Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:44, 18 May 2007

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

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

Violations

Please place new reports at the bottom.

User:Miskin reported by User:Arash the Archer (Result: No block)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Last stand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Miskin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 19:26, May 8, 2007 Removing Battle of Persian gate
• 2nd revert: 06:31, May 9, 2007 Changing the numbers in battle of persian gates
• 3rd revert: 06:35, May 9, 2007 Removing Battle of the Hydaspes River
• 4th revert: 08:42, May 9, 2007 Reverting Dharmender6767
• 5th revert: 11:07, May 9, 2007 Changing the numbers in Battle of Thermopylae and Battle of the Persian Gate

User:Dharmender6767 also has been engaged in the edit war but he/she is a new user and has not been warned yet. (Arash the Archer 13:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC))

• No block. Seems that editors are actively editing that page.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 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 Last stand and Battle of the Persian Gate because of his/her reverts. Can someone explain how the system works in this way? This user has also reverted many times here.(Arash the Archer 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 WP:CONSENSUS. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist reported by User:Reddi (Result: No block)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Paraphysics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 10:41, 10 May 2007 (a redirect he put in without discussion and with a display of non-cooperation)

• There are only three reverts here. --ScienceApologist 16:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• No block. Pleases use the format required as per the template provided. It is there for a reason. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

User:71.29.238.115 reported by User:Veritas Noctis (Result: 48 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

American Taekwondo Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.29.238.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 12:10, 10 May 2007

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.

• 1st revert: 10:24, 10 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 10:36, 10 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 10:37, 10 May 2007
• 4th revert: 10:38, 10 May 2007
• 5th revert: 12:30, 10 May 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 11:30, 10 May 2007

User 71.29.238.115 attempted to delete warnings on his talk page (13:07, 10 May 2007).

• I have blocked the user for 48 hours per WP:3RR. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Ed g2s reported by User:Arcayne (Result:no block, removing violations of copyright policy)

• Three-revert rule violation on

300 (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ed g2s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

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:

- * 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. -Arcayne () 17:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't edit war with an administrator who is trying to enforce our policy on non-free content. See also Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. Musical Linguist 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. Arcayne () 18:55, 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. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That some people disagree with the strictness of the policy doesn't turn it into a content dispute. Musical Linguist 07:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User:216.16.55.81 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result:Already blocked)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Archimedes Plutonium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 216.16.55.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 04:58, May 9, 2007

• 1st revert: 08:21, May 10, 2007 (as 216.16.57.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))
• 2nd revert: 08:24, May 10, 2007 (ditto)
• 3rd revert: 16:45, May 10, 2007
• 4th revert: 17:19, May 10, 2007
• 5th revert: 17:57, May 10, 2007
• 6th revert: 18:12, May 10, 2007
• 7th revert: 21:33, May 10, 2007 (as 216.16.55.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • (added)
• 8th revert: 22:07, May 10, 2007 (ditto)

• Diff of 3RR warning: 18:01, May 10, 2007
• Diff of 3RR warning: 13:13, April 10, 2007 (as Superdeterminism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))

• Comment: 216.16.55.1 blocked (by me) for legal threats. I'm sure some of the other IPs have been blocked for legal threats or vandalism. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Already blocked ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Ed g2s reported by User:Minderbinder (Result: 24h no block)

• Three-revert rule violation on

300 (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ed g2s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): --Minderbinder 22:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

Duplicate reverts removing images, edit-warring

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert: (revert to )

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 WP:NONFREE 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. --Minderbinder 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. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 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. Majorly (hot!) 23:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: block overturned. See previous 3RR report which ruled on the first 3 of these reverts. ed g2s • talk 00:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

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. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 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. Arcayne () 01:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

As a non-admin member of the Film project I would like to thank User:Ed g2s 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. —Viriditas | Talk 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. Musical Linguist 07:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This just condones, if not encourages, edit warring by admins. I thought the point was that edit warring is bad? --Minderbinder 12:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Bill_Storm reported by User:Guyver8400 (Result: No block)

• Three-revert rule violation on

gerritsen beach. Bill_Storm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

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

• Improper report: only 3 reverts, no block. Crum375 01:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Burntsauce reported by User:Alex Roza (Result: No block)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Kennedy Fried Chicken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Burntsauce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

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

• Improper report - only 3 reverts. No block. Crum375 01:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Ned_Scott reported by User:Tivedshambo (Result: 24 hours No block)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Misplaced Pages:Non-free content (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ned Scott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 05:20

• 1st revert: 07:51
• 2nd revert: 07:57
• 3rd revert: 08:03
• 4th revert: 08:23 — Corrected revision. Michaelas 12:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

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. -- Ned Scott 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. Matthew 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. Badagnani 07:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm apart of the conspiracy. -- Ned Scott 08:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Times given in the above links are BST, = UTC+1. Sorry, should have thought of this. – Tivedshambo (talk) 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 WP:CON before making a revert. Further edit warring will result in protection. Michaelas 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. ed g2s • talk 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. --Minderbinder 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. — Deckiller 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. ed g2s • talk 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 mootJoshuaZ 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. Badagnani 18:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Jvalant reported by User:Philip Baird Shearer (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Indian Rebellion of 1857 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jvalant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 18:59, 10 May 2007

• 1st revert: Revision as of 04:52, 11 May 2007
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 10:15, 11 May 2007
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 11:01, 11 May 2007
• 4th revert: Revision as of 11:40, 11 May 2007

• Has he been warned for potentially violating 3RR before? Michaelas 12:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Warning on article talk page at 11:19, 11 May 2007 and acknowledgement that he saw it at 11:39, 11 May 2007 --RaiderAspect 12:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours. Michaelas 12:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Martinphi reported by User:Minderbinder (Result: No block)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Institute of Noetic Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 21:53, 9 May 2007

• 1st revert: 22:05, 9 May 2007 (removed "alleged" again)
• 2nd revert: 22:48, 9 May 2007 (removed alleged and listing of specific topics again, added "consciousness and its potentials" again)
• 3rd revert: 23:25, 9 May 2007 (removed listing of specific topics again, added "consciousness and its potentials" again)
• 4th revert: 20:54, 10 May 2007 (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: 22:14, 10 May 2007) (added "consciousness and its potentials" again)

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

3RR blocks are not punitive. Editors has not reverted since May 10. If he persists, please relist. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

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? --Minderbinder 15:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

...and when he returned, he went right back to revert warring . --Minderbinder 12:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Dharmender6767 reported by User:RaiderAspect (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Battle of the Persian Gate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dharmender6767 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 06:31, 10 May 2007

• 1st revert: 05:57, 11 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 08:09, 11 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 12:42, 11 May 2007
• 4th revert: 13:19, 11 May 2007
• Diff of 3RR warning: 10:39, 11 May 2007
• Diff of 2nd 3RR warning: 12:51, 11 May 2007

I would like to add that Dharmender had also broken 3RR two days ago in the article last stand 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 . Miskin 14:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

i just read about this rule, but if undoing more than 3 edits in 24 hour is prohibited, then why hasn't Miskin been punished yet, he undid 4 edits on last stand in less than 24 hours. why the double standard?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • ])

You were warned about this rule and received a link to WP:3RR by at least 3 different users, in your talk page, articles' talk page and edit summaries. Miskin 14:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Killacrockka reported by User:Wildthing61476 (Result: 24 hrs)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Espio the Chameleon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Killacrockka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 10:57, May 11, 2007

• 1st revert: 10:33, May 11, 2007
• 2nd revert: 17:06, May 10, 2007
• 3rd revert: 12:59, May 10, 2007
• 4th revert: 13:02, May 9, 2007
• Diff of 3RR warning: 10:33, May 11, 2007

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 Chaotix 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. Wildthing61476 15:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• 24 hours ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Bangkokbasher reported by User:Goochelaar (Result:24h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Geoffrey Giuliano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bangkokbasher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 12:15, 7 May 2007

• 1st revert: 06:38, 11 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 10:23, 11 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 17:15, 11 May 2007
• 4th revert: 20:31, 11 May 2007
• 5th revert: 20:37, 11 May 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 22:53, 1 May 2007

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.

• Blocked for 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Showninner reported by User:Jayjg (Result: 72 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Nicolas Sarkozy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Showninner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 22:53, 9 May 2007

• 1st revert: 00:47, 11 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 20:24, 11 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 21:07, 11 May 2007
• 4th revert: 22:15, 11 May 2007

• Editor has been insisting on inserting stuff about Sarkozy being of "Greek-Jewish ancestry", using various formulations. He has just come back from a 24 hour block for tendentious editing on the same article. Jayjg 22:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have blocked the user for 72 hours per WP:3RR. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User:TyrusThomas4lyf reported by User:Tayquan (Result:48 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Kobe Bryant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tyrus Thomas4lyf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Kobe Bryant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TyrusThomas4lyf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

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

The first one os a revert too, from a while back. Tayquan _{My work} 23:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Already blocked. Kafziel 23:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Miskin reported by User:Mardavich (Result:1 month)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Battle of the Persian Gate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Miskin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 13:11, 11 May 2007

• 1st revert: 13:34, 11 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 14:06, 11 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 14:26, 11 May 2007
• 4th revert: 18:44, 11 May 2007

- * 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 WP:3RR: "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. --Mardavich 00:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• • 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. Miskin has three clear reverts, but not a fourth, and has not broken the three revert rule. Sam Blacketer 11:19, 12 May 2007 (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. ⇒ SWATJester 05:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

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

User:NI4D reported by User:bytebear (Result:24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). NI4D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 04:32, 12 May 2007

• 1st revert: 03:58, 12 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 04:05, 12 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 04:39, 12 May 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 04:13, 12 May 2007

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

Additional reverts to Joseph F. Smith and many Mormon related articles. Bytebear 05:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Blocked 24 hours by Steve. Sam Blacketer 11:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Hoponpop69 Reported by User:Pbroks13 (Result:No violation)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Anberlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hoponpop69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 10:34, May 5, 2007
• 1st revert: 21:59, May 6, 2007
• 2nd revert: 23:19, May 6, 2007
• 3rd revert: 23:25, May 6, 2007
• 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Anberlin&diff=129947078&oldid=129414901, May 10, 2007

• The reverts have to be within a 24 hour period. Hoponpop69 has not broken the three revert rule. In any case violations from 6 May are stale by now. Sam Blacketer 11:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

User:193.223.98.186 reported by User:Sceptre (Result:24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 193.223.98.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 17:54, 12 May 2007

• 1st revert: 18:13, 12 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 18:15, 12 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 18:17, 12 May 2007
• 4th revert: 18:22, 12 May 2007

---

• 5th revert: 19:26, May 12, 2007
• 6th revert: 19:27, May 12, 2007
• 7th revert: 19:29, May 12, 2007

and so on...Makalp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: Must. 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...--193.223.98.186 17:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Micheal-Nick reported by User:Maggott2000 (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

List of best-selling albums worldwide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Micheal-Nick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: Maggott2000 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.

User:Micheal-Nick 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. Sam Blacketer 21:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

69.118.129.76 reported by User:BaseballDetective (Result:No violation)

• Three-revert rule violation on

List of people from Ridgefield, Connecticut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.118.129.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 04:14, 7 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 19:01, 7 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 00:58, 9 May 2007
• 4th revert: 18:34, 9 May 2007

User:69.118.129.76 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 talk page. 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. Sam Blacketer 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. BaseballDetective 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 request for comment. Sam Blacketer 22:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Sosomk reported by User:Corticopia (Result:1 week)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Georgia (country) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sosomk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 19:45, 11 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 19:59, 11 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 20:03, 11 May 2007
• 4th revert: 15:46, 12 May 2007
• 5th revert: 17:06, 12 May 2007
• et al.

Despite continuous discussion, this editor continues to revert recent consensual edits to the introduction regarding the country's location -- the consensual version equitably notes that it is located at the juncture of Asia and Europe (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?) Continental Europe. 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 has been warned of this. Corticopia 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. Sam Blacketer 23:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Pocat-chictribute.com reported by User:Cyrus XIII (Result:Blocked, 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Chic (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pocat-chictribute.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 15:53, May 5, 2007

• 1st revert: 12:49, May 12, 2007
• 2nd revert: 18:16, May 12, 2007
• 3rd revert: 18:43, May 12, 2007
• 4th revert: 00:12, May 13, 2007

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 WP:MOS-TM. No edit summaries, no talk page messages, even though the editor in question has been around for about a year. - Cyrus XIII 04:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Y Blocked — Pocat-chictribute.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked for 24 hours for a violation of WP:3RR at Chic (band) ~ Anthony 13:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Laertes_d reported by User:NikoSilver (Result:48h)

• Three-revert rule violation on Massacres during the Greek Revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Laertes_d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 85.100.197.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 21:38, May 11, 2007

• 1st revert: 22:33, May 12, 2007
• 2nd revert: 10:26, May 13, 2007
• 3rd revert: 12:20, May 13, 2007
• 4th revert: 15:29, May 13, 2007
• 5th revert: 15:47, May 13, 2007
• 6th revert: 16:01, May 13, 2007

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: Numerous warnings in the user talkpage, user has already been blocked four times in this and other relevant articles for 3RR (Block log)

The user keeps reorganizing the layout of the page in order to place WP:UNDUE 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 Greek War of Independence). User admits this is his IP here. NikoSilver 16:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked for 48 hours by another admin. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

RaiderAspect reported by User:Jvalant (Result:no vio)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Indian Rebellion of 1857 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RaiderAspect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 08:44, 11 May 2007

• 1st revert: Revision as of 10:50, 11 May 2007
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 11:20, 11 May 2007
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 12:55, 11 May 2007

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. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Diluvien reported by User:The Future (Result: Blocked 31 Hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

HIM (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Diluvien (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 16:50, 13 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 18:48, 13 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 20:28, 13 May 2007
• 4th revert: 20:45, 13 May 2007

Blocked for 31 hours. Three more reverts since posting. --Selket 05:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User:The Future reported by User:Diluvien (Result:31 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

HIM (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The Future (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 00:28, 13 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 19:45, 13 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 20:40, 13 May 2007
• 4th revert: 23:10, 13 May 2007

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

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

You're spreading your ignorance of WP:RS. — The Future 21:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

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

• Clear violation; 31 hours in line with the block to Diluvien above. Sam Blacketer 08:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User:71.114.232.137 reported by User:SpikeJones (Result:no block)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Ratatouille (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.114.232.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 00:24, 14 May 2007

• 1st revert: 00:24, 14 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 00:24, 14 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 00:24, 14 May 2007
• 4th revert: 00:24, 14 May 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 23:55, 13 May 2007. User may also be using the Pixar is 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. SpikeJones 04:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • User hasn't reverted since 3RR warning, so no block for now. Return if the edit war resumes. Heimstern Läufer (talk)

• 5th revert: 08:28, 14 May 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SpikeJones (talk • contribs) 13:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
• 6th revert: 09:29, 14 May 2007 SpikeJones 13:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• 7th revert: 15:39, 14 May 2007 SpikeJones 19:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User:69.120.212.35 reported by User:Rustavo (Result: moot due to autoblock)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Lyme disease military history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User:69.120.212.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Please note that I believe this anonymous user to be identical to (sockpuppet of) User:Freyfaxi 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 User:Freyfaxi has yet again removed the AfD tag on Lyme disease military history. -Rustavo 11:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have blocked Freyfaxi 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). Sam Blacketer 11:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Britcom reported by User:BozMo (Result:24h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Britcom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 0711
• 2nd revert: 0944
• 3rd revert: 1028
• 4th revert: 1128

• 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 WP:CIV for good measure. Altogether quite an unconstructive attitude. Raymond Arritt 13:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. A write-up is in progress on the user's talk page. Sean William 13:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As for civil, Dr. Schulz's comments were quite trollish. ~ UBeR 16:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages editors are expected to adhere to policy regardless of the behavior of those they are in disputes with; inappropriate behavior by others does not legitimize one's own. Sean William 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. ~ UBeR 05:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Aristovoul0s reported by User:Corticopia (Result: No Vio)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Cyprus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Aristovoul0s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 09:43, 13 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 10:11, 13 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 21:45, 13 May 2007
• 4th revert: 06:05, 14 Nay 2007

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 requests to desist. If this isn't a clear case of edit warring, I don't know what is. Corticopia 12:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Aristovoul0s and User:Corticopia each had three reverts after the initial post. One more from either would likely constitute a violation. --Selket 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? Corticopia 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 Georgia (country) yesterday, and I'm surprised no one reported you. I think you rv war too much. I think we should let this issue go...--Ploutarchos 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 ... Corticopia 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 :-( Ploutarchos 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? Corticopia 15:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Ploutarchos's comments seems not valid here since He/she continue Rv's instead of User:Aristovoul0s in that article, immediately after Aristovoul0s.Must. 13:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Corticopia reported by User:Ploutarchos (Result: See Below)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Georgia (country) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Corticopia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 16:05, 12 May 2007

• 1st revert: 22:35, 12 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 18:43, 13 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 19:08, 13 May 2007
• 4th revert: 19:22, 13 May 2007

• 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. Corticopia 15:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Dúnadan reported by User:Maurice27 (Result:No block)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Catalonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). D%C3%BAnadan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

• 1st revert: 22:23, 13 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 23:09, 13 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 01:28, 14 May 2007

• The dissambiguation of the article Catalonia clearly states that "the article is about the autonomous community. See also Principality of Catalonia (for the historic territory) and Northern Catalonia". User:Dúnadan keeps reverting to add information about the Principality of Catalonia which does not belong to this article lead paragraph as it has it own main article.
• In addition, he is negliging Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith here (]), which also means I suffered a WP:NPA here ((]), accusing me of having "hidden motives towards Catalonia", and he is pushing WP:OOA to the extreme of not letting other users to freely edit, monopolizing the articles in which he is present (see: Talk:Catalonia, Talk:Valencia (autonomous community) (which needed a Request for Mediation) and Talk:Balearic Islands). 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.

 Not done—there appears to be no violation of WP:3RR; this is upon examination of the three diffs given. If further diffs are available, please repost ~ Anthony 20:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Gon4z reported by User:MrMacMan (Result: Blocked for 48 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Template:Infobox National Military Albania (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gon4z (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 129991567 Revision as of 01:41, 11 May 2007

• 1st revert: Revision as of 18:55, 14 May 2007
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 19:36, 14 May 2007
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 19:51, 14 May 2007
• 4th revert: Revision as of 21:22, 14 May 2007
• 5th revert: Revision as of 21:31, 14 May 2007
• 6th revert: (21:43, 14 May 2007)

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

User:Gon4z reported by User:noclador (Result: Blocked for 48 hours; see above)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Military of Albania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gon4z (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: Revision as of 20:52, 14 May 2007
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 21:35, 14 May 2007
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 22:39, 14 May 2007
• 4th revert: Current revision (23:21, 14 May 2007)
• 5th revert: Current revision (23:43, 14 May 2007)

One more, he reverts so fast you I have trouble keeping up!!!

Furthermore user is also in an edit war on Template:Infobox National Military Albania

• 1st revert: Revision as of 20:55, 14 May 2007
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 21:36, 14 May 2007
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 21:51, 14 May 2007
• 4th revert: Revision as of 23:22, 14 May 2007
• 5th revert: Revision as of 23:31, 14 May 2007
• 6th revert: Current revision (23:43, 14 May 2007)

• Furthermore user is also in an edit war on Albanian Air Force 5 reverts
• Furthermore user is also in an edit war on Albanian Land Forces Command 6 reverts
• Furthermore user is also in an edit war on Albanian Naval Defense Forces 3 reverts

This user has been banned for the same offence last week: here 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. noclador 21:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Diff of 3RR warning: Revision as of 21:32, 14 May 2007

Blocked for 48 hours (see above). Given the recalcitrant nature of the problem, it may be worth proposing a more permanent solution at the community sanction noticeboard. MastCell 22:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User:melonbarmonster reported by User:Komdori (Result:1 week)

• Three-revert rule violation on

An Jung-geun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). melonbarmonster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 03:19, 30 April 2007

• 1st revert: 01:30, 15 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 01:53, 15 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 02:37, 15 May 2007
• 4th revert: 02:43, 15 May 2007

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 here, here, and here.

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.melonbarmonster 03:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing consecutive about the reverts; click on the diffs. You were reverting each time. Komdori 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. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 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. Komdori 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). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Dcs47 and User:Andromeda reported by User:TheFearow (Result:no block)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Robert Duncan McNeill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dcs47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Andromeda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 19:02, 27 April 2007

• All reverts shown on http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Robert_Duncan_McNeill&action=history
• 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. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:81.129.16.228 reported by User:Yummifruitbat (Result: Article sprotected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Scottish national identity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 81.129.16.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); 81.156.63.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Mallimak sockpuppets): Time reported: 13:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 13:41, 29 November 2006

• 1st revert: 19:27, 14 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 20:24, 14 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 20:41, 14 May 2007
• 4th revert: 11:30, 15 May 2007

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 User:Mallimak, who's been engaged in combatative editing with User:Mais oui! 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. --YFB ¿ 13:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have sprotected the article, given the use of multiple IPs from same IP block to disrupt editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Strich3d reported by User:Ploutarchos (Result:Moot)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Macedonian Scientific and Literary Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Strich3d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 20:04, 11 May 2007

• 1st revert: 14:27, 14 May 2007 (clear revert from edit summary)
• 2nd revert: 18:46, 14 May 2007 (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: 21:09, 14 May 2007 (clear revert from edit summary)
• 4th revert: 18:59, 15 May 2007 (clear revert from edit summary + borderline personal attack)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Atanas Badev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Strich3d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 12:28, 11 May 2007

• 1st revert: 21:10, 14 May 2007 (changes his ethnicity from "Bulgarian" to "Macedonian" contrary to the sources on the talkpage and the only sources cited)
• 2nd revert: 11:53, 15 May 2007 (again)
• 3rd revert: 18:52, 15 May 2007 (again)
• 4th revert: 18:57, 15 May 200 (again)

• Diff of 3RR warning: 20:21, 11 May 2007

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).--Ploutarchos 19:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not likely as bg has no user with that name. --Selket 00:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Moot: Strich3d has already been blocked for editwaring and vandalsim. Checkuser on others pending. -- Selket 00:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Maurauth reported by User:Hipocrite (Result: 24 hrs)

• Three-revert rule violation on

AACS encryption key controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Maurauth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 17:08, 15 May 2007

• 1st revert: 18:46, 15 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 18:52, 15 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 18:58, 15 May 2007
• 4th revert: 20:07, 15 May 2007
• 5th revert: 21:12, 15 May 2007

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

Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• 24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:PelleSmith reported by User:Who123 (Result:no violation)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Secularity (non-religiosity) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). PelleSmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 22:37, May 11, 2007

• 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. Kafziel 22:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Fainites reported by User:DPeterson (Result:page protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Attachment Therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Fainites (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert: after 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. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 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. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 06:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User:MarshallBagramyan reported by User:Drastamat (Result: 24 hours, 48 hours respectively)

• Three-revert rule violation on

House of Hasan-Jalalyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

• 1st revert: 23:46, 15 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 00:01, 16 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 00:23, 16 May 2007
• 4th revert: 00:32, 16 May 2007
• 5th revert: 00:41, 16 May 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 00:50, 16 May 2007

Obvious vandalism is not covered under the 3RR rule. Please check this user's contributions and sock puppets.--MarshallBagramyan 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. Drastamat 01:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm fully justified in my reversions. You, on the other hand, are facing a permanent ban. --MarshallBagramyan 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. Drastamat 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. --Golbez 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, Shantinorashkar (talk · contribs), Drastamat (talk · contribs), Zipirtich (talk · contribs), and Earthdream (talk · contribs) 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. Dmcdevit·t 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. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In light of the checkuser evidence, I have unblocked Drastamat (talk · contribs) on the basis that he is not a sockpuppet of a banned user. I have according blocked MarshallBagramyan (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for revert warring. Given that Drastamat (talk · contribs) not only also revert warred but used socks to do so, I have blocked him for 48 hours. WjBscribe 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.

-- Ευπάτωρ 15:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

<!-- 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 -->

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring
• Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot