Template:Moveprotected

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
Shortcuts WP:AN/3 WP:AN3 WP:AN/EW WP:ANEW WP:AN/3RR 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. 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)
347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356
357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366
Incidents (archives, search)
1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161
1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479
480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489
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

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

• Three-revert rule violation on Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Gdewilde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 06:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 18:05, July 15, 2008

• 1st revert: 17:46, July 16, 2008
• 2nd revert: 17:53, July 16, 2008
• 3rd revert: 03:51, July 17, 2008 (partial revert--same material as previous 2 reverts.)
• 4th revert: 04:41, July 17, 2008 - this is revert is unrelated to the prior three. (Version (partially) reverted to: 04:29, July 17, 2008)
• 5th revert: 05:57, July 17, 2008 - this is a partial revert of my preceding edit: 05:16, July 17, 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 21:58, July 13, 2008 Note: user maintains a highly refactored talkpage and has removed this warning.

• I note admit that I myself am at 3 reverts for this page, although this one was the removal of unattributed, non-encased-in-quotation-marks copyrighted material. Also note that in the edit summaries of the first two reverts noted above Gdwilde labels the good faith edits of no less than 5 editors as "vandalism." Yilloslime (t) 06:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit unclear about the last two diffs (are these actual reverts?); although I can't say I'm too impress with Gdewilde's tone at the talk page. El_C 08:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. I reviewed Yilloslime's edits too, and couldn't find any three actionable reverts. — Werdna • talk 10:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article:Book of Mormon. Here are the edits:

• 17 July 15:28 [1]
• 17 July 15:46 [2]
• 17 July 16:02 [3]
• 17 July 16:15 [4]
• 17 July 1623 [5]

Warning: [6] DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the links. These are all for different issues. First it was length, which was fixed. Then it was for "balance", in which this editor replaced with an easily checked error. Then it was a different reason for another editor. These are not reverts, but attempts to edit in WP:VF from WP:RS while addressing concerns raised while doing so. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether they were related or not does not change the 3RR. However, it's customary to warn people earlier in the process, and only to report them in the case of a further revert after that. Coupled with the fact that this case is nearly a day old, I don't think any further action on my part would accomplish anything. On a side issue, would DJ Clayworth please use the proper template (found at the bottom of this page) for future reports? Stifle (talk) 13:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Three-revert rule violation on Scooter (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

83.142.202.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 23:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [7]

• 1st revert: [8]
• 2nd revert: [9]
• 3rd revert: [10]
• 4th revert: [11]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [12]

As can be seen from 83.142.202.41's user contributions, they are on a constant barrage of changing all Scooter related articles they can think of to reflect their incorrect views about the genre of the band, with scant regard for how many reversions are required. Wikipedia should not be a war of attrition in my eyes.Syxx (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 12 hours Stifle (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Three-revert rule violation on Britic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Note, the dispute is over whether or not the page should be decapitalized, like iPhone is. Since "britic" has been marketed in lower-case, like the iPhone, with, in fact, the use of a capital 'B' in the spelling of "britic" going against the very definition of the britic spelling system itself, it was decided on the request for page moves before that it would use the decapitalization template. User:Nouse4aname however kept removing this, and refused to listen to explanations or warnings.

Time reported: 9:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• 1st revert: [13]
• 2nd revert: [14]
• 3rd revert: [15]
• 4th revert: [16]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [17]

The user appears to have a history of edit warring, and has been blocked for it before. I fear that a perhaps longer block may be needed to deter the user in future. MinYinChao (talk) 09:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of any previous agreement was provided to me regarding an agreement to place the page using lowercase. I realise I exceeded 3RR and have not changed the page since. My "history" of edit warring is only when previously dealing with the disruptive editor User:USEDfan and his socks. I have requested an explanation as to why the page should be in lowercase here as I can see no reason in the English language as to why lowercase is used. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the first diff above is not a revert. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected In future, can the reporter please use the template below to make reports? Stifle (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Now unprotected as the issue seems to be resolved. Stifle (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. MinYinChao (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mitigating circumstances aside, it is a pretty straightforward 3rr violation by a user who was blocked for 3rr about a month ago. I would have opted for a block. El_C 17:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, that's right, I have a couple of blocks (one which was over-turned), and so I must be only interested in disrupting the encyclopedia and have nothing to contribute, so why not block me, right? How about a little WP:AGF? I assume that the other user would also have been blocked considering they also broke WP:3RR.... Oh, and again, the first diff provided above was not a revert Nouse4aname (talk) 09:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Three-revert rule violation on 2000 in British music‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

User cannot accept that there are 2 views on when the new millennium began. The popular view (1 Jan 2000) and the other (1 Jan 2001). I keep trying to establish balance on this question but he keeps reverting in an intolerant and bullying way.

a number of editors have warned Pro66 about 3RR - see his talk page history.

Time reported: 14:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• 1st revert: [18]
• 2nd revert: [19]
• 3rd revert: [20]
• 4th revert: [21]

• Diff of 3RR warning:[22] this user is threatening others with 3RR!

Pro3RR has removed the official 3RR warning from his talk page. I have restored it.

The user appears to have a history of edit warring. He constantly reverts on a number of articles to protect a blatantly POV position. 62.64.210.156 (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user itself has violeted the 3rrs many times under one range of IP Addresses, it is acepted that one view is correct which is not the IP Address POV other usrs have reverted him calling him a vandal. Also lying that i have "a history" of edit warring which a quick look is not true and of course this is the only user i have warned that he is in violations of the 3rrs. he is enforcing his own POV onto wikipedia and shows lack of regard for other wikipedians. This report should be about the user not the other way round. Pro66 (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also a quick look at the reverts shows that my edits were more nuetral and about what the article is about.....Music not what year the millennium had started this shows that he has been disrupting this article. Pro66 (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

format diffs 62.64.210.79 (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the user is unfairly targeting me as he dissagree with me and what other wikipedians had put onto some articles, refuse to acknowledge what was said to him and what is accepted on theses articles, he never had discussions with others on why i have my views (which is accepted by many on wikipedia), and also he is the one who has breaked the 3rr. Pro66 (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be honest. Both have technically violated WP:3RR. Pro66 has been warned. The IP hopping edit acting against consensus made the warning.

(←)Pro66's edits which remove the phrase: "Being the first year in the new millennium"

1. 18:31, 17 July 2008 (edit summary: "the year is not the first of the millennium, 2001 is as there is no such thing as a year 0 in our calender, look at this article first if u wish to vanderlise my edit: Year zero") a removal, not necessarily a revert
2. 19:34, 17 July 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 226291224 by 62.64.212.209 (talk)get an education the millennium started in 2001 look at Year zero")
3. 22:34, 17 July 2008 (edit summary: "no its not the convention to do so its only popular culture that says so (incorrectly) and this is an enclopedia not some pop culture website.")
4. 23:08, 17 July 2008 (edit summary: "coz of popular culture as i said its incorrect, the calender says no year 0 the 1st milliunium starts wiv year 1 therefore 2000 cant be the first year of the 3rd it will be 2001.")
5. 11:06, 18 July 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 226418865 by 62.64.210.157 (talk)rm v")
6. 12:10, 18 July 2008 (edit summary: "......")
7. 12:18, 18 July 2008 (edit summary: "....")
8. 12:32, 18 July 2008 (edit summary: "POV again your breaking 3RR")

The IP's edits which insert the phrase:

1. 62.64.212.209 18:43, 17 July 2008 (edit summary: "This millennium started 2000. Last millennium 1000. First millennium 1. Get used to it. And learn to spell !!")
2. 62.64.208.233 22:15, 17 July 2008 (edit summary: "All millennia AD end in years x999. Therefore the following year always begins a new millennium. That's the naming rule (convention) people follow.")
3. 62.64.208.233 23:00, 17 July 2008 (edit summary: "Odd. Nearly everyone celebrated the new millennium 31 Dec 1999 - 1 Jan 2000.")
4. 62.64.210.157 09:57, 18 July 2008 (edit summary: "")
5. 62.64.210.156 12:04, 18 July 2008 (edit summary: "")
6. 62.64.210.156 12:17, 18 July 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 226433213 by Pro66 (talk)")
7. 62.64.210.156 12:29, 18 July 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 226434258 by Pro66 (talk)")

Warning of Pro66 by 62.64.210.156 12:48, July 18, 2008

The user had been warned previously for 3RR, as can be seen from the talk page, but I can't find the diff to see whether the warning was based on actual reverts or even edit warring.

I'm not going to block, because I believe the user's edits were supported by consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Time, and I'd reverted a number of the IP range's edits on other articles, but it's important to get the complete history. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed work on this, Arthur. It is so useful, now and in the future, to have the history spelled out as you just did. I just finished leaving messages about the millennium issue on the talk pages for the article, Pro66 and the most recently used IP. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi-protected the article for 72 hours, locking it in to the version compliant with WP:SEASON (i.e., the millenium began in 2001). --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I escalated to full protection to the page, because semiprotection only prevents the ip from editing (let me know if that's a problem). Also, note that a "removal" does count as a revert. Finally, please do not restore 3rr (or other warnings) when a user removes them from their page — take that removal to indicate that they are now privy to it. Thx. El_C 17:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, full protection is fine by me although I'm not sure I see the point; the version I semi-protected was the WP:MoS-compliant version. I'm not aware of restoring any warnings deleted by either party. I did reinforce the earlier warning with additional comments and advice at User talk:Pro66#Millennium and 3RR; this was in response to the message Pro66 left me at User talk:A. B.#Admin?. If you think my comments there are inappropriate, please let me know -- thanks! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Np. I just didn't want one side to have access while the other remains restricted. No, I think you have this under control. El_C 17:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reported by User:Ward3001 (Result: on hold) ==

• Three-revert rule violation on Jesse Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Wikisurfer61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 20:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 07:06, July 18, 2008

• 1st revert: 19:27, July 18, 2008
• 2nd revert: 20:03, July 18, 2008
• 3rd revert: 20:10, July 18, 2008
• 4th revert: 20:17, July 18, 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 20:12, July 18, 2008

Resolution of this matter is underway. Chergles (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have discussed it with the user and the user now understands 3RR. I have also discussed with administrator Cailil who writes in his own talk page that blocking is inappropriate...writing "Having looked over this a bit I have to say that a block in this case now would be punitive and that's not what blocking is for - we don't block as punishment for infractions of the rules, we block to prevent further disruption. If Wikisurfer61 edit wars again report them to WP:AN3 and note the warning you gave them in this instance, but I think it best to AGF that this user has got the message"

So to those wanting block, I discussed it with the user, I asked an admin to block but the admin said it was not appropriate. I close this as a clerk. Chergles (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Three-revert rule violation on Ganon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

12.219.77.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 03:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 03:21, 19 July 2008

• 1st revert: 04:57, 18 July 2008
• 2nd revert: 18:29, 18 July 2008
• 3rd revert: 02:04, 19 July 2008
• 4th revert: 03:18, 19 July 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 02:18, 19 July 2008

Anonymous user is edit warring for no reason in spite of the discussion on the talk page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Three-revert rule violation on Gump Roast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

218.186.65.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 15:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [23]

• 1st revert: [24]
• 2nd revert: [25]
• 3rd revert: [26]
• 4th revert: [27]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [28]

This IP is a sock of blocked User:Yasis, he has been IP hopping to evade his block and stalking me to Talk:Water memory, Lemon Bay High School, Gump Roast, and other articles. Yasis was blocked for 3rr here[29] and has since been on an IP hopping spree, see also Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Yasis. He is also trying to contact the user referred to here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive449#IP-hopping_.22cultural_references.22_edit_warrior, as this diff shows [30]. I have no desire to edit war with Yasis, he is just being pedantic and needs to stop. Perhaps a range block is in order. He is also at 3rr 4rr on Lemon Bay High School where he keeps changing the section header "References" to "External links" or "Notes" saying that that is the way wikipedia likes it.

"Notes" is the common proper usage. That is true. Grow up. 218.186.65.34 (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Given the pattern of edits, definitely Yasis (talk · contribs), who has been blocked multiple times. --slakr^\ talk / 16:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Three-revert rule violation on Aircraft of the Battle of Britain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Kurfürst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

• 1st revert: [31] Admonished to "take it to the talk page."
• 2nd revert: [32]
• 3rd revert: [33]
• 4th revert: [34] User claimed he was reverting due to "Revisionist attempth thwarted again (sic)."
• 5th revert: [35] User now claiming "Revisionist attack on article integrity thwarted."
• 6th revert: [36] User now claiming "Vandalism reverted." Although comments are made on the talk page, the user continues to edit war with another user and does not refer to the talk page as advised. Comment made on the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-19 Aircraft of the Battle of Britain mediation page and on the WP:Aircraft Project Group Page. [37].

This series of 3R reverts has escalated what was a simple content issue into a very heated set of attacks. User:Dapi89 and User:Minorhistorian are both experienced and well-regarded editors in the WP:Aviation Project Group and I was acting as a kind of surrogate peacekeeper but it wasn't working. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Already blocked by User:Chetblong. EdJohnston (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Three-revert rule violation on Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Ronjohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 18:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 05:07, 2008 July 19.

• 1st revert: [38]
• 2nd revert: [39]
• 3rd revert: [40]
• 4th revert: [41]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [42] [43] [44] (+ others)

User repeatedly inserts Wikinews-style material into Barack Obama article, despite warning and reverts from numerous editors. Initial insertion is clearly good faith by new editors; however, editor has also left belligerent comments on user talk pages or each reverter and declined to read guidelines for inclusion of material. LotLE×talk 18:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Three-revert rule violation on Internal combustion engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

InternetHero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 22:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [45]

• 1st revert: 2008-07-19T22:41:38
• 2nd revert: 2008-07-19T19:09:01
• 3rd revert: 2008-07-19T04:11:05
• 4th revert: 2008-07-18T23:16:23

(Note user not logged in in the 4th example but he's admitted it was him: [46] 'friend's IP'- but it's obvious from context anyway.)

• Diff of 3RR warning: 2008-07-01T15:55:34

Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Both were edit warring.  Sandstein  07:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Three-revert rule violation on Unidare RFC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Unidare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 00:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 00:20, 20 July 2008

• 1st revert: 23:38, 19 July 2008
• 2nd revert: 23:53, 19 July 2008
• 3rd revert: 00:06, 20 July 2008
• 4th revert: 00:20, 20 July 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 00:10, 20 July 2008

Blocked indefinitely for doing nothing but edit warring; this account can safely be assumed to be involved with the subject.  Sandstein  07:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Three-revert rule violation on Irgun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

89.138.145.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
217.132.92.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 01:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [47]

• 1st revert: 13:15, 19 July 2008
• 2nd revert: 17:03, 19 July 2008
• 3rd revert: 21:00, 19 July 2008
• 4th revert: 21:08, 19 July 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 17:15, 19 July 2008

TheMightyQuill (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected This involves changing IPs; a brief semiprotection is appropriate.  Sandstein  08:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Three-revert rule violation on {{Herb and spice mixtures}} and {{Herbs & spices}}.

Badagnani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 04:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version of H&S Mixtures reverted to: 04:10, 20 July 2008
• Previous version of H&S reverted to: 04:29, 20 July 2008

• 1st revert: 04:27, 20 July 2008
• 2nd revert: 4:33, 20 July 2008
• 3rd revert: 04:47, 20 July 2008

Related:

• 1st revert: 04:31, 20 July 2008
• 2nd revert: 04:47, 20 July 2008
• 3rd revert: DIFFTIME

• Diff of 3RR warning: [48]

Problematic user with a history of 3RR/Edit warring violations, at least 6 blocks in the past for such violations

Page protected Good, I'll watchlist the discussion page. I dropped a note on Jerem43's talk page, since the location of the discussion is quite obscure. I'll also drop a note on the main WikiProject talk page. I'm going to protect the templates until such time as a consensus is reached. CIreland (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for this; however, I see that you've protected the templates in the merged versions I had objected to, as the merge took place by "brute force." As the reporting editor reverted yet again, just after making this report, do you agree that it's best to revert the templates, in their protected versions, to their original versions pending discussion and consensus for the merge? I don't think that's too much to ask; otherwise it sends a strong message to the reporting editor that such "brute force," significant non-consensus merges may indeed be conducted without utilizing our project's fundamentally collaborative manner of editing, but may be imposed through insistent, repeated reverting prior to actual discussion and consensus. Badagnani (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved to user talk pages and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink/Herbs and Spices task force. CIreland (talk) 06:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Three-revert rule violation on Hoi Ping Chamber of Commerce Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Eplgleplcl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Vria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Single purpose accounts Eplgleplcl and Vria have been persisting in disrupting the article and associated talk page in concert, with flagrant attacks against people living or dead, and in violation of WP:A, WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:Coatrack.

Time reported: 07:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 12:50, 20 July 2008

• Previous version reverted to: 14:22, 20 July 2008

• 1st revert: 00:36, 2 July 2008
• 2nd revert: 12:02, 19 July 2008
• 3rd revert: 01:57, 20 July 2008

Related talk page vandalism

• 1st occurrence: 01:58, 20 July 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 12:17, 19 July 2008

• 1st revert: 7 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 00:13, 8 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 12:11, 14 June 2008
• 4th revert:12:54, 18 June 2008
• 5th revert:07:44, 7 July 2008
• 6th revert: 11:28, 15 July 2008

Related talk page vandalism

• 1st occurrence: 12:12, 14 June 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 12:49, 15 July 2008

Ohconfucius (talk) 07:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Stifle (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: with all due respect, I feel that you are apply the letter of the rule, rather than its spirit. the relevant section within WP:3RR states: "Edit warring is disruptive, and attempts to avoid this rule are even more disruptive. Trying to avoid breaching this rule by only making two reverts per day over an extended period, for example, is "gaming the system" and can also lead to administrative action. Rules such as this exist as guidelines for action, but are not set standards. Editors should remember that edit warring is not helpful to building an encyclopedia, and adhere to the spirit of the rules rather than the letter." Ohconfucius (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP problem. I took a look at the article. Vria and Eplgleplcl are adding unsourced defamatory material about specific teachers who work at the school. They keep putting in a section called Unpopular staff with questionable conduct and inadequate academic background. I have left admin warnings for both of these editors and urge that they be blocked if they restore this material again. EdJohnston (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• These are several reverts over the course of a month. If there were, say, five reverts in 30 hours I might make a different decision. This noticeboard is specifically for violations of the 3RR — if there are long-term vandalism or other editor problems, consider dispute resolution, requesting protection, or reporting to the admin noticeboard. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Three-revert rule violation on History of Trams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Unfortunately I do not have the time to make a full report, but similar events (user adding reference to his own book) occurred on Light rail and HTM Personenvervoer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wammes Waggel (talk • contribs) 10:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

86.83.155.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 10:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [49]

• 1st revert: 18:10, 19 July 2008
• 2nd revert: 21:55, 19 July 2008
• 3rd revert: 23:35, 19 July 2008
• 4th revert: 23:47, 19 July 2008
• Diff of 3RR warning: 14:24, 2 July 2008

→ That kind of cases were recently withdrawn from meta-wiki, because your only purpose is "inadmissible stalking" by repeated reverting against me with 3 à 4 persons. This ref. was already there from September last Year without any objections at all. As usual with most regards: ing. D.A. Borgdorff - PEng. 86.83.155.44 (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC) For the last s.c. Diff, see but e.g. the following excuses from user:SarekOfVulcan (Talk | contribs) = about an apparently mistaken warning. D.A. Borgdorff - MASc EE by 86.83.155.44 (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC) - Details here please, just as my complaints regarded, lodged to WMF.[reply]

Stale If the user resumes edit warring, he'll be blocked. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of minutes ago. --Brownout ^(msg) 11:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And again: [50], [51], [52]. - Erik Baas (talk) 11:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Meanwhile taking over this "ref. deleting" - the well-known Dutch co-stalkers: Baas & Robotje from said mr. "Waggel" cum suis. I know my nagging onions. D.A. Borgdorff speaking on behalf of co-writer: Dr. H.D. Ploeger LL.M. (ed.) 86.83.155.44 (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC) PS: a significant proof of this behavior is the efficient reversal of cause and effect by a reverted statement of Robotje about something else: of the record. Supposedly he is replacing it again and again at the time. D.A. Borgdorff as above 86.83.155.44 (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Three-revert rule violation on River Shannon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

93.107.137.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 21:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 13:36, 19th July

• 1st revert: 01:59 20th July
• 2nd revert: 13:28 20th July
• 3rd revert: 16:34 20th July
• 4th revert: 19:38 20th July
• 5th revert: 19:50 20th July
• 6th revert: 20:56 20th July
• 7th revert: 21:05 20th July

• Diff of 3RR warning: 21:12 20th July

User is edit warring over inclusion of a sentence in River Shannon saying its the longest river in the British Isles. One editor agrees with him/her, several others don't. But while there is discussion on the talk page, s/he is not engaging. From the last edit summary, its clear this isn't a new editor. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 21:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add: No action needed User has since been blocked for block evasion. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked For block evasion. No need for further action here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Three-revert rule violation on Christianity by country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Vexorg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 23:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: June 30 2008 (note next revision has me inserting the figures).

• 1st revert: 21:51, July 19, 2008 (removes information from Factbook on Germany)
• 2nd revert: 15:01, July 20, 2008 (removes information from Factbook on Germany)
• 3rd revert: 15:30, July 20, 2008 (removes information from Factbook on Germany)
• 4th revert: 18:31, July 20, 2008 (removes information from Factbook on Germany)

• Diff of 3RR warning: 15:46, July 20, 2008 (Vexorg warns me, indicating he is aware of the policy - also see other warnings from the past on Vexorg's talk page).

This is indeed a complex case (see recent page history), but it involves Vexorg has continually edit warred on these figures, and has been edit warring against several other people (see talk). Please note that, despite consensus to the contrary, and much discussion on the talk page, this is still edit warring (which this user has a history of), and it will continue if this user continues to think edit warring will be ignored. The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

== [[User:<!--Place Name of 3RR "violator" here-->]] 

reported by [[User:<!-- Your NAME -->]] (Result: ) ==

*[[WP:3RR|Three-revert rule]] violation on {{Article|<!-- Place name of Article here -->}}. 

{{3RRV|<!--Place Name of 3RR "violator" here-->}} 

Time reported: ~~~~~

*Previous version reverted to: [http://VersionLink VERSIONTIME] <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

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

<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. 
See Help:Diff or Wikipedia:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

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

*Diff of 3RR warning: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

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