Revision as of 18:47, 3 January 2008

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

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

Violations

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

User:Avidius reported by User:ILike2BeAnonymous (Result:No violation )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Plovdiv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Avidius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

• 1st revert: 18:19, 30 December 2007
• 2nd revert: 21:35, 31 December 2007
• 3rd revert: 23:23, 31 December 2007
• 4th revert: 00:38, 1 January 2008

• 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 (see below; note left on their "talk" page)

A short explanation of the incident.

Simple; editor has repeatedly removed material from the article, even after being warned (on their "talk" page) about 3RR. Particularly galling is the fact that they never bother to leave a single word of explanation for their edits (in edit summary or elsewhere).

To their credit, editor did respond on my "talk" page after I left a note on theirs, but did not stop reverting. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The user has not reverted more than 3 times in 24 hours, as far as this report shows; please contact me if he/she has reverted more in 24 hours. Keilana_(recall) 14:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Zenwhat reported by User:Vision_Thing (Result: Not a violation, user warned)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Debt-based_monetary_system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zenwhat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported:20:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 18:32, 30 December 2007

• 1st revert: 14:08, 31 December 2007
• 2nd revert: 14:28, 31 December 2007
• 3rd revert: 15:52, 31 December 2007
• 4th revert: 18:46, 31 December 2007

Since he has given this edit summary on one of his reverts it is obvious he knows about 3RR. Also, given his edit history and comments on the talk, he is now signed in 69.138.16.202 who has been warned about 3RR before and who has been revert warring for a while on this article (11 reverts in article's 50 revision history). -- Vision Thing -- 20:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to expess my support and agreement for this notification. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a violation. One of those reverts was reverting an antivandalism bot, which could not be described as edit warring. I will leave a warning on the user's talk page. --B (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR does not apply to vandalism. Since they're going to make this an issue, I will open an arbitration case. Please see the discussion on the talkpage. I reported the actions of the above users for violating WP:FRINGE and openly acknowledged the fact that I have reverted more than three times on the fringe theories noticeboard. . Per WP:IAR, I will defend my actions. To start off, the article Debt-based monetary system was a POV fork of Fractional-reserve banking created and primarily maintained by Karmaisking, a confirmed sockpuppeteer. This vandal has continued to violate WP:FRINGE, with support from Sm8900 (talk · contribs), Vision Thing (talk · contribs) and Carolmooredc (talk · contribs). All of them are Libertarians who are sympathetic or adhere to the fringe theory involved and have thus stifled constructive edits to the article by me and others. They have stifled improvement of the article through continually reverting any substantial removal of Karmaisking's vandalism, while doing nothing to remove it themselves. They do minor copyediting of the article and say "Oh, Karma's edits are bad," on the talk page, but whenever anyone attempts to remove Karma's nonsense, they revert, claiming we need a drawn-out debate. RFC was attempted in the past. In a past AfD discussion on this article, the article was only kept based upon the assumption that it would improve over time. It didn't. In fact, it got a lot worse because it was expanded by Karma with even more nonsense and inappropriate citations. For this reason, it is clear by now that the only way the article is going to go anywhere is with a full re-write.

I have strongly invited Vision Thing, Sm8900, and Carolmooredc to re-include material from Karma's version in with mine. They have refused and in fact none of them can specifically name what was wrongfully removed. They simply put forth a vague appeal to consensus, while not specifying the fact that Karma's edits should be completely disregarded for being vandalism and in bad faith.

Normally, I would find an approach of "gradual improvement through discussion" to be reasonable and appropriate. However, given the circumstances and the people involved, it is absurd to argue at this point. My actions are fully consistent with the 3RR and, in any case, WP:IAR was created for precisely this kind of situation, where an individual good-faith editor needs to completely disregard wikilawyering and get the article fixed. Zenwhat (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know a thing about this topic. But 3RR only has narrow exceptions. If there is a legitimate problem with the article, you can open a request for comment or use some other aspect of the dispute resolution process to fix it. --B (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC has been tried in the past. You can see the tag on the article's talk page. Dispute resolution doesn't seem appropriate since the conflicting parties above won't specifically explain what the dispute is (why my re-write was bad) and also since the article was created and primarily maintained by Karma, who has since been banned for using sockpuppets to push fringe theories about monetary theory. If they can explain what's actually wrong with my version of the article and then want to go to mediation, we can do that. Zenwhat (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• This is not a venue for discussion. Open an RFC, use the talk page, or bring ongoing user conduct issues to WP:ANI. This report is closed. Stifle (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:XLR8TION reported by User:UnclePaco (Result: Warning, not blocked)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Dominican Day Parade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). XLR8TION (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: UnclePaco (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 01:47, 1 January 2008

• 1st revert: 21:24, 1 January 2008
• 2nd revert: 04:43, 1 January 2008
• 3rd revert: 02:06, 1 January 2008
• 4th revert: 01:13, 1 January 2008

• Not a new user. Has been blocked multiple times for personal attacks as well as 3rr violation.

Removal of sources. It was discussed here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dominican_Day_Parade&action=history and http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Dominican_Day_Parade

Both parties are in violation, but are now discussing it on the talk page, blocking would serve no purpose unless it starts back up. --B (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've really been trying. User Xlr8tion has been speaking to me in a demeaning manner and using personal attacks. UnclePaco (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Kamujin reported by User:98.204.112.111 (Result:24 hours )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Rob Enderle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kamujin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rob_Enderle&diff=181500600&oldid=181487052
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rob_Enderle&diff=181510250&oldid=181509790
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rob_Enderle&diff=181523954&oldid=181520481
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rob_Enderle&diff=181525239&oldid=181524540

• Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Kamujin&oldid=181520686

Inserting own interpretation and critique of a cited source, blind revert removing constructive edits, punctuation edits and vandalism reverts. 98.204.112.111 (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for edit-warring. Take it to the talk page, please. Keilana_(recall) 14:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:UpDown reported by User:Collectonian (Result:Problem seems to be worked out )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Executive Stress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). UpDown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 08:34, 1 January 2008

• 1st revert: 01:57
• 2nd revert: 02:08
• 3rd revert: 02:11
• 4th revert: 02:20

• 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: 02:18

I originally tagged this article as needing missing footnotes, having too short an intro, and needing expert attention from the TV project on December 24th. UpDown reverted on the 25th. I retagged as the issues were not addressed. He reverted less than two minutes later. I put them back again. He removed again on the 27th. He finally actually addressed some of the issues and removed the tags. I put back the expert tag (still had issues there), and a ref-improve since its sourced from only three sources at 15:48, 1 January 2008. It is then that the current cycle of reverting by UpDown really began, along with borderline uncivil remarks in his edit summaries that include calling me a stalker. After his second revert, he started a discussion on the talk page Talk:Executive Stress. I explained, in more detail, why the article was tagged as such, but he again removed them and refused to listen, repeating his early remarks and calling my expectations unrealistic and basically saying "if you don't like it, fix it yourself." He also left a message on my talk page saying the need for expert attention is unrealistic , even after I explained it helps a project see an article does need attention, even if its mostly just clean up work. I have not undid his last revision since that would then have me also violating 3RR, and will defer instead here.

The fourth revert took away the ref request because you questioned where the airdates came from. I added a ref, so removed the ref request. More refs are not possible for this article.Expert attention is not needed, any reordering (to my eyes, its in right order) etc should be done by Collectonian if he is thinks it necessary. I apologise for breaking 3RR, but I did it because the articles does not need the tags, as explained on talk. However, I will go and revert my edit now, as it broke 3RR. But I firmly believe the tags are not needed.--UpDown (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I just ask why time reported says "Time reported: 16:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)". Thats not when it was reported?--UpDown (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that.--UpDown (talk) 08:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, two things have happened. First, you have both violated 3RR. Second, the problem seems to have been resolved on the talk page, please contact me if either of you disagree. Consider this a warning, UpDown, and Collectonian has already been warned. Keilana_(recall) 14:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, did you mean that the other way around? UpDown is the one who has already been warned, not me, but will attempt to be more careful in the future. Collectonian (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Absolon reported by User:Thejerm (Result: no violation)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Savannah State University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Absolon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:00, 2 January 2008

• Previous version reverted to: 13:48, 2 January 2008

• 1st revert: 15:54, 2 January 2008
• 2nd revert: 16:50, 2 January 2008
• 3rd revert: 17:17, 2 January 2008
• 4th revert: 17:20, 2 January 2008

• 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:

User:Absolon asks for a peer review for the Savannah State University article here . Today I proceeded to clean up a few sections but each time I change something I am reverted. The last area I tried to clean up was the the athletic infobox which is duplicate information found in the Savannah State University article, Savannah State University infobox, and Savannah State Tigers. After undoing the information once and writting a rational of my edits on the talk page I am reverted again. This time I am also notified on my talk page to "cease from removing it (see the 3 revert rule if you are confused) until you find the appropriate Misplaced Pages policy statement or have an neutral authority to adjudicate" (emphasis mine). This user is not assuming good faith, and following WP:OWN because he insist another party make the decision.

Here are the reverts I count: , and . This is not a revert. User has made 3 reverts, and I will warn him about 3RR. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

On top of that, the report included previous versions and not diffs, so it is extremely difficult to determine which are reverts. Please use diffs in future. Stifle (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Carl.bunderson reported by User:65.94.218.24 (Result: Not a violation, reverting edits of a banned user)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Carl.bunderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 23:29, 2 January 2008

• 1st revert: 23:32, 2 January 2008
• 2nd revert: 23:39, 2 January 2008
• 3rd revert: 00:24, 3 January 2008
• 4th revert: 00:35, 3 January 2008
• 5th revert: 00:43, 3 January 2008
• 6th revert: 01:10, 3 January 2008

User:Carl.bunderson was reported for a 7RR violation a few days ago for the same edit on the same article (see here). Even after being warned about it before hand, he was forgiven that time for his 7RVs. Yet, today he has resumed edit warring on the same article with the same edit and has broken the 3RR. Also he removes the same sourced content over and over again as can be seen here. Since he is removing sourced content and broken the 3RR rule twice the past week, a temporary block might help him change his ways.

I'm inclined to hold off on this one pending a checkuser to determine if AntiFascism (talk · contribs) and 65.94.218.24 (talk · contribs) are a reincarnation of the banned user BamyanMan (talk · contribs)/Padmanii (talk · contribs)/Tajik (talk · contribs). Looking at the article history, that seems to be Carl's thinking when he made these reverts. Reverting edits by a banned user while banned is exempt from 3RR limitations. --B (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

And in this case, you are correct, yes. It's also pretty evidence from the edits and the edit summaries - Alison 02:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been reverting vandalism. Afghanistan has experienced repeat vandalism on this demonym matter. If you see the talkg page, consensus is reached, maintained for about a week, then new socks turn up and start screwing with it again, and refuse to use talk page. In the face of that, I prefer to revert repeatedly rather than allow what looks to me like vandalism. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries - reverting edits of a banned user is exempt from 3RR limitations. In fact, since this section was created by a banned user, if you want to, you can just blank it. --B (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks, Alison. It looks like the user has already been blocked. This user also edited this page from 65.95.147.37 (talk · contribs). Can the whole range be blocked? Whois says the range is 65.92.0.0/14, but I'm a bit nervous to block a whole ISP. --B (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend against rangeblocking at this time, as there would be too much collateral damage. Maybe run the question by User:Dmcdevit, as he's good at that sort of thing and may be able to help - Alison 05:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:G2bambino reported by User:Lonewolf BC (Result:Both users blocked - 24 hours )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Heterosexuality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). G2bambino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 02:24, 31 December 2007 (See also details of individual reverts.)

Note: For greater clarity, the 2nd and 4th reverts are each given as two separate but consecutive edits.

• 1st revert: 02:47, 2 January 2008 (full revert)
• 2nd revert: 15:55, 2 January 2008 (full revert)
• 2nd revert: 15:58, 2 January 2008 (still a revert in substance and, technically, w.r.t "Biological")
• 3rd revert: 21:56, 2 January 2008 (full revert to version of 15:58)
• 4th revert: 00:43, 3 January 2008 (revert to 21:56 (and earlier) w.r.t. "Biological" and "Non-biological")
• 4th revert: 01:13, 3 January 2008 (revert to 21:56 (and earlier) w.r.t. "Biological" and to 15:55 (and earlier) w.r.t. "Psychological")

User G2bambino has been multiply warned and blocked in the past for 3rr violations, and was warned again, before making this report.

The disagreement is about G2bambino's edits to long-stable section titles. Please note, also, G's using edit-summaries for personal attack, flatly denying the need for consensus for an opposed edit, and ignoring of entreaties (by edit-summary) to take the disagreement to the talkpage. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked both users for 24 hours - they're quite cleary in conflict with each other and this is completely disruptive. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Pedro Gonnet reported by User:Dbratton (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Gilad Shalit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pedro Gonnet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 10:45, 3 January 2008

• 1st revert: 08:18, 3 January 2008
• 2nd revert: 09:35, 3 January 2008
• 3rd revert: 09:48, 3 January 2008
• 4th revert: 14:32, 3 January 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: Not issued, this is an experienced user who himself warned those he was edit warring with about 3RR prior to his own violation. Clearly aware of the policy.

Disagreement over usage of the term 'captive' or 'hostage' on an otherwise relatively quiet page. RfC was issued which got moderate response and (very) arguable consensus. Changes that were made to the article based on this RfC have been reverted and re-reverted multiple times, and intervention appears necessary to stop the disruption to otherwise valid edits. Please note that while the user reported here is a clear case of 3RR violation, there are others reverting at the page who may also qualify under a more in-depth investigation. Daniel/_T+ 17:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. --B (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Example

<!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~
*Previous version reverted to:  <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->
<!-- 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 -->

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring