Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:03, 4 December 2007

Do not continue a dispute on this page. Please keep on topic.
Administrators: Please do not hesitate to move disputes to user talk pages.
Your report will not be dealt with if you do not follow the instructions for new reports correctly.

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353
354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363
Incidents (archives, search)
1144	1145	1146	1147	1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153
1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
467	468	469	470	471	472	473	474	475	476
477	478	479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
318	319	320	321	322	323	324	325	326	327
328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Violations

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

User:TharkunColl reported by User:G2bambino (Result:page protected )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [1]

This took place after the user said he would respect the decision made, though he did not agree with it. He now is taking this on as a personal crusade. --G2bambino (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second these charges - TharkunColl went back on his word & made disruptive edits. GoodDay (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that multiple users are guilty of edit warring here. Though technically Thark violated 3RR, I will not impose a block since the page has already been protected against moves and blocks are not meant to be punitive but to prevent further edit warring. Finally I would like to say that no consensus had been reached for the move, as others have pointed out, a simple majority is not the same as consensus. Please continue to discuss the issue instead of acting without consensus. TSO1D (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kkrystian reported by User:Redtigerxyz (Result:24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [2]

1st revert: [3]
2nd revert: [4]
3rd revert: [5]
4th revert: [6]

The editor User:Kkrystian is editing Wikipedia since 13:08, 11 October 2006. Thus is not new to wikipedia.

The editor has removed the info as s/he feels it is "SUBJECTIVE(POV)". The editor has removed the same sourced information before. [7][8][9] etc . as early as [10][11]. The editor has been edit warring with User:Andries on the same issue. The removal of the sourced matter is a violation of WP:NPOV too.

Also See:Talk:Sai_Baba_of_Shirdi#I_will_file_a_request_for_mediation and Talk:Sai_Baba_of_Shirdi#Removal_of_sourced_info.

Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours by Tariqabjotu. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yinyanglightningthrash reported by User:Someguy0830 (Result:24 hours each)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 03:19, November 24, 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 03:52, November 27, 2007

This user keeps readding bolded acronyms for systems releases when they only differ by one date. I asked him to add it in the article as prose, but he insists he's right. Similarly, asking for a comparison article got nothing, and he openly expresses that he'll revert war in the last diff. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 11:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both reporter and reportee have been edit-warring. 24 hours for each. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Breathtaker reported by Dr who1975 (Result: No action)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 23:19, 26 November 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 17:53, 27 November 2007

Description: Seems deteremined to remove the Gothic Rock genre from the band page for the Cruxshadows, the data has been there for months and I even cited itfor him.--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No technical violation; I count only two reverts at the Cruxshadows article. Disengages from edit warring after second revert. No action warranted at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dr_who1975 reported by User:Breathtaker (result: no action)

Three-revert rule violation on

The user ignores stylistic elements of a music genre and added POV to the article. --Breathtaker (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, this user provided citations to back up the assertion. This report is a tit-for-tat after the above report and, looking at diffs, is the more groundless of the two. I see no need for action to Dr who1975 at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Avfnx reported by User:CubanoDios (Result:Blocked for 72 hours )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 18:29, 27 November 2007

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Diff of 3RR warning: 18:48, 27 November 2007

Outside of this 3rr violation, whic by the way is the second on record http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Avfnx I believe he is using a sockpuppet which is user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dominiman CubanoDios (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the sock claim, it may be a good idea to open a case at WP:SSP and present any evidence there as I cannot tell straight off from looking at both user's contributions. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 19:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Danaullman reported by User:Raymond arritt (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: (different reverts; no single prior version)

Notes below added by blocking administrator.

1st revert: 02:22, 28 November 2007
- Note: Reversion of Skinwalker (talk · contribs)
2nd revert: 04:58, 28 November 2007
- Note: Reversion of Orangemarlin (talk · contribs)
3rd revert: 05:29, 28 November 2007
- Note: Reversion of Raymond arritt (talk · contribs)
4th revert: 05:35, 28 November 2007
- Note: Reversion of Raymond arritt (talk · contribs)

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Diff of 3RR warning: Not a new user; has been on Wikipedia since May 2006.

Persistent reversion of relevant content. Almost all of the reverted content is from impeccably reliable sources, such as The Lancet and Mayo Clinic Proceedings.Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for twenty-four hours. — madman bum and angel 06:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:71.164.190.66 reported by User:24.160.178.38 (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [12]

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Diff of 3RR warning: 03:43, 28 November 2007

User is repeatedly deleting sourced material and replacing it with bolded personal opinions, and has ignored two or three requests to stop. 24.160.178.38 (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24 hour 3RR/disruption block. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Breathtaker reported by User:Theplanetsaturn (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 23:19, 26 November 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 17:53, 27 November 2007

The user removes sourced and relevant description of bands genre, and based on comments is clearly editing from POV. He has been warned and as he retaliated against another user with a warning on this very page, is clearly well aware of the rules.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24 hours. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User: 84.69.241.65 reported by User:Astruc (Result: duplicate / already blocked)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [13]

1st revert: Nov. 28 6:37
2nd revert: Nov 28 15:41
3rd revert: Nov 28 16:58
4th revert: Nov 28 17:00
5th revert: Nov 28 17:06

I warned this editor about the 3RR rule this morning.

I believe that this person is now editing under a sock-puppet account name Toes+umbrellas chacha

BTW, I strongly recommend limiting edits to this article only to editors with accounts. This article often gets reverted by people who don't have accounts with Wiki.Astruc (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User: Toes+umbrellas chacha reported by User:Astruc (Result: indef block (vandal/troll only account))

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [14]

1st revert: Nov 28, 17:11
2nd revert: Nov 28, 17:18
3rd revert: Nov 28, 17:22
4th revert: Nov 28, 17:28
5th revert: Nov 28, 17:31

I warned this editor about the 3RR rule on his/her Talk page.

Earlier, I filed a 3RR report on User 84.69.241.65. I believe this is the same editor as Toes+umbrellas chacha.

BTW, I strongly recommend limiting edits to this article only to editors with accounts. This article often gets reverted by people who don't have accounts with Wiki. Astruc (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:84.69.241.65 reported by User:Bart133 (Result: 1 week anon block)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 23:37, 27 November 2007

Keeps removing a "biased" quote from the introduction, against consensus. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 17:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also submitted a 3RR report on 84.69.241.65 earlier today. I believe this person is a sock-puppet for User:Toes+umbrellas chacha. This editor is involved in an edit war. Astruc (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rackabello AND User:Cheeser1 reported by User:Scoutersig (Result: 31 hours each)

Three-revert rule violation on

Reversion history: Reversion History

8 Edits on 28 November
19 out of last 50 edits by either of the two editors

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

Two editors are involved in an edit war, with one calling the campaign "propaganda" and the other "advertisement." —Scouter Sig 17:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:DreamOfJeannie reported by User:Beh-nam (Result: 24 hours for both)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 28 November 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 13:26, 28 November 2007

This user is making some really silly edits on this article, I tried reasoning with him or her on their talk page and gave her a warning to either talk things over first but the user kept reverting. Behnam (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Beh-nam reported by User:DreamOfJeannie (Result: 24 hours for both)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 28 November 2007

1st revert: 16:58, 28 November 2007
2nd revert: 17:09, 28 November 2007
3rd revert: 17:20, 28 November 2007
4th revert: DIFFTIME

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Diff of 3RR warning: 17:24, 28 November 2007

Beh-nam reverts all my edits concerning Dari in Afghanistan aricles. I don't understand this user. Today he hastily stated that I would be a sock puppet[15]. And now he tries to get me blocked via this page. But it is himself who violates the rules. There are also other articles in which he reverted my edits all the time (and where I did not revert until now): Kapisa Province, Ghazni Province, Nuristan Province, Bamiyan Province. This is vandalism by Beh-nam (editwars) and also defamation as sock puppet.
See also my discussion[16] where I explained to him why "Dari" is correct and not Persian. Dari is the Afghanistan Persian. and not Iran's. I think Beh-nam makes political motivated edits. DreamOfJeannie (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kemal2 reported by User:AdrianTM (Result: Second violation, 48 hours.)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 28 November

Diff of 3RR warning: 19:23, 28 November 2007

user:Kemal2 was already blocked for a 3RR on the same article, moreover the user seems to be a single issue user who edits only to push a specific POV in only that article against the consensus. I warned the user of 3RR and he acknoledged that by responding in my talk page, however he reverted one more time. AdrianTM (talk) 04:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tkguy reported by User:Christopher Mann McKay (Result: 24 hour block )

Three-revert rule violation on

After reverting 5 times on the same article on the same day, I notified the user of this violation (20:51, 28 November 2007 diff), the user then strangely responded to me (20:56, 28 November 2007 diff and 21:03, 28 November 2007 diff) and continued to revert the article.

Please note that I obviously am new to wikipedia in the way I sign my posts and my formatting and please note that the page in question is the Asian Fetish page. Also there's a person by the handle User:Kaitenbushi who seems to be taking turns with User:Christopher Mann McKay to eliminate any materials they do not agree with from the Asian Fetish page and claiming that there are no material to support this material when there are many references on the page and many other pages on wikipedia that relates to Asian Fetish.

I believe I was purposely trapped into this 3rr rule which I was not familiar with. Also User:Christopher Mann McKay was sited for not updating the Campus Watch (a American pro-Israel neoconservative think tank) page in a constructive manner on 15:35, 28 November 2007. [17]

The following is a schedule of all the reverts that User:Kaitenbushi and User:Christopher Mann McKay did today. I would not be surprised if these two are the same person, which I would imagine is a way to skirt the rules.

1st revert: 01:07, 29 November 2007 by User:Kaitenbushi
2nd revert: 03:21, 29 November 2007 by User:Christopher Mann McKay
3rd revert: 03:29, 29 November 2007 by User:Kaitenbushi
4th revert: 03:47, 29 November 2007 by User:Christopher Mann McKay
5th revert: 03:49, 29 November 2007 by User:Kaitenbushi

I apologize to the wikipedia community for not understanding the rules and will reframe from repeatedly reverting the content of the Asian Fetish page. Sorry if I am going against the etiquettes by posting my comment here. Once again I am new to this.

Tkguy (talk) 05:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Unbiaseduser reported by User:Slakr (Result: 48 hour block)

Three-revert rule violation on

1st revert: 03:35, 29 November 2007 (all reverts on that date)
2nd revert: 06:08
3rd revert: 06:23
4th revert: 06:25
5th revert: 06:29
6th revert: 06:31
7th revert: 06:51

Diff of 3RR warning: 06:27 29 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Fox (talk • contribs) 06:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already warned. --slakr^\ talk / 06:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave 48h for violation of WP:OWN, WP:AGF, and WP:3RR. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 15:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bandurist reported by User:Kuban kazak (Result: page protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 23:51, 24 November 2007

1st revert: 19:28, 26 November 2007
2nd revert: 01:33, 27 November 2007
3rd revert: 17:19, 27 November 2007
4th revert: 14:46, 28 November 2007
5th revert: 17:16, 28 November 2007
6th revert: 12:35, 29 November 2007
Diff of 3RR warning: 12:39, 29 November 2007

The incident is that the article is titled based on WP:NC, Bandurist over the past few weeks made several attempts to "ukrainise" the page version without consensus, although the discussion is in process he does follow advice to cease edit warring. Previously he tried to Fork the article by eliminating the redirect [18]. In a similar dispute on Balachka, after the article was locked he created a WP:POVFORK on Cossack Ukrainian. He continues to use personal attacks against me, and numerously ignored my pleas for diplomacy. Now I know that its timeframe is outside the 24hout requirement for WP:3RR, but in any case I request that the article be locked, and/or Bandurist be given a formal warning to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:FAITH, it be better to have that than him blocked. Whichever is best, just get him to stop revert warring. Kuban Cossack 13:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was clearly edit warring going on, but remember that for a 3RR violation to have taken place, the reverts bust be within 24 hours of each other. TSO1D (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Maurice27 reported by User:Xtv (Result:no action)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 19:13, 27 November 2007

No warning needed, at least one of the 8 times Maurice27 has been blocked (06:29, 10 April 2007) is explicitly because of 3RR violation.

Maurice27 added {{Globalizecountry}} template to the article. Then there was a discussion in talk page until 10 November 2007 (UTC). SMP disagreed with the inclusion of the template. After 10 days without any answer, he proposed to remove the template. After 7 more days without answer, he removed the template. Then Maurice27 reverted the action. The discussion was opened againg, but then Maurice27 didn't accept the current status quo (as the people who deffended to remove the template did when we discussed it for the first time), and he reverted 4 times.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 14:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I remember that block. LaraLove recently blocked Maurice for this vio, but unblocked after seeing that he hadn't edited for a while [19]. I'm going to watch this article to see that the edit war doesn't restart. Also going to warn Casaforra, who has been edit warring with Maurice27 (not technically violating 3RR, but that hardly matters). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Heimstern. That's was exactly what I was going to explain. That I wasn't the only one to break that rule. Curiously, Xtv forgot to mention Casaforra's 4 reverts here. It would be very helpful if any admin explains if I'm right in adding the {{Globalizecountry}} tag as explained by me here --Maurice27 16:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casaforra didn't break the 3RR, therefore I didn't report him. However I find appropiate that he is warned (not blocked, he has never broken 3RR and he has never been warned). Moreover I insist: when Maurice27 added the template, nobody took it out, we discussed in talk page but he disappeared. After 17 days without answer, the template was removed. Then he started the war. I think in this case he shoud have respected the status quo and discuss before adding the template again, as we did when he added. I just ask the same respect to us, as we had with him when he added the template, but we know with Maurice27 this is not possible... Btw, I think it's quite funny to unblock a user after 8 blocks and who has already been blocked because 3RR with the reason "Hasn't edited in 20 hours". Funny because during this 20 hours nobody reverted his actions. Of course he couldn't continue the war if Casaforra had stoped to avoid edit warring and the article was exactly as he liked! Anyway, the important thing is to solve the problem. So, let's find a solution in talk page...--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 22:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me remark that Casaforra, who strictly didn't break 3RR (I know this doesen't mean he doesn't deserve to be blocked) has been blocked for one week. And this was his first time engaged in an edit war. Here there is more information.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 15:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Allstarecho and User:Bender235 reported by User:HiDrNick (Result:24h for both)

Three-revert rule violation on

Allstarecho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Bender235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Both users are aware of the three-revert rule. WP:LAME edit war over the year that a football coach started coaching in an infobox. ➪HiDrNick! 23:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's an error in the report, as one of the reverts listed for Bender235 is actually an edit by Allstarecho. But this does not change the fact that both sides are clearly edit warring. 24 hours for both. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jaakobou reported by User:Eleland (Result: One week of full protection)

Jaakobou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1st revert: 00:39 29 November
2nd revert: 00:57 29 November
3rd revert: 16:24 29 November
4th revert:16:28 29 November

User is well-aware of 3rr rule, see User talk:Jaakobou#helpme, User talk:146.115.58.152#3RR warning, and previous 3RR block. <eleland/talkedits> 01:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article protected for one week by GRBerry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). ➪HiDrNick! 01:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Saintjust reported by User:774townsclear (Result:no vio)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [20]

1st revert: [21]
2nd revert: [22]
3rd revert: [23]
4th revert: [24]

Diff of 3RR warning: [25]

Disrupitve edit. PUSH POV Troll. Put on a self made article. omit normal article from source, and only negative contents remain. Certainly Push POV Troll. and 3th source is not relation with Traditional Dance. just comedy dance in theater. article said "no one blame similar Traditional dance, but Why blame our dance?" (it means that comdey dance is NOT traditional dance, but he edited that it was traditional dance) He distort the meaning, too. I request to remove this Pushing POV troll. 774townsclear (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The alleged 1st revert isn't a revert to any previous version of the article. In fact, I have incorporated your input into the article: "It was performed to criticize the Korean nobility (Yangban)...." The alleged 2nd revert isn't a revert, either. I only added more info on the literal meaning of the term: "lit. the dance of the handicapped." The third and forth were reverts. As for the last accusation, there is a modern, more comedical version of the dance (that has caused the controversy) as well as a version that is more genuine to the tradition (and seems to be more accepted). Just because it is modern and comedical doesn't mean it's not "Byung shin chum." --Saintjust (talk) 03:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no. before 4th edit. you did not incoporate "It was performed to criticize the Korean nobility (Yangban)...."(this article is still wrong)[26] whatever you say, you omitting normal article and only negative contents remain since first edit. and your incorporated edit is wrong, too. They did not Korean nobility (Yangban) by depicting them as the handicapped persons. your incoporated edit are still wrong content,too.

Whatever you say, you omiting normal article & only negative contents remain. Push POV trolling. 774townsclear (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second edit given isn't a revert, so no technical vio. I do caution both parties, especially Saintjust, not to participate in any kind of edit warring, regardless of whether you technically violate the three-revert rule. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:70.108.126.66 reported by User:Yllosubmarine (Result:warnings)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [27]

1st revert: [28]
2nd revert: [29]
3rd revert: [30]
4th revert: [31]

Diff of 3RR warning: [32]

Although the individual has been spoken to, they have repeatedly reverted the article back to an inferior version after I had told them that the article is correctly formatted with new citation tags and formatting as per the MOS. I had also repeatedly explained (via edit summary, article talk page, and their talk page, the issues with the image and why it cannot be placed on this article in particular, and have been ignored. I'm on my third revert and refuse to go any further. Could someone also restore the article to its better version? Thank you. María (habla conmigo) 03:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither side has technically violated 3RR, as no three reverts fall into a 24-hour period, but both are clearly edit warring. This needs to stop. I'm watchlisting this article, and if either side reverts again, I will block. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:AWilcoxson reported by User:dchall1 (Result: no violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [33]

1st revert: [34]
2nd revert: [35]
3rd revert: [36]
4th revert: [37]

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Diff of 3RR warning: [38]

Anon has repeatedly removed sourced paragraph from Milosevic article. He claims that the material violates NPOV and despite several editors restoring the paragraph he continues to remove it. First edits were made by 216.162.196.155 who seems to be the same as AWilcoxson. This is a single-purpose account devoted to Milosevic. Dchall1 (talk) 03:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No vio. east.718 at 07:13, November 30, 2007

User:Pray4hovind reported by User:Johnpseudo (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 01:14, 30 November 2007

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Diff of 3RR warning: 04:15, 30 November 2007

Continual attempts to add inappropriate external links to Kent Hovind despite warnings and explanations of policy. johnpseudo 04:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24 hours. east.718 at 07:15, November 30, 2007

User:Milanmm reported by User:Hobartimus (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [39]

1st revert: 16:57 November 28 2007 This could be considered an edit but contains a large content removal which is ("The undoing of the actions of another user")
2nd revert: 21:13 November 28 2007
3rd revert: 02:58 November 29 2007
4th revert: 14:03 November 29 2007
5th revert: 14:53 November 29 2007
6th revert: 17:32 November 29 2007 placed a POV tag again after it was removed, here is the identical earlier edit [40] at 14:59 to which he reverted

Diff of 3RR warning: 15:44

This is not a new user rather a very old one who made first edit on september 14 2006, more than a year ago. The account was pretty active for about a week until september 22 than it became completely dead, only to return a day ago to cause trouble. The main activity of the account seems to be deleting a whole subsection of the Kingdom of Hungary article, which is simply a summary of content of the Kingdom of Hungary 1920-1944 article. Other activities include pretty heavy trolling/personal attacks [41] against multiple(3) people who reverted his edits. Based on the oddities with this account (being a inactive for a year than jumping right in, revert warring beyond 3RR, heavy trolling, massive deletions) something is definitely up. Hobartimus (talk) 04:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24 hours. east.718 at 07:17, November 30, 2007

User:86.132.133.177 reported by User:Webwarlock (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [42]

1st revert: [43]
2nd revert: [44]
3rd revert: [45]
4th revert: [46]
5th revert: [47]

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Diff of 3RR warning: [48]

User 86.132.133.177 (a new user as far as I can tell) has repeatedly vandalized the BloodRayne, BloodRayne 2 and BloodRayne (series) articles. Reverting my attemps to remove unsourced, non-neutral point of view statements. I did not know about the 3-revert rule till now. Web Warlock 15:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Artbulla reported by User:Warlordjohncarter (Result: No Violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 17:43, 27 November 2007

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Diff of 3RR warning: 16:13 30 November 2007

Virtually single purpose account with extreme COI insists on reinserting statements which are neither sourced, referenced, or NPOV in article about himself and the church he founded. John Carter 18:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

er the timestamps on the above diffs show 3 edits spread across 36 hours. This isn't a violation of the 3RR. Unless there is more to this then you have already reported then try disputer resolution. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:71.123.17.215 reported by User:Lyrl (Result:24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 17:52, 20 November 2007

1st revert: 17:12, 28 November 2007
2nd revert: 02:24, 29 November 2007
3rd revert: 12:53, 29 November 2007
4th revert: 00:26, 30 November 2007
5th revert (partial revert): 12:31, 30 November 2007

Necessary for newer users:
Diff of 3RR warning: 23:47, 29 November 2007

An anonymous IP added historical information to the pill article, disputed by a long-term editor of the article. The editing style of this IP is very similar to a previous dispute in the pill article (see Talk:Combined oral contraceptive pill/Archive 1#Percy Julian). A different IP has been revert warring to maintain their preferred version and refusing to engage on the talk page. Lyrl^Talk _C 01:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. Additional partial reverts after warning at [49] and [50] SkierRMH (talk) 06:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:RMHED reported by User:John254 (Result:Blocked for 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

All edits remove the "Online activity" paragraph

Note that RMHED incorrectly claims that their first edit is not a reversion [51]. However, Wikipedia:Three-revert rule states that "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." Persuant to this definition, RMHED's first edit constitutes a reversion, since it removes content added by other editors. Additionally, RMHED has expressly stated their intention to engage in additional disruptive edit warring on this article: "I'll carry on reverting after 24 hours if I deem it right to do so." [52]. John254 04:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sfacets reported by User:Will Beback (Result: Stale)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 19:02, November 30, 2007

Sfacets is an experienced user who has been blocked before for 3RR and has made numerous 3RR complaints against other editors.[53][54][55][56][57]
Sfacets leans heavily on the revert/undo key. Yesterday, I was about to report him for a 3RR violation on an article.[58] I didn't, out of charity, but today, after his continued reliance on reverting, I think it's time to ask for a remedial block.
In this case, there is a user (Simon D M (SDM)), with whom Sfacets is in an edit dispute (and also a deep-seated, off-wiki, huge battleground opponent of his religious group-type dispute too). SDM placed a well-deserved NPOV editing tag on the userpage of a new user who is apparently also inclined to favor "pro-group" edits. Sfacets broke the 3RR by deleting that warning four times. When I posted a message on his talk page asking him to desist from deleting the warning again he deleted my post from his talk page without giving any response or explanation, and reverted yet again. That fits the definition of revert-warring.
Because this is a clear case of a 3RR violation with intent, by an editor who complains about 3RR violations by others and who has been revert warring repeatedly, I think this incident calls for a longer block. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last 2 reverts are comments on the tag/warning. The fourth revert was restoring his own comment prompted by Will Beback removing it. I don't really see this as being straightforward enough violation to justify any kind of block, although I agree that Sfacts' block log is a thing of horror and we clearly have some problems with the editor. I just don't think a marginal 3RR report is the way to deal with this. I wonder whether a wider discussion at ANI or a RFC might be a better way forward. Left open in case another admin sees this differently. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closing as stale, although I agree with Spartaz. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On top of that, Sfacets is recently off a block from December 2nd by User:Mikkalai for general incivility, so a further block wouldn't serve any useful purpose. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andyvphil reported by User:RolandR (Result:72 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Constantly removing citation inserted and re-inserted by several other editors, without discussion (as requested) on the article's talk page. RolandR 21:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 72 hours by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. Sam Blacketer 14:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As was RolandR and Nishidani, both with only two reverts. (I had three, since RolandR's first claimed revert was not one.) Seems Cavalry thinks this page is "utterly useless" and has implemented his own "edit war reporting board" [59]. He says it's a "proposed policy", but it seems to have gone live, and even without a posting there it seems he has begun implementing his policy that "[e]dit warring needs to be stamped on as soon as it comes up"[60] by distributing "72 hour blocks all round", without waiting for such formalities as a consensus on increasing the penalty for a 3RR that is neither a "repeated or aggravated violation" (or actually a violation at all) from 24 hours to 72. Can someone suggest where this should be discussed? Andyvphil 02:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cav has replied on my userpage; I invite others' attention. Andyvphil 11:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:87.122.6.197 reported by User:Theplanetsaturn (Result:24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 01:55, 29 November 2007

Judging by choice of edits and terminology used, this user appears to be the currently banned user http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:87.122.32.205&oldid=174992260 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Breathtaker.Theplanetsaturn 03:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

87.122.6.197 has been blocked for 24 hours by Stormie. However, identification with the other IP and with Breathtaker (talk · contribs) certainly passes the duck test. I'm inclined to reset and extend Breathtaker's block, and will do further checking. Sam Blacketer 14:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikiarrangementeditor reported by User:Willirennen (Result:24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on Nissan GT-R (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wikiarrangementeditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous version reverted to: 03:53, 2 December 2007

1st revert: [61]
2nd revert: [62]
3rd revert: [63]
4th revert: [64]
5th revert: [65]
6th revert: [66]

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Diff of 3RR warning: 03:53, 2 December 2007

Edit warring over its car classification, plus this user appears to be using a translator to contribute to the discussion page, there nobody has a clue what he is saying. Willirennen 04:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A clear case of disruptive reverting that goes way over what can be tolerated. Because the user is new and English is clearly not their first language I have kept the block at 24 hours; if the user returns and continues disruption, then further warnings may have to be given. (I suspect their first language may be German) I can't say I'm impressed with the choice of username though perhaps it scrapes acceptability. Sam Blacketer 14:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:X3210 reported by User:Jeffpw (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 06:51, 26 November 2007 VersionTime

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Diff of 3RR warning: 10:03, 2 December 2007

User objects to the term openly gay in the lead of article, and continually removes it, even though it is sourced. User has since reverted twice more, in spite of being warned. He simply blkanked the warning from his userpage. He is not a new user, and discussions on the talk page have not changed this behavior. Jeffpw 09:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both have been blocked for edit warring. Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces. 09:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffpw has been unblocked - I do not consider his block reasonable and will be seeking further explanation from Nat for his decision in this case. WjBscribe 13:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't look like a reasonable block here. The user was removing WP:BLP violations through reverting, a process which is exempt from WP:EW blocks. I think Nat has simply seen four reverts and blocked, without actually analysing it; perhaps we need to point it out to him? Anthøny 20:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shsilver reported by User:Guest9999 (Result: Blocked, 20 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [67]

No warning was given however user is experienced with over 8500 edits and 5 years of service and should know the rules.

Following the continuing discussion here and here an edit war of sorts seems to have started regarding currently unsourced material within the article and has resulted in four edits within 24 hours from this user. Please note that no warning was issued - the user is experienced - and that I am also been involved in the "conflict" (bias?). Guest9999 16:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert doesn't apply because a) changes were made by other editors User:SarekOfVulcan [68] in between my changes (00:01, 2 December 2007), which I did not revert. Furthermore, the first revert was reverting someone who the entire page (Vandalism) and put a forward message on it while a merge discussion was taking place.

A case could be made that by Guest9999 blanking significant portions of the article, when the {{Fact}} tag would have achieved better results, Guest9999 was vandalizing the article and therefore 3RR wouldn't apply. If it does apply, then Guest9999 also reverted the article three times within 24 hours and should also be sanctioned. Shsilver 16:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All edits that I made were with the intention of improving the encyclopaedia and I do not think they can be considered vandalism. Everything removed was unsourced information. [[Guest9999 17:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

I'm not seeing a violation of the 3RR. Unless I have misread, #3 & #4 are different edits from #1 & #2 and I don't see the same information being removed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:3RR - relevant part put in bold by me."An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time'." [[Guest9999 18:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Blocked – for a period of 20 hours Anthøny 20:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jingiby reported by User:Fatmanonthehorse (Result: Blocked, 31 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 13:44, 2 December 2007

This user is removing sourced Britannica information from this page and replacing it with info from fringe websites. I have changed my edits many times as a compromise to prevent him from reverting the article, but he is ignoring my edits and reverting anyway. He was blocked for reverting before as well Fatmanonthehorse 18:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you Fatmanonthehorse are reverting my Britannica sourced statements, manipulating the article and non-stop cunning! Regards! Jingby 18:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Anthøny 20:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:ShuttleBox reported by User:Enviroboy (Result: Caution issued, user added to admin watchlist)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 23:49, 28 September 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 02:01, 2 December 2007

The fifth revert was done after I posted the 3RR warning. It is outside the 24h period since the first revert. There is a discussion happening on the talk page and on Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton. Although the other editors involved have attempted to contact ShuttleBox, he/she remains unresponsive and continues the edit war. ShuttleBox also seems to be editing Ron Paul with a similar pattern. ~Enviroboy^Talk_Contribs - 21:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ron Paul edit seemed reasonable and the EdSum seemed plausible. I concur on the Clinton article. Am AGF for the moment, but that could change. I have left a cautionary comment on the user's page, and have added the user to my watchlist.Manning 10:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:87.122.27.101 reported by User:Theplanetsaturn (Result:24 hours + 1 month for sockmaster)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 01:55, 29 November 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 23:27, 2 December 2007

Judging by choice of edits and terminology used, this user appears to be the currently banned user http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:87.122.32.205&oldid=174992260, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:87.122.6.197 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Breathtaker.Theplanetsaturn 00:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

87.122.6.197 has been blocked for 24 hours by Spellcast. After two lots of sockpuppetry both ending in revert wars, I am going to extend Breathtaker's block to one month. This is clearly an ongoing problem and I wonder if semi-protection of Breathtaker's favourite articles may be done? I'm reluctant to do this if anon IPs often make useful additions to them. Sam Blacketer 11:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Turtlescrubber reported by User:The Evil Spartan (Result: Protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 03:56, December 1, 2007

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Diff of 3RR warning: None needed, long time user

Though the article is currently protected, this is a long-time user who knows better, and breaking 3RR with the knowledge in order to get a hand up on an article that's about to be protected (see article history and talk page) should be discouraged. Neutral on content of edits. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the page is protected, there's nothing further to be done. The purpose of 3RR blocks is to prevent edit warring, which can't happen in the presence of page protection. Stifle (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that by refusing to block for 3RR now, we are encouraging edit warring in the future. I have often seen users who are experienced edit war with such a policy in mind, and then get away with it, and I find it altogether quite possible that this is what happened in this situation. The Evil Spartan 23:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:124.191.92.25 reported by User:Eleland (Result: Admin reviewed - comments left at article talk page)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 08:30, 3 December 2007 (1st revert was in two steps to get to that revision)

1st revert: 07:46, 3 December 2007
2nd revert: 09:41, 3 December 2007
3rd revert: 10:11, 3 December 2007
4th revert: 10:19, 3 December 2007
5th revert:

12:01, 3 December 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 10:30, 3 December 2007

User is continually re-inserting misinterpreted & dubiously sourced criticisms into this BLP. His contributions on the talk page have been disruptive ([69], [70], et al) and every single one of his edits is related to adding criticism of Ed O'Loughlin. <eleland/talkedits> 12:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Action An analysis of the article was conducted and numerous NPOV concerns highlighted. Contributors invited to work towards consensus and be civil. Article is on my watchlist. Manning 13:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Buspar reported by User:Bignole (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 21:43, December 1, 2007

1st revert: 05:36, December 2, 2007
2nd revert: 05:50, December 2, 2007
3rd revert: 21:12, December 2, 2007
Diff of 3RR warning: 22:18, December 2, 2007
4th revert: 04:03, December 3, 2007 - Note, the user masked the revert by expanding the plot. The information (s)he was readding can be seen in the third and fifth paragraphs. Looking at the history-here-3 different editors have disagreed not only with "trivia" inclusion, but the inclusion of this specific trivia as well. I fear, based on their recent revert, they will try and mask their edits again. I think maybe the page may need full protection for a bit--seeing as the film is still in theaters--until this mess can be sorted out without edit warring. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5th/3rd revert: 16:15, December 3, 2007 - This is the fifth revert, but given that 24 hours had passed since his 2nd revert, this appears to be a new "third" revert, but just proves my fear that he'll continue to creep his addition in, even after a discussion was started on the talk page--where another editor concurred with its removal. Oh, and it's an IP that made this edit, but comparing contributions of the IP and the user, they are almost identical. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:142.68.12.176 reported by User:Victoriagirl (Result: Semi-protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 17:19, 2 December 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 15:19, 3 December 2007

The history of these reverts actually dates back to 01:20, 30 November 2007 when the user returned edits recently provided by 142.68.12.32 (talk · contribs). Citing WP:BLP, I have edited most of the reverts made since that time (Adam Bishop (talk · contribs) editd one revert). As yet, 142.68.12.176 (talk · contribs) has provided not source for his additions. Victoriagirl 18:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user has since reverted for a fifth time (at 19:01, 3 December 2007) within a 24-hour period.Victoriagirl 19:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. Stifle (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:TStolper1W reported by User:Michaelbusch (Result: Blocked)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 22:02

1st revert: 19:33
2nd revert: 20:57
3rd revert: 21:12
4th revert: 21:13
5th revert: 22:02

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Diff of 3RR warning: 21:39

User is removing criticism from Randell Mills and hydrino theory, and has no other edits. Ignored my warnings for deletion, and I reported the account to intervention against vandalism. User:Dlohcierekim decided it was more of a content dispute, which I disagree with (the matter has been posted on WP:ANI). However, TStolpher1W has continued to edit the article after the 3RR warning. Michaelbusch 22:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User blocked by User:Ioeth. Michaelbusch 22:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Charles reported by User:DWC LR (Result: )

Three-revert rule violation on Template:Romanian Royal Family (edit | [[Talk:Template:Romanian Royal Family|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Charles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC) *Previous version reverted to: 09:24, 15 August 2007[reply]
1st revert: 03:10, 4 December 2007
2nd revert: 16:07, 4 December 2007
3rd revert: 16:13, 4 December 2007
4th revert: 16:25, 4 December 2007

In this user's opinion the Royal Family consists of "the king, the queen and five princesses. That's it." (from an edit summary) and continues to push his pov regarding the Romanian Royal Family in violation of WP:NPOV on this and another template. - dwc lr 16:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted on the talk page regarding the issue. Please also see the comments of editors at Talk:Romanian Royal Family, the recent edit summaries of other editors at Romanian Royal Family (noting violations of WP:DUE and other objections to DWC LR's opinions) and the edit summaries of another editor who agrees with me and others at Template:House of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. This is a matter I am trying to discuss diplomatically, but trust me, it is difficult. Charles 17:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's very difficult dealing with people who do their utmost to push their pov - dwc lr 17:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! It's well-known and sourced that the Gotha you fervently defended isn't worth the paper it is printed on. Same here as then, this is an issue of you being cornered by objections to your edits. I supported my stance on the Mecklenburg issue and now this, and other attack-reports, and ones to come in the future are an issue of incivility. You can only corner a lion so many times before he bites, so please cease this nonsense DWC LR, and lets get on with editing, noting full well the opinions of other editors and the sources in the Romanian issue. Charles 17:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did remove another editor requests for citation when he was trying top make the Russian articles neutral. Block this person so they can read WP:NPOV - dwc lr 17:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:NeutralBosnian reported by User:Ronz (Result: )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 02:30, 4 December 2007

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Diff of 3RR warning: 17:14, 4 December 2007

The article is fully protected because of edit-warring over multiple disputes. The editor is using the talk page as a forum to promote his viewpoints in violation of WP:TALK, WP:SOAP, and WP:BATTLE, and has been warned about this. Editor is edit-warring over legitimate discussions aimed at reaching consensus on some of the information under dispute for which the article was protected. While this is a new editor, he's a WP:SPA that has ignored previous warnings and attempts at dispute resolution. I hope an admin will consider Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Remedies, as this is a similar type of disruption (a long-standing historical, national, and ethnic dispute). Ronz 18:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to reason with Ronz and have given up. Ronz has repeatedly Spammed and Vandalised Wikipedia pages which I tried to retrieve. I suggest Admin action on this. Please see Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Ronz and Talk:Bosniaks. NeutralBosnian 18:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eleland reported by User:Jaakobou (Result: )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version of text reverted to:

He came under criticism after announcing very high estimates of Palestinian deaths which were subsequently lowered.[4] Israeli representatives also initially over-estimated the numbers killed.

no-wiki editing text:

He came under criticism after announcing very high estimates of Palestinian deaths which were subsequently lowered.<ref>[http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0205/05/le.00.html CNN Transcripts: Interview with Condoleezza Rice; Last Chance for Arafat?; How to Best Protect the Cockpit?]</ref> Israeli representatives also initially over-estimated the numbers killed.

Diff of 3RR warning: not a new user but was still given a warning [71] which he read [72].

User has been unable to provide sources for his equating the actions of article's subject (palestinian) with those of his opponents (israelis) request diff, yet he continues to revert the equation into the article while making WP:CIV and WP:NPA breaches.

"Are you being consciously disruptive, or just ignorant?" 30 November 2007
"rv: not your blog, jaakobou" 17:15, 2 December 2007
"rv insertion of blog-style "criticisms" culled from random websites (including a hate site) and tendentious summary" 22:31, 3 December 2007
"to illustrate your preferred partisan narrative" 22:41, 3 December 2007
"I don't have to address it because it was an abysmally stupid question." 15:31, 4 December 2007
"not your claptrap" 16:17, 4 December 2007

3RR notice posted by Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Example


<!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->

===[[User:NAME_OF_USER]] reported by [[User:YOUR_NAME]] (Result: )===
*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~

*Previous version reverted to: [http://VersionLink VersionTime] <!-- 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.-->

<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

*1st revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*2nd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*3rd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*4th revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

*Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
*Diff of 3RR warning: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

A short explanation of the incident. ~~~~

<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->

@@ Line 1,017: / Line 1,017: @@
 : I have tried to reason with Ronz and have given up. Ronz has repeatedly Spammed and Vandalised Wikipedia pages which I tried to retrieve. I suggest Admin action on this. Please see [[Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Ronz]] and [[Talk:Bosniaks]]. [[User:NeutralBosnian|NeutralBosnian]] 18:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
+===[[User:Eleland]] reported by [[User:Jaakobou]] (Result: )===
+*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
+{{Article|Saeb Erekat}}. {{3RRV|Eleland}}: Time reported: 20:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
+*Previous version of text reverted to:
+::He came under criticism after announcing very high estimates of Palestinian deaths which were subsequently lowered.[4] Israeli representatives also initially over-estimated the numbers killed.
+no-wiki editing text:
+::<nowiki>He came under criticism after announcing very high estimates of Palestinian deaths which were subsequently lowered.<ref>[http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0205/05/le.00.html CNN Transcripts: Interview with Condoleezza Rice; Last Chance for Arafat?; How to Best Protect the Cockpit?]</ref> Israeli representatives also initially over-estimated the numbers killed.</nowiki>
+<!--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.-->
+<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
+*1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saeb_Erekat&diff=next&oldid=175500936 22:31, 3 December 2007]
+*2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saeb_Erekat&diff=prev&oldid=175614291 00:59, 4 December 2007]
+*3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saeb_Erekat&diff=prev&oldid=175696806 12:39, 4 December 2007]
+*4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saeb_Erekat&diff=prev&oldid=175724435 16:17, 4 December 2007]
+* Diff of 3RR warning: not a new user but was still given a warning [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saeb_Erekat&diff=prev&oldid=175614636] which he read [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saeb_Erekat&diff=prev&oldid=175696806].
+User has been unable to provide sources for his equating the actions of article's subject (palestinian) with those of his opponents (israelis) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASaeb_Erekat&diff=174849104&oldid=174848332 request diff], yet he continues to revert the equation into the article while making [[WP:CIV]] and [[WP:NPA]] breaches.
+* "Are you being consciously disruptive, or just ignorant?" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASaeb_Erekat&diff=174786172&oldid=174775831 30 November 2007]
+* "rv: not your blog, jaakobou" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saeb_Erekat&diff=175291250&oldid=175048849 17:15, 2 December 2007]
+* "rv insertion of blog-style "criticisms" culled from random websites (including a hate site) and tendentious summary" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saeb_Erekat&diff=175585566&oldid=175500936 22:31, 3 December 2007]
+* "to illustrate your preferred partisan narrative" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saeb_Erekat&diff=prev&oldid=175587448 22:41, 3 December 2007]
+* "I don't have to address it because it was an abysmally stupid question." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASaeb_Erekat&diff=175717125&oldid=175711239 15:31, 4 December 2007]
+* "not your claptrap" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saeb_Erekat&diff=175724435&oldid=175711439 16:17, 4 December 2007]
+:3RR notice posted by <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">[[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]''</sup></font></b> 20:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 == Example ==

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