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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:45, 22 July 2007

Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.
Administrators: please do not hesitate to remove disputes to user talk pages.

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

Violations

Please place new reports at the bottom.

Reply to Benimerin's statement

This user avoided on purpose to sign to identify himself as Joanot. He decided to register just because the article was to be semi-protected. He didn't register by his free will untill last time. (see Talk page section on semi-protection of the article). If it was not able to use his account because of e-mail problems, he could have very well signed without wikilink (i.e. --"Maurice27") --Maurice27 09:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Message to admins

May I indicate to admins that User:Benimerin has erased the reverts described as 5th and 6th, and changed dates & hours reported by me as seen here, completely changing my report and that he is using the room of the report to answer, making it much less clear to understand.

The revision made by me (before Benimerin changing it), is this one.

In addition to the 3 (with a 4th in another article) 3RR rule breakings made by this user in less than and week, I want to report his, proved here above, modification of my statement and explanations in order to mislead the admins --Maurice27 12:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links aren't changed nor erased, I think it clarifies that it's not about the same version, but several versions made by different users. Are you bored?. May I remember your own suggestion that there are no 3RR breaking as there aren't more than trhee reversions in 24h and, adding more, there are reversions with a lot of explanations and detailed reasons that you are simply ignoring these?.

I also would like to suggest admins to remove this request as a arbitration request is ongoing, and where he's also implied. There are also a user trying a dispute resolution in Talk:Flag of Valencia. I think it is not a problem of 3RR, because there are no reasons technically, and because the problem aren't the reversions but an edit-warring of Maurice27 against every Catalonian or Valencian users as me. Cheers. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 12:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC) PD: Please, can you show us where I've deleted anything?. Are you here to make me personal war or what?. Your last update is a false report.[reply]

Stu ^{’Bout ye!} reported by User:Domer48 (Result:12h)

Three-revert rule violation on

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

User:Domer48 and User:Brixton Busters have been changing Category:Northern Irish Roman Catholics to Category:Irish Roman Catholics. Their contention is that Northern Ireland is not a state, country or nationality. See Talk:Tom Williams (Irish Republican) for the reason why they are incorrect in doing this. All UK biography articles follow a style for categorisation. I have told them that if they disagree with this then they should go to WP:CFD, which is the correct procedure. However they are ignoring this. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 10:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, you have edit warred and in doing so, broken 3RR. Standards to do it one way do not give one an exception to the rule. 12 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mzaca reported by User:Ezeu (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 19:46, 18 June 2007
Diff of 3RR warning: [5]
- Please provide diffs showing more than three reverts. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked this user for 24 hours. Has been edit warring since the 11th, with his last 4 reverts yesterday at 07:22 and 12:02 and today at 05:58 and 07:48. Four reverts in 24 hours and 26 minutes is close enough for me. Kafziel ^Talk 14:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:David Lyons reported by User:Sparkzilla (Result: Protected (BLP))

Three-revert rule violation on

1st revert: 22:36, 13 July 2007
2nd revert: 23:44, 13 July 2007
3rd revert: 23:56, 13 July 2007
4th revert: 00:12, 14 July 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 00:13, 14 July 2007 User reverted while I was writing warning

User is an {SPA]] with an undeclared COI as a member of Baker's support group. User is attempting to remove primary source court documents that point to Baker's guilt. -- Sparkzilla talk! 15:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bogus 3RR claim to draw away attention from the fact the user Sparkzilla is trying to introduce an unreliable source into this BLP. Unreliable sources should be removed immediately, especially in the case of a BLP. Sparkzilla, despite requests, has been unable to show as the above diffs will show that his sources are reliable. He has also been told not to edit this page further due to his CoI.David Lyons 15:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please just look at the diffs and the user's posting history. -- Sparkzilla talk! 15:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone appears to be trying to introduce a third-party personal website as a source, which is a violation of BLP, so I've protected the page until I can work out what's going on. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SV, the document that is being introduced was originally on the justicefornickbaker site (and was linked to that site from the WP article since January). When justicefornickbaker's contents were removed a month or so ago, I copied the court documents to my own homepage. I have opened an RFC for the inclusion of these court documents on the article talk page. If it helps, I will shortly ask the editor of my magazine to add it to the sources for this article, which will give it independent provenance. Thank you for understanding. -- Sparkzilla talk! 20:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Minutes to Rise and User:87.167.226.119 reported by User:TheLetterM (Result:24hrs for TheLetterM and 87.167.226.119, sprotected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Minutes to Rise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and
87.167.226.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous version reverted to: 15:03, 12 July 2007

1st revert: 01:04, 13 July 2007
2nd revert: 07:49, 13 July 2007
3rd revert: 09:19, 13 July 2007
4th revert: 09:28, 13 July 2007
5th revert: 09:36, 13 July 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 08:38, 13 July 2007 and 09:34, 13 July 2007.

User has been disruptive in forcing "Heavy Metal" as a stylistic influence on Post-Hardcore and has refused to comply with anything resembling civil discourse or discussion, opting instead for all-capped, rude comments on my talk page.
User editing from one Username and an IP, both suspected sockpuppets of a previously banned sockpuppeter, see here. TheLetterM 17:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no clear evidence at this point that I can see of sockpuppetry. In the meanwhile, I have blocked User:TheLetterM and User:87.167.226.119 for 24 hours for edit warring, and sprotected the entry. Crum375 18:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joie de Vivre reported by User:Jayjg (Result:24hrs)

Three-revert rule violation on

1st revert: 17:07, 13 July 2007
2nd revert: 18:13, 13 July 2007
3rd revert: 18:19, 13 July 2007
4th revert: 18:25, 13 July 2007

Editor has been continually reverting in the sentence The frenulum may also be cut away at the same time, in a procedure called a frenectomy. in the lead paragraph. Was asked to revert himself by two different editors [6] [7] but has refused to do so. Not a new editor, has been editing since September 2006. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hrs. Crum375 20:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Marketingsupport reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result:24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 14:42 (EDT) (blanked page)

1st revert: 14:48
2nd revert: 14:48
3rd revert: 14:51
4th revert: 14:52

3RR warning given at 15:28 by User:Satori Son -- there has been more reverting to different versions after this point.

Note that NoMoBS seems to be a sockpuppet of this account, and has been making many of the same edits.

He is continuing to revert:

Initial version: 15:02
1st revert: 15:37
2nd revert: 15:51
3rd revert: 15:58
4th revert: 16:17
5th revert: 16:23
6th revert: 16:27
Marketingsupport (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked for 24 hours. —Kurykh 20:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bennie Noakes reported by User:Dreadstar (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 11:36, 7 July 2007

1st revert: 22:13, 13 July 2007
2nd revert: 20:38, 13 July 2007
3rd revert: 00:25, 13 July 2007
4th revert: 00:24, 13 July 2007

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning: Not a new user Has been editing since April 2005

Note that revert number four is the same information, just moved to a different spot in the same section, separated from it's original, former sentence. (hopefully that's clear!)- Dreadstar † 06:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also please note that the information User:Bennie Noakes is trying to keep in the article by edit-warring is OR/Synthesis and unsourced information. I've clearly outlined the reasons this material should not to be added to the article on the article's talk page. User insists on adding unsourced OR to the article. Dreadstar † 04:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit concerning that Bennie Noakes seemed to indicate that he may continue to edit war to keep his OR in the article, although he would "rather not have to". [8] Dreadstar † 04:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As user indicated, he continues to revert war to keep his OR/Synthesis in the article, as well as removing fact/citation request tags:

Revert: 13:23, 14 July 2007 Dreadstar † 18:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been protected due to the edit-warring, so the warring has stopped for now. I am concerned that it may start again once the article is unprotected. If not a block for this, then at least a strong warning from someone besides myself would be appropriate. Dreadstar † 09:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lear 21 reported by User:Parsecboy (Result:No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on:
- List of countries and outlying territories by total area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and
- List of countries by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
- Lear 21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported:13:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries and outlying territories by total area:

Revert 1: 1 00:48, 14 July 2007
Revert 2: 2 01:18, 14 July 2007
Revert 3: 3 01:40, 14 July 2007
Revert 4: 4 12:32, 14 July 2007

The edits differ from each other. The second party reverting, user:polaron, could be accused violating 3RRR as well. No need to block this account. Lear 21 13:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are not different; they are continued reverting to include the EU where no consensus exists to do so.Parsecboy 13:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by population:

Revert 1: 1 01:11, 14 July 2007
Revert 2: 2 01:21, 14 July 2007
Revert 3: 3 01:54, 14 July 2007
Revert 4: 4 02:10, 14 July 2007

Diff for 3RR warning: here. Parsecboy 13:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit is not a revert, but the establishment of new content. No sign of 3RRR Lear 21 13:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You made the same edit 4 times in less than an hour. If that does not constitute 3RR violation, I don't know what does. Parsecboy 13:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user reverted three times in both cases. He has not violated the 3RR rule. Perspicacite 10:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nordic Crusader reported by User:Muntuwandi (Result:Warned)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

1st revert: Revision as of 05:05, 15 July 2007
2nd revert: Revision as of 05:19, 15 July 2007
3rd revert: Revision as of 05:24, 15 July 2007
4th revert: Revision as of 05:39, 15 July 2007
[9]

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

User:Muntuwandi openly participated in an edit war, reverting what I thought were good, helpful edits with no explanation. It wasn't until after ceasefire I was warned, or even made aware of this rule. If I edit the article again, not sure if I want to after this, I'll seek admin assistance rather than reverting. --Nordic Crusader 09:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muntuwandi waited until after NC broke the rule to warn him. NC is a new user. Muntuwandi then reverted NC's edit leaving no recourse for NC to self-revert thus a block would be unfair. Perspicacite 10:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NC has reverted again, and his reverts are either vandalism or bordering on vandalism. I am requesting some intervention.Muntuwandi 11:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Furthermore though it appears that NC is a new user, the level of experience that is apparent is far too advanced to be a new user. Muntuwandi 11:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:88.101.76.122 reported by User:Angr (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 07:20, 13 July 2007

1st revert: 20:43, 14 July 2007
2nd revert: 22:16, 14 July 2007
3rd revert: 10:24, 15 July 2007
4th revert: 11:10, 15 July 2007

Note: User has now registered as User:Errorneous.

User:Angr reported by User:Errorneous (Result: No block)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [10]

1st revert: 20:47, 13 July 2007
~~2nd revert: 21:11, 14 July 2007~~
~~3rd revert: 06:24, 15 July 2007~~
4th revert: 10:55, 15 July 2007

The second and third of those reverts were made by other users, not me. My two reverts are spaced over 38 hours apart. —Angr 14:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were made by one user with dynamic IP. I bet it was your sockpupeting to lure me to break 3-revert rule.Errorneous 15:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, you're off to a great start at Wikipedia. First you edit war to restore a policy violation into an article, then you accuse an administrator of suckpuppetry. —Angr 16:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No block - as Angr says, the reverts are too far apart. Will ^(talk) 17:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Maurice27 reported by User:Benimerin (formerly: User:Joanot) (Result: No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 11:26, 15 July 2007. No previous version stable, this user reverts and avoids any change made by me in every restoration I make.

Reversions to version of 14:38, 12 July 2007
- 1st revert: 14:38, 12 July 2007 (with edits diff).
- 2nd revert: 18:47, 12 July 2007
- 3rd revert: 11:38, 14 July 2007
- 4th revert: 14:00, 14 July 2007
  Result: Two twice reversions within 24 hrs each time.
Reversions to version of 14:21, 15 July 2007 (diff with prior version used to revert):
- 1st revert: 14:16, 15 July 2007 (with minor edits diff).
- 2nd revert: 23:45, 15 July 2007
- 3rd revert: 12:37, 16 July 2007
  Result: Three reversions within 24 hrs.

NOTE A: Maurice27 have accused me previously about violating 3RR on the same article (see).

NOTE B: Maurice27 have been already blocked several times because violating 3RR (see), and he's implied in a request for arbitration (see).

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: 12:48, 15 July 2007

Reply by Maurice27

May this user be reminded by admins that this rule only applies if reverting 4 times in a 24 hour period and not 2 times one day and 2 times 48 hours later? --Maurice27 13:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, yes William M. Connolley 21:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that you will joke us reverting only twice every day? Technically you can avoid 3RR violation, but your objetive here is the same of those persons who violates this rule: to disrupt wikipedia, in this case, because of your very personal and ideological feelings. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 09:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, recheck this possible violation. There are three reversions within 24 hrs., since 14:16 of 15 July to 12:37 of 16 July made by Maurice27. Thanks. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 17:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. If you're saying that there are "three reversions within 24 hrs", then you're saying there is no violation.

Though, of course, editors are discouraged from "gaming the system" and constantly racking up precisely 3 reverts in an attempt to avoid being blocked, 3 reverts is still, technically, not a violation. If you think a person is persistently edit-warring, outside of 3RR, then you may wish to consider the administrator's noticeboard (WP:AN), or specifically their incidents subpage (WP:AN/I). Of course, I'm sure people here will still be willing to look at cases of precisely 3 reverts, but appealing to them to reconsider in cases where there wasn't a technical violation isn't likely to succeed. (As that would require one admin overriding the decision of another) Bladestorm 17:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for your response. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 17:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Funkynusayri reported by User:Zerida (Result: warned)

Three-revert rule violation on Middle East (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Demographics of Egypt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Egyptians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Funkynusayri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous version reverted to (on one of the articles): 00:35, 15 July 2007

1st revert: 09:44, 15 July
2nd revert: 10:37, 15 July
3rd revert: 10:41, 15 July
4th revert: 10:44, 15 July
5th revert: 10:51, 15 July
6th revert: 11:02, 15 July

Diff of 3RR warning: 10:56, 15 July

Comment: This appears to have all started when User:Funkynusayri made a deletion on the article Middle East, which was reverted [11]. User then went on to make similar edits on other articles, including Egyptians, which s/he contends "shouldn't exist" [12]. It was this comment that made me suspicious due to recent activity on articles of a similar topic by users like this and this. S/he then suggested that two articles, which are traditionally kept separate for every country, be merged. S/he also accuses me of having a "mute sock puppet" [13]. My comments to User:Funkynusayri can be found here and a content comment is here. I'd like him/her to cool off, refrain from making changes to articles when her/his edits are challenged by multiple users, and be a little more civil. — Zerida 19:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned the user. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Three-revert rule violation on

1st revert: 17:04, 14 July
2nd revert: 16:59, 15 July

and then: 17:12-17:13

(Second revert broken up to show its two-fold character, but is one revert because there were no intervening edits. As regards the second part, compare with older versions, as here.)

3rd revert: 17:17
4th revert: 17:23
5th revert: 17:34
6th revert: 17:43

The other party to the edit-war, TharkunColl, is likewise in breach of 3rr. See the page history. This is part of a long-raging edit war (or wars) on this article, lately the cause of An/I reports (see "British monarchy edit war", "British monarchy edit war, part II" and "G2bambino" in Archive 270), and with several recent past violations of 3rr and many warnings on both sides, and a block to G2bambino, though for "Edit warring", not for an actual 3rr violation. (I was myself blocked at the same time, for the same span, and for the same given reason as Gbambino. I mention this so that none can say I've been uncandid, here, but it is really beside the point, I think.) -- Lonewolf BC 20:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I warned both G2bambino and TharkunColl of 3RR. --Son 21:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also warned G2bambino earlier but he deleted the warning from his talk page. I didn't think I was in breach of 3RR (the edits were to two separate parts of the article and not connected with each other), but I could be wrong I suppose. My purpose was to restore the consensus so recently thrashed out. TharkunColl 21:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gaimhreadhan reported by User:Domer48 (Result: blocked elsewise)

Three-revert rule violation on Jean McConville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Previous version reverted to - 00:26, 15 July [14]

1 - 01:04, 15 July [15]

2 - 01:17, 15 July [16]

3 - 20:19, 15 July [17]

4 - 20:33, 15 July [18]

And although blocked for another matter [19]

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.

Will warn William M. Connolley 21:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Theblog reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result:12h)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: all are clearly marked as reverts; but [20] will do if you like

1st revert: 2007-07-15T05:37:01
2nd revert: 2007-07-15T16:36:04
3rd revert: 2007-07-15T18:51:39
4th revert: 2007-07-15T19:25:14

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: has been warned before and understood: [21]

Note that all edits remove the "roger pielke" text with a spurious BLP excuse for whitewashing William M. Connolley 21:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY by theblog

Please note that I believe it is a WP:BLP violation, and it is using WP:OR and a blog post meant to show the article subject in a negative light, as I have discussed on the talk page with anyone who will bother to respond. No whitewashing is taking place. --Theblog 01:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked and I do not see this as a BLP situation. Are there NPOV concerns? Quite possibly. But this cannot justify a 3RR vio. Therefore, blocked for 12 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Maniac20 reported by User:Falcon9x5 (Result: 3h)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 21:30, 14 July 2007

1st revert: 23:50, 14 July 2007
2nd revert: 00:11, 15 July 2007
3rd revert: 02:51, 15 July 2007
4th revert: 16:08, 15 July 2007
5th revert: 21:29, 15 July 2007
6th revert: 22:03, 15 July 2007
7th revert: 22:03, 15 July 2007
8th revert: 22:07, 15 July 2007
9th revert: 22:09, 15 July 2007
9th revert: 22:10, 15 July 2007
10th revert:22:13, 15 July 2007
11th revert: 22:17, 15 July 2007
12th revert: 22:20, 15 July 2007
13th revert: 22:24, 15 July 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 22:14, 15 July 2007

Given quite late, but user continued to make edits afterwards, and was given prior warnings.

I myself broke the 3RR while trying to revert Maniac20's edits. Myself [22] [23] and another user [24] [25] have left repeated warnings on the user's talk page, and in edit summaries. User has consistently ignored both. Also made several[26] other[27] disruptive[28] edits[29]. Fin ©™ 21:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3h. Next time, *please* warn earlier and bring here earlier William M. Connolley 09:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:74.62.149.66 reported by User:Fyslee (Result: 8h)

Three-revert rule violation on

Quackwatch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 74.62.149.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC) -- Fyslee/talk[reply]

Previous version reverted to: 23:52, 14 July 2007

1st revert: 07:14, 15 July 2007

2nd revert: 23:42, 15 July 2007

3rd revert: 23:45, 15 July 2007

4th revert: 00:02, 16 July 2007

8h William M. Connolley 08:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:CrystalB4 reported by User:gscshoyru (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 03:13, 16 July 2007

1st revert: [30]
2nd revert: [31]
3rd revert: [32]
4th revert: [33]

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: 03:08, 16 July 2007

24h William M. Connolley 08:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Complete Truth reported by User:Pablothegreat85 (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 03:37, 16 July 2007

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 03:31, 16 July 2007

This is still going on[34][35] [36][37][38][39]... Weregerbil 08:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to note the violations of WP:NPA in User:Complete Truth's edit summaries. Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24h William M. Connolley 08:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zephead999 reported by User:Zazaban (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [40]

1st revert: [41]
2nd revert: [42]
3rd revert: [43]
4th revert: [44]
5th revert [45]
6th revert [46]
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: [47]

Comment - Has also violated 3RR on Rush (band), John Bonham, and Led Zeppelin all today, but there are just too many diffs to include, check the history for proof. I also warned him on his talk page at 19:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC) which was during his edits to My Chemical Romance and Led Zeppelin Bsroiaadn^Talk 20:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Editor is now indefinitely blocked. --健次(derumi)^talk 20:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eurocopter tigre reported by User:Polaron (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [48]

1st revert: [49]
2nd revert: [50]
3rd revert: [51]
4th revert: [52]
5th revert: [53]

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: [54]
User's reply to warning trying to argue that, because the reverts were not exactly the same, he did not revert more than three times: [55]

After the third revert, I tried to rewrite the sentence so that would be acceptable for the other users. I insisted on that because they refused to discuss the subject on the talk page. The 4th and 5th edits were not reverts. Best regards, --Eurocopter tigre 20:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you all to continue discussing this for 1 hour at the talk page. Eurocopter tiger, I don't mean to take sides, but I think they have a point there with "controlling territory" and "having soveregnty". Maybe an additional remark after the list, or something like that can be made about EU.

Polaron, again, I don't mean to take sides, but I think you have a prity strong case in the talk page. You can do better than blocking Eurocopter tiger, you can convince him. Strictly speaking, Eurocopter, did not do always the same edit. But that's detail, b/c again, I think you can convice him, you have a stong case. Leave me a message if you need help convincing.

(obviously this is just my personal impression, feel free to just quarel if you like that more :P ):Dc76 21:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, they are still reverts, according to WP:3RR#What_is_a_revert.3F, whether they be exactly the same or with minor differences, they are still reverts made in an edit conflict. My goal is not to get Eurocopter blocked, but rules are rules, and if we don't enforce them, what good are they? Parsecboy 01:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again Parsecboy, rewritting a sentence is not a revert. Dc76 also confirmed that. --Eurocopter tigre 05:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:DIREKTOR reported by [User:151.33.88.197]

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: -17:24, 14 July 2007 151.33.91.112 (Talk) (22,437 bytes) (→Video) (undo)-
1st revert: -18:03, 14 July 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (21,816 bytes) (Stop vandalising the article, you cannot speak english and aren't even registered fascist!) (undo)-
2nd revert: -22:46, 14 July 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (21,816 bytes) (Undid revision 144656344 by 151.33.91.112 (talk)) (undo)-
3rd revert: -08:35, 15 July 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (21,816 bytes) (Undid revision 144759834 by 87.8.235.141 (talk)) (undo)-
4th revert: -08:45, 15 July 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (21,816 bytes) (Undid revision 144760730 by 87.8.235.141 (talk)) (undo)-
5th revert: -13:08, 15 July 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (21,816 bytes) (Undid revision 144781469 by 151.33.91.166 (talk)) (undo)-

You're missing the point. A revert in partial or in whole is still counted as a revert. You may have included more text with what was the point of contention (the inclusion of the EU in the table), but it's still a revert. On a related note, I ask that you look at the proposal put forward by Polaron (an edit on the article itself, not on the talk) and see if you'll agree to that. That is, of course, if you're around. I think you said something about a short vacation. Parsecboy 20:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:DreamGuy reported by User:Anubis3 (Result:page protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [56]

this is not a previous version reverted to, this is a later version (Revision as of 17:59, July 16, 2007), extremely deceptive claimDreamGuy 13:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1st revert: 21:13 16 July 2007

not a revert at all, this was my first edit, not reverting in any way, shape or form DreamGuy 13:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2nd revert: 21:15 16 July 2007

Different article entirely DreamGuy 13:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3rd revert: 23:59 16 July 2007

first actual revert -- this is the edit the guy listed above falsely as "previous version reverted to", so he's listed it twice DreamGuy 13:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4th revert: 00:00 17 July 2007

different article DreamGuy 13:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5th revert: 11:07 17 July 2007

second actual revert' DreamGuy 13:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6th revert: 11:07 17 July 2007

different article DreamGuy 13:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7th revert: 12:24 17 July 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: 1:42 17 July 2007
User:DreamGuy has reverted User:Anubis3's edits at least 3 or 4 times each in two separate article as cited above within a few hours. User:DreamGuy is well aware of the 3RR and has been blocked several times in the past for violating the rule including a block this month. I avoided reverting back my edits more than twice even though the user deleted the content of an entire article on their own (ignoring the WP:Deletion process). Articles remain reverted by User:DreamGuy to avoid edit war. - Anubis3 01:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 12:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a completely false report filed by someone acting in bad faith. The person combined preliminary edits (not reverts) as well as reverts from more than one article to try to come up with as many "reverts" as possible, and he left a false warning on my talk page that I had already violated 3RR after only one revert. The guy is extremely aggressive editor using bullying tactics and multiple false warnings to try to scare me off from edits he doesn't like. He created a fork file that pushes a POV on a topic of which we already have another, better article and refuses to accept that the article he created cannot stay. Furthermore, he tries to claim that his content cannot be removed and that it MUST be merged but that he wasn't going to do it so the fork article has to say. And the "remain reverted ... to avoid edit war" is just false, because he had gone in and reverted to his version yet again, and he IS the guy who made the edit war. The way things are going he'll violate 3RR before I would, not that I will. DreamGuy 12:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore the "including a block this month" is also false, as the block this month had nothing to do with 3RR and was not even a proper block, as other admins came in and undid it and gave the admin in question warnings not to make such bad decisions in the future. This Anubis3 who filed this report is either incredibly ignorant about 3RR and other policies here while aggressively claiming people violated them while they didn't or else he is knowingly lying in the hopes that he can trick people into blocking me for things I never did. DreamGuy 12:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the "history" of these edits will prove otherwise. I have been nothing but NPOV and kind when it has comes to our discussions (here), even though you insist of blanking your talk page. Please do not try to compromise the entry of this noticeboard. This above information is for administrators to consider. Anubis3 12:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, you made that claim while at the same time removing my labels on the report above proving that you were lying about the edits and portraying them as reverts when they weren't. I put the information back. Assuming good faith might mean that you were just clueless about what reverts mean when you filed the report (as I see you filed it after revert number 1), but removing the information showing that you are wrong is clear bad faith attempt to mislead admins. DreamGuy 13:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have protected the page. If there is no further disruption elsewhere that should be all that is needed. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It would help also if you explained to Anubis3 that either (if you still think there's room for good faith) he needs to actually read the 3RR policy before filing reports or (if the evidence is enough to show his bad faith) give him a block to not pull this kind of false report in the future. DreamGuy 13:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: this was a legitimate entry and violation of the 3RR. I really don't know where the bad faith came from. Are you saying that every entry in AN3RR made in bad faith??? Furthermore, your history also suggests that this is not your first time violating this rule. Please be open to constructive criticism and do not try to compromise the integrity of other people's entries. I hope the situation will be resolved peacefully. Anubis3 13:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:61.231.8.50 reported by User:MichaelLinnear (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 04:07, 17 July 2007

1st revert: 2007-07-17 04:16:38
2nd revert: 2007-07-17 04:24:35
3rd revert: 2007-07-17 04:28:08
4th revert: 2007-07-17 04:31:54
5th revert:2007-07-17 04:36:11
6th revert: 04:44, 17 July 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: 04:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editor has reverted 5 times, is clearly an experienced user as this diff shows, warning me about 3RR when they have exceeded the rule themselves. --MichaelLinnear 04:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now he has hopped ips to 125.232.196.232 to make two further reverts, inserting the same pov content, 1, 2. Both of these ips locate back to Taipei, 125.232.196.232 and 61.231.8.50. --MichaelLinnear 06:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably Stone put to sky (talk · contribs), one of the pages he focused on, similar ideological bent, and from the same location. --MichaelLinnear 08:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User: 70.189.74.49 reported by User:Ursasapien (Result: this case)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 18:39, July 15, 2007

1st revert: 18:39, July 15, 2007
2nd revert: 00:04, July 16, 2007
3rd revert: 03:40, July 16, 2007
4th revert: 12:53, July 16, 2007
5th revert: 12:54, July 16, 2007
6th revert: 13:06, July 16, 2007
7th revert: 13:39, July 16, 2007
8th revert: 13:38, July 17, 2007
9th revert: 14:26, July 17, 2007
10th revert: 16:20, July 17, 2007
11th revert: 17:16, July 17, 2007
12th revert: 04:39, July 18, 2007
13th revert: 05:03, July 18, 2007
14th revert: 06:49, July 18, 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: 05:11, July 16, 2007

Comment: This editor has edited this article almost exclusively. This seems to be a SPA. Ursasapien (talk) 05:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this has turned into a major edit war, of which I have been an active part. However, I see no remediation outside of admin intervention. This anon user flatly refuses to participate in discussion. If there is a better forum to solve this, please let me know. Ursasapien (talk) 09:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Blnguyen reported by User:Rambutan (Result:no action taken per WP:BAN)

Three-revert rule violation on

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Blnguyen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous version reverted to: 07:21

1st revert: [57]
2nd revert: [58]
3rd revert: [59]
4th revert: [60]

User:Kuntan is banned. Those IPs are TOR proxies being used by Kuntan. Banned users are not allowed to edit, and reverting them is not a violation of WP:3RR. This includes, removing content posted by banned users.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you have no proof. Sorry. Until you get proof, let another admin who sees the thread at the noticeboard deal with it.--Rambutan (talk) 06:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. You're both edit-warring over this. You both should know better. Knock it off and go talk about it on his talk page or something.--Chaser - T 07:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse this no-action, as noted by the fact that Rambutan has been blocked for proxying for a banned user. Daniel 07:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not for nothing that you got mail from Blnguyen, Danny.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.121.24.68 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kwork reported by User:PinchasC (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 08:02, 16 July 2007

1st revert: 10:25, 16 July 2007
2nd revert: 13:04, 16 July 2007
3rd revert: 07:09, 17 July 2007
4th revert: 09:34, 17 July 2007 (Based on Ip's edits, it is the same person as Kwork)

5th revert: 10:48, 17 July 2007
6th revert: 11:05, 17 July 2007 (using IP)
7th revert: 11:17, 17 July 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 08:40, 17 July 2007

This user is adding a npov template to the Chabad article, despite being reverted by 3 different editors. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours. It's a first violation, so I would have blocked for a shorter period, but that's a lot of reverts. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Giovanni33 reported by User:MONGO (Result:No block)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [61] 07:45, July 17, 2007

1st revert: [62] 07:56, July 17, 2007
2nd revert: [63] 08:11, July 17, 2007
3rd revert: [64] 08:20, July 17, 2007 changes to using my name to "with one editor who insists on being unamed here"
4th revert: [65] 08:56, July 17, 2007 again to "with one editor who insists on being unamed here"

Giovanni33 knows that 3RR isn't an entitlement so I didn't bother to warn him. I asked him four times (here, here, here and here) to not put my name in the talkpage discussion heading and he repeatedly put it back and then added the silly "with one editor who insists on being unamed here" just to be childish. This guy edit wars constantly all the way up to 3RR and has been blocked by more than a dozen administrators including one as recently as June 29th, albeit he was soon unblocked since the page was protected. He was almost blocked again on July 12th and was given a reprieve since he self reverted.[66]. I feel that I had a right to not have him post my name repeatedly in the heading, especially after I had asked him numerous times (ie...argue about the message, not the messenger) to not put my name there. He is also currently sitting on the line on the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article with an initial installment and three reverts again.[67], [68], [69], [70]. This is par for the course. Giovanni33 sees the 3RR rule as an entitlement, he has been blocked and counseled repeatedly yet he doesn't seem to get it.--MONGO 14:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a 24 hour block for both of them would do, MONGO seems to be doing his fair share of reverting as well, which I wouldn't be surprised is disrupting the talk page there. [71][72][73][74]--SevenOfDiamonds 18:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And article edits: [75][76][77] Geez. Talk about throwing stones in glass houses. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There may or may not be violations here by one or both parties, but I am not blocking anyone for this. It's a childish situation that has gotten way out of hand and I suggest you both take it somewhere else. Kafziel ^Talk 12:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Green108 reported by User:Bksimonb 24h

Three-revert rule violation on

1st revert 20:49, 16 July 2007
2nd revert 11:45, 17 July 2007
3rd revert 12:39, 17 July 2007
4th revert 14:11, 17 July 2007
5th revert 03:02, 18 July 2007
6th revert 14:28, 18 July 2007
Diff of 3RR notification: 17:39, 17 July 2007

Continued reverts after block

1st revert 18:54, 21 July 2007
2nd revert 13:16, 22 July 2007

User:Sam ov the blue sand reported by User:BlueShrek result 24h

Three-revert rule violation on

Deidara. Sam ov the blue sand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1st revert: 16 July 2007
2nd revert: 17 July 2007
3rd revert: 00:42, 17 July 2007
4th revert: 17 July 2007

note: he was in a edit war as well

User:Pascack reported by User:Mghabmw no vio

Joe Girardi
Pascack has a history of anti-Yankee biased. I've tried to use the discussion page. I've changed the page to neutral colors. He is using suspected sockpuppet User:joeidaho as well. I realize I'm guilty of violating the 3RR as well.

no specific vio. GDonato (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mghabmw reported by User:Jpers36 (Result:31 Hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 11:05, July 16, 2007

1st revert: Revision as of 17:42, July 16, 2007
2nd revert: Revision as of 22:03, July 16, 2007
3rd revert: Revision as of 10:55, July 17, 2007
4th revert: Revision as of 14:10, July 17, 2007
5th revert: Current revision (14:36, July 17, 2007) (after a warning, instead of full-reverting to the older version, the user removed the colors altogether, as well as reverted some added text)

Diff of 3RR warning: Revision as of 14:26, July 17, 2007

Did you just put a reversion of my own edit there? Mghabmw 06:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these users (User:Pascack and User:Mghabmw) have engaged in an edit war, along with IP 192.234.99.1 (which may or may not be one of the above) and IP 208.168.252.236 (which is user:Mghabmw). The situation may be settled now, and I would recommend holding off on any blocks for the time being, but I'll leave it to another admin to make the final decision. CitiCat^♫ 23:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update - while User:Pascack appears to have stopped, User:Mghabmw reverted once more[78]. CitiCat^♫ 03:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User blocked in a separate discussion CitiCat^♫ 17:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:SalvoCalcio reported by User:Bridgeplayer (Result:24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 02:38, 16 July 2007

1st revert: 00:20, 17 July 2007
2nd revert: 19:16, 17 July 200
3rd revert: 19:27, 17 July 200
4th revert: 19:30, 17 July 2007
5th revert: 23:41, 17 July 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: 15:14, 10 July 2007

There are numerous earlier reversions, contrary to the talk page consensus, but this is the first time he has actually done four in one day. He also calls edits vandalism and has something against Americans (see edit summary 3rd revert).

User:DIREKTOR reported by User:151.33.88.197 {Result: No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: -17:24, 14 July 2007 151.33.91.112 (Talk) (22,437 bytes) (→Video) (undo)-
1st revert: -18:03, 14 July 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (21,816 bytes) (Stop vandalising the article, you cannot speak english and aren't even registered fascist!) (undo)-
2nd revert: -22:46, 14 July 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (21,816 bytes) (Undid revision 144656344 by 151.33.91.112 (talk)) (undo)-
3rd revert: -08:35, 15 July 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (21,816 bytes) (Undid revision 144759834 by 87.8.235.141 (talk)) (undo)-
4th revert: -08:45, 15 July 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (21,816 bytes) (Undid revision 144760730 by 87.8.235.141 (talk)) (undo)-
5th revert: -13:08, 15 July 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (21,816 bytes) (Undid revision 144781469 by 151.33.91.166 (talk)) (undo)-

Blocking is not punitive; article has not been edited in days. While I agree that DIREKTOR's comments and reversions were not in keeping with our policies on dealing with new users, he hasn't edit warred any more than you have so I am not blocking for 3RR at this time. Kafziel ^Talk 12:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lear21 reported by User:Polaron (Result:1 week)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [79]

1st revert: 2007-07-16 20:18:22
2nd revert: 2007-07-17 06:35:23
3rd revert: 2007-07-17 11:29:21
4th revert: 2007-07-17 17:29:54

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

Blocked for one week. Kafziel ^Talk 12:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:BloodRunsCold1996 reported by User:Strothra (Result:24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 08:59, 17 July 2007.

1st revert: 10:24, 17 July 2007
2nd revert: 17:26, 17 July 2007
3rd revert: 20:23, 17 July 2007
4th revert: 20:38, 17 July 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 20:30, 17 July 2007

Blocked for 24 hours. Kafziel ^Talk 12:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Snowhite1985 reported by User:Dúnadan (Result: Warned)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 03:50, 16 July 2007

First, he reverted 7 times as 190.16.20.42 until the article was semi-protected. Then he logged in as User:Snowhite1985 and reverted 4 additional times. The identity of 190.16.20.42 as Snowhite1985 was suspected by administrator User:Pablo-flores and confirmed by User:Tangerines after Snowhite1985, not logged in, [inadvertently] signed as himself at User_talk:190.16.20.42. While he might be violating WP:SOCK, and his 11 reverts (all summed together) are a clear violation of WP:3RR (and were classified as WP:Vandalism by Tangerines), I will only present the 4 edits of Snowhite1985. It is up to the administrators to decide whether to take a more drastic measure given the clear evidence above, or to simply deal with this 3RR violations for the time being.

1st revert: 00:27, 18 July 2007
2nd revert: 00:32, 18 July 2007
3rd revert: 00:46, 18 July 2007
4th revert: 03:03, 18 July 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: 00:13, 18 July 2007 by Tangerines at anon's Talk page
Diff or 3RR warning: 00:36, 18 July 2007 at Snowhite1985 talk page.

Comment: Those diffs are not 3RR warnings. They are requests for the user to sign his posts. Kafziel ^Talk 12:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, Snowhite is not a new user. Secondly, the warnings advised him to stop his reiterated reversions (as well as asking him to sign). Please review the warnings thoroughly. I will quote what Tangerines wrote on the second warning:

"If you wish to mame [sic] major changes to the article, please provide and edit summary as any edits made without an edit summary are likely to be reverted as they appear to be vandalism. In this instance it is quite clear that this needs to be discussed on the talk page. Will you please therefore discuss this rather than keep adding the same edit as it will only be reverted again until this has been discussed on the articles talk page."

--the Dúnadan 01:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And after Tangerines said that, SnowWhite stopped reverting. He is a new user (certainly new enough to still need a proper 3RR warning), and he hasn't touched the article since the first warning came in. I'm not saying he definitely shouldn't be blocked, but I do think he's new enough to need a warning and he didn't do anything wrong after he got one. I'll leave this report open and another admin can offer a second opinion. Kafziel ^Talk 01:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the dates: he did revert after the first warning came in!

The anon was warned at 00.13; Snowhite was warned at 00.36, The third and fourth reversions occurred at 00.46 and 03:03 respectively: both occurred after the second warning came in. More recently he reverted yet again at 06:49 ([80]), which would make the 5th revert in less than 24 hours, and the 3rd after being warned.
Snowhite1985 registered on March 2007; he is been here almost 4 months; enough to know that he should not engage in WP:Vandalism, enough to stop editing after being warned not to do so, and enough to have discussed the issue civilly at the Talk Page.

--the Dúnadan 01:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to agree with Kafziel. The user was not warned of the 3-revert rule, but given a general caution about reverting. We need to be specific; it's best to use the {{subst:3rr}} template, because otherwise 3 reverts seems kind of arbitrary. I've placed the warning on his page. He has not edited for a couple of days; if the message has not gotten through, let me know or come back here and he will be blocked, but I'm not going to do it now. MastCell ^Talk 03:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:SoxrockProjects reported by User:Pats1 (Result:24 Hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 11:56, 18 July 2007

1st revert: 14:47, 18 July 2007
2nd revert: 14:49, 18 July 2007
3rd revert: 15:03, 18 July 2007
4th revert: 15:21, 18 July 2007

Comment: User ignoring discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/archive5#Links in infoboxes.

WHAT ARE YOU DOING?: YOU ARE TRYING TO RUIN MY FREAKING DAY! YOU KNOW THIS DOESN'T NEED CONSENSUS, AND NOW YOUR TRYING TO GET ME BLOCKED. THANKS A WHOLE FREAKING LOT! Soxrock 15:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours CitiCat^♫ 16:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user made no more reverts after the time that he was warned of 3RR. His last revert was at 15:21, the warning he received was at 15:30. He shouldn't be blocked because he was never warned fairly. Ksy92003(talk) 17:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:BlueShrek reported by User:Sesshomaru (Result: Blocked, 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 15:38, 18 July 2007

1st revert: 14:07, 18 July 2007
2nd revert: 15:06, 18 July 2007
3rd revert: 15:14, 18 July 2007
- 3rr warning given at 15:21, 18 July 2007
4th revert: 15:28, 18 July 2007
5th revert: 15:38, 18 July 2007

Comment: User claims that sources (like GameSpot) aren't official, but the talk page of Spider-Man: Friend or Foe says otherwise. He is however likely a sockpuppet of User:Wrestlinglover420 or User:TheManWhoLaughs, as there is currently a Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wrestlinglover420 to confirm whether he really is this abusive disruptive user.

I just want to say that this user has been picking on me since yesterday and he is trying to get me banned for no real reason. Nobody can put a reliable source on the page and he kept reverting me. I was just following talk page consensus.BlueShrek 16:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked BlueShrek and Sesshomaru for 24 hours. --ST47Talk·Desk 17:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bremskraft reported by User:DickClarkMises (Result: No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [81], [82]

1st revert: 21:00, 17 July 2007
2nd revert: 22:05, 17 July 2007
3rd revert: 01:04, 18 July 2007
4th revert: 12:09, 18 July 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: [83]

I see no reverts after the warning. --ST47Talk·Desk 17:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:206.47.252.66 reported by User:Orangemarlin (Result:Blocked 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 09:40, July 18, 20

1st revert: 07:48, July 18, 2007
2nd revert: 08:23, July 18, 2007
3rd revert: 09:24, July 18, 2007
4th revert: 09:59, July 18, 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: 7:47, July 18, 2007
Comment: See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/206.47.252.66 user's contributions to understand the full fervor of his 3 10 RR. Jim62sch 21:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're at 11 or 12 reverts with this anonymous, and I will call him what he is, VANDAL. Can someone please block this guy! Orangemarlin 22:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A semi-protect might help as well. Jim62sch 22:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours by User:Kafziel CitiCat^♫ 23:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:70.189.74.49 reported by User:Qwerty7412369 (Result:Article semi-protected and user blocked 24hr)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [84]

1st revert: 18:39, July 15, 2007
2nd revert: 04:04, July 16, 2007
3rd revert: 03:40, July 16, 2007
4th revert: 12:53, July 16, 2007
5th revert: 12:54, July 16, 2007
6th revert: 13:06, July 16, 2007
7th revert: 13:39, July 16, 2007
8th revert: 13:38, July 17, 2007
9th revert: 14:26, July 17, 2007
10th revert: 16:20, July 17, 2007
11th revert: 17:16, July 17, 2007
12th revert: 04:39, July 18, 2007
13th revert: 05:03, July 18, 2007
14th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Thematic_motifs_of_Lost&curid=6844657&diff=145413703&oldid=145412055 06:49, July 18, 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: 05:11, July 16, 2007
Diff of 3RR warning:[85]
Diff of 3RR warning:[86]
Diff of 3RR warning: [87]
Diff of 3RR warning: [88]

COMMENT - As you can see, User:70.189.74.49 has made 14 reverts to the same article in less than three days (at one point making 8 reverts in a single 24-hour period), delibertly disregarding the Three Revert Rule and ignoring the numerous WP:3RR warnings posted by various editors on User:70.189.74.49's Talk Page. However this is not the only problem I and other users have experienced with User:70.189.74.49. They have been quite obsessive over the past few days in their deletion of my and other user's entries despite the requests from numerous editors that they desist, and until a only few hours ago has refused to justify their position on either the Discussion Page or to me directly on My Talk Page, which has both initiated and inflamed an edit war over this article. Now that this user has finally entered the the discussion, they have been growing less Civil with every post (See Here as well as Here) and does not seem to be interested in reaching any consensus with other editors, nor will they engage in any discussion beyond the most basic assertions that they alone are 100% correct and I and other users are 100% wrong. I would also like to note that this user appears to be a Single Purpose Account and I suspect it to be a Sock Puppet.

I simply ask that the Administrators take these chronic violations of Wikipedia's rules and policies by User:70.189.74.49 into consideration when revewing this case.

Thank you, --Qwerty7412369 19:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article semi-protected. Kafziel ^Talk 19:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the edit warring weren't so egregious, the protection would be sufficient, but I've added a 24hr block. This user has received ample warnings and disregarded them. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 19:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No argument here. Kafziel ^Talk 19:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:XAndreWx reported by User:Sprigot (Result: 48 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

9th revert: 18:34, 18 July 2007
8th revert: 18:31, 18 July 2007
7th revert: 18:06, 18 July 2007
6th revert: 00:39, 18 July 2007
5th revert: 21:26, 17 July 2007
4th revert: 20:06, 17 July 2007
3rd revert: 15:50, 16 July 2007
2nd revert: 12:53, 15 July 2007
1st revert: 20:20, 12 July 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: 22:41, 15 July 2007

XAndreWx was originally blocked for the 3RR rule by User:Irishguy for this article over here:

22:41, 15 July 2007

This block was overturned by User:Evilclown93, also known as User:Maxim, on the request of XAndreWx's adoptor User:Giggy, with the comment of "Giggy has asked me to remove it, and I trust you've cooled off by now." here:

01:48, 16 July 2007

Even though XAndreWx was unblocked he again repeatedly violated the 3RR rule - in fact violating it at least six times since he was unblocked just two days ago.

I also believe that he then resorted to sock puppeteering to continue the revisions (three more identical revisions were made) - I have also created a sock puppet complaint which documents the evidence I have gathered in this matter.

Those diffs are not necessarily all reverts, but there are four clear reverts in a 24-hour span in there. To make matters worse, he was blocked recently for another 3RR-violation, and was released on a promise of good behavior. MastCell ^Talk 02:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cgoodell reported by User:Ilya1166 (Result: User warned)

Three-revert rule violation on

1st revert: 03:39, 19 July 2007
2nd revert: 04:25, 19 July 2007
3rd revert: 04:32, 19 July 2007
4th revert: 04:39, 19 July 2007
5th revert: 04:41, 19 July 2007

User has not been warned. I have done so. MastCell ^Talk 02:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mmtrmm reported by User:Poindexter_Propellerhead (Result: Withdrawn by filer)

Three-revert rule violation on

Here are 7 reverts in a 27 hour period.

1st revert: 04:37, 18 July 2007
2nd revert: 04:46, 18 July 2007
3rd revert: 06:48, 18 July 2007
4th revert: 14:35, 18 July 2007
5th revert: 05:31, 19 July 2007
6th revert:06:06, 19 July 2007
7th revert: 07:25, 19 July 2007

Aargh, I'm such a noob. :-/ No 3RR warning until 08:04, 19 July 2007,[89] when I noticed the warning rule. Please leave this on hold for 12 hours if possible, and I'll add any new reverts by that time. If that's not possible, feel free to kill this request, and I'll resubmit it when the problem recurs. Poindexter Propellerhead 09:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to withdraw this report, as Mmtrmm seems to have taken the day off from editing. I have a sockpuppet case proceeding also, which is awaiting final Checkuser confirmation, so it's probably safe to just let that run its course. Poindexter Propellerhead 05:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I won't pursue this further. Come back if it becomes a problem again. MastCell ^Talk 18:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mehicdino reported by User:Boadrummer (Result: User warned)

Three-revert rule violation on

Reverted to this version at least 5 tims in one day: 07:46, 19 July 2007

Non admin comment: Please provide diffs. Rlest 16:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user has not been warned. I issued a warning; any further reverts will result in a block. MastCell ^Talk 02:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI, he's continued changing the page to his liking, changing the genre after you've warned him. --Boa Drumm er 15:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:DIREKTOR reported by User:151.33.95.105 (Result: User warned; see below)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: -02:13, 18 July 2007 (edit) 4.231.202.71 (Talk)-
1st revert: -07:03, 18 July 2007 (hist) (diff) m Istrian exodus (You are the son of a refugee, and you call me a fanatic! :D ,hilarious, you are POV lay off or I'll have this article blocked as well)-
2nd revert: -18:06, 18 July 2007 (hist) (diff) m Istrian exodus (Undid revision 145479162 by 151.33.88.157 (talk)-
3rd revert: -18:15, 18 July 2007 (hist) (diff) m Istrian exodus (I sware... Stop this before I have to bother the Admins again)-
4th revert: -18:28, 18 July 2007 (hist) (diff) m Istrian exodus (Undid revision 145482427 by 209.215.160.114 (talk)-
5th revert: -18:45, 18 July 2007 (hist) (diff) m Istrian exodus (Undid revision 145485467 by 209.215.160.114 (talk)-

User:Isotope23 is on the case here as an admin, and he saw this as a case of IP disruption which DIREKTOR was responding to. Isotope semi-protected the page and blocked the IP edit-warring with DIREKTOR, so I'm going to leave things with a warning to DIREKTOR to seek admin assistance earlier in the course. I don't think a block is warranted for DIREKTOR, as it appears (in the judgement of Isotope23) that he was responding to disruption by IP's. MastCell ^Talk 02:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Discostu333 reported by User:M0RHI (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 19:39, 19 July 2007

1st revert: 19:42, 19 July 2007
2nd revert: 19:44, 19 July 2007
3rd revert: 19:47, 19 July 2007
4th revert: 19:49, 19 July 2007
5th revert: 19:58, 19 July 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 19:52, 19 July 2007

Blocked for 24 hours. I see 3 reverts in which he redirected the page, and one in which he removed fact tags restored by M0RHI, in 24 hours. In the future, please provide diffs in the report - instructions on how to do so are at WP:DIFF. MastCell ^Talk 02:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mghabmw reported by User:The Evil Spartan (Result: 31 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 00:39, July 2, 2007 (right before page protected)

I hate to be lazy, but there are literally dozens of reversions. Just take a look at the page history and you will see exactly the problem: mass spa'ing, etc. I count 21 reversions in the last 24 hours. The Evil Spartan 22:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's really pissing me off. I have a sneaking supcision he's a sock of User:Yankees10 (apparently a sock of another user), and has socked elsewhere. He clearly knows the rules (he reported someone above), and is mass revert warring in order to get his version of the page before it's locked - and like I said, I think there's some mass sockpuppetry going on. He's at like 15RR. The Evil Spartan 22:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 31 hours by another admin. MastCell ^Talk 02:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:NCdave reported by User:MastCell (Result:1 week)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 23:16, 19 July 2007

1st revert: 23:38, 19 July 2007
2nd revert: 23:45, 19 July 2007 (diff includes 2 consecutive edits by NCdave)
3rd revert: 23:55, 19 July 2007 (readds tag, undoing this very recent edit)
4th revert: 00:23, 20 July 2007 (tag-warring, reverts the immediately preceding edit)
5th revert: 04:04, 20 July 2007 (continued tag-warring, undoes the immediately prior edit).
Multiple subsequent edits involve tagging each individual section and edit-warring over the tag at the top of the article ([90], [91], etc).

Diff of 3RR warning: User has previous 3RR block, also warned here (23:51, 19 July 2007).

This is aggravated by the fact that NCdave is well aware there is consensus against his proposed edits, as exemplified by reams of talk page discussion. He responded to the 3RR warning by describing everyone else as "revert-warriors" and voicing an intention to tag-bomb the article instead ([92]). MastCell ^Talk 02:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that NCDave has a history of this kind of thing at Terry Schiavo [[93]]. A lengthy ban is in order here. JQ 06:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1 week. yandman 08:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:MarkThomas and User:SeaOfTranquility reported by User:Domer48 (Result:No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

1st revert:[94]
2nd revert:[95]
3rd revert:[96]
4th revert:[97]
5th revert:[98]

Edit warring and removing the edits of 5 editors.

I'd request investigating admins to see the talk page, note the ArbCom case, and the request request for page protection. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither user broke 3RR. If they're going to be blocked, Domer48 would be blocked as well. I also don't see a need for article protection; if Domer48 reverts again, he will be blocked, and that will be that. Kafziel ^Talk 22:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:NYScholar reported by User:Argyriou (Result:48 Hour block)

Three-revert rule violation on

1st revert: 12:21
2nd revert: 12:24
3rd revert: 12:33
4th revert: 12:45
5th revert: 13:17

User also made bad-faith report to WP:AIV, claiming vandalism and BLP violations in a content dispute. User is knowledgeable enough about WP to know WP:3RR.

User:Tim Osman has been blocked based on report above, but has also violated 3RR.

Blocked per above. LessHeard vanU 21:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:70.188.24.125 reported by User:Quadell (Result:24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 02:43

My image addition was removed by an anon, with no edit summary, 4 times.

1st revert: 12:41
2nd revert: 15:29
3rd revert: 17:44
4th revert: 18:16

On the discussion page, he was asked why he was reverted, and asked not to by 2 users. He also made personal attacks against me. I'm an admin, but I'm involved in the dispute. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. He's still reverting. 18:43. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours CitiCat^♫ 02:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jadger reported by User:Piotrus (Result: 24 hrs)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 22:36, July 20, 2007

1st revert: 23:40, July 20, 2007
2nd revert: 00:52, July 21, 2007
3rd revert: 01:24, July 21, 2007
4th revert: 01:30, July 21, 2007

On discussion page three users have asked him to discuss and provide better refs. Instead we are reverted and insulted.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5th revert: 2:19, 21 July 2007
6th revert: 2:26, 21 July 2007

I suppose once you know you have broken 3RR, you might as well go for broke. Please stop this user. As he has already been blocked twice for 3RR violations, the penalty should be more severe this time. Balcer 00:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apostrophe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) reported by User:Tbeatty (Result:24 hours)

Original 23:46, July 20, 2007
1st revert Revision as of 23:47, July 20, 2007
2nd revert Revision as of 23:59, July 20, 2007
3rd revert Revision as of 00:07, July 21, 2007
4th revert Revision as of 00:12, July 21, 2007

I've asked him to self-revert his last edit. He's made other edits after that request. I will gladly withdraw this request if he self-reverts.

--Tbeatty 07:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours. Made six reversions by my count, not counting three cleanups of obvious vandalism. CitiCat^♫ 17:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Icebear1946 reported by User:Duae Quartunciae (Result:24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Original problematic version 22:06, 18 July 2007 established by 72.66.37.11 (talk · contribs) (the anonymous isp of the same user)
This edit introduced a new external link, subsequently repeated removed by other editors
1st revert: 10:19, 19 July 2007 (as anonymous isp)
2nd revert: 11:32, 19 July 2007
3rd revert: 10:44, 20 July 2007
4th revert: 11:14, 20 July 2007
5th revert: 11:39, 20 July 2007
6th revert: 03:46, 21 July 2007
7th revert: 04:35, 21 July 2007

(The five most recent reverts are within 24 hours)

Icebear1946 is a new account, used for this one purpose. The account is operated by the author of the inappropriate citation.

1st welcome and warning: 11:58, 19 July 2007
Other WP:3RR warnings from multiple editors appear in Talk:Immanuel Velikovsky
Diff of formal 3RR warning in users talk page: 12:46, 20 July 2007

For the record, counter reverts by multiple other editors, no one individual more than three times

[99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106]

The same user, in response to guidance, declared an explicit intent to continue reverting indefinitely and to encourage others to do the same. Diff in talk page: 11:46, 20 July 2007

-- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 11:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional reversions after the filing of this report. Identical external link, removed by multiple editors, reverted each time by User:Icebear1946 against consensus:

8th revert: 10:44, 21 July 2007
9th revert: 21:18, 21 July 2007
10th revert: 03:49, 22 July 2007

(diffs added by neutral third-party from WP:WQA report) --Parzival418 _Hello 04:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re additional violations: WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:POINT, WP:CONSENSUS. I realize this page is not for other violations - I supply this only for perspective, that the 3RR violations are not due to "good faith mistakes." I responded to a report at WP:WQA and had no pre-knowlege of the article or editors. I saw that in addition to the 3RR violation, Icebear1946 has been repeatedly uncivil in his talk page comments and refused to acknowledge core Wikipedia policies. Examples:

Icebear1946 refers to the removal of his self-published un-referenced essay as "vandalism", even though multiple editors have explained why the source is not reliable, including quoting WP:V and WP:RS.
I referred him to WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and told him: "If you can show that the author of the essay is a reliable source, with consensus from the editors on this page, then the essay can be included." His response:

Legalistic sophistry not withstanding, you are in fact engaging in vandalism.

He engaged in WP:POINT by making a random edit to the article and then posted this uncivil comment:

I removed the Ellenberger/MeWhinney articles as a one-time experiment to see if you and your cronies were capable of learning anything from the exercise; obviously you are not.

When Duae_Quartunciae wrote: "we all assume we are trying to improve the article in good faith..." - Icebear1946 responded sarcastically:

...Are you a professional comedian?

Icebear1946 does not seem to be a simply an inexperienced user not aware of WP:3RR. (He's aware of it because he was warned more than once). He's had a chip on his shoulder from the start, ignoring Wikipedia policies, disrespecting fellow editors, showing no interest in collaborative editing. His incivility has not been extreme, but has been disruptive, along with exceeding 3RR. I offer this view as an editor not working on the article page involved, other than in responding the to Wikiquette alert. --Parzival418 _Hello 20:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10th revert: 03:49, 22 July 2007 (Let's not clutter this with debate; but can someone act please?) -- Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11th revert: 04:08, 22 July 2007 Icebear1946 continuing to revert the same item removed by multiple editors --Parzival418 _Hello 04:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24 hours Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 07:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Su-Jada reported by User:Tilman (Result: 24 hrs)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [107]

The four reverts were not identical, the fourth one was smaller.

1st revert: 22:02, 20 July 2007
2nd revert: 00:11, 21 July 2007
3rd revert: 00:25, 21 July 2007
4th revert: 18:52, 21 July 2007
5th revert: 19:16, 21 July 2007

The user is aware of 3RR [108]. He argues that it is a WP:BLP violation and thus 3RR doesn't apply, I am disagreeing because the deleted segments are properly sourced. --Tilman 17:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24 hrs ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request second opinion on this block. I believe both editors were edit-warring. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree of course; I (and other editors) just restored what the other deleted, this has been going on for quite some time now. See also what I responded to Jossi in my discussion. --Tilman 17:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, you read my mind - see my suggestion on your talk page. Tilman, that is a content dispute, not simple vandalism. While vandalism is an exception to 3RR, this was not vandalism; since the content removal was not malicious, you are no more free to violate 3RR than Su-Jada was. Kafziel ^Talk 17:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that I didn't violate 3RR. --Tilman 18:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You weren't reverting vandalism, so your reverts today (all four of them) are considered edit warring. But there's no point arguing - I'm not blocking you at this time. The article is locked for now, so just take this time to reach an agreement, seek mediation, or simply decide to walk away. Kafziel ^Talk 18:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Per Jossi's comment, Su-Jada has been unblocked and the article protected instead. Both of you, please take this time to keep discussing the situation on the talk page and seek mediation if necessary. If the edit war continues after the protection is lifted, blocks will follow. Kafziel ^Talk 18:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Liftarn reported by User:Zara1709 (Result:)

I'd like to report Liftarn for persistent edit warring and edit warring concerning several articles. This has already previously reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Liftarn and the Persecution of Germanic Pagans issue. While Liftarn has not violated the letter of the Three-revert rule, he has clearly violated the spirit.
Articles and other pages affected of this were: Persecution of Germanic Pagans, Historical Persecution by Christians, Discrimination against Asatruers in United States prisons, Religious discrimination against Asatruers, Template:Religious persecution, Religious discrimination against Neopagans, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann, User talk:Liftarn and House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and probably some more.

Regarding Persecution of Germanic Pagans: On May 20 I turned the article Persecution of Germanic Pagans, that had originally been created by Liftarn, into a disambiguation page [109]; Liftarn was the only one who had objected to a disambiguation page in Talk:Persecution of Germanic Pagans. Still, without writing something on the discussion page, he revert my edits [110] (#1); the disambiguation page was subsequently restored by Dbachmann on May 23 [111], reverted again by Liftarn on may 24 [112] (#2), restored again on May 29 by Dbachmann [113], reverted by Liftarn again the same day [114] (#3); only then Liftarn did write something on the discussion page, one sentence. [115](You have to check the edit history of the discussion page, he does not sign his comments correctly), he actually used WP:IDON'TLIKEIT as reason; I replied, rather displeased, with a much longer statement [116] and restored the disambiguation page [117]; still, on July 8 this was reverted by Liftarn again [118] (#4); he did not answer me on the discussion page. The disambiguation page was restored by 68.110.8.21 on July 8 [119], reverted again by Liftarn on July 9 [120] (#5), restored again by me on July 12 [121], this time I though I had to say Liftarn what I think of his style of non-discussion. He took this to be a personal attack, but at least he wrote something on the discussion page again, only that it was not at all useful [122]. Anyway, he reverted again on July 13 [123] (#6). I then flagged the article totally disputed [124] and asked dbachmann for help. He restored the disambiguation page on July 15.[125] Liftarn reverted again on July 16.[126](#7). Previosly, Dbachmann had written 9 lines on the discussion page, Liftarn again responded with only one line [127], that failed to even perceive the argument of Dbachmann. Consequently, I restored the disambiguation page on July 16. [128]. I was reverted yet another time by Liftarn on July 17. [129] (#8) I restored the disambiguation page again the same day. [130] Meanwhile the controversy had spread to Historical Persecution by Christians. Without referring the whole story there, too, I only needs to be said that Liftarn copied material that was deleted on that page onto persecution of Germanic Pagans. [131] (#9) Still on July 17, I restored the disambiguation page. [132] Liftarn reverted again on July 19. [133] (#10) The disambiguation page was restored the same day by Jacob Haller [134], reverted again by Liftarn [135] (#11), restored again by me [136]. It was then reverted a further time by Liftarn on July 20 [137] (#12) and restored again by Jacob Haller [138]. Further edits were concerned with the name of the articles that debated Liftarn's alleged Persecution of Asatrues.

Summaries for the other articles at request. I will not have this continued another day. -Zara1709 08:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non admin comment: Could you please format this request in the correct way, long paragrahs are not likely to attract attention to admins so if formatted correctly (see bottom of page) this will be handled but otherwise it may not be, Rlest 09:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time to request this in the correct way, since this is a complex case and I have become so angry about this that it takes me a lot of effort to write in a neutral tone.

User:Liftarn reported by User:Zara1709 (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on Religious discrimination against Neopagans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Religious discrimination against Asatruers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Liftarn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous version reverted to: 14:46, July 21, 2007

1st revert: 15:07, July 21, 2007; By creating a new article, Liftarn effectively reverts the then current version of Religious discrimination against Neopagans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2nd revert: 15:41, July 21, 2007
3rd revert: 15:47, July 21, 2007
4th revert: 16:04, July 21, 2007

How is that for a start? Do we have to discuss whether this is a formal breach of the Three-revert rule? I really need to take a break from this now. -Zara1709 10:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chajeshukarie reported by User:Mr. Neutron (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 17:41, 21 July 2007.
1st revert 17:50, 21 July 2007
2nd revert: 18:19, 21 July 2007
3rd revert: 18:44, 21 July 2007
4th revert: 00:55, 22 July 2007
5th revert: 17:31, 22 July 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: [139]

This user has been deleting sourced information for the song's usage in both Bulgaria and the Republic of Macedonia, and making rampant accusations of vandalism. Note how he is moving the page to correspond only to Macedonian transliteration, and reverting compromise English translation. He was warned on his talk page. Mr. Neutron 17:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mr. Neutron reported by User:Uuttyyrreess (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on

Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group). Mr. Neutron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous version reverted to: 8 July 2007

1st revert: 21 July 2007
2nd revert: 22 July 2007
3rd revert: 22 July 2007
4th revert: 22 July 2007

user: Mr. Neutron has not only been reverting content on talk pages but while doing so was deleting the comments of other users on the Discussion Page. While the Discussion page is free to anyone on Wikipedia for posting opinions, information, or links on the subject of the article, this user has claimed it is not allowed, and instead of talking about the problem on the discussion page, he has deleted people's comments. This user was notified about his actions and has failed to coorperate by deleting my notification[140]. Uuttyyrreess 18:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there are only actually 2 reverts above, and both remove policy violations. See this discussion on ChrisO's page. The links were removed because they violated the Wikipedia:NOT policy. Mr. Neutron 18:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Neutron has failed to acknowledge that the policy affects wikipedia articles and not the discussion pages, and by removing other user's comments on discussion pages, he has violated Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, since removing comments on article talk pages is strictly not allowed. Uuttyyrreess 18:45, 22 July 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]

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
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 -->
*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]

<!-- copy from _above_ this line -->

@@ Line 1,362: / Line 1,362: @@
 [[user: Mr. Neutron]] has not only been reverting content on talk pages but while doing so was deleting the comments of other users on the Discussion Page. While the [[Discussion page]] is free to anyone on [[Wikipedia]] for posting opinions, information, or links on the subject of the article, this user has claimed it is not allowed, and instead of talking about the problem on the discussion page, he has deleted people's comments. This user was notified about his actions and has failed to coorperate by deleting my notification[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMr._Neutron&diff=146216574&oldid=146208534]. [[User:Uuttyyrreess|Uuttyyrreess]] 18:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 ::Note that there are only actually 2 reverts above, and both remove policy violations. See this discussion on [[user talk:ChrisO#Discussion|ChrisO's page]]. The links were removed because they violated the [[Wikipedia:NOT]] policy. [[User:Mr. Neutron|Mr. Neutron]] 18:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
+:::Mr. Neutron has failed to acknowledge that the policy affects wikipedia articles and not the discussion pages, and by removing other user's comments on discussion pages, he has violated [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines]], since removing comments on article talk pages is strictly not allowed. [[User:Uuttyyrreess|Uuttyyrreess]] 18:45, 22 July 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

Revision as of 18:45, 22 July 2007

Violations

Reply to Benimerin's statement

Message to admins

Stu ’Bout ye! reported by User:Domer48 (Result:12h)

User:Mzaca reported by User:Ezeu (Result:24h)

User:David Lyons reported by User:Sparkzilla (Result: Protected (BLP))

User:Minutes to Rise and User:87.167.226.119 reported by User:TheLetterM (Result:24hrs for TheLetterM and 87.167.226.119, sprotected)

User:Joie de Vivre reported by User:Jayjg (Result:24hrs)

User:Marketingsupport reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result:24 hours)

User:Bennie Noakes reported by User:Dreadstar (Result:)

User:Lear 21 reported by User:Parsecboy (Result:No violation)

User:Nordic Crusader reported by User:Muntuwandi (Result:Warned)

User:88.101.76.122 reported by User:Angr (Result:)

User:Angr reported by User:Errorneous (Result: No block)

User:Maurice27 reported by User:Benimerin (formerly: User:Joanot) (Result: No violation)

Reply by Maurice27

User:Funkynusayri reported by User:Zerida (Result: warned)

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

User:Gaimhreadhan reported by User:Domer48 (Result: blocked elsewise)

User:Theblog reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result:12h)

REPLY by theblog

User:Maniac20 reported by User:Falcon9x5 (Result: 3h)

User:74.62.149.66 reported by User:Fyslee (Result: 8h)

User:CrystalB4 reported by User:gscshoyru (Result: 24h)

User:Complete Truth reported by User:Pablothegreat85 (Result: 24h)

User:Zephead999 reported by User:Zazaban (Result:)

User:Eurocopter tigre reported by User:Polaron (Result:)

User:DIREKTOR reported by [User:151.33.88.197]

User:DreamGuy reported by User:Anubis3 (Result:page protected)

User:61.231.8.50 reported by User:MichaelLinnear (Result:)

User: 70.189.74.49 reported by User:Ursasapien (Result: this case)

User:Blnguyen reported by User:Rambutan (Result:no action taken per WP:BAN)

User:Kwork reported by User:PinchasC (Result:24h)

User:Giovanni33 reported by User:MONGO (Result:No block)

User:Green108 reported by User:Bksimonb 24h

User:Sam ov the blue sand reported by User:BlueShrek result 24h

User:Pascack reported by User:Mghabmw no vio

User:Mghabmw reported by User:Jpers36 (Result:31 Hours)

User:SalvoCalcio reported by User:Bridgeplayer (Result:24 hours)

User:DIREKTOR reported by User:151.33.88.197 {Result: No violation)

User:Lear21 reported by User:Polaron (Result:1 week)

User:BloodRunsCold1996 reported by User:Strothra (Result:24 hours)

User:Snowhite1985 reported by User:Dúnadan (Result: Warned)

User:SoxrockProjects reported by User:Pats1 (Result:24 Hours)

User:BlueShrek reported by User:Sesshomaru (Result: Blocked, 24h)

User:Bremskraft reported by User:DickClarkMises (Result: No violation)

User:206.47.252.66 reported by User:Orangemarlin (Result:Blocked 24 hours)

User:70.189.74.49 reported by User:Qwerty7412369 (Result:Article semi-protected and user blocked 24hr)

User:XAndreWx reported by User:Sprigot (Result: 48 hours)

User:Cgoodell reported by User:Ilya1166 (Result: User warned)

User:Mmtrmm reported by User:Poindexter_Propellerhead (Result: Withdrawn by filer)

User:Mehicdino reported by User:Boadrummer (Result: User warned)

User:DIREKTOR reported by User:151.33.95.105 (Result: User warned; see below)

User:Discostu333 reported by User:M0RHI (Result: 24 hours)

User:Mghabmw reported by User:The Evil Spartan (Result: 31 hours)

User:NCdave reported by User:MastCell (Result:1 week)

User:MarkThomas and User:SeaOfTranquility reported by User:Domer48 (Result:No violation)

User:NYScholar reported by User:Argyriou (Result:48 Hour block)

User:70.188.24.125 reported by User:Quadell (Result:24 hours)

User:Jadger reported by User:Piotrus (Result: 24 hrs)

Apostrophe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) reported by User:Tbeatty (Result:24 hours)

User:Icebear1946 reported by User:Duae Quartunciae (Result:24 hours)

User:Su-Jada reported by User:Tilman (Result: 24 hrs)

User:Liftarn reported by User:Zara1709 (Result:)

User:Liftarn reported by User:Zara1709 (Result:)

User:Chajeshukarie reported by User:Mr. Neutron (Result:)

User:Mr. Neutron reported by User:Uuttyyrreess (Result:)

Example

Stu ^{’Bout ye!} reported by User:Domer48 (Result:12h)