Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:15, 6 March 2007 editJustanother (talk | contribs)9,266 edits →[] reported by [] (Result: no block): thx← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:58, 25 December 2024 edit undoToBeFree (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators127,414 edits →User:2601:40:CE00:1590:24F6:A73A:9F20:74C and User:2601:40:CE00:1590:80BC:3313:5A8D:AACE reported by User:Bowler the Carmine (Result: ): Page protected 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
<center>'''Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.'''</center>
<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}
{{pp-move|small=yes}}
<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-3 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive31--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->
{{User:MiszaBot/config
]
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 490
|algo = old(2d)
|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
}}</noinclude>
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->


== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned users) ==
==Violations==
Please place new reports '''at the bottom'''.


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Giganotosaurus}} <br />
===] reported by ] (Result:24 hrs)===
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|PaleoFile}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
] violation on
{{Article|Ann Coulter}}. {{3RRV|GeorgeBP}}:


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
* Previous version reverted to: previous readding of Category:Anti-Islam sentiment (]).
#
<!-- 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. -->
#
This is a rather complicated case.
* Revert as confirmed sock {{User|201.9.107.92}} (added Category:Anti-Islam sentiment) #
* Revert as {{user|GeorgeBP}}, added "Coulter believes women shouldn't have the right to vote."
* Revert as confirmed sock {{user|201.9.107.92}}, re-added "Coulter believes women shouldn't have the right to vote."
* Revert, as {{user|201.9.88.30}} (added Category:Anti-Islam sentiment)
* Revert as confirmed sock {{user|200.167.168.130}} (added Category:Anti-Islam sentiment)
* Revert as confirmed sock {{user|201.9.96.242}} (added Category:Anti-Islam sentiment and "Coulter believes women shouldn't have the right to vote.")
* Article semi-protected at 00:04, February 27, 2007
* Revert as {{user|GeorgeBP}}, (added Category:Anti-Islam sentiment)
* Revert as {{user|GeorgeBP}}, (added Category:Anti-Islam sentiment)
* Revert as {{user|GeorgeBP}}, (added Category:Anti-Islam sentiment)
* Revert as {{user|GeorgeBP}}, (added Category:Anti-Islam sentiment)


<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->


;Comments: <!-- Optional -->
This user is using sockpuppets to hide his 3rr, trolling and POV pushing. See for CheckUser results. ] 02:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


*Note continuing reverts even following a previous 3RR block only days before, just pick any 24 hour window there is at least 4 reverts wherever you look. Attempted to circumvent 3RR by using anon IP sock puppets until the article was semi-protected. --] 00:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (regarding another now-dormant edit war on a related page)
* Blocked for 24 hrs. Other editors in that article are also edit warring. I am placing a warning there as well. ] <small>]</small> 00:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
::'''Comment''' This report sat here for 22 hours. A checkuser was done to show that there were socks involved, yet the puppeteer continued to roam free. BLP states "Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply.", the other editors in this case are clear. If an admin had stepped in and blocked this puppeteer yesterday when this report was posted, this would not have been as much of an issue. ] 01:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' N/A, did not revert and talked directly to editor instead
===] reported by ] (Result:indef block)===


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
] violation on
{{Article|Great Power}}. {{3RRV|Userofwiki}}:


] | ] 20:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Sockpuppet of ], who was permanently blocked for various rule breaks. Used this sockpuppet to continue 3RR violations on this article:
*Both users have been {{AN3|w}}. ] (]) 21:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Those users and {{userlinks|Mei23448}} seems continuing edit wars on '']'' and '']'' articles.
*:1.
*:2.
*:3.
*:4.
*:5.
*:6.
*:In addition, PaleoFile posted personal attack on talk page of Mei23448.
*:Both users does not provide reliable sources, PaleoFile only proposing X post in edit summaries and cite nothing, while Mei23448 also does not cite anything to change. Both users needs to be blocked. (Jens Lallensack seems only trying to revert vandalism, so is not problematic than those two) ] (]) 14:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*::17 tons for Sachicasaurus has been debunked so I changed it and some user cant accept that his favourite animal isnt as big as he wants. ] (]) 18:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::If you have a dispute, you may discuss it on the article's ]. ] | ] 23:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Also 15 ton for Sachicasaurus is based on the Sachicasaurus reconstruction from Diocles. ] (]) 21:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Lindy Li}} <br />
:I have only tried to contribute important fully referenced information to the ] article. The information was not included before and has reliable references. There's no reason why it shouldn't be included. ] 03:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Napoleonjosephine2020}}
::Blocked as a sock. --]<sup>]</sup> 08:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
;Comments: <!-- Optional -->


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
] violation on
#
{{Article|Cool (aesthetic)}}. {{3RRV|71.112.7.212}}:
#
#
#


* 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. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert: ''(obliterated original research)''
* 4th revert: ''(→International cool - ppl don't know whats "the diaspora")''


Warning(s):
*
*


Problems from (related?) IP:
* ''←Replaced page with 'Cool = Infected Hair on an Elephants Butt. ---- COOL also is a Constipated, Overweighted, Out of style, Loser. ---- You see that. I am an author fool. I am publis...')''
* ''←Replaced page with 'COOL = Infected Hair on an elephants but''


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
;Comments: Also a possible sockpuppet ] ] 05:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
* Please provide diffs and timestamps. ] <small>]</small> 00:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' Zilch.
===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hrs)===


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
] violation on
{{Article|Larry Sanger}}. {{3RRV|Bramlet Abercrombie}}:


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
* 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. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:


Note: I am not involved in this situation whatsoever, just found this in recent changes. ] • ] • ] 05:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*Note: He's technically clear by 5 minutes of 4 in 24 hours.
*Blocked for 24 hrs. ] <small>]</small> 00:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


:The editor whose revisions I am trying to undo publicly attacked the subject as an "opportunistic grifter". No one who uses such inflammatory language should be editing the page of this subject. This is common sense and journalism 101. He is clearly motivated by animus against her and should not be editing her page. Why is this even in question? ] (]) 05:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
===] reported by ]===
::@]
please see ani discussion of the incident, including diffs ]. ] 13:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
::"This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule." Also, "When reporting a user here, own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand ] and the definitions below first." I am not involved, don't complain to me please. Nothing I can do here. ] • ] • ] 05:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::You reported me because I tried to stop someone from violating Li's page! Why is the saboteur getting a free pass? He's clearly motivated by animus and admitted as much on her talk page. ] (]) 05:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Did you read my comment? You and the other person will have behavior analyzed and decisions will be made accordingly. I'm not singling you out since I have no idea what's happening, you just happened to start the edit war. ] • ] • ] 05:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Napoleon, I think this is a manifestly unfair characterization of what occurred on my talk page (not yours). , for those curious. ] (]) 05:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] ] 06:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


===] and ] reported by ] (Result:indefblock/24 hrs)=== == ] and ] reported by ] (Result: Page already protected) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Warburg effect (oncology)}} <br />
] said that he posted certain comments in the ] discussion page. Those comments were in fact posted by ]. Many of us have suspected that ] is a sock puppet of ]. This has now been comfirmed.
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|2601:40:CE00:1590:24F6:A73A:9F20:74C}} and {{userlinks|2601:40:CE00:1590:80BC:3313:5A8D:AACE}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
Combined, ] and ] have violated the three-revert rule today as follows:


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
] violation on
#
{{Article|Pete Sampras}}. {{3RRV|Lman1987}} and {{3RRV|66.4.209.194}}:
#
#
# (second IP)


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


] violation on
{{Article|Andre Agassi}}. {{3RRV|Lman1987}} and {{3RRV|66.4.209.194}}:


* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:
* 8th revert:


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
This user also has violated 3RR today in the ] article.


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' N/A, did not participate in reverts. Warned first IP on their own talk page
This is a highly disruptive user. We need your help. Thank you. ] 18:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
* ] was indefblocked. ] blocked for 24 hrs. ] <small>]</small> 00:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
===] reported by ] (Result:24 hrs)===
I believe both IPs are the same person. The second IP's first edit is a stating {{tq|I'm not Ravidmurthy, but I am the one who has been doing most of the editing here.}}, and after leaving that and another comment proceeded to make the same reversion (#4 above) as the other IP, a little more than 2 hours after #3. {{userlinks|CipherRephic}} was also involved in the edit war, but agreed to stop after being warned and has not broken 3RR. ] | ] 21:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{AN3|p}} ] (]) 16:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 2 weeks) ==
] violation on
{{Article|Template:Resident Evil series}}. {{3RRV|A Man In Black}}:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Marc Benioff}}
Reverts on February 27, 2007


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|99.98.190.59}}
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
*5th revert:


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
Reverts on February 23, 2007
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
;Comments:
# {{diff2|1265027253|18:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
This user is an administrator, bu he don't act like one. Everyday he makes revert in the same template and many others. He's been already warned (]) that there's a discussion about the templates, ].
# {{diff2|1265009969|16:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
This user has been alredy blocked twice because of the same reason. .
# {{diff2|1264902002|03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1264865734|23:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
:Blocked ] for 24 hrs for ] violation. ] 01:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1265024674|18:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing on ]."
# {{diff2|1265033023|18:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
# {{diff2|1265024924|18:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* Early life/ethnic background */ more"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
===] reported by ] (Result: No action for now)===
*{{AN3|b|2 weeks}} ] (]) 16:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 2 weeks) ==
] violation on
{{Article|Antisemitism}}. {{3RRV|Aminz}}:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Dune: Part Two}}
* Previous version reverted to (for the first 3 reverts):
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|ChasePlowman2014}}
;Comments: The 4th revert is an insertion of a POV tag into the section "Antisemitism and the Muslim world". The user has already inserted the POV tag into this very section of this article many times in the past, so this is a revert. Aminz has already been blocked for edit warring on ]. ] ] 09:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
: That's an invalid report. The 4th one is a POV tag meanwhile the dispute is active (please see the RFC at the talk page). Beit Or has searched the past history and has found some diffs from month ago to prove that the fourth edit is a revert (please see the dates). In fact, if you look closely user:Humus sapiens was edit warring without providing any reasoning on the talk page (please check the timings) --] 09:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:: It is indeed an invalid report, though I encourage you, Aminz, to please discuss rather than reverting. Three reverts is not a right, and you are strongly encouraged to use the talk page to solve disputes, rather than blind reverting, once it is clear that your edit may be disputed by another editor. ] ] 09:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1265161751|12:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""
::: I have filed an RfC on this and have discussed this a lot. If you could check the timings of posts on the talk page, User:Humus sapiens was removing a well-sourced quote without providing any valid reasoning on the talk page for that. --] 09:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1265079289|00:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""
:::: Ra315, I have asked a couple of new editors to join in the discussion and have filed an RfC. Of course edit-warring is not the way to go. --] 09:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1265038799|19:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|1264974672|12:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
I don't see why this report is invalid: the first 3 are reverts; and so is the 4th ] 09:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1265079184|00:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring."
: The 4th is adding POV tag. It wasn't a revert. The 3 diffs Beit Or has provided of adding tags date back to two month ago for a different issue. Please see the RfC section on the talk page for the reasonings and the comments made there. --] 10:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1265080757|00:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."
:: Nonsense. The POV tag had been there before, as you're perfectly aware, because you put it there yourself ] 10:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
::: Yes, but I found a ''new'' quote expressing the view of majority of scholars on Islam and Antisemitism. And I added that. But it was removed so I added POV tag meanwhile we are discussing the issue. --] 10:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
:::: Mr. William M. Connolley, I never ever inteneded that to be a revert, just to show the dispute. Please read a few lines of the section and check it with the quote which was added. It can be seen that they contradict each other. --] 10:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
::::: Amin, I think you have been toeing the line on three reverts long enough. Please consider this as a strong warning. Further attempts might be interpreted as ]. Please be careful. &mdash; ] ] 10:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::: Dear Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, I swear I am editing in good faith. The section is really POV and I am trying my best to make it neutral. Please see and compare the quote at the lead, and the following material. It was a good faith and I never thought it was a revert. --] 10:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
===] reported by ] (Result: 36hr; Tar-Elenion: 27hr)===
# {{diff2|1265080353|00:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* ChasePlowman2014 edit warring */ new section"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
] violation on
{{Article|Daniel_Majstorovic}}. {{3RRV|Paulcicero}}:


User continues edit warring and doesn't discuss edits even after having been requested to, not even explaining their reversions in their edit summary. ] (]) 13:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Taking into account his main account, and his IP address (), PaulCicero has violated 3RR on ]. It is his IP as all edits, edit summaries are exactly teh same, and often happen right after the other.
:{{u|ChasePlowman2014}} is completely unresponsive. I hope they try editing during the 2 weeks of their block and notice that they have a talk page. ] (]) 16:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

*{{AN3|b|2 weeks}} ] (]) 16:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

Also notice his edits on ] are getting close to breaching 3RR.
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:

Apart from regular edit warring on ] and ], he also engages in ] on articles such as and - and after ] was page protected, he brought his edit warring to . Also, please note the incivility of the user, personal attacks used, blind reverts, edit warring, editing of talk page comments/titles made by other editors - he also blanks his own talk page, which is not allowed (to the best of my knowledge). In my opinion, a block of at least one week is justified, but a longer one is within reason. ] 11:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

My reverts on these articles are done because of ] edits on several serbian peoples articles, he is using sockpuppets like ] to make me brake the 3RR rule. So instead of banning me you should semi-protect all articles that ] has edited. ] 16:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

:To other admins considering blocking, please let me handle this. I have encounter these two before and I want to follow up on this myself. I will take care of this in a moment. -- ''']''' 20:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

:I have blocked {{user|Paulcicero}} for thirty-six hours, due to this and the fact that there was a recent 3RR violation by him. Additionally, I have blocked {{user|Tar-Elenion}} for revert-warring for twenty-seven hours, pending confirmation of the sockpuppetry through the ]. The latter user has been assisting with multiple edit wars recently anyway, so I'm not sure if a negative checkuser result would really mean much. -- ''']''' 21:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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

] violation on
{{Article|Veganism}}. {{3RRV|Nomenclator}}:

* 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. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:


;Comments: User has been blocked twice previously for 3RR violations on this article.

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

] violation on
{{Article|Andre Agassi}}. {{3RRV|65.6.32.12}}:

* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:
* 8th revert:
* 9th revert:

This user also has violated 3RR today in the ], ], ], and ] articles and appears to be a sock puppet of the indefinitely blocked ]. He or she is HIGHLY disruptive. We need help. Thank you. ] 18:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

: I '''strongly support''' this report! The user has for days and days wasted hours of careful checking by conscious editors. The user is obsessed with an alternative score format, for which there is no community consensus. PLEASE help!--] 20:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
::'''Comment'''. User has been blocked for a period of one month due to being a sockpuppet of ]. ''']]''' 00:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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

] violation on
{{Article|Japanese people}}. {{3RRV|Melonbarmonster}}:

* 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. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
-->
* Diff of 3RR warning:

;Comments: Melonbarmonster insists on using the word "forced".--] 18:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
:*Blocked ] for 24 hrs for 3RR. ] 00:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

===] (Result: 24hr)===
3RR on {{article|Pan-Islamism}} by {{3RRV|KazakhPol}}

*Version reverted to , adds totally disputed tag
*1st revert , restores totally disputed tag
*2nd revert , restores totally disputed tag
*3rd revert , restores totally disputed tag
*4th revert , restores totally disputed tag

;Comment
These are four simple reverts in 23 minutes. The background is that KazakhPol tags articles whenever he doesn't like something, then reverts against multiple editors to maintain the tag, even after several weeks or months of the original tagging, often referring to editors who oppose him as vandals, stalkers, or harassers. He has been blocked four times for 3RR in less than two months, the last time for 48 hours, and is currently the subject of an RfC for the same behavior. See ]. He also often adds "2nd revert," "3rd revert" to his third and fourth, perhaps in an effort to confuse, as he did above. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 19:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
:This is very aggravating. SlimVirgin is lying, as it will be very apparent to anyone who looks at the history of the page. My earlier edits were not reverts therefore they do not count towards WP:3RR. This is the third or fourth time she has tried this crap. Last time I was unblocked when someone double checked. She regularly does that to harass me. Look at this for a sample of what I have to listen to: . Nevermind that I have not done any of what she alleges. ] 19:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
:{{user|KazakhPol}} has been blocked for twenty-four hours per the 3RR violation. Please be careful not to violate it yourself, SlimVirgin... -- ''']''' 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks, Tariq. I posted the clarification below before I saw your post. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
::KazakhPol self-reverted at when he saw he'd been reported for 3RR, removing the totally disputed tag, but then added the NPOV tag instead at , so the 3RR violation stands. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:<s>24 hrs</s> <s>overturned without notice</s> page protected)===

] violation on
{{Article|Presidential_Commission_for_the_Study_of_the_Communist_Dictatorship_in_Romania}}. {{3RRV|Dahn}}:

* 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. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

;Comments:
::* User is not new, and has been blocked before (about two weeks ago, I presume) for 3RR violations.
:: Blocked for 24 hrs. ] <small>]</small> 00:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

::: Nice to see that the block only lasted for about 2 hours, thanks to helpful admins willing to overlook official policy for special editors. While this user is good, the frequency of his revert wars (several simulataneously at about any time, without any attempt to negotiate) does recommend him for some time off. But no, policy is not applied, and the user can only think he's somehow superior. ] 20:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
::: If he is superior indeed, then do introduce a new user type ], or something, and don't let us poor mortals fight them without knowing we don't stand a chance. ] 20:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
::: FYI: this is not the first time a 3RR ruling is overturned in 2 hours. ] 20:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
:You fail to mention the page was locked both times when he was unblocked.] 22:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

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

] violation on
{{Article|G8}}. {{3RRV|Lucy-marie}}:

* 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. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

*I have looked into this. Lucy marie made a mistake in the heat of things. I ahve talked to her and I have her assurance there will be no more reversions until the issue gets disputed. I think a punitive block in this situation would be innapropriate. ] 21:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->

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

] violation on
{{Article|Roger Federer}}. {{3RRV|Tennis Genius}}:

<!-- 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. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:
* 8th revert:
* 9th revert:

'''Comment:''' The user is a sock puppet for somone (one or more) who is obsessed by introducing a new scoring format for tennis bios. The format has reached '''no''' consensus in community, and the behavior by this user and other user names and IPs has been VERY disruptive for sveral days now. Note that the user boasts that he/she will deliberately continue this editing war, stating:<blockquote>''Think about it. but your pale tennis expert must know we will never back down. Me and my buddies are capable of haveing thousands of IP accounts. Any ways we are not vandalizers. we are doing this for the good. You could start changeing score formats to the correct ones on other tennis pages. (we expect to change EVERY pro tennis players score format soon. not just these few.) This edit war is pointless unless you want to have every Tennis players Article FULLY protected. (and I dont think the administrators could be depended upon to update tennis articles by themselves.) SEMI protecting is nothing. This war will never end, unless Tennis Expert and his pals agree with us''</blockquote>
This is, as I understand it, ''not'' compatible with Misplaced Pages behavior in any way. Something must be done quickly, so please help up. Thanks!!! --] 21:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

::I looked at this ] is clearly in an edit war and has put the same material in at least 9 times today, 24hr block.]
:::Blocked indefintely as a sockpuppet of ]. Editing styles are an exact copy of Lman. ''']]''' 00:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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

] violation on
{{Article|Boston}}. {{3RRV|Lenzar}}:

* 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. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

:Technically was not a 3RR vio (though darn close), but I blocked for edit warring despite a strong consensus. --]<sup>]</sup> 10:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->

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

] violation on
{{Article|Prem Rawat}}. {{3RRV|Mael-Num}}:

* Previous version reverted to:
* First revert:
* Second revert:
* Third revert:
* Fourth revert:

;Comments:
* {{user|Mael-Num}} has editwarred in the recent past about the same edit. See . He was then blocked and unblocked on the basis of his claim that he was removing vandalism, which it was not the case as this new round of reverts attests. ] <small>]</small> 02:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

:Well, considering those are different edits with different information and they are more than 24 hours apart, Jossi is apparently grasping at straws to keep me from editing the article. Please note that during this time period, Jossi himself reverted other editors' work . I have been careful, allowing time for other editors to give input, and as can be plainly seen in the edits above, I added information to Jossi's edit, and removed nothing.

:Jossi, conversely, repeatedly deletes information he deems undesirable, rather than append or edit it. Please also note the content of the edits in question. My position is that, per ], I am summarizing cited criticism that appears elsewhere in the article, providing citations even within the summary. Deleting cited, verifiable content, instead of working with and/or editing it, is in itself against Misplaced Pages policy.

:I'd also like to add that this is the second time that Jossi has falsely accused me of 3rr. The last time the decision was overturned, as the reviewing editor construed the edits to be reverts of vandalism, based on the reverted editor's being banned for vandalism. ] 03:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

::The "vandalism" that you claimed, was not so. And my edit history shows that I have '''not''' editwarred. I don't do that. The 3RR rule is designed to ding people like you, that prefer to editwar rather than discuss. This noticeboard isnot designed to discuss content disputes, but to discuss disruption by continuously reverting or adding the same content. See ] that cleary states that "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an 'electric fence'. Editors may still be blocked even if they haven't made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behaviour is clearly disruptive." ] <small>]</small> 03:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

:::My behavior has been no more "disruptive" than yours. Necessarily less so, in fact, because I am adding cited, sourced summaries of material to the lead that are notable and reliable, as evidenced by their inclusion elsewhere. You are blanking said cited, sourced, reliable, and notable material. I regularly discuss my edits in the talk pages, calling for discussion more frequently than you have regarding this information. I enjoin you to participate in these discussions, rather than try to "ding" me for adding information that you do not personally agree with. ] 03:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Finally, I would like to ask the reviewer of this case to carefully look at the "Previous Version Reverted to" diff, listed above. The information I am supposedly, maliciously adding does not appear in that version. So, to be clear, the first "revert" is actually the "original" I am reverting to. The next two edits occur at intervals of 12 hours, the third considerably after that. That edit is dissimilar from the other two, and is clearly a good-faith improvement to Jossi's own work. Even if this were not the case, these three edits occur over the course of 36 hours. I feel I am careful to be constructive, and work with my fellow editors to produce good work. I will continue to be careful, and mindful of Misplaced Pages's policies, guidelines, and my fellow editors' views. ] 04:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::Reverting every 12 hours, is still disruptive behavior, Mael. Nevertheless, if you are serious about desisting in not using reverts and as way to assert your opinion about the lead, and interested in constructively arrive to consensus with fellow editors, that is great, but the proof will be in the pudding. Day after day, you restore your edit about which there is no consensus under claims that consensus cannot trump policy, while forgetting ]. Following the ] process is the way to proceed when there is no common ground. ] <small>]</small> 05:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I am not going to block. But. Mael. Please try to do a better job of working this out with others rather than reverting. --]<sup>]</sup> 11:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: No block)===
3RR on ], and large amount of harassment. I was blocked for the same for 48 hours, so i expect he will have the same punishment. 00:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
:Blocks are not punishment. Whereas you have been warned repeatedly and made personal attacks and were repeatedly edit warring, there have been no such problems with User:Apostrophe. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 02:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
::In fact, User:Apostrophe did not even make more than three reverts in 24 hours. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 02:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
WTH? Blocks not punisment? Personal atatcks? Whatever you considered apersonal attack, i am constantly harassed by APostrophe.. and i see 3 reverts in the same day on KH2. Also, he is "wikistalking" me.] 03:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

:Ideally, blocks are to be instructive. It doesn't always work out that way but that's the goal. --]<sup>]</sup> 11:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, See my talk page for a lovely comment he made. :) ] 04:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

::Article deleted already, no reason to block.] 23:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not. And regardess, he harasses and wikistalks me. ] 00:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Opps, yep, but Apostrophe has edited Kingdom of Hearts since Feb 26, so again, no reason to block now. Also, if someone is harassing you, see ] page. ] 03:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: 8/48h)===

] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{3RRV|VIOLATOR_USERNAME}}:

* 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. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

Appallingly formatted; but both sides have 4R. N gets 48h for multiple 3RR on this page; K 8h for a first offence ] 09:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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

] violation on
{{Article|Pensacola Christian College}}. {{3RRV|Pep65497}}:

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

* Diff of 3RR warning:

;Comments: <!-- Optional -->
{{User10|Pep65497}} appears to be a ] only interested in censoring the ] (PCC) article. --] (]) 18:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

:: Given the user's edit summary , it appears that the editor is also the anon 146.129.133.77 who made identical edits before hand. ] 20:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

24h ] 22:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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

] violation on
{{Article|Underground hip hop}}. {{3RRV|HouseOfScandal}}:

* 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. -->
*1st revert
*2nd revert
*3rd revert

* Diff of 3RR warning:

:3RR violations require a 4TH revert in 24 hours to violate the rule. I don't see the 4th revert.] 23:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

::I thought it's 3RR, not 4RR?--] 01:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Please read from the top of this page: "Please remember that the 3RR applies to reverts ''after'' the '''third''' within a 24 hour period...the 3RR is not an entitlement to three 'free' reverts per day....The 3RR is intended as a means to stop sterile edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every twenty-four hours...."] 03:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

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

] violation on
{{Article|Blink-182}}. {{3RRV|Olir}}:

* Previous version reverted to: (in parts)
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:

;Comments:
User as also violated ] by referring to editors who apply common style guidelines as "self-important" and "grammar nazis". Appears to be in violation of ] regarding ] related articles . User has been around for a year, hence no 3RR warning was issued. - ] 20:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

::blocked by ], but he forgot to notate here.] 23:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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

] violation on
{{Article|Azerbaijan (Iran)}}. {{3RRV|Farzinf}}:

* 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. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->

;Comments: <!-- Optional -->
He clearly received the 3rr warning on his talk page and my offer that he would not be reported if he reverted himself. Here is his response on my talk page: . Since he refused to revert himself, even after knowing what 3rr is and the consequences of breaking 3rr, I am reporting him.] 22:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

24h ] 22:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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

] violation on
{{Article|White_Christian_male}}. {{3RRV|Rbaish}}:

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

* Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning: ] 23:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
* 2nd warning (from ].)

*confirmed, blocked 24 hrs. ] 03:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

;Comments: <!-- Optional -->

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

] violation on
{{Article|Indigenous Aryan Theory}}. {{3RRV|Dbachmann}}:

* 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. -->
* 1st revert: (adds disputed sentence at the end)
* 2nd revert: (rv)
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:

;Comments: <!-- Optional --> The editor is an adminstrator, but doesn't act like one on this article (He disregards WP:3RR, the Protection policy and the Blocking policy).
:He has blocked an editor for WP:3RR on the same page, which proves that he is aware of the WP:3RR rule. But rather than blocking an editor he is involved with himself he should have come to WP:ANI first to request help from uninvolved administrators per Blocking policy. The edits by the other involved user were . He also didn't give evidence that the other involved editor made WP:3RR but only blocked him. (Maybe ] should be blocked for the same period as Dbachmann, unless User:Sbhushan can show that he didn't commit WP:3RR.) The two IP edits in the same article were very probably not by Sbhushan, because their edit history and edit summaries are very different.
:He has protected three pages in the last hours which he has himself edited in the last hours and days (], ] and ] ), instead of asking an uninvolved admin to do it per Protection policy. --] 12:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

context: ]. the 'protected' should read ''semiprotected'', these articles are subject to much anon trolling. "reverts" 4 & 5 are rollbacks of such anon (that is, logged-out) trolling. ] <small>]</small> 13:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

::On ] the editor who has looked in detail at the issue says that Sbhushan's edits were not patent nonsense, vandalism, or simple disruption, which IMO is evident. Sbushan is trying to improve the article in good faith. Maybe his approach is "wrong", but his edits are not vandalism, and your dispute must then be discussed with him on the talkpage or with Dispute Resolution.
::The two IP edits in the same article were very probably not by Sbhushan, because their edit history, editing time and edit summaries are very different. But if you can give the diff's about his WP:3RR, I will report Sbhushah also.
::This kind of edit-warring and disputes have been ongoing in this article since the article was created. --] 13:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
:::yes -- which is ''why'' I have semi-protected the article. I don't semiprotect stuff because I like the look of the template, and I cannot be expected to write an article while a swarm of IP addresses keep pulling it from under by arse. I don't think I need to establish that conscious trolling is involved here on the part of editors who log out and redial to keep the anonymous merry-go-round going. ] <small>]</small> 14:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

::::If you check my edit history, you will find that I am never on WP during those times. I am in bed fast asleep. Also, as my edit history will show, I am not shy about speaking my mind. If I have something to say to someone, I say it on their face. I also rarely use rv button, since I like to edit specific items. If I can improve the original edit, I try to do that. My request to unblock was to an independent admin, I specifically did not ask Dab. Dab tried to get around independent review by unblocking me. As such I did not make any committement to Dab, but I am still honuring it as you can see from the note I left at his talk page.]. As both of you know I have opened a RfC as suggested by Dab, because I have spent enough time on discussion. WP:ATT is a core policy, an admin should be enforcing this policy; not making joke of it.] 17:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

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

] violation on
{{Article|Tragic villain}}. {{3RRV|Killerman2}}:

* 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. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

24h ] 14:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

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

] violation on
{{Article|Jane Standley}}. {{3RRV|Itb3d}}:

* Previous version reverted to:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:

<!--
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->

;Comments: Newly created account, but familiarity with editing indicates this is not a new editor. Was also cautioned about not calling other editors "idiot", .

24h ] 14:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

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

] violation on
{{Article|Kent and Dollar Farm massacres}}. {{3RRV|The Consigliere}}:

* 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. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
One reversion was done using an IP address, which is proved as the said user's IP address by edit. --]<sup>( <font color="#339966" face="Constantia">]</font> / <font color="#CC0099" face="Constantia">]</font> )</sup> 13:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

:24h. ] 15:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


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

] violation on
{{Article|Transnistria}}. {{3RRV|EvilAlex}}:

* 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. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
(Only a sample. In total, there are 22 whole or partial reverts.)
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
-->
* Diff of 3RR warning:

;Comments: <!-- Optional --> This user is a wellknown edit warrior on ]-related topics. He has previously stated on Talk that he enjoys indulging in Misplaced Pages editwarring because, according to his own words, "otherwise life would be too boring." '''Today alone, EvilAlex performed 22 reverts''', in whole or in part, on ]. Despite repeated requests to discuss these changes, he displays extremely disruptive behavior and is unwilling to engage in discussion in the article's Talk page. Today alone, 3 different editors undid his changes, but he persists. He has been warned of 3RR, but he persists nevertheless. He has also been asked to revert himself, to avoid this report, but ignored the request. Note: He has been previously blocked for editwarring on the same page.. This time, I ask that he be blocked for 72 hours. It would also be helpful to tell him to discuss major changes in Talk and seek consensus before imposing them. - ] 17:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

:multiple instances, 48 hr block.


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

] violation on
{{Article|Day Break}}. {{3RRV|Dank325}} {{3RRV|70.183.0.148}}:

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

15:01, 2 March 2007

* Diff of 3RR warning:
* Additional 3RR warning on article talk page:

;Comments: Last revert is a registered user. Admin may want to do a checkuser to make sure, but seems pretty obvious it's the same editor, especially since the first regsitered edit reverts to earlier edits as "mine". --] 21:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
::Things seem to have settled down, I'd like to withdraw this if that's OK. --] 13:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: 25 hours)===

] violation on
{{Article|Alternative school}}. {{3RRV|209.177.21.6}}:

* 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. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

*Diff of 3RR warning:

;Comments: User is making changes to many articles over the same issue. Article ] has been tampered with as well. Look at the ]. {{unsigned|MrMacMan}}
about my edits to this 3RR notice: I screwed up listing this properly so I'm rereading the guidelines so this can be a proper 3RR notice. {{unsigned|MrMacMan}}
The 3RR notice was made by myself, ]... but I forgot to sign them, thank you for reminding me. ] 22:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
::I've blocked the IP for 1 hour for repeatedly removing this report and comments about their conduct after warnings to stop. ] 22:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

*I have blocked the user for 25 hours per ] (this includes the previous block for removing this report). ] 22:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:None)===

] violation on
{{Article|2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict}}. {{3RRV|Italiavivi}}:

* 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. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->

;Comments: <!-- Optional -->
:User seems to be using talk page now.] 02:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
::These were not reverts. All various wordings were attempts to accurately describe the source in question, per Talk discussion. The source was eventually thrown out despite Isarig's objections, due to its lack of verifiability. ] 16:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

] violation on
{{Article|Tigranes the Great}}. {{3RRV|AdilBaguirov}}:

*This user is on Revert parole its noted on his talk page he has reverted twice disruptively.

*Please see, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tigranes_the_Great&action=history ] 23:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Unfortunately, the users Artaxiad and Eupator, with help from users Vartanm, Ayvazovsky and Davo88, all act in tandem and revert all pages that I make edits to. Case in point is the abovementioned Tigranes the Great, where these ideologically-motivated editors remove verifiable and sourced information from such authoritative and scholarly sources as Encyclopedia Iranica. I've complained . That's why, when faced with a coordinated attack of these users, I've reverted before time, about which I've immediately notified the admin who is active on our ArbCom case , and outlined the problem. One admin, Husond, agreed with me that the actions by these editors on Tigranes the Great article are not justified . I thus appeal for administrative action against such edit warring and disruptions by these meatpuppets. --] 05:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

:Blatant violation of revert parole and 3RR. Blocked for 48 hours. ] | ] 06:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
*Thanks for the right choice, Adil you know better than violating your parole theres no excuse you violated it, I never reverted I'm trying not to revert your edits to reach a compromise. ] 21:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

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

] violation on
{{Article|Great Leap Forward}}. {{3RRV|John Smith's}}:

<!-- 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. -->

* 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Great_Leap_Forward&diff=112146810&oldid=111931191

* 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Great_Leap_Forward&diff=112178282&oldid=112178088
* 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Great_Leap_Forward&diff=112182901&oldid=112182480

* 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Great_Leap_Forward&diff=112184914&oldid=112184476

<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->

;Comments: <!-- Optional -->

User is currently edit warring on my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Giovanni33&action=history He has been asked to stop several times but persists despite being told by the admin that his taunting is not civil: ]

I have also asked him and given him the chance to self revert to avoid being reported for the 3RR violations on ] Instead he insists on continuing to edit war, on my own talk page.

He has been blocked before twice for violating the 3RR rule, and is aware of the policy.

:First, I am not edit warring on his talk page. I am insisting that he not delete warnings for himself. He first deleted one from myself and then from another user. He is trying to cover up for the fact he has been reverting a lot too, so that the next time he reverts he could try to get away with it. He is still doing it, even though I have asked him to leave the warnings up.
:As to the GLF page, this is a content dispute more than anything else. ] 23:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
::Yes, its a content dispute but you not taken it to the talk page. You have violated the 3RR rule, instead. You keep reverting to get your way without talking. Now your edit waring on my talk page is also unacceptable conduct. Once I read your message, I am allowed to remove it. To keep putting it up is to harass as you've been warned.] 23:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
:::I have talked about that article in the past with you on talk pages, though not this one. Would you have stopped adding it in if I had used the talk page again? Of course not, because you're not actually interested in the views of others.
:::Where does it say someone can remove a warning after reading it? You rejected both the warnings, so it was necessary to keep them up there for you to get the message properly. There is no edit warring on my part, just an insistence you acknowledge at least ONE of the warnings and leave it up there. You don't see me removing mine, do you? If you want to accuse me of breaking the 3RR, you broke it yourself on your talk page. ] 00:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
:Giovanni is lying in saying I was warned for "edit warring" on his talk page. I was accused of being uncivil when I asked if he was going to try to hide a second warning made by that user - which he did then do, so I feel vindicated for asking the question. ] 23:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
::Take a look at the edit summaries to my talk page. Several warnings yet he persists in edit warring, continuing at this moment.] 00:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
:::A warning from you is hardly valid over the matter given you have zero wikipedia authority and did not cite any rule over it. However Musical Linguist has kindly clarified the situation, so I understand it is ok to remove warnings. I thought they had to stay up. ] 00:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


'''Comment''' If a user has removed a warning or other unwanted message, as long as it's not done like , then it shouldn't be replaced. We know he has seen it, and it will remain in the history if it's needed as evidence in an RfC or RfAr. There are a few common sense exceptions, like when an admin insists that a block notice stay in place for the duration of the block, so that other admins can see the reason for the block. I've seen numerous examples of petty harassment of users, and I've also seen several good-faith examples of well-meaning editors reverting a user because they think it's forbidden to remove a warning in his own userspace. Incidentally, people sometimes claim that reverts in one's own user space "don't count". I think it's better to say that the rule is ''not generally enforced'' when it involves one's own userspace. I'd be very reluctant to block someone for it, but I'd consider it wise not to think of it as a definite exception on the same level as reverting simple vandalism. ]] 00:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

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

] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{3RRV|VIOLATOR_USERNAME}}:

* 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. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->

;Comments: <!-- Optional -->
Please format this report properly or it will not be acted upon. --]<sup>]</sup> 10:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by User:<tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> (Result:48 hours)===

] violation on
{{Article|Azerbaijan_(Iran)}}. {{3RRV|Pmanderson}}:

* Previous version reverted to:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

;Comments: <!-- Optional -->
The 4th is a partial revert. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 01:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
:The fourth is an entire rephrasing, intended to provoke compromise. Khoikhoi makes continual exact reversions, once in less than a minute; his reverts have not been discussed, and appear to be used, as his edit summaries show, to suppress discussion. I have discussed fully on the talk page and will continue to do so. ] <small>]</small> 04:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
*Khoikhoi's first reversion
*Second
*Third
:] <small>]</small> 04:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment since I am a participant of the discussions on the article, and in fact the author of the re-written new intro. A few editors there have been acting in bad faith and been disruptive, reverting verifiable and sourced information, and replacing it with a version of the article that is not only POV, but contains grammar and even spelling mistakes -- see this diff: When user PMAnderson noticed that information is being removed, he was reverted, just like myself . Hence, other users have started an edit war, by reverting the article to an inferior version full of POV and spelling mistakes, and even resisting PMAnderson's attempt to compromise and place a Dispute tag . --] 05:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

:'''Result''' Both sides are edit warring but Pmanderson has hit 4 reverts and was just blocked for 3RR last month, so there seems to be a problem here. If the revert war continues, expect page protection and more blocks. Also, Pmanderson, please do not refer to content disputes as "vandalism" and Khoikhoi, please do not use rollback in content disputes. ] 06:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

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

] violation on
{{Article|Władysław Orlicz}}. {{3RRV|67.180.67.179}}:

* 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. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

User has been editing since January 16, 2007 and has been warned before of being in danger of violating 3RR.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
Blocked once earlier for disruption.

;Comments: <!-- Optional -->
Similar breaking of 3RR at: ],
:Blocked 48H due to double violation. --]<sup>]</sup> 10:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

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

] violation on
{{Article|Upper Canada College}}. {{3RRV|User:Magonaritus}}:

* 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. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

User is editing in bad faith and to make a point. --] 20:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
:Note both editors are reported just below. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

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

] violation on
{{Article|Mammary intercourse}}. {{3RRV|Saintrotter}}:

* 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. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert (after user was well aware of the 3RR rule, had commented on this page, and had seen the *3* delete votes for his image on ]: <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 21:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

* Diff of 3RR warning:

User insists on adding low-quality, racist version of picture to article. Images listed for deletion as well at ]. ] 21:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Crying racist wont get you your own way, people are not as stupid as you may think. You got no claim for racism, what is racist about a black woman that is not racist about a white woman? I edited her red lipstick (which was same colour on the white woman) to pink, so you got no claim.
There is nothing low quality of my picture at all, another baseless claim, and who would want a very high quality picture of such a dirty picture on wikipedia?
] 3 March 2007
*Yes well between myself and another editor we've reverted you a total of 5 times. Neither of us has broken 3RR. You have. ] 21:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

*Good of you to admit it... my maths maybe not so good as it used to be but if you and another editor reverted me 5 times, it means 1 of you is breaking the rule and taking the high horse of reporting first. ] 3 March 2007
:blocked for 24 hours. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 00:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

] violation on
{{Article|Upper Canada College}}.
{{3RRV|Magonaritus}}
{{3RRV|G2bambino}}:

Magonaritus:

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

G2bambino:

the interleaved reverts

:It's only an article RfC and both violated the rule, but it's too small an issue to block both parties for, and I can't protect the page, so no action. But please don't revert like this again. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 10:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

] violation on
{{Article|Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex}}.
{{3RRV|Magonaritus}}:

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

:This editor is rewriting (and reverting) my RfC to resolve a dispute at ]. He/she is highly disruptive. --] 00:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

::It looks like both of you are breaking the rule here. ] 00:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

:::Don't see how. I was the original composer of the request, rv'd Magonaritus' changes three times and tried to compromise a fourth. He simply reverted four times. --] 00:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

::::G2bambino, you were required to write a neutral summary statement for the RfC. But you violated this Wiki policy on neutrality. So I corrected it. I wasn't going to let you get away with violating Wiki policy and tainting the RfC process right from the beginning before people had a chance to read the full Talk page. Anyways, it's a moot point now. Grouse rewrote it and warned both of us to stop edit warring. I'm totally cool with Grouse's re-write as it's neutral. ] 01:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

] has just reverted yet again at ]
*
* --] 05:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

:No action; see above for reasoning. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 10:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

] violation on
{{Article|George Deutsch}}. {{3RRV|Biochemnick}}:

* Previous version reverted to:

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

* Diff of 3RR warning:

] 00:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

:*I see there's more than one 3RR report about this, and it's about the use of a blog in a BLP, so I've protected the page. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 01:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

] violation on
{{Article|George Deutsch}}. {{3RRV|208.255.229.66}}:

* Previous version reverted to:

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


* Diff of 3RR warning:

] 00:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

:I see the issue seems to be about using a blog as a source. John, did the blog first publish this material and ''then'' the person resigned and it was taken up by the New York Times? There are always problems with using blogs in BLPs, and 3RR doesn't apply to people who are trying to enforce BLP, although if the NYT subsequently wrote about the blog's revelation, it's okay. Can you clarify? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 01:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
::It would appear that the situation, including George Deutsch's resignation as a result of the blog's claims, was reported directly in the New York Times, so including the information doesn't violate ]. In any event, the edit war doesn't concern the inclusion of the fact that the blog reported the information, but rather how the blog should be attributed. 208.255.229.66 appears to be claiming that ] is identifying the blog by name, and identifying himself as the author of the entry, for the purpose of self-promotion. As this is an ordinary edit war, not a ] situation, it might be more advisable to block the users who are edit warring than to protect the page. ] 01:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

* The issue is that ] has a clear conflict of interest and is inserting autobiographical information while refusing to discuss its notability. ] 01:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

:I see it's quite confusing and more than one person appears to have violated 3RR so I've protected. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 01:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

] violation on
{{Article|Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair}}. {{3RRV|Annoynmous}}:

* 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. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. -->
* Diff of 3RR warning: , not that it was needed, as user has already been blocked twice for 3RR in the last 3 months.
:*It's a clear violation, and he's been blocked twice before; 24 hours. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 01:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


;Comments: <!-- Optional -->
User engages in a pattern of reverts, without participating in Talk, mostly gaming 3RR by reverting just 3 times in 24 hours, but has gone over the limit this time. It has been a problem on other articles as well, such as ]. He has been reverted by multiple users on both articles.

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

] violation on
{{Article|Recovered Territories}}. {{3RRV|Jadger}}:

* 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. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->

;Comments: The user reverts back to the NOTE at the top of the page instead of cite.php format. He often labels his reverts as minor edits. The user is familiar with 3RR having been blocked for violation of this rule once in the past and has been warned on the talk page about edit warring habit several times.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 02:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)<!-- Optional -->
:I can understand why Jadger feels the unilateral interpretation of the edit war was unjust (though his accusation of hypocrisy is unfounded). See below. ] 17:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

] violation on
{{Article|House (TV Series)}}. {{3RRV|Billywhack}}:

* 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. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

* Diff of 3RR warning (though one was not needed):

;Comments: User has been warned before, and continues to revert. Actually asked me to report him. So here we are. ] 04:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

===] and ] (Result: 24 hours each)===
There's a nifty little two-way revert war going on with this article. Each party is up to five or six reverts. You won't have any trouble spotting them in the article's history. ] 03:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
:Removal of controversial material with no reliable sourcing in not subject to 3RR. Additionally, I started a discussion on the talk page regarding the disputed section, which the people who continually re-insert the unsourced material have simply ignored. Lastly, I received an inappropriate warning from an admin ] regarding 3RR, which (from his comments) was issued as a favor to a friend (the re-inserter), without as much as enough research to even realize that I had, in fact, started a discussion on the matter that his friend had ignored. Also, the friend was not issued a similar warning from ] regarding 3RR, though the rule CLEARLY applies to the reinsertion of unsourced materials. I have placed all of the presidents' pages on my watch list, in a good faith attempt to rid them of this kind of non-scholarly, unsourced garbage, and to protect them from vandalism. Check my history. If you want to lose someone who has the best interests of the Misplaced Pages presidents' pages at heart, by all means, ban me. Because as long as I have the priviledges of an editor, I will not allow unsourced rumors to stand in an article on one of our country's presidents.] 07:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
::All reverts are subject to the 3RR rule, except when dealing with vandalism, edits by a blocked user, or violations of ]. Kscottbailey removed the same section eight times in 13 hours, and GearedBull six times in four hours, so both have been blocked for 24. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 10:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

===] and ] reported by ] (Result: 24hrs to both reports)===

] violation on
{{Article|Caledonian Sleeper}} (also on {{article|Highland Chieftain}}. {{3RRV|DrFrench}} {{3RRV|81.109.234.187}}:

* 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. -->
*Dr. French
** 1st revert:
** 2nd revert:
** 3rd revert:
** 4th revert:
*81
** 1st revert:
** 2nd revert:
** 3rd revert:
** 4th revert:

;Comments: Users edit warring over train timetables and inclusion in articles. ''']''' <sup>(]/])</sup><sub>(])</sub> 13:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

1st i dont write good english but i dont understand why the hard work off putting the timtables in keeps being deleted ] 14:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

:Blocked both DrFrench and the IP 81.] 15:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

] violation on
{{Article|CNN}}. {{3RRV|Isarig}}:

* 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. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:


* Diff of 3RR warning:
* Isarig deletes 3RR warning from his Talk page immediately after being warned:

;Comments: User is repeatedly inserting an allegation of "liberal bias" into the article's lead, despite CNN's controversy article listing allegations of both conservative and liberal bias. ] 16:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

::Bad faith bogus report - there are not 4 reverts in 24 hours there. Reporting user is engaged in edit warring on that same page as well as others, repeatedly removed valid 3RR warnings from his pages , and wikistalks me. The wikistalking appears to be a result of a valid 3RR report I filed regarding his behaviour (see - the reviewing admin took a lenient approach to that clear 3RR violation, apparently becuase the user was also participating in Talk alongside his edit warring, but this was apparently misguided leniency. ] 16:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Isarig's first revert is at 15:31 on March 3rd. The next is at 15:30 on March 4th, with the others in rapid succession. This user is trying to game the 3RR policy. ] 16:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Indeed. there is 24 hours (minus 1 minute( between the first and 2nd reverts, and the rest are beyond the 24hours.) - as I said - a bogus report, by a user who has been edit warring on that page, making at least 3 reverts in the last 24 hours as well, and who has violated 3rr on a differnt page just yesterday ] 16:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::I am not here to discuss Isarig's false 3RR reports, which have been consistently thrown out. This editor's attempts at gaming the 3RR policy ("There is 24 hours minus 1 minute!") warrant blocking. ] 16:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::This isn't a violation. The first link you gave was 15:31 March 3, the second 15:30 March 4, then two others on March 4. Please add the times and dates to the diffs in future, so admins can see at a glance whether it's a violation or not. Cheers, ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 16:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::This is gaming the 3RR rule, SlimVirgin, which is still a block-worthy offense per the 3RR policy. Four verbatim reverts in the same 24 hour 46 minute period, despite Talk page objections and the very POV nature of the edit in question? ] 16:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::::It was seven minutes short of 25 hours. You yourself got off with a 3RR violation recently after reverting four times in 40 minutes, because the admin let you off because you started using the talk page, so you perhaps ought not to throw stones from that glass house of yours. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 17:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::The administrator "let me off" because the diffs were not reverts. I had been using the Talk page from the get-go, and the source Isarig repeatedly re-inserted was thrown out via consensus (due to lack of verifiability) regardless. You really want to defend Isarig's behavior (repeatedly inserting allegations of 'liberal bias' into an article's lead four times in a just-over 24 hour period), feel free, Slim. I'm sorry you're also choosing to emulate him, including misrepresenting my actions at ]. Editors are welcome to view the article's Talk page if they are interested in my participation there. ] 17:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::The reverts at your 3RR were definitely reverts; you need to read the 3RR policy carefully so you avoid violating it again. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 17:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::: (Massive edit conflict (about 5 edits)) I've blocked him for 8 hours. I'm not sure if this was gaming or not but he has been edit warring on a variety of articles, not just this one. SV, if you disagree with the block, feel free to unblock. ] 17:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::: And Italiavivi is blocked for similar behavior. ] 17:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: 8h)===

] violation on
{{Article|Cypriot Civil War}}. {{3RRV|A.Garnet}}:

* 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. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

*This is an old user, he certainly knows about the 3RR (and knows when it has been violated ).--] 17:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

;Comments:
*User is POV pushing, presenting events out of context by deleting material. Anything which makes the TR side in the war/conflict is removed as irrelevant to the article (which I consider a POV fork - this will also have to be looked at).--] 17:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

:It appears I have reverted 4 times, apologies for this. If i tracked my edits I wouldnt have done the fourth, not much more I can say other than i've been blocked once for 3RR in the almost 2 years i've been here. My reverts concerned substantial edits by ], an editor with a ] of pov pushing in Cyprus related articles. Having worked hard on this article, I did not want the same poor quality material added which has plagued other Cyprus conflict related articles which may explain why I got carried away with reverting. --] 17:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

::You could revert yourself and wait a few hours before reverting again if you must.--] 17:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

:::No, I will not deliberately revert to a poor quality version of an article to escape the consequence of a mistake on my part. I will let an admin decide if I should blocked. The admin may also not that I tried to some of the criticisms raised in the discussion, which is what i told editors to do in the first place i.e. talk before editing. --] 17:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

::::Yet after you noticed I had reported you.--] 18:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::I already to you in talk page 5 mins before you made your claim here that I was attempting to include some of Aristov's edits. Regardless, I'm not going to prove my conduct to you my friend. Unlike you, I have not gone through 6 different accounts in an attempt to get rid of a history of pov pushing, 3RR violation, WP:point violation and vandalism. --] 18:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

::::::Not getting personal, are we?--] 18:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If you've been blocked before, its not in your log. So you can have 8h for 3RR - refusing an opportunity to self revert isn't good ] 20:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: no vio)===
] violation on
{{Article|Recovered Territories}}. {{3RRV|Piotrus}}:

* Previous version reverted to:

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

;Comments: The edit war was over <u>the appearance in the lead paragraph that the terms Recovered Territories "are not accepted terms or concepts outside of Poland" and that "in English-speaking countries the term is unknown."</u> Piotrus achieved that at first by moving the sentences from the first (eye-catching) paragraph down as a little insignificant reference. That's why Jadger reverted. Piotrus's fourth edit goes even further: it removes the sentences completely, which meant that it didn't even appear in or outside the lead section. This looks like an edit but is a revert. He might just as well have added "Anti-Polish propagandists claim that" in front of the sentences to make them insignificant, or write something like "Years ago the terms Recovered Territories were not accepted in the West, but now they are common" etc, or just add <nowiki><!-- --></nowiki> in front and behind of the sentences or strike them through etc. Maybe these were actually going to be the next "edits". If you're creative, you can think of many more such "edits" as an edit warrior to avoid making a "revert" and at the same time forcing the other side to revert. None of those edits would be obvious exact undoings, but in effect they're all reverts because they remove the sentences from the lead section, which the edit war was all about. Jadger reverted four times the removal of two sentences from the lead paragraph. Piotrus removed the sentences six times from the lead paragraph, four times within the last 24 hours, reverting four times as well. Like Jadger, he is aware of 3RR (once blocked as well) and should be treated similarly. It is only fair if both are blocked or unblocked. ] 17:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

:I don't see how the fourth diff is a revert. Which version is he reverting to, or what work is he undoing? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 18:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

::He removed that the terms Recovered Territories "are not accepted terms or concepts outside of Poland" and that "in English-speaking countries the term is unknown" ''from the lead section'', as in the reverts before. Same as in the previous reverts. Well, imagine for example this hypothetical case: Guy A dislikes the representation of an event in its article but has failed for three times to change it. He can revert more often: first he puts a POV-tag for the article, after getting reverted, he chooses a totally-disputed tag, then (after another revert) adds small {dubious}-templates all over the place, then the original-research template, then the disliked sentences are references, then POV-section templates are added, a handwritten note at the top of the page, then another but different handwritten note (in fact you could write dozens of similar but not exact different words). They wouldn't be reverting to any other version and not undo work. But they're still in effect reverts. Where should the line be drawn if not immediately? If all reverts/edits have a similar effect and each follow another revert into the opposite direction, they should be counted as reverts. And it is pretty obvious that the edit war was not just about format - it was about the appearance of the two sentences. The fourth edit/revert even undid one completely. ] 18:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
::Okay, if it's unusual to regard reverts concerning the same meaning of edits, then let's have a look at which work it undoes. It partially reverts , . Four reverts, still, no matter how you look at it. ] 19:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
::: I too can't see #4 as a revert ] 20:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus has done this exact same thing off and on for a month, despite the fact that it has been discussed on the talk page (which he has refused to discuss it on) and the consensus was to keep the note. Also, all 4 of the "reversions" I made were not the same, I actually added more information rather than deleted it, but I was still blocked (although thank you SlimVirgin for removing the unfair block).

--] 01:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by User:] result: No block ===
] violation on {{Article|Anti-Japanese sentiment}}.{{3RRV|Herrich}}:

* Previous version reverted to: <!-- ALWAYS FILL IN THIS FIELD! -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:

Reported by: ] 18:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

;Comments: He reverts again after "Come to talkpage". ] 18:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

* User was not warned. I have warned the user now. If he reverts again, we shall block. ] <small>]</small> 18:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
* Thank you. ] 19:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by User:] result: no block===
] violation on {{Article|Comfort women}}.{{3RRV|Herrich}}:

* Previous version reverted to: <!-- ALWAYS FILL IN THIS FIELD! -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:

Reported by: ] 18:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

;Comments: He reverts again after "Come to talkpage". ] 18:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
* See above. ] <small>]</small> 18:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
* Thank you. ] 19:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by User:] result: no block===
] violation on {{Article|Asuka period}}.{{3RRV|Herrich}}:

* Previous version reverted to: <!-- ALWAYS FILL IN THIS FIELD! -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
Reported by: ] 18:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
;Comments: He reverts again after "Come to talkpage". ] 18:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
* User not warned. See above. ] <small>]</small> 18:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
* Thank you. ] 19:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by User:] result: no block ===
] violation on {{Article|Kofun period}}.{{3RRV|Herrich}}:

* Previous version reverted to: <!-- ALWAYS FILL IN THIS FIELD! -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
Reported by: ] 18:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
* User not warned. See above. ] <small>]</small> 18:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
* Thank you very much. ] 19:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


===] reported by ] (Result: 8h)===

] violation on
{{Article|Organization XIII}}. {{3RRV|BassxForte}}:

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

8h ] 21:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

] violation on
{{Article|Michael Stipe}}. {{3RRV|Dannyg3332}}:

* Previous version reverted to:

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

:Comments: This is not ]'s first 3RR violation on this particular article nor is it the only article the user has broken ] on.(see . User has taken ] on the Stipe article and has been blocked previously for 3RR violation on the page . Earlier today when Admin ] attempted to replace the FU image with a free use one the edit was reverted quickly followed by ] issuing a threat on the Admin's talk page.]. User has also been blanking all warnings from his talk page. ] 22:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
:24 hrs. ] <small>]</small> 04:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

] violation on
{{Article|Islam and children}}. {{3RRV|71.172.136.156}}:

* Previous version reverted to:

* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
He then removed cited material producing this version:
and has reverted to it twice:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

* Diff of 3RR warning:


In addition,

] violation on
{{Article|Islamophobia}}. {{3RRV|71.172.136.156}}:

* Previous version reverted to:

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

* Diff of 3RR warning:

;Comments:
All of his edits have been undiscussed reverts except one removal of appropriate, cited material.

* User already blocked for disruption. ] <small>]</small> 04:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

] violation on
{{Article|Template:Messianic Judaism}}. {{3RRV|Noogster}}:

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

;Comments
*These are pretty straightforward reverts. Has been warned about 3RR in the past: , and has been asked to revert himself. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 04:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

* 24 hours. ] <small>]</small> 04:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours)===
*{{article|Mirage (Magic: The Gathering)}}
**1st revert:
**2nd revert:
**3rd revert:
**4th revert:

*{{article|Ice Age (Magic: The Gathering)}}
** ] has four edits reverting 'vandalism', a clear violation of ]. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 06:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

*{{article|Legends (Magic: The Gathering)}}
** Five reverts. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 06:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

*{{article|Apocalypse (Magic: The Gathering)}}
** Four reverts. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 06:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

*{{article|Alliances (Magic: The Gathering)}}
** Five reverts. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 06:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

*{{article|Antiquities (Magic: The Gathering)}}
** Four reverts. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 06:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

;Comments
*The edits of Mjrmtg and ] need to be checked out. Both have been revert warring over content on various Magic articles. If I had more time, I would go through them and find other 3RR violations. ] 06:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

:*Blocked by Cryptic for 24 hours. Rob, in future, it would help if you gave the previous version reverted to, which in this case was , so admins can see whether the first edit was a revert. Cheers, ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 14:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: 31 hours, self-blocked)===

*{{article|Mirage (Magic: The Gathering)}}
**1st revert:
**2nd revert:
**3rd revert:
**4th revert:

*{{article|Ice Age (Magic: The Gathering)}}
** ] has three revert edits, a clear violation of ]. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 06:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
*** Let me wikilawyer and say that technically it's ''four'' reverts that is a violation. Considering that AMIB was recently blocked for 3RR, though, it is somewhat gaming the system and could very well be issues another temporary block. ] 07:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

*{{article|Legends (Magic: The Gathering)}}
** Five reverts. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 06:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

*{{article|Apocalypse (Magic: The Gathering)}}
** Four reverts. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 06:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

*{{article|Alliances (Magic: The Gathering)}}
** Five reverts. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 06:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

*{{article|Antiquities (Magic: The Gathering)}}
** Four reverts. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 06:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

;Comments
*Once again: they are content disputing. This revert warring isn't solving anything. ] 06:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
*Odd... looking at the histories:
**Antiquities: AMiB edited once, reverted 3 times, Mjrmtg reverted 4 times.
**Alliance: AMiB 1 edit, 4 reverts, Mjrmtg 5
**Apocalypse: AMiB 1 edit, 5 reverts, Mjrmtg 5, Bedford 1
**Ice Age: AMiB 1 edit, 2 reverts, Mjrmtg 3
**Alliances: AMiB 1 edit, 4 reverts, Mjrmtg 5
**Mirage: AMiB 1 edit, 4 reverts, Mjrmtg 5
:It looks like 2 praticing 3RR vios<br>— ] 06:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've already blocked ] for 24 hours for his reverting on ]. He also tripped 3rr with four reverts on ] and ], and five on ] and ]; his revert-warring is aggravated by trying to cast MiB's (absolutely correct) removal of unsourced material as vandalism.

]'s case is less egregious. His initial edits to each of these articles, despite removing text, aren't reverts, and are moreover in line with ] ]. He did still revert four times on ] and five on ]; combined with his recent 3RR block on the 28th, I can't in good conscience refrain from blocking him as well. &mdash;] 07:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:Though, um, he already blocked himself for longer than I'd planned to. &mdash;] 07:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: No violation; BLP issue)===

] violation on
{{Article|Juan Cole}}. {{3RRV|Thumperward}}:

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

* Diff of 3RR warning:

;Comments: Originally a copy edit, he is now claiming that ''a citation'' supporting a statement referring to "other critics" violates BLP and is therefore not subject to 3RR. This is a unique reading of the policy. ] 12:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:: The allegation is a BLP vio in the first place. copy editing is just a casualty of armon's attempt to restore said claim. ] 12:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:::A quick look at the page's edit history shows that ] himself reverted 3 times in under an hour. He is clearly gaming the system. 3RR policy is intened to prevent edit warring rather than be used as a weapon in edit wars. I would like to know whether Armon has been baiting other editors in order to entrap them in 3RR violations.
:::In my opinion ] edits are a removal of a BLP issue and as such are exempt from 3RR. ] 13:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::::A quick look at ] shows that this is the 3rd 3RR report issued by Armon in a month! ] 13:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::There were five reverts of the same material (that he's an apologist for radical Islam) in around 14 hours. However, I'm going to give Thumperward the benefit of the doubt in this case. It's a BLP, the source is Frontpage Magazine, and the writer is known to be strongly partisan. If it were the same writer published elsewhere, I'd have fewer qualms, but that the article appears in Frontpage Magazine gives pause for thought when dealing with a BLP. Some of their stuff is okay, but some of it is quite extreme, and we have to use the best sources possible for BLPs. It's also clear from the talk page discussion that Thumperward raised the BLP issue. Thumperward, in future, please contact an admin about BLP violations rather than continuing to revert, unless the issue is very serious such as a clear libel or complete nonsense. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 14:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] 16:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC) (Result: 24h)===

] violation on
{{Article|Juan Cole}}. {{3RRV|Thumperward}}:

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

* Diff of 3RR warning:

;Comments: User was just reported for this violation, and the reviewing admin gave him the benefit of the doubt, provided he stops edit warring and enlists the help of an admin to resolve the issue. despite agreing to do so on his Talk page, the user now interprets that as a carte-blanche to continue reverting the same material over and over again, adding a 6th revert in less than 24 hours, and using his previous report as "justification". ] 16:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

User does indeed seem to have used previous as excuse to keep reverting; 24h ] 16:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

:This is a clear example of tag team edit warring by Armon and Isaig. And it is a BLP issue. ] 16:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

:William, I wonder whether this block was the best way forward. Thumperward definitely should have asked for admin help rather than reverting again. On the other hand, there's a genuine BLP issue at stake, albeit a borderline one. Front Page Mag really isn't a reliable source for BLPs, and the policy says that any unsourced or poorly sourced material should be removed: not only that it ''may'' be removed, but that it ought to be. Also, I've protected the page so the block is perhaps not necessary. I won't unblock against your judgment, but I wonder if you would reconsider. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 17:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:: I don't like the way TW seems to have decided that the previous report justified infinite reverting. OTOH you have now protected the page. OK ] 18:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Thanks, William. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

] violation on
{{Article|11:11 (numerology)}}. {{3RRV|67.81.252.247}}:

* 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. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

;Comments
The user continues to add what I think is original research. I placed a mention about OR on their talk page, hoping that they would discuss this with me; they did not reply. I placed a 3RR rule on their talk page, again hoping for a discussion; they didn't reply.

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

] violation on
{{Article|Ralph Nader}}. {{3RRV|76.166.123.129}}:

* 1st revert: ''(qt not appropriate to bio; rec mv to criticism)''
* 2nd revert: ''(quot del, rc mv to criticism)''
* 3rd revert: ''(rm criticism, not for bio)''
* 4th Revert: ''(del quot, not app to bio; rec mv to criticism)''

*Diff of 3RR warning:

;Comments
I am not a regular editor of this page, just happened upon it and noticed that User has been reverted by at least 3 different editors. I warned the user, including diffs. User responded that he/she was reverting vandalism (the issue in question is a quotation, re-inserted by multiple editors). -- ] 20:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

] violation on
{{Article|Potter's House Christian Fellowship}}. ]:

* 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. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->

;Comments: <!--Optional-->
The users sole purpose for being on wikipedia is to attack this article as his history shows. I have kept reverting the article and have warned him not to vandalise, but he is now threatening me not to vandalise etc. I told him to wait until mediation but he doesn't seem to care anymore. It may be good to lock the page for a while while he cools down and mediation happens. ] 20:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

''2007-03-06T03:19:44 Jossi (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Potter's House Christian Fellowship: edit war )''. But to remind you of the obvious: avoid wars on articles you are connected to (I'm assuming by your name). ] ] 15:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

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

] violation on
{{Article|The Bridge (film)}}. {{3RRV|Smeelgova}}:

* 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. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

;Comments: Lots of warnings, lots of history of edit-warring by Smee. Edit-warring with me on three pages at once. 4RR on this one. --] 23:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
*The last edit (4th) was about a completely different set of material from the article. You will note that it is different from the first three, and that I had '''not''' restored the links that ] had removed in those edits. In essence, I was agreeing with him on that issue. This was the ''first'' edit in a new disagreement, and in any event, the material consisted of valid reviews for an EL section, but that is irrelevant. ] 23:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

* No block, as last revert was not for same material, but I would suggest to both editors to find common ground rather than edit-war. Placed warnings in article's talk page. ] <small>]</small> 23:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
**Regardless of decision, I am taking this particular article off of my watchlist for a while, as a self-imposed block/break to myself on that article. ] 23:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

] is contesting my assessment of this 3RR report (See ]). I would request another pair of eyes to look into this, just in case I missed the mark. ] <small>]</small> 03:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks Jossi. I made the case in Jossi's talk and also included just a couple of diffs to show that Smee has been here before and got off light. I can provide more if requested. The main issue is that, according to ], the reverts do not need to be all the same material but can be different material, which was the case here. Thanks --] 03:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
::], from ]'s talk page, stated: ''I have known Smee for a while, and I have seem him engage in edit wars, but I have also seen him disengage from articles and keep his word. '' - Thank you ], those are kind words. I will keep to what I have already stated above and take a much needed break on article ]. Haven't encountered you lately on Misplaced Pages, hope you are doing well. ] 04:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
* I see that an anon familiar with wikipedia syntax has restored the most egregious EL to highly POV possible copyvio site. Don't know if that is to bait me to 4RR or some other game but I would appreciate if someone undid that. Thanks --] 12:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
**I have removed the link added by the anon-ip, , however the page ] will still remain off of my watchlist (though ''this'' page is on my watchlist)... ] 14:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
***Smee, I really would rather that you had not made a 5th revert and further violated 3RR to do that. If violating 3RR with impunity was the point, I could have done that myself (though I would likely have gotten the block that you have, so far at least, seem to have skated on). Better that you had left it for another. I would much rather that you "get it" about 3RR. Your 5th revert proves that you have not. --] 16:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Sorry, Justanother, are you sure? It seems that he reverted back to your last edit.... ] <small>]</small> 16:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::], did you even bother to check my comment above, or I '''''removed''''' the link that was added by the anon-ip, upon your request here. It should be noted that the article was ''already'' off of my watchlist, and so I noticed this from your comment ''here'', and in any even the article is ''still'' going to be off of my watchlist. Yeesh. ] 17:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
::::::Of course I bothered, and, yes, I am sure. Smee reverted the anon's edit back to my last version. Why in the world would Smee do that since to do that is yet another revert on the same article bringing it to 5RR. '''Smee is obviously not getting it once you reach 3RR you stop reverting.''' Anyone's edits. Back to anything. Just leave it alone. And now Smee is getting rude with me. Please stop enabling his abuse by ignoring his repeated and relentless violation of it. --] 18:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::'''I''', am getting rude... with '''you'''??? Ha ha ha, I think clearly everyone can see it is the other way around. So now you want me to get blocked for reverting something '''''back to the version that you had previously agreed with?''''' This is just silly and pure harassment. I wish it would stop. I have taken the article off of my watchlist. Unfortunately, ]'s tirade continues across multiple pages, no matter how much I cooperate and acquiesce. I will not given in to his taunts, personal attacks, and foul language such as "shit", "fuck", and "motherfucker", however. For more info, see the RFC on this user, (NOT initiated by myself), at: ]. ] 18:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
<left> And what is even more objectionable than the rudeness is that he is now accusing me of harassing him ("tired of harassment fm Justan" ) simply because I am trying to get him to stop violating 3RR and that is not going to happen, apparently, until he get his sorely deserved block. Please stop enabling him to continue disregarding ]. Thanks. --] 18:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
:(EC) And trying to flip this on its ear and make it about me. --] 18:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
*It was about me. Your persistence, and harassment has made it about you. Please, just STOP. I have taken the article off of my watchlist, what else do you want? Why won't you just stop the harassment '''''please?''''' ] 18:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
**Smee is seriously abusing the 3RR board now by bringing in unrelated items that do not even much relate to him and for which I am quite prepared to answer and will do so in the correct place and at the correct time; which is not here or now. This is what I deal with (smile). Jossi asked for another admin to review this. No other admin has done so. It is still open. Meanwhile, Smee, you repeated your 3RR violation, falsely accuse me of harassment, and abuse this noticeboard. --] 18:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''NOTE:''' - Jossi and other admins, I will let you take this one, and I will simply stop responding. Apparently he is trying to egg me on, with his continued harassment, but I will not be a party to it any longer. I will not comment again, sorry for taking up space. ] 18:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
**Can someone please set him straight? I reported 4RR; Jossi did not find 4RR; I queried nicely and Jossi himself reopened the incident; I asked an editor to help me out with an anon post in the article as I was already at 3RR; Smee, at 4RR, made it 5RR and I objected politely; Smee melts down and starts throwing muck at me on this noticeboard. And I am "harassing" him. Pu-leese. --] 18:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''NOTE:''' - As in-line with my last comment above, I am now going to take this page, ], off of my watchlist as well, to avoid further conflict, whatever the motivation. I would most appreciate it if a neutral third-party would inform me on my talk page of the resolution/outcome of this thread please. Thank you for your time. ] 19:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
*Justanother, please read ] where it says "Since the rule is intended to prevent edit warring, reverts which are clearly not such will not breach the rule." Smee's "5th revert" which was restoring your version of the page, was clearly not trying to continue the edit war in any way, since he was trying to come to a consensus and had agreed to do things your way. This wasn't an edit war at that point, it was a resolution, so it doesn't violate 3RR. --] 21:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
**Thanks for pointing that out, that is good to know and may come in handy for me too some time. OK, I did not feel so great about pointing out that 5th one anyway and did so just to point out that Smee perhaps did not see that he had already committed 4RR and should have just left the page alone. But, yes, his 5th revision was OK then as his intent was obviously not to edit war on that one. But that does not change the fact that he did edit-war and go 4RR and that is what I reported. --] 21:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

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

] violation on
{{Article|Maharishi Mahesh Yogi}}. {{3RRV|Vijayante}}:

* 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. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:
* 8th revert:
* 9th revert:
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning: , also warned in edit comment to the article
-->

;Comments: The insertion has been explained on the talk page, and the user has ignored explanations of BLP's applicability. --] <sup>]</sup> 00:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
:*Blocked ] for 24 hours for 3RR violation. ] 01:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

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

] violation on
{{Article|Scota}}. {{3RRV|Manopingo}}:

* 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. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->

;Comments: Two of the RVs were made with very uncivil edit summaries.--]—<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 00:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
:*Blocked ] for 24 hours for 3RR violation. ] 01:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

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

] violation on
{{Article|Taiwanese American}}. {{3RRV|Certified.Gangsta}}:

* 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. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->

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

] violation on
{{Article|Bestseller_game}}. {{Damien Russell}}:

* 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. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

Comments: Revert to enforce his POV. Using insults and general disregard for proof. ] 03:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

: Diffs not versions please. And you have the article name wrong ] 09:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

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

] violation on
{{Article|List_of_Ukrainians}}. {{3RRV|Balcer}}:

* 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. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->

Comments: ] has violated 3RR multiple times during the last 24 hours, despite my requests to him to present his arguments in the discussion section of the article.

Comments: Unfortunately, the results of multiple 3RR violations by ] has been protected by editors. Do we want to encourage the 3RR violations this way?

: No we don't want this. The article has been semi'd; Balcer broke 3RR (and admits it) and gets a stern warning ] 09:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: 8h)===

] violation on
{{Article|Goguryeo}}. {{3RRV|Odst}}:

* 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. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->

Comments: 4 reverts in the last 24 hours on ]. ] 08:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

8h ] 09:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

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

] violation on
{{Article|comfort women}}. {{3RRV|Tropicaljet}}:

* Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments: ] has refused to engage in discussion in talk page to resolve disagreements and has engaged in revert warring.

: 2&3 are contiguous and so count as one. 1 is outside 24h by a fair way ] 09:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

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

] violation on
{{Article|Baekdu Mountain}} and {{Article|Goguryeo}}. {{3RRV|LionheartX}}:

* Previous version reverted to:
* 1st revert:

* Previous version reverted to(different portion of the article was reverted):
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:

* Previous version reverted to:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:

;Comments: User made at least 5 reverts in the last 24 hours.

Some of these reverts are contiguous and so don't count. No block. You have used your quota of failed reports for the day; please don't make any more ] 10:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: 8h)===

] violation on
{{Article|Yokel Chords}}. {{3RRV|HumphreyHeme}}:

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

<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->

;Comments: The user keeps on adding allegations of racism to the article and only cites a blog. His edits have been reverted by myself and ], but we have both reached 3 reverts. The user also claims we refuse to discuss it, which is not true as I had opened discussion on the talk page. -- ] 19:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

8h ] 19:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ]===

] violation on
{{Article|Iran}}. {{3RRV|The Behnam}}:

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

*Comments: Well established user acted as a ]er today, all his edits to the article were reverts of users contributions who were discussing in the talk page. All apparent in his edit summaries. --] 20:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

==Sample violation report to copy==

<pre>

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

] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{3RRV|VIOLATOR_USERNAME}}:

* 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. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->

;Comments: <!-- Optional -->

</pre>

Note on completing a 3RR report:
* Copy the template above, the text within but not including <nowiki><pre>...</pre></nowiki>
* Replace <nowiki>http://DIFFS</nowiki> with a link to the ] and the DIFFTIME with the timestamp
* We need to know that there are at least four reverts. List them, and replace <nowiki>http://VersionLink</nowiki> with a link to the version that the first revert reverted to. If the reverts are subtle or different, please provide an explanation of why they are all reverts. Even if the reverts are straightforward, it's helpful to point out the words or sentences being reverted.
* Warnings are a good idea but not obligatory

Latest revision as of 16:58, 25 December 2024

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

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

    Click here to create a new report

    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357
    358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164
    1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
    481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links

    User:PaleoFile reported by User:Bowler the Carmine (Result: Warned users)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (regarding another now-dormant edit war on a related page)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A, did not revert and talked directly to editor instead

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

    Bowler the Carmine | talk 20:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:Napoleonjosephine2020 reported by User:Kline (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

    Page: Lindy Li (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Zilch.

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

    Comments:

    Note: I am not involved in this situation whatsoever, just found this in recent changes. Kline • talk • contribs 05:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    The editor whose revisions I am trying to undo publicly attacked the subject as an "opportunistic grifter". No one who uses such inflammatory language should be editing the page of this subject. This is common sense and journalism 101. He is clearly motivated by animus against her and should not be editing her page. Why is this even in question? Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk) 05:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Napoleonjosephine2020
    "This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule." Also, "When reporting a user here, own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first." I am not involved, don't complain to me please. Nothing I can do here. Kline • talk • contribs 05:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    You reported me because I tried to stop someone from violating Li's page! Why is the saboteur getting a free pass? He's clearly motivated by animus and admitted as much on her talk page. Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk) 05:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Did you read my comment? You and the other person will have behavior analyzed and decisions will be made accordingly. I'm not singling you out since I have no idea what's happening, you just happened to start the edit war. Kline • talk • contribs 05:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Napoleon, I think this is a manifestly unfair characterization of what occurred on my talk page (not yours). Here’s the exchange, for those curious. EncycloDeterminate (talk) 05:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:2601:40:CE00:1590:24F6:A73A:9F20:74C and User:2601:40:CE00:1590:80BC:3313:5A8D:AACE reported by User:Bowler the Carmine (Result: Page already protected)

    Page: Warburg effect (oncology) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 2601:40:CE00:1590:24F6:A73A:9F20:74C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 2601:40:CE00:1590:80BC:3313:5A8D:AACE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    4. (second IP)



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A, did not participate in reverts. Warned first IP on their own talk page

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

    Comments:
    I believe both IPs are the same person. The second IP's first edit is a talk page comment stating I'm not Ravidmurthy, but I am the one who has been doing most of the editing here., and after leaving that and another comment proceeded to make the same reversion (#4 above) as the other IP, a little more than 2 hours after #3. CipherRephic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was also involved in the edit war, but agreed to stop after being warned and has not broken 3RR. Bowler the Carmine | talk 21:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:99.98.190.59 reported by User:ZimZalaBim (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

    Page: Marc Benioff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 99.98.190.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 18:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265024592 by ZimZalaBim (talk)"
    2. 16:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1264902249 by Augmented Seventh (talk)"
    3. 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1264868382 by ZimZalaBim (talk)"
    4. 23:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1264776552 by Zachomatic (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 18:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Marc Benioff."
    2. 18:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 18:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC) "/* Early life/ethnic background */ more"

    Comments:

    User:ChasePlowman2014 reported by User:Happily888 (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

    Page: Dune: Part Two (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: ChasePlowman2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 12:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC) ""
    2. 00:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC) ""
    3. 19:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC) ""
    4. 12:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 00:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."
    2. 00:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 00:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC) "/* ChasePlowman2014 edit warring */ new section"

    Comments:

    User continues edit warring and doesn't discuss edits even after having been requested to, not even explaining their reversions in their edit summary. Happily888 (talk) 13:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    ChasePlowman2014 is completely unresponsive. I hope they try editing during the 2 weeks of their block and notice that they have a talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    Categories: