Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:24, 14 June 2007 editHeimstern (talk | contribs)Administrators16,881 edits →[] reported by [] (Result:): no vio← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:33, 23 December 2024 edit undoBowler the Carmine (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,021 edits →User:PaleoFile reported by User:Bowler the Carmine (Result: Warned users): ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
<noinclude>{{pp-move|small=yes}}</noinclude>
<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
<!-- {{adminbacklog}} -->
{{pp-move|small=yes}}
<center>'''Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.<br/>Administrators: please do not hesitate to remove disputes to user talk pages.'''</center>
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-3 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive31--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->
|maxarchivesize = 250K
]
|counter = 490
==Violations==
|algo = old(2d)
Please place new reports '''at the bottom'''.
|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
}}</noinclude>
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|:Pratt & Whitney F135}} <br />
===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hour)===
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|湾岸2024}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
*] violation on
{{Article|Talpiot Tomb}}. {{3RRV|ItamarPH.D}}: Time reported: 19:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
* Previous version reverted to: The substance of the matter is the editor's link to his own blog and mention of his own self-published novel.
#
#
#
#


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talpiot_Tomb&diff=136872640&oldid=136856151 17:46, 8 June 2007]
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
:Blocked for 24hr for this and many other concerns (], ], ], ] and ]). Thanks/] 20:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
===] reported by ] (Result:no vio)===


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
*] violation on
{{Article|Chartered Market Technician}}, {{Article|Market Technicians Association}}, {{Article|Technical analysis}}. {{3RRV|65.9.234.169}}: Time reported: 20:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


Baffling edits, baffling discussion on article talk page, out of ideas. ] ] 19:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
:Asked not to cross post at ] . Not sure why the user name is giving an error in this report, possibly because the page hasn't been created yet? ] ] 19:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
::While the user clearly has some ], I disagree with you calling their edits original research on the talk page since they seem to me to be ]. They even reproduce some of that math there. ] (]) 21:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
:::And, yes, when a user has not yet created a page for themselves, their username is redlinked. It's not an error, just the way the software works. ] (]) 21:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm aware of red links, I believe I had put their name in the wrong field. To be fair I don't come here every day. Is four reverts not edit warring? Synthesis, OR and calc aside they were demanding that American engines display their specifications in a Russian/Chinese format. As this is the English Misplaced Pages I don't think it was unreasonable to say that wasn't possible or desired but they persisted anyway. ] ] 09:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Well, that last part hadn't been clear until now. Still ... you give only three reverts above, and if I were to infer which edit you meant to be the fourth from the article history it would appear that you are making the entirely too-common mistake of listing the "edit reverted to" as one of the reverts.<p>In fact, they arguably have as strong, if not stronger, a case against ''you'' for violating 3RR as your reverts of their edits do not come under the ] exceptions. I would, seeing as you are as you said not a frequent reporter here, commend your attention to ], written to adddress this sort of situation. ] (]) 19:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Unless I am mistaken I reverted only three times, being very aware of 3RR I stopped and came here. I provided clear rationales in the edit summaries and attempted to converse with the user on the article talk page, it's not accurate to state that I did not try to discuss the problematic edits. I can see this is going nowhere. ] ] 20:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{re|Nimbus227}} You're not mistaken. You reverted only 3x. {{U|湾岸2024}} reverted 4x but the last revert was outside the 24-hour window. Your biggest "mistake", Nimbus227, was that you didn't prepare this report properly. The reason for the error in the username was because you failed to put it in one of the spots the template asks you to - I fixed that if you look back at the history of this page. The second error, which, unfortunately, is not that uncommon was you listed only 3 reverts instead of 4. In any event, because all of this happened a few days ago, I'm going to decline this as stale.--] (]) 14:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked both (reporter for 1 week and reportee for 72 hours)) ==
] reverts (partial list of 21 edits/reverts in past 24 hours)
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|2005 Birmingham tornado|1764 Woldegk tornado}} <br />
] reverts (partial list of 10 edits/reverts in past 24 hours)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Luffaloaf}}
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
] reverts (partial list of 21 edits/reverts in past 24 hours)
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
The ] edit history and an IP address search suggest that 65.9.234.169 is the same user as 72.153.201.174. I explained my edits and tried to engage the user on the respective article talk pages , and on the user's own talk page. Some of his edits are harmless, but a full review of the edits to the articles in question shows POV, lack of sources to controversial edits, personal criticisms of people by name, plus the unexplained removal of relevant information and links in the articles. Thanks for your attention to this matter.
#
--] 20:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
#
#
#
#
#
#


<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
*Only three diffs given for each article; need four reverts for 3RR vio. Also, these diffs appear to include several consecutive edits, which would count as one revert per 3RR. Looking at the article histories suggests mainly consecutive edits. ] ] 23:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


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


*] violation on
{{Article|Latin America}}. {{3RRV|Corticopia}}: Time reported: 20:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' None. (User received edit warring block in the last 2 weeks)
* Previous version reverted to:


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ] & ], two long talk page discussions.
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:


I gave him a friendly warning on the talk page last night. '''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br /> I may earn a ] for edit warring myself, however, I believe this report is necessary. Luffaloaf seems to ]. This user has 176 edits total, of which, roughly 80% involve some sort of edit war. On December 7, Luffaloaf got involved in an edit war with 3 other editors (See ) and earned a 24 hour edit warring block. Back in October 2024, when they first joined, they received several talk page warnings for edit warring on the ] article (]. And now, less than 2 weeks after being blocked for edit warring, they have done it again on the ] article (). Another editor {{u|EF5}} that this user also took to Reddit about the edit war. To also help the CIR issue, amid the edit war, actually their after being blocked for edit warring, the added unverified information.
NB he also seems to on three reverts for ], but declares he'll come back tomorrow and revert again.


During today’s edit war with myself, to help diffuse the situation, I if they would be ok with a larger community discussion starting, to which they were ok with it. As such, I . However, despite being reminded of ], twice, (boldly changing content, being challenged by another editor, and then agreeing to discuss it), in two separate edit warring reversions by myself (), with me both times asking to wait for the RFC consensus to see if the content should change, they continued to edit war. I am ok with a boomerang block for edit warring, as I admit that I got well to engaged in the edit war (), but I also see a clear pattern with Luffaloaf not understanding the concept of ], edit warring, and ], given their numerous notifications on it, their recent edit warring block, and the fact roughly 80% of their total edits on Misplaced Pages are engaging in edit wars. This is a case of ] to edit Misplaced Pages, which, in my opinion, seems to be confirmed with those off-Wiki Reddit posts discovered by {{u|EF5}} linked above. '''The ]''' (] 07:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
'''''Comment''''' We are discussing the issue, throughout which the reporter has failed to suggest worthwhile editions and is counterproductive, and the last edit was insinuated anonymously (which is curious given the position of this editor). As well, the last edit rectified other POV changes regarding 'America'. And, yes, I shall return. ] 21:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
*Not sure what you mean by that, Corticopia. Anyway, I'm not convinced the second diff given is actually a revert; seems more like a tweak, as in the edit summary. ] ] 03:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
**The reverts of "here" (supposedly for being "unencyclopedic syntax"), of "that" (for "the") and the reinstation of the un-needed wikilink to "region" are all consistent reverts. Yes, I know these reverts are petty. But it's an obstacle to coming up with a sentence that is clear enough that it doesn't endlessly raise problems. You can see the discussion on the talk page where I try to seek a contrstructive solution to the problem, only to face his reverts and (as above) commentary which is often scarcely intelligible. --] (]|]) 05:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
***The original content editions are petty, and for not what: if these editions were enhancements, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But jbm's editions are confused/-ing: 'here above all' (unencyclopedic syntax which really makes no sense), substituting 'the' for 'that' (petty nonsense), and dewikifying ']' from the lead (which flies in the face of the Manual of Style) all demonstrate that. My last edit/diff, H, was meant to rectify a number of changes from an anonymous IP, above all the uncommon reckoning of the ] in English as just ']' (one continent). And jbm's discourse is anything but constructive: for example, on the talk page, I offered to substitute the current definition in LA with one from a reputable source (with the intent of sourcing it), with jbm insinuating that I would plagiarise. Anyhow, the above is one veiled ''ad hominem'' argument, which I won't otherwise deal with: apropos, I am compelled to completely avoid this editor hereafter, but will nonetheless edit as needed within the norms of Wikiquette. ] 22:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
****Here are the edits to the US article:
*
*
*
**He was then warned about his actions here , but then removed the warning on his talk page . He also wrote this message on the US talk page .
***I realize that he didn't go over 3 reverts on the US page, however his actions are highly disruptive, and he was already reported for his edits to Latin America. ''']''' ]|] 04:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
****Also note, the user in question has been blocked 5 times already for 3RR violations, the last one began on May 20 of this year, and lasted one week. A sixth block also occurred, however it was repealed after a re-check of the pages edit history. ''']''' ]|] 05:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
*****Why you have chosen this moment to regurgitate information admins can easily consult and have chosen ''not'' to act upon is beyond me. Your resulting disruption and sh*t-kicking herein aside, I can only assume that you are retaliating as a result of your abortive move of '']'' and (amidst that) straw poll (]) and for being challenged for removing (with others) a ] from the lead for ] (with your cited reasons being wholly misguided). In other words, ]. ] 05:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
*Corticopia, please be ]. As for this report: the original is clearly stale, while the new set of diffs shows only three revert, so there's no action to be made here. ] ] 05:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
**Yes -- noted, and thanks. However, it is exceedingly difficult to be 'civil' when responding to -- and sometimes having to deal with -- dilettantes. ] 05:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
***Making disruptive edits and being Uncivil gives you a first class ticket to a brand new thread on WP:ANI. ''']''' ]|] 05:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


:This amounts to character assassination and trying to “ban a POV you dislike”. I engaged in the behavior you did, regrettably. I also made it clear that you supported IP additions without sources at all, and when I re-established edits because I found ample sources for all of them (in accordance with the ongoing talk page back-and-forth), you continued to revert them and uphold flagrant misinformation. My point in doing so after the initial back-and-forth editing was to update the page with the aggregate of sources I had found in the progress of the talk page dispute. Also, where is the data on “80% of my edits being related to edit-warring” ? Immature editing is upholding unsourced edits in spite of sources, and using Misplaced Pages regulation to gatekeep pages. I abided by my original block, and engaged on talk pages as much as possible. In regards to ] edits, I eventually stopped. Not sure how really any of your examples constitute “not being mature enough” to edit Misplaced Pages. That sounds like you trying to ban someone who challenges any edit of yours or POV you favor, a common behavior among established Misplaced Pages editors. ] (]) 07:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:no vio)===
::Statements like that, along with large replies like on a ] I think help confirm maybe ]. I do apologize for engaging in the edit war. My mistakes should not have encouraged you to do the exact same thing you got blocked for 2 weeks ago back on December 7. If anything, that almost seems to indicate you learned nothing from that block, since you went with “Oh, this editor is doing this, I can do it too”. I am not perfect and here I saw my mistake and admitted it. You got a block 10 days ago and clearly did not learn anything from it. Your editing behavior is a clear pattern now on 3 separate articles, which was seen by other editors, not just myself. '''The ]''' (] 08:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::“A good article” = meet Misplaced Pages’s kind of arbitrary editorial standard. The information sourced is poorly represented, and there are massive flaws in the source, yes. Your attempt to uphold an F5 rating and 300 MPH wind speed on the page for that 18th century tornado from the ESSL laughably clashes with your attempt to disregard an EF2 rating for a 2005 tornado, handed down from a structural engineer, previously involved in tons of notable tornado surveys in the US, who undertook an actual damage survey with photo documentation of the damage. It just doesn’t make sense. It indicates to me that you, and maybe others, are trying to exaggerate the intensity of European tornadoes and tornado climatology. You are the malfeasant editor here, regardless of the “Misplaced Pages lawfare” article gatekeeping stuff. You are the only editor who had consistently opposed my edits. ] (]) 08:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)\
::::Will note that Luffaloaf has called Misplaced Pages's rules "autistic" and me a "euroretard" on the same Reddit thread (my Reddit username is "LiminalityMusic", I don't care disclosing that. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 12:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Now at ]. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 13:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Will note that this is insane to bring into a Misplaced Pages dispute? This has not happened on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 19:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*Note: Luffaloaf is with another user, amid this administrator noticeboard discussion. Very clear ] issue with a clear lack of understanding of Misplaced Pages’s ] and ] policies. '''The ]''' (] 19:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*:You are continuing to disregard sources to peddle misinformation on multiple pages related to tornadoes in Europe. You can lie all you want, the Birmingham tornado of 2005 was rated an EF2. It’s as plain as day. Why does that upset you so much? ] (]) 19:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{AN3|bb|48 hours}} I see at least 6 reverts each. ] ] 20:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Whether or not I’m supposed to reply here I don’t know. But I would like to ask for some clarification (preferably from @]) on why the comment above says that WeatherWriter was blocked for 48 hours but the talk page says he was blocked for a week. Is there any particular reason for the discrepancy; was there an error or a typo somewhere? ]<sup>]</sup> 20:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*::@] I was using the script tools when I did this. I then went to block the individuals and, upon reviewing their block logs, found previous edit warring behaviors. Per ], "{{tq|Blocks serve to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems. Blocks may escalate in duration if problems recur.}}"
*::{{no ping|Luffaloaf}} was blocked by {{U|Favonian}} just the other week for 24 hours for edit warring, so I escalated that to 72 hours. {{no ping|WeatherWriter}} has a rather lengthy block log, and I saw two blocks for edit warring in it. Upon looking again, I see that the second "block" was just an adjustment of the first one which was 72 hours. Regardless, I do not think an escalation from 3 days (72 hours) to 7 days is unreasonable, especially give the other disputative behavior. ] ] 21:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Thanks for the clarification. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned users) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|List of tributaries of Imperial China}}. {{3RRV|Assault11}}: Time reported: 23:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Giganotosaurus}} <br />
* Previous version reverted to:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|PaleoFile}}


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
::I think this user at least deserves a warning because he deletes my warnings on 3RR.
#
#
#
#


::I'm sure Assault is aware of 3RR, he has stopped reverting my compromise edits before the 4th revert. He simply deletes anything that he doesn't like. ] 23:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


*Only three reverts here, need more than three for 3RR vio. ] ] 23:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


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


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (regarding another now-dormant edit war on a related page)
*] violation on
{{Article|List of tributaries of Imperial China}}. {{3RRV|Good friend100}}: Time reported: 01:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


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


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


] | ] 20:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
* 5th revert: Appears to be a 5th in the set —<font face="Verdana" color="#003399">''']'''</font><sup><small><font color="#009933">]</font></small></sup> 19:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
*Both users have been {{AN3|w}}. ] (]) 21:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Those users and {{userlinks|Mei23448}} seems continuing edit wars on '']'' and '']'' articles.
*:1.
*:2.
*:3.
*:4.
*:5.
*:6.
*:In addition, PaleoFile posted personal attack on talk page of Mei23448.
*:Both users does not provide reliable sources, PaleoFile only proposing X post in edit summaries and cite nothing, while Mei23448 also does not cite anything to change. Both users needs to be blocked. (Jens Lallensack seems only trying to revert vandalism, so is not problematic than those two) ] (]) 14:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*::17 tons for Sachicasaurus has been debunked so I changed it and some user cant accept that his favourite animal isnt as big as he wants. ] (]) 18:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::If you have a dispute, you may discuss it on the article's ]. ] | ] 23:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Also 15 ton for Sachicasaurus is based on the Sachicasaurus reconstruction from Diocles. ] (]) 21:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Both blocked 48 hours) ==
Good friend100 has been blocked at least 4 times for violation of the 3RR policy in the past month . ] 01:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Robert de Quincy}} <br />
::It should be noted that I attempted to write down a compromised edit, which I believe is fair for both sides. ] 02:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Pipera}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
I don't understand why you cannot cooperate with others. "Tributary relations occurred on and off until the 7th century" is fair to both sides. I don't understand why everything has to be your way. ] 02:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:There was never a compromise that was accepted (and that "compromise" addition is not just limited to Gaogouli). It should be noted that Good friend100 had been criticized by various other editors for his lack of understanding on the subject . Despite this, Good friend100 continued to revert back to his edits containing false information (e.g. tributary relations ended in 106 CE - a date he has now changed to 7th century CE, after being proved wrong). ] 03:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
#
#
#
#
#
#


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
:::I don't want to bring the argument here. However, I would like to point out that your first to wikipedia clearly shows your POV manner and your unwillingness to compromise. ] 19:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ,
:::: As for the 3RR, this illustrates your attitude completely--I have little interest in this particular article, I don't think I've ever edited it, but you constantly use the fact that you are reverting "to the right version" as a justification for breaking 3RR. It isn't. Until you're blocked, you just keep reverting until someone forces you to take a break and cool down. —<font face="Verdana" color="#003399">''']'''</font><sup><small><font color="#009933">]</font></small></sup> 19:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
Yeah, I guess your right, LactoseTI. We should simply leave the article alone. ] 19:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
: Didn't it just get unprotected? I guess they were trying to stop this edit war, but it just started up immediately after unprotection. —<font face="Verdana" color="#003399">''']'''</font><sup><small><font color="#009933">]</font></small></sup> 19:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


Pipera has chosen to add grandchildren and great grandchildren to the Robert de Quincy article. I have stated on the article talk page this is unnecessary and off-topic to Robert de Quincy. They have also misrepresented what a source states, which I have also stated on the article talk page.
::LactoseTI, do you want me blocked that bad? Trying to rub in more evidence doesn't really make a difference. The point is that I got reported. As for Assault11, I believe that he is at fault to because of his obvious POV and his stubborness. Don't you think that too, Lactose, after reading his first edit (link above)? ] 19:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


Even while filling out this report Pipera has reverted me twice, choosing to add back an unused 1790 source to the Sources section, and readding Robert's grandchildren and great grandchildren. This after being told by user:Ealdgyth(17 December 2024) that ]. Honestly, I don't think Pipera is here to build a community encyclopedia. --] (]) 23:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
For any admins looking in on this - take a look at the Talk page, I've been trying to have the two editors come to a compromise. I personally have no preference on the content of their dispute, and I'm not going to comment on these 3RR violations. And while I do think both editors have been pretty insistent on their edits, I do think Good friend100 has been more compromising in the last day or two. The current text that they've just edit-warred on is already a step away from what Good friend100 would like to have. I left a note in the Talk page asking Assault11 what problems he saw with the current proposed compromise, but he has not replied yet, and instead chose to revert the text. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 20:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
{{hat|content user added to the article.--] (]) 00:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}}
:I have added the followi9ng:
:Robert married Orabilis, daughter of Nes fitz William, Lord of Leuchars. .
:Orabilis was married three times to Morggán, Earl of Mar and Adam of Fife, as stated in the links provided.
:They had:
:Saer de Quincy (died 1219), married Margaret de Beaumont, daughter of Robert de Beaumont, 3rd Earl of Leicester
:Unknown (daughter) de Quincy married de St Andrew
:Sir Saer I de St Andrew of East Haddon married Matilda de Dyve daughter of Hugh Dyve and Agnes they had issue:
:Robert de St Andrew married Albreda
:James de St Andrew (1228)
:Ralph de St Andrew (1228 - 1278)
:William de St Andrew
:Laurence de St Andrew
:Saer II de St Andrew
:John de St Andrew
:Sir Roger de St Andrew (d before 1249)
:Orabilis and Robert divorced.
:Secondly, he married Eve of Galloway, who was previously married to Walter Barclay. .
:it is alright for the children of Saer de Quincy to be placed on his page here, and not for the children of his sis5ter not to be placed here.
:They are also the grandchildren of the said parents and deserve the right to be placed there as well as the marriages of Roberts first wife and her three husbands as well as the second marriage of Robert her husband.
{{hab}}
:I do not think I have broken any rules by adding this to his article supported by the external links provided. ] (]) 00:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:I have posted to the talk page this is also incorrect. ] (]) 00:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:I am not in an edit war, I posted new information which is educationally correct and was removed without any academic argument it was gone. no pre talk on the talk page concerning what was supplied by the person deleting the information.
:They firstly need to raise and entry and then talk and resolve, ] (]) 00:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:I am expanding these articles not rolling them back. I have been editing here since at least the year 2001, I was editing entries for the 9/11 project obituaries for the people that passed in 9/11. ] (]) 00:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:See
:User talk:Paramandyr: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Paramandyr&diff=prev&oldid=1264014635
:Latest revision as of 23:20, 19 December 2024 edit undo thank
:Paramandyr (talk | contribs)
:removed, stay off my talk page
:Tag: Undo ] (]) 00:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{AN3|bb|48 hours}}. ] (]) 00:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours)=== == ] reported by ] (Result: Stale; content removed) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Sigma Boy}} <br />
*] violation on 9 June 2007
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|2804:14C:BBE7:44CE:B8E5:FEDB:67F5:D84D}}
{{Article|Dominican Republic}}. {{3RRV|Avfnx}}: Time reported: 12:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


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


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


<!--
Not a new user, but user is well aware of policy violations as he has removed warnings to his talk page. User was given an initial 3rr warning on 01:04, 21 May 2007 and continues to revert articles.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
::comment has left statements on comments when he reverts like " 12:11, 9 June 2007 Avfnx (Talk | contribs) m (65,740 bytes) (we could do this all day, what that got do with DR)"


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
Blocked for 24 hours, per the evidence above. -- ''']''' 18:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
'''Comment''' This user has not appear to have previously been formally ''warned'' regarding 3RR. This shows that it is commented he might be in breach of 3RR but, and despite the edit summary, there is no mention of the possible consequences or a demand that he stop. I realise that warnings are a courtesy and editors are expected to know and abide by the rules, and that 3RR should be acted upon promptly, but I am a little concerned that ] has been previously accused of (), has had warnings for civility and personal attacks - the first of which is WP:KETTLE and the second of which I could find no evidence of in English (I cannot comment on Spanish remarks) - all levelled by individuals with whom he is in dispute with on ]. I have a suspicion that some individuals are using admins and WP policies to conduct a campaign against this editor instead of attempting to resolve the dispute over the article in a more appropriate forum.] 20:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
If the IP reverts one more time, could someone please block them and revert their nonsensical edit? (Okay, maybe it's not "nonsensical", but it's incorrect.) ] (]) 02:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{AN3|s}}; content removed until a consensus is found ] (]) 13:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Lindy Li}} <br />
*] violation on
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Napoleonjosephine2020}}
{{Article|Peter Roskam}}. {{3RRV|Jakeleglarry}}: Time reported: 12:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


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


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


Allegedly brand-new user, an obvious ] sockpuppet of indefinitely banned multiple sockpuppeter {{User|Joehazelton}}, continuing his edit warring campaign. --] | ] 12:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


:Blocked indefinitely as a single-purpose account (and possible sockpuppet). -- ''']''' 15:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


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


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
*] violation on
{{Article|Capitalism}}. {{3RRV|Ofthe1780s}}: Time reported: 13:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
* Previous version reverted to:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* Diff of 3RR warning:


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' Zilch.
Also probably violation of ] by trying to promote cult-like movement.] 13:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
*Blocked for 12 hours. ] ] 04:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
===] reported by ] (Result: 48h (Ti), 24h (Yo))===


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
*] violation on
{{Article|User talk:YoSoyGuapo}}. {{3RRV|TiconderogaCCB}}: Time reported: 14:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


Note: I am not involved in this situation whatsoever, just found this in recent changes. ] • ] • ] 05:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
* Previous version reverted to:


: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)
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
::@]
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
::"This 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)
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
:::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)
* 1st revert:
::::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)
* 2nd revert:
::::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)
* 3rd revert:
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] ] 06:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
* 4th revert:


== ] and ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
{{vandal|TiconderogaCCB}} was just taken off of block for 3rr. continues to attack me personally on my talk page. I removed the attacks and he continued to attack me with "What the hell is you problem??? Do you lack any ability to reason? I have tried endlessly to engage you on discussion and talk pages, but instead you act like a 12 year old (which you quite possibly could be). Why do you continue to revert to an absurd version of the St. John's article? Did you get denied admission, are you a UConn fan" Immediately after getting offof block he goes back to the same article and does 3 more reverts with the last one being 13:45, 9 June 2007 . ] 14:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Warburg effect (oncology)}} <br />
:Ticonderoga is blocked for 48h (since this is his second block) and YoSoyGuapo is blocked for 24h. -- ''']''' 15:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|2601:40:CE00:1590:24F6:A73A:9F20:74C}} and {{userlinks|2601:40:CE00:1590:80BC:3313:5A8D:AACE}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!--
{{vandal|TiconderogaCCB}} was just taken off of block for 3rr. continues to attack me personally on my talk page. I removed the attacks and he continued to attack me with "What the hell is you problem??? Do you lack any ability to reason? I have tried endlessly to engage you on discussion and talk pages, but instead you act like a 12 year old (which you quite possibly could be). Why do you continue to revert to an absurd version of the St. John's article? Did you get denied admission, are you a UConn fan" Immediately after getting offof block he goes back to the same article and does 3 more reverts with the last one being 13:45, 9 June 2007 . -->


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- copy from _below_ this line -->
#
#
#
# (second IP)


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


*] violation on
{{Article|House demolition}}. {{3RRV|Raul654}}: Time reported: 18:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


* Previous version reverted to: Complex revert. See belwo for details


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert: - restores sentence "particularly an insurgency which employs ]" (this sentence was in prev version)- labeled as a "restore" in the edit summary.
* 2nd revert: - restores sentence "House demolition has been used in an on-again-off-again fashion by the Israeli government during the ]." (this sentence was in prev version)- labeled as a "restore" in the edit summary
* 3rd revert: - restores both the above sentences, labeled as a revert in the edit summary
* 4th revert: - as above, again restores both the above sentences, and labeled as a revert in the edit summary


'''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
The first two reverts are unrelated (two separate almost back-to-back edits restoring content Isarig has deleted as part of his on-going edit warring on that article), meaning this is actually only three reverts. Isarig, meanwhile, has been revert warring over that article for a while, to push his particular POV. ] 18:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
:As an admin, you must surely be aware that 3rr refers to ANY 3 reverts, they do not have to be the same or related. I appreciate you honesty in admitting that both of these are in fact reverts. A break from editing this article will do you good. ] 18:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
::Holy smokes, you removed objective, factually correct content. I restored it using two edits. You continued removing it, despite multiple people on the talk page disagreeing with you. You are POV pushing on that article, and your edits have made it objectively wrong. This listing is ridiculous. ] 18:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
:::What you are describing above is a content dispute, in which you, too, have removed well sourced information in at least 2 of your reverts. "I restored it using two edits" is another way of syaing I twice reverted you. You are not above the law, no matter how long you have been editing here- 3RR applies to admins as well as to non admin editors. I duly warned you about it, you acknowledged on my talk page that you made 3 reverts, and then proceeded to revert a 4th time. There is nothing ridiculous about this listing, except the ludicrous claim, below, that there are only 3 reverts here. ] 23:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
::(edit conflict) A 3RR violation occurs when four reverts have been made, not three. Raul is not a longtime edit warrior, so there is no reason to think he's gaming the system attempting to "max out" on the three allotted reverts. There's no violation here. -- ''']''' 18:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
:::There are 4 reverts there - count them. ] 23:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
A long time use and admin who knows about 3RR and has been blocked for it before, but was warned nonetheless:
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)

===] reported by ] (Result:No block / both users warned)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Liancourt Rocks}}. {{3RRV|Good_friend100}}: Time reported: 20:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

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

* 2nd revert: (reinserted Dokdo/Liancourt Rocks (they are the same thing) as mis-translation of Usando) undoing change
* 3rd revert: same effect; removes name from map (Isotakeshima) and replaces with Liancourt Rocks; again removes "For comparison," reverting to .
* 4th revert: again removes Isotakeshima

Editor has been blocked three times for 3RR several times in the past month. It is true that the four reverts are outside 24 hours by 7 minutes, but this is clear gamesmanship. Consider this in tandem with the other report of 3RR filed today on the same editor (6 reports or so above this one). Editor evidently doing this on multiple articles--on that one he seems to have clearly broken it, here he tried to game the system.

:::Ok, I edited all the articles in good faith. I changed "Takeshima" to "Liancourt Rocks" because that is the name of the article. It isn't fair to use Takeshima while blocking out Dokdo.

:::I don't think I have been engaging in a blatant edit war. Also, could you explain what you mean by "gamesmanship"? I feel really bad how you keep attacking me with reports and filing one that does not have 3 reverts in one day. These edits were simply to make the gallery section better. ] 20:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
:::: The map actually ''says Takeshima on it'', it's not blocking. Anyway, hitting your 3RR limit day and again, and then waiting until just outside 24 hours to make your 4th revert so as to avoid violating 3RR is not allowed. This is what I meant by gamesmanship. —<font face="Verdana" color="#003399">''']'''</font><sup><small><font color="#009933">]</font></small></sup> 20:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't wait 24 hours to make my 4th edit. That was purely coincidence. I don't play around with the time to make reverts and edits. I don't play at that kind of a level.

And I still feel that "Takeshima" should not be used. Now I know why melonbarmonster keeps tagging you with warnings. You and other editors simply cannot take anything that you don't like. When a change you don't like is done (regardless of good faith or bad faith), you revert the edits without explanation and don't explain on the talk page of the edit warring persists. I feel that you are not treating each editor in an NPOV way. Even when Assault11 clearly is POV and makes rude comments, you don't even care. When melonbarmonster asks you to stop stalking, you simply make a sarcastic comment that he should file a report against you.

I don't feel that I am the only one at fault. There is more than just edit warring going on and if you are trying to show that I am the bad seed, then your wrong. There is enough damage done to both sides. ] 20:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

: This page is not for the dispute to continue, it's about 3RR's. See response on your talk page, we can discuss the off topic material there. —<font face="Verdana" color="#003399">''']'''</font><sup><small><font color="#009933">]</font></small></sup> 20:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
::Consider both editors to be warned. Editwarring only ends up in one of two scenarios: either you get dinged for 3RR, oir the article gets protected. If you cannot find common ground and edit the article, please follow the ] process. ] <small>]</small> 03:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)



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

*] violation on
{{Article|Ciel (Mega Man Zero)}}. {{3RRV|Vilerocks}}: Time reported: 03:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

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

There are probably a couple more; I can't be arsed to link them all. Doing 3RR reports is tedious.

This is after days of revert warring on the same article over a different issue. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 03:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
: Blocked for 24 hrs. Next time, please file the 3RR report as required, even if tedious. Do not expect admins to do the research work for you. ] <small>]</small> 03:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
::I would like to add some extra info: Vilerocks' former account has been blocked twice before for 3RR. I do not know whether or not this may affect the block, but it should be noted. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

::I did do the research. Would it've really mattered if I linked five diffs instead of four? - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 17:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Standing on the Shoulder of Giants}}. {{3RRV|Pompertown}}: Time reported: 12:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

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

'''Comment''' {{User|Pompertown}} has already been warned several times previously for edit warring and has just returned from a 3RR block involving the same article. . User also edits anonymously under with the IP 69.117.52.248 which has also broken 3RR on multiple ] related articles. ] 12:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

1 month, user should be well aware after that many blocks that edit warring is not acceptable. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 14:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Kevin Youkilis}}. {{3RRV|Tecmobowl}}: Time reported: 19:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to: complex partial reversions, all of which remove content and/or links

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
**Situation is a bit complex, but I can clearly see at least four reverts here, and user is clearly edit warring with multiple users. Therefore, I have blocked for 48 hours. ] ] 00:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hrs)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Eritrean-Ethiopian War}}. {{3RRV|Ethioboy101}}: Time reported: 20:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eritrean-Ethiopian_War&diff=136994517&oldid=130918451 06:54, June 9, 2007 (UTC)]

* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert: (with added "(like Iran-Iraq war)" to description of outcome of war)
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert: (reverted to , rather than just replacing outcome with "Stalemate")

] and ] seem to be ] when not logged in. Ethioboy101's edits to the page have mainly consisted of changing the result of the war to "Stalemate" without discussion (see these earlier edits: , , by 71.112.237.155 - ), as well as removing certain cited information from the casualties part of the infobox (see earlier edit - ; Today's edits - , ), which were reverted by myself, ] (, ), and ] (). &mdash; ] | ''']''' | ] • <small>] • ]</small> 20:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

See also ] --] 22:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

: Blocked for 24 hrs. ] <small>]</small> 02:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Chiropractic}}. {{3RRV|QuackGuru}}: Time reported: 21:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

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


* Diff of 3RR warning:
**Blocked QuackGuru for 24 hours given this and another instance of edit warring that didn't result in a 3RR violation three days ago. --]] 00:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
***After re-reviewing the situation, it seems QuackGuru was baited into 3RR. I've unblocked him. --]] 05:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: 36h)===

*] violation on
{{Article|List of notable converts to Islam}}. {{3RRV|Bless sins}}: Time reported: ] 22:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

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

* Keeps whitewashing various descriptions; for example, removing statements Tawana Brawley's charges were fabricated, that John Walker Lindh was a convicted terrorist, that Yvonne Ridley had been kidnapped by the Taliban, and that Mike Tyson is a convicted rapist. On the fifth revert, unfixed some wording improvements that had to be reverted again by another editor. Will no doubt claim that the 5th revert was a "self-revert", but it was a bit too late, he'd already been reverted, and merely ended up reverting some new edits. Is now using to excuse himself. ] is well aware of 3RR as his block log indicates he has been blocked for edit warring before, and he has reported others for 3RR on this board, as recently as this week.
**As predicted, he's shown up pretending his reverts are not reverts. Once someone else has reverted you, it's a bit too late to claim to be "self-reverting". ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, even if I did make four reverts, I self reverted my last revert to avoid a breach of 3rr in accordance with ]. I declared that this revert was self-revert.

The first revert is true. That can be considered a revert.

The second revert is not at all a revert. Please note the difference between my alleged "Previous version reverted to" and "2nd revert". The main difference is that I replaced a dead link with a better one, and also added another notable person.

Please note the difference between my alleged "Previous version reverted to" and "3rd revert". The difference is the same as above.

The difference between "Previous version reverted to" and "4th revert", are even larger. In my fourth "reversion" I add two more notable persons to the list, and conduct some other minor edits.

The allegation that the fifth is a revert (to be counted in 3rr) is ridiculous. That is a self-revert, as I declared in my edit summary.

Thanks.] 23:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
:] says "''In general, this should be enough to prevent you from being blocked, although there are no guarantees.''" It says nothing about when it is too late to self-revert. Also, Jayjg, can you make your comments immediately below the previous comment. Thanks.] 23:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I cannot speak strongly ''for'' or ''against'' this user. Him and I have reached compromises concerning content, and he does contribute some good information, biased motivations or not.

However, the edit-warring is a fact, although I wouldn't count the 5th revert- he clearly reverted to Prester John's edit, which is not the version he preferred; therefore, I'm inclined to believe he did intend a self-rv. Concerning the others, I really can't say. Rules are rules, of course.

If a real complaint is to be drawn, the issue of whitewashing is certainly one of them. One can claim NPOV, but when a convicted terrorist becomes a 'soldier' and kidnapped woman's kidnapping is erased from her description, POV ''is'' an issue, but it is the one altering who is applying the POV problem.

I must now defend Bless sins. As I've said, he and I have compromised over content. This may be underplayed by some, but to me, it means quite a bit. Additionally, Bless sins is not the only user with a preference for 'whitewashed' descriptions- I fear that there should be some resolution over the language used so that everyone can learn to be reasonably satisfied with the descriptions.

A reasonable compromise over content will hopefully prevent the need for these Admin notices in the future.--] 00:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Blocked''' for 36 hours. Whether or not the fifth diff is included, Bless sins still violated 3RR with the first four diffs. --]] 00:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Eagle Talon}}. {{3RRV|Spoointsi}}: Time reported: 01:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
(All reverts were the same)
<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->

:Rejected - malformed report. ] <small>]</small> 02:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: 48h)===
*] violation on
{{Article|User talk:YoSoyGuapo}}. {{3RRV|TiconderogaCCB}}: Time reported: 07:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
{{vandal|TiconderogaCCB}} was just taken off of block for 3rr. continues to attack on my talk page. I removed the attacks and he continued to attack me with "What the hell is you problem??? Do you lack any ability to reason? I have tried endlessly to engage you on discussion and talk pages, but instead you act like a 12 year old (which you quite possibly could be). Why do you continue to revert to an absurd version of the St. John's article? Did you get denied admission, are you a UConn fan" Immediately after getting offof block he goes back to the same article and does 3 more reverts ] 07:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: 24h)===
*] violation on 9 June 2007
{{Article|Dominican Republic}}. {{3RRV|Avfnx}}: Time reported: ] 23:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
Not a new user, but user is well aware of policy violations as he has removed warnings to his talk page. ; '''User was given an initial 3rr warning on 01:04, 21 May 2007 and continues to revert articles''' .
* Diff of 3RR warning:
::comment has left statements on comments when he reverts like " 12:11, 9 June 2007 Avfnx (Talk | contribs) m (65,740 bytes) (we could do this all day, what that got do with DR)"

:This has already been handled a few sections up; Avfnx was blocked for twenty-four hours. -- ''']''' 00:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

::'''moved to prevent deletion. User:tariq stated that this case was already handled, but this is a totally different 3rr violation if you look at the edits.
The original case''' dealt with money and payment. '''This 3rr report deals with the names of haiti being based on mountains. ''' same article 2 different things in which edits were reverted at different intervals. ] 07:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|The Sopranos}}. {{3RRV|3TTT5 }}: Time reported: 09:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Warning issued @

In light of the rapid edits this article is getting, I'm not convinced a newbie would have seen the explanations for removal in the edit summary (or even know about page histories). I'll talk to the editor. If it happens again, re-report.--] - ] 15:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Monument of Lihula}}. {{3RRV|206.186.8.130}}: Time reported: 15:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

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

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

This anonymous user has also been trying to insert spurious Estonia-Nazi associations into ] and ].

:It looks like ] is deleting sourced content and references. His opponents seem to think this is an attempt at "Holocaust denial". -- ] 15:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
::May the record indicate that ] is the only one to have made such accusations -- his reference to an anonymous ''plural'' "opponents" is a lie. Furthermore, such accusations are baseless.
::May the record also indicate that making baseless accusations is not a new tactic by ], a proud . See, for example, ]. ] 16:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

:Also, Digwuren has a nasty habit of calling his opponents in content disputes ] in his edit summaries: , , -- ] 15:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
:Also note, that ] is full of vandalism warnings, when this clearly is an content dispute. If there is any vandalism here, it is most likely coming from ], who is removing sourced material and categories. -- ] 15:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've also blocked Digwuren for 48h for edit warring, if not outright 3rr, on the same article (Digwuren was blocked before for 3rr).--] - ] 16:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Islamophobia}}. {{3RRV|Xiao t}}: Time reported: 21:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert: (this was a revert because Kenan Malik had been added back at 13:16, 8 June 2007)
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

* Diff of 3RR warning (for new user):
* '''Comments:''' In all of these reverts, user is removing text regarding a certain subject in the article (Kenan Malik).
In addition, this user is a possible sock puppet of an indef banned troll and so possibly not a new user (contribs show user is very familiar with editing here), the for which I have already filed and am waiting for the results. --] <sup>(]•])</sup> 21:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
:I've not looked at these diffs yet, but Matt57 recently violated 3RR on that same page and was not blocked for it, so it's the height of hypocrisy for him to report someone else. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
: is the 3RR report against Matt57, which unfortunately led to page protection rather than a block. Matt57 is one of the worst reverters I've seen in a long time, and in fact I recently had to take the page off my watchlist in part because trying to deal with him is too frustrating. I hope whoever looks at this report will bear that context in mind. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
::In that report he claimed that the first edit was an introduction of the word "controversial." I don't understand how one introduces something that has been there in the article in many other previous reversions. ] 22:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
:::You're right; Matt's first edit on that occasion was definitely a revert. He can't be blocked for it now so long after the fact, however. Matt will have to supply a diff showing that Xiao's first edit above was a revert. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
::SlimVirgin, really well. Looks who's talking? You being an ''administrator'' should show better editing behavior. You reverted 3 times in less than hour for this same article: ,,. The fact that you are an administrator and reverted 3 times in less than 60 minutes should have rationally earned you a good block. Administrators should technically be held to higher standards that common users. You should leave better examples for other users on this website. In addition you have also personally attacked people by calling them. I dont beleive that you are a good example of an administrator here. Other users have also had problems with you (I can supply the diffs for that but this case is about Xiao t). As for my report, I do agree I cruised past the 3RR, that was an overlook on my part. Even that should not happen. One should not edit to just avoid 3RR (like you did in those 60 minutes when you reverted 3 times). That is troublesome tendentious editing. Maybe you're upset that I didnt let Mr. J. Hasan's opinions and picture (a non-notable graduate assistant) back in the Islamophobia article. --] <sup>(]•])</sup> 22:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
:::I've provided the diff above which shows the first revert of Xiao t was a revert, i.e. undoing the actions of another editor. Also you should know who you are defending. This is most likely a user who was blocked indef for trolling. --] <sup>(]•])</sup> 22:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
::::You've posted all this before in multiple locations. The bottom line is that you're a bad editor, a knee-jerk reverter, and you're out to attack Islam or Muslims. You didn't "cruise past" 3RR in the report against you, you violated it. And the report above isn't an obvious 3RR violation. The diff you give as the version reverted to doesn't show the removal of the Malik passage; it shows only that it was moved, so far as I can tell. Please supply a diff showing clearly that it had been removed before. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::Mind ], admin whose apparent standard for notability for grad students depends on the extent to which she shares their views. ]
:::::SlimVirgin, you really are crossing lines with me here regarding CIVIL, by calling me a knee jerk reverter and a bad editor. Do you want to be called those things too? No. Is it good to revert 3 times in less than 60 minutes like you did? No. Please dont call ''me'' a knee-jerk reverter then. Its a good thing that everything we say gets saved on this website. Regarding the first RV: As I showed, Kenan had been added back by another editor before the same day. Xiao removed it 4 times. If thats not a 3RR, what is? In any case I've fixed the proof above where Xiao had deleted the same text before and editors had restored it 2 times before. Also note that Kirbytime, the suspected puppet master of this username had been multiple number of times for edit warring and 3RR. --] <sup>(]•])</sup> 00:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::(edit conflict) The diff you gave appears to show the Malik material being moved, not removed or restored. Please provide a diff that actually shows its removal. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
*Take the mudslinging elsewhere; that's not what this noticeboard is for. This article is a bloody mess, with constant reverting warring. I've chosen to fully protect it mainly to stop myself from dishing out five or more blocks. ] ] 00:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
:This is the seventh time it's been protected since March, the 14th overall. Matt, note that if the reverting continues after this protection is lifted, I'm going to consider taking you and your friends to the ArbCom. The article's been held hostage long enough. Misplaced Pages's not a platform for Muslim bashing. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
::SlimVirgin, perhaps that was due to your reverting once every 10 minutes (,,)? Did you forget that? Dont threaten me with ArbCom, alright? Join me there and I'll tell the committee that your revert rate is once every 10 minutes. Plus, I'll tell them that you called me a bad editor, a knee jerk-reverter and you called me and others as "anti-Islamic". All these are personal attacks. You freely violate policies or border on violations. This is your pattern. These are just the diffs that I've seen by dealing with you directly and I have seen many other editors being irrirated by you on other places and I can dig up more diffs if needed. --] <sup>(]•])</sup> 00:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
*Stop posting about your dispute on this page; or I'll start handing out blocks for disruption. ] ] 00:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Jewish lobby}}. {{3RRV|Nagle}}: Time reported: 23:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*The first edit is a straightforward revert. Then he gets crafty; he "re-organizes" the article, moving material from Yossi Klein Halevi to the top of a section, moving material from David Aaronovitch up, and inserting headers for different countries. The subsequent 3 reverts continue to revert to this format, but each time with tiny changes to the text, so as to game the 3RR rule. He has been editing Misplaced Pages for a year and a half, and is well aware of the rules, which is why he is so good at trying to game them. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
: I don't know how crafty this is, since two of the edits are explicitly reverts in the summaries, but it is 3RRV. 8 hours. ] 01:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
=== ] reported by ] (Result:3 months)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Freemasonry}}. {{3RRV|24.68.249.225}}: Time reported: 01:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Also note misleading edit summaries and attempt to hide reverts among other edits, as well as personal attacks in edit summaries... and on Talk page. This fits with the user being a sock of ] who was banned from editing Freemasonry articles by ArbCom. Note ISP which fits with Lightbringer's known sock farm. User reported at: ] but no action taken yet. ] 01:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Napoleon I of France}}. {{3RRV|Charles}}: Time reported: <font color="#009900">]</font><sup><font color="#009900">{<font color="#FFBF00">]</font>}</font></sup><sup><font color="#009900">{<font color="#FFBF00">]</font>}</font></sup> 02:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
'''Note:''' ] has been warned about the Three-revert rule, but has removed it from their talk page as a minor edit Also ] is close to breaking the Three-revert rule.
**Only three reverts given; need more than three for 3RR vio. ] ] 15:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Regina Neighbourhoods}}. {{3RRV|Kmsiever|Kmsiever}}, {{3RRV|Mumun man|Mumun 無文}} and {{3RRV|Masalai|Masalai}}: Time reported: 04:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
<!--
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
*No violation. 3RR applies per person, not per group. ] ] 15:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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

'''Note: This is a 1rr report, not an ordinary 3rr report'''

Grandmaster is on a standard arbcom parole:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Grandmaster_placed_on_revert_parole

He can only make one revert per article per week. However, on the Mihranids article, he made two reverts within a two day period.

{{Article|Mihranids}}. {{3RRV|Grandmaster}}: Time reported: 05:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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

As you can see above, Grandmaster has made two reverts in less than a one week period on the same article, therefore violating his parole.] 05:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
:Take this issue to ]. &mdash; ] ] 06:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

::Actually the edit reverts listed above are different. So it's not quite clear whether this would constitute a 1RR violation. ] 07:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

::: First one is not a revert. You cannot seriously consider addition of a couple of spaces a revert. It is ridiculous. The text was not reverted to any previous version. False report. ] 07:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

*The first edit is not a revert. I see no violation, and at any rate this isn't the place for it. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad}}. {{3RRV|HanzoHattori}}: Time reported: 09:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

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

<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
*First revert is a partial revert, but a revert nonetheless. In light of the user's arguably good-faith attempts to expand the article, I'm sticking with only 12 hours despite block history. ] ] 15:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows}}. {{3RRV|Folken_de_Fanel}}: Time reported: 11:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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

<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
*Please provide diffs rather than oldids. Thanks. ] ] 15:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
**Sorry, copy/pasted the wrong thing, it's all right now. ] 19:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
**I was rather hoping the middle two count as one revert taken in two stages for ease of editing, as per ''Note that consecutive reverts by one editor are often treated as one revert for the purposes of this rule.'' Similarly, I also made another revert shortly after the last one mentioned by Folken, which is also within the time period (5 minutes after, Folken is in a different time zone?). Otherwise complex reverts just get ridiculous when trying to allow for other amenments to a busy page. ] 20:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
***A new technique to game the 3RR ? Do you think breaking your reverts into various parts make the ''acts'', and ''intentions'' behind it more acceptable ? Each time you've reverted my own version, re-adding each time the same content, which is entirely different than making segmented edits which are each time different and left to the care of other users afterwards.] 21:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
****I'm afraid you are reverting my edits faster than I can make them. Are you watching my edits all the time? I didn't even realise you had changed back what I had written before I did the next bit. I see the piece I reinserted in 3 was one you took out here .
*****And I'm afraid you're just revert warring, reinserting each time content that you claim you've not noticed I'd reverted. Are you claiming you've some kind of supernatural powers, allowing you to mystically revert my edits without realizing it ? You should have looked a bit at your edits before coming up with excuses like "I didn't know". Of course you knew, since each one of your edits was an consious attempt to destroy my edits. ] 09:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Regina neighbourhoods}}. {{3RRV|207.6.12.137}}: Time reported: 11:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

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

<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
*Blocked for 24 hours. ] ] 15:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Jewish lobby}}. {{3RRV|Mazarin07}}: Time reported: 15:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

*Editor has actually been reverting this article multiple times over the past 2 days, but these diffs demonstrate the issue most simply. In these edits, among other things, he consistently removes the <nowiki>{{Antisemitism}}</nowiki> template and ]. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 15:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
**I'm not quite seeing how the first diff is a revert; could you provide a version reverted to? Thanks. ] ] 16:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
***What's actually going on is a edit war with 3-4 people on each side, dating back to at least March 2007. Currently, the article is protected. This probably needs to go to dispute resolution. --] 16:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

* Article has been protected, so there is no point in a block. User is warned. Persisting in that kind of editing behavior will lead to blocks. ] <small>]</small> 16:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|WFAA}}. {{3RRV|Texastechfan}}: Time reported: ] 17:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

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

Have communicated with this user about a similar occasion before. User seems not to research before making edits. Keeps deleting: "Darla Miles: General Assignment Reporter." (5 times in 24 hours).

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


;'''Admin: Correct Diffs''' Actually, in the past 24 hours:
] has reverted the material ''into'' the article 4 times. (5 times going back beyond 24 hours).
* June 11 12:23 - Stale
* June 11 18:20
* June 11 19:57
* June 12 11:39
* June 12 17:52

And ] has reverted the material ''out'' of the article 3 times. (4 times going back beyond 24 hours.)
* June 11 14:03 - Stale
* June 11 19:40
* June 12 11:32
* June 12 14:28

{{3RRV|Aznismyname2367}} clearly violated 4RR in 24 hours.

{{3RRV|Texastechfan}} has 3 reverts in 24 but is also edit warring.

I am not an admin: Clearly both editors are edit warring over this material. Both appear to be new editors and neither have warnings on their talk pages. ] 18:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
*I don't see anything on the talk page of the article regarding this disputed content either, but there does appear to be a primary source available for an argument allowing it . ] <sup>(]<font color="navy" weight="bold">&#x2022;</font>]<font color="navy" weight="bold">&#x2022;</font>])</sup> 18:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lady Mabel Fitzwilliam (2nd nomination)}}. {{3RRV|SqueakBox}}: Time reported: 15:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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

This editor knows ] quite well and has been blocked for 3RR and edit warring in the past. This occurrence is an AfD - the "offending" comment that this editor is removing is in relation to his motives for !voting on the AfD. He believes he can remove it because it is a personal attack. Firstly there is no personal attack and secondly as the comment is not libellous his claim that he has immunity from ] is incorrect. I had warned the editor in my edit summaries that he was about to breach ] if he reverted again. Then he stated ] that he was immune and didn’t care. I'll say no more.--] 19:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
:This was a removal of a personal attack by {{user|Vintagekits}} implying bad faith motives on my part for daring to vote in an afd in which he takes an interest. PA's are not subject to 3rr but perhaps an admin would like to examine Vintagekits behaviour attacking me for no reason. before attacking me ont he afds he left message on my talk page calling me pathetic so IMO I am perfectly entitled to assume he was trolling and to remove his offensive comments, ] 19:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
::Even if this was a personal attack - which is wasnt, you admitted that on your talk page - that does not give you the right to overrule ]. Maybe you should have heeded the warnings I gave you (and blocks you have had before) and read ].--] 19:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
:::P.S. Same again .--] 19:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
::::PA's arent subject to 3rr, and that isnt to mention your disgraceful attempt to get the closing admin to ignore my afd comments. This is as clear a case of trolling as I have seen including this 3rr report, ie Vintage wants to waste my time and everyone else's when we could and should be trying to make a better encyclopedia, ] 19:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::]? Where was the personal attack on the AfD's? That is my last word on this issue. I will let the admin see through your smokescreen.--] 19:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::What is your moptive for troling me in this way. All I do is vote on 2 afd's and get this level of harrassment, ] 19:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

*I'll be having a word with both users. --] 20:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Quixtar}}. {{3RRV|12.40.180.17}}: Time reported: 19:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The following sentence is being repeatedly moved from the intro to elsewhere:
:::'''Some aspects of the company and its connected distributor organizations have been controversial, in particular the sale of "Business Support Materials" (books, recordings, and the like) to distributors.'''
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:

* Requests to respond on talk page: , , and user's refusal:

* 3RR warning after these reverts: and request for self-revert: (user is not new and has revert-warred on several pages)
* User ignored this request but is active on the article: .

: 24 hrs. ] <small>]</small> 20:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Wi-Fi}}. {{3RRV|Chrisjj}}: Time reported: 15:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

We are concerned with this ] and ] statement:
'''Concern has been expressed about possible ] from Wi-Fi, but scientific studies suggest this is unlikely.'''

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

''Admin, I hope you won't block the other user.'' What we need is guidance and a statement that 3RR isn't an entitlement to do 2-3 reverts per day endlessly. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
:I'd recommend taking it to AN/I since it's not a 3RR vio. --]<sup>]</sup> 06:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|The Holocaust}}. {{3RRV|SlimVirgin}}: Time reported: 15:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin ''again'' engaging in edit-warring. Second report () in a short period - pattern of gaming 3RR and pushing past its limits. These rules should apply to admins as well as anyone else and these are clear reverts ("''in whole or in part''"). User unwilling to engage in discussion on talk page, repeatedly threatens administrative action for "dirsuption" over obvious content/policy dispute, praises personal attacks by her friends, etc. etc. Are admins immune to 3RR violations and other rules?

I really am trying desperately hard to work with her and resolve these issues on the talk page but am meeting a brick wall. I took a cooling off period and came back a few days later only to be met with the same reversion of my additions to the article within minutes. I feel very bad about the animosity that has arisen, would like to find some solution, however this persistent edit warring needs to be addressed in and of itself.

* Previous version reverted to:

* 1st revert: reverts my removal of what everyone agrees is uncited (improperly cited) material without comment - scroll down for line 52, at line 19 is merely a contested term ()
* 2nd revert: reverts my addition of relevant cited material without comment ()
* 3rd revert: partially reverts my addition of cited statements over previously disputed term "eradication" and removes "extirpation" contrary to citation ()
* 4th revert: reverts addition of cited quote and in summary orders me not to add quotes or "counter-claims"(!!!) or modify article lead-in ()

All of those are "undoing the actions of another editor" "in whole or in part". She knows what 3RR is and does not hesitate to apply it to other editors. ] 08:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

::Are you kidding me? SlimVirgin was removing hate-speech. Why were you adding random quotes of Adolf Hitler to the article? &mdash; ] ] 09:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
:::You have a curious notion of hate-speech. Those edits stand on their own. At any rate a dispute over content is no justification for 3RR violations. ] 09:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

:I was wondering why you are singling out ]? Not to imply anyone is right or wrong but a quick glance at the article's history shows that she isn't the only one reverting there. ] 09:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
::The other editor reverting today caught himself on the 4th and reverted himself. ] 09:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The third one doesn't look like a revert, and the previous 3RR report was invalid, so doesn't really add anything to this one. ] ] 09:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

:The third one "undoes the actions of another editor" "in whole or in part" - that is a revert by the 3RR. The previous 3RR report shows a pattern of the same edit-warring so it is relevant. This one is about as cut and dry of a case as there could be. ] 09:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
::No, third one isn't a revert, at least not clearly. SlimVirgin would still do well to revert less often, I think, since 3RR is not an entitlement to three reverts a day. ] ] 17:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Rosie O'Donnell}}. {{3RRV|Str1977}}: Time reported: 15:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Editor ] has a strong belief that the subject of the article is anti-Catholic and has been re-adding previously discussed and removed section ignoring and reversing edits. Since there was heightened emotions I tried carefully to reason with user and spell out what needed to chnage in the edits and why others had issues to to material being added. I'm not sure the best response but since they just reverted everything back agin I want to avoid edit warring myself. I'm afraid some official intervention seems to be needed - sorry! ] 10:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


* Previous version reverted to:

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

<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
*Only three reverts given; need more than three for 3RR vio. ] ] 17:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Fedor Emelianenko}}. {{3RRV|Spartakk}}: Time reported: 15:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Editor Spartakk has been removing information about the nationality of the living subject, and adding in unreferenced pseudonyms despite warnings. Has also been making personal attacks and refuses to discuss civilly on talk. ]]] 10:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4rd revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:
* 8th revert:
* Diff of 3RR warning:
*Both users have violated 3RR and let this edit war continue far too long. Both blocked for 24 hours. ] ] 17:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Goguryeo-China wars}}. {{3RRV|Good_friend100}}: Time reported: 15:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

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

* Editor has been blocked repeatedly for 3RR in the past few weeks on similar articles. Several reports above illustate further edit warring behavior.
**Not convinced the third revert really counts: it reverts an edit from several days ago, and can be seen as consecutive with the immediately previous revert, even though there's an edit in between. But, given how the editor has been blocked three times in the last month for 3RR vios and has been reported for near-vios several times since; I'd say it's time for a block for edit warring, regardless of whether there's a technical vio. One week. ] ] 18:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad}}. {{3RRV|Lft6771}}: Time reported: 14:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

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

* Diff of 3RR warning:

*Just a note: I believe it may actually be 7RR, as NavyFalcon probably is the same as Lft6771. I've filed a report at ]. ] 14:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

*] violation on
{{Article|KMSP-TV}}. {{3RRV|Rollosmokes}}: Time reported: 18:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version not yet reverted by myself
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:

* Diff of 3RR warning:

*I attempted to slightly rewrite, clarify and correct this article, only to see this user revert. I tried to compromise, but was met with a rude response. I do not want to engage in an edit war, and have offered a compromise solution, but this user is not agreeable. I hope this will settle things once and for all.--] 18:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
*Only three reverts given; need more than three for 3RR vio. ] ] 18:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:semi-protected)===

*] violation on
{{Article|Movement to impeach George W. Bush}}. {{3RRV|71.253.143.25}}: Time reported: 18:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

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

I made the first IP aware of ] in this edit after which the identical edit was made by '''changing IP''''s. To me this suggests user is alternating IP-address to circumvent 3RR. Since he keeps changing maybe a semi-protect is a better solution.<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>]</small></font></i></sup> 18:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
**Already semi-protected by another admin. ] ] 21:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hrs / unblocked)===
{{resolved}}
*] violation on
{{Article|Rosie O'Donnell}}. {{3RRV|Str1977}}: Time reported: 19:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This user seems intent on pushing POV that article's subject is anti-Catholic without appropriate references and has deleted work from other editors who tried to include the verifiable parts in question. Seems like it's all or nothing and very disruptive. First encouraged user to use talk page (rather than just edit warring) and reasoned dialog seems to be getting nowhere. My goal is a better article, user's goal seems otherwise.

* Previous version reverted to:

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

* 1st revert: 07:35, 12 June 2007
* 2nd revert: 23:32, 12 June 2007
* 3rd revert: 07:31, 13 June 2007
* 4th revert: 09:34, 13 June 2007
* 5th revert: 19:30, 13 June 2007

<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
**Please provide diffs rather than oldids. Thanks. ] ] 21:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

:::I think I replace with the needed Diffs instead of oldids, thank you for your help

* 24 hrs. ] <small>]</small> 22:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

:: I would appreciate other admins' opinions on this block, as some of the edits are not exact reverts. Seems warranted, but a second opinion would be appreciated. ] <small>]</small> 22:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
::: 1, 2, 4 are all removing the supreme court paragraph and inserting the section on anti-Catholicism. 3 is removal of the paragraph only; 5 isn't reverting anything. As the Version reverted to was not filled in, 1 must count as that version. This still leaves 2, 3, 4 for removal of the supreme court paragraph for 3 reverts, and two reverts on adding the Catholic section. Valid block for edit warring; as "3RR is not an entitlement" or however its phrased. ''Was'' there a "version reverted to prior to this? (checking myself, brb) ]<sup>]</sup> 22:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
::: Ok, the previous version which had the same edits was as well as I can determine. Can someone else verify that? Adding diff where it was removed ]<sup>]</sup> 23:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
::: And my final post for this, unless there are questions for me, specifically: the old version reverted to had the Catholic section, but also had the supreme court paragraph. In other words, he's gone 3 reverts on the Catholic section, and 3 reverts on the supreme court paragraph, which is SFAICT not technically violating 3RR, but he's been around long enough to know that he's edit warring. That's counting awfully close. I would be ok with reversing the block, or with letting it stand. And I would much appreciate someone else checking this, because we now have two findings on this 3RR report, and they do not agree. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
::: Never mind, my brain finally did math. Apologies for the spam. Neither is 3RR, due to the time difference (and DO check my math on the time, please.) ]<sup>]</sup> 23:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
::::I would not be in a position to take any administrative action with regard to Str1977, as he is a personal friend. However, having stated that, I'd like to point out that the first revert is completely outside the 24-hour period. The fifth revert doesn't seem to be a revert at all, but even if it were, it's worth noting that it's the very next edit after the fourth revert; nobody had edited in between. Therefore, he could have done the two edits in one go, by doing a full page edit instead of two separate sections. It is standard practice not to count consecutive edits as separate reverts, even if they are both ''technically'' reverts. So what we have is three reverts within a 24-hour period. It is also worth noting that in the same period, he made eighteen edits to the talk page. Some were just modifications rather than new posts, but there were about fifteen individual posts &mdash; more than came from Benjiboi, who has also been reverting. I would suggest an unblock, but I admit that it's a suggestion coming from a friend of the blocked user, rather than a neutral review from an uninvolved administrator. ]] 23:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::What I said, only Ml said it more clearly - 5 was not a revert, and the "version reverted to" which I had to dig out of history, is outside the 24 hours. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::I nomed Str1977 as I felt they were knowingly being disruptive and I personally didn't want to be violating 3rr myself. I feel the article should be reverted back to where it was prior to Str1977's deletions and replacing the press release quote. Str1977 only used the talk page after prompted and continued to revert even after concerns were spelled out several times (politely). I'm not wed to the user getting 3rr'd but wanted to bring an end to the edit warring. As is the article is much worse for the process and the talk page seems a tad immature instead of healthy dialog. I'm glad it's stopped for the moment but am concerned about how constructive future edits will be if there is someone simply waiting in the wings to revert them. ] 00:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Sounds like Str1977 should be unblocked. Edit-warring is bad, but Benjboi was doing that too. We shouldn't be blocking anyone for defective reports of non-violations.] 00:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::::Actually I was avoiding an edit war and consistently tried to refocus the many talk page posts to lead to constructively editing the article. The article has been left with the reverted section in despite being removed quite a few times in the past by myself and others and if you look at it you'll (hopefully) see why it had been tagged POV and removed several times. Str1977 added it back in repeatedly and apparently should have known better. ] 00:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I will unblock as per Proabivouac and others commenting here. ] <small>]</small> 00:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
:I see that another admin has unblocked. ] <small>]</small> 00:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
::Nods, we seem to have crossed paths. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Thanks, Jossi and KillerChihuahua.] 01:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|List of Puerto Ricans}}. {{3RRV|Entre-Nos}}: Time reported: 20:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

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

Only three reverts, but user refuses to enter into discussion on talk page, despite many pleas (see discussion at ] and ] for instance), and despite the fact that this policy for the list is now explicitly featured on the page. (See .) There has been much effort to engage this user in discussion, and now he's trying everyone's patience with his continued reverts. --] (]|]) 20:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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

: User warned. ] <small>]</small> 22:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Tampa Bay Buccaneers Depth Chart}}. {{3RRV|DavidRFLA}}: Time reported: 21:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

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

User has ignored an explanation on his or her talk page and a 3RR warning.

:Rejected as malformed report. Please show diffs for the reverts, and sign your posts. ] <small>]</small> 21:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
::Should I fix the report or post it again? ] 22:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
::: If the user persists, sure. ] <small>]</small> 22:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

===] 6RR and vandalism reported by ] (Result: 48 hrs)===

] slightly vandalized and then 6RRed a section of the ] article over the founded consensus of at least six other editors, within some minutes.

1. Revert,

2. Revert,

3. Revert,

4. Revert,

5. Revert,

6. Revert,

He has been reverted back by ], ], ] and ] and got cross with
] .

I remember RookZERO from some months ago as a vandalising editor. If those diffs are needed please let me know. ] 21:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

* 48 hrs. Previous violator, should know better by now. ] <small>]</small> 21:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Tampa Bay Buccaneers Depth Chart}}. {{3RRV|DavidRFLA}}: Time reported: 22:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

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

Links fixed this time (prior rejected). ] 22:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User has ignored explanations to the redirect in his talk page. His latest response to my explanation was "Tell me, who made WP:NOR the god to decide who puts what on Winipedia. Take a walk. Your a typical commie from Mass. Why can you not just mind your own business. Is that impossible for a person of your makeup. If I want to put up a depth chart, who the heck are you or anyone else to tell me I can not do it. Get a life Nazi." ] 22:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
*Blocked 24 hours for 3RR vio, also advised to mind ], ] and ]. ] ] 23:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Walt Disney World Monorail System}}. {{3RRV|HeadMouse}}: Time reported: 03:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

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

:I am attempting to imporve the article, he tries to include information about how to emergency evacuate a monorail. Also I suggest he become aware of ], ], ], ], and ].
*Please provide diffs rather than oldids. ] ] 04:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

* '''Comment''' - Speaking as a peripherally involved editor, '''HeadMouse''' has previously received many warnings (see ]) including copyvio, 3RR, and ] and was blocked for 48 hours last month. --] (]) 04:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
**Revert #3 above is a revert of revert #2; consecutive reverts do not count toward 3RR. TREYWiki and others: please don't use rollback scripts to revert in content disputes (especially the ones that make the edit summaries that refer to vandalism). ] ] 04:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|The Rocky Horror Picture Show}}. {{3RRV|amadscientist}}: Time reported: 04:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

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

<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
He's been around for 6 months, so I don't think he's particularly new. He was warned of the 3RR rule in the change description undoing his reversion, and specifically told that one more revert would put him over the threshold.
-->

==Insert new report here==
<!-- copy from _above_ this line -->
== Example ==
<pre>

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

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

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

* Previous version reverted to:

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

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

==Insert new report here==
<!-- copy from _above_ this line -->



</pre>

Latest revision as of 23:33, 23 December 2024

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

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

    Click here to create a new report

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

    User:湾岸2024 reported by User:Nimbus227 (Result: Stale)

    Page: Pratt & Whitney F135 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 湾岸2024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

    Baffling edits, baffling discussion on article talk page, out of ideas. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

    Asked not to cross post at Talk:Pratt & Whitney F119 here. Not sure why the user name is giving an error in this report, possibly because the page hasn't been created yet? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    While the user clearly has some competence issues, I disagree with you calling their edits original research on the talk page since they seem to me to be simple, routine arithmetic based on sourced numbers which does not count as original research. They even reproduce some of that math there. Daniel Case (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    And, yes, when a user has not yet created a page for themselves, their username is redlinked. It's not an error, just the way the software works. Daniel Case (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm aware of red links, I believe I had put their name in the wrong field. To be fair I don't come here every day. Is four reverts not edit warring? Synthesis, OR and calc aside they were demanding that American engines display their specifications in a Russian/Chinese format. As this is the English Misplaced Pages I don't think it was unreasonable to say that wasn't possible or desired but they persisted anyway. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Well, that last part hadn't been clear until now. Still ... you give only three reverts above, and if I were to infer which edit you meant to be the fourth from the article history it would appear that you are making the entirely too-common mistake of listing the "edit reverted to" as one of the reverts.

    In fact, they arguably have as strong, if not stronger, a case against you for violating 3RR as your reverts of their edits do not come under the 3RRNO exceptions. I would, seeing as you are as you said not a frequent reporter here, commend your attention to WP:DISCFAIL, written to adddress this sort of situation. Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    Unless I am mistaken I reverted only three times, being very aware of 3RR I stopped and came here. I provided clear rationales in the edit summaries and attempted to converse with the user on the article talk page, it's not accurate to state that I did not try to discuss the problematic edits. I can see this is going nowhere. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Nimbus227: You're not mistaken. You reverted only 3x. 湾岸2024 reverted 4x but the last revert was outside the 24-hour window. Your biggest "mistake", Nimbus227, was that you didn't prepare this report properly. The reason for the error in the username was because you failed to put it in one of the spots the template asks you to - I fixed that if you look back at the history of this page. The second error, which, unfortunately, is not that uncommon was you listed only 3 reverts instead of 4. In any event, because all of this happened a few days ago, I'm going to decline this as stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:Luffaloaf reported by User:WeatherWriter (Result: Blocked both (reporter for 1 week and reportee for 72 hours))

    Page: 2005 Birmingham tornado (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Luffaloaf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: None. (User received edit warring block in the last 2 weeks)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2005 Birmingham tornado#The tornado was rated F2, or T4, not “T5-6” or F3 & Talk:2005 Birmingham tornado#Should the article’s infobox indicate EF2/T4 or F3/T5-6?, two long talk page discussions.

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

    Comments:
    I may earn a boomerang block for edit warring myself, however, I believe this report is necessary. Luffaloaf seems to lack the competence required to edit Misplaced Pages. This user has 176 edits total, of which, roughly 80% involve some sort of edit war. On December 7, Luffaloaf got involved in an edit war with 3 other editors (See 1764 Woldegk tornado: Revision history) and earned a 24 hour edit warring block. Back in October 2024, when they first joined, they received several talk page warnings for edit warring on the Harry Potter article (User talk:Luffaloaf#October 2024. And now, less than 2 weeks after being blocked for edit warring, they have done it again on the 2005 Birmingham tornado article (see article revision history). Another editor EF5 noted back during the December 7 edit war that this user also took to Reddit about the edit war. To also help the CIR issue, amid the edit war, actually their first edit to the article after being blocked for edit warring, the added unverified information.

    During today’s edit war with myself, to help diffuse the situation, I directly asked if they would be ok with a larger community discussion starting, to which they replied they were ok with it. As such, I opened an RFC. However, despite being reminded of WP:BRD, twice, (boldly changing content, being challenged by another editor, and then agreeing to discuss it), in two separate edit warring reversions by myself (), with me both times asking to wait for the RFC consensus to see if the content should change, they continued to edit war. I am ok with a boomerang block for edit warring, as I admit that I got well to engaged in the edit war (I deserve it for this edit summary), but I also see a clear pattern with Luffaloaf not understanding the concept of WP:3RR, edit warring, and WP:BRD, given their numerous notifications on it, their recent edit warring block, and the fact roughly 80% of their total edits on Misplaced Pages are engaging in edit wars. This is a case of not being mature enough to edit Misplaced Pages, which, in my opinion, seems to be confirmed with those off-Wiki Reddit posts discovered by EF5 linked above. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    This amounts to character assassination and trying to “ban a POV you dislike”. I engaged in the behavior you did, regrettably. I also made it clear that you supported IP additions without sources at all, and when I re-established edits because I found ample sources for all of them (in accordance with the ongoing talk page back-and-forth), you continued to revert them and uphold flagrant misinformation. My point in doing so after the initial back-and-forth editing was to update the page with the aggregate of sources I had found in the progress of the talk page dispute. Also, where is the data on “80% of my edits being related to edit-warring” ? Immature editing is upholding unsourced edits in spite of sources, and using Misplaced Pages regulation to gatekeep pages. I abided by my original block, and engaged on talk pages as much as possible. In regards to Harry Potter edits, I eventually stopped. Not sure how really any of your examples constitute “not being mature enough” to edit Misplaced Pages. That sounds like you trying to ban someone who challenges any edit of yours or POV you favor, a common behavior among established Misplaced Pages editors. Luffaloaf (talk) 07:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Statements like that, along with large replies like this one on a good article I think help confirm maybe righting great wrongs. I do apologize for engaging in the edit war. My mistakes should not have encouraged you to do the exact same thing you got blocked for 2 weeks ago back on December 7. If anything, that almost seems to indicate you learned nothing from that block, since you went with “Oh, this editor is doing this, I can do it too”. I am not perfect and here I saw my mistake and admitted it. You got a block 10 days ago and clearly did not learn anything from it. Your editing behavior is a clear pattern now on 3 separate articles, which was seen by other editors, not just myself. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 08:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    “A good article” = meet Misplaced Pages’s kind of arbitrary editorial standard. The information sourced is poorly represented, and there are massive flaws in the source, yes. Your attempt to uphold an F5 rating and 300 MPH wind speed on the page for that 18th century tornado from the ESSL laughably clashes with your attempt to disregard an EF2 rating for a 2005 tornado, handed down from a structural engineer, previously involved in tons of notable tornado surveys in the US, who undertook an actual damage survey with photo documentation of the damage. It just doesn’t make sense. It indicates to me that you, and maybe others, are trying to exaggerate the intensity of European tornadoes and tornado climatology. You are the malfeasant editor here, regardless of the “Misplaced Pages lawfare” article gatekeeping stuff. You are the only editor who had consistently opposed my edits. Luffaloaf (talk) 08:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)\
    Will note that Luffaloaf has called Misplaced Pages's rules "autistic" and me a "euroretard" on the same Reddit thread (my Reddit username is "LiminalityMusic", I don't care disclosing that. EF 12:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Now at WP:ANI. EF 13:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Will note that this is insane to bring into a Misplaced Pages dispute? This has not happened on Misplaced Pages. Luffaloaf (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Note: Luffaloaf is continuing to edit war with another user, amid this administrator noticeboard discussion. Very clear WP:CIR issue with a clear lack of understanding of Misplaced Pages’s WP:BRD and WP:3RR policies. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
      You are continuing to disregard sources to peddle misinformation on multiple pages related to tornadoes in Europe. You can lie all you want, the Birmingham tornado of 2005 was rated an EF2. It’s as plain as day. Why does that upset you so much? Luffaloaf (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours I see at least 6 reverts each. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
      Whether or not I’m supposed to reply here I don’t know. But I would like to ask for some clarification (preferably from @EvergreenFir) on why the comment above says that WeatherWriter was blocked for 48 hours but the talk page says he was blocked for a week. Is there any particular reason for the discrepancy; was there an error or a typo somewhere? Hurricane Clyde 🌀 20:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
      @Hurricane Clyde I was using the script tools when I did this. I then went to block the individuals and, upon reviewing their block logs, found previous edit warring behaviors. Per WP:BLOCK, "Blocks serve to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems. Blocks may escalate in duration if problems recur."
      Luffaloaf was blocked by Favonian just the other week for 24 hours for edit warring, so I escalated that to 72 hours. WeatherWriter has a rather lengthy block log, and I saw two blocks for edit warring in it. Upon looking again, I see that the second "block" was just an adjustment of the first one which was 72 hours. Regardless, I do not think an escalation from 3 days (72 hours) to 7 days is unreasonable, especially give the other disputative behavior. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
      Thanks for the clarification. Hurricane Clyde 🌀 21:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:



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

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

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

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

    User:Pipera reported by User:Paramandyr (Result: Both blocked 48 hours)

    Page: Robert de Quincy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Pipera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ,

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

    Comments:

    Pipera has chosen to add grandchildren and great grandchildren to the Robert de Quincy article. I have stated on the article talk page this is unnecessary and off-topic to Robert de Quincy. They have also misrepresented what a source states, which I have also stated on the article talk page.

    Even while filling out this report Pipera has reverted me twice, choosing to add back an unused 1790 source to the Sources section, and readding Robert's grandchildren and great grandchildren. This after being told by user:Ealdgyth(17 December 2024) that WP:AGEMATTERS. Honestly, I don't think Pipera is here to build a community encyclopedia. --Paramandyr (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    content user added to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    I have added the followi9ng:
    Robert married Orabilis, daughter of Nes fitz William, Lord of Leuchars. .
    Orabilis was married three times to Morggán, Earl of Mar and Adam of Fife, as stated in the links provided.
    They had:
    Saer de Quincy (died 1219), married Margaret de Beaumont, daughter of Robert de Beaumont, 3rd Earl of Leicester
    Unknown (daughter) de Quincy married de St Andrew
    Sir Saer I de St Andrew of East Haddon married Matilda de Dyve daughter of Hugh Dyve and Agnes they had issue:
    Robert de St Andrew married Albreda
    James de St Andrew (1228)
    Ralph de St Andrew (1228 - 1278)
    William de St Andrew
    Laurence de St Andrew
    Saer II de St Andrew
    John de St Andrew
    Sir Roger de St Andrew (d before 1249)
    Orabilis and Robert divorced.
    Secondly, he married Eve of Galloway, who was previously married to Walter Barclay. .
    it is alright for the children of Saer de Quincy to be placed on his page here, and not for the children of his sis5ter not to be placed here.
    They are also the grandchildren of the said parents and deserve the right to be placed there as well as the marriages of Roberts first wife and her three husbands as well as the second marriage of Robert her husband.
    I do not think I have broken any rules by adding this to his article supported by the external links provided. Pipera (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have posted to the talk page this is also incorrect. Pipera (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    I am not in an edit war, I posted new information which is educationally correct and was removed without any academic argument it was gone. no pre talk on the talk page concerning what was supplied by the person deleting the information.
    They firstly need to raise and entry and then talk and resolve, Pipera (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    I am expanding these articles not rolling them back. I have been editing here since at least the year 2001, I was editing entries for the 9/11 project obituaries for the people that passed in 9/11. Pipera (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    See
    User talk:Paramandyr: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Paramandyr&diff=prev&oldid=1264014635
    Latest revision as of 23:20, 19 December 2024 edit undo thank
    Paramandyr (talk | contribs)
    removed, stay off my talk page
    Tag: Undo Pipera (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:2804:14C:BBE7:44CE:B8E5:FEDB:67F5:D84D reported by User:Moscow Connection (Result: Stale; content removed)

    Page: Sigma Boy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 2804:14C:BBE7:44CE:B8E5:FEDB:67F5:D84D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:
    If the IP reverts one more time, could someone please block them and revert their nonsensical edit? (Okay, maybe it's not "nonsensical", but it's incorrect.) Moscow Connection (talk) 02:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    4. (second IP)



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

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

    Categories: