Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:06, 2 March 2007 view sourceYandman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,709 edits 24← Previous edit Revision as of 17:21, 2 March 2007 view source William Mauco (talk | contribs)4,907 edits →[] reported by [] (Result:24h)Next edit →
Line 601: Line 601:
* 3rd revert: * 3rd revert:
* 4th revert: * 4th revert:

<!-- <!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here. - * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Line 607: Line 606:
* Diff of 3RR warning: * Diff of 3RR warning:
--> -->

One reversion was done using an IP address, which is proved as the said user's IP address by edit. --]<sup>( <font color="#339966" face="Constantia">]</font> / <font color="#CC0099" face="Constantia">]</font> )</sup> 13:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC) One reversion was done using an IP address, which is proved as the said user's IP address by edit. --]<sup>( <font color="#339966" face="Constantia">]</font> / <font color="#CC0099" face="Constantia">]</font> )</sup> 13:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


:24h. ] 15:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC) :24h. ] 15:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


===] reported by ] (Result:)===

] violation on
{{Article|Transnistria}}. {{3RRV|EvilAlex}}:

* 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. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
(Only a sample. In total, there are 22 whole or partial reverts.)
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
-->
* Diff of 3RR warning:

;Comments: <!-- Optional --> This user is a wellknown edit warrior on ]-related topics. He has previously stated on Talk that he enjoys indulging in Misplaced Pages editwarring because, according to his own words, "otherwise life would be too boring." '''Today alone, EvilAlex performed 22 reverts''', in whole or in part, on ]. Despite repeated requests to discuss these changes, he displays extremely disruptive behavior and is unwilling to engage in discussion in the article's Talk page. Today alone, 3 different editors undid his changes, but he persists. He has been warned of 3RR, but he persists nevertheless. He has also been asked to revert himself, to avoid this report, but ignored the request. Note: He has been previously blocked for editwarring on the same page.. This time, I ask that he be blocked for 72 hours. It would also be helpful to tell him to discuss major changes in Talk and seek consensus before imposing them. - ] 17:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


==Sample violation report to copy== ==Sample violation report to copy==

Revision as of 17:21, 2 March 2007

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.
Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.

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,
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)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166
    1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links

    Violations

    Please place new reports at the bottom.

    User:GeorgeBP reported by User:KyaatheCatlord (Result:24 hrs)

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

    This is a rather complicated case.


    Comments

    This user is using sockpuppets to hide his 3rr, trolling and POV pushing. See for CheckUser results. Kyaa the Catlord 02:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    • Note continuing reverts even following a previous 3RR block only days before, just pick any 24 hour window there is at least 4 reverts wherever you look. Attempted to circumvent 3RR by using anon IP sock puppets until the article was semi-protected. --Dual Freq 00:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    Comment This report sat here for 22 hours. A checkuser was done to show that there were socks involved, yet the puppeteer continued to roam free. BLP states "Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply.", the other editors in this case are clear. If an admin had stepped in and blocked this puppeteer yesterday when this report was posted, this would not have been as much of an issue. Kyaa the Catlord 01:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    User:Userofwiki reported by User:Gsd2000 (Result:indef block)

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

    Sockpuppet of User:Somethingoranother, who was permanently blocked for various rule breaks. Used this sockpuppet to continue 3RR violations on this article:

    I have only tried to contribute important fully referenced information to the great power article. The information was not included before and has reliable references. There's no reason why it shouldn't be included. Userofwiki 03:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    Blocked as a sock. --Woohookitty 08:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    Comments

    User:71.112.7.212 reported by User:futurebird (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Cool (aesthetic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.112.7.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Warning(s):

    Problems from (related?) IP: 69.223.65.19

    • 17:27, February 27, 2007 ←Replaced page with 'Cool = Infected Hair on an Elephants Butt. ---- COOL also is a Constipated, Overweighted, Out of style, Loser. ---- You see that. I am an author fool. I am publis...')
    • February 27, 2007 ←Replaced page with 'COOL = Infected Hair on an elephants but
    Comments
    Also a possible sockpuppet Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Rbaish futurebird 05:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    User:Bramlet Abercrombie reported by User:Derex (Result: 24 hrs)

    Three-revert rule violation on Larry Sanger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bramlet Abercrombie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    User:Tmac68 reported by User:Jeffpw

    please see ani discussion of the incident, including diffs here. Jeffpw 13:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    User:Lman1987 and User:66.4.209.194 reported by User:Tennis expert (Result:indefblock/24 hrs)

    User:Lman1987 said that he posted certain comments in the Rafael Nadal discussion page. Those comments were in fact posted by User: 66.4.209.194. Many of us have suspected that User:66.4.209.194 is a sock puppet of User:Lman1987. This has now been comfirmed.

    Combined, User:Lman1987 and User:66.4.209.194 have violated the three-revert rule today as follows:

    Three-revert rule violation on Pete Sampras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lman1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 66.4.209.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three-revert rule violation on Andre Agassi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lman1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 66.4.209.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    This user also has violated 3RR today in the Roger Federer article.

    This is a highly disruptive user. We need your help. Thank you. Tennis expert 18:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    User:A Man In Black reported by User:Armando12 (Result:24 hrs)

    Three-revert rule violation on Template:Resident Evil series (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A Man In Black (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reverts on February 27, 2007

    Reverts on February 23, 2007

    Comments

    This user is an administrator, bu he don't act like one. Everyday he makes revert in the same template and many others. He's been already warned (here, his talk page) that there's a discussion about the templates, here. This user has been alredy blocked twice because of the same reason. Block log of A Man In Black.

    Blocked User:A Man In Black for 24 hrs for WP:3RR violation. Crum375 01:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


    User:Aminz reported by User:Beit_Or (Result: No action for now)

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

    Comments
    The 4th revert is an insertion of a POV tag into the section "Antisemitism and the Muslim world". The user has already inserted the POV tag into this very section of this article many times in the past, so this is a revert. Aminz has already been blocked for edit warring on Antisemitism. Beit Or 09:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    That's an invalid report. The 4th one is a POV tag meanwhile the dispute is active (please see the RFC at the talk page). Beit Or has searched the past history and has found some diffs from month ago to prove that the fourth edit is a revert (please see the dates). In fact, if you look closely user:Humus sapiens was edit warring without providing any reasoning on the talk page (please check the timings) --Aminz 09:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    It is indeed an invalid report, though I encourage you, Aminz, to please discuss rather than reverting. Three reverts is not a right, and you are strongly encouraged to use the talk page to solve disputes, rather than blind reverting, once it is clear that your edit may be disputed by another editor. Ral315 » 09:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    I have filed an RfC on this and have discussed this a lot. If you could check the timings of posts on the talk page, User:Humus sapiens was removing a well-sourced quote without providing any valid reasoning on the talk page for that. --Aminz 09:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    Ra315, I have asked a couple of new editors to join in the discussion and have filed an RfC. Of course edit-warring is not the way to go. --Aminz 09:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    I don't see why this report is invalid: the first 3 are reverts; and so is the 4th William M. Connolley 09:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    The 4th is adding POV tag. It wasn't a revert. The 3 diffs Beit Or has provided of adding tags date back to two month ago for a different issue. Please see the RfC section on the talk page for the reasonings and the comments made there. --Aminz 10:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    Nonsense. The POV tag had been there before, as you're perfectly aware, because you put it there yourself William M. Connolley 10:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, but I found a new quote expressing the view of majority of scholars on Islam and Antisemitism. And I added that. But it was removed so I added POV tag meanwhile we are discussing the issue. --Aminz 10:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    Mr. William M. Connolley, I never ever inteneded that to be a revert, just to show the dispute. Please read a few lines of the section and check it with the quote which was added. It can be seen that they contradict each other. --Aminz 10:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    Amin, I think you have been toeing the line on three reverts long enough. Please consider this as a strong warning. Further attempts might be interpreted as gaming the system. Please be careful. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    Dear Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, I swear I am editing in good faith. The section is really POV and I am trying my best to make it neutral. Please see and compare the quote at the lead, and the following material. It was a good faith and I never thought it was a revert. --Aminz 10:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    User:Paulcicero reported by User:58.165.90.202 (Result: 36hr; Tar-Elenion: 27hr)

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

    Taking into account his main account, and his IP address (here), PaulCicero has violated 3RR on Daniel_Majstorovic. It is his IP as all edits, edit summaries are exactly teh same, and often happen right after the other.

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

    Also notice his edits on List of Serbs are getting close to breaching 3RR.

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

    Apart from regular edit warring on Daniel Majstorovic and List of Serbs, he also engages in heavy edit warring on articles such as Roger Joseph Boscovich and Slavica Ecclestone - and after Slavica Ecclestone was page protected, he brought his edit warring to Bernie Ecclestone's article. Also, please note the incivility of the user, personal attacks used, blind reverts, edit warring, editing of talk page comments/titles made by other editors - he also blanks his own talk page, which is not allowed (to the best of my knowledge). In my opinion, a block of at least one week is justified, but a longer one is within reason. 58.165.90.202 11:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    My reverts on these articles are done because of User:Tar-Elenion edits on several serbian peoples articles, he is using sockpuppets like 58.165.90.202 to make me brake the 3RR rule. So instead of banning me you should semi-protect all articles that User:Tar-Elenion has edited. Paulcicero 16:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    To other admins considering blocking, please let me handle this. I have encounter these two before and I want to follow up on this myself. I will take care of this in a moment. -- tariqabjotu 20:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    I have blocked Paulcicero (talk · contribs) for thirty-six hours, due to this and the fact that there was a recent 3RR violation by him. Additionally, I have blocked Tar-Elenion (talk · contribs) for revert-warring for twenty-seven hours, pending confirmation of the sockpuppetry through the request for checkuser. The latter user has been assisting with multiple edit wars recently anyway, so I'm not sure if a negative checkuser result would really mean much. -- tariqabjotu 21:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    User:Nomenclator reported by User:Skinwalker (Result:48H)

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


    Comments
    User has been blocked twice previously for 3RR violations on this article.

    User:65.6.32.12 reported by User:Tennis expert (Result:1 month)

    Three-revert rule violation on Andre Agassi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 65.6.32.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    This user also has violated 3RR today in the Pete Sampras, Andy Roddick, Rafael Nadal, and John McEnroe articles and appears to be a sock puppet of the indefinitely blocked User:Lman1987. He or she is HIGHLY disruptive. We need help. Thank you. Tennis expert 18:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    I strongly support this report! The user has for days and days wasted hours of careful checking by conscious editors. The user is obsessed with an alternative score format, for which there is no community consensus. PLEASE help!--HJ 20:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    Comment. User has been blocked for a period of one month due to being a sockpuppet of Lman1987. Nishkid64 00:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

    User:Melonbarmonster reported by User:Endroit (Result: 24 hrs)

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

    Comments
    Melonbarmonster insists on using the word "forced".--Endroit 18:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    User:KazakhPol (Result: 24hr)

    3RR on Pan-Islamism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by KazakhPol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Comment

    These are four simple reverts in 23 minutes. The background is that KazakhPol tags articles whenever he doesn't like something, then reverts against multiple editors to maintain the tag, even after several weeks or months of the original tagging, often referring to editors who oppose him as vandals, stalkers, or harassers. He has been blocked four times for 3RR in less than two months, the last time for 48 hours, and is currently the subject of an RfC for the same behavior. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/KazakhPol. He also often adds "2nd revert," "3rd revert" to his third and fourth, perhaps in an effort to confuse, as he did above. SlimVirgin 19:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    This is very aggravating. SlimVirgin is lying, as it will be very apparent to anyone who looks at the history of the page. My earlier edits were not reverts therefore they do not count towards WP:3RR. This is the third or fourth time she has tried this crap. Last time I was unblocked when someone double checked. She regularly does that to harass me. Look at this for a sample of what I have to listen to: . Nevermind that I have not done any of what she alleges. KazakhPol 19:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    KazakhPol (talk · contribs) has been blocked for twenty-four hours per the 3RR violation. Please be careful not to violate it yourself, SlimVirgin... -- tariqabjotu 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks, Tariq. I posted the clarification below before I saw your post. SlimVirgin 22:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    KazakhPol self-reverted at 19:36 Feb 28 when he saw he'd been reported for 3RR, removing the totally disputed tag, but then added the NPOV tag instead at 19:47 Feb 28, so the 3RR violation stands. SlimVirgin 22:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    User:Dahn reported by User:Dpotop (Result:24 hrs overturned without notice)

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

    Comments
    • User is not new, and has been blocked before (about two weeks ago, I presume) for 3RR violations.
    Blocked for 24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    Nice to see that the block only lasted for about 2 hours, thanks to helpful admins willing to overlook official policy for special editors. While this user is good, the frequency of his revert wars (several simulataneously at about any time, without any attempt to negotiate) does recommend him for some time off. But no, policy is not applied, and the user can only think he's somehow superior. Dpotop 20:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    If he is superior indeed, then do introduce a new user type Hyperion, or something, and don't let us poor mortals fight them without knowing we don't stand a chance. Dpotop 20:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    FYI: this is not the first time a 3RR ruling is overturned in 2 hours. Dpotop 20:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    User:Lucy-marie reported by User:One Night In Hackney (Result:No block)

    Three-revert rule violation on G8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lucy-marie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • I have looked into this. Lucy marie made a mistake in the heat of things. I ahve talked to her and I have her assurance there will be no more reversions until the issue gets disputed. I think a punitive block in this situation would be innapropriate. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    User:Tennis Genius reported by User:HJensen (Result: 24 hour)

    Three-revert rule violation on Roger Federer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tennis Genius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

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

    Comment: The user is a sock puppet for somone (one or more) who is obsessed by introducing a new scoring format for tennis bios. The format has reached no consensus in community, and the behavior by this user and other user names and IPs has been VERY disruptive for sveral days now. Note that the user here boasts that he/she will deliberately continue this editing war, stating:

    Think about it. but your pale tennis expert must know we will never back down. Me and my buddies are capable of haveing thousands of IP accounts. Any ways we are not vandalizers. we are doing this for the good. You could start changeing score formats to the correct ones on other tennis pages. (we expect to change EVERY pro tennis players score format soon. not just these few.) This edit war is pointless unless you want to have every Tennis players Article FULLY protected. (and I dont think the administrators could be depended upon to update tennis articles by themselves.) SEMI protecting is nothing. This war will never end, unless Tennis Expert and his pals agree with us

    This is, as I understand it, not compatible with Misplaced Pages behavior in any way. Something must be done quickly, so please help up. Thanks!!! --HJ 21:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    I looked at this User:Tennis Genius is clearly in an edit war and has put the same material in at least 9 times today, 24hr block.Rlevse
    Blocked indefintely as a sockpuppet of Lman1987. Editing styles are an exact copy of Lman. Nishkid64 00:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

    User:Lenzar reported by User:G-Man (Result:12H)

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

    • Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    Technically was not a 3RR vio (though darn close), but I blocked for edit warring despite a strong consensus. --Woohookitty 10:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


    User:Mael-Num reported by User:Jossi (Result:No block)

    Three-revert rule violation on Prem Rawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mael-Num (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments
    Well, considering those are different edits with different information and they are more than 24 hours apart, Jossi is apparently grasping at straws to keep me from editing the article. Please note that during this time period, Jossi himself reverted other editors' work no less than 3 times in a 24 hour period. I have been careful, allowing time for other editors to give input, and as can be plainly seen in the edits above, I added information to Jossi's edit, and removed nothing.
    Jossi, conversely, repeatedly deletes information he deems undesirable, rather than append or edit it. Please also note the content of the edits in question. My position is that, per WP:LS, I am summarizing cited criticism that appears elsewhere in the article, providing citations even within the summary. Deleting cited, verifiable content, instead of working with and/or editing it, is in itself against Misplaced Pages policy.
    I'd also like to add that this is the second time that Jossi has falsely accused me of 3rr. The last time the decision was overturned, as the reviewing editor construed the edits to be reverts of vandalism, based on the reverted editor's being banned for vandalism. Mael-Num 03:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    The "vandalism" that you claimed, was not so. And my edit history shows that I have not editwarred. I don't do that. The 3RR rule is designed to ding people like you, that prefer to editwar rather than discuss. This noticeboard isnot designed to discuss content disputes, but to discuss disruption by continuously reverting or adding the same content. See WP:3RR that cleary states that "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an 'electric fence'. Editors may still be blocked even if they haven't made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behaviour is clearly disruptive." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    My behavior has been no more "disruptive" than yours. Necessarily less so, in fact, because I am adding cited, sourced summaries of material to the lead that are notable and reliable, as evidenced by their inclusion elsewhere. You are blanking said cited, sourced, reliable, and notable material. I regularly discuss my edits in the talk pages, calling for discussion more frequently than you have regarding this information. I enjoin you to participate in these discussions, rather than try to "ding" me for adding information that you do not personally agree with. Mael-Num 03:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    Finally, I would like to ask the reviewer of this case to carefully look at the "Previous Version Reverted to" diff, listed above. The information I am supposedly, maliciously adding does not appear in that version. So, to be clear, the first "revert" is actually the "original" I am reverting to. The next two edits occur at intervals of 12 hours, the third considerably after that. That edit is dissimilar from the other two, and is clearly a good-faith improvement to Jossi's own work. Even if this were not the case, these three edits occur over the course of 36 hours. I feel I am careful to be constructive, and work with my fellow editors to produce good work. I will continue to be careful, and mindful of Misplaced Pages's policies, guidelines, and my fellow editors' views. Mael-Num 04:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    Reverting every 12 hours, is still disruptive behavior, Mael. Nevertheless, if you are serious about desisting in not using reverts and as way to assert your opinion about the lead, and interested in constructively arrive to consensus with fellow editors, that is great, but the proof will be in the pudding. Day after day, you restore your edit about which there is no consensus under claims that consensus cannot trump policy, while forgetting WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Following the dispute resolution process is the way to proceed when there is no common ground. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    I am not going to block. But. Mael. Please try to do a better job of working this out with others rather than reverting. --Woohookitty 11:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

    User:Apostrophe reported by User:InvaderSora (Result: No block)

    3RR on Kingdom Hearts II, and large amount of harassment. I was blocked for the same for 48 hours, so i expect he will have the same punishment. 00:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

    Blocks are not punishment. Whereas you have been warned repeatedly and made personal attacks and were repeatedly edit warring, there have been no such problems with User:Apostrophe. —Centrx→talk • 02:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    In fact, User:Apostrophe did not even make more than three reverts in 24 hours. —Centrx→talk • 02:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

    WTH? Blocks not punisment? Personal atatcks? Whatever you considered apersonal attack, i am constantly harassed by APostrophe.. and i see 3 reverts in the same day on KH2. Also, he is "wikistalking" me.InvaderSora 03:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

    Ideally, blocks are to be instructive. It doesn't always work out that way but that's the goal. --Woohookitty 11:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

    Also, See my talk page for a lovely comment he made. :) InvaderSora 04:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

    Article deleted already, no reason to block.Rlevse 23:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

    No, it's not. And regardess, he harasses and wikistalks me. InvaderSora 00:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

    Opps, yep, but Apostrophe has edited Kingdom of Hearts since Feb 26, so again, no reason to block now. Also, if someone is harassing you, see WP:ANI page. Rlevse 03:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

    User:kellen reported by User:nomenclator (Result: 8/48h)

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

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

    Appallingly formatted; but both sides have 4R. N gets 48h for multiple 3RR on this page; K 8h for a first offence William M. Connolley 09:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

    User:Pep65497 reported by User:Kralizec! (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Pensacola Christian College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pep65497 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    Comments

    Pep65497 (talk · contribs · count · logs) appears to be a single purpose account only interested in censoring the Pensacola Christian College (PCC) article. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

    Given the user's edit summary here, it appears that the editor is also the anon 146.129.133.77 who made identical edits before hand. JoshuaZ 20:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

    24h William M. Connolley 22:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

    User:HouseOfScandal reported by User:Urthogie (Result:No block)

    Three-revert rule violation on Underground hip hop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). HouseOfScandal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
    • 1st revert
    • 2nd revert
    • 3rd revert
    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    3RR violations require a 4TH revert in 24 hours to violate the rule. I don't see the 4th revert.Rlevse 23:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    I thought it's 3RR, not 4RR?--Urthogie 01:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    Please read from the top of this page: "Please remember that the 3RR applies to reverts after the third within a 24 hour period...the 3RR is not an entitlement to three 'free' reverts per day....The 3RR is intended as a means to stop sterile edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every twenty-four hours...."Rlevse 03:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

    User:Olir reported by User:Cyrus XIII (Result:24 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on Blink-182 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Olir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: (in parts)
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    Comments

    User as also violated WP:NPA by referring to editors who apply common style guidelines as "self-important" and "grammar nazis". Appears to be in violation of WP:OWN regarding Blink-182 related articles . User has been around for a year, hence no 3RR warning was issued. - Cyrus XIII 20:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

    blocked by User:William M. Connolley, but he forgot to notate here.Rlevse 23:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

    User:Farzinf reported by User:Azerbaijani (Result: 24h)

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


    Comments

    He clearly received the 3rr warning on his talk page and my offer that he would not be reported if he reverted himself. Here is his response on my talk page: . Since he refused to revert himself, even after knowing what 3rr is and the consequences of breaking 3rr, I am reporting him.Azerbaijani 22:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

    24h William M. Connolley 22:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

    User:Rbaish reported by User:futurebird (Result: 24 hours)

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

    • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

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

    Comments

    User:Dbachmann reported by User:Rayfield (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Indigenous Aryan Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dbachmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments
    The editor is an adminstrator, but doesn't act like one on this article (He disregards WP:3RR, the Protection policy and the Blocking policy).
    He has blocked an editor for WP:3RR on the same page, which proves that he is aware of the WP:3RR rule. But rather than blocking an editor he is involved with himself he should have come to WP:ANI first to request help from uninvolved administrators per Blocking policy. The edits by the other involved user were not vandalism. He also didn't give evidence that the other involved editor made WP:3RR but only blocked him. (Maybe User:Sbhushan should be blocked for the same period as Dbachmann, unless User:Sbhushan can show that he didn't commit WP:3RR.) The two IP edits in the same article were very probably not by Sbhushan, because their edit history and edit summaries are very different.
    He has protected three pages in the last hours which he has himself edited in the last hours and days (Indigenous Aryan Theory, N.S. Rajaram and Haplogroup R1a1 (Y-DNA) ), instead of asking an uninvolved admin to do it per Protection policy. --RF 12:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

    context: WP:AN/I#Sbhushan. the 'protected' should read semiprotected, these articles are subject to much anon trolling. "reverts" 4 & 5 are rollbacks of such anon (that is, logged-out) trolling. dab (𒁳) 13:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

    On WP:AN/I#Sbhushan the editor who has looked in detail at the issue says that Sbhushan's edits were not patent nonsense, vandalism, or simple disruption, which IMO is evident. Sbushan is trying to improve the article in good faith. Maybe his approach is "wrong", but his edits are not vandalism, and your dispute must then be discussed with him on the talkpage or with Dispute Resolution.
    The two IP edits in the same article were very probably not by Sbhushan, because their edit history, editing time and edit summaries are very different. But if you can give the diff's about his WP:3RR, I will report Sbhushah also.
    This kind of edit-warring and disputes have been ongoing in this article since the article was created. --RF 13:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    yes -- which is why I have semi-protected the article. I don't semiprotect stuff because I like the look of the template, and I cannot be expected to write an article while a swarm of IP addresses keep pulling it from under by arse. I don't think I need to establish that conscious trolling is involved here on the part of editors who log out and redial to keep the anonymous merry-go-round going. dab (𒁳) 14:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

    User:Killerman2 reported by User:Apostrophe (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Tragic villain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Killerman2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    24h William M. Connolley 14:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

    User:Itb3d reported by User:MONGO (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Jane Standley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Itb3d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments
    Newly created account, but familiarity with editing indicates this is not a new editor. Was also cautioned about not calling other editors "idiot"here, and warned.

    24h William M. Connolley 14:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

    User:The Consigliere reported by User:Snowolfd4 (Result:24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Kent and Dollar Farm massacres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The Consigliere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    One reversion was done using an IP address, which is proved as the said user's IP address by this edit. --snowolfD4 13:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

    24h. yandman 15:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


    User:EvilAlex reported by User:William Mauco (Result:)

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

    (Only a sample. In total, there are 22 whole or partial reverts.)

    Comments
    This user is a wellknown edit warrior on Transnistria-related topics. He has previously stated on Talk that he enjoys indulging in Misplaced Pages editwarring because, according to his own words, "otherwise life would be too boring." Today alone, EvilAlex performed 22 reverts, in whole or in part, on Transnistria. Despite repeated requests to discuss these changes, he displays extremely disruptive behavior and is unwilling to engage in discussion in the article's Talk page. Today alone, 3 different editors undid his changes, but he persists. He has been warned of 3RR, but he persists nevertheless. He has also been asked to revert himself, to avoid this report, but ignored the request. Note: He has been previously blocked for editwarring on the same page.. This time, I ask that he be blocked for 72 hours. It would also be helpful to tell him to discuss major changes in Talk and seek consensus before imposing them. - Mauco 17:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

    Sample violation report to copy

    ===] reported by ] (Result:)===
] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{3RRV|VIOLATOR_USERNAME}}:
* 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. -->
* 1st revert: 
* 2nd revert: 
* 3rd revert: 
* 4th revert: 
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning: 
-->
;Comments: <!-- Optional -->
;Comments: <!-- Optional -->
===] reported by ] (Result:)===
] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{3RRV|VIOLATOR_USERNAME}}:
* 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. -->
* 1st revert: 
* 2nd revert: 
* 3rd revert: 
* 4th revert: 
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning: 
-->
;Comments: <!-- Optional -->

    Note on completing a 3RR report:

    • Copy the template above, the text within but not including <pre>...</pre>
    • Replace http://DIFFS with a link to the diff and the DIFFTIME with the timestamp
    • We need to know that there are at least four reverts. List them, and replace http://VersionLink with a link to the version that the first revert reverted to. If the reverts are subtle or different, please provide an explanation of why they are all reverts. Even if the reverts are straightforward, it's helpful to point out the words or sentences being reverted.
    • Warnings are a good idea but not obligatory
    Categories: