Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:09, 26 August 2006 editNixer (talk | contribs)8,222 edits →[] reported by User:[] (Result:)← Previous edit Revision as of 19:10, 26 August 2006 edit undoRyulong (talk | contribs)218,132 editsm JS: Reverted vandalism by Nixer to last version by Wildnox. Please do not compromise the integrity of pages.Next edit →
Line 1,248: Line 1,248:
'''Comments:''' It is hard to list his reverts, as he does them in groups instead of one big edit. Another editor is about to violate 3rr in this war also --] 18:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC) '''Comments:''' It is hard to list his reverts, as he does them in groups instead of one big edit. Another editor is about to violate 3rr in this war also --] 18:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


===] reported by User:] (Result:)===


] violation on {{Article|Pluto}}. {{3RRV|Ryulong}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- Use this for simple reverts. For more complex reverts, please include information about which previous versions are being reverted to. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert: - The last edit was made after warning.--] 09:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
*


Time report made:

'''Comments'''
I already reported this user today but the admin decided not to block him. The user continues revert-warring reverting changes of other users to his own version.--] 19:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


<pre><nowiki> <pre><nowiki>

Revision as of 19:10, 26 August 2006

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
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
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.

    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


    Violations

    Please place new reports at the bottom.

    User:Zaparojdik reported by User:Clevelander (Result:Already Blocked)

    Three revert rule violation on Turkic peoples. Zaparojdik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 14:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    This user has been unwilling to discuss changes to the article on the talk page and continously reverts both this article as well as the one on Pan-Turkism. He also labels users who do not agree with his point of view as "vandals" and states that "Turks should always battle with Kurds and Armenians". He proclaimed on the talk page in reference to a map: "THIS MAP IS NOT RIGHT AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" -- Clevelander 14:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:Jkress613 reported by User:Erik (Result: 24 hrs)

    Three revert rule violation on Star Trek XI. Jkress613 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 18:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: The user has reverted POV writing as well as misspellings into the film article more than three times, which is a 3RR violation.

    Setting phasers to "block for 24 hours". Extraordinary Machine 01:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    68.210.28.135 reported by User:DickClarkMises (Result: No block)

    Three revert rule violation on Alexander Cockburn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.210.28.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 19:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: I believe this amounts to a violation of the 3RR. Basically, the editor made an uncommented deletion of a block of text that discussed criticism of the article subject. Multiple editors reverted this deletion, complaining in edit summaries that it was unexplained. The anon editor finally decided to make some case for his position, but still ended up deleting this text block for the fourth time today. Please advise if I should take this to AN/I instead of here. Cheers, DickClarkMises 19:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

    I would direct interested admins to this diff, by which one can see that the editor about which I filed the report seems apologetic and even cooperative. I suspect that Misplaced Pages would probably be best served by letting this one ride. DickClarkMises 20:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for providing that diff. User seems genuinely apologetic, so I don't see what use a block would have. Extraordinary Machine 02:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:Stanley011 reported by User:Aren't I Obscure? (Result: not blocked)

    Three revert rule violation on Golfers with most wins in men's major championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Stanley011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    • 10:49, 11 July 2006 This specific comment is from a previous violation, but he has been blocked twice before for 3RR violation.

    Time report made: 20:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: He refuses to actually discuss the concerns on the talk page, instead posting single comments and considering the matter "addressed". Aren't I Obscure? 20:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

    I certainly was not intending to violate the 3rr. Looking back on the times of the edits, I realize I made two of these edits about 13 hours apart, and so did not immediately recognize that they were within 24 hrs. I certainly will not do this again, and I am currently in deliberation with Aren't I Obscure? on how we can work out our differences on this article. Stanley011 22:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

    And of course, I have discussed all conerns, and continue to do so as an examination of the discussion page of the article will reveal. This user interprets disagreement as non-discussion. Stanley011 01:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:Comiclover420 reported by User:Lil crazy thing (Result: user warned)

    Three revert rule violation on Randy Orton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Comiclover420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 20:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This is a clear violation of the rule, the user has been notified but has continued to revert, user has also been told where to go to see the discussion on why the list was removed but hasn't taken no notice of anything they have been told. User will continue to carry on unless action is taken. Lil crazy thing 20:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:Bdean1963 reported by User:Messhermit (Result: user warned)

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

    Time report made: 09:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User started and keeps promoting racial, political and POV bias.
    • This is not the first time, and I have already attempted to talk with him, leaving a comment in his talk page with no results.
    • I have keep on reverting the original article, but it seems that he is not willing to talk or discuss about this.
    • Hope 3rr doesn't count on my case, I have only tried to prevent him to state a disruptive POV. Messhermit 14:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The user has not yet violated WP:3RR because there are not yet four reverts over the same content in 24 hours. However, I have warned the user for nearly breaching WP:3RR. And please use diffs, not revision links. Thanks. Voice-of-All 05:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:Dposse reported by User:MrDarcy (Result: user warned)

    Three revert rule violation on Snakes on a Plane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dposse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    Time report made: 20:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User:Dposse and User:Guerillafilm have been engaging in an edit war all day. Guerillafilm may also be guilty of a 3RR violation.
    • Dposse probably has five or six reverts to the page in the last 24 hours.
    • Dposse has been using foul language in edit summaries towards Guerillafilm, and has been exhibiting page ownership behavior.
    • I'm reporting this because an anon user just edited the section to make it more concise and more neutral and dposse reverted again.
    And edit summaries like "For the love of snakes, please look at your own fucking talk page Guerillafilm!" aren't helping Dposse's case very much. Metros232 20:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Chocolate boy is accusing me of posting as an anonymous user, a sockpuppet. This is patently untrue. You can check my IP address. And I can guarantee you that the anonymous user who attempted to post a neutral compromise edit (that was then was vandalized by dposse) is not me.Guerillafilm 22:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • How interesting it is that you only posted one side to this story. How about you post all the edits that Guerillafilm did? I am not the bad guy here. I did everything by the book. It is not my fault that Guerillafilm ignored attempts to settle events peacefully. dposse 21:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The edit war is now over. The page was been fully protected. By the way, it says at the top of the page "Administrators are unlikely to block a user who has never been warned." dposse 21:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    Dposse, there's a warning on your talk page, posted at 20:18, 21 August 2006. You reverted the page again after that, hence my reporting of you for a 3RR violation. I suggest that you review WP:3RR to better understand the policy in question. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    Again, go ahead and post all the times that Guerillafilm reverted the page. I was the one who tried to edit the page peacefully. Guerillafilm reverted the page so fast that i couldn't fix the page to make all parties happy. dposse 21:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • dposse... other individuals' bad behavior doesn't justify your own bad behavior. Does the "Snakes on a Plane" Misplaced Pages page belong to you? Somebody please ban him. dposse will not let anyone, other than himself, edit on that page. Basically we have to ask for his permission to edit the page. If he doesn't like our contribution, then he will ruthlessly break the rules to protect his own agenda on that article. I tried a couple of times to contribute meaningfully and then he vandalized my contribution and then he reverted the page anyways, more times than is allowed by wikipedia policy.24.9.70.47 12:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:Setanta747 reported by Djegan (Result: user blocked)

    Three revert rule violation on Northern Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Setanta747 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    Time report made: 21:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User Setanta747 has already broken 3RR on this article twice in the last week. Well aware of policy, can someone investigate? Djegan 21:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

    It says here "(Result: user blocked)" but this is not the case. They are not blocked. They have reverted the article three times today. Is their an admin in the house? Djegan 05:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    It says the result is the user is blocked, but he is not! Have I missed somthing??? Djegan 21:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    Voice of All added the "user blocked" result above but never blocked. Give me a second to review the case. Prodego 21:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    OK the block would have expired by now anyway, so I am not going to block, but a block should have been made. Prodego 21:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks. Just wanted to clarify where we stand on the issue rather than anything else. Djegan 21:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:Djegan reported by User:Mal (Result: user warned)

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

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 22:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User Djegan has already broken 3RR on this article twice in the last week. Well aware of policy (as can be seen by the fact that he has also reported myself), can someone investigate? I notice he has claimed an anonymous IP is responsible for the last revert, though I obviously cannot be sure: this user has recruited help from other editors in an edit war against me, and is very obviously 'playing the game' with regard to the 3RR rule.

    I remind that the 3RR Rule states: If you violate the three revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours sysops may block you for up to 24 hours. In cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally.

    I further note that I have tried to come to a compromise on several occasions - particularly on my last edit, which might be regarded as an expansion or clarification rather then merely a simple revert. It was certainly an effort to reach consensus.

    Djegan has asked for citations for my edits. I supplied them, yet this still is apparently not good enough for him --Mal 22:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

    This nomination is in bad faith and based on incorrect information...

    In summary I do not edit by anon and do not revert war with myself. I think that Mals nomination is in bad faith as I already stated on talk:Northern Ireland that I did not edit anonymously. He should of made it clear above that three reverts are under a user account and a fourth under an ip address. Additionally he states that I broke 3RR before, this is incorrect. Let him cite the occurences, its clear from his talk page that he does no understand 3RR. Djegan 22:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

        • Response to evidence regarding 4th revert:

    Fair enough. Though I have not investigated your evidence, I will take you on face value Djegan. I was going to remove the '4th revert', though I thought perhaps it should be kept so that Admins can see exactly what we have been talking about here. I have put a note after it instead.

    You are, however, still apparently guilty of breaking the 3RR rule (my opinion). --Mal 22:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

    • The Three Revert Rule:

    Just because someone has violated the three revert rule does not mean they will be blocked. It is up to the administrator's discretion whether to take action. Conversely, just because someone has not violated the 3RR does not mean that they will not be blocked. Revert warring is disruptive, and the 3RR is not an entitlement to three 'free' reverts per day.

    Quoted from Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule:

    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. If you find you have reverted more than even once in a day, it indicates there is a serious problem and you should try Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, starting with the article's talk page.

    --Mal 23:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

    • Actually I am not the only person who reverted the article. Indeed the consenus was with the version I reverted to. If we are going to use WP:3RR - even when its not technically been broken - as a stick to overide the policies WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR (official policies that must be meet); then its time for people to quit wikipedia, never mind temporary blocks. All I have insisted on is that WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR be adhered to on the disputed article. I have never broken WP:3RR, because I respect the policies; I do not "game" them either. Djegan 00:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

    203.59.164.116 reported by User:Todd (Result: user warned)

    Three revert rule violation on Scorpio (astrology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 203.59.164.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    • N/A


    Time report made: 22:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:132.241.246.111 reported by User:VoiceOfReason (Result: user blocked)

    Three revert rule violation on United_States_Senate_elections,_2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 132.241.246.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 03:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    The edit the user made (and repeatedly reinserted after other editors removed it) was "Even Talent's supporters think he's going to loose (sic)". A glance at the user's talk page indicates that a) he's a suspected sock puppet, and b) he has a serious problem adhering to NPOV on political topics. An article like United States Senate elections, 2006 is by nature in danger of being contaminated by POV material, and it's not good for an editor who cannot control his biases to be unable to resist infecting such articles. This editor has been repeatedly warned, and has not listened. VoiceOfReason 03:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:DTC reported by User:Marinus (Result:)

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

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    • No, user was warned on article talk page, denied that 3RR was violated, warned again, again remained unrepentant.

    Time report made: 06:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Anarchism#Anarcho-capitalism is the problem area. Part of the long-standing edit-war between proponents of anarcho-capitalism versus everybody else. I proposed an agreement, to which the problem user seemed to agree but he keeps changing content in line with the proposal to content which denies that the view he edits in is that of a minority. This is a strange claim, against the grain of common knowledge and scholarship on the field, as well as pages upon pages of debate on the Talk page. Also, the problem user is suspected by some of being a sock puppet. --Marinus 06:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

    No 3RR violation from me. My edits were modifications and trying to conform to sources. On the other hand, "Good Intentions" has been edit warring and reverting. It make no sense that he's accusing me of 3RR when he's beeng doing reverts and I haven't done any. The sockpuppet tag is just a method of harrassment. DTC 07:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:DTC reported by User:Marinus (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on

    It is suspected that this user might be a sock puppet or impersonator of RJII.
    Please refer to contribution history matching RJII's edits and style for evidence. See block log and current autoblocks.


    DTC is whoever you want him to be. DTC 19:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC). DTC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    • N/A

    Time report made: 07:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User removes sock-puppet suspicion tag from user page, though there are three editors who are willing to suspect him and independently tag him as such. --Marinus 07:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

    No 3RR violation from me. My edits were modifications and trying to conform to sources. On the other hand, "Good Intentions" has been edit warring and reverting. It make no sense that he's accusing me of 3RR when he's beeng doing reverts and I haven't done any. DTC 07:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC) Oh I see, he tried to trap me with the sockpuppet tag thing. That tag amounts to vandalism by now. It's been up for a long time and he hasn't been able to prove that I am this mysterious person I am supposed to be. DTC 07:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC) Comment I've come to regret this report - it is his user-space, after all. What I hoped to accomplish was highlight this user's aggressiveness in advancing his views contrary to (attempted) consensus. --Marinus 11:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:Comanche cph reported by User:CharlotteWebb (Result:blocked for 1 month)

    Three revert rule violation on Viking. Comanche_cph (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log): Five times in less than an hour, Comanche inserted some unsourced nonsense about mushrooms.

    User has previously been blocked for edit warring on several occasions . I'm not sure any new warnings are requisite.

    Time report made: 14:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

    User has subsequently been blocked for other issues, notably civility. Sorry I missed this, I would have included it in my message to the user about the block. Note that his comments to CharlotteWebb here are cited as part of the block. ++Lar: t/c 18:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:Pfahlstrom reported by User:Wiki-Ed (Result:User warned)

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

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    Time report made: 14:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User keeps reverting page to include citation-needed tags for verified information (as per talk page). This encourages another user to vandalise the article by blanking the relevant sections altogether.

    • Comments: First off, I am aware of 3RR. I reverted based on my belief that WP-Edit's reverts of my citationneeded tag amounts to obvious vandalism. As explained on the talk page, the claim was not cited even though WP-Edit believes it was covered in the next paragraph, and WP-Edit himself cautions another user for the same thing: "In the first paragraph you removed the tag for an unproven statement". Currently a citation has been added by Edgar181, but I am unconvinced that its specificity is of the necessary level, as explained on the Talk page. However, that is neither here nor there, as this is about my reverts: I believe I was reverting obvious vandalism, and it didn't even concern a change to the substance of the article, merely a citationneeded tag I believe necessary in order to encourage someone to find a good source per WP:CITE; I myself did look for sources but have not yet found sources to satisfy the entirety of the statement. —pfahlstrom 17:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    I just want to say that as to whether I violated the letter or spirit of 3RR, I will not question the determination of whichever admin decides how to answer this complaint and will be less knee-jerk in the future. —pfahlstrom 02:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    I'm not inclined to press this, irritating though it was. It might have been an accidental (?) violation of the letter of the rule, but I think Pfalstrom was acting in good faith. Wiki-Ed 14:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    This is just barely a 3RR violation (another hour ont he 4th edit wouldn't have qualified it.) Let this be your only warning for next time. Next time, get friends who agree with you, as Wiki-Ed did. --Zsinj 02:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters reported by User:Ultramarine (Result:2rr, not three...no block)

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

    Comments: Aware of the 3RR rule, see the block log.Ultramarine 16:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comment: Notice that the "4th revert" is a completely unrelated edit to the first three (not even the same section of the article). After the first removal of material unrelated to the article, inserted by Ultramarine, I provided a detailed explanation on the talk page for why it was not relevant. She restored the non-relevant graph three times without providing any explanation of its alleged connection to the article in talk. However, rather than revert a fourth time, I sought the input from an administrator about Ultramarine's behavior in inserting irrelevant (and somewhat disruptive) material). LotLE×talk 18:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

    4 reverts. If we are going to have a content discussion here, then I will note that you are deleting well-sourced relevant material, as discussed on the talk page.Ultramarine 18:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    Note also that no notification or discussion was made by Ultramarine (or anyone) prior to filing this false report. LotLE×talk 04:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    You are well aware of the 3RR rule as can be seen in your block log. DO NOT delete my comments here: .Ultramarine 04:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    Results: I only see a total of three reverts, not four. While WP:3RR isn't an entitlement to make 3 reverts a day, it appears the content is a dispute about a graph which has not gained consensus for inclusion on the article talk page anyway.--MONGO 05:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    There are four reverts, the last was a revert of an added dispute template, , without discussion.Ultramarine 05:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    The forth revert was a different unrelated edit abakharev 11:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:JB196 reported by User:-- User:3bulletproof16 (Result: No block)

    Three revert rule violation on World Wrestling Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JB196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 17:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User is re-adding non-notable links that can easily be found elsewhere in problem article. Has been told to discuss the addition of these unnecessary links on the article's talk page, though he has shown no intention of a discussion as proven by his constant reversions. -- 3:16 17:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

    User doesn't appear to have been informed of the 3RR. No block. Extraordinary Machine 01:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:Bertrand Meyer reported by User:Ideogram (Result: user blocked)

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

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 19:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    This user is Dr. Bertrand Meyer editing the page on the Eiffel programming language, which he invented. As a recognized expert in his field but new to Misplaced Pages he does not understand Misplaced Pages rules and believes he can impose his own. In this particular case he is trying to retroactively assert copyright over material he has already entered into Misplaced Pages so that he can remove it.

    User:Petaholmes (Result:No violation)

    On the page for Randall James Bayer, has three times in 24-hours removed the list of his journal articles. See history. This is a violation of Misplaced Pages:3RR. Wjhonson 04:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    A total of three. Deletion counts as a revert.

    There are only three reverts here. Jkelly 04:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:AFRIDIA reported by User:Feebtlas (Result: 24 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on Pakistani cricket team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). AFRIDIA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 15:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters reported by User:Ultramarine (Result: NO BLOCK)

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

    Note: This is a duplicate of the above false and rejected 3RR report by same user, using same diffs. The alleged 4th and 5th reverts listed are unrelated edits to different sections of the article. The first three are the same ones reported above, and I have made zero deletions of the inappropriate chart since 15:22, 22 August 2006 (though other editors have removed it since then). The diffs listed below Ultramarine's comment are all either identical to the diffs listed above, or diffs of non-consecutive edits (that also don't happen to have anything to do with the graph at question).LotLE×talk 20:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    As stated below, you have continued reverting after that report.Ultramarine 20:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Aware of the 3RR rule, see the block log. I have reported the 4 first revert previously above but the 4th was considered dusbious. Howver, he has now made a 5th revert. This shows how he reverts to a prior version and deletes added text:

    (here is a word added but he still reverts the added graph, as he states in the edit summary)

    Ultramarine 21:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    DO NOT edit my comments Lulu.Ultramarine 20:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    Ultramarine...I see a content dispute and some edit warring but not a breach of 3RR...I'll warn Lulu to be careful.--MONGO 22:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:Edipedia reported by User:HongQiGong (Result: 24 hours)

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

    Comments: User had been warned on previous occasions before: , . And he has a habit of removing warnings on his Talk page. This is the most recent warning he received: .

    User:Dy-no-miite (Result: user warned)

    Three revert rule violation on Robert Spencer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dy-no-miite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: 3RR violation on the introduction.

    User:Ultramarine reported by User:LotLE×talk (Result:No block)

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

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    Time report made: 20:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Editor repeatedly adds irrelevant graph to article, despite 3RR warning and consensus of talk page against its inclusion. The latest reversion follows two false reports, above and using same diffs, of 3RR against me for removing the same original research material (Ultramarine reverts multiple editors for its inclusion, and refuses to present any argument for its relevance on talk; only that she believes it is "interesting"). LotLE×talk

    None of this is close to 3 reverts in 24 hours. The report is deliberately misleading, stating that the first addition of the graph is both the previous version and a revert at the same time (and concealing this by not giving time stamps) and stating that minor corrections of my own the text, with no one else editing between my edits, is reverting!!! The rest is also false, I have discussed the issue numerous times on the talk page. On the other hand, you have reverted 5 times in 24 hours as noted above.Ultramarine 20:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    That's it...I'll protect the page and you two can hash it out on the talk page.--MONGO 22:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:RevolverOcelotX reported by User:John Smith's (Result: user warned)

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

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 21:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Although the user didn't revert to the exact version listed above, the content he reverted was from that period. So he was effectively reverting. John Smith's 21:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    The first edit was NOT revert. The contribution I added was clearly NOT present in "Previous version reverted" shown above. John Smith's reverted my contribution first and both of us at this time only made 3 reverts. --RevolverOcelotX 21:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    Your first edit was a revert because you were re-inserting material from that edit. There were only minor changes in the mean-time. John Smith's 21:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    There is no evidence that my first edit was "re-inserting material from that edit". Read the previous version above. It is clearly not a revert. John Smith's is using this as a rather sneaky way to attempt to gain leverage in a content dispute. --RevolverOcelotX 21:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    Of course you were - the changes that had been made were minimal. You broke the rules so they get applied to you, just as they've been applied to me in the past. John Smith's 21:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    Please read previous version here, 10:15, 13 August 2006. There is nothing in my first edit that indicate it as a revert to that previous version, therefore it is not a revert. --RevolverOcelotX 21:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    Sorry about this. I got confused and thought I had removed that article link only recently. Please close this report. John Smith's 21:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:FoxyProxy reported by User:Palffy (Result: 24 hours)

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

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) : - The 3RR warning was applied on User: Kwame Nkrumah's page (see explanation below).

    Time report made: 21:45, August 23, 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Please see additional recent 3RR violations here. I have filed a checkuser request, to determine for certain whether the person who has been reverting Germany National Football Team is the same person. Palffy 21:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:66.38.180.253 reported by User:ST47 (Result: 48 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on User:RSudarshan (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 66.38.180.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:
    • 7th revert:

    Time report made: 22:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:1892 Fitch Dude reported by User:Tarentum (Result:No block)

    Three revert rule violation on Germany national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 1892_Fitch_Dude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 23:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: No block. Not only was this report made 3 days after the reverts, but this is nowhere near four in 24 hours. If you want help in a low-intensity edit war, you may like to try Requests for comment instead. Robdurbar 06:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:Kwame Nkrumah reported by User:Ryūlóng (Result: 5 days (by Blnguyen))

    Three revert rule violation on Several templates, claiming that Ukrainian copyright law is superceded by American copyright laws because images are released as fair use per Ukrainian laws. Here is an example at Template:FC Chornomorets Odessa. He has been blocked for 3RR prior elsewhere. Kwame Nkrumah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:

    Time report made: 00:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Also the same way around: Ryulong reverting 4 times the same article. (You could at least wait to end the discussion, before reverting)--Kwame Nkrumah 00:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    I added a link to the 5th revert as well. User is also a suspected puppeteer of a person recently blocked by breaking a 3RR rule, if once he is officially determined to be so, Kwame will have broken the 3RR rule about 16 times. User has also been previously blocked for 3RR 3 times and has an outstanding checkuser request here. --Palffy 00:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    This seems to be a simple misunderstanding of copyright law, so I don't think a block would be appropriate here, though I am looking for confirmation as to whether or not the Ukranian law applies to Misplaced Pages, as it's based in Florida. Cowman109 01:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    Cowman, I know that you are a VERY conservative administrator, but you have to admit that this is not just a "simple misunderstanding". This has really gone on long enough---it is ridiculous just how much attention this one person is getting from a whole lot of people here on WP. And I know you have looked into this matter into great detail, so you should know just about everything that has happened by now. This is not a simple distraction, this is a part of someone running Misplaced Pages, while you and the rest of the administrators nanny this person by giving him warnings, reprieve after reprieve, blocks, more reprieves etc. I'm certain that I can formally petion a list of 15-20 unique WPs (if not more) who would agree that this user is not fit for editing the WP and..I cannot imagine that you and the other admins have not seen the same over the time you've known Kwame and his sockpuppets. --Palffy 02:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

    I'd support a block of some significant duration, should one be handed out, or would consider one myself. This user has exhibited a rather cavalier attitude to the counsel given him, and his current user page could be viewed as giving the appearance of trolling. He's been warned of his behaviour in the past. I highly doubt, with all due respect to Cowman109, that this user is simply misinformed, he has a tendency to apparently wikilawyer about anything and everything at the slightest provocation. ++Lar: t/c 03:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

    Extended to 5 days, given previous stuff. Blnguyen | rant-line 04:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    There's some new information with the user at hand, please read here. --Palffy 07:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:Hardouin reported by User:ThePromenader (Result:48 hours)

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

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 00:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Repeat offender. Fully aware that he is beaking the WP:3RR rule. Simply reverts any edit not to his taste without the slightest attempt at discussion beforehand. Always the protagonist in any revert war, as a look at this article's (as well as others) page history will show.

    I reverted factually wrong statements (namely, that there existed no municipality of Paris before the French Revolution, which is proven wrong by evidence). You can see the evidence at Talk:Paris#Municipality bis. I note that another user on the talk page expressed doubt at Promenader's statement that the municipality of Paris didn't exist, yet Promenader reverted the article back to his version of history. Does 3RR applies when an editor adds factually wrongs information to an article? I'd like also to let admins know that Promenader himself reverted the article 4 times tonight. Four times in a row he deleted a sentence stating that the provost of the merchants was shot by the crowd on 14 July 1789, an historical event nobody is doubting. That sentence was added to the article on 15 August 2006 (). Tonight the Promenader deleted this sentence 4 times, thus making 4 reverts to the state of the article as it existed before 15 August 2006. Here are the four reverts where you can see the sentence disappearing each time: , , , and . Personally I would have filed no complaint for that, but since Promenader filed a complaint against me, I think it's fair that his four reverts be examined too. Hardouin 01:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    The 'fact' that Hardouin indicates is only his own interpretation thereof, and even this is only one of the passges he reverted to. As for the other, there was even a discussion open on this subject, but the above refused to follow it, and the corrections I intended were indicated well beforehand both on the Paris talk page and Hardouin's own talk page. Please note the dates on both. After over a week of no further discussion, yet only minutes after the cnanges in question were made, Hardouin pounced and reverted. And reverted. And reverted. And reverted. As always. thepromenader 01:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    PS: I can hardly call good faith the fact that my first edit, whose intent I mentioned well beforehand, was called a revert. What's more, one of the phrases I was trying to correct was my own contribution. thepromenader 02:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

    Hardouin, no matter how 'right' you think you are, or 'wrong' the other editor appears to you, there is no justification for breaking the three revert rule. As you have been blocked on this article for breaking the rule numerous times before, I think a 48 hour block is appropriate. Robdurbar 06:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

    Hardouin, again, my edit was hardly a revert: First off, the edit you reverted is quite unlike its original form, and the rest was a correction outlined more than a week beforehand. You chose not to answer, so I corrected. The first revert was yours, as always. thepromenader 12:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

    anonymous block beginging with 87.113.81.* reported by User:i kan reed

    They seem to be repeatedly adding "desirable leafy green" to the description of the article on Teddington dozens of examples can be seen here. The user may have a comercial interest in the change, but WP:AGF prevents that from being assumed. Despite changes by the rest of the regular editors of the page explaining the NPOV policy, it seems as though the IP block has not stopped making the same change for many days. This is not one of my main articles but reverting it has begun to become a problem for me as well. If someone could address the situation appropriatly, that'd help, thanks. i kan reed 02:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:Ryulong reported by User:Kwame Nkrumah (Result: not blocked)

    Three revert rule violation on Template:FC Chornomorets Odessa (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    Not necessary. He is well aware of the existance and meaning of 3RR (see two paragraphs above)

    Time report made: 00:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • I am doing Vandalism reverts, which are not covered by 3RR, you have been doing the other reverts first, and I did not do several of those Reverts prior to the ones you yourself made. Ryūlóng 00:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
      It is not vandalism, it is content dispute, as I clearly stated in your talkpage. I think that US law is applied in the US, so that Fair use should be applied to those logos, you maintain (see talkpage) that Ukraine law applies even to Misplaced Pages US servers, so that the images are in public domain. It is content, it seems to me.--Kwame Nkrumah 00:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • This seems to be a simple misunderstanding of copyright law, so I don't think a block would be appropriate here, though I am looking for confirmation as to whether or not the Ukranian law applies to Misplaced Pages, as it's based in Florida. Cowman109 01:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm torn. this feels like a retaliatory report to me, with a side order of wikilawyering, but if it's a straight revert war, both parties should get blocks, because the party trying to "defend" shouldn't be revert warring either... this is where tag teaming actually can be good, as it shows a consensus against the change. ++Lar: t/c 18:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • As long as the user now understands the copyright issues now, and will not revert anymore, we should be fine not blocking. Copy violations are a serious reason enough to revert, though getting an admin in rather than passing 3RR would be more effective and would not violate any rules.Voice-of-All 05:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
      • To be clear. I don't feel strongly either way about a block. But certainly, any such revert warring in the future should result in a block. Unless there is simple vandalism, you should abide 3RR and get an admin to deal with it, even if it involves serious possible copyright issues. I suppose blatant, vandal-like, copyvios can be considered vandalism when repeatedly added, but I don't think that was the case here.Voice-of-All 22:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:NBGPWS reported by User:TheKaplan (Result: 48 hours)

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

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    • Not neccesary. This user is well aware of 3RR. He has been blocked for it in the past and warned repeatedly, although not by using the official template.


    Time report made: 08:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: These reverts are only the latest to violate the rule, and the ones in the last 24 hours. This editor actually has about 7 reverts, maybe more, in the last 30 hours or so, but it was chosen not to file a report because of a combination of disagreement over the intent of the policy and my not being able to figure out the complaint format (i hope i got it right this time). User:NBGPWS is well aware of the policy, having been blocked under it in the past and warned repeatedly. User is also being considered for a block for incivility and trolling. TheKaplan 08:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comment - I believe he has the official template as he was blocked only 2 days ago for the same thing. Also, he created a sock puppet in order to appear not violate another 3RR (it was banned today). Here's the Sock Puppet Case.--Tbeatty 08:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

    Thank you for clarifying. What I meant was that he didn't have the template warning for this particular violation, but I guess that's unimportant if he has it for another. TheKaplan 08:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:Oiboy77 reported by User:Humus sapiens (Result:56 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on Human rights in Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Oiboy77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    Time report made: 09:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: The history of Oiboy77's "contributions" to WP is an uninterrupted stream of POV pushing, intimidations, 3RR violations, fake signatures and plain vandalism. ←Humus sapiens 09:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

    See his block log, I have therefore blocked him for 56 hours. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 11:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:Netscott reported by User:Jayjg (Result:1 week)

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

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    Time report made: 16:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Netscott doesn't like an image in an article, and is gaming the 3RR rule to deprecate it in various ways. His first two reverts are straightforward, adding text to the caption. The third makes it invisible, the fourth marks it as "original research", and the fifth adds slightly different wording to the caption, but meaning the same thing. Quoting from WP:3RR:

    Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word (or punctuation mark). Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting. "Complex partial reverts" refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time, which is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR, regardless of the editor's intention.

    User:66.206.174.80 reported by User:JBKramer (Result:24 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on Inflation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 66.206.174.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 18:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: reverting in "inflation is a rise in the aggregate money supply", which is a fringe POV, discussed numerous times on the talk page but tennaciously edited in by individuals who hold the fringe POV. JBKramer 18:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:Bov reported by User:Peephole (Result: not blocked)

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

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    Time report made: 23:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • With some slight alterations, user has reverted the page five times today. I warned him but it didn't seem to help. --Peephole 23:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Please take a look at the discussion pages on our user pages and on the Hoffman page - Peephole is reverting to versions of the Hoffman page with information that deletes key aspects of the article - such as the major websites designed by Hoffman, the internal links, and calls for citations which have already been addressed - and then tells everyone else not to make reverts, but to change things piecemeal . . . to which he himself then reverts over. Others are attempting dialog on the discussion page over these confusing changes Peephole. Jim Hoffman cannot have incorrect information on his webpage so I am reverting to keep the page correct before the Peephole changes. We can debate about semantics of conspriacy theorist or 9/11 researcher, but my concern is in references to nanotechnology and deletions of several links on the page going to his websites with no explanation. bov 23:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • If you want to make some changes to a page, you don't just go reverting them two weeks back. You just make the changes. His main website is already linked and the other two sites can easily be accessed from there, wikipedia is not a web directory. The internal links I have removed according to the guide of layout. Other editors like User:Tom harrison have supported my edits. --Peephole 23:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    The revert rule warning diff says "you have violated 3rr" so its post facto. I'll treat that as this user's first warning.Voice-of-All 05:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:Cretanpride reported by User:--Akhilleus (talk) (Result: Blocked for 31 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on Homosexuality in ancient Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Cretanpride (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 03:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Cretanpride has been making disruptive edits to Homosexuality in ancient Greece and its talk page for at least a week, often using sockpuppets. On Talk:Homosexuality in ancient Greece, a suspected sockpuppet of User:Cretanpride made the comment: "The article needs to be changed. I will NEVER stop arguing against this article until it is changed."

    I've blocked him for 31 hours, and will block him again for longer if his disruption continues. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:RoddyYoung reported by User:Jeff3000 (Result: 24hrs)

    Three revert rule violation on Bahá'í Faith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RoddyYoung (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 15:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Has been adding the external link multiple times a day, when there is overwhelming conensus that the link does not pass muster (like linking a google search on a term). I think he would keep adding the link after a block as well, so I recommend a note on his talk page to the effect that it is not appropriate behaviour or something. -- Jeff3000 15:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • In German Misplaced Pages we would call him a troll. --Mipago 15:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • What he's doing is vandalism. He knows we don't want it there, he just can't accept that people have a different opinion than him Zazaban 15:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:Hanuman_Das reported by User:KV(Talk) (Result: no action)

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

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 19:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    The issue is one of Hanuman not wanting a WikiProject tag on the page. Three revert rule warning is not of me warning him, but of him warning me after I reverted something else a mere 2 times, showing that he understood the rule enough to understand he was breaking it.KV(Talk) 19:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

    I don't believe that 3RR applies to inappropriate talk page tagging. If it does, please simply let me know and I will observe it. User:King Vegita is trying to override a request for a survey as to whether it is appropriate to add the tag to an article which does not fit the project. I am happy for him to add it if he has support, but think he should have the patience to wait for the result of the survey. Thanks. —Hanuman Das 20:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    If you want the survey, you can have the survey, but in the mean time there is no need for your version to have to be the one that is up. You are the one who wanted to push for the change, initially reverting anothers addition, because you did not find it factual for the premise. In respect of the right to vanish (which you did not do and Right to Vanish does not guarantee) I will merely leave here the fact that Hanuman had another name in which he had a 3RR violation in the past. Hanuman had deleted the original post.
    KV(Talk) 21:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    I also note that Hanuman had to be aware that it was in effect there, as he was bringing it up over the categorization of a category. WP:3RR clearly states, "Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part."
    KV(Talk) 21:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:TDC reported by User:User:Marmoulak (Result:Blocked for 1 week)

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


    Time report made: (Marmoulak 20:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC))

    Comments:

    • User:TDC has been blocked for violation of 3RR two dozen times. He changes materials without explaination and removes sourced material to push his own POV. First, he accused me of quoting colonel lang out of context. I had included every single statement made by Colonel lang in the disputed paragraph, he removed some of the quotes and added a part of report that WAS NOT, a statement by colonel lang as a quote by colonel Lang. he reverted paragraph two times(Marmoulak 20:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC))
    • later he called Gary Sick a liar and a fraud and and added the sentence "gary sick is a liar and a fraud" to the article and removed parts of article. He reverted, this change 3 times.(Marmoulak 20:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC))
    It appears he's on revert parole from ArbCom. As such, I've blocked him for one week. --InShaneee 23:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:Myung1 reported by User:Jayjg (Result: 24 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on New anti-Semitism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Myung1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 21:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:TJ_Spyke reported by User:DivineShadow218 (Result: 24 hours for DivineShadow218)

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


    Time report made: 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Editor kept adding romourd launch games to this article arter I supplied an article in the talk page how the games he was adding were confermed NOT for launch but launch window, which is after the launch of the console. --DivineShadow218 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

    Please provide diff links rather than oldids. Not only did you not inform TJ Spyke of the 3RR, but you too have broken it. As such, you've been blocked for 24 hours. Extraordinary Machine 01:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


    User:Qwasty reported by User:TeaDrinker (Result: 24 hours)

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

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 04:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: General content dispute over a section. The other editor involved, User:DanB DanD did not recieve a warning until recently, and seems to have stopped reverting post-warning. User:Qwasty will give vandalism warnings for people who undo the reverts.

    He's been warned before about 3RR, so 24 hours. SlimVirgin 05:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    I see Zoe's done it already. SlimVirgin 05:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:Al-Andalus reported by User: User:Psychohistorian

    Three revert rule violation on White(people). Template:3RRV:Al-Andalus:

    Time report made: 24:11, 26 August 2006 (EST)

    Comments:

    The user has a history of breaking the three revert rule most recently that I can find on January 2nd of this year. The countries in the list he keeps adding have no sources. This was identified as unsourced over a week ago and a week was given to provide a source. Now that the unsourced countries are being removed, he keeps adding them back without an accompanying source.

    You'll need to supply the diffs: the links showing the difference between the versions. SlimVirgin 05:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • 1st dif:
    • 2nd dif:
    • 3rd dif:

    User:Day-Wo reported by User:Shamrox (Result:Warned)

    Three revert rule violation on Kola Boof. Day-Wo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Time report made: 07:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User is attempting to revert the entire article (!) back to an previous version that was based entirely on press releases and unfounded statements. User has not responded to several attempts to get a dialogue going and seems to only wish for their (incredibly unfounded) contributions to make up the entire article. Has changed article headlines to things like "DON'T CALL HER A SEX SLAVE" (yes, all in caps). Does not seem to have any sort of grasp on what Misplaced Pages stives to accomplish.

    Shamrox 07:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

    • You've only warned / talked to the user in their user page. You should use their usertalk, which will give them a "you have new messages" alert. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Because no proper 3RR warning was given (even the user page edits didn't really mention it, though they don't count anyways), I've tagged this as "warned". Re-report the user (or possibly just add a new diff and a comment, though it might not be read) if the user does it again after a warning. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

    Thanks guys, will do. Shamrox 09:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:Ryulong reported by User:Nixer (Result:Not blocked)

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

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • This is a content dispute that I did not repeat my edits again at, I had in fact only changed a few words around the first time, then realized that the sentence structure was funky, that you continued to revert back to. You are the one that has been blocked for these things in the past, more than once. I even explained myself in my last edit summary, and the contents of that last edit are different than the version that I had reverted back to in the first place, and the first revert doesn't even count, as it is different as well. Ryūlóng 08:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, only two of those diffs that you provided are identical, the other two are formatted differently and other changes were made to the text. Ryūlóng 08:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
      The 3RR works anyway. You have reverted the article four times and exceeded the limit, you cannot avoid 3RR violation by alternating some edits.--Nixer 09:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • User:Ryulong has been already reported for revert warring (look at another report earlier in this page )--Nixer 08:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Now the user tries to avoid the block by making what he claims to be "partial self-revert" which is in fact hoax (he deletes some spaces, changed format of date etc).--Nixer 09:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comment I have beeen involved in this dispute after seeing a report on WP:AIV. After warnings where both editors were on exactly 3 reverts apiece, the edit war stopped. I do not consider Ryūlóng to have exceeded 3RR, but I caution both parties to avoid disruptive edit warring, and engage in constructive dilogue to move forward. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

    You can see the four reverts listed above. If you have some thoughts why some of them should not be counted, please explain. The war stopped temporary because I wait an admin to revert the last edint by user Ryūlóng (I am on limit of 3RR and Ryūlóngalready violated it). Please do not support those who violates the rules.--Nixer 10:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    Nixer, I have explained on your talk page. I am not "supporting" anybody, just working to protect Misplaced Pages. Blocks are not punitive, they are preventative. Whether or not there are technically 3 or 4 reverts by Ryūlóng is now moot, because the revert warring has stopped. A block is not required to prevent anything, and it's not policy to block users as punishment. As I state on your talk page, if this revert war is resumed by either party, I will block whoever it is. Also, please do not remove my edit posting the outcome of this report, that is disruptive. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    Why do you protecting the version by Ryūlóng? He violated the rule and should be at least reverted by an admin. According the rules all parties violated the 3RR shoiuld be blocked.--Nixer 10:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    Why is it that you want me to be blocked, or have your version restored? I have editted the page so that both forms are used; the only thing that is essentially the same is the wording in the second paragraph, as it was a bit redundant in the way you had written it. The first line has both "celestial body" and "dwarf planet", and the exact date of the change is also listed. What is your deal with all of this? What did I do to you? Ryūlóng 10:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    The subject of the dispute is the second paragraph exactly. Both celestial body and dwarf planet would be fine for me (the former is slightly better) The current version is exactly yours with all my changes reverted.--Nixer 11:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comment: Note that Nixer removed the original outcome of this case posted by Cactus.man. - Tangotango 10:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:Holywarrior reported by User:Hkelkar (Result: 25 hours)

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

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    • I don't think that it is applicable because the user is aware that he violated 3RR (see edit summary in last revert)


    Time report made: 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    This is my first complaint of a 3RR violation so please forgive me if I am not doing something correctly. This user has tried to push a POV in the article in question, despite consensus against him. Then, he accused me of being a "sockpuppet" of another user, a departmental colleague of mine with userid User:Subhash bose. He added an entry to the Check-User page for this. I engaged in an irc chat session (taking time off of my work schedule) with user bose, as well as wikipedia admins establishing that I am not a sockpuppet or anything, but Holywarrior still persists. In any case, I believe that this is a 3RR violation and I request that action be taken against this user. Thanks very much.Hkelkar 10:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    I support this report. Holywarrior has been pushing anti-Hindu POV and called my souced and good-faith edits nonsense.Bakaman Bakatalk 14:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    I object the use of terms Anti-X or Anti-Y, both terms are heavily loaded and not objective.If a reliable source confirms the term then it is OK but when authors on Misplaced Pages themselves use the term without qualifying the sources it becomes difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff.TerryJ-Ho 17:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    Furthermore, note that "support" is absolutely unecessarry. 3RRV violation has occured or not, another editor supporting the report is irrelevant. JoshuaZ 17:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    I've blocked him for 25 hours. The extra hour is for asserting that 3RRV didn't apply to him. JoshuaZ 17:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:Huaiwei reported by User:Instantnood (Result:)

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

    Time report made: 16:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:69.15.59.130 reported by User:Wildnox (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on Rod D. Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.15.59.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    Time report made: 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: It is hard to list his reverts, as he does them in groups instead of one big edit. Another editor is about to violate 3rr in this war also --Wildnox 18:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC) 


    ===] reported by User:~~~ (Result:)===
] violation on {{Article|PROBLEM ARTICLE/PAGE NAME}}. {{3RRV|VIOLATOR_USERNAME}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to:  
<!-- Use this for simple reverts. For more complex reverts, please include information about which previous versions are being reverted to. -->
* 1st revert: 
* 2nd revert: 
* 3rd revert: 
* 4th revert: 
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
* 
Time report made: 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments:'''
    Categories: