Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
TheologyJohn (talk | contribs)
1,026 edits
→‎[[User:Dr Lisboa]] reported by [[User:TheologyJohn]] (Result:): - removing my comments that are irrelevant to the topic of this page
Dr Lisboa (talk | contribs)
183 edits
Line 1,305: Line 1,305:


Dr Lisboa has stated that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&diff=118763542&oldid=118762893 this] edit does not constitute 3RR because she believes, in spite of unanimity on the talk page from all editors apart from her that this section should be removed, that those who are removing it are vandals.
Dr Lisboa has stated that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&diff=118763542&oldid=118762893 this] edit does not constitute 3RR because she believes, in spite of unanimity on the talk page from all editors apart from her that this section should be removed, that those who are removing it are vandals.

[[User:TheologyJohn]] has been breaching the very same rules that she is complaining about. She is also making false claims about the 3RR rule being breached. There have only been three reverts. The other instance was adding a paragraph that had been removed many edits before. She is also : attempting meat puppetry by trying to bring in known allies to support her, failing to support her contentions with references, failing to assume good faith whilst at the same time hypocritically claiming to others that they should, and she has been attempting to impose bias on an article. All of these are inbreach of Wikipedia guidelines. She is using this allegation as yet another means of suppressing opposing views and imposing religious bias. --[[User:Dr Lisboa|Dr Lisboa]] 13:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


==Sample violation report to copy==
==Sample violation report to copy==

Revision as of 13:46, 29 March 2007


Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.

    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

    Violations

    Please place new reports at the bottom.


    User:Miaers reported by User:PaddyM (Result: 1 Week)

    Three-revert rule violation on 2007 Big Ten Conference Men's Basketball Tournament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Miaers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments
    Miaers has been blocked before for violating WP:3RR and he seems to have not learned from that experience. It has been removed from his talk page, but here is the diff for that block. He is only interested in his POV and simply disregards debate from anyone who disagrees. Additionally, it was noted in a previous edit summary on the page that he was in violation of 3RR, but he continued his crusade. Cheers, PaddyM 01:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Touisiau reported by User:Warrens (Result: 8 hours)

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

    Comments
    User is repeatedly adding {{NPOV}} tags to this article (and its talk page, where the user re-added it after being told that it doesn't go on talk pages), but hasn't indicated any specific issues that are actual problems with the text of the article. Thanks. -/- Warren 11:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    8 hours, first violation. However, all editors involved are reminded to keep their discussion civil. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Folken de Fanel reported by User:Michaelsanders (Result: blocked 24 hrs)

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

    • Previous version reverted to: [1]
    • 1st revert: [2]
    • 2nd revert: [3]
    • 3rd revert: [4]
    • 4th revert: [5]
    • 5th revert: [6]
    • 6th revert: [7]
    Comments
    User keeps removing sourced information from the article.
    User:Michaelsanders keeps adding speculation to the article and using unreliable sources: self-published books by unknown fans, that have not been fact-checked in any way.
    User:Michaelsanders keeps ignoring a consensus that is shown by a hidden-text inside the article, adressed to Wikipedia contributors: "PLEASE DO NOT ADD SPECULATION HERE! ALL HORCRUXES MENTIONED IN H-P CANON TEXT BY DUMBLEDORE ARE ALREADY LISTED. DO NOT ADD OTHER "POSSIBLE HORCUXES" AND THEORIES UNLESS THEY ARE MENTIONED SPECIFICALLY _IN_THE_BOOKS_ OR BY ROWLING ON HER OFFICIAL WEB SITE. PERSONAL THEORIES ABOUT OTHER POSSIBLE HORCRUXES THAT HAVE NO BASIS IN THE TEXT OF THE NOVELS BELONG ON FAN WEBSITES OR FAN DISCUSSION FORUMS. SPECULATIVE THEORIES ARE NOT PART OF WIKIPEDIA! SEE THIS PAGE'S DISCUSSION AREA "
    User:Michaelsanders is artificially preventing anyone to edit his version of the article, by pretending that "no one has the right to remove sourced statements":
    Note that the "sources" used by User:Michaelsanders violate every principles of reliability established by Wikipedia
    Note that every single contributor here is free to add/delete any content, if he can justify his edits and that no edit is meant to be permanent just because it has a "source": in that case, the source is bad. Content removed, and that's all.
    User:Michaelsanders is using threats in his edit summaries [8] in order to intimidate people and to prevent them by force to make any edit to the article, thus imposing his point of view in the article.
    Please also note that User:Michaelsanders is known for constant edit warring and violation of the 3RR rule, and has already been blocked twice for such acts [9]
    He is responsible for several article protection after having created an edit war: [10]
    Please note in every single article he's touched, he has always favored reverts without any form of discussion or justifications, which prompted several users to warn him about the 3RR rule: [11]
    Folken de Fanel 14:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides, it appears User:Michaelsanders is adding unreliable sources just for the sake of provoking an edit war and for having the opportunity to report me: such behavior, of downgrading the quality of articles just to put forward personal agenda is not fit for Wikipedia.Folken de Fanel 14:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources." "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications." The book you object to is a compilation, edited by a well-known researcher in the field ("Granger has taught Harry Potter courses at Barnes and Noble University (BNU) online since 2004 to students around the world. He is a frequent guest on radio and television programs..." - go to [www.zossima.com] for more information), fact checked by the contributors, and I see no reason to consider it unreliable, given that its tagline is "Six expert Harry Potter detectives examine the evidence", rather than any grandiose claim that the authors have all the answers. Moreover, it is an accepted fact that sourced information in articles is not to be removed. Michael Sanders 15:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1) Attribution#Using_questionable_or_self-published_sources
    • " A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves.
    • "A self-published source is material that has been published by the author, or whose publisher is a vanity press, a web-hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight. Personal websites and messages either on USENET or on Internet bulletin boards are considered self-published. With self-published sources, no one stands between the author and publication; the material may not be subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert in a certain field; visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post. For that reason, self-published material is largely not acceptable. "
    "2. Professional self-published sources
    When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, a reliable source will probably have covered it; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to independent fact-checking. Self-published sources, such as personal websites and blogs, must never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP. If a third-party source has published the same or substantially similar material, that source should be used in preference to the self-published one."
    2) The author of the book is NOT well known, and the book has not been fact-checked (who could check facts about still unpublished book ? -> unreliability). The book is self-published and thus isn't a reliable source.
    3) I don't know where you got this. One thing is sure, whether sourced or not (whether you like it or not), ANY content is removable. And in this case, the content is not even reliably sourced, thus you really have nothing to say.
    4) On a final note, if you think Wikipedia is your personal blog and that you can ignore its rules and prevent people for editing your version and to apply the rules, you're seriously mistaken. Folken de Fanel 15:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Folken de Fanel reported by User:Michaelsanders (Result: Warning, already blocked)

    Three-revert rule violation on Regulus Black (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Folken de Fanel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments
    User keeps removing sourced information from the article.
    User:Michaelsanders keeps adding speculation to the article and using unreliable sources: self-published books by unknown fans, that have not been fact-checked in any way.
    User:Michaelsanders is artificially preventing anyone to edit his version of the article, by pretending that "no one has the right to remove sourced statements":
    Note that the "sources" used by User:Michaelsanders violate every principles of reliability established by Wikipedia
    Note that every single contributor here is free to add/delete any content, if he can justify his edits and that no edit is meant to be permanent just because it has a "source": in that case, the source is bad. Content removed, and that's all.
    User:Michaelsanders is using threats in his edit summaries [18] in order to intimidate people and to prevent them by force to make any edit to the article, thus imposing his point of view in the article.
    Please also note that User:Michaelsanders is known for constant edit warring and violation of the 3RR rule, and has already been blocked twice for such acts [19]
    He is responsible for several article protection after having created an edit war: [20]
    Please note in every single article he's touched, he has always favored reverts without any form of discussion or justifications, which prompted several users to warn him about the 3RR rule: [21]
    Folken de Fanel 14:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides, it appears User:Michaelsanders is adding unreliable sources just for the sake of provoking an edit war and for having the opportunity to report me: such behavior, of downgrading the quality of articles just to put forward personal agenda is not fit for Wikipedia.Folken de Fanel 14:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources." "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications." The book you object to is a compilation, edited by a well-known researcher in the field ("Granger has taught Harry Potter courses at Barnes and Noble University (BNU) online since 2004 to students around the world. He is a frequent guest on radio and television programs..." - go to [www.zossima.com] for more information), fact checked by the contributors, and I see no reason to consider it unreliable, given that its tagline is "Six expert Harry Potter detectives examine the evidence", rather than any grandiose claim that the authors have all the answers. Moreover, it is an accepted fact that sourced information in articles is not to be removed. Michael Sanders 15:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1) Attribution#Using_questionable_or_self-published_sources
    • " A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves.
    • "A self-published source is material that has been published by the author, or whose publisher is a vanity press, a web-hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight. Personal websites and messages either on USENET or on Internet bulletin boards are considered self-published. With self-published sources, no one stands between the author and publication; the material may not be subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert in a certain field; visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post. For that reason, self-published material is largely not acceptable. "
    "2. Professional self-published sources
    When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, a reliable source will probably have covered it; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to independent fact-checking. Self-published sources, such as personal websites and blogs, must never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP. If a third-party source has published the same or substantially similar material, that source should be used in preference to the self-published one."
    2) The author of the book is NOT well known, and the book has not been fact-checked (who could check facts about still unpublished book ? -> unreliability). The book is self-published and thus isn't a reliable source.
    3) I don't know where you got this. One thing is sure, whether sourced or not (whether you like it or not), ANY content is removable. And in this case, the content is not even reliably sourced, thus you really have nothing to say.
    4) On a final note, if you think Wikipedia is your personal blog and that you can ignore its rules and prevent people for editing your version and to apply the rules, you're seriously mistaken. Folken de Fanel 15:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jossi reported by User:Coppertwig (Result: 8 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jossi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • 6th revert: 12:39 23 March
      • (Deleted "What is your opinion" which had been added by David Levy at [22] 00:20 23 March)


    A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here. Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.


    Comments

    In my warning on the user's talk page, which occurred before the last 3 reverts, I also asked that the user say "revert" or an abbreviation of it in the edit summary when reverting; the user has not complied with this request. --Coppertwig 15:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    8 hours. Putting "revert" in edit summaries is not required (though helpful), but refraining from an edit war is. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jossi was unblocked because he promised to stop reverting, as his block log will show. He has broken this already, per this edit. Please keep watching.
    The 24 hours is up, so any undertaking not to revert during the block period no longer applies. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Jossi didn't agree to never revert ever again, he agreed to lay off while he would've been blocked. I'm becoming progressively more disturbed by the behavior of some users involved in that, and it's not Jossi that I mean by that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He's expressed intention to take a day away from the page here, which is fine by me; I will probably do the same. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    William M. Connolley, reported by User:zeeboid - no block

    Three-revert rule violation on Scientific data archiving. William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: This admin, who should know better, seams to get a little carried away in changing topics dispite continued discussion on the talk pages. for more examples, see User:William M. Connolley's history.--Zeeboid 16:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This report is wrong: the 16:10 edit reverts the 16:03 (as the reporter is fully aware: this is a bad faith report) hence this is only 3R William M. Connolley 17:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not so. Even if you don't include the self revert, and the revert associated with it, there are still 3 reverts on the same topic within 24 hours. 09:04 14:47 and 21:44.--Zeeboid 17:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been moved to the talk page (so as to keep it out of the main view of other, I suppose). -- Tony of Race to the Right 01:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Need others to weigh in becides Crum375. an admin who has had this problem in the past should not be given so much "freedom" with continuing to have this issue, as stated here: talk page--Zeeboid 22:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Lost cause...while people will deny it, and others have written policies and guidelines saying otherwise, the reality is that admins are above reproach, above the rules and if you dare expect them to be held accountable you may find yourself banned. This is just the latest episode in a continuing saga. -- Tony of Race to the Right 02:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • plays sad violin* he made 3 reverts, the other two are simply administrative of his own edits, they were not reverting anyone besides himself, that is allowable as much as you want. BTW I am not an admin or have any stake in the article in question. -- Stbalbach 03:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This two-day-old report is closed. As stated above, no action will be taken. No further comments should be made here. Newyorkbrad 03:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tvoz reported by User:HumanThing (Result: No violation)

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

    For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->

    There's a 7th and 8th revert.


    Not necessary as Tvoz is a very experienced editor editing nearly 5000 times.

    Comments
    <Tvoz has engaged in disruptive editing......he reverts to old wording even when multiple editors have worked out a compromise. He has done disruptive editing other times, this is just one of many, many times he has violated the 3RR rule. Furthermore, he is not polite, very hostile.>

    I don't see how most of these are reverts. If you're going to claim they're complex reverts to old versions, provide diffs for the version reverted to. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:201.81.178.200 reported by User:Wimt (Result: 24 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on Magnetic monopole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 201.81.178.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):



    Comments

    24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CovenantD reported by User:GentlemanGhost (Result: 1 week)

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

    Comments
    Four reverts to this version within a 24-hour period (today). User has been warned before. This is one piece of an ongoing edit war with User:Asgardian, who is one revert shy of 4 reverts in a 24-hour period for this same article.

    Please provide diffs of the reverts. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs now provided. Sorry, I misunderstood the instruction. --GentlemanGhost 02:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:72.209.67.107 reported by User:Patken4 on Eric Medlen.

    User keeps changing page to say person is alive, even though several media outlets state he has died. I have already reverted the page back twice and am concerned about breaking 3RR. Patken4 01:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please provide diffs of the reverts, or post at WP:ANI if the user is engaging in disruption by inserting information which is provably false. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    On a second look, this is simple vandalism. I'll warn the vandal, but reverting such vandal edits is not subject to the three-revert rule. You've got nothing to worry about. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WikiManiac64 reported by User:mckaysalisbury (Result: 24 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on Naruto: Saikyou Ninja Daikesshu 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). WikiManiac64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments

    Also, he has been ignoring warnings of "don't make this edit, see the talk page", but he has a tendency to ignore the talk page. McKay 07:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Imdanumber1 reported by User:NE2 (Result: 10 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on B Division (New York City Subway) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments

    Imdanumber1 has taken to reverting all my changes to the article - not just the ones he disputes - to prevent me from using standard links and removing overlinking. --NE2 14:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The timestamps are off by a few hours, would you mind fixing them? John Reaves (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I get when I look in the history; presumably you want GMT stamps? How do I get those? --NE2 14:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, UTC (or are they the same?). I can tell it's within 24 hours regardless, so I'm blocking for 10 hours (first offense). John Reaves (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:KazakhPol reported by User:TheColdTruth (Result: no violation)

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



    Comments: KazkahPol has a long history of 3RR and has been blocked more than 5 times. He is known for being in numerous edit wars, tag team reverts and uncivil behavior.

    • The user has not yet violated WP:3RR because there are not yet four reverts within 24 hours nor is there any severely disruptive behavior. Also, only two reverts were made in a 24-hour period, not 3. Nishkid64 23:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tr1ckydr1v3r reported by User:Dreaded Walrus (Result: Warning)

    Three-revert rule violation on Jack Thompson (attorney) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views),. Tr1ckydr1v3r (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [29]
    Comments
    While there have only been three reverts on that particular article, user has also added uncited, unencyclopedic POV to History of E³ ([30]), with 3 reverts ([31], [32], [33]), and GameSpot ([34]), with 3 reverts ([35], [36],[37]). User does not seem willing to provide reasoning, as all edit summaries have been blank, despite other users using edit summaries explaining why the material is not suitable. --Dreaded Walrus 01:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User has not violated 3RR, but warned for WP:BLP. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Larry Dunn reported by User:The Behnam (Result: Page protected)

    Three-revert rule violation on Template:Sassanid Empire infobox (edit | [[Talk:Template:Sassanid Empire infobox|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Larry Dunn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments
    This is a case of WP:GAME. We were both active in the final minutes of the 24hr period, but he waited until exactly 1 minute after the period to do his final revert. The Behnam 02:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Page has already been protected by Sarah. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:217.235.234.61 reported by User:asams10 (Result: 24 hours each)

    Three-revert rule violation on Sturmgewehr 44 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 217.235.234.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [38]
    Comments
    Users reverted an edit of mine to his previous version. This was then reverted by another user. Since, this user has repeatedly ignored my warnings and left a sarcastic message to do something about it on his last revert.--Asams10 05:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Some more information from the other side:
    - I changed the article and included the reason for my change in my edit summary; Asams10 OTOH never did so much as hinted at why he didn't like the change.
    - My request at his userpage to add his reason was blankly reverted as PA (what he called "sarcastic").
    - The other user's change was not the one Asams10 did.
    - Asams10 is lying about my last revert message: "So have you [violated 3RR], now what? Again, I have stated my reasons for the change, you haven't. If you have something to add beyond disrupting Wikipedia, feel free to do so."
    - Asams10 broke 3RR on this very article. Since he denied doing so in my /Talk, here they are:

    [39] [40] [41] [42] --217.235.234.61

    Please provide diffs of the four reverts. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Violations were:

    Both editors violated 3RR, 24 hours each. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Dreftymac reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Warning)

    Three-revert rule violation on 9/11_conspiracy_theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dreftymac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments
    There are a number of other additions of unsourced information in the caption; if any others were in there previously, there would be additional reverts to report.

    4 is a pretty technical "revert", and seems to be more toward being an attempt to resolve the matter. It also doesn't appear to be contentious. Will warn the user to lay off the edit warring. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:James Nicol reported by User:SethTisue (Result: Blocked for 24h)

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

    Comments
    User is attempting to undo weeks (months?) of work on the article by multiple users by substituting various early versions of the article for the current version. Note all but the first of the reverts I've listed involving replacing the entire page. I have attempted to undo the damage myself but I have now reached the WP:3RR limit myself. Note that users User:Deor and User:CXII have also attempted to undo the damage.

    User:Blue Tie reported by William M. Connolley (Result: No violation page protected)

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


    No warning: has been warned before on his talk, and considers himself experienced [45]

    4 is not a revert that I can see, but all parties involved are cautioned to use discussion and if necessary dispute resolution rather than an edit war. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Now I'm puzzled. #4 restores the same Pov-check template that #3 restored. Why isn't that a revert? William M. Connolley 08:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    <stupid>That would be my fault, the two are effectively the same.</stupid> Looks like the page is protected now anyway, so Blue Tie, consider that a lucky dodge and a warning. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've corrected the result following the discussion William M. Connolley 11:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Seraphimblade, hello. I apparently did not understand the 3rr rule. I thought that the rule was that you should not revert against one person or one passage or concept. I did not realize that it applied to any point in the article and all editors. But I see the rule is very clear: "An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted." I will be more thoughtful in the future. But, I do not want to "skate by" the rules on a technicality. If I could have done so, I would self revert, but that is not open to me. So, I think I should be blocked. I have no problem with abiding by the rules and it seems right to me. My only defense is not much of one: I was ignorant! I do not want a pass on a technicality. I would expect the 24 hours to be up on 08:52 27 March 2007.
    However, before it is enacted, I also apologize here and on the talk page. I will also apologize to the specific individuals reverted above.
    One last note though. I do not believe that I was "warned" as described above. I was ordered to tag my changes in a certain way, which I did not agree with. That is not quite the same thing as a warning on 3rr, which would have been appreciated, particularly if it had caused me to understand the policy better!--Blue Tie 13:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You weren't warned: you don't need a warning, because you explicitly stated you considered yourself experienced in the context of reverting, and because you already have a 3RR warning on your talk page William M. Connolley 13:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your sentiments, but 3RR blocks are imposed to prevent and stop edit wars, not to punish people, so imposing a block two days later after the user has got the message, as you have, and after a timely block would have already expired, is not necessary. At most, you can voluntarily refrain for 24 hours from editing the specific page in question. Newyorkbrad 13:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:209.218.163.2 reported by User:Yakuman (Result: 24 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on Paul McKenna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 209.218.163.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Each revert listed is the end of a series of multiple partial reverts.

    User blocked 24 hours by Crazycomputers. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Replay7 reported by User:Kieff (Result: 24 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on Paint (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Replay7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments
    User is trying to promote his image Image:Drawing_Replay.PNG on the article. The excuse given is "No need to use Windows Vista Paint as the first image. It's already on the page under "Versions"", which is clearly nonsense. The user is already aware of this rule. — Kieff | Talk 21:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24 hours, attacks in addition to 3RR. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Khoikhoi reported by User:Yaanch (Result: No violation)

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

    Comments
    This administrator reverted Armenia eight times over a section and whether to use BC or BCE. Shouldn't an admin know better than that? I think so.. YaanchSpeak! 22:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Obvious case of sockpuppetry. No violation of WP:3RR. KazakhPol 22:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand. Just because he was reverting edits from sockpuppets means he free to go? The sockpuppets are obviously one person. So what it all comes down to is 1 editor vs. 1 editor. If he was edit warring with (lets just say) User:Example, would he of been reprimanded because it wasn't sockpuppets? Khoikhoi should of gone to the talkpage.

    The sockpuppetry here rises to the level of obvious and blatant vandalism. No violation. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I disagree. The sockpuppets were trying to add "legit" contributions. Even if it was an edit war, it was not obvious and blatant vandalism. Sockpuppty is not vandalism, its against policy. Just because vandalism and sockpupptry are both against policy doesn't mean sockpupptry equals vandalism. YaanchSpeak! 23:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The sockpuppets are operated by a banned user, User:Ararat arev. A banned user's contributions may be reverted on-sight, regardless of perceived validity, and this is not subject to the 3RR. This user isn't allowed to be editing in the first place. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Im sorry if i seem annoying, but how can one tell that the sockpuppets are of User:Ararat arev?YaanchSpeak! 23:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Because he admitted it here and here. Khoikhoi 23:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, from Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Exceptions: "Reverting actions performed by banned users." Khoikhoi 23:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yeah, i understand that completely. But have the sockpuppets been proven to be of User:Ararat arev?YaanchSpeak! 23:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, through IP and behavioral evidence, and the fact that he admitted it. Khoikhoi 23:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, ok. Its cool. My mistake. YaanchSpeak! 23:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:KazakhPol reported by User:cs (Result: 24 hours each)

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

    • Previous version reverted to: [54]
    • 1st revert 00:26: [55]
    • 2nd revert 00:37: [56]
    • 3rd revert 00:40: [57]
    • 4th revert 00:44: [58]
    • 5th revert 00:52: [59]
    • 6th revert 01:18: [60]
    • 7th revert 01:50 [61]
    Comments

    I am not a vandal as his rvv's indicate, User:KazakhPol keeps reverting my edits. He is also edit warring Andijan Massacre Each revert listed is the end of a series of multiple partial reverts.

    Blatant vandalism by Cs. He himself has reverted to his vandalized version of the page over eight times, each time using a deceptive edit summary to mask his reversion. He recently tried to have me blocked on Andijan massacre, reporting a false 3RR report under a sockpuppet. The report was ignored. If you look at his edit summaries on ETLO and East Turkestan Islamic Movement you will see he is knowingly removing categories and content inappropriately. KazakhPol 22:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont have a sockpuppet. I kindly ask an administrator to check if I had any. I am not a vandal, all my edits fall within legitimate Wikipedia quidelinescs 22:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He is continuing to revert to his vandalized version using false edit summaries, such as "rewording" or "fixing" when he reverts. KazakhPol 22:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Both of you are engaged in a disruptive edit war, please take 24 hours to cool off and seek dispute resolution. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:KimDabelsteinPetersen reported by User:UBeR (Result: Page protected - no violation)

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


    Comments

    I'm sorry? These are two blocks of edits - i cut them in part so that the edit-summary describes each one - specifically because the subject is controversial. Is there some technicality in 3RR that i do not understand? --Kim D. Petersen 00:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Page has been protected, which I was just about to do myself. Seek dispute resolution, please. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Seraphimblade - could you please comment on the above? I know the page has been protected - but i'm in a state of confusion here - i stopped editing the moment i noticed the 3RR warning - and have been trying to get UBeR to describe exactly how i'm violating 3RR (on my talk page). A protection is all fine and well - but does not explain what technicality i've apparently violated ... --Kim D. Petersen 00:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You have reverted six times a neutral page so that it fits your POV. This is 3RR, not 6RR. ~ UBeR 00:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, I quit looking as soon as I saw the page protection (and was going to protect it myself due to the massive edit warring anyway). There's no need to block someone to prevent an edit war on a page that's already protected. If you'd like, though, I can have a closer look and tell you how I would have seen it on your talk. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do so - especially because UBeR is now escalating this to 6RR. And he doesn't seem to want to elaborate. --Kim D. Petersen 00:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've corrected this to no violation, based on Sb's responses on KBP's talk William M. Connolley 10:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ChrisO reported by User:Jaakobou (Result:no vio)

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


    Comments

    user has been warned allready for "taking the page hostage" [69] (after an AfD discussion - he nominated[70] - and voting on it had ended) and for multiple reverting [71] and also warned for (28 reverts/deteltions in past 14 days feb25 to mar11).

    Heimstern Läufer, did you go over the 'comments' section??? don't make me lose belief in the wiki system on treating repeated offenders.

    Even if he is a repeat offender, he hasn't violated 3RR this time. If he hasn't violated 3RR, then there is no violation. Nishkid64 14:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Corticopia reported by User:AlexCovarrubias (Result: 24 hours each)

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

    • Previous version reverted to: [72], difference [73]
    • 1st revert: [74] 15:47, 25 March 2007
    • 2nd revert: [75] 16:04, 25 March 2007
    • 3rd revert: [76] 21:17, 25 March 2007
    • 4th revert: [77] 21:37, 25 March 2007


    Comments

    User has already been reported for 3RR events on this same article (Continent) 2 days ago [78], and was warned by administrator Nishkid64 [79], on March 23 as a result of that report. User Corticopia has been reported several times in the past, 2 of them leading to edit blocks for this account, on January and February 2007.

    Both violated 3RR, 24 hours each. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Deathrocker reported by User:Ceoil

    User:Deathrocker is currently on 3rr probation, which he has just violated on Heavy metal music. Diffs: one, two. Personal attacks included in edit summarys. Editor was recently blocked for similar behaviour on the same page. Ceoil 11:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed simple vandalism by user:Ceoil who purposly attacked my edits to the article[80], blanking information which has seven sources, including ones from Allmusic.com and Rolling Stone. Ceoil stalked me to this article and defaced my work, because he has a grudge against me, as I corrected templates on some images he uploaded a few weeks back. (for example) I find his obsesive behaviour in regards to sitting around refreshing my contributions page every minute of the day, rather worrying... since leaving this message, Ceoil has now followed me to other users pages I left a message on. Scary. - Deathrocker 11:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My edits to the article predate his template corrections. Re:"stalked me", the user has now made four WP:PA in the last half hour. Deathrocker's habit is to go through the log files of users he has a content dispute with, and dispute templates. Ceoil 11:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a simple case of 3RR... I suggest talking it to WP:ANI. --Deskana (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:mrholybrain 3RR violation

    User:mrholybrain has maliciously reverted edits made to the user page of this computer on more than three occasions this morning, although it has been established here that he has absolutely no right whatsoever to interfere with other people's talk pages. He is out of control, please help. 163.167.129.124 10:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If you do not follow the given format, it is unlikely that your report will be actioned upon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by --Deskana (talk • contribs) 11:36, 26 March, 2007 (UTC).

    User:mrholybrain reported by User:163.167.129.124 (Result: Warning)

    Three-revert rule violation on User talk:163.167.129.124 (edit | [[Talk:User talk:163.167.129.124|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). mrholybrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    163.167.129.124 12:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This IP does not listen to any message I leave on his talk page, preferring simply blanking it to engaging in rational debate. He has not cited any policy to back up his talk page blanking. He refuses to listen to any messages that criticize him. mrholybrain's talk 12:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is ridiculous. Please see here and here. I do not wish to engage any further with this user, he is harassing me and clearly in breach of the 3RR.

    163.167.129.124 12:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If you will look here, you will see the reasons I gave for reverting the talk page. He is just giving the arguments of a few editors. I have cited policies and guidelines; he has not. mrholybrain's talk 12:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (Copy of message posted on user_talk:mrholybrain): I suggest you actually read the policies you are referring to. Firstly, I have not got any "warnings" to remove and secondly "archiving of one's own user talk page is not required. A user may simply delete any comments they have read, whether they have acted on them or not." I personally don't give a monkey's what is displayed on the page (although the point is they do not refer to me as this is not my own computer), I just WILL NOT be bullied and harassed by you. I intend to pursue this matter as a breach of the 3RR and do not wish to have any further communication with you. For the last time of asking, please leave me alone. 163.167.129.124 10:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you would read the next sentence of WP:ARCHIVE, you would see that it says that there is an exception for warnings of abuse on IP talk pages. And parctically all the messages on your talk page are warnings of abuse. mrholybrain's talk 11:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No they were not and this discussion refers specifically to messages left by user:mrholybrain on 23rd March, deleted by myself on 23rd March, reverted by user:mrholybrain six times on the 23rd March, deleted by myself on the 26th March and subsequently reverted four times by user:mrholybrain within half an hour. 163.167.129.124 11:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you wanted this discussion to refer specifically to that, you should not have posted here that message from my talk page. mrholybrain's talk 11:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was replying to your preceeding comment (posted here) for the benefit of the administrators. 163.167.129.124 12:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a pretty common mistake to make that users may not remove warnings from their talk page, and it used to be so. It's not anymore, though. If a user removes warnings and you need to report them for disruption, just note in the report that they were warned and removed it. They'll be presumed to have seen it in that case anyway. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I have not seen any policy that allows editors to remove warnings from their talk pages. mrholybrain's talk 15:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Artaxiad reported by User:Grandmaster (Result: Page protected)

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

    Artaxiad has violated the 1RR injunction issued in the ArbCom case he is a party to [81] by making 2 reverts in less than 24 hrs.


    Comments

    Page already protected by Azatoth. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, but are users allowed to violate the injunction? Grandmaster 07:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course not. But we block for prevention, not to punish. If the edit war has already been stopped by protection, there's no need to block as well. The ArbCom will ultimately deal with violations. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thanks. Grandmaster 07:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gun Powder Ma reported by User:Eiorgiomugini (Result:24h each)

    Three-revert rule violation on Ye Xian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [82] 13:57, 26 March 2007
    • 1st revert: [83] 14:04, 26 March 2007
    • 2nd revert: [84] 14:18, 26 March 2007
    • 3rd revert: [85] 15:25, 26 March 2007
    • 4th revert: [86] 16:10, 26 March 2007
    • 5th revert: [87]
    Comments

    User Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) failed to provided his sources for the first five edits, and insisted his right about changing, plus he had changed several of the sourced matarial with added commentaries, and I reverted it. The user mentioned here had violated the 3RR rule. And had just made his personal attack on the talk page [88] Eiorgiomugini 16:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24h for Gun Powder for breaking 3RR and personal attacks. The same for Eiorgio for yet another 3RR violation. Please try to play by the rules, even if the others don't. Thanks. yandman 16:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Marskell reported by User:Coppertwig (Result: Page protected)

    Three-revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Marskell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • 1st revert: 22:04 25 March 2007
      • Deleted, with edit summary "and more stupidity" the following text: "Details on votes between Yes and No are especially welcome" which had been added by Pmanderson at 19:52 25 March 2007 (12 minutes earlier).
    • 2nd revert: 22:06 25 March
      • Deleted "WP:ATT is not everywhere verbally identical with its sources. Its supporters assert it makes no changes in policy, but is better phrased." which had been added by user Pmanderson at 15:05 (about 7 hours earlier).
    • 3rd revert: 15:58 26 March
      • Deleted "or "conditional yes"" which was added by ArmedBlowfish at 18:42 25 March (about 21 hours earlier).
    • 4th revert: 18:08 26 March
      • Restored the phrase "Do you agree in principle..." which is highly contentious on the talk page and has been deleted and re-restored many times by various users; it had just been deleted by DennyColt at 17:55 26 March, 13 minutes earlier.
    • 5th revert: 18:15 26 March
      • Again restored the phrase "Do you agree in principle..."


    A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

    -->

    Comments

    It's important that this policy poll development page not be overly dominated by any one user. --Coppertwig 19:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I welcome the feedback. Indeed, policy development shouldn't be highjacked by one user. Marskell 20:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear about one thing I did respond to the "warning," (or was that trolling?) here. Marskell 20:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate SlimVirgin's impartiality in recusing here (i.e. merely commenting). SlimVirgin is not a disinterested party here, having reverted (restored) the same "agree in principle" wording that Marskell twice restored: [89]
    • For the 5th revert, I think I gave a diff of two edits by the same user. If you look at the first of the two, in which the words "in principle" were actually restored, 18:11 26 March, the edit summary is "no, not better. plz stop for one minute", which doesn't sound to me like the sort of edit summary one usually puts when in agreement with the person whose change in wording one is reverting for a second time, as Marskell alleges. --Coppertwig 21:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In situations such as this, it's common for wording to be added and removed as different users experiment with various combinations. This might technically mean that these individuals are "reverting" certain elements to earlier states, but that isn't tantamount to edit-warring (which is what the 3RR is intended to prevent). People (including me, as I've been active on that page) should be able to contribute in good faith without worrying about being busted on a technicality. This report may be well-intentioned, but it definitely isn't justified. I urge an uninvolved admin to dismiss it. —David Levy 21:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a mere technicality. If others are being careful not to violate 3RR, then those who do are enjoying an unfair amount of control over the page. Experimenting with combinations can be carried out on the talk page. --Coppertwig 21:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a mere technicality, and no one should have to worry about technically violating a rule that was never intended to apply to a particular situation. The spirit of the 3RR is violated when someone persistently edit-wars, and that isn't what Marskell has done. Furthermore, I don't know what outcome you're expecting. A block? Blocks are not punitive. They're used to halt disruptive or otherwise harmful behavior, and Marskell is engaged in none. —David Levy 21:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why thank you David. And you'd actually have to look hard to find the technicality in this case. Two of the edits were actually deliberately intended to address others concerns, not revert them. With Denny, it was maintenance: he was inserting commentary into the questions. Marskell 21:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not clear what the good intentions were. Coppertwig has been posting about precious little else but ATT for days on various pages, has opened up disputes about tags, about protection, about the truth issue, about the other policy pages, about notifications, about the "in principle" question, about reverting, and has now reported two very good editors for 3RR. The result is that a lot of sensible people are staying away from those pages, when it's input from sensible people we need. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Where? KillerChihuahua?!? 23:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    CopperTwig asked me to comment here. My initial edit on the polll page was honestly what seemed (naively I guess) an attempt to just streamline and "get it done". When my edits were refactored really by Marskell (not really reverted) as he showed in the diff above I was agreeable with it and I still am, I didn't consider it an aggressive revert or I might have... pursued it further. Like I told him on the talk page: ok, works for me. FWIW, I don't care for "in principle" to appear on the poll, and prefer cut and dried situations, but I am fine with the inclusion of the special note (that is what compromise and teamwork is all about). I wouldn't block for 3rr or even warn here, myself... - Denny 22:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Denny; I figured we were both at ease on this one. Marskell 22:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, 5x5. - Denny 22:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment by user Marskell may show something about how the user feels about the 3RR rule. --Coppertwig 23:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, where? He is commenting on maintenence, which is the refactoring of Denny's edit which Denny has already, several times, stated he does not consider a problem nor was it a revert. This is going beyond reporting a percieved 3RR, this is becoming disruptive. You have reported; this is not 3RR; please cease trying to discredit Marskell by posting links to his comments elsewhere. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you knock it off, Copper? This is getting sort of old. Bucking an overwhelming sea of concensus at every turn... is just generating needless drama and hostility and wasted time for everyone. - Denny 01:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If I report myself for 3RR violation, can we stop talking about blocking people and do something else, like protect the page? I don't think blocking anyone is going to help us reach a consensus on what the poll should say. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've protected the page. Please, work this out, it shouldn't stay protected for too long. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks! : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kevin j reported by user:Gretnagod (Result: 24 hours)

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

    User:Pirveli reported by User:Khoikhoi (Result: 31 hours)

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

    Comments

    Not a new user, see block log. Khoikhoi 00:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Zereshk reported by User:The Behnam (Result: 24 hours)

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

    Comments
    Zereshk has been continuously edit-warring over the picture. The Behnam 01:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He also gave me this warning [90], suggesting that he is a new editor who needs a preliminary warning. This is odd considering he has been editing since Dec. 2004 and has over 18000 edits on English WP. The Behnam 01:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The Behnam reported by User:Nightryder84 (Result: no violation)

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

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

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


    Comments
    The first revert was about Sharpton’s involvement with the FBI. The second three all constitute different ways of removing text from the New York Post, a source User: Jiffypopmetaltop does not want in the article, or else wants in some different form. User also has a history of POV-pushing on the article, and a fairly nasty tone as well. I also want to make it clear; I try to hold myself to 2rr in almost all situations. The only reason that didn't happen here was that Jiffypopmetaltop agreed to a compromise version which I implemented, then reverted out the part he'd been reverting out before. See this thread.
    Possibly, but Jiffy has not made that argument at all (and it's a losing one, anyway, IMO: this meets BLP easily). Jiffy doesn't like the source, or the way it is presented. Love him or hate him, Sharpton has built his reputation on controversy. If we took all that stuff out, there would be no article--almost literally. IronDuke 03:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The first revert was to remove material which clearly violates WP:BLP and was poorly sourced. No violation. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    <<Shrugging>> Okay. But that part did have good sources, and good easily have been made NPOV: see here [94]. Oh, well. IronDuke 03:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JonGwynne reported by Guettarda (Result: 24 hours)

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

    Comments

    JonGwynne (talk · contribs) is limited to one revert per 24-hour period on articles related to global warming (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/JonGwynne#Revert_limitation). "[V]iolations shall be interpreted as violations of the three revert rule". Guettarda 05:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DCGeist reported by User:Zosimus Comes (Result: 8 hours)

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

    Zosimus Comes 11:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please provide diffs, not oldids. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry about the error. I've corrected it to the Diffs.Zosimus Comes 17:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    8 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like he is changing IP's User:216.194.0.59 now in order to get pass the 3 revert rule:

    Zosimus Comes 04:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Martinphi reported by User:Minderbinder (Result: 8 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments
    2 through 4 are unquestionable reverts, the first is to an earlier version and has new deletions in addition to the revert (so it's not an exact revert), but it repeats the deletions made earlier. The editor even admits that he has made the same deletion before [95] and [96]. Let me know if the first isn't illustrated clearly enough. --Minderbinder 15:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    1 is a partial. First block for 3RR, 8 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just throwing this (& [97]) out there. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides a couple earlier violations that admins let slide, there's also an open sock/meatpuppet case in which he used a meatpuppet to avoid 3RR sanctions on two different articles: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Martinphi. --Minderbinder 17:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.112.7.212 reported by User:arcayne (Result: 24 hours)

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

    These are all the same revert, seeking inclusion of uncited, non RS and deleterious material into the biography of a living person. As per BLP, it has been removed each time by different editors, only to be added yet again by the accused. He had been suspected of sock-puppetry in the past, and there is evidence that the reverts are POV-based. The accused has been warned n both the article's discussion page as well as their own page. Arcayne 17:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24 hours for WP:BLP as well as WP:3RR. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Brian0324 reported by User:Dr Lisboa

    On the Jesus article there is a section on the different religions viewpoints of Jesus. User:Brian0324 who cofesses to being on Wikipedia to promote Protestant Christianity keeps wiping out the atheist view of Jesus solely because he doesn't like the atheistic view of Jesus. He claims to be summarizing the atheist views, but actually deletes virtually all of it gives his view of the atheist view despite not even being an atheist. HE is already on 3 reverts. --Dr Lisboa 20:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Forget it. He's given up with the article altogether. --Dr Lisboa 20:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:NickSparrow reported by User:McPhail (Result: user warned)

    Three-revert rule violation on Total Nonstop Action Wrestling roster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). NickSparrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Five reverts of the article Total Nonstop Action Wrestling roster within 24 hours. Explanations include "very confusing", "no one agrees on the changes you have made" (although there is no evidence that this was the consensus of anyone other than NickSparrow) and "Revert back, no need for so many categories, good as is!".

    In addition, NickSparrow has reverted the page World Wrestling Entertainment roster on more than three occasions within 24 hours. [103]. I would suggest that WP:OWN is relevant here. McPhail 20:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MarkThomas reported by User:Vision_Thing (Result: 31 hours)

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

    Comments
    User:Vision_Thing was not being reverted but he started this evening's chain of events on Nazism. There has been an extensive discussion on the talk page and a consensus was reached that no further mention would be made of "Finance Capitalism" in the Lead section, which I was defending, both against VisionThing and User:Billy Ego. Admittedly this resulted in excess reverts but I was defending a key page on WP against repeated POV which (almost) all other editors have denounced. Note also that this 3RR request came from Vision Thing and not Billy Ego, despite repeated statements on my own talk page from Billy Ego that he would report me, and numerous edits by him in previous attacks on the page that have resulted in him being blocked several times; doubtless this is why VisionThing is being used to place the 3RR report! MarkThomas 20:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    209.218.163.2 reported by Yakuman (Result: Incomplete)

    Three-revert rule violation on Richard Bandler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 209.218.163.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    User was 3RR blocked earlier this week on Paul McKenna.

    Please provide diffs, not oldids. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    209.218.163.2 reported by Yakuman (Result:48 hours )

    Three-revert rule violation on Richard Bandler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 209.218.163.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [105]

    Second try:

    User was 3RR blocked earlier this week on Paul McKenna. IP address seems to be a hotel.

    48 hours. John Reaves (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Baristarim reported by User:Mardavich (Result:No vio)

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

    Comments

    Not a new user, see block log. --Mardavich 05:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I only see three reverts, the last looks to be a correction of the third edit. John Reaves (talk) 05:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In the last edit he undid the edit made by AtilimGunesBaydin, which was the 67.5 figure. From Help:Reverting: "To revert is to undo all changes made to an article page after a specific time in the past." Also WP:3RR states, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." --Mardavich 05:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AncientEyes reported by User:Gerry Ashton (Result: 24 hours)

    User:AncientEyes appears to have violated of the 3RR rule at the Common Era article.

    1. 19:50, 27 March 2007 Reintroduce identical version of passage that probably contains original research [106]
    2. 22:31, 27 March 2007 Reintroduce the passage again [107]
    3. 03:15, 28 March 2007 Third reintroduction [108]
    4. 05:11, 28 March 2007 Fourth reintroduction [109]

    A warning [110] was applied to the user's talk page at 01:56, 28 March 2007 by User:Humus sapiens. --Gerry Ashton 05:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:58.187.131.24 reported by User:Badagnani (Result: Incomplete)

    3RR for multiple (5 in one 24-hour period) reverts, blanking text at Northern and southern Vietnam. Possibly requires warning as s/he may be a new user, but s/he is unwilling to use discussion before engaging in blanking, though s/he has been asked several times in edit summaries. Badagnani 10:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please provide diffs of the reverts. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:75.3.41.234 reported by User:QuizzicalBee (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Category:Abortion (edit | [[Talk:Category:Abortion|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 75.3.41.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments

    User:Giovanni Giove reported by User:AjdemiPopushi (Result:48 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on Republic of Ragusa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Giovanni Giove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments
    User is revert-warring. If you look at his contributions [116] you will see that he is currently revert-warring on several other articles and if you take an even closer look you will see that this user has been rever-warring for most of his time on Wikipedia and most of his contributions are malicious bad faith dirupstions. --AjdemiPopushi 14:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    48 hour block.Rlevse 01:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bwallace07 reported by User:Hrafn42 (Result:page protection)

    Three-revert rule violation on David Barton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bwallace07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments
    User has been warned for reverting before (notice on user-talk page). User is revert warring and has explicitly refused to discuss differences: user's last revert has edit-summary: "(POV - talking with profoundly prejudiced individuals is rarely productive)" and user has not made a single post to the article's talk page. Hrafn42 17:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Checking back further through the article-history, Bwallace07's 'contributions' seem to entirely consist of reverting the article back to a form that is nearly identical to the one he is currently reverting to (Attenuator show a similar pattern, but less frequently). Hrafn42 18:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC) [EDIT: replaced 'oldids' with 'difs'] Hrafn42 18:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    page protection, both seem to reverting the other.Rlevse 01:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Crculver reported by User:FunkyFly (Result:Blocked 1 week)

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

    Comments

    Billy Ego reported by El_C (Result: 24h)

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

    Warning: [117], and dismissal of warning. [118].

    Comments
    Blocked for twenty-four hours. Jkelly 20:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Darwinek reported by User:mt7 (Result: Warnings and page-bans)

    at page Tamas Priskin

    all revert from me exception Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, no actuall and appropriate sources rv is always possible --Mt7 20:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is unacceptable behavior from both of you, particularly in light of the pending arbitration case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Darwinek. The BLP exception to 3RR does not apply because the information cannot reasonably be considered controversial, negative, or defamatory, but is purely a categorization issue. I do not want to block either of you because your participation may be needed in the arbitration case, but Darwinek and Mt7 are banned from Tamas Priskin for 48 hours. Newyorkbrad 20:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Artaxiad reported by Atabek (Result: use a different page)

    User:Artaxiad violated the temporary revert parole issued in the ArbCom case [125], which says:

    • each content revert must be accompanied by a justification on the relevant talk page.

    User:Artaxiad has reverted the article Karabakh only leaving the word "rv" in explanation of edit, and no justification provided on the talk page.Atabek 20:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    User:Laertes d reported by User:Domitius (Result: 3 days)

    Three-revert rule violation on Greek War of Independence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Laertes d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments
    • User knows about the 3RR and has been blocked for violating it before on this same article. There may have been more reverts but as you can see, the article is highly edited at the moment so it's hard to work out. That's why I have only listed the reverts where he actually admits to reverting in the edit summary.--Domitius 22:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:William M. Connolley reported by User:UBeR (Result:No action)

    Three-revert rule violation on History of the Yosemite area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments

    Given the disruptiveness of his vandalism at History of the Yosemite area, and that he obviously hasn't breached the 3 revers in 24 hour rule, I suggest the following rule be applied: "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an 'electric fence'. Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." It clears he's not willing to quit either. His edit summaries of "stupid tag" is quite evident that he's not doing so on the basis of any policy. Last I checked, "stupid tag" was not a valid reason to remove them. Despite having discussed this on the talk page and warning him on his talk page, he thinks it prudent to continue this edit war. I reckon not necessarily making more than 3 reverts per day is still grounds for a block to allow a cool off for 24 hours. I suggest that. ~ UBeR 22:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It will be for an admin to decide, but if the strict application of the 24 hour period is waived, then the history of the article shows that UBeR has similarly made the same number of reverts over roughly the same period as William M. Connolley. The rule for three revert rule enforcement is to be fair to both sides if they have behaved the same way, as I paraphrase it from the top of this page. Sam Blacketer 23:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. --Deskana (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was reverting William's vandalism of removing the template on the basis of "stupid." I did not begin by reverting any edit. I was simply reverting back the vandalism to the last good faith edit. His breach of policy is clear. Also note Deskana is trying to engage in this edit war. ~ UBeR 23:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Vandalism != disagrees with you. --Deskana (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice straw man. Removing bona fide and applicable templates repeatedly = vandalism. ~ UBeR 23:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not if the person doesn't think they're applicable. You're the only person sofar who thinks they're applicable: me and WMC both think theyd don't belong there, and El_C thinks readding it is borderline vandalism. Give up, please. I don't want to edit war with you. --Deskana (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To give some context: The article is a featured article, and a historical overview largely based on a number of similar overviews cited in the references section. While the number of inline references is limited, the article seems adequately referenced. UBeR now seems to apply a standard that requires an individual inline reference for every statement made. He repeatedly applied a {{unreferenced|article|date=March 2007}} tag that William removed. The back-story is a conflict about the degree of referencing necessary in the global warming and related articles. In a related discussion, William used the article in question as an example for the standard of referencing applies in other featured articled. UBeR promptly went there and added the tag in what to me very much looks like a classical WP:POINT maneuver. --Stephan Schulz 23:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're backwards. It's nice to state it like I'm readding a removed template than it is to state it correctly: William is removing a bona fide template. The problem isn't about a section of citations. Every article should have one. The problem is attributing them. Just look at the policy: "Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the [citation needed] template, or tag the article by adding {{not verified}} or {{unsourced}}. Leave a note on the talk page or edit summary explaining what you have done.[1]" Instead of removing referenced statements, or making a mess with {{fact}}, I'm adding a template at the top so as to alert readers and editors alike--the more sensible thing to do. This isn't about points (he was suggesting that I would tag up the entire article with {{fact}} tags anyway), but rather policy that even administrators are failing to abide by. ~ UBeR 23:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SamEV reported by User:Jersey Devil (Result:48 hrs)

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

    Comments
    The user has already been blocked once on for edit warring on the same article as recently as March 19. [126] so he is aware of the 3rr policy.--Jersey Devil 03:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Aivazovsky reported by User:AdilBaguirov (Result:)

    user:Aivazovsky is part of the ArbCom [127] but despite the 1RR injunction that mandates leaving Talk page comments for all reverts and changes, has modified the Qazakh page (History of the page [128]) without leaving proper edit summary and more importantly, any comments on the Talk pages. The appropriate diff is:

    Comment: admin Thatcher asked to place these violations reports here for faster response as opposed to ArbCom page. --adil 05:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you show what this was a revert to? I can't see it. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    aren't parties to Arbcom supposed to discuss all major changes on Talk page, not just partial or full reverts? He archived the Talk page of the Qazakh article, thus cleaning it completely, and then added one of the proposed wordings to the article, without explaining it in the Talk page. Since that wording (or compromise version, as he says) was not authored by him, but another user whilst the page was locked, isn't this considered a partial revert? --adil 07:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dr Lisboa reported by User:TheologyJohn (Result:)

    Dr Lisboa has stated that this edit does not constitute 3RR because she believes, in spite of unanimity on the talk page from all editors apart from her that this section should be removed, that those who are removing it are vandals.

    User:TheologyJohn has been breaching the very same rules that she is complaining about. She is also making false claims about the 3RR rule being breached. There have only been three reverts. The other instance was adding a paragraph that had been removed many edits before. She is also : attempting meat puppetry by trying to bring in known allies to support her, failing to support her contentions with references, failing to assume good faith whilst at the same time hypocritically claiming to others that they should, and she has been attempting to impose bias on an article. All of these are inbreach of Wikipedia guidelines. She is using this allegation as yet another means of suppressing opposing views and imposing religious bias. --Dr Lisboa 13:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sample violation report to copy

    
===[[User:NAME_OF_USER]] reported by [[User:YOUR_NAME]] (Result:)===

[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{3RRV|VIOLATOR_USERNAME}}:

* Previous version reverted to:  [http://VersionLink VersionTime]
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 2nd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 3rd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 4th revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
-->

;Comments: <!-- Optional -->


    Note on completing a 3RR report:

    • Copy the template above, the text within but not including <pre>...</pre>
    • Replace http://DIFFS with a link to the diff and the DIFFTIME with the timestamp
    • We need to know that there are at least four reverts. List them, and replace http://VersionLink with a link to the version that the first revert reverted to. If the reverts are subtle or different, please provide an explanation of why they are all reverts. Even if the reverts are straightforward, it's helpful to point out the words or sentences being reverted.
    • Warnings are a good idea but not obligatory
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=118774554"