Revision as of 07:30, 8 June 2008

Template:Moveprotected

• 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.

Click here to create a new report

Violations

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

User:Reezy reported by User:Mosmof (Result: 8 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on Brian Cook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Reezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 22:43, May 29, 2008 - user continues to insert obvious copyvio image.

• 1st revert: 23:56, June 4, 2008
• 2nd revert: 00:28, June 5, 2008
• 3rd revert: 00:34, June 5, 2008
• 4th revert: 00:51, June 5, 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 00:36, June 5, 2008
• Both editors blocked – for a period of 8 hours Both images are available under free licenses so there is no copyright issue, and both the reporter and the reportee have made four reverts. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I've unblocked Mosmof as the image page of the image he was reverting had copyvio tags on it at the time, so it is reasonable to assume that he thought he was reverting a copyvio. Reezy remains blocked. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It's besides the point, but I should point out that I didn't think I was reverting a copyvio, I was reverting obvious copyvio. --Mosmof (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Cumulus Clouds reported by Malcolm Schosha (Result: 2x 24 hour blocks)

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

• This user has the same 4 reverts on the article. Their warning was made in the middle of my own fourth revert, which I apologize for. All parties have been warned and I expect the edit war will cease. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Malformed report. Anyway, both users blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation. Scarian 20:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Marburg72 reported by User:Grey Wanderer (Result: Declined)

• Three-revert rule violation on Cahokia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Marburg72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

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

• Diff of 3RR warning:

User has been around for a while, he should probably know better than this. Of note also are several accusations of racism that an admin may want to take into account.

Declined Whilst the editor has been around for about 10 months, he has made less than 100 edits in that time and thus I would not regard him as experienced. Since he has not performed a revert since he was warned of the 3-revert-rule, I would not be prepared to block unless he made a further reversion. CIreland (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

209.142.181.172 reported by user:Loonymonkey (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on Political positions of Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 209.142.181.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 14:16, June 5, 2008.

• 1st revert: 15:28, June 5, 2008
• 2nd revert: 15:34, June 5, 2008
• 3rd revert: 15:41, June 5, 2008
• 4th revert: 15:50, June 5, 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 15:37, June 5, 2008

• This user is adding inappropriately POV material to the article and reverting any attempts to remove it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Johan Rachmaninov‎ reported by Alex 101 (Result: both users blocked, 10 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Bad Religion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Johan Rachmaninov‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

1. 03:22, 4 June 2008
2. 18:31, 4 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 216998019 by Alex 101 (talk) Someone needs to read the policy on OR")
3. 22:27, 4 June 2008
4. 23:27, 4 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217176589 by Alex 101 (talk) No OR")
5. 02:33, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217196176 by Alex 101 (talk)")
6. 02:33, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "/Undid revision 217196176 by Alex 101 (talk)")
7. 22:47, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217335707 by Alex 101 (talk)")
8. 22:49, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217320122 by Alex 101 (talk) Undid per WP:NORN")
9. 23:24, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217420991 by Alex 101 (talk) No")
10. 00:08, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217427324 by Alex 101 (talk) How is vandalism if i have a source?")
11. 00:19, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217429778 by Alex 101 (talk) it Dosn't matter what you think. Again, read WP:NORN")
12. 00:55, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217320122 by Alex 101 (talk)")
13. 00:55, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217320122 by Alex 101 (talk)")
14. 01:12, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217320122 by Alex 101 (talk)")
15. 01:13, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217320122 by Alex 101 (talk)")

Johan Rachmaninov‎ has repeatedly been edit warring with me on the Bad Religion page by changing the band's genre. He keeps changing their genre hardcore punk to pop punk. Bad Religion is actually a hardcore punk band, not a pop punk band and they are not Blink-182, Good Charlotte, Green Day, Sum 41 and Yellowcard, who all use that genre. He's been doing this for two days and he won't stop. I've really had enough of it. Earlier today, I already sent a request to block it in a way to stop this argument. So please, ban this guy without delay; he has a bad habit of not listening to me when I ask him to stop what he's doing.

Both editors blocked – for a period of 10 hours CIreland (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Andyvphil reported by Scjessey (talk) (Result: )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Andyvphil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

1. 12:56, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Presidential campaign */ revert "bold" deletion of Ayers")
2. 23:24, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Presidential campaign */ Claim that there is consensus to omit Ayers from this article is bogus.")
3. 13:06, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "undo deletions performed by edit warring hagiographers")

Although not strictly a violation of 3RR (the editor in question waited 24 hours and 10 minutes before performing the same revert again), this is still a clear case of edit warring (the reason for 3RR in the first place), and for exactly the same material as he was previously blocked for a week. These particular edits are both contentious and tendentious, and violate WP:BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the third revert wouldn't have violated 3RR even if were within 24 hours of the first. Takes four to do that, so there was no reason for me to "wait". I just happpen to get in from work about the same time every day. Anyway, if you look at the talk page you will find that Scjessey offered seven alternatives for the treatment of Bill Ayers in Barack Obama and got virtually no support for his preferred option (#1) of no mention at all of the former Weatherman in Obama's bio. Despite the ongoing discussion and majority opposition to his course of action (even Scjessey had given up on #1 in favor of an excessively anodyne #3) Shem decided it was time to initiate WP:BRD by deleting all mention of Ayers from the page.. BRD of course allows for "R" (my first edit above) as well as "B" and is supposed to be followed by "D", not immediate repetition of "B" until it sticks. Both Kossak4Truth and I have restored Ayers to the page, and the minority of editors (the poll was quite clear in it's result -- "no mention" got maybe two votes out of about 20) who want no mention of Ayers have edit warred it off. And as I speak, it is still off, since I won't violate 3RR (and indeed have not violated 2RR) to restore it. A sockpuppet IP reported me for "violating 3RR" a bit further up this page on the basis of one revert, and now Scjessey wants me blocked for three (not four) in 25. He has himself made three reverts in the last 17 hours. He is clearly engaging in knowing abuse of process...as can be seen by examining Scjessey's own edits:

1. 00:00, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "rm original research")
2. 20:08, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Campaign */ - restored original section title of "U.S. Senate campaign" - weird that it should've been changed in the first place")
3. 20:13, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217381741 by The Rogue Penguin - restore image order (can't have people's backs facing text, looks weird)")
4. 02:18, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */ rm absolutely ludicrous categories")
5. 10:29, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217474873 by Foxcloud (talk) - rv category insanity")

Andyvphil (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think an article ban would be better than blocking. Andyvphil, you haven't had one single edit that lasted. You've been reverted by numerous users. Do you think it's time to quit (editing that article, I don't mean Misplaced Pages)? There must be something wrong with your edits if you're being reverted all the time. Not everyone is a vandal or an edit warrer, do you realise this? No violation by either but I think a voluntary article ban for both user's would save them from being blocked. Scarian 14:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but even a cursory glance at the edit summaries of my edits above will see there is no edit warring on my part. Two of those edits concern minor formatting issues, and the other two concern miscategorizations. Furthermore, you will see from the article's talk page that I am engaged in a lengthy consensus-building exercise, which I initiated, and in which Andyvphil has taken almost no part it. I filed this report because Andyvphil was obstructing the consensus-building process with identical contentious edits concerning the material being discussed, rather than revert any of those edits myself. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure your reverts were good reverts and my reverts were bad reverts. In your mind.

Noroton has for several weeks vigorously pursued the dispute resolution process and has been tireless in refuting the bogus arguments of Scjessey and others that it is somehow inappropriate to clearly describe Ayers in "Obama's" article. There is little reason for me to duplicate his thankless and unrewarded effort, though I have chimed in where I have had something to add.

To repeat, as I've pointed out, since Scjessey offered seven options for treating Ayers in the Early Life section of Barack Obama (which was not how the subject came to be discussed, contrary to Scjessey's implication) both the mention there and the mention in the Presidential Campaign sections have been removed by the hagigraphic clique which "owns" the article with no regard for the ongoing discussion of how to treat the subject, which discussion has decisively rejected Scjessey's preferred option of deleting all mention of Ayers. I's been six months since the clique first deleted my contribution to the article of the information, cited to the NYTimes, that Obama's pastor and church were Afrocentric and highly political (this was before the videos hit and brought the significance of those facts to national attention) and I've had plenty of time to conclude that AGF-based effort is wasted on the likes of Scjessey. I'm obliged by the rules of Misplaced Pages not to say what I really think of them, but I'm not obliged to conceed their ownership of the page. Andyvphil (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If nobody plans on doing anything here, I'm going to suggest closing it as moot, since 24 hours has passed and neither party has edited the article. --B (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I have every intention of restoring mention of Ayers name to Barack Obama, in accord with NPOV. Not mentioning Ayers has only minority support, but I would not be dissuaded even if the local claque of Obama campaign volunteers mustered a local majority. "Rough consensus" is determined after examaining the qualty of the arguments, and theirs are pathetic. Andyvphil (talk) 07:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Truthmaker1 reported by User:Damiens.rf (Result: Declined, request review)

• Three-revert rule violation on Carl Freer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Truthmaker1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 10:33, June 5, 2008

• 1st revert: 16:35, June 5, 2008
• 2nd revert: 20:26, June 5, 2008
• 3rd revert: 09:58, June 6, 2008
• 4th revert: 10:56, June 6, 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 10:20, June 6, 2008

Declined The user in question is reverting away from a version of the article that has a clear negative slant and in which undue weight in this short article is given to criticism of the subject. Consequently, his reverts are exempt from the 3-revert-rule. See WP:BLP and WP:3RR. However, this is not a cut-and-dried case and I invite further review. CIreland (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment. This article has been controversial for BLP reasons, but I don't see Truthmaker1's repeated removal of the reference to the Times article as having a BLP justification. The forgery charge is supported by that article. Reliable sources do indicate that this man has had a checkered history. The version to which Truthmaker1 reverted appears sanitized. Due to the complexity of Freer's dealings, it is possible that the details of his past troubles are still not exactly correct in the article. But deleting the Times reference can't be a reasonable step to take in fixing that. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There is NO evidence he had a checkered past. A gag order was instituted on Freer during the Gizmondo investigation by the court appointed liquidators. Therefore the articles cited were created without any way for Freer to pursue justice and keep them fair. The 2 journalists in the articles you cite are under indictment and awaiting trial for slander. This is NOT sufficient material to warrant publication of for you (the editors of Wiki) to assess him as having a "checkered" past. I will contact Freer and urge him to pursue a legal action against Wiki for slander if these false entries are not removed instantly. Truthmaker1 (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Truthmaker1

User:Jazz81089 reported by User:Appletrees (Result: No vio? Request extra review; Review: both blocked 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on Blade of the Phantom Master (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jazz81089 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 2008-06-05T23:22:38

• 1st revert: 2008-06-05T19:06:45
• 2nd revert: 2008-06-05T23:30:29 61.119.133.163 (talk · contribs)
• 3rd revert: 2008-06-06T00:52:18
• 4th revert: 2008-06-06T16:23:16

• Diff of 3RR warning: 2008-06-05T23:22:38

I happened to know the article due to repeated vandalism on manhwa by OCN ISP anon who also vandalised the page of Blade of the Phantom Master as blanking the nationality of the artists. The main dispute is that it is only manga, Japanese comics, or manhwa. However, the two are translated into Japanese / Korean cartoon, so I presented a compromised version like " the work is a cartoon and an animation series created by Korean manhwa artist..., specializing as Japanese manga published by a Japanese publisher"....However, the anon removed all Korean mention and manhwa. I think this disruption is unfair, but have tried to resolve the dispute enough, as opened a discussion at the talk page, left message at Japanese OCN ISP anon(s) for discussion several times, even filed RFC and went WP:AIV, WP:RFP. But nothing returned from the other, and the anon keeps ignoring all WP:DR methods and removed Korean mention which originally addressed on the article. However, too obvious sock account (return after his/her 8 month break and under 15 edits in total). There is no other participant in dispute, the anon is highly likely Jazz81089. I went to WP:RFCU, but due to his scare total edits made Checkuser hard to judge anything.Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/KoreanShoriSenyou

I believe that this case is related to a banned user who did the same thing on the article in question last June, and the anon/Jazz81089 also already violated 3RR rules.

• lst revert 2008-06-04T23:41:48 by 220.104.47.22 (ocn)
• 2nd revert 2008-06-05T07:31:56 by 61.119.129.25 (ocn)
• 3rd revert 2008-06-05T19:06:45 by Jazz81089 (overlapped with above 3RR)
• 4th revert 2008-06-05T23:30:29 by 61.119.133.163 (ocn) (overlapped with above 3RR)
• 5th revert 2008-06-06T00:52:18 by Jazz81089 (overlapped with above 3RR)

I don't see that he has any intention to cooperate with the opponent (me) and regard a consensus. Judging by the circumstance evidence, the dynamic anon could be none but Jazz81089. He violated 3RR rules twice, so I think he needs a lesson on his violations. --Appletrees (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

To other admins - I see Jazz81089 has made 3 reverts in 24 hours, which is edit warring. If the IP can be proven to be him then it's 4. Would a block be in order for Appletrees and Jazz? They've both made 3 reverts. Scarian 17:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Both editors are engaging in edit waring, waiting in some cases as little as 30 minutes after the dealine to revert again. They are both Gaming_the_system --Selket 17:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Selket's action seems correct. In case the situation continues in the future, notice that Jazz81089 appears determined to remove mention of any Korean connection from Blade of the Phantom Master. This work, though published in Japan as manga, was created by a Korean author, so Jazz's repeated removals don't seem well-advised. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

User:69.243.88.114 reported by Q (Result: 24 hour block )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Minutes to Midnight (album)‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.243.88.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

1. 21:38, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
2. 21:43, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
3. 21:44, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
4. 21:51, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
5. 21:56, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
6. 22:01, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
7. 22:03, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
8. 22:03, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
9. 22:04, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "")

• Diff of warning: here

—Q 22:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Result - I have blocked the IP for 24 hours. Scarian 22:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

On Wafa Sultan reported by User:M1ss1ontomars2k4 (Result: Page protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on Wafa Sultan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).: Time reported: 23:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just look at the history page. They're having a rather unamusing revert war which I attempted to mediate; meditation failed as one IP refuses to listen and the other refuses to assume good faith. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I reported the user for vandalism because this is what he is doing. He repeatedly removed references from the Jerusalem Post and the Sydney Morning Herald and replaced them with one that cites Misplaced Pages as a source, and after I warned him, he decided to continue with his vandalism, while copying my edit summaries and even added a warning template to my talkpage. 63.216.113.163 (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that's because you did the same to the other IP. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Page protected — Werdna talk 00:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Anyeverybody reported by User:Crum375 (Result: Article protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on Arrow Air Flight 1285 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Anyeverybody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 03:16, June 5, 2008 Adds his self made image: Crash image=ArrowDc-8.png

• 1st revert: 22:35, June 6, 2008 Adds his self made image: Crash image=ArrowDc-8.png
• 2nd revert: 00:08, June 7, 2008 Adds his self made image: Crash image=ArrowDc-8.png
• 3rd revert: 00:18, June 7, 2008 Adds his self made image: Crash image=ArrowDc-8.png
• 4th revert: 02:18, June 7, 2008 Adds his self made image: Crash image=ArrowDc-8.png

• Diff of 3RR warning: 00:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This is about User:Anyeverybody reverting 4 times within 4 hours, after being warned, and being asked to revert himself, to no avail.
He persists in adding his own self-made images into an accident article, where what happened is in dispute, violating WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. He has also violated 3RR, and I have asked him to revert himself, which he has not done. I have unfortunately had to run up to three reverts myself, and as involved admin I am stopping to let others deal with him. Crum375 (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Anybody choosing to block Anyeverybody over this should, in fairness, block Crum375 as well - he's made the opposite reversion himself about 8 times in the past week (though never more than three times within any actual 24 hour period as far as I can see). Actually, without resorting to blocking, I'm trying to get these parties actually talking constructively. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If performing 8 reverts in a week is a violation, I am not sure where that's stated. I also suspect most active Wikipedians would be "violating" that routinely. This page is about WP:3RR, and this editor has reverted 4 times in 4 hours. Crum375 (talk) 03:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You might care to re-read WP:3RR and note that the whole purpose of the rule is to avoid edit warring, and that it's possible to violate this even having made fewer than three reversions in a 24-hour period. Reverting over and over again is not going to resolve a dispute... --Rlandmann (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As you have protected the article, there is no threat of disruption and thus blocking anyone is inappropriate. Blocks are preventative, not punative. --B (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note that Crum has been reverting more than the image; his/her evidence actually shows him/her reverting improvements to the page besides the image. Moreover his/her response on the article's talk page seem to indicate this as well as they seem to refuse to enter into discussions about expanding the article on the talk page. Anynobody 03:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Rlandmann has protected the article. There is nothing more to argue about here. Anybody blocking Crum375 over this should be desysopped faster than you can say arbitration. --B (talk) 03:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If the case weren't moot due to the protection, in my view a block of Anynobody would have been appropriate. A self-made computer-generated image of what the airplane might have looked like under one of the scenarios can't be justified by any reference to reliable sources. He did go over 3RR while Crum did not. It's hard to make a defence of Anynobody's edits as being within policy. EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure - I agree it would have been appropriate. I eventually protected the article as an alternative to blocking both of them. I'd rather have them talking. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Yahel Guhan reported by User:Bless_sins (Result: No action )

• Three-revert rule violation on Mecca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yahel Guhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 21:23, 4 June 2008

• 1st revert: 04:01, 6 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 04:06, 6 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 03:11, 7 June 2008
• 4th revert: 04:44, 7 June 2008

Please note the user reverted the same material 4 times in 24 hours and 43 minutes.

In each revert, the user adds the following material:

This law has been criticized for religious discrimination against non-muslims. Freedom House showed on its website, on a page tiled "Religious apartheid in Saudi Arabia", a picture of a sign showing Muslim-only and non-Muslim roads.

• Diff of 3RR warning: I warned the user twice before making this report: 04:59, 7 June 2008, 05:08, 7 June 2008 saying that I will not report him/her if he/she self-reverted.Bless sins (talk) 05:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I never violated the 3rr rule, as my edits are not within a 24 hour period. Second, you are an equally active member in the dispute, as you alone have reverted the inclusion each time I added it ever since the first time I added it. Not to mention you recently got away with 2 3rr violations without being blocked. YahelGuhan (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In the last 40 hours I've made 3 reverts to the article while you've made 4 in just over 24 hours. Secondly, I'm giving you a chance to correct yourself. If I was given the chance to do so, I would only be too glad to self-revert.Bless sins (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

NO. I made 3 reverts, not 4 in 24 hours, and so have you. You are probably just waiting for me to be blocked, or an hour to pass before you revert me agian. Instead you make more false allegations of a non-real 3rr violation. Conviently just one day after your incorrect stalking report. This is simple math; it is 3, not 4. YahelGuhan (talk) 05:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Note to admins, Bless Sins appears to be forum shopping for a block of Yahel Guhan. See also: Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: blocking: I've stated 3 times now that I will retract this report if Yahel self-reverts. Had I wanted to see the user get blocked I wouldn't have have warned him twice (, ) before coming here.Bless sins (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You want your way in the article, and am willing to make up allegations of a falsified 3rr report in order to get it. You want that clause deleted inspite of it being well sourced and within wiki policies. Warnings are a required step in making 3rr reports, and even though you did the math incorrectly, you know a warning is required before a block is ever made. I love how you attempt to hide your real intentions. YahelGuhan (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You are well aware of the 3 revert rule, and have been blocked for it in the past. Hence no warning is necessary. ITAQALLAH 16:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note to other admins - YahelGuhan, despite being just outside of the 24 hour limit (40 or so minutes doesn't count, as that's gaming the system), has violated 3RR. Both users, in fact, are edit warring, but I am unsure of how to proceed. I would suggest a block for both. Thoughts? Scarian 06:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Since Yahel Guhan's last revert I've not made any reversions (though I could have). The edits you see that I made after Yahel Guhan (in the history) are uncontroversial improvements to the article.Bless sins (talk) 07:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You are probably just biding your time. Afraid you are going to get blocked, you are trying to temporarily depict yourself as a better editor. I doubt it will last, as your editing shows you do still want that paragraph removed, and you have a history of edit warring to get your way. Second, my intention was not to game the system. I didn't plan to be reverting 40 minutes after the block expired. YahelGuhan (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to leave it be, unless and until we see more disruption. — Werdna talk 08:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable --B (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Both editors are urged to discuss on the talk page instead of reverting. Trebor (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

User:62.178.118.77 and other IP-numbers reported by User:WaldiR (Result: No vio)

• Three-revert rule violation on Otto Erich Deutsch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 62.178.118.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and other IP-numbers: Time reported: 17:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 08:21, 23 September 2007 Then repeatedly inserting incorrect "Jewish" nationality to replace correct "Austrian". Article includes Category: Jewish Scolar already.

• 1st revert: 23:51, 3 November 2007
• 2nd revert: 12:58, 9 November 2007
• 3rd revert: 20:57, 10 December 2007
• 4th revert: 22:50, 22 March 2008
• 5th revert: 22:14, 3 June 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: No warning. How? 1st: Anonymous (in contrast to almost all other editors of this article), 2nd: changing ip-numbers, 3rd: editing anonymously for the sole purpose of this one edit. Clearly knowing that he/she is doing wrong.

I ask for permanent article protection against logged-out-edits. (Of all 41 editors of this article, only the troublemaker and three others were not logged in. Judging from the stubbornness, morosity and the long time endurance of the editor, peace will not be found otherwise. Excuse my righteous anger :-) WaldiR (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No violation Stale, and it needs to be more than three reverts in 24 hours. --Selket 18:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, just found the correct place for my request. --WaldiR (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Dvaaeg reported by User:Aramgar (Result: 24 hour block; suspected sockpuppet)

• Three-revert rule violation on Florina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dvaaeg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 13:37, 7 June 2008 User removed content in violation of talkpage consensus.
• 2nd revert: 17:23, 7 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 19:24, 7 June 2008
• 4th revert: 20:02, 7 June 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 22:36, 7 June 2008

• The edit summary provided on this diff indicates that this is an established user who prefers to engage in Plague-style edit-warring under a series of disposabe SPAs.

The user has not been active after the 3RR notification, therefore it is reasonable to assume s/he has been offline and unable to become aware of the warning. If they persist, please make a new report and make an explicit reference to this one. --Gutza 23:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. If my assessment is incorrect, please contact me on my talk page and I will be happy to review and/or reopen this issue. --Gutza 23:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: I have blocked the user for 24 hours as a holding action since I believe that this may be a new sock of a sockpuppeteer who I blocked a while ago (namely Aegeanhawk (talk · contribs)). I suggest that the best way to establish this would be to take the matter to Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser. An admin with checkuser privileges would be better able than I to determine whether this is, as suspected, a sockpuppet. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I defer to that judgement, my original assessment has been based on taking facts at face value. --Gutza 23:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Chenyangw reported by User:Cumulus Clouds (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on Tibet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chenyangw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 12:09 5 June 2008

• 1st revert: 12:09, 5 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 14:36, 6 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 22:12, 6 June 2008
• 4th revert: 12:28, 7 June 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 14:58, 6 June 2008

This user has been previously blocked for edit warring on this article in attempting to revert it to this same diff. 3 different editors in 48 hours have reverted this back to a neutral nonbiased version but this editor has continued to revert back after his 4th edit is more than 24 hours old. This is the only article this user edits and this is the only edit this user makes. Discussion on the talk page has proved unproductive with this editor being unwilling to engage in dialogue about neutral phrasing. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours 3RR is not an entitlement. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

User:NuclearVacuum reported by UserSpecial:Contributions/24.77.204.120 (Result:24 for both)

• Three-revert rule violation on Template:Gliese 581 c.

NAME_OF_USER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gliese_581_c&action=history

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:
• 7th revert:
• 8th revert:
• 9th revert:
• 10th revert:

• Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours - both users. There is no valid reason whatsoever to editwar. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:30, 8 June 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. 
The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time 
than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. 
See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->
*1st revert: 
*2nd revert: 
*3rd revert: 
*4th revert: 
*Diff of 3RR warning: 
<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->

See also

• Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest diff guide
• 3RR report helper tool – helps simplify diff gathering and reporting. Be sure to remove non-reverts from the report or it may be rejected.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring