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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Smee (talk | contribs)
28,728 edits
Justanother (talk | contribs)
9,266 edits
Line 1,490: Line 1,490:
:(EC) And trying to flip this on its ear and make it about me. --[[User:Justanother|Justanother]] 18:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
:(EC) And trying to flip this on its ear and make it about me. --[[User:Justanother|Justanother]] 18:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
*It was about me. Your persistence, and harassment has made it about you. Please, just STOP. I have taken the article off of my watchlist, what else do you want? Why won't you just stop the harassment '''''please?''''' [[User:Smeelgova|Smee]] 18:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
*It was about me. Your persistence, and harassment has made it about you. Please, just STOP. I have taken the article off of my watchlist, what else do you want? Why won't you just stop the harassment '''''please?''''' [[User:Smeelgova|Smee]] 18:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
**Smee is seriously abusing the 3RR board now by bringing in unrelated items that do not even much relate to him and for which I am quite prepared to answer and will do so in the correct place and at the correct time; which is not here or now. This is what I deal with (smile). Jossi asked for another admin to review this. No other admin has done so. It is still open. Meanwhile, Smee, you repeated your 3RR violation, falsely accuse me of harassment, and abuse this noticeboard. --[[User:Justanother|Justanother]] 18:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


===[[User:Vijayante]] reported by [[User:Philosophus]] (Result: 24hrs)===
===[[User:Vijayante]] reported by [[User:Philosophus]] (Result: 24hrs)===

Revision as of 18:19, 6 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:GeorgeBP reported by User:KyaatheCatlord (Result:24 hrs)

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

    This is a rather complicated case.


    Comments

    This user is using sockpuppets to hide his 3rr, trolling and POV pushing. See [1] for CheckUser results. Kyaa the Catlord 02:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note continuing reverts even following a previous 3RR block only days before, just pick any 24 hour window there is at least 4 reverts wherever you look. Attempted to circumvent 3RR by using anon IP sock puppets until the article was semi-protected. --Dual Freq 00:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked for 24 hrs. Other editors in that article are also edit warring. I am placing a warning there as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This report sat here for 22 hours. A checkuser was done to show that there were socks involved, yet the puppeteer continued to roam free. BLP states "Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply.", the other editors in this case are clear. If an admin had stepped in and blocked this puppeteer yesterday when this report was posted, this would not have been as much of an issue. Kyaa the Catlord 01:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Userofwiki reported by User:Gsd2000 (Result:indef block)

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

    Sockpuppet of User:Somethingoranother, who was permanently blocked for various rule breaks. Used this sockpuppet to continue 3RR violations on this article:

    I have only tried to contribute important fully referenced information to the great power article. The information was not included before and has reliable references. There's no reason why it shouldn't be included. Userofwiki 03:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked as a sock. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments

    User:71.112.7.212 reported by User:futurebird (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Cool (aesthetic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.112.7.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Warning(s):

    Problems from (related?) IP: 69.223.65.19

    • 17:27, February 27, 2007 ←Replaced page with 'Cool = Infected Hair on an Elephants Butt. ---- COOL also is a Constipated, Overweighted, Out of style, Loser. ---- You see that. I am an author fool. I am publis...')
    • February 27, 2007 ←Replaced page with 'COOL = Infected Hair on an elephants but
    Comments
    Also a possible sockpuppet Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rbaish futurebird 05:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bramlet Abercrombie reported by User:Derex (Result: 24 hrs)

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

    • Note: He's technically clear by 5 minutes of 4 in 24 hours.
    • Blocked for 24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tmac68 reported by User:Jeffpw

    please see ani discussion of the incident, including diffs here. Jeffpw 13:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lman1987 and User:66.4.209.194 reported by User:Tennis expert (Result:indefblock/24 hrs)

    User:Lman1987 said that he posted certain comments in the Rafael Nadal discussion page[3]. Those comments were in fact posted by User: 66.4.209.194.[4] Many of us have suspected that User:66.4.209.194 is a sock puppet of User:Lman1987. This has now been comfirmed.

    Combined, User:Lman1987 and User:66.4.209.194 have violated the three-revert rule today as follows:

    Three-revert rule violation on Pete Sampras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lman1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 66.4.209.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three-revert rule violation on Andre Agassi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lman1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 66.4.209.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    This user also has violated 3RR today in the Roger Federer article.

    This is a highly disruptive user. We need your help. Thank you. Tennis expert 18:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:A Man In Black reported by User:Armando12 (Result:24 hrs)

    Three-revert rule violation on Template:Resident Evil series (edit | [[Talk:Template:Resident Evil series|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A Man In Black (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reverts on February 27, 2007

    Reverts on February 23, 2007

    Comments

    This user is an administrator, bu he don't act like one. Everyday he makes revert in the same template and many others. He's been already warned (here, his talk page) that there's a discussion about the templates, here. This user has been alredy blocked twice because of the same reason. Block log of A Man In Black.

    Blocked User:A Man In Black for 24 hrs for WP:3RR violation. Crum375 01:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Aminz reported by User:Beit_Or (Result: No action for now)

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

    Comments
    The 4th revert is an insertion of a POV tag into the section "Antisemitism and the Muslim world". The user has already inserted the POV tag into this very section of this article many times in the past,[5][6][7] so this is a revert. Aminz has already been blocked for edit warring on Antisemitism. Beit Or 09:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an invalid report. The 4th one is a POV tag meanwhile the dispute is active (please see the RFC at the talk page). Beit Or has searched the past history and has found some diffs from month ago to prove that the fourth edit is a revert (please see the dates). In fact, if you look closely user:Humus sapiens was edit warring without providing any reasoning on the talk page (please check the timings) --Aminz 09:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is indeed an invalid report, though I encourage you, Aminz, to please discuss rather than reverting. Three reverts is not a right, and you are strongly encouraged to use the talk page to solve disputes, rather than blind reverting, once it is clear that your edit may be disputed by another editor. Ral315 » 09:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have filed an RfC on this and have discussed this a lot. If you could check the timings of posts on the talk page, User:Humus sapiens was removing a well-sourced quote without providing any valid reasoning on the talk page for that. --Aminz 09:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ra315, I have asked a couple of new editors to join in the discussion and have filed an RfC. Of course edit-warring is not the way to go. --Aminz 09:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see why this report is invalid: the first 3 are reverts; and so is the 4th William M. Connolley 09:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The 4th is adding POV tag. It wasn't a revert. The 3 diffs Beit Or has provided of adding tags date back to two month ago for a different issue. Please see the RfC section on the talk page for the reasonings and the comments made there. --Aminz 10:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense. The POV tag had been there before, as you're perfectly aware, because you put it there yourself William M. Connolley 10:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but I found a new quote expressing the view of majority of scholars on Islam and Antisemitism. And I added that. But it was removed so I added POV tag meanwhile we are discussing the issue. --Aminz 10:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr. William M. Connolley, I never ever inteneded that to be a revert, just to show the dispute. Please read a few lines of the section and check it with the quote which was added. It can be seen that they contradict each other. --Aminz 10:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Amin, I think you have been toeing the line on three reverts long enough. Please consider this as a strong warning. Further attempts might be interpreted as gaming the system. Please be careful. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, I swear I am editing in good faith. The section is really POV and I am trying my best to make it neutral. Please see [8] and compare the quote at the lead, and the following material. It was a good faith and I never thought it was a revert. --Aminz 10:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Paulcicero reported by User:58.165.90.202 (Result: 36hr; Tar-Elenion: 27hr)

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

    Taking into account his main account, and his IP address (here), PaulCicero has violated 3RR on Daniel_Majstorovic. It is his IP as all edits, edit summaries are exactly teh same, and often happen right after the other.

    Also notice his edits on List of Serbs are getting close to breaching 3RR.

    Apart from regular edit warring on Daniel Majstorovic and List of Serbs, he also engages in heavy edit warring on articles such as Roger Joseph Boscovich and Slavica Ecclestone - and after Slavica Ecclestone was page protected, he brought his edit warring to Bernie Ecclestone's article. Also, please note the incivility of the user, personal attacks used, blind reverts, edit warring, editing of talk page comments/titles made by other editors - he also blanks his own talk page, which is not allowed (to the best of my knowledge). In my opinion, a block of at least one week is justified, but a longer one is within reason. 58.165.90.202 11:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    My reverts on these articles are done because of User:Tar-Elenion edits on several serbian peoples articles, he is using sockpuppets like 58.165.90.202 to make me brake the 3RR rule. So instead of banning me you should semi-protect all articles that User:Tar-Elenion has edited. Paulcicero 16:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    To other admins considering blocking, please let me handle this. I have encounter these two before and I want to follow up on this myself. I will take care of this in a moment. -- tariqabjotu 20:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked Paulcicero (talk · contribs) for thirty-six hours, due to this and the fact that there was a recent 3RR violation by him. Additionally, I have blocked Tar-Elenion (talk · contribs) for revert-warring for twenty-seven hours, pending confirmation of the sockpuppetry through the request for checkuser. The latter user has been assisting with multiple edit wars recently anyway, so I'm not sure if a negative checkuser result would really mean much. -- tariqabjotu 21:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nomenclator reported by User:Skinwalker (Result:48H)

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


    Comments
    User has been blocked twice previously for 3RR violations on this article.

    User:65.6.32.12 reported by User:Tennis expert (Result:1 month)

    Three-revert rule violation on Andre Agassi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 65.6.32.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    This user also has violated 3RR today in the Pete Sampras, Andy Roddick, Rafael Nadal, and John McEnroe articles and appears to be a sock puppet of the indefinitely blocked User:Lman1987. He or she is HIGHLY disruptive. We need help. Thank you. Tennis expert 18:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I strongly support this report! The user has for days and days wasted hours of careful checking by conscious editors. The user is obsessed with an alternative score format, for which there is no community consensus. PLEASE help!--HJ 20:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. User has been blocked for a period of one month due to being a sockpuppet of Lman1987. Nishkid64 00:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Melonbarmonster reported by User:Endroit (Result: 24 hrs)

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

    Comments
    Melonbarmonster insists on using the word "forced".--Endroit 18:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:KazakhPol (Result: 24hr)

    3RR on Pan-Islamism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by KazakhPol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Comment

    These are four simple reverts in 23 minutes. The background is that KazakhPol tags articles whenever he doesn't like something, then reverts against multiple editors to maintain the tag, even after several weeks or months of the original tagging, often referring to editors who oppose him as vandals, stalkers, or harassers. He has been blocked four times for 3RR in less than two months, the last time for 48 hours, and is currently the subject of an RfC for the same behavior. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/KazakhPol. He also often adds "2nd revert," "3rd revert" to his third and fourth, perhaps in an effort to confuse, as he did above. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is very aggravating. SlimVirgin is lying, as it will be very apparent to anyone who looks at the history of the page. My earlier edits were not reverts therefore they do not count towards WP:3RR. This is the third or fourth time she has tried this crap. Last time I was unblocked when someone double checked. She regularly does that to harass me. Look at this for a sample of what I have to listen to: [16]. Nevermind that I have not done any of what she alleges. KazakhPol 19:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    KazakhPol (talk · contribs) has been blocked for twenty-four hours per the 3RR violation. Please be careful not to violate it yourself, SlimVirgin... -- tariqabjotu 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Tariq. I posted the clarification below before I saw your post. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    KazakhPol self-reverted at 19:36 Feb 28 when he saw he'd been reported for 3RR, removing the totally disputed tag, but then added the NPOV tag instead at 19:47 Feb 28, so the 3RR violation stands. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dahn reported by User:Dpotop (Result:24 hrs overturned without notice page protected)

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

    Comments
    • User is not new, and has been blocked before (about two weeks ago, I presume) for 3RR violations.
    Blocked for 24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice to see that the block only lasted for about 2 hours, thanks to helpful admins willing to overlook official policy for special editors. While this user is good, the frequency of his revert wars (several simulataneously at about any time, without any attempt to negotiate) does recommend him for some time off. But no, policy is not applied, and the user can only think he's somehow superior. Dpotop 20:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If he is superior indeed, then do introduce a new user type Hyperion, or something, and don't let us poor mortals fight them without knowing we don't stand a chance. Dpotop 20:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI: this is not the first time a 3RR ruling is overturned in 2 hours. Dpotop 20:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You fail to mention the page was locked both times when he was unblocked.Rlevse 22:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lucy-marie reported by User:One Night In Hackney (Result:No block)

    Three-revert rule violation on G8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lucy-marie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • I have looked into this. Lucy marie made a mistake in the heat of things. I ahve talked to her and I have her assurance there will be no more reversions until the issue gets disputed. I think a punitive block in this situation would be innapropriate. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tennis Genius reported by User:HJensen (Result: 24 hour)

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

    Comment: The user is a sock puppet for somone (one or more) who is obsessed by introducing a new scoring format for tennis bios. The format has reached no consensus in community, and the behavior by this user and other user names and IPs has been VERY disruptive for sveral days now. Note that the user here boasts that he/she will deliberately continue this editing war, stating:

    Think about it. but your pale tennis expert must know we will never back down. Me and my buddies are capable of haveing thousands of IP accounts. Any ways we are not vandalizers. we are doing this for the good. You could start changeing score formats to the correct ones on other tennis pages. (we expect to change EVERY pro tennis players score format soon. not just these few.) This edit war is pointless unless you want to have every Tennis players Article FULLY protected. (and I dont think the administrators could be depended upon to update tennis articles by themselves.) SEMI protecting is nothing. This war will never end, unless Tennis Expert and his pals agree with us

    This is, as I understand it, not compatible with Wikipedia behavior in any way. Something must be done quickly, so please help up. Thanks!!! --HJ 21:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I looked at this User:Tennis Genius is clearly in an edit war and has put the same material in at least 9 times today, 24hr block.Rlevse
    Blocked indefintely as a sockpuppet of Lman1987. Editing styles are an exact copy of Lman. Nishkid64 00:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lenzar reported by User:G-Man (Result:12H)

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

    Technically was not a 3RR vio (though darn close), but I blocked for edit warring despite a strong consensus. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Mael-Num reported by User:Jossi (Result:No block)

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

    Comments
    • Mael-Num (talk · contribs) has editwarred in the recent past about the same edit. See diff. He was then blocked and unblocked on the basis of his claim that he was removing vandalism, which it was not the case as this new round of reverts attests. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, considering those are different edits with different information and they are more than 24 hours apart, Jossi is apparently grasping at straws to keep me from editing the article. Please note that during this time period, Jossi himself reverted other editors' work no less than 3 times in a 24 hour period. I have been careful, allowing time for other editors to give input, and as can be plainly seen in the edits above, I added information to Jossi's edit, and removed nothing.
    Jossi, conversely, repeatedly deletes information he deems undesirable, rather than append or edit it. Please also note the content of the edits in question. My position is that, per WP:LS, I am summarizing cited criticism that appears elsewhere in the article, providing citations even within the summary. Deleting cited, verifiable content, instead of working with and/or editing it, is in itself against Wikipedia policy.
    I'd also like to add that this is the second time that Jossi has falsely accused me of 3rr. The last time the decision was overturned, as the reviewing editor construed the edits to be reverts of vandalism, based on the reverted editor's being banned for vandalism. Mael-Num 03:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The "vandalism" that you claimed, was not so. And my edit history shows that I have not editwarred. I don't do that. The 3RR rule is designed to ding people like you, that prefer to editwar rather than discuss. This noticeboard isnot designed to discuss content disputes, but to discuss disruption by continuously reverting or adding the same content. See WP:3RR that cleary states that "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'.[1] Editors may still be blocked even if they haven't made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behaviour is clearly disruptive." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My behavior has been no more "disruptive" than yours. Necessarily less so, in fact, because I am adding cited, sourced summaries of material to the lead that are notable and reliable, as evidenced by their inclusion elsewhere. You are blanking said cited, sourced, reliable, and notable material. I regularly discuss my edits in the talk pages, calling for discussion more frequently than you have regarding this information. I enjoin you to participate in these discussions, rather than try to "ding" me for adding information that you do not personally agree with. Mael-Num 03:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Finally, I would like to ask the reviewer of this case to carefully look at the "Previous Version Reverted to" diff, listed above. The information I am supposedly, maliciously adding does not appear in that version. So, to be clear, the first "revert" is actually the "original" I am reverting to. The next two edits occur at intervals of 12 hours, the third considerably after that. That edit is dissimilar from the other two, and is clearly a good-faith improvement to Jossi's own work. Even if this were not the case, these three edits occur over the course of 36 hours. I feel I am careful to be constructive, and work with my fellow editors to produce good work. I will continue to be careful, and mindful of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and my fellow editors' views. Mael-Num 04:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reverting every 12 hours, is still disruptive behavior, Mael. Nevertheless, if you are serious about desisting in not using reverts and as way to assert your opinion about the lead, and interested in constructively arrive to consensus with fellow editors, that is great, but the proof will be in the pudding. Day after day, you restore your edit about which there is no consensus under claims that consensus cannot trump policy, while forgetting WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Following the dispute resolution process is the way to proceed when there is no common ground. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not going to block. But. Mael. Please try to do a better job of working this out with others rather than reverting. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Apostrophe reported by User:InvaderSora (Result: No block)

    3RR on Kingdom Hearts II, and large amount of harassment. I was blocked for the same for 48 hours, so i expect he will have the same punishment. 00:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

    Blocks are not punishment. Whereas you have been warned repeatedly and made personal attacks and were repeatedly edit warring, there have been no such problems with User:Apostrophe. —Centrx→talk • 02:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, User:Apostrophe did not even make more than three reverts in 24 hours. —Centrx→talk • 02:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    WTH? Blocks not punisment? Personal atatcks? Whatever you considered apersonal attack, i am constantly harassed by APostrophe.. and i see 3 reverts in the same day on KH2. Also, he is "wikistalking" me.InvaderSora 03:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ideally, blocks are to be instructive. It doesn't always work out that way but that's the goal. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, See my talk page for a lovely comment he made. :) InvaderSora 04:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Article deleted already, no reason to block.Rlevse 23:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No, it's not. And regardess, he harasses and wikistalks me. InvaderSora 00:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Opps, yep, but Apostrophe has edited Kingdom of Hearts since Feb 26, so again, no reason to block now. Also, if someone is harassing you, see WP:ANI page. Rlevse 03:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:kellen reported by User:nomenclator (Result: 8/48h)

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

    Appallingly formatted; but both sides have 4R. N gets 48h for multiple 3RR on this page; K 8h for a first offence William M. Connolley 09:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pep65497 reported by User:Kralizec! (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Pensacola Christian College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pep65497 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [35]
    Comments

    Pep65497 (talk · contribs · count · logs) appears to be a single purpose account only interested in censoring the Pensacola Christian College (PCC) article. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Given the user's edit summary here, it appears that the editor is also the anon 146.129.133.77 who made identical edits before hand. JoshuaZ 20:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley 22:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HouseOfScandal reported by User:Urthogie (Result:No block)

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

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [39]
    3RR violations require a 4TH revert in 24 hours to violate the rule. I don't see the 4th revert.Rlevse 23:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought it's 3RR, not 4RR?--Urthogie 01:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read from the top of this page: "Please remember that the 3RR applies to reverts after the third within a 24 hour period...the 3RR is not an entitlement to three 'free' reverts per day....The 3RR is intended as a means to stop sterile edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every twenty-four hours...."Rlevse 03:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Olir reported by User:Cyrus XIII (Result:24 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on Blink-182 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Olir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [40] (in parts)
    • 1st revert: [41]
    • 2nd revert: [42]
    • 3rd revert: [43]
    • 4th revert: [44]
    • 5th revert: [45]
    Comments

    User as also violated WP:NPA by referring to editors who apply common style guidelines as "self-important" and "grammar nazis". [46] Appears to be in violation of WP:OWN regarding Blink-182 related articles [47]. User has been around for a year, hence no 3RR warning was issued. - Cyrus XIII 20:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    blocked by User:William M. Connolley, but he forgot to notate here.Rlevse 23:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Farzinf reported by User:Azerbaijani (Result: 24h)

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


    Comments

    He clearly received the 3rr warning on his talk page and my offer that he would not be reported if he reverted himself. Here is his response on my talk page: [48]. Since he refused to revert himself, even after knowing what 3rr is and the consequences of breaking 3rr, I am reporting him.Azerbaijani 22:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley 22:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rbaish reported by User:futurebird (Result: 24 hours)

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

    • 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.

    • confirmed, blocked 24 hrs. Rlevse 03:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments

    User:Dbachmann reported by User:Rayfield (Result:)

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

    Comments
    The editor is an adminstrator, but doesn't act like one on this article (He disregards WP:3RR, the Protection policy and the Blocking policy).
    He has blocked an editor for WP:3RR on the same page, which proves that he is aware of the WP:3RR rule. But rather than blocking an editor he is involved with himself he should have come to WP:ANI first to request help from uninvolved administrators per Blocking policy. The edits by the other involved user were not vandalism. He also didn't give evidence that the other involved editor made WP:3RR but only blocked him. (Maybe User:Sbhushan should be blocked for the same period as Dbachmann, unless User:Sbhushan can show that he didn't commit WP:3RR.) The two IP edits in the same article were very probably not by Sbhushan, because their edit history and edit summaries are very different.
    He has protected three pages in the last hours which he has himself edited in the last hours and days (Indigenous Aryan Theory, N.S. Rajaram and Haplogroup R1a1 (Y-DNA) ), instead of asking an uninvolved admin to do it per Protection policy. --RF 12:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    context: WP:AN/I#Sbhushan. the 'protected' should read semiprotected, these articles are subject to much anon trolling. "reverts" 4 & 5 are rollbacks of such anon (that is, logged-out) trolling. dab (𒁳) 13:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    On WP:AN/I#Sbhushan the editor who has looked in detail at the issue says that Sbhushan's edits were not patent nonsense, vandalism, or simple disruption, which IMO is evident. Sbushan is trying to improve the article in good faith. Maybe his approach is "wrong", but his edits are not vandalism, and your dispute must then be discussed with him on the talkpage or with Dispute Resolution.
    The two IP edits in the same article were very probably not by Sbhushan, because their edit history, editing time and edit summaries are very different. But if you can give the diff's about his WP:3RR, I will report Sbhushah also.
    This kind of edit-warring and disputes have been ongoing in this article since the article was created. --RF 13:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    yes -- which is why I have semi-protected the article. I don't semiprotect stuff because I like the look of the template, and I cannot be expected to write an article while a swarm of IP addresses keep pulling it from under by arse. I don't think I need to establish that conscious trolling is involved here on the part of editors who log out and redial to keep the anonymous merry-go-round going. dab (𒁳) 14:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you check my edit history, you will find that I am never on WP during those times. I am in bed fast asleep. Also, as my edit history will show, I am not shy about speaking my mind. If I have something to say to someone, I say it on their face. I also rarely use rv button, since I like to edit specific items. If I can improve the original edit, I try to do that. My request to unblock was to an independent admin, I specifically did not ask Dab. Dab tried to get around independent review by unblocking me. As such I did not make any committement to Dab, but I am still honuring it as you can see from the note I left at his talk page.[[49]]. As both of you know I have opened a RfC as suggested by Dab, because I have spent enough time on discussion. WP:ATT is a core policy, an admin should be enforcing this policy; not making joke of it.Sbhushan 17:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Killerman2 reported by User:Apostrophe (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Tragic villain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Killerman2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    24h William M. Connolley 14:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Itb3d reported by User:MONGO (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Jane Standley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Itb3d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments
    Newly created account, but familiarity with editing indicates this is not a new editor. Was also cautioned about not calling other editors "idiot"here, and warned.

    24h William M. Connolley 14:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The Consigliere reported by User:Snowolfd4 (Result:24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Kent and Dollar Farm massacres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The Consigliere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    One reversion was done using an IP address, which is proved as the said user's IP address by this edit. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 13:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24h. yandman 15:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:EvilAlex reported by User:William Mauco (Result:48 hours)

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

    (Only a sample. In total, there are 22 whole or partial reverts.)

    Comments
    This user is a wellknown edit warrior on Transnistria-related topics. He has previously stated on Talk that he enjoys indulging in Wikipedia editwarring because, according to his own words, "otherwise life would be too boring." Today alone, EvilAlex performed 22 reverts, in whole or in part, on Transnistria. [50] Despite repeated requests to discuss these changes, he displays extremely disruptive behavior and is unwilling to engage in discussion in the article's Talk page. Today alone, 3 different editors undid his changes, but he persists. He has been warned of 3RR, but he persists nevertheless.[51] He has also been asked to revert himself, to avoid this report,[52] but ignored the request. Note: He has been previously blocked for editwarring on the same page.[53]. This time, I ask that he be blocked for 72 hours. It would also be helpful to tell him to discuss major changes in Talk and seek consensus before imposing them. - Mauco 17:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    multiple instances, 48 hr block.


    User:70.183.0.148/User:Dank325 reported by User:Milo H Minderbinder (Result: Withdrawn)

    Three-revert rule violation on Day Break (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dank325 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 70.183.0.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    15:01, 2 March 2007

    Comments
    Last revert is a registered user. Admin may want to do a checkuser to make sure, but seems pretty obvious it's the same editor, especially since the first regsitered edit reverts to earlier edits as "mine". --Milo H Minderbinder 21:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Things seem to have settled down, I'd like to withdraw this if that's OK. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:209.177.21.6 reported by User:MrMacMan (Result: 25 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on Alternative school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 209.177.21.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments
    User is making changes to many articles over the same issue. Article Great Neck Village School has been tampered with as well. Look at the 209.177.21.6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMacMan (talk • contribs)

    about my edits to this 3RR notice: I screwed up listing this properly so I'm rereading the guidelines so this can be a proper 3RR notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMacMan (talk • contribs) The 3RR notice was made by myself, User:MrMacMan... but I forgot to sign them, thank you for reminding me. MrMacMan 22:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked the IP for 1 hour for repeatedly removing this report and comments about their conduct after warnings to stop. alphachimp 22:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have blocked the user for 25 hours per WP:3RR (this includes the previous block for removing this report). alphachimp 22:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Italiavivi reported by User:Isarig (Result:None)

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


    Comments
    User seems to be using talk page now.Rlevse 02:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    These were not reverts. All various wordings were attempts to accurately describe the source in question, per Talk discussion. The source was eventually thrown out despite Isarig's objections, due to its lack of verifiability. Italiavivi 16:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AdilBaguirov reported by User:Artaxiad (Result:48 hours)

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

    • This user is on Revert parole its noted on his talk page he has reverted twice disruptively.

    Comments

    Unfortunately, the users Artaxiad and Eupator, with help from users Vartanm, Ayvazovsky and Davo88, all act in tandem and revert all pages that I make edits to. Case in point is the abovementioned Tigranes the Great, where these ideologically-motivated editors remove verifiable and sourced information from such authoritative and scholarly sources as Encyclopedia Iranica. I've complained [54]. That's why, when faced with a coordinated attack of these users, I've reverted before time, about which I've immediately notified the admin who is active on our ArbCom case [55], and outlined the problem. One admin, Husond, agreed with me that the actions by these editors on Tigranes the Great article are not justified [56]. I thus appeal for administrative action against such edit warring and disruptions by these meatpuppets. --AdilBaguirov 05:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blatant violation of revert parole and 3RR. Blocked for 48 hours. pschemp | talk 06:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the right choice, Adil you know better than violating your parole theres no excuse you violated it, I never reverted I'm trying not to revert your edits to reach a compromise. Artaxiad 21:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:John Smith's reported by User talk:Giovanni33 (Result: 24 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on Great Leap Forward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). John Smith's (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):



    Comments

    User is currently edit warring on my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giovanni33&action=history He has been asked to stop several times but persists despite being told by the admin that his taunting is not civil: [[57]]

    I have also asked him and given him the chance to self revert to avoid being reported for the 3RR violations on Great Leap Forward Instead he insists on continuing to edit war, on my own talk page.

    He has been blocked before twice for violating the 3RR rule, and is aware of the policy.

    First, I am not edit warring on his talk page. I am insisting that he not delete warnings for himself. He first deleted one from myself and then from another user. He is trying to cover up for the fact he has been reverting a lot too, so that the next time he reverts he could try to get away with it. He is still doing it, even though I have asked him to leave the warnings up.
    As to the GLF page, this is a content dispute more than anything else. John Smith's 23:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, its a content dispute but you not taken it to the talk page. You have violated the 3RR rule, instead. You keep reverting to get your way without talking. Now your edit waring on my talk page is also unacceptable conduct. Once I read your message, I am allowed to remove it. To keep putting it up is to harass as you've been warned.Giovanni33 23:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have talked about that article in the past with you on talk pages, though not this one. Would you have stopped adding it in if I had used the talk page again? Of course not, because you're not actually interested in the views of others.
    Where does it say someone can remove a warning after reading it? You rejected both the warnings, so it was necessary to keep them up there for you to get the message properly. There is no edit warring on my part, just an insistence you acknowledge at least ONE of the warnings and leave it up there. You don't see me removing mine, do you? If you want to accuse me of breaking the 3RR, you broke it yourself on your talk page. John Smith's 00:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Giovanni is lying in saying I was warned for "edit warring" on his talk page. I was accused of being uncivil when I asked if he was going to try to hide a second warning made by that user - which he did then do, so I feel vindicated for asking the question. John Smith's 23:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Take a look at the edit summaries to my talk page. Several warnings yet he persists in edit warring, continuing at this moment.Giovanni33 00:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A warning from you is hardly valid over the matter given you have zero wikipedia authority and did not cite any rule over it. However Musical Linguist has kindly clarified the situation, so I understand it is ok to remove warnings. I thought they had to stay up. John Smith's 00:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Comment If a user has removed a warning or other unwanted message, as long as it's not done like this, then it shouldn't be replaced. We know he has seen it, and it will remain in the history if it's needed as evidence in an RfC or RfAr. There are a few common sense exceptions, like when an admin insists that a block notice stay in place for the duration of the block, so that other admins can see the reason for the block. I've seen numerous examples of petty harassment of users, and I've also seen several good-faith examples of well-meaning editors reverting a user because they think it's forbidden to remove a warning in his own userspace. Incidentally, people sometimes claim that reverts in one's own user space "don't count". I think it's better to say that the rule is not generally enforced when it involves one's own userspace. I'd be very reluctant to block someone for it, but I'd consider it wise not to think of it as a definite exception on the same level as reverting simple vandalism. Musical Linguist 00:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:kellen reported by User:nomenclator (Result:)

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


    Comments

    Please format this report properly or it will not be acted upon. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pmanderson reported by User:Khoikhoi (Result:48 hours)

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

    Comments

    The 4th is a partial revert. Khoikhoi 01:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The fourth is an entire rephrasing, intended to provoke compromise. Khoikhoi makes continual exact reversions, once in less than a minute; his reverts have not been discussed, and appear to be used, as his edit summaries show, to suppress discussion. I have discussed fully on the talk page and will continue to do so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a comment since I am a participant of the discussions on the article, and in fact the author of the re-written new intro. A few editors there have been acting in bad faith and been disruptive, reverting verifiable and sourced information, and replacing it with a version of the article that is not only POV, but contains grammar and even spelling mistakes -- see this diff: [62] When user PMAnderson noticed that information is being removed, he was reverted, just like myself [63]. Hence, other users have started an edit war, by reverting the article to an inferior version full of POV and spelling mistakes, and even resisting PMAnderson's attempt to compromise and place a Dispute tag [64]. --AdilBaguirov 05:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Result Both sides are edit warring but Pmanderson has hit 4 reverts and was just blocked for 3RR last month, so there seems to be a problem here. If the revert war continues, expect page protection and more blocks. Also, Pmanderson, please do not refer to content disputes as "vandalism" and Khoikhoi, please do not use rollback in content disputes. Thatcher131 06:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:67.180.67.179 reported by User:Balcer (Result:48H)

    Three-revert rule violation on Władysław Orlicz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.180.67.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    User has been editing since January 16, 2007 and has been warned before of being in danger of violating 3RR.

    Blocked once earlier for disruption.

    Comments

    Similar breaking of 3RR at: Feliks Barański,

    Blocked 48H due to double violation. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Magonaritus reported by User:G2bambino (Result:No action)

    Three-revert rule violation on Upper Canada College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User:Magonaritus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    User is editing in bad faith and to make a point. --G2bambino 20:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note both editors are reported just below. -- zzuuzz(talk) 22:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Saintrotter reported by User:Nardman1 (Result:24h)

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

    User insists on adding low-quality, racist version of picture to article. Images listed for deletion as well at [[65]]. Nardman1 21:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Crying racist wont get you your own way, people are not as stupid as you may think. You got no claim for racism, what is racist about a black woman that is not racist about a white woman? I edited her red lipstick (which was same colour on the white woman) to pink, so you got no claim. There is nothing low quality of my picture at all, another baseless claim, and who would want a very high quality picture of such a dirty picture on wikipedia? Saintrotter 3 March 2007

    • Yes well between myself and another editor we've reverted you a total of 5 times. Neither of us has broken 3RR. You have. Nardman1 21:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good of you to admit it... my maths maybe not so good as it used to be but if you and another editor reverted me 5 times, it means 1 of you is breaking the rule and taking the high horse of reporting first. Saintrotter 3 March 2007
    blocked for 24 hours. -- zzuuzz(talk) 00:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Magonaritus and User:G2bambino reported by User:Grouse (Result: No action)

    Three-revert rule violation on Upper Canada College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Magonaritus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) G2bambino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Magonaritus:

    G2bambino:

    the interleaved reverts

    It's only an article RfC and both violated the rule, but it's too small an issue to block both parties for, and I can't protect the page, so no action. But please don't revert like this again. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Magonaritus reported by User:G2bambino (Result: No action)

    Three-revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Magonaritus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    This editor is rewriting (and reverting) my RfC to resolve a dispute at Upper Canada College. He/she is highly disruptive. --G2bambino 00:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like both of you are breaking the rule here. futurebird 00:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't see how. I was the original composer of the request, rv'd Magonaritus' changes three times and tried to compromise a fourth. He simply reverted four times. --G2bambino 00:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    G2bambino, you were required to write a neutral summary statement for the RfC. But you violated this Wiki policy on neutrality. So I corrected it. I wasn't going to let you get away with violating Wiki policy and tainting the RfC process right from the beginning before people had a chance to read the full Talk page. Anyways, it's a moot point now. Grouse rewrote it and warned both of us to stop edit warring. I'm totally cool with Grouse's re-write as it's neutral. Magonaritus 01:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Magonaritus has just reverted yet again at Upper Canada College

    No action; see above for reasoning. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Biochemnick reported by User:John254 (Result: page protected)

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

    • Previous version reverted to: [66]

    John254 00:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I see there's more than one 3RR report about this, and it's about the use of a blog in a BLP, so I've protected the page. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:208.255.229.66 reported by User:John254 (Result: page protected)

    Three-revert rule violation on George Deutsch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 208.255.229.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [67]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [68]

    John254 00:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I see the issue [69] seems to be about using a blog as a source. John, did the blog first publish this material and then the person resigned and it was taken up by the New York Times? There are always problems with using blogs in BLPs, and 3RR doesn't apply to people who are trying to enforce BLP, although if the NYT subsequently wrote about the blog's revelation, it's okay. Can you clarify? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It would appear that the situation, including George Deutsch's resignation as a result of the blog's claims, was reported directly in the New York Times, so including the information doesn't violate WP:BLP. In any event, the edit war doesn't concern the inclusion of the fact that the blog reported the information, but rather how the blog should be attributed. 208.255.229.66 appears to be claiming here that Biochemnick is identifying the blog by name, and identifying himself as the author of the entry, for the purpose of self-promotion. As this is an ordinary edit war, not a WP:BLP situation, it might be more advisable to block the users who are edit warring than to protect the page. John254 01:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue is that biochemnick has a clear conflict of interest and is inserting autobiographical information while refusing to discuss its notability. 208.255.229.66 01:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I see it's quite confusing and more than one person appears to have violated 3RR so I've protected. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Annoynmous reported by User:Isarig (Result: 24 hours)

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

    • Diff of 3RR warning: 23:49, 3 March 2007, not that it was needed, as user has already been blocked twice for 3RR in the last 3 months.
    • It's a clear violation, and he's been blocked twice before; 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Comments

    User engages in a pattern of reverts, without participating in Talk, mostly gaming 3RR by reverting just 3 times in 24 hours, but has gone over the limit this time. It has been a problem on other articles as well, such as Kurt Nimmo. He has been reverted by multiple users on both articles.

    User:Jadger reported by User:Piotrus (Result: 24 hours)

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


    Comments
    The user reverts back to the NOTE at the top of the page instead of cite.php format. He often labels his reverts as minor edits. The user is familiar with 3RR having been blocked for violation of this rule once in the past and has been warned on the talk page about edit warring habit several times.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I can understand why Jadger feels the unilateral interpretation of the edit war was unjust (though his accusation of hypocrisy is unfounded). See below. Sciurinæ 17:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Billywhack reported by User:Iorek85 (Result: 24 hours)

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

    • Diff of 3RR warning (though one was not needed): 14:27
    Comments
    User has been warned before, and continues to revert. Actually asked me to report him. So here we are. Iorek85 04:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kscottbailey and User:GearedBull (Result: 24 hours each)

    There's a nifty little two-way revert war going on with this article. Each party is up to five or six reverts. You won't have any trouble spotting them in the article's history. Rklawton 03:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of controversial material with no reliable sourcing in not subject to 3RR. Additionally, I started a discussion on the talk page regarding the disputed section, which the people who continually re-insert the unsourced material have simply ignored. Lastly, I received an inappropriate warning from an admin Will Beback regarding 3RR, which (from his comments) was issued as a favor to a friend (the re-inserter), without as much as enough research to even realize that I had, in fact, started a discussion on the matter that his friend had ignored. Also, the friend was not issued a similar warning from Will Beback regarding 3RR, though the rule CLEARLY applies to the reinsertion of unsourced materials. I have placed all of the presidents' pages on my watch list, in a good faith attempt to rid them of this kind of non-scholarly, unsourced garbage, and to protect them from vandalism. Check my history. If you want to lose someone who has the best interests of the Wikipedia presidents' pages at heart, by all means, ban me. Because as long as I have the priviledges of an editor, I will not allow unsourced rumors to stand in an article on one of our country's presidents.K. Scott Bailey 07:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    All reverts are subject to the 3RR rule, except when dealing with vandalism, edits by a blocked user, or violations of WP:BLP. Kscottbailey removed the same section eight times in 13 hours, and GearedBull six times in four hours, so both have been blocked for 24. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DrFrench and User:81.109.234.187 reported by User:Sceptre (Result: 24hrs to both reports)

    Three-revert rule violation on Caledonian Sleeper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (also on Highland Chieftain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DrFrench (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 81.109.234.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments
    Users edit warring over train timetables and inclusion in articles. Will (Speak to Me/Breathe)(Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash) 13:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    1st i dont write good english but i dont understand why the hard work off putting the timtables in keeps being deleted 81.109.234.187 14:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked both DrFrench and the IP 81.Rlevse 15:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Isarig reported by User:Italiavivi (Result: No violation)

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

    • Previous version reverted to: [71]
    • 1st revert: [72]
    • 2nd revert: [73]
    • 3rd revert: [74]
    • 4th revert: [75]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [76]
    • Isarig deletes 3RR warning from his Talk page immediately after being warned: [77]
    Comments
    User is repeatedly inserting an allegation of "liberal bias" into the article's lead, despite CNN's controversy article listing allegations of both conservative and liberal bias. Italiavivi 16:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Bad faith bogus report - there are not 4 reverts in 24 hours there. Reporting user is engaged in edit warring on that same page as well as others, repeatedly removed valid 3RR warnings from his pages [78][79], and wikistalks me. The wikistalking appears to be a result of a valid 3RR report I filed regarding his behaviour (see [80] - the reviewing admin took a lenient approach to that clear 3RR violation, apparently becuase the user was also participating in Talk alongside his edit warring, but this was apparently misguided leniency. Isarig 16:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Isarig's first revert is at 15:31 on March 3rd. The next is at 15:30 on March 4th, with the others in rapid succession. This user is trying to game the 3RR policy. Italiavivi 16:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. there is 24 hours (minus 1 minute( between the first and 2nd reverts, and the rest are beyond the 24hours.) - as I said - a bogus report, by a user who has been edit warring on that page, making at least 3 reverts in the last 24 hours as well, and who has violated 3rr on a differnt page just yesterday [81] Isarig 16:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not here to discuss Isarig's false 3RR reports, which have been consistently thrown out. This editor's attempts at gaming the 3RR policy ("There is 24 hours minus 1 minute!") warrant blocking. Italiavivi 16:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a violation. The first link you gave was 15:31 March 3, the second 15:30 March 4, then two others on March 4. Please add the times and dates to the diffs in future, so admins can see at a glance whether it's a violation or not. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is gaming the 3RR rule, SlimVirgin, which is still a block-worthy offense per the 3RR policy. Four verbatim reverts in the same 24 hour 46 minute period, despite Talk page objections and the very POV nature of the edit in question? Italiavivi 16:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was seven minutes short of 25 hours. You yourself got off with a 3RR violation recently after reverting four times in 40 minutes, because the admin let you off because you started using the talk page, so you perhaps ought not to throw stones from that glass house of yours. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The administrator "let me off" because the diffs were not reverts. I had been using the Talk page from the get-go, and the source Isarig repeatedly re-inserted was thrown out via consensus (due to lack of verifiability) regardless. You really want to defend Isarig's behavior (repeatedly inserting allegations of 'liberal bias' into an article's lead four times in a just-over 24 hour period), feel free, Slim. I'm sorry you're also choosing to emulate him, including misrepresenting my actions at 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Editors are welcome to view the article's Talk page if they are interested in my participation there. Italiavivi 17:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The reverts at your 3RR were definitely reverts; you need to read the 3RR policy carefully so you avoid violating it again. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (Massive edit conflict (about 5 edits)) I've blocked him for 8 hours. I'm not sure if this was gaming or not but he has been edit warring on a variety of articles, not just this one. SV, if you disagree with the block, feel free to unblock. JoshuaZ 17:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And Italiavivi is blocked for similar behavior. JoshuaZ 17:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:A.Garnet reported by User:Domitius (Result: 8h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Cypriot Civil War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A.Garnet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • This is an old user, he certainly knows about the 3RR (and knows when it has been violated [82]).--Domitius 17:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments
    • User is POV pushing, presenting events out of context by deleting material. Anything which makes the TR side in the war/conflict is removed as irrelevant to the article (which I consider a POV fork - this will also have to be looked at).--Domitius 17:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears I have reverted 4 times, apologies for this. If i tracked my edits I wouldnt have done the fourth, not much more I can say other than i've been blocked once for 3RR in the almost 2 years i've been here. My reverts concerned substantial edits by User:Aristovoul0s, an editor with a [history] of pov pushing in Cyprus related articles. Having worked hard on this article, I did not want the same poor quality material added which has plagued other Cyprus conflict related articles which may explain why I got carried away with reverting. --A.Garnet 17:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You could revert yourself and wait a few hours before reverting again if you must.--Domitius 17:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I will not deliberately revert to a poor quality version of an article to escape the consequence of a mistake on my part. I will let an admin decide if I should blocked. The admin may also not that I tried to accomodate some of the criticisms raised in the discussion, which is what i told editors to do in the first place i.e. talk before editing. --A.Garnet 17:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet after you noticed I had reported you.--Domitius 18:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I already indicated to you in talk page 5 mins before you made your claim here that I was attempting to include some of Aristov's edits. Regardless, I'm not going to prove my conduct to you my friend. Unlike you, I have not gone through 6 different accounts in an attempt to get rid of a history of pov pushing, 3RR violation, WP:point violation and vandalism. --A.Garnet 18:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not getting personal, are we?--Domitius 18:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If you've been blocked before, its not in your log. So you can have 8h for 3RR - refusing an opportunity to self revert isn't good William M. Connolley 20:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Piotrus reported by User:Sciurinæ (Result: no vio)

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

    Comments
    The edit war was over the appearance in the lead paragraph that the terms Recovered Territories "are not accepted terms or concepts outside of Poland" and that "in English-speaking countries the term is unknown." Piotrus achieved that at first by moving the sentences from the first (eye-catching) paragraph down as a little insignificant reference. That's why Jadger reverted. Piotrus's fourth edit goes even further: it removes the sentences completely, which meant that it didn't even appear in or outside the lead section. This looks like an edit but is a revert. He might just as well have added "Anti-Polish propagandists claim that" in front of the sentences to make them insignificant, or write something like "Years ago the terms Recovered Territories were not accepted in the West, but now they are common" etc, or just add <!-- --> in front and behind of the sentences or strike them through etc. Maybe these were actually going to be the next "edits". If you're creative, you can think of many more such "edits" as an edit warrior to avoid making a "revert" and at the same time forcing the other side to revert. None of those edits would be obvious exact undoings, but in effect they're all reverts because they remove the sentences from the lead section, which the edit war was all about. Jadger reverted four times the removal of two sentences from the lead paragraph. Piotrus removed the sentences six times from the lead paragraph, four times within the last 24 hours, reverting four times as well. Like Jadger, he is aware of 3RR (once blocked as well) and should be treated similarly. It is only fair if both are blocked or unblocked. Sciurinæ 17:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how the fourth diff is a revert. Which version is he reverting to, or what work is he undoing? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He removed that the terms Recovered Territories "are not accepted terms or concepts outside of Poland" and that "in English-speaking countries the term is unknown" from the lead section, as in the reverts before. Same as in the previous reverts. Well, imagine for example this hypothetical case: Guy A dislikes the representation of an event in its article but has failed for three times to change it. He can revert more often: first he puts a POV-tag for the article, after getting reverted, he chooses a totally-disputed tag, then (after another revert) adds small {dubious}-templates all over the place, then the original-research template, then the disliked sentences are references, then POV-section templates are added, a handwritten note at the top of the page, then another but different handwritten note (in fact you could write dozens of similar but not exact different words). They wouldn't be reverting to any other version and not undo work. But they're still in effect reverts. Where should the line be drawn if not immediately? If all reverts/edits have a similar effect and each follow another revert into the opposite direction, they should be counted as reverts. And it is pretty obvious that the edit war was not just about format - it was about the appearance of the two sentences. The fourth edit/revert even undid one completely. Sciurinæ 18:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, if it's unusual to regard reverts concerning the same meaning of edits, then let's have a look at which work it undoes. It partially reverts this edit, again. Four reverts, still, no matter how you look at it. Sciurinæ 19:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I too can't see #4 as a revert William M. Connolley 20:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Piotrus has done this exact same thing off and on for a month, despite the fact that it has been discussed on the talk page (which he has refused to discuss it on) and the consensus was to keep the note. Also, all 4 of the "reversions" I made were not the same, I actually added more information rather than deleted it, but I was still blocked (although thank you SlimVirgin for removing the unfair block).

    --Jadger 01:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Herrich reported by User:Nightshadow28 result: No block

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

    Reported by: Nightshadow28 18:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments
    He reverts again after "Come to talkpage". Nightshadow28 18:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Herrich reported by User:Nightshadow28 result: no block

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

    Reported by: Nightshadow28 18:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments
    He reverts again after "Come to talkpage". Nightshadow28 18:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Herrich reported by User:Nightshadow28 result: no block

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

    Reported by: Nightshadow28 18:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments
    He reverts again after "Come to talkpage". Nightshadow28 18:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Herrich reported by User:Nightshadow28 result: no block

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

    Reported by: Nightshadow28 18:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:BassxForte reported by User:Apostrophe (Result: 8h)

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

    8h William M. Connolley 21:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dannyg3332 reported by User:156.34.222.15 (Result: 24 hrs)

    Three-revert rule violation on Michael Stipe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dannyg3332 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: This is not User:Dannyg3332's first 3RR violation on this particular article nor is it the only article the user has broken WP:3RR on.(see see Elton John article edit history. User has taken ownership on the Stipe article and has been blocked previously for 3RR violation on the page previous block log. Earlier today when Admin Malo attempted to replace the FU image with a free use one the edit was reverted quickly followed by Dannyg3332 issuing a threat on the Admin's talk page.Admin Malo's talk page]. User has also been blanking all warnings from his talk page. 156.34.222.15 22:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.172.136.156 reported by User:Arrow740 (Result: Already blocked)

    Three-revert rule violation on Islam and children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.172.136.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    He then removed cited material producing this version: 01:06 5 March 2007 and has reverted to it twice:


    In addition,

    Three-revert rule violation on Islamophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.172.136.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments

    All of his edits have been undiscussed reverts except one removal of appropriate, cited material.

    User:Noogster reported by User:Jayjg (Result: 24 hrs)

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

    Comments
    • These are pretty straightforward reverts. Has been warned about 3RR in the past: [83], and has been asked to revert himself. [84] Jayjg (talk) 04:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mjrmtg reported by User:RobJ1981 (Result: 24 hours)

    Comments
    • The edits of Mjrmtg and User:A Man In Black need to be checked out. Both have been revert warring over content on various Magic articles. If I had more time, I would go through them and find other 3RR violations. RobJ1981 06:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked by Cryptic for 24 hours. Rob, in future, it would help if you gave the previous version reverted to, which in this case was 23:54 Jan 28, so admins can see whether the first edit was a revert. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:A Man In Black reported by User:RobJ1981 (Result: 31 hours, self-blocked)

    Comments
    • Once again: they are content disputing. This revert warring isn't solving anything. RobJ1981 06:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Odd... looking at the histories:
      • Antiquities: AMiB edited once, reverted 3 times, Mjrmtg reverted 4 times.
      • Alliance: AMiB 1 edit, 4 reverts, Mjrmtg 5
      • Apocalypse: AMiB 1 edit, 5 reverts, Mjrmtg 5, Bedford 1
      • Ice Age: AMiB 1 edit, 2 reverts, Mjrmtg 3
      • Alliances: AMiB 1 edit, 4 reverts, Mjrmtg 5
      • Mirage: AMiB 1 edit, 4 reverts, Mjrmtg 5
    It looks like 2 praticing 3RR vios
    — J Greb 06:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've already blocked Mjrmtg for 24 hours for his reverting on Antiquities (Magic: The Gathering). He also tripped 3rr with four reverts on Mirage (Magic: The Gathering) and Apocalypse (Magic: The Gathering), and five on Legends (Magic: The Gathering) and Alliances (Magic: The Gathering); his revert-warring is aggravated by trying to cast MiB's (absolutely correct) removal of unsourced material as vandalism.

    A Man In Black's case is less egregious. His initial edits to each of these articles, despite removing text, aren't reverts, and are moreover in line with official policy. He did still revert four times on Alliances (Magic: The Gathering) and five on Legends (Magic: The Gathering); combined with his recent 3RR block on the 28th, I can't in good conscience refrain from blocking him as well. —Cryptic 07:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Though, um, he already blocked himself for longer than I'd planned to. —Cryptic 07:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Thumperward reported by User:Armon (Result: No violation; BLP issue)

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

    Comments
    Originally a copy edit, he is now claiming that a citation supporting a statement referring to "other critics" violates BLP and is therefore not subject to 3RR. This is a unique reading of the policy. <<-armon->> 12:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The allegation is a BLP vio in the first place. copy editing is just a casualty of armon's attempt to restore said claim. Chris Cunningham 12:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick look at the page's edit history shows that User:Armon himself reverted 3 times in under an hour. He is clearly gaming the system. 3RR policy is intened to prevent edit warring rather than be used as a weapon in edit wars. I would like to know whether Armon has been baiting other editors in order to entrap them in 3RR violations.
    In my opinion Chris Cunningham edits are a removal of a BLP issue and as such are exempt from 3RR. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick look at Armon's edit history shows that this is the 3rd 3RR report issued by Armon in a month! ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There were five reverts of the same material (that he's an apologist for radical Islam) in around 14 hours. However, I'm going to give Thumperward the benefit of the doubt in this case. It's a BLP, the source is Frontpage Magazine, and the writer is known to be strongly partisan. If it were the same writer published elsewhere, I'd have fewer qualms, but that the article appears in Frontpage Magazine gives pause for thought when dealing with a BLP. Some of their stuff is okay, but some of it is quite extreme, and we have to use the best sources possible for BLPs. It's also clear from the talk page discussion that Thumperward raised the BLP issue. Thumperward, in future, please contact an admin about BLP violations rather than continuing to revert, unless the issue is very serious such as a clear libel or complete nonsense. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Thumperward reported by Isarig 16:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC) (Result: 24h)

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

    Comments
    User was just reported for this violation, and the reviewing admin gave him the benefit of the doubt, provided he stops edit warring and enlists the help of an admin to resolve the issue. despite agreing to do so on his Talk page, the user now interprets that as a carte-blanche to continue reverting the same material over and over again, adding a 6th revert in less than 24 hours, and using his previous report as "justification". Isarig 16:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User does indeed seem to have used previous as excuse to keep reverting; 24h William M. Connolley 16:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a clear example of tag team edit warring by Armon and Isaig. And it is a BLP issue. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 16:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    William, I wonder whether this block was the best way forward. Thumperward definitely should have asked for admin help rather than reverting again. On the other hand, there's a genuine BLP issue at stake, albeit a borderline one. Front Page Mag really isn't a reliable source for BLPs, and the policy says that any unsourced or poorly sourced material should be removed: not only that it may be removed, but that it ought to be. Also, I've protected the page so the block is perhaps not necessary. I won't unblock against your judgment, but I wonder if you would reconsider. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't like the way TW seems to have decided that the previous report justified infinite reverting. OTOH you have now protected the page. OK William M. Connolley 18:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, William. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:67.81.252.247 reported by User:TheRingess (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on 11:11 (numerology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.81.252.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments

    The user continues to add what I think is original research. I placed a mention about OR on their talk page, hoping that they would discuss this with me; they did not reply. I placed a 3RR rule on their talk page, again hoping for a discussion; they didn't reply.

    IP: 76.166.123.129 reported by User:Pastordavid (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Ralph Nader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 76.166.123.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments

    I am not a regular editor of this page, just happened upon it and noticed that User has been reverted by at least 3 different editors. I warned the user, including diffs. User responded that he/she was reverting vandalism (the issue in question is a quotation, re-inserted by multiple editors). -- Pastordavid 20:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Darrenss reported by User:Potters house (Result: prot)

    Three-revert rule violation on Potter's House Christian Fellowship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User:Darrenss:

    • Previous version reverted to: [93]
    • 1st revert: [94]
    • 2nd revert: [95]
    • 3rd revert: [96]
    • 4th revert: [97]


    Comments

    The users sole purpose for being on wikipedia is to attack this article as his history shows. I have kept reverting the article and have warned him not to vandalise, but he is now threatening me not to vandalise etc. I told him to wait until mediation but he doesn't seem to care anymore. It may be good to lock the page for a while while he cools down and mediation happens. Potters house 20:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    2007-03-06T03:19:44 Jossi (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Potter's House Christian Fellowship: edit war [edit=sysop:move=autoconfirmed]). But to remind you of the obvious: avoid wars on articles you are connected to (I'm assuming by your name). WP:AUTO William M. Connolley 15:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Smeelgova reported by User:Justanother (Result: no block)

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

    Comments
    Lots of warnings, lots of history of edit-warring by Smee. Edit-warring with me on three pages at once. 4RR on this one. --Justanother 23:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last edit (4th) was about a completely different set of material from the article. You will note that it is different from the first three, and that I had not restored the links that User:Justanother had removed in those edits. In essence, I was agreeing with him on that issue. This was the first edit in a new disagreement, and in any event, the material consisted of valid reviews for an EL section, but that is irrelevant. Smee 23:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • No block, as last revert was not for same material, but I would suggest to both editors to find common ground rather than edit-war. Placed warnings in article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regardless of decision, I am taking this particular article off of my watchlist for a while, as a self-imposed block/break to myself on that article. Smee 23:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    User:Justanother is contesting my assessment of this 3RR report (See User_talk:Jossi#Smee_3RR). I would request another pair of eyes to look into this, just in case I missed the mark. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Jossi. I made the case in Jossi's talk and also included just a couple of diffs to show that Smee has been here before and got off light. I can provide more if requested. The main issue is that, according to WP:3RR, the reverts do not need to be all the same material but can be different material, which was the case here. Thanks --Justanother 03:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Jossi, from Jossi's talk page, stated: I have known Smee for a while, and I have seem him engage in edit wars, but I have also seen him disengage from articles and keep his word. - Thank you Jossi, those are kind words. I will keep to what I have already stated above and take a much needed break on article The Bridge (film). Haven't encountered you lately on Wikipedia, hope you are doing well. Smee 04:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Here I see that an anon familiar with wikipedia syntax has restored the most egregious EL to highly POV possible copyvio site. Don't know if that is to bait me to 4RR or some other game but I would appreciate if someone undid that. Thanks --Justanother 12:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have removed the link added by the anon-ip, DIFF, however the page The Bridge (film) will still remain off of my watchlist (though this page is on my watchlist)... Smee 14:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
        • Smee, I really would rather that you had not made a 5th revert and further violated 3RR to do that. If violating 3RR with impunity was the point, I could have done that myself (though I would likely have gotten the block that you have, so far at least, seem to have skated on). Better that you had left it for another. I would much rather that you "get it" about 3RR. Your 5th revert proves that you have not. --Justanother 16:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, Justanother, are you sure? It seems that he reverted back to your last edit.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Justanother, did you even bother to check my comment above, or my diff itself??????????????? I removed the link that was added by the anon-ip, upon your request here. It should be noted that the article was already off of my watchlist, and so I noticed this from your comment here, and in any even the article is still going to be off of my watchlist. Yeesh. Smee 17:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    Of course I bothered, and, yes, I am sure. Smee reverted the anon's edit back to my last version. Why in the world would Smee do that since to do that is yet another revert on the same article bringing it to 5RR. Smee is obviously not getting it once you reach 3RR you stop reverting. Anyone's edits. Back to anything. Just leave it alone. And now Smee is getting rude with me. Please stop enabling his abuse by ignoring his repeated and relentless violation of it. --Justanother 18:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I, am getting rude... with you??? Ha ha ha, I think clearly everyone can see it is the other way around. So now you want me to get blocked for reverting something back to the version that you had previously agreed with? This is just silly and pure harassment. I wish it would stop. I have taken the article off of my watchlist. Unfortunately, User:Justanother's tirade continues across multiple pages, no matter how much I cooperate and acquiesce. I will not given in to his taunts, personal attacks, and foul language such as "shit", "fuck", and "motherfucker", however. For more info, see the RFC on this user, (NOT initiated by myself), at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anynobody and Justanother. Smee 18:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    <left> And what is even more objectionable than the rudeness is that he is now accusing me of harassing him ("tired of harassment fm Justan" here) simply because I am trying to get him to stop violating 3RR and that is not going to happen, apparently, until he get his sorely deserved block. Please stop enabling him to continue disregarding WP:3RR. Thanks. --Justanother 18:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (EC) And trying to flip this on its ear and make it about me. --Justanother 18:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was about me. Your persistence, and harassment has made it about you. Please, just STOP. I have taken the article off of my watchlist, what else do you want? Why won't you just stop the harassment please? Smee 18:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • Smee is seriously abusing the 3RR board now by bringing in unrelated items that do not even much relate to him and for which I am quite prepared to answer and will do so in the correct place and at the correct time; which is not here or now. This is what I deal with (smile). Jossi asked for another admin to review this. No other admin has done so. It is still open. Meanwhile, Smee, you repeated your 3RR violation, falsely accuse me of harassment, and abuse this noticeboard. --Justanother 18:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Vijayante reported by User:Philosophus (Result: 24hrs)

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

    Comments
    The insertion has been explained on the talk page, and the user has ignored explanations of BLP's applicability. --Philosophus T 00:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Manopingo reported by User:NickW557 (Result: 24hrs)

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


    Comments
    Two of the RVs were made with very uncivil edit summaries.--Nick—Contact/Contribs 00:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Certified.Gangsta reported by User:LionheartX (Result:No violation)

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


    User:Damien Russel reported by User:Iansmcl (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Bestseller_game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Template:Damien Russell:

    Comments: Revert to enforce his POV. Using insults and general disregard for proof. Iansmcl 03:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs not versions please. And you have the article name wrong William M. Connolley 09:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Balcer reported by User:67.180.67.179 (Result: warning)

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


    Comments: User:Balcer has violated 3RR multiple times during the last 24 hours, despite my requests to him to present his arguments in the discussion section of the article.

    Comments: Unfortunately, the results of multiple 3RR violations by User:Balcer has been protected by editors. Do we want to encourage the 3RR violations this way?

    No we don't want this. The article has been semi'd; Balcer broke 3RR (and admits it) and gets a stern warning William M. Connolley 09:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Odst reported by User:LionheartX (Result: 8h)

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


    Comments: 4 reverts in the last 24 hours on Goguryeo. LionheartX 08:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    8h William M. Connolley 09:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tropicaljet reported by User:melonbarmonster (Result: no block)

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

    • Previous version reverted to:

    05:01, 4 March 2007

    Comments: User:Tropicaljet has refused to engage in discussion in talk page to resolve disagreements and has engaged in revert warring.

    2&3 are contiguous and so count as one. 1 is outside 24h by a fair way William M. Connolley 09:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LionheartX reported by User:Melonbarmonster (Result: no block)

    Three-revert rule violation on Baekdu Mountain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Goguryeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). LionheartX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments
    User made at least 5 reverts in the last 24 hours.

    Some of these reverts are contiguous and so don't count. No block. You have used your quote of failed reports for the day; please don't make any more William M. Connolley 10:43, 6 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=113110277"