Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rlevse (talk | contribs) at 14:24, 14 April 2007 (archive a bunch). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:24, 14 April 2007 by Rlevse (talk | contribs) (archive a bunch)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.

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

    Please place new reports at the bottom.

    User:Emokid200618 reported by User:Gdo01 (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Emokid200618 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments

    This user has been blocked multiple times before with incrementing values. The last block was 72 hours. The user has also stated here that the user does not care about violating 3RR. Recommend a longer block or an indefinite one. Gdo01 21:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


    User:melonbarmonster reported by User:LactoseTI (Result:48h)

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

    Comments

    Blocked for violating 3RR before. All reverts include some insistence about the ship being "ironclad." Some of the reverts were actually vandalism (removing cited sources). After leaving a note on his page, incivil ]. User removed cited statements (after removed the citations) with misleading summaries (saying they were "vandalism") ]

    Not sure whether it's appropriate to add back the reference myself (he does not like references which don't support his ideas), but at this point I guess it's obvious that he's not interested in article quality, so would just be an edit war anyway. —LactoseTI 22:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

    There's simply no 3rr. Furthermore, Lactose has already admitted that I didn't delete his references on my talk page. In spite of his admission he's again falsely claiming this accusation again. If you look at the talk page and history of this wiki-article, you'll see that Lactose has continually made disruptive edits and reverts rather than participating in the talk page and engaging in progressive and responsive edits as I have done. This 3rr report is simply vindictive and further disruptive behavior by Lactose.melonbarmonster 22:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    Perhaps you misunderstood something--I never said you didn't remove the references (look at the diff's). Reporting someone for edit-warring and reverting 4 times is not vindictive. (I wish I had realized your reverts didn't stem from lack of knowledge but lack of desire to move forward earlier, unfortunately it took until your 4th revert for me to realize it.) —LactoseTI 23:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Turtle_ship&diff=122326394&oldid=122325406melonbarmonster 23:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    Somewhat complex case, but it does appear to me that all the edits given above are in fact reverts, and it's clear melonbarmonster is edit warring. Blocking for 48 hours due to repeat offense. Other admins: review if necessary, complex cases can always use another set of eyes. Heimstern Läufer 02:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

    User:ElKevbo reported by User:arla364 (Result:no vio)

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

    • Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:

    User:ElKevbo was blanking the article on Capella University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as well as making on others. Instead of discussing his concerns on the he instead improperly used his position as a Misplaced Pages editor to block others who were reporting his vandalism.

    User:ElKevbo was even that his whitewashing and blanking were innappropriate.

    It also must be noted that User:ElKevbo was following the advice of another user User:Pizzaman0000 and who has been warned multiple times for engaging in .

    Finally, it must be noted that the user User:ElKevbo blocked was rightfully persuing the proper channels to resolve the conflict which User:ElKevbo escalated. For example, in addition to the , the situation was reported on the .Arla364 22:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

    I'm filing an RFCU. This editor's only two edits are on this page and they are very similar to the editor whose 3RR violation led to him or her being blocked a few hours ago. --ElKevbo 22:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    • This is absurd. Only two reverts given; not even an effort to make this look like a real 3RR report. And coming from an account clearly created solely to make this report. Please don't waste our time with this. Heimstern Läufer 02:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

    User:Groovyman reported by User:Goodnightmush (Result:no block)

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

    Comments
    He has been around for 2 months, I don't know if that means he is still a "new user" or not. I changed the version he kept putting back about two (and a half) times, incorporating some of what he wanted in. Twice more his version was changed by (several) other users. Please note that, although I have edited the page 3 times in last day, once was just to revert vandalism. I'm not requesting a block specifically, just some kind of intervention, as I'm afraid to put back the collaboration of several users and ip's for fear of violating 3RR myself. Goodnightmush 23:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

    User: LactoseTI reported by User:Melonbarmonster (Result:no vio)

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

    Comment: reinserted comment about controversy

    Comment: reinserts comment about Admiral Yi’s war diary

    Comment: reinsertion of comment about Japanese ship.

    Three-revert rule violation on Troy, Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). LactoseTI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comment: reinserted vandalism, “the only gay person in troy, and is known for not being able to walk in a straight line, and is madly in love with madison mittelbrun.”

    Comment: Second revert in the same minute, reinserted vandalism, “Trevor Gohl, likes to suck if you know what i mean"

    Comment: Deleted text, “ DJ McCatty, famous minor league player” melonbarmonster 01:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

    I'm not sure what you're getting at... The Troy, Michigan was related to me removing spam, not adding it (although one tripped up with the script and I re-added some unintentionally, which I immediately corrected--that happens in the fight against spam).
    You replaced one vandalism for another.melonbarmonster 01:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    The script goes back to the previous revert. In verifying nothing went wrong, I realized there was a chain of vandalism there and reverted back to the most recent, cleanest version I could find. Though I don't really see a need to explain, I'm sure any admin who looks at this will realize immediately what you're trying to do here. —LactoseTI 01:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    Besides that, 3RR applies to one article at a time, and reverts together in a single block don't even count at all... or you'd be guilty of about 15 reverts instead of 4. You are allowed 3 reverts, not 4. —LactoseTI 01:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    The 3RR rule is an electric fence.melonbarmonster 01:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

    User:Neoelitism reported by User:Yummifruitbat (Result: 24 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on M/S Sea Diamond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Neoelitism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/142.157.201.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments
    142.157.201.134 and Neoelitism are quite clearly one and the same individual (see their respective contribs).

    24 hours, obviously the same editor. Seraphimblade 03:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

    User:Ahwaz reported by User:Mardavich (Result:1 month)

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

    Comments
    User:Ahwaz has been blocked for 3RR, incivility, and sockpupetry 16 times by now, in less than a year. He's just returned to editing after a 1-month block for edit-waring , yet he's resumed edit-waring and broken 3RR again, even after he was explicitly told the last time he was blocked, that he was very close to being blocked indefinitely if he doesn't improve his behavior. --Mardavich 02:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

    User:70.113.114.144 reported by User:Buddhipriya (Result: 24 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on The Argumentative Indian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.113.114.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version (before edit war):
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Comments: Edit war by a Hindu nationalist IP user, who is also relying on a blog to support his POV pushing. Another editor has tried to be reasonable with him on the talk page without success. Buddhipriya 04:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

    User:Gun Powder Ma reported by User:Eiorgiomugini (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Four Great Inventions of ancient China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments
    A total of 6th revert, clearly had violated the 3RR rules. Funny things is that that guy even made a report on other while received without any result. When a reporter himself had violated the 3RR rules he should had blocked as well. Eiorgiomugini 10:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    Those are edits. They aren't all reverting back to the same version of the article - at least not the one you've cited. Result: no violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waggers (talk • contribs) 12:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    Unfortunately those ain't just edits as you can see, an editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted for your info. That's how three-revert rule appiled from Misplaced Pages:3RR. Eiorgiomugini 16:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

    Is there no respone from any of the admins. Is that mean I should made another troll report on this. Regards Eiorgiomugini 18:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC) ===User:Francis Tyers reported by User:Baristarim (Result:)===

    Three-revert rule violation on Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Francis Tyers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments

    Established user, very well knows about 3RR - been warned here anyways. Baristarim 12:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

    I've taken both users to task and will watch the situation. In fact, Baristarim was in violation of 3RR himself. I'd say we can handle this without blocks for the moment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    I've agreed to not edit article/template space for the duration of this day. - Francis Tyers · 13:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    Ok, I stroke the report. I generally don't bring things to 3RR, but I really don't like scorched redirects (I have had bad memories :)) Baristarim 13:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

    User:Netscott reported by User:Radiant! (Result:24 hrs)

    Three-revert rule violation on Misplaced Pages:Straw polls (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Netscott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments
    This user has previously been blocked for 3RR .
    The user objects to all content on Misplaced Pages:Straw polls that does not match his opinion, calling it "soapboxing" or "propaganda" , and requests that other people cease editing the page .
    Other recent revert warring by this user on Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes (note talk page) and m:Polling is evil (note this warning). See also this thread on WP:AN last week, in particular this remark by User:Cryptic.
    >Radiant< 13:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. This user is attempting to game this 3RR system by fabricating reverts (note the level of detail he's gone into to justify that the diffs he's provided are reverts). This user himself has a long history of violating 3RR. He himself just recently evaded a block for 3RR violation and has previously done so as well: 3RR vio 2, 3RR vio 3. I admit that edit warring is wrong and that both Radiant! and I have been engaging in it. If I am to be blocked for that then I would recommend that User:Radiant! be blocked as well. (→Netscott) 14:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    Also please note that both User:Radiant! and I have engaged in volumious discussions at Wikipedia_talk:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion, Misplaced Pages talk:Straw polls and Wikipedia_talk:Resolving_disputes#Disputed_section as we attempt to resolve this ongoing dispute about Misplaced Pages guidelines properly reflecting Misplaced Pages practice surrounding polling. (→Netscott) 14:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    Wow, guys. Uncool. Two experienced editors like you should have been able to talk this out long before it got to 3RR. Tough call. It's going to take some looking into, and I'd appreciate another admin's opinion on this. Kafziel 14:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    It looks like netscott was trying to game the system. I would expect him to be very aware of the WP:3RR and as an administrator, be held to a higher standard. I personally think an appropriate WP:3RR block is in order here. If it had been any other editor, they most likley would have been blocked. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    Somewhat confused by this comment, as Netscott is not, and has never been, an administrator. Orderinchaos 04:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    Actually Crislk02 if we want to talk about gaming the system, I would recommend reviewing User:Radiant!'s behavior illustrated in this report. (→Netscott) 14:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    Well neither of us is editing on these pages currently. Probably a better solution would be for Misplaced Pages:Straw polls to be protected and for us to engage in mediation because this dispute has revolved around us. I hate to admit it but this has even carried over to Meta where Radiant! reverted four times yesterday: rv 1, rv 2, rv 3, rv 4. (→Netscott) 14:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Decision: I am very unhappy about this, but I have blocked Netscott for 24 hours. I have also protected the page (I'm sure it's the "wrong version") and although I know Radiant! can still edit it, I implore him not to. It was a pretty tough call not to block both editors, so please don't prove me wrong. I definitely suggest you guys find better mediation than 3RR. Kafziel 15:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    As an uninvolved admin I'm a little concerned by this block - 2 of these edits are clearly not reverts (one is simply commenting out a single line while the other is a one-line content edit). I think this decision should be reviewed, although it was taken in complete good faith by the blocking admin and they handled the above exchange extremely well. It stands *regardless* that users should seek far more appropriate ways of dealing with conflict - both of the users involved have a long history of positive contributions to the encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos 04:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

    User:131.193.9.108 reported by User:Michaelbusch (Result:24 hrs)

    Three-revert rule violation on N. R. Narayana Murthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    • Diff of 3RR warning: 21:27
    Comments
    There has been edit-warring about Murthy's actions regarding the playing of the Indian nation anthem during a recent visit of President Kalam to Infosys. I had attempted to move this to a discussion on the article's talk page, but 131.193.9.108 has been repeatedly adding back a version that blatantly violates WP:NPOV and perhaps Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks and ignoring warnings. I am afraid, however, that I may myself have violated WP:3RR in removing this material. I request Administrator evaluation of my own actions, as well as a block of 131.193.9.108. Michaelbusch 21:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
      • I have blocked the IP for 24 hours several hours ago because of edit waring since the IP was presistant and refused to discuss the changes, but I would also like to see your side of the story on why this section shouldn't be in the article and how it is not NPOV and vandalism. Since you have called yourself out and stepped out of the edit war after the last time the IP placed the section in, I don't see a point in blocking you as that would be punitive and pointless at this point. I will, however, suggest using caution when reverting another user's edits without discussing it with them on their talk page, this way you can see why they keep adding it into the article and get their side of the story and prevent further conflict. Darthgriz 00:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

    User:Jiffypopmetaltop reported by User:IronDuke (Result:No violation)

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

    • Previous version reverted to:

    05:44, 26 March 2007


    Comments
    The edits here all involve removing or altering bits user has objected to in the past. IronDuke 02:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

    I'm really not seeing a clear intent to edit war here, most of these edits are pretty different. Seraphimblade 05:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

    This is crazy. I am fixing references, removing unsourced material (wp:blp) and trying to improve this article. Anything I remove is unsourced or written in a pov manner. I probably reformatted 12 or 13 references today. Not to mention removing vandalism. I swear that I am acting in the best of faith and by the book.Jiffypopmetaltop 06:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    All of the edits above are completely legit. Jiffypopmetaltop 06:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

    User:Maestro25 reported by User:TJ Spyke (Result:article protected)

    Three-revert rule violation on WWE No Mercy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Maestro25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments
    User is intent on starting an edit war over a very trivial issue (he keeps removing the "-" is Fatal Four-Way match). He is ignoring the evidence presented on both the talk page of the article and at WP:PW. I have shown that WWE uses both "Fatal Four Way" and "Fatal Four-Way", that third party sources use both (but mainly use the dash), that the dash makes it grammatically correct, and that using the dash has been the de facto standard for as long as I can remember in PPV articles here at WP. Since I have a feeling he will just continue the reerting (he stopped yesterday after he reached 3 reverts), I decided to report him here. I feel silly about such a trivial issue, but he insists on changing the standard used here even though no one agrees with him. TJ Spyke 01:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Article protected by AuburnPilot. Please discuss rather than revert warring, and I'm referring to everyone here. Heimstern Läufer 06:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
      • He still violated 3RR. He won't discuss the issue. He will only say that since WWE doesn't use the dash, neither should we (even though I pointed out to him that WWE sometimes uses it and sometimes doesn't). TJ Spyke 10:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

    User:Lovelight reported by User:Rx StrangeLove (Result:1 week)

    Three-revert rule violation on Template:911ct (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lovelight (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:
    • 6th revert:

    Not all reverts are listed here. Still at it:

    • 7th revert:
    • 8th revert:
    • 9th
    Comments
    Lovelight again, been blocked for these actions before. S/he's singlehandedly trying to force a name change on this template, along with adding a bunch of names to the supporters list this time. It just goes on and on. As you can see it's been happening all day. RxS 05:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


    User:Biophys reported by User:Vlad fedorov (Result: Warning)

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

    • Previous version reverted to: 21:03, 2 February 2007
    • 1st revert: 14:21, 13 April 2007
    • 2nd revert: 14:35, 13 April 2007
    • 3rd revert: 05:44, 14 April 2007
    • 4th revert: 14:12, 12 April 2007


    • Diff of 3RR warning: diff 14:46, 13 April 2007

    I have warned him diff. Vlad fedorov 06:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

    For BLP concerns see here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov#Outside_view_by_Alex_Bakharev - outside view of Alex Bakharev and here Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10 Boris Stomakhin. Vlad fedorov 06:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

    Comments
    Biophys claims that the article is protected, although protection term has elapsed. He perfectly knows what is WP:3RR since I was blocked once because of dispute with him.Vlad fedorov 06:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

    Neither one of you has violated 3RR yet, but you're both pushing it. Please complete your mediation case and come to an agreement, no one's going to get what they want through edit warring. Seraphimblade 06:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

    User:Gun Powder Ma reported by User:Eiorgiomugini (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Four Great Inventions of ancient China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    User:Psantora reported by User:Miaers (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on University of Wisconsin System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Psantora (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    Comments
    Repeatedly messing up the images and deleting useful comments. Didn't stop after discussion. Miaers 02:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    Comment As I'm sure an admin will notice, the first "revert" is anything but; it's an editor making useful edits. Miaers himself then violated 3RR and was blocked for two weeks. Cheers, PaddyM 03:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

    As long as it is more than 3, it is a violation. I was blocked even for removing copyvio images. Miaers 03:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

    There is no rule on the time lag for violation. He was not reported 2 weeks ago because I was wrongly blocked 2 weeks ago. I don't think User:Psantora has realized he had violated 3RR. He needs to be blocked for the violation to prevent hime from any violation in the future. Miaers 13:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

    Example

    ===] reported by ] (Result:)===
] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{3RRV|ElKevbo}}:
* Previous version reverted to:  
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert: 
* 2nd revert: 
* 3rd revert: 
* 4th revert: 
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning: 
-->
;Comments:

    Request for comment at capture-bonding

    Hi, I've been trying to wikify and clean the article on capture-bonding for over a year now and I'm getting repeatedly reverted by two users, one of whom is mentioned in the article and citing himself. There are numerous issues involved. Please comment: here. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 09:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

    Categories: