Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 07:52, 10 December 2007 editMartinphi (talk \| contribs)12,452 edits →User:ScienceApologist reported by User:Martinphi (Result: ): Deserves bolding← Previous edit		Revision as of 08:14, 10 December 2007 edit undoStephan Schulz (talk \| contribs)Administrators26,888 edits →User:ScienceApologist reported by User:Martinphi (Result: ): No violationNext edit →
Line 1,020:		Line 1,020:
	:24 hours. -- ] ] ] ] &spades; 00:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)		:24 hours. -- ] ] ] ] &spades; 00:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

	===] reported by ] (Result: )===		===] reported by ] (Result: No violation)===
	*] violation on		*] violation on
	{{Article\|Ghost light}}. {{3RRV\|ScienceApologist}}: Time reported: 01:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)		{{Article\|Ghost light}}. {{3RRV\|ScienceApologist}}: Time reported: 01:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Line 1,054:		Line 1,054:

	The user continually edit wars on many articles, but is often clever enough to count. I hope a block will caution him to build consensus. I'm making this report per WP:3RR "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 01:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)		The user continually edit wars on many articles, but is often clever enough to count. I hope a block will caution him to build consensus. I'm making this report per WP:3RR "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 01:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

			:Most of the edits are ancient. There is no ] violation here. If you have issues with the editor, the correct venue is a ]. If you suspect sockpuppetry, request a checkuser. --] (]) 08:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

	===] reported by ] (Result: )===		===] reported by ] (Result: )===

Revision as of 08:14, 10 December 2007

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

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages'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, 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:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

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.

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

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)
1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165
1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175
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. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.

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

Stale – Please open a new 3RR if any new violations occur, or move discussion to talk page. --slakr 22:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Three-revert rule violation on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three-revert rule violation on

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three-revert rule violation on

All edits remove the "Online activity" paragraph

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

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

Three-revert rule violation on

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

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

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

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

Three-revert rule violation on

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

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

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

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

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

Three-revert rule violation on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three-revert rule violation on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

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

All edits that I made were with the intention of improving the encyclopaedia and I do not think they can be considered vandalism. Everything removed was unsourced information. ]

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

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

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

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

Three-revert rule violation on

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

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

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

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

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

Three-revert rule violation on

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

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

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

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

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

Three-revert rule violation on

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

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

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

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

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

Three-revert rule violation on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taking to your talk page, this noticeboard is not for discussions. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Three-revert rule violation on

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

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

12:01, 3 December 2007

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

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

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

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

Three-revert rule violation on

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 22:02

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

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning: 21:39

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No warning was given prior to this report, so I am issuing one now to both parties. Stifle (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:NeutralBosnian reported by User:Ronz (Result: 8 hours for reporter and reportee)

Three-revert rule violation on

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking through Ronz' contributions, it is plain to see that he has neevr spammed or vandalised. Furthermore, there is no evidence of NeutralBosnian (who clearly isn't neutral) ever trying to "reason" with Ronz. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 08:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit-warring on a talk page? Poor form. NeutralBosnian has not been in trouble before, but Ronz has also broken the 3RR and so they get 8 hours each. Stifle (talk) 12:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version of text reverted to:

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

no-wiki editing text:

He came under criticism after announcing very high estimates of Palestinian deaths which were subsequently lowered.<ref></ref> Israeli representatives also initially over-estimated the numbers killed.

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

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

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

Comment by Ynhockey: Eleland continues to revert-war in the same article, with numerous reverts (of different edits or parts thereof though, I must admit) and clearly violates WP:3RR now:

-- Ynhockey 21:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR notice posted by Jaakobou 20:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm uncertain whether the violation is exempted by WP:BLP, but there are other users involved as well so I am protecting the page. Stifle (talk) 12:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to post on a dead case (which was handled correctly), and I know this isn't a place for debate, but I wanted to point out something:

Above, Jaakobou quotes my text re: "Israeli representatives also initially over-estimated the numbers killed", adding "User has been unable to provide sources for his equating the actions of article's subject (palestinian) with those of his opponents (israelis)". Besides the fact that my text doesn't do this, Jaakobou sliced off my reference . This source is a retrospective on Israel's media strategy in Jenin. The author is an IDF reserve Captain who had close direct knowledge of the events. He writes:

With Palestinian leaders clamouring "massacre" on all the news networks, pressure mounted on the IDF to give its own assessment of Palestinian casualties. The result was a ‘guess-timate’ offered by field commanders based on the intensity of the fighting. While our office was saying around 150 Palestinians were killed, I heard very senior generals say up to 200, and the press quoted Defence officials with numbers ranging as high as 250. These figures made the Palestinian claims of 500 dead seem within the bounds of plausibility.

Furthermore, I have repeatedly explained this to Jaakobou on the talk page: see Talk:Saeb Erekat#criticism. Either he simply did not read anything I wrote (possible) or he deliberately "juiced up" his 3RR report with conscious falsehoods (likely, I'm afraid).

Also, the timestamps given by Ynhockey don't match the edits. The first two are already referenced by Jaakobou and the third consists of me removing a category which was already included only a few lines above; see . It's also interesting that Ynhockey showed up on Saeb Erekat all of a sudden to revert me after Jaakobou had used his last revert, although I guess it's possible that he noticed this 3RR report and followed it to the article in the space of nine minutes. They're both Israelis from the Tel Aviv metropolitan area, too, () and Ynhockey is an IDF military policeman, but that's surely just my paranoia talking. <eleland/talkedits> 20:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Page protected, this report is closed. Please take your discussions elsewhere. Stifle (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Osli73 reported by User:The Dragon of Bosnia (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 21:49, 3 December 2007

1st revert:Revision as of 10:25, 4 December 2007
2nd revert:Revision as of 10:26, 4 December 2007
3rd revert:Revision as of 10:59, 4 December 2007
4th revert:Revision as of 15:25, 4 December 2007
5th revert: 0:15, 5 December 2007

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning: Revision as of 11:09, 4 December 2007

Osli73 is a user with a long block log. He was blocked many times not just because of his edit wars, but also because of "Sockpuppeteering and directly violating his arbcom probation and revert parole" as you can see in his block log. Now he created redundant article Bosnian Mujahideen based on WP:NOT and WP:OR sources, in order to move edit war from ona article to another, although there is already article with more precise and official name 7th Muslim Brigade, based on relaible sources, such as Intenrational court findings. His reverts are well known not just on this article but on others. I think it is finally time to block him for a longer time. Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply from osli73: The Dragon of Bosnia and Grandy Grandy have taken up a campaign against the article Bosnian Mujahideen, repeatedly deleting the article and any links to it elsewhere. I have initiated Mediation as well as requested the assitance of numerous admins to help resolve the conflict. Despite this, The Dragon of Bosnia and Grandy Grandy insists on keeping up what I can only deem to be coordinated 'attacks' on the article. I would very much appreciate assistance on mediating on this article.Osli73 (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment

I think Osli73 should improve the existing articles, but creating a new article with the same topic and false terms in order to move edit war from the existing article to the new one isn't a good way for Misplaced Pages as it is WP:NOT content based on propaganda. As you can see he informed other users to join him in the edit war in a very subtile way: , , etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Dragon of Bosnia (talk • contribs) 07:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The sources are not relaible per WP:RS (political forum site, broken links and mailing lists are not relaible sources).

Let's go from the beginning:

Nettime mailing list - Post by Drazen Pantic on Tue, 9 Oct 2001 couldn't be verified as the link to the article is broken - Page Not Found. And it doesn't contain the term Bosnian Mujahideen. According to WP:Verifiability: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." which isn't the case here, to quote: "Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views."

This is an example of WP:NOT content as it is a political forum, actually The Premier Conservative News Forum. On their site you can find what it is about: "Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!". According to WP:NOT this shouldn't be here.

This report doesn't contain the term Osli73 is using. It just contains: "foreign mujahideen fighters", and there is already article about foreign soldiers: The role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war.

The Hadzihasanovic verdict Osli73 quoted actually discards all his claims about foreign fighters (that they were controlled by Bosnian army, but he didn't include the rest of the quote in the article.) I will quote it here: "However, the Trial Chamber could not establish that the Accused Hadzihasanovic or the Accused Kubura gave any orders to the Mujahedin and that those orders were implemented. Moreover, in the 3000 or so documents the Trial Chamber has analyzed, there is no combat report from the Mujahedin to the Accused, nor any other document which indicates that the Mujahedin were answerable to the Accused. However, in their combat reports, the commanders of the 3rd Corps units often complained of the undisciplined behaviour of the Mujahedin during joint combat operations. The Trial Chamber also notes that prior to 13 August 1993, the 3rd Corps war diaries hardly mention the Mujahedin."

Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 06:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours, and I am going to place Osli73 and other users on notice of the recent ArbCom case. Stifle (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Toadstool1969 reported by User:Masem (Result: Stale)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 19:15, December 4, 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: 00:21, December 5, 2007
Also 00:26, December 5, 2007

Jeff Gerstmann has been in the news over the weekend as he was fired from his rather predominate position at Gamestop after 10 yrs with a lot of speculation but both Gamestop and parent company CNET have stated they can't state the reasons for the firing, just that it wasn't for the speculation. As such, with WP:BLP, trying to keep the amount of info in such articles accurate and not wildly speculative or going beyond bibliographical information is difficult.

User:Toadstool1969 added additional information this morning that at myself and User:Spectre believe far exceed what should be stated for Gerstmann at this time (either it's newsworthy but not notable, or that it has BLP problems - it is not that this information is bad, but Gerstmann's page is not an appropriate location for it). The user did 4 reverts back to his edits, and while has explained his position on the talk page, continued to perform the reverts. I left his a personalized 3RR warning (above) after his 4th (so did Spectre), but he made the 5th revert after that message. Technically I would be at fault for also not mentioning that User:Spectre has also done 4 reverts in 24 hrs (to revert 4 of the 5 Toadstool reverts) but this, I believe, follows the 3RR guideline that information on WP:BLP should be kept free of speculative and potentially harming information, and thus Spectre should not be cited for this. MASEM 01:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if it did not harm Gerstmann, Toadstool's reversions included several unsourced statements about Eidos' actions, which I think falls under BLP (as companies can sue as well as public individuals). And while it's not a 3RR failsafe, there was too much weight on one action anyway. Will 01:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

~~I agree that at least two reverts are exempted by BLP. Stifle (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)~~
Never mind, read that incorrectly. Could someone else look at this? Stifle (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If I am to have been considered in violation of the 3RR rule, then fine. It will be my first such violation as I learn the rules of the road on Misplaced Pages. However, I completely disagree with Sceptre's asked for protections under BLP. I read it and don't find anything I did to be outside of the guidelines. Further, it looks like Sceptre is a long-standing member of Misplaced Pages and I don't think he should be given any special consideration over newer members. His argument that some of his reverts should not be considered violations don't seem to jive with the guidelines. Either we are both in violation or neither of us are in violation.--Toadstool1969 (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Closed as stale; No action four four days, dispute more or less over. Will 23:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Michaelbusch reported by User:Seicer (Result: strong warning)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 19:49, 4 December 2007
3RR notice: 03:27, 5 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seicer (talk • contribs)

Also revert warring at Hydrino theory:

Uninvolved editor who stumbled upon this at Wikiquette. Michaelbusch is engaging in petty revert war and is removing well cited information and misinterpreting citations. User has so far failed to engage in meaningful discussion. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd thought I'd remembered to count, but now I see that I may have run over - depending on what is counted and what is not. I'm afraid I don't understand Pcarbonn's statements, however, and note that he seems unduly partial to various forms of pseudoscience - in particular hydrino theory and cold fusion. I have been trying to enforce WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE and generally ensure that scientific validity isn't compromised - I've talked to Pcarbonn about this at great length and he refuses to accept policy. Please see the full discussions at Talk:Hydrino theory and Talk:cold fusion and let me know if I have exceeded acceptable bounds. I recuse myself from editing until this is decided. Michaelbusch (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a bit old. The idea of 3RR is to prevent edit warring, so reports should be made promptly. I am not going to block Michaelbusch on his undertaking to stop and a strong warning that only simple vandalism is 3RR-exempt. Stifle (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Osli73 reported by User:The Dragon of Bosnia (Result: User already blocked)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 17:05, 3 December 2007

1st revert: Revision as of 08:16, 4 December 2007
2nd revert: Revision as of 10:33, 4 December 2007
3rd revert: Revision as of 16:16, 4 December 200
4th revert: Revision as of 00:20, 5 December 2007
5th revert:09:53, 5 December 2007

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning: Revision as of 11:09, 4 December 2007

Osli73, user who was blocked 6 times continues to revert articles and to fabricate new claims, terms, names etc. He also tried to involve other users in his edit wars. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Already blocked in a previous report. Stifle (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Ostiferia reported by User:Tocino (Result: Warned)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 10:35, 29 November 2007

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning: 10:35, 29 November 2007

On the List of countries by Human Development Index article one editor keeps changing Côte d'Ivoire to Ivory Coast despite Côte d'Ivoire being the anme of the article for the nation of Côte d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast. It's user: Ostiferia who keeps reverting others who put the correct name on the list. Take a look at how many times he's reverted and its not just me he's reverted he's reverted other users too. He's says on the Human Development Index talk page that he thinks the decision to name the article of the Côte d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast nation to Côte d'Ivoire is wrong, so I told him to go to the Côte d'Ivoire talk page to discuss why it should be changed to Ivory Coast, but if you look at his edit history he has yet to do this. I also said that if he reverted again that I would report him to admins, yet he reverted again. Can someone stop this rebel editor? --Tocino 18:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have decided to warn the users as it is more of an edit war and neither have been warned on this matter. I will monitor the two users and block if necessary. Tbo (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well it looks like Ostiferia gets his way because the article currently has the Côte d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast nation listed as Ivory Coast (Côte d'Ivoire) which is a re-direct. As I said it's not just me who he's reverted, he's reverted at least two other editors on this matter. He's using this article as a proxy for his fight against Côte d'Ivoire. I don't think he should get his way on this one. If he does then I can go to all of the articles that link to Burma and change it to Myanmar as I think the decision to move Myanmar to Burma was ridiculous. But do I take my frustration out on other articles? No. I don't understand why Ostiferia is allowed to do this. He's reverted 10 times. --

You have also reverted over 3 times in the article. You claimed to be reverting vandalism but the edits you reverted was not vandalism. In this case you changed Ivory Coast to Côte d'Ivoire. This was reverted by User:Ostiferia who disagreed. This process continued with no third party input and so I consider this to be an edit war between you and User:Ostiferia. You have also reverted edits in other articles such as Hillsborough Disaster. Therefore I warned both of you and advised you to gain more input on the matter to try and gain a consensus. I may be wrong but you may have also reported User:Ostiferia to keep your preferred version of the article which would be a violation of WP;Point. Both of you may be blocked if this edit warring continues. Ideally no one should make changes relevant to anything in question. It should be discussed and a consensus should be achieved. Thanks. Tbo (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've made a little investigation and found out:

Neither Ostiferia's nor Tocino's reverts have been vandalism - as you've correctly said.
Neither Ostiferia nor Tocino have violated the 3RR, since neither of them have made more than 3 reverts within 24 hours (the 7th and 8th edits of Ostiferia's can't be regarded as two reverts since the version that preceded the 8th edit of Ostiferia's was the 7th edit made by Ostiferia himself).
Both Ostiferia and Tocino have been (legitimately) reverting more than one editor with regard to the same matter (Ostiferia has been reverting Tocino and Polaron, while Tocino has been reverting Ostiferia and Manstorius).
Both Ostiferia and Tocino have a good reasoning for either one's position.
I have suggested a compromise in my last version of the article. Meanwhile, this compromise is kept by both sides.

Manstorius (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, but one thing.... Ivory Coast is a re-direct to Côte d'Ivoire, so because of this the compromise should be Côte d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast). --Tocino 00:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

After having reviewed your important comment - I realized that my compromise was really insufficient - because it prefers Ivory Coast more than Côte d'Ivoire, i.e. it prefers Ostiferia's legitimate reasoning - more than your legitimate reasoing; However, your suggestion is insufficient too, because it prefers Côte d'Ivoire more than Ivory Coast, i.e. it prefers your legitimate reasoing - more than Ostiferia's legitimate reasoning. So, let's think together about a better compromise, such one which prefers nobody's position more than the other's position. You are invited to suggest such a better compromise in the talk page, and let's let Ostiferia as well suggest a compromise in the talk page, and we'll hopefully reach a common decision within 1-2 days. In order to avoid edit-war - the status-quo should meanwhile be kept - untill both sides accept your (or Ostiferia's) following compromise, unless one of you succeeds to convince the other party to accept one's original position. Manstorius (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This report is closed. Please discontinue the discussion here and take it somewhere else, e.g. Talk:List of countries by Human Development Index. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

User:75.44.146.95 reported by User:Josh the Nerd (Result:Already blocked)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 16:02, 5 December 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 15:43, 5 December 2007

This anonymous user repeatedly reverts the removal of original research. Josh (talk | contribs) 22:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by Bencherlite SkierRMH (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

User:JRW reported by 76.27.147.32 (Result: No warning given)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Continued revertion. 76.27.147.32 (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: JRW is a new user and no warning was given before the violation. MilesAgain (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

User:89.100.137.71 reported by User:One Night In Hackney (Result: blocked at AIV)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 21:10, 4 December 2007

Diff of 3RR warnings: 23:58, 5 December 2007 14:51, 6 December 2007

Editor is edit warring adding disputed information about the age of a soldier. Editor has previously used other IPs such as 89.100.135.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and made charming comments such as this. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

IP was blocked for 24 hours effective 17:54 UTC on 6 December 2007 as a result of a report at WP:AIV. While 3RR was a factor, the block was also due to misconduct on other users' user pages and on the article talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Artlondon reported by User:Sevenneed (Result:No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning: Not a new user; has been on Misplaced Pages since a year ago.

Persistent reversion of relevant content. Content removed include references to legitimate sources such as peer-reviewed articles BMC Journal and an article by Alex Usher, Vice President of the Educational Policy Institute in USA Sevenneed (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The report was malformed but I have fixed some of it. However there is no violation of the 3RR here; the user has three reverts and has stopped. This seems like a content dispute for which you need to encourage more discussion and bring in outsiders by a third opinion request or a request for comments. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

User:64.247.224.24 reported by User:ScienceApologist (Result:Blocked at WP:ANI )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 07:42, 5 December 2007

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning: 12:15, 6 December 2007

User has a definite personal stake in references listed at Cold fusion since he is the librarian in charge of LENR-CANR.org. He seems to be totally unrepentant about his reverting as witnessed from this and this. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: Things have gotten worse. I have reported this user to The incident noticeboard. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Falls under a broader catagory so he has been blocked for Disruptive editing /24 hour . --Hu12 (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Neutral Bosnian reported by User:osli73 (Result: indef block)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 14:20, 3 December 2007

User:Neutral Bosnian keeps reverting "8,000 men and boys" to "8,000 population" sometimes adding "(441 children)" although the sources all use the first wording. Osli73 (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Indef-blocked as abusive sockpuppet, see checkuser case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Bardhylius reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: Not a 3RR issue)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 12:29 24 Nov >

1st revert: 22:45 4 Dec
2nd revert: 16:11 5 Dec
3rd revert: 14:46 6 Dec
4th revert: 20:42 6 Dec
5th revert: 16:15 7 Dec

Not a new user, was blocked for edit-warring before.

Gaming the system by slow revert warring just below 3RR over several days. Latest edit summary () indicates intention of continuing with these tactics. Parallel revert war on Skanderbeg. Nationalist POV-pushing (user is self-declared "fierce nationalist" according to their user page.) Recent Arbcom ruling in the Macedonia case is applicable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a 3RR violation. Taking the accusations of gaming the system into account I am issuing a warning and putting the editor on notice of the ArbCom remedy. Further breaches of same should then go to WP:AE. Stifle (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Floyd Davidson reported by Jeffpw (Result:24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Version reverted to: 23:06 Dec 6
1st reversion: 07:03, Dec 7
2nd reversion: 14:39, Dec. 7
3rd reversion: 15:19, Dec. 7
4th reversion: 16:05 Dec 7
5th reversion: 16:55, Dec 7
Editor warned after 4th reversion:

User refuses to allow the fact that Barrow, Alaska was used as the setting for the film 30 Days of Night to be in the article. Continues to pare the fact down to one sentence and place it below the navigation template at the bottom of the page. Sourcing the material makes no difference, and he has said on his talk page that he will continue to revert war. Jeffpw (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I can only see 4 reversions (I'm going with the 1st reversion as the version reverted to) but there seems to be a clear WP:3RR breach after a due warning. Edit warring is not an acceptable way to resolve disputes. I think a block appropriate in this case. WjBscribe 17:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

User:70.43.182.102 reported by User:Whoville (Result: semi-protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 18:26, 7 December 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 17:09, 7 December 2007

Repeatedly inserts POV criticism of grammar in children's song without citation. Has become belligerent when asked to seek consensus on article's talk page and use NPOV:

What I wrote is verifiable fact, and inextricably linked to any pertinent discussion of Choo Choo Soul. Removing it makes no sense whatsoever and is flat out deceptive. You can block me from this computer, but you cannot block me from any of the other 500 computers I have full access to. This isn't edit warring, this is a matter of biased selective censoring of relevant information to a subject and is utterly asinine. I am going to repost my edit once again.

Whoville (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Either #1 or #2 is not a revert, depending on how you consider it, therefore there is, strictly speaking, no violation. However bearing in mind the IP's threats and so on, I am going to semi-protect the page for a week. Stifle (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

User:PhGustaf reported by User:Craigtalbert (Result: 6 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 03:44, 8 December 2007

As evident by the edit comments, user knows about the three revert rule and doesn't care that he's breaking it.

This material has been discussed on the talk page. User is revert despite on going discussion. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 06:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

User shows no interest in discussion or anything other than sterile reverting. However this appears to have been the first time he has come to admin attention and gets 6 hours. Stifle (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

User:BruceGrubb reported by User:Slakr (Result: 8 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

02:55, 8 December 2007 (compare) (edit summary: "Personal views have no place in an encylopia artice only FACTs. Stop vandalizing the article carl.")
08:56, 8 December 2007 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 176507070 by Anietor (talk)")
09:24, 8 December 2007 (compare) (edit summary: "FACTS not your personal views.")
11:43, 8 December 2007 (compare) (edit summary: "All reliable references including the Encyclopedia Britannica call Gnostism and Mormonism Christian. The *referenced* FACTS are agains you and every other peopne who removes this.")
13:58, 8 December 2007 (compare) (edit summary: "There is NO single Church of Christanity. It is cited and stop messing with the FACTS.")

Already warned.

—slakr 22:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

BruceGrubb gets 8 hours for a first 3RR breach, and Slakr may deserve a barnstar for the effort put into the report. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Plasynins reported by User:Armyguy11 (Result: No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 11:55, 21 November 2007

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning: 22:44, 8 December 2007

removal of infobox that was already in discussion. user is new to article and conensus has not been reached. ussion. user is new to article and conensus has not been reached. user has a strong history of reverting and undoing the work of others. Armyguy11 (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon this, and it appears both users went past 3RR. History shows User:Armyguy11 and a different user had the same argument a few weeks ago. I would suggest full protection for awhile. Yemal (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

simply go to my user history. I did not violate 3rr at all. I was waiting for a reply on the talk page from other users and user:Plasynins starts removing the content without going into the talk page. You yourself have reverted the inserted userbox. which is similar to the one that can found in the holocaust article. The rationale being that it is contained in the article, but similar information is contained in the holocaust article yet the infobox that hasn't been removed. Armyguy11 (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I see a marked similarity in the edits of user:Yemel and user:playsins edits. The amount of undid's in their edits and the disappearance of user Playsins and the sudden emergence of user Yemel to take his place seems to be a bit more than coincidence. Armyguy11 (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You're accusing me of being his sockpuppet now?? Because we both use the undo button? Ok, I'm staying out of this now. Keep up reverting if you want. Yemal (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Haha, are you serious Armyguy? I should be the one reporting you. Actually both of us have 3 reverts each on these over 24 hours. And while the User Yemal is obviously not me (we have no history of editing the same articles, using "undo" is weak evidence), the IP who reverted me was clearly you. Anyway the history is clear, I reverted 3 times, no violation. Plasynins (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

yes you dissappeared and yemal showed up and reverts. how convenient! Armyguy11 (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Um... the four reverts have to take place within a 24-hour period, not one a week ago and the rest yesterday. Revert #4 is from December 3rd. No violation and please don't argue your cases here. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Plasynins reported by User:Armyguy11 (Result: No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 02:23, 6 December 2007

1st revert: 02:55, 7 December 2007
2nd revert: 20:59, 8 December 2007
3rd revert: 22:09, 8 December 2007
4th revert: 22:36, 8 December 2007
5th revert: DIFFTIME

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

22:44, 8 December 2007

removal of infobox that was already in discussion. user is new to article and conensus has not been reached. user has a strong history of reverting and undoing the work of others. Armyguy11 (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No violation here either, reverts 1 and 4 are more than 24 hours apart. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User:81.154.205.12 reported by User:Seicer (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 20:58, 8 December 2007

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning: 20:43, 8 December 2007

User has insisted on an edit war, adding in unsourced, unverified and original research material into the article despite consensus on the talk page and at WP:ANI#Hakka Troubles. This comment ensures that his edits will be solely to disrupt.

There have been six reverts today alone, and similar IPs have been installing the same text repeatedly. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24h by Kafziel (talk · contribs). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The page has since been semi-protected. ~~However, Jéské Couriano made five reverts in a few hours on the same page and is blocked for 8 hours. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)~~ I missed that Kafziel warned Jéské before I got to this, so it would be interfering in another admin's actions for me to issue a further punishment. I have unblocked him. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User:PIRRO BURRI reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: Blocked 2 weeks )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 11:03, 9 Dec

1st revert: 11:11, 8 Dec
2nd revert: 11:44, 8 Dec
3rd revert: 12:06, 8 Dec
4th revert: 12:29, 8 Dec

Not a new user, was blocked for edit-warring before.

nationalist single-purpose troll with a history of disrupting a small set of Albania-related articles with clueless talkpage rants and uncoherent edits against consensus for many months. Possibly a reincarnation of previously banned anon user "Dodona", who had the same profile. Macedonia Arbcom decision is applicable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User: Bobby Awasthi reported by User:slatersteven (Result: No violation; Protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

A short explanation of the incident.

Booby is aware of the 3RR rules as he has previously entred into a debat about someone else being baned for this (and has asked why others have not been baned). Moreover he edited more then just four times (about 7 in fact). Many of which are rather insultiing in their reasoning.I never intended to do this but will be unable to edit many of his revisions without violating the rule myslelf Slatersteven (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

He has not made a violation. If he makes several edits consecutively (i.e. with no other users in between), those edits only count as one revert. He has thus made only two reverts in the 24-hour period. Because of the dispute, I've protected the page for three days; please discuss the changes with him on the talk page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User:64.148.1.113 reported by User:Someguy1221 (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 14:13, 9 December 2007

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning: 14:20, 9 December 2007

Very long edit war without discussion over two unsourced versions of the Dan Debicella. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

24 hours. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Ratsofftoya reported by User:Someguy1221 (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 13:51, 9 December 2007

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning: 14:20, 9 December 2007

Very long edit war without discussion over two unsourced versions of the Dan Debicella. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

24 hours. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist reported by User:Martinphi (Result: No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to:

This is not a technical 24 hour 3RR violation, but nevertheless deserves action considering the user's block log (and you would have to go see all his sock puppets to get the real effect here), history, and refusal to stop edit warring even after objections were raised on the talk page.

Finally does a mergeto:

Redirects saying no objections were made:

The user continually edit wars on many articles, but is often clever enough to count. I hope a block will caution him to build consensus. I'm making this report per WP:3RR "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of the edits are ancient. There is no WP:3RR violation here. If you have issues with the editor, the correct venue is a Request for Comments. If you suspect sockpuppetry, request a checkuser. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Plasynins reported by User:Armyguy11 (Result: )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 02:23, 6 December 2007

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

22:44, 8 December 2007

Sockpuppet used to circumvent 3rr violation. RFCU has been filed. . The result was a possible. removal of infobox that was already in discussion. user is new to article and conensus has not been reached. user has a strong history of reverting and undoing the work of others.

User:222.144.8.172 reported by User:71.250.205.204 (Result: )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 13:24, 9 December 2007

Their tit-for-tat edit warrings are keeping so fast, I couldn't give a warning but another editor already did. I also think Clerkwheelzeon violates the rule together.

Diff of 3RR warning: 06:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC) --71.250.205.204 (talk) 06:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not sure if this is needed. Both users are either new or ip's and I don't think they were aware of the 3RR. I warned them and there hasn't been any violations since (I would've reported them if there had been). Therefore I'm not sure if it's still necessary to bring this issue here. I'm new to the AN/3RR though, so correct me if I'm wrong so I can learn from my mistakes. Cheers, Spawn Man 06:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Example

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

Categories: