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

Revision as of 00:31, 12 July 2007 editIlya1166 (talk | contribs)2,100 editsNo edit summary← 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>
	{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
			|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
	|algo = old(7d)
	|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR/Archive%(counter)d
	|counter = 51
	|maxarchivesize = 250K		|maxarchivesize = 250K
			|counter = 490
	}}
			|algo = old(2d)
			|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
			|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
			}}</noinclude>
			<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
			== ] reported by ] (Result: Stale) ==
	]
	==Violations==
	Please place new reports '''at the bottom'''.
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|:Pratt & Whitney F135}} <br />
	===] reported by ] (Result:No violation)===
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|湾岸2024}}
			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Emma Groves}}. {{3RRV|Domer48}}: Time reported: 09:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	* Previous version reverted to:
			#
			#
			#
			#
			'''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:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:
			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	I haven't warned the guy, but I think he's seasoned enough as an editor to be aware of the guidelines. I made an edit in good faith, to remove POV from an article, after which he accused me of being a POV editor. To be fair to him, he did try to offer dialogue, of a sort, on the article talk page, which I answered in kind.
			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	Thank you. --<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:larger;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">]</span> 09:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
			Baffling edits, baffling discussion on article talk page, out of ideas. ] ] 19:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	Whats the difference between restoring and reverting information on an article? Is that the same as replacing the information? Regards --] 10:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
			: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)
			::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, 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)) ==
	You tried to set me up for a 3RR but check! I was replacing vandlism by you, based on no conclusion to discussion! Around just long enough to cop on to you! I did not accuse you of being a PoV editor, I said you were! --] 10:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|2005 Birmingham tornado|1764 Woldegk tornado}} <br />
	: So what.. you're adding insult to injury now? You didn't "cop on" to anything, by the way. The reasons for my edits were sound, and I explained them to you on the discussion page.
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Luffaloaf}}
			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	: This isn't a ] - its an encyclopedia. --<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:larger;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">]</span> 10:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	'''Chill Dormer'''. 3RR is a very hard rap to beat as it tends to be automatic if the reverts add up. I don't think the nature of the reverts are of much concern; and vandalism is tricky - I got caught in similar circumstances where I assumed I had a vandalism case but it turned out he was enforcing policy. I would call for '''no action''' here on the basis that you didn't realise that reverting what you thought was vandalism could be construed as 3RR. In the circumstances the '''lack of any warning''' is a serious issue; the warning requirement is precisely to prevent cases like this where you accidentally breach 3RR. I suggest you be more careful in future but a block isn't justified in this case. I would ask Mal/Setanta as a Veteran Editor to withdraw as a gesture of good faith to a relative newcomer. (] 10:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC))
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
	: Sarah I'm afraid I must decline - particularly after Domer's last paragraph here. What a closing admin decides to do is another matter, but I definately felt like it needed to be taken to another forum, as Domer was refusing to listen to me. I have to say that I also never got a second chance when two or three like-minded editors basically ganged up on me with one article at a time when I was barely aware of any 3RR policy either. So I'll leave it up to what ever admin decides to look at it. --<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:larger;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">]</span> 10:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
	Hang on here a minute, ], suggests that they restored the article, that is a revert. Anyone can check the history on the article page. Regards--] 11:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
	::Dormer, blame my technical incompetence but I can't trace the reverts - on either side. maybe get someone more proficient to look at it? (] 11:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC))
			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' None. (User received edit warring block in the last 2 weeks)
	::OK Mal, so maybe it has happened to us all; we live and learn. But from your comments you appear to have thought your 3RR event was unfair (as I did in my case). That isn't a reason for doling out the same medicine to another newcomer - the opposite surely? I know one thing I learned was that I'd make sure to give very clear warnings before reporting (as the record will show). Though I concede warnings are not very effective most of the time; still - they should be given. (] 11:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC))
			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ] & ], two long talk page discussions.
	:::: Re: ''"That isn't a reason for doling out the same medicine to another newcomer - the opposite surely?"'' Try not to put words into my mouth Sarah. --<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:larger;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">]</span> 21:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	:::Right, I've dumped the entire log so we can look at it; is does, on the surface, appear that Dormer may have a point - it looks rather like '''four reverts'''. Mal, perhaps some explanation as to why think you didn't do 4 reverts would be helpful? I assume it is the 24-hour rule? Regards (] 11:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC))
			<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.
	# (cur) (last) 10:10, June 23, 2007 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (6,572 bytes) (Inserted information removed prior to discussion conclusion. Rational POV motivated!)
	# (cur) (last) '''09:57, June 23, 2007 Setanta747''' (Talk | contribs) (3,707 bytes) (article restored to NPOV version: Please do not revert this again - I have explained my rationale.)
	# (cur) (last) 09:07, June 23, 2007 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (6,542 bytes) (rv as per previous)
	# (cur) (last) '''01:23, June 23, 2007 Setanta747''' (Talk | contribs) (3,707 bytes) (Restored article to NPOV version. Domer48: watch your WP:NPA please.)
	# (cur) (last) 08:44, June 22, 2007 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (6,542 bytes) (Rv Restored the information removed by POV editor)
	# (cur) (last) '''01:46, June 22, 2007 Setanta747''' (Talk | contribs) (3,707 bytes) (reverted article to a less-POV and more encyclopediac version)
	# (cur) (last) 13:12, June 21, 2007 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (6,542 bytes) (Added page numbers removed POV tags from reference)
	# (cur) (last) 08:41, June 21, 2007 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (6,573 bytes) (Replaced information which was removed because of POV of an Editor)
	# (cur) (last) 08:39, June 21, 2007 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (4,713 bytes) (Replaced information which was removed because of POV of an Editor)
	# (cur) (last) 08:07, June 21, 2007 Setanta747 (Talk | contribs) (3,707 bytes) (re-added source by Vintagekits)
	# (cur) (last) '''08:05, June 21, 2007 Setanta747''' (Talk | contribs) (3,645 bytes) (rv to non-POV version: Also - please do not remove the tags I added. There were several edits I made that were undone wholescale with no consideration for merit on individual basis.)
	::I see three reverts. One more and Domer gets blocked. — ] ] 14:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
			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)
	:More than three reversions, but spread out over longer than 24 hours. ] 14:25, 9 July 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:Both parties agreed to discuss)===
			::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) ==
	Two violations, not sure how to report so I've pasted two templates.
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Giganotosaurus}} <br />
	*] violation on
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|PaleoFile}}
	{{Article|Iron Maiden (disambiguation)}}. {{3RRV|Reginmund}}: Time reported: 19:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to:		'''Previous version reverted to:'''
			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:		#
	* 3rd revert:		#
	* 4th revert:		#
			#
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Iron maiden}}. {{3RRV|Reginmund}}: Time reported: 19:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 1st revert:		'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (regarding another now-dormant edit war on a related page)
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' N/A, did not revert and talked directly to editor instead
	{{clerknote}} Regimund account created on June 7, 2007. Has no 3RR warning either. '''<font face="Arial">]<sub><small>]</small></sub></font>''' 21:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
	<br>{{clerknote}} Reginmund has 7 reverts, but Maurauth has 6. This is an edit war which seems to have ceased. '''<font face="Arial">]<sub><small>]</small></sub></font>''' 21:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
	<br>{{clerknote}} Maurath has had 2 blocks for editwarring, one block for incivility (April-May 2007), and he agreed to abide by 1RR when unblocked in May. I suggest some sort of block for Maurath and a warning for Reginmund. '''<font face="Arial">]<sub><small>]</small></sub></font>''' 21:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
	:I agreed to 1RR with the one user on the issue that I was warring about. I have 6 reverts over a long period of time, not 24 hours, I was discussing it but he kept reverting. Also, see ] for discussion and list of attempted resolutions on my part. ≈ '''<font color="purple">]</font>''' <font color="green"><sup>(])</sup></font> 21:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	===] reported by IP Address (Result:No block)===
			] | ] 20:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	*] violation on
			*Both users have been {{AN3|w}}. ] (]) 21:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	{{Article|Islam in the United Kingdom}}. {{3RRV|Matt57}}: Time reported: 20:04, 23 June 2007 (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) ==
	<!-- 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: (Accused the IP of being His Excellency)
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert: (Accused the IP of being Kirbytime)
	* 5th revert: (Accused the IP of being Kirbytime)
	* 6th revert:
	* 7th revert: (Accused the IP of being His Excellency)
	* 8th revert: (Accused the IP of being His Excellency or Kirbytime)
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Robert de Quincy}} <br />
	This editor reverted 5 times inserting descriptions of a non-Muslim organization giving it more attention than any Muslim organization receives in the same article. He argues that its removal is vandalism but it is clear that this is a content dispute over undue weight. First he argued that the IP's were the sockpuppet of , then apparently changed his mind and argued that they are the sockpuppet of , and both allegations come without any proof. ] 20:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Pipera}}
	:These are block evading sock puppets of either {{userblock|His excellency}} (more suspected) or {{userblock|Kirbytime}}. Reverting edits of users who try to evade blocks is not against policy. As you can see, he comes back with a new IP every time, proabbly using anonymous browsing to evade the blocks. --] <sup>(]•])</sup> 20:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
	::Administrators should note that this user provides no proof for this accusation, nor have either of those two users ever edited the article in question. ] 20:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
	:::This user is coming back with a new IP every time. Here are some of the IPs he has used (this is Hix Excellency for sure): 86.74.6.82, 88.198.148.74, 84.151.168.136, 83.189.77.121 and now 217.232.177.205. --] <sup>(]•])</sup> 20:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
	::::This destructive permabanned editor has recently forced admins to semi-protect ], ], ], and ]. Something should be done to block this person permanently. ] 21:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
	* No block. Reverting vandalism by anons. ] <small>]</small> 20:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
	<s>** Will appreciate other admins opinion on this. At first hand it seems to be rv of vandalism, but I may be mistaken. ] <small>]</small> 21:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)</s>
	::Its deletion of sourced material by an anonymous user, an obvious block evading sock puppet. Reverting edits of blocked sock puppets doesnt count for 3RR. If the question is whether this is user is a sock puppet, the answer is a confirmed yes because he comes back with a new IP every time. --] <sup>(]•])</sup> 21:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	* {{userlinks|140.113.134.33}} blocked indef. Confirmed open proxy
	* {{userlinks|217.232.177.205}} blocked indef. Confirmed open proxy
	] <small>]</small> 21:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Also confirmed open proxies for {{userlinks|86.74.6.82}}, {{userlinks|88.198.148.74}}, {{userlinks|84.151.168.136}}, {{userlinks|83.189.77.121}}
			#
	Indefblocking these as well ] <small>]</small> 21:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
			#
	:If there are any other IPs doing the same type of edits, drop me a line. ] <small>]</small> 21:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
			#
	::Thanks for checking the IPs! Will do. --] <sup>(]•])</sup> 21:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
			#
	* also blocked {{userlinks|70.238.158.12}} - open proxy ] <small>]</small> 21:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
			#
	<!--
			#
			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	- * 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:
	-->
			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ,
	<!-- copy from _below_ this line -->
			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hrs)===
			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	*] violation on
	{{Article|List of notable converts to Islam}}. {{3RRV| Error1010}}: Time reported: 00:55, 24 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.
	<!-- 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:
			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)
	* Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
			{{hat|content user added to the article.--] (]) 00:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
			:I have added the followi9ng:
	* Diff of 3RR warning:
			: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: Stale; content removed) ==
	This is probably a sock puppet of {{userblock|Kirbytime}} or {{userblock|His excellency}}. He has spent most of today editing Misplaced Pages with various socks and anonymous open proxies.
	:There is a good chance its HE now that the sheriff is out of town. ] 00:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Sigma Boy}} <br />
	I didn't think my fifth edit qualified as undoing the work of another editor. The first one is not a revert, I wasn't even registered when this material was inserted. ] 01:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|2804:14C:BBE7:44CE:B8E5:FEDB:67F5:D84D}}
	:It was 5 reverts actually, thanks for the reminder. You're a sock puppet of Kirbytime probably. A check user will be filed on you if you keep editing. --] <sup>(]•])</sup> 01:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
	::I appreciate the threats. ] 01:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	* An editor with one day in Misplaced Pages, who knows the ropes too well to be a newbie, and edits in same pattern as previously blocked editors. 24 hrs. Please reconsider the way you participate in this project. ] <small>]</small> 01:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			#
			#
	===] reported by ] (Result:Dismiss)===
			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Great Irish Famine}}. {{3RRV|Domer48}}: Time reported: 19:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	* 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:
			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	Comment: Domer48 has also breached WP:CIVIL, accusing me of bad faith edits, POV and disruptive editing, none of which are correct. ] 19:11, 24 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)
	:I’m more than happy for editors to review the recent discussions, and determine things for themselves. I would also like it to be bourn in mind my recent contributions, to this article, and the actions of this editor. For example review the section in question and suggest a title. --] 19:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
			*{{AN3|s}}; content removed until a consensus is found ] (]) 13:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	::Note that I asked Domer48 for an apology on his talk page before posting here; his response was to paste the private request for an apology into the talk page of the main article with a negative remark, and to append the phrase "ye ye" to the request for an apology on his talk page. ] 19:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24 hours) ==
	:::'''Comment:''' Mark, this is a 3RR allegation; not a complaint of ]. Can we deal with them separately? (] 19:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC))
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Lindy Li}} <br />
	::OK this may work against me, but I just burst my sides laughing. Is anyone going to take this as Genuine.
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Napoleonjosephine2020}}
	::I should direct editors here		'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	And then here, .
			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	:::One question, was it 3 reverts? I think I addressed the issue on the discussion page? Thanks --] 19:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
			#
			#
			#
			#
	'''Comment:'''No, it wasn't 3RR; but both yourself and Mark came very close. And as it wasn't a breach I'd ask Mark to withdraw this as, by my reading of the rules, wrongful claims of this nature '''may''' themselves be regarded as a breach of ], ] etcetera. I'd suggest you both take a cooling-off period or get an Admin involved here before the dispute escalates. Regards (] 19:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC))
	:There's a bit of a mess with editors on this article all round. I'm intervening on the talk page as a solution (hopefully), and will not be lenient there on edit warring. ] 20:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
	::I will gracefully accept your direction, and thanks for you patient attention. Sincere Regards
			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours)===
			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' Zilch.
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Afro-Brazilian}}. {{3RRV|Opinoso}}: Time reported: 19:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to:		'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	<!-- 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:
	{{clerknote}} Opinoso account created in 2005. No previous blocks. Report looks valid. --'''<font face="Arial">]<sub><small>]</small></sub></font>''' 20:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)		Note: I am not involved in this situation whatsoever, just found this in recent changes. ] • ] • ] 05:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	:User warned, continued to revert, blocked. ] <small><font color="teal">]</font></small> 20:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
			:The editor whose revisions I am trying to undo publicly attacked the subject as an "opportunistic grifter". No one who uses such inflammatory language should be editing the page of this subject. This is common sense and journalism 101. He is clearly motivated by animus against her and should not be editing her page. Why is this even in question? ] (]) 05:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: no action)===
			::@]
			::"This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule." Also, "When reporting a user here, own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand ] and the definitions below first." I am not involved, don't complain to me please. Nothing I can do here. ] • ] • ] 05:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::You reported me because I tried to stop someone from violating Li's page! Why is the saboteur getting a free pass? He's clearly motivated by animus and admitted as much on her talk page. ] (]) 05:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Did you read my comment? You and the other person will have behavior analyzed and decisions will be made accordingly. I'm not singling you out since I have no idea what's happening, you just happened to start the edit war. ] • ] • ] 05:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Napoleon, I think this is a manifestly unfair characterization of what occurred on my talk page (not yours). , for those curious. ] (]) 05:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] ] 06:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			== ] and ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Jeff Nelson (baseball player)}}. {{3RRV|Yankees10}}: Time reported: 21:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Warburg effect (oncology)}} <br />
	Version reverted to:
			'''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:'''
	<!-- 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 -->
	#
	#
	#
	#
			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!--
			#
	- * 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:
			# (second IP)
	-->
	Substantial and very lame edit warring across several baseball player articles regarding...the color of the infobox. Has been edit warring for two days on Jeff Nelson, also undoing edits on many other articles, calling it vandalism. See also .
	:Strange. Lucky 6.9 supposedly blocked him in November (]), but it doesn't show up in the block log. ] 21:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
	::Previous account. .--] - ] 22:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	===] reported by ] (Result: no action)===
			'''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
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Misplaced Pages:Editor_review/Mcr616}}. {{3RRV|Mcr616}}: Time reported: 22:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	* Previous version reverted to:
			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
			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)
	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:
	3RR warning can be seen here:
	{{clerknote}} This is about an editor's review. Mrc616 was handed an extremely negative and a tad uncivil review, which he removed. Mrc616 also felt that the review was from a sock/banned user. --'''<font face="Arial">]<sub><small>]</small></sub></font>''' 23:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
	No action. The IP has been blocked, so the edit-war is over. This is practically userspace, which is an exception to 3rr.--] - ] 00:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Comment.''' This is a mistake. Calling an editor review "practically userspace" opens the door for any editor who puts themself up for Editor Review to sanitize other peoples' comments. Since ] has indicated a possibility that he will seek administratorship, it is particularly troubling that he chooses to sanitize this page. It should be remembered that, when listing himself for Editor Review, he choose to accept comment on his performance on WP, good or bad. Even if an editor review WERE to be in userspace, that still doesn't give said user ]ership over the article. 3RR even applies to blatant vandalism, so it should clearly apply to this also. If these comments were so worthy of reversion, surely ] could have found someone else to revert, rather than running afoul of 3rr. He has clearly violated policy, and there should be reprecussions. ] 03:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
	::Note: the IP leaving this comment is currently blocked from editing. &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 04:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Talk:List of notable people who converted to Christianity}}. {{3RRV|Bus stop}}: Time reported: 05:24, 25 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:
	As reluctant as I am to make this report, reverting on a talk page is desruptive, and this is clearly a 3RR violation. I make this report after giving him two warnings on his talk page.--]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
	*I have blocked the user for 24 hours, per the evidence above. I know there have been quite a few reverts, but it's a talk page and a lengthy block for edit-warring there seems silly. -- ''']''' 05:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
	*Worthy of note is the fact that this comes in the middle of a dispute over multiple reversions and disruptive editing to the mainspace article itself, which is currently locked. ] 07:57, 25 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: No action)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|User talk:King Lopez}}. {{3RRV|King Lopez}}: Time reported: 10:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to:
	I'm not sure if this is 3RR or vandalism or what, but this guy has removed my comments from his talk page quite a number of times. It started with a discussion we had about a bogus warning he dropped on me. After replacing the discussion on my talk page with a welcome template (), he deleted everything I had written from his talk page: . I had been going to leave him a barnstar(-ish), but instead I had to leave him a sorta sarcastic message, which he blanked: . I reverted him, and he blanked again: . I put everything back with a warning, he reverted me: . I gave him a final warning, which was deleted: . And then I gave him a super-duper extra-special red-lettering-on-white-background-with-black-borders "Yo, stop it or I'm going to report this" I-really-mean-it-this-time warning, which he reverted with a comment calling me a troll: . That's six instances of blanking/reversions by my count, and most of them were warnings not to revert! ] 10:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
	:User talk pages are normally exempt from 3RR, unless the removed/reverted text is relevant in the context of a significant or important discussion, which this obviously wasn't. ] - 11:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
	::Especially when the comments in question, inserted by the IP editor, included a picture of a penis. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
	:::I've protected the said talk page due to trolling nonsense. I think we can accept that this report was made in bad faith. ] <small><font color="teal">]</font></small> 03:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
	Also reviewing my talk page history this user {{user|72.128.91.181}} has used 2 different IP's to make those same personal attacks. Which are {{user|24.160.247.6}} and {{user|24.160.241.190}} Which these 3 IP's are the same user that made the same edits to my talk page. ]
	]
	</font></big><sup><small>]</sup></small> 09:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:No action)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|eBay}}. {{3RRV|Abacene}}: Time reported: 14:43, 25 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:
	{{clerknote}} Account Abacene created '''today''', no blocks, '''<font face="Arial">]<sub><small>]</small></sub></font>''' 15:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
	:] has not returned to the article in question and seems to be restricting their edits to userspace and talk pages. ] 14:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:No violation)===
	*] violation on June 25, 2007
	{{Article|Robert Evans}}. {{3RRV|Iterator12n}}: Time reported: 21:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to:
	Repeated deletion of the proper link to an article (from ] to a nonexistent ]) on the ] disambiguation page.
	*I'm not sure if this will help resolve the issue with the title, but the word in the title is properly spelled "]" (not "]"). ] 22:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
	::Answer: the word "restauranteur" not only is a recognized word, but it also is in numerous articles within Misplaced Pages. For example, ] that was written on 13 August 2005. There are many more places where this word is used. Please make the changes to all the pages that show up when the word "restauranteur" is searched within Misplaced Pages. However, the point I am trying to make is not even the spelling, but the deliberate removal of a proper link from the disambiguation page (at least until someone moved the page just now). Thank you, ] 22:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
	::*I don't disagree that there may be valid 3RR issues here. But if the argument is about the spelling, the drastically preferred version is "]" (not "]"). You may want to take a look at , an obituary of Bob Evans from '']'', that uses "Restaurateur" in the title. A finds 4,680 articles; the same http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&tab=wn&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=restaurateur Google News Archive search without the "N" in the word] brings up 110,000 articles. The word "restauranteur" may exist as a non-preferred spelling, but there's no reason it should be used here. ] 22:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
	::Answer: I won't repeat the arguments in favor of "restaurateur." I'm disappointed that my (respected) opponent reverted the drastically preferred version 3 times in 24 hours, before any transgressions on my side. ] 01:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
	:::Comment: Once again I will repeat that I have nothing against the use of either variant of the word - with or without the "n" in it - that means "restaurant-keeper" from the French. Please keep in mind that ''"restauranteur (pronounced RES-tuhr-ahn-TUHR or -TOOR), by analogy with the fully anglicized restaurant, is commonly heard and seen, and most dictionaries consider it a standard variant spelling and pronunciation"'' . Sure it may "raise conservative eyebrows", but I was not going to prejudge all the contributors that had used this version of the word. This includes the original article's title about the historic restaurant chain entrepreneur. Nevertheless, spelling is not the main point of this discussion. Moreover, I am NOT an "opponent" of anyone. Rather, I tried to correct a broken link to an existing article. It was reverted three times by a fellow editor. That was disappointing and served no purpose no matter how "drastically preferred version" of the word. Why would someone insist on reverting to a broken link? Furthermore, the comments made in the process were less than civil. Why would an editor have to stoop so low as to say ''use of restauranteur shows a lack of erudition''? on 11:19, 25 June 2007, by Iterator12n. In any case, the problem is moot since as of 16:54, 25 June 2007, Zsero has moved Bob Evans (restauranteur) to Bob Evans (restaurateur). I trust they will be very busy changing all the occurrences of the word restauranteur within Misplaced Pages... ] 02:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
	::Whoever looks at this, I reverted three times, not one time more. Finally, pls count me in re. end-of-discussion. Cheers. ] 03:24, 26 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: Revision as of 10:18, 25 June 2007
	* 2nd revert: Revision as of 10:18, 25 June 2007
	* 3rd revert: Revision as of 11:05, 25 June 2007
	* 4th revert: Current revision (11:19, 25 June 2007)
	===] reported by ] (Result:BLP issue - No violation.)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Norman Finkelstein}}. {{3RRV|Jayjg}}: Time reported: 01:22, 26 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 have explained many times that this is a ] issue, both in my edit summaries, and on the article Talk: page. The material in question is essentially libelous material about Alan Dershowitz, and I have reminded the editors on the page that Jimbo himself deleted the Alan Dershowitz page and re-created it as a stub in December 2005 when it contained similar material. I have also explained to them that ] is quite clear: ''Where the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Misplaced Pages, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked.'' Indeed, my next steps will likely be to either protect the article, or block the editors in question, if this does not stop. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
	::Apart from the fact that the report is submitted invalidly (we need diffs, not versions, so that we can actually see that it's a revert) this is a BLP issue, and the three-revert rule does not apply. ] ] 01:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
	:::This is a difficult issue, because it's an instance of the source being okay (Frank Menetrez), but the publication not (Counterpunch), at least not for contentious claims about living persons. It's especially difficult because the source calls someone's work "fraudulent." As Elinor said, we should discuss it on the BLP noticeboard, so that others can weigh in. Perhaps the same issue has been discussed in a more reliable publication. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 01:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
	::I'm sorry if I posted the report incorrectly. I didn't understand the instructions, and would appreciate it if someone could reply on ] with a simple guide.
	::On the substance, the issue is not defamation of Dershowitz, but defence of Finkelstein against Dershowitz's defamation of him. If we are to allow reference to the attacks, we surely must allow reference to a thorough response. I note that SlimVirgin accepts Menetrez as an acceptable source. She is wrong, however, about the publication. The link I posted was NOT to Counterpunch, but to a later, revised, version of Menetrez's research, published on Finkelstein's own website. If we cannot allow reference to Finkelstein's own site in order to refute the attacks oon him, we really are in danger of breaching BLP in this article. ] 10:09, 26 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
	===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Sahaj Marg}}. {{3RRV|Shashwat pandey}}: Time reported: 15:02, 26 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:
	Dear Misplaced Pages,
	I'm not quite sure what to fill in all of these spots so please forgive my ignorance. After a few weeks of discussing changes and receiving encouragement from other editors on the Sahaj Marg page (particularly 4-d Don, that all can edit) I spent several hours this morning re-ordering and editing the Sahaj Marg page. I then tried to engage Shashwat Pandey in discussions to work further on the page. He immediately reverted my page back EIGHT times today.
	One person, Sfacets, reverted it and then said the page was in drastic need of changes so he put it back to my edits.
	I am new to Wiki but it doesn't seem right that we make edits and then one person reverts your edits immediately. At first I thought it was a mistake, some mishap with my computer, and I tried to resave the page, but it kept getting changed.
	Help is appreciated. I'm willing to go to mediation over this.
	Renee --] 13:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
	:Renee, please use the article talk page, but as an experienced contributor, Shashwat should have known better. As such, I have blocked him for 24 hours. ] <small><font color="teal">]</font></small> 19:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:Request for arbitration made)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Korean War}}. {{3RRV|Ksyrie}}: Time reported: 06:27, June 26, 2007
	* 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 -->
	This may be more of a matter for Arbitration, I will leave it up to you (I'll admit that I am not familar enough with the different policies). This has been an ongoing "matter" with this user for awhile now, and I have tried several times to settle the non-POV issue, which the user seems to refuse to accept. (see Talk page discussions linked below).
	* 1st (?) revert:
	:Instead of removing the fact,I add the info,but it is other user who revert my edit.I will be honored by someone accuse me of reverting,when I '''added''',but not simply backtrace other's edit.--](]) 17:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
	* 2nd revert:
	:It is ridiculous to accuse me of reverting,this time it's for another issue,a dead chinese soldier pic,but not the number.--](]) 17:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
	* 3rd revert:
	:Ok,he or she seems obssessed with all my editing of this article,no matter whether is is on the same issue,it is also for another issue,the dead chinese soldier pic.--](]) 17:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
	* 4th revert:
	:] is happy to attribute every my edits as revert,this time,a user added a second dead chinese soldier pic(which i found excessive to decribe the war).--](]) 17:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
	* 5th revert:
	:] did the same accusation,another edit for the second dead chinese soldier.He or she can accuse all of edits as revert.--](]) 17:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
	* 6th revert:
	:This time,after discussng the talk page,I wrote'''If no further query,I delete the patagon number.''' before I removed this phrase.--](]) 17:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
	* 7th revert:
	:I am not sure whether my consecutive edits should be deemed as revert.You can see the two versions of this differences all made by me,So it is not a revert.--](]) 17:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
	* 8th revert:
	:Again,I added '''from Pantagon''',which help the reader to know the exact source,If it is called a revert，I will say WOW.--](]) 17:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
	*9th revert:
	:I thought ] is not familiar with the concept Revert,he or she regard all the edits he or she didn't like as revert.I add a {{]}} template without reverting anyother's edit.--](]) 17:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
	*10th revert:
	:It's strange,the reference which give the chinese number of casuality didn't mention any trace of '''estimation''',so I removed this word.--](]) 18:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
	*11th revert:
	:] and ] is wheel warring the revert my edit.It is a multiparty revert.--](]) 18:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
	*12th revert:
	:Per above.--](]) 18:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
	*13th revert:
	:He or she is not familiar what is a revert,revert should be focusing on the same subject.This time I add another source,for another issue.How can adding irrelevant material for another subject of the same article be deemed as revert?
	--](]) 18:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
	This has been discussed several times with the user on the talk page, see and for further details and the users unwillingness to be neutral.
	* Diff of 3RR warning:
	and on
	:I am not sure whether ] really show the reality.The chinese casuality issue was discussed in the talk page for many times,and we can't make consensus.While the two sides,(unfortunately, I am the only one who support myself),cann't bear any changes in the info box about the two numbers,one from US Pantagon,(which I prefered emphasize Pantagon,but other two Users insist on removint Pantagon),one from China(while no sources suggest it was an estimation,so I strongly reject the usation of estimate,but other two Users seems obessed with this word).There was vestige of editing war,but there was not real 3 Reverts.--](]) 17:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
	::], we discussed this numerous times on the ]. I even proposed a suggestion, about listing both sets of numbers as estimates, and right afterwards you went in and made the Chinese number a "fact" while flagging the US number as "dubious", clearly POV-pushing. Listing both sets of numbers as estimates clearly gives both sides ample oppurtunity to express their "estimates" without labeling the other side as correct or incorrect. This can be left to the individual reader based upon the the sources cited, though as I said, politicians and diplomats are not known for their truthfulness, but more for how well they make others believe their untruthfulness. Regarding your listed edits of removing the pictures, I included those to make the case for your apparent POV-pushing. If the currect version or a future edit or revery reflects what you consider to be anti-Chinese, you edit the article to your way of thinking without regard for the concensus of opinion of other editors, and no matter how reverts are done, you still maintain your posistion without providing "reliable" source information (see again my comment about the "reliability" of politicians and diplomats). This is getting out of hand (again), and I apologize to the mediators for this. Ksyrie, please sign off on the Mediation request if you are indeed attempting to negotiate in good faith. ] 18:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
	:::What you thought to be an estimation of chinese number is only in your mind,but not in the reference or anyother source,wikipedia require verifiable source supporting but not original research,Your claiming the chinese number as estimation is just OR,And for the american number,in the BBC source which is cited clearly said it is '''Pantagon estimate'''.If you can find any reliabe and verifiable source to say the chinese number is an estimate,you can just keep it,but if you can't provide the source,the removal of it will be in agreement with the ]--](]) 18:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
	::: This is '''NOT''' the forum for this, per the "rules" at the top of the page. Please continue this at ] or ] ] 18:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
	::::Of course,it's not a forum,and I am defending myself.--](]) 18:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by SlimVirgin (result:48 hours)===
	3RR on {{article|Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons}} by {{3RRV|Ned Scott}}
	*Previous version ; under the header "disputed deletions," he removed "Administrators should seek consensus before undeleting material that has been deleted '''citing this policy''' ..." (emphasis added). It's the words "citing this policy" that Ned has been reverting for days.
	*1st revert , ditto.
	*2nd revert , ditto.
	*3rd revert , ditto.
	*4th revert , ditto.
	;Comment
	Ned has been reverting for days against multiple editors. He wants to remove that admins who delete bios "citing this policy" (i.e. BLP) should not be reverted without consensus. He has been blocked three times previously for 3RR. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
	*Editor has been blocked for 48 hours. This is the fourth 3RR violation, and he was just blocked for 3RR 3 days ago. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	*This appears to be the second time tonight Ned has violated the spirit of 3RR, see ]. ] 01:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	** I was actually about to request another 3RR block on Ned for a different article, ], where he's got 4 reverts in 26 hours. I would also point out that he was just 3RR blocked on that article a few days ago, and I actually supported the concept that he be ''un''blocked, if he promised that he'd participate at the talkpage instead of revert-warring on the article. At 04:27 on June 24 he agreed and said, So he was unblocked, but then at 21:49 on June 24, he was right back to ] and edit-warring again. I think this time we need to let him sit out the block, rather than releasing it early with a promise of good behavior. Ned needs to go do something off-wiki for awhile. --]]] 01:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	***Elonka seems to be presenting a skewed version of the events. Ned’s reverts on the ] page were justified because Elonka had arbitrarily deleted referenced content that was under discussion and did so by using misleading edit summaries (i.e. “Copyediting/condensing for readability”, “Added more historical info”) that disguised the true nature of her edits. Elonka had raised an argument about the content based on ] which, as Ned had pointed out, was inapplicable in this case. Several editors were discussing the content and no consensus was raised to delete it but Elonka deleted it anyway (twice) and did so in a very deceptive manner. Matthew, who is a apparently a buddy of Elonka’s, jumped in to the fray and deleted the content again without providing any explanation for his reversion on the Talk page. This seemed very provocative and as though it were intended to precipitate an edit war with Ned. IMO Ned is not at the root of the problem in this case. Blocking him for his actions on the Juice Plus page would be unwarranted and unlikely to help ease tensions. ] 14:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
	**** Well, since Red wants to speak up here, I would point out that there are ] and ] issues here as well. For more information, please see ]. --]]] 17:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
	*****Several editors have stated that the RfC you launched was out of line and no conclusions have yet been reached on it. But regardless, that RfC has nothing to do with the fact that you helped to precipitate this current revert war with Ned by inappropriately deleting content and disguising the changes with misleading edit summaries. I think it would be reasonable for you to accept at least some responsibility for the current conflict you are having with Ned, rather than arguing that he should be blocked. His reversion of your questionable edits does not seem at all unreasonable and he did not violate 3RR in this case. ] 14:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:1 week)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|African slave trade}}. {{3RRV|Halaqah}}: Time reported: 03:36, 27 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:
	*Established editor - has been blocked for 3RR before . Four previous blocks for 3rr, see .
	:1 week.''']''' (]) 03:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:72 hours)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Battle of Khaybar}}. {{3RRV|Tigeroo}}: Time reported: 05:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to for the first three:
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert: He did the same revert as the first three at , then did a partial self-revert leaving the ridiculous tag at . As you can see from the edit summaries in the history, the tag has been part of the dispute.
	This is an established user who has been showing up recently in articles I edit, to revert. he even admits he doesn't know what he's reverting in the first three reverts. ] 05:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	:72 hours.''']''' (]) 05:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hrs)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Islam in the United States}}. {{3RRV|Benizer}}: Time reported: 08:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 1st revert: The full revert was done in two consecutive edits.
	* 2nd revert: Added two tags as well as the revert.
	* 3rd revert: Here he reverted me for the first time. I kept his addition about Muslims being better educated than the average American, but he again removed the references to convicts and Wahhabis.
	* 4th revert: Reverted the text again, changed his tag to totally-disputed.
	* 5th revert: Just added.
	* 6th revert:
	* 7th revert:
	* Diff of 3RR warning:
	He has been reverted by three editors now. I wouldn't be surprised if this is a sockpuppet of one of our old friends. ] 08:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	{{clerknote}} Account created ''today''. Pretty sure it's a sock, but of whom, I don't know. --'''<font face="Arial">]<sub><small>]</small></sub></font>''' 13:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	:Why has he been allowed to revert again? ] 19:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	:Possibly he is a sock of ] or ]. I also added two more diffs.--]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	:The fact that this transparent sock/edit-warring SPA is still not blocked, so many hours after this report was made, shows our system to be inadequate.] 22:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:48 Hours)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Gilo}}. {{3RRV|129.215.149.99}}: Time reported: 08:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* Diff of 3RR warning:
	This IP has been reverted by multiple editors and has now reverted <strike>five seven</strike> '''ten''' times. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 08:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	:Revert diffs: , , , . There are probably others. ]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 09:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	:: I'd block this persistent POV warrior myself, if I wasn't among those who reverted him. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 09:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	:::I just filled out a ] report also, because I think he is switching IP's. ]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 09:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	::: Isn't a 5 to 1 Jewish/Israeli POV pushing cabal enough without trying to block me? The POV pushing would be regarded as outrageous if anyone but pro-Israelis had this page on their watchlist. I mean, they're pretending Gilo is not in East Jerusalem or a settlement, in contraction of, for instance, the UN website and the BBC, and then removing references from the UN and the BBC I give. Then they're calling me POV and trying to block me for what any reasonable person would describe as neutral edits. I'm sorry wikipedia, you've got yourselves a cabal here. This is quite shocking. - Yours
	::::Actually one of your reverts removed my addition of both "East Jerusalem" and the sources you provided. Instead of discussing the attempted compromise on the talk page, you summarily reverted it. ]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 09:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	With due respect, I don't think it is fair to protect the version established by one IP's '''10RR''' against that endorsed by four other users. I'm aware of the "wrong version" issues, but this case really is one where the established users are being punished for following policy, and some random IP's disruption is rewarded. Please reconsider, <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 09:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	: Such lock encourages further disruptions. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 10:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	:I'm also disappointed that the IP editor is being effectively rewarded for a huge 3RR violation. But in any case, he should still be blocked. ]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 10:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	::Blocked by ] for 48 hours. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Tariqabjotu --] | ] 13:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: 72h Block)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Flag of Western Sahara}}. {{3RRV|Koavf}}: Time reported: 14:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to:
	*First revert
	*Second revert
	] is on a 1RR , after having been indef blocked for over a half year for edit-warring and disruptive behaviour. He was given a second chance but resumed his edit warring again. He has reverted the article twice within 24 hours.--] 14:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	:Second parole vio in a recent weeks. 72h Block. <b><font face="Arial" color="1F860E">]</font><font color="20038A"><sup>]</sup></font></b> 21:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: 48h Block)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict}}. {{3RRV|Liftarn}}: Time reported: 14:31, 27 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: reinserts contentious Margalit quote, labeled as a revered in the edit summary
	* 2nd revert: reinserts contentious Margalit quote, labeled as a revered in the edit summary
	* 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:
	-->
	:User has been blocked repeatedly for violating the 3RR. I issued a 48h block. <b><font face="Arial" color="1F860E">]</font><font color="20038A"><sup>]</sup></font></b> 21:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: 12h Block)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Flood Geology}}. {{3RRV|Yqbd}}: Time reported: 15:03, 27 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:
	User seems to be edit-warring this version back to his favorite version, despite the fact that several editors pointed out why this was inappropriate.--] 15:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	:User already blocked by another admin for 12h. <b><font face="Arial" color="1F860E">]</font><font color="20038A"><sup>]</sup></font></b> 21:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: 12 Block)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Intelligent_design}}. {{3RRV|Yqbd}}: Time reported: 16:54, 27 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:
	*Like Ramdrake points out above in his filing over Yqbd's 3RR violations at ], Yqbd is a habitual 3RR violator who not only ignores all 3RR warnings, but immediately deletes them from his talk page and then makes a similar but bogus 3RR warning on the talk page of whovever warns him, leading me to think he's a troll as well as a 3RR-violating POV warrior. ] 16:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	:User already blocked by another admin for 12h. <b><font face="Arial" color="1F860E">]</font><font color="20038A"><sup>]</sup></font></b> 21:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: Technical 3RRV, no block)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Flood geology}}. {{3RRV|Plumbago}}: Time reported: 17:23, 27 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:
	Apparently this user simply reverts contributions from anonymous editors without discussion. I'll note that the edits he reverted from me were mostly content additions, editorial changes, tagging rather than reverts. --] 17:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	* Plumbago was correcting vandalism by 216.125.49.252, and 3RR does not apply to correcting vandalism. Meaning this filing is a bogus filing to sideline or intimidate those who've opposed 216.125.49.252's vandalism. This filing is a misuse of process, an attempt to game the system. I've suggested that he withdraw it. ] 20:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	**Nonsense, the edits reverted were not vandalism. ] defines vandalism very clearly and my edits were not vandalism under the definitions provided. Please remember to ]. I am not a vandal nor am I a "he". --] 20:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	:Please provide diffs '''without''' intermediate versions. We need to see what exactely the user in question edited - the diffs above show no change to the article with several intermediate versions not being shown. Please file your report properly. Thank you, <b><font face="Arial" color="1F860E">]</font><font color="20038A"><sup>]</sup></font></b> 21:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	::This is unfair to Plumbago. where the anonymous editor tried to redirect the article, without any discussion whatsoever, and without any edit summary, would indicate that ] was a vandal, even after assuming a lot of good faith. To all of us, this was nothing more than vandalism that needed reverting, and if Plumbago wasn't so fast in the reverts, I would have contributed likewise, and my name would have been thrown up here. This is very sad. ] 23:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	3RR appears to have actually occured and while some of the edits look ill-advised none seem to be vandalism per se. However, since one of the edits was reversion of whole-sale redirecting of a very large article, I'm not going to block. Now everyone please try to play nice. ] 23:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	:For the record, it transpires that I may have ]. I should have exercised more caution and avoided an edit war, but I would stand by my original assessment that the anon looked and acted like a vandal (thanks for the support ] and ]). Anyway, in case the anon is still reading, I've written a longer reply at ]. My apologies for causing this unnecessary blow-up. Cheers, --] 13:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: 12h Block)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Flood geology}}. {{3RRV|Yqbd}}: Time reported: 17:58, 27 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:
	This user was blocked for 12 hours at 17:53 today for violating the 3RR rule at another article. I am requesting that the block be increased to a total of 24 hours because violating the 3RR rule in two different articles clearly indicates a willingness to ignore the rules. (The user has also been incivil, copying warnings by another editor ''back'' to that editor's talk page, in case there is any question as to whether the 3RR violations are merely overzealous good behavior.)
	<!--
	- * 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:
	-- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">] </font> ] 17:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	John, I believe this violation is the same one I reported above about this individual; it is, however, distinct from the one reported by Odd Nature.--] 18:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	:Already block by another admin for 12h. <b><font face="Arial" color="1F860E">]</font><font color="20038A"><sup>]</sup></font></b> 21:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: 24h block)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Hong Kong}}. {{3RRV|91.104.52.209}}: Time reported: 22:45, 27 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:
	Note that the user might also be using another IP - - these two IPs are similar and the edits are the same. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 22:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	:I have blocked the main IP account for 24h due to an obvious vio (he also engaged in edit warring on another page - having received two warning overall). The other account is an obvious sockpuppet-thus I have blocked it indefinitely. Regards, <b><font face="Arial" color="1F860E">]</font><font color="20038A"><sup>]</sup></font></b> 23:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: Article protected)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Ante Starcevic}}. {{3RRV|Spylab}}: Time reported: 23:01, 27 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:
	:The article has already been protected by another admin - thus, there is no need for a block. <b><font face="Arial" color="1F860E">]</font><font color="20038A"><sup>]</sup></font></b> 23:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	*] appears to be a troll, vandal and sock puppet account that was mainly created to harass me. See that account's edit history for details. Also, I was the one who requested protection of that page because of blatant POV-pushing, vandalism of necessary tags, and edit warring.] 11:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:No vio)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|E. V. Ramasami Naicker}}. {{3RRV|Bakasuprman }}: Time reported: 00.12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	Note:He was last blocked on 17th June 2007
	:I made 2 reverts which were discussed on the talk page. {{user|81.208.163.214}} is most probably a sock of {{user|Anwar saadat}} or some other established user masquerading as an IP. My last block was in September, not June 1007 as this sockpuppeteering troll seems to suggest.<b>]]</b> 23:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	::Three reverts were conducted, one short of a vio. There simply isn't enough evidence of disruptive behavior here to warrant a block. No vio. <b><font face="Arial" color="1F860E">]</font><font color="20038A"><sup>]</sup></font></b> 23:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:Page is now protected)===
	*] violation on
	]. {{3RRV|Mais oui!}}: Time reported: 08:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to: , all same.
	:The page is now protected, so blocks should not be needed. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
	===] aka ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|7 World Trade Center}}. {{3RRV|SixOfDiamonds}}aka{{3RRV|74.73.16.230}}: Time reported: 12:03, 28 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: using SixOfDiamonds
	* 2nd revert: using 74.73.16.230
	* 3rd revert: using 74.73.16.230
	* 4th revert: using 74.73.16.230
	* 5th revert: using 74.73.16.230
	* 6th revert: using SixOfDiamonds
	* 7th revert: using SixOfDiamonds
	IP 74.73.16.230 admitted to being User:SixOfDiamonds . Please block username and IP.
	* Diff of 3RR warning: --] 12:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
	Reverts continue, now from this ip which is clearly not operated independently of the other:
	*8th:
	*9th:
	] <sup>]</sup> 15:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
	*:Sorry but its not a 3RR to revert vandalism, your constant reverts with only the summary of "rv" are against Misplaced Pages policy. You are not allowed to do a wholesale revert in any case other then vandalism. Please see appropriate policy. Furthermore you are actually removing content and misstating a source. The word you keep adding "conspiracy theorist" in relation to the source is not what the source says, I posted the exact quote, and you removed it without any reason given. As well as Aude who stated I was putting words in the sources mouth. The source itself is and on paragraph 9, you can see the exact wording. Your removal, and misstating of the content is vandalism and is then permitted to be reverted. --] 13:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
	*::And now more people appear to add the incorrect statement back without stating why. Still using the source as a reference to something it does not say. Is not misstating a reference against Misplaced Pages policy? --] 13:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
	:::So far you have reverted me, Dman727, MONGO, and Rx StrangeLove. Are we all vandals? ] <sup>]</sup> 13:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
	::::Please post where in the source it states the people who believe the following sentence are conspiracy theorists. No I think you are vandalizing the article to maintain your POV. --] 13:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Read ] before you accuse four editors of vandalism again.--] 13:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
	::::::Maybe you should: "Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." You removed verifiable information from a verifiable reference, then inserted information not contained in that reference, then proceeded to not explain why in your justification. --] 13:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::To save me the time in tracking your edits, would you care to state now what other accounts you previously used prior to creating the SixOfDiamonds account? We did discuss wioth you on the article talkpage and you did not get a consensus for the changes you have been edit warring on. See ]--] 13:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::This is the only account the IP. I was told by others in my field about Misplaced Pages and the policy driven environment. Perhaps I should have been given more warning over the hostility of opposing views in the community. Unfortunately having me cited for 3RR will not change the outcome of the AfD. Just to reiterate, I do not see you defending against the above claim of vandalism. Also since you seem to be an established editor, I am not sure why you keep misstating the source. If you feel the source is invalid, as you argued on the talk page, the proper measure would be to seek removing it, not misstating it, which is against Misplaced Pages policy. --] 14:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
	24 hours. ] ] 17:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
	===] and ] reported by ] (Result:Page protected)===
	3RR war between {{3RRV|Ben-Velvel}} and {{3RRV|Szopen}} on the {{Article|Polish-Soviet War}}. Both have already broken 3RR. Time reported: 12:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
	*]
	# 10:57, June 28
	# 11:20, June 28
	# 11:36, June 28
	# 11:47, June 28
	*]
	# 10:54, June 28
	# 11:01, June 28
	# 11:24, June 28
	# 11:39, June 28
	:I have protected the page. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: 24h Block)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Dave Winfield}}. {{3RRV|Yankees10}}: Time reported: 19:05, 28 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: Unnecessary: user has been warned before (see above): has also been blocked under previous account (see above). See also ANI threads on this. Finally: I ask this page be semi-protected, as anon-user is using multiple addresses to skirt 3RR. ] 19:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
	:24h Block. The seems familliary with policy. But please, don't just make the claim that has been blocked under a previous account - if you suspect someone of sockpuppetry you do need to provide evidence. For now a 24h block should calms things down. <b><font face="Arial" color="1F860E">]</font><font color="20038A"><sup>]</sup></font></b> 21:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: No violation, but all cautioned)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|factory farming}}. {{3RRV|SlimVirgin}}: Time reported: 02:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to: - inserting image of sows in crates.
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	Now reverting another part of the article:
	(edit) Previous version reverted to: - link to main article (I'll let the rest go) ] 02:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
	* 4th revert:
	This user is an administrator; no 3RR warning necessary. ] 02:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
	:I think this is the second time you've done this, Jav. What you're calling the fourth revert was just me continuing to edit the article. There was no revert. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 02:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
	::Second time? What are you talking about?
	::And no, the fourth revert includes a) removing the link to the main article, b) removing tags to different sections, and c) removing the statement that proponents of factory farming say factory farming improves food safety. That's a clear revert. ] 02:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
	:::It's not a revert; it's an edit. If someone had just added that material, and I immediately removed it, that would count as a revert. But it's been there for awhile e.g. (c) the food safety thing has been there for months without a source, even though we asked for one several times. The difference between you and me, Jav, is that you're at Misplaced Pages for the sole purpose of removing that one image. I do other things, including editing this and other articles. So while almost every edit you make is a revert, that's not the case with me. Not quite. :-) ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 02:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
	::::Erm. You're wrong about me. And I'm tired of you saying such things about me. But that's irrelevant.
	::::It's a revert. Read this . ] 02:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
	:::::I don't see the fourth as a revert (the version claimed to be "reverted to" ''did'' have the "main" tag, did have the example header, etc.), so that looks like a normal edit. I would, however, from a look at the history, caution everyone involved in that history that they're treading awfully close to the line, and you don't ''have'' to go over three to get blocked if you're reverting consistently enough. It looks like a mediator might be called for here, that's a much better option than having to block anyone. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 02:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
	::::::I suggested mediation and filed an RfM, but there are several editors involved and a couple of them refused to take part, so it couldn't go ahead. Jave is a pro- factory farming single-issue account that has been trying to remove that image for months, and instead insert one of cows who are practically lying on a beach sipping pina coladas. Anyway, thanks for the input. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 02:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
	::::::I also agreed to mediation. I'll decline to respond to SV's personal attacks and irrelevant commentary. ] 02:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:Page protected)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|State terrorism by the United States}}. {{3RRV|Giovanni33}}: Time reported: 03:45, 29 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 an extensive block log, he games 3RR here by waiting exactly 30 minutes past the 24-hour mark for his fourth revert. - ] 03:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
	:There's a lot of reversion going on here from many editors... as a start, I protected the page to allow discussion to achieve consensus. Still looking at the 3rr report though. ] 04:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
	:Also, 24 hour block. ] 05:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
	::Actually, there is no need for a block, since the edit warring is already prevented from the page protection. This was a hasty decision... Giovanni33 will be unblocked. ] 05:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
	:::He reverted twice as much as anyone else. The block will serve as a useful record in his block log of how he handles editing disputes. So I'd say you've done the right thing. - ] 05:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
	::::Thanks for not blocking me, and removing the block. It was the right thing, esp. since I was restoring valid sorced material from those editor who were blanking it, without consensus. Even, then, in protecting this article, I did not violate the 3RR rule, although it does not apply in the case of vandalism. I think that blanking sourced material qualifies as such.] 18:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Giovanni, you must have one of the worst block records on Misplaced Pages. Restoring valid sourced material is not a reason to violate 3RR. Everyone thinks that what they're doing is valid, so if that were an excuse, we'd have chaos. Please make sure you never violate it again, no matter the reason. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:24h)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Richmond, California}}. {{3RRV|Cholga}}: Time reported: 07:29, 29 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:
	User is adamant in his attempt to word a statement that is not accurately supported by the citation. User has also refused ] with other users and has generally been uncivil in his interaction with others. ] 07:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
	:24h. There are four reverts (probably more), if anybody would care to check the history of the article. — ] ] 12:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:No action)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|El Salvador}}. {{3RRV|Kaypoh}}: Time reported: 14:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to: Different versions each time.
	<!-- 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: I already know about 3RR, I just forgot it.
	I tried RC patrol. And I made a stupid mistake. Before that, I thought I was doing OK and wanted to get feedback from others about my RC patrol.
	:Vandalism reversions are certainly allowed. Please continue. If you like patrolling RC, you should read ], and also perhaps install ], it makes the warning system much easier (I notice you didn't warn any of the vandals that you reverted). ] 15:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
	::Yay! Thanks! :) How do I warn them? So when reverting vandalism on RC patrol, it's OK to violate 3RR? --] 15:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
	::: Why do you have to be so ''honest'' :D '''<font face="Arial">]<sub><small>]</small></sub></font>''' 15:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
	::::Yeah, wish every report was so easy :-). Kaypoh, I'll continue the conversation at your talk page... See you over there. ] 15:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Partitions of Poland}}. {{3RRV|Ben-Velvel }}: Time reported: 17:18, 29 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
	Note: technically, that's only a 6rv violation (6 reverts in 24h, 7 reverts in 28h or so). Also note that this same user revert warring has led to protection of another page ().--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 17:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 17:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
	24 hours. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:No vio)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|E. V. Ramasami Naicker}}. {{3RRV|Bakasuprman }}: Time reported: 00.12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	Note:He was last blocked on 17th June 2007
	* 4th revert:
	User has been into open edit war including deleting content which is cited without raising the issues in the Talk page.
	He faces a ongoing ArbCom .
	] 00:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	::How could 3RR apply when the reverts are across '''three days'''? Isn't there some sort of action that can be taken against filing false 3RR reports? This is your second one. ] 00:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	Sorry new here but I have asked for protection for the page .I think that is the correct way forward.Will get an account and start using it.Anyway Thanks for your prompt response.] 00:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	:Bullshit. You are obviously a ]. And not me.<b>]]</b> 00:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	Please if you feel I am a sockpuppet of Anwar saadat .Please ask for Checking it.You put the No vio back after i removed it.] 01:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	:I think I can guess what happened here. Tell me if I'm close. IP editor, you copy&pasted from the previous 3RR report, and added the 4th alleged revert, right? Then, either you or another editor removed the 'no vio', because ''this'' instance wasn't decided on yet. Baka, you saw someone removing 'no vio', and put it back in, assuming it was vandalism, right? Am I close at all here people? ] 01:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	I cut pasted it and removed it and then Bakasuprman put it back here Sorry for the trouble caused and you are intelligent figure it out.] 01:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Grimmjow Jeagerjaques}}. {{3RRV|ManiacMikey}}: Time reported: 00:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 3RR warning:
	* Reverts:
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	-- ] <sup>(])</sup> 00:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	24 hours. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 09:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:24 hour block)===
	*] violation on
	]. {{3RRV|Custerwest}}: Time reported: 00:21, 30 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:
	;Battle of Washita River
	...has been undergoing heavy editting, and after I changed POV wording from "murdered" to "killed" per much wiki discussion, and trying to use the talk page to explain the issue, ] reverted the edit a third time. This user is new, and I've tried to warn against this action, to no avail. Some outside help would be great. ] 00:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	I don't know how to put back the report that was here, which was removed by ], but a fourth revert has happened. Where are the admins?
	] 00:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	:Wait he removed the report that you put here, if so that is completely unacceptable. --] 00:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	:Hmmm, looks like he did. --] 00:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	Yeah, and then trying to claim 3RR against others below. erg. ] 00:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	my report has been removed by Murderbike. Gosh, it's so childish, it's becoming a farce. Can I work properly on the Battle of the Washita or should I be opposed to every man on the Web who hasn't any source on the battle ? Is it a real encyclopedia? Incredible. ] 00:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	:What are you talking about? Bobblehead not Murderbike removed it. See . --] 00:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	] has been blocked for 24 hours. ''']'''<sup>]</sup> 01:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: Warning)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Moldova}}. {{3RRV|Tones benefit}}: Time reported: 09:29, 30 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:
	* Comment: the user has also violated the WP:3RR on the {{article|Moldovan language}} article.
	You Alaexis, are in the same situation like me. Despite the fact that you are reporting me here, you're no better. If you are aware about it why didn't you stop? After you reported me here, you started again to delete.--] 09:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	]<sub>]</sub> 09:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	This aleaxis user is very strange. When I asked him on the talk page to present a single argument he didn't. He continues to delete a sentence without any reason.--] 09:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	:Going to warn the user for now, as (s)he is apparently fairly new. I'm quite unimpressed with the fact that the user has posted to the talk page, and no one else has yet seen fit to respond or begin discussion. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 10:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: Warning)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Occupation of Baltic states}}. {{3RRV|Dojarca}}: Time reported: 10:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* Diff of 3RR warning:
	* '''Comment'''. User keeps removing material - that has been discussed and found to be relevant by others (see ]). Furthermore, he keeps removing speedy deletion tag from ] that he created himself, now moved to ] by him, he broke 3RR rule with that as well (all material is copy-paste from ], without any sources). ] 10:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	:Stopped after 3RR warning, but warned that future edit-warring will lead to a block. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 10:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: 72 hours)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina}}. {{3RRV|Anonimu}}: Time reported: 10:21, 30 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 -->
	All reverts deal with adding a tag and removing a map.
	Latest example: The history illustrates the pressistent reverts:
	Map and tag:
	*latest
	*
	*
	*
	Just tag:
	*
	*
	'''Comment''' I personally am not an active participant in that discussion, but I do watch the discussion.--] 10:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	Please provide diffs of the reverts. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 10:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	:Done.--] 10:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	'''PS:'''I figured the link to history was enough since all the reverts are exactly alike, but heres the diffs now.--] 10:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	if i get blocked for edit waring i hope that ] (warned by 2 different users) and his sock/meat puppet ] (see case above) will get the same treatment for breaking 3rr (see ).] 11:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	72 hours, user's fourth 3RR violation. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 11:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:warned)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Iraq Resolution}}. {{3RRV|GATXER}}: Time reported: 12:32, 30 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:
	Since this editor is ] by reverting other people's edits, and refuses to discuss, I informed him he was about to break 3RR. Despite this he continues reverting on sight as he has promised in the past and repeated today. He asserts this was the result of a discussion with some unnamed administrator. He also thinks calling me "an idiot" is acceptable behaviour. Because of that I also started a ].<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>]</small></font></i></sup> 12:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	:I have warned the user. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:31 hours, sprotected)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Criticism of the Qur'an}}. {{3RRV|Oren.tal}}: Time reported: 15:16, 30 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:
	* Some other also warned him:
	* He has been blocked previously too (see his block log).
	* The IP address used in above difference is indeed his address. For proving it, I give following reasons.
	# I asked him and he did not deny it .
	# They edit is collaboration (one after other). See history
	# He has made many other names which has been blocked. See
	--- ] 15:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	:I have blocked the user for 31 hours, and also sprotected the page to prevent disruption from ips. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	===], ] & ] reported by ] (Result:Page protected)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Poor Seamus}}.
	{{3RRV|Movedgood}}: Time reported: 17:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	{{3RRV|WWGB}}: Time reported: 17:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	{{3RRV|220.253.71.146}}: Time reported: 17:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to: N/A
	This one's really lame. The participants passed 3RR long ago, they're on about 25RR by now. WGB logged out and continued the war as 220.253.71.146.
	All edits on 30 June
	Movedgood
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	WWGB
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	220.253.71.146 (WWGB logged out presumably)
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* Diff of 3RR warnings: , ,
	===] reported by ] (Result:48 hours)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Scientology}}. {{3RRV| RookZERO}}: Time reported: 17:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to: varies, see below
	* 1st revert:
	*: Previous version reverted to:
	*:Reverted part of dropped in by BTfromLA back to '''"Scientology claims to be applicable in all facets of life, including . . ."'''
	* 2nd revert:
	*: Previous version reverted to:
	*:Reverted text (among other) '''"Scientology and the organizations that promote it have remained highly controversial since their inception. Journalists, courts, and governing bodies of several countries have alleged that Scientology is an unscrupulous commercial enterprise that harasses its critics and victimizes its members."'''
	* 3rd revert:
	*: Previous version reverted to:
	*:Straight revert of my edits and misc. intervening activity.
	* 4th revert:
	*: Previous version reverted to:
	*:Reverting BTfromLA's effort at a compromise. This one says it all. Revert back to his "favorite version" over the edits of four (4) other editors from all sides of the fence.
	'''Comment''' - ]'s ] use of revert as an "editing tool" is disrupting the editing process at ]. A couple of editors from both sides of the fence, myself as a Scientologist, BTfromLA, whom I consider something of a critic, and a couple other editors have been working together in good faith to hammer out something that we can all live with. If you are familiar at all with the editing climate in the Scientology articles you will know that that is something of a miracle. ] is acting in a fashion that is disruptive to the process, pushing his POV by repeated reverts and, in the process, also destroying edits that have nothing to do with his main bone of contention. His last revert says it all, please see my comment above. ] has a history of disruptive editing with two recent blocks for 3RR violation along with recent talk page warnings that may have not been reported. --] 17:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	:And just to underscore what we are dealing with; subsequent to my posting this incident, RookZERO followed me over to another article, one he had not edited in over three weeks, to revert my considered and NPOV edit, . --] 23:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	This has just been building up for a week. 48. --'''<font face="Arial">]<sub><small>]</small></sub></font>''' 02:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:31 hours)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|First Sino-Japanese War}}. {{3RRV|193.95.194.141}}: Time reported: 19:26, 30 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:
	'''Comment''' - It is simple blanking as vandalism. --] 19:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	Blocked for 31h; quite distruptive. '''<font face="Arial">]<sub><small>]</small></sub></font>''' 22:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:Page protected)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Controversies over the film Sicko}}. {{3RRV|Noroton}}: Time reported: 21:10, 30 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:
	* 10th revert:
	* 11th revert:
	* 12th revert:
	User created this page and has a hard time letting anyone else edit this page. User reverts edits to his/her favorite version of the page. Recently undoing a full days worth of edits. Constantly reverted good faith efforts to improve the article or add new content. User has been warned about 3rr and Wp:own. User was warned on his talk page about 3rr multiple times and user did do a semi-revert (deleting a section that was originally moved further down). User has repeatedly removed content (like real controversies i.e. film piracy and legal investigations) from the page. We (other editors) just want to be able to edit the page. Thanks. ] 21:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	:As long as I am here, how do I fix my diff/time postings. I really tried to get it right but must be doing something wrong. Any help on that would be great too. Thanks. ] 21:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	::The page was created over the vigorous objections of ] and another user (see ]. Their objection was that no extended discussion over the controversy surrounding Moore's film, however balanced and fair, could possibly be warranted. After the page was created, they conducted their own version of ]. In vigorously defending a neutral article, I did unwittingly step over the 3RR line. I attempted to fix the mistake when it was brought to my attention. I didn't entirely revert because I didn't think that was necessary (some content is in different spots than before my final revert), but if that's necessary, I'll do that too. The revert I did make in an attempt to fix was ... immediately reverted by some other editor. ] 21:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	:::Another point: Just like Turtlescrubber's arguments at the talk pages for ], and ] the description of what's been going on is completely biased. What reversions I did make were mixed in among lengthy, lengthy, lengthy discussion involving attempts on my part to reach consensus, reversions by other editors and some successful efforts at consensus. Rather than post a long list of diffs, I just refer anyone to the lengthy history of both articles and their talk pages. It isn't exactly ] on my part.] 21:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	:Yes, there are lengthy talk page posts but no real attempt at consensus. I just want to be able to edit the page (and have other editors make changes) without everything being reverted. That is it. I haven't misrepresented the situation in the slightest and user continues to edit the page ("fixing" a different users attempt at trying to add something to the article)making two more revisions to the article. All I want to do is be able to edit this article.] 22:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	Way too much edit-warring/edit wrangling/disputes. Please settle on talk page. If you can agree before 3 days, notfy me, and I might unprotect it earlier. --'''<font face="Arial">]<sub><small>]</small></sub></font>''' 02:14, 1 July 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.
	Not a new user but warned anyway.
	* Diff of 3RR warning:
	* Diff of 3RR warning:
	* Diff of 3RR warning:
	* Diff of 3RR warning:
	===] reported by ] (Result:48 hours)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|7 World Trade Center}}. {{3RRV|70.105.19.188}}: Time reported: 02:08, 1 July 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:
	* Diff of 3RR warning:
	Blocked for 48 hours. --'''<font face="Arial">]<sub><small>]</small></sub></font>''' 02:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:Page protected)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Islam}}. {{3RRV|Agoras}}: Time reported: 05:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* Diff of 3RR warning: Though he's been around for 3 months or so.
	User has not been involved in the extensive, weeklong discussion over this material. The article is now on the main page. I offered the user the opportunity to self-revert if I instituted one of his changes in exchange, he refused. I see tariqabjotu just blocked him. Well I spent a few minutes on this, might as well post it. Feel free to ignore it. ] 05:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
	:The user that reported this has just been blocked for vandalism, and this seems like an invalid case. ] <small>] ] ]</small> 06:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
	:Note: They were blocked for 3RR, but it seems like an invalid block, so not sure about this request. ] <small>] ] ]</small> 06:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
	::Arrow740 was not blocked for vandalism, or for 3RR. ] may be a sock of banned user {{usercheck|His excellency}}. I am still analyzing contribs, but see which is characteristic of His excellency socks, as is edit-warring and ignoring 3RR.] 06:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:72 hours)===
	Reversing the ] page, removing footnotes. ] 10:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
	Custerwest, , came back and did this again, on the same page he was blocked for disrupting.
	# (as anon ip)
	# (6 min later as Custerwest)
	# (as Custerwest)
	# (as Custerwest)
	As you see, he was perfectly aware of what he's doing. I can just say: Wow.
	Personally, I think he's completely unreformable. --] 11:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
	(1) Blocking admin should at least leave a signature here (2) It might be not so evident at first glance, but the diffs above illustrate Custerwest's behavior, not Hanzo Hattori's. If HanzoHattori is blocked (for what?), Custerwest deserves at least the same. ] 13:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
	:''I'm not the blocking admin this time, but I was the first time, and both parties have commented about this issue on my talk page. Because this has become such a mess, with each accusing the other, I'm posting a copy of my comments, in response to the parties as posted on my talk page, here as a matter of record since other admins are involved now as well:''
	:I researched this lates round of accusations and the resulting diffs:
	:# This has already been posted at 3RR, and Hanzo has already been blocked for 3RR for 72 hours, an action to which I concur (I probably would have added some time for incivility, but them's the breaks).
	:# The diffs provided by Hanzo are culled through, and actually represent a series of edits to footnote and source the text. I don't see a 3RR violation here.
	:# Once Hanzo's block is up, if there's a massive removal of material by him, without first detailed discussion of why each of the items is removed, I ''will'' protect the page and I ''will'' issue vandalism blocks.
	:# There's no hurry in writing this or any article. You ''can'' take the time to discuss the points with civility like professional academics.
	:These comments, besides being posted here, are being posted at the users' pages and the article page. ''Please stop fighting the Battle of the Washita and start cooperating about its article.'' ''']'''<sup>]</sup> 15:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:Page protected, 24 hours)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Islam}}. {{3RRV|Dashes}}: Time reported: 19:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
	* 1st revert: previous version , see "other religions" section
	* 2nd revert: previous version
	* 3rd revert: same as rv#1
	* 4th revert: previous version
	The page is semi-protected, it's a "bloody mess", quote Moreschi, no definite action until it's sorted out. --'''<font face="Arial">]<sub><small>]</small></sub></font>''' 19:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
	:Semi-protection will not prevent ] from edit-warring. ] ] 20:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
	:: If he reverts one more time, he will get a five-hour block. --'''<font face="Arial">]<sub><small>]</small></sub></font>''' 20:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
	:Can someone explain how the first revert is a revert? -- ''']''' 20:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::Surprise, surprise. ] 03:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
	::Look at the "Other religions" section in the previous version beginning from the second paragraph. ] ] 21:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::It's a revert all right. 24 hours. ''']''' (]) 03:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:blocked)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|George Galloway}}. {{3RRV|82.11.59.200}}: Time reported: 20:31, 1 July 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:
	-->
	:The user has been blocked. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: No block) ===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Ahtum}}. {{3RRV|Mr. Neutron}}: Time reported: ] 22:47, 1 July 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 last link is formatting.
	::Notice the excessive edit warring of Panonian on the following articles:
	*{{Article|Ahtum}} - at least 10 reverts in last two weeks against 3 other users.
	*{{Article|Sermon (ruler)}} - at least 10 reverts in last two weeks against 3 other users.
	*{{Article|Greater Hungary (political concept)}} - 12 reverts in last two weeks against at least 2 other users.
	*{{Article|History of Vojvodina}} - 12 reverts in last two weeks against at least 2 other users.
	*{{Article|Greater Hungary}}
	[[User:M
	r. Neutron|Mr. Neutron]] 22:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
	:I'm not an admin, but you only provided three diffs. You need four for a block. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 23:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
	:: Not necessary. If it's disruptive enough, you block for 24. '''<font face="Arial">]<sub><small>]</small></sub></font>''' 23:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::Well, I do not understand this 3rr policy very well - users in fact have right to four reverts not to three? I done now my own forth revert in that article after ] said here that four reverts are not enough for a block, but if I violated policy by this, I will revert myself to last article version by ]. ] 23:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::Ok, now as it is of this moment you really did knowlingly break 3RR on ]. ] 23:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
	:Neither of you are going to get block. You need at least '''four''' reverts to count as 3RR. (but if you mix in 3 reverts with some vandalism, incivillity, personal attacks etc., you'll get blocked as well). '''<font face="Arial">]<sub><small>]</small></sub></font>''' 23:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
	'''Discussion on my talkpage posted for transperancy'''
	Please, review the 3RR report for PANONIAN, there are new developments. ] 23:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
	:I've seen it. I'm blocking neither of you for now. --'''<font face="Arial">]<sub><small>]</small></sub></font>''' 23:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::Four reverts were committed on July 1st on Ahtum and Sermon (ruler), and Panonian keeps reverting. For previous version, take "his" version from the 30th of June,. ] 23:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::: He's unsure of the rule. Also, can please not ask me to take action in private. Trying to exert a false air of authority can get you into big trouble. '''<font face="Arial">]<sub><small>]</small></sub></font>''' 23:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::::He has been blocked for 3RR before, see his log. Then second, you got involved in the case afterall. Third, he did indeed break 3RR, not even by committing more than 3 reverts in 24 hours, but also by gaming it through excessive reverts. Please review the rule. ] 23:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
	::::::Mr. Neutrons word needs to be taken with a grain of salt, as he has made false accusations before. ] 23:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::The problem is that I did not understand this rule well, so I thought that rule apply to any 3 edits (not only reverts) in 24 hours, but I see now that it apply to 3 reverts after original edit, which mean in fact (if I understand correctly) right to 4 reverts within 24 hours (including original edit). Therefore, I apologize for reporting ] because he obviously did not brake the rule and I withdraw my 3rr report against him. Regarding the fact that I was once blocked for 3rr it was long time ago when I was not even aware that this rule exist, and since then I always respected the rule (and I did not only respected this rule that alowed me 4 reverts per 24 hours, but I never had more than 3 reverts per 24 hours because I thought that rule say that). ] 07:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::You still don't. I suggest you read ]. In particular, it states ''The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, ''. Three reverts is not a right, it's a hard limit. And no, the 4th edit is what puts you over the line, so if you have 4 reverts (defined for this purpose as any edit that ''undoes, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors''). --] 07:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:31 days)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Organization XIII}}. {{3RRV|BassxForte}}: Time reported: 22:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	Yet another in a long line of 3RR violations by this user. ] 22:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
	: I've blocked for 31 days, and if there is one more violation, it's indef. I'm giving one final chance. --'''<font face="Arial">]<sub><small>]</small></sub></font>''' 23:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ]'''(Result: No Action)'''===
	*Disruptive behavior and endless RV warring on {{Article|Georgia (country)}}
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	*Please note that these revertes might not be in exactly 24 hours but he, at least, must be told to stop warring and POV pushing. ] 07:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
	::There is no 3RR here. If you are looking for dispute resolution try using the article talk page, a ] or an article RFC. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 08:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:Appears resolved)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Louis Carlet}}. {{3RRV|Sparkzilla}}: Time reported: 09:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to:
	User Sparkzilla made 4 sequential reverts to material (2 full reverts and then 2 partial)each time disputing the references in a different way
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	These reverts were all done during an 'open nomination for merge' that at this time is 1 in favor of the merge and 2 against. He has subsequently unilaterally moved the information to the ] page after waiting 14 hours post nominating the page to be merged. Some of the sources he initially objected to were added by him on the ] page he is attempting to merge to. Would appreciate it if someone could look into this situation. ] 09:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
	:This is a bogus request. Statisticalregression has tried on multiple occasions to add the same material over and over without any heed of the discussion and advice from me on how to deal with this matter. He is trying to add dubious sources to stop a page being merged/nominated for deletion. In addition to discussing my objections clearly on the talk page, I have invited the editor twice to put his sources to dispute resolution. I have also asked the user to take some time away from the page, but he would rather escalate the issue. The burden is on him to show that his dubious sources are relevant to the article, and to show that the article about Mr Carlet is not a duplicate of the material already on the Union page, which I have taken great pains to show by including his sources on the union page, where they belong. In any case, I have already said (before this complaint) that I would not edit the article for the next day. Please also note that I will not continue this dispute here. The merge discussion and the discussion of the dubious sources is at ]. Thank you for your time. -- ] <small>]</small> 09:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
	:: There is nothing bogus about it, you did revert 4 times. Furthermore....
	::* articles that are nominated for a merge (or deletion) are not locked, this gives editors a chance to add information
	::* I have discussed the sources with you on the talk page and cited WP policy with links that supports my position, you have not
	::* You insist removing the material I added and when I raised objections on the talk page you started including arguments on a completely different topic, confusing the issue
	::* You duplicated the material on the ] after I had initially added sources you disputed, I have already givin my point of view on the merge issue and how did it suddenly become my responsibility to defend whether there should be a page about ] or not?
	::* I am not choosing to escalate the issue over discussing the material I added, you reverted 4 times which to my understanding is against ] and feel I those edits are very problematic.
	::* I would like you to refrain from ] arguments and simply stick to the issue at hand. Accusing me of "grasping at straws" or trying to remove material though brute force ] is unproductive.] 10:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
	:No action taken as neither editor has made edits to the article since the 2nd July. ] 13:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:Page protected)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Israeli-Palestinian_conflict}}. {{3RRV|Suicup}}: Time reported: 13:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to:
	Actually warns other user in edit summary of third rv ''rv I recommend this issue be resolved on Talk first to avoid violating 3RR.'', but was anyway .
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	:I have to admit that I'm quite puzzled as to why the page would be protected after one newer user reverts three established users four times. It seems to be rewarding the one party that disrupted with a 3RR violation. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 16:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|State-sponsored terrorism by the United States}}. {{3RRV|Stone put to sky}}: Time reported: 15:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
	*1st revert: removes material about United Fruit Company in Guatemala
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert: again removes material about United Fruit Company; removes section on cultural terrorism
	* Diff of 3RR warning:
	*:The entry for 10:26 is in fact not a revert of the information proposed in first revert. The user is adding information to the article regarding sources that were removed. In 11:12 they are re adding information that was removed in 2, again, unrelated to 1. And finally in 4, they are not editing content in 1, 2 or 3. I am not really sure what the issue here is. The edit in 1 is not related to 2 or 3 and the edit in 4 is not related to 1,2 or 3. --] 15:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
	::The issue is simple: In the last 8 hours, Stone-put-to-sky undid another's work 4 times, a couple of times with a hostile edit summary. He is trying to maintain the page as his personal essay, exercising veto power over what is added. That's disruptive, and is likely to continue. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::You are an established editor and should know the difference between 3RR and WP:OWN. If you have ownership issues to report, you should do it properly, I know its a time consuming process as it requires burden of proof, but end runs around the system are not the proper way to handle issues. --] 16:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
	::::The way to handle Stone-put-to-sky's persistent reverting is to report it here, with diffs of the 4 reverts. Beyond that, some uninvolved admin can sort it out. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::::There is also a probable 5th revert:
	::::: - (moved Allegations of breaches of international law by the United States to State-sponsored terrorism by the United States)
	:::::Moves back count as reverts in ]. Also note that Stone believes he is entitled to 3 reverts per day - - "I'd revert it, but Tom got me to use up my 3 for the day". He also has recently engaged in personal attacks, calling editors and (to pick just two examples). He is a thoroughly disruptive editor. - ] 21:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
	::::::And we have a sixth revert:
	:::::: - revert to
	::::::The times are different than Tom's, but they are all within the 24-hour period, since according to my time, the last diff above - edit summary "Removed irrelevant material" - was 2007-07-02T07:35:54. - ] 21:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
	'''Comment ''' from uninvolved editor: 3RR includes all reverts made during a 24 hour period, not just related ones.
	'''To admin:''' There is clearly a 3RR violation here. 4 by Stone put to sky, (and an identical one 1 by an anonymous IP).
	DIFFS below provide 'revert' and 'old version'.
	by {{3RRV|Stone put to sky}}
	by ]
	by Anon IP
	by ]
	- by ]
	<small>Peace.</small>] ] 16:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
	:Reverting is when you "revert" hence adding or removing content is not reverting. The edits only show content adding or removing, which is why there is no originating dif followed by the later dif of the revert to version X. --] 21:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
	:#The above are 100% reverts. The diffs provided give comparisons between the Old version and the Revert. And thus appear 'empty'.
	:#A individual edit can contain both REVERTED material and EDITED material and still be a revert. Read the text on ] closely. <small>Peace.</small>] ] 22:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
	Clear violation. Blocked for 24 hours. ] ] 23:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
	===Blocking of ]===
	He has today violated the three-revert rule on the page regarding ] and ]. He has repeated written commentary unbefitting of an encyclopedia: he has stuffed these articles with his personal commentary (POV) on these persons. This commentary is possibly libelous. E.g., he is charging Nadler with being a socialist. I and ] have had dialogue with him regarding our edits on the pages in question. Furthermore, he does not sign with the four tildes.
	He has persisted in an unprofessional manner. I formally request a block upon him. ] 18:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
	*Could you provide diffs to simply research? <small>Peace.</small>] ] 18:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Jerrold Nadler}}. {{3RRV|Nleobold}}: Time reported: 19:12, 2 July 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 -->
	<s>* 1st revert: - STALE- June 30th</s>
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	'''comment:''' 1 stale, 3 reverts, clearly content dispute on this article. Technically no vio. (I'm not an admin). <small>Peace.</small>] ] 19:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
	'''updated:''' Now there are 4 reverts and a clear violation. <small>Peace.</small>] ] 22:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Deborah Glick}}. {{3RRV|Nleobold}}: Time reported: 19:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	Warning given:
	'''Note to admin:''' Clearly edit warring and straight reverting. 4RR on two articles. (I'm not involved and not an admin) <small>Peace.</small>] ] 23:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
	] has not been blocked before and it appears s/he may not have a good understanding of the 3RR rule. <small>Peace.</small>] ] 23:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
	I've blocked for 24 hours. User had been warned and had been referred to ] page. ] ] 23:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
	*I'll go sit in a corner for not being more clear. The referral to ] was given after this report, when I read his userpage and realized he might not know what reverting really meant. <small>Peace.</small>] ] 23:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
	You didn't confuse me. I was already examining his case when you were posting here. He was warned by two other users today. Both warnings were before his fourth reverts. One was at ; the other was at . Both warnings provided links to the ] page. It was up to him to go to that page and familiarise himself with it; instead, he chose to accuse others of vandalism. ] ] 23:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
	::'''Comment:''' The block was uncalled for. A warning template should have first been issued that explained the violation and possibility of a block for future violations. You don't need to be blocking inexperienced users for 3RR when the person giving the first warning took part in the incident in question and didn't use a more informative template to issue the warning. This is another example of admins blocking inappropriately. The sequence should go: 1. Explain, 2. Warn with a template (so he sees its not just another user griping), 3. If the first warning didn't include threat of blocking then warn more harshly (otherwise proceed to 4), 4. block. ] 00:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: 48 hours)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Human_rights_of_Kurdish_people_in_Turkey}}. {{3RRV|Laertes d}}: Time reported: 23:02, 2 July 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:
	:User experienced with 3RR (see block log). User aware of imminent block, and declares incorrigible (among personal attacks). Anonymous reverts in that (and other articles) may be possible part of user's ], which was not taken into account on previous blocks. ]] 23:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
	::Blocked 48 hours, due to past record. -- ''']''' 03:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] and ] reported by <font color="darkgreen">]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">]</font> (Result: 24h (Ve), 24 h (Lu))===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Ward Churchill misconduct issues}}. {{3RRV|Verklempt}}: Time reported: 02:45, 3 July 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:
	Also:
	*
	Verklempt automatically removes any phrases or references not supportive of his POV, as a sort of ] attitude on the article. However, I am also guilty of 3RR in restoring the links; we should both be blocked. <font color="darkgreen">]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">]</font> 02:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	:Both users are blocked for twenty-four hours, per the evidence above. -- ''']''' 03:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Islam in the United States}}. {{3RRV|RSimione}}: Time reported: 03:26, 3 July 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 -->
	*<s> 1st revert: </s>
	* 1st revert:
	*<s> 3rd revert: </s>
	* 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:
	User isn't a new editor, but this is the first warning I see.
	First three reverts were changes to the Pew information. Next two reverts were re-insurtions of a disputed image--]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	:The third revert is not done by RSimione. Regardless, how are the first and second edits reverts? -- ''']''' 03:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	::Fixed my mistakes. The first was also a mistake The second was the removial of the fox news quote which ] added . RSimione just reverted again though.--]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::Blocked for 24 hours, per the evidence above. -- ''']''' 04:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	===], ], and ] reported by ] (Result:Wikisparkle blocked)===
	There is a current revert war between on the WP:AIV page. 08:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:1 week)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Russia}}. {{3RRV|Ilya1166}}: Time reported: 17:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	With all due respect, I'm becoming quite irritated with reporting this user. This is the third time in less than a month (not including the one time I didn't report him for 8RR). All I have to do is wait for him to start contributing again, and just go through the contribs, and it's guaranteed 3RR will be broken. ] 17:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	:'''<font face="Arial">]<sub><small>]</small></sub></font>''' 22:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:page is protected)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Île-de-France (region)}}. {{3RRV|Hardouin}}: Time reported: 19:00, 3 July 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:
	This fellow is a repeat offender, and has often, as now, gone willingly over the ] line to get his "point" across. His first and only edit since eight months was to re-introduce (revert to) ''ad letteram'' a "pet phrase" of his removed one year ago. I am so exasperated with this "contributor" that I am willing to undergo a temporary ban as well - I unwittingly crossed just short of the 24h line () when I tried to rewrite the contested phrase into a correct and comprehensible phrase, with context, but this, I understand, can be seen as a revert. Anyhow, such intentional bullying abuse should be reported, and I won't hide behind my own fault to report it. Cheers. ] 19:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	:ThePromenader, who had his account blocked several times for violating the 3RR (), is now trying to frame me for 3RR here, part of his personal crusade to delete a reference to the "Paris metropolitan area" in the Île-de-France article. The third revert claimed by ThePromenader is in fact not a revert as a quick check can show, since I moved his edit to a dedicated Geography section and did not delete it.
	:Since ThePromenader is using dirty tricks to portray me as the evil guy in this, let me inform the admins that the same ThePromenader made a fourth revert yesterday only two minutes after the end of the 24 hours time period (1st revert: ; 2nd revert: ;, 3rd revert: ; 4th revert just 2 minutes after the end of the 24 hours period: ). Today he also broke the 3RR with a partial revert than can arguably count as a fourth revert within 24 hours (1st revert: ; 2nd revert: ; 3rd revert: ; 4th revert (partial revert): ). Note that last time he broke the 3RR he had his block lifted by promising never again to violate the 3RR (). Shouldn't he be made acountable for his promises?
	:Also please note that ThePromenader is not just reverting me, he has also reverted ]: . He was told by both ] and ] that his reverts were unjustified (, ), but he keeps reverting nonetheless, which is why I'm talking of a personal crusade. And now he tries to frame me for 3RR on top of it. Please ask users Metropolitan and Stevage for more information about this.] 19:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	::: Did you post-edit? By all means, please have a good look at my contribution history, and especially around the time of those three-revert rule breakings to get the real story. "Dirty tricks"? Where, what - reporting you? Your "third not revert" was indeed a revert - you replaced your phrase exactly as it was before. There's a lot of adjectives in the above post, but I'm not convinced that I'm deserving of most of them. For more on the "Paris metropolitan area" 'crusade', you'll have to read the concerned talk page to see whose ] it is, and why it should not be used, and perhaps then understand why its inventor is stooping to revert-warring to protect it - as no reasonable or referenced defense is possible, as the term is unused in any English-language documentation of any French institution to describe the (or as a translation for) ''aire urbaine''. "Paris metropolitan area" as a reference (not an effort at international comparison) can be found only in Wiki and sites that scrape it, and for the reason why, go figure. Enough cruft for one night. ] 22:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	:: "Frame?" Please give me a break - you ''intentionally'' broke the ] rule, and that's it! I won't even try to argue about who's "right" here, as it won't change a thing - and you are making other contributors "straw witnesses" to your own case by putting words in their mouths - they responded to your ''complaint'' about me and hardly looked at the edits! Gaming the system by hoping that because of ''my'' revert I wouldn't report ''your'' rather calculated abuse doesn't help either. Anyhow. As for the fact of it all, we've discussed this all one year before, and you conceded - but, thanks to your first "eight-month delay" revert to your own ''ad litteram'' text, here we go again. ] 19:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::Odd, I see 3RR violations for both of you. This is like one playground kid telling on another playground kid when they were both getting in trouble. ] 19:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	::::: Yep, agreed. Sorry for deleting your comment (don't know how I did that). My breaking the rules wasn't intentional, but I'm willing all the same to take the consequences if someone who ''did'' act intentionally gets his due - repeated intentional abuse shouldn't go unpunished because I myself want to avoid punishment. Cheers. ] 20:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	::::The third revert he's claiming is not a revert, since I did not delete his edit but moved it to the geography section. All he's trying to do here is to have me banned to get his point across. That has been his attitude on Misplaced Pages for as long as I've known him: bullying other contributors and wearing them off till they quit. I am not the only person who finds his attitude disgraceful. Users ] and ] are also sick and tired of his attitude. I can only encourage you to contact Metropolitan and Stevage to get the whole story behind this. ] 19:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	::::: Nice try. You reinstated ''ad litteram'' your original text to its original place at the same time as you moved my contribution - in modifying the same as an added measure of provocation - to its own section: the first part is an obvious revert to your former version. The "bullying" you describe was an accumulated reaction to ''your'' behaviour only directed at ''you'' or your sock puppets - I suppose these are the "others" you speak of. I'm sure others do get tired of all the noise that resistance to your "my last word" tactics cause - and remember that I only started reporting you here in late 2006. What will "get you banned" here is not other contributors, but your own behaviour. Please don't try to take people here for manipulable fools. ] 19:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::::: ] haven't changed ]'s behaviour on Misplaced Pages as shown by this opened case. This case as opened by ] along with page edit history is unambiguous. Although I support ]'s case following undisputable dossier. Two edits were enough to resume using edit summaries as a place for attacks . I suggest '''both''' users reserve bigateries and personnal judgements for outside Misplaced Pages '''<FONT COLOR="#000000">]</FONT>''' ''<FONT COLOR="#FF0000">]</FONT>'' 23:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:page protected)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Right to bear arms}}. {{3RRV|SaltyBoatr}}: Time reported: 19:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	User has reverted same paragraph in this article 41 times against 4 other editors since 16 May 2007 to push his POV agenda:
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:
	*6th revert:
	*7th revert:
	*8th revert:
	*9th revert:
	*10th revert:
	*11th revert:
	*12th revert:
	*13th revert:
	*14th revert:
	*15th revert:
	*16th revert:
	*17th revert:
	*18th revert:
	*19th revert:
	*20th revert:
	*21st revert:
	*22nd revert:
	*23rd revert:
	*24th revert:
	*25th revert: (alternative account of SaltyBoatr)
	*26th revert:
	*27th revert:
	*28th revert:
	*29th revert:
	*30th revert:
	*31st revert:
	*32nd revert:
	*33rd revert:
	*34th revert:
	*35th revert:
	*36th revert:
	*37th revert:
	*38th revert:
	*39th revert:
	*40th revert:
	*41st revert:
	With due respect, and a deep consciousness to avoid wiki-lawyering, I have been struggling to collaborate with the user Yaf to resolve this long standing dispute. Notice that Yaf also has 41 reverts in this revert war too. And recently I have mended my ways and have begun trying harder to find a compromise. For instance today, July 3rd, my four edits are all not anything close to reverts, but each different and all offered as constructive compromise wording. Yet, the four reverts that Yaf performed today are all simple plain reverts. I appreciate the wisdom of a 3RR block providing time for cool down, and would accept such a punishment. I also would encourage a enforced cool down period on User Yaf. Hopefully when we return we can bring a cooler head and agree to work together to resolve our dispute. I sincerely believe that there is a chance for resolution, if cooler heads can be brought to bear. ] 20:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	::Actually, I ''don't have 41 reverts in this'' litany of POV pushing. There are 4 different editors who have supported the consensus, yet SaltyBoatr has reverted against all of them, repeatedly. I also did not make 4 reverts today. Thank you. ] 20:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::The exact count does not really matter, you have made dozens of reverts in any case. You and I have engaged in a revert war and have failed to resolve our dispute. What we really need to do is collaborate and find a compromise solution to our dispute. Will you agree to follow ] with me? ] 20:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	::I ask that the administrator passing judgment on this 3RR report please look at my four edits made today July 3rd. When I look to ] for guidance I see that reverting means "any change to an article that partially or completely goes back to any older version of an article". My four edits today were each unique good faith constructive edits, and none of them went back to an older version of the article. ] 22:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	I have protected the page. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:page protected, week)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Islam}}. {{3RRV|Aminz}}: Time reported: 21:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	* 1st revert: at least two of these edits were reverts, but they were consecutive. Here is one of the edits he reverted:
	* 2nd revert: undid
	* 3rd revert: restored the Umayyad part of the version in the first diff here,
	* 4th revert: straight revert of the previous edit.
	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Islam&diff=141478331&oldid=141469550] and the edit summary). In fact, ] was unilaterrally changing this section (please see ).
	: So, I have done only three reverts; two restoring a consensus version and in the other one , I was undoing a vandalism(?) which happened when article was on the main page (please check the details. the edit was replacing the section with a quote from a non-reliable). --] 21:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	: The rest of Arrow's comments are merely accusations. --] 21:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	::It was not unilateral, I did it as well. Merzbow doesn't define the consensus. ] 21:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	::See , I can get more. is another addition that can only be viewed as disruptive on main page day. ] 22:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	I suppose I should note that I was blocked for 3RR on the main page day, but I was unblocked for good reasons; I had not violated the rule, and two of my reverts were of a likely sockpuppet. Aminz was much more disruptive on that day as well. ] 21:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	: As I said above, I have made only three reverts, two of which were replacing Beit Or's undiscussed version with a consensus one. The other one () was undoing a vandalism (a section was replaced with a quote from an unreliable website). That's it. --] 22:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	::It's not vandalism, it was a tenured professor's website. ] 22:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	::1 and 2 could arguably be grouped, since they are only separated in the edit history by an edit of mine undoing part of 1 (and 2 was completely unrelated). Could go either way, but I don't think a block is necessary. - ] 22:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	I have protected the page. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	:How about the 3RR violation? ] 22:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	::Well, he did 3 the last time he was on the page and when it was on the front page as the FA and when he ran out of reverts, he started adding personal analysis and adding tags to game the system. Today he came back after a day away from the computer and started up again. 1 week. ''']''' ('']'') 02:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::the first two cited reverts don't appear to be independent, the edit by Merbow (the only edit in between 1 and 2) is unrelated to what is cited as revert 2. it is unfortunate for Aminz that Merzbow's edit got in just before his. in any case, i feel a week is a bit excessive, and i would join Merzbow in requesting it be shortened. ] 11:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::I too think a week is far too long, and hope this can be reconsidered. It seems disproportionate, and I'm not sure what it is intended to prevent. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::Indeed, the block is excessive. -- ''']''' 16:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	:The action is preventative, not punitive. This lets you all continue to contribute elsewhere while you work out your differences on the talk page. Anyway, it looks to me like there is plenty of blame to go around. And the next person to mention Aisha's age at marriage gets ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
	In my memory, Aminz was not blocked for 3RR violations three times, including twice after his last block for edit warring. If previous brief blocks failed to stop Aminz's edit warring, maybe a longer block will. ] ] 17:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	:block lengths don't rack up just because previous attempts to get Aminz blocked haven't succeeded. ] 18:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	::Actually, they can in a way. However, Aminz's last block was over six months ago; suggesting that his six months of (relatively) amiable editing means nothing is wrong. -- ''']''' 18:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::No, see this case, for example. An admin ruled the report invalid to which ] said, "I don't see why this report is invalid: the first 3 are reverts; and so is the 4th." ] ] 18:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	::::The thing in that discussion that pops out at me is the use of a tag as a sort of "fourth revert" after his daily allotment of three have been spent, which was repeated far more egregiously on the main page the other night. Maybe Aminz should be unblocked if he agrees not to do this anymore.] 18:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:protected)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Chris Bosh}}. {{3RRV|Chensiyuan}}: Time reported: 01:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* Diff of 3RR warning:
	::Looks like multiple parties did 3RR so I locked it, since it doesn't seem to be a sustained problem.''']''' ('']'') 02:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	Okay but what about the 3RR violations. And no, I didn't violate it I reverted 3 times and stopped because I don't want to get blocked like him. ] 02:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	Also Block ] because the user violated the 3RR. ] 03:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:Page protected)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|September 1}}. {{3RRV|Neutralhomer}}: Time reported: 01:54, 4 July 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:
	:*Edit-warring to insert reference to founding of small town in Virginia (population 1,146) into ], despite ] and opposition of at least two editors. Shows no sign of letting up.
	:*Editor is well aware of the 3RR, now and in his previous incarnation as {{User|Orangemonster2k1}}. See ], particularly. --] | ] 01:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	::::Calton, you have been involved in the Edit War also.--<span style="font-family: Century Gothic;">]</span> 04:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::::What part of "enforcing guidelines" and "opposition of at least two editors" is giving trouble to the Peanut Gallery? --] | ] 14:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:Page protected)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|September 1}}. {{3RRV|Calton}}: Time reported: 01:54, 4 July 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:
	* 5th revert:
	* 6th revert:
	* 7th revert:
	* 8th revert:
	* 9th revert:
	* 10th revert:
	* 11th revert:
	* This user is guilty on more than one day, I have not broken the more than 4 a day rule. - ] <span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><sup>]:]</sup></span> 02:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	:You know, you have to provide actual dates and times instead of sputtering. Also, you left off the other editor reversing your insertion of this minor factoid. --] | ] 02:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	::You want times, you get times. This isn't about me, this one is yours Calton. - ] <span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><sup>]:]</sup></span> 02:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::Nope, it '''is''' all about you, and your unilateral edit-warring against multiple editors, against ] ], and against, really, common sense. --] | ] 02:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	:''I have not broken the more than 4 a day rule''
	:The key thing is the revert-warring, but even this bit of Wikilawyering is wrong. From the above report on yourself, annotated:
	:* 7th revert: 19:40, July 3, 2007 - Time difference from 4th previous: 19:32
	:* 8th revert: 01:09, July 4, 2007 - Time difference from 4th previous: 24:02
	:* 9th revert: 02:12, July 4, 2007 - Time difference from 4th previous: 22:14
	:Two blatant violations, one borderline bit of gaming. --] | ] 02:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	::Calton, self control, you talk about it, now exercise it. I did not break the more than 3 (my mistake above) rule, you did, twice in fact. Now, do me a favor, crack a beer, set off some fireworks and relax. - ] <span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><sup>]:]</sup></span> 02:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::"Self-control"? What ''are'' you gassing on about?
	:::'' I did not break the more than 3 (my mistake above) rule'' -- You did, twice unambiguously and once borderline, as I annotated above. The rule's been explained to you more than once, so where's the part giving you difficulty? --] | ] 03:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	::::Calton, can you tell that, one, I am ignoring you and two, I am actually doing things. That whole self-control thing again. I think you last 6 or 7 edits were to this page and about me. Now, if you would excuse me, I have more pages to fix. You know, that whole working for the greater good of Misplaced Pages thing you forgot how to do back in 2005. - ] <span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><sup>]:]</sup></span> 03:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::::''Calton, can you tell that, one, I am ignoring you...'' - I've demonstrated -- not claimed, demonstrated -- that you've violated 3RR at least twice, and sputtering and handwaving doesn't change reality, no matter how desperately you ignore it.
	:::::''...I am actually doing things'' - Yeah, edit-warring, which you just did on ] because you couldn't be in the least bothered to actually read what you were reverting -- pretty much what you were doing here, come to think.
	:::::''I think you last 6 or 7 edits were to this page and about me'' - There's that weird pseudo-math-based claim of yours, again. I think of my last 26,000 or so edits, very few of them had ''bupkis'' to do with you. But you just keep thinking there, Butch, it's what you're good at.
	:::::''You know, that whole working for the greater good of Misplaced Pages thing you forgot how to do back in 2005.'' You know, as a general policy, it's best not to Make Shit Up. I will put up any two random months of my contribution history against your '''entire''' contributions to Misplaced Pages and come out on top.
	:::::Oh, and to the admin who protected the page -- a DAY OF THE WEEK PAGE -- how's about dealing with the violator/edit warrior instead of punting? --] | ] 14:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	::::::To the admin, many thanks for actually putting the page on protect and no indulging this poor, diluted fool. Many thanks. - ] <span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><sup>]:]</sup></span> 14:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:24h Block)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Staten Island}}. {{3RRV|24.168.39.49}}: Time reported: 02:54, 4 July 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:
	**Warning on ]:
	* 4th revert:
	*'''Comment''':Editor doesn't seem to know English very well, so it could be that he doesn't understand what is going on here.--]]</small></sup></font> 02:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	:Considering his/her responses on his/her talk page, he/she knows enough English to understand the warning and the possible ramifications of his/her actions. The case is pretty obvious - 24h block. <b><font face="Arial" color="1F860E">]</font><font color="20038A"><sup>]</sup></font></b> 03:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:Page protected)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Telugu script}}. {{3RRV|Altruism}}: Time reported: 06:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:
	'''Comment'''
	* This user has been on wikipedia for a long time and certainly should have known better.
	* The reverting centers around replacing "Old-Kannada script" with "Telugu-Kannada script" which not only is OR but also not supported by the non-RS citation he is providing. ] 06:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''': Sarvagnya's comment is not justified. Enough evidence is available for 'Telugu-Kannada script' and is cited many times in the articles ], ] and ]. The reference is: Telugu Language and Literature, S. M. R. Adluri, Figures T1a and T1b (http://www.engr.mun.ca/~adluri/telugu/language/script/script1d.html). ] 09:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	::The same S. M. R. Adluri in his detailed chart on how the different scripts evolved makes no reference to the so called ''Telugu-Kannada script''. If there are contradicting paragraphs in the referred material indicating the existence of a ''Telugu-Kannada script'' and the non-existence of the same, then the page is in clear violation of ], just my two cents... -- ]<sup>]/]</sup> <font color=green>06:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)</font color>
	*'''Comment''': cited by me was thrown away by some users, after simply being termed as OR, non-RS etc. which also fuelled this unfortunate edit-war. Immediate intervention, incl. "full protection" requested from sys-ops. Thanking You, <font face="Trebuchet MS Bold Italic"><font color="Red"><b>]</b><b><font color="Green"><sup>]</sup></font></b> </font></font> 10:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	:Plz. refer to possible ] as and .
	::Also, kindly refer to my of article ], several hours before my inadvertent violation of ] took place. Thanking You, <font face="Trebuchet MS Bold Italic"><font color="Red"><b>]</b><b><font color="Green"><sup>]</sup></font></b> </font></font> 10:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''': I have followed the Telugu related disputes, but did not participate in the edits because I'm not very knowledgeable in this area. However, let me add that the only sane voice among all the involved editors is {{user|Altruism}}, proof of which can be found in this ] he helped reach on a disputed article and the goodwill he strives to maintain, as he had done with {{user|Dineshkannambadi}} some time back. He may have possibly violated the 3RR rule by the letter, but I'm sure he has stuck to the spirit of the rule. He probably got a bit carried away in this instance, but any action against him would be unfortuanate given that this is his first offence and he is the one who tries to keep the Telugu articles stable. ] 14:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' - Why hasnt Altruism not been blocked? This has to be a first with someone getting away with a 5RR! Not only is he vandalising with non-RS sources, he also gets away with a 5RR! Who is the admin who closed this? I need an explanation. ] 02:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:Page protected)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Chris Bosh}}. {{3RRV|Chensiyuan}}: Time reported: 01:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* Diff of 3RR warning:
	But what about the 3RR violations. And no, I didn't violate it I reverted 3 times and stopped because I don't want to get blocked like him. ] 02:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	Also Block ] because the user violated the 3RR. ] 03:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:Page protected)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Al-insan al-kamil}}. {{3RRV|EliasAlucard}}: Time reported: 12:48, 4 July 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: , reverting the of unreliable sources.
	* 2nd revert: , revert to .
	* 3rd revert: , revert to the same version as above.
	* 4th revert: , partial revert of , restoring "theology" in place of "thought".
	* Warning unnecessary, but user was ] to self-revert, which he rejected. ] 12:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: 72 hours)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Marko Marulić}}. {{3RRV|Giovanni Giove}}: Time reported: 14:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:
	* 6th revert:
	* 7th revert:
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Giovanni Lucio}}. {{3RRV|Giovanni Giove}}: Time reported: 15:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:
	===] reported by ] (Result:12 hours)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Mike Godwin}}. {{3RRV|VanTucky}}: Time reported: 03:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:
	* Repeated adding of {{tl|unreliable}} tag. Removed by more than one editor over the last couple of days.
	* Diff of 3RR warning: --] | ] 03:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::Of course you're not, but you put you put your oar in anyways. Say, don't you have some "productive work" to be doing elsewhere instead of stalking my edits? --] | ] 03:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Comment'''I reverted more than thrice only intending to reinsert the legitimate tag calling for citations of unreferenced facts per the guidelines of ] after it was removed by an anon IP. I see those reversions as reversions of vandalism. Not once ever have I been attacked so for reverting what is clearly to me, simple blanking by a rude anon. I did not intend ''ever'' to engage in edit warring with editors with legitimate, polite concerns about the tag. After users objected to the tag, I have stopped reinserting it at all, and am discussing it properly. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
	:*I wasn't aware of a "sincerity" exception clause in the prohibition against edit-warring. You may not have "intended" to engage in edit-warring, but, you know, you did, no matter what adjectives you insert to attempt to mitigate your actions. After all, if it's open-and-shut, someone else will add the tag, and if it's not, hey presto, you're edit-warring to add it back '''and you did after you were warned'''. --] | ] 04:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
	::First violation; 12 hours. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 04:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:Page protected)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Ordos culture}}. {{3RRV|PHG}}: Time reported: 05:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	*'''Comment'''
	Removal of material after new source was added. Unable to wait for consensus before making his removals. ] 05:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
	:Page protected. '''<font face="Arial">]<sub><small>]</small></sub></font>''' 12:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:60 hours)===
	*] violation on {{Article|Church of Kish}}. {{3RRV|Meowy}}: Time reported: 07:04, 5 July 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: . This was an rv of this edit:
	* 4th revert:
	'''Comment''': This user is aware of 3RR rule, as he was previously blocked for its violation: ] 07:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
	:Preventative block (had 48 hour block previously for incivillity). '''<font face="Arial">]<sub><small>]</small></sub></font>''' 12:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] and ] reported by ] (Result:Page protected, 99 hours for HeadMouse)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Walt Disney World Monorail System}}. {{3RRV|HeadMouse}}, {{3RRV|TREYWiki}}: Time reported: 07:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
	This revert war centers on three content issues:
	# What color was the monorail that caught fire and made the news, silver or gold?
	# Should we include a fair use scan of a newspaper article about the fire in an article about the monorail system?
	# Should the monorail color names actually be displayed in that color?
	*HeadMouse silver to gold:
	*HeadMouse Adds colors:
	*TREYWiki Rm colors, change gold to silver:
	*] rm image:
	*HeadMouse Adds colors:
	*TREYWiki rm colors:
	*HeadMouse re-adds image:
	*HeadMouse adds colors:
	*TREYWiki rm colors:
	*HeadMouse silver to gold:
	*TREYWiki gold to silver:
	*HeadMouse silver to gold:
	{{user|HeadMouse}} has been blocked for editing warring on this article several times before, and in fact just came off a week long block a few hours ago. {{user|TREYWiki}} has posted on the 3RR noticeboard as well, and is aware of the rule. Thanks, &#10154;]! 07:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
	:I'm protecting the page for now, and I might hand out more preventative blocks, due to circumstances described here. '''<font face="Arial">]<sub><small>]</small></sub></font>''' 11:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
	:: Looking at what happened, I've blocked HeadMouse for 99 hours due to his history of edit-warring, incivility, and it looked like he was starting a second one. '''<font face="Arial">]<sub><small>]</small></sub></font>''' 12:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
	::: TREYWiki is discussing on the talkpage, no block. '''<font face="Arial">]<sub><small>]</small></sub></font>''' 12:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:Page protected)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Ferenc Gyurcsány}}. {{3RRV|Beyond silence}}: Time reported: 08:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	User was blocked as recently as two days ago for a 3RR violation on another article, thus must be aware of the rule. ]] 08:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
	:Page protected '''<font face="Arial">]<sub><small>]</small></sub></font>''' 11:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:31h)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Three Alls Policy}}. {{3RRV|203.164.98.121}}: Time reported: 15:27, 5 July 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:
	Blocked for 31h for 3RR, and for incivility. Accusing other editors of being "a fucking racist"-]&nbsp;</sup>]] 17:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Template:The Used}}. {{3RRV|Xotheusedguyox}}: Time reported: 17:17, 5 July 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:
	:It has been quite some time since the user's latest revert. If s/he persists, however, a block may be warranted. -- ''']''' 18:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
	::S/he's continued reverting, so 24 hours. <font color="Purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 03:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:48hrs)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Godzilla: Unleashed}}. {{3RRV|Godzilla Boy}}: Time reported: 17:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	:*Blocked for 48hrs. ] 23:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:48hrs)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Circumcision}}. {{3RRV|TipPt}}: Time reported: 18:45, 5 July 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:
	*'''Comments''': Reverts include both full and partial. User is well established and cognizant of 3RR. User has been engaged in trying to push particular POV into article for over a year now, consistently replacing consensus test with own personal text. User also engages in ], in the article itself, in the talk page (check the voluminous archives), as well as on personal "soap" page ]. I am recusing myself from blocking in this particular instance, although blocks as a result of clear violations of 3RR are ''not'' considered misuses of admin ability, even in the event of participation in the revert stream, from what I understand from discussions with ArbCom. -- ] 18:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
	:*Blocked for 48hrs. ] 21:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: Protected)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Template:Northern Ireland infobox}}. {{3RRV|Setanta747}}: Time reported: 21:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:
	:There has been a long disupte over wether the ] should be included in the Northern Ireland infobox there was several polls taken on the article talk page with the results that the flag should not be placed in the infobox but several editors kept reinserting it, the above template was created so that the Northern Ireland article did not keep getting locked {{user|Setanta747}} has been been pushing for the Ulster Banner to be in the infobox and has been edit warring.
	:The template has been protected by {{admin|Andrwsc}}. -- ''']''' 21:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
	::Two comments — First, there was never any consensus, which is why the edit-warring has never stopped. There is approximately the same amount of support for the flag to be included versus not. Second, it was pointless of me to protect the infobox and not the parent article, as another editor simply edited the article to use his preferred POV version of it. Therefore, I have removed the template transclusion from the main article, and simply copied the infobox transclusion inline. (Presumably, the edit-warring will continue there.) ] 02:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:Page protected)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|British monarchy}}. {{3RRV|TharkunColl}}: Time reported: 21:39, 5 July 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:
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 4th revert:
	The user has been attempting to push a personal POV on Misplaced Pages articles related to the Commonwealth Realms monarchy for at least a year, each time causing disruption in both the talk page and the article. Though he has been rebutted each time, he periodically resurfaces to make another attempt; the most current is at ], along with placing <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags throughout articles to ]. This user has previously been blocked three times.
	The user has been notified of, and acknowledged notification, ].
	:The POV is that of the above editor, not me. It is he who has broke 3RR, more than once - and on each occasion I have given him a friendly warning, without resorting to reporting him. On this particular occasion it was just the same - an examination of the edits will reveal that it was he who broke 3RR, not me. As for his allegation that I am just trying to make a point, that isn't so. I have legitimate concerns over the use of the term "personal union", and simply asked him to supply a citation. ] 21:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
	:Here are his 4 reversions:
	:*1
	:*2
	:*3
	:*4
	:Here is my warning to him:
	:* (note that a previous warning I gave him some time ago is also to be found further up the page). ] 22:02, 5 July 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:
	-->
	:I have protected the page. There is basically equal edit warring on both sides. Please discuss your differences on talk. If you some to an agreement before 3 days, feel free to contact me or request unprotection. -]&nbsp;</sup>]] 22:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: blocked for a month)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Georgia (country)}}. {{3RRV|Sosomk}}: Time reported: 05:47, 6 July 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
	Persistent edit warrior unwilling to go to the talk page. ] 05:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
	::Only three reverts ] 08:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
	In fact far more then 5, but 4 within 24 hours.
	Blocked for one month ] <sup>'']''</sup> 08:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
	:That's very bad. We were intimidated before by an admin who's against our version, he didn't present his sources, he didn't talked on talk page. The result is now that the people who actually worked are now blocked. Please look into details and revise the block.--] 10:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: SosoMK blocked, then unblocked)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|War in Abkhazia}}. {{3RRV|Sosomk}}: Time reported: 07:57, 6 July 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:
	(this is an edit rather than a reverts) ] 08:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	POV reverts. ] 07:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
	] was a paramilitary Georgian organisation which counted tens of thousands members in Georgia. It was anti-Gamsakhurdia but by no way was it anti-Russian. Karkarashvili was a minister of defence of Georgia during the war, and now he is a member of a Georgian political party ]. ] 08:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
	::There are only three reverts there, thanks ] 07:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
	'''Result''': SosoMK was blocked for 1 month for continued revert-warring. He has been unblocked subsequently with a promise of good behavior, to be supervised by ]. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 23:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
	<!-- copy from _below_ this line -->
	=== and and reported by ] (Result: Semi-protected)===
	*] violation on ]. {{3RRV|91.104.x.x}}: Time reported: 16:36, 6 July 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:
	..
	* 50th 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:
	-->
	This user keeps returning from the 91.104 subnet. He/she is adding simplified characters into the Hong Kong page which has been disagreed on in the discussion. This user has been doing this for quite some time. And returns hourly with different IPs as sock puppets. The users' entire contribution history is filled with adding these simplified characters into every page in HK. The user needs to be banned as he/she is wasting wikipedia resources and many editors time.
	:I have semi-protected the article; there are too many IP addresses to block w/o causing collateral damage. -- ''']''' 18:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
	<!-- copy from _above_ this line -->
	===] reported by ] (Result:24 hrs for two users)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Garry Meier}}. {{3RRV|WinSmith}}: Time reported: 2:20 CST 19:30, 6 July 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 (after warning):
	<!--
	- * 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:
	:Both the IP and ] have been blocked for 24 hours. ] (''']''') 20:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
	=== ] ===
	This article is a bit of an odd case. As it at least partially fits under the heading editwarring I put it here.
	TBH I am not exactly sure what is going on - several groups of editors are fighting over the article by essentially adding ever lengthening lists of long and not always so relevant quotations - rather than simply referencing the article At least one editor keeps reverting and throwing stuff out added by others, while continueing to add his own stuff. The overall process is relatively slow (days and weeks rather than hours) making it impossible to assert a 3RR and editwarring, though I think if I could ignore the 24 hour rule this is exactly what is happening in stretches. I have tried to create some movement forward by hinting at various policies etc on the talkpage, but have only achieved that i am now accused of being an involved editor (In fact I wrote the original stub and kept editing a bit here and there until sometime in 2005 (+one further uncontroversial minor edit a couple of weeks ago) . The article has long outgrown that original stub. Anyway, the accusation is made and I am probably not anymore the person to use admin powers. Could I therefore request that someone else has a look at the article and possible comments/enacts some order?
	Thanks ] 00:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
	:This should be reported to the protection noticeboard - let me take a look at the article though to see if protection is needed. <b><font face="Arial" color="1F860E">]</font><font color="20038A"><sup>]</sup></font></b> 07:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
	:'''Update''': I just checked the article's history - there's nothing to warrant protection. Please take this to the general admins noticeboard as we are not dealing with a 3RR vio as far as I can see. I understand that you are confused and feel in need of help - so please take this issue to a noticeboard where it can be dealt with properly. Thank you, <b><font face="Arial" color="1F860E">]</font><font color="20038A"><sup>]</sup></font></b> 07:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] (Result: protected 1 week)===
	Possible ] violation and possible ] by ], anon ] and ] on ] article.
	*First edit: 14:02 July 7, 2007
	*First revert: 14:21 July 7, 2007
	*Second revert: 16:41 July 7, 2007
	*Third revert: 17:59 July 7, 2007
	*Fourth revert: 18:17 July 7, 2007
	The individual appears to be using multiple accounts to circumvent the 3RR rule and was warned at 14:08 and 18:08 formally, and informally at 18:13, 18:16 and 18:23.--] 18:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
	:I have now received a communication () from this editor on my talk page which I take as evidence that this author intends to violate the ] and engage in edit warring.--] 19:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
	*Fifth revert: 19:18 July 7, 2007 --] 19:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
	User again formally warned (on pages of all alleged ]s) at , and . --] 19:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
	Protected one week due to edit warring. If you suspect sockpuppetry, please feel free to ], it's not obvious enough to presume out of hand. In the meantime, hopefully the matter can be discussed. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: 250 hours)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|WWE One Night Stand}}. {{3RRV|TJ Spyke}}: Time reported: 20:25, 7 July 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:
	*Hang on there. The issue was this other user kept reverting and saying that only Bobby Lashley was on the poster. That 4th edit was a compromise, and was after I provided him the proof that he kept asking for. The issue should be solved now because I gave to him on his talkpage the proof that he wanted. I also can't afford another 3RR block and I think we have solved this issue already. ] 21:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
	:Solving the issue is one thing, but a violation is another. You know the policy, you shouldn't have violated it again. ] 20:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	::The 4th one wasn't really a violation though. He wanted proof, and I gave him the proof when I made the edit. ] 20:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::Yes it was: there was nothing extra added in that instance. ] 21:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	:Persistent edit warring again from TJ; sometimes he's even mentioning that if he does one more revert, he's breaking the 3RR (and then precedes to do a ). 250-block (just under a week and a half). -- ''']''' 23:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: 24h)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Live Earth}}. {{3RRV|Camptown}}: Time reported: 23:04, 7 July 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:
	<!--
	- * 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: 24 hours)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Falkland Islands}}. {{3RRV|Justin A Kuntz}}: Time reported: 01:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to: at 22:01, 7 July 2007
	* 1st revert: (By an IP address, but he'll claim the edit as his in the 2nd revert's edit summary.)
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:
	* 3RR warning: (After 4th revert and about 50 minutes before the 5th revert.)
	:24 hours. -- ''']''' 00:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:24 hours) ===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|North Central American English}}. {{3RRV|208.104.45.20}}] 02:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	*1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert by ]:
	User has virtually blanked the article page.
	One can read, in the Talk Page of the anonymous editor, that s/he has a history of such vandalism. ] 03:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	:This user should not be blocked for 3RR, he should be blocked for vandalism. 3RR is for editors of good-faith that make too many reverts, which this user is clearly not. — ] ] 03:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	::Well, he did try to explain himself afterwards at ]. ] 04:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::Thank you for all of yoru responses. I have filed an appeal for intervention, for the reason of vandalism. ] 13:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	===2nd request for blocking, for 3RR violation===
	New reverts:
	6th revert:
	7th revert:
	8h revert:
	Both ] and the WP ] page indicate that the action upon ] should be over the 3RR edits, and not over vandalism. The user's talk page indicate that he has had a history of (a) blanking pages, and (b) 3RR edits without explanation ''prior'' to the current dispute. Also, please note that after this User's requests and those of other parties on the ] page, the 3RR anonymous editor refuses to sign with the four tildes.
	Thus, I'm making a second request for blocking of the user for 3RR violations. ] 18:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] and confirmed sockpuppet ] reported by ] (Result:1 month)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Slavery in Modern Africa}}. {{3RRV|Halaqah}} and {{3RRV|RastaRule}}: Time reported: 16:30, 8 July 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:
	Halaqah has been blocked several times for 3RR vios including a week long block recently for editing about slavery in Africa. See block log, . Further, he was attempting to avoid a block bu use of a sockpuppet. The fact that RastaRule is a sockpuppet has been confirmed by checkuser, see . Request indef block of sockpuppet. By comparing Halaqah's block log with Rasta's contribs you can see that Halaqah was using his sockpuppet to edit while his main account was blocked. Thus he has used the sockpuppet to violate 3RR and to circumvent his blocks. --] 16:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	:I can't believe the RastaRule sock hasn't been blocked yet; it was confirmed by ] some time ago. Halaqah, too, should have be reblocked for this disruption. What's the point of putting together a report when nothing is done? What ''does'' it take? Is no one responsible for what goes on here?] 07:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	:RastaRule blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. Halaqah blocked for 1 month for operating sockpuppets and 3RR violation. ] 13:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:Indefinite block)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Great Pyramid of Giza }}. {{3RRV|Narinen}}: Time reported: 16:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to: 12 reverts. (There are some very slight variations on the reverts, but obvious)
	* Diff of 3RR warning:
	:One of a number of suspected socks all making the same reverts. See ] --] 17:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:24h)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Flying checkpoint}}. {{3RRV|Tiamut}}: Time reported: 16:43, 8 July 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 been blocked for 3RR before,and well aware of the rule.
	===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Vladimir Putin}}. {{3RRV|Marktwain403}}: Time reported: 20:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* Diff of 3RR warning:
	:Blocked 24 hours, per evidence above. -- ''']''' 00:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:24 hours)===
	Please see above discussion of two requests for blocking of User:208.104.45.20, for his multiple reverts (> 3 today and yesterday) at ]. Thanks, ] 21:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:warned)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter}}. {{3RRV|83.36.75.188}}: Time reported: 22:50, 8 July 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:
	] 22:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	*3RR vio confirmed. Since the user doesn't seem to have been warned, I'm leaving a warning for now. Update if edit war continues. ] ] 11:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:semi)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Barbaro family}}. {{3RRV|65.54.154.24}}: Time reported: 23:39, 8 July 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:
	<font color="Green">'''''Cheers, ]]]]'''''</font> 23:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	*Article has been semi-protected. ] ] 12:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	===], ], ], and ] reported by ] (Result:semi)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|United States presidential election, 2008}}. {{3RRV|12.175.230.xx}}: Time reported: 00:26, 9 July 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:
	Continues to revert after multiple warnings and reverting on several Wikipedians. - ] 00:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	*Since the user is hopping IPs, I've briefly semiprotected the article. ] ] 13:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hrs) ===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|North Central American English}}. {{3RRV|208.104.45.20}}] 02:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	*1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert by ]:
	User has virtually blanked the article page.
	One can read, in the Talk Page of the anonymous editor ], that s/he has a history of such multiple reverting. ] 03:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
	*2nd request for blocking, for 3RR violation
	New reverts:
	*6th revert:
	*7th revert:
	*8th revert:
	Both ] and the WP ] page indicate that the action upon ] should be over the 3RR edits, and not over vandalism. The user's talk page indicate that he has had a history of (a) blanking pages, and (b) 3RR edits without explanation ''prior'' to the current dispute. Also, please note that after this User's requests and those of other parties on the ] page, the 3RR anonymous editor refuses to sign with the four tildes.
	Thus, I'm making a second request for blocking of the user for 3RR violations. ] 01:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:No violation)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Wesleyan}}. {{3RRV|129.133.124.199}}: Time reported: 05:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	This user persistently disrupts WP and seems to have been warned by other users on several other articles. ] 05:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	:The reversions are more than 24 hours apart. ] 13:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	===Please warn ] about the 3RR rule.(Result:Template protected)===
	16:57, 7 July 2007 Ghetsmith (Talk | contribs) New user account
	He/she insists on adding nuclear power to what is supposed to be a "Renewable energy" template, but as you can see they have even renamed the template, {{Template:Renewable energy sources}} despite a clear lack of consensus. ] 05:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	# (cur) (last) 04:51, 9 July 2007 Ghetsmith (Talk | contribs) m (407 bytes) (Undid revision 143434255 by 199.125.109.108 (talk))
	# (cur) (last) 04:49, 9 July 2007 199.125.109.108 (Talk) (386 bytes) (Undid revision 143434052 by Ghetsmith (talk)revert vandalism, second time)
	# (cur) (last) 04:48, 9 July 2007 Ghetsmith (Talk | contribs) (407 bytes) (Undid revision 143434012 by 199.125.109.108 (talk))
	# (cur) (last) 04:47, 9 July 2007 199.125.109.108 (Talk) (386 bytes) (Undid revision 143433781 by Ghetsmith (talk)revert vandalism)
	# (cur) (last) 04:45, 9 July 2007 Ghetsmith (Talk | contribs) (407 bytes) (then you should also remove solar power, since the sun's energy is not renewable either)
	# (cur) (last) 04:44, 9 July 2007 199.125.109.108 (Talk) (386 bytes) (I'm sorry but nuclear uses fuel and that fuel although plentiful is not renewable)
	# (cur) (last) 04:41, 9 July 2007 Ghetsmith (Talk | contribs) (450 bytes)
	# (cur) (last) 04:40, 9 July 2007 Ghetsmith (Talk | contribs) (447 bytes)
	# (cur) (last) 04:40, 9 July 2007 Johnfos (Talk | contribs) (413 bytes) (adding POV tag)
	# (cur) (last) 04:37, 9 July 2007 Ghetsmith (Talk | contribs) m (405 bytes) (Undid revision 143432323 by Johnfos (talk))
	# (cur) (last) 04:35, 9 July 2007 Johnfos (Talk | contribs) (386 bytes) (rm nuclear power)
	# (cur) (last) 04:33, 9 July 2007 Ghetsmith (Talk | contribs) (405 bytes) (for reference see: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html)
	# (cur) (last) 03:18, 9 July 2007 199.125.109.108 (Talk) (386 bytes) (it is not appropriate to just assume that all articles using this template are pov!)
	# (cur) (last) 02:47, 9 July 2007 Johnfos (Talk | contribs) (470 bytes) (adding POV tag)
	# (cur) (last) 14:18, 8 July 2007 Ghetsmith (Talk | contribs) (462 bytes) (Undid revision 143271627 by Johnfos (talk) '''vandalism''')<-- Ghetsmith is the vandal, not Johnfos, who is rvv
	# (cur) (last) 10:22, 8 July 2007 Johnfos (Talk | contribs) (386 bytes) (rm nuclear power)
	# (cur) (last) 03:42, 8 July 2007 Ghetsmith (Talk | contribs) (462 bytes)
	# (cur) (last) 03:42, 8 July 2007 Ghetsmith (Talk | contribs) (496 bytes)
	# (cur) (last) 03:41, 8 July 2007 Ghetsmith (Talk | contribs) (652 bytes)
	# (cur) (last) 02:43, 8 July 2007 69.217.151.86 (Talk) (386 bytes) (nm moved to future energy)
	# (cur) (last) 02:40, 8 July 2007 Ghetsmith (Talk | contribs) (405 bytes) (Undid revision 143214052 by Johnfos (talk))
	# (cur) (last) 02:26, 8 July 2007 Johnfos (Talk | contribs) (386 bytes) (rm nuclear power)
	# (cur) (last) 22:14, 7 July 2007 Ghetsmith (Talk | contribs) (405 bytes) (Undid revision 143161348 by Johnfos (talk))
	# (cur) (last) 20:55, 7 July 2007 Johnfos (Talk | contribs) (386 bytes) (rm nuclear power)
	# (cur) (last) 16:57, 7 July 2007 Ghetsmith (Talk | contribs) (405 bytes) (Undid revision)
	# (cur) (last) 10:14, 7 July 2007 Johnfos (Talk | contribs) (386 bytes) (rm nuclear power)
	# (cur) (last) 20:46, 4 July 2007 164.107.167.35 (Talk) (405 bytes)
	:User warned and template protected for 1 week. ] 13:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:No violation)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Battle of P3Y-229}}. {{3RRV|A Man In Black}}: Time reported: 09:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to: Partial revert removing infobox
	<!-- 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:
	; Comments
	A Man in Black is removing infoboxes from multiple articles, he has received opposition from multiple users who do not agree with his interpretation of WAF -- but continues to push his POV. It's of note AMiB has utilised his administrative rollback in a content dispute. ] 09:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	:The first linked diff is not a revert, just the removal of an inappropriate infobox. It's telling that the "version reverted to" is from July 2006, a year before my first edit to the article.
	:Additionally, this is the third such article Matthew has revert warred on, reverting one article six times before responding on the talk page. I've done my best to engage Matthew on talk pages, getting only terse answers that do little to answer my talk page comments, if any response at all. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 09:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	::"A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors.", you are partly undoing the edits of other editors -- you've done this four times. "Additionally, this is the third such article Matthew has revert warred on", ... uh-huh, me having to revert you multiple times on multiple articles does not make your edits any more consensual. "I've done my best to engage Matthew on talk pages", pasting the same message to every article you face opposition on... but also pushing your POV as if it was supported by guidelines. ] 09:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::It's the same message because it's the same problem each time. And, last I checked, ] was still a guideline, and implementing its advice in articles was a good idea (and doesn't have a thing to do with ]). - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 09:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::: The only problem is you don't agree with the infoboxes and are applying your terse opinion. You should start a centralised discussion if you disagree with the infoboxes and/or propose a change to the guideline to support you. ] 09:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::::The guideline doesn't need to be changed. That section was added specifically to discourage use of real-world infoboxes in fictional subjects, and I can't see how it could possibly be clearer. The relevant discussion is ], and this part of the ] has been on that page with little controversy for a year now. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 10:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	:I don't really think that we can count the first removal of the infobox as a revert back to a version from July last year. Consequently, there are only three reverts. ] 12:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:24 hours)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|2007 San Diego Chargers season}}. {{3RRV|RMANCIL}}: Time reported: 12:48, 9 July 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 have blocked RMANCIL for 24 hours. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:31 hours)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|0.999...}}. {{3RRV|72.87.210.78}}: Time reported: 14:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* Diff of 3RR warning:
	*] has already blocked for 31 hours -- ] ] 15:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:24 hours)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict}}. {{3RRV|Eleland}}: Time reported: 18:58, 9 July 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:
	:] could you please explain why you have issued 3 reports on this page for edit wars that you took part in? Do you not understand that the intention of this page is to prevent edit wars, rather than a weapon to be used in edit wars. Why did you not warn ] on his talk page before issuing this report. This page is not about entrapment. All the best... ] 19:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	I have blocked Eleland for 24 hours, but I want to stress that other participants in the edit war came very close to being blocked as well. '''3RR is not a guarantee of three reverts each day.''' Discuss ''instead of'' reverting, rather than in addition to it. I suggest everyone take a step back from that article for the next day or two. If the edit warring continues the article will have to be protected. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:27, 9 July 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:No violation)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Bates method}}. {{3RRV|Seeyou}}: Time reported: 20:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	I have made an attempt to incorporate external links posted by ], despite the fact that I believe them to be linkspam and unreliable sources. Seeyou's response has simply been to undo my edits. After mediation of previous disputes on this page proved unsuccesful ] has simply stopped discussing his edits before making them. Apologies if I have made a mistake in this posting, this is my first report of 3RR violation. ] 20:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	* Diff of 3RR warning:
	;Comments
	No violation. I do barely see 3 edits in 24 hours, much less reverts. Btw famousdog, 3RR warnings should be civil. Your wasn't. Please be careful about that. --]<sup>]</sup> 10:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:Already blocked)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Cascada}}. {{3RRV|204.210.80.93}}: Time reported: 20:30, 9 July 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:
	:User has already been blocked for vandalism. Note that vandalism (such as obvious attacks like the above) does not require a 3RR report; if it persists after leaving the appropriate warnings, you can report violations at ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Nicolaus Copernicus}}. {{3RRV|Mahal11}}: Time reported: 21:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:
	* 6th revert:
	* Diff of 3RR warning: , ] 21:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	:Blocked for 24 hours. Also warned about his habit of making legal threats. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: Warning)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|John Bosco}}. {{3RRV|Attilios}}: Time reported: 23:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 1st revert:
	* <s>2nd revert: </s>
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* Diff of 3RR warning:
	I would also like to note a certain amount of incivility in these comments left in the edit summaries:
	*
	*
	*
	:comments made to other editors:
	*
	:and these comments made hidden in the text:
	*
	::I would make you notice that the alleged '''4th revert''' is in fact different, as I introduced a change requested in the talk page by another editor. It is clear that Evrik is patronizing the page with tricks like these. --] 23:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	*I'd like to make a correction. The second reversion was actually and it was made by another editor. So, Attilios only made three reversions. However, he is being incivil and drving an edit war. --]&nbsp;<sup>(])</sup> 23:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
	Guys, you are both experienced and valued contributors. Have a cup of ], step back, shake hands and try to reach a ], will you?--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 00:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	:No 3RR violation, but all parties involved are reminded to refrain from edit warring. I would also strongly advise Attilios to refrain from the use of uncivil edit summaries, this is not acceptable. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 08:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:Blocked 24 hours)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Keith Emerson}}. {{3RRV|68.32.79.74}}: Time reported: 03:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:
	* 6th revert:
	* 7th revert:
	'''Comment''' {{User|68.32.79.74}} has already been warned several times for edit warring on the same article previously. ] 03:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours)===
	*] violation on {{Article|Kaaba}}. {{3RRV|124.29.249.34}}: Time reported: 10:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:
	* 6th revert:
	* 7th revert:
	* Diff of 3RR warning:
	'''Comment''' Muhammad depiction blanking.] 10:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	:Update: Blocked 24hrs per AIV report.] 10:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Romanian Communist Party}}. {{3RRV|Dpotop}}: Time reported: 10:37, 10 July 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:
	'''Comment''' User has been previously warned about breaking this policy: .] 10:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	:Looks like a clear violation. 24 hours. <font color="Purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 12:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	:: Did you read the 4 edits? The last 3 were reverts, but not the first. ] 12:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::In what way was the first not a revert? You added "rig the Romanian general election" four times. <font color="Purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 12:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	:I would point out the closeness to the 24-hour deadline in ]'s and ]'s edit war. Specifically, while the former's four reverts were done within 17 minutes less than 24 hours, the latter's (, , , ) were done within 17 minutes more than 24 hours. Doing this, and then reporting the opponent here, is gaming the system. According to the policy, administrators should treat all sides equally in an edit war. ] 13:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	I concure with the oppinion that you did not read carefully the history of the article. is when ] first erased the portion in question (6 June). By doing so he has changed the sense of the whole paragraph, and is a form of POV-pushing in my personal humble oppinion. Other users apparently did not notice this right away, only ] reverted it yesterday, 9 June. But Anonimu introduced it again:
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	As you can clearly see, Anonimu has been simply pushing his POV (contradicted by 4 users - Biruitorul, Dpotop, Turgidson, Dahn), but is being careful to do with so only 3 rv are in any 24-hour interval. This still qualifies imho as a disruptive editting, and is punishable with block. The other editors have better things to do and did not come back right away to rv Anonimu's POV. On the contrary, Anonimu got you to block Dpotop for rv his vandalism. Please, be careful next time. Anonumu has a history of radical communist rv wars. He has never editted anything else by communist-related stuff in the sence of making communism look as a democracy. The particular edit was a mention that the 1946 elections in Romania were rigged, which is a well-know fact. A proper, non-disruptive edit would have been adding a fact-tag to ask for specific sourse, not erasing to push radical left POV. :] 14:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: No violation)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Kaaba}}. {{3RRV|Proabivouac}}: Time reported: 16:37, 10 July 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 -->
	* 1th revert:
	* 2st revert:
	* 3nd revert:
	* 4rd revert:
	I know user will say that he was undoing vandalism. However, I did not find a single vandalism in all the above revert. Is there any rule that say ''removing a '''disputed''' image is vandalism''. He can say that he was reverting someone who has violated 3RR. But if there is any rule that say ''you can violate 3RR when someone else has violated 3RR''. He has reverted me when I have removed the warning added by him without any concensus on the page . He has reverted another user when he had ''ADDED'' another picture on the page. --- ] 11:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	:See above, where anon reverted seven times before being blocked for vandalism. Nevertheless, I have self-reverted according to ALM's vexatious report.] 11:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	Also See the talk page of ] where the ] been discussing his edits and other also agree that picture is disputed. It cannot be a vandalism. --- ] 11:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	:ALM, the fact that you see this noticeboard and the rule which it's meant to enforce as a tool to be manipulated is plainly evidenced by your failure to report - indeed, your defense of - an anon who'd reverted ''seven'' times, ignoring all warnings against vandalism and 3RR alike.] 11:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	:: If he violated 3RR then it become okay for you to violated it? No it is not. --- ] 11:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::That is incredibly insincere of you, ALM, for you ''support'' his violation. He could have reverted one thousand times, and you'd not have reported it.] 11:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::: Yes I have not reported him because he was new. I have even not reported you sometimes and may be even today. However, this time I reported you because you have 100s of time reverted (added) those pictures. You call other removing those picture as vandal. It is wrong to do so. --- ] 11:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::::ALM, 3RR policy exempts, "reverts to remove simple and obvious vandalism, such as graffiti or page blanking -- this exception applies only to the most simple and obvious vandalism, the kind that is immediately apparent to anyone reviewing the last edit. It is not sufficient if the vandalism is simply apparent to those contributing to the article, those familiar with the subject matter, or those removing the vandalism itself." Does this apply? Check the page history - several uninvolved editors ''and even bots'' reverting the anon. Anon blocked for vandalism per AIV. Even if not, I've self-reverted per your vexatious report.] 11:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::::: Aim of this report is not to block you. As you have already self reverted yourself. The aim is to put breaks on your repeating adding those pictures back. Those bots are reverting page blanking and you are reverting picture. It is totally different. Page blanking is vandalism but removing/replacing ''disputed'' picture is NOT vandalism. However, if you continue to add those pictures back then I will post differences of your 100s of reverted picture on ANI. Please '''STOP'''! --- ] 11:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::Aim of this report was ''of course'' to block me' it's not the first bad faith report from you. As for reverts, do you mean these?
	:::::::That's not even counting anything since March. ALM, you've failed to win consensus for your notion that all depictions of Muhammad should be removed from Misplaced Pages. It's been, what, eight months now? Now an edit-warring anon (who knows who this is?) comes around and you view it as an opportunity to get others blocked.] 11:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	I have not reverted (except twice or so) since many months now. How many of those reverts are in past couple of months? You have many many more then those. You have in 100s easily. Anyway you continue your edit war on picture and I will see when to report you on ANI. Otherwise you could stop now, like me. --- ] 11:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	::Pro -- Question before the house is whether you violated 3RR at ]. Thoughts? My personal suggestion would be that you be blocked for 24 hours. A rule is a rule. Why it should not apply to you when the rest of us abide by it is rather difficult for me to understand. ] 11:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::BYT, "the rest of us" ''didn't'' abide by it, as is shown by my report of the anon, who had reverted ''seven times'' above.] 11:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	:(edit conflict) It looks to me as though Proabivouac was reverting an anon IP removing material for no obvious reason. Perhaps you agree that the material should be removed, ALM, but that doesn't alter the fact that it's likely to be regarded as vandalism when an anon turns up and repeatedly removes it in a drive-by fashion. I've semi-protected the page in the meantime. <font color="Purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 11:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	With respect, I have to disagree here, Slim. An anon removing a disputed image is no justification for violating 3RR. If there's a problem, steps can be taken to freeze the page. ] 11:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::Please note that this is not a forum for discussion - see the top of the page.--] 12:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	All the same, I want to note this explicitly: The idea that certain editors are exempt from 3RR whenever they determine arbitrarily that an edit they don't like is "vandalism" is an extremely unstable precedent, and one that I don't believe is in the best interests of WP. ] 12:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	:Anon IPs turning up to repeatedly add or remove material without discussion tends to be viewed as vandalism, BYT. If they engage in talk it's a different matter, because then it becomes clear that it's a genuine content dispute, but when it's repeated drive-by reverting with no attempt to engage, it's closer to vandalism. It would be difficult to block an editor for 3RR who was reverting it in good faith. <font color="Purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 12:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	:: He was talking. ]. Give some other reason please. --- ] 12:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::Yes, but he was also getting reverted left and right - even by a bot - for vandalism, and ignoring all the warnings placed on his page. Posting to the talk page doesn't negate anything else one might be doing. Claims such as "The Islamic rules apply to every thing related to Islam either person or location or article" aren't attempts to "engage," but to dictate.] 22:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	Thanks for hearing me out. ] 12:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:No violation)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|State terrorism by the United States}}. {{3RRV|MONGO}}: Time reported: 6:36
	<!-- 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:
	'''comment''' No warning needed very experienced user. They know better. This user and User:East718 (see below) rapid fire reverting to enforce their POV.
	::'''comment''' -Since when does self-reverting your own previous revert count as a revert? (Frig, there has to be a way to phrase that without saying 'revert' so often!) Anyways, last I checked, self-reverting to ''undo'' your own revert doesn't count. ] 16:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	'''No violation''' per Bladestorm. ] 18:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:Cautioned)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|State terrorism by the United States}}. {{3RRV|East718}}: Time reported: 6:36
	<!-- 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:
	'''comment''' No warning needed very experienced user. They know better. This user and User:MONGO (see above) rapid fire reverting to enforce their POV.
	Although several of these edits could be considered reverts, I see a reasonable attention to article sourcing and participation in talkpage discussion. User cautioned. ] 18:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours each)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Yisroel ben Eliezer (The Baal Shem Tov)}}. {{3RRV|Klezmer}}: Time reported: 16:27, 10 July 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:
	*'''Warning at ]''':
	* 5th revert:
	*'''Comment''':This has apparently been going on for a long time. See ].--]]</small></sup></font> 16:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
	Both ] and ] have been engaged in an extended edit war and violated 3RR, 24 hours each. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 09:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:article protected)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|The Used discography}}. {{3RRV|Xotheusedguyox}}: Time reported: 23:40, 10 July 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:
	*The page has been protected by ]. I'd like to point out that ] just got out of a 24 h block for edit warring earlier this week, see ]. -]&nbsp;</sup>]] 00:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Eureka (TV series)}}. {{3RRV|2Wikid}}: Time reported: 00:49, 11 July 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:
	; Comments
	* This user knows of 3RR as s/he stated in his/her edit summary. They are being quite difficult, and have made multiple stylistic changes (removing white space and changing commas/quotation marks from one kind to another). They refuse to add their content edit without blanket reverting (myself and another editor disagree with their stylistic changes), but it's quite hard discovering their "content changes" when they're so vague -- and not that easy to see. The user has also been quite offensive in their summary usage. ] 00:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	**This is the first time I've seen a revert war where both versions were identical. -- ] 02:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	This is a really dumb edit war, but they come in all shapes and sizes. In any case, two relevant points. 2Wikid is {{user|WikidSmaht}} (which WS makes no effort whatsoever to conceal but edit histories might be relevant if someone cares).
	Additionally, I count 4 reverts from Matthew on that article as well, , , , and this last edit , where he partially reverts Angie Y. They were both clearly edit warring on the article, and pretty sterilely to boot. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 08:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	For that matter, I've blocked them both. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 10:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:Page protected)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|First_Vision}}. {{3RRV|John_Foxe}}: Time reported: 01:16, 11 July 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:
	* 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:
	*Warning diff
	;Comments
	* The above only represent warnings since 11 June, the date of the last talk page archive. Previously archived talk pages contain more complaints about John Foxe inappropriate reverts, excerpts from various WP policy pages trying to explain why his reverts are wrong, etc. ] 01:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	**I just added several more reverts. This has got to stop. None of the edits achieve anything except an absolute demand that only this user's edits are acceptabel on Misplaced Pages. He has been warned enough and something needs to be done immediately. --] ] 22:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	Rather than blocking users, I've protected the page until a productive dialogue is started, as this is part of an ongoing edit war on this page. Two of the editors are using their reverts together, and John Foxe should probably be blocked for his three reverts ''after'' being warned. If reverting behavior continues, he will be blocked in accordance with the policy. -] 00:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Anna Anderson}}. {{3RRV|Questforanastasia}}: Time reported: 15:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* Diff of 3RR warning:
	===] reported by ] (Result:)===
	* By the ArbCom decision , ]/] has been placed on 1RR per week parole. ] has violated his parole by POV/OR pushing, revert warring, gaming the system with partial reverts and spoiling the consensus achieved on the page for several months.
	{{Article|Safavid dynasty}}. {{3RRV|Hajji Piruz}}: Time reported: ] 16:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 1st Partial Revert: -- over ] - removing prior edit, and replacing "Azeri Turkic" with "most probably Kurdish".
	* 2nd Partial Revert: -- over ] and earlier edit by ] -- removing prior edit, replacing "probably Kurdish" with "most likely Kurdish".
	* 3rd Partial Revert: -- over ] -- removing prior edit and reinserting again "were probably of Kurdish descent".
	:These were edits, not reverts. I never reverted to any previous version or undo anyones edits in favor of a previous version, I simply made edits.
	:The Safavids article has the clean up tag, and all I'm doing it is cleaning it up by making fixes and re-writing sentences for them to make more sense. This is not reverted, I havent reverted anything, I simply edited. For example, in the second diff shown, I never changed what the article said, I merely changed the sentence for it to make more sense (I did not change anything at all except to make the sentence sound better and make more sense, did not remove anything at all or revert to any previous version). Again, in the last diff Atabek has posted, I simply re-wrote a sentence for it to sound better, I did not change anything drastically, like he suggests.
	:These were not reverts, these were edits. Atabek, as well as others, please examine the diff's more closely before making bad faith assumptions. Thanks.] 19:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation
	}}. {{3RRV|Giovanni33}}: Time reported: 22:36, 11 July 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:
	*Blocked many times previously but does not seem to learn the lesson.
	Some minor changes between reverts but is in each case reverting for example the "Demonstrations" section.] 22:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	:*Comment. Please see that I self reverted to be on the safe side already:If this is deemed a legitimate 3RR violation, then I am sorry. However, blanking sourced material I think is properly considered vandalism. UltraMarine claims that he is removing it because it lacks sources, yet I point out it is sourced and I've add more sources-- yet the blanking continues. Thus, restoring the sourced material, I think, is excempt from 3RR, as I'm reverting vandalism.
	:Also, the first revert is a new edit adding the material from the new version. It thus was not really a revert. There are three 3 reverts restoring the material after I intially restored it to the new version of the article. Again, I have no intention to violate 3RR or edit war, so if any neutral admin thinks I am in violation, let me know and I will gladly self revert and ask for a 3rd opinion on talk. No block is necessary.
	:Lastly, I the user is himself guilty of violating 3RR, and has not responded to my comments on talk asking him to stop blanking sourced material, as that can be considered vandalism.] 22:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	::The first listed revert is indeed a revert, as plainly stated in your edit summary. Per your inquiry, and taking no position on the disputed content, I advise you to self-revert.] 23:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::I have self reverted, incase 3RR applies to restoring blanking of sourced material (with the claim that its blanked because it is not sourced). To be on the safe side, until I get a trusted admins opinion on this, I have self reverted my restoration to avoid any violation of the 3RR rule, incase my understanding is incorrect. Thanks.] 23:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	::::The claim regarding the talk page is false: . This is not the place for a content dispute. Your block log is extremely long, so you should have learned the lesson, yet you again violate 3RR. That you reverted yourself after I reported this is good, but your commentary shows no understanding of having broken the rule, and seems to leave open the possibility that you will revert again if not blocked.] 23:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Its good you are talking about this. I would like to solve this on the talk page instead of edit waring. My claim that you are blanking sourced material, is not false, as anyone can readily see. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding, and perhaps I'm wrong. That is why I reverted myself and will not continue until I get a second opinion from a trusted admin who can classify your blanking of sourced material as vandalism. Only if that is determined to be the case will I revert your blanking. Until that has been established (so I'm not in danger of violating any policy), I will abstain and thus no block is necessary. I'm seeking others opinions, and will allow them to make the appropriate actions and provide the proper guidence to this situation, while assuming good faith. I will note that your removal of sorced material as unilaterial and without any consensus.
	:::::Regarding my past block log, its over a year ago, and I have not violated it since then, so your comments about it are not valid. I've learned long ago that edit warring is not acceptable. Blocks are preventive, not punitive.] 23:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
	::::::Please. I carefully explained why the reverted material was unsourced, or factually incorrect, or duplicated elsewhere in the article in my edit comments, which you ignored. You added a few new sources and some new material, that I kept.] 00:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
	::I see no need for any further action in this thread.] 00:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article|Russia}}. {{3RRV|Avala}}: Time reported: 00:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
	Unilaterally removed many images that were up and replaced them with his own.
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	Knows perfectly well about the 3RR rule as is an administrator of Serbian wikipedia
	== 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:
	<!-- copy from _above_ this line -->
	</pre>
	]

---

Latest revision as of 23:33, 23 December 2024

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

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

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

---

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

Additional notes

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

---

Definition of edit warring

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

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

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives

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

User: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. E_F 12:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Now at WP:ANI. E_F 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)

• Both users have been Warned. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  Those users and Mei23448 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems continuing edit wars on Monquirasaurus and Sachicasaurus articles.

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  5.

  6.

  In addition, PaleoFile posted personal attack on talk page of Mei23448.

  Both users does not provide reliable sources, PaleoFile only proposing X post in edit summaries and cite nothing, while Mei23448 also does not cite anything to change. Both users needs to be blocked. (Jens Lallensack seems only trying to revert vandalism, so is not problematic than those two) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  17 tons for Sachicasaurus has been debunked so I changed it and some user cant accept that his favourite animal isnt as big as he wants. Mei23448 (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  If you have a dispute, you may discuss it on the article's talk page. Bowler the Carmine | talk 23:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  Also 15 ton for Sachicasaurus is based on the Sachicasaurus reconstruction from Diocles. Mei23448 (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 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)

• Stale; content removed until a consensus is found ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:21, 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)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EvergreenFir (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Page: 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:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring