< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:57, 23 February 2008 editHeimstern (talk \| contribs)Administrators16,881 edits →User:Baconhead2010 reported by User:Collectonian (Result: no block): reply← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:00, 23 February 2008 edit undoKafziel (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users24,921 edits →User:Baconhead2010 reported by User:Collectonian (Result: no block): agreeNext edit →
Line 554:		Line 554:
	::::His first two reverts removed the AfD template, something he did as an anon IP. How is that not vandalism??? ] (]) 19:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)		::::His first two reverts removed the AfD template, something he did as an anon IP. How is that not vandalism??? ] (]) 19:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::If your reverts had only been to restore the AfD tag, fine. But you reverted the entire edit, including the disputed content, making your reverts edit warring. I did indeed take the AfD tag removal into account, since if it weren't for this, I would simply have blocked you both for edit warring. ] ] 19:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)		:::::If your reverts had only been to restore the AfD tag, fine. But you reverted the entire edit, including the disputed content, making your reverts edit warring. I did indeed take the AfD tag removal into account, since if it weren't for this, I would simply have blocked you both for edit warring. ] ] 19:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
			:::::I agree. My first inclination when I saw this was to block both users. Calling something vandalism doesn't make it so. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

	== Example ==		== Example ==

Revision as of 20:00, 23 February 2008

Template:Moveprotected

Do not continue a dispute on this page. Please keep on topic.
Administrators: Please do not hesitate to move disputes to user talk pages.
Your report will not be dealt with if you do not follow the instructions for new reports correctly.

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

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

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357
358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367
Incidents (archives, search)
1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164
1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480
481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336
337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Violations

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

User:Akhamenehpour reported by User:Zedla (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 09:22, 17 February 2008
1st revert: 08:13, 18 February 2008
2nd revert: 06:49, 17 February 2008
3rd revert: 21:33, 16 February 2008
4th revert: 15:41, 15 February 2008
5th revert: 08:08, 15 February 2008
6th revert: 08:46, 14 February 2008

Previous version reverted to: 06:13, 19 January 2008
1st revert: 08:14, 18 February 2008
2nd revert: 08:13, 13 February 2008
3rd revert: 08:12, 13 February 2008
4th revert: 08:21, 12 February 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: 08:45, 12 February 2008

Not a strict 24h/3rr but long term constant reinsertion of unsourced pov statement and reverting all removals or fact tags with inappropriate 'removing vandalism' edit summary. Zedla (talk) 10:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User warned. I didn't see any previous attempt at engaging this new user in talk or warn him, so I think an immediate block would not be warranted at this point. However, I'd be for blocking immediately if he resumes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Strike that. Blocking 24h. My bad for not checking his talk page history. He was indeed warned, removed the warning, and went on edit-warring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

RESUBMIT ~~wasn't blocked properly before and~~ continues to edit war despite all warnings, call for discussion. Has threatened to puppet disrupt these articles. Zedla (talk) 08:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Zedla (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Morpheus Lyric reported by Onorem♠Dil (Result: 1 week)

Three-revert rule violation on

Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

11:16, 20 February 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "formatted entry")
12:30, 20 February 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted wiki to previous state. Changes made are neither vandalism nor gag. Image uploaded is a somewhat popular pro-Obama primary graphic.")
13:10, 20 February 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Cultural and political image */")
13:12, 20 February 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Cultural and political image */")
13:16, 20 February 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Cultural and political image */")
13:20, 20 February 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Cultural and political image */")
13:43, 20 February 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "â†Replaced page with 'Barack Me Obamadeus.

Ban me, but Texas, take note... It is over. I have committed wikisuicide. Viva Obama!'")

13:50, 20 February 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Anger at something so trivial? Is this less than death? No? Very well, then. We will treat it as such.")
13:56, 20 February 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 192792567 by Remy B (talk)")

Diff of warning: here

User continues to insert image after being reverted by several users and asked to use the talk page...twice replacing the entire article with the image after being warned about 3rr. -—Onorem♠Dil 13:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Already blocked --slakr 22:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Cebactokpatop reported by User:Seminarist (Result: 31 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Image:MZizijulas.jpg. Cebactokpatop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Cebactokpatop repeatedly insists on placing POV description on MZizijulas.jpg file. This is part of ongoing dispute over the article on John Zizioulas. (Previous 3RR violation by Cebactokpatop on that page resulted in page being protected for 10 days.) Seminarist (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Note, I have stepped in on this and I am attempting to mediate. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There was no 3RR violation on John Zizioulas. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, 3RR warning given here. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Cebactokpatop has reverted the text again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seminarist (talk • contribs) 19:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed by me. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. · AndonicO 19:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Cebactokpatop is adding POV to the description of the text again. Seminarist (talk) 04:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked again, 72 hours this time. Kafziel 05:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

User:LPRABCMP reported by User:Jakew (Result: 1 week)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 21:18, February 19, 2008

1st revert: 21:44, February 20, 2008 as User:70.114.38.167
2nd revert: 21:50, February 20, 2008 as User:70.114.38.167
3rd revert: 21:55, February 20, 2008
4th revert: 21:58, February 20, 2008 as User:70.114.38.167

Diff of 3RR warning: 21:09, February 17, 2008

Note: should there be any doubt that the two users are the same, User:LPRABCMP signed a post made by User:70.114.38.167.

After being blocked for edit warring at 19:25, 18 February 2008, this user has now started edit warring over a different issue at the same page. Jakew (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 1 week (IP and sock). --slakr 22:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User:GHcool reported by User:Imad_marie (result: page protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Diff of 3RR warning: user is not a newbie, he's aware of the policy.

Revert-war on how the article should state why Hezbollah launched Katyusha rockets in the 2006 war. - Imad marie (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Page protected --slakr 23:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Rschen7754 reported by User:NE2 (Result:No block )

Resolved

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 01:30, 20 February 2008

1st revert: 20:20
2nd revert: 21:23
3rd revert: 21:25
4th revert: 21:32

Diff of 3RR warning: 21:26

Basically Rschen7754 thinks he can do what he wants because he's an admin (see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Is it valid to semiprotect an IP talk page to keep the IP from removing warnings?). He wrote up a little essay that's factually inaccurate. NE2 02:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

A 3RR on a user's sandbox page? Mmmm... Not applicable, NE2. If and when he moves it to the Misplaced Pages namespace, then yes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:74.228.158.68 reported by User:xareu bs (Result: No violation; page protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert: 01:10, 21 February 2008
2nd revert: 16:56, 20 February 2008
3rd revert: 16:51, 20 February 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME The user is well aware of the policy (he even complained about me!)

This anonymous user keeps on deleting referenced information (see discussion page: lyrics from songs are provided which show explicit sexism; links to newsmedia with complaints to women´s right councils; internal links to wikipedia musical definitions are also provided to define the lacks of this music. Seeing his historial, I realize he´s a reggaeton fan which cannot admit the less criticism to his loved music. --Xareu bs (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll get straight to the point. Xareau_bs was vandalizing that wiki on a daily basis with critical POV statements. He refuses to include a single reference. I reported him for 3RR last week, and an admin protected the page to prevent further vandalism by him. Take 10 seconds to look at the talk page and the wiki history, his additions are noticeably POV, and he has yet to actually reference anything. He isn't even trying to source anything. I also think he just inadvertantly butchered the 3RR noticeboard coding. 74.228.158.68 (talk) 08:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The three-revert rule prohibits more than three reverts in a 24-hour period. You have provided only three. No violation made out. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous! Don't start a revert war on this page. Wait for an admin to follow-up. - oahiyeel 10:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the page due to further edit warring. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:75.47.138.61 reported by User:NE2 (Result: Semi-protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 19:03, 16 February 2008

1st revert: 21:19, 20 February 2008
2nd revert: 21:35
3rd revert: 22:07
4th revert: 00:57, 21 February 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: 22:23, 20 February 2008

This guy changes IP every day so blocking might have no effect. NE2 08:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Page semi-protected. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Phantomia reported by User:Seicer (Result: 24 hrs)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 05:35, 21 February 2008

There were also two reverts extending back to 18 February.

Diff of 3RR warning: 02:15, 21 February 2008

User continues to add in spam links regarding Oink's Pink Palace. Claims that he is an "ex-Moderator of OiNK Member of OiNKv2" and states that " have seen the new site at the new url with the old data so I can confirm it is real." But the primary web-site states otherwise. It's been previously reported to WP:ANI, seen here. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Done 24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Tigeringtown reported by User:ViperNerd (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 16:18, 21 February 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: 15:55, 21 February 2008

After being warned of the 3RR the user responded by posting a vandalism template to my talk page, in addition to calling me a liar in violation of WP:NPA. Then the user decided to simply ignore the warning and revert the article for the 4th time in 3 hours. This user has no other history of editing and appears to be primarily interested in trying to start an edit war over a topic that has been covered in the article already. I have reason to believe the user is also using sockpuppets for this purpose, as this edit was made by an IP user just before this user started making the same edit, please consider blocking 64.234.75.220 and 209.221.240.193 simultaneous to this user. In fact, semi-protection might be in order for this article until this user gets bored and moves on. ViperNerd (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Both blocked for 24 hours. Mango juice 21:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Malarious reported by User:SFC9394 (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 20:58, 16 February 2008

Diff of 3RR warning:

Discussion open on talk, user not interested, given warning, paid no attention. Other contribs. of user strongly suggest that WP:NPOV is irrelevent to them. SFC9394 (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for twenty-four hours, per the evidence above. -- tariqabjotu 01:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Twsx reported by User:Navnløs (Result: No violation) (Result:Article ban)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 13:27, 6 October 2007

Note: These are all the Amon Amarth edits, I'm not sure if I got all of them, though. I can also provide the diffs for Dissection, but that would just take me even longer. The later edits are more interesting, if you care.

Diff of 3RR warning: 19:56, 10 December 2007

User has been warring on both of those pages long before I took up the issue with him. The user has been warned repeatedly by a handful of users and has made it clear that they don't care. Though, for the past few months, it has been mostly me reverting the user, if you look through both pages' histories you will see that many other users have reverted Twsx as well. I'm sure some of my past indisgressions may be brought up (I have been blocked for edit warring myself a couple times, though I still believe I was in the right on my latest one), but I assure you that I've changed and I do mean to help wikipedia and this kind of nonsense only makes us all go crazy and not focus on good editing. I also admit that when this edit warring started between me and Twsx it was mostly a comma break vs line break issue, but as I said, I only want the edit warring to stop now. I'm asking for a block to teach the user a lesson and stop edit warring. Blizzard Beast 23:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that i have never thought of this before. Please note that I could make the very same list with this editors revisions (which usually take place within, say, 12 hours after my edit). More argumentation and referencing concerning the issue can be found at User:Twsx/CVL, (so yes, I had to deal with this before, kinda :-)). As far as my humble judgement goes (partially based on the history of this editors behavoir, as seen on the page linked above) I have to assume that he is placing this report in bad faith. ~ | twsx | _cont | ~ 00:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a blatant lie. You have been edit warring on those two pages even before I got involved. Would you like me to provide the evidence? Because I can. You have been warned and reverted by multiple users, so I suppose they were all in bad faith, too, right? And you happen to be an innocent viction who's done no wrong? You've shown a disregard for the rules of wikipedia and gotten away with it for too long w/o any measures being taken. Blizzard Beast 18:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence that a violation of the three-revert rule has occurred. Hence, no action here. -- tariqabjotu 01:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to be offensive but he has most definitely broken 3RR. Excessive edit warring is still breaking 3RR even if the user hasn't reverted three times in a day. And I quote "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." Which happens a lot. I have been blocked before without making 3 reverts in a day. Edit warring is edit warring and above all it is disruptive and needs to be prevented. Blizzard Beast 18:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Tariq is correct, this is not a violation of WP:3RR, which is why it cannot be dealt with here. If you feel that these are disruptive edits, you can always post a report at WP:AN/I. —Travis 18:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I can take it to ANI, but I seem to be missing something here and I admit I don't understand. How is Twsx not breaking 3RR? He's edit warring like crazy! I, myself, have been reported here before without having to make 3 reverts in a day and simply for edit warring over a week or so. If I take it to ANI should I leave it in the same format with all the diffs and what not? Blizzard Beast 18:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something it says "To report edit warring, see the administrators' 3RR noticeboard." at ANI. Blizzard Beast 18:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Policy says: “An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period.” (emphasis mine) In other words, 4 or more reverts within 24 hours, which hasn’t happened here. I understand your frustration, but this noticeboard is not the proper forum for this case. —Travis 18:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No, edit warring is not tolerated, and admins have broad discretion to stop disruption. Read WP:3RR; just below the sentence quoted above you will read Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. Efforts to game the system, for example by persistently making three reverts each day or three reverts on each of a group of pages, cast an editor in a poor light and may result in blocks. There is nothing wrong with flexibility and creativity in crafting ways to stop editors from acting poorly. Thatcher 19:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to jump in here and do something a little different. Edit warring is not an acceptable editing method, whether or not 3RR is violated. What we have here is a long-running edit war (47 reversions!) over whether or not to list the band's genres on a single line or two lines in the info-box. That is the lamest, saddest, stupidest edit war I have ever seen. I am banning both Navnløs (talk · contribs) and Twsx (talk · contribs) from editing the article for 30 days, or until they reach an agreement and settle this issue once and for all. There is a talk page, a Wikiproject to consult with, RFC and mediation, and this sort of petty disruption in lieu of appropriate dispute resolution needs to stop. Thatcher 18:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:208.40.192.194 User:TiconderogaCCB reported by 150.210.226.6 (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC) (Result: Stale)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of 3RR warning: not a new user has been blocked in the past for same incident

This is the same user TiconderogaCCB as can be seen by who has been blocked in the past for edit warring and abusive use of sockpuppets 150.210.226.6 (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

150.210.226.6 (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Report is stale - edit war was a couple of days ago. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Imperium_Europeum reported by User:Lakinekaki (Result: page protected )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 00:24, 22 February 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: 01:46, 22 February 2008

Page protected Multiple editors were reverting and general chaos seemed to be ensuing, so it's protected for now. --slakr 04:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Zsero reported by User:Snowfire51 (Result: Deferred to ANI)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 12:29 21 February 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: 00:28 22 February 2008 (edit war)
2nd 3RR Warning 3:13 22 February 2008 (3RR)

User:Zsero is engaged in an edit war over a warning left by admin User:Hu12 on the pages of five accounts suspected of leaving spam. There is currently a discussion of this matter at WP:ANI, however, Zsero feels the spam warnings are not valid and deletes them before any consensus can be gained. On the WP:ANI page, he admitted to being fully aware of violating the policy here .

He has also done the same multiple reverts to , , and . I've attempted to talk to him about this on both his talk page and mine, but he remains adamant about removing the warnings because he feels his edit war is justified the spam warnings are WP:NPA. Snowfire51 (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Deferred to WP:ANI. There are wider issues here and blocking Zsero would be unhelpful. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's the full others;

User:Zsero Three-revert rule violation on 134.68.172.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
1st revert: 22:18, 21 February 2008
2nd revert: 00:42, 22 February 2008
3rd revert: 01:07, 22 February 2008
4th revert: 08:03, 22 February 2008
5th revert: 09:23, 22 February 2008

User:Zsero Three-revert rule violation on 134.68.173.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
1st revert: 22:33, 21 February 2008
2nd revert: 00:41, 22 February 2008
3rd revert: 01:07, 22 February 2008
4th revert: 08:03, 22 February 2008
5th revert: 09:24, 22 February 2008

User:Zsero Three-revert rule violation on 134.68.172.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
1st revert: 21:51, 21 February 2008
2nd revert: 00:40, 22 February 2008
3rd revert: 01:07, 22 February 2008
4th revert: 08:02, 22 February 2008
5th revert: 09:22, 22 February 2008

--Hu12 (talk) 10:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Crum375 reported by User:4.253.37.178 (Result: Page protected, content issue referred to ArbCom)

Three-revert rule violation on

Diff of 3RR warning: warnings from 12:34, 22 February 2008 through 13:49, 22 February 2008

3RR violation in arbcom case evidence posting place, gaming the system to try to justify 3RR violation. 4.253.37.178 (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Exempt due to WP:BLP. Stifle (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Is this exemption a blank check that permits an unlimited number of reversions if you claim it to fall under that policy, no matter how many other editors in good standing disagree? *Dan T.* (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it just prevents people from posting links that are borderline vandalism, since the link is a highly opinionated blog (see also, our external links policy) and calls the person a psychopath, which is potentially libelous under the biographies of living persons policy. --slakr 20:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The page has been protected twice so far due to this edit warring, and so far Crum375 has reverted it 10 times, while a whole variety of other editors (I think some of them even admins) reverted back. Editing of other people's ArbCom evidence by anybody other than an arbitrator or clerk is supposed to be against policy. If BLP is suddenly to be strictly enforced on ArbCom evidence pages, there's an awful lot else that needs to be redacted, including numerous statements about Judd Bagley in the same case. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

WTF? Throwing three-letter acronyms around doesn't make you exempt from the 3RR. Sean William @ 21:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Yosemitesam25 reported by User:Arjuna808 (Result: No action taken)

Three-revert rule violation on

Diff of 3RR warning: warnings from 20:00, 22 February 2008 through 21:07, 22 February 2008

User:Yosemitesam25 has been reverting and/or editing out text (both whole and in part) in an article that has been the subject of contentious dispute in the past. S/he has reverted or altered text despite discussion and explanation on my talk page of why these edits were likely not warranted. Thank you. Arjuna (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

- The "4th revert" and "2nd revert" are clearly not anything close to a revert. I count 2-ish so far today and one by the reporter. Sasquatch t|c 21:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Timeshift9 reported by User:Prester John (Result:Blocked 12 hours )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: here

All reverts are the same.

1st revert: 18:30 Feb 22
2nd revert: 18:45 Feb 22
3rd revert: 18:54 Feb 22
4th revert: 19:08 Feb 22

Diff of 3RR warning: User has been blocked for 3RR before.

User:Timeshift9 attempts a wikipedia 3RR record with 4 reverts in just over half an hour. User was offered the chance to self revert yet has declined. Prester John (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Timeshift9 for 12 hours for edit-warring on the article. However, while changing the size each time he reverted, he sometimes added content or did other work, if it is uncontroversial I encourage him to make such constructive edits when the block expires. Keilana| 03:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Baconhead2010 reported by User:Collectonian (Result: no block)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 23:56, 22 February 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: 01:13, 23 February 2008

As IP 71.128.137.235, this user restored cleaned up fancruft from the article, that was removed based on discussions in the current AfD and the main Wheel of Fortune talk page. Additionally they removed the AfD templates. After that was reverted, they created the Baconhead2010 account, and kept reverting the revert. After third revert of his edits, he stopped removing the AfD, but kept redoing the readdition of the fancruft, despite warnings to stop. Between the final warning, he made an additional edit, inexplicably removing a single item, perhaps thinking it would negate the 3RR rule or something. User seems to have no purpose but pointed attempts to undo the needed clean up in the article, despite consensus to clean it up for bring back into the main to avoid deletion. Collectonian (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This report contains oldids, not diffs. Please refile using diffs if you would like the report acted on. Stifle (talk) 12:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

All links fixed to diffs Collectonian (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As both sides are edit warring, and Collectionian is arguably the worse offender (using Twinkle in a content dispute and labelling the edits as vandalism, for example), I'm disinclined to make a block on only one side. Instead, I'm watchlisting the article and am ready to block if either continues to revert. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

His first two reverts removed the AfD template, something he did as an anon IP. How is that not vandalism??? Collectonian (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If your reverts had only been to restore the AfD tag, fine. But you reverted the entire edit, including the disputed content, making your reverts edit warring. I did indeed take the AfD tag removal into account, since if it weren't for this, I would simply have blocked you both for edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. My first inclination when I saw this was to block both users. Calling something vandalism doesn't make it so. Kafziel 20:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Example

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

Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages