Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:44, 22 May 2007 editArbustoo (talk | contribs)12,546 editsm →[] reported by [] (Result:): add diff← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:30, 10 January 2025 edit undoPhilipPirrip (talk | contribs)27 edits →User:Theonewithreason reported by User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}} (Result: ): new sectionTag: 2017 wikitext editor 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
<noinclude>{{pp-move|small=yes}}</noinclude>
<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
<!--{{adminbacklog}}-->
{{pp-move|small=yes}}
<center>'''Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.<br/>Administrators: please do not hesitate to remove disputes to user talk pages.'''</center>
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-3 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive31--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->
|maxarchivesize = 250K
]
|counter = 491
==Violations==
|algo = old(2d)
Please place new reports '''at the bottom'''.
|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
}}</noinclude>
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->


===] reported by ] (Result: No block)=== == ] reported by ] (Result: /21 blocked for three years) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|UNITA}}
*] violation on
{{Article|Last stand}}. {{3RRV|Miskin}}: Time reported: 13:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|5.187.0.85}}
* 1st revert: Removing Battle of Persian gate
* 2nd revert: Changing the numbers in battle of persian gates
* 3rd revert: Removing Battle of the Hydaspes River
* 4th revert: Reverting Dharmender6767
* 5th revert: Changing the numbers in Battle of Thermopylae and Battle of the Persian Gate


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
] also has been engaged in the edit war but he/she is a new user and has not been warned yet. (] 13:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC))
* No block. Seems that editors are actively editing that page.] <small>]</small> 16:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
**I am new in Misplaced Pages. I didn't know that being active is a good reason for reverting others. I am afraid of editing ] and ] because of his/her reverts. Can someone explain how the system works in this way? This user has also reverted many times .(] 16:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC))
:::I have placed some pointers in your talk page. Please get informed about how this project works, and how you can contribute successfully. In particular read ]. ] <small>]</small> 18:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
===] reported by ] (Result: No block)===
# {{diff2|1268102471|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268102394|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268102305|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268102212|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268101573|04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
*] violation on
{{Article|paraphysics}}. {{3RRV|ScienceApologist}}: Time reported: 15:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


* Previous version reverted to: (a redirect he put in without discussion and with a display of non-cooperation)


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
*There are only three reverts here. --] 16:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


* No block. Pleases use the format required as per the template provided. It is there for a reason. ] <small>]</small> 16:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Vandalism
:{{AN3|b|3 years}} The range {{rangevandal|5.187.0.0/21}} by {{noping|Ahect}} ] (]) 22:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


===] reported by ] (Result: 48 hours)=== == ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
*] violation on
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|BubbleBabis}}
{{Article|American Taekwondo Association}}. {{3RRV|71.29.238.115}}: Time reported: 17:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


* Previous version reverted to: '''Previous version reverted to:'''


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
He's been reverting for a while, but here are the latest 5. I attempted to encourage discussion on the repeatedly deleted section (the criticisms section, which admittedly isn't perfect) but he has refused to participate and keeps deleting the section without explanation or consensus.
# (31 December 2024)
# (6 January 2024)
# (7 January 2025)
# (8 January 2025)


* 1st revert: '''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:


* Diff of 3RR warning:


attempted to delete warnings on his talk page (). '''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> The user was warned multiple times to not insert ] ] in a page which is a ]. Despite this, the user has continued to insert ], while making no attempt to refrain from disruptive editing behaviour or initiate a discussion on the talk page.<br />
*I have blocked the user for 48 hours per ]. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">] (])</span></font> 20:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:no block, removing violations of copyright policy)===
:I've made my position clear. There is NO source that supports your version that between October 2006 and January 2012 he was not a member of any group. The current version is both manipulative (goes from 2006 Mujahideen Shura Council straight to 2012 al-Nusra) and contradicts RS that mention him as member of ISI in that period. There are RS that support my version, none that supports yours. A revision that'd include "2008-2012 ISI" (which would bypass his prison years 2006-08) would be a better solution. But a career infobox that straight-up omits the entire 2006-12 period is unacceptable.--] (]) 19:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{AN3|noex}} And really, this deserves more talking out on the talk page, which hasn't seen any discussion of this for a week (But, that having been said, if it continues like this I or another admin may be less tolerant). ] (]) 23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I would like to note the previous discussion about this particular editor, who has a penchant for creating ]es, adding ] information about al Qaeda to unrelated articles, and a tendency to steal entire sentences from other articles for their additions may be found at ]. ] (]) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|300 (film)|''300''}}. {{3RRV|Ed g2s}}: Time reported: 17:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Science of Identity Foundation}}
* Previous version reverted to:


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sokoreq}}
Duplicate reverts removing images, edit-warring
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
- * User was warned by two separate editors that they were approaching 3RR violations. Violater claimed that they were removing non fair-use images. From a look at the user's edit history, this is not a new issue with them. User is also edit-warring in the article's Discussion page.
-] ] 17:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
:Please don't edit war with an administrator who is trying to enforce our policy on ]. See also ]. ]] 18:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
: um, perhaps you might want to reconsider who is edit-warring with who. I was actually going to remove this complaint, as it appears Ed didn't violate 3RR (he had just done subsequent edits, using 3RR as an electric fence instead).. However, that said, you might want to ''seriously'' consider if the way he is interpreting and implementing this policy is accurate. There needs to be a great deal more oversight in regards to making sure that the folk doing these deletions are clear as what is and is not a vilolation of the policy. Clearly, what he was removing wasn't a violation. As well, you might wish to consider communication with the community effectively enough that perhaps one in five different, unrelated editors are aware of these new interpretations of policy. So far, the editors and admins attempting to be the new sheriff in town are doing it haf-assed. You want us to fall in line with the new interpetation? Maybe tell us about it if, you know, it isn;t too much trouble. ] ] 18:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:To add detail to the report, the images that Ed removed had fair use rationale attached, and there had been discussion a while ago for selecting appropriate screenshots for the Plot section. Whether the choices are disagreeable or not, like Minderbinder said, this is a content dispute, not at all "cleaning up" copyright violations. —] (] • ]) - 22:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268163705|11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 2 edits by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"
::That some people disagree with the strictness of the policy doesn't turn it into a content dispute. ]] 07:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268002110|18:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) please don't revert, and don't start an edit war. even if you are right, please discuss your concerns on my talk page"
# {{diff2|1267995715|17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1267994453|17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
===] reported by ] (Result:Already blocked)===
# {{diff2|1267996755|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"


*] violation on
{{Article|Archimedes Plutonium}}. {{3RRV|216.16.55.81}}: Time reported: 22:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
* Previous version reverted to:
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Conditionally declined) ==
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|History of India}} <br />
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 -->
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Garudam}}
* 1st revert: (as {{3RRV|216.16.57.79}})
* 2nd revert: (ditto)
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert: (as {{3RRV|216.16.55.1}}
**(added)
* 8th revert: (ditto)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
* Diff of 3RR warning:
* Diff of 3RR warning: (as {{3RRV|Superdeterminism}})


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
* Comment: ] blocked (by me) for legal threats. I'm sure some of the other IPs have been blocked for legal threats or vandalism. &mdash; ] | ] 22:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
#
** Already blocked ] <small>]</small> 22:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
#
#
#
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
he removed my warning for whatever reason


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
===] reported by ] (Result: <del>24h</del> no block)===


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
*] violation on
{{Article|300 (film)|''300''}}. {{3RRV|Ed g2s}}: --] 22:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
* Previous version reverted to:
Dont even know where to start with this one. I tried many avenues to solve this with him even after he started edit warring, and his newest replies completely ignored the fact that he has done that. There was a clear consesnsus that the content removal was justified on the talk page. At the time of the edit warring, it was 3-1 with most agreeing that it should be deleted. He completely ignored that fact entirely. I warned him about edit warring, and his response was to remove the warning template on his talk page. The content itself has a ton of issues which we went over in the talk page(completely different dynasty, contradiction by a more authoritative source, not using the term “indianized”)Its clear that my efforts to reach out to him have failed and the content still remains on the article. And non of his new responses have even refuted or mentioned the points made. Requesting administrative action. (] (]) 15:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC))
*'''Comment''': This is a poor report filed by Someguywhosbored. They’re clearly doing their best to hide their obvious flaws. The page in question, ], was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page. Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason . Another user has recently restored the stable version of the article . Not to mention the user they are claiming to gain consensus with i.e. Noorullah21 was also warned by an admin .
:PS: Their ] mentality is clearly visible through their essay like replies below, I'd rather refrain from replying back to them. '''<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">]</span> '''<sup>]</sup> 16:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Nice, you didn’t even mention the fact your edit warring here.
*:“ The page in question, History of India, was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page”
*:wow. All of these points are completely disingenuous. Firstly, if you read the talk page, Flemmish and noorullah both agreed with my edits. Even you eventually agreed that the content should at least be reworded because the sources don’t even follow what’s written on the article. You requested page protection, wrongfully accusing me of edit warring and disruption. And to be clear, it took several replies for you to even acknowledge the points that were made. Even now you’re completely ignoring the points I’ve made in the talk page. All you’ve stated recently is that you’re restoring a stable version. That doesn’t answer any of my concerns at all. The discussion began on my talk page. You ignored and didn’t even respond to any of the points made. There was no discussion on the history of India talk page until I brought it there(because you were ignoring me). And you kept dismissing the points until Flemmish called you out. So don’t act like you seriously tried to discuss this with me. You only bothered talking once you realized that simply reverting the page and wrongfully requesting page protection wouldn’t get your way. And even now you ignored the completely valid reasons for the contents removal.
*:“Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason”
*:Again, disingenuous. He’s bringing up a random conversation over a year ago that began over a simple miscommunication error. Drmies stated himself
*:“ That's better, thanks. I am not a content expert: I did not revert you because I disagreed with the content. As for the talk page--if you had mentioned that in your edit summary”
*:The entire issue was that he didn’t see what I wrote on the talk page because my edit showed up as “no edit summary” even though I could have sworn I left one. Regardless, you’re making this out to be some kind of big problem when in the end, Drmies stated himself that he didn’t disagree with me removing the content. Again, if there was an edit summary, he wouldn’t have reverted. It was just a miscommunication error like I said. And this happened over a year ago when I first started editing. So why are you making that out to be a bigger deal than it is?
*:
*:Regardless, even if you think you’re justified for edit warring, you shouldn’t be edit warring. That’s why I’ve avoided reverting you for a 4th time, so I won’t break 3RR.
*:It’s clear you’re not going to stop making the same changes even if someone reverts you. You haven’t even acknowledged what you’re doing as breaking policy. ] (]) 16:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Also, I’m pretty sure noorullah only reverted once so I have no idea why they received a warning. Regardless, that’s not the main issue here. ] (]) 16:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


{{AN3|d}} Garudam, who as the article indisputably comes under ARBIPA, has and seems from his most recent editing history to have actually done so. This is a good idea IMO, as long as he keeps to his word on this. If he comes back early and just resumes the same behavior, at least a partial block from the page would be in order. ] (]) 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Duplicate reverts removing images, edit-warring
<!-- For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert: (revert to )


:That sounds good to me. I’m guessing he will get reverted anyway. If he reverts again, I’ll mention it here. ] (]) 23:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Ed was reported earlier but only three reverts had been made at that point. Since then he has made a fourth revert, hence this report. This isn't a case of removing copyright violations since ] and the foundation specifically allow nonfree content under certain limitations. This is a content dispute over whether certain images are approprate and justified by the text, and not an exemption from 3RR restrictions. --] 22:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
:To add detail to the report, the images that Ed removed had fair use rationale attached, and there had been discussion a while ago for selecting appropriate screenshots for the Plot section. Whether the choices are disagreeable or not, like Minderbinder said, this is a content dispute, not at all "cleaning up" copyright violations. —] (] • ]) - 22:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
::Edit warring is unacceptable, especially for a long-standing admin, you should be setting an example. Multiple reports and lots of edit warring, and previous blocks are aggravating factors as well in this. You were warned to stop. ''''']''''' ''']''' 23:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Note: block overturned. See previous 3RR report which ruled on the first 3 of these reverts. <span style="font-family: Verdana;">] &bull; ]</span> 00:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
:The previous report was excused because you were "cleaning up copyright violation". Minderbinder and I explained why this wasn't the case. You deserve the block. —] (] • ]) - 01:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
::I second this. Dude, if it wasn't an admin who was doing this, they would be cooling their heels. It doesn't matter what a person is doing in hteir edits. the only exception to 3RR is reverting vandalism. Are the admins here ''actually'' calling those of us who oppose this user's incorrect interpetation of the policy vandals? Either we are all vandals, or this guy broke the rules. And the guy is an admin. If nothing else, admins are supposed to know when they are getting so involved in their edits they violate 3RR. If the rules apply to the rank and file, it most certainly has to apply to the admins as well. Of course, if you are just protecting your fellow admins, we wouldn't really be surprised, as half of us already think that are growing to think that anyway. When a user like Erik starts to lose faith in admins, something is quite frakking wrong. Your authority as neutral authorities is being tested here. Please pay attention and act appropriately. ] ] 01:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
:::As a non-admin member of the Film project I would like to thank ] and every other admin like him for their continued dedication to the project. Banal admin bashing by consummate edit warriors just coming off of their most recent 24 hour block is nothing more than sour grapes. To admins everywhere, keep up the great work. Non-admins support you and your commitment to preserving and maintaining the integrity of this project is held in the highest regard. &mdash;] | ] 04:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I endorse the unblock, but would urge ed to try to get help from other admins as soon as there is a problem with people trying to restore unfree images on shaky grounds, and ''before'' it comes to a 3RR case. ]] 07:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Westville Boys' High School}}
This just condones, if not encourages, edit warring by admins. I thought the point was that edit warring is bad? --] 12:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|37.72.154.146}}
===] reported by ] (Result: No block)===


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
*] violation on
]. {{3RRV|Bill_Storm}}: Time reported: 23:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
* Previous version reverted to:
# {{diff|oldid=1268186285|diff=1268208200|label=Consecutive edits made from 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|1268186883|14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268202556|16:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268202677|16:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268203165|16:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268204621|16:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268204745|16:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268204943|16:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268205104|16:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268208200|17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Modern times */"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
# {{diff2|1268160425|11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]."
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 -->
# {{diff2|1268160707|11:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Conflict of interest on ]."
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!--
# {{diff2|1268160586|11:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* COI tag (January 2025) */ new section"
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
:*Improper report: only 3 reverts, no block. ] 01:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
===] reported by ] (Result: No block)===
{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] by ] (Result: No violation) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|Kennedy Fried Chicken}}. {{3RRV|Burntsauce}}: Time reported: 00:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}}<br />
* Previous version reverted to:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
:*Improper report - only 3 reverts. No block. ] 01:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


===] reported by ] (Result: <del>24 hours</del> No block)===


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
*] violation on
#
{{Article|Misplaced Pages:Non-free content}}. {{3RRV|Ned Scott}}: Time reported: 07:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


* Previous version reverted to: '''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert: — Corrected revision. ]</font><sup>]</font></sup> 12:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
;Comment:
I reverted an addition that was in conflict with Foundation policy, and was added without anything near a strong consensus. Such an addition is fundamentally wrong. Agree with it or not, that is not how you chance policy. -- ] 07:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
:I agree with Ned on this. The addition should not be happening when it's disputed. Point in fact it is disputed by multiple users. ] 07:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
::Please, one can't talk oneself out of 4 reverts. It's just not permitted and the editor has been editing long enough that he should be well aware of our policies on this matter. ] 07:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
:::. -- ] 08:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


I edited ] and added templates for weasel words and unbalanced following ]. To my surprise, as I tried to submit my edit to address issues with the text, the user in question had already reverted my tags without discussion and just childishly wrote "No." as their justification for their revert, and then astonishingly raised the article protection. I then went to said user's talk page to try and discuss my numerous concerns, adding in-line templates for every line to truly help them see what I saw wrong with it as obviously I would assume good faith and just that their must have been some confusion, and even more astonishingly in under a minute they silently deleted that talk page discussion.
Comment - Times given in the above links are BST, = UTC+1. Sorry, should have thought of this.&nbsp;&ndash; ]<small> ]</small> 09:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
*I've blocked him for 24 hours. I concur this section might be deemed wrong, but editors should continue adhering ] before making a revert. Further edit warring will result in protection. ]</font><sup>]</font></sup> 12:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
*Unblocked. Trying to force through a policy through which contradicts the Foundation and has no consensus is something that must be immediately reverted. Perhaps the user should have requested page protection, but there's no need for a block. <span style="font-family: Verdana;">] &bull; ]</span> 13:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
::Ed is a participant in this dispute, for him to unblock in this situation is abuse of admin powers and conflict of interest. I'd encourage another admin to reblock and look into Ed's behavour. --] 13:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
* I believe the block should be returned, especially due to the numerous amount of established editors participating in the edit war, and the fact that Ed unblocked because he felt that Ned was defending the page (despite the fact that I see a clear two-sided edit war here among numerous established editors). Seems like an incorrect unblock based on something that cannot be considered an exception to 3RR. &mdash; ''']]''' 13:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
::There is no dispute. This is simply removing an unjustifiable edit to our policy page. Regardless of opinion or consensus (which there isn't even) - we cannot modify our EDP to contradict the Foundation licensing policy. This is non-negotiable. <span style="font-family: Verdana;">] &bull; ]</span> 13:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Since the page is currently protected, a reinstatement of the block would be punitive and not helpful regardless of whether one thinks the original block was correct and the subsequent unblock were correct. This is therefore moot] 13:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
*This was an incorrect unblock on User:ed g2s's part, as it sets a very bad example by encouraging the editor to continue violating our 3RR policy. Whether Ed g2s approves of the 4 reverts or not is irrelevant. Ed g2s, in fact, is a participant in the dispute, and his unblock thus shows a strong conflict of interest. The unblock makes it appear as if the 3RR rule is only enforced selectively. This is not about being punitive, it is about adhering to our principles. Please reinstate the block promptly. ] 18:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


* This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours)===


There are obvious weasel words and I am very much calling into question the balancing of the writing used and the user can't just revert and raise protection level. Proper procedure is to discuss via talk page. ] (]) 01:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*] violation on
{{Article|Indian Rebellion of 1857}}. {{3RRV|Jvalant}}: Time reported: 12:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


:'''They have been warned before''' about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
* Previous version reverted to:


:]
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
:"""
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
:] Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Misplaced Pages without adequate explanation, as you did at ], you may be ]. <!-- Template:uw-delete3 --> ] (]) 14:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
* 1st revert:
:: Stop warning people when you're edit warring against multiple other editors. ] (]) 15:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
* 2nd revert:
:: They're up to it again ] (]) 01:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
* 3rd revert:
:""" ] (]) 01:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
* 4th revert:
:*Has he been warned for potentially violating 3RR before? ]</font><sup>]</font></sup> 12:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
::* and --] 12:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
:::*Blocked for 24 hours. ]</font><sup>]</font></sup> 12:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->


: NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics. I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per ]. There has been consistent consensus against NQ's position, see for example ] (this article was merged in to the " Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article), which shows the consensus regarding the issue is completely opposite to NQs position, and shows that the tags are unjustified. I am completely entitled to revert any post on my talkpage (which is what NQ means when he says I "tried to delete me reporting them", and I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article and so am not in violation of the 3RR. I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do. ] (]) 01:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: No block)===
::"NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics."
::Incorrect, for example I was the one who almost exclusively wrote about the James McMurdock of ] abuse scandal, amongst other things. ]
::Immediately accusing me of bad faith is deflection.
::"I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per ]."
::Genuinely shocking that you're suggesting my blocking, I didn't even go that far with you despite everything and all you're upset with is my supposed unfair edit history.
::"There has been consistent consensus against NQ's position, see for example ]"
::Weasel words aren't mentioned even once in this discussion. Some discussion is about balance but you couldn't even know my gripe if you just delete my discussion with you.
::"I "tried to delete me reporting them""
::I edited this out of my report because I didn't think it was explained clearly but as you commented on it, I meant reporting you to you. I can understand the confusion.
::"I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article"
::3RR is not the only edit warring rule and honestly this is redundant if you just raise protection levels to block any more edits to begin with ] (]) 02:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|nv}}. This report is a mess. ] (]) 02:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:What is wrong with the report? That I didn't perfectly follow the template? That doesn't mean a violation didn't take place. I can re-format my report, one moment ] (]) 02:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::{{re|NotQualified}} Do not "re-format" this report. If you insist on filing a report that is readable, file a new one, but there would still be no violation. Also, do not copy in other users' comments into reports. It's very confusing and hard to follow. You can include them by saying "so-and-so did this" and use a diff to show what the user did. The way you did it made it look like those users had commented on your report. That was the messiest part of the report.--] (]) 02:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I'm still learning how to format on Misplaced Pages, so sorry. I re-formatted before you posted. Why would there be "... still be no violation"? I understand that I shouldn't directly post user comments and should follow template next time, but I am confused at how their conduct is acceptable. 3RR is not the only rule and is largely redundant when I'm accusing the user of raising protection levels after a single revert and then refusing to discuss it when brought up on their talk page. ] (]) 02:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::I will try to put my report as brief as possible, so there is no confusion.
*::::# I add templates to an article with faults
*::::# The user immediately reverts without explanation and raises the protection level
*::::# I, assuming good faith, go to them in accordance with protocol and show my problems line by line
*::::# They immediately revert that, justifying it in the revert log by saying I have a "right wing agenda" (I do not) amongst other nonsense. This is even more concerning when most of my so-called "right wing " recent edits are rape gang scandal related.
*::::# I see that they've actually been reported for the exact same thing a week ago, wiping articles of child sex abuse in the UK. This is a pattern of behaviour of bad faith.
*::::# Knowing now I'm dealing with a troll with privileges, I go here and try to explain my case
*::::# I notify the user
*::::# I am not familiar with all the protocols of Misplaced Pages so my report is messy
*::::# Their defense is lies, I go line by line saying why. The only crux of their argument is that they technically didn't violate 3RR because instead of reverting anything else they did something far worse and raised the protection level
*::::# You tell me my report is messy and there's no problem
*::::I hope I summarised that in a way that makes more sense but I fully acknowledge you know more than me and could correct a mistake in my analysis ] (]) 02:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::They edited the above answer "I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do."
*:::::That seems to be the case, so I apologise for the confusion caused. I still argue however they are in repeat violation of rules around UK rape incidents and I personally think that due to it being a pattern of behaviour there should be at least a warning given, if not a total suspension from editing on rape or abuse in the UK. I do not believe reverting a template is enough for a warning, even given that's generally bad conduct. but refusing to discuss afterwards and furthermore this being a repeat pattern of behaviour makes me question the impartiality and good faith of the editor.
*:::::I admit, my report could've been formatted better, and I apologise for saying they raised protection when they didn't, that must've been an edit conflict that confused me. They are not in violation of 3RR and as they haven't raised protection but they've acted poorly, repeatedly, and I've refuted their arguments above quite clearly around conduct. I am not calling for a general suspension. I am however at least calling for warning to be given, or better a ban on editing UK rape scandals.
*:::::I am going to re-add weasel words and balance to the section. ] (]) 02:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|Institute of Noetic Sciences}}. {{3RRV|Martinphi}}: Time reported: 13:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Biology and sexual orientation}}
* Previous version reverted to:


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|80.200.232.89}}
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert: (removed "alleged" again)
* 2nd revert: (removed alleged and listing of specific topics again, added "consciousness and its potentials" again)
* 3rd revert: (removed listing of specific topics again, added "consciousness and its potentials" again)
* 4th revert: (added "consciousness and its potentials" again)
* (5th revert, technically doesn't count toward 3RR count (nine minutes outside 24 hour period), but evidence of continued revert warring: ) (added "consciousness and its potentials" again)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
Generally partial reverts, some wording tweaks on edits but still the same additions and subtractions of the same disputed material repeatedly. --] 13:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
: 3RR blocks are not punitive. Editors has not reverted since May 10. If he persists, please relist. ] <small>]</small> 15:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268291574|02:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Genetic influence"
::That was only a few hours before this is reported. This isn't a request for punitive action, this is a request for admin intervention to make the reversion stop. I'm not sure what makes you think that this editor has stopped reverting on this article? --] 15:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268272867|23:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Significant skill issues regarding the ability to read the edit summary and the study itself."
:::...and when he returned, he went right back to revert warring . --] 12:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268269093|23:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268248948|21:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Rv straight up lying. The source itself asserts a 22% variance in shared environment, 43% in nonshared environment. Stop vandalizing the pages I edit."


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours)===
# {{diff2|1268273398|23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
*] violation on
# {{diff2|1268273324|23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Vandalizing */"
{{Article|Battle of the Persian Gate}}. {{3RRV|Dharmender6767}}: Time reported: 13:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
* Previous version reverted to:


:'''Comment:''' I tried had a discussion with the IP editor on their talk page about misunderstandings on the definition on 'environment' which they seemed to come around on. But then they started adding in and edit warring there . Blatant troll ]. ] (]) 02:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* Diff of 3RR warning:
* Diff of 2nd 3RR warning:


:It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.
<!--
:And I will revert edits done by MrOllie if they don't even provide a reason or a rebuttal for why what I did was wrong. You did, so I stopped. ] (]) 02:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
:Also, how is talking about the genetic influence of homosexuality through the GWAS method controversial at all? I can accept that I was wrong regarding the environment dispute, but this is just ain't it. ] (]) 02:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
::There is both unanswered discussion on the article talk page, as well as relevant discussion you had with Zenomonoz on your user talk. In any case, the onus is on you to secure agreement from other editors. ] (]) 03:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
* Diff of 3RR warning:
:::In addition to the 4 reverts listed above, you're also up to 3 reverts at ], not one as you claim. ] (]) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
-->
::::You're just being purposefully antagonistic lol. We solved the issue already, that's why you didn't revert it again. Then zenomonoz strolls in and reverts because he thought the issue persisted, now he's just grasping straws and finding excuses like requiring a secondary source when half the God damn encyclopedia uses nothing but primary sources. ] (]) 04:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::To be clear the issue was the race and intelligence example I used. ] (]) 04:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::The issue is absolutely not 'solved'. That I was not willing to edit war in this instance does not mean that I agree with you. ] (]) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::Because Misplaced Pages is based upon secondary sources, like reviews, and not primary source studies that are often misinterpreted by readers (and editors) such as yourself. ] (]) 03:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::It's funny because 3 out of 7 (primary) sources used in the GWAS article can also be found in the article ']' alone, just to illustrate my point to you about how you're grasping at straws ] (]) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 13:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked 48 hours) ==
I would like to add that Dharmender had also broken 3RR two days ago in the article ] but I did not report him on the basis that he was a new user. He has been warned about 3RR, NPOV etc ''multiple'' times ever since, but there doesn't seem to be any improvement on his rv-warring habits. His edit-warring above continues as we speak . ] 14:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|The Time (band)}}
: i just read about this rule, but if undoing more than 3 edits in 24 hour is prohibited, then why hasn't ] been punished yet, he undid 4 edits on ] in less than 24 hours. why the double standard?{{unsigned}}


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|104.173.25.23}}
You were warned about this rule and received a link to ] by at least 3 different users, in your talk page, articles' talk page and edit summaries. ] 14:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
*I have blocked the user for 24 hours per ]. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">] (])</span></font> 14:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hrs)===
# {{diff2|1268310745|04:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Already took it to talk"
# {{diff2|1268310470|04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268310062|04:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268308804|04:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Please stop the edit war. These reverts are vandalism."
# {{diff2|1268308036|04:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Deleted content is irrelevant and was inappropriately added"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
*] violation on
{{Article|Espio the Chameleon}}. {{3RRV|Killacrockka}}: Time reported: 15:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


* Previous version reverted to:
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''


<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* Diff of 3RR warning:
<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
I was on routine recent change/new page patrol and noted that this article was recreated a number of times. Further research into the article shows that a consensus was made to NOT split characters in the article ] into their own separate articles. The editor continues to replace the article, with his reasoning being "READ THE DAM DESCUSION ARTICKLE ON CHAOTIX, ME & TMNT DONATELO WHONT EM" (from the edit summary of one of the above edits. Further more, the editor has blanked his talk pagewith previous comments regarding the same issue, and made threats to an editor over this same issue. ] 15:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
* 24 hours ] <small>]</small> 15:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
===] reported by ] (Result:24h)===


Ongoing edit warring after warning on users talk page ] (]) 04:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*] violation on
* {{AN3|b|48 hours}} —''']''' (]) 04:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Article|Geoffrey Giuliano}}. {{3RRV|Bangkokbasher}}: Time reported: 21:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Page move-protected) ==
* Previous version reverted to:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Shecose}}
<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
-->
* Diff of 3RR warning:


'''Previous version reverted to:'''


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
There is a long-standing problem with several incarnations of the same user (who might be the subject of the article or a very keen fan). History and talk of the article and of the user page show that several editors have tried to draw his attention to WP policies and to discuss possible changes to the article, but to no avail.
# {{diff2|1268346980|08:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. The editor is acting out of personal hate instead of collaborating."
*Blocked for 24 hours. ] ] 22:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268346280|08:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. There are multiple people edited this article."
# {{diff2|1268345229|08:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
===] reported by ] (Result: 72 hours)===


*] violation on
{{Article|Nicolas Sarkozy}}. {{3RRV|Showninner}}: Time reported: 22:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
* Previous version reverted to:


<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
* Editor has been insisting on inserting stuff about Sarkozy being of "Greek-Jewish ancestry", using various formulations. He has just come back from a for tendentious editing on the same article. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 22:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*I have blocked the user for 72 hours per ]. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">] (])</span></font> 22:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:48 hours)===


This article is about a highly anticipated film with a large base of interest. There are hundreds of references available following its teaser and poster release, and it has been confirmed that principal photography has begun. Despite all this, the user ] has draftified the article multiple times. When asked about the policy, he simply forwarded the entire article, which was edited by multiple editors, to satisfy his personal ego. His actions are not collaborative and should be noted. ] (]) 09:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*] violation on
*I am going to advise that we delay any action here until ] is resolved. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Article|Kobe Bryant}}. {{3RRV|Tyrus Thomas4lyf}}: Time reported: 23:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
*:That is because {{u|CNMall41}}'s only possible actual justification for the move warring against a draftification objection is block evasion, and their actions would normally lead to a block. And even if this <em>is</em> block evasion, waiting for the investigation's result would have been advisable. ] (]) 19:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|p}}: Move protection for now, and if redirection is still desired, please start a deletion discussion for it (]). Even if this is sockpuppetry, the page qualifies neither for ] (due to substantial edits by others) nor redirection as a form of reverting block evasion (due to collateral damage). In such cases, it can help to focus on the content and decide independently of whether someone might be a sockpuppeteer. ] (]) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


:{{u|Shecose}}, {{tqq|to satisfy his personal ego}} (above and in ] too) is a personal attack; you too should focus on the content. ] (]) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::Apologies, I withdraw that. I wasn't aware of it, and it happened in the heat of the argument. ] (]) 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*I realize the policy states, ''An editor must not perform more than three reverts'', right? '''This is three, not more than three.''' It shows the desperation. ] (]) 07:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Sock indefinitely blocked) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|Kobe Bryant}}. {{3RRV|TyrusThomas4lyf}}: Time reported: 23:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Korean clans of foreign origin}} <br />
* Previous version reverted to:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ger2024}}


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
# "Undid revision 1268223854 by CountHacker (talk)"
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 -->
# "Undid revision 1268302350 by Sunnyediting99 (talk) There is no real way to track the origin of all Korean Bongwan. However the fact that Lady Saso gave birth to Hyeokgeose and that Lady Saso came from China was recorded in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. If this does not prove, then most korean bongwan that has foreign origin are not proven as well. None will be valid then."
* 1st revert:
# "Undid revision 1268312984 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)Then most Korean surname of foreign origin will not be proven as well, including those from Mongolia, Vietnam, & India. Most of the information from this page is taken from Encyclopedia of Korean Culture in Naver, which was provided by Korean themselves. Also even if Lady Saso came from Buyeo. Buyeo is centered in today's northeast China."
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert: # "Undid revision 1268314825 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)"
# "Undid revision 1268318492 by CountHacker (talk) There are only 3 therories, the golden egg is extremely unlikely. The other theory is Buyeo & China. The Buyeo theory does not have much supported evidence. On the other hand the China theory, have some sources supporting it in Encyclopedia of korean culture and also in Korean language and literature dictionary (provided by korean academist) in Naver)"
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:


The first one os a revert too, from a while back. <i><font face="arial, helvetica" color="Blue"><b></b></font></i> ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 23:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!--
#: "Please engage with me on the talk page rather than undoing my edits and trying to edit war, first and foremost most of the page is unsourced to begin with, so its not really drawing from the Encylopedia. Additionally, the Samguk Yusa is not a reliable source and its disputed if its Buyeo or China. Finally, Buyeo is generally considered a Koreanic state by academics."
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
# "Lady Saso: Reply"
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
::*Already blocked. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
# "Lady Saso: New Section"
# "Lady Saso: Reply"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
===] reported by ] (Result:1 month)===
Taken from the i had submitted when I should have submitted here.


Ger2024 has been ] and violated ] (they have as of now made five reverts) and possibly ] despite my direct requests asking them to and to instead discuss with me and @CountHacker on the Talk Page. While they did respond to my efforts to try to talk to them on the Talk Page, they immediately then reverted my edits after they made their comments. The initial edits started when another Misplaced Pages user was verifying and deleting some info on the page (likely for factual accuracy) when the reverts began.
*] violation on
{{Article|Battle of the Persian Gate}}. {{3RRV|Miskin}}: Time reported: 00:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


In regards to WP:NPOV, there is a POV push, despite the multiple corrections both I and @CountHacker have issued. We notified the user that the same source they are using from is generally considered historically unreliable because it is a collection of folklore and legends (the source, while a valuable insight into Korean folklore, claims that the founder of the Korean kingdom of Silla was born from a literal Golden Egg, so cannot be taken to be factual because humans cannot be born from Golden Eggs).
* Previous version reverted to:


Despite trying to talk to them, they are just ignoring my and CountHackers actual points, and we even had more discussion but they just made their fifth revert.
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:


End of ANI Report: Additional comment I would like to add, reflecting on this a few hours later, I think ] might be relevant, something unusual is that the account has only edited on this specific page (they have made 49 edits total, 47/49 of these edits are all on this page and/or the talk page despite the account being 10 months old), and i found it a bit unusual that the account reverted someone elses edits within after being inactive since based off their ].
- * Four reverts in five hours, please note that all the revisions have been made with the ultimate goal of replacing the number '''700''' in the info box with '''25,000'''. As per ]: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, '''in whole or in part''', on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." Also, the user has been blocked previously for 3RR violations. --] 00:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
**Having examined the page history here, I'm not prepared to regard the fourth edit here as a 'revert', because Miskin's edit there preserved the claim of Ariobarzanes' army being only 700 strong. ] has three clear reverts, but not a fourth, and has not broken the ]. ] 11:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


] (]) 14:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
**:It's clearly at least a partial revert. I'm going to go ahead and block for 24 hours anyway, at the least it violates the 3RR spirit. ] ] ] 05:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
*Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--] (]) 14:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
Whoa, holy block history batman. Extending to 1 month due to vast history of disruptiveness. If you disagree, take it to AN/I. ] ] ] 05:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Novak Djokovic}} <br />
===] reported by ] (Result:24 hours)===
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Theonewithreason}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
*] violation on
{{Article|The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints}}. {{3RRV|NI4D}}: Time reported: 04:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


* Previous version reverted to:


#'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
#
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert: #
* 2nd revert: #
* 3rd revert:


* Diff of 3RR warning:


This user continues to revert. ] 05:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


Additional reverts to ] and many Mormon related articles. ] 05:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
**Blocked 24 hours by ]. ] 11:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
=== ] Reported by ] (Result:No violation) ===
*] violation on
{{Article|Anberlin}}. {{3RRV|Hoponpop69}}: Time reported: 04:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


* Previous version reverted to: '''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Anberlin&diff=129947078&oldid=129414901, May 10, 2007


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
*The reverts have to be within a 24 hour period. ] has not broken the ]. In any case violations from 6 May are stale by now. ] 11:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


I also find the baseless message the user had left me personally intimidating . Threats to report my 3RR message . Is this how unwelcoming Misplaced Pages is supposed to be? ] (]) 09:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:24 hours)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus}}. {{3RRV|193.223.98.186}}: Time reported: 17:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
---
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:
and so on...{{3RRV|Makalp}}: Time reported: <font face="Brush Script MT" color="red" size="4">]</font>]] 17:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

What can I say? I asked them, don't blind revert, go and talk on the talk page!! Nobody came...--] 17:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours)===

*] violation on
{{Article|List of best-selling albums worldwide}}. {{3RRV|Micheal-Nick}}: Time reported: ] 20:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
* 1st revert: rv with wiki-clone and forum references.
* 2nd revert: rv with wiki-clone and forum references.
* 3rd revert: rv with wiki-clone and forum references.

] has reverted 17 times since beginning of May, and currently 3 times since notified of 3RR rule in past 24 hours. He has been told why his edits are not verifiable references within this article and multiple other articles, but he refuses to listen, and been abusive. Also someone deleted his discussion page, which I reversed.

*You are supposed to list the fourth revert in a 24-hour period. However, looking at the article history it is clear this user is a revert warrior who reverted at 14:00, 20:06 on 11 May and 11:55 and 13:21 on 12 May. This makes four reverts in 24 hours and a clear 3RR breach. 24 hours. ] 21:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:No violation)===

*] violation on
{{Article|List of people from Ridgefield, Connecticut}}. {{3RRV|69.118.129.76}}: Time reported: 20:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

] is an anonymous IP address, but clearly the same one person since they have engaged in a revert war with over 9 reversions despite multiple warnings and even an attempt at discussion on the articles . Someone else must look into this and take appropriate action.

*For a three revert violation, the editor must revert more than three times within a 24-hour period. This IP address has not done that. No violation. ] 21:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

:*Then what is this user doing? I'm sorry if I am dense, but it is clear this user is non-cooperative and very disruptive. ] 22:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

::*The three revert rule is there to stop sterile revert wars. It is not necessarily useful in stopping all disruptive editing. I do notice that this user has gone to the article talk page to explain why they think the section which they are removing should come out. You should continue to discuss the issue, inviting views from outside if necessary using a ]. ] 22:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

:::*For the record, I've posted an RFC . ] 15:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

=== ] reported by ] (Result:1 week)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Georgia (country)}}. {{3RRV|Sosomk}}: Time reported: 20:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* et al.

Despite continuous discussion, this editor continues to revert recent consensual edits to the introduction regarding the country's location -- the consensual version ] that it is located at the juncture of ] and ] (and S. alone objects to this version), while the version which S. maintains is very unclear and unjustified (not to mention unsourced) but partial to its inclusion in (or outside of?) ]. In his carte blanche reverts (which have been reverted by me and at least one other), amid his accusations of vandalism and POV editing, S. has reverted other edits too and . ] 22:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

*One week, because of clear violation, aggressive attitude, failure to go to the talk page, and because it's his third block for 3rr. ] 23:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:Blocked, 24 hours)===
{{resolved}}
*] violation on
{{Article|Chic (band)}}. {{3RRV|Pocat-chictribute.com}}: Time reported: 04:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

Repeated re-introduction of emphasis on a band name's supposed official typeset, after the article was recently moved to a less stylized variant per ]. No edit summaries, no talk page messages, even though the editor in question has been around for about a year. - ] 04:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
:{{tick}} '''Blocked''' &mdash; {{3RRV|Pocat-chictribute.com}} ] for 24 hours for a violation of ] at ] ~ ] 13:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:48h)===

*] violation on {{Article|Massacres during the Greek Revolution}}. {{3RRV|Laertes_d}} and {{3RRV|85.100.197.27}}: Time reported: 16:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning: Numerous warnings in the ], user has already been blocked four times in this and other relevant articles for 3RR ()

The user keeps reorganizing the layout of the page in order to place ] emphasis on certain events. The anon account is obviously his, as he has been dealing with the exact same articles and with the exact same POV all day today. (this and ]). User admits this is his IP . ]] 16:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
*Blocked for 48 hours by another admin. ] ] 06:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:no vio)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Indian Rebellion of 1857}}. {{3RRV|RaiderAspect}}: Time reported: 19:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Indian_Rebellion_of_1857&diff=130065269&oldid=130064056 Warning on article talk page at 11:39, 11 May 2007
*Only three reverts given. Need more than three for 3RR vio. ] ] 19:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


===] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 31 Hours)===

*] violation on
{{Article|HIM (band)}}. {{3RRV|Diluvien}}: Time reported: 20:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Blocked for 31 hours. Three more reverts since posting. --''']''' <sup>]</sup> 05:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:31 hours)===

*] violation on
{{Article|HIM (band)}}. {{3RRV|The Future}}: Time reported: 20:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

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

There has to be 4 ''exact'' reverts within the same 24 hours to be a violation, which I haven't committed.. — ] 21:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

:You're spreading your POV with support of unreliable sources. --] 21:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

::You're spreading your ignorance of ]. — ] 21:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Hey cool, it's full. --] 23:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

*Clear violation; 31 hours in line with the block to ] above. ] 08:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:no block)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Ratatouille (film)}}. {{3RRV|71.114.232.137}}: Time reported: 04:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

* Diff of 3RR warning: . User may also be using the ] username, as similar edits have been made by this editor as well. This particular edit in question has been added and reverted numerous times over the past few weeks. ] 04:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
**User hasn't reverted since 3RR warning, so no block for now. Return if the edit war resumes. ] ]

* 5th revert: <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 13:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
*6th revert: ] 13:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
*7th revert: ] 19:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: moot due to autoblock)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Lyme disease military history}}. {{3RRV|User:69.120.212.35}}: Time reported: 06:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

Please note that I believe this anonymous user to be identical to (sockpuppet of) ] who also removed the AfD tag once tonight. Both users have also made very distinctive posts on this topic (see and , note both users are claiming to have written the page). Both users were warned to stop removing AfD tags: and .

'''Update''' ] has yet again removed the AfD tag on ]. -]<sup>]/]</sup> 11:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

*I have blocked ] for 24 hours for removing the AfD tags, which is regarded as simple vandalism. This may render this report moot (as the autoblock was not disabled, we'll see if 69.120 edits during the next 24 hours). ] 11:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:24h)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming}}. {{3RRV|Britcom}}: Time reported: 12:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

* Diff of previous 3RR warning:
Comment: I wouldn't be so bothered but this is an edit warring editor who even argues the toss when 3RR is pointed out to him see:

Add ] for good measure. Altogether quite an unconstructive attitude. ] 13:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
:Blocked for 24 hours. A write-up is in progress on the user's talk page. ] 13:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
::As for civil, Dr. Schulz's comments were quite trollish. ~ ] 16:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
:::] ] 21:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
::::I never said what he did was right, although his comments on Dr. Schulz's page were pale in comparison. ~ ] 05:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

:This is a case where the 3RR is being alleged by article squatters and they have lied to make my edits look like a 3RR in this post. The fact is that the squatters are attempting to use administrative rules to punish those whom they do not not approve of. A dispute arose on the talk page about the name of the article. The three squatters decided to gang up on the person who placed the tag on the page. It is obvious to anyone that the tag was warranted. Immediately the tag was removed. So I posted on the talk page, and that meant that the dispute continued, so I placed the tag on the page again because the dispute was on again. Again the tag was almost immediately removed. So I posted again and linked to the policy that requires the tag to be there. Then I placed an entirely different tag WP:Weasel on the page. Immediately the squatters come here to complain about what is essentially nothing in an attempt to divert attention from their own disruptive behavior. The squatters have a POV agenda on the page and anyone disputing that POV is harassed. When I warned one of them on his user talk page ] He threatened me on my user page and then got one of his Admin friends to block me. (he later deleted my warning from his user page so the admin would not notice it.) Let me repeat at this point, there were NOT 4 reverts by me. As for uncivil, that can only be characterized as a lie. I said nothing uncivil. As for the so called "'Diff of previous 3RR warning'", that has also been lied about. If you look at the record on that unrelated warning you will find that I had only reverted twice in that case and the warning was a actually a "fore-Warning" not a warning. So the the squatters have made their point with me that they know how to bash other editors and that of course is a shame that they can do that on Misplaced Pages and get away with it. That is all I have to say on this subject. --] 12:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
::Reasoning with administrators is a rather fruitless endeavour. ~ ] 22:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: No Vio)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Cyprus}}. {{3RRV|Aristovoul0s}}: Time reported: 06:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

Despite an article introduction at Cyprus which has been consensually arrived at (and is otherwise stable), this editor continues to insinuate wordiness without consensus and has been reverted by me and others. And despite lengthy discussion on the talk page, and . If this isn't a clear case of edit warring, I don't know what is. ] 12:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
* ] and ] each had three reverts ''after'' the initial post. One more from either would likely constitute a violation. --''']''' <sup>]</sup> 14:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
**WTF? The links above are very clear, and such editing also predates the current post. I am no saint, but this is getting ridiculous and this page is becoming increasingly useless regarding its function. If you fail to act on reports, then admins have only themselves to blame if retaliatory editing continues. Why should I/we bother? ] 14:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
***If Aristovoul0s is blocked, Corticopia should be blocked also (3 rvs + and identical edit are not 4 rvs). In fact, you independently violated the 3RR on ] yesterday, and I'm surprised no one reported you. I think you rv war too much. I think we should let this issue go...--] 14:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
****Any whole or partial edits are included in 3RR. And this is coming from an editor who, for example, continues to maintain 'Vardar Macedonia' is appropriate for the Macedonia DAB to describe the republic. Seems like Greek collusion to me. Whatever, perhaps you should let go ... ] 15:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
*****Then you shouldn't object if I report you. I originally wasn't going to because I find 3RR blocks unhelpful and an obstalce to negotiation (except in the most dire cases of rv warring). This is my vindictive streak again - no matter how much I try to suppress it, I can't :-( ] 15:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
******I object to your opportunism and POV-pushing, but -- self-admittedly -- what else should one expect from an editor such as yourself? ] 15:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. ]'s comments seems not valid here since He/she continue Rv's instead of ] in that article, immediately after Aristovoul0s.<font face="Brush Script MT" color="red" size="4">]</font>]] 13:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Georgia (country)}}. {{3RRV|Corticopia}}: Time reported: 15:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

*User keeps restoring his version of the intro ("a Eurasian country in the Caucasus...")

**Not just my version, but one consensually agreed upon, with the edit warrior who challenged it being blocked for one week. As for the reporter, well, whatever, but said editor is objectionable to say the least. ] 15:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

'''Result:''' This is a clear violation on ] part; however I am not acting on it at this time for two reasons. 1. This nomination is retaliatory and itself a violation of ]. 2. A timely block would be about to expire by now. Both users will be warned. I am going to submit this to ] for review so it is possible that another admin will issue a block. --''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


===] reported by ] (Result:No block)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Catalonia}}. {{3RRV|D%C3%BAnadan}}: Time reported: 19:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:

:*The dissambiguation of the article ] clearly states that ''"the article is about the ]. See also ] (for the historic territory) and ]"''. ] keeps reverting to add information about the ] which does not belong to this article lead paragraph as it has it own main article.
:*In addition, he is negliging ] here (]), which also means I suffered a ] here ((]), accusing me of having ''"hidden motives towards Catalonia"'', and he is pushing ] to the extreme of not letting other users to freely edit, monopolizing the articles in which he is present (see: ], ] (which needed a ]) and ]). All 3 articles are suffering from his monopole and not a single editor may contribute if it is not with his approval in their talk-pages, which has make everybody to flee their editions. Hundreds of kb of discussions are the proof.
::{{notdone}}&mdash;there appears to be no violation of ]; this is upon examination of the three ]s given. If further diffs are available, please repost ~ ] 20:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->

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



===] reported by ] (Result: Blocked for 48 hours)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Template:Infobox National Military Albania}}. {{3RRV|Gon4z}}: Time reported: 21:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:

:I've blocked him for 48 hours, as he is a repeat offender. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: Blocked for 48 hours; see above)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Military of Albania}}. {{3RRV|Gon4z}}: Time reported: 21:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
One more, he reverts so fast you I have trouble keeping up!!!

Furthermore user is also in an edit war on ]
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* '''6th''' revert:


* Furthermore user is also in an edit war on ] 5 reverts
* Furthermore user is also in an edit war on ] '''6''' reverts
* Furthermore user is also in an edit war on ] 3 reverts

This user has been banned for the same offence last week: ] and also banned for insulting and threatening other user: , , , ,

Discussion on the talkpages are refused by him and other users are called “delusional”, "God dam retarded" and continuously insinuates that everyone that does not believe in his source (a uncle in the Albanian Army) must "have some sort of hatred towards Albanians" and more insults all the time. I suggest an extended ban now, as he has obviously learned nothing and continue his uncooperative and rude behaviour. ] 21:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

* Diff of 3RR warning:

:Blocked for 48 hours (see above). Given the recalcitrant nature of the problem, it may be worth proposing a more permanent solution at the ]. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:1 week)===

*] violation on
{{Article|An Jung-geun}}. {{3RRV|melonbarmonster}}: Time reported: 02:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

Nature of the edits: He is persistently removing legitimate category tags without discussion.

Editor has been blocked for 3RR twice, once on 1 March, and again on 13 April (for 48 hours the second time for repeated violations).

Editor has been blocked for personal attacks twice, and continues with attacks and incivility
,
, and
.

:Besides the ad hominem attacks, reported reverts above are consecutive edits. I would much rather be engage in a substantive discussion regarding disagreement at hand rather than dealing with EW'ing, leaving "warnings" that agitate ego debates and attempts at getting editors who disagree with me banned.] 03:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

:: There is nothing consecutive about the reverts; click on the diffs. You were reverting each time. ] 03:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Blocked for one week. Komdori: be careful not to edit war yourself. Don't forget that the 3RR is an electric fence, not an entitlement. Thanks. ] ] 03:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

:::: All right. I apologize, it's sometimes easy to get sucked in, especially on something simple like this when I actually believed it was a simple misunderstanding (at first). Sorry to bug you. ] 03:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::You're not bugging me. Just thought I'd give you a reminder (since, as you said, it's easy to get caught up in the moment). ] ] 03:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

===] and ] reported by ] (Result:no block)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Robert Duncan McNeill}}. {{3RRV|Dcs47}} and {{3RRV|Andromeda}}: Time reported: 04:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

* All reverts shown on
*No technical 3RR vio as no four reverts were within 24 hours. Rather, we have a slow revert war here which could certainly merit a block. But as neither user has reverted since being warned, I'm going to not block for now. ] ] 05:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Scottish national identity}}. {{3RRV|81.129.16.228}}; {{3RRV|81.156.63.193}} (Mallimak sockpuppets): Time reported: 13:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

I'm aware this isn't quite 3RR in the technical sense, because the version reverted to is old, but 81.* has been edit warring on this article since time immemorial, repeatedly pushing POV using a "reference" to a website which is very clearly not a reliable source, and which numerous users confirmed was not suitable during an RfC last year. This is a sockpuppet of ], who's been engaged in combatative editing with ] over Orkney/Shetland non-Scottishness for a very long time and who now does not log in, instead conducting slow edit wars and 3RR gaming via IPs. I have no interest in this article other than trying to prevent POV pushing, after I came across it doing recent changes patrol last year. Frankly I can understand Mais oui!'s frustration that blocks seem hard to procure, given that the editor has been warned countless times and is fully aware of the proper way to go about adding verifiable information. He seems to have no interest whatsoever in editing within policy. --] ] 13:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
* I have sprotected the article, given the use of multiple IPs from same IP block to disrupt editing. ] <small>]</small> 15:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Macedonian Scientific and Literary Society}}. {{3RRV|Strich3d}}: Time reported: 19:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

* 1st revert: (clear revert from edit summary)
* 2nd revert: (amongst others, changed the edit summary from "Slavic-speaking Macedonians in Russia" to "ethnic Macedonians in Russia" as in common with all other rvs)
* 3rd revert: (clear revert from edit summary)
* 4th revert: (clear revert from edit summary + borderline personal attack)

----

*] violation on
{{Article|Atanas Badev}}. {{3RRV|Strich3d}}: Time reported: 19:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

* 1st revert: (changes his ethnicity from "Bulgarian" to "Macedonian" contrary to the sources on the talkpage and the only sources cited)
* 2nd revert: (again)
* 3rd revert: (again)
* 4th revert: (again)

----

* Diff of 3RR warning:

----

'''Comments:'''
*In case it's relevant, this user has been blocked before, and in case you're wondering, new user "Mr. Neutron" is no sock. He has just come over from the Bulgarian Misplaced Pages, hence his familiarity with how WP works (Strich3d would have probably violated 3RR without him being here anyway if you count how many users are disagreeing with him).--] 19:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
** This is not likely as bg has no user with that name. --''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

'''Moot:''' Strich3d has already been blocked for editwaring and vandalsim. Checkuser on others pending. -- ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hrs)===

*] violation on
{{Article|AACS encryption key controversy}}. {{3RRV|Maurauth}}: Time reported: 21:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:


** Blocked for 3rr 6 April 2007. Contemproanous with this report offered oppourtunity to self revert for report removal.

] - ] 21:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
* 24 hrs. ] <small>]</small> 21:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:no violation)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Secularity (non-religiosity)}}. {{3RRV|PelleSmith}}: Time reported: 22:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

*'''Decision:''' PelleSmith has only reverted three times in 24 hours, and discussion is taking place on the talk page so a block doesn't seem necessary. 3RR is not a way to win an argument. I strongly suggest you both discuss ''instead of'' reverting each other, rather than discussing ''in addition to'' the revert war. You are both talking; quit telling each other to look at the conversation, and actually '''look at the conversation'''. Don't punctuate each discussion point with a revert - let the discussion go back and forth a few times. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Attachment Therapy}}. {{3RRV|Fainites}}: Time reported: 00:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert: after warning
<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
**I'm not quite following this report. Could you show how these edits are reverts? Each one seems different to me (not that that makes a difference as long as they are reverts), so I'm not sure what is being reverted to each time. ] ] 04:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
***This user may well have violated 3RR, but due to the complexity of the situation and the contentious editing I've protected the page. ]] ] 06:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours, 48 hours respectively)===

*] violation on
{{Article|House of Hasan-Jalalyan}}.

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

* Diff of 3RR warning:

Obvious vandalism is not covered under the 3RR rule. Please check this user's contributions and sock puppets.--] 00:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

:where's the 'obvious vandalism'? Its u who is vandalizing, and on top of that breaking the 3 RR rule. ] 01:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm fully justified in my reversions. You, on the other hand, are facing a permanent ban. --] 01:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
:No you are not justified in ur pointless reverts of unbiased articles. but don't avoid the question you brought onto yourself, where's the 'obvious vandalism'? don't try to strong-arm, intimidate others on one hand, and break rules on other. ] 01:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am determining that Drastamat is a sockpuppet of a banned user, likely Atabek, and this 3RR claim is invalid. --] 04:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
:Having looked at the CheckUser results, this almost certainly not Atabek (who is not banned, by the way). However, {{user|Shantinorashkar}}, {{user|Drastamat}}, {{user|Zipirtich}}, and {{user|Earthdream}} are the same. I'm not convinced that this is a banned user, and not run-of-the-mill sockpuppetry. MarshallBagramyan should not have been edit warring in the first place, even if there were sockpuppets, though. If one is to be blocked for abusive sockpuppetry by edit warring, the other ought to be blocked for the same edit warring (the only difference being he didn't do it deceptively). The claims of vandalism here are utterly without merit here. ]·] 04:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
**Most definitely. Given that MarshallBagraman was not reverting a banned user or vandalism, either both users should be blocked or neither should be, as both were edit warring to an equal degree. ] ] 04:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In light of the checkuser evidence, I have unblocked {{user|Drastamat}} on the basis that he is not a sockpuppet of a banned user. I have according blocked {{user|MarshallBagramyan}} for 24 hours for revert warring. Given that {{user|Drastamat}} not only also revert warred but used socks to do so, I have blocked him for 48 hours. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 10:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
:This is ridiculous. He is a banned user; he is not Atabek but AdilBaguirov. All those socks appeared on May 16, Adil's last contribution was on April 11 from his Weiszman account(so slightly over a month after, just enough so that checkuser does not trace their link with AdilBaguirov). The edit on the House of Hasan Jalalyan is AdilBaguirov, Adil was the only user who modified articles about Armenian Dynasties by claiming they were not Armenian. One sample by AdilBaguirov. Fadix had provided evidence on that particular subject, . This 3RR violation was done in bad faith, both Grandmaster and Dacy69 have reported Marshall numerous times, Marshall not being on the revert parole, attempts were made numerous time to have him blocked. Those different socks reverting on their several versions were baiting Marshall to revert to then finally report him. Those socks have also acted as a proxy for Atabek. I would like to bring to the attention of the administrators Atabek conduct, the category “Turkophobia” was created as a replacement to the category “Armenian Terrorism” which was deleted, he created this category to relocate the articles which were included in the previous deleted category. And those socks acted as a proxy to add those names in a FORK category created to run over community consensus.
--<big>''' ] '''</font></big><sup><small>]</sup></small> 15:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
:If ] doesn't belong to ], it still has to be a sock of ''somebody''. New editors don't immediately jump into edit wars. So far the only contributions made by ] were to engage in edit wars, making it almost certainly a sock account. -- ] 14:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I stand by my assertion that Drastamat is a sockpuppet; that this is not supported by checkuser evidence is of little consequence. His editing pattern is obvious; he reverted to puppeted versions of articles as his ''first'' edits. ] applies. You cannot be a puppet master if you are an obvious puppet yourself. Checkuser is not our only tool for finding socks. --] 15:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

:Golbez, first I would like to thank DmcDevit for running the checkuser and clearing my name of this groundless charge. I discuss all my edits and make them on all pages. So very likely that Drastamat was established by one of those accusing me. What's appaling though is your accusation of myself. Don't you think your position as a perceived mediator on ] page becomes seriously questionnable provided your presumptive assumptions with regards to myself? I mean a mediator by definition must be impartial after all. If you think otherwise, why don't you initiate a little checkuser to ever check that it could be Artaxiad, Fadix or one of the banned or existing users of the other side, trying to blackmail and get me banned. After all, the first one was known and banned for harassment of myself, and I don't exclude the same kind of attitude from Vartanm, MarshallBagramyan or Augustgrahl, which I think should be rejoined to ArbCom, and their editing and commenting pattern must be discussed there. ] 16:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

::You were accused by a user who was not familiar with Baguirov (Augustgrahl); Golbez never mentioned anyone by name. Your answer is ironic, on one hand you thank Dmcdevit for cleaning your name but on the other you throw dirt on Fadix's name, who has no history of such behaviour while you have already used socks in the past. You also include three Armenian users not involved with the Arbcom decisions. This makes your behaviours even worse, while you were accused, this makes 1 editor, you have in this answer successfully accused various editors. Why would any of those users report Marshall to have him blocked? Why would any of those users do just more than reverting to you but making an edit similar to AdilBaguirov? In any case, if there was any imposter, he was trying to pass as AdilBaguirov not you, but why would he do that, AdilBaguirov is already banned? As for rules, your created a category called “Turkophobia” used as a FORK for a deleted category, but that's for another case...--<big>''' ] '''</font></big><sup><small>]</sup></small> 17:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Golbez did mention my name without evidence. We have discussed the matter and have come to conclusion that it was an unfortunate mistake. As for the rest, again I made my point, and you can continue wasting your time and accusing others along "national lines". The fact is that the sockpuppeteer could be any banned or non-banned user, yet, you along with Augustgrahl, MarshallBagramyan and Vartanm take this along ethnic lines, accusing me, next AdilBaguirov. And if that does not work, who is next, GM, Dacy69, etc.? Why wouldn't you ever suspect the master of sockpuppetry - Artaxiad? As for Turkophobia category, it is absolutely appropriate just like anti-Armenianism. If the person or an organization convicted of terrorism, committed attacks targetting civilian Turks, he is most definitely a Turkophobe and most definitely the page falls into Turkophobia category. ] 20:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

::So I've became a user from the other side eh? So much for not dividing wikipedia along national lines. Is that whats this is all about that you're on probation and were not? ] 17:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Thanks for the humour, read the note above. ] 20:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:12 hours)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Islam_and_antisemitism}}. {{3RRV|Sefringle}}: Time reported: 05:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to: (First revert partially goes back to this, and subsequent reverts go back to first revert)

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

The first revert undid my ; the subsequent reverts are obvious. ] 05:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
*Blocked for 12 hours. MomoShomo: You, too, are edit warring, even though you haven't violated 3RR. Remember, the rule is an electric fence, not an entitlement to three reverts. If you continue to revert war you're likely to be blocked even if you don't technically violate 3RR. ] ] 05:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:24 hours)===

*] violation on
{{Article|List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts}}. {{3RRV|The way, the truth, and the light}}: Time reported: 11:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

Pretty cut and dry case: the user is insistent that his preferred version of the article remain in place despite objections from several editors. '''<font color="006400">]</font>''' (<font size="1"><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font>) 11:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

*Quite clear. 24 hours; first block for 3RR although user has come close before and been warned about reverting. ] 11:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:No violation, page protected)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Template:United Kingdom regions}}. {{3RRV|padraig3uk}}: Time reported: 11:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
* Last (fifth) revert: . All reverts are the same.

**There has been no violation of the three revert rule because no party has more than three reverts in any 24 hour period. However there is a slow revert war and I am going to protect the template pending resolution of the dispute. ] 11:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:1 month, 18 hours)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Latin_America}}. {{3RRV|AlexCovarrubias}}: Time reported: 19:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
This user has been blocked twice within the past few days for breaking the ] on other articles.

Report is accurate. I also find four for Jbmurray:
* (Reverts AlexCovarrubias's addition of Jorge Luis Borges)
* (same)
* (obvious)
* (also obvious)

Therefore, I must block both editors. As AlexCovarrubias has a long history of edit warring, 1 month for him. First offense for Jbmurray; therefore, 18 hours. ] ] 04:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: No block)===

*] violation on
{{Article|State terrorism by the United States}}. {{3RRV|Giovanni33}}: Time reported: 20:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

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

*comment: Report is not accurate, and I self reverted already. Note that the alleged 2nd revert is not part of the content dispute but a compromise on my part to remove a "see other" link that all parties agreed to, and I agreed with them, to remove, per talk. Its not a revert. The 4th revert was a real 3RR violation, howwever, it was on accident, and once I noticed it a few minutes later, I self reverted here: I did not restore the long standing version of sourced material back from Yaf's changes (which lack consensus), until after 24 hours. Looking back on it, and given that other editors oppose this POV edits, I realize I should have left it and allowed some other editors to revert him instead. Therefore, I will self-revert myself again, back to his version to show good faith and that I abide by both the letter and spirt of the 3RR rule. See: Hence, no block considerations will be necessary. Thanks.] 02:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

:You've had to self-revert yourself twice within the last 24 hours. Thats seems quite significant to me. ] 04:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

::For more on the single purpose accounts that have sprung up to act as meat puppets / sock puppets associated with undoing the latest self-revert, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Giovanni33 ] 04:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

* No block at this time, but note that these type of editwars are unacceptable. ] <small>]</small> 15:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Moral Majority}}. {{3RRV|65.110.36.50}}: Time reported: 23:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* All reverts essentially the same. Anon user persists in advertising a party to celebrate the death of Jerry Falwell. User received final warning for vandalism, as well as 3RR warning, but continues inserting the advertisement.

Admin attempted to semi-protect the page (see previous version reverted to), but protection didn't stick. =] 23:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User was blocked for 24 hours by ]. --''']''' <sup>]</sup> 14:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Marija_%C5%A0erifovi%C4%87}}. {{3RRV|Reisender}}: Time reported: 03:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

* Constantly removing a sourced fact.

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:
* 8th revert:
* 9th revert:
* 10th revert:

* Diff of 3RR warning:
* Diff of 3RR warning:

] blocked for 24 hours due to edit waring. ] warned for ]. --''']''' <sup>]</sup> 14:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:no block)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Shooting Ranges in the United States}}. {{3RRV|Yaf}}: Time reported: 23:05, 17 May 2007

* Previous version reverted to:

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

:*comment: Since user has self-reverted himself, I retract my report.] 01:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:no vio?)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Pere d'Alberní i Teixidor}}. {{3RRV|Onofre Bouvila}}: Time reported: 00:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
*No previous version reverted to given, and I can't find one by looking in the article's history. If there isn't one, this isn't a 3RR vio as the first is then not a revert. ] ] 03:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|List of notable converts to Christianity}}. {{3RRV|Bus stop}}: Time reported: 01:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* Previous version reverted to:
* 3rd revert:
* Previous version reverted to:
* 4th revert:
* Edit warring by a user determined to remove Bob Dylan from this list. Two previous 3RR blocks over the same issue. Attempts at gaming by selectively re-adding different tags to the article. Has been reverted by multiple editors. Also suggest article protection. --] 01:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
**The edit war is from multiple fronts, so article protected. Note about above report: two of the reverts are consecutive edits, so technically no vio. But Bus stop is edit warring to an unacceptable degree, so I will warn him about this. ] ] 03:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:24h)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Vision Quest}}. {{3RRV|Mister Jinxy}}: Time reported: 01:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

* Diff of 3RR warning:
**Blocked for 24 hours. Otto: You, too are edit warring. Please refrain from this and from incivility. ] ] 03:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''' - I'm trying to ''avoid'' edit warring. ] 04:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:48 hours)===

*] violation on
{{Article|PSI Seminars}}. {{3RRV|Smee}}: Time reported: 02:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

* 1st revert:
::Basically full revert edit.

* 2nd revert:
::Full revert of text.

* 3rd revert:
::Reverted text

* 4th revert:
::Removed article tags.

This user has been previously warned and blocked on this board.

4 previous Blocks for 3RR under previous name Smeelgova
]

;Not reverts, discussed on talk page
*As per ], this does not constitute 3RR. 3RR must be to a reversion more than three times to the same old version of a page. This was not done. What was done by myself, was a removal (twice) of a tag. I then noted on the edit summary that this would be discussed on the talk page . After discussion on talk page, I offered a compromise, and I voluntarily changed some text in the article accordingly . The edit warring has thus ceased, and this issue has been resolved, and I have no objections to the way the tags are currently presented in the article. As 3RR is not punitive, and no actual 3RR was committed, this is a non-issue and a frivolous report by ]. ] 02:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC).
**3RR policy applies to all edits which revert or undo another editor. This is an experienced editor who has been blocked 4 times before and was clearly edit warring. ] 02:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
***An examination of the Diffs provided above by ] clearly show that this is not 3RR, but a back and forth working out of the page, with side by side discussion ongoing on the talk page at the same time, and then subsequently a compromise reached in mutual agreement with both editors on the talk page. There is no more edit warring going on here with this issue. ] 02:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC).
*Let me also break down the Diffs provided above by ] (<span class="plainlinks">] • ] • • ] • {{rfcu|1={{ucfirst:{{{User|Lsi john}}}}}|2=&#32;• rfcu|cond=n}}</span>). '''(1)''', This first , reasoning was explained politely in the edit summary. It was the only time I should have discussed further on the talk page, and gone through points one at a time. '''(2)''', This second , ] had removed material that was duly sourced to a reputable secondary citation. I restored this information - separate issue from the first point. '''(3)''', In this , I added back in a single word - the word "notable". '''(4)''', In the last shown above, I removed a "fact" tag. It should also be noted that a compromise was reached on the usage of the <nowiki>{{sectstub}}</nowiki> code, a separate issue, on the discussion page, and I added these stub tags into the article. After this point, through discussion on the talk page, I decided to voluntarily compromise, and go back and remove the word "notable", ''myself''. Removing a single word, once, and then removing a fact tag, once, cannot be considered to be 3RR. Thus, there is no current edit warring on the article, and each of these separate points has been explained. ] 03:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC).
:*No, I'm afraid you're mistaken. It is ''not'' necessary to revert to ''the same'' version each time; any three reverts count. And all four of the above edits are reverts. You also seem think that because you are discussing your reverts, it's OK to keep reverting. This is also not the case. As for your compromise: Lsi john clearly doesn't consider it as such: . Therefore, I'm forced to conclude the edit war is not concluded, and will therefore block for 48 hours. Given your history of being blocked for 3RR, you ought to know better than to edit war by now, anyway. ] ] 05:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

::Based on the information you've been provided I understand your logic ] ], simply discussing one's reasoning is not an excuse for unilaterally proceeding with an edit war. Since the idea is discouraging edit wars, why not punish the editor who began the edit war too? After all it does take two to edit war, and in this case I can show you that ] started this by removing a word he found objectionable without providing a lucid explanation. Calling two other groups notable enough to have Misplaced Pages articles is not ] as he claims it is. . Also if you look at the and pages you'll notice that he hasn't be working to compromise.

::Again merely engaging in discussion is not an excuse, but is removing objectionable words from a pro-subject pov an excuse to start this course of events in the first place? ] 05:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

::* ] has also been blocked for ], fairly recently:] . My point is '''''both''''' should have known better. ] 07:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:24h for both)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Tom Glavine}}. {{3RRV|Chrisjnelson}}: Time reported: 03:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:

User keeps reverting a deletion on former teams, on a issue that has yet to be resolved on the wikiproject of MLB Players Taskforce, according to the discussion, all pages should be left as is, user has decided to a bunch of players on his own. User has been blocked before on previous 3RR, plus has a history of nonsense editing, and his talk page is full of annoyed people based on his pointless editing, because he thinks hes always right

<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->

<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
*Both users have reverted well over three times, and both are clearly aware of 3RR. Both blocked 24 hours. ] ] 05:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Slovak koruna}}. {{3RRV|Juro}}: Time reported: 03:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to: , made by Pascal.Tesson (Talk | contribs) at 13:56, 10 May 2007.

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert: 17:43, 16 May 2007
* 2nd revert: 21:53, 16 May 2007
* 3rd revert: 22:35, 16 May 2007
* 4th revert: 22:42, 16 May 2007
* 5th revert: 22:46, 16 May 2007
+1 (out of 24hrs)
* 22:43, 17 May 2007

Notorious vandal , got blocked for 3RR before as well, as for edit warring and sockpuppeting up to infinite. Somehow, somewhy got a last chance, his infinite block was lifted, but it was not worth it, user continues the same old things. No need of such an ultra-disrupting editor here. Indef pls, this time for real. --] 03:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
*Indefinitely blocked. Assuming all, or even most, of the previous blocks were justified, this user seems to have indeed used up all chances. As I'm not familiar with the editor, I will post this for review on ANI. ] ] 06:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
**Dove1950 has also violated 3RR. I gather from the user's talk page that he/she has a history of edit warring and has at least been made aware of the 3RR, so 24 hours. ] ] 06:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:Blocked, 24 hours)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Ohio Wesleyan University}}. {{3RRV|LaSaltarella}}: Time reported: 07:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

*
*
*
*

This user is an experienced user who recently had her name changed. She was also warned on my talk page that she was in danger of violating the 3rr rule... that was after the 3rd edit, but before her fourth one. I know she saw it as she responded to my talk page before making the 4th change. All within 2 hours.] 07:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC) EDIT: There was at least one other edit of almost the exact same nature an hour earlier.] 08:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
:{{done}}&mdash;{{3RRV|LaSaltarella}} has been ] from editing for 24 hours for a ] violation at ] ~ ] 10:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:No violation)===

*] violation on
{{Article|List_of_notable_converts_to_Judaism}}. {{3RRV|JJay}}: Time reported: 15:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:

] 15:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
:*Please provide diffs rather than oldids. Thanks. ] ] 17:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
:* ] is confused. There was no 3RR violation. I will note in passing, though, that ] has been systematically blindly reverting all my edits to this and other articles during the last week. --] 17:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
:*Personally, I would never report anyone for this, but this was done to me by this editor, just yesterday. The editor is insistent on asserting that the religion of Judaism proselytizes, and he has found some source for that. It is by-and-large incorrect. It certainly would have an undue weight issue. And in under 24 hours he has been inserting that slant, in violation of the 3rr rule. He has been doing that for days.
:*Not just me, but other editors have pointed out that the opposite holds true. This is the first time I've ever reported anyone in this way, and it will probably be the last. I don't get into this warfare type of writing an encyclopedia. He (or she) makes a regular habit of it, having reported me on occasion before the yesterday report. To each his or her own. ] 17:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
: None of what you wrote has anything to do with 3RR. However, rest assured, if you violate 3RR, you will be reported. -- --] 19:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

*I'm not an admin and am not involved with this article. After going through the article edits one-by-one, it appears that both editors may have violated 4RR over the past 24 hours. ] 19:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
* That's false. If I violated 3RR, I would put the diffs up myself. I made three reverts. --] 19:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
:*3RR is not limited to Undo. There was clearly edit warring going on and both editors have been blocked for 3RR in the past:

::I stand corrected, JJay has 3 reverts, Bus Stop has 2. I was looking at 11th and seeing 17th. ] 19:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

:::I agree - three reverts, and that means no violation. ] 19:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:24 hours each)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Elvira_Arellano}}. {{3RRV|LordPathogen}}: Time reported: 19:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

User repeatedly inserts pejorative name-calling against the 7 year old son of the subject of the biographical article.

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

*Seems clear, and the talk page edits show the identity between {{user|129.33.49.251}} and LordPathogen. 24 hours; the autoblock has not been disabled, so if the IP edits then I will know I've made a mistake. ] 20:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
** I reverted to the last non-perjorative version. This is a probable ] violation as well. - ] 20:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
***I'm not sure; the material was sourced. Also, 24 hours for Ramsey2006 who also broke the 3RR. ] 20:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: Final warning issued)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball}}. {{3RRV|207.114.16.210}}: Time reported: 21:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
** I have issued a "final warning" to the user as I am unsure if this is the same person who received three-revert rule warnings back in late April. -- ''']''' 00:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
* 5th revert: by ] which is another address that ] has used in the past. This just before the 5th revert was posted from ] but signed as ]. Based on the editing history of these two users (focusing on topics related to Illinois or Indiana college basketball) I'm convinced that this the same person on both IP addresses. -- ] 06:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
* 6th revert: (made by ]).
* 7th revert: (made by ], third by that IP in less than 24 hours).
* 8th revert: (as ], fourth by that IP in less than 24 hours).

====Response====

see ]

===] reported by ] (Result: 60 hours)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Faith Freedom International}}. {{3RRV|Mike18xx}}: Time reported: 22:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to: see below

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert: of
* 2nd revert: of
* 3rd revert: of
* 4th revert: of

*3RR Warning: Unnecessary, see block log.

*'''Comments''': all reverts include relocation of WikiIslam image, the last three constitute reversions of the relocation of a section. user has recently returned from a hiatus, and had immediately resumed edit warring and conscious gaming (see: "") on ], and now on ]. this edit warring has also been supplemented by incivility ( ). ] 22:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
**I have blocked the user in question for sixty hours since he has been blocked for three-revert rule many times and has continued to engage in edit warring almost immediately after coming off his sabbatical. -- ''']''' 23:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:31 hours)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Oasis (band)}}. {{3RRV|Pompertown}}: Time reported: 9:34, 18 May 2007

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

'''Comments''': This user has continuously reverted the genres to the band's page, against the wishes of numerous other users who have disagreed with him; he's the only one who believes the genre he keeps adding is appropriate, even after several different members have asked him to stop (through edit comments). I left him a message on his talk page, asking him to either cite a references or conjure up a vote on the band's talk page, to which he totally disregarded. The only argument he has made in his favor is "listen to the albums" or "you have no idea how long I can keep going with this, lol" -- needless to say, to me & to the numerous other users who keep fixing his inappropriate edits, this is becoming increasingly frustrating.

*Blocked for 31 hours. ] ] 04:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: 03:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)



<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Iron_Maiden&oldid=131838011 / 19:02, 18 May 2007
* 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Iron_Maiden&oldid=131900924 / 00:21, 19 May 2007
* 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Iron_Maiden&oldid=131914571 / 01:43, 19 May 2007
* 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Iron_Maiden&oldid=131930323156.34.209.240 / 03:30, 19 May 2007

'''Comments''': This person is deliberately deleting an outside link to Iron Maiden's tourography which is verifiable, reliable, and it provides additional helpful information about Iron Maiden not found in the content (nor does it fit in the in the content). The link is http://maidenshows.ryasrealm.com/masterlist.htm, and it is the band's tourography. I have created that tourography by sifting through thousands of primary sources and evaluating all of the secondary sources taken for granted at the Iron Maiden page to come up with the most comprehensive and most accurate tourography available anywhere. My research has fixed hundreds of errors that have come from other sources people take for granted as being accurate, when they are not (such as Mick Wall and Paul Stenning, which the page references). 87% of the tour dates and locations listed on the tourography have citations (hover your mouse over them) which verify their accuracy. I have made this tourography in conjunction with my university as part of my master's in history requirements. The person who is deleting this link has no regard for its value to Iron Maiden fans. This link does not violate Misplaced Pages policy in any regard.
*Please provide diffs rather than oldids. Thanks. ] ] 06:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:24h)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Ron Paul}}. {{3RRV|Interpaul}}: Time reported: 05:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:

* Diff of 3RR warning:
*
*


:'''Comment''' no edit summaries with explanation, no participation in ongoing discussion on talk page, no consensus for the removal; this user was also warned on May 9 for a different series of reverts in same article <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 05:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
::*Blocked for 24 hours. ] ] 07:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:No violation)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Abkhazia}}. {{3RRV|Papa Carlo}}: Time reported: 07:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:
: The ] of the article was reverted to this version. The table was just reverted; the text was a bit reformulated but its meaning hasn't changed.

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

* Diff of 3RR warning:

:::Disagree. First edit was not a revert. It was a new edit with new links and everything. This info was discussed on the ]. ] apparently thinks his edits are untouchable. He is trying to beat the system by reverting three times every day. He does the same thing on ] as well. Seems to be his editing style. (] 07:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC))
No violation. Only 3 reverts. --]<sup>]</sup> 08:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

:I respectfully disagree. I think the "previous version reverted to" was mistakenly cited and misleading. From the talkpage and the page history, this is a longstanding dispute which both participants have previously revert-warred about. The issue is apparently the inclusion or non-inclusion of a row in the demographics table stating population figures of a 1897 census. This started on 30 April, and both parties went up to 3R about it on 13 May. I see the following edits (some of them not pure reverts, but all centered around removing or re-adding these figures:)
;] removing 1897 census figures from table:
* removing figures, though not the table row as a whole
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

;Alaexis restoring table figures
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
;Final edit by Alaexis
*Acquiescing to the removal of figures, but at the same time removing again a paragraph of text (''"] of 1897 did not actualy capture the ethnic composition ..."'') repeatedly inserted previously by Papa Carlos, hence also a partial revert:
*

In my book, this is a clear breach of the letter of 3RR by Papa Carlos, a not-quite-so-straightforward breach on the part of Alaexis, and in any case quite a lot of unproductive revert-warring on the part of both. Opinions, anyone? ] ] 18:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
:The fourth edit was my attempt of a compromise and it seems to fit both sides. ]<sub>]</sub> 07:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: No vio)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Landmark_Education}}. {{3RRV|Lsi_john}}: Time reported: 16:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:

I am not sure where to sign.]<sup><font color="violet">]</font></sup> 16:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

::3 Reverts to enforce concensus from extensive discussion. And I requested Page Protection. This is not 4RR and is not a violation. And I have stopped editing that page and do not intend to edit again, as can be seen from ] and ] ] 16:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

:::The guidelines at the top of the page specifically request that dispute-related problems not be brought up here, I request that the above comment be struck out since the above comment and links are precisely dispute-related. The policy also specifically refers to three reversions, and I request that WP policy be applied as it is, in this as in any other case.]<sup><font color="violet">]</font></sup> 16:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
::::No violation of 3RR occurred and the links provided demonstrate that I have no intention of continuing to edit that page at this time, and therefore no violation will occur. ] 16:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No violation has occurred, but all parties are urged to find compromise wording, satisfactory to both sides. --''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
:I have re-added a bit of the disputed material in an NPOV manner consistent with the sourcing. Take my edit as an example, if you care to. --] 17:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

:I sincerely apologise to anyone who has been inconvenienced by this; I was actually led into it by no-one bothering to correct me after I had recently reverted the same page twice to restore the well-sourced critical material, then expressed my supposition that I was unable to do it again (no doubt a very satisfying mistake to the habitual removers of the same well-sourced material, and now one that has become very useful). Who, without experience, could know that the 3rr is actually a 4 or more rr?]<sup><font color="violet">]</font></sup> 18:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
===Russians in Ukraine (page locked for short period) ===
I combined two related reports. Please see my comment in the bottom. -] 22:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
====] reported by ] (Result:)====

*] violation on
{{Article|Russians in Ukraine}}. {{3RRV|Hillock65}}: Time reported: 21:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:

The article is controversial, however today the user has made about a dozen or so highly controversial edits, and not talk page entries, because the article is being constantly expanded one notices that there are intermediate sections that are added on, however the nature of his reverts do not change. --] 21:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

:Please see comment below. --] 22:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Russians in Ukraine}}. {{3RRV|Kuban kazak}}: Time reported: 21:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

# 1st revert
# 2nd revert
# 3rd revert
# 4th revert
# 5th revert

The user wages revert war.--] 22:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

;Comment:
Not a revert war but ]. Both users develop the article and the article is getting improved. Intervention unnecessary. I will deal with the controversy. --] 22:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
:Do both reporting users agree that no intervention is necessary? ] ] 04:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
::: I disagree, intervention '''is''' necessary - whatever it is. The revert war and personal attacks have not stopped.--] 23:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
::I locked the page for a short period to slow things down and get some talk happening. Hopefully things will quieten. ''']''' (]) 06:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:<s>no vio</s> 48h)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Tom Glavine}}. {{3RRV|MetsFan153}}: Time reported: 21:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

User keeps putting false information on the article, two days after being blocked for 3RR. I was blocked as well trying to revert it, which is why I have reported this rather than rever it for a thir time myself.] 21:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

User keeps reverting removing true information on former teams he played on, has been repeatedly told my other users, including myself to leave information as is, until a decision is reached by the baseball players taskforce. ] 21:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

*A look at the article history suggests only three reverts; need more than three for 3RR vio. In the future, please provide diffs for each reversion. Thanks. ] ] 21:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

MetsFan153 has reverted the page for the FOURTH time today. It seems to be this is no in violation of 3RR.] 22:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
*Yes, there are ''now'' four. Blocked for 48 hours. ] ] 23:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: No block)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Christina Aguilera discography}}. {{3RRV|Kraft.}}: Time reported: 01:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

'''Comment''':

There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding the number of sales made. ] mindlessly reverted edits by other IP editors he considered incorrect without alerting the users that they were incorrect and without giving them a chance to explain their edits. He just reverted, without leaving not even a single warning in the user's talk page. Furthermore, once I alerted him that he was violating the three-revert rule, he responded with uncivil comments. He claims he has proof that his version is the correct one and that he had addressed the problem on the article's talk page, but, instead of pointing the users towards the talk page, he just reverted the other user's edits, which I believe is the problem. Thank you. ]<sup>] • ] • ] ] </sup> 01:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->

User does not seem to be editing that article today. 3RR blocks are preventative and not punitive. Now that the user is warned, of he persists with such behavior he well be blocked. I will leave a message to this effect on his talk page. ] <small>]</small> 20:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Dominican Republic}}. {{3RRV|VirtualDelight}}: Time reported: 04:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:

'''Comment''': ] has been utilizing twinkle to revert edits by other editors. Rolling back as many as 7 updates. He has repeatedly removed information stating that they are opinion, rather than using the {{fact}} tool. When facts are placed in he has reverted them anyway. One prime expample is the placement of sources that state the mixed heritage of a number of Presidential leaders of the Dominican Republic. It has been asked that he please discuss the sources in the talk section, but he has simply reverted the article. A few days suspension is probably in order, but not much more. Protection of the page in unnecessary. ] 07:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

'''Comment''': I suspect this to be banned user ] aka ] et al.
At least per this edits and ,but decide yourself. ] 08:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
See also the IP‘s talkpage before its "update". ] 18:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Abkhazia}}. {{3RRV|Alaexis}}: Time reported: 06:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

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

* Diff of 3RR warning:

*Comment: --] 06:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The first four of my edits are already discussed above (]). The fourth edit was my attempt of a compromise and it seems to fit both sides.

The rest (5th, 6th and 7th) reverts were the reverts of vandalism from open proxies (,). This article is attacked by open proxies regularly () ]<sub>]</sub> 07:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

:This report is redundant with one further above, and the reverts are arguably stale by now. I agree with Alaexis that the last three were legitimate reverts of a banned user. There was previously revert-warring on both sides and both parties have been warned. ] ] 10:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] 08:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC) (Result: no violation)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Gagra}}. {{3RRV|Alaexis}}: Time reported: 08:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:


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


* Diff of 3RR warning:

The last two (and maybe the first two also) were the reverts of open proxy edits(). {{Article|Abkhazia}}-related articles are attacked by open proxies regularly. ]<sub>]</sub> 08:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

:All IP edits were open proxies and can reasonably be assumed to have been from banned users. Hence, no violation. ] ] 10:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: moot)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Goguryeo}}. {{3RRV|Good friend100}}: Time reported: 13:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

In ], I count 4 reverting operations in less than 3 hours, starting from one of another user Endoit's 00:30 version and ending at an anonymous IP's 03:04 version.

<pre>
(cur) (last) 03:06, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (32,499 bytes) (please stop rv to a POV version. I am getting tired of this and I wish to leave the article at the relative stability)
(cur) (last) 03:04, 20 May 2007 75.83.232.59 (Talk) (32,503 bytes) (Or this would pertain to Wiki in Korean language!?)
(cur) (last) 02:56, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (32,499 bytes) (→Language)
(cur) (last) 02:55, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (32,405 bytes) (→Legacy)
(cur) (last) 02:53, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (32,498 bytes) (→Religion)
(cur) (last) 02:51, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (32,419 bytes) (→Religion)
(cur) (last) 02:51, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (32,419 bytes) (→Culture - - another source from berkeley)
(cur) (last) 02:50, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (32,349 bytes) (that would pertain to the Chinese Misplaced Pages.)
(cur) (last) 02:46, 20 May 2007 75.83.232.59 (Talk) (42,581 bytes) (It is totally disputed. No Chinese will accept this page as it is. The edit war will never end)
(cur) (last) 02:45, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (32,349 bytes) (→Fall - - added source)
(cur) (last) 02:42, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (32,304 bytes) (→Fall - - added a source, from Mark Byington, Harvard professor. I'm sure Jiejunkong can't deny that)
(cur) (last) 02:38, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (32,259 bytes) (rv again)
(cur) (last) 02:37, 20 May 2007 75.83.232.59 (Talk) (42,536 bytes)
(cur) (last) 02:34, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (32,259 bytes) (rv)
(cur) (last) 00:30, 20 May 2007 Endroit (Talk | contribs) (42,536 bytes) (+ Actual script used in these sources)
</pre>
{{unsigned|Jiejunkong}}

Here are the actual diff's. Good friend100 has repeatedly removed the "factual accuracy" ("totally-disputed") tag (besides deleting a lot of text):

* Previous version reverted to: — version right before "factual accuracy" ("totally-disputed") tag was added

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert: — removed "factual accuracy" tag
** part of 1st revert: — content removal
* 2nd revert: — removed "factual accuracy" tag, content removal
* 3rd revert: — removed "factual accuracy" tag, content removal
* 4th revert: — removed "factual accuracy" tag, content removal
* 5th revert: — removed "factual accuracy" tag

<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
-->
* Diff showing knowledge of 3RR: (])
* Diff of 3RR warning:
--] 14:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

* Note: The article is locked to Good_friend100's preferred version (with the contents removed), per Good_friend100's request in ].--] 14:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

'''The 2nd 3RR violation''' on ]
*] violation on
{{Article|Goguryeo controversies}}. {{3RRV|Good friend100}}: Time reported: 16:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
<pre>
(cur) (last) 15:14, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (12,108 bytes)
(cur) (last) 15:11, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (13,984 bytes) (→Background - there is no source)
(cur) (last) 15:08, 20 May 2007 Jiejunkong (Talk | contribs) (14,054 bytes) (Please put {{Unreferenced}} tag for reference request before deletion. Otherwise, clearly malicious blanking.)
(cur) (last) 14:58, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (12,102 bytes) (removed sections that are poorly sourced)
(cur) (last) 14:47, 20 May 2007 Jiejunkong (Talk | contribs) m (14,054 bytes) (Disputed sections. Please do WP:NPOV and WP:Reliable Source for any content changes.)
(cur) (last) 12:45, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (12,102 bytes) (→Background - man, this is really becoming a pain)
(cur) (last) 12:43, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (12,178 bytes) (→Background - remove POV sourced sentence)
(cur) (last) 12:43, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (12,546 bytes) (→Chinese claims on Goguryeo)
(cur) (last) 12:39, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (12,275 bytes) (even you say Baidu baike is POV, removing section without any sources)
(cur) (last) 06:07, 20 May 2007 Time of flight (Talk | contribs) (14,054 bytes) (Those come from well respected history sources, including the one written by Koreans, Samguk Sagi)
</pre>

* Previous version reverted to: — version right before the disputed text was moved over from ]

*1st revert:
*<s>1st</s>2nd revert: Deleted some references from reliable source ]
*<s>2nd</s>3rd revert: Blanked paragraphs without giving "Unreferenced" request and deleted references from reliable source.
*<s>3rd</s>4th revert: Same as the <s>2nd</s>3rd revert.
--] 16:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
:--Modified by ] 18:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

* Might also be worth noting that this is by no means a new user and he's referenced the 3RR rule many times (for example here ), which would be before any recent 3RR violations. --Cheers, ] 20:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

:I'd like to mention that I was reverting POV edits with poorly sourced and possibly violating ] information on the article itself. Jiejunkong has made several claims that may be original research, including adding a dispute raising image that may also be his own interpretation. . Jiejunkong also uses unverifiable sources that are mostly written in Chinese and thus is not possible for examination.

:In his version of the article , this section violates both NPOV and WP:NOR. The section is poorly sourced, using a Chinese encyclopedia, Baidu Baike, yet he agrees leaving the section alone and then disagrees that Baidu Baike should not be used.

:Jiejunkong also disagrees using Mark Byington's papers on Goguryeo even though Byington is a Harvard professor on East Asian studies and his paper is a clear source. His motives are clearly POV because he disagrees with everything that does not support him.

:It should also be noted that Jiejunkong is rude to other editors. He has labeled the word "Korean origin" as "fascist" while leaving Chinese encyclopedias and other unverifiable Chinese sources alone. Jiejunkong has also inferred that he is disgusted with me because he "doesn't want to touch my talk pages". Jiejunkong also accuses me of my "amatuerish behavior" and calls all the references he doesn't like as "plagiarism" and "piracy".

:Jiejunkong's intentions are clearly POV and his comments overall are filled with unverifiable claims and POV remarks. Jiejunkong's replies, which he has clearly marked as "'''reply'''" are also illogical and do not answer the other editor's question in a clearcut way.

:I believe Jiejunkong is totally at fault and he does not correctly understand Misplaced Pages policy of ], ], and ].

:I also believe that Endroit and Komdori are at fault for failing to help stop Jiejunkong make poorly referenced claims and his other behavior, which is becoming more and more trollish. Simply because Endroit and Komdori are in the opposing party from me, and although Jiejunkong has clearly made inappropiate edits and comments, they did not warn or report his activities. I believe Endroit and Komdori are at fault too for immediately taking the chance to block me instead of disagreeing with Jiejunkong, who is clearly the true violator. I am sure that both Endroit and Komdori know of Jiejunkong's activities as they are experienced editors here.

:Please reconsider blocking me because I clearly feel that I am not at fault. It is true that I did not make a case or request an admin to look over Jiejunkong's activities (although I did request an action from ], an admin) immediately and party escalated the argument at the talk page, but I feel that Jiejunkong should be punished. ] 23:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

:: Good friend, you've been around long enough by far to know that "not liking the version" is not a reason to violate the 3RR rule. You've also displayed your own fair share of incivility recently, even calling an editor "sick" and "twisted" for adding an NPOV tag . I can't speak for Endroit, but I've been offline for most of the day so I couldn't help stop the edit war earlier, but you have eagerly been participated in it, not stopping until an admin came in and protected it, ''forcing'' you to stop. Now you come to this page to clutter it up with your bad faith for us (especially after I left you a heads up for this report when I noticed the reporter hadn't). Being a good editor in the past in not an excuse to go nuts now, violating 3RR on multiple articles in a short time. --Cheers, ] 01:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Again I feel that you do not read my comments sometimes. I wrote a number of points as to '''why''' his edits were POV and why I reverted them, not simply because I do "not like the version". Don't make up stuff, cause thats certainly not what I mean.

I commented on how I was wrong to not report Jiejunkong for his behavior. And saying "sick" and "twisted" were for all the edits he had done previously, not just that tag.

It is really disappointing to see how you cannot see Jiejunkong's violation of numerous things, which I have explained above. Again, I feel that you did not read through my comments or either that, you simply don't care what I write (well maybe it was a bit long). ] 02:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

: Don't get me wrong, there might be other issues at play. I intend to go through your comments about Jiejunkong very closely to see what's going on there. My only point was that removing POV statements is not a good reason for breaking 3RR (if we start accepting that, everyone will be breaking it). --Cheers, ] 02:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Yes, and I apologized to that! I clearly wrote in my long comment that I helped stir up the argument. ] 02:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

::::Good friend100, what I don't understand is why you have repeatedly removed the "factual accuracy" ("totally-disputed") tag. Are you denying, or somehow trying to hide, that there's a "factual accuracy" dispute in the ] article? I think it's inexcusable to delete tags like that. And then you've got an admin at ] to lock the page WITHOUT the tag. The least you can do now, is ask the locking admin (]) to reinstate the "factual accuracy" ("totally-disputed") tag. Don't ever revert-war on tags like that again. Thank you.--] 04:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where this ] got tons of rumors on me. But was not written by me at all. I have not even changed one character in that section. I have spent the last few days to input the relevant canonical history volumes in zh.wikisource and want to change the current references in that section into an acceptable format. But even this action is in future tense and hasn't yet implemented. I am offended by ]'s random charges. Providing physical proofs to support your charges is a pre-requisite in wikipedia, isn't it? If your physical proof is wrong, what should we do?--] 05:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

is a literal graphic depiction of canonical history records. I don't think you can call it "original research". If so, any modern efforts, both textually and graphically, to translate ancient records into legible modern forms would be "original research". Reasonable wiki users who read the ancient records carefully haven't denied the validity of my depiction. Surely it is imperfect (any rephrasing is imperfect), but I am open to improvement on the depiction.

Your complaining on records written in ancient Chinese language is also invalid. The Korean canonical record ] was originally written in ancient Chinese. The Korean version was a translation rather than original record. For the texts I quoted, I did the English translation and I am responsible for the statement I wrote. So far you are not complaining about my English translation, but furiously against some meta-physical things like the validity of history records written in Chinese. By your attitude, you are shutting down the entire wikipedia section because nothing but identical copying is valid in your standard.

BTW, you always want to mangle my original statement, extracting it from the context (An observation is that you have never quoted original sentences. The charges are mainly comprised of only vague innuedos and tricky jumps). The "fascist" term is a comment to websites like "mygoguryeo.com" (and the back-to-future-style "Korean origin" in year ] when even ] didn't exist until 300 years later). The website reminds me of some ostentiously proud people failed 60 years ago. Tell you one thing, even Baike.Baidu.com dare not make that kind of show. And one clue to know my standing point that is I have never cited Baidu Baike or Northeast Project as reliable sources. You claimed that "all the references he doesn't like as "plagiarism" and "piracy"". To verify whether your claim is true, I find that you have completely disappeared from the NPOV reference discussion on ], where there are many NPOV references I left in the list. If you intentionally press false charges without physical proof, you are labeling yourself an L-word since you have repetitively done this kind of tricks.--] 05:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

:This complaint is now moot because the page has been protected. Editors involved have a history of past disputes and 3RR blocks or close calls -- including those who have since joined the discussion. All are urged to build consensus and stop arguing on this message board. Editors will be individually warned. --''']''' <sup>]</sup> 06:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

::Selket, is the 2nd report above on ] moot as well? Let me just point out that revert-warriors have clearly sidestepped the ], an ongoing RfM. Please discuss further with the mediators before you protect any further related pages, since the pages have been unprotected due to the mediators' disretion in the first place. Thank you.--] 06:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Only the last two edits (plus one more at 02:45) appear to be reverts. The others seem to be compromises. If I am missing something please lay it out ''clearly'' in a new report. To quote the instructions: ''Just give us the article, the diffs, a link to the history, and as little else as possible.'' Also, remember that if they are not all reverts to the same version: ''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''. Be clear, but don't rant. --''']''' <sup>]</sup> 07:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

::::I already resubmitted "Part 2" of this report, at the bottom.--] 07:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours. 24 for 3RR, 24 for removing sourced material)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Fascism in Estonia}}. {{3RRV|3 Löwi}}: Time reported: 13:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

Multiple page blanking without discussion. --] (]) 13:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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

===] reported by ] (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Misplaced Pages:Spoiler}}. {{3RRV|PaddyLeahy}}: Time reported: 15:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

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

Note that this is particularly destructive edit warring, as the page in question is a developing guideline, and PaddyLeahy is one of a vocal few opposing it and trying to disrupt what is in fact a growing consensus. ] 15:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. --] 15:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:Blocked, 24 hours)===

*] violation on
{{Article|User:Strich3d}}. {{3RRV|Strich3d}}: Time reported: 19:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
:*Comment: This person has been putting his political and disruptive content on his user page calling Bulgarians and Greeks vandals. He was blocked already for this three revert rule. TodorBozhinov and Laveol and myself are on the case, see the edit history. ] 19:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
::*{{done}}&mdash;{{3RRV|Strich3d}} blocked for 20 hours for a ] violation at {{Article|User:Strich3d}} ~ ] 20:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:No violation)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Georgia (country)}}. {{3RRV|Corticopia}}: Time reported: 15:26 - 15:36 20:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* Same revert:
:First of all, this is an improperly filed report. Second, I have only edited the article three times today -- see that page. Third, this appears an insipid attempt to retalite given this editor's recent one-week block on that very article, which I facilitated; after this block, he has decided to continue unilaterally reverting to his preferred versions. Lastly, this editor is swearing on the talk page and has been warned against incivility. 20:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Only 3 reverts in last 24 hours. While I am willing to block for that sometimes, Corticopia has made it clear that he is willing to discuss the situation; a block would not be productive at this time. Stop reverting and discuss. 3RR is not something you try to push your opponents into as a way to shut them up and win an argument. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

:Actually, . ] 21:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

===] and reported by ] (Result: Article protected)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Teki Dervishi}}. {{3RRV|Ev}}: Time reported: 00:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

Admin ] finally intervened, protecting the page. See also the legal threat by KristinaAlbania: But the legal threat's a different issue being discussed at ANI, currently. I'm neutral, but I just noticed the violation, and thought intervention may be needed. Both users seem pretty heated. ]] 00:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
:Since the article has been protected, there is no need to apply a block to either party here. -- ''']''' 03:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

===] and reported by ] (Result: No violation)===

*] violation on
{{User talk|69.118.129.76}}. {{3RRV|BaseballDetective}}: Time reported: 01:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

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

Unauthorized (not that it matters) editing of a talk page, four changes made in under 24 hours. 01:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' This user is involved in an edit war at ], repeatedly deleting a section from the article that they do not agree with. Repeated reversions didn't seem to be an issue there, as they made the same edit 17 times over the space of 15 days. The edits that the anon user is complaining about have to do with them trying to remove warnings regarding these contentious edits and personal attacks made by the anon user. ] 02:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
::See above for the previous 3RR complaint between the two parties. Also, please view ] for the RFC stemming from the original dispute. ] 03:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

:The reported user is different from the user making the edits noted here. Additionally, the user was merely adding warnings. -- ''']''' 03:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

:::this anon user is clearly a troll who is gaming the strictness of the three revert rule to harass otheres and ignore their own behavior. technically this person has not violated 3rr but if you look at their contributions to wikipedia, it's constant trolling and harassment of others and an unwillingless to work with others in any way. the only thing keeping this user from being blocked is their slyly avoiding 3 or more reversions in a 24 hour period. i would implore any admin looking at this situation to step in and do something. the page is locked, but the user . "Feel free to issue warnings to your heart's content, just be aware that I won't adhere to one unless decreed by an administrator. The section is now protected so you can rest assured that there will be far more inputs on the article's discussion page supporting my point of view in order to remove the ridiculous section once and for all." ridiculous. someone please look at this and do something. ] 03:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: No block)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Hummer}}. {{3RRV|User:In1984}}: Time reported: 03:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert: Revision as of 22:46, 19 May 2007
* 2nd revert: Revision as of 19:44, 20 May 2007
* 3rd revert: Current revision (20:47, 20 May 2007)

- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.

* Diff of 3RR warning:
:Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule
:WARNING regarding your addition of the caption to several automobile logos --
:"An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." CZmarlin 01:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

:I have given the following explanations on this user's talk page:
:Showing the logo of a company is not an attempt at advertising. The notion of putting a caption stating that the logo is a logo will somehow reduce the effect of what you describe as "advertising" is utterly false. First of all, please read the definition of advertising --
:"Advertising is paid and/or sometimes free communication through a medium in which the sponsor is identified and the message is controlled. ..."
:Therefore, simply showing the logo that is associated with a Misplaced Pages article about the organization identified with that particular logo does NOT make it advertising. If you wish to eliminate the concept of promotion (of which advertising is just one element), then any mention of a brand, logo, and any other copyrighted or trademarked name or symbol would have to be eliminated from all Misplaced Pages articles. That is why Misplaced Pages clearly states that no caption needed for company or product logos, where the logo is current, and the article is about the company or product. Please do not attempt to redefine Misplaced Pages policy. Thank you -- CZmarlin 06:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
:The Jeep logo is clearly identified as a registered trademark. It has the symbol in the lower corner. This is an indication of its role as an official logo. There is no "guessing" what this image represents. Therefore, there is no need to identify this symbol with a caption that it is a logo. The Misplaced Pages guidelines are very clear that no caption is needed with current images of logos. Please also stop adding captions to logos in other articles. They are all following Misplaced Pages guidelines. If you do not think that Misplaced Pages should to serve any promotional role for products, ideas, or organizations; then you will have to blank out thousands of articles pertaining to all the products, ideas, and organizations. The placement of images of logos within the articles only helps explain and describe the subject of the article. This function is NOT advertising. It does serve the purpose of Misplaced Pages. Thank you -- CZmarlin 14:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

:This editor is now going through many more articles and adding a caption to their logos. Perhaps I am wrong, but this seems counter productive. Thank you for your help in resolving this matter. ] 03:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

: User warned. ] <small>]</small> 03:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball}}. {{3RRV|72.66.51.129}}: Time reported: 05:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
There have now been a total of 9 reverts by this editor on these two IPs:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert: by ] which is another address that ] has used in the past. This just before the 5th revert was posted from ] but signed as ]. Based on the editing history of these two users (focusing on topics related to Illinois or Indiana college basketball) I'm convinced that this the same person on both IP addresses.
* 6th revert: (made by ]).
* 7th revert: (made by ], third by that IP in less than 24 hours).
* 8th revert: (as ], fourth by that IP in less than 24 hours).
* 9th revert: (as ]).
* 10th revert: (as ]).

<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->

* Diff of 3RR warnings: and

====Response====

If any action is taken with regard to this alleged violation of the 3RR, I would only ask that all offenders be treated equally. To this extent, I would note that this dispute also involved violations of the three revert rule by ] who twice made 3+ reverts to the ] article within 24 hours:

(1) 23:04 17 May 2007
(2) 15:43 18 May 2007
(3) 18:39 18 May 2007
and
(1) 14:55 20 May 2007
(2) 05:44 21 May 2007
(3) 14:29 21 May 2007

The above notwithstanding, I would suggest that current discussions appear to be headed towards resolution and any blocking is unecessary and will simply inflame the situation. ] 15:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: unactionable)===
* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts&diff=132365566&oldid=132337438
22:07, 20 May 2007]
* 4th revert:

This report is coming off the heels of a and block that happened a couple days ago. Like last time, the user is insistent that his preferred version of the article remain in place despite objections from several editors. '''<font color="006400">]</font>''' (<font size="1"><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font>) 06:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

:Three of the diffs are for ], the other is for ]. Therefore, no violation has been demonstrated. Please use the example format at the bottom of this page to avoid mistakes like this. --''']''' <sup>]</sup> 08:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

:I replaced that one with the one Simoes intended. The explanation is that at least one of these (the 1st or 2nd or both) was not a revert. In any case the article is back at the other version now.

:It is clear that this is just more harassment by Simoes, as he has contributed nothing to the article over the past several days, while I have continued posting to the talk page and madesome edits to the article that have not been reverted. ] 08:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Vision (comics)}}. {{3RRV|Asgardian}}: Time reported: 06:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert: The wording of his edit summary "Since the other version is fundamentally flawed for all the previously listed reasons, this is the version that should be addressed as it has been shaped to user comments." sounds like he didn't even glance at the intermediate version but simply reverted because it wasn't his. (I'm not saying that's what happened. I'm saying that's how it looked.)
* 4th revert: This version isn't a 100% reversion because he edited it this time, but look at the intermediate version he changed. He keeps reverting this from a disambiguation page. Edit summary makes this look like another blind revert without looking at intermediate version: "Address the issues - this version has correct tense, no POV, correct grammar, sourcing and no spacing issues/poor use of images. Other version only suitable for fan site."

Notice that this is 4 reverts in <u>25</u> hours. However, (1) the 3RR guidelines stress that the rule is not a license to make 3 reverts every 24 hours (''"Revert warring is disruptive, and the 3RR is not an entitlement to three 'free' reverts per day."''), (2) this user has been endlessly cautioned about edit warring, (3) this user has gotten into trouble for 3RR before, so making 4 reverts in 25 hours comes across as an attempt to get around the rules without following their actual intent, (4) he has kept the ], ], ] locked in a war, (5) he alone has been fighting against consensus to split Vision (Marvel Comics) and Vision (Timely Comics) into two separate articles, and (6) he apparently doesn't even know how to move articles correctly from one article name to another because his actions have caused disruption of discussion as talk pages and histories get left behind. I really, really hate to do this, but this edit war must stop.

Previous 3RR warning:
* (not formal warning, just a caution)
*
* (caution only? I'm not sure because of how often Asgardian deleted warnings and removed other contributor's comments from his talk page.)
*
* (I thought this was just someone pointing out a violation to him, not a formal notice, until I saw comments at .
Notice that he has removed his 3RR block notices from his talk page despite previous warnings not to do that.

Other block notice:
*

Notification of recent administrator's noticeboard report:
*

Notification of an earlier adminstrator's noticeboard report:
*
] 06:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

'''Suggestion:''' If the 25 hour timespan means a block is unlikely, then simply protecting ] in its disambiguation page form might be sufficient action in this case. Protecting the disambiguation page might at least help reduce that aspect of the edit warring at ] and ]. ] 07:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Goguryeo controversies}}. {{3RRV|Good friend100}}: Time reported: 07:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to: — version right before the disputed text was moved over from another article, ]

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

<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
-->
* Diff of 3RR warning:

Comment: Repeated removal of the section entitled "==Political connections between Goguryeo and the Chinese Central Plains Dynasties".
--] 07:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

] blocked 24 hours from last revert --''']''' <sup>]</sup> 08:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: No violation)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Gail Omvedt}}. {{3RRV|DachMaCheh}}: Time reported: 11:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->

No violation has occurred. The ] prohibits '''more than''' three reverts within 24 hours. --''']''' <sup>]</sup> 13:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

:Ok, my bad. --] 14:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Bronze Soldier of Tallinn}}. {{3RRV|Beatle Fab Four}}: Time reported: 14:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:

User has been blocked for edit warring before.

: I'm a Beatle Fab Four. This Staberinde didn't follow controversy resolving rules. Look at the discussion page Talk:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn (→Advertisement) My reversions were fair, explained at the discussion page, and supported by several neutral users from Belgium and Finland, both in discussions and edits. For instance,
or "Thanks to Beatle Fab Four for reverting the deletion once more. LHOON 12:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)"
] 17:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fab Four FOUGHT VANDALISM. A few Baltic nationalists try to change the content of the article from what it realy is to what they would like it to be. Fab Four fought vandalism and by that followed this rule http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules when there are a few people vandalizing, and the one who fights vandalism is one, ofcaurse he will have to revert more then 3 times, and by this law http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules he's allowed to do so, and i think that every reasnoble man understands that. He was blocked by a user that didn't even learn the case, and who didn't care, he didn't use his logic, for him more then three reverts is enough to block (he is Sandstein). P.S. The administrator who blocked him blocked him and me, but he didn't block those from the other side of the arguments and didn't even give them a warrning, thought they were the once who started this edit war. M.V.E.i. 18:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Staberinde is an Estonian who took part in the argument, his complain can't even be taken serioucly. M.V.E.i. 18:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
::Ah, so because Staberinde is an Estonian and dared to argue with Beatle Fab Four, so he cannot be taken "serioucly"? That smells like a racism to me, but I'll leave it at that.
::User ] has constantly tried to reinstate material not suitable to Misplaced Pages or what goes against Misplaced Pages rules (links to blogs, hate promotion sites) and done everything to disrupt normal work - edits on ] have pretty much stopped, because of that. He has been blocked repeatedly before (see ) and has a history of block evasion (). Both he and M.V.E.i. constantly argue that he is just following rule ] while fighting vandalism, however, when asked to show evidence of that vandalism, they fail to do so.
::I don't think blocking BFF for normal duration will have any effect - he is on a dynamic IP and has shown clearly and repeatedly that he will evade the block. Although this is not the place to request this, I think that in addition to the block, semi-protection of the article ] (and maybe its talk as well) is needed. ] 19:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
:::DLX, Offcourse the article needs protectionm, from you, so you would stop reverting it. You and your friends here are ] (in the Wikipedian meaning), now your playing it an honest man who offers protection for the article. You are the one because of who the problems started. M.V.E.i. 20:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
:There has been edit-warring from multiple parties here; I have protected the article for three days. -- ''']''' 19:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: Article protected)===
*] violation on
{{Article|List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts}}. {{3RRV|The way, the truth, and the light}}:15:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

This report is coming off the heels of a and block that happened a couple days ago. Like last time, the user is insistent that his preferred version of the article (particular the removal of an "]" entry, among others) remain in place despite objections from several editors. '''<font color="006400">]</font>''' (<font size="1"><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font>) 15:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

:The explanation is that at least one of these (the 1st or 2nd or both) was not a revert. In any case the article is at the other version now. The last edit above was 15 hours ago (Simoes is not using GMT, but GMT-6).

:Simoes is trying to imply that I was the only editor who objected to the moon landing's inclusion, which is not true.

:It is clear that this is just more harassment by Simoes, as he has contributed nothing to the article over the past several days, while I have continued discussion on the talk page, and made some edits to the article that have not been reverted. ] 08:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

::Edit-warring from multiple parties here. Thus, I have protected the article. -- ''']''' 19:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Douglas Feith}}. {{3RRV|Bueller}}: Time reported: 16:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

] violation. Review of the recent topics and narrow will reveal what I believe is a ] problem with this user as well. ] 16:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

:The user in question has never received a three-revert rule warning and rarely contributes to Misplaced Pages. Thus, I have warned him/her. -- ''']''' 19:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hrs)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Template:British Isles}}. {{3RRV|84.68.67.13}} Time reported: 20:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:
* 8th revert:
* 9th revert:



] violation. Warned and requested to discussion, then deleted warnings and requests to discuss and then continued to revert despite a number of editors reverting.--] 21:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
* 24 hrs ] <small>]</small> 21:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
* Blocked ]:
**
**
**
**
for 24 hours also. --''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

=== ] at ] ===

There were more than 3 reverts of this IP user in recent 24 hours. He is still continuing in vandalising, I request to block him immediatly, because he is violating the official policy. Thanks. --] (]|]) 16:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User has already been blocked by ]. Issue resolved. <b><font face="Arial" color="1F860E">]</font><font color="20038A"><sup>]</sup></font></b> 22:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: No violation)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Race and ancient Egypt}}. {{3RRV|Urthogie}} Time reported: 20:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Continues to remain disruptive and controlling of the article, even though we're in dispute resolution. He still reverts every one's edits and it seems that he will not stop. I recommend that this person be blocked as he has clearly violated the 3 revert rule for about the 3rd time this past month.] 20:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
:These are five edits in a row with no other edits between them. This notice board is for when a user ''reverts'' an article to a prior version more than 3 times within 24 hours. It is not for when an editor makes more than 3 edits within 24 hours. --''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

=== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 1 week)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Oasis (band)}}. {{3RRV|Pompertown}}: Time reported: 21:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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

'''Comments''':] is fresh off a 31 hour block for violating 3RR on the same article. He continues to ignore talk page discussion and previous ] in favour of personal POV. ] 21:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
::{{done}} ] blocked 1 week. --''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h)===

*] violation on
{{Article|7th Muslim Brigade}}. {{3RRV|85.158.34.139}}: Time reported: 22:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

Comments: Continuous reversion to version of page with poorly sourced POV and OR. User appears to be turning the page into a POV fork. User is operating from a dynamic IP.

: I think this is not fair. I just asked user Someguy1221 to help me improve the article. I sourced all my claims which he asked for. He even didn't read the article, he tricked me this way just to block me. The problem is that no one wants to discuss.
::] blocked for 24 hours. --''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)



===] reported by ] (Result:No action)===

I may have violated 3RR ... please check ... ] 23:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Radio_astronomy&action=history

# (cur) (last) 08:14, 21 May 2007 Reddi (Talk | contribs) (16,921 bytes) (Undid POV revision 132431104 by ScienceApologist (talk))
# (cur) (last) 07:13, 21 May 2007 Reddi (Talk | contribs) (16,921 bytes) (Undid POV revision 132420335 by ScienceApologist (talk))
# (cur) (last) 13:12, 20 May 2007 Reddi (Talk | contribs) (16,921 bytes) (→Books)
# (cur) (last) 13:10, 20 May 2007 Reddi (Talk | contribs) (16,917 bytes) (rv removal of references)

If so, please tell me. ] 23:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
:Since you reported yourself, I won't take any action. Next time, just use the talkj page a ] if necessary. -- ] ] 05:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:No violation)===

* ] violation on {{Article|Temporal single-system interpretation}}. {{3RRV|Akliman}}: Time reported ] 23:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

* 1st revert: 0407, May 21
* 2nd revert: 1718, May 21
* 3rd revert: 2233, May 21
:There are only three reverts here, and the report isn't even formatted correctly. -- ] ] 05:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:48 hours)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Miklós Horthy}}. Time reported: 00:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

*1st edit (actually also just revert): 02:05, 21 May 2007
*1st revert: 16:10, 21 May 2007
*2nd revert: 18:09, 21 May 2007
*3rd revert: 19:51, 21 May 2007
*4th revert: 19:53, 21 May 2007
*5th revert: 20:07, 21 May 2007

Also, the IP plausibly belongs to a banned user, see ].
:IP blocked for 48 hours and article semi-protected for same duration. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Black people}}. {{3RRV|Sarah Goldberg}}: Time reported: 00:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
:This report only lists one revert. -- ] ] 05:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:50 hours)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Wolf Blitzer}}. {{3RRV|Isarig}}: Time reported: 00:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

User has insisted on a large paragraph in the article regarding a supposed "controversy" regarding Wolf Blitzer but has nothing to substantiate it beyond a mention by two columnists. Concerns raised regarding ] and ] have been ignored by this user and attempts to discuss this issue with him have been greeted with hostility, vitrol, threats, and namecalling. ] <small>(])</small> 00:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
:Blocked 50 hours. -- ] ] 05:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)



===] reported by ] (Result: 31h Block)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Bloomfield Hills, Michigan}}. {{3RRV|75.45.85.124}}: Time reported: 01:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:



* Diff of 3RR warning:

:This case is quite obvious. The user was warned, had more than three reverts and included personal attacks/slander in his/her edit summaries. Blocked for 31 hours. <b><font face="Arial" color="1F860E">]</font><font color="20038A"><sup>]</sup></font></b> 02:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


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

*] violation on
{{Article|Phillip Bauer}}. {{3RRV|Chris Bulgin}}: Time reported: 04:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

User is ignoring consensus talk on the discussion page. Seems bent on changing the character's status to deceased. Has changed status from unknwon to diseased multiple times

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

:This needs ], not versions. -- ] ] 05:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
::And I only count 3 reverts by going through the history of the article. --]<sup>]</sup> 06:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Miklós Horthy}}. {{3RRV|Tankred}}: Time reported: 13:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert: 03:23, 21 May 2007
* 2nd revert: 03:23, 21 May 2007
* 3rd revert: 23:52, 21 May 2007
* 4th revert: 00:03, 22 May 2007

User is on a crusade against IPs from ], and got into a revetwar with an IP, wich Tankred claims User:VinceB, but VinceB's IP range is pretty similar to mine (195... , wich is also similar to at least that half of Budapest's 2 million population, wich contracted to the same internet provider), so plausibly IP 91 something was just a victim of their debate. Tankred had similar trouble in the past, once, and often goes revertwarring with IPs. --] 13:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: No block)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Berlin}} and {{Article|Frankfurt}}. {{3RRV|Dontworry}}: Time reported: 14:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to: Frankfurt Berlin

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
]
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

]
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

User keeps reverting the night shot picture from ] and ] to another shot of the city without discussing it. he has done this multiple times in a 24 hour period. he has also edited under 5 IP's ], ], ], ], and ]

<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
] 14:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
* The diffs are from days past. 3RR blocks are not punitive, rather, these blocks are preventative. If the user persists in reverting, he will be blocked. I'll leave a message in talk. ] <small>]</small> 15:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:)===

*] violation on
{{Article|List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning
}}. {{3RRV|Arbustoo}}: Time reported: 16:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* Previous version reverted to:
* 4th revert:
* Experienced editor has continued to revert despite ongoing talk page discussion involving multiple editors. Three content reversions + immediate reversion of the addition of a disputed tag to the article.--] 16:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

:That is not a 3RR, if you 1) notice other editors have engaged in editing/reverting (for example ) and 2) removing some's disputed tag when they did not dispute the entire list was explained on the talk. JJay is and won't discussion the issues at ]. I think an admin. needs to step in and warn him on ] and ]. ] 16:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

=== Example ===
<pre>

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

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

*] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->

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


</pre>

Latest revision as of 09:30, 10 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

    Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
    Click here to create a new report
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links

    User:5.187.0.85 reported by User:Darth Stabro (Result: /21 blocked for three years)

    Page: UNITA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 5.187.0.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268102408 by Untamed1910 (talk)"
    2. 04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268102323 by Untamed1910 (talk)"
    3. 04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268102267 by Untamed1910 (talk)"
    4. 04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268101988 by MrOllie (talk)"
    5. 04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268074482 by MrOllie (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments: Vandalism

    Blocked – for a period of 3 years The range 5.187.0.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) by Ahect Daniel Case (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:BubbleBabis reported by Shadowwarrior8 (Result: No violation)

    Page: Ahmed al-Sharaa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: BubbleBabis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. (31 December 2024)
    2. (6 January 2024)
    3. (7 January 2025)
    4. (8 January 2025)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (7 January 2025)


    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

    Comments: The user was warned multiple times to not insert poorly sourced contentious material in a page which is a living person's biography. Despite this, the user has continued to insert original research, while making no attempt to refrain from disruptive editing behaviour or initiate a discussion on the talk page.

    Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    I've made my position clear. There is NO source that supports your version that between October 2006 and January 2012 he was not a member of any group. The current version is both manipulative (goes from 2006 Mujahideen Shura Council straight to 2012 al-Nusra) and contradicts RS that mention him as member of ISI in that period. There are RS that support my version, none that supports yours. A revision that'd include "2008-2012 ISI" (which would bypass his prison years 2006-08) would be a better solution. But a career infobox that straight-up omits the entire 2006-12 period is unacceptable.--BubbleBabis (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2025 (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. And really, this deserves more talking out on the talk page, which hasn't seen any discussion of this for a week (But, that having been said, if it continues like this I or another admin may be less tolerant). Daniel Case (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would like to note the previous discussion about this particular editor, who has a penchant for creating hoaxes, adding off-topic information about al Qaeda to unrelated articles, and a tendency to steal entire sentences from other articles for their additions may be found at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive368#User BubbleBabis. Aneirinn (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:Sokoreq reported by User:Cambial Yellowing (Result: Blocked one week)

    Page: Science of Identity Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Sokoreq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by Cambial Yellowing (talk) to last revision by Sokoreq"
    2. 18:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267996553 by Hipal (talk) please don't revert, and don't start an edit war. even if you are right, please discuss your concerns on my talk page"
    3. 17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267995628 by Hipal (talk)"
    4. 17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Hipal (talk) to last revision by Sokoreq"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC) "3rr"


    Comments:

    User:Garudam reported by User:Someguywhosbored (Result: Conditionally declined)

    Page: History of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Garudam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: he removed my warning for whatever reason

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

    Comments:
    Dont even know where to start with this one. I tried many avenues to solve this with him even after he started edit warring, and his newest replies completely ignored the fact that he has done that. There was a clear consesnsus that the content removal was justified on the talk page. At the time of the edit warring, it was 3-1 with most agreeing that it should be deleted. He completely ignored that fact entirely. I warned him about edit warring, and his response was to remove the warning template on his talk page. The content itself has a ton of issues which we went over in the talk page(completely different dynasty, contradiction by a more authoritative source, not using the term “indianized”)Its clear that my efforts to reach out to him have failed and the content still remains on the article. And non of his new responses have even refuted or mentioned the points made. Requesting administrative action. (Someguywhosbored (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC))

    • Comment: This is a poor report filed by Someguywhosbored. They’re clearly doing their best to hide their obvious flaws. The page in question, History of India, was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page. Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason . Another user has recently restored the stable version of the article . Not to mention the user they are claiming to gain consensus with i.e. Noorullah21 was also warned by an admin .
    PS: Their WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality is clearly visible through their essay like replies below, I'd rather refrain from replying back to them. Garuda 16:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Nice, you didn’t even mention the fact your edit warring here.
      “ The page in question, History of India, was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page”
      wow. All of these points are completely disingenuous. Firstly, if you read the talk page, Flemmish and noorullah both agreed with my edits. Even you eventually agreed that the content should at least be reworded because the sources don’t even follow what’s written on the article. You requested page protection, wrongfully accusing me of edit warring and disruption. And to be clear, it took several replies for you to even acknowledge the points that were made. Even now you’re completely ignoring the points I’ve made in the talk page. All you’ve stated recently is that you’re restoring a stable version. That doesn’t answer any of my concerns at all. The discussion began on my talk page. You ignored and didn’t even respond to any of the points made. There was no discussion on the history of India talk page until I brought it there(because you were ignoring me). And you kept dismissing the points until Flemmish called you out. So don’t act like you seriously tried to discuss this with me. You only bothered talking once you realized that simply reverting the page and wrongfully requesting page protection wouldn’t get your way. And even now you ignored the completely valid reasons for the contents removal.
      “Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason”
      Again, disingenuous. He’s bringing up a random conversation over a year ago that began over a simple miscommunication error. Drmies stated himself
      “ That's better, thanks. I am not a content expert: I did not revert you because I disagreed with the content. As for the talk page--if you had mentioned that in your edit summary”
      The entire issue was that he didn’t see what I wrote on the talk page because my edit showed up as “no edit summary” even though I could have sworn I left one. Regardless, you’re making this out to be some kind of big problem when in the end, Drmies stated himself that he didn’t disagree with me removing the content. Again, if there was an edit summary, he wouldn’t have reverted. It was just a miscommunication error like I said. And this happened over a year ago when I first started editing. So why are you making that out to be a bigger deal than it is?
      Regardless, even if you think you’re justified for edit warring, you shouldn’t be edit warring. That’s why I’ve avoided reverting you for a 4th time, so I won’t break 3RR.
      It’s clear you’re not going to stop making the same changes even if someone reverts you. You haven’t even acknowledged what you’re doing as breaking policy. Someguywhosbored (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      Also, I’m pretty sure noorullah only reverted once so I have no idea why they received a warning. Regardless, that’s not the main issue here. Someguywhosbored (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Declined Garudam, who is aware of CTOPS as the article indisputably comes under ARBIPA, has said he is "considering taking a break" and seems from his most recent editing history to have actually done so. This is a good idea IMO, as long as he keeps to his word on this. If he comes back early and just resumes the same behavior, at least a partial block from the page would be in order. Daniel Case (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    That sounds good to me. I’m guessing he will get reverted anyway. If he reverts again, I’ll mention it here. Someguywhosbored (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:37.72.154.146 reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Blocked 24h)

    Page: Westville Boys' High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 37.72.154.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Consecutive edits made from 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      1. 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Awards System */"
      2. 16:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Awards System */"
      3. 16:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Awards System */"
      4. 16:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Awards System */"
      5. 16:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Awards System */"
      6. 16:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Awards System */"
      7. 16:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Awards System */"
      8. 16:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Awards System */"
      9. 17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Modern times */"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Westville Boys' High School."
    2. 11:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Notice: Conflict of interest on Westville Boys' High School."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 11:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "/* COI tag (January 2025) */ new section"

    Comments: Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:Hemiauchenia by User:NotQualified (Result: No violation)

    Page: Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

    Comments:

    I edited Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom and added templates for weasel words and unbalanced following Misplaced Pages:Edit warring#How to avoid an edit war. To my surprise, as I tried to submit my edit to address issues with the text, the user in question had already reverted my tags without discussion and just childishly wrote "No." as their justification for their revert, and then astonishingly raised the article protection. I then went to said user's talk page to try and discuss my numerous concerns, adding in-line templates for every line to truly help them see what I saw wrong with it as obviously I would assume good faith and just that their must have been some confusion, and even more astonishingly in under a minute they silently deleted that talk page discussion.

    • WP:AVOIDEDITWAR This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.

    There are obvious weasel words and I am very much calling into question the balancing of the writing used and the user can't just revert and raise protection level. Proper procedure is to discuss via talk page. NotQualified (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    They have been warned before about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
    User talk:Hemiauchenia#January 2025
    """
    Warning icon Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Misplaced Pages without adequate explanation, as you did at Huddersfield sex abuse ring, you may be blocked from editing. FoxtAl (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Stop warning people when you're edit warring against multiple other editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    They're up to it again NotQualified (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    """ NotQualified (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics. I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per WP:NOTHERE. There has been consistent consensus against NQ's position, see for example Talk:Grooming_gang_moral_panic_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_1#Requested_move_3_September_2024 (this article was merged in to the " Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article), which shows the consensus regarding the issue is completely opposite to NQs position, and shows that the tags are unjustified. I am completely entitled to revert any post on my talkpage (which is what NQ means when he says I "tried to delete me reporting them", and I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article and so am not in violation of the 3RR. I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    "NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics."
    Incorrect, for example I was the one who almost exclusively wrote about the James McMurdock of Reform UK abuse scandal, amongst other things. James McMurdock#Assault conviction
    Immediately accusing me of bad faith is deflection.
    "I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per WP:NOTHERE."
    Genuinely shocking that you're suggesting my blocking, I didn't even go that far with you despite everything and all you're upset with is my supposed unfair edit history.
    "There has been consistent consensus against NQ's position, see for example Talk:Grooming_gang_moral_panic_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_1#Requested_move_3_September_2024"
    Weasel words aren't mentioned even once in this discussion. Some discussion is about balance but you couldn't even know my gripe if you just delete my discussion with you.
    "I "tried to delete me reporting them""
    I edited this out of my report because I didn't think it was explained clearly but as you commented on it, I meant reporting you to you. I can understand the confusion.
    "I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article"
    3RR is not the only edit warring rule and honestly this is redundant if you just raise protection levels to block any more edits to begin with NotQualified (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • No violation. This report is a mess. Bbb23 (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      What is wrong with the report? That I didn't perfectly follow the template? That doesn't mean a violation didn't take place. I can re-format my report, one moment NotQualified (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      @NotQualified: Do not "re-format" this report. If you insist on filing a report that is readable, file a new one, but there would still be no violation. Also, do not copy in other users' comments into reports. It's very confusing and hard to follow. You can include them by saying "so-and-so did this" and use a diff to show what the user did. The way you did it made it look like those users had commented on your report. That was the messiest part of the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      I'm still learning how to format on Misplaced Pages, so sorry. I re-formatted before you posted. Why would there be "... still be no violation"? I understand that I shouldn't directly post user comments and should follow template next time, but I am confused at how their conduct is acceptable. 3RR is not the only rule and is largely redundant when I'm accusing the user of raising protection levels after a single revert and then refusing to discuss it when brought up on their talk page. NotQualified (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      I will try to put my report as brief as possible, so there is no confusion.
      1. I add templates to an article with faults
      2. The user immediately reverts without explanation and raises the protection level
      3. I, assuming good faith, go to them in accordance with protocol and show my problems line by line
      4. They immediately revert that, justifying it in the revert log by saying I have a "right wing agenda" (I do not) amongst other nonsense. This is even more concerning when most of my so-called "right wing " recent edits are rape gang scandal related.
      5. I see that they've actually been reported for the exact same thing a week ago, wiping articles of child sex abuse in the UK. This is a pattern of behaviour of bad faith.
      6. Knowing now I'm dealing with a troll with privileges, I go here and try to explain my case
      7. I notify the user
      8. I am not familiar with all the protocols of Misplaced Pages so my report is messy
      9. Their defense is lies, I go line by line saying why. The only crux of their argument is that they technically didn't violate 3RR because instead of reverting anything else they did something far worse and raised the protection level
      10. You tell me my report is messy and there's no problem
      I hope I summarised that in a way that makes more sense but I fully acknowledge you know more than me and could correct a mistake in my analysis NotQualified (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      They edited the above answer "I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do."
      That seems to be the case, so I apologise for the confusion caused. I still argue however they are in repeat violation of rules around UK rape incidents and I personally think that due to it being a pattern of behaviour there should be at least a warning given, if not a total suspension from editing on rape or abuse in the UK. I do not believe reverting a template is enough for a warning, even given that's generally bad conduct. but refusing to discuss afterwards and furthermore this being a repeat pattern of behaviour makes me question the impartiality and good faith of the editor.
      I admit, my report could've been formatted better, and I apologise for saying they raised protection when they didn't, that must've been an edit conflict that confused me. They are not in violation of 3RR and as they haven't raised protection but they've acted poorly, repeatedly, and I've refuted their arguments above quite clearly around conduct. I am not calling for a general suspension. I am however at least calling for warning to be given, or better a ban on editing UK rape scandals.
      I am going to re-add weasel words and balance to the section. NotQualified (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:80.200.232.89 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked one week)

    Page: Biology and sexual orientation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 80.200.232.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 02:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Genetic influence"
    2. 23:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Significant skill issues regarding the ability to read the edit summary and the study itself."
    3. 23:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268251743 by MrOllie (talk)"
    4. 21:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Rv straight up lying. The source itself asserts a 22% variance in shared environment, 43% in nonshared environment. Stop vandalizing the pages I edit."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Vandalizing */"

    Comments:

    Comment: I tried had a discussion with the IP editor on their talk page about misunderstandings on the definition on 'environment' which they seemed to come around on. But then they started adding in race science in other articles and edit warring there too. Blatant troll WP:NOTHERE. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.
    And I will revert edits done by MrOllie if they don't even provide a reason or a rebuttal for why what I did was wrong. You did, so I stopped. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Also, how is talking about the genetic influence of homosexuality through the GWAS method controversial at all? I can accept that I was wrong regarding the environment dispute, but this is just ain't it. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    There is both unanswered discussion on the article talk page, as well as relevant discussion you had with Zenomonoz on your user talk. In any case, the onus is on you to secure agreement from other editors. MrOllie (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    In addition to the 4 reverts listed above, you're also up to 3 reverts at Genome-wide association study, not one as you claim. MrOllie (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    You're just being purposefully antagonistic lol. We solved the issue already, that's why you didn't revert it again. Then zenomonoz strolls in and reverts because he thought the issue persisted, now he's just grasping straws and finding excuses like requiring a secondary source when half the God damn encyclopedia uses nothing but primary sources. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    To be clear the issue was the race and intelligence example I used. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    The issue is absolutely not 'solved'. That I was not willing to edit war in this instance does not mean that I agree with you. MrOllie (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Because Misplaced Pages is based upon secondary sources, like reviews, and not primary source studies that are often misinterpreted by readers (and editors) such as yourself. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's funny because 3 out of 7 (primary) sources used in the GWAS article can also be found in the article 'heritability of IQ' alone, just to illustrate my point to you about how you're grasping at straws 80.200.232.89 (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:104.173.25.23 reported by User:Flat Out (Result: blocked 48 hours)

    Page: The Time (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 104.173.25.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 04:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268310547 by C.Fred (talk) Already took it to talk"
    2. 04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268310269 by PEPSI697 (talk)"
    3. 04:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268309093 by Tenebre.Rosso.Sangue995320 (talk)"
    4. 04:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268308251 by Galaxybeing (talk) Please stop the edit war. These reverts are vandalism."
    5. 04:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268080514 by Flat Out (talk) Deleted content is irrelevant and was inappropriately added"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Ongoing edit warring after warning on users talk page Flat Out (talk) 04:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:Shecose reported by User:CNMall41 (Result: Page move-protected)

    Page: Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Shecose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 08:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268346390 by CNMall41 (talk) Undiscussed move. The editor is acting out of personal hate instead of collaborating."
    2. 08:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268345471 by CNMall41 (talk) Undiscussed move. There are multiple people edited this article."
    3. 08:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268344773 by CNMall41 (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Also note the SPI case CNMall41 (talk) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    This article is about a highly anticipated film with a large base of interest. There are hundreds of references available following its teaser and poster release, and it has been confirmed that principal photography has begun. Despite all this, the user CNMall41 has draftified the article multiple times. When asked about the policy, he simply forwarded the entire article, which was edited by multiple editors, to satisfy his personal ego. His actions are not collaborative and should be noted. Shecose (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    • I am going to advise that we delay any action here until Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Shecose is resolved. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      That is because CNMall41's only possible actual justification for the move warring against a draftification objection is block evasion, and their actions would normally lead to a block. And even if this is block evasion, waiting for the investigation's result would have been advisable. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Page protected: Move protection for now, and if redirection is still desired, please start a deletion discussion for it (WP:ATD-R). Even if this is sockpuppetry, the page qualifies neither for G5 (due to substantial edits by others) nor redirection as a form of reverting block evasion (due to collateral damage). In such cases, it can help to focus on the content and decide independently of whether someone might be a sockpuppeteer. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Shecose, to satisfy his personal ego (above and in Special:Diff/1268349248 too) is a personal attack; you too should focus on the content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Apologies, I withdraw that. I wasn't aware of it, and it happened in the heat of the argument. Shecose (talk) 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:Ger2024 reported by User:Sunnyediting99 (Result: Sock indefinitely blocked)

    Page: Korean clans of foreign origin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Ger2024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 02:00 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268223854 by CountHacker (talk)"
    2. 04:26 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268302350 by Sunnyediting99 (talk) There is no real way to track the origin of all Korean Bongwan. However the fact that Lady Saso gave birth to Hyeokgeose and that Lady Saso came from China was recorded in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. If this does not prove, then most korean bongwan that has foreign origin are not proven as well. None will be valid then."
    3. 04:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268312984 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)Then most Korean surname of foreign origin will not be proven as well, including those from Mongolia, Vietnam, & India. Most of the information from this page is taken from Encyclopedia of Korean Culture in Naver, which was provided by Korean themselves. Also even if Lady Saso came from Buyeo. Buyeo is centered in today's northeast China."
    4. 04:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268314825 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)"
    5. 05:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268318492 by CountHacker (talk) There are only 3 therories, the golden egg is extremely unlikely. The other theory is Buyeo & China. The Buyeo theory does not have much supported evidence. On the other hand the China theory, have some sources supporting it in Encyclopedia of korean culture and also in Korean language and literature dictionary (provided by korean academist) in Naver)"


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 04:43 9 January 2025 (UTC): "Please engage with me on the talk page rather than undoing my edits and trying to edit war, first and foremost most of the page is unsourced to begin with, so its not really drawing from the Encylopedia. Additionally, the Samguk Yusa is not a reliable source and its disputed if its Buyeo or China. Finally, Buyeo is generally considered a Koreanic state by academics."
    2. 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Lady Saso: Reply"

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 04:36 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Lady Saso: New Section"
    2. 05:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Lady Saso: Reply"

    Comments:
    Taken from the ANI report i had submitted when I should have submitted here.

    Ger2024 has been Misplaced Pages:Edit warring and violated WP:3RR (they have as of now made five reverts) and possibly WP:NPOV despite my direct requests asking them to not engage in an edit war and to instead discuss with me and @CountHacker on the Talk Page. While they did respond to my efforts to try to talk to them on the Talk Page, they immediately then reverted my edits after they made their comments. The initial edits started when another Misplaced Pages user was verifying and deleting some info on the page (likely for factual accuracy) when the reverts began.

    In regards to WP:NPOV, there is a POV push, despite the multiple corrections both I and @CountHacker have issued. We notified the user that the same source they are using from is generally considered historically unreliable because it is a collection of folklore and legends (the source, while a valuable insight into Korean folklore, claims that the founder of the Korean kingdom of Silla was born from a literal Golden Egg, so cannot be taken to be factual because humans cannot be born from Golden Eggs).

    Despite trying to talk to them, they are just ignoring my and CountHackers actual points, and we even had more discussion but they just made their fifth revert.

    End of ANI Report: Additional comment I would like to add, reflecting on this a few hours later, I think WP:SPA might be relevant, something unusual is that the account has only edited on this specific page (they have made 49 edits total, 47/49 of these edits are all on this page and/or the talk page despite the account being 10 months old), and i found it a bit unusual that the account reverted someone elses edits within 38 minutes after being inactive since May 18th, 2024 based off their user contributions history.

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 14:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Sunnyediting99 (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:Theonewithreason reported by User:PhilipPirrip (Result: )

    Page: Novak Djokovic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Theonewithreason (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:


    1. Diffs of the user's reverts:



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

    Comments:

    I also find the baseless message the user had left me personally intimidating . Threats to report my 3RR message . Is this how unwelcoming Misplaced Pages is supposed to be? PhilipPirrip (talk) 09:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Categories: