Revision as of 23:34, 1 August 2008

Template:Moveprotected

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

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

Violations

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

User:Skyring reported by User:Matilda (Result: 12 hours)

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

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

Time reported: 01:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 17:34, 28 July 2008 (all times given in Australian Eastern Standard time - ie UTC + 10 hours)

• 1st revert: 21:48, 28 July 2008
• 2nd revert: 03:59, 29 July 2008
• 3rd revert: 09:18, 29 July 2008
• 4th revert: 10:20, 29 July 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 06:49, 29 July 2008 Note this editor is very familiar with 3RR breaches (see blocklog) so a templated warning would not have been appropriate.

Skyring claims that the edits breach BLP. The content has been discussed on the article talk page and editors (other than myself) disagree with him. He has now escalated to Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#John Howard. I do not believe that his assertion of breaches of BLP justifies his breaking of the 3RR when this is a much watched article with other people in the debate. I do not believe thus that the exceptions to the rule apply. Matilda 01:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on talk page shows that the material is contentious, with several noting WP:BLP violation. I have asked that it not be reinserted without a decision on whether BLP has been breached. Matilda prefers to edit-war rather than follow wikipolicy. --Pete (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It is quite clear from the article history that I have not indulged in edit warring. I added the material (referenced) following discussions on the talk page. I have followed the discussions on the talk page and contributed there. I have reverted Skyring twice. I have not breached 3RR, nor been provoked into breaching it. --Matilda 01:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I just got a bit involved in this situation, so I won't take official action, but I will give you my opinion. I'd be disinclined to block under these circumstances because I think Pete really did believe BLP to be implicated and was acting in good faith. Beyond that, I've recently shortened the bit in question and added it to the Howard Government article. Is that an OK compromise? If not, can we discuss it on the talk page civilly instead of reverting back and forth? If the edit-war continues, one either article, then perhaps a block or page protection is necessary. Otherwise, can we freeze this request for a few minutes while we try to work towards a consensus, please?--chaser - t 01:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I disagree that Skyring should be exempted regardless of his deeply held beliefs on BLP violations. Several admins are involved in the discussions on the talk page. None of them reverted the material despite holding opposing views. (ie Gnagarra and OIC). The issue of the material should be discussed elsewhere. --Matilda 01:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't revert only because I thought someone already had. Orderinchaos 12:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The same does not apply to Gnangarra who quite clearly left the material in when editing it . Moreover I count over 10 editors editing on the talk page at the time and presumably watching the article - the 3RR states: if an action really requires reversion, some other editor will probably do it — and that will serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which course of action is preferable. No issue if other editors had joined in the revert - I do have issues with Skyring single handedly imposing his view. --Matilda 17:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This disputed passage is the report of a brief that has actually been filed with a court, as was very reliably reported in a mainstream source, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The inclusion of the report in this article might be (at most) silly but certainly not defamatory. Depending on which 3RR-closer wants to address this one, I can assert you'll find no unanimity that a BLP defence will work in this case. Reverts are exempt from 3RR limits only if the material actually *does* violate BLP, not just because the editor's personal opinion is that it does. I would give Skyring a chance to self-revert first. EdJohnston (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Skyring has been advised of the invitation and appears to wish to ignor it --Matilda 02:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

BLP overrides 3RR. However there is a clique of editors who are ignoring the basic tenets of BLP to push through their POV (which is over a rather trivial point) on the article without consensus. These particular editors (and admin) need to review their own actions prior to handing out warnings and probably should be sanctioned over it. --Shot info (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not a member of a clique thanks. I would appreciate you clarify your rationale for me to be sanctioned. --Matilda 01:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 12 hours 3RR violation. After checking the discussion at Talk:John Howard I do not find that this material violates BLP. Some of Howard's opponents are choosing to characterize some of his known official actions as war crimes. The fact that his opponents hold this view may or may not be worthy of inclusion, but that is a matter for a Talk page consensus or an RFC. If this were considered BLP, any material critical of a politician might be excluded on supposed BLP grounds. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Normally I would have called for an immediate review on this, but as the block began at the commencement of a twelve hour night shift, I didn't see any real benefit. There are three key points.

1. The launching of a case against a recent head of government of a liberal Western democracy for war crimes should be front page news around the world. John Howard up there with Adolf Eichmann, Slobodan Milošević and Saddam Hussein. But it wasn't. The wikisupporters of this material as encyclopaedic had to resort to googling because nobody could think of anything off the top of their heads (the three earlier comments). The reason that this material was not widely reported, I suggest, is because only one journalist out of the entire Parliamentary Press Gallery, not to mention the international media, regarded it as worthy of coverage, and then only to the extent of a hundred words on a website, rather than being otherwise broadcast, printed or published. The results of a search on Google News is instructive.
2. Mentioning such material in a biographical article is effectively giving it credence - maybe Misplaced Pages is not flat out branding John Howard a war criminal, but allocating a paragraph of seventy-five words is giving the allegation credence that not even the tabloid newspapers bothered with.
3. The discussion at Talk:John Howard is highlighted by differing views. Given WP:BLP concerns raised by several editors, the correct wikiprocess would have been to remove the controversial material, discuss its merits (or lack thereof) until consensus had been reached, or raise it here for more official comment. The material should have been reinserted only after a positive decision for inclusion had been obtained. That's the essence of WP:BLP violations - we remove them immediately.

The conduct of User:Matilda bears closer examination. He engaged in edit-warring to keep this material, ignoring the warnings raised by several regular editors, and then pushed 3RR to silence a critic. This is not due wikiprocess. --Pete (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• My reponse to conduct issues raised against me by Skyring here and elsewhere is at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#John Howard. Happy to answer them elsewhere if tht is deemed appropriate but only one place at a time. --Matilda 21:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You commenced action here. I suggest you address the points I raise here. Your input into the BLPN notice has been tangential. --Pete (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• I commenced action against your edit warring here , no more no less. I suggested (and others agreed) that your edit warring ws not justified as reversion of vandalism. If you wish to make accusations of edit warring do so - with diffs - I believe I have no case to answer on edit warring and had already stated that above. I have no interest in silencing you as a critic, if you didn't engage in stupid behaviour by reverting multiple times there would have been no cause for the request to be blocked. Moreover the blocking admin offered you an opportunity to self-revert and I ensured that you knew about that opportunity. You chose not to take it. Please don't blame other people for your block. --Matilda 21:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll ignore the personal attacks above. Matilda asks for diffs showing edit-warring:

• 06:26, 29 July 2008 AEST
• 09:23, 29 July 2008 AEST

This is after he introduced material that he knew would be controversial, and after notification that this was a WP:BLP violation. Rather than edit-warring, he should have kept his cool and sought consensus. My position was that the allegations had very little weight and that repeating them in a biographical article was unjustified. As Matilda knew very well, having performed the google search mentioned above and finding only one brief mention in any mainstream media site. Whether Matilda thinks the ICC brief is significant is his own opinion. I need merely note the lack of interest by mainstream media, who would give this story tremendous coverage if it had any merit at all. Matilda's attempts to pretend that the material was significant and that accusing a public figure of being a war criminal is not an attack on that person's character are despicable and bring into question his judgement as a Misplaced Pages editor and administrator. --Pete (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It happens to be a personal attack to suggest that somebody's own behaviour is the cause of his block? However this editor has described me as one of a group of editors likewise best described as enemies of John Howard and my actions as despicable. I am not a member of any group and I do not think my edit history bears out Skyring's assertions. The diffs do not match edit warring per Misplaced Pages:Edit war in my view but I am happy for a review and to be set straight.--Matilda 02:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I called your behaviour edit-warring because you reverted multiple times in quick succession. The record is there for all to see. Could you please address the points made above on media coverage and BLP? I'm genuinely interested to hear your response, if you have one. --Pete (talk) 02:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

So that others can judge the "quick succession" I have added the time diffs. Reversion in excess of three hours time difference is not the normal standard of quick succession discussed on Misplaced Pages and my speed of reverting compares poorly with your speed as can be seen from the times against the diffs reported above. Moreover twice reverting is a multiple but a pretty low one. The standard threshhold is three reverts from an original - I am not close. I have received no warnings from anyone else .... (I have asked User:Shot info to elaborate on his call for sanctions but he appears to have declined the opportunity) I have already addressed the issues of BLP and media coverage and BLP in my view on the article talk page but I will address again briefly on the BLP page. I think there is no edit warring issues for me to answer any longer here. --Matilda 05:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's get some more eyes on it and take a look at what happened when. I think misbehaviour of an admin is a serious business. You must have known this stuff was bogus, given the almost complete lack of media coverage. I'll get a RfC going soon, once I sort out diffs. --Pete (talk) 10:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Pabopa reported by User:Manacpowers (Result: 24h to both)

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

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

Time reported:

Kowtow

• Previous version reverted to: 12:39, 28 July 2008

• 1st revert: 16:46, 28 July 2008
• 2nd revert: 01:43, 29 July 2008
• 3rd revert: 02:04, 29 July 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 02:00, 29 July 2008

Samjeondo Monument

• Previous version reverted to: 11:09, 12 June 2008

• 1st revert: 08:16, 27 July 2008 used as sock
• 2nd revert: 16:39, 28 July 2008
• 3rd revert: 01:42, 29 July 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 02:00, 29 July 2008

210.231.12.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

this user blocked 18:26, 25 July 2008 for 48 hours by his personal attacks.

Blocked period 18:26, 25 July 2008 ~ 18:26, 27 July 2008

But this blocked user created new accounts and edited as a newbie accounts for blocked period.

Webcamera (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

Pabopa (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

one of the Adminstrator(3rr part) worried about this,

"I find it reasonable that User:Pabopa is a reincarnation of 210.231.12.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an account which was edit warring on Taekwondo until he was blocked 48 hours for disruptive editing."

and admin worry about he is a possibly member of meatpuppet campaign which anti-Korean editing.

I reported this to another admin Stifle. admin said "report his disruptive incidents at WP:ANI".

This blocked user edited Taekwondo, Kowtow, Samjeondo Monument‎ for Blocked period.

Now, Pabopa created new accounts. Webcamera . exactly same behaviot of Pabopa

210.231.12.98 and 210.231.14.222. this two similar IP range IPs are exactly same behavior of Pabopa, too. He make a disruptive edit war by multiple IPs and Accounts.

Webcamera (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

Pabopa (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

210.231.12.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

210.231.14.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Manacpowers (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

this is no 3rr.please stop personal attack.please stop Edit war.--Pabopa (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

please adminstrator, if you want decide to protect these page, before protect, We must revert his edit.(1. This blocked user edited for Blocked period.(violated rule) 2. Disruptive behavior, anti korea meta pupeting campaign 3. technically, he violated 3rr rule in Kowtow page. Manacpowers (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Technically there's no violation, but due to you two edit warring on both articles, you both get a 24 hour timeout for violating the spirit of 3RR. - Penwhale | 10:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

User:91.122.81.237 reported by User:Miyokan (Result: blocked and page semied)

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

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

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

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

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

Time reported: 07:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 05:22, 28 July 2008

• 1st revert: 08:31, 28 July 2008
• 2nd revert: 17:32, 28 July 2008
• 3rd revert: 06:23, 29 July 2008
• 4th revert: 06:28, 29 July 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 09:32, 25 July 2008 and 20:51, 28 July 2008

The same user editing from slightly different IP's.--Miyokan (talk) 07:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• That last edit isn't a revert. - Penwhale | 10:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This anonymous IP is continuing to revert war in the Russia article. He has since reverted the same thing two more times. Krawndawg (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours and Page protected due to block evasion/ip hopping. --slakr 00:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Miyokan reported by User:IP (Result: No violation)

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

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

Time reported: 07:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 03:33, 28 July 2008

• 1st revert: 03:33, 28 July 2008
• 2nd revert: 04:58, 28 July 2008
• 3rd revert: 09:33, 28 July 2008
• 4th revert: 03:19, 29 July 2008

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.93.186 (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The second and third edits are not reverts, check for yourself. Obviously he is trying to get "revenge" for reporting him above.

• 03:33, 28 July 2008 1st revert
• 04:58, 28 July 2008 I reword Bobanni's addition, not reverting it, per my rationale. This did not become an issue
• 09:33, 28 July 2008 I add some information
• 03:19, 29 July 2008 2nd revert

--Miyokan (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Nothing to see here, move along. - Penwhale | 10:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked – was a block-evading/edit warring sock. --slakr 00:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Krawndawg reported by User:anonymous (Result: no violation)

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

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

Time reported: 08:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: as edited by Miyokan at 04:58, 28 July 2008

• 1st revert: 06:33, 28 July 2008
• 2nd revert: 16:01, 28 July 2008
• 3rd revert: 16:15, 28 July 2008
• 4th revert: 16:32, 28 July 2008

Both users User:Krawndawg and User:Miyokan seem to be expirienced edit warriors by theirs block list. They behave this way in different articles. And trying to collaborate in that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.93.186 (talk) 08:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This 06:33, 28 July 2008 is not a revert, he slightly reworded the passage citing the relevant policy, not reverting it, and it did not become an issue. Anonymous IP is obviously trying to get "revenge" for being reported for violating the 3RR above. Instead of seeking WP:CONCENSUS when anonymous IP added a controversial edit to said article, which he still has not got, this anonymous user thinks repeating the same defeated argument over and over at talk while reverting will help his case.--Miyokan (talk) 08:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• He's at 3 reverts if anything (a partial revert is still a revert), but there's nothing here, either. - Penwhale | 10:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous IP's reporting for rule violations? Is this a joke? FYI this anonymous IP has appeared out of nowhere and started revert warring non-stop on issues that he can't make an argument for in discussion. Now he reports two regular contributors? If anyone should be blocked it's his series of IP's. Krawndawg (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked – was a block-evading/edit warring sock. --slakr 00:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User:The big U reported by User:ChimpanzeeUK (Result: notice given)

I'm not really asking for this user to be blocked but I wasn't sure of the best place to post this. I have informed the user in an edit summary of how to properly cite audio sourced. Despite this he/she continues to revert my edits. The user has not yet reached 3 but I will hit 3 if I revert the edit again. I have left a message on the user's talk page but I doubt this will have any affect based on the user's response to my edit summary. Maybe something as simple as a message from an administrator might get his/her attention. The article in question is Ratchet & Clank Future: Quest for Booty. Thanks. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 10:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

:EDIT: Since posting this, the user has now breached the 3RR. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 10:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Nothing to see here. Notice given. - Penwhale | 10:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Kuban kazak reported by User:Hillock65 (Result: No action required)

• Three-revert rule violation on Template:Ukrainians (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Kuban kazak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 15:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 1st revert 15:40, 28 July 2008
• 2nd revert: 2nd revert 12:17, 29 July 2008
• 3rd revert: 3rd revert 13:49, 29 July 2008
• 4th revert: 4th revrt 15:08, 29 July 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: The user is very well aware of 3RR and has long and persistent history of edit warring and blocks for them. In fact, this month alone, he has been banned for edit warring and in addition further received 3 (!) warnings to stop edit wars (1st, 2nd, 3rd) but chose to persist in reverting pages without discussions at talk at all. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a note the fourth revrt, which re-grouped the template was not intended to be a revert. Also may I point out that the reporting party, also back from a 3rr is equally ready to revert changes he does not like. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 15:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was the reporting party's only and single revert in several days. Care to count how many times you reverted Template:History of Ukraine just today? And that is in addition to reverts elsewhere and the one above, where you exceeded 3RR. --Hillock65 (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have self-reverted btw, and why don't you count the amount of talk page comments, and constructive suggestions that others even my opposites have agreed on? Versus your rather dissappointing: claim. (That is despite your previous revert sprawl prior to your block, you have shown how interested you are in the wellfare of that template...) --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 16:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, the discussion is over. It is pointless. The facts are there; if you haven't learned from a block and three warnings for edit warring this month alone, I doubt I can help. --Hillock65 (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you take down the notice then? --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 16:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No action required, since Kuban kazak has self-reverted the last change. But if you keep this up, Kuban kazak, another block for editwarring will be necessary shortly, 3RR or not.  Sandstein  19:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

We are going for the record! That's 4th warning for edit warring, this month. No comments, I am speechless.--Hillock65 (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this is going to be the last warning for this user. Judging by the extensive block log, as well as the recent block within the last month, this is starting to get repetitive. I would encourage all future reporters of this user's edit warring to be sure to mention these reports as well as the block log. A user does not need to violate the three revert rule to be blocked for habitual edit warring. --slakr 20:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

User:PaulSoms reported by User:Mike Searson (Result: no vio yet)

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

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

Time reported: 19:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 10:10

• 1st revert: 10:11
• 2nd revert: 10:36
• 3rd revert: 10:55

• Diff of 3RR warning: He just erases warnings and soldiers on. User seems to know more about this rule than I do. I'd revert back, but think he'll just move to get me blocked. He's reverted 2 other editors, I gave a warning and he just deleted it as if the rules do not apply to him.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• 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. --slakr 20:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Apologies, I thought it was on the third, guess I'll come back when he does the fourth.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson reported by User:SandyGeorgia (Result: 24 hours )

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

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

Time reported: 23:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 19:12, July 27, 2008

  Replaces: The only lasting conquest by force was Septimius Severus' annexation of northern Mesopotamia in 195–198 AD. The last of these wars seemed to end the territorial inertia when Khosrau II's Sassanid forces occupied huge swathes of Roman territory for many years and brought the Roman Empire close to destruction. However, a counter-offensive led by Heraclius enabled the Romans to regain their lost territory in a final peace settlement.

  With: Several campaigns succeeded in occupying territory for years, in two cases for a couple decades, but all but one of these were reversed; the only lasting conquest by force was Septimius Severus' annexation of northern Mesopotamia in 195–198 AD.

• 1st revert: 15:41, July 29, 2008
• 2nd revert: 17:02, July 29, 2008
• 3rd revert: 17:21, July 29, 2008
• 4th revert: 17:39, July 29, 2008 (and several others in that series of edits)

In addition to the reverts above, in the last 24 hours, he unilaterally tagged the article {{POV}}, against the opinions of at least six other editors (Khoikhoi, Fedayee, CreazySuit, Yannismarou, Larno man, and Nishkid64):

• 22:49, July 28, 2008
• 16:47, July 29, 2008
• 20:18, July 29, 2008
• 21:35, July 29, 2008

Pmanderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a committed edit warrior, with SIX prior blocks for edit warring (the latest in January 2008). He is also a regular participant at WP:FAR, and knows the instructions there just as he knows WP:3RR.

Roman–Persian Wars was featured nine days ago, with 7 Support declarations and one unstruck oppose on copyediting from User:Tony1 (another editor had subsequently performed a copyedit, but Tony hadn't struck yet when I closed the FAC). The instructions at WP:FAR clearly state (and have for several years) that "Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here". Less than 24 hours after he began edit warring on Roman–Persian Wars, Pmanderson initiated a featured article review, over one paragraph ("but as it is, the second paragraph of the lead manages to violate 1a, b, c, d, and e") of an article that had been featured only nine days earlier. Pmanderson's block log and history of edit warring should also be considered in the context of pointy disruption of FAR less than 24 hours after engaging in a dispute over one paragraph of a featured article. He should not be coming up against 3 reverts, and he knows it; he doesn't seem to receive the message of discussing edits rather than pointy and disruptive reverts, tags, and misuse of FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours. Usually with so many blocks, I'd have increased the block length, but given there's been 6 months since the last block, I've stook to 24. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous IP reported by User:Miyokan (Result: 12 hrs)

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

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

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

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

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

Time reported: --Miyokan (talk) 02:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 05:22, 28 July 2008

• 1st revert: 06:23, 29 July 2008
• 2nd revert: 06:28, 29 July 2008
• 3rd revert: 19:33, 29 July 2008
• 4th revert: 00:05, 30 July 2008
• 5th revert: 00:32, 30 July 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 09:32, 25 July 2008 and 20:51, 28 July 2008

The same user editing from slightly different IP's.--Miyokan (talk) 02:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No action Yeah, probably the same person, but no point blocking any IPs if it's already changing that rapidly. You can ask for page protection at WP:RFPP, but if you're willing to let the page sit in the IP's version for a bit, a third opinion could break your tie, though that's kind of what The Evil Spartan gave you here.--chaser - t 02:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

A third opinion is no use because I and another editor are already against the changes this IP is making. Krawndawg (talk) 02:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC) The IP User:91.122.93.186 has made 5 reverts in the Russia article within 24 hours, out of a total 7 edits from that IP. Krawndawg (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked it 12 hours. No promises about how effective that will be.--chaser - t 03:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous IP reported by User:Miyokan (Result: 24h; on repeat vio, socks now blocked for 72 + semi)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time reported: --Miyokan (talk) 09:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 05:22, 28 July 2008

• 1st revert: 06:23, 29 July 2008
• 2nd revert: 06:28, 29 July 2008
• 3rd revert: 19:33, 29 July 2008
• 4th revert: 00:05, 30 July 2008
• 5th revert: 00:32, 30 July 2008
• 6th revert: 08:16, 30 July 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 09:32, 25 July 2008 and 20:51, 28 July 2008

The same user editing from slightly different IP's. All IP's traced to the same location (RUSSIAN FEDERATION, MOSCOW, ISP: ST.PETERSBURG TELEPHONE NETWORK - check here).

Block evasion. User was blocked for 12 hours for edit warring here but now he is block evading by reverting under yet another (89.110.20.7) IP .--Miyokan (talk) 09:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• New IP blocked 24 hours. I'll leave it to the previous admin to deal w/ the 91. IPs. - Penwhale | 15:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours and Page protected --slakr 00:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikiarrangementeditor reported by User:Roguegeek (Result:48 hours )

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

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

Time reported: 17:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 18:31, July 29, 2008

• 1st revert: 17:54, July 29, 2008
• 2nd revert: 00:57, July 30, 2008
• 3rd revert: 07:08, July 30, 2008
• 4th revert: 09:28, July 30, 2008
• 5th revert: 09:55, July 30, 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 17:08, July 29, 2008

• Additional notes: Wikiarrangementeditor has been blocked on three separate occasions for either edit warring or 3RR violations. He's been warned over 5 times on his talk page for these specific acts. All of this from strictly editting only two articles over the last several months. This tells me that, even after the next block is lifted, he will continue to break these policies. His last block was for 31 hours. Is there nothing else that can be done here? roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

And with comments to his edits such as this and this, he seems emotionally invested and hell bent on making sure his edits stick. roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours given he's got a history. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Boodlesthecat reported by User:Piotrus (Result: 24 hours)

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

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

Time reported: 20:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: varies

• 1st revert: 14:12, July 30, 2008
• 2nd revert: 14:54, July 30, 2008
• 3rd revert: 15:02, July 30, 2008
• 4th revert: 15:54, July 30, 2008 smaller revert - only restores the incorrect description of a newspaper (this was part of his revert of 15:02 as well as as in yet another revert of 14:16 (I don't count it as 5th since it can bee seen as part of the 14:12)

The user has been warned of 3RR and blocked already for past violations and edit warring. Seems he is back at it again (he is also revert warring in Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Poland).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

PS. The user is also engaged in personally attacking me: he is not only criticizing me on talk pages ( - I have a skin thick enough for that) but has just send me an email with content "Your editing tactics are abhorrent and disgraceful for a so-called teacher." That is way over the top (I can fwd his email to any admin that wishes to receive it and confirm it).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus regularly instigates edit wars and files 3RR complaints as a tactic for pushing his POV. the edits cited concern different sections of the article. As for Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Poland, check the article-he instigated the revert warring. I even specifically asked him here not to use his usual tactic of baiting a 3RR comlpaint by edit warring. To no avail. His tactics are indeed abhorrent and disgraceful and unworthy of an admin. Boodlesthecat 20:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Piotrus is edit warring over these two articles himself. WP:3RR doesn't give an editor the right to make three reversions. If anybody is punished because of this matter, I recommend that punishment be meted out to both parties. — ] (] · ]) 21:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Boodlesthecat clearly reverted four times in whole or in part, constituting a 3RR violation. Malik, you are correct that 3RR doesn't give an editor the right to make three reversions, and I will be reminding Piotrus of this point. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I try to avoid reverting when possible, but Boody has demonstrated in the past he will not change his opinions, and will revert to his version until he breaks the 3RR. With editors like that, there is no other way of dealing with, I am afraid.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There's always mediation... -- ChrisO (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It takes two to tango, Piotrus. You are just as rigid in your position as Boodlesthecat is, so please don't act as though he's the problem. You and several other editors seem determined to white-wash Polish antisemitism, or to blame it on the Jews, and Boodlesthecat brings quality sources that refute your assertions. You're not an innocent victim here. — ] (] · ]) 00:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Quality sources like Gross? I and others have always been civil and willing to negotiate; Boody is convinced of his own self-righteousness and that Poles are evil. His level of discussion is well shown by the latest email he sent to me: "you are such a dick". It's hard to dance to that tune, I am afraid.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit rich, Piotrus. To begin with, there's nothing wrong with citing Jan T. Gross, the Norman B. Tomlinson '16 and '48 Professor of War and Society and Professor of History at Princeton University. More to the point though, Boodlesthecat wasn't quoting Gross, despite persistent claims by you and others that he was. I suppose BTC got a bit fed-up with the egregious victim blaming that's been going on on various pages related to Poles and Jews; apparently it is the Jews who are responsible for any antisemitic acts committed by Poles. I can understand his frustration with that view. Jayjg 23:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

User:65.6.173.150 reported by User:Gamaliel (Result: 31 hours)

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

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

Time reported: 20:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 00:44, 29 July 2008

• 1st revert: 05:26, 30 July 2008
• 2nd revert: 16:05, 30 July 2008
• 3rd revert: 16:13, 30 July 2008
• 4th revert: 16:18, 30 July 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 10:32, 30 July 2008

I have explained in depth on the talk page why this user's edit is inappropriate. The user has responded with insults and attacks. Gamaliel (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr 22:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous IP reported by User:Miyokan (Result: Page semi-protected for 3 days and editor blocked 72h)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time reported: --Miyokan (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 05:22, 28 July 2008

• 1st revert: 06:23, 29 July 2008
• 2nd revert: 06:28, 29 July 2008
• 3rd revert: 19:33, 29 July 2008
• 4th revert: 00:05, 30 July 2008
• 5th revert: 00:32, 30 July 2008
• 6th revert: 08:16, 30 July 2008
• 7th revert: 16:40, 30 July 2008
• 8th revert: 17:05, 30 July 2008
• 9th revert: 17:12, 30 July 2008
• 10th revert: 17:26, 30 July 2008
• 11th revert: 22:26, 30 July 2008
• Diff of 3RR warning: 09:32, 25 July 2008 and 20:51, 28 July 2008

The same user editing from slightly different IP's. All IP's traced to the same location (RUSSIAN FEDERATION, MOSCOW, ISP: ST.PETERSBURG TELEPHONE NETWORK - check here).

Repeated block evasion. User was blocked for 12 hours for edit warring here and for 24 hours for block evasion (and he broke the 3RR again) here but now he is block evading again (and breaking the 3RR again) by reverting under yet another (89.110.23.40) IP.--Miyokan (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we get a semi-protection of the article and a rangeblock, this is getting ridiculous.--Miyokan (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Please take a look at here and here, before making decisions. You may find this one also interesting. Thanks! 89.110.23.40 (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: he just revert again, far beyond breaking the 3RR for the umpteenth time (and while block evading) 22:26, 30 July 2008--Miyokan (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection shouldn't be used in content disputes, Miyokan, only full protection is in order, rangeblock of such width (tens of thousands of IPs, apparently one of the largest ISP of the second largest Russian city) is equally inappropriate. I am not even sure that they belong to the same user. Possibly a bunch of coordinated meatpuppets. Try to reach consensus on the talk page, this is the best way. Colchicum (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be used in content disputes, but it should be used to stop block evasion. Concensus doesn't matter to this guy as he has been opposed and reverted by multiple users.--Miyokan (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

As well as you 91.122.83.159 (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There are as many users who have opposed your edits, so apparently consensus doesn't matter to you either. How can semi-protection of a single page prevent block evasion? This is something new. Colchicum (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No, there are not, he has been the sole person reverting this edit against many, and he clearly doesn't care about the 3RR rule as he keeps so horrendously breaking it nor sanctions as he keeps block evading. As his IP's are all 89.110.x and 91.110.x, a rangeblock of 89.110.x to 89.111.x and 91.110.x to 91.111.x will do the trick.--Miyokan (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No, there are. I am one of them. I am reluctant to take part in edit-warring, though. You may be surprised, but it is not the same thing to be opposed and to do edit-warring. BTW, these ranges amount to 4*256^2 = 262,144 IPs. Too many, sorry. Colchicum (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Great Miyokan! And what you've done after got your requested semi protection? Reverted article to revision that satisfies you best! Nice tricks you using for content disputes. Unfortunately they are working pretty well for you. Thanks to administrator! You are doing a good job of supporting experienced edit warriors at wikipedia. But unfortunately it somehow doesn't benefit to the project. If you would not be so rush about actions, and take a time to read the talk page of that article... well nevermind. Thanks for unleashing nationalists to pushing theirs POV! 91.122.83.159 (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Miyokan, you've just violated 3RR on that same page. ;) 91.122.83.159 (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Page protected by Slakr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for 3 days. CIreland (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, Blocked – for a period of 3 days as this was directly after release of previous block. --slakr 00:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User:DannyMuse reported by OrangeMarlin (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DannyMuse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 19:20, 30 July 2008 (edit summary: "/* Statement */ Balancing comment added to maintain NPOV")
2. 19:33, 30 July 2008 (edit summary: "Then please provide an acceptable citation. BTW, I took this from the RD Wikipage, so you'll want to change it there too. Watch the video. He uses them interchangeably.")
3. 22:28, 30 July 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 228873679 by Dave souza (talk)")
4. 22:30, 30 July 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 228900055 by Orangemarlin (talk)")
5. 22:39, 30 July 2008 (edit summary: "Used publisher citation")
6. 22:47, 30 July 2008 (edit summary: "Not my research, as YOU said, it's Richard Dawkins' research. What are you afraid of?")

• Diff of warning: here

—OrangeMarlin 22:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. CIreland (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Darrenhusted and User:Nick_Cooper reported by User:86.56.122.205 (Result: Malformed report )

Technically, a 3RR violation has not yet occurred, because it's 2 different users, but I'm trying to get an experienced and knowledgeable administrator to look at this, and the other pages pointed me at this place.

In the more distant past, some editors appear to have removed a link to the full "The Power of Nightmares" video from the The Power of Nightmares article. The video is hosted with permission at the Internet Archive, an established electronic library institution which among other things also runs the Internet Wayback Machine and collaborates with the Library of Alexandria, the Smithsonian and the Library of Congress.

Because someone had apparently removed the link to the video, I recently readded that link. I was then reverted two times by Nick Cooper, who seems to be totally unfamiliar with the IA, and appears to mistake it for some random YouTube-like site where every random Joe can upload videos and where they are not being reviewed and cleared in terms of copyright. I had a brief exchange with Nick Cooper, who does not appear to be willing to even read the Internet Archive article that I linked to. The third revert however was not done by Nick Cooper but by Darrenhusted, who also didn't appear to know the IA.

I have not reverted Darrenhusted's edit, but I would like to ask a knowledgeable and experienced administrator to talk to both Nick and Darren and resolve the matter, and restore the edit. While the film is also linked from the Internet Archive article, a link really belongs onto the The Power of Nightmares page. Please do not involve me any further, and there is no need to notify me on my talk page. I would however appreciate if an admin could blank my talk page to remove the unsightly template spam that was pasted onto it. I edit as anonymously as possible, and will probably have a new IP soon, precisely because I try to avoid getting too involved in incidents like this. The two said editors' demands are like demanding that editors first prove that content hosted at http://www.loc.gov/index.html or http://www.bibalex.org/English/index.aspx isn't infringing, and this kind of affirmatively willful ignorance is exactly what drove me away. Hopefully the administrator actioning this will at least be familiar with the IA, though my hopes aren't high now. 86.56.122.205 (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Result - Malformed report. No one has violated 3RR or edit warred (per se), please take the content dispute to the talk page and sort it out there. Scarian 12:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User:VMORO reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 31 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Maleševo-Pirin dialect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). VMORO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Earlier version reverted to: 29 July 17:10 (Complex reverts, common to all is the removal of an image, Image:Macedonian Slavic dialects.png).

1. 00:37, 31 July 2008 (edit summary: "erasal of references (again), incorrect information and factual errors (again), no answer on talk page (again), POV pushing again")
2. 13:06, 31 July 2008 (edit summary: "erasal of references (again), incorrect information and factual errors (again), no answer on talk page (again), POV pushing again")
3. 13:12, 31 July 2008 (edit summary: "Well, explain to me why you are deleting references from Trudgill and Schmieger (you accepted yourself) and why there are factual errors in the intro - yr compatriate has not even bothered responding")
4. 13:46, 31 July 2008 (edit summary: "Please discuss your changes and deletions on the talk page and refrain from making disparaging personal comments, I have asked for administrator's assistance.")

Earlier reverts during the previous days: , , et cetera. Old account, recently returned after two years of absence (was possibly present in the meantime under various sock accounts); no 3RR warning necessary; warning under WP:ARBMAC has been given . Thoroughly disruptive, tendentious POV-pushing account that has never done anything but edit-warring on Macedonian-Bulgarian ideology topics. —Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr 05:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

User:24.209.234.77 reported by User:ESkog (Result: already blocked - 3 hours)

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

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

Time reported: 18:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 18:22, 31 July 2008

• 1st revert: 18:27, 31 July 2008
• 2nd revert: 18:30, 31 July 2008
• 3rd revert: 18:33, 31 July 2008
• 4th revert: 18:42, 31 July 2008
• 5th revert: 18:43, 31 July 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 18:34, 31 July 2008

• Already blocked – 3 hours, but has since expired. No further edits. Re-report if user violates again. --slakr 05:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Lalbal reported by User:Wikidas (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule and WP:DISRUPT violation on Bhagwan Swaminarayan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

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

Time reported: 19:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 01:45, 2008 July 30

• Warned first for removal of context in Edit summary: 02:54, 2008 July 30

• Also warned in the Talk page for removal and disruptive editing:

18:32, 2008 July 30

• 1st revert: 18:19, 2008 July 30
• 2nd revert: 18:31, 2008 July 30
• 3rd revert: 00:44, 2008 July 31
• 4th revert: 23:27, 2008 July 31
• 5th revert: 01:25, 2008 August 1

• Diff of 3RR warning: 03:56, 2008 July 31

• Warned – actual 3RR warning was made 21:04, 31 July 2008, after which user stopped. Re-report if user continues. --slakr 05:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• This pattern continues to repeat itself. . This is a clear pattern. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours. seicer | talk | contribs 14:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

User:PhilLiberty reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

United States Declaration of Independence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). PhilLiberty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:

It seems clear -- four paragraphs were deleted with edit summary “deleted bullshit paragraph about Lincoln "reinterpreting" the Dec”

• 2nd revert:

Changed sentence FROM “Lincoln and his supporters created a document with “continuing usefulness” with a “capacity to convince and inspire living Americans.”” TO “Another historian gushes that Lincoln and his supporters created a document with “continuing usefulness” with a “capacity to convince and inspire living Americans.””

• 3rd revert:

Same revert as # 2 plus additional reverts.

• 4th revert:

Same revert as #2 and #3.

• 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:

In addition, a warning in an edit summary at was also given.

The editor has been engaging in similar types of edit warring on four articles for several weeks -- Articles of Confederation, United States Declaration of Independence, American Revolution, and American Revolutionary War. Recently three different editors -- me, User:JimWae, and User:Bkonrad have been involved in reversing PhilLiberty’s edits, although in today’s back and forth only I have been involved.

The issue in this series of edits has involved one primary issue -- the mention of Abraham Lincoln as significant to the enduring legacy of the Declaration of Independence.

This user was reported on a different 3R violation on July 25. This can be accessed through the following diff and then clicking on violation 1.12:

]

I questioned the accuracy of the original determination and responded twice to requests for additional information. Nobody ever replied to my second response. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --slakr 06:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Calperniaaddams reported by -MBK₀₀₄ (Result: declined)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Calpernia Addams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Calperniaaddams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Article was changed from: this revision.

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 02:52, 1 August 2008 (edit summary: "Removed irellevant personal information, focused on the one incident of national notability, the rest of the information belongs in the "Barry Winchell" article.")
2. 04:00, 1 August 2008 (edit summary: "Pared down in accordance with "Presumption in favor of privacy" section of http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:BLP")
3. 04:13, 1 August 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 229165088 by Otto4711 (talk)")
4. 04:49, 1 August 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 229167614 by MBK004 (talk) Sourced or not, see "Presumption in favor of privacy" section of http://en.wik")

• Diff of warning: here

—-MBK₀₀₄ 04:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Declined – This looks like a biography of living persons policy content dispute, and may therefore be classified as an exception to the 3RR. I'm not personally aware of the argument at hand, the consensus on the page, the validity of the sources, or the COI of the subject involved. However, if the user continuously reverts, I'd probably say this might be better to report to WP:ANI to gather better consensus. As for here, I don't feel that this is a clear-cut 3RR violation due to the aforementioned (and the user and another editor citing) BLP concerns. --slakr 08:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

User:The Thunderer reported by User:BigDunc (Result: no action )

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

The Thunderer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 13:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 11:49, 1 August 2008

• 1st revert: 12:05, 1 August 2008
• 2nd revert: 12:18, 1 August 2008
• 3rd revert: 12:26, 1 August 2008
• 4th revert: 12:48, 1 August 2008
• 5th revert: 13:15, 1 August 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: The Thunderer is an abusive sockpuppet of User:GDD1000 being used to avoid scrutiny on his constantly biased editing to this article, and has previously been blocked for edit warring on it as GDD1000, see Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/GDD1000 for more information, therefore no 3RR warning is needed, but one was issued at 12:21, 1 August 2008

The first revert is clear cut, as is the second where he removes a source I had added. With the third revert he again removed the source I had added. The fourth revert is him removing tag I had just added. The firth revert is restoring information I removed in this edit, so another clear revert. BigDunc 13:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Please take this to dispute resolution. There are reverts on both sides, and in the hope that both of you can work this out, I'm not blocking. But if it continues post-protection, then sanctions will be issued. seicer | talk | contribs 13:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

User:HarryAlffa reported by User:Ashill (Result: stale )

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

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

Time reported: 18:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 16:19, 1 August 2008

• 1st revert: 16:49, 1 August 2008
• 2nd revert: 17:31, 1 August 2008
• 3rd revert: 17:42, 1 August 2008
• 4th revert: 18:19, 1 August 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 17:44, 1 August 2008

Repeatedly reverting to include wording like "Dwarf Planets are unlike other categories of named celestial objects in that they populate more than one region of the solar system; the Asteroid Belt; the Kuiper Belt; and the Scattered Disc. There are four of them as of mid-2008, though the list is expected to grow."

I'd endorse some sort of action here; the editor in question is repeatedly changing text despite valid concerns voiced by several other editors. (I would take action myself, but cannot at this point as I am one of those who have challenged his work.) --Ckatz_spy 19:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Stale The last revert was about 5 hours ago, so any block would be punitive. I've left the user another note, and if they continue (one further revert), they will be blocked. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Example

== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
*] violation on {{Article|<!-- Place name of Article here -->}}. 
{{3RRV|<!--Place Name of 3RR "violator" here-->}} 
Time reported: ~~~~~
*Previous version reverted to:  <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to. 
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 Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->
*1st revert: 
*2nd revert: 
*3rd revert: 
*4th revert: 
*Diff of 3RR warning: 

See also

• Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages: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.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring