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 21:54, 7 October 2007 editEdgarde (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers19,109 edits →User:151.197.111.178 reported by User:Edgarde (Result: ): add 2nd diff← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:00, 7 October 2007 edit undoEdgarde (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers19,109 editsm →User:151.197.111.178 reported by User:Edgarde (Result: 24 hours): fix teimplate, gratuitous 3rd #RR warning diff. Thanks for getting to this so quickly!Next edit →
Line 788:		Line 788:
	===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours)===		===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours)===
	*] violation on		*] violation on
	{{Article\|Erotica}}. {{3RRV\|~~User:~~151.197.111.178}}: Time reported: 21:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)		{{Article\|Erotica}}. {{3RRV\|151.197.111.178}}: Time reported: 21:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to:		*Previous version reverted to:

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

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

	Anon editor repeatedly restores a "Student erotica" section against ] (per ]}. Section has been removed by two other editors (and historically removed by a third) — editor threatens on User talk pages to report these editors to admins.		Anon editor repeatedly restores a "Student erotica" section against ] (per ]}. Section has been removed by two other editors (and historically removed by a third) — editor threatens on User talk pages to report these editors to admins.

Revision as of 22:00, 7 October 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.
If you do not follow the instructions for making reports correctly your report will not be actioned

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)
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368
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)
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337
338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346	347
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Violations

Please place new reports at the bottom.

User:71.139.1.184 reported by User:CGijits (Result: Not warned)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 06:03, 3 October 2007

User:71.139.1.184 is disrupting the editing process. He/she fails to utilize the article talk page and is in violation of three-revert rule. User fails to recognize that a consensus version was established in March and June. His/her proposed changes must be discussed, as users like Cool Hand Luke are doing. In short, this user is not participating in a democratic way. CGijits 08:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

no evidence that user was warned. We can see that they have discovered their talk page. Spartaz 20:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User:58.181.249.244 reported by User:Caniago (Result: Malformed report )

Three-revert rule violation on

IP editor keeps removing reliably sourced information about the percentage breakdown of ethnic groups in the province. This information is direct from the year 2000 Indonesian census. They have been warned here:

Caniago 08:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

malformed report - not considered. Spartaz 20:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Abd reported by User:P-j-t-a (Result: Semi-prot., indef blocked P-j-t-a (and others))

Previous version reverted to: 03:38, 2 October 2007
- Note that the section on "Voting methods in Robert's Rules of Order" is reverted each time, even if other parts are not reverted to that exact version.

Diff of 3RR warning: 20:30, 2 October 2007
- Earlier proof that user is aware of the 3RR: 06:21, 28 September 2007 - note also the removal of administrator comments from this page.

Abd has accused me (while I was editing from my IP address) of POV-pushing for the Center for Voting and Democracy, with which I have only had a passing acquaintance several years ago. I was concerned about my IP address being associated with his accusations, and so I created this account. After I warned him that he violated 3RR, Abd accused me of being a sockpuppet, just as he has accused at least two other users and IPs. Beyond the accusations, Abd insists on his version against consensus. Abd is apparently an advocate of Approval voting, a competing method. He insists that the description of the new Robert's Rules of Order which recommends IRV in some circumstances be phrased in such a way as to downplay it, and removed from the lead where it has been for months at least. He also insists on removing mention of Arrow's impossibility theorem which states that all ranked election methods fail some formal criteria. In his zeal, he has broken 3RR several times. I warned him yesterday, and as you can see from the other link above that he certainly knows about it.

Even though he is on his 5th revert, I don't believe a lengthy block is necessary. I should think that a short block would let him know that 3RR is a serious rule and would help him be more careful about it in the future. P-j-t-a 14:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Article semi-protected and reporter (and others) blocked for being sockpuppets. Abd was protecting the article from sockpuppets. -- tariqabjotu 18:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Neil reported by User:futurebird (Result: Not a matter for AN3)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 01:25, October 3, 2007

User:JerryGraf reported by User:dead_velvet_elvis (Result: Incomplete)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

Here is his previous warning from22:33, 25 September 2007

As of today his other warning is still on this page "3.22 User:JerryGraf reported by User:Rogue Gremlin (Result: User Warned)"

Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

A short explanation of the incident. This is the second time in less than a week this user has violated this policy. He was warned but has deleted it from his talk page. He was told by several editors what he was placing did not belong on the page. But refuses to stop putting it backDead velvet elvis 16:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete request. Without a link to the warning, I am unsure that he has been properly advised of the problem, and without a link to the version that he reverted to, I can't be sure that they are actually reverts. Please file a complete request if you wish it to be dealt with. Stifle (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User:71.141.104.61 reported by User:Kuralyov (Result: No infringement)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 09:23, 3 October 2007

User continues to replace a section that was removed to another article for good reason, without giving any justification other than the false "there are other duplicatives on this page." Kuralyov 18:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You did not include diffs of the alleged violation. Please see other requests for the correct way of filing a complaint. However, I looked up the history and this IP only made three reverts. A fourth revert would violate the rule, but no breach has occurred (yet). Stifle (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User:68.242.153.205 reported by User:callmebc (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 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: 19:14, 3 October 2007

A short explanation of the incident. Callmebc 20:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC) A shortlived anonymous IP editor making a bunch of highly political POV edits and reverts with no attempt to discuss or justify, regardless of whatever effort is made to point out how incorrect they are, and no matter how heavily ref'd the changes I'm attempting. You know the story (He/she did make a few nonsensical comments after my 3RR warning). In this particular case, I'm trying to fix a section of blog-originated allegations that literally don't have a single supporting cite or ref for those allegations. You think I exaggerate? Go look: . I would really, really appreciate a partial lock put on the article; otherwise I will be here every other day with a different anonymous IP editor (well, probably the same one physically). I've already been automatically blocked a couple of times over 3RR dealing with these rotating, right wing, IP vandals (which is what they really are), and I want to be careful about stepping over the line again. Thanks in advance for any help. -BC

User Jester7777 (Result:Page Protected)

Jester7777 did 3 revertions at article Nelly Furtado:

1st revert: 3 October 2007
2nd revert: 3 October 2007
3nd revert: 3 October 2007

I made a change in the article and discussed it at Nelly Furtado's talk page. He just reverted me, writing nothing in the talk page. Opinoso 00:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User:JereKrischel reported by User:Arjuna (Result: 31h)

I wish to report two 3RR violations by the same user. Note that the same user is making false accusations of "vandalism", when in actual fact he is reverting consensus edits by myself and to the consensus version (viz. he is cherry-picking citations to push a POV and then asserting that any deletion of those citations is "vandalism"). We have explained to him ad nauseum our objections to his POV pushing, and why we revert his edits. I even gave him ample opportunity to self-revert before reporting this. Happy to explain more if requested.

Article: History of Hawaii

22:00, 3 October 2007 (hist) (diff) m History of Hawaii‎ (rvv - yes, arjuna, rvV. removing citations, in this case even removing citations regarding russ, is vandalism)
20:20, 3 October 2007 (hist) (diff) m History of Hawaii‎ (rvv - please explain why good cites should be removed on talk page)
13:19, 3 October 2007 (hist) (diff) History of Hawaii‎ (Undid revision 161980947 by Arjuna808 (talk))
07:02, 3 October 2007 (hist) (diff) m History of Hawaii‎ (rvv)

Article: Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy

21:55, 3 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy‎ (compromise version, including some edits from both sides)
20:20, 3 October 2007 (hist) (diff) m Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy‎ (rvv - please explain why good cites should be removed on talk page, eekadog)
13:15, 3 October 2007 (hist) (diff) m Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy‎ (fix typo)
13:11, 3 October 2007 (hist) (diff) m Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy‎ (rv, see talk)
07:01, 3 October 2007 (hist) (diff) m Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy‎ (Undid revision 161965636 by Eekadog (talk) rvv)

Thank you. Arjuna 00:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User:John Foxe reported by User:74s181 (Result:24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 22:57, 1 October 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.

A short explanation of the incident. 74s181 02:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC) We were discussing this part of the article on the talk page. During a discussion on the talk page, I identified a factual error in the article, corrected it, added a quote from the existing ref. John Foxe reverted, I re-added it with attribution, John Foxe reverted. Etc.

John Foxe has a history of using reverts to resist changes that don't agree with his POV. He's been repeatedly warned, 3RRs filed, the article has been protected twice that I know of. Recently he has become more subtle, making his reverts look less like reverts, adding a word, moving words around, etc. The fact remains, someone made a change, John Foxe removed it, repeatedly. And yes, these edits took place in 24 hours and 20 minutes, not 24 hours, but I see this as more evidence that John Foxe is a problem reverter.

Camp meetings were held in nearby towns during Smith's adolescence from 1818 to 1820, and in 1824-25, a religious revival occurred in the area around Palmyra and Manchester.

Camp meetings were held in nearby towns during Smith's adolescence from 1818 to 1820, and a religious revival occurred during 1824-25 in the area around Palmyra and Manchester.

Camp meetings were held in nearby towns during Smith's adolescence from 1818 to 1820, and a religious revival occurred in 1824-25 in the area around Palmyra and Manchester.

Camp meetings were held in nearby towns during Smith's adolescence from 1818 to 1820, and an interdenominational religious revival occurred during 1824-25 in the area around Palmyra and Manchester.

74s181 02:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for WP:3RR and WP:GAME. Ronnotel 03:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Hypnosadist reported by User:RolandR (Result:User warned)

Three-revert rule violation on

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.

Continually placing unsourced and irrelevant attack on third party in George Galloway RolandR 09:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

As there was no warning or previous 3RR blocks, I've warned the user. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Why did you not even suggest that he self-revert his fourth edit? RolandR 16:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Very good point, I've reverted his edit that broke the 3 revert rule. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you RolandR 17:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User:JerryGraf reported by User:dead_velvet_elvis (Result:No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 20:08, 24 September 2007

Here is his previous warning from22:33, 25 September 2007

As of today his other warning is still on this page "3.22 User:JerryGraf reported by User:Rogue Gremlin (Result: User Warned)"

Diff of 3RR warning:

This entry is really WP:POINTy. JerryGraf has not broken the three revert rule and even if he had he is not continuing to revert and I would have closed the report as 'stale'. Meanwhile I have serious suspicions that the reporter is a sock of the blocked Rogue Gremlin. Sam Blacketer 15:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

comparison of the two users contributions leaves no doubt in my mind. I have reset Rogue Gremlin's block and blocked Dead velvet elvis indefinitely. Spartaz 17:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Obstacle reported by User:Porfyrios (Result: No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 9:58, 4 October 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: 15:01, 4 October 2007

User Obstacle insists on removing mentions of the Greek Macedonia region from the article on Thessaloniki. He has been warned that reverting more than thrice within a 24-hour time frame is disruptive behaviour contrary to Misplaced Pages's rules, and yet has continued deleting the references in question from the article (more than three times within 6 hours). Porfyrios 13:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, looking at it again, it's one original edit (#1) and then three reverts. Still silly enough, but #1 really isn't a revert by any definition; there previously never was a version of the article where the reference to "Macedonia" was missing (in all the five years of its existence, I think), so the edit was in fact wholly new. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Gonzomuppet reported by User:Erik (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 10:35, October 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: 10:50, October 4, 2007

Editor needs adding minor video game mention to lead section despite lack of notability (and imbalanced mention with no other video games of the franchise mentioned in specific). Editor has not responded to messages on the talk page. Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for twenty-four hours by JoJan (talk · contribs). — madman bum and angel 17:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Taharqa reported by User:208.77.91.15 (Result:No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 3:26

1st revert: 06:24
2nd revert: 06:31
3rd revert: 06:35
4th revert: 6:40

Diff of 3RR warning: warning for continuous revert warring

Revert warring on another article . Other party in the dispute was blocked. 208.77.91.15 17:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Users are allowed to remove material from their own pages. Ronnotel 17:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

But they are not allowed to break the 3 revert rule on their talk pages. He was also warned about revert warring. It seems like there is considerable attempt to protect this user at any cost. Sad. 208.77.91.15 17:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Drat, you have uncovered our cabal and we must now deal with you harshly before anyone finds out. . . ;) Ronnotel 17:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

(but seriously, it is not a violation of WP:3RR to remove material on your own page.) Ronnotel 17:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, your attempt at deflecting the situation by using sarcasm doesn't change that there seems to be some bias. There is a fresh report on the same user that has not dried yet, and he doesn't even get a warning? The 3RR is supposed to apply to any page on Misplaced Pages. Anyway, he was warned about revert warring with or without breaking the rule, and he was doing that on another page. 208.77.91.15 18:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what Taharqa believes in or who is supposed to be backing him. I just call 'em like I see 'em. Please re-read WP:3RR, in particular the exceptions:

reverts done by a user within his or her own user page and user subpages, provided that such reverts do not restore copyright violations, libelous material, WP:BLP violations, or other kinds of inappropriate content enumerated in this policy or elsewhere

Ronnotel 18:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It says userpages and subpages; not usertalk pages. I think you need to consult with another Misplaced Pages administrator. 208.77.91.15 18:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

(un-dent)Uh, no. Ronnotel 18:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

(another Misplaced Pages adminsistrator) says that, although I find the policy allowing users to remove sections from their talk page to make detecting whether that user is a serial vandal more difficult, it is definitely policy. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User:RJ CG reported by User:Sander Säde (Result: 1 week )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 19:54, 3 October 2007

User has four previous blocks for edit warring . He does not attempt to discuss controversial edits, despite being asked to do so many times. -- Sander Säde 17:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I converted the timestamps to UTC so as to put this petty bickering behind us. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 19:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This accusation is a deliberate attempt to mislead administrators, coming from member of the group currently under investigation by ArbCom. What is reported as "4th revert" is actually original content, repeatedly (and without attempt to discuss their reverts) reverted by wikipedian who brought this frivolous complain, as well as another member of this group. To add an insult to injury, Sander Säde posted wrong time stamp on 4th revert, making it 3 hours "newer" in desperate attempt to add extra weight to his meritless witchunt. RJ CG 18:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh? That is the exact copy-paste of the timestamp. Perhaps you did not take timezones into account? And you are under investigation in that arbcom too, BTW. -- Sander Säde 18:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, two editors have reverted your edits, not just me. You have been asked to discuss this, you have made not a single attempt of trying to resolve this via discussion. It is clear that others do not agree with you, so why start edit warring instead of trying to explain why you want to create a controversial (and imho, unneeded) split? -- Sander Säde 18:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sander, you sure that you yourselfly did not accidentally use wrong timezone? From my view all times you gave are +3 hours from what they should be(meaning that you are actualy using wrong timezone:P). Although im not 100% sure in it. Anyway 3RR violation clearly exists.--Staberinde 18:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Though the time indicated is UTC+3, it applies to all the timestamps and this still constitutes a 3RR violation. Moreover, per WP:3RR users are not entitled to game the system and revert three times each day. This user has an impressive record of blocks for 3RR and is essentially a single-purpose account, judging from his contributions (RJ CG (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmed)). Colchicum 18:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I am actually pleased to see so many gang members chiming in to support brother in his witchhunt. Regarding calls to use talk page, it looks especially nice from wikipedian who reverted my edit 3 times, contributed precisely nothing but those reverts to the article's context recently, called me names in his edit summaries and did not make an attempt to explain his her reverts in the 1st place. I understand that you may believe in existence of different set of rules for people who happen not to share your opinion, but this belief is an error. Accusing other wikipedians of not following rules you repeatedly and blatantly violated isn't decent. RJ CG 18:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that one more member of the group (Digwuren) chimed in withing 90 minutes of logging the complaint. Is it a co-incidence that he was the editor who reverted (in his favourite style, without a single attempt to discuss) my original edit (falsely reported here as "4th revert")? This is clear evidence of close-knit group who regularly intervenes on behalf of each other to avoid 3rr and edit-warring violations. RJ CG 19:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You're completely right. And Irpen, who "chimed in" mere six minutes after I made a correction, is a part of the gang, too! Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 19:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have never exchanged a single off-line message with RJ_CG and, besides, I did not edit the article any time recently. Do you mean to say that you did not communicate off-wiki with Sanders/Suva/Alexia about this either? Your misuses of the off-line communications have been documented when you were caught in GAing your masterpiece "Occupation" article over IRC (now deleted as a POV-fork, some GA.) So, I think RJ's doubts are justified. That said, he should stop editing the article whether he ends up blocked or not. I left him a message to this degree. --Irpen 19:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think RJ CG should stop editing this page regardless of whether he technically violated 3RR or not. Revert-warring itself is an offense while a more difficult one to define than pure and simple 3RR vio. Two reverts may be a revert war while 5 reverts may be not. It depends of the circumstances. It is obvious, however, that there is a team-tag revert war going on right now. All parties should be cautioned to stop. --Irpen 19:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Clearly a 3RR violation. With a long history of edit warring, I've made it a week. --Haemo 19:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User: Ghost account 2 reported by User: North Shoreman (Result: Indef blocked )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

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:

There has been a long history of a specific reversion on this article – first by a series of IP posters and more recently by a “single purpose only poster” Ghost account 1 who was banned. This poster has returned and is making the same edits – basically changing Mexican-American War throughout the article to Mexican War. Tom (North Shoreman) 19:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppet. --Haemo 22:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Matthead reported by User:Tulkolahten (Result:No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

There seems to be an edit war between Matthead and other users resulted in the 3RR issue. There is a lot of mess so I am not precisely sure there are not some false reports between listed reverts, however all of them seems to break 3RR. Matthead was blocked a few days ago for 3RR too . ≈Tulkolahten≈ 20:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No violation here. There is one revert, and the rest are all different edits. There is an editing dispute but it is remaining civilised. Sam Blacketer 21:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Cleander reported by User:A.Garnet (Result:72 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Warned by User:Kudret Abi on his talk page about 3RR here.

User:Cleander has been adding the same section for weeks now despite being reverted by a number of editors. This is beside his racist rants referring to Turkish editors as "my fellow mongols", "Kemalist facists" and the "descendants of the Seljuk wild beasts" here. I think a more serious ban should be considered for these remarks alone. A.Garnet 11:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours for WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA Ronnotel 13:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User:User:M.V.E.i. reported by User:Bakersville (Result: both blocked 24 hrs)

Three-revert rule violation on

User M.V.E.i insists on an unsubstantiated paragraph with spelling mistakes, and engages in personal attacks. It has been brought to his attention in talk. Bakersville 13:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Both blocked for 24 hours. -- zzuuzz 13:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Multiplebraininjuries reported by User:Scorpion0422 (Result: No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 15:47, 5 October 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: 15:48, 5 October 2007

User claims he will continue to revert any edits made to the article, and has been extremely uncivil. Scorpion 15:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Are my popups bropke or are these reverts different? There appears to be no violation here. Spartaz 22:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User: Ghost account 8 reported by User: North Shoreman (Result: already blocked by Haemo)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

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:

Sock puppet situation There has been a long history of a specific reversion on this article – first by a series of IP posters and more recently by a “single purpose only posters” Ghost account 1 and Ghost account 2 both of whom have been banned. This poster has returned and is making the same edits – basically changing Mexican-American War throughout the article to Mexican War. Tom (North Shoreman) 16:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

already done Spartaz 22:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Jmcnamera reported by User:callmebc (Result: page protection 48h - user blocked 24 hours for Jmcnamera)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

5th revert: 12:57, 5 October 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: 00:34, 5 October 2007

A short explanation of the incident. Callmebc 16:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to get into the gory details, but Killian documents authenticity issues has had for quite some time a "Formatting" section that started off It has been claimed that the formatting of the Killian memos is inconsistent with the Air Force style manual in effect at the time, but without any refs whatsoever to any such "manual". That wasn't enough, though, to not use this imaginary "style manual" to comment on supposed formatting problems with the Killian memos (no, I'm not exaggerating). However, there is one, genuine "Air Force style manual" that is available: Air Force document "AFH33-337," aka "The Tongue and Quill," which originated in the mid-70's. So I thought to include references to that, and in doing so touched off this latest revert war. Why? Because its section on "Memorandum for Record" directly contradicts all of the allegations regarding the alleged formatting inconsistencies, which apparently didn't sit well with some folks of a certain extreme political persuasion, most notably "Jmcnamera," who kept removing refs to it.

And while I'm here, I suppose I should mention that "Jmcnamera" is kinda obviously a sockpuppet with alternate ID's of User talk:209.145.67.172 and User talk:68.242.153.205.

Check their contrib histories:

You should note that Jmcnamara accidently became "209.145.67.172" at 13:45, 4 October 2007 in the midst of a series of earlier reverts:

"Jmcnamera" may also be the same person who was making very similar hostile edits and reverts a week ago, resulting in one block, under the ID's of user:74.77.222.188 and User:Clashwho before abruptly stopping. See as confirmation that they are indeed the same person. Also compare "their" contrib histories to the ones above:

Note especially that User talk:68.242.153.205 was blocked after I filed a 3RR complaint, , for exactly the same pattern of reverting, and note well the time: 20:31, 3 October 2007.

If you check the time of "Jmcnamera" starting his revert war, 17:33, 4 October 2007, that's not quite 24 hours, is it? And isn't there some sort of Wiki rule about using a sockpuppet to evade a block? FYI.

I've blocked Jmcnamera for 24 hours but also protected the article for 48 hours because of disputes involving more then 2 users and some IP's. So settle down everyone and talk about it the talk page of the article, if not all parties involved may be blocked for 24 or more hours the next time. I've also considered a block for callmecd for 24 hours for WP:NPA issues but did not for now until the next occurrence. If there are any issues with this decision please send me a message. Thanks!--JForget 01:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Hungrywolf reported by User:Game Collector (Result: One week)

Three-revert rule violation on

Diffs of 3RR warnings

The user keeps adding unencyclopedic information to the article regardless of concensus on the articles discussion page. He frequently makes uncivil and rude comments in response to legitimate disputes, on many occasions accusing others of sock puppetry and vandalism without ever providing evidence of such.Game Collector 16:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

reverts 1&2 are different to 3&4. Spartaz 22:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
revisted this morning and the revert warring has continued. Given that this user was unblocked less than a week ago after promising to edit nicely we can extend this block. One week. Further violations will lead to further escalating blocks. Spartaz 07:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

User:V-Dash reported by User:Dlong (Result:24 hours )

Three-revert rule violation on

1st revert:

15:21, October 4, 2007

2nd revert:

22:04, October 4, 2007

3rd revert:

22:43, October 4, 2007

4th revert:

09:10, October 5, 2007

5th revert:

10:27, October 5, 2007

6th revert:

13:45, October 5, 2007

That's 6 reversions in a 24 hour period. Additionally, there are several more reversion that did not take place over the past 24 hours.

Warning was given over 3 hours prior to the latest reversion: 10:39, October 5, 2007

This user continues to try to have The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass listed as an RPG instead of action-adventure, which is the consensus genre for all the Zelda games. He briefly discussed the change on the talk page, but has since gone back to edit warring. Dlong 18:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

blocked Spartaz 22:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User:84.66.98.7 reported by User:DMacks (Result: 24 hours )

Three-revert rule violation on

Diff of 3RR warning: 16:59, 5 October 2007

Edit-warring over UK/US English spelling. Making related bad-faith edits to subvert how obvious his warring is (clear from this change that he read edit summary of my previous reversion and is adjusting his tactics accordingly) and assorted other vandalism to the page along the way. DMacks 19:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I did wonder whether a block would be bity but then I looked at the contribs. 24 hours Spartaz 22:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Jagged 85 reported by User:Arrow740 (Result:warned )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 17:29, 6 September 2007

The issue is that the following statement (or variations of it) were removed based on a solid concensus about the reliability of sources:

"A minority of Muslims calculate the age of Aisha to have been over 13 and 14, perhaps between 17 and 19."

User:Jagged 85 reinstated it (and much more) five times:

1st revert: 04:13, 5 October 2007 He indicates in his edit summary that he understands he is undoing the work of other editors.
2nd revert: 07:29, 5 October 2007
3rd revert: 07:38, 5 October 2007
4th revert: 09:39, 5 October 2007
5th revert: 03:37, 6 October 2007.

New: 6th revert: 07:04, 6 October 2007

Mainstream scholars (such as Watt, Lewis, Peters, and Rodinson) state certain chronological issues involving Muhammad's marriage to Aisha unequivocally. Jagged is revert-warring to include counter arguments from highly partisan or unqualified (in the field of Islamic studies) sources that were discussed at great length and rejected at Talk:Aisha's age at marriage, a page that Jagged was directed to multiple times, but reverted following each reminder. Arrow740 05:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that the user continued to discuss the changes throughout the revert war. Consequently they have escaped with a warning but I warn all parties that further revert warring on this article will incur sanctions. Spartaz 07:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that an established editor is allowed to ignore the 3RR so blatantly. One user revert-warring alone with three others, at 6 reverts, is not blocked? Are you serious? Arrow740 07:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The 3RR is a technicality. The more salient point is that, even after several years of participation, he ignores talk pages (I'll ignore shameless partisanship as it's pretty much normal for these articles - else there would hardly be anyone left.) I don't think a block necessary, but a 3RR warning isn't particularly productive. What is needed is a tailored agreement with Jagged85 to use the talk pages.Proabivouac 07:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

In this case they did use the talk page. Have they reverted again? If not, there is nothing further to do here. If there is a more difficult editing concern that requires a more complicated resolution than its not something for AN3. Spartaz 08:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The dispute is now posted here Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Asma_Barlas. Hopefully it will be resolved. --Aminz 08:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully you will accept the resolution this time around. Arrow740 08:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

User:204.210.193.71 reported by User:Paul Erik (Result: semiprotected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 05:26, 6 October 2007

1st revert: 05:30, 6 October 2007
2nd revert: 05:35, 6 October 2007
3rd revert: 05:41
4th revert: 05:46, 6 October 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: 05:39, 6 October 2007

Restoring trivia against consensus. Paul Erik 05:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I semiprotected this article. This is a more effective way of dealing with disruption from an ip editor. Spartaz 07:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

User:C6758 reported by User:Videmus Omnia (Result:31h)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: version
Diffs of reversions - , , ,

Diff of 3RR warning: diff

Repeated reversions on Salma Hayek to replace non-free images in violation of Misplaced Pages copyright policy. Videmus Omnia 15:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

no diffs, not considered. Spartaz 15:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- I thought the history would show that it was pretty obvious, but including diffs. Videmus Omnia 15:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

User:RucasHost reported by User:ConfuciusOrnis (Result: Protection applied )

Resolved

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 14:31, 6 October 2007

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning: 16:42, 6 October 2007 User is not new and is aware of 3rr.

I've protected the page rather than putting folks in the sin bin for a few hours. Try to work this out. Don't edit war. Regards, Mercury 17:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Monnitewars reported by User:KipSmithers (Result: 31 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

1st revert: 21:15, 6 October 2007
2nd revert: 21:38, 6 October 2007
3rd revert: 22:01, 6 October 2007
4th revert: 22:42, 6 October 2007 (in part)

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: 22:00, 6 October 2007

Keeps reverting "trivia" (which is actually properly sourced information). Kip Smithers /C 23:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for 31 hours hours per WP:3RR. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Necator reported by User:MalikCarr (Result:Necator warned)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 09:50, 5 October 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:

first warning: 22:01, 4 October 2007; second warning: 03:36, 6 October 2007

User:Necator has continued to push a POV-based introduction and body of the article S-400 Triumf, and continues to revert to an older version that also lacks proper inline citations and sourcing. Other editors have warned him more than once for this kind of business, and he has accused those in an opposition viewpoint of WP:SOCK violations and disregarded current consensus of article wording. MalikCarr 06:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, User:Necator has clearly been engaging in edit warring, but he is a newer user and I don't see a properply placed warning on his talk page. I'm placing it now. If he continues to edit war, I'll revisit. Ronnotel 16:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, in the future, please cite actual diffs, rather than just the article versions. See the format of other successful reports. Ronnotel 17:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

But what am i suppose to do if another user is unwilling to make any consensus, and just saying that "I will continue to revert your attempted POV-pushing." . And by the way. He started this and violated this 3RR rule first.

But, i cant see any administrative warning on his page. And after some time his friend MalikCarr appeared on the scene and started to follow absolutely the same behavior. See the history for discussed page So what should i do with that? Necator 17:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

And Jtrainor has been warned at wikiquette about his behavior, but keep going. As you can see from discussion page, no consensus reached, but both this users continuing to make their changes. And just now he did that again . Nothing was added to the talk page, only article was silently reverted. Necator 18:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Cosc reported by User:DAJF (Result:24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 00:05, 8 October 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: 00:29, 8 October 2007

This user has persistently made large revert edits to the Tokyo article against the general consensus on almost a daily basis. While there do seem to be some communication problems due to English (apparently) not being the user's first language, repeated warnings on his/her talk page have been ignored. DAJF 16:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Clear WP:3RR violation. Blocked 24 hours. Ronnotel 17:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Sandhurst reported by User:Russeasby (Result: 31 Hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

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

1st revert was at 18:11, 6 October 2007 4th was at 12:57, 7 October 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: Warned after 3rd revert and before 4th. Also previously have made note on talk page asking to discuss what issue the user may have and have made same suggestion in comment field of edits restoring the info he removed and he has not attempt to discuss at all. If you look at users edit history you will see this is a SPA and the only edits he has ever made is removing this same paragraph calling it false without suggesting what exactly he has a problem with (the paragraph is sourced). Russeasby 17:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
31 hours since there are no constructive contributions whatsoever. Please let me know if they continue to disrupt the article after their block has expired. Spartaz 17:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Whig reported by User:TimVickers (Result:No action, yet)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 18:37, 7 October 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: 19:32, 7 October 2007

User gaming the system by going up to third revert. See diff for his approach to this. Tim Vickers 20:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that there is edit warring going on, my own take on the POV flag is that once someone has placed it and is making at least some effort to reach consensus, it should be left in place during the dispute resolution. After a quick review of the talk page, I see what appear to be minimally constructive efforts by Whig. I would be hesitant to enforce WP:3RR on the third revert under these circumstances. Ronnotel 20:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This is also only three reverts. It isn't a violation unless there are four reverts in general (although one is not entitled to 3 reverts). JoshuaZ 20:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

User:SEWilco reported by User:callmebc (Result:No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

1st revert: 03:56, 7 October 2007

2nd revert: 14:23, 7 October 2007

3rd revert: 15:34, 7 October 2007

4th revert: 16:40, 7 October 2007

5th revert: 18:27, 7 October 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:17:33, 7 October 2007

A short explanation of the incident. Callmebc 20:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to keep coming back here, but it's safe to say that both Killian documents authenticity issues and Killian documents have had more than their fair share of anonymous IP's, sockpuppets, and editors of less than noble intentions messing with them. This 3RR stuff has been good, though, at weeding out the more blatent pests, so...here I be again. In this latest case, there was an obvious -- to me at least -- attempt to also game the reverts to avoid 3RR blocking: SEWilco -- whose "contributions" to the Killian wikis so far have only amounted to inserting a fabricated & false anecdote and blocking adding refs associated to unref'd POV assertions -- has recently been reverting a major clean-up of the Killian documents. I listed a long list of some of the problems I corrected on the Talk page for comments and error checking, which SEWilco also twice removed here on 15:24, 7 October 2007, and here on 16:05, 7 October 2007.

The gaming bit involved SEWilco bringing in another "editor," HiramShadraski, with no prior history of contributing to either Killian wiki, , to do 2 of the reverts listed, #2 and #5, the last which provoked a full lock on the page to its older, rather (so to speak) inaccurate version. That of course also kept SEWilco's reverts to only three.

I should mention that because of all the recent sockpuppet issues I've had do deal with, I now analyze any new "editor" popping in to revert stuff without discussion. And I do believe, for various reasons, that HiramShadraski should recuse himself from having anything whatsoever to do with any wikis involving the Killian docs, including Dan Rather (go ask him directly if you like). FYI. Thanks in advance for your consideration -BC

The page in question is Killian documents, not the fork Killian documents authenticity issues. There are three reverts by SEWilco and two by HiramShadraski. Investigation of HiramShadraski's editing shows that he has been around for over a year, and shows no undue interest in the same topics as SEWilco, so the implication that they are either socks or meatpuppets of each other is not quacking. That I think disposes of the substance of this report.
However, Callmebc looks like he has reverts at 13:36, 15:28, 16:08 and 17:52. The page has now been fully protected but I am disappointed to see Callmebc again revert-warring on these articles. In addition his talk page contributions are aggressive and bordering incivil. This approach is not only highly disruptive to the articles, it is needlessly aggravating and I am considering whether there should be an administrative response. Sam Blacketer 21:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

User:151.197.111.178 reported by User:Edgarde (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 2007-10-07T19:27:46

1st revert: 2007-10-07T21:15:39
2nd revert: 2007-10-07T21:04:10
3rd revert: 2007-10-07T20:29:44
4th revert: 2007-10-07T19:27:46

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: 2007-10-07T21:08:13, 2007-10-07T21:09:26, 2007-10-07T21:49:24

Anon editor repeatedly restores a "Student erotica" section against WP:CONSENSUS (per Talk:Erotica#.22Student_erotica.22_edit_war}. Section has been removed by two other editors (and historically removed by a third) — editor threatens on User talk pages to report these editors to admins.

Editors does not appear new, having utilized WP:RFPP, and giving reversion reasons similar to a previous editor (from over a month ago).

Warned explicitly on user and article talk pages (both of which were read and responded to). Last reversion included a phoney edit-protect which could be ignorance (but considering the aggressive editing, I cannot 100% AGF, sorry). edg ☺ ★ 21:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:50, 7 October 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: 
<!--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: 
*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 -->

Barlas(2002), p.125

Categories: