Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

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.

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

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.

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356
357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366
Incidents (archives, search)
1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160
1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
469	470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478
479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332
333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340	341	342
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Violations

Please place new reports at the bottom.

User:Tiamut reported by User:Isarig (Result: One Week)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 03:00, 18 July 2007

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

Repeated insertions (with minor variation) of country-specific examples. This user has edit warred over the inclusion of the same material a month ago, and is back reinserting the same stuff. User is aware of 3RR, and was warned agian, in edit summary. Isarig 16:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

since this is the 3rd 3RR block I have escalated it to a week. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, please forgive the interjection. While a week-long block may seem reasonable after a third 3RR violation, there are circumstances here that make me think this result is unjust. It is debatable whether User:Tiamut's first edit was a revert. She was adding material, and the last time any of this was present in the article was over a month ago. I doubt very much she thought she was "reverting." It is true that she and Isarig had edit-warred over some of this material in the past, but Isarig edit-wars with Tiamut on a range of articles, reverting almost anything she adds. Here's an example just from the past few days: Tiamut adds very well-sourced and obviously relevant information to Hafrada; this is reverted by Isarig here, who says her edit is "editorializing," though the added material is a bare-bones presentation of what an academic source "argues" about the subject of the article (in this very same edit Isarig quietly inserts an unsourced reference in the lead about "protect[ing] Israelis from Palestinian terrorists," an insertion he makes no mention of in his summary); Tiamut is subsequently supported by another editor, who leaves a polite edit summary explaining why [1]; Isarig then proceeds to revert war with both editors, Tiamut and Andyvphil, reverting their edits no less than seven times, responding to their patient and detailed edit summaries [2] [3], with brusque ones of his own [4].

In the present case (Random checkpoint), Isarig has again been a willing, even eager edit-warrior. If Tiamut's first edit is counted as a revert (because it added material that was in the article earlier this summer), then she indeed had four reverts, against Isarig's three. If not, then they each have three. Either way, it seems clear Tiamut is no more guilty of edit-warring than Isarig, and for Isarig to fight this tit-for-tat battle and then report her smacks of gamesmanship. That he does this routinely with Tiamut and other editors is also relevant, especially in light of the following from 3RR:

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".[1] Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system. Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any disruptive edit warring, even if they do not exceed three reverts on a page in 24 hours. Similarly, editors who may have technically violated the 3RR may not be blocked, depending on circumstances.

You have applied your discretionary judgment in giving Tiamut a week-long block in lieu of the more usual 24 hours. In light of the fuller context I've provided, a further application of your discretionary powers might be in order, and you might consider giving Isarig a comparable block; or giving them both comparably shorter blocks. This would certainly seem to be one of those cases where such discretion is in order: 3RR was devised to create a strong counter-incentive to edit-warring, not to create a game of strategy.--G-Dett 22:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally saw this and haven't checked the diffs but blocking for a week only because it is third 3rr violation seems quite excessive. --Aminz 22:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was Tiamut who first added this material on May 24 [5], and who restored it when it was removed. The only way he'd think his first edit wasn't a revert is if he'd completely forgotten that he was the one who added it in the first place a few weeks earlier, which is unlikely to say the least. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Tiamut's edit seem pointy and may count as vandalism. But a week block seems quite excessive to me. I think 24-48 hours would be good (24 hours for passing 3rr and 24 hours for pointiness of the edit).--Aminz 22:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism? I just don't see it. If you look at the talk page discussion, it's very clear that Tiamut, who created the article as Flying checkpoint, took Isarig's objections and demands for a move very seriously, and even after an RfM created by Isarig failed, she graciously announced that she "would be more than happy to abide by any consensus generated via the involvement of outside editors," after which an RfC was filed. That RfC failed to elicit much outside interest, beyond a couple of comments from openly partisan editors closely allied with Isarig. Nevertheless Tiamut posted another gracious note accepting Isarig's demands, with a small and very reasonable qualification:

For the sake of compromise, I am willing to accept a name-change to the article. It should be entitled Random checkpoint. Types or synonyms of random checkpoint - such as "flying checkpoint" - should be mentioned, as well as where the term was first used and where it is used now. The issue of the level of detail of specific examples of the impact on civilians in different countries or situations can be discussed as the new article takes shape.

She then took a month break from the article "to get some distance, since I felt I could use some." Tiamut is unfailingly gracious and modest about such things. She returned today to restore the material she had asked, by way of compromise, to retain in exchange for moving the article where Isarig wanted it. Isarig immediately began his edit war, bringing things to where they are. Tiamut's various efforts at compromise have been met all along the way with only one response from Isarig – edit-warring. Spartaz and Aminz obviously mean well here, but both the lopsided block and the characterization of Tiamut's work as "vandalism" are unjust.--G-Dett 22:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G-Dett, I am ignorant on this topic. I just felt that this should be used at a global level and as such specifically pointing out that Israel is doing that (plus mentioning the extra details of how long people are in the lines) seemed strange to me. Anyways, I shouldn't have called it "vandalism" as I don't know anything about this topic. --Aminz 22:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the second time Tiamut has been blocked for a 3RR violation on the same article. [6] That alone would suggest a block longer than 24 hours is appropriate. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe 30 hours. I think it may depend on how serious the dispute is and also may depend on her activity on the talk pages. G-Dett says she has been quite active in the discussion pages and believes her edits were not vandalism. --Aminz 23:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth pointing out that her previous 3RR violation on the same article (referred to by SlimVirgin) also came about through another edit war initiated by Isarig,[7] and waged by Isarig against three editors (Tiamut, Steve Hart,[8], Andrew pmk,[9], and Tiamut [10] [11] [12]) over several days, with six reverts total by Isarig, three of which he performed on the day of Tiamut's violation. After Isarig's orgy of edit-warring, he reported Tiamut,[13] resulting in the block SlimVirgin alludes to. Again, the point of WP:3RR is to create a counter-incentive against edit-warring, not to reward edit-warriors for the dexterity of their gamesmanship.--G-Dett 23:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that editors can be blocked for reverting without violating 3RR if the reverting has clearly reached the level of disruption, as the policy says. But the point of 3RR is to make it clear that four reverts is unacceptable. Tiamut has to learn not to revert more than three times in 24 hours regardless of any other consideration. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the point of WP:3RR was "to stop sterile edit wars." All three of Tiamut's 3RR violations happened in the context of edit wars with Isarig, and all three were reported by Isarig, and in each case Isarig had three reverts of his own at the time of filing his report. If WP:3RR is merely the rule book for a game of tic-tac-toe, then it must be said that Isarig is a formidable opponent. Credit where credit's due. But it isn't supposed to be a game. The judicious thing here, obviously, would be to deal even-handedly with both editors, who have a long history, and to take into account Tiamut's unreciprocated attempts at compromise with Isarig.--G-Dett 00:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No such compromise attempts were made. Taimut "agreed" to the name change only after a clear consensus of editors, who came in through the RfC, clearly disagreed with her. She then resumed edit warring over the content of the article, again, against the clear consensus of editors there. She was warned by me after her 3rd revert today, and brazenly continued reverting. If 3RR is to mean anything, violators should be blocked. Blocking non-violators alongside violators makes a mockery of the whole thing. G-Dett is really not one to talk - as she has been a repeat violator of 3RR herself, and often skates the thin ice of exactly 3 reverts per day, and sometimes breaks that ice, though has been spared a report & block by some gracious editors. Isarig 00:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone who edits Middle-East-related material has participated in edit wars, and I'm no exception. I find them to be an unfortunate thing all round, and I try to stay away from them, and I have never reported anybody else for their participation in same. You, by contrast, are both an avid participant in edit wars and an avid contributor to the 3RR noticeboard, and your contributions to the latter invariably grows out of your participation in the former. And this is now the third time you've reported Tiamut for a revert war in which you have yourself racked up three reverts. You are good at tic-tac-toe, Isarig, but you're making a mockery of WP:3RR.--G-Dett 00:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you admit you're no exception to edit wars, and contrary to your assertion above, you're just as avid a participator in them as me, and since you've have had a very recent 3RR violation that has gone unreported, are you advocating that you be blocked now, too (perhaps for a week, as this is your 3rd such violation), in the spirit of dealing even-handedly with violators? or is this merely a continuation of your obsession with me and my edits, all over WP? Isarig 00:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The details of this exchange seem to have been hashed out already, and I'm not certain there's anything I could add that would improve the community's understanding of the Tiamut/Isarig situation. That said, I believe there's a larger problem here that Wikipedians should be willing to address.

Anyone familiar with Wikipedia's articles on the Middle East will know that they tend to be magnets for POV-pushing and edit warring. Since I began engaging with this issue in 2005, I've witnessed innumerable instances of blind reverting, obvious tag-teaming and over-the-top partisanship. While both sides of the "discussion" have been guilty of these offenses, my experience has been that editors on the "pro-Israel" side (to simplify matters a bit) have often been able to win short-term edit wars through the strength of numbers rather than arguments.

There have been numerous instances of 3RR gamesmanship in these articles, and frequent instances of editors being punished for accidentally "slipping up" or violating the policy in an ambiguous manner. These editors will be then reminded of their 3RR violations during subsequent disputes, and threatened with more serious sanctions if they act too boldly. This often has the effect of reducing the 3RR to a tool of intimidation.

If the 3RR is really to be "preventative rather than punitive", this situation needs to change. CJCurrie 03:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One minute after posting this self-righteous missive, CJCurrie proceed to edit the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article, where he has edit warred extensively, in order to revert, without any explanation nor discussion on the Talk page, an edit made by another editor. I hope the irony will not be lost on anyone who might be reading this. A little while later, he manged to outdo even this, by reverting a series of my latest edits, re-introducing in the process a slew of broken links I had carefully removed from the article, with an edit summary that says he doesn't really have a position on the edits being reverted - in other words, he's doing it for the pure sake of reverting. Well done. Isarig 04:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isarig's comments are a inversion of reality. In actuality,

The other editor (Sefringle) introduced significant and contentious changes without discussing them on the talk page. This is not the first time Sefringle has done this. My decision to revert these was neither a violation of policy, nor an error in judgement. (Readers may also be interested in Sefringle's comments here.)
I reverted Isarig for content reasons, and indicated that I had no strong opinion on a question of citations also under discussion. It's possible that I should have expressed myself more clearly, but Isarig must have been aware that was not "doing it for the pure sake of reverting". In any event, I've now removed the dead links per Isarig's request. CJCurrie 05:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC) amended 05:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:68.60.161.6 reported by User:Friendly Neighbour (Result:3h )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 10:05, 19 August 2007

There were five identical reverts by User:68.60.161.6 between 18:12 and 19:36, 19 August 2007 (within 85 minutes!).

Diff of 3RR warning (in edit comment of my revert before his 5th one): 19:30, 19 August 2007

Hi FN, you'll need to supply diffs showing the reverts. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The example says If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. which I understood as "instead". Anyway, here they are:

1st revert: 18:12, 19 August 2007
2nd revert: 18:18, 19 August 2007
3rd revert: 19:13, 19 August 2007
4th revert: 19:25, 19 August 2007
5th revert: 19:36, 19 August 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Friendly Neighbour (talk • contribs).

I have blocked him for 3 hours to teach some respect to the 3RR rule, also semiprotected the article Alex Bakharev 07:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:John Schnell reported by User:TheRingess (Result: 24 hours )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 21:42, 19 August 2007

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning: 21:30, 19 August 2007

Other edit wars and 3RR violations from just this past week by TheRingess:

First example, an ongoing edit war on the Neil Steinberg page: [14]
TheRingess engaging in an aggressive edit war with another editor on that editor's talk page, with TheRingess deleting the editor's contributions to their own talk page: [15] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Surfdude001 (talk • contribs) 22:25:41, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Blocked for 24 hours. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mardavich reported by User:Arcayne (Result: No 3RR violations)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [16]

The reverts are all the same.

1st revert: [17]
2nd revert: [18]
3rd revert: [19]
4th revert: [20]

After extensive debate on the article Discussion page, the decision was rendered to remove the statments of one commentator as niehter as strong or noteworthy (that they had little to actually do with the movie would be an accurate assessment). The violater has been adding it back in repeatedly, arguing that he is the most respected professor, etc. His reverts have been reversed by another editor and myself. The user is a long-time user who is well aware of 3RR, and was warned of his impending violation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a violation of WP:3RR (Where are the time stamps? Why didn't you post them?), if 3 reverts in 3 days is a violation of 3RR then you have violated 3RR as well since you've reverted that article three times within the last 24 hours and dozens of more times within the last few weeks. There was no consensus to remove Touraj Daryaee's criticism from the article, that's an academic source, and repeatedly removing sourced material is borderline vandalism, Touraj Daryaee is a respectable academic and a reliable source. As a historian of Persia, his perspective is very much needed in the article, and according to Wikipedia rules, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "I don't like it" is not a good enough reason to remove sourced material form an article, and it's not up to the editors to "correct" and "evaluate" established academics, and academics sources, that's a violation of WP:NOR. --Mardavich 06:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that anyone used as an argument for removal, 'I don't like it'; however, if you can find it, please let me know. There are also more rules other than verifiability - reliability comes to mind, and it was the consensus of at least three other editors that the statements be removed as not being on-topic enough. However, this isn't the place for a content dispute, Unless you are reverting outright vandalism, maintaining the strident opinion as to your opinion of a source does not serve as a shield against 3RR. It is to protect the article from disruption. As the article is FA, the need to avoid that disruption is ever more important. That you have edit-warred over this is disruptive, and that you have performed 4 edits within a 24 hour period means you broke the rules. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no 3 reverts in 24 hours, thus, no 3RR violation. Alex Bakharev 06:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. I guess pointing out his edit-warring there isn't being taken into consideration? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Reginmund reported by User:Dohanlon (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

[[21]]History Page

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

If you want any admin to consider this, you need to complete the report completely including diffs to the reverts and to the warning. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Biofoundationsoflanguage reported by User:Barryob (Result: 12 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

blocked by Stemontis Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:24.239.178.19 reported by User:Jaranda (Result: 12 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 16:05

1st revert: 16:54
2nd revert: 18:04
3rd revert: 18:17
4th revert: 18:31
5th revert: 18:39

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning: 18:17

User keeps adding copyrighted text against WP:FAIRUSE, I also did four reverts but it's involving copyright and 3rr excepts that. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Jaranda has mistakenly combined three separate edits, involving a NY Times article and two distinct edits involving the Rizzuto poetry book as one violation.

"1st revert" above = NY Times article on Rizzuto's birth
"2nd revert" above = restoring preexisting text (poems)
"3rd revert" above = ditto
"4th revert" above = introducing completely new text
"5th revert" above = ditto

Simply, the same edit/rv was NOT made three times in any of the three instances. And considering that I took pains to explain my reasoning in overlong edit summaries at every stage, while requesting that User Jaranda address his/her concerns on the Discussion page, I respectfully request that the above complaint be dismissed. I did not violate the 3RR rule in actuality, or in spirit. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.239.178.19 (talk)

Any reverts count, not only the same reverts. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't so-- that distinction only applies to very slight rewrites and rephrasings us ed by people deliberately trying to evade the rule. The examples above show three COMPLETELY different blocks of text. I also feel my edit history on the Rizzuto page in the past few days demonstrates seriousness and a desire to mediate (there has been a dispute over Rizzuto's year of birth). I replaced the deleted text with the second set of poems specifically to satisfy User Jaranda's stated criteria. Again, the 3RR complaint is in error, in regards to both behavior and spirit. I hope that he/she will proceed in good faith.24.239.178.19 19:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cowboycaleb1 reported by User:Davnel03 (Result: PP)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [22]

1st revert: 20:53
2nd revert: 21:14
3rd revert: 21:26

User kept on reverting a edit that I made that included a source, so surely removing sources is vandalism. One of his versions was reverted by Nikki311, but he kept on reverting. Davnel03 20:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

48 hoursRlevse 21:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my goof on the block, changing to Page protection since both were warring.Rlevse 22:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Count Iblis reported by The Evil Spartan (Result: Warning)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 08:24, August 20, 2007

1st revert: 09:17, August 20, 2007
2nd revert: 10:29, August 20, 2007
3rd revert: 11:20, August 20, 2007
4th revert: 11:32, August 20, 2007
5th revert: 16:24, August 20, 2007
6th revert: 16:45, August 20, 2007
I will readily admit that two of the edits do not involve exactly the same text, but they do involve the same issue: terrorism, and if Hezbollah falls under its umbrella: this still seems to violate WP:3RR ("all or part of an article"). However, that clearly still leaves four reverts to the title of a section. The Evil Spartan 20:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is complex, partial reverting, so we really need to see the version reverted to for each edit. I know it's a pain, but we need to be sure that the editor isn't simply editing. I can see that he removed terrorist/terrorism three times (13;17, 14:29, and 15:32 UTC); the revert at 15:20 UTC isn't related; and the fifth and sixth at 20:24 and 20:54 UTC are adding "accusations" to a header (so the fifth would be the version reverted to, and the sixth the revert). It might be best if I just leave a warning for him, rather than have you go through the history to pick out all the versions reverted to. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ES, I've left a warning for him. If you want to dig up all the versions reverted to, that can be changed to a block, but it might be best to leave it like this. If he does it again, he can't say he wasn't warned about complex, partial reverting. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)}

For the record, I strongly disagree with this warning. I did seek a compromize during editing and this was not a simple edit war. Let me first address a few of the reversions quoted above.

The final version that was reached was pretty much a solution that everyone can more or less agree on, because I split the section in two parts, separating the actions Hezbollah is accused of from the things that they admit to.

In the earlier edits of today a compromize was reached with Tom Harrison. Just check the third alleged reversion by me and click on "newer edit" a few times to read the progress of editing. I don't see a revert war here at all. You'll see that Tom changed the title to "Terrorism or resistance?" and that I changed it to "Accusations of bombings, terrorism and kidnappings" (I give a detaled explanation in the edit summary and on the talk page). Note that Tom did not change the opening sentence back that I modified in the third alleged reversion.

So, no revert war at all, just constructive editing by a group of editors with different points of views. And then you are bound to see a few reversions, but what matters is the big picture. To see this more clearly, let's go back to the point were the section was first put in:

see here

Now let's see how this section evolved over time by clicking on "newer version" till we reach the last version. I reverted the first version of the section two times in the grounds that this was extremely POV. But I also read what the editor had to say when he reverted me. The third edit by me was to change a few words per WP:WTA, but otherwise, I left the section intact. Now if you look at all the edits then you see that during the edits the issues were discussed using the edit summaries, at least by me (also on the talk page). Ultimately this led to a section that is reasonably NPOV and more or less acceptable to both sides. Clearly, any disputes that remain can be far easier dealt with by editing from the last version than from the original version.

The warning is therefore inappropriate, because if I had edited using this very narrow interpretation of 3RR, I could have reverted 3 times, then write on the talk page about the WP:WTA issue and then you would have had a "legal revert war", where no one does anything exept reverting until his/her 3 reverts are finished. The end result would have been much worse than what we can read now. Count Iblis 23:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have respond to your comments on my talk page. The Evil Spartan 23:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Davnel03 reported by User:cowboycaleb1 (Result:Novio )

Three-revert rule violation on

WWE roster. Davne103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has reverted this page 3 times. He or She reverthed the Page at these times

20:52, 20 August 2007
20:51, 20 August 2007
20:49, 20 August 2007

User:Cowboycaleb1

No vio. only 3 reverts, the 4th one is not there. 3RR requires a 4th reversion.Rlevse 21:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:88.108.95.228 reported by User:Sumoeagle179 (Result: Page protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 20:56, August 20, 2007

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning: 21:20, August 20, 2007

The first warning was actually at 20:44, before the 4th revert, so that's okay. However, the version reverted to is after the first revert. Do you have a prior version? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does version reverted to mean by the violoater or someone else? Anon IP has clearly reverted 4 or more times.Sumoeagle179 21:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can be by anyone. The point is to show that the first edit was a revert to a previous version of the article, or part thereof. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I follow that correctly, then that would be here or one of the other edits around that time.Sumoeagle179 21:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the first revert. You need to supply a diff from before that time, otherwise it's not a revert but an edit. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, User:Gothgirlangel1981 has decided to perpetuate the edit war here Sumoeagle179 22:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the 3RR violation is unclear, and there are multiple people involved, I've protected the page. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pimpedpope reported by User:You Can't See Me! (Result: Page protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

1st revert: 18:49, 20 August 2007
2nd revert: 19:05, 20 August 2007
3rd revert: 19:31, 20 August 2007 (Using three edits)
4th revert: 20:23, 20 August 2007
5th revert: 20:49, 20 August 2007
6th revert: 21:03, 20 August 2007
7th revert: 21:21, 20 August 2007 (Over three edits)
8th revert: 21:33, 20 August 2007 (Over two edits)
9th revert: 21:43, 20 August 2007
Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

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

Diff of 3RR warning:

This message was placed between his eighth and ninth reverts: 21:33, 20 August 2007;

The message was subsequently removed by the user, also between his eighth and ninth reverts: 21:42, 20 August 2007

Note: I have also violated the three revert rule in attempting to deal with his reverts under the impression that they were vandalism. It turns out that his edits were simply unintentional misinformation. However, he has recieved several warnings and explanations about the subject during the course of this edit war, which leads me to question whether or not his misinformation is or isn't unintentional.

Comment - Full revert list.

00:23, August 20, 2007
11:35, August 20, 2007
11:43, August 20, 2007
11:49, August 20, 2007
12:05, August 20, 2007
12:31, August 20, 2007
13:04, August 20, 2007
13:15, August 20, 2007
13:23, August 20, 2007
13:44, August 20, 2007
13:49, August 20, 2007
14:10, August 20, 2007
14:21, August 20, 2007
14:33, August 20, 2007
14:43, August 20, 2007
14:48, August 20, 2007
14:57, August 20, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Someguy0830 (talk • contribs) 22:17, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

I've protected because there are others who appear to have violated 3RR too. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dawgknot reported by User:Digby Tantrum (Result:12 hours )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 20:05, 20 August 2007

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning: 21:43, 20 August 2007

User:Krsont reported by User:Misou (Result: 12 hours, page protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

User's unsourced edit has been reverted by several parties in the course of this Krsont-instigated "war".

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning: [23]

Agreed, looks like 3RR was breached here. I've blocked for 12 hours and protected the template in question to encourage discussion before reversion. Thanks -- Samir 04:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jeeny reported by User:KarenAER (Result: )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: complex

rv to: [24]

- 1st revert: 04:24, 21 August 2007
- 2nd revert: 04:38, 21 August 2007
- 3rd revert: 04:49, 21 August 2007

Not a full revert but partial revert. She removes the word "native" again, ignoring the scope of the article: [25]

- 4th revert: 05:04, 21 August 2007

Comment : I reported her before: [26] She undid her edir edits but was blocked nonetheless but then her block was cancelled. [27] But I warned her this time too: [28] Also note that she started editing European people after I started editing it and continued the edit war about removing/adding the maps which was in White people...KarenAER 05:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Those were edits. I added fact tags, reduced the image sizes, etc. You were the one reverting me, erasing the fact tags I added to unsourced statements and images. Please stop this. This is disruptive. Please. Whenever someone seems to not agree with you, you report them, instead of discussing changes on the talk pages, or ignoring them. - Jeeny ^Talk 06:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, her/his first edit summary, after I was making EDITS on the page was Do not edit war. I feel this is another attempt to get me blocked so edits can be made without NPOV. The White people article is locked, so this article was made to make it another white people article, in my opinion. There is mediation going on. I am more than willing to compromise, but it is very difficult when one's intellegence is insulted, false accusations of wikistalking, and edit warring, etc. And then reporting others to keep them quiet.

She/he kept telling me "enough". As if she/he as the sole owner of the artcle. I tried to engage in conversation, but it always seems to get personal. Then, me, and others tend to get defensive. I wish this to stop. She is also only picking bits and pieces. Here on my talk page, and on her talk page. I don't have time to add more diffs.

Also, the mediator posted this message on my talk page: "Thank you! By the way, as an update, KarenAER has said she will not paticipate, so I am trying to talk to her. If you'd like, you can post preliminary opinions on the discussion page. Neranei (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)". Yet, now she is willing, but only just before reporting me. She has refused other mediation attempts. I have to go to bed. - Jeeny ^Talk 06:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you added the sources to the map images. Thank you. I also self reverted the native part and the image sizing and hopefully any other changes I made. It should be how you wanted it to be now, Karen. - Jeeny ^Talk 07:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You always do this. You edit war and are only cooperative after being reported. The maps were sourced, you knew that, it was discussed a lot in Talk:White people KarenAER 16:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the administrators' noticeboard for three-revert rule violations. It is not a forum for general debate about article content. Both of you, please stop. Raymond Arritt 16:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isnt her past edit warring and violations of 3RR relevant? KarenAER 17:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dutyterms reported by User:Komdori (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 02:11, 21 August 2007

1st revert: 12:02, 21 August 2007 flipped order to S before J again, undoing Wikimachine's self rv here
2nd revert: 12:16, 21 August 2007 flipped order to S before J again, undoing this edit
3rd revert: 12:26, 21 August 2007 reinsertion of "claim/govern", which had been removed here
4th revert: 13:29, 21 August 2007 revert of my edit here, claiming "vandalism"
5th revert: 13:36, 21 August 2007 revert of my edit here

Diff of 3RR warning: 13:29, 21 August 2007

see my below article he is a 3rr violator and he did many unjustified delete.

flipped order to S before J again? no. i do not flipped in recent artcle. [29]Dutyterms 14:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been immediately reverting any change anyone else made to the article that you didn't like. See WP:OWN. See the diffs above for the examples. --Cheers, Komdori 14:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

according to WP:OWN, 'delete warnig article by my own will' does not exist. you delete warning article by your own will. Dutyterms 14:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious violation of 3RR, and the bogus report below on the user reporting does not help your case. Blocked for 24h. Please use the discussion page after the block expires. ELIMINATORJR 14:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Komdori reported by User:Dutyterms (Result: No violation)

Previous version reverted to: [30]

1st revert: [31] unjustified delted
2nd revert: [32] unjustified delted

he 3rr violation at his page.(also, he delete 3rr violation)

1st revert: [33] he delete warning his talk page
2nd revert: [34] he delete warning his talk page
3rd revert: [35] he delete warning his talk page
4th revert: [36] he delete warning his talk page
5th revert: [37] he delete warning his talk page
6th revert: [38] he delete warning his talk page

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

Diff of 3RR warning (Liancourt Rocks page): [39]
Diff of 3RR warning (his talk page): [40]

he did unjustified delte, 2times. in Liancourt Rocks page. and he delete 3rr warning in his talk page more than 3 times by his own will.(no consensus). Dutyterms 13:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing content from your own userpage is not a violation of 3RR - especially when the vandalism warnings that were removed appeared bogus. The user did not violate 3RR on the article concerned (only 2 reverts). No action to be taken here. However, the reporter has almost certainly violated 3RR on the article (see above report). This appears to be a 'revenge' report. Please stop edit-warring and use the discussion page.ELIMINATORJR 14:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hungrywolf reported by User:Blackbeard2k7 (Result: Last warning, article reverted)

Three-revert rule violation on

1st revert: 00:18, 17 August 2007

2nd revert: 00:23, 17 August 2007

3rd revert: 00:26, 17 August 2007

4th revert: 10:00, 17 August 2007

5th revert: 10:01, 17 August 2007

6th revert: 12:19, 17 August 2007

7th revert: 23:52, 17 August 2007

8th revert: 00:17, 18 August 2007

9th revert: 00:18, 18 August 2007

10th revert: 23:50, 20 August 2007

11th revert: 00:10, 21 August 2007

12th revert: 00:11, 21 August 2007

13th revert: 06:40, 21 August 2007

14th revert: 08:40, 21 August 2007

Diffs of warnings:

The user didn't specifically get a 3RR warning. However, the user was warned against reverting and edit warring several times. Some examples are shown below:

[41] User was warned to discontinue adding promotional material and spam links to the article. He reverted the warning admins edits, 3 times in a row.

[42] The user was warned here about reverting edits in bad faith, but disregarded the warning and reverted anyway.

[43] Again the user was warned about reverting and edit warring, but ignored the warning and continued to revert. The user continues to revert changes to the article.

I've given a last warning to Hungrywolf about this rather pointless edit war. I've reverted the article myself, explained why on the talk page, and another reversion will draw a block. ELIMINATORJR 22:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Watch844 reported by User:JFD (Result: Indefinitely blocked )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 13:18, 20 August 2007

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning: 15:15, 20 August 2007

User:Anietor reported by User:Peter cohen (Result: )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 05:06, 21 August 2007

1st revert: 22:47, 20 August 2007
2nd revert: 05:01, 21 August 2007
3rd revert: 06:32, 21 August 2007
4th revert: 19:01, 21 August 2007 partial revert of material reverted above

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion. Warning not issued: user has been active since 18:03, 11 November 2006 ; user is aware of 3RR rule due to discussion in parallel accusation of sockpuppetry at [Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Anietor]

Comment A detail I forgot to mention is that two of these edits are actually rollbacks. The 2nd reverts 4 edits by three different editors, the third reverts 8 edits by the same three different editors. --Peter cohen 23:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vidor reported by User:DCGeist (Result: withdrawn)

~~Previous version reverted to: 18:31, August 19, 2007~~
~~Four reverts in under 19 hours:~~

1st revert: 21:20, August 20, 2007

2nd revert: 08:58, August 21, 2007

3rd revert: 15:44, August 21, 2007

~~4th revert: 16:05, August 21, 2007~~

Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion. Warning not issued--user active since May 2006. Advisory of violation issued on user's Talk page ([44]) and relevant article's Talk page ([45]). Subsequent communication from user offers neither rationalization nor apology for/reversion of violation ([46]).

Follow-up: Notice of this report given on User:Vidor's Talk page: [47].—DCGeist 22:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final follow-up; User has reverted the violating edit ([48]). I wish to withdraw this report. I am not certain if it is proper for me to delete it, so I have crossed it out.—DCGeist 23:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Comprendo reported by User:Kevin (Result: Article semi-protected, new editor warned)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: any version without Empress of Soul

1st revert: 02:41 21 August
2nd revert: 03:24 21 August
3rd revert: 04:25 21 August
4th revert: 05:23 21 August
5th revert: 07:56 21 August
6th revert: 17:15 21 August
7th revert: 20:56 21 August

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning: 08:58 21 August
And a previous more friendly warning: 05:14 21 August —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevin (talk • contribs) 22:07, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

As User:Comprendo is a new account, for simplicity and to avoid biting the newbies too hard I have semi-protected the article for a couple of days, and explained to Comprendo what s/he is doing wrongly. ELIMINATORJR 22:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aatomic1 reported by User:Padraig (Result: 1 week)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 13:30, 15 August 2007

Editor has just been warned here about continued edit warring, and has previously been blocked for a 3RR violation making the same edit (adding a list of dead) to the same article. padraig 23:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As this was his third 3rr violation (second on the same article), and since he offered a fairly flippant response to the warning placed on his talk page, I have temporarily blocked him for 1 week. Kuru ^talk 02:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:RookZERO reported by User:HubcapD (Result: Page protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: VersionLink VersionTime

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning: 18:09, 20 August 2007

Now, I know this is not 3 reverts in 24 hours, but this guy has been dinged before for violating the 3RR rule. See [49], [50].HubcapD 01:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HubcapD, given that you've been the main person reverting RookZERO, you're at least as close to a 3RR violation as he is. However, I have no confidence that blocking even both of you would stop the edit war there, so please take the next week to talk things out or seek any necessary dispute resolution. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I have tried to talk to this guy regarding the edit, and he ignores me. I honestly don't know what else to do. I suppose I'll look into dispute resolution and see what remedies are available. But I made what I feel is a good edit and he gives me no reason whatsoever for reverting it. Also, if you look over the history of this guy's editing history regarding Scientology-realted articles, he has of history of acting in this manner.HubcapD 05:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, HubcapD, you have been in a discussion with him, but of all the scientology-related articles, the David Miscavige article seems to be the most contentious and edit warring has been frequent. You have been very active on the POV front of that article.--Fahrenheit451 23:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Frikkers reported by User:VanTucky (Result: page protection, warning)

Three revert violation on Boerboel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Frikkers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user has been blocked three times previously for edit-warring in the same manner on the same article, and warned again by a sysop in the period he made the recent reverts. After making a single cursory article talk statement ages ago (while still not failing to make user talk comments) he has directly ignored admonishment to have a consensus-building discussion and simply continues to revert once his block is up. Just as a clarification, I realize it is almost 100% of the time completely unnacceptable for me to continue to revert Frikkers like I have, but I have continued to try and create a talk discussion that can resolve the conflict, and have continually invited Frikkers to join me there. Time reported: 05:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

02:39, August 21, 2007
03:13, August 21, 2007
04:41, August 22, 2007
04:45, August 22, 2007
05:58, August 22, 2007 Note: after this reversion, Frikkers made a talk statement, thus I did not revert again. VanTucky ^(talk) 06:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VanTucky, I really understand your frustration in dealing with this. While the most recent reversions by Frikkers certainly are contravening the spirit of 3RR (which usually is enough for a block), I see that previous blocks didn't affect his behaviour. I think the better way to deal with this is to protect the page to encourage discussion. -- Samir 06:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good solution to me. Thank you VanTucky ^(talk) 07:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yilloslime reported by User:NCdave (Result: old issue already dealt with)

Three-revert rule violation on

This was a particularly blatant violation. Each of his four edits were exact reverts, not questionable cases, and each time that's all he did, just revert, four times. What's more, he didn't just get confused about the time or forget what he'd done the day before: he did all four reverts in a span of just 127 minutes.

These are the diffs:

rv #1: 23:47, 19 July 2007 exactly and entirely reverted this immediately preceding edit: [51]

rv #2: 00:02, 20 July 2007 exactly and entirely reverted the combination of these two preceding edits: [52] and [53]

rv #3: 00:26, 20 July 2007 exactly and entirely reverted this immediately preceding edit: [54]

rv #4: 01:55, 20 July 2007 exactly and entirely reverted this immediately preceding edit: [55]

Yilloslime was not unaware of the rule. In fact, the previous month he had, himself, accused another editor of 3RR violation.[56]

What's more, compounding the offense, Yilloslime is one of a handful of editors who have been working to make this biography of a living person into a "hit piece" against the subject of the biography. As a glance at the talk page shows, various other editors (including myself, Theblog, Peroxisome, "Uncle Ed" Poor, 66.75.3.244, 88.105.242.190, 202.61.229.85, and 147.114.226.172) have objected to the inaccuracies and/or POV-bias of the article. But Yilloslime refuses to allow even a warning that the accuracy of the article is disputed by other editors.

Whatever his opinion about the merits of the article and the arguments over it, and regardless of the intensity of his dislike for Mr. Milloy, it is an indisputable fact that the accuracy and neutrality of this article have been repeatedly disputed by other editors. Yet Yilloslime repeatedly removed warning tags from the article, to hide that fact from readers of the article. That is not acting in good faith or seeking consensus.

I am an easy-going guy, and I've never before filed a 3RR complaint against anyone. I held off for a month reporting even this particularly blatant 3RR violation, even though Yilloslime (who does not have a statistics degree) has made some highly questionable accusations against Mr. Milloy, including the charge that he "cherry-picks" statistics[57]. (Note that Millow has an advanced degree in statistics, and Yilloslime has no comparable expertise.) I prefer to try to reason with other editors, and seek consensus, which I've done extensively on the Steven Milloy Talk page.[58]

But Yilloslime and his little group of Milloy-bashing allies are not content to debate the merits of the article on the Talk page, and insert their POV into the article. They are now abusing Wikipedia's administrative system to stifle discussion by banning editors who disagree with them. His allies, MastCell and Raul654, have just permanently blocked User:Peroxisome, not for any clear violation of Wikipedia rules, but for the sin of discussing the Steven Milloy article's severe POV bias on the Talk page. They are now trying to do the same thing to me, for the the same sin, and Yilloslime has chimed in supporting them. NCdave 06:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't think a block is appropriate for a 3RR violation from a month ago on this article. I appreciate that you are trying to sort this situation out, but WP:AN3 isn't really an appropriate venue. Thanks for understanding -- Samir 06:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that a warning User:Yilloslime is warranted, and will do so -- Samir 06:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon review, it looks like this issue was already dealt with a month ago: [59] -- Samir 02:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:84.100.98.191 reported by User:AndyJones (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [60]

This IP is User:PierreLarcin who has a history of disruptive editing on this page, and is well aware of the 3RR rule. The people he is edit-warring with aren't handling the matter well either, it seems to me (although PierreLarcin can be difficult to deal with rationally). However unless they are sockpuppets of each other they haven't breached 3RR, so far as I can tell. AndyJones 12:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Postscript: since I posted the above, User:Bombastus has done a further revert, and I've put a warning here.AndyJones 16:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fairly obvious 3RR violation. User:Bombastus would do well to step back from edit-warring as well - stopping at 3 reverts may technically be avoiding a violation, but that doesn't mean you can't be blocked for it. I will keep an eye on this page. ELIMINATORJR 22:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eyrian reported by User:Edokter (Result: retracted)

Three-revert rule violation on

1st revert: 16:09
2nd revert: 16:11
3rd revert: 17:19
4th revert: 19:03

Diff of 3RR warning: 19:18

Eyrian keeps removing half the page. On the verge of breaking 3RR myself, I am reporting him here, as he shows no sign of stopping pushing his version. He has less then 50 edits and does not seem to understand the concept of consensus; he just keeps reverting to his preferred version. — Edokter • Talk • 17:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I count two reverts. Edokter is advised to note that I'm an admin with two years of experience and nearly 10,000 edits. --Eyrian 17:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Then Wikipedia defenitely had a glitch showing only one page on your contributions. Never the less, as an admin, you should *defenityely* know you are supposed to discuss and seek consensus first instead of edit-warring. The fact you are an admin with 10,000 edits does not in any way speak in your favor or excuse you of your behaviour. Someone disagrees with your edit? Then you are NOT supposed to keep reverting! — Edokter • Talk • 17:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I did discuss. Two days prior. --Eyrian 17:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

And I disagreed. After which point we should both wait for more input and leave the article as it was. Instead, you were pushing your version. In any case, let's move this back to the talk page. — Edokter • Talk • 18:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deadriene16 reported by User:ArabicX (Result: 2 24 hours blocks)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 12:37, 22 August 2007

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning: 17:02, 22 August 2007

This user is not responding on the article talkpage at all to discuss the edits or my objections and suggestions. He also deleted my warning on his talkpage.

I've blocked both Deadriene16 and ArabicX for 24 hours. While ArabicX only reverted 3 times, they were all within less than 5 hours. It's still edit warring, even if you stop after 3 reverts. --Tango 20:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Commodore Sloat reported by User:Isarig (Result:No block)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 17:27, 21 August 2007

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME User has been blocked for 3RR numerous times before.

Clear case of 3RR gaming, 4th revert coming at 24h + less than 1 minute.

I self-reverted for now. Please note that Isarig's fourth revert came in 25 hours on the same page; his reporting me for "gaming" is clearly hypocritical. csloat 20:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No block due to the self-reverting. I will say, though, that the issue you cite is not for this page. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Italiavivi reported by User:Ferrylodge (Result: no action )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

1st revert: 16:59, August 22, 2007 (undoing edits of another editor at talk page, by striking them out in violation of guidelines).
2nd revert: 17:05, August 22, 2007
3rd revert: 18:13, August 22, 2007
4th revert: 18:18, August 22, 2007

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

Italiavivi is not new (he's edited for more than a year and has been blocked twice).

In addition to the above 3RR violation, Italiavivi completely deleted the comments of others today at a talk page here and here and here. Italiavivi has also been uncivil here (“You are a liar") and here (“telling the same lies”) and here (accusing others of “screaming”) and here (more accusations of “screaming” and “goading").Ferrylodge 20:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a standard 3RR issue, so I've given him a warning on his talk page. I don't think a block is called for unless he does it again. --Tango 20:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is decidedly not a 3RR issue. I am entitled to removing uncivil remarks per WP:TALK, including lies. This report should be completely dismissed. Italia^vivi 20:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lies are not automatically uncivil. Only blatant personal attacks should be removed, and even that is controversial. If you believe that something which has been said is untrue, then just reply to it explaining your view. --Tango 20:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree that reproducing known lies is not inherently uncivil. To repeat false allegations about another editor which one knows to be false is clearly so. Italia^vivi 21:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I don't think this is a 3RR issue. Making substantive edits to other people's comments, yes, he's doing that; Making hysterical accusations against others, and being otherwise uncivil, yes, he's doing that too; but those are not matters for this page. I don't think the 3RR rule is intended for situations like these, so I disagree with this report. Zsero 21:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to listen to claims of incivility coming from editors who characterize those they're in disputes with as espousing "hysteria," by the way. Italia^vivi 21:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I never said anything about Italiavivi and hysteria.Ferrylodge 21:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the four items that I listed do you think was not a revert?Ferrylodge 21:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear to anyone involved that this was a WP:TALK matter, not a WP:3RR matter. Even if it were a WP:3RR matter, your first diff is an original contribution, not a revert (falsely characterizing the new addition of strike tags as a revert?). I have received User:Tango's admonition, and while I strongly disagree with his stance that lies are not inherently uncivil, there is nothing more to be said here. Time for you to let it go. Italia^vivi 21:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please pay attention to the warning you received from Tango.Ferrylodge 21:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please abide by your own supposed dislike for editing/deleting others' comments. If you are unwilling to allow the entirely of our dialogue on your User_talk page, please remove all of it instead of cutting it in half and only allowing your "last word." Italia^vivi 21:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy for user rtalk pages is not the same as policy for other talk pages.Ferrylodge 21:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, seriously, take it to your talk pages or move on. Just stop having the discussion here. Italiavivi already got a warning from Tango so it would appear this 3RR report is closed. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:82.33.32.141 reported by User:Rmhermen (Result: Page Semi-protected )

- Three-revert rule violation on

No actual 3RR here, but page semi-protected: should sort it out. ELIMINATORJR 22:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:`Abd al-Ghafur reported by User:Nadav1 (Result: 24 hour block )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 12:56, 21 August 2007

3RR Warnings: [61]

The user refuses to explain his many reverts, which is very frustrating. I hope a short block would make him learn to communicate. nadav (talk) 07:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Someguy0830 reported by User:Slakr (Result:96H block )

Three-revert rule violation on

User has been blocked twice already due to 3RR violations. --slakr 03:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 96 hours. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lester2 reported by User:Prester John (Result: No action )

Three-revert rule violation on

All reverts are the same;

1st revert: 22:29 21 Aug
2nd revert: 03:52 22 Aug
3rd revert: 04:18 22 Aug
4th revert: 04:18 23 Aug

Lester2 is a special purpose account with the only purpose of edit warring on the John Howard article. This user has made less than 250 edits and has been blocked 3 times for edit warring on this article, seemingly the only one he edits. While this report exceeds the 24 hour time frame, you can see with the last two edits he is violation of the spirit of 3RR and seems determined to "game" this system and these procedures. His last two 3RR blocks for edit warring on this article attracted only 48 hour penalties. I advocate to the ruling admin that the usual policy of increasing time penalties be enforced, (especially given his block history with this article) to at least try and teach a lesson. Nothing seems to be working at the moment. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 04:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see edit warring but not a 3RR vio. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. I haven't checked the content of the four edits that User:Prester John has cited (above) but looking at the dates listed, they start at 21 Aug and finish 23 August. The WP:SPA allegation seems a bit unnecessary to be in this report, but as it's in public view, I wish to say that have spent many of the past 24 hours creating new content for Wikipedia, the latest being the a totally new article on Lyall Howard, a few minutes ago. I'm sorry to find User: Prester John has already left an uncivil remark on Talk:Lyall_Howard. Lester2 06:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be reverting anything for the time being, as I want to avoid 3RR. Though I just wanted to point out that the first of those edits cited above was new content being added, and not reverted. The existing information about a 'petrol station' was not deleted, but is below the new info. Anyway, I won't change that info over the next 24 hours just to be sure. Thanks, Lester2 09:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think this really needs to be dealt with elsewhere with evidence of edit warring, disruption and gaming 3RR resented over a longer period. ?AN/I would be a better place. Lester2, your voluntary withdrawal from editing for a day is commendable. To avoid allegations of gaming 3RR you could try sticking to one revert a day (1RR) and then seeking consensus on the talk page if your edit is reverted by another user. Not pursuing edits that have been failed to obtain consensus on the talk page would reduce the load on the article no end. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sasanoha reported by User:Endroit (Result: 24 hour block )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 15:34, 22 August 2007

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning: 13:16, 21 August 2007

User:Beh-nam reported by User:DWC LR (Result: )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 11:54, 22 April 2007

1st revert: 17:54, 23 August 2007
2nd revert: 18:56, 23 August 2007
3rd revert: 21:22, 23 August 2007 (Not Logged in)
4th revert: 21:33, 23 August 2007

User objects to listing Ahmad Shah Khan, Crown Prince of Afghanistan on a disambiguation page for people named Ahmad Shah. - dwc lr 21:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Moulton reported by User:ConfuciusOrnis (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 01:29, 23 August 2007

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning: 04:04, 23 August 2007

There are technically more than four, but the piecemeal way he makes the reverts makes it hard to count, also edit-warring over the same issue at A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. ornis (t) 22:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ksyrie reported by User:Addhoc (Result: )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 03:39, 13 July 2007

Request from Ksyrie

User:Addhoc are always blanking the page of South Tibet and redirect it to a non-identical geographic name.South Tibet is much larger than the Arunachal Pradesh.No matter how many times I put links or refs,he insisted on vandal the article.My revert is seen as Antivandal.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 23:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just asked for Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 23:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed and removed the request at WP:AIV. This is a content dispute and making 3RR violations under the guise of "antivandal" activity is both disingenuous and counterproductive to the resolution of the dispute. Trusilver 23:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Addhoc 23:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Noroton reported by User:Cyde (Result: blocked for 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 2007-08-23T17:06:08

1st revert: 2007-08-23T18:43:55
2nd revert: 2007-08-23T18:55:49
3rd revert: 2007-08-23T19:10:13 especially relevant: note the edit summary of "I'll revert forever."
4th revert: 2007-08-23T19:12:56

Noroton only stopped revert warring once the page was protected. He was citing an interesting interpretation of the external links policy, an interpretation that many people disagree about, and he is not "entitled" to ignore 3RR.

The site that he was removing a link from has a particularly nasty attack on a Wikipedian, which was even nastier at the time of some of the reverts. This has nothing to do with trying to push his own POV or getting his own preferred version of an article. Besides, the article is protected now, so a block would be purely punitive. ElinorD (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're wrong. There was significant disagreement on both sides on whether there was an attack of any substance. The whole point about 3RR is that it cannot be violated; people edit warring always think they are immune from it and will always make up excuses, whether it's "Oh, the other guy is vandalizing" (when it's really a content dispute) or "Oh, the other guy is wrong". 3RR exists to prevent this mindless edit warring. --Cyde Weys 00:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page is protected. What would the block prevent? Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Him edit warring again as soon as the page is unprotected and he inevitably continues removing the link? --Cyde Weys 00:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weren't we speaking the other day[62] about blocking both parties to an edit war? Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, sounds about right. --Cyde Weys 00:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think instead of blocking everyone who removed or restored the link, the lighter weight solution would be to leave the page protected while a consensus forms. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone else who removed/restored the link aren't in violation - only one defiant user, reported here. smb 00:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Noroton is still at it, even now, removing the same link from a seperate page. smb 00:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to report this too. I ask for a block of at least 72 hours. This issue was decided by consensus, and Noroton is making POINT and DISRUPT violations. I also ask that Tom Harrison withdraw from this issue. No offense but his RW stances are very well known and usually affect his POV, many people feel. Look how he was one of the first administrators to come to this issue here. Some might say to protect his RW friends. •smedleyΔbutler• —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:41, August 24, 2007 (UTC).

I have blocked Noroton for 24 hours (standard given that this is his first 3RR violation). It's true that Michael Moore is now protected, and ElinorD is right that blocking should only be preventative, not punitive -- but looking over the sheer amount of articles he's been removing links from, and especially the "I'll revert forever" comment, it's clear that preventative block needs to take place. Noroton's actions have gone against the spirit of 3RR -- to prevent mindless edit warring against consensus, especially on controversial subjects like our "attack sites" policy, as well as the letter. --Krimpet 00:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norton was editing in good faith in compliance with WP:NPA#External links, and there was a consensus that the site being removed contained an attack. This block should be reversed. - Crockspot 01:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Be honest. Therre was no consensus that there was any attack from the mm.com page after the 'edit this page' links were taken off. And Noroton made many edits after this. And after he knew about it. •smedleyΔbutler• 02:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am being honest. Most people thought it was an attack. Not all of those same people thought the links should be removed. There was no clear consensus on that, and still is not. The policy at the time of the block did not mention consensus. It has been changed since the block. The block should be reversed. - Crockspot 02:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Putting the real name and photo of an editor, along with his Wikipedia identity, on the main page of a website, is extremely inappropriate, consensus or no consensus. It's actually far worse than the invitation to edit his user page. And it's most unusual to block after a page has been protected, even in a standard, POV-driven edit war, which is always based on the offending editor trying to enforce his version of a page. This was an entirely different case. ElinorD (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, let's be honest: Until about two weeks ago THF's user name was his real name, then he changed it to his real initials. He introduced himself on his page, and named his employer. He efforted to have inserted into 25 articles work he authored under his name attacking Michael Moore. He is writing a WSJ article, which he mentions now on his User page, and tells other editor he'll let them know when it is up. In fact, his employer, AEI, knows all about the Michael Moore situation now. The cat's not out of the bag, the cat was never in the bag. This is a made up "attack" that people who dislike Moore have jumped on to foam at the mouth. The block not only was justified, a lesson and a definition of "attack site" should come out of all of this that doesn't make us look ridiculous. --David Shankbone 03:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would not have blocked had he only revert warred on the now-protected Michael Moore. The fact that he was mass-reverting many other articles, even after the protection of Michael Moore, only further bolsters my belief that he would have continued to revert indefinitely, only making the situation worse. --Krimpet 02:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Additionally, I notice that Noroton was previously warned for violating 3RR on Controversies over the film SiCKO back in late June, though he was not blocked. --Krimpet 03:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to attack site seems pretty clear that Noroton was acting properly and should be unblocked. It also might suggest that those reverting him are vulnerable to a block. And anticipating the argument that "ARBCOM does not make policy", I would direct readers to another ruling: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams 2#Arbitration rulings. - Crockspot 03:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't select arbitrary proposed principles and place them out of context, Crockspot. Would the finding of fact, "Encyclopedia Dramatica as an outing and attack site", be legitimate if one replaced "Encyclopaedia Dramatica" with "MM.com"? --Iamunknown 03:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MM.com does not habitually "engage in the practice" of publishing private information about editors, as far as I know (though I had never seen it before). Nevertheless, at the time that Noroton was removing the links to the main page, the main page was harassing THF (and possibly still is). ElinorD (talk) 03:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether MM.com engaged in harassment previously is a matter of debate, but I am of the opinion that it is not now. Check for yourself: Click the first result for this Google search. They don't link to THF's user page, they aren't maintaining the "edit" links, but they instead display publicly-known information and link to the history of an article THF has edited, as if to point out a conflict of interest (I have not investigated whether or not this concern is legitimate, and so have no comment).

We have a serious question on our hands: How far are we willing to go to remove links to "attack sites", apparently to be broadly construed, at every instance a web site is hosting revealing information? Wikipedia is extremely wide known, and has a broad spectrum of discontented critics. Revealing posts, usually feeding off of familiar sites like WR or ED, are posted to more mainstream sites more often: Slashdot, now MM.com; what next, the NYTimes Wikipedia blog? Are we going to remove all of those links too?

It grieves me to see editors' right to privacy stolen from them, but this massive drama simply cannot continue every instance of an alleged "attack site". It is untenable. The proper response is not to freak out about it; create drama across several noticeboards and talk pages; remove links to the alleged "attack site", which by the defintion of ArbCom is not an attack site; delete offending posts; and revert and block bewildered newbies; the proper response to lock down a user's user and user talk page, post something to abate the curiosity of others, and simply revert, block, and ignore the vandals and trolls.

Note that my post is not addressed to you alone, Elinor. This whole MM.com incident has raised quite a few tempers and its fair share of drama; I guess that my post is part of the proceedings. --Iamunknown 04:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No personal attacks#External links at that time said clearly that links to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations should be removed, and that removal was not subject to 3rr. User:Noroton was doing that in good faith, thought he was following policy, and got blocked for it, even though the page was then protected. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a convenient location for this discussion to continue. Please do so, if desired, to ANI, the user's talkpage, or another appropriate page. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 04:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Edwardosaido reported by User:Italiavivi (Result: 24 hours )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [63]

Edwardosaido is a new user, but was warned twice by both User:Isarig and myself. Diffs of 3RR warnings:
- 06:12, 23 August 2007, warned by Isarig
- 22:30, 23 August 2007, warned by myself Italia^vivi 02:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours. --Haemo 03:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zsero reported by User:Italiavivi (Result: )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [64]

Removal of age difference between Fred Thompson and Jeri Kehn Thompson.

Editor is not a new user, but was warned regardless 14:43, 22 August 2007. Italia^vivi 02:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, FTR I should point out that the warning came 7 hours after the last of these reverts, and I did not revert it again until 43 hours later, allowing time for further discussion. During those two days, Italiavivi received at least three separate warnings for his conduct (here and here). Now he makes this report, two days after the supposed infraction and after all that has passed between us during that time. I think it's fair to call that gaming the system.

If anyone's interested in the underlying dispute, see User talk:Zsero/Fred Thompson. Zsero 03:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Irpen reported by User:Alex Kov (Result: )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [65]

1st revert: [66]
2nd revert: [67]
3rd revert: [68]
4th revert: [69]
5th revert: [70]

All these edits were aimed to remove the template from the article. Such reverts were also noticed in the past ([71], [72]) without discussing points he dislikes at the talk page. Some other Russian-related users are also removing the template consistenly, making personal attcks in the way Warning: please don't add idiotic infoboxes: they will be deleted. ([73]) --Alex Kov 09:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: this is not 5 but merely 1 revert but made in several steps. As I realized the need of removal only gradually though removing of nonsense piece by piece from the nationalist infobox pushed by a lone user against the consensus at talk. Once I removed several misleading items in a series of separate edits one after another, I realized that the rest of the box is out of place. See article's talk for more. --Irpen 10:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Example

<!-- copy from _below_ this line -->

===[[User:NAME_OF_USER]] reported by [[User:YOUR_NAME]] (Result: )===
*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~

*Previous version reverted to: [http://VersionLink VersionTime]

<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->

*1st revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*2nd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*3rd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*4th revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

*Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
*Diff of 3RR warning: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

<!-- copy from _above_ this line -->

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia'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	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards