< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lawrence Cohen (talk | contribs) at 16:20, 11 January 2008 (→User:XLR8TION reported by User:UnclePaco (Result: 2 weeks): add report, anon IP report next). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:20, 11 January 2008 by Lawrence Cohen (talk | contribs) (→User:XLR8TION reported by User:UnclePaco (Result: 2 weeks): add report, anon IP report next)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Do not continue a dispute on this page. Please keep on topic.
Administrators: Please do not hesitate to move disputes to user talk pages.
Your report will not be dealt with if you do not follow the instructions for new reports correctly.

v t e 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	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category: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.

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

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

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
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
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Violations

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

User:Alansohn reported by User:Xcstar (Result:No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning:

Alansohn does not want to engage in collegial editing. Instead he has been rather arbitrary in reverting my contributions and those of others. Apparently he has engaged in heated battles with other editors, eg, User_talk:Alansohn#Whatever. Xcstar (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Xcstar has been engaging in a longstanding effort at inserting misleading, false and defamatory information about Dane Rauschenberg at his article and at other articles, including L'Arche, in violation of WP:BLP. As indicated, WP:3RR excludes reverts "reverts to remove clearly libelous material, or unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons (see Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons)". The persistent disruption caused by User:Xcstar at L'Arche have been raised at WP:BLPN, which would appear to be the appropriate venue for further discussion of this matter. Alansohn (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The L'Arche article is not about a living person, it is about an organization. Although User:Alansohn now (incorrectly) claims that the material posted is libelous, he has not stated that as his rationale during his edit wars. I am not aware of any discussion on WP:BLPN and it was posted only in retailation of this 3RR complaint. Xcstar (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The article itself may not be about a living person, but the information Xcstar has been adding to it is. Since the information does not include reliable sources, Alansohn was justified in removing it. Kafziel 18:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Please also look at Alansohn's edit war documented at: User_talk:Alansohn#Civility. I will add more sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcstar (talk • contribs) 18:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That was weeks ago. I'm not sure whether it's relevant at all, and it's certainly not relevant here. Kafziel 19:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Hudson Hawk21 reported by User:Metalcore424 (Result: already blocked)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert: 04:16, 7 January 2008
2nd revert: 05:14, 7 January 2008
3rd revert: 05:36, 7 January 2008
4th revert: 13:07, 7 January 2008
the reverting continued up to:
most recent revert (after warning): 15:28, 7 January 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: 15:24, 7 January 2008

Hudson Hawk (as well as possible sock puppets Nathann sc and PRINCETON007) continually add in the same poorly-formatted, redundant, confusing information after continually being reverted by at least four different users. Evan Seeds (talk)(contrib.) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, while I was writing this up, it appears he has already been blocked for vandalism of some sort. --Evan Seeds (talk)(contrib.) 19:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Petition reported by User:Omtay38 (Result: no violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: Multiple. Favors some of the original content of the page

Diff of 3RR warning: 14:59, January 7, 2008

Has been warring over Joe Viglione for quite some time. I have no personal stake in the matter, just stumbled upon it. Personally, the article seems like NN Spam to me, but I leave it up to the admin who handles the 3RR problem. --omtay38 21:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with opposing a PROD multiple times. It seems that the user who keeps PRODding the article is at fault here. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Mickhunt reported by User:Omtay38 (Result: indef blocked)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 15:16, January 7, 2008

Diff of 3RR warning:

See report above. Other end of the edit war over Joe Viglione --omtay38 21:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

User was blocked by Nick for disruption. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 22:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

User:PanLover reported by User:Fordmadoxfraud (Result: 24 hour block)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 13:40, 6 January 2008

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning: 21:33, 7 January 2008

User:PanLover continues to revert into the pan flute article a link to an educational flash video about which two editors--myself and User:ILike2BeAnonymous--have expressed concerns on various grounds. Most of PanLover's responses have been to persist in edit warring and act personally slighted, essentially accusing the editors involved of personally colluding against him and his edit. Ford MF (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The user has ignored consensus that the link should not be added to the article and persisted in adding it anyway. 24 hour block for edit warring issued. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 22:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Nathan86 reported by User:Precious Roy (Result: 24 hour block)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 13:33, 7 January 2008

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning: 01:40, 8 January 2008

Content cited as unsourced since mid-December. Comment left on talk page of article was responded to indicating that references were not forthcoming ("I can't be bothered to find them again"). Content was removed from article, revert war commenced; additional talk-page discussion has proven fruitless. Precious Roy (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR was violated by not achieving consensus and then edit warring over it. 24 hour block issued. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 14:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Yehoishophot Oliver reported by User:Lobojo (Result: 24 hours )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 15:32, 7 January 2008

Times above are the UTC times for clarity.

User is a very established user, and is aware or 3rr, as evidenced here for example.

It is actually 5 reverts, but since showing the first one is more complicated, I simply linked that as the original version reverted to. User making repeated reverts of sourced information without any engagement on the talk page. While I am loathe to do this in general, this user has a history of tendentious editing on this page. Lobojo (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

24 hours Spartaz 19:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson reported by User:Eurocopter tigre (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert: - 7 January, 18:13
2nd revert: - 7 January, 20:21
3rd revert: - 7 January, 20:55
4th revert: - 8 January, 16:03

User:Pmanderson keeps reverting disruptively in an issue quite logic and supported by the BBC, US State Department and CIA World Factbook; actually, he keeps adding "alternate names" for "Romania" (erroneusely typed in sources he cites, as the oficial English name for this country is "Romania). He has also been reported few days ago for incivility and disruptivity - here and he was also blocked several times for edit warring/3RR violation. However, he had break the 3RR again, as stated in the diffs above. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I regret not having checked the timing more carefully. However, the first edit shown is not a revert, but supplies additional evidence; the third is an attempt at compromise, as the edit summary shows. I would request that this uncivil edit summary by Eurocopter Tigre, which also requested additional sources, be taken into consideration. While I have been blocked before, the history Eurocopter brings up is nine months old. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the first one is a revert, as he keeps adding back the same text removed by others. Clearly, disruptive edit warring is a thing in which this editor is often involved and should be treated properly. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please consult Eurocopter's block log. He was blocked for edit warring less than two weeks ago. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct, that's why I decided not to continue the edit warring and report you accordingly, even if I reverted you only two times. However, my personal block log has nothing to do with this report. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hm. "He has also been reported few days ago for incivility and disruptivity - here and he was also blocked several times for edit warring/3RR violation." You mention his blocks, it seems fair that he mentions yours. Edit warring, which you allege has occurred, requires more than one person. Charles 18:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately for him i'm not the one reported (if I was the one reported, I would accept that admins consult my block log before taking any decision), so my block log would be irrelevant in this report. Clearly, this user didn't learn from mistakes in the past, and continues to be diruptive and break the 3RR. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because a form of a country's name isn't mentioned it does not mean that it is not an alternative. On Google (yes, I know), Romania shows up in English language results about 30:1 against Rumania. Rumania, however, appears in about half a million hits. Maybe not an official form, but certainly not a mere misspelling. Charles 17:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Google Books returns almost 8000 hits for Rumania, including a 1994 publication by Oxford; the more common form gets 13,300. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that this is widely discussed on the proper talk page in this moment, so let's don't change the subject. The user violated the 3 revert rule and therefore should be blocked. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have come unfortunately close to infringing it; had I noticed the timing, I would probably have delayed my last edit a while. But I have not done so; and this entire complaint is an effort to ignore my suggestion of compromise, by an editor with an emotional commitment to official names, which is contrary to our guidelines. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, the discussion which takes place on Talk:Romania has nothing to do with this report and therefore it should not be continued here. The user break the 3RR and will be blocked. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this a retraction of the claim that the title of the recent Oxford University Press book is a typo? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the interview, "Roma Issues in Rumania: The Year 2000 and Beyond", cited here, with a former member of the Romanian Government (search on Rumania)? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, i'm not going to discuss this here any more. However, I would be free to discuss everything on the proper talk page. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

24 hours. Spartaz 19:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- FYI, you blocked the user for 31 hours. I have no incredibly strong opinion one way or the other ... but you may want to either change the block or change the result here. --B (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:LapisExCoelis reported by User:Corticopia (Result: 24 hour block)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert: - 17:44, 8 January 2008
2nd revert: - 18:14, 8 January 2008
3rd revert: - 18:56, 8 January 2008
4th revert: - 19:10, 8 January 2008

This is pretty clear-cut: this editor continues to insinuate simple yet arguably divisive/unnecessary wording regarding the 'ancient (Greek) kingdom of Macedon'.{} The factual nature of the assertion is not in dispute per se, but this user has not discussed nor compelled for the change in text on the talk page, which was in place for some time until recently. Thus, his insinuation of me manipulating 3RR is insipid: just as ' believe(s)' he has provided 'sensible and sound reasoning', he has violated it all on his own, and despite warning. Corticopia (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor disclaimer

I am writing from an Academic library workstation with browser restrictions that do not allow the use of the address box (URL bar). As such, I can not right now provide the necessary diffs. I would kindly request some time to relocate to my laboratory/office or home PC.

I will not debate here the reasoning behind my correctional edit. I believe it is not place.

3RR and "gaming the system"

I did break the 3 Revert Rule, which I was just reading.

I believe that User:Corticopia did also break that rule, not so in 'practice' but most importantly in spirit.

S/He was obviously aware of the rule, since upon his/her own admission, 'warned' me about it (diff pending), yet despite that, s/he continued to edit-warring.

1st revert: (diff pending) 18:05, 8 January 2008
2nd revert: (diff pending) 18:49, 8 January 2008
3rd revert: (diff pending) 18:58, 8 January 2008

I also believe that s/he engaged in a curious, non-constructive and antagonistic attempt to "game the system" (Misplaced Pages:GAME).

Upon his/her own admission the "ancient kingdom of Macedon of Alexander III and Phillip II", was "(ancient) Greek" at least in spirit and in character (diffs pending). This version was the established, prevailing one up until 20:29, 30 December 2007 (diffs pending) when User:3rdAlcove, without any explanation in the summary box, any discussion in the talk page and certainly without any academic, editorial, community or otherwise 'consensus' what-so-ever, decided to remove.

I did discovered this removal some days later and reverted it (diff pending). It was exactly at that point when User:Corticopia reverted my edit, in minutes,

Revert: (diff pending) 20:40, 4 January 2008,

thus declairing his/her position to challenge the established version, due to 'simplicity' (talking about NPOV).

For the reasons stated above I believe that his/her actions were not in good faith thus the whole 3RR invoke was just hand-waiving in a curious attempt to change the established version of the said page and "game the system" by invoking, widely used and cited, wikipedia practices, guidelines and policies as WP:3RR and WP:NPOV.

P.S. It may seem far fetched but I have a minor suspicion that User:3rdAlcove may be a sock/meat puppet of User:Corticopia (or the other way around), among others. This would propably mean that, in this case s/he used his/her alter egos in an abusive way . I would kindly request a way to check it. --LapisExCoelis (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Clear violation of 3RR. User blocked for 24 hours. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Other comments/accusations from this editor aside, I would strongly encourage the retention of this electric fence for the duration -- this editor was clearly blocked by an admin despite LEC's response to my report (i.e., the diffs would make no difference) and my equally reasoned comments. Corticopia (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:64.85.234.166 reported by User:Pairadox (Result:24 hours )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 08:17, 8 January 2008

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning: 22:40, 8 January 2008

Pretty straightforward case of reverting more than 3 times to preserve info that three other editors agree is inappropriate. Pairadox (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:64.85.234.166 blocked by Ben W Bell for 24 hours. SkierRMH (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User:219.66.41.150 reported by User:Appletrees (Result:24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 2008-01-08T00:06:48

1st revert: 2008-01-08T16:59:51
2nd revert: 2008-01-08T17:16:44
3rd revert: 2008-01-08T17:24:41
4th revert: 2008-01-08T17:42:41

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

Diff of 3RR warning: 2008-01-08T17:20:16

The user removed referenced contents regarding Korean and Japan relations without any plausible rationale, but just said that "It is Korean POV, Korean nationalism, or grounds of Bais". The two countries are neighboring each other. Cultural exchanges and interactions between Japan and Korea are so natural. His denial is so unnatural and not constructive for Misplaced Pages. He can't change the history and his reverts without any reason can be considered vandalism. However, the anonymous user is doing the same behaviors on Empress Jingū, Nihon Shoki, and Japanese cuisine. The anonymous user is certainly not a new user because a similar ip anon, 219.66.42.176 did the same things on the mentioned articles. Moreover, judging by the same misspells on the word, propaganda as probaganda2007-07-24T19:08:49(by 219.66.44.159), 2007-10-05T16:40:41 (by 211.3.113.247), the editor is a long time POV pusher. I tried to talk to him at his talk page, but got no answer from him. Another user also provided more references to him as following the anon's demands, but also got no answer back. Besides, the user suddenly put a Japanese words to a Korean tea article which is no relation with Japan but he seemed to do that as a retaliation. The act is very similar to User:Yuan.C.Lee's behavioral patterns on East Sea which occurred a couple of days ago. Please prevent the user from causing further troubles on Japan-Korean relations. Thanks. --Appletrees (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Clear violation. Blocked 24 hours. Kafziel 09:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Polaron reported by User:MojaveNC (Result:Template protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

{{USLargestMetros}}. Polaron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
- This is my first revert to the version that uses United States metropolitan area as the basis for the items on the template.
2nd revert:
- This is not a revert but a fixing of links that was edit conflicted.
3rd revert:
- This is the second revert to the metropolitan area definition
4th revert:
- This is not a revert but a completely new version using United States urban area as the basis for th template. Since User:MojaveNC was claiming the template is a list of urban areas, I thought using urban areas instead of metropolitan areas would satisfy him.
5th revert:
- This is my first revert to the urban area definition.

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning:

I stumbled upon this incomplete and unused template this week after seeing that the largest cities also had a template. Since urban areas are a much more accurate depiction of a city's relative economic, cultural and social significance, I made a ranking based on these. I examined three population rankings provided by the U.S. Census Bureau – urban area, Metropolitan Statistical Area and Combined Statistical Area. The CSA seemed to provide the best definition – i.e., metropolitan areas whose centers were less than 30 miles apart were part of one combined CSA rather than two or three smaller MSA's – but not every CSA corresponds to a Metropolitan Statistical Area (i.e., San Diego, California does not have a CSA.) I added the MSAs into these rankings where those cities were not part of a CSA and created the template based on that criteria, thus providing what I believe to be the most accurate way of ranking urban areas' significance, as far as this template goes. User has consistently reverted the rankings back to other criterias – Census urban areas or MSAs, neither of which as accurately portray an urban area's absolute size and relative importance. This would be an open-and-shut case if every city was part of a CSA, but they're not. Minimal subjectivity - filling in the gaps with existing Census criteria - was required to make the rankings accurate.MojaveNC (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that said user is the one who is technically in violation of 3RR (his reverts are: ). I am unsure if he understands how Combined Statistical Areas are delineated. Please see Talk:Combined Statistical Area for a link to the Federal Register indicating that CSAs and MSAs should not be compared as the results are misleading because they represent different concepts. --Polaron | Talk 05:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Polaron is correct, in that a) he did not break 3RR, and b) MojaveNC did break 3RR. However, I'm not issuing a block because discussion is ongoing at the template talk page and both sides should continue trying to make progress there. I've protected the template for two days, which should be sufficient time to come to a better understanding. If an agreement is reached earlier, I'll unlock it. If, on the other hand, the edit war continues after protection expires, we can revisit this block request. Kafziel 08:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Carlo ms06 reported by User:Chrishomingtang (Result:24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 19:52, January 8, 2008

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning:

I and this user are involved in a content dispute. I told him about 3RR and he continued to revert me. I did attempt to discuss the issue, but it seems to me that he is not listening. Chris! _ct 05:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User:TheIslander reported by User:Chrisieboy (Result:No violation )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 10:38, 9 January 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: 11:30, 9 January 2008

The same editor has also made three edits to the page Image:LINK.png within the same time period. I asked him to discuss, but he just reverted and asked me to discuss.

Chrisieboy (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest that whichever admin takes a look at this a) has a look at what I was reverting (a violation of the WP:NONFREE policy), b) takes a look at the talk page of the article in question where I tried to initiate a discussion, and c) notices that I haven't actually reverted thrice in 24 hours yet. Though having said that, as my edits are to remove non-free material, I doubt that it'd qualify for 3RR anyway (not that I'm planning on reverting anymore without admin intervention). Thank you. _TheIslander 15:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. User:TheIslander tried to initiate a discussion after reverting three times in a 24 hour period on both Norwich and Peterborough Building Society and Image:LINK.png and placing an inappropriate warning on my talk page. His/her revert is disputed and controversial and therefore s/he should have initiated a discussion before. It is not enough to simply assert that it is non-free material, that fact is not disputed. I provided a rationale for fair use. It is not for one user to unilaterally decide that that is not acceptable and to persist in removing it without consensus, proper discussion or the common courtesy of first explaining their actions.

I am providing diffs below, for revision at Image:LINK.png:—

Chrisieboy (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

For your information, those aren't diffs - see here. _TheIslander 15:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

For the admin's benefit, as this request has been malformed anyway (diffs have not been cited). I remove the picture, which was placed in violation of WP:NONFREE here. For Chrisieboy's benefit, that does not count as a revert. Chrissieboy then reverts here without discussion, or request for discussion. I then re-revert here (my first revert), and request discussion on the talk page. As this picture is possibly used in violation of WP:NONFREE, it is better to remove and then discuss than discuss whilst leaving a potentially wrong use of an image on the page. Chrisieboy ignores the request for discussion, re-reverts here (2nd revert), and requests discussion himself. As the copyright status is dubious, I place a message on the talk page here (11:19, 9 January 2008), and then re-revert here (11:20, 9 January 2008) for my second and last time, and request discussion on talk page. I have only reverted twice; my reverts have been to remove copyright-dubious work; I have made requests for discussion which have been ignored. Any reverts to the image mirror the article to remove a pointless and invalid rationale. Hope that finally clears up any confusion. _TheIslander 15:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no violation here - TheIslander has only reverted three times, but regardless, he was removing a copyrighted picture from the article that had no rationale for its use on the page. Please note "Reverts to remove clear violations of the copyright, spamming or non-free content policies" are clearly marked as exempt from the 3RR policy. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User:43.244.133.167 reported by User:Appletrees (Result:Sock IP blocked 1 week)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 2008-01-07T03:12:46

1st revert: 2008-01-08T17:03:55
(RV: Korean POV)

2nd revert: 2008-01-08T17:18:36
(Please present evidence to become grounds of Bais. Please do not use this article for anti-japanese of Korea Probaganda.)

3rd revert: 2008-01-08T17:42:44
(To two Korean. Please write your insistences in Talkpage. Insisting Bais on an unpleasant history description for Korean people is not logical.)

4th revert: 2008-01-09T09:03:43
(Grounds are not presented at all though you insist that this book is Bias. Please do not write your personal insistence.)

Please see these report first.

Administrators might think that the 4 reverts by two different editors do not breach to the 3RR violation. However, how does 43.244.133.167 know about 219.66.41.150's recent edits after returning his break for 3 months!

Their editing show exactly same pattern and grammatical errors. Both are long time users and 219.66.41.150 has been banned from editing wikipedia for 24 hours. Please see my above reports on 219.66.41.150's violation and their contribution history.I have a long list of 22x.xxx. xxx.xxx IP ranges hosted by odn ip network. I warned them(?) not to use sockpuppetry with ip address and fake accounts. Talk:So_Far_from_the_Bamboo_Grove#Sockpuppet.2C_Meatpuppet.2C_Convassing_or_Good_faith And then 43.244.133.167 user with a different ip host appeared! If my assumption is right, he evades his block twice. I filed a much longer version to WP:RFCU, but it takes over 3 days. I just bring current incidents here. please make him stopped. Thanks. -Appletrees (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the sock IP for one week. Further violations would be best reported to an administrator, rather than filing a new 3RR report. Kafziel 00:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, the user is just not ceasing the disruption. I hope my RFCU report result comes out soon to prove his massive sockpuppetry. Once again, thank you! -Appletrees (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Cocoliras reported by User:Seicer (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning: 15:26, 9 January 2008

User has edit warred regarding citations in labeling the top ten cities in North America. Discussion revolved around the credibility of the citations and the lack of central America cities in the list, and the issue was resolved amicably. The user has been warned of prior edit warring in the past. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick! User blocked by Gwernol (talk · contribs). Thanks. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User:212.51.199.173 reported by User:Coloane (Result: Semi-protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

A short explanation of the incident. Edit warring. Coloane (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Page semi-protected by Jmlk17. Please make sure you include the previous version reverted to in future when making reports. It is mandatory. Stifle (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Esanchez7587 reported by User:91.108.195.35 (Result: No vio (Es); 24h (91.1))

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version 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 will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Diff of 3RR warning:

Said user continues to remove valid content from the article, and has ignored my concerns about edit warring. 91.108.195.35 (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The above IP is blocked for twenty-four hours for vandalism. -- tariqabjotu 00:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm absolutely disgusted by this. Said IP did everything by the book, yet you find the need not only to carry on permitting the violator to edit war, but also to ban the anon. Typical of this site, it makes me so angry! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.232.183 (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Alansohn reported by User:Xcstar (Result: both 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 17:08, 8 January 2008

1st revert: 18:58, 8 January 2008
2nd revert: 19:26, 9 January 2008
3rd revert: 20:36, 9 January 2008
4th revert: 22:53, 9 January 2008

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning:

A short explanation of the incident. Xcstar (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Both users (reporter and reportee) have been blocked for twenty-four hours for edit-warring on Dane Rauschenberg. -- tariqabjotu 00:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Dandelion1 reported by User:mikeblas (Result: No violation, reverts more than a month apart)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning:

I've been working to remove unreferenced material from this article. EAch time I've removed the references, the material has been restored (without the references being improved) by this user. I've explained the removals each time at Talk:Mercer Island, Washington. Mikeblas (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

For a violation of the 3RR to occur, there has to be four reverts within 24 hours. These aren't even within 24 days. No violation. Stifle (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
On top of that, you need to include diffs (not previous versions), include the mandatory detail of the previous version reverted to in order to make it clear that the four edits you cite are reverts, and where you indicate that you have warned a user, a link to their talk page. Stifle (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Nubula reported by User:English as tuppence (Result: both are blocked to stop mutual revert warring)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 14:02, 10 January 2008

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning: 14:42, 10 January 2008 (edit) (undo)

I removed an external link from Primeval (TV series) which hosted material copied from various professional publications without any assertion that they had permission to do so (as advised in Misplaced Pages:External links). User:Nubula objected to this, reverting all attempts to remove this copyright violating site, requesting "proof" that the publications or writers held copyright on said articles. English as tuppence 15:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Both blocked by Mikkalai for edit warring. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Ghanadar galpa reported by User:Relata refero (Result: Both blocked)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 19:14, January 10, 2008

1st revert: 19:04 January 10
2nd revert: 20:09 January 10
3rd revert: 20:11 January 10
4th revert: 00:34 January 11

Refusing to engage on talkpage, saying "things are too heated". Well aware of 3RR; has in fact violated it already on this article in the previous 24 hour period, and on another article in the same time period (see his user talk). My involvement limited to responding to an incident report at AN/I; was accused instantly of collusion with Communists. A cool-down block to think about using talkpages to defuse "heatedness" rather than reverts might be in order. Relata refero (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Both editors are blocked for revert warring. The "involvement" of Relata refero was three reverts/blanking of a huge chunk of text (I assume, disputed). I consider this to be an attempt of gaming of system rather than dispute resolution. `'Míkka >t 20:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree and have warned User:Ghanadar galpa and User:Conjoiner who have been involved in the incident. ~~But only User:Ghanadar galpa has been blocked so far. This does not seem to be a fair decision.~~Biophys (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that Mikka blocked another person (who was less involved in the warring) by mistake. Sorry if I am wrong. Could anyone review this please?Biophys (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I was warned not to revert by you and Míkka not to engage in reverting. I took this on board and in fact have not made any edit to any article since let alone revert anyone's edits, while User:Ghanadar galpa has ignored you and Mikka and continued reverting. You can look at my contributions record. So why now push for me to be blocked when I have fully complied with these requests?--Conjoiner (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I do not suggest to block anyone. But it seems that Mikkolai has made a technical mistake by blocking User:Soman instead of User:Relata refero. He left a notice to Relata but blocked Soman. Sorry for misunderstanding.Biophys (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Regarding Soman, it appears his block is the result of a clerical error. Relata refero appears to be a very recent entrant to the debate and I don't think there is any evidence that he "gamed the system", but was trying to remove some highly POV content. Perhaps he began to experience the same level of frustration as everyone else in dealing with a difficult editor who continually attacks those he disagrees with as "Communist vandals/trolls/paid propagandists/etc" (for example, this accusation that I, Relata and Soman are members of a "cabal" of editors belonging to or supportive of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)) ), apparently in a bid to antagonise rather than resolve issues.--Conjoiner (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a place for discussion. If there are issues with the block, take it to WP:AN or Mikkalai's talk page. If there are issues with the page, take it to its talk page. This report is closed. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User:TTN reported by User:Maniwar (Result: Page Protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to:

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

Refusing to engage on talkpage. I'm in the process of doing some updates and all he is doing is reverting. This user has been guilty of this on numerous articles and a quick history review will quickly show how typical this is for him. When I did my second revert, it was because I was editing and ran into an edit conflict, I reverted then went right back to editing. --Maniwar (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Since posting this, editor reverted a fourth time. I've added the info above. --Maniwar (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

TTN in order to avoid another 3RR , as his history will show, gained help from User:Eusebeus. Again, looking at the history of TTN's edit will show that Eusebeus is there to help ] when he is at or around two reverts. A look at this history page will show yet another close possible 3RR (two reverts) violation. And a look here here , here , and here , show aother 3RR violation, as well as here , and here , here . This is the rampant attitude this user takes with all of wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also like you all to scrutinize User:Eusebeus because he and TTN engage in Tag Team 3RR. I know that sounds ridiculous, but this is their way around violating the rule. See examples here , here , here , here , and there are more which show the two of them working in sync to avoid breaking 3RR. However, in spirit both are guilty of such. --Maniwar (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Your wider complaints belong elsewhere. Since you were also edit warring you are also liable to a block. I have protected the article for 24 as an alternative to blocking you both. Spartaz 00:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User:CBFan reported by User:Collectonian (Result: One month)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 13:42, 9 January 2008

1st revert: 15:07, 10 January 2008 - also labeled good faith clean up efforts that included a note on the talk page
2nd revert: 15:07, 10 January 2008
3rd revert: 15:18, 10 January 2008
4th revert: 15:21, 10 January 2008
5th revert: 15:25, 10 January 2008
6th revert: 15:39, 10 January 2008

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning: 15:25, 10 January 2008 (given warning, but he is not a new editor and has received several 3RR warnings before, so he knows the rules)

As part of a clean up effort, I did some massive edits to the List of Crash Bandicoot characters article, including rewriting several sections that had the same paragraph repeated multiple times, cleaning up the references and sources, and removing minor characters. I left a message on the talk page (where consensus had already been reached that clean up was needed in addition to some merges), explaining what I did, and asking if I removed any characters who I thought were minor but were not, to either add them back or bring them up for discussion. Instead, CBNFan reverted the entire edit as blatant vandalism and has been repeated redoing his reverts when I and another editor undoes them. He was reported to ANI over issues related to the articles about this game, but it was allowed to drop after he promised to discuss not just revert war and to be more careful about his being uncivil with other editors (see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive346#Blocking discussion and vandalizing AfD). He was also reported in November for his uncivil behavior and edit warring as well. Collectonian (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You are to blame for this little incident and you know full well you are. CBFan (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am recusing myself from this one, because I've had previous encounters with CBFan, even though I don't believe that disqualifies me from acting. However, given his tendencies, it's best that someone else handle this report. I would point out, though, that an anon removed it from the board immediately after CBFan commented on it (and I reverted it back onto the board). I would also point out the frequency of 3RR violations for this account, and a tendency to refer to any edits (good faith or not) that he does not agree with as vandalism. - Philippe | Talk 21:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I had reasons for refering to that edit as vandalism. It was certainly not constructing the encyclopedia very well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CBFan (talk • contribs) 22:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: The anon IP that vandalized this report, 79.74.10.90, traces back to CBFan's general location, and is very similar to the vandalism of the AfD referenced in the ANI report above. And, for extra fun, CBFan is now 3RRing on my talk page to put a 3RR notice about the same article (per is vindictive report below) even though he deleted the same notice from his own user page, and I reverted 3 times, and stopped to avoid violating 3RR (so its also a false warning). Collectonian (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so you've had to resort to telling lies, have you? Sad, so sad. It's obvious that you're wrong. CBFan (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. The block log for this user is riddled with 3RR blocks (this is block 7 or 8) and I seriously considered an indef at this point. The exceedingly uncivil edit summaries and agressive editing should not be tolerated and a firm signal is required. Spartaz 00:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Collectonian reported by User:CBFan (Result:no violation )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning:

Collectionian has blatantly removed characters from the List of Crash Bandicoot characters page for apparantly no reason and little logic (removed characters with developed personalities, yet kept those with none at all). He did mention on the talk page this idea, yet he went ahead and edited without any fors or againsts. After seeing this, I reverted back to the last edit before he wrecked it and set about trying improve the article myself. However, despite removing a lot of "garbage" from before, C blatantly refused to accept it and continually reverted back to HIS edit, despite the fact that he had removed characters for no reason AND he had made the article very un-encyclopediac. Furthermore, he refuses to accept blame for this as shown above AND that he posted a warning about my revert war thing, yet when one was posted on his talk page, he deleted it. He is clearly more to blame than I am and a lie-teller at that. CBFan (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that he has now refused to accept blame for being involved in the edit war for the third time now, as par his talk page, as seen ], ], ], ], ] and ]. Furthermore, he is refusing to accept blame in any way, blaming the incident solely on me as seen here ]. CBFan (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

closed - no violation. Spartaz 00:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User:65.0.115.11 User:68.199.235.190 User:70.149.163.213 reported by User:UnclePaco (Result: no vio )

Three-revert rule violation on

Dominicans Don't Play (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 65.0.115.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 68.199.235.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 70.149.163.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) : Time reported: 01:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: 00:01, 11 January 2008 Alexfusco5

Sockpuppet of 74.230.195.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previously blocked for vandalism http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:68.199.235.190

3rr violation and using sockpuppets

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:74.230.195.78

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning: 00:01, 11 January 2008

Annonymous user with history of using IP's and history of editing same articles has on many occasions engaged in edit wars and violated 3rr on a number of occasions. Requesting page protection as well UnclePaco (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The others you gave are all from Baton Rouge, LA. 68.199.235.190 is from New York and presumably unrelated. --B (talk) 05:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

one of the reverts is different. I'd suggest WP:RFPP if the article is being disrupted by anon-ip edits. Spartaz 06:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Go Down, Moses reported by User:BQZip01 (Result: Indefblocked)

Three-revert rule violation on

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

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

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

Diff of 3RR warning: 17:05, 10 January 2008

New user continues to do nothing but vandalize said talk page over and over in the same manner; violation of WP:3RR. — BQZip01 — 01:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User blocked: For obvious trolling, please report it to WP:AIV. It isn't necessary to bring it here, but please note that the criticism section that he blanked in a few of his edits was absolutely 100% inappropriate to have in the article. We don't source things to opponents' message boards - that's just plain nonsense. Message boards are not reliable sources and Misplaced Pages is not the place to bring the sports rivalry. I'm a Tech fan, but I have blocked Tech fans for trolling UVA articles. The rivalry needs to be checked at the door. --B (talk) 06:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Coloane reported by User:Miyokan (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 15:33, 10 January 2008

Not a new user, blanks his talk page.

User continues to add the tag in bad faith. After I exposed his lying on another issue, User:Coloane declared - "OK! go ahead! I just don't care! I already illustrated my point. I am not going to revert it. RIght now I will try to make sure your article Russia fail and die from FAC. That is the most important thing." and "whenever you nominate Russia or Russian article, I will surely vote OPPOSE or take them to FAR. This is the heavy price you have to pay". He has made similar disruptive WP:POINTy edits on other pages, see User_talk:Coloane#Stop_the_disruption Miyokan (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to direct administrators' attention the user's contributions. He is heavily drawn into FAC discussions. Upon further investigation, it is evident that he started some kind of FA revenge war with Indonesia, when its primary contributor voted negatively on Macau's FAC. This user's mainspace edits are very sparse. And what he does contribute, are mostly reverts. I strongly question this user's intentions on Misplaced Pages. Regards, Bogdan 04:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I would add to my concern as to whether the sum total of Coloanes' contributions add or hinder making a better encyclopedia. If he can not learn a more collegiate style a one month block for reflection might be appropriate. Alice 04:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Coloane for twenty-four hours for edit-warring. I think you might have a case for general disruption, but I feel it would be better to raise this matter at WP:ANI so you can get a broader opinion and so you can explain the issue in greater detail. -- tariqabjotu 04:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, his nomination for Indonesia to FAR (and other countries?) while he's pushing his hometown Macau FAC are disruptive - if he was genuine about improving Indonesia (all of a sudden), he'd make the changes himself or use that article's talk page. --Merbabu (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please place a note on my talk page if a "General disruption case" is raised, as I may wish to contribute pertinent diffs. Alice 04:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User:XLR8TION reported by User:UnclePaco (Result: 2 weeks)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 23:46, 4 January 2008

One revert where his reverts are based from is 01:45, 2 January 2008

1st revert: 03:23, 11 January 2008
2nd revert: 03:12, 11 January 2008
3rd revert: 11 January 2008
4th revert: 20:34, 10 January 2008

No need for warning has been blocked many times in the past for 3rr.

Was let off of block early if he behaved, but immediately enters into an edit war. Has been blocked many times for incivility as well as 3rr violations . UnclePaco (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI to whoever reviews this, checkuser has confirmed that the IPs reverting the article are not UnclePaco, however suspicious as those reverts may be. XLR8TION's prior block was in part based on what was possibly a misunderstanding - see everyone's comments at Misplaced Pages:RFARB#Anti-Dominicanism if interested. UnclePaco's version is somewhat of a WP:COATRACK as it is taking a couple of sentences at the end of articles and making it sound like the parade was nothing but violence (in other words, quite a lot of POV to it). But, on the other hand, reverting POV is not an exception to 3RR. --B (talk) 05:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User was noted on wikipedia ediquette here and noted that his attack on me stating English isn't my first language but his and thus i should allow him to edit. . Violated 3rr here but was warned , later he was placed on put on a week block for continuous posting of a white power website ]. The RFARB was started by an individual right after Xlr8tion was blocked (quite unusual) demanding the unblock of Xlr8tion, after I replied with much evidence. That person never replied again. UnclePaco (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

beaten to the punch by Nishkid - blocked for 2 weeks for edit warring. Spartaz 06:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Incidentally, UnclePaco is a reincarnation of the banned user Mykungfu (talk · contribs). --B (talk) 08:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User:SqueakBox reported by User:Lawrence Cohen (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 16:13, 11 January 2008

No need for warning has been blocked many times in the past for 3rr.

Example

<!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~
*Previous version reverted to:  <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
*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 will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
*Diff of 3RR warning: 
A short explanation of the incident. ~~~~
<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->

Categories: