This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nishkid64 (talk | contribs) at 17:45, 15 January 2008 (→User:Tankred reported by User:Squash Racket (Result: ): No block.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

Violations

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

User:Tankred reported by User:Squash Racket (Result: No block)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Magyarization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tankred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 16:31, 11 January 2008

• 1st revert: 18:24, 12 January 2008
• 2nd revert: 18:29, 12 January 2008
• 3rd revert: 18:35, 12 January 2008
• 4th revert: 18:50, 12 January 2008

• No need for 3RR warning, old user already blocked for 3RR and made reports himself.

User:Tankred broke 3RR on the article Magyarization deleting relevant material (describing Andrej Hlinka as a controversial figure) and inserting POV information while deleting my contribution to change the meaning of my words. Also has been disruptive at the article Battle of Rozhanovce. I do not want to break the rule, so please look into this. Squash Racket (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess user Squash Racket is misleading you because of our content dispute in the article he mentioned. Only two first edits were reverts. The third edit was simple copyediting and addition of a citation. The fourth edit was expansion of a sentence based on a source cited in the article. These edits are not the same and only two of them were reverts. As to the article Battle of Rozhanovce, I am the original author and I do not understand how writing an article can be considered disruptive. Squash Racket is more than welcome to contribute to it in a constructive way. Tankred (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverting another editor's edit more than three times is breaking this rule. Squash Racket (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Only two edits were reverts. Tankred (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Earlier I tried to resolve the dispute at the talk page (see section "Černová event as a proof of the 'violent' Magyarization"), but received no answer from him. Squash Racket (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You have never replied to a comment by another user at that page. Anyway, the 3RR noticeboard is not a dispute resolution procedure. Tankred (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

At the time of my talk page attempt I had a dispute with Tankred (see dates and diffs), not an anonymous IP. Squash Racket (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The violation is stale, as it happened a few days ago. I'm leaving this one alone. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Djma12 reported by User:Guido den Broeder (Result: No Block)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Fibromyalgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Djma12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 14:07, 14 January 2008

Previous revert: 04:18, 8 January 2008

• 1st revert: 20:09, 13 January 2008
• 2rd revert: 13:15, 14 January 2008
• 3th revert: 14:07, 14 January 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 13:59, 14 January 2008

User:Djma12 is repeatedly re-adding a text that was removed before because it is not supported by the sources. He claims that he has consensus for this text, but this is not the case. The text differs significantly from the quote that he put forward for RFC, and no consensus was reached on the original quote either. Note that the source is already mentioned elsewhere in the text with a different (correct) interpretation. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Rebuttal - The RFC discussion can be viewed here. The edit history speaks for itself. Djma12 15:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Only three reverts here, no 3RR breach. Users will be warned about 3RR and votestacking. - Revolving Bugbear 18:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Harumphy reported by User:Roguegeek (Result:24 hours )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Comparison of high definition optical disc formats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Harumphy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 14:31, January 14, 2008

• 1st revert: 12:42, January 14, 2008
• 2nd revert: 13:27, January 14, 2008
• 3rd revert: 14:28, January 14, 2008
• 4th revert: 14:49, January 14, 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 16:15, January 8, 2008

Apparently, he doesn't agree with the concensus found on the discussion page. The user may also be a sockpuppet of User:Locke Cole, a user recently blocked as per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole. Roguegeek (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• User blocked for 24 hours due to clear edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

  It may have been appropriate to warn others too- others were inappropriately reverting, including Roguegeek. It's not very cool to report someone for edit warring when you're also doing it. Friday (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:faithlessthewonderboy reported by 82.0.206.215 (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (Result:no block)

• Three-revert rule violation on

The Streets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Faithlessthewonderboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 21:24 14 January 2008

• 1st revert: 21:46, 14 January 2008
• 2nd revert: 20:14, 14 January 2008
• 3rd revert: 20:11, 14 January 2008
• 4th revert: 19:55, 13 January 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 22:16, 14 January 2008

Constant discussions on appropriateness of word "tender" in this article, which "faithless" has backed out of, as per . Followed by un-backed up claims of meatpuppetry, and canvassing (whilst clearly being canvassed on his own page). Refusal to participate in discussion re tender and constant reverting (2 more times yesterday, plus reverts by his friends and bots). Please block this person. 82.0.206.215 (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have not violated 3RR, as I have been removing blatant vandalism. A simple look at the page history will confirm this. Please also note that several other editors (including ClueBot) have been fighting vandalism on this page. This is a ridiculous charge by an admitted meatpuppeteer who has been vandalizing this article for literally months now and has been blocked for it already. User has repeatedly accused me of running ClueBot which, while quite a compliment, is obviously inaccurate. faithless () 22:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think this can be considered blatant vandalism, but I am still unwilling to block for removing such a blatantly unencyclopedic language as this, especially when the IPs supporting this change have effectively stated an unwillingness to listen at all to the other side, essentially saying that because they disagree, there is no consensus. At best, both parties are equally guilty here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A little research with my main man whois suggests we have a lot of dynamic IPs here (which we pretty much could have guessed from the content, anyway). As this is clearly disruptive, I've semiprotected the article. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, the simple addition of the offending word would not be vandalism. However, there have been several edits which couldn't be described any other way. On top of that, this IP has already been blocked because of this. It's not the addition of the word that's vandalism, but rather the editor's actions long after a consensus has been reached that he didn't like. Cheers, faithless () 23:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Even so, it's not really vandalism; rather, it falls under the heading of disruption. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There can never be consensus whilst there is disagreement. Those who seek consensus (such as said IPs) discuss the change. Those who don't (such as faithless)refuse to discuss. At best both parties are equally guilty. At worst, Faithless is falsely accusing me of meetpuppetry. Semi-protection , and I quote, "should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users. In particular, it should not be used to settle content disputes." Please revise this decision. 82.0.206.215 (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC) BTW, I don't know what a Dynamic IP is, but I have a feeling I am being accused of something else. What does this mean? 82.0.206.215 (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You can continue making your case, but please stop misrepresenting me. Consensus does not mean unanimous agreement; if it did, there would never be consensus on anything. It means general agreement. Every editor who has weighed in on the topic has disagreed with you. Consensus has been reached, which is why I don't want to continue rehashing this same tired argument. I have suggested several times that you seek dispute resolution. You have refused to do this. Instead, you admittedly enlisted your friends to engage in edit warring and you've made absolutely baseless reports at the admin noticeboard. This (hopefully) will be my last word on the matter: if you disagree with the community's decision, please seek dispute resolution. That is the proper avenue here. If you're not willing to do that, please let this go. faithless () 23:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus seeks the agreement of all by resolving the objections of the minority. In what way have you done this? In what way have you resolved my objections? By reporting me, having me banned and ignoring what I said? And what of the countless other people who made the same edit as I? You clearly have NO understanding of the word consensus, and should give up your adminship now. Or at least look into what the word means. Once again, I ask you were I have said that I enlisted my friends. That is an assumption you make. Falsely. 82.0.206.215 (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Ferrylodge reported by User:Turtlescrubber (Result:72 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Mitt Romney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ferrylodge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

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

• Diff of 3RR warning:

This user is not new to the world of edit warring. Ferrylodge is known for his contentious editing and has been blocked four times previously. I can not see the blocks myself as I am not an administrator. User was banned by the community for disruptive and tendentious editing but is now on probation. User is currently banned from all abortion related topics. On this current article, user has filled up three pages of archive material and was one of the ones responsible for the month long protection of the Mitt Romney page. Article was unprotected because of a consensus reached and agree to by all editors. User has been trying to undue the consensus for many weeks now. He broke the 3rr rule today while trying to undue the original consensus. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions.Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Turtlescrubber and I both received warnings at our respective talk pages regarding 3RR from Gwernol (Turtlescrubber deleted his warning). Neither of us has reverted since the warnings. Moreover, another admin looked at my reversions, and advised that they did not violate 3RR. Even if it could be argued somehow that I otherwise would have been in violation of 3RR, the edits and the edit summaries show that Turtlescrubber was engaged in vandalism (reversion of which cannot violate 3RR), given that Turtlescrubber was making wildly inaccurate edits to sections of the article that he did not even have any objection against (e.g. the "Personal life" section). This is a frivolous complaint.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That admin you bring up is your good friend and also takes the same side as you on the article talk page (also a brand new admin). I was not engaged in vandalism and I would ask you to stop making personal attacks. Frivolous complaint? You edit warred and then broke 3rr. I was polite and civil in my edit summaries and warned you multiple times before you violated the 3rr. The article is going to be protected once again because of your edit warring. Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall ever having any contact with the admin named Gwernol before today. And I don't recall ever having any contact with the admin John Carter before January 11. I don't think these insinuations of yours are helpful, Turtlescrubber.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Gwernol warned you about 3rr, what does that have to do with anything? You and John Carter are friends as evidenced by your talk page, the mitt romney talk page discussion and your voting for his adminship like two days ago. Please, let's be honest here. John also supports your position rather fervently. Hardly a neutral admin in all this. Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to drag out this discussion. You've made your complaint.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If I didn't have to correct half-truths then I wouldn't comment at all. I am done arguing with you for the night. Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I count three reverts apiece, but whatever ... guys, you both know the rules and you both know what you're doing. Talk it out on the talk page and quit reverting each other repeatedly. Someone would probably complain if I were to make the block myself, but come on guys ... this is ridiculous - you both know better. (24hr/ea would be my block in case anyone cares.) --B (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, he has 4 reverts. He started to edit war. He was warned and he violated the 3rr. Seems pretty clear cut to me. Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if he does (and I count one initial edit + 3 reverts, but I could be looking at it wrong), 3RR is not license to revert exactly 3 times. You both were revert warring and three reverts inside of 30 minutes is inherently disruptive. --B (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Turtlescrubber, you were engaged in vandalism. Or do you have some explanation of why you edited the "Personal life" section? Just to get on my nerves?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with you? You win. I quit the project. Turtlescrubber (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Taking into account Ferrylodge's behaviour and his history, along with the ongoing ANI discussion, I've blocked for 72 hours. Of course, this is subject to review by other admins. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:BKLisenbee reported by User:Opiumjones 23 (Result: )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Frank Rynne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BKLisenbee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Brian Jones Presents The Pipes of Pan at Jajouka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BKLisenbee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

This User claims to be awaiting admin advice but has violated 3RR on two pages See and Also note the users rationale in his edit summery on his last edit. He talks about his edit being him getting even. BKLisenbee (Talk | contribs) (3,458 bytes) "Get real. You have done nothing but smear Bachir Attar (see your own 'letter of protest'; this is just evening the score with another letter to you. And that is not POV; it's a fact, like it or not."

This user refused mediation call by User:FayssalF on his talk page. For mediation page see User:FayssalF/JK. A severe block is needed. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Could someone explain what the alleged BLP issue is here that you guys refer to in your edit summaries? (Removing BLP violations is exempt from 3RR.) --B (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User places external link alleging illegal act by page's subject on Frank Rynne. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 11:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:24.60.254.74 reported by User:loodog (Result: 31 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Boston University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User:24.60.254.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 16:42, 13 January 2008

• 1st revert: 01:30, 14 January 2008
• 2nd revert: 04:38, 14 January 2008
• 3rd revert: 22:43, 14 January 2008
• 4th revert: 02:42, 15 January 2008
• 5th revert:

03:35, 15 January 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 03:05, 15 January 2008

User wishes to change "on the Charles River" to "near the Charles River". Despite two requests in edit summaries to bring to talk page, and warning of 3RR, user has engaged in edit war and broken 3RR.Loodog (talk) 03:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours. --B (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Rufuskhan reported by User:JD554 (Result: )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Darragh MacAnthony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rufuskhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 15:38, 12 January 2008

• 1st revert: 12:51, 14 January 2008
• 2nd revert: 18:23, 14 January 2008
• 3rd revert: 23:03, 14 January 2008
• 4th revert: 10:27, 15 January 2008
• 5th revert: 12:50, 15 January 2008
• 6th revert: 13:13, 15 January 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 12:44, 15 January 2008 (not a diff as only edit)

These are only the most recent reverts in an edit war between this user and User:Chakanobody over the past few weeks as the complete history of the article shows. At this time Rufuskhan appears to have made a total of 40 edits over the past 2 weeks alone and 2 edits since the 3RR warning. JD554 (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Chakanobody reported by User:JD554 (Result: )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Darragh MacAnthony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chakanobody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 13:55, 12 January 2008

• 1st revert: 11:38, 14 January 2008
• 2nd revert: 17:49, 14 January 2008
• 3rd revert: 22:22, 14 January 2008
• 4th revert: 09:15, 15 January 2008
• 5th revert: 12:42, 15 January 2008
• 6th revert: 13:05, 15 January 2008
• 7th revert: 13:52, 15 January 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 12:44, 15 January 2008 (not a diff as only edit)

These are only the most recent reverts in an edit war between this user and User:Rufuskhan (see previous report) over the past few weeks as the complete history of the article shows. At this time Chakanobody appears to have made a total of 20 edits over the past week alone and 2 edits since the 3RR warning. JD554 (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Example

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

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring