Misplaced Pages

Golbez did mention my name without evidence. We have discussed the matter and have come to conclusion that it was an unfortunate mistake. As for the rest, again I made my point, and you can continue wasting your time and accusing others along "national lines". The fact is that the sockpuppeteer could be any banned or non-banned user, yet, you along with Augustgrahl, MarshallBagramyan and Vartanm take this along ethnic lines, accusing me, next AdilBaguirov. And if that does not work, who is next, GM, Dacy69, etc.? Why wouldn't you ever suspect the master of sockpuppetry - Artaxiad? As for Turkophobia category, it is absolutely appropriate just like anti-Armenianism. If the person or an organization convicted of terrorism, committed attacks targetting civilian Turks, he is most definitely a Turkophobe and most definitely the page falls into Turkophobia category. Atabek 20:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

So I've became a user from the other side eh? So much for not dividing wikipedia along national lines. Is that whats this is all about that you're on probation and were not? VartanM 17:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the humour, read the note above. Atabek 20:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Sefringle reported by User:Momoshomo (Result:12 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Islam_and_antisemitism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sefringle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 04:38, 14 May 2007 (First revert partially goes back to this, and subsequent reverts go back to first revert)

• 1st revert: 03:53, 16 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 04:01, 16 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 04:13, 16 May 2007
• 4th revert: 04:45, 16 May 2007

The first revert undid my removal of "alleged" on May 14th; the subsequent reverts are obvious. MomoShomo 05:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked for 12 hours. MomoShomo: You, too, are edit warring, even though you haven't violated 3RR. Remember, the rule is an electric fence, not an entitlement to three reverts. If you continue to revert war you're likely to be blocked even if you don't technically violate 3RR. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User:The way, the truth, and the light reported by User:Simoes (Result:24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The way, the truth, and the light (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 17:17, 11 May 2007

• 1st revert: 21:56, 15 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 22:12, 15 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 00:09, 16 May 2007
• 4th revert: 01:27, 16 May 2007

Pretty cut and dry case: the user is insistent that his preferred version of the article remain in place despite objections from several editors. Simões (/_contribs) 11:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Quite clear. 24 hours; first block for 3RR although user has come close before and been warned about reverting. Sam Blacketer 11:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User:padraig3uk reported by User:163.167.129.124 (Result:No violation, page protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Template:United Kingdom regions (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). padraig3uk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Last (fifth) revert: 09:38 16 May 2007. All reverts are the same.

• • There has been no violation of the three revert rule because no party has more than three reverts in any 24 hour period. However there is a slow revert war and I am going to protect the template pending resolution of the dispute. Sam Blacketer 11:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User:AlexCovarrubias reported by User:Limongi (Result:1 month, 18 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Latin_America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). AlexCovarrubias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 23:44, 14 May 2007

• 1st revert: 07:55, 15 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 16:34, 15 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 18:08, 15 May 2007
• 4th revert: 01:28, 16 May 2007
• 5th revert: 02:06, 16 May 2007

This user has been blocked twice within the past few days for breaking the WP:3RR on other articles.

Report is accurate. I also find four for Jbmurray:

• (Reverts AlexCovarrubias's addition of Jorge Luis Borges)
• (same)
• (obvious)
• (also obvious)

Therefore, I must block both editors. As AlexCovarrubias has a long history of edit warring, 1 month for him. First offense for Jbmurray; therefore, 18 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Giovanni33 reported by User:Yaf (Result: No block)

• Three-revert rule violation on

State terrorism by the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 17:26, 15 May 2007

• 1st revert: 22:38, 15 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 23:20, 15 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 04:56, 16 May 2007
• 4th revert: 17:46, 16 May 2007
• 5th revert: 22:30, 16 May 2007
• 6th revert: 23:38, 16 May 2007

• comment: Report is not accurate, and I self reverted already. Note that the alleged 2nd revert is not part of the content dispute but a compromise on my part to remove a "see other" link that all parties agreed to, and I agreed with them, to remove, per talk. Its not a revert. The 4th revert was a real 3RR violation, howwever, it was on accident, and once I noticed it a few minutes later, I self reverted here: I did not restore the long standing version of sourced material back from Yaf's changes (which lack consensus), until after 24 hours. Looking back on it, and given that other editors oppose this POV edits, I realize I should have left it and allowed some other editors to revert him instead. Therefore, I will self-revert myself again, back to his version to show good faith and that I abide by both the letter and spirt of the 3RR rule. See: Hence, no block considerations will be necessary. Thanks.Giovanni33 02:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You've had to self-revert yourself twice within the last 24 hours. Thats seems quite significant to me. Dman727 04:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

For more on the single purpose accounts that have sprung up to act as meat puppets / sock puppets associated with undoing the latest self-revert, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Giovanni33 Yaf 04:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• No block at this time, but note that these type of editwars are unacceptable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User:65.110.36.50 reported by User:Axlq (Result: Blocked 24h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Moral Majority (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 65.110.36.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

• All reverts essentially the same. Anon user persists in advertising a party to celebrate the death of Jerry Falwell. User received final warning for vandalism, as well as 3RR warning, but continues inserting the advertisement.

Admin attempted to semi-protect the page (see previous version reverted to), but protection didn't stick. =Axlq 23:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User was blocked for 24 hours by Bibliomaniac15. --Selket 14:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Reisender reported by User:JdeJ (Result: Blocked 24h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Marija_Šerifović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Reisender (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 13.05.2007 01:53

• Constantly removing a sourced fact.

• 1st revert: 13.05.2007 04.21
• 2nd revert: 13.05.2007 15.00
• 3rd revert: 14.05.2007 00.24
• 4th revert: 14.05.2007 02.57
• 5th revert: 14.05.2007 04.04
• 6th revert: 14.05.2007 14.26
• 7th revert: 14.05.2007 19.15
• 8th revert: 15.05.2007 01.16
• 9th revert: 16.05.2007 16.58
• 10th revert: 17.05.2007 02.49

• Diff of 3RR warning: 16.05.2007 02.58
• Diff of 3RR warning: 16.05.2007 18.26

Reisender blocked for 24 hours due to edit waring. Hadžija warned for WP:OWN. --Selket 14:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Yaf reported by User:Giovanni33 (Result:no block)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Shooting Ranges in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yaf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:05, 17 May 2007

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 19:44, 16 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 19:43, 16 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 19:13, 16 May 2007
• 4th revert: 19:11, 16 May 2007

• comment: Since user has self-reverted himself, I retract my report.Giovanni33 01:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Onofre Bouvila reported by User:emerson7 (Result:no vio?)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Pere d'Alberní i Teixidor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Onofre Bouvila (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

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

• No previous version reverted to given, and I can't find one by looking in the article's history. If there isn't one, this isn't a 3RR vio as the first is then not a revert. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Bus stop reported by User:JJay (Result:article protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

List of notable converts to Christianity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bus stop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 14:46, 15 May 2007
• 1st revert: 23:10, 17 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 00:52, 18 May 2007
• Previous version reverted to: 12:54, 17 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 14:30, 17 May 2007
• Previous version reverted to: 14:59, 16 May 2007
• 4th revert: 23:14, 17 May 2007
• Edit warring by a user determined to remove Bob Dylan from this list. Two previous 3RR blocks over the same issue. Attempts at gaming by selectively re-adding different tags to the article. Has been reverted by multiple editors. Also suggest article protection. --JJay 01:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The edit war is from multiple fronts, so article protected. Note about above report: two of the reverts are consecutive edits, so technically no vio. But Bus stop is edit warring to an unacceptable degree, so I will warn him about this. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Mister Jinxy reported by User:Otto4711 (Result:24h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Vision Quest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mister Jinxy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

• 1st revert: 17 May 02:03
• 2nd revert: 17 May 10:44
• 3rd revert: 17 May 21:33
• 4th revert: 18 May 00:17

• Diff of 3RR warning: 17 May, 21:38
  • Blocked for 24 hours. Otto: You, too are edit warring. Please refrain from this and from incivility. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm trying to avoid edit warring. Otto4711 04:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Smee reported by User:Lsi john (Result:48 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

PSI Seminars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Smee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 22:13, 17 May 2007

Basically full revert edit.

• 2nd revert: 22:23, 17 May 2007

Full revert of text.

• 3rd revert: 00:44, 18 May 2007

Reverted text

• 4th revert: 01:01, 18 May 2007

Removed article tags.

This user has been previously warned and blocked on this board.

4 previous Blocks for 3RR under previous name Smeelgova

Not reverts, discussed on talk page

• As per WP:3RR, this does not constitute 3RR. 3RR must be to a reversion more than three times to the same old version of a page. This was not done. What was done by myself, was a removal (twice) of a tag. I then noted on the edit summary that this would be discussed on the talk page Diff. After discussion on talk page, I offered a compromise, and I voluntarily changed some text in the article accordingly Diff. The edit warring has thus ceased, and this issue has been resolved, and I have no objections to the way the tags are currently presented in the article. As 3RR is not punitive, and no actual 3RR was committed, this is a non-issue and a frivolous report by User:Lsi john. Smee 02:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC).
  • 3RR policy applies to all edits which revert or undo another editor. This is an experienced editor who has been blocked 4 times before and was clearly edit warring. Lsi john 02:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • An examination of the Diffs provided above by User:Lsi john clearly show that this is not 3RR, but a back and forth working out of the page, with side by side discussion ongoing on the talk page at the same time, and then subsequently a compromise reached in mutual agreement with both editors on the talk page. There is no more edit warring going on here with this issue. Smee 02:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC).
• Let me also break down the Diffs provided above by Lsi john (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • rfcu). (1), This first Diff, reasoning was explained politely in the edit summary. It was the only time I should have discussed further on the talk page, and gone through points one at a time. (2), This second Diff, User:Lsi john had removed material that was duly sourced to a reputable secondary citation. I restored this information - separate issue from the first point. (3), In this Diff, I added back in a single word - the word "notable". (4), In the last Diff shown above, I removed a "fact" tag. It should also be noted that a compromise was reached on the usage of the {{sectstub}} code, a separate issue, on the discussion page, and I added these stub tags into the article. After this point, through discussion on the talk page, I decided to voluntarily compromise, and go back and remove the word "notable", myself. Removing a single word, once, and then removing a fact tag, once, cannot be considered to be 3RR. Thus, there is no current edit warring on the article, and each of these separate points has been explained. Smee 03:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC).

• No, I'm afraid you're mistaken. It is not necessary to revert to the same version each time; any three reverts count. And all four of the above edits are reverts. You also seem think that because you are discussing your reverts, it's OK to keep reverting. This is also not the case. As for your compromise: Lsi john clearly doesn't consider it as such: . Therefore, I'm forced to conclude the edit war is not concluded, and will therefore block for 48 hours. Given your history of being blocked for 3RR, you ought to know better than to edit war by now, anyway. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on the information you've been provided I understand your logic Heimstern Läufer (talk), simply discussing one's reasoning is not an excuse for unilaterally proceeding with an edit war. Since the idea is discouraging edit wars, why not punish the editor who began the edit war too? After all it does take two to edit war, and in this case I can show you that Lsi john started this by removing a word he found objectionable without providing a lucid explanation. Calling two other groups notable enough to have Misplaced Pages articles is not WP:OR as he claims it is. notable was the original term (05/11/2007). Also if you look at thehistory and talk pages you'll notice that he hasn't be working to compromise.

Again merely engaging in discussion is not an excuse, but is removing objectionable words from a pro-subject pov an excuse to start this course of events in the first place? Anynobody 05:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Lsi john has also been blocked for WP:3RR, fairly recently:9 May . My point is both should have known better. Anynobody 07:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Chrisjnelson reported by User:MetsFan153 (Result:24h for both)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Tom Glavine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

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

User keeps reverting a deletion on former teams, on a issue that has yet to be resolved on the wikiproject of MLB Players Taskforce, according to the discussion, all pages should be left as is, user has decided to a bunch of players on his own. User has been blocked before on previous 3RR, plus has a history of nonsense editing, and his talk page is full of annoyed people based on his pointless editing, because he thinks hes always right

• Both users have reverted well over three times, and both are clearly aware of 3RR. Both blocked 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Juro reported by User:91.120.77.7 (Result:Indefinite block)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Slovak koruna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Juro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: this one, made by Pascal.Tesson (Talk | contribs) at 13:56, 10 May 2007.

• 1st revert: 17:43, 16 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 21:53, 16 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 22:35, 16 May 2007
• 4th revert: 22:42, 16 May 2007
• 5th revert: 22:46, 16 May 2007

+1 (out of 24hrs)

• 22:43, 17 May 2007

Notorious vandal , got blocked for 3RR before as well, as for edit warring and sockpuppeting up to infinite. Somehow, somewhy got a last chance, his infinite block was lifted, but it was not worth it, user continues the same old things. No need of such an ultra-disrupting editor here. Indef pls, this time for real. --91.120.77.7 03:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked. Assuming all, or even most, of the previous blocks were justified, this user seems to have indeed used up all chances. As I'm not familiar with the editor, I will post this for review on ANI. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Dove1950 has also violated 3RR. I gather from the user's talk page that he/she has a history of edit warring and has at least been made aware of the 3RR, so 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User:LaSaltarella reported by User:balloonman (Result:Blocked, 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Ohio Wesleyan University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). LaSaltarella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Revert 4
• Revert 3
• revert 2
• revert 1

This user is an experienced user who recently had her name changed. She was also warned on my talk page that she was in danger of violating the 3rr rule... that was after the 3rd edit, but before her fourth one. I know she saw it as she responded to my talk page before making the 4th change. All within 2 hours.Balloonman 07:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC) EDIT: There was at least one other edit of almost the exact same nature an hour earlier.Balloonman 08:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

 Done—LaSaltarella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked from editing for 24 hours for a WP:3RR violation at Ohio Wesleyan University ~ Anthony 10:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

JJay reported by Bus stop (Result:No violation)

• Three-revert rule violation on

List_of_notable_converts_to_Judaism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JJay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

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

Bus stop 15:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Please provide diffs rather than oldids. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Bus stop is confused. There was no 3RR violation. I will note in passing, though, that Bus stop has been systematically blindly reverting all my edits to this and other articles during the last week. --JJay 17:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Personally, I would never report anyone for this, but this was done to me by this editor, just yesterday. The editor is insistent on asserting that the religion of Judaism proselytizes, and he has found some source for that. It is by-and-large incorrect. It certainly would have an undue weight issue. And in under 24 hours he has been inserting that slant, in violation of the 3rr rule. He has been doing that for days.
• Not just me, but other editors have pointed out that the opposite holds true. This is the first time I've ever reported anyone in this way, and it will probably be the last. I don't get into this warfare type of writing an encyclopedia. He (or she) makes a regular habit of it, having reported me on occasion before the yesterday report. To each his or her own. Bus stop 17:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

None of what you wrote has anything to do with 3RR. However, rest assured, if you violate 3RR, you will be reported. -- --JJay 19:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin and am not involved with this article. After going through the article edits one-by-one, it appears that both editors may have violated 4RR over the past 24 hours. Lsi john 19:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• That's false. If I violated 3RR, I would put the diffs up myself. I made three reverts. --JJay 19:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• 3RR is not limited to Undo. There was clearly edit warring going on and both editors have been blocked for 3RR in the past:

I stand corrected, JJay has 3 reverts, Bus Stop has 2. I was looking at 11th and seeing 17th. Lsi john 19:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree - three reverts, and that means no violation. Sam Blacketer 19:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User:LordPathogen reported by User:Ramsey2006 (Result:24 hours each)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Elvira_Arellano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). LordPathogen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

User repeatedly inserts pejorative name-calling against the 7 year old son of the subject of the biographical article.

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

• Seems clear, and the talk page edits show the identity between 129.33.49.251 (talk · contribs) and LordPathogen. 24 hours; the autoblock has not been disabled, so if the IP edits then I will know I've made a mistake. Sam Blacketer 20:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I reverted to the last non-perjorative version. This is a probable WP:BLP violation as well. - Crockspot 20:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure; the material was sourced. Also, 24 hours for Ramsey2006 who also broke the 3RR. Sam Blacketer 20:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User:207.114.16.210 reported by User:Upholder (Result: Final warning issued)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 207.114.16.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 15:20, May 18, 2007

• 1st revert: 09:52, May 18, 2007
• 2nd revert: 12:32, May 18, 2007
• 3rd revert: 14:18, May 18, 2007
• 4th revert: 15:20, May 18, 2007
  • I have issued a "final warning" to the user as I am unsure if this is the same person who received three-revert rule warnings back in late April. -- tariqabjotu 00:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• 5th revert: 2007-05-19 23:08:55 by User:72.66.51.129 which is another address that User:207.114.16.210 has used in the past. This Comment just before the 5th revert was posted from User:72.66.51.129 but signed as User:207.114.16.210. Based on the editing history of these two users (focusing on topics related to Illinois or Indiana college basketball) I'm convinced that this the same person on both IP addresses. -- Upholder 06:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• 6th revert: 09:30, May 20, 2007 (made by User:72.66.51.129).
• 7th revert: 14:00, May 20, 2007 (made by User:72.66.51.129, third by that IP in less than 24 hours).
• 8th revert: 17:38, May 20, 2007 (as User:72.66.51.129, fourth by that IP in less than 24 hours).

Response

see ]

User:Mike18xx reported by User:Itaqallah (Result: 60 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Faith Freedom International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mike18xx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: see below

• 1st revert: revert ( 15:40, 18 May 2007) of this
• 2nd revert: revert (16:56, 18 May 2007) of this
• 3rd revert: partial revert (18:55, 18 May 2007) of this
• 4th revert: partial revert (22:14, 18 May 2007) of this

• 3RR Warning: Unnecessary, see block log.

• Comments: all reverts include relocation of WikiIslam image, the last three constitute reversions of the relocation of a section. user has recently returned from a hiatus, and had immediately resumed edit warring and conscious gaming (see: "RV (3/3)...") on Wikiislam, and now on Faith Freedom International. this edit warring has also been supplemented by incivility ( ). ITAQALLAH 22:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I have blocked the user in question for sixty hours since he has been blocked for three-revert rule many times and has continued to engage in edit warring almost immediately after coming off his sabbatical. -- tariqabjotu 23:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Pompertown reported by User:Anthonylombardi (Result:31 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Oasis (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pompertown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 9:34, 18 May 2007

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

Comments: This user has continuously reverted the genres to the band's page, against the wishes of numerous other users who have disagreed with him; he's the only one who believes the genre he keeps adding is appropriate, even after several different members have asked him to stop (through edit comments). I left him a message on his talk page, asking him to either cite a references or conjure up a vote on the band's talk page, to which he totally disregarded. The only argument he has made in his favor is "listen to the albums" or "you have no idea how long I can keep going with this, lol" -- needless to say, to me & to the numerous other users who keep fixing his inappropriate edits, this is becoming increasingly frustrating.

• Blocked for 31 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

User:156.34.209.240 reported by User:darthrya (Result:)

• Three-revert rule violation on

ARTICLE_NAME (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). NAME_OF_USER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Iron_Maiden&oldid=131838011 / 19:02, 18 May 2007
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Iron_Maiden&oldid=131900924 / 00:21, 19 May 2007
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Iron_Maiden&oldid=131914571 / 01:43, 19 May 2007
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Iron_Maiden&oldid=131930323156.34.209.240 / 03:30, 19 May 2007

Comments: This person is deliberately deleting an outside link to Iron Maiden's tourography which is verifiable, reliable, and it provides additional helpful information about Iron Maiden not found in the content (nor does it fit in the in the content). The link is http://maidenshows.ryasrealm.com/masterlist.htm, and it is the band's tourography. I have created that tourography by sifting through thousands of primary sources and evaluating all of the secondary sources taken for granted at the Iron Maiden page to come up with the most comprehensive and most accurate tourography available anywhere. My research has fixed hundreds of errors that have come from other sources people take for granted as being accurate, when they are not (such as Mick Wall and Paul Stenning, which the page references). 87% of the tour dates and locations listed on the tourography have citations (hover your mouse over them) which verify their accuracy. I have made this tourography in conjunction with my university as part of my master's in history requirements. The person who is deleting this link has no regard for its value to Iron Maiden fans. This link does not violate Misplaced Pages policy in any regard.

• Please provide diffs rather than oldids. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Interpaul reported by User:Tvoz (Result:24h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Ron Paul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Interpaul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 16:00 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 22:22 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• 2nd revert: 00:46 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• 3rd revert: 3:55 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• 4th revert: 5:03 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• 5th revert: 5:37 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Diff of 3RR warning:
• 4:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• 2:26 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment no edit summaries with explanation, no participation in ongoing discussion on talk page, no consensus for the removal; this user was also warned on May 9 for a different series of reverts in same article Tvoz |talk 05:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Papa Carlo reported by User:Alaexis (Result:No violation)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Abkhazia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Papa Carlo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 19:53, 13 May 2007

The demographics section of the article was reverted to this version. The table was just reverted; the text was a bit reformulated but its meaning hasn't changed.

• 1st revert: 05:31, 19 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 05:46, 19 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 05:59, 19 May 2007
• 4th revert: 06:44, 19 May 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 06:24, 19 May

Disagree. First edit was not a revert. It was a new edit with new links and everything. This info was discussed on the talk page. User:Alaexis apparently thinks his edits are untouchable. He is trying to beat the system by reverting three times every day. He does the same thing on List of sovereign states as well. Seems to be his editing style. (PaC 07:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC))

No violation. Only 3 reverts. --Woohookitty 08:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I think the "previous version reverted to" was mistakenly cited and misleading. From the talkpage and the page history, this is a longstanding dispute which both participants have previously revert-warred about. The issue is apparently the inclusion or non-inclusion of a row in the demographics table stating population figures of a 1897 census. This started on 30 April, and both parties went up to 3R about it on 13 May. I see the following edits (some of them not pure reverts, but all centered around removing or re-adding these figures:)

User:Papa Carlo removing 1897 census figures from table

• 30 April removing figures, though not the table row as a whole
• 13 May 15:05
• 13 May 15:22
• 13 May 18:13
• 19 May 05:31
• 19 May 05:46
• 19 May 05:59
• 19 May 06:44

Alaexis restoring table figures

• 30 April
• 10 May
• 13 May 15:13
• 13 May 17:46
• 13 May 18:50
• 19 May 05:38
• 19 May 05:55
• 19 May 06:37

Final edit by Alaexis

• Acquiescing to the removal of figures, but at the same time removing again a paragraph of text ("] of 1897 did not actualy capture the ethnic composition ...") repeatedly inserted previously by Papa Carlos, hence also a partial revert:
• 19 May 09:05

In my book, this is a clear breach of the letter of 3RR by Papa Carlos, a not-quite-so-straightforward breach on the part of Alaexis, and in any case quite a lot of unproductive revert-warring on the part of both. Opinions, anyone? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The fourth edit was my attempt of a compromise and it seems to fit both sides. Alæxis_¿question? 07:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Lsi_john reported by User:EstherRice (Result: No vio)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Landmark_Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lsi_john (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 7:46, 19th of May

• 1st revert: 13:00
• 2nd revert: 15:04
• 3rd revert: 16:08

I am not sure where to sign.ER 16:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

3 Reverts to enforce concensus from extensive discussion. And I requested Page Protection. This is not 4RR and is not a violation. And I have stopped editing that page and do not intend to edit again, as can be seen from and Lsi john 16:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines at the top of the page specifically request that dispute-related problems not be brought up here, I request that the above comment be struck out since the above comment and links are precisely dispute-related. The policy also specifically refers to three reversions, and I request that WP policy be applied as it is, in this as in any other case.ER 16:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No violation of 3RR occurred and the links provided demonstrate that I have no intention of continuing to edit that page at this time, and therefore no violation will occur. Lsi john 16:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No violation has occurred, but all parties are urged to find compromise wording, satisfactory to both sides. --Selket 17:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I have re-added a bit of the disputed material in an NPOV manner consistent with the sourcing. Take my edit as an example, if you care to. --Justanother 17:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely apologise to anyone who has been inconvenienced by this; I was actually led into it by no-one bothering to correct me after I had recently reverted the same page twice to restore the well-sourced critical material, then expressed my supposition that I was unable to do it again (no doubt a very satisfying mistake to the habitual removers of the same well-sourced material, and now one that has become very useful). Who, without experience, could know that the 3rr is actually a 4 or more rr?ER 18:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Russians in Ukraine (page locked for short period)

I combined two related reports. Please see my comment in the bottom. -Irpen 22:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Hillock65 reported by User:Kuban kazak (Result:)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Russians in Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hillock65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 20:35, 19 May 2007

• 1st revert: 20:39, 19 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 21:05, 19 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 21:07, 19 May 2007
• 4th revert: 21:23, 19 May 2007
• 5th revert: 21:35, 19 May 2007
• 6th revert: 21:38, 19 May 2007
• 7th revert: 21:50, 19 May 2007

The article is controversial, however today the user has made about a dozen or so highly controversial edits, and not talk page entries, because the article is being constantly expanded one notices that there are intermediate sections that are added on, however the nature of his reverts do not change. --Kuban Cossack 21:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see comment below. --Irpen 22:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Kuban kazak reported by User:Hillock65 (Result:)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Russians in Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kuban kazak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 20:35, 19 May 2007

1. 1st revert 21:14, 19 May 2007
2. 2nd revert 21:10, 19 May 2007
3. 3rd revert 20:55, 19 May 2007
4. 4th revert 21:25, 19 May 2007
5. 5th revert 21:39, 19 May 2007

The user wages revert war.--Hillock65 22:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Not a revert war but WP:BRD. Both users develop the article and the article is getting improved. Intervention unnecessary. I will deal with the controversy. --Irpen 22:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Do both reporting users agree that no intervention is necessary? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, intervention is necessary - whatever it is. The revert war and personal attacks have not stopped.--Hillock65 23:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I locked the page for a short period to slow things down and get some talk happening. Hopefully things will quieten. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:MetsFan153 reported by User:Chrisjnelson (Result:no vio 48h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Tom Glavine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MetsFan153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 16:45, May 19, 2007

User keeps putting false information on the article, two days after being blocked for 3RR. I was blocked as well trying to revert it, which is why I have reported this rather than rever it for a thir time myself.Chris Nelson 21:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

User keeps reverting removing true information on former teams he played on, has been repeatedly told my other users, including myself to leave information as is, until a decision is reached by the baseball players taskforce. MetsFan153 21:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• A look at the article history suggests only three reverts; need more than three for 3RR vio. In the future, please provide diffs for each reversion. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

MetsFan153 has reverted the page for the FOURTH time today. It seems to be this is no in violation of 3RR.Chris Nelson 22:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, there are now four. Blocked for 48 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Kraft. reported by User:Boricuaeddie (Result: No block)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Christina Aguilera discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kraft. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 04:13, 19 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 19:04, 19 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 23:12, 19 May 2007
• 4th revert: 23:13, 19 May 2007

Comment:

There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding the number of sales made. User:Kraft. mindlessly reverted edits by other IP editors he considered incorrect without alerting the users that they were incorrect and without giving them a chance to explain their edits. He just reverted, without leaving not even a single warning in the user's talk page. Furthermore, once I alerted him that he was violating the three-revert rule, he responded with uncivil comments. He claims he has proof that his version is the correct one and that he had addressed the problem on the article's talk page, but, instead of pointing the users towards the talk page, he just reverted the other user's edits, which I believe is the problem. Thank you. Boricuaeddie 01:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User does not seem to be editing that article today. 3RR blocks are preventative and not punitive. Now that the user is warned, of he persists with such behavior he well be blocked. I will leave a message to this effect on his talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User:VirtualDelight reported by User:64.131.205.111 (Result:)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Dominican Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). VirtualDelight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

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

Comment: User:VirtualDelight has been utilizing twinkle to revert edits by other editors. Rolling back as many as 7 updates. He has repeatedly removed information stating that they are opinion, rather than using the tool. When facts are placed in he has reverted them anyway. One prime expample is the placement of sources that state the mixed heritage of a number of Presidential leaders of the Dominican Republic. It has been asked that he please discuss the sources in the talk section, but he has simply reverted the article. A few days suspension is probably in order, but not much more. Protection of the page in unnecessary. 64.131.205.111 07:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I suspect this to be banned user Mykungfu aka Freakin Fool et al. At least per this edits and ,but decide yourself. VirtualDelight 08:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC) See also the IP‘s talkpage before its "update". VirtualDelight 18:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Alaexis reported by User:MariusM (Result: redundant)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Abkhazia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Alaexis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 05:18, 19 May 2007

• 1st revert: 05:38, 19 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 05:55, 19 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 06:37, 19 May 2007
• 4th revert: 09:05, 19 May 2007
• 5th revert: 09:23, 19 May 2007
• 6th revert: 13:17, 19 May 2007
• 7th revert: 15:39, 19 May 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning:

• Comment: --MariusM 06:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The first four of my edits are already discussed above (Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Papa_Carlo_reported_by_User:Alaexis_.28Result:No_violation.29). The fourth edit was my attempt of a compromise and it seems to fit both sides.

The rest (5th, 6th and 7th) reverts were the reverts of vandalism from open proxies (,). This article is attacked by open proxies regularly () Alæxis_¿question? 07:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This report is redundant with one further above, and the reverts are arguably stale by now. I agree with Alaexis that the last three were legitimate reverts of a banned user. There was previously revert-warring on both sides and both parties have been warned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Alaexis reported by 147.52.78.24 08:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC) (Result: no violation)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Gagra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Alaexis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 09:54, 19 May 2007

• 1st revert: 12:34, 19 May 2007 Revert to revision 131973630 dated 2007-05-19 09:55:25 by Alaexis using popups)
• 2nd revert: 13:19, 19 May 2007 Revert to re vision 131991089 dated 2007-05-19 12:34:30 by Alaexis using popups)
• 3rd revert: 15:29, 19 May 2007 Revert to revision 131996766 dated 2007-05-19 13:19:03 by Alaexis using popups
• 4th revert: 17:21, 19 May 2007 Revert to revision 132017685 dated 2007-05-19 15:29:10 by Alaexis using popups)

• Diff of 3RR warning:

The last two (and maybe the first two also) were the reverts of open proxy edits(). Abkhazia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)-related articles are attacked by open proxies regularly. Alæxis_¿question? 08:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

All IP edits were open proxies and can reasonably be assumed to have been from banned users. Hence, no violation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Good friend100 reported by User:jiejunkong (Result: moot)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Goguryeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Good friend100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

In ], I count 4 reverting operations in less than 3 hours, starting from one of another user Endoit's 00:30 version and ending at an anonymous IP's 03:04 version.

(cur) (last)  03:06, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (32,499 bytes) (please stop rv to a POV version. I am getting tired of this and I wish to leave the article at the relative stability)
(cur) (last)  03:04, 20 May 2007 75.83.232.59 (Talk) (32,503 bytes) (Or this would pertain to Wiki in Korean language!?)
(cur) (last)  02:56, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (32,499 bytes) (→Language)
(cur) (last)  02:55, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (32,405 bytes) (→Legacy)
(cur) (last)  02:53, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (32,498 bytes) (→Religion)
(cur) (last)  02:51, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (32,419 bytes) (→Religion)
(cur) (last)  02:51, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (32,419 bytes) (→Culture - - another source from berkeley)
(cur) (last)  02:50, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (32,349 bytes) (that would pertain to the Chinese Misplaced Pages.)
(cur) (last)  02:46, 20 May 2007 75.83.232.59 (Talk) (42,581 bytes) (It is totally disputed. No Chinese will accept this page as it is. The edit war will never end)
(cur) (last)  02:45, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (32,349 bytes) (→Fall - - added source)
(cur) (last)  02:42, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (32,304 bytes) (→Fall - - added a source, from Mark Byington, Harvard professor. I'm sure Jiejunkong can't deny that)
(cur) (last)  02:38, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (32,259 bytes) (rv again)
(cur) (last)  02:37, 20 May 2007 75.83.232.59 (Talk) (42,536 bytes)
(cur) (last)  02:34, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (32,259 bytes) (rv)
(cur) (last)  00:30, 20 May 2007 Endroit (Talk | contribs) (42,536 bytes) (+ Actual script used in these sources)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiejunkong (talk • contribs)

Here are the actual diff's. Good friend100 has repeatedly removed the "factual accuracy" ("totally-disputed") tag (besides deleting a lot of text):

• Previous version reverted to: 02:45, 18 May 2007 — version right before "factual accuracy" ("totally-disputed") tag was added

• 1st revert: 18:53, 19 May 2007 — removed "factual accuracy" tag
  • part of 1st revert: 18:50, 19 May 2007 — content removal
• 2nd revert: 02:34, 20 May 2007 — removed "factual accuracy" tag, content removal
• 3rd revert: 02:38, 20 May 2007 — removed "factual accuracy" tag, content removal
• 4th revert: 02:50, 20 May 2007 — removed "factual accuracy" tag, content removal
• 5th revert: 03:06, 20 May 2007 — removed "factual accuracy" tag

• Diff showing knowledge of 3RR: 02:37, 20 May 2007 (WP:RFPP)
• Diff of 3RR warning: 02:54, 20 May 2007

--Endroit 14:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: The article is locked to Good_friend100's preferred version (with the contents removed), per Good_friend100's request in WP:RFPP.--Endroit 14:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The 2nd 3RR violation on Goguryeo controversies

• Three-revert rule violation on

Goguryeo controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Good friend100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

(cur) (last)  15:14, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (12,108 bytes)
(cur) (last)  15:11, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (13,984 bytes) (→Background - there is no source)
(cur) (last)  15:08, 20 May 2007 Jiejunkong (Talk | contribs) (14,054 bytes) (Please put {{Unreferenced}} tag for reference request before deletion. Otherwise, clearly malicious blanking.)
(cur) (last)  14:58, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (12,102 bytes) (removed sections that are poorly sourced)
(cur) (last)  14:47, 20 May 2007 Jiejunkong (Talk | contribs) m (14,054 bytes) (Disputed sections. Please do WP:NPOV and WP:Reliable Source for any content changes.)
(cur) (last)  12:45, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (12,102 bytes) (→Background - man, this is really becoming a pain)
(cur) (last)  12:43, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (12,178 bytes) (→Background - remove POV sourced sentence)
(cur) (last)  12:43, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (12,546 bytes) (→Chinese claims on Goguryeo)
(cur) (last)  12:39, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (12,275 bytes) (even you say Baidu baike is POV, removing section without any sources)
(cur) (last)  06:07, 20 May 2007 Time of flight (Talk | contribs) (14,054 bytes) (Those come from well respected history sources, including the one written by Koreans, Samguk Sagi)

• Previous version reverted to: 00:39, 17 May 2007 — version right before the disputed text was moved over from Goguryeo

• 1st revert: 03:39, 20 May 2007
• 1st2nd revert: 12:39, 20 May 2007 Deleted some references from reliable source Twenty-Four Histories
• 2nd3rd revert: 14:58, 20 May 2007 Blanked paragraphs without giving "Unreferenced" request and deleted references from reliable source.
• 3rd4th revert: 15:14, 20 May 2007 Same as the 2nd3rd revert.

--Jiejunkong 16:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

--Modified by Endroit 18:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Might also be worth noting that this is by no means a new user and he's referenced the 3RR rule many times (for example here 00:54, 17 May 2007), which would be before any recent 3RR violations. --Cheers, Komdori 20:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to mention that I was reverting POV edits with poorly sourced and possibly violating WP:NOR information on the article itself. Jiejunkong has made several claims that may be original research, including adding a dispute raising image that may also be his own interpretation. . Jiejunkong also uses unverifiable sources that are mostly written in Chinese and thus is not possible for examination.

In his version of the article Connections between Goguryeo and the Chinese Central Plains Dynasties, this section violates both NPOV and WP:NOR. The section is poorly sourced, using a Chinese encyclopedia, Baidu Baike, yet he agrees leaving the section alone and then disagrees that Baidu Baike should not be used.

Jiejunkong also disagrees using Mark Byington's papers on Goguryeo even though Byington is a Harvard professor on East Asian studies and his paper is a clear source. His motives are clearly POV because he disagrees with everything that does not support him.

It should also be noted that Jiejunkong is rude to other editors. He has labeled the word "Korean origin" as "fascist" while leaving Chinese encyclopedias and other unverifiable Chinese sources alone. Jiejunkong has also inferred that he is disgusted with me because he "doesn't want to touch my talk pages". Jiejunkong also accuses me of my "amatuerish behavior" and calls all the references he doesn't like as "plagiarism" and "piracy".

Jiejunkong's intentions are clearly POV and his comments overall are filled with unverifiable claims and POV remarks. Jiejunkong's replies, which he has clearly marked as "reply" are also illogical and do not answer the other editor's question in a clearcut way.

I believe Jiejunkong is totally at fault and he does not correctly understand Misplaced Pages policy of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR.

I also believe that Endroit and Komdori are at fault for failing to help stop Jiejunkong make poorly referenced claims and his other behavior, which is becoming more and more trollish. Simply because Endroit and Komdori are in the opposing party from me, and although Jiejunkong has clearly made inappropiate edits and comments, they did not warn or report his activities. I believe Endroit and Komdori are at fault too for immediately taking the chance to block me instead of disagreeing with Jiejunkong, who is clearly the true violator. I am sure that both Endroit and Komdori know of Jiejunkong's activities as they are experienced editors here.

Please reconsider blocking me because I clearly feel that I am not at fault. It is true that I did not make a case or request an admin to look over Jiejunkong's activities (although I did request an action from user:Nlu, an admin) immediately and party escalated the argument at the talk page, but I feel that Jiejunkong should be punished. Good friend100 23:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Good friend, you've been around long enough by far to know that "not liking the version" is not a reason to violate the 3RR rule. You've also displayed your own fair share of incivility recently, even calling an editor "sick" and "twisted" for adding an NPOV tag here. I can't speak for Endroit, but I've been offline for most of the day so I couldn't help stop the edit war earlier, but you have eagerly been participated in it, not stopping until an admin came in and protected it, forcing you to stop. Now you come to this page to clutter it up with your bad faith for us (especially after I left you a heads up for this report when I noticed the reporter hadn't). Being a good editor in the past in not an excuse to go nuts now, violating 3RR on multiple articles in a short time. --Cheers, Komdori 01:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Again I feel that you do not read my comments sometimes. I wrote a number of points as to why his edits were POV and why I reverted them, not simply because I do "not like the version". Don't make up stuff, cause thats certainly not what I mean.

I commented on how I was wrong to not report Jiejunkong for his behavior. And saying "sick" and "twisted" were for all the edits he had done previously, not just that tag.

It is really disappointing to see how you cannot see Jiejunkong's violation of numerous things, which I have explained above. Again, I feel that you did not read through my comments or either that, you simply don't care what I write (well maybe it was a bit long). Good friend100 02:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, there might be other issues at play. I intend to go through your comments about Jiejunkong very closely to see what's going on there. My only point was that removing POV statements is not a good reason for breaking 3RR (if we start accepting that, everyone will be breaking it). --Cheers, Komdori 02:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I apologized to that! I clearly wrote in my long comment that I helped stir up the argument. Good friend100 02:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Good friend100, what I don't understand is why you have repeatedly removed the "factual accuracy" ("totally-disputed") tag. Are you denying, or somehow trying to hide, that there's a "factual accuracy" dispute in the Goguryeo article? I think it's inexcusable to delete tags like that. And then you've got an admin at WP:RFPP to lock the page WITHOUT the tag. The least you can do now, is ask the locking admin (User:Eagle 101) to reinstate the "factual accuracy" ("totally-disputed") tag. Don't ever revert-war on tags like that again. Thank you.--Endroit 04:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where this User:Good friend100 got tons of rumors on me. But Connections between Goguryeo and the Chinese Central Plains Dynasties was not written by me at all. I have not even changed one character in that section. I have spent the last few days to input the relevant canonical history volumes in zh.wikisource and want to change the current references in that section into an acceptable format. But even this action is in future tense and hasn't yet implemented. I am offended by User:Good friend100's random charges. Providing physical proofs to support your charges is a pre-requisite in wikipedia, isn't it? If your physical proof is wrong, what should we do?--Jiejunkong 05:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

is a literal graphic depiction of canonical history records. I don't think you can call it "original research". If so, any modern efforts, both textually and graphically, to translate ancient records into legible modern forms would be "original research". Reasonable wiki users who read the ancient records carefully haven't denied the validity of my depiction. Surely it is imperfect (any rephrasing is imperfect), but I am open to improvement on the depiction.

Your complaining on records written in ancient Chinese language is also invalid. The Korean canonical record Samguk Sagi was originally written in ancient Chinese. The Korean version was a translation rather than original record. For the texts I quoted, I did the English translation and I am responsible for the statement I wrote. So far you are not complaining about my English translation, but furiously against some meta-physical things like the validity of history records written in Chinese. By your attitude, you are shutting down the entire wikipedia section because nothing but identical copying is valid in your standard.

BTW, you always want to mangle my original statement, extracting it from the context (An observation is that you have never quoted original sentences. The charges are mainly comprised of only vague innuedos and tricky jumps). The "fascist" term is a comment to websites like "mygoguryeo.com" (and the back-to-future-style "Korean origin" in year 600 when even Goryeo didn't exist until 300 years later). The website reminds me of some ostentiously proud people failed 60 years ago. Tell you one thing, even Baike.Baidu.com dare not make that kind of show. And one clue to know my standing point that is I have never cited Baidu Baike or Northeast Project as reliable sources. You claimed that "all the references he doesn't like as "plagiarism" and "piracy"". To verify whether your claim is true, I find that you have completely disappeared from the NPOV reference discussion on Talk:Goguryeo#Candidates of biased non-NPOV references, where there are many NPOV references I left in the list. If you intentionally press false charges without physical proof, you are labeling yourself an L-word since you have repetitively done this kind of tricks.--Jiejunkong 05:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This complaint is now moot because the page has been protected. Editors involved have a history of past disputes and 3RR blocks or close calls -- including those who have since joined the discussion. All are urged to build consensus and stop arguing on this message board. Editors will be individually warned. --Selket 06:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Selket, is the 2nd report above on Goguryeo controversies moot as well? Let me just point out that revert-warriors have clearly sidestepped the Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Goguryeo, an ongoing RfM. Please discuss further with the mediators before you protect any further related pages, since the pages have been unprotected due to the mediators' disretion in the first place. Thank you.--Endroit 06:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Only the last two edits (plus one more at 02:45) appear to be reverts. The others seem to be compromises. If I am missing something please lay it out clearly in a new report. To quote the instructions: Just give us the article, the diffs, a link to the history, and as little else as possible. Also, remember that if they are not all reverts to the same version: 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. Be clear, but don't rant. --Selket 07:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I already resubmitted "Part 2" of this report, at the bottom.--Endroit 07:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:3 Löwi reported by User:TheFEARgod (Result: Blocked 48 hours. 24 for 3RR, 24 for removing sourced material)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Fascism in Estonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 3 Löwi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 20 May 12:12
• 2nd revert: 20 May 12:27
• 3rd revert: 20 May 13:05
• 4th revert: 20 May 13:20

Multiple page blanking without discussion. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User:PaddyLeahy reported by User:Phil Sandifer (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Misplaced Pages:Spoiler (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). PaddyLeahy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

• 1st revert: 19:42
• 2nd revert: 19:56
• 3rd revert: 20:17
• 4th revert: 10:00
• 5th revert 10:20

Note that this is particularly destructive edit warring, as the page in question is a developing guideline, and PaddyLeahy is one of a vocal few opposing it and trying to disrupt what is in fact a growing consensus. Phil Sandifer 15:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. --Cyde Weys 15:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Strich3d reported by User:Mr. Neutron (Result:Blocked, 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

User:Strich3d (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Strich3d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 17.33 19 May

• 1st revert: 15:55 today
• 2nd revert: 18:59 today
• 3rd revert: 19:11 today
• 4th revert: 19:28 today

• Comment: This person has been putting his political and disruptive content on his user page calling Bulgarians and Greeks vandals. He was blocked already for this three revert rule. TodorBozhinov and Laveol and myself are on the case, see the edit history. Mr. Neutron 19:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

•  Done—Strich3d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked for 20 hours for a WP:3RR violation at User:Strich3d (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ~ Anthøny 20:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Corticopia reported by User:Sosomk (Result:No violation)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Georgia (country) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Corticopia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:26 - 15:36 20:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

• Same revert:

First of all, this is an improperly filed report. Second, I have only edited the article three times today -- see that page. Third, this appears an insipid attempt to retalite given this editor's recent one-week block on that very article, which I facilitated; after this block, he has decided to continue unilaterally reverting to his preferred versions. Lastly, this editor is swearing on the talk page and has been warned against incivility. 20:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Only 3 reverts in last 24 hours. While I am willing to block for that sometimes, Corticopia has made it clear that he is willing to discuss the situation; a block would not be productive at this time. Stop reverting and discuss. 3RR is not something you try to push your opponents into as a way to shut them up and win an argument. Kafziel 20:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, SosoMK just breached 3RR through his last edit. Corticopia 21:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Ev and reported by User:Cool Blue (Result: Article protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Teki Dervishi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: (current)

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

Admin Majorly finally intervened, protecting the page. See also the legal threat by KristinaAlbania: here But the legal threat's a different issue being discussed at ANI, currently. I'm neutral, but I just noticed the violation, and thought intervention may be needed. Both users seem pretty heated. Cool Blue 00:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the article has been protected, there is no need to apply a block to either party here. -- tariqabjotu 03:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:BaseballDetective and reported by User:69.118.129.76 (Result: No violation)

• Three-revert rule violation on

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist and topic subscriptions to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

• Previous version reverted to: (current)

• 1st revert: 18:54
• 2nd revert: 01:47
• 3rd revert: 01:49
• 4th revert: 01:49

Unauthorized (not that it matters) editing of a talk page, four changes made in under 24 hours. 01:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This user is involved in an edit war at List of people from Ridgefield, Connecticut, repeatedly deleting a section from the article that they do not agree with. Repeated reversions didn't seem to be an issue there, as they made the same edit 17 times over the space of 15 days. The edits that the anon user is complaining about have to do with them trying to remove warnings regarding these contentious edits and personal attacks made by the anon user. Caknuck 02:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

See above for the previous 3RR complaint between the two parties. Also, please view Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies for the RFC stemming from the original dispute. Caknuck 03:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The reported user is different from the user making the edits noted here. Additionally, the user was merely adding warnings. -- tariqabjotu 03:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

this anon user is clearly a troll who is gaming the strictness of the three revert rule to harass otheres and ignore their own behavior. technically this person has not violated 3rr but if you look at their contributions to wikipedia, it's constant trolling and harassment of others and an unwillingless to work with others in any way. the only thing keeping this user from being blocked is their slyly avoiding 3 or more reversions in a 24 hour period. i would implore any admin looking at this situation to step in and do something. the page is locked, but the user has threatened to come back and engage in this behavior again. "Feel free to issue warnings to your heart's content, just be aware that I won't adhere to one unless decreed by an administrator. The section is now protected so you can rest assured that there will be far more inputs on the article's discussion page supporting my point of view in order to remove the ridiculous section once and for all." ridiculous. someone please look at this and do something. BaseballDetective 03:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:In1984 reported by User:CZmarlin (Result: No block)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Hummer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User:In1984 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: Revision as of 22:46, 19 May 2007
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 19:44, 20 May 2007
• 3rd revert: Current revision (20:47, 20 May 2007)

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule

WARNING regarding your addition of the caption to several automobile logos --

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." CZmarlin 01:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have given the following explanations on this user's talk page:

Showing the logo of a company is not an attempt at advertising. The notion of putting a caption stating that the logo is a logo will somehow reduce the effect of what you describe as "advertising" is utterly false. First of all, please read the definition of advertising --

"Advertising is paid and/or sometimes free communication through a medium in which the sponsor is identified and the message is controlled. ..."

Therefore, simply showing the logo that is associated with a Misplaced Pages article about the organization identified with that particular logo does NOT make it advertising. If you wish to eliminate the concept of promotion (of which advertising is just one element), then any mention of a brand, logo, and any other copyrighted or trademarked name or symbol would have to be eliminated from all Misplaced Pages articles. That is why Misplaced Pages clearly states that no caption needed for company or product logos, where the logo is current, and the article is about the company or product. Please do not attempt to redefine Misplaced Pages policy. Thank you -- CZmarlin 06:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The Jeep logo is clearly identified as a registered trademark. It has the symbol in the lower corner. This is an indication of its role as an official logo. There is no "guessing" what this image represents. Therefore, there is no need to identify this symbol with a caption that it is a logo. The Misplaced Pages guidelines are very clear that no caption is needed with current images of logos. Please also stop adding captions to logos in other articles. They are all following Misplaced Pages guidelines. If you do not think that Misplaced Pages should to serve any promotional role for products, ideas, or organizations; then you will have to blank out thousands of articles pertaining to all the products, ideas, and organizations. The placement of images of logos within the articles only helps explain and describe the subject of the article. This function is NOT advertising. It does serve the purpose of Misplaced Pages. Thank you -- CZmarlin 14:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This editor is now going through many more articles and adding a caption to their logos. Perhaps I am wrong, but this seems counter productive. Thank you for your help in resolving this matter. CZmarlin 03:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User warned. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:72.66.51.129 and User:207.114.16.210 reported by User:Upholder (Result:)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 72.66.51.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 17:38, May 20, 2007

There have now been a total of 9 reverts by this editor on these two IPs:

• 1st revert: 09:52, May 18, 2007
• 2nd revert: 12:32, May 18, 2007
• 3rd revert: 14:18, May 18, 2007
• 4th revert: 15:20, May 18, 2007
• 5th revert: 2007-05-19 23:08:55 by User:72.66.51.129 which is another address that User:207.114.16.210 has used in the past. This Comment just before the 5th revert was posted from User:72.66.51.129 but signed as User:207.114.16.210. Based on the editing history of these two users (focusing on topics related to Illinois or Indiana college basketball) I'm convinced that this the same person on both IP addresses.
• 6th revert: 09:30, May 20, 2007 (made by User:72.66.51.129).
• 7th revert: 14:00, May 20, 2007 (made by User:72.66.51.129, third by that IP in less than 24 hours).
• 8th revert: 17:38, May 20, 2007 (as User:72.66.51.129, fourth by that IP in less than 24 hours).
• 9th revert: 08:04, May 21, 2007 (as User:207.114.16.210).
• 10th revert: 12:49, May 21, 2007 (as User:207.114.16.210).

• Diff of 3RR warnings: 19:00, May 18, 2007 and 11:59, May 20, 2007

Response

If any action is taken with regard to this alleged violation of the 3RR, I would only ask that all offenders be treated equally. To this extent, I would note that this dispute also involved violations of the three revert rule by User:Chiwara who twice made 3+ reverts to the Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball article within 24 hours:

(1) 23:04 17 May 2007 (2) 15:43 18 May 2007 (3) 18:39 18 May 2007 and (1) 14:55 20 May 2007 (2) 05:44 21 May 2007 (3) 14:29 21 May 2007

The above notwithstanding, I would suggest that current discussions appear to be headed towards resolution and any blocking is unecessary and will simply inflame the situation. 207.114.16.210 15:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User:The way, the truth, and the light reported by User:Simoes (Result: unactionable)

• Previous version reverted to: 20:50, 19 May 2007

• 1st revert: 22:17, 19 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 03:19, 20 May 2007
• 3rd revert:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts&diff=132365566&oldid=132337438 22:07, 20 May 2007]

• 4th revert: 22:16, 20 May 2007

This report is coming off the heels of a first report and block that happened a couple days ago. Like last time, the user is insistent that his preferred version of the article remain in place despite objections from several editors. Simões (/_contribs) 06:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Three of the diffs are for List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, the other is for Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball. Therefore, no violation has been demonstrated. Please use the example format at the bottom of this page to avoid mistakes like this. --Selket 08:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I replaced that one with the one Simoes intended. The explanation is that at least one of these (the 1st or 2nd or both) was not a revert. In any case the article is back at the other version now.

It is clear that this is just more harassment by Simoes, as he has contributed nothing to the article over the past several days, while I have continued posting to the talk page and madesome edits to the article that have not been reverted. The way, the truth, and the light 08:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Asgardian reported by User:Doczilla (Result:)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Vision (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Asgardian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 23:33, 19 May 2007

• 1st revert: 01:50, 20 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 04:08, 20 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 02:25, 21 May 2007 The wording of his edit summary "Since the other version is fundamentally flawed for all the previously listed reasons, this is the version that should be addressed as it has been shaped to user comments." sounds like he didn't even glance at the intermediate version but simply reverted because it wasn't his. (I'm not saying that's what happened. I'm saying that's how it looked.)
• 4th revert: 02:48, 21 May 2007 This version isn't a 100% reversion because he edited it this time, but look at the intermediate version he changed. He keeps reverting this from a disambiguation page. Edit summary makes this look like another blind revert without looking at intermediate version: "Address the issues - this version has correct tense, no POV, correct grammar, sourcing and no spacing issues/poor use of images. Other version only suitable for fan site."

Notice that this is 4 reverts in 25 hours. However, (1) the 3RR guidelines stress that the rule is not a license to make 3 reverts every 24 hours ("Revert warring is disruptive, and the 3RR is not an entitlement to three 'free' reverts per day."), (2) this user has been endlessly cautioned about edit warring, (3) this user has gotten into trouble for 3RR before, so making 4 reverts in 25 hours comes across as an attempt to get around the rules without following their actual intent, (4) he has kept the Vision (comics), Vision (Marvel Comics), Vision (Timely Comics) locked in a war, (5) he alone has been fighting against consensus to split Vision (Marvel Comics) and Vision (Timely Comics) into two separate articles, and (6) he apparently doesn't even know how to move articles correctly from one article name to another because his actions have caused disruption of discussion as talk pages and histories get left behind. I really, really hate to do this, but this edit war must stop.

Previous 3RR warning:

• 09:56, 25 September 2006 (not formal warning, just a caution)
• 17:52, 26 October 2006
• 18:39, 26 November 2006. (caution only? I'm not sure because of how often Asgardian deleted warnings and removed other contributor's comments from his talk page.)
• 17:40, 14 January 2007
• 18:24, 24 March 2007 (I thought this was just someone pointing out a violation to him, not a formal notice, until I saw comments at User talk:GentlemanGhost.

Notice that he has removed his 3RR block notices from his talk page despite previous warnings not to do that.

Other block notice:

• 12:22, 9 April 2007

Notification of recent administrator's noticeboard report:

• 01:01, 2 May 2007

Notification of an earlier adminstrator's noticeboard report:

• 08:29, 12 December 2006

Doczilla 06:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: If the 25 hour timespan means a block is unlikely, then simply protecting Vision (comics) in its disambiguation page form might be sufficient action in this case. Protecting the disambiguation page might at least help reduce that aspect of the edit warring at Vision (Marvel Comics) and Vision (Timely Comics). Doczilla 07:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Good friend100 reported by User:Endroit (Result: Blocked 24h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Goguryeo controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Good friend100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 00:39, 17 May 2007 — version right before the disputed text was moved over from another article, Goguryeo

• 1st revert: 03:39, 20 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 12:39, 20 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 14:58, 20 May 2007
• 4th revert: 15:14, 20 May 2007
• 5th revert: 02:45, 21 May 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 02:54, 20 May 2007

Comment: Repeated removal of the section entitled "==Political connections between Goguryeo and the Chinese Central Plains Dynasties". --Endroit 07:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Good friend100 blocked 24 hours from last revert --Selket 08:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:DachMaCheh reported by User:Soman (Result: No violation)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Gail Omvedt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DachMaCheh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 04:28, 14 May 2007

• 1st revert: 20:23, 20 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 08:00, 21 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 09:20, 21 May 2007
• 4th revert: DIFFTIME

No violation has occurred. The three revert rule prohibits more than three reverts within 24 hours. --Selket 13:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, my bad. --Soman 14:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Beatle Fab Four reported by User:Staberinde (Result: Article protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Bronze Soldier of Tallinn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Beatle Fab Four (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 11:12, 20 May 2007

• 1st revert: 17:29, 20 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 18:34, 20 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 19:06, 20 May 2007
• 4th revert: 11:49, 21 May 2007
• 5th revert: 16:27, 21 May 2007

User has been blocked for edit warring before.

I'm a Beatle Fab Four. This Staberinde didn't follow controversy resolving rules. Look at the discussion page Talk:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn (→Advertisement) My reversions were fair, explained at the discussion page, and supported by several neutral users from Belgium and Finland, both in discussions and edits. For instance,

or "Thanks to Beatle Fab Four for reverting the deletion once more. LHOON 12:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)" Beatle Fab Four 17:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fab Four FOUGHT VANDALISM. A few Baltic nationalists try to change the content of the article from what it realy is to what they would like it to be. Fab Four fought vandalism and by that followed this rule http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules when there are a few people vandalizing, and the one who fights vandalism is one, ofcaurse he will have to revert more then 3 times, and by this law http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules he's allowed to do so, and i think that every reasnoble man understands that. He was blocked by a user that didn't even learn the case, and who didn't care, he didn't use his logic, for him more then three reverts is enough to block (he is Sandstein). P.S. The administrator who blocked him blocked him and me, but he didn't block those from the other side of the arguments and didn't even give them a warrning, thought they were the once who started this edit war. M.V.E.i. 18:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Staberinde is an Estonian who took part in the argument, his complain can't even be taken serioucly. M.V.E.i. 18:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so because Staberinde is an Estonian and dared to argue with Beatle Fab Four, so he cannot be taken "serioucly"? That smells like a racism to me, but I'll leave it at that.

User Beatle Fab Four has constantly tried to reinstate material not suitable to Misplaced Pages or what goes against Misplaced Pages rules (links to blogs, hate promotion sites) and done everything to disrupt normal work - edits on Bronze Soldier have pretty much stopped, because of that. He has been blocked repeatedly before (see ) and has a history of block evasion (Block evasion of Beatle Fab Four). Both he and M.V.E.i. constantly argue that he is just following rule Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules while fighting vandalism, however, when asked to show evidence of that vandalism, they fail to do so.

I don't think blocking BFF for normal duration will have any effect - he is on a dynamic IP and has shown clearly and repeatedly that he will evade the block. Although this is not the place to request this, I think that in addition to the block, semi-protection of the article Bronze Soldier of Tallinn (and maybe its talk as well) is needed. DLX 19:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

DLX, Offcourse the article needs protectionm, from you, so you would stop reverting it. You and your friends here are trolls (in the Wikipedian meaning), now your playing it an honest man who offers protection for the article. You are the one because of who the problems started. M.V.E.i. 20:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There has been edit-warring from multiple parties here; I have protected the article for three days. -- tariqabjotu 19:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:The way, the truth, and the light reported by User:Simoes (Result: Article protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The way, the truth, and the light (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):15:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 20:50, 19 May 2007

• 1st revert: 22:17, 19 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 03:19, 20 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 22:07, 20 May 2007
• 4th revert: 22:16, 20 May 2007

This report is coming off the heels of a first report and block that happened a couple days ago. Like last time, the user is insistent that his preferred version of the article (particular the removal of an "Apollo moon landing hoax accusations" entry, among others) remain in place despite objections from several editors. Simões (/_contribs) 15:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The explanation is that at least one of these (the 1st or 2nd or both) was not a revert. In any case the article is at the other version now. The last edit above was 15 hours ago (Simoes is not using GMT, but GMT-6).

Simoes is trying to imply that I was the only editor who objected to the moon landing's inclusion, which is not true.

It is clear that this is just more harassment by Simoes, as he has contributed nothing to the article over the past several days, while I have continued discussion on the talk page, and made some edits to the article that have not been reverted. The way, the truth, and the light 08:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit-warring from multiple parties here. Thus, I have protected the article. -- tariqabjotu 19:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Bueller reported by User:Abe.Froman (Result: Warning)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Douglas Feith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bueller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 2007-05-21T11:09:26

• 1st revert: 2007-05-20T14:40:54
• 2nd revert: 2007-05-20T14:48:45
• 3rd revert: 2007-05-20T15:13:05
• 4th revert: 2007-05-21T11:09:26

WP:3RR violation. Review of the recent talk-page topics and narrow contribution patterns will reveal what I believe is a WP:POINT problem with this user as well. Abe Froman 16:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The user in question has never received a three-revert rule warning and rarely contributes to Misplaced Pages. Thus, I have warned him/her. -- tariqabjotu 19:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:84.68.67.13 reported by User:Vintagekits (Result: 24 hrs)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Template:British Isles (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 84.68.67.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Time reported: 20:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 19:25, 21 May 2007

• 1st revert: 19:37, 21 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 19:48, 21 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 19:51, 21 May 2007
• 4th revert: 19:55, 21 May 2007
• 5th revert: 20:00, 21 May 2007
• 6th revert: 20:04, 21 May 2007
• 7th revert: 20:11, 21 May 2007
• 8th revert: 20:33, 21 May 2007
• 9th revert: 20:43, 21 May 2007

WP:3RR violation. Warned and requested to discussion, then deleted warnings and requests to discuss and then continued to revert despite a number of editors reverting.--Vintagekits 21:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)