This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wiki Raja (talk | contribs) at 01:10, 10 February 2008 (→User:Bakasuprman reported by User:Wiki Raja (Result: ): added previous version.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Moveprotected

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

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

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

Click here to create a new report

Violations

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

Edit war on Plovdiv by User:Avidius and User:ILike2BeAnonymous reported by User:CoJaBo (Result: Users asked to cease edit war.)

• Three-revert rule violation on Plovdiv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Avidius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and ILike2BeAnonymous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: Avidius, ILike2BeAnonymous

• Diff of 3RR warning: Avidius, ILike2BeAnonymous

Edit war involving the link Plovdiv: Granada of the East on Plovdiv. Attempts have been made to discuss the issue on the talk page, yet the reverting still goes on. Avidius insists the link is unnecessarily biased. ILike2BeAnonymous insists the link should remain because it presents an alternative view. Most of the last 100 edits to Plovdiv are Avidius and ILike2BeAnonymous (and a few others) reverting between the version with the link, and the version without. CoJaBo (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't find a technical violation but the edit war is way out of hand. Users asked to cease disruptive edit war: and . Page will be watched. CIreland (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Bueller reported by User:Commodore Sloat (Result: No action)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Douglas J. Feith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bueller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 12:32, 4 February 2008
  • (Note - there were some intermediate changes by an anon ip, but the material that Bueller keeps deleting is contained in these edits).

• 1st revert: 14:15, 5 February 2008 (sequence of several edits)
• 2nd revert: 19:11, 5 February 2008
• 3rd revert: 01:16, 6 February 2008
• 4th revert: 01:46, 6 February 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 01:49, 6 February 2008

I think the user should be blocked if he fails to heed the 3RR warning. If he self-reverts I do not think he should be blocked. But that is my opinion; I don't know what the usual practice is; he's been a user for 2 years and appears familiar enough with the rules. The fact that he has edited for two years as basically a single-purpose account may be relevant (he has mostly edited this article alone). csloat (talk) 09:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The edit war seems to have stopped and Bueller has not touched the page since the warning. It's customary to warn someone before reporting them. Closing with no action for now. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

So 4 reverts is OK then? Shouldn't bueller have self-reverted? Is it ok for me to revert him now (which would be my fourth revert)? Can an admin at least explain to bueller that he has violated the rule and that such action normally would lead to a block? The only reason he stopped reverting is because his last revert is the last change on the page. csloat (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC) PS I did warn Bueller before reporting him. csloat (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Explanation given.

The intention given is that a warning should be given and ignored (i.e. a further revert made afterwards) before a relatively new user is reported and blocked. Stifle (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Is two years still considered relatively new around here? I didn't even think a warning was necessary given the user seemed familiar with the rules but I gave one anyway just because I didn't want to seem punitive about it. Anyway I appreciate you commenting on his talk page; a warning from the person he's edit warring with is not nearly as likely to be heeded as a warning from an uninvolved admin. csloat (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

User:74.77.222.188 reported by User:Fair Deal (Result:24h block)

• Three-revert rule violation on AC/DC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 74.77.222.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 09:28, 6 February 2008
• 2nd revert: 09:38, 6 February 2008
• 3rd revert: 09:44, 6 February 2008
• 4th revert: 09:53, 6 February 2008
• 5th revert: 10:59, 6 February 2008

Comment IP user has been edit warring across several articles over the past few weeks. Has a previous history of warnings and blocks.(previous block log) Editor has also ignored WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA on both article talk pages and user talk pages. Fair Deal (talk) 11:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

User blocked 24 hours. CIreland (talk) 12:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Svetovid reported by User:Squash Racket (Result: Blocked, 12 hours; parties cautioned)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Hedvig Malina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Svetovid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 16:34, 5 February 2008

• 1st revert: 20:02, 5 February 2008
• 2nd revert: 10:57, 6 February 2008
• 3rd revert: 13:16, 6 February 2008
• 4th revert: 13:45, 6 February 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 13:12, 6 February 2008, although he had already made a report himself.

This user broke 3RR. These are his main reverts, but actually he deleted others' contributions many times during the day. Among others he is deleting text from the article and the references supporting them. He made controversial changes without discussion first.
On the 17th/18th of January he already broke 3RR at the article Trenčín without being reported, but this time he doesn't seem to stop. He called my 3RR warning 'inflammatory, rude' and a 'personal attack'. Squash Racket (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the third revert a real revert? It seems more like expansion and the "fourth" revert is the real revert to this new version. That would make only three reverts in 24 hours. The edit war between Svetovid, Hobartimus, and Squash Racket appears to be over now anyway because the article is now listed in Misplaced Pages:Requested moves and users are engaged in a discussion on the article's talk page. But I might be too optimistic, of course. Tankred (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The third revert is just like the others and in fact he made way more disruptive edits in 24 hours than just four. Squash Racket (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Svetovid has engaged in disruptive behaviour, and it cannot be permitted to continue: the user is Blocked – for a period of 12 hours Additionally, I have issued a warning to Squash Racket, who was also engaging in edit warring, although admittedly to less a degree than that to which Svet. was. Hopefully all the parties can move on, and engage in meaningful discussion, with the aim of working towards a compromise, rather than disrupting the article.
Anthøny 20:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Momento reported by User:24.98.132.123 (Result: semi-protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Prem Rawat. Momento (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

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

• Diff of 3RR warning:

Despite requests on user's talk page has not discussed issue and instead has performed multiple reverts. 24.98.132.123 (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I repeatedly deleted 24.98.132.123 inclusion of this article ]. as a violation of BLP. It has since been deleted on 21:20, 6 February 2008 by David D. (Talk | contribs) (52,115 bytes) (→Media: this has nothing to do with the subject) (undo). Thanks.Momento (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Observation from the sidelines: Both editors appear to be acting in good faith, although I am disturbed at the apparent bias displayed by Momento in zealously eliminating all traces of sourced and notable criticism of the subject. The criticism exists, it comes from notable sources such as ex-members of the organization, and respectable publications (books and newspapers) are available to back it up. Citing WP:BLP as a catch-all excuse for deleting criticism doesn't seem proper. If the criticism is valid (and it appears to be) then it should be included, with sources, and improved rather than deleted repeatedly. If it were me, I'd block both editors for a week so that others can make positive contributions to the article. =Axlq (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ex-members and tabloid newspapers are not suitable sources for a BLP when there are many noted sociologists and religious scholars to use. In this case The Register article is completely innappropriate.Momento (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as someone with no involvement in this article: On the contrary, ex-members (especially an organized group of them) have a perspective and experience that sociologists and religious scholars sorely lack. When it comes to criticism, Momento appears to have a double standard regarding sources; this comment is telling. Verifiability and reliability are sufficient; academic credentials aren't a requirement. Ex-members are verifiable and reliable sources for their own criticisms.

I see no need to continue this conversation further. I stand by my comment that both editors should be banned for a week, for violating 3RR. =Axlq (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As the article has been semi-protected, apparently due to vandalism concerns, there's probably no block necessary, but I'll leave this up for a bit in case another admin disagrees. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether IP 24.98.132.123 relates to any of the editors of the article. At the time he couldn't have edited the article without logging in as the article was already semi-protected before this incident (I think... a semi-protection tag was up all the time and I saw no IP's edit the article in that period). Anyway, I also issued a 3RR warning for Onefinalstep (talk · contribs) , who was Momento's counter-part edit-warrior most of the time for (re-)insertion of the material deleted by Momento in the same period.

As an alleviating circumstance, both engaged in talk page discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

My contentions were incorrect for the 6 february incident, which I know nothing of. They apply to the 8 february incident which is reported by user:cirt below. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User:GeeAlice reported by User:Zerida (Result:Indef. block)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Image:Egyptian.jpg. GeeAlice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 00:46

• 1st revert: 00:48
• 2nd revert: 9:37
• 3rd revert: 15:20
• 4th revert: 15:30

I've had to supply a url because the page in question is for an image, not an article. User is aware of 3RR because it's almost definitely a sockpuppet of banned User:Jeeny, but also because I found a post where she mentions it . User:Jeeny had a history of disruption on Egypt-related articles, so it was only a matter of time before this was going to happen. I plan to file an RFCU. — Zerida 23:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

RFCU filed. — Zerida 00:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This person is retaliating over a tag I placed for an image rename Image:Egyptians.jpg to Egyptian collage.jpg. I first had Egyptian people collage, but shortened it because of his revert, and rude edit summary. No communication from him, except for short rude comments. In fact, he is the one who kept reverting after I tried to explain the reason, and broke the 3RR rule. It is NOT an article, it is a tag to leave to the admin to decide if it is better to name it to the new, more DESCRIPTIVE name. That's all. ←Gee♥Alice 01:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not willing to block because both users are edit warring. Of course, if it turns out that GeeAlice is an abusive sock, it will be fine to revert him/her again, but in the meantime, please don't edit war here. I'll be watching the page to make sure no one does. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

CheckUser confirmed identity and user was indefinitely blocked. And I wouldn't be "editing warring" if I wasn't certain it was an abusive sockpuppet, though this should be mor patently obvious to someone who's interacted with the user. — Zerida 19:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Lear 21 reported by User:Sandpiper (Result:3 weeks)

• Three-revert rule violation on

European Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lear 21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 10:21

• 1st revert: 13:56
• 2nd revert: 14:59
• 3rd revert: 22:34
• 4th revert: 23:41
• 5th revert:23:48

• Diff of 3RR warning: 19:54 12 November 2007

User Lear 21 has persistently edited this page agressively including violations of 3RR whenever the page is not to his liking. The page has twice been locked from editing over content disputes where Lear was the major party on one side of the dispute, and he engaged in multiple violation reverts. It is no more likely that locking the page for a third time will discourage lear from continuing this behaviour in the future than it has been thus far. Last time this happened I checked and noted policy that locking a page for a content dispute is discouraged. Perhaps some other action can be taken this time? Sandpiper (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User Lear 21 has not violated 3RR according to Misplaced Pages policies. The user has reestablished a consensus layout/section-heading already existing for more than half a year and is supported by several editors. User Lear 21 has argued for this consensus version at the talk page this time and is still supported by a majority. The accusing User Sandpiper and another user have instead developed a long history of disruptive editing vandalizing majority consensus at the EU article. Without gaining support of their proposals at the discussion forum. The listed 5 reverts are different edits and indicate no violation of any suggested policy. Lear 21 (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. There is no requirement that all edits be the same in order for them to qualify: any four reverts, in whole or in part, count. More importantly, Lear is very clearly edit warring. This is to say, he is essentially attempting to force his version (the one saying "Economy") through by repeatedly reverting. Because of the rather long history he has with edit warring, I have blocked for three weeks. SouthernElectric has also been edit warring, and therefore I have blocked for 24 hours (this being a first offence). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

What policy justifies a 3 week block? All edits are clearly different, are backed at the talk page by the majority of editors and have argued in detail by myself !!!! I am merely upholding a consensus layout. There is clearly no violation. Please reconsider the decision. Lear 21—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.10.76 (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've answered you on my talk. I've also already told you how to contest your block. Now, please stop using IPs to get around the block. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Quizimodo and reported by User:Soulscanner (Result: Warning)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Dominion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Quizimodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

A short explanation of the incident. Soulscanner (talk) 04:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC) Removal of various POV tags that identify passages and sources currently being verified and discussed on talk page.

This report is not unexpected, rather limited in scope, and of course one-sided. This disruptive editor has been placing 'dubious' and 'neutrality' tags on various assertions in 'Dominion' that said editor disagrees with despite the sources fully conforming with Misplaced Pages policies (some accompanied by quotes) and with little justification, doing so without good faith or salient reason, and with misleading commentaries on the talk page. In essence, this editor is unable to compel through argument and/or sourcing, with similar behaviour going back to related edits on 'Canada' in Sep./Oct., and said placement of tags on selected notions herein is a a hyper-reaction. This editor has also initiated an arbitration case regarding this, without making salient attempts to seek mediation despite claims -- again, a hyper-reaction. As per my request on the RfA page and as a result of said editor's continual dickery, I hereby request the 'Dominion' article be locked until further notice. Moreover, since it takes two to tango, any administrative actions taken against me (and I may have violated 3RR) should be exacted upon Soulscanner too. I contend this report is arguably an attempt to quell opposition. In any event, I hereby pledge to refrain from edit warring on this article, and to not be drawn into additional edit wars with this editor. Quizimodo (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's customary to warn people and give them a final chance before reporting them here. As Quizimodo was not warned and has agreed to stop edit warring, I am not going to block on this occasion. Soulscanner did not violate 3RR, stopping before the fourth revert. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Soulscanner reported by User:G2bambino (Result:See above)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Dominion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Soulscanner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:47, 7 February 2008

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 04:40, 6 February 2008
• 2nd revert: 03:20, 7 February 2008
• 3rd revert: 03:37, 7 February 2008
• 4th revert: 03:47, 7 February 2008
• 5th revert: 04:01, 7 February 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: No warning issued, but as this user reported User:Quizimodo above, he's obviously aware of 3RR.

A short explanation of the incident. A brief inspection of User:G2bambino and User:Quizimodo talk page histories, and patterns of reverts above show that two cited editors are colluding to remove neutrality tags placed by me on that page. I've already pointed them to Wiki's policy that if there is a dispute about neutrality tags on an article, there probably is a neutrality issue. ]'s pledge above seems somewhat disingenuous given this context. Again, tags in question identify pertinent claims and sources currently being debated by various editors at relevant talk page. Soulscanner (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Quizimodo hasn't contacted me for months. Since he did yesterday, I've taken one look at Dominion, and offered a comment at talk. That's hardly collusion; perhaps you need to tone down the conspiracy theories? Regardless, I believe you've violated 3RR, in the process of an antagonistic edit war, no less. But, we shall let more experienced people be the judge. --G2bambino (talk) 05:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Folded into the above report. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Later protected for a week by me. Stifle (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked G2bambino for doing this, which is completely out of order. Stifle (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I should most certainly think not. --G2bambino (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite. It arose from another user and me taking edits out of conflict, and G2bambino was not out of order. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying, Stifle. --G2bambino (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User:G2bambino and reported by User:Soulscanner (Result: Protected Reporter warned not to drag up old grievances)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). G2bambino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:
• 7th revert:
• Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

A short explanation of the incident. The pattern here is clear. In this old edit war the editors in question replaced a number of descriptors for Canada (federation, federal state, etc.) with words containing the word Dominion. User:G2bambino would continue the edit war stopped by User:Quizimodo when informed of violating 3RR rule. This is over the same content issue as the current Dominion article, and the same pattern is employed. I do not wish to be drawn into a similar edit war in the case above, but I do not want relevant neutrality tags removed in the case above either. I did not put this 3RR violation here before because it was the first time I'd seen it, and made a request to pp-dispute lock on the page, which was granted and made the 3RR report unnecessary. Please see link to Edit history page. Soulscanner (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Multiple users edit warring - page protected for a week. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't bothered to check the validity of the report, but really, bringing up something from four months ago? Truly, what more can this be than retaliation for my report against Soulscanner above? --G2bambino (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I misread the dates and have unprotected the page since. I am going to warn Soulscanner about the purpose of this noticeboard. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Fourth generation jet fighter

Fourth generation jet fighter has degenerated into an editwar and requires an admin to step in. Various parties have abused the 3R rule. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 07:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC).

Please use the report template at the bottom of this page to make reports. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Guest2610 reported by User:V-train (Result: 48 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Kawasaki KLR650 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guest2610 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

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

• Diff of 3RR warning:

User keeps adding links that do not meet WP:EL and are WP:LINKSPAM, including discussion forums and multiple links to the same websites. V-train (talk) 08:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Users only edits are to that one page; blocking for 48 hours with a strong warning. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User EBDCM (Result:no violation)

Multiple reverts. Report by Mccready (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Please use the report template at the bottom of the page if you would like your report acted on. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record EBDCM has made several edits in a row, some of which are reverts. This is not edit-warring and the sequence of edits counts as one revert for 3RR purposes. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Would be grateful Stifle if you could check again on this These are reverts. Mccready (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

EBDCM (talk · contribs) has not violated the 3-revert-rule in any recent edits to Chiropractic. Hence, no action. CIreland (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Ó Flannagáin reported by User:Hankwang (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Homebrewing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ó Flannagáin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 15:46, 4 February 2008

• 4th revert: 12:28, 7 February 2008
• 3rd revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 1st revert: 13:54, 6 February 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 6 Feb 2008

Re-adding of inappropriate external links; 9 times since 4 Feb, 2 of them as User:67.9.62.131. Han-Kwang (t) 12:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours. Stifle (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User:ScrotalRaphe reported by User:Nandesuka (Result:Blocked )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Perineal raphe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ScrotalRaphe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 06:19, February 7, 2008

• 1st revert: 07:12, February 7, 2008
• 2nd revert: 07:16, February 7, 2008
• 3rd revert: 16:10, February 7, 2008
• 4th revert: 16:13, February 7, 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 16:16, February 7, 2008

User User:ScrotalRaphe has decided that a large number of articles need a photo of his genitals. He has violated the 3RR on Perineal raphe and is well on the way towards doing so on Erection, Glans penis, and Glans. Suggestions that he discuss his additions on the talk pages of the articles have, thus far, been fruitless. Nandesuka (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Jayron32 beat me to the indef block. Nandesuka, I don't think anyone would have objected if you had just blocked him yourself. Spartaz 16:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Huaiwei reported by 203.218.45.144 (talk) (Result: Incomplete)

• Three-revert rule violation on

List of airlines of the People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Huaiwei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments: You did not warn the user. Also, reverting meatpuppet edits is not part of WP:3RR, thus, I don't think this qualifies as a violation. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

What meatpuppet edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.96.58 (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This report doesn't show any reverts. The third and fourth diffs are no change. Please see below for the correct format. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Re-report:

• Previous version reverted to:

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

And he ignored most useful edits in between. E.g. he kept removing East Star Air, and he insisted to have some names displayed in simplified Chinese characters, and some in traditional characters. This is simple vandalism. 203.218.46.16 (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

User:SchmuckyTheCat reported by 203.218.46.16 (talk) (Result: Exempt)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Island country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

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

Reverts exempt from 3RR as they are reverting contributions of a banned user. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Who is the banned user? 203.218.46.16 (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Why am I a banned user? 203.218.46.16 (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

User:SamEV reported by 150.210.226.6 (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC) (Result: Closed; page semi-protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Dominican Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SamEV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dominican_Republic&diff=prev&oldid=189410834

• Diff of 3RR warning: No need not a new user and has been blocked many times in the past for 3rr violations

Also has made 3rr reports on others

Utilizes a style of ownership of articles and attempts to force an opinion on an article. Seems to edit in a very pro-caucasian style as can be seen by his edits. One example being removing the ethnic catagory of an African placing him as being portuguese (White) . Has made reports on others concerning non consensus behavior as well even though many of his edits are reversion of others. Also almost solely edits on racial type catagories on all his edits. Please watch him. 150.210.226.6 (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The person who had the audacity to file that frivolous report is none other that the banned User:Mykungfu/ReadyToLive/UnclePaco, etc, etc.

He's been using several IPs to revert the Dominican Republic article to the same basic version, in the process undoing the work several good-faith editors have done over the past week. Here's a list of his reverts:

• 00:11, 7 February 2008 IP: 67.87.197.9
• 23:55, 6 February 2008 IP: 67.87.197.9
• 15:14, 6 February 2008) IP: 4.20.74.62
• 06:05, 6 February 2008 IP: 74.65.240.183
• 02:00, 6 February 2008) IP: 150.210.226.2 (note it's the one he used on this noticeboard)
• 03:30, 3 February 2008 IP: 66.152.198.210

Other vandalism also by 66.152.198.210:

• 08:32, 3 February 2008
• 05:05, 3 February 2008 (notice he actually calls it vandalism himself)
• 03:28, 3 February 2008.

And also this, by 150.210.176.64, which seems related to 150.210.226.2:

• 22:31, 1 February 2008.

I'm not the only one who's found this behavior offensive. The last editor to revert him was another of the article's principal editors.

User 150.210.226.6 is a net negative to Misplaced Pages, and I'm very confident that he is in fact the banned user Mykungfu.

SamEV (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not at all convinced that your reverts are exempt from 3RR, but I am going to close this report with no further action as the report is frivolous or vexatious. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Noting also that the page has been semiprotected by Rjd0060. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Skyring reported by User:Wm (Result: 31 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

David Hicks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Skyring (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 17:41, 22 January 2008

Text being reverted to is:

David Matthew Hicks (born 7 August 1975) is an Australian who, after five years detention by the United States government for involvement with terrorism, entered into a plea bargain to become the first and only Guantanamo Bay detainee to be convicted under the U.S. Military Commissions Act of 2006. Hicks's treatment, trial process and outcome, and the newly created legal system under which these events took place, drew widespread criticisms and controversy.

• 1st revert: 13:50, 23 January 2008
• 2nd revert: 07:23, 24 January 2008
• 3rd revert: 09:58, 25 January 2008
• 4th revert: 05:02, 26 January 2008
• 5th revert: 16:08, 27 January 2008
• 6th revert: 18:07, 28 January 2008
• 7th revert: 22:40, 28 January 2008
• 8th revert: 05:58, 1 February 2008
• 9th revert: 06:11, 5 February 2008
• 10th revert: 13:54, 5 February 2008
• 11th revert: 12:27, 8 February 2008

• Diff of 3RR warnings
  • 16:07, 5 February 2008

• Diff of no revert policy warning in article talk page:
  • 22:18, 4 February 2008

A short explanation of the incident: I am submitting this notice because WP:3RR says: 'Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. The above reverts apply to the work of several users who have all tried and failed to moderate the opening paragraph away from User:Skyring's preferred wording. User:Skyring claims his preffered wording is "consensual" but active editors want to change it and have been consistently prevented from doing so by no-compromise reverting over several weeks.

Please note also that the 10th revert was marked by User:Skyring as "minor". Wm (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Given Skyring's block log, a 31-hour block for edit warring is warranted. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

User:172.189.51.193 reported by User:JdeJ (Result: Semi-protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

List of countries by military expenditures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 172.189.51.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 16.41 5 February 2008

• 1st revert: 19.40 7 February 2008
• 2nd revert: 04.56 8 February
• 3rd revert: 05.03 8 February
• 4th revert: 05.13 8 February

• Diff of 3RR warning: 05.10 8 February

Apart from violating the rule, the user's edit is very close to vandalism S/he inserts fictional data instead of that found in the sources. JdeJ (talk) 10:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mtracy9 reported by User:Gamaliel (Result:24 hours )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Jack Ruby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mtracy9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 17:46, 7 February 2008

• 1st revert: 20:01, 7 February 2008 as User:68.108.54.5
• 2nd revert: 08:06, 8 February 2008
• 3rd revert: 14:57, 8 February 2008
• 4th revert: 15:48, 8 February 2008

Reverts made after report filed:

• 5th revert: 22:05, 8 February 2008
• 6th revert: 23:16, 8 February 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 20:39, 6 January 2008

Repeated reversions to edits removing fringe conspiracy theory] material from unreliable sources. User:68.108.54.5 and User:Mtracy9 are the same user. They edit the same articles, they both made the same threat to "report me" for "violating policy" . See the history of Talk:Trial of Clay Shaw, where the IP corrects typos in Mtracy9's comments ten minutes later. Gamaliel (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: User has made a 5th and 6th revert since this report was originally filed. Gamaliel (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked 24 hours. Kafziel 04:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User:RJ CG reported by User:Martintg (Result: both blocked )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Mart Laar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RJ CG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 20:29, 6 February 2008e

• 1st revert: 17:57, 8 February 2008
• 2nd revert: 18:03, 8 February 2008
• 3rd revert: 18:34, 8 February 2008
• 4th revert: 19:04, 8 February 2008
• 5th revert: 19:19, 8 February 2008

• 3RR warning: User:RJ CG has previous history of edit warring Estonia related articles and has been repeatedly blocked in the past. There is also a finding of fact for sustained editwarring in a recent ArbCom case .

Combative edit warring and reverting content and tags in section concerning Geopolitical reorientation. Martintg (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've blocked both: the IP for 48 hours and RJ CG for 2 weeks. The IP wasn't warned but from his edit summaries it's very apparent he's a reincarnation of someone or other in the Estonian sock stable. Not a Tartu IP from what I can see, which leads me to think it's not Digwuren evading his ban. Tricky one, this. I'll keep an eye on it. Moreschi 22:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

User:24.30.38.213 reported by User:Amatulic (Result:article protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Shadow people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.30.38.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 15:01 2008-02-04
• 2nt revert: 20:56 2008-02-05
• 3rd revert: 11:35 2008-02-06
• 4th revert: 13:29 2008-02-06
• (editor receives 24-hour block on 2008-02-07, and immediately resumes edit warring when block expires)
• 5th revert: 13:05 2008-02-08
• 6th revert: 18:25 2008-02-08
• 7th revert: 20:50 2008-02-08 - still not participating in talk page discussion, but accuses others of bias on user talk page.
• 8th revert: 21:43 2008-02-08 Second 3RR violation (4 reverts in less than 24 hours)

• Diff of 3RR warning: 21:57 2008-02-05

User received several warnings about adding unsourced editorial comments on shadow people. User doesn't appreciate warnings, and doesn't respond except to blank his talk page each time he receives a new warning. The reverts are somewhat under the radar for 4 reverts in 24 hours, but he's consistently reverting about 3 times per day. (Well, if you count his talk page blankings, he's reversion rate is above 4 per day.)

"Last version reverted to" is dated later than 1st revert because of improvements people are attempting to make to the article while the reversion war continues. Amatulić (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Although the first revert is different from the others, the anon is clearly edit warring. 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Issue still unresolved. Anon resumed edit warring immediately after 24-hour block expired. -Amatulić (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: user is no longer silent; finally engaging on his talk page, but not addressing concerns, rather accusing others of bias. -Amatulić (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• The article is already semi-protected. No need for a 3RR block at this point. Kafziel 04:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Karaku reported by User:the Rogue Penguin (Result:24 hours )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Matoran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Karaku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 15:25, February 7, 200

• 1st revert: 07:26, February 8, 2008
• 2nd revert: 15:32, February 8, 2008
• 3rd revert: 18:50, February 8, 2008
• 4th revert: 19:13, February 8, 2008
• 5th revert: 19:34, February 8, 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 19:19, February 8, 2008 - Includes warning that 3RR report would follow.

Continued removal of self-published source tag for a forum. The user doesn't address the issue when removing it, merely claiming that it's reliable because of who posts. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked 24 hours. Kafziel 04:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User:206.174.18.117 reported by User:Maxamegalon2000 (Result: 24 hours )

• Three-revert rule violation on

"Weird Al" Yankovic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 206.174.18.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 2008-02-07T18:50:24

• 1st revert: 2008-02-08T13:18:02
• 2nd revert: 2008-02-08T19:41:19
• 3rd revert: 2008-02-08T20:44:15
• 4th revert: 2008-02-08T22:11:01
• 5th revert: 2008-02-08T23:04:35

• Diff of 3RR warning: 2008-02-08T20:47:28

Repeatedly adding a comparatively nonnotable detail to the article's lead, despite consistent calls from multiple editors to discuss such an addition first. Maxamegalon2000 06:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll block for 24 hours, but you'll need semi-protection if he comes back as another IP. SlimVirgin 13:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Momento reported by User:Cirt (Result: Blocked 24 hrs)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Prem Rawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Momento (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 19:42, 8 February 2008

Removing image

1. 19:42, 8 February 2008
2. 20:31, 8 February 2008
3. 05:32, 9 February 2008
4. 11:31, 9 February 2008

Removing external links

1. 19:42, 8 February 2008
2. 20:56, 8 February 2008
3. 21:12, 8 February 2008
4. 22:07, 8 February 2008
5. 05:34, 9 February 2008
6. 11:31, 9 February 2008

Previous warnings for 3RR

1. 23:31, 12 March 2006, by Jossi (talk · contribs)
2. 00:00, 21 May 2007, by Vassyana (talk · contribs)
3. 19:38, 6 February 2008, by 24.98.132.123 (talk · contribs). (Reported to here for 3RR, was not blocked, as described below.)
4. 19:47, 6 February 2008, by Jossi (talk · contribs)
5. 13:09, 9 February 2008, by Francis Schonken (talk · contribs) (This also serves as notice of report here, see DIFF.)

Momento (talk · contribs) was already previously reported to WP:ANI/3RR on this article 19:38, 6 February 2008, by 24.98.132.123 (talk · contribs). Axlq (talk · contribs) had suggested a block to both parties. No one was blocked because he was edit-warring with an IP address, and the article was then semi-protected. He continues to revert, edit-war with multiple other editors, even after the semi-protect was put into place. Cirt (talk) 13:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There was no edit war with an IP address IN THE SAME PERIOD, the page was semi-protected at the time. See my comments here: (WP:AN3) --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, yes, there was. Just check the contribs for 24.98.132.123 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

These edits were from two days earlier. Semi-protection occurred 20:29, 6 February 2008. In the period you're speaking of for Momento's edit-warring on this content (8 february) the re-insertions of the material were most often by Onefinalstep (talk · contribs), although I didn't count.

If you think IP 24.98.132.123 could/should be linked to any of the other editors of that page in roughly the same period, it is always possible to file a checkuser request. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me? I was only citing the prior case involving 24.98.132.123 (talk · contribs) here because that IP had recently reported Momento (talk · contribs) for 3RR. After the semi-protection, Momento (talk · contribs) continues to be disruptive and edit war. Cirt (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I recognised my error above. I only intended to comment on the 8 february incident. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. My point was just that Momento (talk · contribs) was not blocked after the first 3RR report (as you mentioned, still on this page, above) and continues disruption after the article was semi-protected. Cirt (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and 24.98.132.123 (talk · contribs) maybe links to one of the other editors reverting the same material a few days later, so a checkuser would probably not be completely out of order here, in order not to be one-sided. I leave that to the admins assessing this incident. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Momento does appear to be somewhat disruptive here and recommend the admin to review his edits here. Lawrence § t/e 20:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Further above the initial 3rr report; this user has continued removing material that myself and another editor have added. He needs a break. Here adding material to disqualify a source; here again scrubbing material with a reversion/deletion. Lawrence § t/e 20:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. Nakon 20:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Tasc0 reported by User:Chubbles (Result: )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Bloods & Crips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tasc0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 19:53, February 6, 2008

• 1st revert: 23:35, February 6, 2008
• 2nd revert: 15:37, February 7, 2008
• 3rd revert: 23:57, February 7, 2008
• 4th revert: 01:51, February 8, 2008
• 5th revert: 17:40, February 8, 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 01:53, February 8, 2008

The edits fall technically outside the 24 hour rule, but this appears to be a clear attempt to game the system. Editor keeps redirecting this page about a collaborative effort between two rap groups to one of their albums. However, the collaboration released two albums, both of which charted hits in the USA, clearly establishing them notable per WP:MUSIC, and references were provided. User simply reverts and stops discussion when confronted with this information. Chubbles (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Pfistermeister reported by User:AndyJones (Result: No action - No reverts after warning)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Hamlet (1996 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pfistermeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 03:41, 8 February 2008

• 1st revert: Revision as of 02:13, 9 February 2008
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 05:48, 9 February 2008
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 06:13, 9 February 2008
• 4th revert: Revision as of 07:06, 9 February 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: (10:31, 9 February 2008) Although this warning (by User:ThuranX post-dates the last revert. Does that in some way invalidate this report? Making it anyway: I want to lay a marker down on this user's intemperate edit warring.

Edit war over some information which an exceedigly uncivil editor wishes to include. See also Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Pfistermeister. AndyJones (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Decision: No action. As the reporting user states, the warning was given after the last revert. Pfistermeister did edit the article once more after the warning, but it does not seem to have been a revert. TigerShark (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Soulscanner reported by User:G2bambino (Result: No violation)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Soulscanner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 15:30, 8 February 2008 (image removed; tag placed)

• 1st revert: 18:18, 8 February 2008 (tag inserted again)
• 2nd revert: 19:02, 8 February 2008 (image removed again)
• 3rd revert: 20:52, 8 February 2008 (image removed again)
• 4th revert: 21:57, 8 February 2008 (image removed again)

• Diff of 3RR warning: 22:25, 8 February 2008

User has been quite adamant to keep a "dubious" tag in the lead of the article; then took up the case of removing the image as well. The user was given the chance to self-revert, but did not, arguing that "there's no 3RR on removing a non-permissable photos." The user was reported yesterday for a similar incident at Dominion. I was not able to file this report until this morning due to earlier computer issues last evening. G2bambino (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Decision: No violation. It does not appear that Soulscanner reverted more than three times (the first reported revert is different to the last three). Although a continuation of this could warrant a block, even without a technical violation, such a block would not be appropriate now. TigerShark (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

As in another case you handled below, any four reverts on the same page constitute a violation even if the user is not repeating the same action. This particular report is rather stale now since the user has not edited in over 24 hours (call it time served), but this is an important distinction to be aware of. --B (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, on a very strict interpretation of 3RR that could indeed be viewed as the first of four reverts, but achieving the goal of the policy is the aim here and the goal of the policy is to avoid edit warring not to actually prevent more than 3 reverts. The first revert is sufficiently unrelated to the other that I cannot interpret this as edit warring. TigerShark (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Blackeagles reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: No action - Stale request)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Superman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Blackeagles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

• 1st revert: 02:38, 7 February 2008
• 2nd revert: 02:40, 7 February 2008
• 3rd revert: 02:48, 7 February 2008
• 4th revert: 23:16, 7 February 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 15:53, 9 February 2008

Despite at least three editors reverting his edit about the fictional character Superman being a Methodist, and talk-page warnings about unreliable sources, an apparent zealot with a talk-page history of contentious and questionable edits has continued to make the same poorly sourced POV edit. As explained on his talk page: "the cite does not reach the bar of reliability. The cite is a... opinion columnist simply claims that "superhero scholars" say Superman is Methodist, but he doesn't provide any examples. And the website he points to, adherents.com, doesn't seem to have anything about Superman or superhero under "S". Given that this is a claim never made by the creators or the company that publishes Superman, there is a very high bar in terms of authoritative sourcing." --Tenebrae (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Decision: Blackeagles has not edited since February 7th, making this request stale. As far as I can see, the user was also not given the 3RR warning until today (a day and a half after they last edited) so did not revert after the warning. TigerShark (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters reported by User:Verklempt (Result: 48 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Template:Ward Churchill misconduct issues. Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

User:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters reverted Ward_Churchill_misconduct_issues five times on February 8. Given that this editor was once proposed to be an administrator, and given that he has been blocked several times before for violating 3RR, a warning should not be necessary. He knows the rules, but just doesn't care.

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

Verklempt (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This may well be a BLP issue. Enormous amounts of possibly undue weighted criticism being added. Relata refero (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

(1)The disputed material is not being added. It has been there for years. Rather, Lulu is attempting to delete it, repeatedly. Furthermore, Lulu himself is the editor who created this child article in order to separate critical opinions out of the main bio. Since then, he has been attempting to remove as much critical material as possible, even though it is all sourced to mainstream newspaper articles. (2) Even if there were a BLP issue, it should be negotiated in good faith on the talk page. Lulu has yet to specify which sentences violate BLP and how. I don't think he or anyone else can succesfully make that argument, given the airtight sourcing.Verklempt (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, please notify him of this so he can respond if you haven't already. Relata refero (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Decision: Although there is clearly a debate taking place at the article's talk page with concerns from various editors, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters is reverting extensively and is clearly in breach of 3RR. He has not clearly justified his claims of BLP violations, and his accusations of soapboxing and sockpuppetry are doing nothing to help consensus. His history of blocks for 3RR on related articles indicates that he is fully aware of the policy and warrant a longer block than previously applied. TigerShark (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Hyperbole reported by User:Orangemarlin (Result: No violation)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hyperbole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 13:48, 8 February 2008

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Scientific_inquiries_into_chiropractic_care&diff=190059269&oldid=190055450
• 2nd revert: 00:53, 9 February 2008
• 3rd revert: 10:07, 9 February 2008
• 4th revert: 14:44, 9 February 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 13:36, 9 February 2008

Continues to edit war after warning. In addition, should be warned for personal attacks.. OrangeMarlin 22:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Decision: I cannot see a 3RR violation here, as the first edit listed above is unrelated to the last three. TigerShark (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not touching this one with a 10' pole, but 3RR applies to ANY reverts or partial on the same page, not merely repeating the same action. --B (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, correct. The problem: I'm not seeing how the first one is a revert; could someone show what it's reverting? Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing anything is at least a partial revert (3RR applies to any revert, in whole or in part). Someone must have added the tag at some point and removing that tag is a revert. --B (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Criticism_of_chiropractic_care&diff=next&oldid=189411588 Original edit by QuackGuru adding POV tag. Quack Guru 23:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, yes, it looks like there is a violation here. I really have to go AFK now, so I can't finish this, but I'd support a block, especially if TigerShark consents (sorry not to take action myself, but family calls). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, on a very strict interpretation of 3RR that could indeed be viewed as the first of four reverts, but achieving the goal of the policy is the aim here and the goal of the policy is to avoid edit warring not to actually prevent more than 3 reverts. The first revert is sufficiently unrelated to the other that I cannot interpret this as edit warring. TigerShark (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Arthur Rubin reported by User:Snowfire51 (Result: Blocked 3 days)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Alex Jones (radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 19:25 7 February 2008

• 1st revert: 10:24, 9 February 2008
• 2nd revert: 12:23 9 February 2008
• 3rd revert: 14:56 9 February 2008
• 4th revert: 15:42 9 February 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 15:49 9 February 2008
• 5th revert, after warning: 16:45 9 February 2008

User clearly warned, but unrepentant in ownership of this article. I've tried several times to ask him to slow down and explain, but he insists an AP article is not a reliable source and continues to revert changes with no productive discussion. When asked for clarification on why he distrusts the AP source, he threatened to blank the article just to make his point.

User has been blocked before for edit warring. Snowfire51 (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for three days as this is the second time he's edit warred on this article. Nakon 23:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I affirm this block and was about to make it when Nakon beat me to it. --B (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I am also bringing this to ANI for further discussion. Nakon 23:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I must agree, unfortunately. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Bakasuprman reported by User:Wiki Raja (Result: )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Caste system among Indian Christians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 20:39, 5 February 2008

• 1st revert: 12:21, 9 February 2008
• 2nd revert: 13:32, 9 February 2008
• 3rd revert: 13:52, 9 February 2008
• 4th revert: 13:50, 9 February 2008
• 5th revert: 14:08, 9 February 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 14:16, 9 February 2008
• Diff of 3RR warning: 14:26, 9 February 2008

This user has broken the 3RR and has been notified by another user of his actions. During reverts, mispellings are overlooked which goes to show that he is not there to improve the article, but as a grudge against a particular faith. This is not the first time he has engaged in such acts. Wiki Raja (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Example

<!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~
*Previous version reverted to:  <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
*1st revert: 
*2nd revert: 
*3rd revert: 
*4th revert: 
*Diff of 3RR warning: 
A short explanation of the incident. ~~~~
<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->

See also

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

1. Leigh Sales (2008-01-10). "Political dilemma over Guantanamo". Sydney Morning Herald. Fairfax Ltd.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring