Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Oli Filth (talk | contribs) at 22:18, 30 July 2007 (→Violations). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:18, 30 July 2007 by Oli Filth (talk | contribs) (→Violations)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.
Administrators: please do not hesitate to remove disputes to user talk pages.

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:Robinepowell reported by User:Tango (Result: 24 Hours - per by Jaranda)

    Stargate_SG-1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Robinepowell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: Something a long way back, this edit war has been going on for some time. These are the most recent reverts:

    This user has repeated replaced "Vancouver, Canada" with "Vancouver, British Columbia" despite multiple users reverting and requesting discussion. --Tango 01:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    User:Someguy0830 reported by User:66.92.74.246 (Result:Blocked, 48 hours)

    User:G2bambino reported by Lonewolf BC (Result: No block)

    Monarchy in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). G2bambino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: 18:47, 27 July in first two reverts. Otherwise, see the individual reverts.
    • 1st revert: 01:30, 28 July, to 18:47, 27 July
    • 2nd revert: 12:53, to 18:47, 27 July (then a consecutive edit, 12:55, 28 July)
    • 3rd revert: 16:54, to 12:55, 28 July (then further consecutive edits to 17:01)
    • 4th revert: 17:17, to 17:01 (then further consecutive edits to 17:22)
    • 5th revert: 22:44 (well after this report was first made, and notice of it given)
    • Article protected for one week. Enjoy your weekend, gentlemen, and loom for common ground before resuming editing. If further edit-wars ensue, I will not hesitate to block all participants. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

    User:DavidShankBone reported by User:Chichichihua (Result: )

    Chihuahua (dog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DavidShankBone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

    WJBscribe already decided on this report. Chichichihua, keep putting it back until you get the answer you want, and it's you that's likely to be blocked for disruption. Seraphimblade 04:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

    this is a new report, this user continued reverting after the last warning from wjbscribe Chichichihua 06:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

    • It is my belief that User:Chichichihua is only interested in disruptive behavior. First, this editor continually tried to replace the lead photograph on the Chihuahua page with one that is of far inferior quality. It is interesting that out of all the photographs this editor could have chosen from the other Chihuahuas on the page, they chose the very photograph that the Talk:Chihuahua page discuss in particular as being one of the poorer quality images. Not only is there consensus about the lead, there is consensus on the Talk page to not use the photograph User:Chichichihua wants to use. Then this editor canvassed the editor who uploaded the photograph, who is now also engaging in an edit war. This editor has been warned on their talk page, has been warned by an admin about edit warring, and continues their disruptive behavior. I would like to point out that this behavior is similar to my months-long battle with an IP troll, who is now a banned user. --David Shankbone 16:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

    whatever. this is plain and simple four reverts in 24 hours to put up a picture of your pet which isn't even a pure chihuahua! you were given the benefit of the doubt before but now you are just revert warring. Chichichihua 23:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

    I concur completely with David's assessment of the situation. It is not a simple case of him reverting to his own pet image either, for the above reasons, and that I also have undone Chichichihua's disruptive edits on the article several times. Reverting an obvious vandal is not a violation of the 3RR. VanTucky 23:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    Yeah I'll go with David and Van Tuckey, both of whom have considerable better edit histories than Chichichihua in this case. David strikes me as a good faith editor with knowledge of chihuahuas, so edit away, mate, SqueakBox 23:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    this dog is a chihuahua

    according to the vandalism page, Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages. is putting this image up compromising the integrity of wikipedia? anyone would recognize it as a chihuahua. Chichichihua 03:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    It is a compromise of Misplaced Pages's integrity when you choose an image that has been decided though consensus to be unsuitable, and repeatedly add it without a single reasonable attempt to create a new consensus about it. Repeatedly adding counterproductive, low-quality images without any discussion is disruptive to say the least. VanTucky 03:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    sorry vantucky, your definition of vandalism is not what i see on the policy page. it also doesn't describe the situation. there is at least one other user which supports using the image to the right over the boston terrier mix that is there now. you know this because you've reverted his work. here's when to apply the "vandalism" exception: according to 3rr reverts to remove simple and obvious vandalism, such as graffiti or page blanking -- this exception applies only to the most simple and obvious vandalism, the kind that is immediately apparent to anyone reviewing the last edit. It is not sufficient if the vandalism is simply apparent to those contributing to the article, those familiar with the subject matter, or those removing the vandalism itself. Chichichihua 03:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    • User:Chichichihua has now: 1. Edit warred; 2. been incivil; 3. removed an admins remarks on this noticeboard; 4. canvassed; 5. disregarded all attempts at civil engagement; 6. plastered an image on at least three pages; and 7. been told they are being disruptive on the admin board by bringing up multiple 3RR cases. Could an admin address this editor's disruptive behavior, please? --David Shankbone 04:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    User:Flavius_Belisarius reported by User:VartanM (Result: No violation)

    Ottoman_Armenian_casualties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Flavius_Belisarius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

    The first revert was a revert of User:Anatolmethanol, who is a sock of the banned User:Fadix. Reversions of banned editors do not count toward the three-revert rule. Seraphimblade 07:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

    User:Chubeat8/User:216.198.139.38 reported by User:Proabivouac (Result:blocks)

    • That these are the same user, already transparent, is clearly demonstrated here: Note the "KAWAKIBI" identity in addition to Chubeat; also "Jean-François Lafleure." Besides the multiple identities and revert spree, this user has been very uncivil to all; see Talk:Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz, edit summaries. Based on my limited contact with this individual, it seems most unlikely that he/she will ever be a productive contributor.Proabivouac 05:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    Note: This page is for reporting 3RR violations only, for reporting suspected sockpuppets or suspected use of sockpuppets, please go to Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets. --Nat Tang 05:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    Nat.tang, it is a 3RR report. Anon does not hide that he/she is Chubeat8 (among others):.Proabivouac 05:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    If that is the case, go and find an admin and he or she will probably block the user for distruptive editing and sockpuppetry. Nat Tang 05:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    This is one of the Administrators' noticeboards.Proabivouac 06:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

    User:Snowolfd4 reported by User:Jayjg (Result:48h)

    Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Snowolfd4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

    This is unfair. A simple 1 or 2 hr block would have sufficed considering the circumstances. Jayjg's behaviour has been despicable and he's insisting on things that come across as extraordinarily ridiculous and weird. He is making up his own policies on the fly and trying to browbeat editors there. Sarvagnya 06:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    He didn't make up WP:3RR. Arrow740 07:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    I didnt say he was making up WP:3RR. I was only saying that rapping snowolf for some grammar mistakes and for reverting vandalism is hardly fair. Sarvagnya 07:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

    Taking a closer look, there really is no 5 reverts at all! There are only 3 reverts that can be seen as revert warring. The first two are actually two edits in a series of edits by multiple editors and was done only to fix the grammar. What happened was Black Falcon removed a part of the sentence because it was not grammatically correct. Snowolf fixed the grammar and brought it back. It took a couple of edits to do this and even Black Falcon didnt complain!! Jayjg presenting it as part of revert warring on snowolf's part is downright despicable. I request the admins to unblock snowolf. Sarvagnya 07:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

    No, it was 5 reverts. 3 were done to revert the Lead paragraph to the user's earlier edit. The other 2 was done to put the article to what the user has edited to earlier. So, in essence, eventhough he did not directly revert the same paragraph, the user reverted the article to what he had written earlier 5 times. Sarvaganya, please refrain from attacking other editors. Please read WP:NPA and do not make statements like "Jayjg's behaviour has been despicable and he's insisting on things that come across as extraordinarily ridiculous and weird. He is making up his own policies on the fly and trying to browbeat editors there". PS.Jayjg did not block user. He followed wikipedia procedures. Thanks Watchdogb 13:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

    User:Hu12 reported by User:Sunray (Result:Discussion moved to WP:ANI)

    Talk:Straw-bale construction (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hu12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

    • This is an attempt by me to organize a poll. I request that those responding keep their vote separate from the discussion (i.e., vote in one section and discuss in another). After the discussion begins to get going in the "Poll" section, I simply remove the discussion to a discussion section, above. He ignores my explanation and reverts. I continue to try to explain he continues to revert, with malice (e.g., ordering me: "DO NOT REMOVE other people's cmments!" (which I didn't) and to "CEASE refactoring other peoples commentss"). In the process, the poll is completely disrupted. Sunray 09:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    → I think this was done to make a WP:POINT and Very likley a personal attack
    → See also: Talk:Straw-bale_construction
    → See also: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#.22Suspect.22_edits_on_Talk:Straw-bale_construction
    → See also: Talk:Straw-bale_construction#External_link_proposal
    → See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Jul#http:.2F.2Fspam.naturalhomes.org
    Revisions to remove simple and obvious vandalism do no violate the Three-revert rule and are the Exception to WP:3RR. Under Discussion page vandalism Where "An obvious exception would be moving posts to a proper place". this was not at all the case with User:Sunray edits. User:Sunray was intentionaly moving discussions away from their intended place (see below for diffs), and in doing so is considered vandalism. Even after repeated attempts in edit summaries, and in discussion to prevent the removal of these discussions, this behavior continued. I'll add also, based on the direction of consensus currently (based on policies WP:EL and WP:RS), which is opposite of User:Sunray's position) this may even qualify as possibly Sneaky vandalism, which involves reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the consensus/poll process, as there seems to no other legitamate reason for the actions. --Hu12 10:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    Being active in the discussion portion of the page, and being the one reverting the vandalism, it would be more appropriate for another sysop to make the block. Obviously this was prompted by the filing of Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#.22Suspect.22_edits_on_Talk:Straw-bale_construction. It is worth noting that User:Sunray has been blocked in the past for making personal attacks. Thank you--Hu12 11:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    Discussion continues here – Misplaced Pages:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Three revert rule violation by an administrator. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    Two brief observations on what Hu12 has said:
    1. It is curious that he now thinks that I've violated WP:3RR. When he made a report at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents he said that I was "dangerously becomming close to a 3RR violation ." (i.e., not a 3RR violation). I have made no edits to the page in question since then.
    2. Point taken that a block might not be feasible since he is an admin. However, his actions do require some sort of sanction, IMO. I have no wish to escalate this further, so my report here will stand. Sunray 17:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

    User:203.87.127.18 reported by User:CJ (Result:Blocked 24h)

    Family First Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 203.87.127.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    Soft blocked for now. Next time please include the DIFFTIME.--Hu12 12:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

    User:SG-17 reported by User:Naruto134 (Result:Blocked 24h)

    Godzilla: Unleashed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SG-17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

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

    SG-17 keeps putting a vehicle section on the Godzilla: Unleashed page that is not needed and not important and he thinks if he puts sources, the section says. But the section is not important and keeps ignoring my warnings that I will report him. The Godzilla pages do not have a section that talks about vehicles in the game. --Naruto134 15:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

    User:Timber99 reported by User:WrestlefnLI (Result: No Action see comment)

    Professional_wrestling_aerial_techniques (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Timber99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

    Timber99 has no other contributions other than the blanking of the Professional wrestling aerial techniques page, and then the undoing of each revert I had made to put the page back to my last edit. User account was created exactly 1 hour after I made an edit to this page, and user blanked the page 3 minutes after my edit posted. After I undid user's revision, Timber99 undid my version to the version prior to my original edit. I had stated on the talk page that I did not want an edit war, afterwhich Timber99 accused me of attacking them. I had added valid content which was sourced, unlike much of the content on that page, including the version they keep reverting to. The section I added was well-sourced, but the section Timber99 keeps reverting to contains 1 source which appears to be from a fan page. Timber99 feels I need to prove my information using reliable sources, while they defend the current content which contains one non-reliable source. If it needs to go to a review I am confident that my edit should stand. WrestlefnLI 22:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

    I initially indef blocked Timber99 as a vandal based on his first couple of edits but when I went back to check I realised that this was an editing dispute with a new user who was finding the interface a struggle. I have therefore rescinded the block with apologies. Had I done my homework I would have simply said editing dispute seems to have moved to talk page. No further action required. Spartaz 09:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    I left this on your Talk page as well: Hey Spartaz, as I am sure you are aware there was a problem with the new user Timber99 on the page Professional wrestling aerial techniques. In the event that this user continued to revert the edits that I made to a move with references. I saw you initially blocked him, then unblocked him feeling that it went to a Talk page... however he again not only reverted the page again (after your reverted back to my edit), he added this to my talk page:

    "According to what you wrote on my page, there is a rule about making an edit which goes back to anold version more than 3 times in 24 hours. You're currently at 3 so im giving u aheads up. please be more careful in the future not to engage in "edit wars." i explained on talk page why it is important to get a discussion going about this change ebfore it is made"

    Furthermore, he continues to refuse to sign any of his messages and it seems as though this is a user may be a sockpuppet who created this account in order to not blemish his own user account. Not accusing, although he/she seems to know a little more than the regular 'novice' user. Could you please help me with this situation, because it is getting ridiculous. Also note, there are absolutely no edits made by Timber99 other than reverting my edits on a well thought out & referenced change made by me. I did everything possible including adding a friendly Welcome tag to his talk page, and tried to discuss the issue... Please help!!! WrestlefnLI 16:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    Note to other admins, I have this in hand. Both editors are quite new and need some guidence. No further action required at 3RR. Spartaz 18:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    User:Watchdogb reported by User:Lahiru_k (Result:)

    Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Watchdogb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    No warn given since this user was blocked for disruptive editing two times previously. This user has performed more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour in Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka page as a clear violation of WP:3RR. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 00:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    The 3rd evidence you have shown is not a revert. I took that off because it was there from before and no reason was given. Also there was another Totally disputed tags above that one. This is not violating 3 RR because I only reverted 2 edits that other editors thought were redundant and POV. The last revert was on a the fact that there was allready a disputed tags put on the opening paragraph of the body of the article Watchdogb 00:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    Whats the point in having 2 "The neurality and accuracy of this article is disputed" in the same article ? Taking that off is not reverting.... It's called cleaning up the article. Thanks Watchdogb 01:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    Rules say "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". However, I have only reverted 3 times (2 of same material and 1 of a different). The 3 revert given on this evidence is not a revert... It is clean up of the article. Watchdogb 01:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, you undid the insertion of the tag twice and undid the insertion of the sentence twice that makes four reverts within 24 hours neither of which was reverting simple vandalism. If you were cleaning up the article then you have to state that in the edit summary or in talkpage. But not in this way.--♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 01:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    No, I only reverted the tags ONCE thus bringing the total of reverts to 3. Also note Abuse of tags. There was actually 3 Totally disputed tags applied to the article. One was taken off but 2 remained. That's why I deleted it. How can an article be placed with 2 of these tags ? As it clearly says "This articles..." Watchdogb 01:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Pleae see vandalism. Abusing the tags are vandalism.
    If you think that adding several {{TotallyDisputed}} to the article is tag abusing then you could replace them with {{Totally-disputed-section}}. After someone make a 3RR report, crying over here to justify your edits doesn't make any sense.--♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 04:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    Reverting is undoing another editors contributions, which is what you did twice in removing the tags. And this is not the proper way to say I'm gonna remove the tags since they are duplications;
    13:32, July 29, 2007 Watchdogb (Talk | contribs) (8,232 bytes) (→Involuntary disappearances - whats disputed here ? Check discussion
    22:57, July 29, 2007 Watchdogb (Talk | contribs) (8,142 bytes) (Undid revision 147939377 by Lahiru k (talk)what does LTTE have to do with the allegation by AHRC? Care to discuss please ?)
    Hope you understand everything very clearly. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 01:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    Example :Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Snowolfd4 reported by User:Jayjg .28Result:48h.29 --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 01:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    One quick look at that talk page will explain why that tag was added. And in any case, this is a open and shut case of violating 3RR. If snowolf can be blocked 48 hrs for correcting grammar, then I feel watchdog deserves a longer block for revert warring with content. Sarvagnya 01:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    Actually, there is not violation in taking off vandalism. Please take a look at abusing the tags. I left that on the edit summery as WP:AGF and did not want to call anyone a Vandal. I asked why it was disputed so that if someone can provide reason then its better to add "section is disputed tags" or "Fact" tags. Thats why I asked for a discussion so that I can add proper tags so that the article can be fixed Watchdogb 01:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    Please take a look at this Jossi's taking off this tags. Even he thinks its not addressed. Thus he took it off also. This is also clean up as mine was. Check his edit summery rm disputed tags. If there are specific issues to be addressed, please explain in talk . Thanks Watchdogb 02:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    Now it's too late. Werther you explained rolling on floor doesn't make any sense since you have violated the basics of WP:3RR;

    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.

    In Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Snowolfd4 reported by User:Jayjg .28Result:48h.29 Snowolfd4 blocked for 48h just for fixing grammar. There even you made a comment. So hope you understand the policy even better than me. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 04:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    User snowolfd4 did more than "fix grammar" he reverted. He was not removing vandalism. However, I was. If you see an earlier version here where there are 3 "This article is disputed" tags. This is blalent abuse of the tags. One was taken off but the user who took off one forgot to take off another. So, I came along to fix it thats it. Watchdogb 11:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    There is no violation here. The 2nd and 3rd reverts are consecutive edits by the same user, which according to policy, is to be considered an one revert. So, there are only 3 reverts. Policy states: Note that consecutive reverts by one editor are often treated as one revert for the purposes of this rule Lotlil 05:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    Amadscientist reported by Atropos

    The Rocky Horror Picture Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Amadscientist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: 18:03, 27 July 2007
    • First reversion: 17:21 29 July 2007 and 17:22 29 July 2007 (No edit summaries; though he did not directly revert the edit the change was identical to a revert, except for a small addition)
    • Second reversion: 18:27, 29 July 2007 (The consensus on the talk page and the consensus achieved after your edit war)
    • Third reversion: 18:37, 29 July 2007 (No edit summary)
    • Fourth reversion: 18:59, 29 July 2007 (I gave my reason previously. It has not changed. After the first edit back you should have left it and attempted to change the consensus. You are edit warring.)

    I warned him in my edit summary of my third revert that we had both reached our limit. In the words of Newyorkbrad, "this is clearly one of the silliest edit-wars ever," but Amadscientist seems unwilling to compromise with me. Atropos 02:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    I would not normally comment on this sort of thing, but I believe it should be pointed out that Atropos is simply not editing in good faith. He made an edit that went against consensus. I edited it back to where it was and went to the talk page where he immediately accused me of both personal attacks and being uncivil. He clearly has returned to the page to start a second edit war and his first edit summery bears this out. I believe Atropos should be blocked from editing on the page as purposely being disruptive. I have attempted to start a discussion on the subject to see if consensus has changed and followed Wiki suggestion of creating a poll to gauge editors opinions. This was then called "disjointing (the) discussion".
    I believe it is the purpose of this member to create a problem and go against Wiki policy himself to bait me into changes to report me for 3RR violation. But I will abide by any decision reached of course.--Amadscientist 03:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    I have tried to explain how consensus develops to this user; I even placed the flowchart at the policy page directly in the article. Him and another user had previously agreed that a cast section was unnecessary, I disagreed. He blew it into this out of control issue. Further, if I was baiting him to break the 3RR, I wouldn't've specifically warned him that he would break it if he reverted again. None of this is actually relevant, as he has clearly and knowingly violated the 3RR. He has a history of doing so; in addition to what Kww mentioned he broke the 3RR at straight pride. Atropos 07:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    Just to point it out, this is the second time that amadscientist has violated 3RR on this article. The first time (June 13, 2007), he was rewarded by getting the article protected for a week while he threw a tantrum. Hopefully, this time you will block him for a while and get him off of that high horse that he rides so well.Kww 03:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    That is simply not true. I have never been found to violate the 3RR rule. What he means is that he reported me once before over the same article. No action was taken. I believed it was a wrangling attempt then, as I do now. Also, as I remember the article was protected a second week due to "Edit warring and refusal to discuss it on the talk page". I know I made every attempt to discuss the problem on the talk page, but even after a week I was accused of "Holding the article hostage".--Amadscientist 04:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    That you did it is documented here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&oldid=138064070
    That you weren't punished for it is the reason that we are back here today. Kww 10:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    That you don't understand the difference between accusing someone and their being found guilty, as well as an obvious vendetta is why You are here. As for my "high horse" it certainly is far lower than yours. While there certainly were enough lessons to learn from the last situation, just who learned what would be a very good question to ask. I leave this in the hands of admin. This thread is long enough.--Amadscientist 11:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    User:69.154.18.251 reported by User:Jade Knight (Result: 24 hour block)

    FYI: This user is the same as User:69.152.175.114 (blocked for vandalism), and User:69.149.223.55, as well as User:Piledoggie (and possibly others). The Jade Knight 04:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    Church of Christ (Temple Lot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.154.18.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Time Reported: 04:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: one without a certain link reporting Jordan Smith as the individual who engaged in arson.

    User has also removed comments about their reverts on the talk page:

    I have discussed edits on the talk page, as well as encouraged this user to provide reasoning for why he is reverting the content in question, but he has declined to discuss his reverts on the article's talk page. The Jade Knight 04:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    This is not exactly related, but it appears that these users are the same individual that was convicted of the arson talked about in the article, and it may be entirely inappropriate for him to be editing this section to begin with. The Jade Knight 04:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    This user has also engaged in extensive name-calling, as his edit history (and that of his other usernames) will show. The Jade Knight 05:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    • It may be worth noting, OTRS has gotten involved on this. So the 3RR block, if there is one, should be short to allow the user to follow through with our suggestions. Somitho 09:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
      • 24 hour block.

    User:Gobuffs10 reported by User:Pablothegreat85 (Result:Blocked, 24 hours)

    Alex Jones (radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gobuffs10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    User:Jaakobou reported by User:CJCurrie (Result:)

    Hebron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jaakobou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: 13:57, 29 July 2007 (Note especially the paragraph which begins "The IMFA reports ".)

    This user doesn't seem to have grasped the concept of the 3RR, despite repeated attempts at explanation. CJCurrie 08:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    As I said, the user doesn't seem to have grasped the concept of the 3RR. On an unrelated point, I believe that User:Jaakobou has confused exasperation with incivility. CJCurrie 08:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    Comment: User:Jaakobou is trying to conflate a content dispute with a policy violation. I maintain that he doesn't seem to understand the concept of the 3RR, and will add that his behaviour in this discussion has been sadly typical of his general behaviour on Misplaced Pages.
    I'm a bit puzzled that no-one has addressed the 3RR violation as of yet. CJCurrie 16:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    Comment- i'm a bit puzzled by your style of personal attacks and accusations of "typical general behaviour on Misplaced Pages" , being uncivil is by no means helpful to the wiki project. Jaakobou 17:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not going to continue this discussion here. I'll reiterate my request that someone address the 3RR violation. CJCurrie 17:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • comment - i've reached a certain level of consensus with another editor on this disputed material that the material in itself is relevant, only that the phrasing needs amendment to make the connection to the article more evident. Jaakobou 17:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    That's an interesting point, but it doesn't justify the 3RR violation. CJCurrie 17:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    User:Traffic Demon reported by User:Brian0324 (Result:No action taken)

    List of best-selling books. User:Traffic Demon: Time reported: 15:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • This user has repeatedly insisted on reverting the edits of at least 3 others and has been against forming consensus or taking a vote. Although he has participated in discussion on the Talk:List of best-selling books, he has only used the discussion to insist that he will not change his mind.Brian0324 15:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry, but I was listing the first of about 15 reverted edits that were made. Check it out.Brian0324 16:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    User:68.149.47.144 reported by User:sdfisher (Result:Blocked, 10 hours)

    Corner Gas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.149.47.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    This is an ongoing thing, but the reverts I listed are within the last 24 hours. (Apologies if I did something wrong; this is my first time reporting one of these.) Steven Fisher 18:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    No, you did great; the only thing outstanding is that you're meant to give the time each of the links above occurred, by adding 00:00 01 January 2007 to the end (replacing with a space, obviously. Not that it matters - most Administrators will double check the times anyway; so, IP Blocked – 10 hours, for a WP:3RR violation ~ Anthøny 18:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    User:66.131.139.158 reported by User:Gzuckier (Result:Already blocked)

    David Irving (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 66.131.139.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    The anon user is already blocked. Tom Harrison 20:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    User:Jayjg reported by User:Lothar of the Hill People (Result:No violation; page protected)

    Social apartheid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    I'm not sure how to do this but if you look at the history of social apartheid you'll see that Jayjg reverted at 17:42, 30 July 2007, 19:21, 30 July 2007, 20:45, 30 July 2007 and 20:55, 30 July 2007 Jayjg.

    The first one was not a revert, and the page has been protected now by Y. In fact, it was protected before you made your report. ElinorD (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    User:68.167.65.63 reported by User:Emerson7 (Result:)

    Gene Tierney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.167.65.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    i, too, may be in violation, because i didn't realise this has been going on since yesterday when i made the changes today.

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    User:GothicEnthusiast reported by User:Oli Filth (Result:)

    Gothic chess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). GothicEnthusiast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

    Continual unexplained/unjustified removal of section tags (that I added to promote discussion of the section's contents).

    Example

    ===] reported by ] (Result:)===
*] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~
*Previous version reverted to: 
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
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 -->
*1st revert: 
*2nd revert: 
*3rd revert: 
*4th revert: 
*Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
*Diff of 3RR warning: 
<!-- copy from _above_ this line -->
    Categories: