Revision as of 16:16, 18 January 2008

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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.

Violations

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

User:Tankred reported by User:Squash Racket (Result: No block)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Magyarization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tankred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 16:31, 11 January 2008

• 1st revert: 18:24, 12 January 2008
• 2nd revert: 18:29, 12 January 2008
• 3rd revert: 18:35, 12 January 2008
• 4th revert: 18:50, 12 January 2008

• No need for 3RR warning, old user already blocked for 3RR and made reports himself.

User:Tankred broke 3RR on the article Magyarization deleting relevant material (describing Andrej Hlinka as a controversial figure) and inserting POV information while deleting my contribution to change the meaning of my words. Also has been disruptive at the article Battle of Rozhanovce. I do not want to break the rule, so please look into this. Squash Racket (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess user Squash Racket is misleading you because of our content dispute in the article he mentioned. Only two first edits were reverts. The third edit was simple copyediting and addition of a citation. The fourth edit was expansion of a sentence based on a source cited in the article. These edits are not the same and only two of them were reverts. As to the article Battle of Rozhanovce, I am the original author and I do not understand how writing an article can be considered disruptive. Squash Racket is more than welcome to contribute to it in a constructive way. Tankred (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverting another editor's edit more than three times is breaking this rule. Squash Racket (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Only two edits were reverts. Tankred (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Earlier I tried to resolve the dispute at the talk page (see section "Černová event as a proof of the 'violent' Magyarization"), but received no answer from him. Squash Racket (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You have never replied to a comment by another user at that page. Anyway, the 3RR noticeboard is not a dispute resolution procedure. Tankred (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

At the time of my talk page attempt I had a dispute with Tankred (see dates and diffs), not an anonymous IP. Squash Racket (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The violation is stale, as it happened a few days ago. I'm leaving this one alone. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Djma12 reported by User:Guido den Broeder (Result: No Block)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Fibromyalgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Djma12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 14:07, 14 January 2008

Previous revert: 04:18, 8 January 2008

• 1st revert: 20:09, 13 January 2008
• 2rd revert: 13:15, 14 January 2008
• 3th revert: 14:07, 14 January 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 13:59, 14 January 2008

User:Djma12 is repeatedly re-adding a text that was removed before because it is not supported by the sources. He claims that he has consensus for this text, but this is not the case. The text differs significantly from the quote that he put forward for RFC, and no consensus was reached on the original quote either. Note that the source is already mentioned elsewhere in the text with a different (correct) interpretation. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Rebuttal - The RFC discussion can be viewed here. The edit history speaks for itself. Djma12 15:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Only three reverts here, no 3RR breach. Users will be warned about 3RR and votestacking. - Revolving Bugbear 18:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Harumphy reported by User:Roguegeek (Result:24 hours )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Comparison of high definition optical disc formats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Harumphy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 14:31, January 14, 2008

• 1st revert: 12:42, January 14, 2008
• 2nd revert: 13:27, January 14, 2008
• 3rd revert: 14:28, January 14, 2008
• 4th revert: 14:49, January 14, 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 16:15, January 8, 2008

Apparently, he doesn't agree with the concensus found on the discussion page. The user may also be a sockpuppet of User:Locke Cole, a user recently blocked as per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole. Roguegeek (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• User blocked for 24 hours due to clear edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

  It may have been appropriate to warn others too- others were inappropriately reverting, including Roguegeek. It's not very cool to report someone for edit warring when you're also doing it. Friday (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:faithlessthewonderboy reported by 82.0.206.215 (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (Result:no block)

• Three-revert rule violation on

The Streets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Faithlessthewonderboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 21:24 14 January 2008

• 1st revert: 21:46, 14 January 2008
• 2nd revert: 20:14, 14 January 2008
• 3rd revert: 20:11, 14 January 2008
• 4th revert: 19:55, 13 January 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 22:16, 14 January 2008

Constant discussions on appropriateness of word "tender" in this article, which "faithless" has backed out of, as per . Followed by un-backed up claims of meatpuppetry, and canvassing (whilst clearly being canvassed on his own page). Refusal to participate in discussion re tender and constant reverting (2 more times yesterday, plus reverts by his friends and bots). Please block this person. 82.0.206.215 (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have not violated 3RR, as I have been removing blatant vandalism. A simple look at the page history will confirm this. Please also note that several other editors (including ClueBot) have been fighting vandalism on this page. This is a ridiculous charge by an admitted meatpuppeteer who has been vandalizing this article for literally months now and has been blocked for it already. User has repeatedly accused me of running ClueBot which, while quite a compliment, is obviously inaccurate. faithless () 22:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think this can be considered blatant vandalism, but I am still unwilling to block for removing such a blatantly unencyclopedic language as this, especially when the IPs supporting this change have effectively stated an unwillingness to listen at all to the other side, essentially saying that because they disagree, there is no consensus. At best, both parties are equally guilty here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A little research with my main man whois suggests we have a lot of dynamic IPs here (which we pretty much could have guessed from the content, anyway). As this is clearly disruptive, I've semiprotected the article. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, the simple addition of the offending word would not be vandalism. However, there have been several edits which couldn't be described any other way. On top of that, this IP has already been blocked because of this. It's not the addition of the word that's vandalism, but rather the editor's actions long after a consensus has been reached that he didn't like. Cheers, faithless () 23:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Even so, it's not really vandalism; rather, it falls under the heading of disruption. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There can never be consensus whilst there is disagreement. Those who seek consensus (such as said IPs) discuss the change. Those who don't (such as faithless)refuse to discuss. At best both parties are equally guilty. At worst, Faithless is falsely accusing me of meetpuppetry. Semi-protection , and I quote, "should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users. In particular, it should not be used to settle content disputes." Please revise this decision. 82.0.206.215 (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC) BTW, I don't know what a Dynamic IP is, but I have a feeling I am being accused of something else. What does this mean? 82.0.206.215 (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You can continue making your case, but please stop misrepresenting me. Consensus does not mean unanimous agreement; if it did, there would never be consensus on anything. It means general agreement. Every editor who has weighed in on the topic has disagreed with you. Consensus has been reached, which is why I don't want to continue rehashing this same tired argument. I have suggested several times that you seek dispute resolution. You have refused to do this. Instead, you admittedly enlisted your friends to engage in edit warring and you've made absolutely baseless reports at the admin noticeboard. This (hopefully) will be my last word on the matter: if you disagree with the community's decision, please seek dispute resolution. That is the proper avenue here. If you're not willing to do that, please let this go. faithless () 23:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus seeks the agreement of all by resolving the objections of the minority. In what way have you done this? In what way have you resolved my objections? By reporting me, having me banned and ignoring what I said? And what of the countless other people who made the same edit as I? You clearly have NO understanding of the word consensus, and should give up your adminship now. Or at least look into what the word means. Once again, I ask you were I have said that I enlisted my friends. That is an assumption you make. Falsely. 82.0.206.215 (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Ferrylodge reported by User:Turtlescrubber (Result:72 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Mitt Romney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ferrylodge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

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

• Diff of 3RR warning:

This user is not new to the world of edit warring. Ferrylodge is known for his contentious editing and has been blocked four times previously. I can not see the blocks myself as I am not an administrator. User was banned by the community for disruptive and tendentious editing but is now on probation. User is currently banned from all abortion related topics. On this current article, user has filled up three pages of archive material and was one of the ones responsible for the month long protection of the Mitt Romney page. Article was unprotected because of a consensus reached and agree to by all editors. User has been trying to undue the consensus for many weeks now. He broke the 3rr rule today while trying to undue the original consensus. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions.Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Turtlescrubber and I both received warnings at our respective talk pages regarding 3RR from Gwernol (Turtlescrubber deleted his warning). Neither of us has reverted since the warnings. Moreover, another admin looked at my reversions, and advised that they did not violate 3RR. Even if it could be argued somehow that I otherwise would have been in violation of 3RR, the edits and the edit summaries show that Turtlescrubber was engaged in vandalism (reversion of which cannot violate 3RR), given that Turtlescrubber was making wildly inaccurate edits to sections of the article that he did not even have any objection against (e.g. the "Personal life" section). This is a frivolous complaint.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That admin you bring up is your good friend and also takes the same side as you on the article talk page (also a brand new admin). I was not engaged in vandalism and I would ask you to stop making personal attacks. Frivolous complaint? You edit warred and then broke 3rr. I was polite and civil in my edit summaries and warned you multiple times before you violated the 3rr. The article is going to be protected once again because of your edit warring. Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall ever having any contact with the admin named Gwernol before today. And I don't recall ever having any contact with the admin John Carter before January 11. I don't think these insinuations of yours are helpful, Turtlescrubber.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Gwernol warned you about 3rr, what does that have to do with anything? You and John Carter are friends as evidenced by your talk page, the mitt romney talk page discussion and your voting for his adminship like two days ago. Please, let's be honest here. John also supports your position rather fervently. Hardly a neutral admin in all this. Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to drag out this discussion. You've made your complaint.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If I didn't have to correct half-truths then I wouldn't comment at all. I am done arguing with you for the night. Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I count three reverts apiece, but whatever ... guys, you both know the rules and you both know what you're doing. Talk it out on the talk page and quit reverting each other repeatedly. Someone would probably complain if I were to make the block myself, but come on guys ... this is ridiculous - you both know better. (24hr/ea would be my block in case anyone cares.) --B (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, he has 4 reverts. He started to edit war. He was warned and he violated the 3rr. Seems pretty clear cut to me. Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if he does (and I count one initial edit + 3 reverts, but I could be looking at it wrong), 3RR is not license to revert exactly 3 times. You both were revert warring and three reverts inside of 30 minutes is inherently disruptive. --B (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Turtlescrubber, you were engaged in vandalism. Or do you have some explanation of why you edited the "Personal life" section? Just to get on my nerves?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with you? You win. I quit the project. Turtlescrubber (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Taking into account Ferrylodge's behaviour and his history, along with the ongoing ANI discussion, I've blocked for 72 hours. Of course, this is subject to review by other admins. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:BKLisenbee reported by User:Opiumjones 23 (Result: )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Frank Rynne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BKLisenbee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Brian Jones Presents The Pipes of Pan at Jajouka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BKLisenbee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

This User claims to be awaiting admin advice but has violated 3RR on two pages See and Also note the users rationale in his edit summery on his last edit. He talks about his edit being him getting even. BKLisenbee (Talk | contribs) (3,458 bytes) "Get real. You have done nothing but smear Bachir Attar (see your own 'letter of protest'; this is just evening the score with another letter to you. And that is not POV; it's a fact, like it or not."

This user refused mediation call by User:FayssalF on his talk page. For mediation page see User:FayssalF/JK. A severe block is needed. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Could someone explain what the alleged BLP issue is here that you guys refer to in your edit summaries? (Removing BLP violations is exempt from 3RR.) --B (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User places external link alleging illegal act by page's subject on Frank Rynne. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 11:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Procedural note: It's a lot easier to assess a 3RR notice if the evidence presented is in the form of diffs (with timestamps) rather than with histories. Thanks. - Revolving Bugbear 17:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:24.60.254.74 reported by User:loodog (Result: 31 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Boston University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User:24.60.254.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 16:42, 13 January 2008

• 1st revert: 01:30, 14 January 2008
• 2nd revert: 04:38, 14 January 2008
• 3rd revert: 22:43, 14 January 2008
• 4th revert: 02:42, 15 January 2008
• 5th revert:

03:35, 15 January 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 03:05, 15 January 2008

User wishes to change "on the Charles River" to "near the Charles River". Despite two requests in edit summaries to bring to talk page, and warning of 3RR, user has engaged in edit war and broken 3RR.Loodog (talk) 03:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours. --B (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Rufuskhan reported by User:JD554 (Result: 72 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Darragh MacAnthony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rufuskhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 15:38, 12 January 2008

• 1st revert: 12:51, 14 January 2008
• 2nd revert: 18:23, 14 January 2008
• 3rd revert: 23:03, 14 January 2008
• 4th revert: 10:27, 15 January 2008
• 5th revert: 12:50, 15 January 2008
• 6th revert: 13:13, 15 January 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 12:44, 15 January 2008 (not a diff as only edit)

These are only the most recent reverts in an edit war between this user and User:Chakanobody over the past few weeks as the complete history of the article shows. At this time Rufuskhan appears to have made a total of 40 edits over the past 2 weeks alone and 2 edits since the 3RR warning. JD554 (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have blocked the user for 72 hours for violating WP:3RR and edit warring on Peterborough United F.C.. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Chakanobody reported by User:JD554 (Result: 72 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Darragh MacAnthony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chakanobody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 13:55, 12 January 2008

• 1st revert: 11:38, 14 January 2008
• 2nd revert: 17:49, 14 January 2008
• 3rd revert: 22:22, 14 January 2008
• 4th revert: 09:15, 15 January 2008
• 5th revert: 12:42, 15 January 2008
• 6th revert: 13:05, 15 January 2008
• 7th revert: 13:52, 15 January 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 12:44, 15 January 2008 (not a diff as only edit)

These are only the most recent reverts in an edit war between this user and User:Rufuskhan (see previous report) over the past few weeks as the complete history of the article shows. At this time Chakanobody appears to have made a total of 20 edits over the past week alone and 2 edits since the 3RR warning. JD554 (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have blocked the user for 72 hours for violating WP:3RR and edit warring on Peterborough United F.C.. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:1csimfan reported by User:Bigskyblueeyes (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Danny Messer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 1csimfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:24, 15 January 2008

• Previous version reverted to: 01:42, 11 January 2008
• 1st revert: 17:25 14 January 2008
• 2nd revert: 00:34 15 January 2008
• 3rd revert: 17:46 15 January 2008
• 4th revert: 19:12 15 January 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 19:12 15 January 2008

1csimfan has been repeatedly editing the Danny Messer article daily since at least December 27, strictly for the intent of POV pushing. It is also possible that this user has used the username Roximonoxide as a sockpuppet for the same purpose.

• I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. If the user continues to edit after the block, I will protect the pages. I only chose not to protect the pages in this situation, because the user has been edit warring on multiple articles, and has made a minimal attempt at discussion. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:1csimfan reported by User:Bigskyblueeyes (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Lindsay Monroe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 1csimfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:24, 15 January 2008

• Previous version reverted to: 19:12, 15 January 2008

• 1st revert: 17:26 14 January 2008
• 2nd revert: 23:07 14 January 2008
• 3rd revert: 17:48 15 January 2008
• 4th revert: 19:10 15 January 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning:

1csimfan has been editing the Lindsay Monroe article multiple times daily since at least December 27, strictly for the intent of pushing their POV as fact. It is also possible that this user has used the username Roximonoxide as a sockpuppet for the same purpose.

• I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. If the user continues to edit after the block, I will protect the pages. I only chose not to protect the pages in this situation, because the user has been edit warring on multiple articles, and has made a minimal attempt at discussion. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:BTNCOURT reported by User:The Ogre (Result: Blocked)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Latino (demonym) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BTNCOURT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 01:38, 16 January 2008

• 1st revert: 23:20, 15 January 2008
• 2nd revert: 23:52, 15 January 2008
• 3rd revert: 01:37, 16 January 2008
• 4th revert: 01:43, 16 January 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

User BTNCOURT (and maybe some sockpuppets) insists, against all other user, to add a disputed, non-encyclopedic and normative section. The Ogre (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the history of this article, this meme looks familiar. In any event, the user is blocked. --B (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User:L.Wadsworth reported by User:VirtualSteve (Result:Case sent to RFCU)

• Three-revert rule violation on

List of cities in Australia by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). L.Wadsworth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 22:37, January 16, 2008

• 1st revert: 18:36, January 16, 2008
• 2nd revert: 20:11, January 16, 2008
• 3rd revert: 20:43, January 16, 2008
• 4th revert: 20:59, January 16, 2008
• 5th revert: 21:32, January 16, 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 22:23, January 16, 2008
• Previous Diff of 3RR warning related also to Hervey Bay, Queensland insertions (provided as evidence as to his gaining recent earlier advice of 3RR rule): 20:23, January 16, 2008

Editor L.Wadsworth has a specific interest in the area of Hervey Bay, Queensland. He has persisted in adding detail concerning that location - in the case of this 3RR report to List of cities in Australia by population, but he has also made similar reversions stopping just before breaching the 3RR rule at Australia. It appears that he has now attempted to circumvent the rule by editing under his IP account (whilst not logged on). His page has a number of 3RR warnings. --VS 12:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

For clarification purposes only, it should be noted that the information that User:L.Wadsworth insists on adding to List of cities in Australia by population is incorrect. His additions involve replacing properly cited and verified data with his own versions. This is why other editors have reverted his edits. His errors have been explained to him both on the article's talk page and on his talk page yet he insists on reverting the correct figures to his own. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Guido den Broeder reported by User:Seicer (Result: 48 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Chronic fatigue syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 11:35, 16 January 2008

These are based upon the last 24:28 hours:

• 06:20, 15 January 2008
• 12:49, 15 January 2008
• 14:56, 15 January 2008
• 16:24, 15 January 2008
• 17:27, 15 January 2008
• 06:41, 16 January 2008
• 06:48, 16 January 2008
• 12:57, 16 January 2008added later by User:Slicer, see below. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Diff of 3RR warning: 11:25, 16 January 2008

The user has continued to edit war at Chronic fatigue syndrome and other related articles. He is the subject of numerous disputes at his talk page, has filed requests at WQA (2nd), filed frivolous requests against disputed editors at ANI. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: The user has a previous 31h block on 14 December for 5 reverts within 24 hours at the same article, with disruption to talk pages. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • At the time, I did not understand how 3RR was counted, and did not receive a warning. It was a simple mistake for which I apologized. Note, by the way, that User:Seicer's warning was immediately followed by this report, and therefore constitutes a fake warning. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Seicer is bandwagoning on a threatening editwar that I have prevented by starting RfC's, which he ignores. I am not the subject of any disputes and do not make frivolous requests. The diffs he mentions above pertain to several different content disputes on a very long article, all of which are presently discussed on the talk page, and do not constitute a 3RR violation (in fact, I am trying to follow 2RR these days). The content issue on Fibromyalgia is unrelated and has already been solved to my satisfaction. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• 06:20, 15 January 2008 = fix where statement is erroneously attributed to author (issue 1)
• 12:49, 15 January 2008 = restoring link to documented outbreaks which user is denying (issue 2 - same section as issue 1, but different change)
• 14:56, 15 January 2008 = issue 2
• 16:24, 15 January 2008 = vandalism fix (reinstation of undisputed misquotation of criteria) (issue 3)
• 17:27, 15 January 2008 = issue 3 (note that user withdrew)
• 06:41, 16 January 2008 = reinstating sourced CDC quote (issue 4)
• 06:48, 16 January 2008 = pov-fix to indicate validity issue with source (issue 5)

I am requesting that User:Seicer reverts his own edit. It is good practice not to make contested edits while an RfC is running. His edit also includes reverting an undisputed edit. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that the edit marked above as "vandalism fix" is in fact a reversion of a constructive edit by an established editor. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not, I undid a revert of a constructive edit. In his haste to help his friend, user - who did not partake in any discussion - didn't notice that he destroyed an undisputed edit as well. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting WP:3RR#Exceptions. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Right. Please note User:Seicer's further disruptive behaviour by votestacking and discrediting on User talk:Orangemarlin . Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Seicer has just added another diff to his list from which it may look like his report follewed a new diff, instead of what really happened, that he filed his report right after a (therefore) fake warning. This manner of editing is disruptive and misleading. Note that the edit in question is a reparation of damage done by User:Seicer who reverted a normal copy-edit as part of a massive revert. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for forty-eight hours, per the evidence above. -- tariqabjotu 16:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked by User:Mangojuice ('not editwarring'). Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Please review the block/unblock situation

I'd like to request that another administrator who has not been involved in this dispute or in the Wikiquette alerts involving Guido den Broeder review the situation. There is now a discussion going on in my Talk page (User talk:KieferSkunk#Concerning Guido) about whether Guido was edit-warring, and a contention on the part of at least one party that Seicer was executing an agenda against Guido in this 3RR notice. Here is the approximate order of events surrounding this entire issue as I've seen it:

• Guido den Broeder filed a Wikiquette Alert against User:Orangemarlin claiming abusive behavior and false accusations regarding edits in the Fibromyalgia article. Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts#User:Orangemarlin (2)
  • User:Cheeser1 told Guido that the WQA appeared to be frivolous and that the diffs did not appear to support his accusations against Orangemarlin.
  • Guido filed a second WQA against Cheeser1 accusing him of making false accusations and "bad edits". Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts#User:Cheeser1
  • I gave guidance to Guido letting him know why I felt the situation had gone the way it did. I also advised Orangemarlin that some comments he'd made about Guido were incorrect and unhelpful.
  • Cheeser1 closed the Orangemarlin WQA as frivolous. I closed the Cheeser1 WQA as frivolous.
  • Upon Cheeser1's request, I took the resulting discussion on the Fibromyalgia content dispute to Guido's talk page.

• Guido received a 3RR warning from User:Seicer after the WQAs were closed, regarding reverts in Chronic fatigue syndrome. By his count, there were 6 reverts within 24 hours and 7 within 25 hours.
  • This 3RR notice was posted here shortly afterward. (It does stand to reason that more time may need to have been given between the 3RR warning on Guido's talk page and this noticeboard.)
  • User:Tariqabjotu issued a 48-hour block on Guido for violating WP:3RR.
  • Guido requested a block review, stating he was not edit warring and had done nothing wrong.
  • User:Mangojuice said he would consult with the blocking admin.
  • I reviewed the diffs in Seicer's warning and the full edit history of the article in question, then declined the unblock request on the grounds that it was a clear violation of 3RR.
  • Mangojuice unblocked Guido shortly afterward and went to my user talk page saying that if I felt Guido should be blocked for his behavior on the WQA page, I should block for that, but not for edit-warring. He asserted that Guido had not been edit warring, and that he had initiated two RFCs for the article and was discussing the issues there.
    • Mangojuice also stated that Seicer appeared to have an agenda against Guido ("...because Seicer felt the need, based on the WQA interactions, to try to have Guido blocked (after all, he wasn't editing the article in question)..."), which I also disagreed with and Seicer has denied.
  • Tariqabjotu stated that he disagreed with Mangojuice's rationale for unblocking.
  • Discussions ensued on my talk page and on User talk:Tariqabjotu#User talk:Guido den Broeder as to whether Guido had been edit-warring.
  • To Mangojuice, I've said that I disagree with his assessment, and that we'll apparently have to agree to disagree on this issue.
  • Seicer suggested that we get a third opinion on this matter. I agreed on the ground that it would be good to have a neutral opinion about each admin's handling of the situation.

In my opinion, we should not allow users to engage in rapid reversions of edits that are not obvious vandalism (as is stated in WP:3RR), and we should furthermore not allow them to get away with it. I believe that unblocking Guido and defending his actions has sent Guido a message that he can basically do what he wants here on WP and get away with it, and I believe Guido's responses to the discussions following the unblock reflect that attitude. I am not asking for a formal review of Mangojuice, per se, but I would like additional guidance for future occurrences of this type of situation - if we're going to have the policies and be expected to enforce them, we need to do so equally. If we need to consider changes to the policies, we should do so through the appropriate channels of discussion rather than overriding each other's actions.

Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

For a short add before I head out for the evening, is this note that the user was unblocked on the basis of Tariqabjotu being offline for more than two hours that has me worried. An unblock should be carefully reviewed, not on the basis of a user being away, but upon the various policies. If the user was away for two hours (probably attending to real life duties), then that is immaterial to the case at hand. That's why we have the unblocking process, which was circumvented based upon the reason given above. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Seicer, I didn't see an issue with that, since Mango's reason for unblocking wasn't that Tariq was away, but rather that he felt the block was unjustified. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The unblock still circumvented the process, however. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The above leaves out a lot of essential information and makes several unsubstantiated claims. I get the feeling that User:KieferSkunk is trying to find a backdoor and a hanging party in order to deal out some punishment anyway, after a wiser admin explained to him that that is not what policies and blocks are for, and doesn't much mind discrediting me in he process. And that's all I'm going to say, this is a complete waste of time. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear, Guido: I am seeking the opinion of an uninvolved administrator to review my actions and those of the other admins involved in this case. So long as you stop being disruptive, no further action will be taken against you. I really wish you'd stop insinuating that we're all out to get you - it really doesn't help. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

IMO, if you are going to undo another admins actions without being able to discuss with them, then you probably should discuss it at AN/I first and seek consensus for the unblock. Spartaz 10:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Spartaz, that's certainly prudent but it isn't always necessary. In this case, I looked carefully through the edit history and made a decision based on policy, common sense, and the facts. If the situation had been a little simpler, I probably wouldn't have even asked Tariq; as it was, I asked if I had missed any information, only because there was a chance Tariq would respond quickly and because the situation was a bit complicated (and because it's courteous). My understanding is that's the way the unblock process works -- the point is to have an independent admin look at the situation and make their own judgement. When you do that you have to accept that admins will view the situation differently, and just because you wouldn't do things exactly the same way doesn't mean you should overturn an action, but only to overturn an action for a good reason. If you take that kind of care, you don't need to go to WP:ANI every time. Mangojuice 15:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

But you were not the admin who declined the unblock, KieferSkunk was. You decided that the reason that KieferSkunk and the original blocking admin's reason from Tariqabjotu wasn't adequate, and circumvented process and unblocked Guado yourself. That's not how the unblock process works; if Guido wanted to dispute KieferSkunk's decline, then he would have added another unblock notice and another independent admin would have come in and decided based upon the policies. Furthermore, you began discussions with Tariqabjotu on unblocking Guido, but decided that after two hours that you would unblock without even a two-way discussion, which circumvents policy. It should have been taken to ANI, if the original blocking admin was not available. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't an unblocking admin - I just declined the unblock. That doesn't automatically mean that the case is closed - I could very well have been wrong to decline the unblock. But with the original blocking admin and myself both of the opinion that the block was justified, we had a sort of mini-consensus already, and unblocking policy does state that you need to have a good reason for unblocking in situations like that. I agree that seeking consensus for an unblock (even if it's as simple as "give the guy another chance" or "the block was too hasty due to RFC discussion") would probably have been a better course of action in this situation, as it ensures that more eyes have viewed the situation and agree with the decision, rather than it being a unilateral decision that opens up discussions like this one.

For the record, I am not trying to discredit anyone, cause extra drama, or seek extra punitive action. I simply want some feedback from an experienced admin (I am relatively new) as to how we all could handle this situation better in the future. Spartaz, thank you for your comment. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I mistyped what I wrote last night -- it was worded completely opposite of what I was meaning. It has since been corrected. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Omegatron reported by User:Fnagaton (Result: Not a violation)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Omegatron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 11:35, 16 January 2008

• 1st revert: 11:35, 16 January 2008
• 2nd revert: 14:52, 16 January 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 15:50, 16 January 2008

Recently, someone pointed out on my talk page Omegatron made a change to MOSNUM. Upon investigation his change does not have consensus. The change was undone and I placed a request on Omegatron's page to not make changes until he had consensus. Since then Omegatron has claimed I've been edit warring when actually it is him who has been edit warring to try to make sure his changes (without consensus) stay on MOSNUM. My justification for reverting him is that he has failed to demonstrate consensus. I have checked that last two months of his edit history and nowhere has he once discussed those changes he made to MOSNUM. The diffs of his changes clearly show changes in the content of the guideline which go above and beyond simple "tidying up", for example he removed completely the phrase starting with "When in doubt, stay with established usage in the article, and follow the lead of the first major contributor...." and he also changes that part starting with "There is no consensus...". Even though he has not reverted more than twice, so far, he is well aware of the 3RR rule and should know better than try to make changes on guideline talk pages without building consensus. In summary, as explained above, he has failed to show any recent discussion he has tried to build consensus for these changes. Fnagaton 16:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this is, but it's not a 3RR issue --B (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. When making this report I was thinking of this phrase "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." in WP:Three-revert rule. I'm of the opinion that someone making changes to guidelines without building consensus and then reverting their changes back again are disruptive. Fnagaton 17:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You'd want to report him for disruptive editing then, and that's at WP:AIN. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

(See Misplaced Pages:AIN#Repeated_reverts_of_MOSNUM_by_User:Omegatron). — Omegatron 23:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Gamaliel reported by User:DJ Creamity (Result:no block)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Tom Harkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gamaliel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 18:50, 14 January 2008

• 1st revert: 00:39, 16 January 2008
• 2nd revert: 17:01, 16 January 2008
• 3rd revert: 17:41, 16 January 2008
• 4th revert: 17:53, 16 January 2008, removes Mark Steyn citation previously added by myself for no apparent reason

Gamaliel seems insistent on removing this information, even when properly sourced. He should know better. DJ Creamity 18:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the section in question violates WP:BLP in its non-neutral, unsourced, one-sided presentation of the issue. I removed the section as required by BLP policy and thus these reverts are exempt from the 3RR. DJ Creamy restored the section three times, with the only change during the first two reverts the addition of a far-right opinion column as a source with no change to the non-neutral text. The user finally added, on his third revert, two sources which appear to be netural, reliable newspaper articles, but made no changes to the text. I took this as a sign he was willing to work on the section instead of merely edit warring, so I did not remove the section a fourth time, but I did add an NPOV tag and remove the inappropriate source, which is the fourth "revert" listed above. I have self-reverted this last edit to avoid any appearance of impropriety, though I still believe all my edits were exempt from the 3RR as per the BLP policy. Gamaliel (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Self-revert = no block (no comment on whether or not one would be merited otherwise). I'd advise heading for an appropriate noticeboard (perhaps this one) to vet out the BLP issues. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You could have spent a few minutes sourcing the text, as I did, in order to find the citations you requested. There is no good reason given for the removal of the Jerusalem Post source, as it meets all the requirements for WP:BLP, and the opinion that the source was too partisan is not a good enough reason for its removal if it meets the criteria for inclusion. DJ Creamity 18:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

BLP requires the immediate removal of non-neutral unsourced text and it requires the person who wishes to include it to provide sources. Sourcing the text is not the only issue; if it was I would have gladly participated in finding appropriate sources. Neutrality is the other, more important issue. Gamaliel (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Muntuwandi reported by User:PelleSmith (Result:1 fortnight)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Origin of religion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Muntuwandi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: January 12, 2008

• 1st revert: 10:48, 16 January 2008
• 2nd revert: 16:06, 16 January 2008
• 3rd revert: 18:06, 16 January 2008
• 4th revert: 21:02, 16 January 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: No need for warning since he has been blocked before for 3RR

Muntuwandi is edit warring over a version of this entry that was previously deleted in an AfD and has sparked numerous controversies spanning a number of entry and user talk pages (generally between Muntuwandi and the rest of world). Unhappy with the version another user created in the spirit of the consensus established in several of these venues Muntuwandi has decided to simply insist on his version and has now broken 3RR in doing so. He is an experienced user who is well aware of the rules. PelleSmith (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an old content dispute, I suggest also looking into PelleSmith's behavior because he is largely responsible for much of this unnecessary trouble. Muntuwandi (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Muntuwandi is clearly edit warring. As for PelleSmith, two reverts is hardly enough for me to take action. Muntuwandi has already been blocked a few times for edit warring, therefore, I'm blocking for a fortnight. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I realize that this is all the rage lately, but considering that hardly anyone knows what a fortnight is (I had to look it up), it may be better to use modern English in the block log so that the user isn't guessing when their block will expire. --B (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Odst reported by User:Pairadox (Result: One Month )

• Three-revert rule violation on

An Jung-geun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Odst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 03:57, 12 January 2008

• 1st revert: 03:13, 16 January 2008
• 2nd revert: 00:40, 17 January 2008
• 3rd revert: 01:34, 17 January 2008
• 4th revert: 02:01, 17 January 2008
• 5th revert: 02:05, 17 January 2008
• 6th revert: 02:17, 17 January 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 02:17, 17 January 200809:34, 6 March 200723:03, 30 December 2007

User:Odst has engaged in edit warring and 3RR violations on An Jung-geun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with edit summaries and talk page contributions that indicate an unwillingness to allow any wording other than that which s/he desires. Although not given a 3RR warning this time, the edit summary on the 6th revert above and previous blocks indicate that the user is well aware of the violation. Pairadox (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• I initially saw a canvassing attempt on another user's talk page to get them to do the reverts for them and, having seen the user's block log, went for a 72 hour block. Having now seen this report and that the user knowingly went over 3RR (they brag about it in one of their edit summaries) their failure to use DR in an editing dispute, disruptive POV pushing, refusal to honour consensus it is clear that this is an insufficient sanction to reflect the fact that the community cannot tolerate behaviour of this kind. I toyed with just blockinbg them indefinitely but imposed 1RR conditions have successfully rehabilitated other problem editors in this area. I therefore settled on a one month block, the length designed to reflect the repeated offenses and wilful refusal to edit according to accepted norms. The user also left a long screed on their talk about the nazis after my first block but I have not taken this into account in my consideration. Spartaz 07:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Miyokan reported by User:JdeJ (Result: no violation; warned)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Vladimir Putin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Miyokan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 16 January 03.16
• 2nd revert: 16 January 08.08
• 3rd revert: 16 January 20.31
• 4th revert: 17 January 04.29
• 5th revert: 17 January 05.57

• Diff of 3RR warning: 17 January 04.57 (Immediately deleted and called nonsense)

I’m not sure if this technically qualifies for 3RR, but definitely edit warring. Restoring a POV-box would not normally fall under the rule, but when the general consensus is that the box should go, it’s a bit different. None of the edits are exactly the same, but all consist of restoring the POV-box and constantly removing criticism that is very well-sourced. Primarily about criticism from inside Russia and a controversy surrounding the church. Perhaps more of vandalism than 3RR, as deleting sourced content is usually vandalism, but the strong edit warring by the user,(has been going on for almost a week now) makes me post it here. JdeJ (talk) 13:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• First revert isn't within 24 hours and 5th isn't a revert, so no violation but a strong warning for Miyokan. Stifle (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:59.190.130.200 reported by User:RomaC (Result: Incomplete)

• Three-revert rule violation on

MV Steve Irwin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 59.190.130.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 16:54, January 18, 2008

• 1st revert: 16:35, January 18, 2008
• 2nd revert: 16:54, January 18, 2008
• 3rd revert: 17:14, January 18, 2008
• 4th revert 17:35, January 18, 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 17:41 January 18, 2008

User is repeatedly inserting the word "illegal" as an unqualified characterisation of the boarding of the whaling ship, despite a consensus against that on the Talk Page. User is not discussing their edits, and is similarly active on the Sea Shepherd page. RomaC (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Please provide diffs, not oldids, for all edits. Also, 3RR prohibits reverting more than three times, only three examples are presented here. Seraphimblade 11:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that Seraphimblade, this is my first time reporting a 3r, I think I got it right now. RomaC (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

User:samurai commuter reported by User:eschoir (Result: )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Free Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Template:Samurai commuter: Time reported: 15:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 10:04 January 17, 2008
• 2nd revert: 10:19 January 17, 2008
• 3rd revert: 11:07 January 17, 2008
• 4th revert: 06:39 January 18, 2008

NOTE: "4th" revert is not the same content selected by Eschoir to make the subject of the article look bad, it's differet content selected by Eschoir to make the subject look bad. Don't let him fool you. It's not a 4th revert of the same content. Samurai Commuter (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The three-revert rule (often referred to as 3RR) is a policy that applies to all Wikipedians, and is intended to prevent edit warring:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.

Eschoir (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Diff of 3RR warning: 16:26 January 17, 2008

The return of User:BryanFromPalatine, defender of the faith, Eschoir (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

User: 81.103.115.49 and User:Sonoforion reported by User:Bettia (Result: )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Cardiff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sonoforion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 14:00, 18 January 2008
• 2nd revert: 02:37, 18 January 2008
• 3rd revert: 00:14, 18 January 2008
• 4th revert: 00:06, 18 January 2008

• Diff of 3RR warnings:

00:59, 18 January 2008 (Sonoforion)

15:00, 18 January 2008 (81.103.115.49)

I believe that these are the actions of the same user, using both his logged in username (2 reverts) and the IP shown above (2 reverts), repeatedly entering highly POV commentary into the Transport section of this article. Warning messages have been left on both talk pages by myself and other users. However, these appear to have been ignored and I believe that this user will probably continue this line of editing. B e t t i a 15:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Reginmund reported by User:Metros (Result: )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Talk:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs). Reginmund (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 02:32 18 January 2008

• 1st revert: 02:42 18 January 2008
• 2nd revert: 02:52 18 January 2008
• 3rd revert: 06:56 18 January 2008
• 4th revert: 15:24 18 January 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: Unnecessary as Reginmund has 4 blocks for edit warring in the past.

Reginmund has continuously added comments to the RFC on this article talk page after it was closed. He argues that he started making the comment before the RFC closed (which closed over 10 hours before he posted the first time). His past history with 4 blocks for edit warring (with the most recent block being a month for edit warring) proves that he should be well aware of the standards of editing. Metros (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, those edit warring to remove his comments were just as misguided as those edit warring to put them in. People are allowed to discuss articles on talk pages. Declaring a discussion closed and reverting further input is tricky at best. Friday (talk) 16:14, 18 January 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 noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring