, 17 April 2008
• 5th revert: 19:53, 17 April 2008
• 6th revert: 20:44, 17 April 2008
• 7th revert: 03:41, 18 April 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: User is aware of 3RR, having submitted the next report above this one at 00:29, 18 April 2008 (before the last revert).

Dynamic IP user 71.100.x.x is adding an external link to a site that tells how to use an analog hole to circumvent copyright protection software (or something along those lines). Binksternet is removing this link on the grounds that Misplaced Pages is not a "linkfarm" but without citing policy to support that position, as far as I noticed. It's not obvious to me that one version or the other is definitely supported by Misplaced Pages policy; I think this needs to be worked out as a content dispute. Note also the report below this one, which is the other person reverting on the same page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've prot'd the article. I don't wanna block the user because he is removing a potentially illegal link. Circumventing DRM is certainly illegal and I'm sure Misplaced Pages doesn't want to be associated with that. Scarian 15:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

User:71.100.x.x reported by User:Coppertwig (Result: 24 hour blocks )

• Three-revert rule violation on Analog hole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.100.174.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 15:08, 17 April 2008

• 1st revert: 17:57, 17 April 2008 using 71.100.164.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2nd revert: 19:00, 17 April 2008 using 71.100.12.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 3rd revert: 19:41, 17 April 2008 (same IP as above)
• 4th revert: 20:13, 17 April 2008 using 71.100.0.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 5th revert: 21:48, 17 April 2008 using 71.100.171.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 6th revert: 05:16, 18 April 2008 using 71.100.174.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Diff of 3RR warning: User is now aware of the 3RR (e.g. this message on my talk page at 06:41, 18 April 2008) but it isn't completely clear to me whether the user was aware at the time of the last revert. There was a 3RR warning at 22:39, 17 April 2008, which the user may not have received due to using a dynamic IP, and I put a message about 3RR into the edit history of the article, which the user acknowledges seeing in the aforementioned message on my talk page, though possibly might not have seen it until after reverting.

This is related to the report in the section immediately above. This person using a dynamic IP is inserting a how-to link and Binksternet is deleting it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked all of them for 24 hours for edit warring and spamming (Mainly spamming). Thanks for your reports Coppertwig. Scarian 16:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Thfrang and User:123.2.251.149 reported by User:Fattyjwoods (Result: )

• Three-revert rule violation on Westfield Doncaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Thfrang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 123.2.251.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 05:27, 12 April 2008 using Thfrang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2nd revert: 10:00, 12 April 2008 using Thfrang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 3rd revert: 23:10, 12 April 2008 using Thfrang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 4th revert: 11:39, 13 April 2008 using Thfrang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Claims - he saw a Fitness First Koisk - but does not provide useable sources
• 5th revert: 06:16, 17 April 2008 using Thfrang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) attacking another user
• 6th revert: 06:34, 17 April 2008 using Thfrang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) attacking another user
• 7th revert: 06:42, 17 April 2008 using Thfrang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeatly changing carpark spaces
• 8th revert: 11:56, 17 April 2008 using Thfrang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) source added but unaccesible to users outside of Melbourne
• 9th revert: 06:28, 18 April 2008 using 123.2.251.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) changing carpark spaces using I.P.
• 10th revert: 07:24, 18 April 2008 using Thfrang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 11th revert: 03:47, 19 April 2008 using 123.2.251.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Diff of 3RR warning: 01:18, 19 April 2008

Possibilty of sock-puppetry as the user clearly uses two accounts (ip and account) for edit warring. Many incidents of personal attacks in edit summaries as well as personal attacks on user talk pages. Has been warned several times - sick and tired of having to revert his edits as he does not provide reliable sources for his claims. Fattyjwoods 05:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Diffs span more than 24 hours. 8th revert does not appear to me to be a revert, (adding a ref and changing a number which the same user had put there), so there is no 24-hour period with 4 reverts, therefore no 3RR violation. I encourage both users to make more use of the article talk page. (non-admin opinion) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

User:79.35.107.7 & User:Sp4rt4n reported by User:WikiDon (Result: 24 block x2 + Prot )

• Three-revert rule violation on Cerberus Capital Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 79.35.107.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & Sp4rt4n (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Time reported: 06:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 08:15, 17 April 2008 - Sp4rt4n
• 2nd revert: 06:41, 18 April 2008 - 79.35.107.7
• 3rd revert: 06:58, 18 April 2008 - Sp4rt4n
• 4th revert: 13:02, 18 April 2008 - 79.35.107.7
• 5th revert: 21:16, 18 April 2008 - 79.35.107.7
• 6th revert: 05:24, 19 April 2008 - 79.35.107.7
• 7th revert: 06:21, 19 April 2008 - 79.35.107.7
• 8th revert: 06:22, 19 April 2008 - 79.35.107.7

• Previous version reverted to: 06:41, 18 April 2008

All of the following reverts are by 79.35.107.7. Each revert inserts the same link.

1. 13:02, 18 April 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
2. 21:16, 18 April 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
3. 05:24, 19 April 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
4. 06:21, 19 April 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
5. 06:22, 19 April 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
6. 06:53, 19 April 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
7. 06:56, 19 April 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")

• Diff of 3RR warning: 00:13, 19 April 2008 (This is the first post to the talk page, so only a version link and no diff is available.)

User 79.35.107.7 / Sp4rt4n is trying to post his own POV Blog that is poorly written and slanders a corporate entity with unsubstantiated and unverifiable bias. posted by WikiDon at 06:39 19 April. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've modified this report. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP and account for 24 hours and prot'd the disputed article. Clear WP:PROMOTION and WP:SPAM. Scarian 15:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

User:69.248.59.67 reported by User:Domer48 (Result: No action)

• Three-revert rule violation on 32 County Sovereignty Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.248.59.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 01:44, 3 April 2008

• 1st revert: 08:04, 19 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 08:42, 19 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 09:01, 19 April 2008
• 4th revert: 09:22, 19 April 2008 Edit summary: (Undid revision 206658440 by Domer48 (talk), Reverting Domer's violation of 3RR.)

• Diff of 3RR warning: (via edit summary)
• Diff of 3RR warning on user talk page (actually version link; first post to talk page): 09:37, 19 April 2008 ☺Coppertwig (talk) 10:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• User indicates knowledge of 3RR rule in edit summary of 4th revert (see in list of reverts).

They are edit warring over the addition of this cat, Category:U.S. State Department designated terrorist organizations. Through edit summaries, and talk page, I have attempted to reduce tension, and allow the editor to self revert. posted by Domer48 at 10:18 and 10:23 19 April 2008. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 10:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added information (mostly in italics) to this report. Domer48 has done 3 reverts (non-admin opinion). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 10:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither of them made 4 reverts so I'm a little hesitant to block. Although I have prot'd the article for a week. Solve disputes on talk pages please. Scarian 15:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There is obviously 4 reverts there, I have shown them clearly. That Cat has been reverted 4 times, could you possibly show me how it is only 3. --Domer48 (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• No sufficient 3RR warning given. A 3RR warning in an edit summary does not count, and the only warning given on the talk page was after the fourth revert, a "revert or I will report you" warning. There's no indication that this user properly understood 3RR, and he has not reverted (or even edited) since the "warning". Talk it out, guys. Request denied. - Revolving Bugbear 17:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No sufficient 3RR warning givenWhat was this here, in addition to the edit summary warning? In addition, the User indicates knowledge of 3RR rule in edit summary of 4th revert, as mentioned by another Editor above? So you have one admin who can't count, and one who dreams up another excuse for this editor. Ha you have to laugh sometimes. --Domer48 (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Just in case there is any doubt left, that the editor was well aware of 3RR see here, (check the time) and still made the 4th revert (check the time). "There's no indication that this user properly understood 3RR,(Oh yes there is) and he has not reverted (or even edited) since the "warning". Now why would he edit, having breached 3rr, had the page protected on their version. The he indicates something to me, I just don't know what? --Domer48 (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

User:G2bambino reported by User:Lonewolf BC (Result: Stale )

• Three-revert rule violation on Order of Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). G2bambino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: varies; see below. Note that the first two reverts do not form part of the 3rr breach, but are given to show the whole pattern.

• 1st revert: 14:40, 15 April 2008 -- revert to 00:57, 15 April 2008)

• 2nd revert: 15:19, 15 April 2008 -- revert to 00:57, 15 April 2008 again (leaving aside the further edits made at the same time; mismatched paragraphs make revert, to lead, not readily seen)

• 3rd revert: 17:46, 16 April 2008 -- revert to 16:06, 15 April 2008

• 4th revert: 19:10, 16 April 2008 -- revert to 16:06, 15 April 2008 again.

• 5th revert: 19:37, 16 April 2008 -- revert to 16:58, 7 August 2007

• 6th revert: 20:00, 16 April 2008 -- revert to 12:23, 12 April 2008, for deletion of note about appointments on April 11, 2008.

• 7th revert: a succession of edits that made several reverts, as detailed below.
  • 21:21, 16 April 2008 -- revert to 19:41, 16 April 2008, for deletion of "Media:Example.ogg", and to 01:39, 20 January 2006, for deletion of "...in conversation with Adrienne Clarkson and John Ralston Saul." from the reference on Beatty in the paragraph beginning "The badge..."
  • 21:36, 16 April 2008 -- revert to 20:03, 16 April 2008, for changing the image-size back
  • 21:47, 16 April 2008
    • revert to 07:15, 1 July 2007], for deletion of periods in the postnomials, for example "C.C." --> "CC". (The periods were last put in by the three edits immediately following the given version. There's been earlier back-and-forth over this style, from time to time.)
    • revert to 06:41, 12 February 2007, for deletion of "On February 20, 2007, Rideau Hall announced that Richard Drouin, Joseph Gosnell, and Ron Southern had been promoted to the rank of Companion." (or revert to 00:46, 1 September 2005, for deletion of the basic sentence, which has been changed annually according to the year's appointments.)
  • 01:11, 17 April 2008 -- revert to 04:57, 14 July 2005, for deletion of the passage: "In the case of Ahenakew, ... to take away his honour."
  • 01:13, 17 April 2008 -- revert to 04:57, 14 July 2005, and in part to earlier versions, for major deletion

• Diff of 3RR warning: not needed; violator has had many past warnings and blocks

This is another instance of G2bambino edit-warring when edits of his are less than fully accepted by another editor or editors (in this case, by myself). Here, he has actually broken 3rr as a result (although some of the reverts contributing to the breach were not "edit-war reverts", but plain reverts of work by various editors).
The fact that there is an actual 3rr breach in this particular case is, I think, far less important that the offender's continual use of edit-warring to impose changes he wishes to make to an article, in the face of opposition. In February he was blocked for two weeks for such behavior. He complained his way into being unblocked on the condition that he keep to "1rr" for the duration of the two weeks, but he then broke that restriction and afterward mendaciously denied having done so.
See also, for the depth of this ongoing problem, the history of G2bambino as Gbambino and Gbambino06. (The account name was changed, leaving the block log and the older "Gbambino" talkpage obscure. G2bambino is the editor's separate, newer account.) G2bambino has been behaving in this way on Misplaced Pages for years, ever joining the project. The consequences to him for doing so, so far, seem not to have dissuaded him at all. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That's very stale. Please could all parties involved use discussion to resolve differences please. Scarian 23:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Carl.bunderson reported (Result: Stale/no vio)

• Three-revert rule violation on Talk:Afghanistan (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Carl.bunderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 18:04, 16 April 2008

A poll was done on this talk page. This user did not like the results and crossed out the poll and made his own poll and later voted in it. He was told to stop crossing out polls by several users (on ANI, link) but does not stop. He is not admin so he has no right to cross out polls. He is already aware of 3RR. Also, while edit warring he engages in name calling such as calling people "blind" and "idiot" (link, and link).

• 1st revert: 19:01, 16 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 19:59, 16 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 20:23, 16 April 2008
• 4th revert: 20:42, 16 April 2008
• 5th revert: 04:44, 17 April 2008
• 6th revert: 16:42, 17 April 2008
• 7th revert: 16:47, 17 April 2008
• 8th revert: 16:51, 17 April 2008
• 9th revert: 17:05, 17 April 2008
• 10th revert: 17:21, 17 April 2008
• 11th revert: 17:29, 17 April 2008
• 12th revert: 14:06, 18 April 2008
• 13th revert: 18 April 2008
• 14th revert: 21:30, 18 April 2008
• 15th revert: 05:57, 19 April 2008

The above was posted by 65.93.210.190 22:24 19 April 2008. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The diffs above span more than 24 hours. I think Carl.bunderson had more than 3 reverts on April 17. There is an allegation of ban-evading socks, so possibly Carl.bunderson's reverts might be exempt from 3RR for that reason. Carl.bunderson is crossing out a poll which begins with arguments in favour of one side, and replacing it with a balanced poll; and it appears to me that Carl.bunderson's version is accepted by at least two other users. The user posting the above report has only 15 edits. See also Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive403#user removing poll results (non-admin, not previously involved opinion) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Erm... This is stale. He's only made one edit on the 19th (It's now the 20th GMT). Remember, we don't issue blocks to punish users; only to protect articles (or in this case talk pages). Scarian 23:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Besides, the page has been semi-protected at 07:36, 19 April 2008, which may be why the revert war went away -- the other side was all (or almost all) anon-IP's. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

User:72.200.173.153 reported by User:Niteshift36 (Result: 24+48 hour blocks )

• Three-revert rule violation on Courtesy of the Red, White, & Blue (The Angry American) 72.200.173.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

I have asked the editor to discuss this issue. I've shown multiple examples of where this was used in the mainstream media on the talk page and reminded him of the 3R. Although the warning was in the edit comments, the editor saw it and resonded that he didn't care about the 3R. The editor refuses to discuss the issue and makes reverts.

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

• Diff of 3RR warning:

I have blocked the user for 48 hours and the IP for 24. Both of them were edit warring regardless. Scarian 23:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Space Cadet reported by User:Matthead (Result: 48 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on Christoph Hartknoch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Space Cadet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 21:02, 9 February 2008 (edit)

• 1st revert: 01:07, 19 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 01:14, 19 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 01:56, 19 April 2008
• 4th revert: 19:13, 19 April 2008
• 5th revert: 22:21, 19 April 2008
• 6th revert: 03:23, 20 April 2008 (rev) (added later)

• Diff of 3RR warning: 08:32, 4 September 2005 - besides, Space Cadet had recently been put under edit restriction according to Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#List_of_editors_placed_under_editing_restriction

Space Cadet is a very experienced editor regarding pro-Polish and anti-German POV. Here (and in many other articles, eg. ), he tries to squeeze in "Królewiec", the Polish name of Königsberg (now Kaliningrad), even though this town never was Polish, nor "share a history between Germany and Poland". It is a revenge act for, and abuse of, the Danzig/Gdansk double naming as decided in Talk:Gdansk/Vote.

In addition, he edit-wars over the title of Hartknoch's book Altes und Neues Preussen, written and titled in German, claiming it is called Old and New Prussia (It IS the original title in English.) .

Due to Space Cadet never-changing anti-German habits, it was proposed to ban User:Space Cadet from German-Polish-related topics: Misplaced Pages:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive13#Proposal_to_ban_User:Space_Cadet_from_German-Polish-related_topics

I suggest that Space Cadet at least be banned from adding "Królewiec" to Königsberg/Kaliningrad, or adding any other Polish name to places that never were part of Poland.

Space Cadet recently also accused User:Sciurinæ as sockpuppeteer: Serafin, get a life! Or are you just Sciurinæ's sockpuppet? You guys are always together.... I have no idea what he wrote in Polish at User talk:LUCPOL , but he recently proposed a Non-aggression Pact to LUCPOL.-- Matthead  Discuß   01:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Since when is proposing a Non-aggression Pact something bad? And take a look at those:, , , , . As you can see I'm pretty experienced in German POV as well. And the 4th revert was already corrected. Typo. Space Cadet (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC) I did not accuse anybody of anything. It was only a well justified observation. And I did revert Serafin. Space Cadet (talk) 02:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I see no evidence that the 4th revert is a revert. The first 3 reverts add "(Królewiec)" to the sentence with "ducal capital of...". This is also in the "previous version reverted to," so the first 3 reverts are reverts. The 4th revert adds "Old and New Prussia" to the sentence with "... in his book ...". In the "previous version reverted to", those words appear but not in that sentence; only in the section "Work", where they also already appeared before the 4th "revert". So the 4th revert doesn't seem to be a revert. The 5th revert re-adds the same information as the 4th revert, so it is a revert, making 4 reverts within a 24-hour period. (non-admin opinion) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever - I guess Space Cadet himself just removed all doubts with a 6th revert, see amended list above. And he did a self-rev now . -- Matthead  Discuß   02:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours, since #1, 2, 3 and 5 are genuine reverts. This is his only 3RR violation so far this year, but the result should be more than the nominal block because of the Arbcom restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Carl.bunderson reported by User:65.93.210.190 (Result:Stale-Already determined)

• Three-revert rule violation on Talk:Afghanistan (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Carl.bunderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 18:04, 16 April 2008

A poll was done on this talk page. This user did not like the results and crossed out the poll and made his own poll and later voted in it. He was told to stop crossing out polls by several users (on ANI, link) but does not stop. He is not admin so he has no right to cross out polls. He is already aware of 3RR. Also, while edit warring he engages in name calling such as calling people "blind" and "idiot" (link, and link).

• 1st revert: 19:01, 16 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 19:59, 16 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 20:23, 16 April 2008
• 4th revert: 20:42, 16 April 2008
• 5th revert: 04:44, 17 April 2008
• 6th revert: 16:42, 17 April 2008
• 7th revert: 16:47, 17 April 2008
• 8th revert: 16:51, 17 April 2008
• 9th revert: 17:05, 17 April 2008
• 10th revert: 17:21, 17 April 2008
• 11th revert: 17:29, 17 April 2008

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.210.190 (talk • contribs) 02:09 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• If the above report was stale, this is even more so, and appropriate remedies have been applied to the article in question. Repeated reports tend to appear more as WP:POINT violations than protecting the encyclopedia from harm. If a remedy is really required, it lies elsewhere, but attempted relitigation when this board is functus officio is unlikely to be received with equanimity. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Man I'm sick of this: admins doing absolutely nothing about this Carl.bunderson who is out of control while the have banned other users indef for the samething! What's the reason? Is it because he says he's a Christian on his user page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.210.190 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If you intend to participate often on hotly-contested issues, it would be to your advantage to create an account. Please remember to sign your comments. Personal attacks against other editors don't make your views more persuasive. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Dual Freq reported by User:Redrocket (Result: )

• Three-revert rule violation on Rush Limbaugh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dual Freq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 18:34, 19 April

• 1st revert: 21:12, 19 April
• 2nd revert: 21:23, 19 April
• 3rd revert: 22:22, 19 April
• 4th revert: 23:10, 19 April
• 5th revert: 23:30, 19 April

• Diff of 3RR warning: 23:21, 19 April

User warned, but refuses to stop and join in discussion to talk page. Redrocket (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

User:12.227.159.219 reported by User:Urzatron (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 12.227.159.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 23:52 16 April 2008

User is edit warring several editors, determined to change Star Wars entry out of production order and into "in-universe" order for film chronology. Understood warning clearly; reverted a seventh time anyway.

• 1st revert: 18:57 19 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 01:49 20 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 03:11 20 April 2008
• 4th revert: 03:19 20 April 2008
• 5th revert: 03:24 20 April 2008
• 6th revert: 03:31 20 April 2008
• 7th revert: 05:10 20 April 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 05:04 20 April 2008

• Reply to 3RR warning: 05:09 20 April 2008

• Blocked for 24 hours. I have told him that I will lift the block if he agrees to stop reverting and discuss the matter civilly on the talk page. Walton 09:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Nukes4Tots reported by User:Ling.Nut (Result: )

• User:Nukes4Tots is at 2RR on Stockton massacre, diffs here and here.. Note the edit summaries... He/she won't get to 3RR on my dime 'cause I'm not gonna revert again... but the problem remains. I templated his/her talk page; left an explanation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR on Talk:Stockton massacre (diff here). Ling.Nut (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Elampon and User:כתר reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: )

• Three-revert rule violation and harassment on my user talk page by two users in tandem.

Elampon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Time reported: 17:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Previous version: 20 April 16:14

1. 16:21, 20 April 2008
2. 16:33, 20 April 2008
3. 16:47, 20 April 2008
4. 16:58, 20 April 2008

• Diff of warning: here

כתר (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Previous version: 19 April, 21:09

1. 21:31, 19 April 2008 (as 85.75.93.132)
2. 16:31, 20 April 2008
3. 16:49, 20 April 2008
4. 17:03, 20 April 2008

Warning: 16:51

Elampon is a new disruptive editor who was also edit-warring and violating 3RR in article space(on Ancient Macedonian language); כתר is an obvious reincarnation or bad-hand sock of some experienced user who created this account only in order to harass me. —Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, FPaS, if you're paranoid that's your problem, not mine or WP's. I, politely, asked you to clarify to me whose user I'm a sock of. You never did. You just kept silently reverting every comment I made without replying. ktr (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Example

<!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
*] violation on {{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~
*Previous version reverted to:  <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to. 
The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time 
than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. 
See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->
*1st revert: 
*2nd revert: 
*3rd revert: 
*4th revert: 
*Diff of 3RR warning: 
<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->

See also

• Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest diff guide
• 3RR report helper tool – helps simplify diff gathering and reporting. Be sure to remove non-reverts from the report or it may be rejected.

1. Governor General Announces New Appointments to the Order of Canada

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring