Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive9: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
RJII (talk | contribs)
25,810 edits
RJII (talk | contribs)
25,810 edits
Line 1,090: Line 1,090:


:::::::Well, I don't. The only reason he is not reverting again is that the page is protected. He will revert to his POV fork as soon as it isn't. He's said so on the talkpage. What you've got across to him is that he can revert with impunity to get his way because a/ other editors will not break the 3RR and b/ you won't act to protect other editors and allow them to work. Luckily, SlimVirgin was willing to do ''something'' to help out, but frankly, if someone breaches the 3RR so badly, we ''expect'' action. Otherwise, what's the point of reporting it here? I haven't at any point asked for punitive action, merely protective action to allow other editors to work on the page without constantly being reverted. The same outcome was achieved by protecting the fork on a redirect, but as soon as the protection is lifted, wham, you're on again. [[User:James James|James James]] 07:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::::Well, I don't. The only reason he is not reverting again is that the page is protected. He will revert to his POV fork as soon as it isn't. He's said so on the talkpage. What you've got across to him is that he can revert with impunity to get his way because a/ other editors will not break the 3RR and b/ you won't act to protect other editors and allow them to work. Luckily, SlimVirgin was willing to do ''something'' to help out, but frankly, if someone breaches the 3RR so badly, we ''expect'' action. Otherwise, what's the point of reporting it here? I haven't at any point asked for punitive action, merely protective action to allow other editors to work on the page without constantly being reverted. The same outcome was achieved by protecting the fork on a redirect, but as soon as the protection is lifted, wham, you're on again. [[User:James James|James James]] 07:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
::::::::James, you just violated the 3RR rule on [[economics of fascism]]. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 08:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
::::::::James, you just violated the 3RR rule on [[economics of fascism]]. And, damned right I'm going to restore [[economic fascism]] when I can do so without breaking the 3RR rule. The only reason I broke it is because I thought it didn't apply to fixing an article that was moved without consensus --so it was done in good faith. It's within my rights to move the article back. If you want to move an article you should get a consensus first. All you're doing is causing an unnecessary edit war. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 08:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


== Report new violation ==
== Report new violation ==

Revision as of 08:08, 29 December 2005

    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.

    Click here to create a new report


    Example

    User:BadUser

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

    BadUser (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: User:ReportingUser 14:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User will not listen to the consensus of the other editors. User:ReportingUser 14:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    Violations

    User:158.147.53.100

    Three revert rule violation on Global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 158.147.53.100 (talk · contribs):

    • 0th revert: [1] (2005-12-20 09:44:42)
    • 1st revert: [2] (2005-12-20 11:13:16)
    • 2nd revert: [3] (2005-12-20 10:43:23)
    • 3rd revert: [4] (2005-12-20 09:53:17)
    • 4th revert: [5] (2005-12-20 09:50:38)

    Reported by: William M. Connolley 16:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC).

    Comments:

    • Warned on her talk page.
      • I'm disinclined to block because the warning happened after the reverts, but if another revert happens please post it here. Also, in the future, please provide the "version being reverted to," followed by diffs between the anon's reverts and that version. And your timestamps and order should be right too. That reduces the job of the admin verifying the 3RR violation greatly. Thanks! -- SCZenz 17:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:Huaiwei

    Three revert rule violation on Mass_Rapid_Transit_(Singapore) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Huaiwei (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Monicasdude 16:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User:Huaiwei insists edits to the article require prior consensus and claims the right to summarily delete any changes which are not presupported rather than letting them stand for comment. Policy violation should be apparent. Underlying issue is verifiability, and User:Huaiwei asserts that toning down of an unsourced factual claim must be sourced, even though the original language remains unsourced. User:Huaiwei's reverts are not properly marked and are accompanied by inappropriate edit summaries. Monicasdude 16:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • 14:53, 20 December 2005 is quite obviously not the first reversion, for it was an edition in which I choose to selectively keep some edits while removing others. Monicasdude insists on adding and reinstating edits which were disputed in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore), where he failed to convince anyone and instead faced opposition from just about all who replied. Yet he failed to respond, and all of a sudden, chose to enforce his edits into the article without any sign of wanting to find concensus. He further made several changes in his edit without being able to show any verification for them, such as suggesting that platform screendoors are unable to prevent all cases of unauthorised intrusions by the simple change of one word which he insisted on reinstating despite objections in the FAC nomination. He did these without showing initiation to discuss, while I was the one bringing them up for debate. All my reverts were well explained, unlike his reverts which were devoid of reasoning. I would seek fair judgementin this case from the admins. Thank you!--Huaiwei 16:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Just for the record, the following text [6] I wrote in Monicasdude's talkpage was deleted without showing any ability in explaining his editorial behavior.--Huaiwei 17:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

    Response:

    While I appreciate the need for evenhandedness in handling disputes, I would have thought that my responding to user:Huaiwei's violation by reporting it in accordance with guidelines, and limiting my subsequent edits to relevant talk pages, should be sufficient to demonstrate my intention to comply with the applicable policy. Given his sanctioning by arbcom barely two weeks ago for similar behavior in another area, I don't think your response is appropriate. user:Huaiwei has taken a garden-variety verifiability question and, without provocation, turned it into a full-blown, personalized dispute, and is edit warring to preserve a set of unsourced, moderately dubious claims. He has conspicuously violated applicable civility and personal attack policies and guidelines. He denies an overt, intentional 3RR violation. It is, I believe, irresponsible to tacitly encourage him to continue in such behavior, as your response has done. Monicasdude 22:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:DrBat

    Three revert rule violation on Zatanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DrBat (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: --69.49.99.25 19:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


    Comments:

    • I'd like to note that this report is likely by User:Mistress Selina Kyle, who I just blocked for violating 3RR on the same article. I would have blocked DrBat also, but I wasn't sure that he knew about 3RR policies. It's clear from the earlier reports on this page that he does, so I will block him also. However, I'd note that DrBat was reverting to the consensus version of the page, while Selina was not. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 19:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:Yuber

    Three revert rule violation on Islamophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yuber (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: --Fones 20:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    This user is likely a sockpuppet of blocked User: Mistress Selina Kyle who has just been created to revert war. And probably a sockpuppet of another banned editor too. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

    Response:

    User:Jackohare

    Three revert rule violation on Psychoactive drug (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jackohare (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: --65.87.105.2 00:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • The above demonstrates a clear violation of the 3RR rule. In addition, the issue being discussed on the page is whether a specific user-created diagram violates the wiki no original research policy. I would be interested to hear some administrators weigh in on that subject, too. Thanks.--65.87.105.2 01:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • 65.87.105.2 (talk · contribs) is a vandal, and has reverted the article himself at least a dozen times. Reverts done by Jackohare (talk · contribs) (and others) were only to revert said vandalism. --Thoric 22:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
      • The above is a bold faced lie from Thoric who authored the diagram in question. I have not reverted the article a dozen times, I have never committed a 3RR violation, and I have never committed an act of vandalism. If he has evidence of a 3RR violation, he should state it here. I deleted his subjective chart after discussing the issue on the talk page just as a good editor should. Thoric has been unable to cite the source for his subjective classification of various drugs in overlapping categories. I would appreciate it if a truly objective person would review the Psychoactive drug which lacks the sourcing and citation usually found in wiki articles of a scientific nature. Perhaps this is appropriate for an RFC.--65.87.105.2 23:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
        • When a single user stirs up a nest of hornets like 65.87.105.2 has, and his repeated vandalism to an article results in a few editors reverting his changes, along with a half dozen editors arguing against him on the article talk page, and he persists regardless of all kinds of source citing, then we have a problem. --Thoric 01:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:Antidote

    Three revert rule violation on List of Ukrainians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Antidote (talk · contribs):

    Reported by:--Pecher 08:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: User:Antidote is engaged in a number of edit wars on different lists of Slavic people and is now subject of RfC.--Pecher 08:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

    Here is evidence that the user is knowingly violating the 3RR block. Also see a related RfC which indicates that he has a history of breaking due process. Jbetak 19:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

    I went through the history of the list and could not find four reverts on the same day in TWO instances. I emailed the admin about this. The ban was unjustified because no one informed me of a second 3RR violation if there even was a second. I was left to assume I had been banned twice by the first. Antidote 19:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:Dhimmi

    Three revert rule violation on Bat Ye'or (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dhimmi (talk · contribs):


    Reported by: SlimVirgin (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments

    Dhimmi (talk · contribs) has been reverting at Bat Ye'or for weeks, particularly in order to keep in anything negative in about her. He has been blocked three times for it. The reverts above are not to the same version or over the same issues, which is indicative of what he does: he reverts any change he disapproves of, and does so for days on end without ever compromising, until he gets his way, which he usually does because everyone else gets fed up and wanders off. He oftens labels his reverts as rvv, although they are not vandalism.

    It's a single issue account, and has made only 45 edits in total, 38 to the main namespace, 37 of which are to Bat Ye'or, probably all of them reverts. [15] He is almost certainly a sock puppet of another user, because he seems to know instantly when a change is made that he doesn't like. I would ask any admin looking at this to consider blocking the account indefinitely as a disruptive sock puppet or revert puppet, because his reverting means it's hard to get anything done on the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

    Not that it is true that I revert "in order to keep in anything negative in about her", but you know, if something is "negative" but factual then it certainly should be kept in! To remove it is vandalism. That's what CtlFn was doing. Reverting vandalism doesn't count in the 3RR. Saying that my edits are "probably all" reverts is patently untrue. My first edit was adding her real name, and I have done various copyediting since, as well as reverting vandalism, which is unfortunately frequent on that article, as some people want to remove anything "negative". Dhimmi 00:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    He has just admitted it's a sock puppet account. [16] SlimVirgin (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    Can anyone explain the WP:SOCK policy to SlimVirgin? She's constantly making insinuations about my being a sock puppet, as if that's something bad per se. As I explained her, I want to separate my contributions on Bat Ye'or from my other ones because of the inevitable conflict you get into on a topic like that, i.e. no matter how right you are, you get some mud stuck on you, and I don't want that on my main account. Dhimmi 00:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    Ignoring the erroneous sockpuppetry allegations since having a sock isn't against the rules (though it is discourged) unless your using it to break rules and/or go around a block which doesn't seem to be the case here, I still think a 48 hour block is warranted for repeated edit warring and for gaming the rules in regards to reverts especially considering that this is not the first time that Dhimmi has had to be blocked for this. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    Dhimmi has created a sock puppet account for the purpose of violating 3RR, so that blocks for 3RR (three blocks so far, hopefully four after today) don't show up on his main account. That is a violation of WP:SOCK. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    Actually if this account is being exclusively for edits on this article then yes it's actions are against the rules in itself but as long as the other account doesn't edit the article (or articles if that's the scope) then it's not a violation of WP:SOCK since in that case it wouldn't be a sockpuppet specifically for sidestepping the rules and even stretching the meaning of the rules quite a bit I don't see how you think that it would be otherwise, unless of course you have reason to believe that the other account(s) of his are also editing this article in an attempt to impose his POV. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    Jt, under circumventing policy, WP:SOCK says: "Policies apply per person, not per account. Policies such as 3RR are for each person's edits. Similarly, using a second account for policy violations will cause any penalties to also be applied to your main account." And "Users who are banned from editing or temporarily subject to a legitimate block may not use sock puppets to circumvent this. Evading a ban in this manner causes the timer on the ban to restart."
    Dhimmi has admitted that it is not his main account. He has created it in order to violate 3RR at Bat Ye'or. He does this whenever he wants to, and he knows it won't be recorded in the block log of his main account, so he doesn't care. The violation isn't causing a penalty to be applied to his main account, because we don't know what the main account is, and any reputation Dhimmi has as a disruptive editor will also not apply to the main account. It seems to me that this makes the creation of Dhimmi a violation of policy. Multiple accounts are fine so long as they're not being used disruptively, not only if they're not being used on the same article. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    I find SlimVirgin's logic sensible and persuasive. Dhimmi should disclose who their main account is, so 3RR violations can be properly applied to both, or, if that isn't done, I agree with the logic that the sockpuppet account should be indefinitely blocked. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    Seems like good enough logic however I think that Dhimmi should get a chance to respond to this and a chance to list his main account and some time for some more editors can get a chance to comment on this before anything is enacted. Blocking indefinitely should not be done lightly. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 02:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    I completely agree. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

    I've reblocked permanently, as the sockpuppet was created for the purpose of policy violation (in this case, 3RR and revert-warring). I've also warned the editor that if he creates another sockpuppet for the purpose of policy violation, I'll block the main account as well. Jayjg (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:Kuban kazak

    Reported by: AndriyK 19:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments In the 4th revert, User:Kuban kazak made a slight changes to the article apparently to avoid 3RR. It should be considered as a revert common sence, in my opinion. Please compare two edits [21] and [22] they are almost identical.--AndriyK 19:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:Mistress Selina Kyle

    Three revert rule violation on Eminem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mistress Selina Kyle (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Netoholic @

    Comments:

    User:205.188.116.5

    Three revert rule violation on 2005 New York City transit strike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 205.188.116.5 (talk · contribs):

    • Previous version reverted to: [20:49, 22 December 2005]
    • 1st revert: [20:39, 22 December 2005]
    • 2nd revert: [20:40, 22 December 2005]
    • 3rd revert: [20:45, 22 December 2005]
    • 4th revert: [20:47, 22 December 2005]

    Multiple reverts, these are just the 4 most recent. Counted 13 reverts in less than 45 minutes.

    Reported by: ERcheck 20:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:64.12.116.5

    Three revert rule violation on 2005 New York City transit strike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 64.12.116.5 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: (ESkog)(Talk) 21:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Robert I

    Three revert rule violation on Western Goals Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). USERNAME (talk · contribs):

    Reported by:

    Comments:

    • Please fill in the version of the article that was reverted to, then make each revert diffs to that version. I'll try to figure it out the way this is written up, but no promises. -- SCZenz 22:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:85.97.17.88

    Three revert rule violation on Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 85.97.17.88 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by Macrakis 00:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

    I've warned the anon of the 3RR. I'll block if he/she reverts again. Deltabeignet 05:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    Blocked for a week for yet more reverting.  ALKIVAR™ 07:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    This anon and Khoikhoi have also been cross-reverting on Turkish Army, again violating 3RR. --Macrakis 20:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    Thats what my 1 week block was for.  ALKIVAR™ 12:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:Khoikhoi

    Three revert rule violation on Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Khoikhoi (talk · contribs):

    Reported by Macrakis 00:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

    I've warned Khoikhoi of the 3RR and will block if he/she reverts again. Deltabeignet 05:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    Khoikhoi and the anon have also been cross-reverting on Turkish Army, violating 3RR. --Macrakis 20:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:Petral

    Three revert rule violation on Promises of troop withdraw by American presidents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Petral (talk · contribs):

    • Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
    • 1st revert: [23]
    • 2nd revert: [24]
    • 3rd revert: [25]
    • 4th revert: [26]

    Reported by: Travb

    Comments:

    • Two hours ago I started this article. In the space of two hours, Petral has added a POV tag and a deletion tag. From the beginning (even before the deletion tag) I told Petral that this article is new, and the name may change, and asked him for suggestions[27] After Petral added the deletion tag, I attempted to work on the article some more, to make it less NPOV and more encyclopedic. I changed the name in the hopes that it would explain the article better and give it less chance for deletion, I added the new link to the Articles_for_deletion [28] which Petral deleted [29]

    Petral continues to delete the redirect notice on the new article.Travb 03:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

    I continue to REDIRECT the page to the new page, remember Petral refuses to move this article, and has deleted my comments several times, even on my own talk page.[30] Travb 06:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • notice how [User:Petral|Petral]] provides no links for this statment, that is because it is untrue. Add this one to my list of questions for [User:Petral|Petral]].Travb 06:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:Yuber and User:CltFn

    Yuber (talk · contribs) and myself CltFn (talk · contribs) have both violated the 3RR rule in page Islam in the United States. We should therefore both be blocked according to Wikipedia policy.--CltFn 06:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

    Sounds fair to me. Both blocked for 24 hours. A request for page protection might be appropriate if this revert war springs up again. —BorgHunter (talk) 07:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:Mistress Selina Kyle (2)

    Three revert rule violation on Latex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mistress Selina Kyle (talk · contribs):

    • Too many reverts to count, see history.

    Reported by: Netoholic @

    Comments:

    • There are no kidding about 20 reverts on this page, all over some silly photo. Please also see a separate 3RR violation a few sections above. MSK is about a 5-day-old account that shows an amazing amount of Wikipedia knowledge. I think this is a sockpuppet acting in bad faith and needs to be watched. -- Netoholic @ 08:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

    Concerted 3RR violation at Hare Krishna and Gouranga

    Three revert rule violation on Hare Krishna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Several IPs working in concert have reverted honest attempts to improve the article four times.

    IPs involved so far are 81.148.63.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 81.133.8.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 86.136.90.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and 81.139.7.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The same also happens at Gouranga. All IPs seeem to by dynamic British Telecom IPs. Don't know if we could or should block, but semi-protecting the article might help. I don't want to do it myself, since I've made an attempt to find a "middle-ground" version, which was promptly reverted in the last revert given above, and could thus be considered "involved".

    The IPs' reverts have been undone by several editors so far.

    Reported by: Lupo 08:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:GourangaUK

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

    GourangaUK (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Lupo 10:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:68.161.86.144

    Three revert rule violation on Crisis on Infinite Earths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.161.86.144 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by:--Toffile 17:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

    Also Three revert rule violation on Infinite Crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.161.86.144 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by:--Tverbeek 18:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • The anon is also inserting the same text into Infinite Crisis as well. He does not have the consensus to insert that paragraph after it has been removed by multiple editors. (Myself included) --Toffile 17:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Anon here: my understanding is that being anonymous has nothing at all to do with being able to edit artciles. Further, it's clear that rather than simply put down an opposing viewpoint on a piece of art, they would rather just delete mine. Seems hardly fair as noneof edits deletes any part of the existing article. I have asked for arbritration on this issue and will abide by it and have asked that the commentary (5 lines) stand until that time. (previous comment by 68.161.86.144 (talk · contribs)
    • Obvious violation of both the letter and spirit of Wikipedia policy. By the way, he hasn't actually requested Arbitration that I can tell; he did asked a random editor to help him. Very confused. Tverbeek 18:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

    Tverbeek 22:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:Mistress Selina Kyle (3)

    Three revert rule violation on Latex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mistress Selina Kyle (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Themindset 19:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:


    Blocked for 24 hours. I further suggest you consider Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the edit war continues. —BorgHunter (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:24.11.91.3

    Three revert rule violation on Rigoberto Alpizar by 24.11.91.3 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: -- nae'blis (talk)

    Comments:

    • User also had previous similar edits to the same article: [32] at 2005-12-22 04:33:55 and [33] at 2005-12-21 02:06:00. They are convinced that the facts of the case support using the term 'murder' rather than 'death/killing'. More than half of user's contributions are to this article; we have gotten them to speak on the Talk page, but the article edits continue. I'm at 2 reverts myself...

    User:Themindset

    Three revert rule violation on Latex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Themindset (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: 85.12.17.26 20:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • According to the report above by him he claims to have only reverted twice - is lying to admins deliberately against rules too?

    His last revert breaking 3RR should be reverted back.

    • I'd also ask the administrators to note that this seems to be User:Mistress Selina Kyle retaliating for my reporting his/her 3RR violation. I ask you to carefully look at the reverts listed, and you will see that 1st revert and Previous version reverted to are have no relation to the 2nd to 4th reverts. Themindset 21:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Anyone can see, looking at those difference links that they were in fact reverts.
        • 1 - Reverting the revert back that included the image
        • 2 - Reverting see also links and external links and other wiki links
        • 3 - Reverting see also links and external links and other wiki links
        • 4 - Reverting see also links and external links and other wiki links
      • It's sad that these things seem to be allowed to slip by unless brought attention to by an outsider. Whether the person you are arguing with also broke 3RR has nothing to do with it, you just proved yourself to be just as bad by also ignoring 3RR in the name of an edit war. 85.12.17.26 21:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Obviously.
      • I just don't like people like you that use rules for their own advantage while breaking the same rules themselves.
      • I already replied to you on the admin Dan100's user page. I'm not going to argue any further, the case being irrelevant anyway and seems to be nothing more than an attempt to change the subject and weasel out of a block - The fact remains you broke 3RR with 4 edits just like Selina whom is now blocked. 85.12.17.26 21:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • So a brand new contributor... and their very first contribution is a 3RR violation notice? Coupled with a direct plea to an administrator for help? Wouldn't that seem slightly fishey? Themindset 21:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

    Please let me work through this evidence and discussion. BTW, I'd like to say that the IP is unlikely to be a blocked user - there is a system called the "autoblocker" that prevents blocked users from just logging out to continue to edit. Dan100 (Talk) 21:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

      • The first edit listed above IS a revert (as well as 2nd 3rd and 4th, based on several previous reverts in an edit war for keeping/removing the image:

    There needs to be four identical reverts made in one single 24 hour period for a block to be considered. Clearly, this has not happened, so there will be no block. Please move on, and consider the guidance of WP:ROWN. Dan100 (Talk) 23:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:Andrew Alexander

    Three revert rule violation on Holodomor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Andrew Alexander (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Irpen 20:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: In his 3rd revert (06:48, December 23, 2005) the user combined the undoing of all of my article edits since his previous revert (19:56, December 22, 2005) with throwing in some {{fact}} templates into the text. However, it should still be counted as a complete revert as per Policy which says:

    Reverting doesn't only mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. It means undoing the actions of another editor, and may include edits that mostly undo a previous edit and also add something new, page moving, admin actions such as protection, etc. Use common sense.

    The other three edits in the list are 100% indentical reverts. --Irpen 20:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:Dark shadow

    Three revert rule violation on TV.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dark shadow (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: (ESkog)(Talk) 22:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Continues inserting POV rants about the forums on the site. Multiple users reverting him back - I stopped at 3 (and asked about it on Talk page after 1, with no response) (ESkog)(Talk) 22:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

    I feel new users should be warned of the 3RR before they are blocked under it. Therefore I've only warned on this occasion. Dan100 (Talk) 23:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:195.82.106.47, User:195.82.106.69, User:212.18.228.53 etc.

    Three revert rule violation on Veganism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 195.82.106.47 (talk · contribs), 195.82.106.69 (talk · contribs), 212.18.228.53 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Viriditas 02:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Wisesabre

    Three revert rule violation on Rajput (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wisesabre (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: --DPSingh 11:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comment: This guys only revert wars and nothing else.

    Response: Wisesabre blocked for 24 hours. FireFox 11:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:CltFn

    Three revert rule violation on Islam in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). CltFn (talk · contribs):

    • Previous version reverted to: [35]
    • 1st revert: [36]
    • 2nd revert: [37]
    • 3rd revert: [38]
    • 4th revert: [39]

    Reported by: Yuber(talk) 15:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC) Comments: Editor keeps adding back a xenophobic section entitled "Muslim disloyalty towards the United States".

    • </nowiki>
    • CltFn has done this before, marking his large reverts as minor and adding information that was cited from racist sources to cause a revert war. Has not tried compromise either.--a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • He's been blocked for 24 hours. That's the maximum block for the 3RR, but the repeat offences suggest that it should really be more. Hedley 16:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
      • An anon informed me that I was wrong to block CltFn. However, upon looking through the diffs, he removed "According to some estimates, up to 30 percent of the slaves brought to the U.S. may have been Muslim [40], predominantly the African slaves." four times. This, in conjuction with past blocks for 3RR and thus reluctancy to ultimately sort things out without an edit war, means he deserves the 24 hour block to think about things. Hedley 16:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:Damir Mišić

    Three revert rule violation on Meša Selimović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Damir Mišić (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • In this case user broke 3RR with reverts which broke compromise about the article content (mainly made using Bosnian and Serbian language on the talk page). This is not the first example of breaking 3RR by this user and some admin should warn this user for that. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Damir Mišić is waging a blatant revert war and has violated the 3RR. He's been here for two weeks, he should know about the 3RR by now. I have blocked him for 24 hours. Millosh, please report 3RRvios properly though. There is a template at the bottom of this page. Izehar 20:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:GMB

    Three revert rule violation on Communism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). GMB (talk · contribs):

    Reported by:karmafist 17:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Brazil4Linux via anon IPs. Again.

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

    User has been adding a rather nasty POV edit on the NeoWin page. He's reverted it (against the will of the editors) four times so far, utilizing his his old technique of anon ips, calling anyone who disagrees with his point of view a "sockpuppet". However, he's kept up the same mistakes he was traced by last time, and all the anon ips have been traced back to Brazil.

    Comments

    • Not quite sure what is to be done about Brazil4Linux. He's used this particular technique repeatedly; lately he's utilizing it in an effort to deface my user page. His changes are easily undone, but he just doesn't seem to be making any effort to "play nice".

    Reported by Daniel Davis 02:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)

      • I've blocked him for a month. This might be excessive, but (a) he's trying to game 3RR by using sockpuppets, and (b) he was already blocked for a week for this exact same behavior before, so it's clear that he has had ample and adequate warning, and simply refuses to reform. If any admin thinks I am overdoing it, I will not complain at all if the block is reduced. It might, however, be time to take this to RFArb, since ad hoc enforcement is having no apparently effect. Nandesuka 18:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


    User:Huaiwei

    Three revert rule violation on National dish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Huaiwei (talk · contribs):

    • Previous version reverted to: [45]
    • 1st revert: [46]
    • 2nd revert: [47]
    • 3rd revert: [48]
    • 4th revert: [49]

    Reported by: --Yuje 10:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Doom127

    Three revert rule violation on PlayStation 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Doom127 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: ForeverWatch 13:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    At it again, Brazil4Linux, huh? Daniel Davis 13:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)
    Doom127 is NOT engaging in a revert war. He is reverting VANDALISM. By YOU. You're blanking huge sections of text without referring to the talk page. You created your account today, and already you've continued your pointless vendetta against him because everyone outed you on the Talk:Ken Kutaragi page. You're an obvious sockpuppet of Brazil4Linux, and you're not fooling anyone.
    -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 14:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
    Do not use the word "vandalism" lightly. Doom127 is not reverting vandalism and ForeverWatch is not engaging in it. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 18:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
    Brazil4Linux (or whatever sockpuppet he's using this week) has a history of blanking text that portrays Sony, its executives, or the Sony Playstation in any sort of negative light. Even if the text in question is backed up by citations (listed in the article) from reputable sources. That may not be strictly vandalism as defined by Wikipedia policies, but it approaches vandalism asymptotically. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 22:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
    I don't use the word "vandalism" lightly. To me, blanking 3 paragraphs for no reason other than the fact that you dislike their content counts as "vandalism." Doing this repeatedly without referring to the talk page and without paying attention to the overwhelming majority of editors asking you to stop is "obnoxious." Stalking another user like Doom127, vandalizing his user page (and THAT was undeniable vandalism [50], [51], [52], and [53]) and wasting lots of his time is "malicious." And creating half a dozen sockpuppets to carry out your attacks is "deceptive." Please refer to the Talk:Ken Kutaragi page to see this user's trackrecord. Two sockpuppets already blocked, and several more strongly alleged.
    -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 21:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:Doom127

    Three revert rule violation on Neowin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Doom127 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: ForeverWatch 13:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Another Doom127 3RR violation.
    Actually, I would say that provides more evidence as to your modus operandi of quickly switching between anon IPs, than anything else. Hey, at least you haven't recently vandalized my userpage this time, like you did with your last sockpuppet, Brazil4Linux. Daniel Davis 14:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)

    User:Sly100100

    Three revert rule violation on Michelbytes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sly100100 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: feydey 18:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • I am against blocking Sly100100. He had not been warned of the 3RR, nor has he ever been blocked for it before. You warn users with {{3RR}} and {{3RR2}} before their first 3RRvio. I'll inform him of the rule now. IMO it would be unfair to block him for violating a rule he was not aware of. Izehar 18:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
    • 3RR policy gives no obligation to warn, and this user is being disruptive. Recommend immediate block. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 18:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
      • IMO he shouldn't be blocked as he could not have reasonably been expected to be aware of the rule. I have informed him. If he violates the rule again, then he may be blocked. I prompt you to read Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers - this user is a potential regular contributor. Inform him of our policy on vanity articles: Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles, this may help. Izehar 18:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
        • This user is being disruptive. If this was an edit dispute about a useful article that would be one thing. But this user's edits are questionable whether or not it falls under 3RR jurisdiction. If this user is a potential regular contributor, then this user can come back after 24 hours and make constructive edits. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 18:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
      • WP:AGF - I've checked his edits. If he reverts again before 18:02 26 December 2005 (UTC) then we will no longer have to AGF, as we will have proof that he violated the rule again while knowing about the rule. That is sufficient evidence of bad faith. According to WP:3RR: the policy is intended to stop edit wars, not mete out punishment. I have warned him, that should stop the edit war. If it doesn't, he will have violated the rule again while knowing about it. Izehar 18:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
    Blocked for 24 hours. Disruption of afd process, removal of user warnings and 3rr violation. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:DreamGuy

    Gaming the system of the three revert rule on La Llorona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DreamGuy (talk · contribs) reverted four times in under 26 hours, and has reverted a fifth time since:

    Reported by: Angr (t·c) 20:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: The version he insists on reverting to uses an ad-hoc pronunciation guide instead of an IPA transliteration, in violation of WP:MOS-P. --Angr (t·c) 20:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


    *Blocked 24 hours JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

    • There is no 3RR violation here so a block is innapropriate (I blocked then immediately unblocked after rechecking the diff dates on the history) though someone should keep an eye on this since edit warring over formats is harmful. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
    User:Angr, from harassing comments left on my talk page ([54]), knew this was not a 3RR violation and reported it anyway hoping to trick people, like he apparently did do until User:Jtkiefer caught it. It would be nice if editors making knowingly false claims warned against making such baseless accusations to prevent such harassment from continuing. DreamGuy 20:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

    Dreamguy, yet again:

    Reported by ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

    Yet another example of someone trying to change the rules... Codex here made the same change repeatedly, which I reverted not violating 3RR and then was assisted by other editors who also agreed that he was clearly out of line, but then when he no longer could make the same change anymore without violating 3RR himself, he purposefully switched to some other edits not approved by consensus solely to try to get the last word in. He thought he could game the system and lost. DreamGuy 05:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:Commonsenses

    Three revert rule violation on Nanking Massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Commonsenses (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 22:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Blocked for 24 hours. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:CltFn (2)

    Three revert rule violation on Bat Ye'or (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). CltFn (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Yuber(talk) 05:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC) Comments:

    • This editor keeps removing a sourced quote and has been blocked for the 3RR twice in the past few days.
    NOT TRUE , those are not more than 3 reverts in 24 hours . And Yuber is doing his own reverts under sockpuppet IDs --CltFn 05:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    Um, you started reverting on 16:58 december 25, and your last revert was on 5 something december 26. That's less than 24 hours. Yuber(talk) 05:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    Edits are not reverts. If you even bothered to read the articles you trash , you would have noticed that the information is already covered in the INFLUENCE section. I simply deleted the duplicate information which you insist on reinserting.--CltFn 05:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

    Hmmm. I would not classify the last edit as a revert, but from what I can see CltFn did revert four times in 24 hours. Additionally, I would caution all involved to remain civil in discussions. I have blocked CltFn for 24 hours.--Sean|Black 05:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:James James

    Abusive wiki stalker, making multiple reverts over all of my edits, too many 3RR violations to even count--Ytrewqt 05:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

    Please cite which edits have violated the 3RR. I have cursorily examined his contributions and found none. FCYTravis 05:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    Indeed. And unlike the complainant, he hasn't created any articles about 20 inch chipmunks with skin on their faces extending from wrist to ankle. - Nunh-huh 05:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:Martinrrodriguez

    Three revert rule violation on Template:Db-reason (edit | [[Talk:Template:Db-reason|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Martinrrodriguez (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Ytrewqt 06:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

    How about some diffs? Also, please ensure that the user is privy to the 3RR policy. Thanks. El_C 06:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

    Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but the three-revert rule states that a violation is made if MORE than three reverts are made in a 24 hour period, not singularily just three reverts in and of themselves correct? There doesn't seem to be four reverts here. Daniel Davis 06:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)
    OK, slow down a little. Obvious newbie semi-vandal, has been warned of policy. FCYTravis 06:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    In this case, we are more interested in awareness of policy than its enforcement (i.e. Ignorance of the law is an excuse). El_C 06:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    um, it's vandalizing the {{db}} template, and posting someones email into another article--Ytrewqt 07:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    Oh, I see. That's unrelated to 3RR/AN3, then. Please place a notice at WP:AIV or WP:VIP next time. Thanks. El_C 07:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    You're welcome--Ytrewqt 07:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    Nice. 'Cause then you don't have to bother with counting reverts and so on (either on your or the vandal's part), while action will tend to follow much more quickly. Let me know if and/or when I'm rambling. El_C 07:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:Yuje

    Three revert rule violation on National dish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yuje (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: --Huaiwei 01:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Reverts 1, 2, 3 and 5 all reinstate the same few entries. There is a slight difference in 4, but that was because I modified the page along the way, but the same entries are still reinstated. If these are not considered reverts, then I dont see why I was blocked in the above instance, coz I did not revert to the same version on more than 3 occasions either. Ditto for many other nominations in this list.--Huaiwei 16:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

    Actually, the rule states:

    If you violate the three-revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours. In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally.

    A revert is defined as:

    A revert is to undo all changes made after a certain time in the past. The result will be that the page becomes identical to how it used to be at some previous time.

    I think Yuje has undone all changes made by someone else more that three times within the same 24 hour period, so I have blocked him for 12 hours as he did not revert to the same version and according to WP:3RR 24 hours is the maximum. Izehar 17:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

    I understand that this may be a controversial move, so feel free to unblock him if you think it appropriate: link. Izehar 17:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

    If "in the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally", then I would question the rationale of blocking him for 12 hours compared to the full 24 hours I was blocked for. If I may refer to the nomination made against me previously, links pointing to reverts 2 and 3 were actually refering to the same one revert (just refer to the version numbers), so in actual fact, only three reverts were cited. In addition, revert 4 cited by him does not revert to the same version as the previous revertions too. Yet I was blocked for a full 24 hours despite the sloppy nomination, when the nominator himself is equally guilty of 3RR violation, if not more so. I do hope for a fair judgement here, in what I feel should have resulted in the same 24 hour block for both parties in the initial nomination made against me by Yuje.--Huaiwei 20:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

    You violated the rule twice. Look at the reason I gave for your block: link. Izehar 20:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    If you may refer to the above, I did not violate the 3RR rule going by your definition of what 3RR is. And if you may apply the same theory to the first nomination by Monicasdude, I have not violated the 3RR either, since practically all reversions mentioned points to a different version. In addition, I have proven that the first reversion cited was actually the "version reverted to", and not a reversion in itself, hence resulting in only three reverts, not four. Other admins who evaluated the case decided not to press the 3RR charge against me after looking at the overall situation at hand. Surely this should say something about the perculiarities between each case.--Huaiwei 20:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    Indeed, but then you decided to edit-war on another article as well. As both reports on you were rather watery, if only one had been filed, it would have been ignored. As you are obviously a chronic edit warrior, two 12 hour blocks (one for each watery report) seem to do. Both your violations are the same as Yuje's one violation. Izehar 20:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    If being a chronic edit warrior is your justification for a 24 hour block, than I suppose the long-term edit warring I have had with Yuje in that same article for months on end (the evidence is all in the article's history) is not considered chronic on the part of both parties? The simple reason why I did not come forth to dispute my 3RR block at first, was that I do accept the fact that my revert warring was wrong, whether there were more than 3 reverts or not, since gaming the system is also justification for a block. However, I am greatly upset over what I feel was a lack of justice in the way the punishment was metted out, and that it actually took my counter-nomination before anything was done. Are nominators somehow given the benefit of the doubt, while their nominees are automatically half-gulty and easily thrown into the dungeon even with flimsy evidence? It is not my responsibility that both their nominations were watery. That they choose to nominate despite having weak justifications, and that both are also clearly revert warring and gaming the rules, demonstrates to me the lack of justice in this case overall. My primary concern is not to absolve myself of blame. I accept my violation of the 3RR. But I find it difficult to sit down knowing others who are equally guilty can have a lighter sentencing or even go scot-free.--Huaiwei 20:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    You got off far too lightly. I think Yuje's actions were justified as reversions of simple vandalism, since you not only repeatedly deleted sourced text without explanation but also used misleading edit summaries to cover up your reversions You also edit warred pages related to China in violation of an ArbComm ruling. Monicasdude 21:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    A 68 kilobytes long talk page exists for National dish, most of which centers over the issue of these contested entries. I dont think that would be possible if I "repeatedly deleted sourced text without explanation" and didnt bother to discuss them. Please explain what "misleading edit summaries" refers to. How where you mislead? I may have edit warred pages related to China in violation of an ArbComm ruling, but does it mean others dont have to adhere to the 3RR rule?--Huaiwei 14:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    The entries were included with the (disputed — see talk page) tag ({{dubious}}), but they were removed altogether with the tag by Huaiwei, although he has been the only person to object the inclusion of those entries. — Instantnood 18:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    I have difficulty understanding what you are trying to say here. Seriously.--Huaiwei 03:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

    From talk:national dish, one can tell User:Yuje was indeed acting in good faith to halt the POV-pushing edits by User:Huaiwei. Huaiwei had plenty of time (~12 hours) to explain his position, or/and to nominate Yuje (no matter as a revenge or not) after being nominated and before being blocked. — Instantnood 21:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

    A highly POVed comment by instantnood when describing yuje's actions in the said talk page, which is more then expected considering they happen to share the same opinions, so I am not too sure if any nuetral reviewer is going to take his first sentence seriously without first reviewing the entire debate himself. As for the "time I have to explain my position", how then do you explain Yuje's lack in initiative to explain his reversion in the past 24 hours. May I further remind that the last revert happens to be executed by him, so who needs to explain the current version of the article? The lack of an explaination, btw, probably gives me more than enough reason to revert it back.--Huaiwei 14:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    Yuje is not a frequent editor as you do. Don't think he's lacking initiative to explain, for he has already done at the talk page, and was actually acting to halt POV-pushing edits that is getting close to vandalism. — Instantnood 18:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    How does the frequency of one's contribution to wikipedia has any bearing in this 3RR violation? Have I not done all the things you said he did, for I would consider your entries as POV-pushing as well, and I too am acting to halt them? Vandalism? Show how they are vandalism based on wikipedia guidelines. Disagreeing in a content dispute and calling the opponent's enforcement of his viewpoint as an act of vandalism demonstrates your gaming of wikipolicies and your unwillingness to negotiate and come to a resolution. Do you have any evidence to suggest the same in actions on my part?--Huaiwei 03:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:Mistress Selina Kyle (4)

    Three revert rule violation on Islamofascism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mistress Selina Kyle (talk · contribs):

    • Previous version reverted to: [62]
    • 1st revert: [63]
    • 2nd revert: [64]
    • 3rd revert: [65]
    • 4th revert: [66]

    Reported by: Yuber(talk) 03:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Regardless how justified you both feel, neither should revert more than 3 times in a day, which you definitely have, Selina. Actually, given that you are getting nowhere by doing it, perhaps taking your dispute to the talk page would be a better approach. Lay out your concerns and talk them out. Simply reverting isn't working for either of you, unless you think having your POV represented for half the day is a success! James James 04:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    • This is getting silly. This user has been blocked twice recently for 3RR, and on this page there are two additional occurences that she hasn't been blocked for. Can we please just skip ahead to a significantly longer block for disruption? -- Netoholic @ 04:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    • What is it you have against me anyway? Stop following me around... --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 04:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:Damir Mišić

    Three revert rule violation on Bosniaks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Damir Mišić (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Lessthankris

    Three revert rule violation on Lost (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lessthankris (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: LeFlyman 18:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User has been warned not to insert Original Research into the article; ignore multiple editors' clean-up, did not respond to User Talk or enter into discussion. Reverts are in excess of 3RR policy on multiple days. —LeFlyman 18:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:Miskin

    Three revert rule violation on {{ Macedonians (ethnic group) )}}. Miskin (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: user: Macedonia

    Comments:

    • Ignoring sources and proof about "Hellenization" taking place and is insisting that its an "unsourced POV".
    • is constantly deleting everyones edits since December 26, 2005, no matter how accurate or relevant it is.
    • Blocked for 24 hours. Despite minor differences in your edits, you also violated the spirit of the 3RR. Because you haven't been blocked before, I've blocked you for 12 hours. —David Levy 08:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    Wow. Admin for three hours and a block already? ;-D SlimVirgin (talk) 08:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:Deathrocker

    Three revert rule violation on Emo (slang) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Deathrocker (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: ChrisB 10:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Initially started as this edit, where he removed two paragraphs with little explanation. He had never edited the article before (one that's frequently vandalised), so I assumed he was just blanking the page, so I reverted. I attempted one rewrite to try and include his point of view (which he refused to explain in detail), and he removed it. Attempts to dialogue the issue on Talk were largely unsuccessful, as he argued points not made in the article. I'll concede that I may have also violated 3RR in my actions. -- ChrisB 10:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Indeed, you did. I've blocked you for 12 hours. Deathrocker has a history of revert-warring and refusing to discuss edits, and was explicitly warned about the 3RR in the past, so I've blocked him/her for 24 hours. —David Levy 14:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


    User:PeterZed

    Three revert rule violation on British Embassy in Washington, D.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). PeterZed (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: 20:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Comandante

    Three revert rule violation in Fidel Castro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Blocked for 24 hours --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:RJII

    Three revert rule violation on Economic fascism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RJII (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: TomTheHand 04:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User is reverting move of article from economic fascism to economics of fascism against consensus on talk page. Also note reversions on economics of fascism.
    • And he's made a horrible mess of it by moving the article page (by cut and paste?) but not the talkpage. Please, let him cool off for a day and think about whether it's really worth fighting so hard over the title of an article. James James 04:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • These two guys are redirecting the article knowing full well that there is no conensus to do so. [68] It amounts to vandalism. The 3RR doesn't apply to this kind of thing. (Also, check them out as they're doing more than 3RR as well). RJII 05:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • We have demonstrated to RJII that there is consensus, asked him not to revert to his fork and in my case I have not personally breached the three-revert rule. I rarely do more than one revert, except in clear cases of vandalism, and I really take it amiss that this guy is calling me a vandal and trying to game the system by claiming that he can revert an edit as many times as he likes by doing so. James James 05:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Indeed, the consensus is fairly obvious from the talk page, and neither James James nor I have violated the 3RR rule. Also note that we are not redirecting with loss of information, but moving the article to a more appropriate title according to consensus. RJII is literally the only person who feels the article should continue as it is, and has engaged other edit wars about it, notably with User:Firebug, resulting in an ArbCom case. I believe he feels that he owns this article and should be able to do as he likes with it. TomTheHand 05:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    I've demonstrated to both of the disruptive editors that there was no conensus, as revealed in the vote. Also, others besides me have put the article back when others have tried to redirect without a conensus. This is vandalism on their part. They should follow normal Wikipedia policy and try to get a consensus. Adminstrator Jtkiefer warned a couple other users a couple weeks ago for trying to redirect the article without a conensus. For example, "172, also if you would like the article to be redirected attempt to get a consensus on the talk page to do so. I like all people support being bold in certain situations but doing so without a consensus is against policy and is going to just lead to an edit war which should be avoided if at all possible. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 20:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)" This is my understanding of Wikipedia policy as well, so I'm just reverting the violation. RJII 05:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

    Can someone just block the guy so we can get on with editing? He's reverted eight, nine times now. As Tom says, he thinks he owns the article. No one has redirected the article! We've renamed it to a more suitable title with strong consensus on the talkpage. The article is still there. James James 05:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

    You should be blocked. YOu're violating Wikipedia policy. I don't think I own the article. Edit if you wish, but don't redirect it without a conensus. That's too drastic of a move to make without a consensus. RJII 05:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

    Admin response

    • I've protected the articles and am settling for warning RJII and James James. Discuss this on the talk page of the article(s?), please. On another note, the status of this article is an absolute mess...there's a redirect on a talk page, one article in two separate locations...egad. —BorgHunter (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • My (simltaneous) conclusion was that RJII did violate 3RR, because there does seem to be a consensus to move, but I also decided to warn and not block. I think BorgHunters suggestion for further discussion is an excellent idea. -- SCZenz 05:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

    What exactly are you warning me for? I moved the page in line with consensus, discussed it with RJII, asked him not to continue reverting when he had breached policy, and supported the call to have him blocked for breaching policy here. The article is a mess because RJII c&p'd it back to the old title.

    Please unprotect the article and block the user as requested. He has reverted many times more than three, and been warned and asked to stop.James James 05:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


    What's the use of doing the right thing, working with consensus and sticking within policy when admins don't support that? The guy reverted nine times, and now his version is the protected one because he broke the 3RR and I wouldn't'. It's now impossible for anyone to edit the article because he knows that all he needs to do is revert it nine times and accuse everyone who disagrees with him of being a "vandal" and voila! he gets to own the article. James James 06:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

    The current situation is not permanent—article protection virtually never is. Certainly the article won't be permanently forked. But an ugly edit war shouldn't be solved by admins ruling in favor of one side or the other. Anyway, I'll look at the talk page more tomorrow, and maybe unprotect based on that. -- SCZenz 06:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    Please read the protection policy. I'm not endorsing anything or anyone. I'm not letting him "own" anything. Please understand also that I'm trying to be as fair and impartial as I can be here, as I can under Wikipedia policy. I have no opinion as to which version of what is better...to be honest, I haven't looked at the content of the reverts and such and make no judgment on them, for NPOV or anything else. What I see is a conflict between one user and what seems to be a group of at least two. I can't take sides. (Well, I could, but then my protection and such would be against policy.) I could block RJII for 24 hours under policy, as he did violate the 3RR, but I chose not to. I did protect the article(s), which were undergoing a heated edit war. Finally, I suggest (again) either mediation (if that step has not been undertaken) or arbitration. Unprotecting the article would be letting the edit war continue anew, after 24 hours (the maximum block admins can give under the 3RR). I think my actions are entirely appropriate, and fairest to all users involved. —BorgHunter (talk) 06:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

    Please stop talking down to me. I have read the 3RR policy several times. That's why I'm here, asking for action against someone who has breached it. If he continued reverting after 24 hours, then protect the page, why not? I'm not asking for you to resolve an edit war. This page is for editors to request action against other editors who revert more than three times. We didn't ask for the page to be protected and don't want that. We want the editor who is in breach of policy to be blocked, so that he can think about whether he can edit within the policy. You are supposed to take sides! The idea of this page is for the side that has not breached the 3RR to ask for action against the side that has. What's the point of the page otherwise?

    Please block RJII and unprotect the page, so that editors who are working within the policies of Wikipedia can continue to work on it. James James 06:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


    Could a more experienced editor please look at this? The admin who has acted here won't block the guy who's in clear breach of the 3RR because he/she doesn't want to "take sides". Can someone who doesn't mind taking the side of Wikipedia's policies please take a look? This admin has even protected the fork as well as the page, without reading the discussion and without reviewing the edits! Could someone please unprotect both pages, so that we can fix that? James James 06:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

    Another admin came to the same conclusion at about the same time I did, that is, to warn and not block RJII. (He does disagree about the protection, which I am having second thoughts about and do welcome other admins to comment on. I've already left a note on User:Woohookitty's talk page.) I think the issue of whether or not to block RJII for the moment is more or less settled. The page protection is under dispute, and again, I'm having second thoughts about it. —BorgHunter (talk) 06:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    He's been warned. I warned him more than once. He was well aware that he was breaking the policy. The issue of whether to block him is absolutely not settled. You're basically saying that there's no point asking for action here because you won't take any. That's surely not right. Editors rely on admins backing up the policies of Wikipedia. If you let an edit-warrior make a POV fork against consensus, and then back it up with multiple reverts, and won't give him a day off for doing it, it tells the rest of us, don't bother with the policy, you won't get help if you're up against serial reverters, no matter how egregious they are. As for warning him, unprotect the article, let it be reverted and watch him do it again! He'll just call it vandalism and expect to get away with it again. James James 06:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    I'm inclined to agree with James here. RJII reverted six times, and I know he has behaved like this elsewhere, and has been blocked twice for it. Protecting rather than blocking seems unfair to the other editors. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    Disregard this editor. Slimvirgin is baised against RJII because he took part in an arbitration case against RJII, based in lies, that failed. RJII 06:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    I'm not biased against you, RJII; it's just that I know you make a habit of this. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    I've now unprotected the articles. I'm sorry, it was probably a bad idea to begin with. Apologies to James's side, and many compliments from me regarding your behavior so far, especially from TomTheHand, who was been incredibly civil with me from the start. I guess I should have thought that one through more. —BorgHunter (talk) 06:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

    Now he is working on the fork he created and was able to establish by reverting way in excess of policy. "Just protect all the pages and let them talk it out" just doesn't work as a response to a violation of 3RR. Very disappointed. SlimVirgin, could I ask you to either block the user in question or to revert the page to the redirect, so that he can acquire himself another revert in excess of the policy, which might perhaps stir some of your peers into taking action? James James 07:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

    James, I'll take a look, but in general, I prefer not to interfere with other admins' decisions. However, I hope Borghunter will reconsider. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    I did unprotect the articles. I don't support blocking him unless he does more uncouth things; he seems to be leaving the one article alone and is just editing "his." That would be against the spirit of what I told him on his talk page, which was to shape up and quit violating the 3RR. Besides, what would be the point? If he isn't doing anything bad or untoward now, why goad him into doing so? We want people to be positive contributors, not prod them into getting themselves blocked. —BorgHunter (talk) 07:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    Breaking 3RR on TWO articles and working on a POV fork that he created by breaking it are not "uncouth" enough for you? There is no his, by the way. It's because he tried to own the article in the first place that we asked for your help!James James 07:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    Borg, as you were the original admin who dealt with this, I'll defer to your judgment and won't block him. I don't agree with your decision, however, because RJ11 is a serial reverter who rarely gives up once he gets an idea fixed in his mind; he knows about 3RR; has been warned many times; and has been blocked twice for it. Anyway, I've reverted to the redirect so at least he doesn't benefit from the violation, and I've protected it so he can't revert back and continue with his fork creation. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    Thanks, SlimVirgin. It would probably be better not to protect it and let him revert it again. Perhaps BorgHunter would then realise that blocking him would be a good idea. James James 07:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    The goal is not to goad people into getting themselves blocked, it's to help people be constructive editors as best we can. -- SCZenz 07:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    Allowing an editor to revert nine times to support a POV fork probably isn't the best way to make a constructive editor out of them. The only reason he's not reverting the page again is that it's protected. He's expressed no interest in working collaboratively, and is looking forward to restoring his fork. James James 07:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    (after edit conflict) I concur with and support SlimVirgin's action on this. My judgement is there was a pretty clear consensus on moving the page, and that we shouldn't allow positive results for a blatant 3RR violation. -- SCZenz 07:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    So what? My point is, he's not harming anything right now by not being blocked. Blocking him now would accomplish nothing except revenge and punishment, and neither of those things are what blocking is for. I have his contributions page up and am keeping an eye out for anything bad, and I suspect I'm not the only one. I'm sure he knows that a few admins are watching him, as well. That's just as effective as a block, and it allows him more freedom, as well. (A good thing.) Again, blocking now would accomplish nothing. —BorgHunter (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    I agree with that too. -- SCZenz 07:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    Well, I don't. The only reason he is not reverting again is that the page is protected. He will revert to his POV fork as soon as it isn't. He's said so on the talkpage. What you've got across to him is that he can revert with impunity to get his way because a/ other editors will not break the 3RR and b/ you won't act to protect other editors and allow them to work. Luckily, SlimVirgin was willing to do something to help out, but frankly, if someone breaches the 3RR so badly, we expect action. Otherwise, what's the point of reporting it here? I haven't at any point asked for punitive action, merely protective action to allow other editors to work on the page without constantly being reverted. The same outcome was achieved by protecting the fork on a redirect, but as soon as the protection is lifted, wham, you're on again. James James 07:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    James, you just violated the 3RR rule on economics of fascism. And, damned right I'm going to restore economic fascism when I can do so without breaking the 3RR rule. The only reason I broke it is because I thought it didn't apply to fixing an article that was moved without consensus --so it was done in good faith. It's within my rights to move the article back. If you want to move an article you should get a consensus first. All you're doing is causing an unnecessary edit war. RJII 08:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

    Report new violation

    Place new reports ABOVE this header, using the template below. Do not edit the template itself. See the example at the top of the page for full details. Take the time to do the job right to get the quickest responses. From the article's History page, use diffs (links labelled "last"), not versions, and the "compare versions" button to clearly highlight the changes between versions of the article and show what has been reverted. 

    ===[[User:USERNAME]]===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|ARTICLENAME}}. {{User|USERNAME}}: 

* Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
* 1st revert: [DiffLink Time]
* 2nd revert: [DiffLink Time]
* 3rd revert: [DiffLink Time]
* 4th revert: [DiffLink Time]

Reported by:

'''Comments:'''
*


    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive9&oldid=33100162"