Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:25, 7 September 2006 editSpinyNorman (talk | contribs)1,550 edits [] (2) reported by [] (Result: '''24 hours, see above''')← Previous edit Revision as of 05:32, 7 September 2006 edit undoJustforasecond (talk | contribs)2,975 edits [] (2) reported by [] (Result: '''24 hours, see above''')Next edit →
Line 453: Line 453:


::::::This is sadly typical behavior of SV. She's extremely intolerant of anyone challenging her own POV-pushing. See how she attacks you when you try to reason with her? It is clear that I was not reverting the material in question, but all that seems to matter to her is that I'm removing her own editorial content in favor of more neutral and factual material. Now she's apparently laboring under the delusion that I'm "stalking" her? ROTFLMAO! BTW, thanks for being objective. --] 05:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC) ::::::This is sadly typical behavior of SV. She's extremely intolerant of anyone challenging her own POV-pushing. See how she attacks you when you try to reason with her? It is clear that I was not reverting the material in question, but all that seems to matter to her is that I'm removing her own editorial content in favor of more neutral and factual material. Now she's apparently laboring under the delusion that I'm "stalking" her? ROTFLMAO! BTW, thanks for being objective. --] 05:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Hey Spiny -- I know after an illegit block its tough to be civil, but please try your best (ROTFLMAO). For what its worth though, after the posts aboce, SV showed up in the middle of nowhere on an article I was working on and began reverting. Only twice though. ] 05:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


===] reported by User:] (Result: 8h)=== ===] reported by User:] (Result: 8h)===

Revision as of 05:32, 7 September 2006

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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


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

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

    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

    Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
    Click here to create a new report
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357
    358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164
    1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
    481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links


    Violations

    Please place new reports at the bottom.

    User:24.89.235.25 reported by User:User:Montco (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Todd_Pinkston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.89.235.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


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

    Comments:

    • 24.89.235.25 has been reverting changes I originally made to the article. The article about a football player was extremely POV, and really devoid of accurate information (ie picking out one game in 2004 to describe his extire season). I did make some changes while trying to incorporate the criticisms of the player in a less abusive way.

    Not in 24h William M. Connolley 16:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    It is now. Montco 16:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:Subhash_bose reported by User:BhaiSaab (Result: 1 Week)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Atal Bihari Vajpayee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Subhash_bose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 17:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User has been blocked for 3rr violations before. BhaiSaab 17:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    Blocked for one week. BhaiSaab 19:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:Burak18 reported by User:Ugur Basak (Result: no block)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Galatasaray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Burak18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


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

    You need 4R, not 3 William M. Connolley 20:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Time report made: 17:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    Eventually he made two more reverts on that page. I updated revert links and times. Cheers --Ugur Basak 12:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    I add 5th revert, although his first 4 reverts is enough for him to be blocked i've to add his 5th one to show how he is reverting that page continuously --Ugur Basak 16:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    This user has already blocked 2 times for 3RR on Galatasaray article. Each time when his block time ends, he starts revert war. This time i can't give exact reverted version because Galatasaray signed and loaned out a few players, because of this reverts are plus signed in and out versions. Btw, user don't respond anyone. --Ugur Basak 17:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:Stirling Newberry reported by User:87.19.140.175 (Result: 24h)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Gold_Standard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Stirling_Newberry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Time report made: 20:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User insists he's reverting a "sockpuppet" which is not the case. I've been an editor for a couple of months, but do not have the desire to register a username. Why does having an IP address automatically make me a sockpuppet? Anyway, Stirling has reverted three different users on this topic, he is insisting that it be reverted to his POV. I'm not here to discuss his POV, but he has reverted *FIVE* times in a less that 24 hour period, instead of requesting any further action (page protection, mediation, etc.) Please assist. Thank you 87.19.140.175 20:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    Also, user has been blocked for 3RR violation in the past 03:07, 9 February 2005 Chris 73 block 87.19.140.175 20:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    24h. If anyone finds evidence that SN is indeed reverting socks, then the block should probably be removed William M. Connolley 21:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:E104421 reported by User:Clevelander (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Justin McCarthy (American historian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). E104421 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 20:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This user has attempted to remove cited information from Misplaced Pages and has violated the Three-Revert Rule in the process. -- Clevelander 20:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:CFIF reported by User:82.165.237.19 (Result:go away)

    Three revert rule violation on

    ATA Airlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Stop icon

    Your recent editing history at CFIF shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

    Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.:


    Time report made: 82.165.237.19 01:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

    You're using the page to stage an attack on CFIF is what it is. I'm going to block you instead, have advised CFIF to stop, semi-protected the article and am certainly not going to hand you a victory of a block on CFIF given your trolling. -Splash - tk 01:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:Rebecca reported by User:ntennis (Result: Amnesty)

    Three revert rule violation on

    List_of_transgender-rights_organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rebecca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


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


    Time report made: 07:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Rebecca has been combative and unwilling to seek consensus, and has deleted subsequent content in reverting an older edit. This article is currently being considered for deletion, and her actions are also blocking attempts to address the concerns of those who want to delete it. ntennis 07:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

    • I will certainly not object to it if someone blocks here, because it is four reverts within 24 hours of something which is not simple vandalism. Still, keep in mind that 3RR was not intended to be "I can make this edit exactly four times, and if you revert me all these times, you will be blocked, not me." I will leave a note on Rebecca's talkpage asking her to self-revert and hence remove the fourth revert. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Since it is now 24 hours since the last revert, I'll just call this one an amnesty. Try to discuss using the user-talk or article-talk pages if there are still ongoing disputes, and a civil and reasonable resolution should be possible. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:BhaiSaab reported by User:CltFn (Result: 48h)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Criticism_of_the_Council_on_American-Islamic_Relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BhaiSaab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


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

    48h William M. Connolley 22:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

    It was more than 24 hours, which is why CltFn chose not to include the times. BhaiSaab 00:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    It was within 25 hours. Given your past block record you'll give the admins if they think that looks like gaming 3RR. JoshuaZ 00:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    Look at CAIR. There is a link to criticism article - should it have redirected back? You tell me. Only one of my past blocks was actually a 3rr violation. BhaiSaab 01:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    Do you mean to say you were editing something that constituted vandalism? This was still essentially a content issue. If you think a user's action is borderline vandalism or such you should get an uninvoled user to step in. 3RR can only be ignored for the most blatant forms of vandalism. And in any event, changing your argument from it wasn't in 24 hours to calling on the vandalism exception is hardly persuasive. JoshuaZ 01:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    I never called it vandalism; it's obviously a content dispute where one editor believes that an article on an organization should be 75% criticism, which I don't see to be supported by policy or guidelines anywhere. The adherence to procedure over that of quality on Misplaced Pages is quite disturbing. BhaiSaab 01:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    If it has been within 25 hours, then it means that the user does follows the rules. The purpose of this policy is to prevent edit warring, it is NOT punitive. Furthermore, the length of the block :"48 Hours" is strange? --Reza1 01:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    Who unblocked BhaiSaab? He violated 3RR and the policy needs to be applied consistently. I violated the 3 RR rules and I was blocked for 48 hours. So what's up with that?--CltFn 02:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    You violated 3rr 3 times on three seperate articles (all under 24 hours). I did not. BhaiSaab 02:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    The policy is a 3RR violation = block . You qualified and thus you should be blocked. I was and I accepted the penalty , I expect the same to be applied to you.--CltFn 02:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    Right the policy also says something about the reverts being within 24 hours, which does not apply here. BhaiSaab 02:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

    2006-09-05T00:42:57 Jaranda (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked BhaiSaab (contribs) (per IRC discussion, promices to avoid article) For the record, I misread the timestamp in B's last revert. Which changes it from blatant 3RR to marginal violation William M. Connolley 07:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:128.253.56.185 reported by User:KOCOBO (Result: 8h)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Srebrenica_massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 128.253.56.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


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


    Time report made: 22:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User was warned, he continued to revert. --KOCOBO 22:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

    8h. Osli73 gets a warning William M. Connolley 22:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:Crashdavis reported by User:Isarig (Result: 8h)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Fox News Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Crashdavis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


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


    Time report made: 22:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Blatant disregard for WP policy and warnings.

    Just wanted to add a comment (not sure if thats ok or not; new to this). I also have had to revert this editor on the Rupert Murdoch article and I believe he was making these same reverts just minutes before as an anon under the IP 71.77.3.49. AuburnPilot 22:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

    8h for first offence William M. Connolley 22:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


    User:68.51.8.88 reported by DelosHarriman 22:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC) (Result: 24h)

    Three revert rule violation on

    TheVanguard.Org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.51.8.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


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


    Time report made: 22:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This user starts with some relatively small stuff, but by DIFF #5 is adding actively libelous material based on a very tortured reading of one citation and a whole lot of completely "unverified" stuff. Several people have warned him all through the day. Moreover, he's an anonymous user with a recent history of going after articles related to this one, including adding defamatory "information" to bios of living persons and seeking to have several of them deleted (all the AfDs have been resolved in the articles' favor except this one, which is still open). I wrote this article and I realize it's no more than a stub; however, I can't really improve it while this is going on either. Please help.

    24h so that other editors can improve the article concerned (article currently in AfD). --WinHunter 23:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:Isarig reported by User:Freepsbane (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on Battle of Bint Jbeil. Isarig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

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

    Not a 3RR warning at all. This is a bad faith report. Isarig 03:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

    Time report made: 01:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • While there have been a few days since the above user's previous reverts(before the ones listed), they all none the less fall into a almost identical pattern.Freepsbane 01:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • has been very active in reversions of the above mentioned page; a quick check on the page history will show he has been more active in reverting edits than any other user. furthermore he has also shown himself completely unwilling to compromise with any other editor and generally adopts a belligerent posture when dealing with them.Freepsbane 01:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • has been a Misplaced Pages editor for more than one year and is quite familiar with the 3RR rule. Nevertheless he has had a history of 3rr violations and has been blocked for what has been called " utterly uncivil behavior". A check in his talk page and archive will verify this. Freepsbane 01:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    Note that the "Previous version reverted to" is conspicously missing. This is no coincidence, as the first "revert" is not a revert at all, but an update of the page with new information that became available, complete with new sources. Reagrdless, the page is now protected. Isarig 03:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:213.249.155.239 reported by User:Crossmr (Result:24 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Hipcrime (Usenet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 213.249.155.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):



    Time report made: 01:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:continued edit warring, block evasion via ip and sock puppets, violating concensus, etc.--Crossmr 01:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

    And he continues to edit war over this material which has no concensus and has been removed by numerous editors.--Crossmr 01:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    My 24 hour block was made without regard to 3RR. Your report is not in proper format (not all diffs and no original version). alphaChimp 01:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    Those are the 4 diffs that follow it being changed from the concensus version. Sometimes he clumps 2 or 3 edits together, should those be present? As far as original version... I'll update that.--Crossmr 01:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    I think I see what you mean. For some reason I copied the wrong link for the 2nd revert, its been fixed.--Crossmr 01:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:Burak18 reported by User:Ugur Basak (Result: 48 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Galatasaray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Burak18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


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


    Time report made: 08:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

    Ugar, you'll need to supply the diffs showing the changes, not links showing the same versions. SlimVirgin 10:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    Now it's in good form i think. SlimVirgin, i really tired with this user:) there is already a report for him in this page but i don't know why but he isn't blocked and he is still revert-warring. He doesn't respond messages. --Ugur Basak 11:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    yeah it's in good form now. I also noticed it. Amoruso 12:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

    Reviewed: clear 3RR violation, repeat offense, third in a week. Another 48 hour block -- Samir धर्म 12:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:SpinyNorman (1) reported by User:Amoruso (Result: 24 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Folke Bernadotte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SpinyNorman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) : not directly but :


    Time report made: 10:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Univolved party here. I'd be cautious about more than a warning on this one. The reverted material was fairly incendiary, and shall we say amibiguously sourced -- books, no page numbers, & not online. The reporter should be making the case on Talk or through mediation, not gaming 3RR reports. Derex 10:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

    This is a direct 3RR violation of 4 reverts (how can he deny it ? ) and this is a repetitve abuser :

    08:30, 3 September 2006; received some other 3RR warning. The user was also blocked in the past for a 3RR violation for 24 hours, and then , warned twice again about 3RR violations and again and was blocked again for 48 hours for a violation Amoruso 10:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

    note the revison is not on the sourced material, and it also doesn't matter on what it is. pages could have been asked and would have been provided anyway. Amoruso 10:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

    Reverts include 3RR violations both on the terrorist-underground reversion (direct) and blanking of sourced information. 10:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

    Thanks Derex. In reality. there are only three actual reverts. The rest are mischaracterized by a user who is pissed at me for trying to get rid of his POV in the article. --SpinyNorman 10:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    SpinyNorman is a serial reverter and this is a clear 3RR violation. He restored the word "terrorist" four times in just over nine hours, and his first edit was a revert to a previous version of his, where he also added the word "terrorist." He has been blocked four times for 3RR, and there have been other occasions where he was warned, not reported, or the page was protected. There is also a current RfAr in part because of his reverting. Most of the editing Spiny does is reverting, and most of the reverting involves trying to game 3RR, with occasional miscalculations such as this one. SlimVirgin 10:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    I see SV still hasn't learned to grasp the concept of a good-faith edit. Maybe one day she will... --SpinyNorman 10:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

    As 3RR should not be rewarded, and the violation resulted in the removal of sourced information regarding Bernadotte, I have restored the version prior to Norman's changes, while maintaining the protect for now. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

    user:SpinyNorman (2) reported by user:SlimVirgin (Result: 24 hours, see above)

    3RR violation on Colin Blakemore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by SpinyNorman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Reported by SlimVirgin 11:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comment

    Spiny was engaged in this series of reverts even as the 3RR report above was being made, which indicates a lack of respect for our policies and procedures. SlimVirgin 11:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

    • Reviewed: I'm lumping this one in with the previous one for a total of 24 hours. I agree that the intent of each of the edits above was akin to reversion. I'm going to ask that SpinyNorman discuss the issue on the talk page before further edits. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 11:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    so this is the 6th time he will be blocked because of WP:3RR. Amoruso 12:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • This one is baloney. These are not reverts -- the content removed and inserted is different each time as anyone who clicks on the links will see. "Slim Virgin" (this username is borderline offensive), is smackdab in the middle of this edit war. The "lack of respect for our procedures" comment "virgin" levels is uncivil and smells disingenuous. Is it respectful to delete a users edits three times then report him for 3RR? If "Spiny" is blocked "Virgin" should also be blocked -- for edit warring.

    Justforasecond 16:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

    It makes no difference whether the content was the same or different — and in this case, it was the same content he kept removing or altering. I see you're in the process of trying to have the 3RR policy changed because you were blocked. You might want to try reading it first. SlimVirgin 16:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    Of course it makes a difference what the content is. It isn't a reversion if the content changes on both sides, its called hammering out a consensus. In any case, you haven't explained your edit warring and why it should go unnoticed while Spiny is blocked for not "respecing our policies". Your edit summaries, accusing Spiny of "POV pushing" are also uncivil. From all I can see, he removed a derrogatory and speculatory use of a living person that you kept re-inserting "press speculation that Prince Charles pressured so-and-so to resign" changed which he changed to "amid controversy surrounding so-and-so's resignation". Now maybe this is sourced well enough to meet BLP and maybe not. But it's definitely not a matter of "POV pushing"
    The final "revert" you reported is nothing of the sort. He changed
    Amid press speculation
    to
    Amid unsourced speculation by a member of the British press
    How is this a reversion at all? How can you presume to take the high ground in asking someone to be blocked for "reversion" when his edit is protecting a living person?
    I don't even know Spiny, I just happened to click on this case and found it an obviously poor use of 3RR. Justforasecond 17:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    If you don't know Spiny, and you don't understand the 3RR policy, you shouldn't be commenting. (1) SpinyNorman is an inveterate POV pusher and serial reverter; most of what he does on Misplaced Pages is revert, revert, revert all the lifelong day; (2) on this particular article, he was reverting sourced material; (3) I reverted him because he stalks me to articles I'm editing and reverts for no reason other than to be irritating; he has been doing it for about nine months; I wasn't "edit warring," I was "Spiny warring"; (4) 3RR violations do not depend on content; (5) it makes no difference whether the same or different material is involved; any undoing of another editor's work is a revert. That's my last comment about this. SlimVirgin 17:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    So now you admit to warring with another user, yet you remain unblocked. How is this reasonable? And how is this a revert?
    Amid press speculation
    changed to
    Amid unsourced speculation by a member of the British press
    This seems like a pretty clear-cut consensus attempt to me. He didn't alter your edit or remove any words or punctuation.
    If someone is wikistalking you, we can create a policy for that. I have a couple of stalkers myself and I would be happy to craft language with you prohibiting wikistalking. But, until then you've been warring and its not fair to report someone for not "respecting our policies" when you are flaunting them yourself. Justforasecond 17:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    This is sadly typical behavior of SV. She's extremely intolerant of anyone challenging her own POV-pushing. See how she attacks you when you try to reason with her? It is clear that I was not reverting the material in question, but all that seems to matter to her is that I'm removing her own editorial content in favor of more neutral and factual material. Now she's apparently laboring under the delusion that I'm "stalking" her? ROTFLMAO! BTW, thanks for being objective. --SpinyNorman 05:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    Hey Spiny -- I know after an illegit block its tough to be civil, but please try your best (ROTFLMAO). For what its worth though, after the posts aboce, SV showed up in the middle of nowhere on an article I was working on and began reverting. Only twice though. Justforasecond 05:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:Alextwa reported by User:Extraordinary Machine (Result: 8h)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Grammy Awards of 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Alextwa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :


    Time report made: 14:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User insists on reinserting unsourced, POV and OR-laiden speculation about who might win Grammy Awards next year, without discussion or explanation. Extraordinary Machine 14:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

    8h first offence William M. Connolley 15:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:Kosmopolis reported by User:Tewfik (Result:13 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on

    2006 Israel-Lebanon War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kosmopolis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    15:27 September 5, the third paragraph is the one at issue.


    Time report made: 18:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comment Kosmopolis is adding lots of detail to the intro about how many tanks were used, how many on each side killed, making the lead too detailed and long. He was warned about 3RR and was offered the opportunity to revert himself but did so only partially, leaving some of the figures in place. Tewfik 18:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

    Clarification
    I was in the process of shortening the intro when User:SlimVirgin indiscriminately and repeatedly reverted multiple edits of mine regarding the whole article, while the subject of dispute was only the lead. It was impossible not to commit my pending changes without losing edits. After I had committed, I immediately started shortening the lead to meet consensus.
    The lead as it was before had been under User:Tewfik's constant watch and contained gibberish phrasing and non-NPOV information as well as imprecise estimates and unsourced claims . What we wanted to add (and what User:Tewfik calls lots of details) is a concise summary of human and material costs of the war. The section he kept deleting deals with casualties, Israeli efforts, Hezbollah efforts, Israeli IDPs, Lebanese IDPs, environmental damage and political implications, all backed up exclusively by reputable sources. Note that the lead was copy-edited and fleshened out by other editors as well and that it conforms to WP:LEAD in that it is capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article (see ). As soon as well-sourced information started pouring in, User:Tewfik kept reverting to unsourced information, calling the statistics one-sided and prevented the lead from being changed to NPOV. Please note especially his questionable stance on the issue of Lebanese and Israeli refugees. The revision now looks like this . User:Tewfik calls this only a partial revert and would like to have it back to this: . I guess this would not only be a reversal by means of revisions, but also by means of NPOV policies, by means of precise language and by means of conforming to WP:LEAD.
    Please note that User:SlimVirgin appeared out of nowhere and took part in the edit war before threatening to report me and that User:Tewfik (who reported me), had been critisized earlier for his behaviour by other editors of the lemma (see ). Kosmopolis 20:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

    Being that this is clearly a content dispute, and the user reverted four times, I don't think there is any issue. If it is at all relevant though, an independent and neutral user has also since reverted the WP:Lead. Tewfik 02:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

    Clearly there is a content dispute here. As this is his first violation I will be blocking for 13 hours. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:McPhail reported by User:3bulletproof16 (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on

    WrestleMania 22 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). McPhail (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):



    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :

    • User is not new and is well aware of WP:3RR


    Time report made: 23:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    McPhail has reverted the article every time an edit is made. He clearly does not assume good faith in the contributions of editors such as me and TJ Spyke. Every time an edit is made to improve the article, McPhail returns and reverts the article claiming it as being "Cleaned Up" . This is the version that TJ Spyke and I worked on . We based the whole format of the article on these two articles (WrestleMania XX and WrestleMania 21) and this isn't the first time McPhail has reverted the article to his own liking. See the article's history here every single "Clean Up" he has made have only been reverts to his previous version. This is really getting frustrating to users like me and TJ Spyke who have worked so hard to improve the article's quality. He has been referred to WP:OWN several times before but has simply ignored it. -- bulletproof 23:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    My response: my initial edit to the article after several weeks was reverted with no explanation by 3BulletProof . My subsequent edits - which were not all reverts to the same version - were all similarly reverted with little or no explanation. It should be noted that 3BulletProof has also reverted the article on more than three occasions - , in several cases without any edit summary whatsoever. 23:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC) McPhail 23:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:Macaw 54 reported by User:Georgia guy (Result:Protected)

    Three revert rule violation on

    T (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Macaw 54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :


    Time report made: 23:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    </nowiki>

    I protected the page instead of blocking anyone because this is a edit warring where both users are involved. --WinHunter 23:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:Georgia guy reported by User:Macaw 54 (Result:Protected)

    Three revert rule violation on

    T (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Georgia guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to:

    Comment: Only the 2nd-4th of what Macaw 54 is referring to as "reverts" are actually reverts. The first was just a section to be split into a new article to keep the article from being too large. Georgia guy 23:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

    Reply. The third certainly is, also. The first was also a reversion of my edits to the pronunciation section.--Macaw 54 23:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    See above, same reasoning. --WinHunter 23:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:CovenantD reported by User: The Judge (Result:6 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Clock King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User:CovenantD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    ...Cold somebody rv his last? I'm not sure I can.--The Judge 04:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :

    • Check the edit summaries, he also ignored the intervention of an administrator I called for help.

    Oh, and please revert him on both articles, I don't want to risk being blocked like him.--The Judge 00:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)--The Judge 23:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

    User blocked for 6 hours. -- Where 01:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:ParadoxTom reported by User:Humus sapiens (Result:48 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Jews for Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ParadoxTom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):



    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :


    Time report made: 17:55, 5 September 2006 (PDT)

    Comments: Complete disregard to WP rules. Obsessive namecalling and editwarring. Disclaimer: I (as well as other users) reverted him also but did not break 3RR. ←Humus sapiens 01:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

    I looked into this. Humus has been edit warring on this article for some time. He called others "crusading liars" but I haven't seen any namecalling from others, inc ParadoxTom (Where are the diffs for "namecalling", Humus?) "Slim Virgin" myseteriously joined the fray and began warring immediately, gaming this new user into a 3RR. If any, all three should be sanctioned, the more experienced receiving longer blocks. It may be worth noting that Humus has been warring to insert the POV phrasing "All mainstream jewish groups (religious and secular) are strongly opposed to Jews for Jesus". ParadoxTom has been working to remove this (and other) inappropriate wordings. Justforasecond 02:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

    Wrong on all points. This was about Justforasecond's POV/OR argument. So far nobdy called you anything: I made it conditional upon your failure to prove your own words. Serious claims require serious sources.
    As for "gaming this new user into a 3RR" - are you saying she made him do it? ←Humus sapiens 02:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    You have been edit warring on this article for some time. One look at the article history will confirm. One (longer) look at the talk page will confirm your name-calling, incivility and failure to assume good faith. Justforasecond 02:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

    Blocked by Nandesuka 21:50, 5 September 2006 Nandesuka (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "ParadoxTom (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (Egregious 3RR violation on Jews for Jesus) --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:Justforasecond reported by User:Benedictine (Result:both blocked for 24hrs)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Academy_Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Justforasecond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Time report made: 02:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User:Justforasecond is engaged in irrational, POV-driven reverting of an article and topic that is one of the most transparent and visible nomenclatures in the world. User seems more concerned with being right than in being factual. User's edit trail and Wiki history reveals a catalog of his being banned and being threatened with being banned for his repeat violations. Thank you.

    Uhhh yall might wanna check that history. 1st "revert" is a first-time tag application 2nd, 3rd, 4th are re-applications of the "worldwide view" tag. Policy is pretty clear about not removing tags before settling the matter discussed.
    I'm filing a counter claim against this user. He/she has reverted 4x.
    • 02:19, 6 September 2006
    • 02:13, 6 September 2006
    • 01:46, 6 September 2006
    • 21:58, 5 September 2006

    Justforasecond 02:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

    Both users blocked for 24 hours for revert warring. Nandesuka 03:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

    IP Range 80.135. reported by User:Tewfik (Result: 24 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on

    2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 80.135.147.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :


    Time report made: 06:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: As the user's edits have come from a number of edits in the range listed above, any block should be to its entirety. The user continuously reverted several other editors. I left a 3RR notice on the page's Talk because of the nature of the IP, though the IP responded to it before their last reversion, and thus was surely aware. Tewfik 06:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

    Counterstatement: Please see Tewfik's actions regarding the article lead:

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :

    Time report made: 16:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Tewfik systematically reverted information that was introduced, proofread, acknowledged and copy-edited by numerous WP contributors five times over the course of 36 h, thus skewing the article towards POV and reinserting unsourced and/or unverifiable information. 80.135.138.52 16:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

    • 24 hours. 80.135.138.52, please cite the diffs of the 3RR violation that you claim Tewfik has committed (on your talk page, since you're blocked, but following the above format), and if it checks out, he as well will be subject to censur. El_C 16:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:Fluence reported by User:Richyard (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Keane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Fluence (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


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

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :


    Time report made: 09:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Fluence is determined to keep this article the way he edited it and reverts changes without discussion. On the article Talk page, I have reminded him of WP:3RR and he waited 8 minutes after the expiry of the 24 hour period to make his last change. Richyard 09:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:LUCPOL reported by User:Wildnox (Result:24 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Rapcore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). LUCPOL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Time report made: 13:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Edit war on Rapcore, revived after unprotected, two users violated 3rr. Both users have been previously blocked for edit warring. --Wildnox 13:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:Egr reported by User:Wildnox (Result: 24 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Rapcore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Egr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Time report made: 13:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Edit war on Rapcore, revived after unprotected, two users violated 3rr. Both users have been previously blocked for edit warring. --Wildnox 13:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:DeathSeeker reported by User:Nandesuka (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Xbox_360 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). deathSeeker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Reverting continues (we've lapped 24 hours, here, but these latest reverts still make over 3 in the past 24 hours --I'll let the reviewing admin untangle it).

    • 5th revert: 03:27, 7 September 2006
    • 6th revert: 05:08, 7 September 2006 with the edit summary "I've given the wiki policy stating why this reversion stays. If you don't like, make comments on the policy page, not here. Being wiki policy a reversion relating to this does not fall under the 3RR.)"

    Time report made: 15:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:KSmrq reported by User:Melchoir (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Proof that 0.999... equals 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (possibly moved to 0.999... (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in the next few days). KSmrq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :


    Time report made: 16:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Now that the page has been protected, I personally don't see a need to block KSmrq, and it would make it harder for him to participate on the talk page, should he so choose. Some kind of warning would be nice though. Melchoir 03:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

    anon user 87.203.235.185

    Please look into anon user 87.203.235.185 as they have been edit warring and vandalising the article . L0b0t 12:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)



    User:Lucaas reported by User:Lambiam (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Modern geocentrism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lucaas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments

    • The technical violation is the 4th revert. The user keeps pushing a text, in spite of the arguments against his text brought by other editors: original research, irrelevant, incoherent. These arguments are dismissed by the user as if we don't know what we're talking about. --Lambiam 23:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :

    Time report made: 18:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Eric Robert Rudolph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TripleH1976 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):



    User:3bulletproof16 reported by User:JB196 (Result:No action needed)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Vic Grimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 3bulletproof16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :


    Time report made: 18:59


    Comments: The first page I would like to report him for violating it is Vic Grimes. He reverted the Vic Grimes page to EXACTLY as it was at a previous time on not one, not two, not three, but SIX times on September 5. Therefore, he violated WP:3RR and he should be suspended. I want to know why he was not suspended as I was. Here are the links to 3bulletproof16’s edits on the Vic Grimes page, all of which are EXACTLY “identical to how used to be at some previous time,” and therefore constitute a blatant violation of WP:3RR which should be dealt with accordingly

    User:3bulletproof16 reported by User:JB196 (Result:No action necessary)

    Three revert rule violation on

    User talk:3bulletproof16 (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 3bulletproof16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):



    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :


    Time report made: 18:59

    Comments: The second complaint I would like to file against 3bulletproof16 for violating WP:3RR refers to User talk:3bulletproof16. He reverted the User talk:3bulletproof16 page to EXACTLY as it was at a previous time on not one, not two, not three, but OVER TWENTY (20) times on September 5. They all fall directly under the wording of WP:REVERT (see paragraph 2 above) and therefore constitute a violation of WP:3RR that was not dealt with. This user’s belligerent reversion vandalism of his own user page is clearly visible at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:3bulletproof16&action=history, where he constantly reverts constructive comments despite being told repeatedly not to do so, and told again not to do so…and told again not to do so…and told again…and told again…and again…and again…and so on. This user is belligerent and should be dealt with accordingly.

    Exported from JB196's Talk Page:
    Okay, please stop editing 3bulletproof16's talk page: period. It's not helping matters. Let's take it up here. I think 3BP16 is warranted in wanting to remove the large chunk of text from his talk page - there's no good reason to keep it as it's clearly just copied text from another talk page. So it should be no problem to remove it, as it's preserved elsewhere. The only comment that is unique to 3BP16's talk page will be preserved - all duplicate information will be removed. I'll perform the removal myself. Objections? --PeruvianLlama 05:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    ...
    I just saw your (JB196) comment on my talk page. The comment under Extraordinary Machine is no longer relevant if there isn't the issue of who should be revert who any more - once we resolve this, it will no longer be needed. --PeruvianLlama 05:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    ...I was asking you to stop so we could get on with resolving things. Which brings us to this: it is Misplaced Pages policy that users should not remove warnings from their talk pages regarding their disruptive behaviour or simple vandalism. 3bulletproof16's edits do not fall under either of these categories, and so while it may be frustrating, he is free to remove your comments from his talk page. Since the content dispute is regarding the Vic Grimes article anyway, the conversation can be continued on its related talk page. --PeruvianLlama 05:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


    For myself, I suggest you heed his advice, and I suggest that this report be dropped without action. --Calton | Talk 00:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Eric Robert Rudolph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TripleH1976 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    User was reverting vandalism! just like me - watch the edit history! Lordkazan 18:01, 6 September 2006
  • 2nd revert: 18:19, 6 September 2006
  • 3rd revert: 18:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • 4th revert: 18:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Sliat 1981 reported by User:Khoikhoi (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on Macedonian_Australian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sliat_1981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments

    Copy-paste-edit this for a new report

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