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

< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:54, 17 March 2007 editWildnox (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users4,652 edits →[] reported by [] (Result:): try WP:AN/I ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 22:24, 27 December 2024 edit undoToBeFree (talk \| contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators127,495 edits →User:103.84.130.238 reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: ): Page protected (using responseHelper)
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: No block)===
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|PaleoFile}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	] violation on
	{{Article\|Corpus Christi}}. {{3RRV\|Corpus christi band}}:

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 1st revert:		#
	* 2nd revert:		#
	* 3rd revert:		#
			#

	;Comments: Repeated addition of a non-notable band. Attempted to discuss on user's talk page as well as relevant article, which is currently nominated for speedy deletion (and was already speedily deleted at least once, but the user recreated it). The band's article violated ], ], and ]. See also: ] and ]. --] (<small>] ;; ]</small>) 01:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
	:*] violation requires 4 reverts per 24 hours, not 3 reverts. No block. ] 01:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
	::Ahh, my mistake, then. A 4th will likely be on the way -- I will add it here if it indeed occurs. --] (<small>] ;; ]</small>) 01:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Bolzano}}. {{3RRV\|PhJ}}:

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

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	;Comments: This fellow feels his way is the right way (of course), and the other way is ''vandalism'. Starting a revert war all over the place on this topic. ] 07:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
	:24 hours. ] ] 07:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

			] \| ] 20:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:no vio)===
			*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)
			*{{ping\|ToBeFree}} The problem persists, ] and ] continue their edit war / vandalism on both pages. --] (]) 12:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Thank you very much for the notification, {{u\|Jens Lallensack}}. Both blocked indefinitely, the latter unlikely to be unblocked any time soon. ] (]) 13:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24 hours) ==
	] violation on
	{{Article\|Squidbillies}}. {{3RRV\|64.16.152.145}}:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Lindy Li}} <br />
	* Previous version reverted to:
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Napoleonjosephine2020}}
	<!-- 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:

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!--
	- * 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:
	-->

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	;Comments: User has consistently reverted this line with no explanation for thier actions. ] 19:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			#
	*It appears to me that the third and fourth reverts listed are really one revert done in two edits, so no violation (unless there are more diffs to be added). ] 20:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			#
			#
			#

	=== ] step accross the line (result: 48 h) ===

	From december 27th 2006 : we have 12 reversions on the article ] :
	* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Alsace&diff=97199675&oldid=96775376
	* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Alsace&diff=103146509&oldid=103084985
	* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Alsace&diff=108528666&oldid=107984416
	* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Alsace&diff=110519656&oldid=110212911
	* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Alsace&diff=110931743&oldid=110910812
	* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Alsace&diff=110959682&oldid=110942643
	* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Alsace&diff=112421058&oldid=112408060
	* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Alsace&diff=113720175&oldid=112733464
	* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Alsace&diff=113966990&oldid=113962954
	* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Alsace&diff=113972840&oldid=113971905
	* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Alsace&diff=113995579&oldid=113976390
	* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Alsace&diff=114253683&oldid=114106515
	and he does not want to have a serious talk on his ] (section Vandalism on the article ])... I'm a bit fed up of his behavior. Can you do something? Sincerily ] 13:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
	:This page is for reporting ] violations - not for solving content disputes. Please read ], look at the sample report at the bottom of this page, and compare to reports filed elsewhere on this page. If you believe you observed a 3RR violation and want action, you need to follow the report submission format. No block. ] 17:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
	::Actually, there were four reverts on 10 March and one more today. Easy enough to spot. Blocked for 48 hours. ] ] 18:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::Okay, thx, bye ] 00:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	] violation on
	{{Article\|300 (film)}}. {{3RRV\|CovenantD}}:

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' Zilch.
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	<!--
	- * 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:
	-->

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	;Comments: There are more reverts, minor or major, I only listed four of them. CovenantD has been basically WP:Owning ] by undoing other people's edits repeatedly, all related to content dispute. I warned him twice about 3RR, but he chose to ignore it. --] 17:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
	:User's third 3RR violation, 24h. No, you weren't reverting simple vandalism. ] (]) 20:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

			Note: I am not involved in this situation whatsoever, just found this in recent changes. ] • ] • ] 05:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:31 hours)===
	:] violation on {{Article\|Muhammad/images}}
	:{{3RRV\|TharkunColl}}
	Previous version reverted to: (note the image of Muhammad at the top).

			: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)
	*rv1:
			::@]
			::"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: Page already protected) ==
	*rv2:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Warburg effect (oncology)}} <br />
	*rv3:
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|2601:40:CE00:1590:24F6:A73A:9F20:74C}} and {{userlinks\|2601:40:CE00:1590:80BC:3313:5A8D:AACE}}

	*rv4:		'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	'''Comments:''' This editor has been ] insisting that an ] of ] appear at the top of the article about him. I say this because this editor has already been by ] for incivility on ] as well as by ]. In line with his 3RR vio he continues with his incivility: . Additionally, this user has been ] by ] for utilizing the term "sbuh" which means "shit be upon him". I have reverted three times myself in view of the ] about this and what the consensus about displaying images has thus far been. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 18:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			#
	*Blocked for 31 hours. ] 20:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			#
			#
			# (second IP)

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

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Essjay controversy}}. {{3RRV\|C.m.jones}}:

	* Previous version reverted to:

	*rv1:		'''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
	*rv2:

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	*rv3:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	*rv4:
			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) ==
	'''Comment:''' Despite an ] against them this user has been repeatedly adding tags. This user has been previously involved with an edit war that saw the article get protected. It would be helpful for some preventative measures to cease these out of consensus edits. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 19:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
	:Agree, support. I was just coming here to list this and saw Scott got it first... - ] 19:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
	:12h. ] (]) 20:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Marc Benioff}}
	===] reported by ] (Result:Warning)===

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|99.98.190.59}}
	] violation on
	{{Article\|Culture of Taiwan}}. {{3RRV\|Ideogram}}:

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	*rv1: ]

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*rv2: ]
			# {{diff2\|1265027253\|18:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1265009969\|16:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{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:'''
	*rv3: ]
			# {{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:'''
	*rv4: ]
			# {{diff2\|1265024924\|18:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* Early life/ethnic background */ more"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	'''Comment:''' This editor is not only reverting warring furiously with me but also stalking my contributions and revert everything I edited. This seems out of personal vendetta rather than good faith in the project. He violated almost every single rules you could violate on wikipedia.--] 22:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|b\|2 weeks}} ] (]) 16:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 2 weeks) ==
	:Self-reverted. Note that I only revert the edits which are against consensus, which in this case happens to be all of them. --] 22:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Dune: Part Two}}
	They've been there for almost a year before you unilaterally remove important info.--] 22:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|ChasePlowman2014}}
	:You want your way, discuss and get consensus. --] 22:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	Misplaced Pages is about content factuality and NPOV. It's not a democracy. Please stop wikilawyering.--] 22:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Warning issued to Ideogram. Due to self-revert, no 3RR violation, but skating close to thin ice. —<sup>]</sup>''']''' ('']'') 22:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1265161751\|12:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1265079289\|00:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1265038799\|19:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1264974672\|12:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	===] reported by ] (Result:24 hours)===
			# {{diff2\|1265079184\|00:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring."
			# {{diff2\|1265080757\|00:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	] violation on
			# {{diff2\|1265080353\|00:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* ChasePlowman2014 edit warring */ new section"
	{{Article\|Royton}}. {{3RRV\|Argol910}}:

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

			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)
	* Diff of 3RR warning:
			:{{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)
			**Whilst I cannot dispute ChasePlowman2014's behaviour for edit warring, Happily888 is not completely without fault here. Neither user made any particular effort to engage in discussion over a relatively minor issue, but to expect an immediate response (and then immediately banning said user) on the 25th of December, a day of the year when one can reasonably be expected to be a little busy, is overzealous. I have also left a response to Happily888's message on the ] explaining why ChasePlowman2014 was, arguably, correct to make the initial edit before Happily888 made the first reversion. -- ] <small>(] \| ])</small> 21:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			**:{{u\|Jasca Ducato}}, this isn't about the time taken to respond to the noticeboard report. {{u\|ChasePlowman2014}} isn't using edit summaries nor talk pages and ignores warnings on their talk page about their behavior. ] (]) 04:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Declined) ==
	'''Comments:''' A knightmare of a user to work with. This user is a chronic vandal, censor, bully and sockpuppetier. Want evidence? See !

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Ambedkar Jayanti}} <br />
	A self-styled adminstrator , this account is certainly a sockpuppet of ] (blocked indefinately), and is being used simply to circumvent a semi-protection status on ] which was hoped to stop repeated bad faith edits.
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Callmehelper}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	Any time a user gives him a warning in this instance, he cuts it and pastes it on another user's talk page. ] 22:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
	:The fourth revert just links to his talk page, so there is only 3 of the 4 needed reversions as of now. ] ] 23:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*4th revert: Sorry, I formatted the diff wrong. The correct 4th revert is found occuring at . ] 23:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			#
	::24 hours. ] ] 23:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
			#
			#
			#

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

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Fairyland Story}}. {{3RRV\|Wgungfu}}:

	* 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 edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<!--
	- * 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:
	-->

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	;Comments: ] feels very strongly that all videogame related articles are required to have Mobygames links; strongly enough to try to characterize the good-faith removal of such links as vandalism. ] 01:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	::The user doesn't appear to have been warned. Can a diff be provided that shows the warning? ] ] 01:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::Does not need warning, , which demonstrates cognizance of the policy. -- ] 01:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	::: '''8 hours''' First offense. -- ] 01:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	::::Ooops, I just blocked for 24, feel free to reduce. ] ] 01:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	::: I did, thanks. Sorry about the edit conflicts :) -- ] 02:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:Warning)===

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />Frequent edit warring by this user with several editors on an article falling under contentious and general sanctions. Also edit warring on ]. ] (]) 06:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
	] violation on
	{{Article\|300 (film)}}. {{3RRV\|Arcayne}}:

			:It's me @].
	* 1st revert:
			:'''Clarification by my side ; '''
	* 2nd revert:
			:Firstly I never ever got any Edit Warning before.
	* 3rd revert:
			:* ''Disputes details'' ;
	* 4th revert:
	* ~~5th~~ ~~revert:~~		:# Firstly , I edit ] check history of that page from to
			:#''' process of reverting by others and my responses'''
			:** then and we had a little discussion on my talk page for this disputes ] then i thought matter would be solved.
			:*But other editor revert again by saying no need to improvement and my response of revert and discussion on his talk page ]
			:Then instead of healthy discussion this guy response me by saying you have problem with ambedkar article as well so first solve there
			:Now I want to clarify that this guy totally misused the healthy discussion and try to show like there is editing warning on me about Ambedkar Main article talk ] but this matter solve 1 month ago by further discussion on ]
			:So here in ambedkar page, there is nothing issue about any dispute about that discussion specifically.
			:the current discussion on Ambedkar page is going on about my changes that is under ] or not about new fresh topic. check last discussion on talk page ] this discussion is currently going on as there is no response given further by anyone yet.
			:so there is nothing like editing warning on me regarding Ambedkar page .
			:'''Conclusion'''
			:So all my point is whenever I edit, i edit with much responsiblity that this should be based on fact and figures with the valuable citations. I gave explanation of everything what i edit with sources and editing summary.
			:Some editor, i don't know what's want? they don't discuss on facts and sources.
			:i left a discussion on ] page for further discussion as well but response are so weak in my POV amd also misleading my claim and sources ].
			:I think, i clarify my side well enough. for further discussioni am on.
			:
			:I hope Administrator will look up this discussion/dispute from NPOV.
			:Much Regards. ] (]) 09:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::{{AN3\|d}} Discussion has started on the talk page. Let's let it play out. ] (]) 20:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
	;Comments: There are several more reverts that I didn't list. This is another case of ] at ] by repeatedly undoing/removing other people's edits, all related to content dispute. I warned User:Arcayne, who has been blocked for 3RR before, twice about WP:3RR and what is exempt, and what is not exempt , but he chose to ignore my warnings and remove them from his talk page as "foolish commentary" which itself is a personal attack against me. --] 02:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	::Mardavich did in fact suggest that my edits were either vandalism or violations of 3RR or both. As noted from the diffs in the supposed violations, what was removed was unsourced OR, or synthesis OR. The last instance was a removal of a section to the Discussion page for resolution, as there were concerns it wasn't related to the article, and was in fact inflammatory. As far as I know it is still in the Discussion page, being debated.
	::User:Mardavich has repeatedly threatened other established users (] and ]) with 3RR complaints.] 02:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::None of this is a violation of the 3RR. This is an editor removing Original Research and cleaning up an article. There are all separate edits. I've noticed that the reporting editor has been handing out "warnings" to other editors with no cause or explaination. He even handed one to one editor that has made maybe a handful of edits to the article in question in about a week (he's been on a wikibreak). ] ]] 03:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::My mistake, the edits while formally violate the 3RR were unopposed by other editors and can be seen as one large revert doing in steps. I have unblocked him ] 05:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::This editor is using the 3RR as an intimidation tactic. Despite having made only a couple edits to the page in three days, he came at me with it. He's using it to push a pro-iranian/persian agenda. he is upset by any removal of content which disparages the movies portrayal of the Persian amries of Xerxes. Further, it's my understanding that 3RR applies to a SINGLE content dispute, NOT to an article as a whole. If it applied to articles as a whole, any three edits which correct information, reword for neutrality, and so on could be counted to the 3RR. It specifically applies to arguments about whether sentence X or Paragraph Y should be in, complete with deletions anreinsertions over and over. TO argue a set of content in one section, resolve it and move on isn't covered by 3RR. Mardavich needs to be made aware of the problems with his interpretation of 3RR, and the fact that he tells editors that any edit they make puts them in danger of violating 3RR can and has been seen as intimidation. I tried to explain it to him, but he weaselled around it using AGF, which is tough to do when confronted with 'you're gonna break 3RR and i'm gonna get you when you do', especially since it's accord to his overly restrictive interpretation of 3RR. Thank you. (Also posted to AB's usertalk, as he's the admin resolving.) ] 20:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Angelo Rules}} <br />
	===] reported by ] (Result: 8h)===
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Johnny test person}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:''' ]
	] violation on
	{{Article\|Leeroy_Jenkins}}. {{3RRV\|Oakshade}}:

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	* 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:
	-->

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' ]
	;Comments: <!-- Optional --> User is aware of 3RR as seen in this post a couple of days before, when him and AMIB were warring before. ] 02:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ] and ]
	8h ] 09:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' ]
	===] reported by ] (Result:3 hours)===

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	] violation on
			Editor repeatedly restoring unsourced content, making four reverts in just under an hour. - ] (]) 20:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
	{{Article\|Leeroy_Jenkins}}. {{3RRV\|A Man In Black}}:
			:{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] (]) 20:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Indefinitely blocked) ==
	* 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:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Grail Movement}}
	<!--
	- * 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:
	-->

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Folawiki}}
	;Comments: <!-- Optional -->
	Blocked for 72 hours based on past violations and apparent unwillingness to stop edit warring. ] ] 03:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	:I was unblocked, as I tried to self-rv my own ''third'' revert, having reconsidered, and the fourth "revert" is an unrelated, uncontested edit. - ] <small>(] \| ])</small> 21:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	::I changed the heading to three hours as AMIB was unblocked. I hope that's okay. ] 17:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	===] reported by ] (Result: 18h)===

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	] violation on
			# {{diff2\|1265465790\|02:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "The claimed reason provided, "whitewashing", provides nothing concrete to justify such action. What is whitewashing? And what precisely in the edit qualified as such? Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	{{Article\|Crop_circle}}. {{3RRV\|Michaelbusch}}:
			# {{diff2\|1265465049\|02:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1265464033\|02:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1265459461\|01:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	* Previous version reverted to:
			# {{diff2\|1265461000\|01:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing on ]."
	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
			# {{diff2\|1265464521\|02:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* December 2024 */ ] notice"
	For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
			# {{diff2\|1265464576\|02:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Disruptive editing on ]."
	* 1st revert:
			# {{diff2\|1265465123\|02:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	Also:
	*

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
			# {{diff2\|1265464764\|02:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "{{re\|Folawiki}} The whitewashing has to stop. ] (]) 02:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	<!--
	- * 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:
	-->

			Cult whitewashing. ] (]) 02:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	;Comments: I have never before reported someone for 3RR. But I'm doing it now because he ''also'' reverted my insertion of citation requests. Perhaps I am mistaken, as these are not all reverts to the exact same thing. <!-- Optional -->
			*Indefinitely blocked.--] (]) 02:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
	:The fourth "revert" is not a revert, just adding more stuff in . ] 05:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	:True, but #1, #2, #3, and #5 are enough to earn an 18 hour block. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 20:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
	::Sorry this is too late to make a difference for Michaelbusch, but I've filed a sockpuppet case against Martin here: ] - this article is one of the ones in question and I suspect he may have used the sock to evade 3RR enforcement. --] 14:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Trisha Krishnan}}
	===] reported by ] (Result: 12h)===

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|TheHappiestEditor}}
	] violation on
	{{Article\|Subhash Kak}}. {{3RRV\|Trusteggs }}:

	* Previous version reverted to:		'''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:

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!--
			# {{diff2\|1265432813\|22:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) She works in Malayalam cinema.There are two upcoming Malayalam films of Trisha. The total number of Malayalam films is not two."
	- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
			# {{diff2\|1265165246\|13:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* top */She works in Malayalam films too. There are two upcoming Malayalam films of Trisha."
	Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
	* Diff of 3RR warning:
	-->

			*Diffs from other articles (language POV and edit war)
	;Comments: Possible sock of banned user, reported to RFCU independently by another editor. <!-- Optional -->
			#
			#
			#

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

			# - putting fake sources/infomation
	] violation on
			# - putting fake sources/infomation
	{{Article\|Electronic Voice Phenomenon}}. {{3RRV\|71.57.90.96}}:
			# - putting fake sources/infomation

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	* 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:

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''

	<!--
	- * 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:
	-->

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	;Comments: 4 reverts to the same section (MacRae in EVP article). User is probably sock-puppet of ]

			POV pushing/cherry-picking "Malayalam" and edit warring in a lot of articles. Apart from the above listed, the user has been pushing "Malayalam" as one of the languages in which "actor XYZ" has acted 'predominantly' in but in actuality the entries are only a few . The editor has received multiple warnings for being disruptiove and a recent one for from {{u\|Krimuk2.0}}. - ] (]) 10:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: )===
	{{Article\|Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu}}. {{3RRV\|DrParkes}}

			:{{u\|TheHappiestEditor}}, please respond to these allegations. ] (]) 22:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	*1st
	*2nd
	*3rd
	*4th
	*5th
	*6th
	*7th
	and subsequently with refusal to discus it on talk.
	*8th

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected) ==
	:If you can't be bothered to post details of the four reverts in the template provided, I can't be bothered to go and block anyone. ] (]) 20:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	::Sorry wasn't sure off the format & in a bit of a rush. --] 09:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	::: The user has now been blocked, I think due to another report, but a similar editor ] has taken up where he left off on two other pages (see report bellow) and may be a sock puppet. --] 15:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Hariprasad Chaurasia}}
	===] reported by ] (Result: Warning)===

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|103.84.130.238}}
	] violation on
	{{Article\|Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban}}. {{3RRV\|KingRaptor}}:

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!--
			# {{diff\|oldid=1262480024\|diff=1265542339\|label=Consecutive edits made from 12:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC) to 12:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
			## {{diff2\|1265541681\|12:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
			## {{diff2\|1265542339\|12:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""https://www.hariprasadchaurasia.com" check the site pandit is part of his name , the site is run by him, also there are other similar cases too on wikipedia "
	* Diff of 3RR warning:
			#
	-->
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	;Comments: <!-- Optional -->
			#
	Starting to post to talk page, but continues to revert, with 4 reverts in a 24 hr period.
			#
	:User appears relatively new and hasn't been warned, so while there are four reverts I'm going to issue just a warning on this occasion. ] (]) 20:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	===] reported by ] (Result: No violation)===

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Milwaukee, Wisconsin}}. {{3RRV\|Illwauk}}:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:

			Keeps on adding (edit wars) honorifics despite explanation about ] and ] in edit summaries and warnings ] (]) 14:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	'''Comments''':
			:The IP was initially reported to AIV, since disruptive edits continued after a warning, but was to report it here. - ] (]) 14:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|p}} ] (]) 22:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result:Indefinitely blocked) ==
	The user has been repeatedly deleting ] I uploaded for the cityscape section in ] article. ] 17:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Angelo Rules}}
	:It should be noted that ] has been substituting the image in question for ] by ] which Maiers mocks as "amateur" and "obnoxious". The two of them have been dueling reverts in this article, bouncing from section to section (mostly to meet Miaers' objections). He (Miaers) has more or less overtly declared that he will not tolerate the presence of the other photo '''''anywhere''''' in the Milwaukee article, substituting another he finds less esthetically offensive. --] 18:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Johnny test person}}
	::Orangemike, Illwauk replaced a photo in the Economy section with a photo of his. It was opposed by several editors in the talk page. I'm adding a photo to another section in the article. But he continues to replace the photo with his one. ] 18:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::For a violation to exist there must be in excess of three reverts. This is not a violation. ] (]) 21:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	::::Please also notice that ] actually had '''Four Reverts''' during this same time period. Here are the diffs: , , , and . Cheers, ] 21:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	PaddyM, I placed the photo in the cityscape section first. I'll restore it one more time. ] 21:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hrs)===
			# {{diff2\|1265621270\|21:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1265402736\|19:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1265399005\|19:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1265395466\|18:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1265394604\|18:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	] violation on
	{{Article\|Milwaukee, Wisconsin}}. {{3RRV\|Miaers}}:

	<!-- 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:

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!--
	- * 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: Miaers engages in personal attacks and believes that since he simply uploaded a photo that it must be used in the article. ] 21:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	PaddyM, nobody ever says there is anything wrong about the photo I added with good intention, and I didn't personally attacked anyone. ] 21:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	:*Blocked ] for 24 hours for 3RR violation. ] 21:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

			Back from an edit warring block with an additional personal attack (]) ] (]) 21:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hrs; IP range of two ArbCom banned editors)===
			* {{AN3\|b\| indef}} Two day old account with 19 edits, a block, and that personal attack? Bye. <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Vlaams_Belang}}. {{3RRV\|72.88.162.57}}:

	* 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: The anon is a long-term problem. They have been edit warring for a long time on several articles (see ). ] ] 21:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	:*Blocked ] for 24 hours for 3RR. ] 22:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	::* Do note, that the 72.88.xxxxx range is that of two editors who have been banned by the arbitration committee, who both have already proclaimed that they will not abide by this ban. In any case, any reverts from these IPs are 3RR exempt. ''']''' (]) 05:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

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

	User Aivazovsky has violated the ArbCom notice of only one (1) revert per day per article on the ] page Also, in an additional violation of ArbCom, user Aivazovsky did not discuss his changes in the Talk page.
	* 1st revert on 20:13, March 12, 2007

	* 2nd revert on 22:04, March 12, 2007


	:*Blocked ] for 24 hours for 1RR + Talk violation per ArbCom injunction. ] 22:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
	:**Unblocked - user reverted self. ] 23:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Acer (company)}}. {{3RRV\|Morphi}}:

	* 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:

	3RR warning:

	Note on ] he admits to being engaged in ]. --] 22:56, 12 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:
	-->

	;Comments: <!-- Optional -->
	:*24 hours. ] 23:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


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

	] 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:

	'''Comment''' user, by own admission is planning to revert (at least) 3 times a day - and doesn't provide arguments for reverting, dispite continued requests. The user has been previously blocked for the same reason (3RR violation) in the past. ] 00:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	:*Can you please follow the sample report format at the bottom of this page? You have no 'version reverted to', no diff times, and the times of your diffs appear to span more than 24 hours. You also place your report in the middle of an existing one. Please take care in filing reports. No violation. ] 01:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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

	User Vartanm has violated the ArbCom notice of only one (1) revert per 24 hours per article on the ] page . Although ], just recently given a chance after the blockage due to a harassment case, is now reverting the ArbCom page to remove the evidence, '''] is in ArbCom, he has posted a statement and evidence in the case defending himself and being charged with edit warring by several other contributors in ArbCom case''':

	* 1st revert on 20:29, 12 March 2007

	* 2nd revert on 04:11, 13 March 2007


	'''Comment''' - Wrong, he was never warned, anyone can participate in this, theres tons of admins involved they have reverted more than one time this is a false report you just added his name this is how you try to get innocent users blocked. ] 04:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

	'''Comment''' - Vartanm clearly knew about being a party to ArbCom case, since he posted statements in his defense at ArbCom and was charged with edit warring by several users. 06:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	:You really need to understand what you are doing before you go on with this, making a false report and he made a statement but he is not involved, tons of users have made statements and they do not get 1R injunction that includes Vartanm, you need to know this before you start getting others in trouble. ] 04:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

	'''Comment''' - this is why you post DIFFs. Easier for admins to read. - ] \| ] 06:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

	'''Comment''' Vartanm is part of ArbCom case and knows very well he is not supposed to engage in revert wars and disruptive edits, and make more than one revert per 24h per article. He violated it willingly and knowingly. Here are the diffs:

	* First revert: 20:29, March 12, 2007,
	* Second revert: 04:11, March 13, 2007,
	--] 06:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	:Personally you could've reported him to ArbCom Enforcement for failing to comply with the temporary injunction of ''each content revert must be accompanied by a justification on the relevant talk page.'' - ] \| ] 06:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

	'''Comment:''' The user was not named as a pary of the arbcom case unless added by Atabek himself . I do not think it is appropriate ] 06:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

	Vartanm has become a very active member of the Armenian editors' team, suddenly appearing and becoming a convenient revert machine. Hence his inclusion in the Armenian-Azerbaijani ArbCom is fully justified, especially since much less active Azerbaijani members, such as Ulvi were also included for some reason (whilst several other Armenian editors, who all suddenly became active, are not listed). Meanwhile, I agree that Vartanm can be reported for failing to comply on other counts as well. --] 06:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

	::Bakharev, Vartanm is in ArbCom case with statements presented above. If the user was not part of ArbCom, why does he have a statement in defense of himself and one of the sides in the conflict? Is anyone going to take action, or this should go into ArbCom Enforcement? Please, administrators, give your final decision, so that we may proceed with the case. Thanks. ] 06:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::He was not initially named to the ArbCom case, and because this case has an injunction on it, the procedural thing is that Vartanm ''theroetically'' isn't under the injunction ''unless'' being named as a party by the ArbCom. - ] \| ] 07:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	My name was just added to the arbitration list. The 1RR rule did not imply to me before. ] 04:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

	*'''Note''' Vartanm has been added as a party and has been informed of the injunction. No retroactive action will be taken but he is under the injunction going forward. ] 03:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

	===] reported by ] (Result:Incomplete)===
	{{3RRV\|192.223.140.62}}:
	Deliberately disruptive editor, repeatedly making the same edit against consensus and refusing to discuss. Has been blocked for this twice before.
	The story is in the
	:If you can't be bothered to properly submit a report, then no one is going to take any action. ] ] 23:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	::You mean like "no one"? Technically speaking, this is a call for intervention against a disruptive editor rather than a true 3RR case, but I looked for a long time and couldn't find the place for that. If someone could point me to a better place to report this sort of thing, I'll use that the next time this editor does his thing. ] 10:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

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

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Squidbillies}}. {{3RRV\|76.17.121.71}}:

	* 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:

	<!--
	- * 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: Seems to be the same user, or a sock puppet of 64.16.152.145 which was reported yesterday ].

	*48 hour ban, multiple violations, including profanity in articles.] 02:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

	===] reported by ] (Result:4 days)===

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Brno}}. {{3RRV\|R9tgokunks}}:

	* 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: This user continuously edit wars. See this:
	And many others, what to do please ? Also he was blocked previously three times . ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 23:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	:Blocked 4 days for continuous edit warring and for doing so after just coming off another block for the same thing. ] ] 23:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
	::Both editors have participated extensively in edit warring. Tulkolahten has searched for articles containing "Brünn" and removed it. He did that almost with the speed and indifference of a bot (in one minute he managed four different articles at one point). R9tgokunks has followed this track of deletions and reverted these edits. It would be of no use to start a conversation on the talk pages of about 30 articles and Tulkolahten should have started a discussion first. In addition to that, in his name-deleting, Tulkolahten wrongly marked many such edits as "minor", accused R9tgokunks of renaming Czech cities in ] (when in reality it was him who changed the naming), labelling R9tgokunks's reverts of them as vandalism.
	::Granted, R9tgokunks continued to revert after his block and that shouldn't be supported, but of his edits in the past 24 hours, there are many normal edits among them (if I counted correctly, his reverts are in the slight majority), whereas ''every edit'' in the article space of Tulkohlaten in the past 24h is a revert (34 succeeding reverts). Regarding edit warring, Tulkohlaten was just as guilty as him. Regarding this 3RR, both have reverted for three times in the article concerned. But Tulkohlaten, who started to revert, misleadingly reported Rotgokunks' first edit as revert, so it was no 3RR violation. I personally think 24h for each user would be suitable. ] 02:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

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

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Caucasus Germans}}. {{3RRV\|Parishan}}:
	*Violating parole.
	* and ] 00:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

	*<s>clear arbcom violation, 24 hour block per ruling. ] 02:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)</s> Removed block upon receiving more details on case. No arbcom vio, user was in middle of making his talk entry.] 10:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

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

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Boomburb}}. {{3RRV\|Trorov}}:

	* Previous versions reverted to:

	etc etc

	;Comments: I posted a notification to his :talk page as outlined here, and he immidiately went an re-posted it to my page (yes, I may have violated the 3RR rule by one edit, it's difficult to keep track, though I have not been involved in the previous edit wars). Other users have reverted his work and he reverts them back. Also invited him to discuss the issue on the :talk page but he continues to revert, and he doesn't provide any factual information to back his claims. Overall, a real mess that I no longer want to be involved in. Please forgive me if my template is not correct, I have not been involved in this before.

	*block 48hrs on Trorov, continual edit warring.] 02:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

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

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Muhammad}}. {{3RRV\|Grandia01}}:

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

	;Comments: ] has been repeating this tendentious edit since at least 6 October 2006,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, has been warned on a number of occasions,, , , and has generally refused to engage in discusson. Additionally, he has been blanking depictions of Muhammad from the transclusion page, against consensus, where consensus has held this to constitute disruption., ] 06:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

	:Checking his talk page history, however, shows he never had a warning. -- ] 07:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
	::Given warning. If he reverts again… -- ] 07:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::Did you actually read what I wrote above? "...has been warned on a number of occasions", , . In fact, I warned him immediately before the fourth revert shown above. He's been doing this since ''October 2006.''
	:::I can't believe I spent half an hour getting these diffs together. What a waste of time.] 07:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
	::::I'm sorry, but those are not '''3RR''' warnings, but regular vandalism warnings. That's why part of the template says {{quotation\|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.}}
	-- ] 07:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
	::::: is a warning and this is not a new user. ] 07:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
	::::::That diff, which was presented in the origingal report, plainly shows that the responding admin had not read the evidence when he wrote, "...he never had a warning."] 07:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


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

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Electronic voice phenomenon}}. {{3RRV\|Davkal}}:

	* Previous version reverted to: see below, different versions
	<!-- 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: revert to
	* 2nd revert: revert to
	* 3rd revert: same revert as 2nd
	* 4th revert: same as above
	* 5th revert: partial revert to same version as above

	;Comments: <!-- Optional -->
	--] 13:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

	:24 hours. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
	::A followup on this, a checkuser shows that Davkal used a sockpuppet to evade this block and make an additional revert. Checkuser: ] Sixth revert by sockpuppet: --] 15:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::It wasn't a sock-puppet it was a friend.] 15:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::::So it may be potential meatpuppetry instead of sockpuppetry. Either way, an admin should take a look. --] 15:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

	A meat puppet is someone who does your bidding. Baaderthanmeinhof does his own bidding. ] 15:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Nazism}}. {{3RRV\|Billy Ego}}:

	* 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: User is ignoring efforts to discuss on a range of Nazi and Socialist related subjects and repeatedly reverts and edit wars. ] 19:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

	:Please look carefully. This was not straight out reverts but me adding more detailed information on the source cited. MarkThomas was claiming that the Sunday Express didn't exist in 1938. But the Sunday Express was launched on Dec 19 1918. So he was deleting the quote from Hitler in that newspaper. This was not a case of me simply reverting back information, but responding to MarkThomas's disruptive removal of information that was cited, by adding more information so he would stop. I had to make it clear that the Sunday Express did indeed exist when Hitler was quoted from it. ] 19:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

	The Sunday Express issue was just a passing remark, the basic fact is that Billy Ego did 4 continuous reverts within 24 hours. ] 19:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

	::It wasn't a "passing remark." It was your whole reason for removing the information, as you said so in your summary So now that I've proved that the Sunday Express did indeed exist at that time and you realize now that you were wrong, you wtill want to try to penalize me? That's real ethical on your part. Are you more interested in making sure information is correct or winning a battle? ] 19:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

	:Billy Ego is misrepresenting. His edits were attempted to be reverted by myself and one other editor on the grounds that (a) they are out of context with the introduction (b) they appear to be uncheckable and (c) they are not supported by other sources of information. ] 19:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

	::No violation, I see only one initial edit, and three reverts to it. However, all parties are cautioned to discuss rather than engage in an ]. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

	:On this basis, if other editors revert him, would he be free to continue to put his edit back multiple times without sanction? ] 19:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

	::Of course not, it is unacceptable to revert more than three times except under some ''very'' limited circumstances, and this is not one of those exceptions. However, the case here is: The first "revert" on the list is actually just an edit the user made (unless the edit was made at some point in the past, but if that did happen, whoever made the report didn't bother to say so.) An edit is not a revert. The user then reverted to that same edit three times, but stopped at three. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

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

	] violation on
	{{Article\|The Great Global Warming Swindle}}. {{3RRV\|TharkunColl}}:


	<!-- 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 -->

	No, I haven't. The first two on that list could have been made with a single edit, and in any case are nothing to do with the second two on the list which refer to a totally different part of the article. ] 19:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

	:I've never reported 3RR before, so may be wrong. But I believe that reverts do not need to be conected, you just need to remove others' content 4 times in 24 hrs. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

	Based on past experience with him, I wouldn't over-react by assuming you are wrong when considering TharkunColl's editing behaviour, he frequently deliberately varies each edit slightly to try to game the system and avoid 3RR disciplining, something he sadly has gotten away with previously, although he is now up to 31 hours on his last block. ] 19:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

	:Why don't you have a look at them then? The second two are totally unconnected with the first two. And the first two are successive edits I made without reverting ''anybody''. If you want proof, go and look at the edit history of the page. There were '''''no edits at all''''' between my edit of 16:00 and my edit of 16:19. It was '''''not''''' a reversion of any sort. ] 19:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
	::In his defense, TharkunColl's edits in the first two diffs are not reverts. They are simply edits. The rule doesn't say "you can't make more than 3 edits to an article in one day." He still may have violated the 3RR with other edits to the article, however. Just look at the article's history or TharkunColl's edit history just to make sure. ~ ] 19:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

	:::No specific violation here, the first two were done without anyone else's edits intervening and are the same as a single edit. However, after a look at the page's history, I've protected it due to ongoing edit wars. Please work out the disputes and come to some type of agreement. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

	::::However the edit war is going, I think I misunderstood the rules and was wrong to report a 3RR violation. I've sent TUC an apology, and would like to apologise for wasting the time of whatever admin(s) had to check this out. In the future, I'll make sure i understand the rules fully before posting violations. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

	===] reported by ] (Result: Only 3 diffs listed - no violation at current) ===

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Zanj}}.:


	<!-- 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

	<!--
	- * 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 disruptive editor adds original research and material not given in the citations provided, this has been going on for months, the article however was left with a dispute tag, which was removed by a editor. because the tag "not in citation" given was said to be enought. I made some edits to removed the reason why the tag was placed there, and the disruptive editor returned and reverted it back to the problem version. I then put it back to the original state with the dispute tag, he reverted again. i replaced the dispute notice, he reverted again. Removing a dispute tag is vandalism, because it is clear there is a dispute yet he is vandalising the tag. The only reason the other editor removed the tag was because the version they had was balanced and have "not in citation" given. But he has removed all tags and restored it to the fully disputed version.notice how the 3 ref do not say what he claims they say and he has provided NO reference for any of the content added.--] 23:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

	:Halaqah, you need FOUR reverts in 24 hours to violate, not three. As of now, there is no violation, unless you can bring a fourth. -- ] 00:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
	::I didnt know that, if you revert three times. My God Avi is that you? small world. C u around.--] 00:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::''wa `Alaykum As-Salām'', Halaqah. Yes, it's me. ]. -- ] 00:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

	:] for some reason is very insistent that the Arabic word ''Zanj'' زنج doesn't mean what all Arabic dictionaries say that it means, and he resorts to extreme bizarre contortions (such as trying to discredit ] as an agent of colonialist imperialism, and telling people that a dictionary doesn't in fact say what they're reading when they holding the relevant entry directly in front of their eyes). ] has added a dispute tag twice before to article ], and both times I did nothing about the tag and let events play out and fully take their slow course -- which was that both times the dispute tag was removed by someone else (not me) who saw no merit in ]'s arguments (in fact, no one who has come along on the article page ] or the talk page ] has ever seen any merit in ]'s arguments on this matter). I don't intend to violate Misplaced Pages's reversion policies, but adding a dispute template a ''third'' time around solely because ] insists that the Arabic word ''Zanj'' زنج doesn't mean what all Arabic dictionaries say that it means is not a productive way to improve the article, and I'm not going to let it happen. Of course, now ] has taken to stalking me (reverting my edits on ] to intimidate and harass me), and that doesn't excessively impress me either. ] 01:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
	:It sounds like you gentlemen need ], not ]. -- ] 02:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Network neutrality}}. {{3RRV\|RichardBennett}}:

	* 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: <!-- Optional -->

	24 hours. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Circumcision}}. {{3RRV\|Michael Glass}}:

	* 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: Experienced editor is repeatedly to wedge soapbox material into the Circumcision article. ] 22:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

	::Please provide diffs, not oldids. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
	::: Sorry (only the first was an oldid). Fixed now. ] 03:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

	User's first violation, 8 hours. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Evanescence}}. {{3RRV\|Ed g2s}}:

	* 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: This user has been deleting the album cover images from the article. This is very disruptive. The use of album covers on articles don't violate any policy, and we can prove it with featured articles like ] and ], that also use album cover images. ]<sup>] • ]</sup> 00:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
	:Our Fair Use policy is frequencly violated - that you've found two other pages proves nothing. Two wrongs don't make a right. Rather than try to justify the use of the images (which is required before using them) the user labelled my edits as vandalism. This is not a content dispute. <span style="font-family: Verdana;">] • ]</span> 00:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
	:Also only the last two diffs are acutal reverts - the first two diffs are just the original edit. <span style="font-family: Verdana;">] • ]</span> 00:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

	:::This is indeed the case; no edit was made between the first two edits listed above. Also, please don't edit-war unfree images back into articles; if there are concerns about copyright, the burden to establish consensus that we should republish the work are on the editors wanting to include it. Note also that removing potential copyright infringement is an exemption to the 3RR. ] 00:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

	::::If the use of fair-use images would be a "potential copyright infringement", Misplaced Pages would be a potential copyright infringement. Almost all the article (with images) use fair-use images. Examples, anime, music, movies, science, technology, art (and a lot or more topics) article use fair-use images, because free-use image don't exist for most of the article from this topics. Anime...does it exist a free-use image of a cover of an OVA? Music...Does it exist a free-image of a copyrighted logo or album cover? Tech...Does it exist a free-use image of de Microsoft logo, or a Windows XP screenshoot, no! ]<sup>] • ]</sup> 01:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

	:Please see ] -] 02:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Tupac Shakur discography}}. {{3RRV\|License2Kill}} {{3RRV\|MJukmix}}:

	'''By License2Kill:'''
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* ? 5th revert: (made by ], same revert, plus, very similar taste in ])

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

	;Comments: I am not personally involved with this particular 3RR, but I am involved in an RfC on ] with L2K. To avoid a conflict of interest, I am seeking assistance here. -] 02:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

	:Please provide diffs, not oldids. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
	::Whups! my fault! -] 03:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

	Reverts were not made within a 24-hour period. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
	:Sure, but it's still edit warring. From ]: "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." This behavior is clearly disruptive, and though I could block them myself for edit warring (and logging out to bypass 3RR), I decided to take it here. The talk page has not been utilized to discuss the change being made, and it seems L2K has shown this type of behavior in the past. -] 05:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
	::This is true, or they may not be. In this case, the edit war doesn't look severe enough to block as yet. If they keep the edit war up without going over 3RR, request the page be protected or report it to ]. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Bharatanatyam}}. {{3RRV\|Praveen pillay}}:

	* '''Previous version reverted to''': ,
	* 1st revert:


	* '''Previous version reverted to''':
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:


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


	'''Comments: '''

	* In the first revert, which is a partial revert he retains one external link (the tamilnation.org link). It is a partial revert so I have given the diff.

	* In the second and third reverts, he continues to fight for the same external link(the tamilnation.org one) which had been removed.

	* In the fourth revert, he reverts the <nowiki>{{OR}} and {{disputed}} tags that had been placed on the article and also {{verify}}</nowiki> tags placed on few references. ] 08:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
	:This happened almost two days ago and the page is now protected due to your edit warring so there is no need for a block. ] ] 04:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
	::Is there a time limit within which we have to report? And I had reported this almost 36 hrs ago anyway. In any case, you agree that there was a violation. Right? ] 01:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

	===] / ] reported by ] (Result:10 days)===

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Template:911ct}}. {{3RRV\|Bov}} {{3RRV\|67.180.110.244}} :

	* Previous version reverted to: (This is a little complex)
	* Change B to A (by the IP)
	* reverted (by me)

	All reverts are to the same version, which is intermediate between the two versions reverted to above, so they all qualify as partial reversions of my edit above.

	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert: (as IP)
	* 4th revert: (as IP)


	* Diff of previous 3RR block notice:

	;Comments: See diff from ] for an admission that he frequently fails to log in, and check the history of this IP to see that it frequently makes the same edits as ]. — ] \| ] 13:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
	::10 days each. ] ] 04:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Barry Ley}}. {{3RRV\|Kentkent}}:

	* Previous version reverted to:

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

	'''Comments'''
	* Last two are not strict reverts but continue the patten of disruptive editing
	* May also be a sockpuppet of the banned ]

	* Diff of 3RR warning:
	:New user who wasn't warned until after/at the same time of the fifth revert. No action taken. ] ] 04:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Dharmic religion}}. {{3RRV\|IAF}}:

	* 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 -->
	* Blocked for 24 hrs. ] <small>]</small> 20:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


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

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Star Wars Galaxies}}. {{3RRV\|Jonawiki}}:

	* 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: The problem with this user goes beyond the constant reverting that reintroduces unverified information, but enforcement of the 3RR is probably the most immediate way of dealing with this. Simply looking at the talk and article history of the SWG article will confirm the lake of civility from the user. Due to the person being a new user, myself and numerous other editors have taken a fair amount of time trying to explain several policies, but we still get constant reverts. We will probably need to get an admin involved to resolve these issues, but for now, we'll just report the reverting. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 22:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
	*The four reverts are not within 24 hours, so no vio. ] 04:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Jibacoil}}. {{3RRV\|Sukecchi}}:

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

	;Comments:

	] has edited Misplaced Pages for a long time (Earliest contribution 1/1/06) and should know about ] by now. ] 22:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

	:Page is protected, no need for a block right now, user warned. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Star Wars Galaxies}}. {{3RRV\|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:
	* 5th revert:
	* Diff of 3RR warning:

	;Comments: New editor seems upset we are removing invalid rumors with no source information. Have worked with trying to explain policies, but it has not helped. Editor has also been warned several times on being uncivil also. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 02:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
	**Blocked for 24 hours. ] 04:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Star Wars Galaxies}}. {{3RRV\|Roguegeek}}:

	* 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:

	;Comments:
	*Editor seems upset we are adding content with sourced information. Editor refuses to discuss on the talk page why he wants it deleted. Have worked with trying to explain policies, but it has not helped. Editor has also been warned several times on being uncivil also and 3RR. Editor has also deleted my comments on the talk page when he disagrees with them, (instead of just presenting his side of the story). See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies&diff=115470427&oldid=115470244 for an example. He didn't like the discussions on the talk page, so you know he does? He ARCHIVES the ENTIRE talk page while there were 4 RECENT AND ACTIVE discussions taking place! See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies&diff=114985651&oldid=114980298 for proof. Talk about disruptive! The content of the article has improved fantastically in the past few days. Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/Star_Wars_Galaxies (now) to http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Star_Wars_Galaxies&diff=110066784&oldid=110066637 (before). Because roguegeek is angry that the article is more detailed and balance, he leaves a snide resentful comment on the talk page seeing the new content as a nuisance because now we have to properly cite it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies#Proper_citation. He has been sabotaging the RfC process begun by another user to resolve this dispute. His oldest contributions go back to January 2006. He should know better by now. He has several thousand contributions since then. ] 03:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
	* Interesting how this shows up right after I reported you. There's a big difference between reverting malicious edits and knowingly violating the 3RR. I will be interested in seeing how this turns out simply because the problem goes far beyond a 3RR. An admin is greatly needed to help with the issue at this point. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 03:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
	* I would also suggest taking a look at ] to see what kind of feedback they are receiving from numerous editors. This one definitely needs some investigating and I welcome feedback. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 03:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
	<blockquote>
	Block quote
	</blockquote>

	Still an edit war over content, still violated 3RR, 24 hours. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

	] violation on
	{{Article\|WEAR-TV}}. {{3RRV\|A Man In Black}}:

	* 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: This is an admin, who should know better, but seems to believe he is exempt from one policy because he is attempting to enforce another. His interpretation of fair use policy is not consensus and has repeatedly been disputed. See, e.g. ].

	:This is copyvio content, not a content dispute. DHowell doesn't feel that it's copyvio, but hasn't yet had any success (after many months) making any impact on policy. In the meantime, policy hasn't changed, and I've had to clean up copyvio non-free images. It's probably my mistake for not just deleting them on sight, but instead leaving them orphaned for people to write encyclopedic commentary. - ] <small>(] \| ])</small> 05:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
	::I agree with AMIB's position -- this is a bad-faith report that should be disregarded. I've witness reporting user ] attempt to misrepresent policy to further his position, and obviously making inappropriate noticeboard complaints. /] 22:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Ted Kennedy Chappaquiddick incident}}. {{3RRV\|207.127.241.2}}:

	* 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 -->
	From ]:<blockquote>
	This IP has been repeatedly blocked from editing Misplaced Pages in response to abuse of editing privileges. Further abuse from this IP may result in an immediate block without further warning.</blockquote>

	:24 hours for violating not only ] but also ]. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Reza Shah}}. {{3RRV\|The Behnam}}:

	<!-- 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: there is an intermediary revert by The Behnam in this edit.


	Comments: Although the reverts are not all about one piece of material, they still are a breach of the 3RR. ] says "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." Also user Mehrshad123 may also have broken the rule on that page.

	'''Response''' - The first "revert" was not a revert, but rather the first time I introduced the wording. Hence, I did not 'undo' the actions of another editor. ] 00:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	:Furthermore, the second "revert" also is not an 'undoing' either, but a novel edit. ] 00:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

	::The first edit undid the actions of another editor. And is thus a revert. "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor" ] 00:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
	:::I didn't 'undo' anything, I simply changed the page. The wording was completely new; if I had undone an edit, I would have been restoring what was there before. ] 00:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	::::In the first edit you removed this material: "Reza Shah's ambitious campaigns for modernizing Iran's educational, industrial and transportation infrastructure are attributed for the emergence of social, political and economic reform in Iran after a long period of decline during the final years of the ] dynasty" ] 00:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
	:::::And I was undoing an edit by removing this? Technically it was added to the page at some point in time, but I didn't do an actual 'undo'. This is the 'three-revert rule', not the 'three-change rule'. ] 01:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	::::::You undid the the actions of the editor that added the material. You didn't revert the whole page, but you removed that material (which is a revert); "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor"] 01:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

	::::You may consider the second revert a "novel edit", but you did in fact remove material: "This was a smart move on the part of Nazis since from that point, Iranians were constantly reminded that their country shared a common bond with the Nazi regime". You admit to it when you say "removed POV projection" in the edit summary. ] 01:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
	:::::Agha, simply editing the page isn't a revert. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to edit the page more than thrice a day unless we were simply adding information. I am pretty sure you're misunderstanding what 3RR is about on this point. ] 01:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

	::::::The, removing material another person added is a revert. ] 01:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
	:::::::"A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors". These aren't 'undo's, they're just changes to the article as it was long before the 24hr period. The change involves the removal of some information, but not the 'undoing' of the edits. Basically what you are advocating it is a 'three-change rule' except for content additions. I don't think that is what 3RR is about, or else it would be incredibly difficult to improve neglected and poorly written articles. ] 01:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::Did you not undue, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors? You say "Technically it was added to the page at some point in time". Thus removing it is undoing the actions of another editor. Not allowing edit wars does not make it incredibly difficult to improve neglected and poorly written articles. ] 01:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

	:::::::After all you did say '''"The change involves the removal of some information, but not the 'undoing' of the information"'''. What is the difference? ] 01:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
	::::Hmm. I'm pretty sure that you aren't seeing this correctly, and I'm not sure how to further explain it to you. Whether I am right or you are right, I'll just let the admin who comes to this decide whether the edits really comprise a 3RR violation. Maybe s/he will be able to explain this to you better. Considering that two of them aren't reverts I don't think that there is a problem here. Agha, you might want to take a look at some of the other cases on this page to get a better idea on what 'undo' means. ] 01:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	::::::Also, about your remark on the neglected articles, you might note that the changes also weren't 'edit warring', since the 'edit wars' usually refer to a chain of reverts over a contested passage. Again, this is not the 'three-change rule', but the 'three-revert rule. ] 01:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

	Page has been protected due to the edit war, so no action will be taken. However, both are cautioned to avoid ] and to discuss controversial changes. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	:Alright. Now I can actually start my wikibreak. ] 02:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Reza Shah}}. {{3RRV\|Mehrshad123}}:

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

	Same as above. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Fascism}}. {{3RRV\|Billy Ego}}:

	* Previous version reverted to:
	Complex reverts
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	:* 3.1 revert:
	:* 3.2 revert:
	* 4th revert:

	:3rd is not a revert but the addition of research to the article. Now that there is a source to back up the reversions, why are you doing this now that you see you were wrong? ] 03:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

	::Added a few more for context.--] 03:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::Pray tell me, how is the addition of new material to an article constitute a "revert"? ] 03:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	::::I see 2 full reverts and alot of partials. I'll let another admin handle it. --]<sup>]</sup> 07:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	3 is not a revert, but "previous version", 1, 2, and 4 all are. First offense, 8 hours. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 12:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Wath-upon-Dearne}}. {{3RRV\|Captain scarlet}}:

	* Previous version reverted to:

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

	;Comments: - says here is happy to break 3RR

	::''More than 24 hours'' means less than 3 edits per 24 hours MRSC. You are putting me in a bit of a corner. I may have accidently edited these article four times, but you have little friends doing the same. You and your acolytes are victms of breaking the 3RR also, simply not each and everyone of you. '''<FONT COLOR="#000000">]</FONT>''' ''<FONT COLOR="#FF0000">]</FONT>'' 12:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

	24 hours. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 12:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

	] violation on
	{{Article\|J. Philippe Rushton}}. {{3RRV\|Saturdayseven}}:

	* 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:
	*Knows the rule, blocked previously.

	;Comments: <!-- Optional -->
	4 (now 5) simple reverts:

	Most of my reverts were to remove libelous assertion backed by nothing more than a self-published random web page. ] is going around wikipedia adding libelous slurs against J. Phillippe Rushton using poor sources. If one reads wikipedia living person policy, it clearly states that removing poorly sourced libelous claims is an exception to the 3 revert rule.] ] 14:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	:Everything is sourced using different sources. The ], ], or academic sources are not "a random webpage" or "self-published". If a person claims and tries to spread negative views against whole group(s) of people, in the words of a critic, "Blacks as small-brained, oversexed criminals who multiply at a fast rate and are afflicted with mental disease", then he should also expect criticisms. Misplaced Pages should not be the place for presenting and spreading only Rushton's views unopposed.] 14:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

	::You repeatedly added this to the article: '''Rushton is accused by critics of advocating a new ] movement,<ref></ref> and is openly praised by proponents of eugenics.<ref>http://www.eugenics.net/ Website including prominent reference to Rushton's works</ref>''' You are painting a living person as a eugenics poster boy using one source that doesn't work and another source which is a self-published web page that doesn't meet wikipedia standards. And your oversimplification of Rushton's theory is also not fair. First of all Rushton believes that racial differences are small and that virtually the full range of human traits exist in all races. He's simply arguing that each race tends to have its own strengths and weaknesses. If you don't want Rushton's ideas expressed on wikipedia the solution is to nominate him for deletion, not to violate wikipedia's libel rules ] 15:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::Regardless of if Rushton advocates or speaks about eugenics or not, or if eugenicists cite him or not, you reverted much more than this without explanation. We should not delete Rushton since his and similar works sponsored by the ] are a prominent view widely used by ]s. "In publication after publication, hate groups are using this "science" to legitimize ]." But Misplaced Pages should certainly mention the criticisms.] 15:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::::These are just the facts about how Rushton has been criticized. ] 16:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	::::It's not my responsibility to differentiate your quality sources from your unreliable sources.~In the time it takes to do that the libelous assertions get more and more exposure. All I know is that some of the sources you added were unreliable and used to justify libelous assertions, hence I reverted all your edits in which these source were added and I am well within wikipedia policy to do so. ] 15:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Using your argument, you could blank a whole article if you personally think there is an error somewhere. Not allowed. Again, while the arguments used by ]s have a place in Misplaced Pages, so should the counter-arguments.] 15:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	::::::I do not care how valid you think your other sources are, I don't care how passionate you are politically, and I don't care how important you feel your contributions to wikipedia are, if you continue to add self-published fringe web pages to support libelous smears against living people you will be reverted. PERIOD. You do not have the right to jeopardize wikipedia and damage repuations in the process. Do that on a blog using your own name. Don't use wikipedia's good name to do it ] 15:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::Again, your are not allowed to delete large amounts of well-sourced material if you personally think there may be an error in one sentence. Nor are you allowed to violate 3RR.
	::::::::I'm afraid you still do not understand: '''You are not allowed to smear living persons using self-published fringe web pages and links that don't work.''' I don't care if you added a hundred other valid sources mixed in with the poorly sourced libel and smears. I informed you on your talk page that your source was not up to wikipedia standards yet you continued to add this libelous smear to wikipedia. I may need to talk to someone else as you apparently have no understanding of wikipedia living person policy or how serious it is ] 15:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::I dispute this, the given link clearly shows that at least some eugenicists cite Rusthon prominently. Do you deny this? Regardless, you are not allowed to blank other parts of the article if you disagree with one part. Regardless, while the arguments used by ]s in order to create ] may have a place in Misplaced Pages, so should the counter-arguments.] 15:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::Also, why are you continuing to revert material having no relevance to eugenic material: . Your own personal opinion that the sourced material is false in uninteresting.] 16:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::I didn't blank anything, I simply reverted an editor that is unable or unwilling to differentiate quality sources from unreliable sources and was using the latter to smear and libel a living person in direct violation of wikipedia's single most important policy. "Some eugenicists" is a weasel term and demonstrates even more failure to grasp wikipedia policy. If a view point is notable enough for inclusion in wikipedia it must be backed by a reliable source, not self-published fringe web pages like this one . I shouldn't have to keep explaining this very basic point to someone who has been editing wikipedia as long as you have ] 16:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::::You blanked large parts of sourced material with no explanation. Regarding the sentence you have disputed, do you deny that the eugenic source quotes Rusthon? Regardless, you are not allowed to blank other parts of the article if you disagree with one part. Also, why are you right now continuing to revert other material, based on your own unsourced claim regarding what Rushton stated? Misplaced Pages is not built on personal opinions. While the arguments used by ]s in order to create ] may have a place in Misplaced Pages, so should the counter-arguments.] 16:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::::I simply reverted you because you were adding unsourced smear. I didn't bother to look at whatever else you were adding but much of it were simple facts that were placed in the controversy section to promote your POV that they should be viewed as controversial. Again, if you mix unsourced crap in with reliable sources we'll just revert you wholesale because you are violating wiki's most important policy & no one has time to sort it out. And I have no idea whether eugenics advocates support Rushton but I'm certainly not going to let some fringe self-published web page be used to smear Rushton as a eugenics icon ] 16:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::Please respond to questions above.] 16:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::Right now, yet another revert of material of sourced academic material.] 16:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::Another revert: ] 17:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::If you bothered to read my edit summaries instead of adding knee-jerk complaints to this notice board you would realize that adding an enormous quote to a well summarized section gives undue weight to one opinion. As for my other removal, you keep placing non-criticism in the criticism section and thus making the article wholly incoherent ] 17:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::None of these are excuses for simply deleting sourced, academic information and violating 3RR.] 17:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::My socalled violation of 3RR was to remove your libelous smear (in fact when removing poorly sourced libel we are not violating the 3RR if you knew wiki policy)using a self-published fringe web page. You are well aware of the fact that you have violated wikipedia's libel rules which is why you are now trying to divert attention to content disputes we've had since you filed this complaint. In short you are the one who has violated a wikipedia rule far more serious than 3RR and you are further disrupting wikipedia by wasting everyone's time with this here ] 17:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::Even assuming your argument regarding the eugenic sentence is right, that this sentence should be removed and that you can at the same time remove whatever other material you want without explanation, then you have still violated 3RR. Your reverts 1, 5, 6, 7 (see above) do not include the disputed eugenic sentence.] 17:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::Wow, not only do you have no understanding of wiki libel rules, or wiki weasel word policy, but you apparently don't know what the 3 revert rule is either. Further your later accusation claiming Rushton blamed blacks for wrecking Toronto was yet another violation of wikipedia's living person policy which states that we can't use sources that rely on conjecture to make extremely libelous claims. In fact that source took Rushton's quote wholly out of context and put their own spin on it and hence I was well within wiki polociy to revert those edits too. You know you could really save us all a lot of time and energy if you actually would read wikipedia's policy ] 17:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::::I gave a source, you gave your personal opinion that this source lied. Unsourced personal opinions are not interesting. Read ].] 17:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::::You gave a source putting their own interpretation of what Rushton meant, and not the direct quote of what Rushton said. Encyclopedias are built on facts not selective quoations taken out of context intended to smear people. Editors like you who rely on conjecture rather than facts are damaging wikipedia's credibility. There's a reason why wikipedia outlaws the use of conjecture to smear and libel people. Again I don't wish to argue with you anymore because you don't grasp wikipedia policy ] 17:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::::::Again, read ]. I gave a source, you did not. Your personal opinions and views regarding this is not allowed as source.] 17:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::::::The source was not a primary source or even a direct quotation but a second hand interpetation of what Rushton meant. Such sources are not allowed to be used to make extremely libelous assertions as per wiki living person policy ] 18:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::::::::Misplaced Pages policy states that secondary sources are preferable to primary sources. See ]. Again, your unsourced personal opinion that the source is incorrect is not relevant in Misplaced Pages.] 18:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::::::::Misplaced Pages also states that conjectural interpretations of a source can not be used as sources to smear living person. Nothing to do with my opinion. You also misunderstand wikipedia's secondary source policy. All that means is that we shouldn't reference Rushton when discussing Rushton, however we should cite the source that quoted Rushton directly, and not the source that selectively takes a few words here and there to assert what Rushton meant. Misplaced Pages states that conjectural interpretations can not be used to smear people ] 18:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::::::::::It is only your unsourced personal opinion that this is conjectural. In your interpretation of policy, anything can be removed from an article if an editor thinks that something is conjectural.] 18:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Jovano Jovanke}}. {{3RRV\|Bomac}}:

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

	;Comments:
	::The user has repeatedly erased the fact that the song is Bulgarian. The user has been on five occasions before for violating 3RR, the last time for 48 hours. ] 15:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

	] violation on
	{{Article\|Rule of Rose}}. {{3RRV\|67.163.193.239}}:

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

	;Comments: Anon. has been blocked already for spamming survival horror games' external links, has come straight from the ban into more of the same, there are more recent examples in their edit history. The times don't seem to fit exactly into 3RR, but even if that's the case it would probably be gaming the system. If this action is incorrect, please at least give me a hint of what I should be doing (not had to deal with vandal/spam before, system is confusing and I really don't want all anons locked out of the page for this user's interference). Thanks. ] 16:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	'''Comment:''' This should be reported somewhere else, there is no current 3RR violation and the diffs supplied are from March 15. --]] 17:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	:Any idea where? It's simple spam as opposed to vandalism, and requesting a page block seems extreme. Here are more identical reversions: , and . Apart from waiting for the user to trap themselves with more than three edits (considering this post that possibility has already been broadcast in neon lights), I don't see how I can do any more other than revert-war back (which I don't want to do since all I'm doing is removing a little spammy language, not something I should be slapped on the wrists for). ] 18:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	::Maybe try ], that is kind of a catch all report page. --]] 18:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

	User Aivazovsky has violated the ArbCom notice of only one (1) revert per day per article on the ] page Also, in an additional violation of ArbCom, user Aivazovsky did not discuss his changes in the Talk page.
	* 1st revert on 08:09, March 17, 2007:
	* 2nd revert on 09:55, March 17, 2007:
	* 3rd revert (partial) on 11:29, March 17, 2007:

	'''Comment''' He has a history of violations of both 3RR rule '''and 1RR injunction''' (e.g., see above case on 12 March). He has been very disruptive on this and other pages, by eliminating any references from Azerbaijani and Turkish sites, whilst preserving and inserting Armenian sites. He also claims (in his third, partial, revert) that Armenian SSR, Azerbaijan SSR, Georgian SSR did not exist by October 1921, when the Treaty was concluded, which is false, as the first two existed since April 1920 and November 1920 respectively, whilst the third one since early 1921. --] 17:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

	'''Comment''' Since I at first had trouble finding the injunction on the page, here is a quote of the section to help any admin looking at this report:
	<blockquote>
	'''Temporary injunction'''<br>

	1) Until the conclusion of this case, all parties are restricted to one content revert per article per day, and each content revert must be accompanied by a justification on the relevant talk page.
	</blockquote>
	--]] 18:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

	'''Blocked''' for 24 hours. ] 18:09, 17 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 22:24, 27 December 2024

Noticeboard for edit warring

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

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

Click here to create a new report

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

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

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)

Both users have been Warned. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Those users and Mei23448 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems continuing edit wars on Monquirasaurus and Sachicasaurus 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) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 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. Mei23448 (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
If you have a dispute, you may discuss it on the article's talk page. Bowler the Carmine | talk 23:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Also 15 ton for Sachicasaurus is based on the Sachicasaurus reconstruction from Diocles. Mei23448 (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
@ToBeFree: The problem persists, Mei23448 and User:PaleoFile continue their edit war / vandalism on both pages. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the notification, Jens Lallensack. Both blocked indefinitely, the latter unlikely to be unblocked any time soon. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EvergreenFir (talk) 06:47, 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:

(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)

Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Whilst I cannot dispute ChasePlowman2014's behaviour for edit warring, Happily888 is not completely without fault here. Neither user made any particular effort to engage in discussion over a relatively minor issue, but to expect an immediate response (and then immediately banning said user) on the 25th of December, a day of the year when one can reasonably be expected to be a little busy, is overzealous. I have also left a response to Happily888's message on the Dune: Part Two talk page explaining why ChasePlowman2014 was, arguably, correct to make the initial edit before Happily888 made the first reversion. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 21:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
  Jasca Ducato, this isn't about the time taken to respond to the noticeboard report. ChasePlowman2014 isn't using edit summaries nor talk pages and ignores warnings on their talk page about their behavior. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Callmehelper reported by User:Srijanx22 (Result: Declined)

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:

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

Comments:
Frequent edit warring by this user with several editors on an article falling under contentious and general sanctions. Also edit warring on B. R. Ambedkar. Srijanx22 (talk) 06:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

It's me @Callmehelper.

Clarification by my side ;

Firstly I never ever got any Edit Warning before.

Disputes details ;

Firstly , I edit Ambedkar Jayanti check history of that page from here to final version
process of reverting by others and my responses

- 1st Revert My response then again revert and we had a little discussion on my talk page for this disputes see then i thought matter would be solved.
But other editor revert again by saying no need to improvement see and my response of revert here and discussion on his talk page here

Then instead of healthy discussion this guy response me by saying you have problem with ambedkar article as well so first solve there see

Now I want to clarify that this guy totally misused the healthy discussion and try to show like there is editing warning on me about Ambedkar Main article talk here but this matter solve 1 month ago by further discussion on Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#Request_for_Administrator Review_of_Recent_Edits_on_Dr. B.R._Ambedkar's_Page

So here in ambedkar page, there is nothing issue about any dispute about that discussion specifically.

the current discussion on Ambedkar page is going on about my changes that is under WP:UNDUE or not about new fresh topic. check last discussion on talk page ] this discussion is currently going on as there is no response given further by anyone yet.

so there is nothing like editing warning on me regarding Ambedkar page .

Conclusion

So all my point is whenever I edit, i edit with much responsiblity that this should be based on fact and figures with the valuable citations. I gave explanation of everything what i edit with sources and editing summary.

Some editor, i don't know what's want? they don't discuss on facts and sources.

i left a discussion on Ambedkar Jayanti page for further discussion as well but response are so weak in my POV amd also misleading my claim and sources look.

I think, i clarify my side well enough. for further discussioni am on.

I hope Administrator will look up this discussion/dispute from NPOV.

Much Regards. Callmehelper (talk) 09:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Declined Discussion has started on the talk page. Let's let it play out. Daniel Case (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Johnny test person reported by User:Aoidh (Result: Blocked 24h)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1265377722

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1265395592

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Aoidh#Angelo Rules and Talk:Angelo Rules#Unsourced character biography section

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1265406607

Comments:
Editor repeatedly restoring unsourced content, making four reverts in just under an hour. - Aoidh (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Folawiki reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

02:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "The claimed reason provided, "whitewashing", provides nothing concrete to justify such action. What is whitewashing? And what precisely in the edit qualified as such? Undid revision 1265465515 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
02:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265464633 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
02:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265460975 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
01:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1240888069 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

01:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Grail Movement."
02:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "/* December 2024 */ WP:FTN notice"
02:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Grail Movement."
02:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Grail Movement."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

02:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "@Folawiki: The whitewashing has to stop. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)"

Comments:

Cult whitewashing. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

User:TheHappiestEditor reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

22:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265170057 by Fylindfotberserk (talk) She works in Malayalam cinema.There are two upcoming Malayalam films of Trisha. The total number of Malayalam films is not two."
13:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC) "/* top */She works in Malayalam films too. There are two upcoming Malayalam films of Trisha."

Diffs from other articles (language POV and edit war)

- putting fake sources/infomation
- putting fake sources/infomation
- putting fake sources/infomation

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

POV pushing/cherry-picking "Malayalam" and edit warring in a lot of articles. Apart from the above listed, the user has been pushing "Malayalam" as one of the languages in which "actor XYZ" has acted 'predominantly' in but in actuality the entries are only a few . The editor has received multiple warnings for being disruptiove and a recent one for edit-warring from Krimuk2.0. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

TheHappiestEditor, please respond to these allegations. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

User:103.84.130.238 reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Page protected)

User being reported: 103.84.130.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Consecutive edits made from 12:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC) to 12:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
1. 12:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1262480024 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"
2. 12:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC) ""https://www.hariprasadchaurasia.com" check the site pandit is part of his name , the site is run by him, also there are other similar cases too on wikipedia "

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Keeps on adding (edit wars) honorifics despite explanation about WP:NCIN and MOS:HON in edit summaries and warnings Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The IP was initially reported to AIV, since disruptive edits continued after a level 4 warning, but was asked to report it here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Johnny test person reported by User:ToBeFree (Result:Indefinitely blocked)

User being reported: Johnny test person (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

21:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265440086 by ToBeFree (talk)"
19:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265401281 by Codename AD (talk)"
19:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265395978 by Codename AD (talk)"
18:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265395008 by Aoidh (talk)"
18:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265382744 by Aoidh (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Back from an edit warring block with an additional personal attack (Special:Diff/1265613452) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely Two day old account with 19 edits, a block, and that personal attack? Bye. Jauerback/_dude. 21:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: