Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:36, 30 July 2006 view sourceTodorBozhinov (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers28,307 edits →[] reported by User:[] | [] (Result: no block): Re:← Previous edit Revision as of 12:44, 30 July 2006 view source RevolverOcelotX (talk | contribs)4,971 edits report User:Bonafide.hustlaNext edit →
Line 1,058: Line 1,058:
: Contiguous edits only count for one revert ] 08:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC) : Contiguous edits only count for one revert ] 08:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
:: The user does not seem to understand the definitions of 'revert' and 'three revert rule'. I made a total of 2 reverts, the same number that Eliade also made. The other edits here were changes to the article. Also, I don't see anything with informal edit summaries, as long as they give information regarding the changes, and I've even self-censored myself. '']]]'' 10:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC) :: The user does not seem to understand the definitions of 'revert' and 'three revert rule'. I made a total of 2 reverts, the same number that Eliade also made. The other edits here were changes to the article. Also, I don't see anything with informal edit summaries, as long as they give information regarding the changes, and I've even self-censored myself. '']]]'' 10:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

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

] violation on {{Article|User talk:Bonafide.hustla}}. {{3RRV|Bonafide.hustla}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
*

Time report made: 12:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''

{{user|Bonafide.hustla}} has been repeatedly removing warnings from his ] despite repeated warnings and and clearly removed warnings from his talk page AFTER the final warning. In the process, ] has also clearly broken the 3RR on his ]. Bonafide.hustla also for the intent of the 3RR an "entitlement" to 3 reverts every 24 hours.


==Report Example== <!--Post reports just above this line--> ==Report Example== <!--Post reports just above this line-->

Revision as of 12:44, 30 July 2006

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
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
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.

    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


    Violations

    User:ContiE reported by User:81.178.123.169 (Result: Warning)

    Three revert rule violation on Furry_fandom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ContiE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    Time report made: 01:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    It's customary to give a user a warning before reporting them. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    User:MSTCrow reported by User:Ideogram (Result: 24 hrs)

    Three revert rule violation on National Public Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MSTCrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    Time report made: 01:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Kara Umi and User:82.101.143.154 reported by User:AnnH ♫ (Result: 24 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on Christianity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kara Umi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 82.101.143.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):



    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 07:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: I requested a usercheck here, with examples of identical spelling mistakes from registered user and IP. It was declined as the case seemed to be "fairly obvious 3RR evasion and be treated as such." AnnH ♫ 07:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    24 hours. 13:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    User:Qwasty reported by User:Deon Steyn (Result: No violation)

    Three revert rule violation on Sniper rifle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Qwasty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 07:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User has made in excess of 200 edits between 21 and 23 July 2006
    • Many other reverts are subtle in nature not exactly using earlier text
    • User might be using Misplaced Pages for hidden agenda (soapbox/propaganda)
    • User ignores consensus on Talk page or pretends to aggree or fails to respond
    • User has been referred to Misplaced Pages:Etiquette
    • User sometimes edits without being signed in (as 67.166.121.148)
    1. 1 is not a revert. #2 is. #3 and #4 are edits without any change in between by another user, and so count as the same revert. #5 is not by the same user, and even if it was, it would only be the third. No violation. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    User:Roy Brumback reported by User:Semioli (Result:12h block)

    Three revert rule violation on Mark 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Roy_Brumback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 10:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Tewfik reported by User:FightCancer (Result: Warning)

    Three revert rule violation on 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tewfik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 11:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • The user performed 2 full reverts plus 4 identical edits to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict in just over 5 hours.
    • User is a regular violator of the 3RR rule and is openly warning other users not to violate it.
    • FightCancer is currently engaged in mediation with me, where I pointed out that two of the edits are rvv, and one was the removal of an empty header and move of the link contained to "See also" after others had reverted the text, bringing the total rvs to 3. Tewfik 03:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Mediation was filed against you for harassment against another user by another user--not me. Regardless, how do the two reversions marked (full Misplaced Pages:Revert) above qualify as "vandalism"? The first full revert resulted in adding one single word, "extremist", to describe Hezbollah. The second full revert resulted in changing the topmost picture from Haifa to Beirut. How were you preventing vandalism with those reverts?
    • While I admit policy is grey on this, I was reverting disconnected, unconstructive IP edits back to the consensus page. The picture had been moved by dozens of unrelated IPs over the course of the day, and were always reverted per talk by numerous other users. The POV description was also reverted back from random, disconnected IP edits countless times, by many users. I may add that these two edits were of a different POV than my reversions of your insertions, and were not part of any edit-war. Tewfik 04:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It's customary to warn people first, and only to report them here when they continue to revert. Tewfik: consider yourself warned. Stifle (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    User:SndrAndrss reported by User:Oldelpaso (Result: 24h and a WP:LAME listing)

    Three revert rule violation on 1994 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SndrAndrss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    Time report made: 19:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: We've asked for communication on his talk page and on the article's talk page, and even via our edit summaries in the article's edit history, but he hasn't responded to anyone. There are now four users trying to sort this with no success so far, User:DeLarge, User:StuartBrady, User:Oldelpaso and User:BlueValour.

    The user does not use the 'Edit preview' option, so makes changes over many edits, however, he has been attempting to apply his version to this page since at least as far back as 20:37, June 25, 2006

    User:Anomicene reported by User:IronDuke (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on Mike Hawash. Anomicene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to, if applicable:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    A couple of things to note: the third revert was done, obviously, by an IP. Here is where Anomicene adds a signature to that IP on talk:

    Also, these reverts are small. Ordinarily, I would just let it go or issue them an invitation to self-revert. However, this user is more interested in harassing me and trolling for a reaction than he is in actually working on the article. Here is a diff indicating where this user has employed a sockpuppet to harass me a few months ago: . He was asked here to stay away from me, and not only has ignored this, but followed me to other pages as well. He's just been warned again .

    Time report made: 19:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    The alleged Second revert isn't a revert at all, but an attempt at compromise. The compainer let it stand, and even modified it. Regarding the other charges, please see WP:AN here.-- Anomicene 20:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    It is a revert. You (again) removed the words "himself and." IronDuke 20:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    The Anomicene account has just been blocked as a sock. I don't know what the policy on 3RR is then, whether it gets dropped, but I thought I'd let you know. IronDuke 19:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    User:Ghirlandajo reported by User:Circeus (Result:mistaken)

    Three revert rule violation on Pella Palace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    See also Relevant post at AN/I. Circeus 20:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    I corrected/added GMT timestamps to all diffs for clarity as the complaint, initially did not include any time stamps (making a report invalid) and his later added time stamps still included errors and one ommission.
    Now, first of all, note the lack of the time stamps in the original "report" above. If the complaining party cared to include them, one would see that the first revert is from three days ago. While, any number of reverts over any period of time is ideally too many, care is need as each case is different
    Besides, Circeus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)' summary is not complete and one-sided. Circeus forgets to give a full context as their other edit conflict (not flawless by both parties) was "won" by Circeus in the end of the day by simply Circeus' blocking his opponent. The nearest to the detailed description of that conflict could be found in the archives of WP:AN at the following links:
    In the first of the discussions linked above, the lack of time-stamps in 3RR reports is given as an example of things that make any report look suspicious. Such reports should be carefully looked at before taking action. I assume that in this case we have an honest error of the complaining party rather than a second attempt to achieve a "victory" in the edit conflict by having an opponent blocked, just through other means.
    Since this is not 3RR, the rest of the discussion belongs to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Circeus and Ghirlandajo, again -Irpen 20:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    I've rechecked the date and freely admit a ridiculous mistake in my reading of the first date, prompted by the fact most of the edit war occured today, and hereby withdraw this report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Circeus (talk • contribs)

    User:69.6.167.240 reported by User:Ehheh (Result:No action)

    Three revert rule violation on Dark and Shattered Lands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.6.167.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    Time report made: 20:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Warned user on talk page. Revert is repeated removal of the Controversy section. Ehheh 20:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    Hasn't edited the page since the warning. Sasquatch t|c 23:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    From my perspective it looked as if he had, but I see now that the warning and the 4th revert were made nearly simultaneously. Ehheh 00:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    User:68.69.100.243 reported by Shaunvader (Result:Warned some more)

    Three revert rule violation on Maryse Ouellet. 68.69.100.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to, if applicable:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    Time report made: 22:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Keeps adding rumor (that I can't find any link of whatsoever) that Maryse Ouellet is dating Mike Mizanin, the Mizanin page also has the same info put on it as well. Will not provide any link to verify.

    Hasn't edited that page since the warning but I will warn again about unsourced info. And please sign all posts with four tildes (like this: ~~~~). Thanks. Sasquatch t|c 23:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    User:IP Address reported by Mad Jack 23:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC) (Result:48hr block)

    Three revert rule violation on List of Welsh Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). IP Address (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    Time report made: 23:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Aside from the previous 3RR, another, identical violation on Dave Mustaine. User is uncivil, as can be seen from comments on (including blanking of discussion), , and . Has been warned about 3RR and continues to revert to the same version, even though he has been told by me and User:ElKevbo that he needs a reliable source for it, which he has continually not produced. Mad Jack 23:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    All I can say is that Mad Jack is a hypocrite in most regards he attacks me, who love edit wars and marking his territory:

    Please note:

    • If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.

    IP Address 23:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    Blocked for 48 hours pending user history. Sasquatch t|c 23:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    User:WikiWoo reported by User:JChap (talk • contribs) (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on Susan Fennell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). WikiWoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • WikiWoo is familiar with the 3RR policy. He was blocked for it previously as user WikiRoo:

    Time report made: 06:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Problemmed editor making multiple reverts with no changes; many editors have become frustrated trying to explain to him proper sourcing, NPOV, etc.; User mostly interested in POV-pushing with respect to government of Region of Peel, Ontario.

    • Reply Comment We have a group of editors working together to persecute my work whatever it may be. They have been monitoring my every edits making mountains out of mole hills on every opportunity. They are working collectively to frustrate me by deleting work over and over again rather than making constructive edits of interesting factual content, concertrating on my form rather than my substance. I make every effort to modify the wording when I fix the vandalism they do to try to reach consesus, but I am infaliable after having to fix their vandalism dozens of times. There was no revert three times one after the other. I did not bother to review carefully the instancesa just noted, but I do not recall making pure reverts more than once or twice. They construe my contributions in an area of my expertise as me having an agenda with Peel Region. The reason I am stuck on still edditing only Peel Region and have not yet gotten to editing the other Regions of Ontario is that they are making it difficult to get one area done so I can move on to the other Regions and related areas of my expertise.WikiWoo 13:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Reverts again After being informed that this 3RR violation had been reported and responding above, he again reverted (for a fifth time) within 24 hours at 13:27, 25 July.
    • And again -- his fifth reversion of the page within 24 hours , after participating in this discussion and after being blocked for 48 hours two weeks ago for 3RR violations as User:WikiRoo.
    • Yet again at 20;27. For those keeping score at home, this is six revisions in 24 hours.
    • Another revert at 23:37, July 25. 6 reverts in the last 24 hours
    Comment This comlaint is a gross exagetation and not in the spirit of Wiki. If reviewed carefully they are not reverts. A review of the history of edits over the last few days will find that there is editing going on and not vandalism. Other than the vandalism by the dark side pushing their POV by censoring information and facts. We are making some progress with the Susan Fennell page and I urge everyone to review the entirety of the evolution of that article so that everyone can see how Wiki Works! to generate a balanced article with interesting and important information on subjects. I am proud of our work together thus far. Too bad some people have to take it personal when they can't get their way. WikiWoo 23:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    My way? I couldn't give a fig about Susan Fennell. I just don't want unsourced POV nonsense being inserted into WP. JChap (talk • contribs) 00:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    • 7th revert in the last 24 hours at 23:56, July 25

    User:24.151.41.250 reported by User:SynergeticMaggot (Result:Invalid 3RR report, but blocked 24 hrs for vandalism)

    Three revert rule violation on Djehuty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.151.41.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to, if applicable:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    Time report made: 07:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Anon was warned, and didnt listen. SynergeticMaggot 07:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    Those edits were not reverts. User has been blocked for vandalism. Report should have been made at WP:AIV. If you are making a 3RR report, you must give the times of the reverts as well as the links to the diffs. Also, if you have warned the user, don't forget to give a diff for the warning. AnnH ♫ 07:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks. I'll remember that next time. I guess I posted here too quickly. But thanks again. SynergeticMaggot 07:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    User:Qwasty reported by User:Deon Steyn (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on Sniper rifle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Qwasty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    Time report made: 08:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    This person was doing mass-delete vandalism to the article. I reverted all of the deletions. Since this person posted here, I suspect the vandalism was an attempt at luring me into the realm of a 3-revert violation so he could get some leverage from administrators on his personal issues with me. Qwasty 09:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    False claim by accused, these were good faith edits and anything but vandalism. Deon Steyn 10:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    Is this what good-faith edits look like?:
    • Deleted 4 paragraphs, and rewrote one diff
    • Deleted 3 paragraphs - the whole section, and replaced it with a run-on sentence diff
    The edit notes from this vandalism session make heavy use of the word remove. Bolded below for easy reading:
    • 07:41, 25 July 2006 Deon Steyn (Talk | contribs) (→Capabilities - Clean up irrelevent info)
    • 07:38, 25 July 2006 Deon Steyn (Talk | contribs) (→Range vs. accuracy - clean up irrelevant information in attempt to trim bloated article exceeding size guidelines)
    • 07:32, 25 July 2006 Deon Steyn (Talk | contribs) (→Accuracy - remove advertising)
    • 07:15, 25 July 2006 Deon Steyn (Talk | contribs) (→Capabilities - remove unreliabel source (conversation cant' be used, please see Misplaced Pages:Citing sources))
    • 07:11, 25 July 2006 Deon Steyn (Talk | contribs) (→Action - factual errors, spelling, grammar)
    • 07:08, 25 July 2006 Deon Steyn (Talk | contribs) (→Action - remove factual error ("original research"))
    • 07:07, 25 July 2006 Deon Steyn (Talk | contribs) (→Action - remove irrelevant info (belongs on sniper page))
    • 07:06, 25 July 2006 Deon Steyn (Talk | contribs) (→Distinguishing characteristics - unrevert)
    • 07:05, 25 July 2006 Deon Steyn (Talk | contribs) (→Classification - remove invented "anti-personnel rifle" category)
    • 07:02, 25 July 2006 Deon Steyn (Talk | contribs) (→Classification - remove "sniper" information (see discussion))
    Enough said - Qwasty 05:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

    I would like to add that the "Three revert rule warning diff" above is the same one as used in another 3RR complaint against me by this same person. That complaint has already been resolved in my favor, so I contest the validity of this complaint not only on the grounds that the reverts were done in response to vandalism, but also because of the fact that the evidence cited has already been evaluated in another instance that has already been decided. Qwasty 19:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    The second complaint was made before the first one had been resolved. The new complanied contained clearer evidence and refers to new reverts, only the "warning" is the same (and does not have to change, it just documents that the user has been warned). Deon Steyn 05:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

    User:Grant65 reported by User:John Smith's (Result: stale)

    Three revert rule violation on Japanese war crimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Grant65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 09:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    I had discussed the changes on the talk page, but Grant refused to accept I had a valid point so kept reverting. Even after he made 4 reverts, I didn't report him as I assumed good faith and asked him to self-revert, as can be seen if you look on his talk page. I did give him a formal warning as well. But he rejected my offer to start reverting again at a later period. So I have reported him for the original violation. John Smith's 09:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    I should point out that he didn't even respond to my offer of a self-revert rather than me report him, which is one reason why I was more inclined to report him. If he had said something I still might have let it pass. John Smith's 09:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    3RR, as I understand it, is not designed to protect users who make unilateral changes to longstanding material...and then time their own reversions to evade a 3RR complaint! Which is exactly what John Smith's has done. Thanks, Grant65 | Talk 12:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    Just because something has been in an article for a time doesn't mean "everyone" agrees upon it. It also doesn't justify you to keep reinserting material. My edits had stood for a while until you came along - no one else kept throwing them back in.
    Plus if you're accusing me of timing my reversions to make a complaint, you're extremely petty given that I didn't report you until you'd rejected my offer of a self-revert by reverting again. You have only yourself to blame for the 3RR vio. John Smith's 10:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

    User:Tasc reported by User:ArmanJan (Result: stale)

    Three revert rule violation on 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tasc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 13:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This user has been reverting over and again for days since the start of this article. He reverts everything which is not to his liking. User has been banned 2 times before for revert wars: see links, ban 1 and ban 2. Furthermore, his talk page is filled with warnings about his constant reverts on many pages. ArmanJan 13:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    User:ArmanJan reported by User:Denis Diderot (Result: stale)

    Three revert rule violation on 2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ArmanJan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 15:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: The user changed the existing version and inserted that it was "according to Israel", he also later added another version of events labeled "according to Lebanon". This was rejected by other editors, but he kept reverting back (with several insignificant variations). He continues to revert .

    He almost always marks his edits as minor even when they're not, and edit summaries are often misleading. He clearly knows about ].User_talk:ArmanJan#WP:3RR_and_Lebanon-Israel_beginning_of_conflict

    I don't know if I am allowed to reply to this, but in my defence I would like to add that I did the reverts to prevent vandalism, and knowing the rule that I am exempted from the three revert rule to prevent vandalism. Misplaced Pages:Three_revert_rule#Reverting_vandalism. The following link shows that I have done my best to help bring forth a consensus to stop the edit wars: Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict/POV#Reaching_consensus_on_.22Beginning_of_conflict.22_section ArmanJan 17:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    User:Akolsrud reported by User:—Ashley Y (Result: stale)

    Three revert rule violation on The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Akolsrud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    My appology for the past mistakes. I am a newbie but have now read and understood the Misplaced Pages policy and rules. I am hoping to contribute quite a bit of positive and neutral contents throughout the Misplaced Pages - ranging from cars to physics to electronics. Sincerely Akolsrud 03:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

    User:69.142.211.106 reported by User:Francis Schonken (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A-E (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.142.211.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    • 19:47, 25 July 2006 (this was the 3rd warning, given between the 6th and 7th revert; previous warnings had been given between 4th and 5th; and between 2nd and 3rd)

    Time report made: 20:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Saintjust reported by User:Appleby (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Saintjust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to, if applicable:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    Time report made: 21:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments

    User:Nicoletta8383 reported by User:User:Beowulf314159 (Result: 48 hours)

    Multiple reversions, re-editing, and repeated blanking, on Berber people here.

    No so much simple reversion as simply cut-and-pasting old information in as new edits.

    - Beowulf314159 02:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    First of all I am a new user of Misplaced Pages and had no idea that users had to abide by rules. I thought it was a 'free' encyclopedia that anyone could edit. I did not realize that users had such spare time on their hands *Beowulf* actually the original used brute force, you're simply using brute ignorance to perpetuate factitious information that you or whoever it is keeps posting on the Berbers page and other relevant pages. I looked up the word and was shocked to find such misleading, inaccurate and fictitious information posted and links of the most absurd kind! One link, the first among many, was of a madman's website in which numerous black americans claim that the berbers are black and that they are somehow inheriots of a history that has shunned them and has absolutely nothing to do with them! they go so far as to post a picture of blacks, who are undoubtedly servants/slaves (sad but true) and label them berbers though clearly to anyone in the region they are black. The posting of sources matters little if the source if not a dependable one. As I am from the region and have done quite a bit of research in the area, I tried to edit by removing misleading information that is really mindboggling to say the least but someone, I suppose this beowulf of bathcat, keeps reverting it to the original, factitious, fraudulent nonsense. If this is the sort of project that encourages mad men and women to write history as they see fit, then fine so be it. But I think to write a history that never was and is not, and my comments are verifiable, is really absurd and the greatest form of transgression. I have contacted the admins and I simply ask that they do some proper research before allowing such nonsense to be permanently posted, thanks to the persistent ignoramuses who keep reposting it. It should also be noted that history is written by individuals with an agenda and in the case of 'Berbers' though the term itself is inaccurate as it refers to practially hundreds of different ethnic groups in an immense region! (largest continent) and thusly enmeshes them incorrectly, at the cost of accuracy and truth. You can keep posting nonsense but truth shall prevail! And whoever keeps insisting that these people have any relation to sub-saharan,black africans is only doing a disservice to sub-saharan blacks as they are making fictitious claims when in truth blacks in North Africa are not accepted and are mostly thought of as slaves and used as servants. The subjects that were used in one of the sources were from the southern most regions of Morocco, from the periphery, near Mauritania..and not Arab regions and only about 44 were used..and these people are meant to represent the pure and Germanic Amazigh peoples of Algeria for instance or Tunisia? Some of whom even bear BRITISH NAMES! A clear indication of their heritage though not enough research has been done but will hopefully some day soon! This is sheer nonsense and this sort of ignorance and the breeding of lies should not be tolerated. Beowulf also sent me a message in which he basically threatened me by insinuating that my naivety, as I am new will prevent any reasonable editing from taking place is really unacceptable. Nothing should stand in the way of truth, Mr.Beowulf..especially not childish games of the sort that you are playing with me or trying to. People like you will only turn this project into a laughingstock. I hope the admins can do something about this, they owe it to humanity! THis beowulf is also lying..I am not pasting anything I simply kept removing the FALSE information that is SHEER NONSENSE and writing instead a short and accurate description, namely by dismissing the nonsense by removing it. Batcat also sent me a threat of sorts, accusing me of damaging people's "hard work" laughable indeed LOOL as none of it was actually written by users but rather copy and pasted from inaccurate sources. Sources are like A-holes, everyone has them and if they do not, in OUR world today, they can make up their own! So..don't give me that nonsense. Unless it is truly a verifiable source, say a study carried out by Ivy League universities, Museums etc.. then no, it does not count. And also, one must look at the subjects. For people familiar with the region, MEEEEEEE, inaccuracy is hastily discerned. I have seen the different ethnic people that inhabit the region, and I can assure all that is posted on them here is FALSE. I would appreciate some advice on how I could properly edit the site and not childish threats or accusations as I am only after the TRUTH..and if the truth bothers some people with an incentive to lie, then ...Misplaced Pages has a responsibility to exclude such ignorant users. Another thing, Beowulf sends me messages but I cannot reply as he does not accept messages. I wonder what you're afraid of?! Nicoletta
    Nicoletta assertions are demonstativly inaccurate - not withstanding that thier information and artilcle contributions may be defensible, even if their behavior is not.
    • This is not a place to defend the edits, only the behaviors of the users in question.
    • The user was informed that their behavior was unacceptable in a message left on their talk page here. This is, to the best of my knowledge, a standard warning in Misplaced Pages. Despite it's standard phrasing, this is the "threat" that Nicoletta claims was made on their page.
    • Reference was made to the 3RR rule in an edit summary, here, although it may not be clear to a newbie. It is also clear from the edit summary that blanking and reversion is considered a violation of wiki ettiquite. The user distregarded both notices 11 times after the first notice, three times specifically after being told explictily that their acts could be considered vandalism, see here.
    • To the best of my knowledge, my own talk page is open - and has had messages left on it today. See the edit log here. I have even gone so far as to log out, and post a message to my own talk page as an anonymous guest - showing that the talk page is open to anyone. I suspect Nicoletta's "failure" to do so is a result of ignorance, errors in using a talk page, or an attempt at outright deciet.
    • Nicoletta is correct that my statement about their adding information is inaccurate. It was my impression that they were cut-and-pasting an old version of the page - but they are essentially correct: they are not cut-and-pasting information, they have been unilaterally expunging information without discussion, or presentation of counter balancing sources. I fail to see how this is fundementally better - but at least this is a more accurate representation of their acts.
    • Despite claiming to have verifiable references, they have not attempted to present any of these in talk. In fact, they have gone so far as to expunge and edit parts of other people's comments in the talk page that they find "objectionable": see here. Their 'tactic' seems to be "shout loud, shout repeatably, erase anything without explanation or support that you find objectionable".
    • Nicoletta claims "I have contacted the admins and I simply ask that they do some proper research before allowing such nonsense to be permanently posted". Such a "contact" is lacking in their contribution log to be found here.
    • Given the general style of argument, personal abuse, rhetoric, and command of English, it may be advisable to do a "network analysis" of the IP addresses used by "Nicoletta" and "Kara Umi", who it should be noted has recently been banned for violation of the 3RR.
    Given that Nicoletta may be a new user (although they may also simply be a new sockpuppet), leniancy for acts leading up to this complaint might be in order, at the discretion of the admins.
    However, now that proper Wiki ettiquite has been explained, I would urge that future blankings be treated according to wiki policy on 3RR and vandalism, as they would be for any experienced user. Beowulf314159 07:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

    User:SG reported by User:Spahbod (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on Cyrus II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to, if applicable:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    Time report made: 05:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


    User:Al-Andalus reported by User:Yukirat (Result: 24h block for both users)

    Three revert rule violation on Whites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Please review. Thanks.Yukirat 07:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment - both users have already been blocked for edit warring on the noted article. The whole history page is filled with their battles over the last five hours. I suggest that whoever deals with this cleans up the page history. MER-C 08:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I welcome any admin to come and see what is happening. If I am to be blocked, I'm sure it will be done with the article's best interest in mind. One thing I would ask is for the admin who intervenes in this, that s/he read the relevant talk and all the personal attacks directed not only to my person, all the complaints against the user, and also actually review the changes, deletions, unverifiable sources, POV, and personal reinterpretation of otherwise verifiable sources (deeming them useless) being introduced by the user into the article, then to proceed handing out reprimands to one and all, in whichever way it is seen appropriate. Al-Andalus 08:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I welcome it also, but mostly a review of the actual article text which Al-Andalus continually reverts without making contributions to or justifying his edits. I have posted WP:NPA many times to stop nonsense. The article text is most important to discuss, but by all means read the Discussion too.Yukirat 08:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with Al-Andalus that the page has problems, even so breaking 3RR is not permissible. Yukirat has been at least as guilty, and has been rather offensive as well. I recommend that both users be blocked for some period of time. -Will Beback 09:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I have blocked both Al-Andalus & Yukirat for 24 hours for violation of 3RR. I have also protected the White (people) article due to the excessive reverting. I recommend the involved users resolve the dispute & reach a compromise on the article's talk page and later request unprotection. Thanks --Srikeit 10:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

    reported by Richardjames444 17:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC) WP:3RR

    Three revert rule violation on Clinton Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 206.165.97.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    • Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:


    Time report made: 17:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

    The unregistered user appears to be a sockpuppet for User:Clinton Foundation who reverts to the same original article and has reverted from rereverts twice in the last hour.

    User:Litclass reported by User:αChimp (Result: Final and stern warning)

    Three revert rule violation on Staying Fat For Sarah Byrnes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Litclass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    Time report made: 18:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This professor has been posting on this article's AfD that we do not have the right to revert the article. She has already been blocked once for removing my speedy tag 4 times in a row. αChimp 18:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

    Gave user a warning, as reverts have stopped for the time being. However, I made it quite clear to Litclass that any more misbehavior will engender a block in short order. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 23:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

    User:71.247.125.25 reported by User:Gimmetrow (Result: 3 Hour Block)

    Three revert rule violation on R40A (New York City Subway car) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.247.125.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 18:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments

    User:TheTruth2 reported by User:3bulletproof16 (Result:12 hour block)

    Three revert rule violation on WrestleMania X8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TheTruth2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 20:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:


    Please talk to Malo. I have been cival to Bullet after discussing it with him. I have not been warned by others. I have only spoken to TJ Spyke. He seems to be OK. Bullet seems to have some issues. Bullet is the one that appears to have a serious WP:OWN problem with the article. I have been updated Malo about the situation and have follewed his suggestions.--TheTruth2 20:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

    I'm not OK. I don't know why you kept reverting it TheTruth2, even after I pointed out why you shouldn't keep reverting it. I even requested arbitration because you wouldn't stop reverting it and we couldn't aree. TJ Spyke 21:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

    I was warned at 20:23 I did not revert it at all after the fact. He just warned me and I did nothing and then he reports me?

    These "wrestling guidelines" followed. Also Bullet does not own the article. He is the one who has http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:OWN issues I was just improving the article. As I stated If there are no summaries of the match at that particular event then they WILL GO TO OTHER SITES. Their goal is go get noticed and if you include summaries of the matches then more people will come and see that article. --TheTruth2 21:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

    • This isn't about getting more people to visit a website this about writing an encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox And this time really read it instead of claiming you did just to shut the people referring you to the guideline up. --3bulletproof16 21:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC
    Both blocked per below. Edit warring is wrong. Period. Sasquatch t|c 00:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

    3Bulletproof16 reported by User:TheTruth2 (Result: Both blocked for 12 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on {{}http://en.wikipedia.org/WrestleMania_X8}. 3Bulletproof16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert;

    Time report made: \04:00

    Comments: I have warned him in regards to the 3RR rule. It seems that he has “ownership” issues over the article. I have been in contact with Malo in regards to Bullet and I have been talking with TJ Spyke about it as well. --TheTruth2 21:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

    You are still not following th guidelines agreed upon by at at WikiProject: Professional Wrestling. I have submitted this issue for arbitration since you don't seem to get that you are wrong and should stop changin my correct edits. TJ Spyke 20:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

    MY last edit was around 19;46 but TJ and I are ok--TheTruth2 22:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

    Format the report so it reads properly and I'll look at it. It's not understandable at all in this state. Take a look at other 3RR reports to see the formatting conventions. Thank you. --Lord Deskana (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    After some review, both have been editwarring and will be blocked for 12 hours. Sasquatch t|c 00:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    The page in question should follow the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Professional wrestling format. It looks like Bullet and TJ have been protecting that agreed upon format.(Halbared 22:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC))

    User:ED MD reported by User:Starcare (Result: 24h)

    Three revert rule violation on Shock and awe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ED_MD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - formerly known as ER_MD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 08:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User is aware of 3RR rule. Note that technically ED MD avoided 24 hours by just four minutes, however as ER MD he was blocked for vandalism, personal attacks, removing warnings from his talk page, and then blocked again twice for block evasion. I don't know if he changed his user name to get a clean talk page and block log -- he claims it was because he was transfered at his work from the Emergency Room to the Emergency Department, if you can buy that. Starcare 08:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

    ER_MD: I am attempting to remove POV inclusions into the article such as statments that "shock and awe" was directed at the insurgency. It was never driected at the insurgency! Also the claim that the "shock and awe" campaign lead to 285,000 deaths is a lie as well since this is the upper limit of the most liberal estimation of causualties for the entire war. Ovbviously since the shock and awe campaing only lasted 2-3days, the inclusion of the number 285,000 is ridiculous. Other removals such as references that claim that the US was engaging in terrorism. This is a content dispute. I believe that mainstrean ideas should be kept in and extremist sites like "world socialist web page" are not good references to truely explain the subject. ED MD 09:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

    Further aggravating circumstances: ED MD changed references versions in survey question to include his version created after survey responses were recorded. Starcare 09:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

    Close enough to deserve block I think... 24h William M. Connolley 09:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

    Thanks. I feel like I can sleep now. Misplaced Pages shouldn't be that important to anyone. Starcare 09:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

    User:Netscott reported by User:Deuterium (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on Islamophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Netscott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Previous block of user:

    Irritating, yes, but the 4th revert isn't close enough I'd say William M. Connolley 10:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Deuterium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) may well be due for a block soon relative to his edit warring in general (against others too) on this article. This talk about citing sources and original research is quite pertinent to this report. (→Netscott) 11:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

    User:THEREALVIEW (anonymous editing as User:68.51.56.112) reported by User:Renesis13 (Result: 24h)

    Three revert rule violation on Bill Gates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    THEREALVIEW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    68.51.56.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    • N/A - User has been warned about not adding disputed content several times.


    Time report made: 14:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This user has been adding the same exact material to Bill Gates repeatedly and has been changing captions of photos of Bill Gates to add POV to make him sound like a criminal. Repeated warnings have not been responded to other than immediate reinsertion of the same content. -- Renesis13 14:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

    Looks fair enough. Anon definitely; TRV on the assumption they are the same. 24. BTW - in future, its best to *explicitly* warn them about 3RR William M. Connolley 14:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

    3Bulletproof16 reported by User:thetruth2(Result: No violation)

    Three revert rule violation on WrestleMania_X-Seven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 3Bulletproof16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 17:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: He was warned at 16:41

    --TheTruth2 17:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC){{

    Malformatted. Please look at the other reports above for the appropriate format... --Lord Deskana (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

    It is following the same format, except the revert section does ot show the times but it does take you to the site. For some reason I cannot get the times on there.--TheTruth2 17:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

    • The times are one of the most important parts of the report, so it can be determined whether or not the violation has been committed. Without it, no action can be taken. Instructions on how to add times was provided on my talk page. --Lord Deskana (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

    User:Esaborio reported by User:Tom Harrison (Result:IP sock blocked)

    Three revert rule violation on World War III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Esaborio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 18:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Blocked the IP address. Sasquatch t|c 19:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

    Tom Harrison 00:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

    User:Madman_0014 reported by MrZaius 18:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC) (Result:Not even close to a 3RR)

    Three revert rule violation on Islam_in_China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He's repeatedly reinserted a massive chunk of text from another site, in flagrant violation of their copyright.

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert: (After warning on his talk page: )
    This isn't even close to a 3RR as the 4 reverts span one and a half week and it's formatted wrong. Sasquatch t|c 19:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

    User:71.213.37.142 reported by User:TCC (talk) (contribs) (Result:24h)

    Three revert rule violation on Ecumenical council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.213.37.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 22:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User was not warned of 3RR, but is aware of it. See edit remark on 3rd revert above. Note this was a false statement, as User:ASDamick had not in fact made even 3 reverts, let alone a fourth. User continues to edit war on the article; see a revert made today: 19:19, 26 July 2006

    User:Soapyyy reported by FurnaceOfMonkl 22:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

    first revert, second revert, third revert, fourth revert, intervention is required--FurnaceOfMonkl 22:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

    Rv1 isn't William M. Connolley 08:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

    User:Abe.Froman reported by User:71.113.115.117 (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on Crystal_Gail_Mangum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Abe.Froman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 06:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User continues to delete content from this page despite being asked not to. Leykis information on this page is relevant as he is the original source who reported her name publicly.

    Needs to be within 24h William M. Connolley 08:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

    Anon's insert duplicative information into the article, which I revert. See this diff for an example . Same information, one passage above and below the other. Abe Froman 13:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

    User:RevolverOcelotX reported by User:Bonafide.hustla(Result:24h)

    Three revert rule violation on Chinese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RevolverOcelotX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Time report made: 06:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

    Report revised 08:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC) by User:Kevin Breitenstein


    Comments: User continues to violate 3RR despite being warned on his talkpage. Also commits spamming, personal attack, wikilawyering, and other violations. An independent user has reverted back to my original version, which shows RevolverOcelotX's edit are obvious pov pushing. ]. Thanks--Bonafide.hustla 06:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

    There is no policy violations here. The first edit was not a revert and there have been only 3 reverts made by both myself and Bonafide.hustla (talk · contribs). Bonafide.hustla was the person labeling other editor's completely legitimate reverts as "vandalism". Many of Bonafide.hustla edits are bogus and POV pushing. See this ANI post and Bonafide.hustla's contributions for more details. His contributions speak for themselves. Bonafide.hustla has now resorted to making bogus vandalism reports which were promptly rejected, here and a bogus checkuser here. Bonafide.hustla should be blocked for constant disruption and wikilawyering. --RevolverOcelotX 06:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

    Please date the reverts properly, and provide the "prev version" so we can assess whether rv1 is a revert or not William M. Connolley 07:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

    Hi I redid this 3RR. I had to pick a rather old revision to get the exact text put back, though recent edit wars show (on Taiwain) in the same spot being re-inserted by RevolverOcelotX, but that's disputable, so I went back to june 16th. There's an ongoing edit war on mentioning 'Taiwain' there and on what the japanese interwiki link points. Reported appears to be aware of 3RR by virtue of previous blocks. Kevin_b_er 08:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    The first edit was definately not a revert. The edit made was clearly (Taiwan) rather than "(on Taiwan)". Note that this is a subtle, but very important difference with different meanings. This edit was made according to Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Chinese), "on Taiwan" would refer to the island geographically, while (Taiwan) would refer to usually refer to the most common political name usage. Geographic and political references are very different. The first edit was used in a geographic context while the later ones equate the the political entity with its commonly used term. Unfortunately, this was repeatedly reverted by Bonafide.hustla (talk · contribs) who labeled the clear content dispute as "vandalism" as well as POV pushing on many other articles. Thus, there have been only 3 reverts between myself and Bonafide.hustla (talk · contribs) and there have been no policy violations in the mentioned article. --RevolverOcelotX 08:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

    Too sublte for me... I was about to block you but 2006-07-28 10:15:06 Alex Bakharev (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "RevolverOcelotX (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation on Chinease) William M. Connolley 14:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

    User:Appleby reported by User:LactoseTI (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on Imjin_Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Appleby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 20:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User has been reported repeatedly and blocked at least once (last month) for violating 3RR (though it's not on his talk page now). After removing it from his talk page, he received another warning by a different admin. He was reported on another article higher up on this page for a different article/violation, but no result was made. User continues to suggest not revert warring, while revert warring. Other reverts for the same change fall a few hours shy of inside the 24 hour limit.

    Technically 7 mins outside 24h... William M. Connolley 20:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

    Maybe I jumped the gun... but if you look at the following two additional reverts, it seems clear (to me) that he's just being careful to edit war "by the rules":
    "5th" revert: 16:34, 27 July 2006
    "6th" revert: 16:13, 27 July 2006
    I apologize if I was too hasty; it just seems that after being blocked and warned several times for the same kind of action, nothing is really gained except slower warring. LactoseTI 01:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

    User:WillC reported by User:NickSentowski (Result:No violation)

    Three revert rule violation on Job (professional wrestling) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). WillC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 22:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:This user has been arguing over the placement of relatively irrelevent information within the article, we have a 3 to 1 consensus to leave as-is, and this individual user insists on having things his way. When I joined the fray to supply an unbiased point of view, he begins making personal attacks. I do not doubt that his edits are in good faith, but it's gone on too long and he needs an administrator to join the discussion to take anything seriously.

    -NickSentowski 22:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

    This does not fall under 3RR as there are never more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. Try posting on WP:AN/I. --Lord Deskana (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    Also, you claim the user has reverted to the version dated 13:59, 28 July 2006, but all of the reverts you listed have been performed before that date? --Lord Deskana (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    My bad, didn't fully understand the WP:3RR nomination process, I feel the editor was intentionally avoiding WP:3RR. Even though the block is denied, the nomination has served its purpose, thank you for quick resolution. -NickSentowski 23:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

    User:Jim_Butler reported by User:FeloniousMonk (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on Category:Pseudoscience. Jim_Butler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 03:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Jim Butler is already aware of the 3RR rule:

    I don't see a version reverted to William M. Connolley 08:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

    User:71.99.111.52 reported by User:Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ (Result: 24h)

    Three revert rule violation on 24 (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.99.111.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    24h William M. Connolley 08:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

    User:69.34.69.254 reported by User:Jitse Niesen (talk) (Result: 24h)

    Three revert rule violation on Fermat's_Last_Theorem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.34.69.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 08:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

    24h William M. Connolley 09:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

    User:Peyna reported by User:User:Bailan

    Three revert rule violation on Article Martin Luther.

    The user attempted to remove a link at top of page several times and reverted other work done on the page:

    • Fifth revert:

    • Fourth revert:
    • Third revert:

    • Second revert:

    • First revert:

    I posted a friendly warning on his talk page about this:

    Time report made: Bailan 22:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Perhaps an admin warning would work better? Or perhaps a 24 hour block? He’s been blocked before for 3RR. Bailan 22:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

    User:Peyna was reverting changes by an anon IP that was very obviously a sockpuppet of indefinitely banned User:Ptmccain. Thus the three-revert rule does not apply. Also would like to point out that User:Bailan is bringing this 3RR complaint in his very first day and seventh hour of existance as an editor. The creation of this brand new editor coincides with the indefinite ban on Ptmccain, which took place yesterday. At the time that he was banned, in one of the various comments deleted by administrators, he posted from AOL IP addresses and indicated on several occasions an intent to continue posting via sockpuppets. --Mantanmoreland 23:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    Bailan appears to be a sockpuppet of banned User:Ptmccain. The edits of banned users may be reverted without counting toward 3RR. SlimVirgin 23:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

    User:SJC1 reported by User:EMS | Talk (Result: 12h)

    Three revert rule violation on Le Sage's theory of gravitation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SJC1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 05:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

    12h William M. Connolley 08:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

    User:TodorBozhinov reported by User:Eliade | Talk (Result: no block)

    Three revert rule violation on Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TodorBozhinov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to, if applicable:
    • 1st revert: 17:44, 29 July 2006
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:
    • 7th revert:
    • 8th revert:
    • 9th revert:
    • He also used slang expressions like cr*p..."oooh, this is so full of propaganda/fringe theory cr*p, I'd like the old (established) history back, please no WP:OR anymore". --Eliade 07:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

    Time report made: --Eliade 07:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

    Contiguous edits only count for one revert William M. Connolley 08:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    The user does not seem to understand the definitions of 'revert' and 'three revert rule'. I made a total of 2 reverts, the same number that Eliade also made. The other edits here were changes to the article. Also, I don't see anything with informal edit summaries, as long as they give information regarding the changes, and I've even self-censored myself. Todor→Bozhinov 10:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

    User:Bonafide.hustla reported by User:RevolverOcelotX (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on User talk:Bonafide.hustla (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bonafide.hustla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    Time report made: 12:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Bonafide.hustla (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly removing warnings from his user talk page despite repeated warnings and and clearly removed warnings from his talk page AFTER the final warning. In the process, Bonafide.hustla has also clearly broken the 3RR on his user talk page. Bonafide.hustla also shows a disregard for the intent of the 3RR an "entitlement" to 3 reverts every 24 hours.

    Report Example

    BEFORE REPORTING, PLEASE MAKE SURE THE USER IS FAMILIAR WITH THE 3RR RULE. IF IT IS A NEW USER OR ANON IP, PLACE A WARNING (ie: {{3RR}} ) ON HIS/HER TALK PAGE AND REPORT THEM ONLY IF THEY CONTINUE TO REVERT.

    Here's an example of what a listing should look like: 

     ===] reported by User:~~~ (Result:)===
] violation on {{Article|PROBLEM ARTICLE/PAGE NAME}}. {{3RRV|VIOLATOR_USERNAME}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to:  
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert: 
* 2nd revert: 
* 3rd revert: 
* 4th revert: 
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
* 
Time report made: ~~~~~
'''Comments:'''


    Please note that there must be 4 reverts listed - reports with only 3 will be removed. The "previous version reverted to" is there to show that the first revert really is a revert - it should be filled in to a previous version of the page which the first revert reverts to.

    Categories: