Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive27
User:207.195.254.141 reported by User: (aeropagitica) (talk) (Result:24 hours (already blocked))
[edit]Three revert rule violation on Controversy over racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 207.195.254.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:20:59 27 August 2006
- 1st revert: 20:59 27 August 2006
- 2nd revert: 20:55 27 August 2006
- 3rd revert: 20:48 27 August 2006
- 4th revert: 20:39 27 August 2006
Time report made: 21:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comments
- I had begun to revert this user when I saw his massive blankings through RC patrolling in the IRC channels, when I looked through the history of the page it appears that this user had removed several sections in the past, and is "attacking" the article, because he feels that there is not a neutral point of view being expressed (an Afrocentric vs. Eurocentric view of the controversy). However, his edits have gone past any sort of "I'm making this article a neutral POV" when it appears he is trying to eliminate the other POV in this cituation. I endorse the block that aero imposed on this user, and possibly a longer block for consistent blankings of the page. Ryūlóng 21:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- It appears you've already blocked him for this, aeropagitica?i'm fine with that, for one.--heah 21:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, already blocked but I wanted to make sure that my decision was made from policy rather than leaving an accusation of a bad-faith block hanging unresolved. (aeropagitica) (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Asbl reported by User:Lou Sander (Result:no block)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on Ann Coulter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Asbl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:26 August 2006
Asbl made many changes to this section, undoing the edits of others, changing them, etc. As I read WP:3RR, these are "complex partial reverts."
- 1st revert: 12:06 26 August 2006
- 2nd revert: 18:14 26 August 2006
- 3rd revert: 21:32 26 August 2006
- 4th revert: 00:48 27 August 2006
- 5th revert: 02:19 27 August 2006
- 6th revert: 04:52 27 August 2006
- 7th revert: 12:05 27 August 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: Lou Sander 20:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments: After Asbl made these reverts, another editor posted a comment about 3RR on User talk:Asbl. Asbl dismissed it. A similar dismissive attitude exists, in my opinion, throughout Asbl's talk page and Edit summaries, and in Asbl's contributions to Talk:Ann Coulter, when other editors, acting with reasoned good faith, disagree with Ashl.
- No Block.These don't seem to me to qualify as "complex partial reverts."the majority are simple edits; some may violate npov, but that doesn't mean they are reverts.work it out, find a mediator if you have to.(If another admin cares to review, please feel more than welcome to do so.)--heah 21:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. For the record, Lou is misrepresenting my edits. The first diff contains edits that 2 other editors made. One of the edits was by Lou himself. This is further proof that this was a frivolous report. --Asbl 23:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Kachik reported by User:Khoikhoi (Result:12 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on Turkish Navy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kachik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:15:59, 27 August 2006
- 1st revert: 16:04, 27 August 2006
- 2nd revert: 16:15, 27 August 2006
- 3rd revert: 21:40, 27 August 2006
- 4th revert: 00:11, 28 August 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
- 16:17, 27 August 2006 by Tangotango
Time report made: 00:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- The user is a possible sockpuppet of the permabanned user/troll -Inanna- (check her blocklog). —Khoikhoi 00:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have been accused as sockpuppet of lasson and -Inanna- by Khoikhoi many times, and even vandalized [1]. I guess, he accuses everyone as a sockpuppet of a blocked user who thinks different than his POV. However, I don't think to make a complaint about him. Kachik 01:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- My apologies for not posting this earlier. My internet connection failed. I'm blocking for 12 hours for 3RR violations. alphaChimp laudare 02:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
User:SomeHuman reported by User:TewfikTalk (Result: 12 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on Military and economic aid in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SomeHuman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:2006-08-27 06:57:44
- 1st revert: 10:50:58
- 2nd revert: 00:53:45
- 3rd revert: 02:58:56
- 4th revert: 03:36:53
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- I have blocked the user for 12 hours per WP:3RR. I'd like to stress that this block has absolutely nothing to do with my personal opinion on this content dispute. alphaChimp laudare 04:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Welsh4ever76 reported by User:Heimstern Läufer (Result: 72 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on Thomas Jefferson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Welsh4ever76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionTime 00:22 27 Aug 2006
- 1st revert: 19:34
- 2nd revert: 23:34
- 3rd revert: 03:32 28 Aug
- 4th revert: 03:38
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 03:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User has already been blocked twice for 3RR on this article.
- I have blocked the user for 72 hours per WP:3RR. alphaChimp laudare 04:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Myxamea reported by User:BhaiSaab talk (Result:48 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Myxamea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:15:14, 27 August 2006
- 1st revert: 22:59, 27 August 2006
- 2nd revert: 23:16, 27 August 2006
- 3rd revert: 23:34, 27 August 2006
- 4th revert: 23:56, 27 August 2006
- 5th revert: 00:25, 28 August 2006
- 6th revert: 00:29, 28 August 2006
- 7th revert: 01:22, 28 August 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 05:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User may also be a sockpuppet of Mohmd. BhaiSaab talk 05:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Already blocked for 48 hours, by another admin.--heah 08:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Burak18 reported by User:Ugur Basak (Result:24 horus)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on Galatasaray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Burak18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:00:06, 27 August 2006
- 1st revert: 11:49, 27 August 2006
- 2nd revert: 19:24, 27 August 2006
- 3rd revert: 23:30, 27 August 2006
- 4th revert: 06:53, 28 August 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 08:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Also, this 3RR event occured just after the article is semi-protected. Before that semi-protection 2 ips are reverting this page to same version and both edit in same edit patter. If applicable, they seem to be obvious sock puppets. They are: User:82.168.59.236 and User:82.92.94.108, if need ed their similar reverts on Galatasaray article, 22:56, 26 August 2006 and 21:32, 26 August 2006.
- was warned after all reverts.no block; if he continues come back.--heah 08:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Allways this guy comes when i'm offline:) As you say, he came back and revert the article 3 times as seen on history of the article. Also as i report previously those ip's edit pattern (reverting to same version), they can be blocked as obvious sockpuppets. --Ugur Basak 20:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Someone must stop this guy --Ugur Basak 21:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- 24 hours for continued reverts.--heah 01:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Someone must stop this guy --Ugur Basak 21:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Allways this guy comes when i'm offline:) As you say, he came back and revert the article 3 times as seen on history of the article. Also as i report previously those ip's edit pattern (reverting to same version), they can be blocked as obvious sockpuppets. --Ugur Basak 20:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- was warned after all reverts.no block; if he continues come back.--heah 08:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Lear 21 reported by User:Angr (Result: 24 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on Berlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lear_21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:26 August 2006
- 1st revert: 09:02, 27 August 2006
- 2nd revert: 09:55, 27 August 2006
- 3rd revert: 11:12, 27 August 2006
- 4th revert: 12:13, 27 August 2006
- 5th revert: 21:48, 27 August 2006
- 6th revert: 10:14, 28 August 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 10:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Several different editors agreed with the anon that the E.U. should not be listed as the a country in which Berlin is located, and have expressed themselves on this fact on Talk:Berlin. Only Lear 21 wants it to be kept, despite consensus running against him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Angr (talk • contribs). 10:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The EU is currently listed next to Germany as a country not as the only one. Substantial arguments for this statement haven't been countered. all the best Lear 21 11:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Regardless, you were informed about the 3RR and you reverted again. Blocked for 24 hours. Extraordinary Machine 14:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Edipedia reported by User:Aran|heru|nar (Result:48h block)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on Han Chinese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Edipedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:18:13, 27 August 2006
- 1st revert: 18:29, 27 August 2006
- 2nd revert: 18:42, 27 August 2006
- 3rd revert: 15:21, 28 August 2006
- 4th revert: 15:31, 28 August 2006
- 5th revert: 15:54, 28 August 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
The above warning is given by another user, HongQiGong. The user talk page of Edipedia, including this warning, is repeatedly blanked by himself.
Time report made: 15:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Please note that User:Edipedia has previously been blocked 3 times already for 3RR violations[2].--- Hong Qi Gong 16:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- 4th block - will make it 48 hours. --Robdurbar 16:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Note: User:Edipedia is currently using sockpuppets to edit war. Two of his sockpuppets have broken the 3RR again. Aran|heru|nar 02:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Theschoolbully reported by User:Rkevins82 (Result:Indef Blocked)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on University of Akron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Theschoolbully (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:[3]
- 1st revert: 14:31
- 2nd revert: 15:46
- 3rd revert: 15:48
- 4th revert: 15:51
- 5th revert: 15:57
- 6th revert: 15:58
- 7th revert: 16:02
- 8th revert: 16:08
- 9th revert: 16:09
- 10th revert: 16:11
- 11th revert: 16:13
- 12th revert: 16:16
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 17:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments: he can't believe that off-site game servers do not merit inclusion in university article. Oh, already blocked. Rkevins82 17:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- It was a vandalism only account and indef blocked. alphaChimp laudare 18:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Pjacobi reported by User:Pjacobi
[edit]In Natascha Kampusch I've reverted at least four time in the last 24h to give the year of birth only. I consider this to fall under the exception of WP:BLP, but I may be alone with my judgement. --Pjacobi 18:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- You are completely in the right. No worries. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
User:72.68.184.205 reported by User:Fram (Result:)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on The Smurfs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 72.68.184.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:[4]
- 1st revert: [5]
- 2nd revert: [6]
- 3rd revert: [7]
- 4th revert: [8]
- 5th revert: [9]
- 6th revert: [10]
User changed then from User:72.68.172.205 to User:72.68.184.205 and continued the same changes
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 19:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments: This has been going on for quite a while, both as user pvcblue and as anonimous IP's. This has been discussed at the talk page, and a suspected sockpuppet case has been opened and closed as well. The user has been reverted by multiple editors, but keeps on adding the link to his own site. I would propose to block pvcblue as well, but I have n o proof that the IPs and this user are the same person (only string suspicions). The two IPs involved and a few others from further back in the editing history are clearly the same users though. 8 edits in 24 hours is clearly enough to break the 3RR, and two warnings have been given today.
Three revert rule violation on Slovakization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Juro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:18:56, 28 August 2006
- 1st revert: 19:04, 28 August 2006
- 2nd revert: 19:14, 28 August 2006
- 3rd revert: 19:17, 28 August 2006
- 4th revert: 19:31, 28 August 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 19:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Given the history of 3RR blocking, warning, and personal attacks, I have blocked the user for 24 hours. alphaChimp laudare 20:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
User:AaronS reported by User:DTC (Result:48 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on Anarchism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). AaronS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
- 1st revert: 17:54, 28 August 2006
- 2nd revert: 18:37, 28 August 2006
- 3rd revert: 19:37, 28 August 2006
- 4th revert: 19:48, 28 August 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AaronS&oldid=70055951 Is that what you're looking for? I'm not sure if you mean a warning for this instance or just that he's just been warned in general. This is the article which he was warned about in regard to edit warring and the 3RR.
Time report made: 20:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments: general edit warring
- Blocked user for 48 hours. 3rd offense in just over a month. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Good job on playing into DTC's games. It's a good thing that you're incapable of error; otherwise, I might have disagreed with your actions. --AaronS 13:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Gabi S. reported by User:Bertilvidet (Result: 24 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on Ze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gabi_S. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
- 1st revert: 14:08, 29 August 2006
- 2nd revert: [15]
- 3rd revert: [16]
- 4th revert: [17]
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: Bertilvidet 15:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
I have not warned the user about the 3RR. However, this edit makes it clear that they are familiar with the rule. Bertilvidet 15:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. I am warning Bertilvidet. Although he did not technically violate 3RR, he came quite close. alphaChimp laudare 01:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Barefact reported by User:Ali doostzadeh (Result:24h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on {{Scythians}}[Scythians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians]. Barefact (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
The user barefact has been warned about 3RR rule and understands it well (see the warning in his user page where he understands it well and the rule is mentioned and he was warned by the administrator) and yet he continues to revert this article to push hisPOV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scythia&action=history
- 1st revert: [18]21:05, 28 August 2006
- 2nd revert: [19] 22:12, 28 August
- 3rd revert: [20]23:59, 28 August 2006
- 4th revert: [21] 14:20, 29 August 2006
- 5th revert: [22] 15:42, 29 August 2006
- 6th revert: [23]17:04, 29 August 2006
Time report made: 17:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Also the user is making false allegations and claiming three other different people as my sockpuppet!See here: [24] This is not the first time the user has tried to manipulate and game the system.--alidoostzadeh 01:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Also some other users have commented on his disrputive behavior here: [25].--alidoostzadeh 02:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
User:67.66.203.21 reported by User:DuoDeathscyther 02 (Result:)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on Dennis Stamp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Lex Luger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.66.203.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
Dennis Stamp:
Lex Luger:
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 17:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User was blocked for 72 hours for vandalism. That makes this sort of moot. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Editor 1 reported by User:Nat Krause(Talk!) (Result: 4 days)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on Chinese people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Editor_1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:10:43, August 26, 2006
- 1st revert: 11:10, August 29, 2006
- 2nd revert: 12:31, August 29, 2006
- 3rd revert: 13:26, August 29, 2006
- 4th revert: 13:45, August 29, 2006
- 5th revert: 15:50, August 29, 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
- This editor is very likely a sockpuppet of User:Edipedia and User:Epedia. See User talk:Edipedia for various warnings.
- Possibly case of sockpuppetry was reported also here - [34].--- Hong Qi Gong 19:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please note that user actually tried to blank this report out - [35].--- Hong Qi Gong 21:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Time report made: 19:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have blocked the user for 4 days per WP:3RR. Block calculated as follows: 24 Hours (3RR Violation) + 72 hours (removal of 3RR report/personal attacks). This block is being made without regard to the sockpuppet allegation, which I was unable to find in WP:ANI. I'd welcome other admins to revisit this decision if interested. alphaChimp laudare 03:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
User:131.156.238.75 reported by User:Ckessler (Result:)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on Aerosmith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 131.156.238.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User continues to add statement attributed to non-reliable sources, despite a suggestion to read WP:RS and being warned about 3RR.
- Please report diffs and use the standard format. Thanks. alphaChimp laudare 01:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
User:69.170.35.211 reported by User:HongQiGong (Result: 24 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on Eurasian (mixed ancestry) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.170.35.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- 1st revert: 2006-08-28 21:32:51
- 2nd revert: 2006-08-29 00:28:30
- 3rd revert: 2006-08-29 02:36:22
- 4th revert: 2006-08-29 13:15:11
- 5th revert: 2006-08-29 19:31:30
- Three revert rule warning at 2006-08-29 10:32:56
Comments:
- I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. alphaChimp laudare 03:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
User:DonIncognito reported by User:DonIncognitoCar Pix (Result:)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on {{Article|Image:1999 Pontiac Sunfire.jpg}. DonIncognito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:5:36, 13 May 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 02:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User vandalized the photo, then kept re-uploading the same version after it was reverted to the original.
- To render a decision (personally, not for other admins) I need diffs in the standard format presented below. alphaChimp laudare 03:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- There doesn't seem to be any difs for the page, but he is reverting the image. Car Pix 14:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Objection to my editing of image being called vandalism. The image in question is that of an automobile, intended to illustrate an automobile article. I had cropped the image in order to better frame the automobile, as the surroundings were irrelevant to the subject at hand. User:Car Pix seemed to be miffed that I edited his image and reverted my edit, while at the same time calling me a vandal on my talk page. I submit that my edits to the image improved the image for its purposes on Wikipedia. I also suggest that User:Car Pix better familiarize himself with the definitions of "vandalism" and "public domain." DonIncognito 17:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Furthermore, Car Pix's objection came several months after my first edit of the image. Prior to his objection (which was probably based on his poorly conceived assumption that no one Wikipedia has the right to edit his images) there was absolutely no problems whatsoever with my edit of the image. Car Pix is reverting the image to a poorer state, and therefore I submit that it is he who is in fact violating the 3RR rule. DonIncognito 17:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Shyhiloguy31 reported by User:Grendel (Result:no block)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on Ex-gay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Shyhiloguy31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- 1st revert: 22:43, 28 August 2006
- 2nd revert: 17:33, 28 August 2006
- 3rd revert: 02:46, 28 August 2006
User has been warned:
Time report made: 08:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Vandal is participating in a reversion war to push a personal agenda.
- two days old, no edits to that page since the 28th.no block.--heah 15:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Burak18 reported by User:Ugur Basak (Result:48 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on Galatasaray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Burak18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:21:38, 28 August 2006
- 1st revert: 07:12, 30 August 2006
- 2nd revert: 17:25, 30 August 2006
- 3rd revert: 17:48, 30 August 2006
- 4th revert: 17:50, 30 August 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 17:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Note that his 3RR rule block just expired today, and he again started revertwarring. Above you can see his other 3rr notice. --Ugur Basak 17:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- 48 hours for second vio in as many days.--heah 19:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Liftarn reported by User:Mantanmoreland (Result:6 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Liftarn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:06:47, 30 August 2006
- 1st revert: 08:17, 30 August 2006
- 2nd revert: 12:54, 30 August 2006
- 3rd revert: 15:01, 30 August 2006
- 4th revert: 18:35, 30 August 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) : Not applicable -- user previously blocked for 3RR [36]
Time report made: 18:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Revert warring in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. User has been previously blocked 24 hrs for 3RR just three weeks ago, so a longer than 24-hour block is warranted.
- User was blocked for 3rr one year and 3 weeks ago, but not three weeks ago.Liftarn seems to beleive that he is editing in good faith according to WP:BLP policy, which states that removing libelous content from a blp article does not count for 3rr, so just 6 hours for now, and maybe we can work this out on Liftarn's talk page??--heah 19:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, got the date wrong. It's been talked to death on the talk page already. I think the BLP tag is being inappropriately used as a cover for reverts in a content dispute.--Mantanmoreland 19:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Vezaso reported by User:ChrisO (Result:12 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on Kosovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Vezaso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:12:49, 29 August 2006
- 1st revert: 19:06, 29 August 2006
- 2nd revert: 10:23, 30 August 2006
- 3rd revert: 14:12, 30 August 2006
- 4th revert: 17:25, 30 August 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 19:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
User had already been warned for 3RR but continued reverting regardless through the course of today.
- 12 hours for first offense.--heah 19:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Ohnoitsjamie reported by User:TheTruth2 (Result:No block)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on User talk:TheTruth2 (edit | [[Talk:User talk:TheTruth2|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionLink VersionTime
- 1st revert: 05:21, 29 August 2006
- 2nd revert: 06:02, 29 August 2006
- 3rd revert: 16:39, 29 August 2006
- 4th revert: 16:47, 29 August 2006
- 5th revert: 16:47, 29 August 2006
- 6th revert: 17:25, 29 August 2006
- 7th revert: 17:26, 29 August 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
- 05:34, 29 August 2006 TheTruth2
Time report made: 20:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- This is a frivolous report by a
previouslyjust-blocked user against an admin who reverted the user's talk page after the removal of legitimate warnings. This user was warned several times but persisted anyway. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is a legit report she vandalized my page and violated the 3RR rule as well.She abused her power and should be diciplined.TheTruth2 20:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- With all respect, could you please fix the mangled sections of code in this report so we can see what you're talking about? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Nevermind. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Summaries for the above links, with the presumed permission of admins and the parties involved:
- 1. Not a revert.
- 2, 3, 4, 6. The reverts in question, which were preceded by obvious warnings.
- 5. Not a revert.
- 7. Again, not a revert.
- At worst, Ohnoitsjamie went one over while restoring warnings being removed by a user who had not been blocked for even a day before deleting them. Also in his defense (yes, it's a he, not a she), I feel this is a clear case of wikilawyering revenge in lieu of learning from mistakes. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- So what is the result going one over?TheTruth2 21:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- No block, as removing valid warnings are considered vandalism, best way is to archive the warnings, but don't remove them completely. Jaranda wat's sup 21:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- No block?not suitable.It was even stated she went one overTheTruth2 21:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Pentb reported by User:The hobgoblin (Result:24 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on Mulatto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pentb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:04:43, 30 August 2006
- 1st revert: 17:11, 30 August 2006
- 2nd revert: 18:07, 30 August 2006
- 3rd revert: 19:37, 30 August 2006
- 4th revert: 20:04, 30 August 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) : Not applicable. But user previously blocked for 3RR
Time report made: 20:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
User previously blocked for 3RR 01:22, 19 July 2006
Blocked by me again, 24 hours Jaranda wat's sup 21:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
User:CJGB reported by User:FeloniousMonk (Result: 24hrs)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on William_A._Dembski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). CJGB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:13:43, 29 August
- 1st revert: 17:07, 29 August
- 2nd revert: 11:33, 30 August
- 3rd revert: 12:34, 30 August
- 4th revert: 13:23, 30 August
- 5th revert: 13:34, 30 August
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 21:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- The reverts do not all look the same. In fact, I can't see any content that is being reverted repeatedly, other than everything CJGB is adding. Am I missing something here? alphaChimp laudare 00:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- They aren't all the same. However, in each one he reverted other peoples edits. JoshuaZ 00:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Removed —or hid— reviewed by mathematicians and philosophers... with every revert. 24 hours. El_C 07:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Shravak reported by User:999 (Talk) (Result:)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on Dattatreya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Shravak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:Revision as of 12:28, 29 August 2006
- 1st revert: 16:54, 30 August 2006
- 2nd revert: 17:01, 30 August 2006
- 3rd revert: 17:12, 30 August 2006
- 4th revert: 17:20, 30 August 2006
- 5th revert: 17:55, 30 August 2006 (probable sock, User:Dattat's first edit)
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 22:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- My times are CDT. Not sure how to convert them. -999 (Talk) 22:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- To convert from CDT to UTC, add 5 hours. — Arthur Rubin |(talk) 01:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- 12 hours. El_C 07:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Daniel575 reported by User:Meshulam (Result: 24 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on Neturei_Karta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Daniel575 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:[37]
And User:Meshulam:
- Previous version reverted to: [42]
- 1st revert: [43]
- 2nd revert: [44]
- 3rd revert: [45]
- 4th revert: [46]
Time report made: 23:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments: I don't know whether this is relevant, but his comments in the Edit Summary of each revert got more and more hostile, culminating with him telling me that I "should perish instantly for [my] wicked deeds."
- 24 hours, for both. El_C 09:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Having seen Daniel575's edit summaries, I am tempted to extend the block. Warning issued. El_C 19:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Evv reported by User:User:Dardanv
[edit]Three revert rule violation on Kosovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Evv
As i said on your talk page, you are going to have to provide diffs so we can examine whether or not this user has, indeed, broken 3rr.thanks.--heah 00:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Yepre reported by User:Aran|heru|nar (Result: 24hrs)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on Chinese people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yepre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:20:50, 29 August 2006
- 1st revert: 18:39, 30 August 2006
- 2nd revert: 18:53, 30 August 2006
- 3rd revert: 19:00, 30 August 2006
- 4th revert: 19:09, 30 August 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) : User:Yepre is an obvious sockpuppet of User:Edipedia, along with User:Editor 1 (both accounts are blocked now for 3RR, vandalism and personal attacks), and User:Epedia. Edipedia has been blocked four times for 3RR, and his sockpuppet Editor 1 one time. For more information on Edipedia see here and here. Edipedia has been warned and blocked for 3RR various times, so I see no need to warn all his sockpuppets again. Thanks.
Time report made: 02:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- 24 hours. El_C 07:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
User:KojiDude and User:TJ Spyke reported by User:Ned Scott (Result:24h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on Bebi (Dragon Ball GT) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). KojiDude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) TJ Spyke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
Too many reverts to list, there are currently over 100, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bebi_%28Dragon_Ball_GT%29&limit=100&action=history
Time report made: 08:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments: I'm not involved, but became aware of this situation when they commented on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. Apparently this has been going on for the last day or so, involving a dispute about whether or not a character is canon to a larger story line in a work of fiction. -- Ned Scott 08:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm following WP:IAR here. I also didn't report the vandal on here when he broke 3RR because I consider him a friend, and I don't want him to get blocked. If the page can be protected, all I need is a little time and I'm sure can reach a compramise with him. However, if you are going to block us, only block me. TJ Spyke is a good contributor, and is just trying too hard to maintain policy. There is no reason to block him for trying to improve Wikipedia. --KojiDude 08:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think you mistook 3RR for 30RR. 24 hours, at least! El_C 09:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Please block Indian Martial arts
[edit]I am in a disagreement with user Freedom skies over the article Indian martial arts as to the veracity of his claims on the history and the cause of the downfall... i have placed disputed tags on the article to state that this article is in dispute... user reverts my disputed tags... I have tried to edit the article to lend my viewpoint without erasing his edits... user has removed my edits... Please lock the article with a disputed tag on it...Kennethtennyson 21:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please inquire at Requests for page protection.If you believe there is a violation of the 3RR rule, please reformat your request properly. Thatcher131 (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Synthe reported by User:deeceevoice (Result: 24h)
[edit][[WP:3RR}Three revert rule]] violation on
Mr. Popo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Synthe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
User:Synthe has deleted wholesale a block of text to which he/she objects without providing any substantive reason, other than that he/she disagrees with what it states.I provided an additional source and repeatedly have remonstrated with him/her on the talk page.They are not a new user, and I've warned him/her twice regarding the 3RR.This count is since the addition of another source only, given that, to be fair, the user may have felt that there was insufficient documentation for the text.Further, the user repeatedly has refused to sign his/her posts in the discussion -- an exchange which has been totally useless, because Synthe still refuses to be rational, responding with barely intelligible comments and acusatory or abusive language such as, "djinns aren't africans, hey reverned deeceevoice stop doing this, if your a black supremist and i suggest you stop" and "you sound like one of those idiots who cry on what you "THINK" is racism...."(FYI, I was totally unfamiliar with Mr. Popo and did not write the original text regarding racism, but simply added information regarding the cultural context of the phenomenon and another source.) The edit notes accompanying Synthe's repeated blanking of text are either nonexistent or purely argumentative, rather than substantive.
- Is the user aware of the existence of the 3RR policy? El_C 19:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I warned the Synthe repreatedly about his/her behavior and explained several times that it was in violation of Wiki policy.And I provided a link to Wikipedia:3RR.[54]Synthe never responded, indicating seemingly a willful disregard of the policy.Further, a check of Synthe's block history indicates similar obtuse, disruptive behavior in the past involving altering other people's posts, profanity and copyright violations.Finally, Synthe has been a registered editor under the same name since December 31, 2005.It is virtually impossible that he/she would ahve been unaware of the 3RR rule -- even without my repeated warnings and the provided link.deeceevoice 20:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I see. Next time, please follow the standard 3RR format; that is, one which includes the warning from the outset. Also, your link above failed to reveal this, I had to look for it myself, it was here. Thanks. User blocked for 24 hours. El_C 20:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry about that.I had the right link the first time and cut and pasted it in -- but guess what?It was blanked because I'm blocked from editing in my AOL web browser by the umpty-ump collateral damage block of the freaking day.Annoying as hell!!!!I'm crunching a deadline and thought I'd selected the same diff in my Internet Explorer window -- but obviously not.Thanks.deeceevoice 20:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- No problem. AoL = annoying as hell! :) El_C 21:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
User:24.168.108.195 reported by User:Bobblehead (Result:)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
United States House elections, 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.168.108.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:22:31, 30 August 2006
- 1st revert: 22:52, 30 August 2006
- 2nd revert: 07:08, 31 August 2006
- 3rd revert: 07:28, 31 August 2006
- 4th revert: 08:24, 31 August 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 17:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments: The user does not appear to understand that content that you do not agree with is not vandalism and thus removal of the information is not exempt from 3RR. This is shown by the user's comments here. So even if a block is not in order, a warning regarding the removal of the content not meeting preventing vandalism would be great. --Bobblehead 17:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Zello reported by User:PANONIAN 23:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC) (Result:)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Bač (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zello (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:18:05, 31 August 2006
- 1st revert: 20:37, 31 August 2006
- 2nd revert: 21:59, 31 August 2006
- 3rd revert: 22:46, 31 August 2006
- 4th revert: 23:01, 31 August 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 23:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments:I disagree that I broke the 3RR. We were in the middle of a content dispute where my well sourced contribution was deleted by Panonian 3 times. After that an anonymous user appeared from the nowhere with 0 edit history and deleted the disputed section. There were only 2 possibilites for me: 1, a new vandal appeared or 2, Panonian are using a sockpuppet to evade the 3RR. I hoped that only a vandal a not the later so I reverted. The anonymous user didn't communicated on the talk page where the dispute was going. Zello 00:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
First of all, the anonymous user was not a vandal (the content dispute is not a vandalism). He did not agreed with your edits to the article, so he reverted you, and you reverted back, so you broke 3rr. Second, the anonymous user was not my sockpuppet (you can check my IP adress, I have a statical one), but anyway he is somebody whom I know and who edit Wikipedia from time to time. Interestingly, another anonymous IP appeared that reverted article to last version by Zello: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ba%C4%8D&diff=73129685&oldid=73129095 Anyway, the fact is that Zello violated 3rr, and that he should be blocked for 24 hours. PANONIAN (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Calling a friend from IRC who hasn't got any user name and edit history IS evading the 3RR from your side. He wasn't another independent wikipedia user. Zello 00:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
ps. Also I ask a Checkuser about that anonymous user who appeared after that incident, because I would like to prove that he is not my sockpuppet. Zello 00:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I did not called him. As I said, he edit Wikipedia, and had a registered nick (I cannot say who he is, he forbid that to me), and we both hang on irc chat too. He also watch my Wiki contributions (like you do, by the way), so he saw that I have a problems with "certain user" and became involved in whole story. That however does not change the fact that you reverted four times. PANONIAN (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Why he didn't used his user name then? An anon who deletes a sourced section without any comment and 0 edit history is only a vandal. And 3RR is not applied to vandalism. Zello 00:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, Greater Hungarian nationalist propaganda that you want to impose here is certainly not "sourced section". Besides, you did not reverted his second edit where he removed entire section (which I proposed on the talk page by the way), but you reverted his first edit that was only content dispute. As for why he didn't used his user name, let say that he has his reasons (he do not want to be seen involved in such content disputes), but as I say, I cannot reveal his identity even if that mean that you will not be blocked for 3rr. :) PANONIAN (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't present here your accusations about the dispute itself because that's not the right place. You can call it anything, it was relevant info backed by two reliable sources. Zello 01:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, but is it claim that "it was relevant info backed by two reliable sources" an example of talking about the dispute itself? :) PANONIAN (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- And by the way, Zello, this is clearly your sockpuppet (he also reverted my edit in Árpád dynasty article, how interesting): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=195.56.12.45 PANONIAN (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I noticed, I'm not able to do anything with him, he followed my contribs. I already asked for Checkuser here. Your "friend" appeared also under a new nick... Zello 02:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't have to watch your contribs because we disputed about the same question on the talk page of another article. After I found sources in that dispute I decided to add this new information to the town-article.
User:Deepthroat123 reported by User:Mmx1 (Result:24 hour block)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Jesse Macbeth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Deepthroat123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:21:29, 29 August 2006
- 1st revert: 18:25, 31 August 2006
- 2nd revert: 18:34, 31 August 2006
- 3rd revert: 18:56, 31 August 2006
- 4th revert: 19:03, 31 August 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Whoops; posted the template but didn't include the brackets and it wasn't corrected until 19:13. However, I'd like to note that the user is a suspected sock of User:Jessefriend (I reported the sock), and between User:Jessefriend, User:Deepthroat123, and the IP User:66.11.160.31, have made the revert over 12 times in the last 24 hours[55] - with no discussion. Sockpuppetry case at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Jessefriend.
Time report made: 00:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- I've implemented a 24-hour block for now.Pending investigation of sockpuppetry/vandalism — which may result in longer block. — ERcheck (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Jessefriend reported by User:Mmx1 (Result:Blocked indefinitely as vandalism only account.)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Jesse Macbeth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jessefriend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:21:29, 29 August 2006
- 1st revert: 17:42, 31 August 2006
- 2nd revert: 17:51, 31 August 2006
- 3rd revert: 17:58, 31 August 2006
- 4th revert: 18:19, 31 August 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 01:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Justforasecond reported by User:Humus sapiens (Result:48 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Jews for Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Justforasecond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:16:25, 31 August 2006
- 1st revert: 22:08, 30 August 2006
- 2nd revert: 10:40, 31 August 2006
- 3rd revert: 14:14, 31 August 2006
- 4th revert: 16:09, 31 August 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 01:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: The user misunderstands WP:VANDAL after numerous warnings by others. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- While the warning above came after the 4th revert, user has been blocked 4 times previously[56] for 3rr, once for a month, so its 48 hours.--heah 05:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Mathslover reported by User:Francis Schonken (Result:8hour block)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Poincaré_conjecture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mathslover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:22:44, 22 August 2006 (Mathslover introduces WP:BLP-infringing statement re. Perelman, that is: a potentially offensive claim without source)
- 1st revert: 05:28, 1 September 2006 (again, differently worded and in another place but basically the same BLP-infringing statement on Perelman)
- 2nd revert: 07:07, 1 September 2006 (again, different wording and different place. This time using a pseudo-source, that is: the source does not confirm what Mathslover contends it says regarding lack of value of Perelman's work)
- 3rd revert: 07:37, 1 September 2006 (similar to previous, but more disturbing to page layout)
- 4th revert: 11:38, 1 September 2006 (similar to first revert, that is without sources and intertwined in text)
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 12:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Note that Mathslover's contributions exclusively consist of edits to the Poincaré conjecture article. Might indicate single-purpose sockpuppet. The clumsyness of some of the edits (layout-wise, and the offensive way of formulating original research ideas) however don't show a contributor that is particularily agile in wiki-editing. --Francis Schonken 12:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked for 8 hours for first violation. --Robdurbar 17:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Halbared reported by User:HamishMacBeth (Result:8hour block)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
List_of_famous_tall_men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Halbared (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
- 1st revert: 10:17 1 September
- 2nd revert: 10:32 1 September
- 3rd revert: 12:46 1 September
- 4th revert: 14:45 1 September
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 16:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: user has a few warnings on his talk page about breaking the 3RR, but I believe this is his first report. HamishMacBeth 16:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah - first violation so an 8 hour warning block. --Robdurbar 17:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Sparcusmarcus reported by User:FeloniousMonk (Result:12 hrs)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Intelligent design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sparcusmarcus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 01:06, 31 August
- 1st revert: 01:39, 31 August
- 2nd revert: 21:06, 31 August
- 3rd revert: 21:14, 31 August
- 4th revert: 21:39, 31 August
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 20:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User:Sparcusmarcus is likely also 70.59.78.129 (talk · contribs), who has also violated 3RR at the article, with Sparcusmarcus picking up where 70.59.78.129 left off. FeloniousMonk 20:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Gave him 12 hrs. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Kizzuwatna reported by User:Khosrow II (Result: 12 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Seljuq dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kizzuwatna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:21:05, 1 September 2006 - This is the version it should be. Khosrow II 21:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- 1st revert: 6:51, 1 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 19:04, 1 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 19:59, 1 September 2006
- 4th revert: 20:11, 1 September 2006
- 5th revert: 21:29, 1 September 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 21:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: This user is trying to put his interpretation of a quote into the article. He doesnt seem to understand that POV is not acceptable on Wikipedia.Khosrow II 21:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have blocked the user for 12 hours per WP:3RR. alphaChimp laudare 23:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Not sure why Khosrow II isn't blocked too William M. Connolley 10:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
George_Felix_Allen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 132.241.246.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Comments
Suspected sock puppet. Repeatedly warned on POV, possible vandalism and personal attacks.
Time report made: 23:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
what personal attacks? 132.241.246.111 02:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Diffs out of order, but not clear that "first" is a revert William M. Connolley 10:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
User:ParadoxTom reported by User:Kevin Breitenstein (Result: 8h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Jews for Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ParadoxTom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:20:52, September 1, 2006
- 1st revert: 21:08, September 1, 2006
- 2nd revert: 01:00, September 2, 2006
- 3rd revert: 01:15, September 2, 2006
- 4th revert: 02:10, September 2, 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 02:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Pretty clear cut.After being 3RR warned by User:Humus sapiens, their next revert was "RV from Humus Sapiens who broke 3RR before I did; review talk page.".
- Even worse, he made 5 reverts, the one you missed was 20:52, 1 September 2006. A new user, but very opinionated (in the WP:OR way, see talk) and claims to be familiar with the policies (which he violates left and right). His reverts are removals of WP:RS. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- The first one may be a partial revert, as it removed the {{noncompliant}} tag from the article, but I'd rather err on the safe side, there are 4 nearly full reversions there anyways. Kevin_b_er 02:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
8h William M. Connolley 10:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Davkal reported by User:Askolnick (Result: 24h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
CSICOP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Davkal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 04:18, 1 September 2006
- 1st revert: 10:28, 1 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 11:01, 1 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 11:45, 1 September 2006
- 4th revert: 14:23, 1 September 2006
- 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Committee_for_the_Scientific_Investigation_of_Claims_of_the_Paranormal&oldid=73333628
02:33, 2 September 2006]
Note: Davkal's 5th reversion was made after I posted a notice on his talk page [61] and on the CSICOP talk page[62] that he was already in violation of [WP:3RR] His response was to post a warning on my talk page[63] charging me with harrassment and other misconduct and he then made his 5th reversion within 24 hours. Askolnick 04:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
24h William M. Connolley 10:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
User:74.33.0.16 reported by User:Nandesuka (Result: 3h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Xbox 360 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 74.33.0.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:3:15, 1 September 2006
- 1st revert: 13:04, 1 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 23:15, 1 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 01:23, 2 September 2006
- 4th revert: 03:38, 2 September 2006
- 5th revert: 04:02, 2 September 2006
Content dispute over whether a laundry list of games should be on the Xbox 360 page.
Time report made: 04:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
3h first offence William M. Connolley 10:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- The first thing that this user did after his block expired was to revert the same page over the same content dispute and accuse OTHERS of violating 3RR. [64].Please consider a longer block. -- mattb
@ 2006-09-02 19:27Z
User:Yepre reported by User:Aran|heru|nar (Result: protected)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Chinese people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yepre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:19:09, 30 August 2006
- 1st revert: 17:38, 1 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 17:58, 1 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 18:05, 1 September 2006
- 4th revert: 18:12, 1 September 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 09:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: This is Yepre's second violation of 3RR. Yepre is a suspected sockpuppet of Edipedia, currently blocked for 5th violation of 3RR, incivility, vandalism, blanking, etc. Aran|heru|nar 09:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Currently protected William M. Connolley 10:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Germen editing as User: 81.58.29.91. Reported by User:SlimVirgin. (Result: 3 months)
[edit]3RR on Islamophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Germen (talk · contribs) editing as 81.58.29.91 (talk · contribs) See Comments section below for evidence that it's Germen.
- 1st edit 11:37 September 1 (removed that Islamophobia is a concept and inserted in the first sentence that it's a "disputed neologism"; added POV tag)
- 1st revert 15:38 September 1 (straightforward revert to his previous version)
- 2nd revert 11:06 September 2 (reverted to POV tag and "disputed neologism"; added citation to Robert Spencer to the intro)
- 3rd revert 11:21 September 2 (straightforward revert to his previous version)
- 4th revert 11:37 September 2 (straightforward revert to his previous version)
- 5th revert 11:53 September 2 (restored POV tag and re-added Robert Spencer to lead)
- 6th revert 12:02 September 2 (restored POV tag and changed phenomenon to "alleged phenomenon" in the lead; restored Robert Spencer)
- 7th revert 12:48 September 2 (restored POV tag; restored "alleged phenomenon"; restored Robert Spencer)
Reported by SlimVirgin (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment
I left a warning, [65] thinking this was a new anon, but then learned it was user:Germen editing again for the first time since he was blocked for a month in April by Dmcdevit for sockpuppetry and block evasion. [66] He's been blocked several times before for 3RR, including on this article. Here is Germen leaving a post on his talk page from the same IP range. [67] SlimVirgin (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Because of my low opinion of Wikipedia maintenance of rules, I decided to edit as an anonymous account. I did not revert, but re-inserted information which was deleted by this controversial administrator, whose controversial administration and editing patterns have drawn considerable interest (at least three forum threads) at wikipediareview.com (which I do not believe to be an attack site, but a necessary addendum to the Wikipedia community). Several attempts from my side to discuss the matter were ignored. The textual changes I made were not identical to the previous versions, so they do not qualify as a revert. Germen (Talk | Contribs
) 15:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- You were reverting against four or five editors, and you're very familiar with 3RR having been blocked for it so often. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- I did not revert, just tried to cooperatively add and improve information. There is an editing conflict, so the POV tag is justified. So according to my knowledge I did not violate 3RR. Any attempts to negotiate a solution of the conflict with her failed, see the talk page of the Talk:Islamophobia article. I would like she heeds the worries of several people at e.g. wikipediareview.com and changes her administrative pattern. Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 15:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- I did not revert, just tried to cooperatively add and improve information. There is an editing conflict, so the POV tag is justified. So according to my knowledge I did not violate 3RR. Any attempts to negotiate a solution of the conflict with her failed, see the talk page of the Talk:Islamophobia article. I would like she heeds the worries of several people at e.g. wikipediareview.com and changes her administrative pattern. Germen (Talk | Contribs
Detailed refutation
[edit]- As an administrator, SlimVirgin should be aware that in the case of an editing conflict the POV tag is in place.
- She should be aware as well that reverts are to be used mainly in order to stop vandalism. Adding an important critic of the Islamophobia concept (Robert Spencer, a bestselling author whose book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades ranked at #14 of Amazon sales at a certain point) and adding a much-needed POV label cannot be qualified as vandalism, hence reverting was inappropriate, see WP:3RR.
- My attempts to discuss the differences in opinion with her failed, even so resulting in deleting entries in her guest book.
- Her tendency to resort to reverting instead of working out differences in a way compatible to good Wikiquette is a genuine source of concern, not only for me but also for several other users. [68]
Germen (Talk | Contribs 
) 16:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- This is not the location to mount ad hominem attacks against SlimVirgin. If you have issues with her as a Wikipedia admistrator, you should address those through the appropriate channels (and this is not one of them). In the meantime, please confine your comments to the issue at hand, particularly the violation of WP:3RR. alphaChimp laudare 16:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Given this user's extensive history of 3RR violations, admitted use of alternative accounts to bypass said history, and protracted WR based ad hominem attacks against an admin, I am blocking both users (the IP and the account) for 3 months. As this is longer than usual, I'd invite the comment of other administrators. alphaChimp laudare 16:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
User:CltFn reported by User:BhaiSaab talk (Result: 48h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). CltFn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:23:46, 26 August 2006
- 1st revert: 22:06, 1 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 23:52, 1 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 08:54, 2 September 2006
- 4th revert: 12:21, 2 September 2006
Three revert rule violation on
Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). CltFn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:00:01, 16 August 2006
- 1st revert: 11:55, 2 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 12:22, 2 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 12:31, 2 September 2006
- 4th revert: 12:35, 2 September 2006
Three revert rule violation on
Dhimmitude (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). CltFn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- 1st revert: 08:22, 1 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 21:55, 1 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 11:52, 2 September 2006
- 4th revert: 12:42, 2 September 2006
Time report made: 16:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: All are at least partial reverts. He was also reported here with no review of the report done. User has been blocked previously for 3rr violations. BhaiSaab talk 16:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- I would recommend thorough scrutiny in this case. Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 16:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- The violations at Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations and Dhimmitude are pretty obvious. BhaiSaab talk 16:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
48h multiple repeat offences William M. Connolley 18:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
User:LaszloWalrus reported by User:LeflymanTalk (Result: no block)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Pseudoreligion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). LaszloWalrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:01:43, 8 July 2006
- 1st revert: 18:36, 30 August 2006
- 2nd revert: 22:30, 30 August 2006
- 3rd revert: 11:03, 31 August 2006
- 4th revert: 21:27, 1 September 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 17:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: LaszloWalrus has been on an edit-war campaign to excise Objectivism from this article; he is currently gaming the system, ignoring the extensive responses and sources provided on the Talk:Pseudoreligion page, as well as the citations listed in the article itself (which he has removed). This editor has an self-avowed interest in Objectivism and has run into a number 3RR warnings and blocks when adding/removing material from other articles. In this case, since May, he has reverted the article over a dozen times. Initially he claimed "unsourced"; but when provided sources, claimed "unsupported" or "biased", and now claims "non-consensus" (although only a single other Objectivist has concurred with him).--LeflymanTalk 17:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Its 4R *in 24h* - which this isn't William M. Connolley 18:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- From WP:3RR:
- "This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day."
- And, under Intent of the policy: "Equally, reverting fewer than four times may result in a block depending on context."
- This user is edit-warring and gaming the 3RR policy, which qualifies as an "excessive case".--LeflymanTalk 20:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Runcorn reported by User:Ramand (Result: 24 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Grigori Perelman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Runcorn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:1 September 2006
- 1st revert: 19:12, 1 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 19:33, 1 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 19:59, 1 September 2006
- 4th revert: 16:50, 2 September 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 18:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
The user is an admin and must know about the 3rr rule.Ramand 18:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The admin not only broke the 3rr rule but also locked the page in his version.Ramand 18:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- I had already blocked him for 24 hours. Dmcdevit·t 18:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Editorius reported by User:BYT (Result: 8h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on September 2 at 17:24
Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Editorius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:[69]
- 1st revert: 14:12
- 2nd revert: 14:19
- 3rd revert: [70]
- 4th revert: 17:24
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 18:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Under dispute is the insertion of the word "established."
- comment it's more complex a change than that, as one form states that muhammad is the main prophet of islam, whilst the other states that muhmmad founded islam (which using the arbic meaning means something different. Both sides have been unwilling to state the location of any prior consensus to their position, nor have they attempted to discuss the problem properly on the article's talk page. LinaMishima 18:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- comment -- I acknowledge that I should have made more of an effort to engage with Editorius on the talk page. That said, four is four, the word "established" is in fact what he's broken the rule over, and he made a personal attack on my talk page. BYT 18:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
8h first offence William M. Connolley 19:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Pete_K reported by User:Hgilbert (Result: 24 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on Sept 2, 2006
Waldorf_education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pete_K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
- 1st revert: [71]
- 2nd revert: [72]
- 3rd revert: [73]
- 4th revert: [74]
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 19:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
2006-09-02T21:11:05 Longhair (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Pete K (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Violation of WP:3RR at Waldorf education) William M. Connolley 09:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Ryodox reported by DocFisherKing 22:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC) (Result:no block)
[edit]2 Violations
Three revert rule violation between 29 August 2006 - 2 September 2006
David_Duke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ryodox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:[75]
- 1st revert: [76]
- 2nd revert: [77]
- 3rd revert: [78]
- 4th revert: [79]
- 5th revert: [80]
- 6th revert: [81]
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
DocFisherKing 22:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Not to mention previous record, warnings of vandalism, along with various reprimands for racial rants… [82] | [83]
- No block.Not more than three reverts. Naconkantari 01:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Chadbryant reported by User:Sasaki (Result:48 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
World Wide Fund for Nature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chadbryant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
- 1st revert: [84]
- 2nd revert: [85]
- 3rd revert: [86]
- 4th revert: [87]
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 23:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Sasaki is creating an edit war here by inserting inaccurate information into the article for the purposes of vandalism. Correcting vandalism is not a violation of 3RR. - Chadbryant 23:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- A check of the edit history of both pages will show that Chadbryant is reverting the edits of several editors not just myself, therefore he is the one creating the edit conflict.His claim of vandalism is unmerited and a clear violation of WP:AGF. Sasaki 00:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- From Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not: 'Sometimes, users will insert content into an article that is not necessarily accurate, in the belief that it is. By doing so in good faith, they are trying to contribute to the encyclopedia and improve it. If you believe that there is inaccurate information in an article, ensure that it is, and/or discuss its factuality with the user who has submitted it. '
- Incorrect information is certainly NOT vandalism, neither is non-neutral editing. I would sympathise but you've been blocked for breaking the 3RR rule six times. A block longer than 24 hours is necessary to hammer home that NO MATTER WHAT the situation and NO MATTER WHAT the provovation, edit wars are harmful and should be avoided. 48 hours. --Robdurbar 12:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Chadbryant reported by User:Sasaki (Result:)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Percy Pringle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chadbryant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:[88]
- 1st revert: [89]
- 2nd revert: [90]
- 3rd revert: [91]
- 4th revert: [92]
- 5th revert: [93]
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 23:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Sasaki is creating an edit war here by inserting material into the article that violates WP:MOS and the standards agreed on by WP:PW for the purposes of vandalism. Correcting vandalism is not a violation of 3RR. - Chadbryant 23:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- A check of the edit history of both pages will show that Chadbryant is reverting the edits of several editors not just myself, therefore he is the one creating the edit conflict.His claim of vandalism is unmerited and a clear violation of WP:AGF. Sasaki 00:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Chadbryant has been plagued by abusive sockpuppets for a long time. I haven't looked into this specific incident. Tyrenius 00:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Your allegation of abusive sockpuppet is without foundation.My IP is based in the UK and registered to British Telecom, but don't let lack of evidence get in your way will you? Sasaki 00:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
User:24.89.235.25 reported by User:User:Montco (Result:)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Todd_Pinkston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.89.235.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
- 1st revert: [94]
- 2nd revert: [95]
- 3rd revert: [96]
- 4th revert: [97]
Comments:
- 24.89.235.25 has been reverting changes I originally made to the article.The article about a football player was extremely POV, and really devoid of accurate information (ie picking out one game in 2004 to describe his extire season).I did make some changes while trying to incorporate the criticisms of the player in a less abusive way.
Not in 24h William M. Connolley 16:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- It is now.[98]Montco 16:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Subhash_bose reported by User:BhaiSaab talk (Result: 1 Week)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Atal Bihari Vajpayee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Subhash_bose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- 1st revert: 16:18, 2 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 17:03, 2 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 09:38, 3 September 2006
- 4th revert: 10:30, 3 September 2006
Time report made: 17:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User has been blocked for 3rr violations before. BhaiSaab talk 17:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked for one week. BhaiSaab talk 19:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Burak18 reported by User:Ugur Basak (Result: no block)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Galatasaray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Burak18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:21:47, September 2, 2006
- 1st revert: 08:52, September 3, 2006
- 2nd revert: 14:59, September 3, 2006
- 3rd revert: 05:41, September 4, 2006
- 4th revert: 07:30, September 4, 2006
- 5th revert: 16:12, September 4, 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
You need 4R, not 3 William M. Connolley 20:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Time report made: 17:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Eventually he made two more reverts on that page. I updated revert links and times. Cheers --Ugur Basak 12:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- I add 5th revert, although his first 4 reverts is enough for him to be blocked i've to add his 5th one to show how he is reverting that page continuously --Ugur Basak 16:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- This user has already blocked 2 times for 3RR on Galatasaray article. Each time when his block time ends, he starts revert war. This time i can't give exact reverted version because Galatasaray signed and loaned out a few players, because of this reverts are plus signed in and out versions. Btw, user don't respond anyone. --Ugur Basak 17:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Stirling Newberry reported by User:87.19.140.175 (Result: 24h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Gold_Standard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Stirling_Newberry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:03:09, 3 September 2006
- 1st revert: 15:56, 3 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 17:14, 3 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 18:41, 3 September 2006
- 4th revert: 20:19, 3 September 2006)
Time report made: 20:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User insists he's reverting a "sockpuppet" which is not the case. I've been an editor for a couple of months, but do not have the desire to register a username. Why does having an IP address automatically make me a sockpuppet? Anyway, Stirling has reverted three different users on this topic, he is insisting that it be reverted to his POV. I'm not here to discuss his POV, but he has reverted *FIVE* times in a less that 24 hour period, instead of requesting any further action (page protection, mediation, etc.) Please assist. Thank you 87.19.140.175 20:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Also, user has been blocked for 3RR violation in the past 03:07, 9 February 2005 Chris 73 block 87.19.140.175 20:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
24h. If anyone finds evidence that SN is indeed reverting socks, then the block should probably be removed William M. Connolley 21:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
User:E104421 reported by User:Clevelander (Result:)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Justin McCarthy (American historian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). E104421 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:17:23, 3 September 2006
- 1st revert: 09:16, 3 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 10:01, 3 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 17:14, 3 September 2006
- 4th revert: 17:53, 3 September 2006
Time report made: 20:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: This user has attempted to remove cited information from Wikipedia and has violated the Three-Revert Rule in the process. -- Clevelander 20:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
User:CFIF reported by User:82.165.237.19 (Result:go away)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
ATA Airlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on CFIF. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. :
- Previous version reverted to: 20:26, 3 September 2006
- 1st revert: 4 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 00:38, 4 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 00:39, 4 September 2006
- 4th revert: 01:00, 4 September 2006
Time report made: 82.165.237.19 01:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- You're using the page to stage an attack on CFIF is what it is. I'm going to block you instead, have advised CFIF to stop, semi-protected the article and am certainly not going to hand you a victory of a block on CFIF given your trolling. -Splash - tk 01:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Rebecca reported by User:ntennis (Result: Amnesty)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
List_of_transgender-rights_organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rebecca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:14:17, 2 September 2006
- 1st revert: 12:54, 4 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 13:45, 4 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 15:50, 4 September 2006
- 4th revert: 17:06, 4 September 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 07:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Rebecca has been combative and unwilling to seek consensus, and has deleted subsequent content in reverting an older edit. This article is currently being considered for deletion, and her actions are also blocking attempts to address the concerns of those who want to delete it. ntennis 07:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- I will certainly not object to it if someone blocks here, because it is four reverts within 24 hours of something which is not simple vandalism. Still, keep in mind that 3RR was not intended to be "I can make this edit exactly four times, and if you revert me all these times, you will be blocked, not me." I will leave a note on Rebecca's talkpage asking her to self-revert and hence remove the fourth revert. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Since it is now 24 hours since the last revert, I'll just call this one an amnesty. Try to discuss using the user-talk or article-talk pages if there are still ongoing disputes, and a civil and reasonable resolution should be possible. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
User:BhaiSaab reported by User:CltFn (Result: 48h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Criticism_of_the_Council_on_American-Islamic_Relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BhaiSaab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:[99]
- 1st revert: [100]
- 2nd Revert: [101]
- 3rd revert: [102]
- 4th revert: [103]
48h William M. Connolley 22:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- It was more than 24 hours, which is why CltFn chose not to include the times. BhaiSaab talk 00:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- It was within 25 hours. Given your past block record you'll give the admins if they think that looks like gaming 3RR. JoshuaZ 00:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Look at CAIR. There is a link to criticism article - should it have redirected back? You tell me. Only one of my past blocks was actually a 3rr violation. BhaiSaab talk 01:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Do you mean to say you were editing something that constituted vandalism? This was still essentially a content issue. If you think a user's action is borderline vandalism or such you should get an uninvoled user to step in. 3RR can only be ignored for the most blatant forms of vandalism. And in any event, changing your argument from it wasn't in 24 hours to calling on the vandalism exception is hardly persuasive. JoshuaZ 01:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I never called it vandalism; it's obviously a content dispute where one editor believes that an article on an organization should be 75% criticism, which I don't see to be supported by policy or guidelines anywhere. The adherence to procedure over that of quality on Wikipedia is quite disturbing. BhaiSaab talk 01:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Do you mean to say you were editing something that constituted vandalism? This was still essentially a content issue. If you think a user's action is borderline vandalism or such you should get an uninvoled user to step in. 3RR can only be ignored for the most blatant forms of vandalism. And in any event, changing your argument from it wasn't in 24 hours to calling on the vandalism exception is hardly persuasive. JoshuaZ 01:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Look at CAIR. There is a link to criticism article - should it have redirected back? You tell me. Only one of my past blocks was actually a 3rr violation. BhaiSaab talk 01:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- It was within 25 hours. Given your past block record you'll give the admins if they think that looks like gaming 3RR. JoshuaZ 00:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- If it has been within 25 hours, then it means that the user does follows the rules. The purpose of this policy is to prevent edit warring, it is NOT punitive. Furthermore, the length of the block :"48 Hours" is strange? --Reza1 01:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Who unblocked BhaiSaab?He violated 3RR and the policy needs to be applied consistently. I violated the 3 RR rules and I was blocked for 48 hours. So what's up with that?--CltFn 02:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- You violated 3rr 3 times on three seperate articles (all under 24 hours). I did not. BhaiSaab talk 02:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- The policy is a 3RR violation = block . You qualified and thus you should be blocked. I was and I accepted the penalty , I expect the same to be applied to you.--CltFn 02:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Right the policy also says something about the reverts being within 24 hours, which does not apply here. BhaiSaab talk 02:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- The policy is a 3RR violation = block . You qualified and thus you should be blocked. I was and I accepted the penalty , I expect the same to be applied to you.--CltFn 02:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- You violated 3rr 3 times on three seperate articles (all under 24 hours). I did not. BhaiSaab talk 02:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Who unblocked BhaiSaab?He violated 3RR and the policy needs to be applied consistently. I violated the 3 RR rules and I was blocked for 48 hours. So what's up with that?--CltFn 02:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
2006-09-05T00:42:57 Jaranda (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked BhaiSaab (contribs) (per IRC discussion, promices to avoid article) For the record, I misread the timestamp in B's last revert. Which changes it from blatant 3RR to marginal violation William M. Connolley 07:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
User:128.253.56.185 reported by User:KOCOBO (Result: 8h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Srebrenica_massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 128.253.56.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:15:14, 4 September 2006
- 1st revert: 20:18, 4 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 21:12, 4 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 21:24, 4 September 2006
- 4th revert: 21:59, 4 September 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
- 21:15, 4 September 2006 (In the edit summary)
Time report made: 22:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User was warned, he continued to revert. --KOCOBO 22:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
8h. Osli73 gets a warning William M. Connolley 22:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Crashdavis reported by User:Isarig (Result: 8h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Fox News Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Crashdavis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:4 September 2006
- 1st revert: 19:36, 4 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 21:47, 4 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 22:08, 4 September 2006
- 4th revert: 22:10, 4 September 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 22:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Blatant disregard for WP policy and warnings.
- Just wanted to add a comment (not sure if thats ok or not; new to this). I also have had to revert this editor on the Rupert Murdoch article and I believe he was making these same reverts just minutes before as an anon under the IP 71.77.3.49. AuburnPilot 22:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
8h for first offence William M. Connolley 22:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
User:68.51.8.88 reported by DelosHarriman 22:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC) (Result: 24h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
TheVanguard.Org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.51.8.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- 1st revert: 01:44, 4 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 15:43, 4 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 16:46, 4 September 2006
- 4th revert: 17:18, 4 September 2006
- 5th revert: 18:07, 4 September 2006
- 6th revert: 18:41, 4 September 2006
- 7th revert: 20:13, 4 September 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 22:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: This user starts with some relatively small stuff, but by DIFF #5 is adding actively libelous material based on a very tortured reading of one citation and a whole lot of completely "unverified" stuff.Several people have warned him all through the day.Moreover, he's an anonymous user with a recent history of going after articles related to this one, including adding defamatory "information" to bios of living persons and seeking to have several of them deleted (all the AfDs have been resolved in the articles' favor except this one, which is still open).I wrote this article and I realize it's no more than a stub; however, I can't really improve it while this is going on either.Please help.
- 24h so that other editors can improve the article concerned (article currently in AfD). --WinHunter (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Isarig reported by User:Freepsbane (Result:)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on Battle of Bint Jbeil. Isarig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- 1st revert: 02:08, 4 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 02:08, 4 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 04:07, 4 September 2006
- 4th revert: 23:19, 4 September 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
- Not a 3RR warning at all. This is a bad faith report. Isarig 03:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Time report made: 01:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- While there have been a few days since the above user's previous reverts(before the ones listed), they all none the less fall into a almost identical pattern.Freepsbane 01:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- [User:Isargi] has been very active in reversions of the above mentioned page; a quick check on the page history will show he has been more active in reverting edits than any other user[104]. furthermore he has also shown himself completely unwilling to compromise with any other editor and generally adopts a belligerent posture when dealing with them.Freepsbane 01:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- [User:Isargi] has been a Wikipedia editor for more than one year and is quite familiar with the 3RR rule. Nevertheless he has had a history of 3rr violations and has been blocked for what has been called " utterly uncivil behavior".[105] A check in his talk page and archive will verify this. [106][107]Freepsbane 01:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Note that the "Previous version reverted to" is conspicously missing. This is no coincidence, as the first "revert" is not a revert at all, but an update of the page with new information that became available, complete with new sources. Reagrdless, the page is now protected.Isarig 03:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- The page appears to be protected now, so the edit-war is over. I'm rather more concerned about the actions of User:RyanGerbil10, who was involved in the edit-warring on this page, and protected it on his own version. Jayjg (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- checking the edits, it seems thatUser:Isarig did not violate WP:3RR. Amoruso 11:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
User:213.249.155.239 reported by User:Crossmr (Result:24 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Hipcrime (Usenet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 213.249.155.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:01:26, September 4, 2006
- 1st revert: 02:45, September 4, 2006
- 2nd revert: 02:46, September 4, 2006
- 3rd revert: 02:57, September 4, 2006
- 4th revert: 00:26, September 5, 2006
Time report made: 01:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:continued edit warring, block evasion via ip and sock puppets, violating concensus, etc.--Crossmr 01:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- And he continues to edit war over this material which has no concensus and has been removed by numerous editors.--Crossmr 01:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- My 24 hour block was made without regard to 3RR. Your report is not in proper format (not all diffs and no original version). alphaChimp(talk) 01:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Those are the 4 diffs that follow it being changed from the concensus version. Sometimes he clumps 2 or 3 edits together, should those be present? As far as original version... I'll update that.--Crossmr 01:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think I see what you mean. For some reason I copied the wrong link for the 2nd revert, its been fixed.--Crossmr 01:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Those are the 4 diffs that follow it being changed from the concensus version. Sometimes he clumps 2 or 3 edits together, should those be present? As far as original version... I'll update that.--Crossmr 01:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- My 24 hour block was made without regard to 3RR. Your report is not in proper format (not all diffs and no original version). alphaChimp(talk) 01:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Burak18 reported by User:Ugur Basak (Result: 48 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Galatasaray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Burak18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:07:30, September 4, 2006
- 1st revert: 16:12, September 4, 2006
- 2nd revert: 16:29, September 4, 2006
- 3rd revert: 19:09, September 4, 2006
- 4th revert: 21:19, September 4, 2006
- 5th revert: 08:02, September 5, 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 08:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ugar, you'll need to supply the diffs showing the changes, not links showing the same versions. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Now it's in good form i think. SlimVirgin, i really tired with this user:) there is already a report for him in this page but i don't know why but he isn't blocked and he is still revert-warring. He doesn't respond messages. --Ugur Basak 11:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- yeah it's in good form now. I also noticed it. Amoruso 12:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Reviewed: clear 3RR violation, repeat offense, third in a week.Another 48 hour block -- Samir धर्म 12:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
User:SpinyNorman (1) reported by User:Amoruso (Result: 24 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Folke Bernadotte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SpinyNorman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:[108]
- 1st revert: 00:59, 5 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 06:14, 5 September 2006;
- 3rd revert: 08:45, 5 September 2006
- 4th revert: 10:01, 5 September 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) : not directly but :
- 08:30, 3 September 2006; received some other 3RR warning.
Time report made: 10:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Univolved party here. I'd be cautious about more than a warning on this one. The reverted material was fairly incendiary, and shall we say amibiguously sourced -- books, no page numbers, & not online.The reporter should be making the case on Talk or through mediation, not gaming 3RR reports. Derex 10:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- This is a direct 3RR violation of 4 reverts (how can he deny it ? ) and this is a repetitve abuser :
08:30, 3 September 2006; received some other 3RR warning. The user was also blocked in the past for a 3RR violation [109] for 24 hours, and then , warned twice again [110] about 3RR violations [111] and again [112]and was blocked again for 48 hours for a violation [113] Amoruso 10:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- note the revison is not on the sourced material, and it also doesn't matter on what it is. pages could have been asked and would have been provided anyway.Amoruso 10:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Reverts include 3RR violations both on the terrorist-underground reversion (direct) and blanking of sourced information. 10:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Derex.In reality. there are only three actual reverts.The rest are mischaracterized by a user who is pissed at me for trying to get rid of his POV in the article.--SpinyNorman 10:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- SpinyNorman is a serial reverter and this is a clear 3RR violation. He restored the word "terrorist" four times in just over nine hours, [114] [115] [116] [117] and his first edit was a revert to a previous version of his, where he also added the word "terrorist." [118] He has been blocked four times for 3RR, and there have been other occasions where he was warned, not reported, or the page was protected. There is also a current RfAr in part because of his reverting. Most of the editing Spiny does is reverting, and most of the reverting involves trying to game 3RR, with occasional miscalculations such as this one. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I see SV still hasn't learned to grasp the concept of a good-faith edit.Maybe one day she will...--SpinyNorman 10:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Reviewed: Uninvolved party.I do not think this is gaming the system on the part of the reporter.The issue of "terrorism" with respect to Lehi (group) is being discussed at Talk:Lehi (group), was discussed with respect to this article at Talk:Folke Bernadotte and on SpinyNorman's talk page.I tend to be lenient with 3RR in established users, but this is one situation where discussion should have continued before choosing to revert.I've also taken into account the previous blocks for 3RR on User:SpinyNorman.I think that a 24 hour block is appropriate, but I'm also protecting Folke Bernadotte for 24 hours to let cooler heads prevail when making further edits. -- Samir धर्म 11:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
As 3RR should not be rewarded, and the violation resulted in the removal of sourced information regarding Bernadotte, I have restored the version prior to Norman's changes, while maintaining the protect for now. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
user:SpinyNorman (2) reported by user:SlimVirgin (Result: 24 hours, see above)
[edit]3RR violation on Colin Blakemore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by SpinyNorman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Material reverted: SpinyNorman keeps removing or changing the sentence: "Amid press speculation that pressure from Charles, Prince of Wales led to Blakemore's rejection [from the British New Year's Honors List] ..."
- Version reverted to 07:31 September 3
- 1st revert 01:16 September 5
- 2nd revert 10:20 September 5
- 3rd revert 10:56 September 5
- 4th revert 11:14 September 5
Reported by SlimVirgin (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment
Spiny was engaged in this series of reverts even as the 3RR report above was being made, which indicates a lack of respect for our policies and procedures. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Reviewed: I'm lumping this one in with the previous one for a total of 24 hours.I agree that the intent of each of the edits above was akin to reversion.I'm going to ask that SpinyNorman discuss the issue on the talk page before further edits.Thanks -- Samir धर्म 11:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- so this is the 6th time he will be blocked because of WP:3RR. Amoruso 12:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- This one is baloney. These are not reverts -- the content removed and inserted is different each time as anyone who clicks on the links will see. "Slim Virgin" (this username is borderline offensive), is smackdab in the middle of this edit war. The "lack of respect for our procedures" comment "virgin" levels is uncivil and smells disingenuous. Is it respectful to delete a users edits three times then report him for 3RR? If "Spiny" is blocked "Virgin" should also be blocked -- for edit warring.
[119] [120] [121]Justforasecond 16:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- It makes no difference whether the content was the same or different — and in this case, it was the same content he kept removing or altering. I see you're in the process of trying to have the 3RR policy changed because you were blocked. You might want to try reading it first. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Of course it makes a difference what the content is. It isn't a reversion if the content changes on both sides, its called hammering out a consensus.In any case, you haven't explained your edit warring and why it should go unnoticed while Spiny is blocked for not "respecing our policies". Your edit summaries, accusing Spiny of "POV pushing" are also uncivil. From all I can see, he removed a derrogatory and speculatory use of a living person that you kept re-inserting "press speculation that Prince Charles pressured so-and-so to resign" changed which he changed to "amid controversy surrounding so-and-so's resignation". Now maybe this is sourced well enough to meet BLP and maybe not. But it's definitely not a matter of "POV pushing"
- The final "revert" you reported is nothing of the sort[122].He changed
- Amid press speculation
- to
- Amid unsourced speculation by a member of the British press
- How is this a reversion at all? How can you presume to take the high ground in asking someone to be blocked for "reversion" when his edit is protecting a living person?
- I don't even know Spiny, I just happened to click on this case and found it an obviously poor use of 3RR.Justforasecond 17:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- If you don't know Spiny, and you don't understand the 3RR policy, you shouldn't be commenting. (1) SpinyNorman is an inveterate POV pusher and serial reverter; most of what he does on Wikipedia is revert, revert, revert all the lifelong day; (2) on this particular article, he was reverting sourced material; (3) I reverted him because he stalks me to articles I'm editing and reverts for no reason other than to be irritating; he has been doing it for about nine months; I wasn't "edit warring," I was "Spiny warring"; (4) 3RR violations do not depend on content; (5) it makes no difference whether the same or different material is involved; any undoing of another editor's work is a revert. That's my last comment about this. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- So now you admit to warring with another user, yet you remain unblocked. How is this reasonable? And how is this a revert?
- Amid press speculation
- changed to
- Amid unsourced speculation by a member of the British press
- This seems like a pretty clear-cut consensus attempt to me. He didn't alter your edit or remove any words or punctuation.
- If someone is wikistalking you, we can create a policy for that.I have a couple of stalkers myself and I would be happy to craft language with you prohibiting wikistalking. But, until then you've been warring and its not fair to report someone for not "respecting our policies" when you are flaunting them yourself.Justforasecond 17:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Alextwa reported by User:Extraordinary Machine (Result: 8h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Grammy Awards of 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Alextwa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:02:34, 2 September 2006
- 1st revert: 13:00, 5 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 14:26, 5 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 14:33, 5 September 2006
- 4th revert: 14:37, 5 September 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :
Time report made: 14:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User insists on reinserting unsourced, POV and OR-laiden speculation about who might win Grammy Awards next year, without discussion or explanation. Extraordinary Machine 14:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
8h first offence William M. Connolley 15:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Kosmopolis reported by User:Tewfik (Result:13 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
2006 Israel-Lebanon War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kosmopolis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
15:27 September 5, the third paragraph is the one at issue.
- 1st revert 15:52 September 5
- 2nd revert 16:09 September 5
- 3rd revert 17:12 September 5
- 4th revert 17:36 September 5
Time report made: 18:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment
Kosmopolis is adding lots of detail to the intro about how many tanks were used, how many on each side killed, making the lead too detailed and long. He was warned about 3RR and was offered the opportunity to revert himself [123] but did so only partially, [124] leaving some of the figures in place. TewfikTalk 18:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Clarification
- I was in the process of shortening the intro when User:SlimVirgin indiscriminately and repeatedly reverted multiple edits of mine regarding the whole article, while the subject of dispute was only the lead. It was impossible not to commit my pending changes without losing edits. After I had committed, I immediately started shortening the lead to meet consensus.
- The lead as it was before had been under User:Tewfik's constant watch and contained gibberish phrasing and non-NPOV information as well as imprecise estimates and unsourced claims [125]. What we wanted to add (and what User:Tewfik calls lots of details) is a concise summary of human and material costs of the war. The section he kept deleting deals with casualties, Israeli efforts, Hezbollah efforts, Israeli IDPs, Lebanese IDPs, environmental damage and political implications, all backed up exclusively by reputable sources. Note that the lead was copy-edited and fleshened out by other editors as well and that it conforms to WP:LEAD in that it is capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article (see [126]). As soon as well-sourced information started pouring in, User:Tewfik kept reverting to unsourced information, calling the statistics one-sided and prevented the lead from being changed to NPOV. Please note especially his questionable stance on the issue of Lebanese and Israeli refugees. The revision now looks like this [127]. User:Tewfik calls this only a partial revert and would like to have it back to this: [128]. I guess this would not only be a reversal by means of revisions, but also by means of NPOV policies, by means of precise language and by means of conforming to WP:LEAD.
- Please note that User:SlimVirgin appeared out of nowhere and took part in the edit war before threatening to report me and that User:Tewfik (who reported me), had been critisized earlier for his behaviour by other editors of the lemma (see [129]). Kosmopolis 20:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Being that this is clearly a content dispute, and the user reverted four times, I don't think there is any issue. If it is at all relevant though, an independent and neutral user has also since reverted the WP:Lead. TewfikTalk 02:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Clearly there is a content dispute here. As this is his first violation I will be blocking for 13 hours. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
User:McPhail reported by User:3bulletproof16 (Result:)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
WrestleMania 22 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). McPhail (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:10:51, August 8, 2006
- 1st revert: 12:21, September 5, 2006
- 2nd revert: 15:15, September 5, 2006
- 3rd revert: 16:04, September 5, 2006
- 4th revert: 16:08, September 5, 2006
- 5th revert: 16:18, September 5, 2006
- 6th revert: 16:24, September 5, 2006
- 7th revert: 16:30, September 5, 2006
- 8th revert: 16:44, September 5, 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :
- User is not new and is well aware of WP:3RR
Time report made: 23:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- McPhail has reverted the article every time an edit is made. He clearly does not assume good faith in the contributions of editors such as me and TJ Spyke. Every time an edit is made to improve the article, McPhail returns and reverts the article claiming it as being "Cleaned Up" [130]. This is the version that TJ Spyke and I worked on [131]. We based the whole format of the article on these two articles (WrestleMania XX and WrestleMania 21) and this isn't the first time McPhail has reverted the article to his own liking. See the article's history here [132] every single "Clean Up" he has made have only been reverts to his previous version. This is really getting frustrating to users like me and TJ Spyke who have worked so hard to improve the article's quality. He has been referred to WP:OWN several times before but has simply ignored it. -- bulletproof 3:16 23:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- My response: my initial edit to the article after several weeks was reverted with no explanation by 3BulletProof [133]. My subsequent edits - which were not all reverts to the same version - were all similarly reverted with little or no explanation. It should be noted that 3BulletProof has also reverted the article on more than three occasions - [134][135] [136] [137], in several cases without any edit summary whatsoever. 23:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC) McPhail 23:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Macaw 54 reported by User:Georgia guy (Result:Protected)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
T (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Macaw 54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
- 1st revert: DiffTime
- 2nd revert: DiffTime
- 3rd revert: DiffTime
- 4th revert: DiffTime
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :
Time report made: 23:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- The T article is 75KB, and I keep putting Pronunciation of English T into its own article, but Macaw 54 keeps merging it back in. (Even without the section, the article is large; 56KB to be exact.) Georgia guy 23:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
</nowiki>
- Why are you writing here? I didn't revert more than three times, but you did.--Macaw 54 23:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I protected the page instead of blocking anyone because this is a edit warring where both users are involved. --WinHunter (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Georgia guy reported by User:Macaw 54 (Result:Protected)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
T (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Georgia guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:[138]
- 1st revert: 5 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 14:14, 5 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 19:48, 5 September 2006
- 4th revert: 23:06, 5 September 2006
Comment: Only the 2nd-4th of what Macaw 54 is referring to as "reverts" are actually reverts. The first was just a section to be split into a new article to keep the article from being too large. Georgia guy 23:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Reply. The third certainly is, also. The first was also a reversion of my edits to the pronunciation section.--Macaw 54 23:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- See above, same reasoning. --WinHunter (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
User:CovenantD reported by User: The Judge (Result:6 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Clock King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User:CovenantD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
- 1st revert: 1
- 2nd revert: 2, 2b
- 3rd revert: 3
- 4th revert: 4
- 5th revert: 5: On the administrator helping me
- Cointinued the same adit war in: 1st. 2nd 3rd... Oh, forget about it, the guy just did a massive edit war following me to every article I've been editing since I came.--The Judge 00:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
...Cold somebody rv his last? I'm not sure I can.--The Judge 04:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :
- Check the edit summaries, he also ignored the intervention of an administrator I called for help.
Oh, and please revert him on both articles, I don't want to risk being blocked like him.--The Judge 00:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)--The Judge 23:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
User blocked for 6 hours. -- Where 01:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
User:ParadoxTom reported by User:Humus sapiens (Result:48 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Jews for Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ParadoxTom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:[]
- 1st revert: 14:56, 5 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 17:23, 5 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 17:31, 5 September 2006
- 4th revert: 17:34, 5 September 2006
- 5th revert: 17:39, 5 September 2006
- 6th revert: 17:45, 5 September 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :
Time report made: 17:55, 5 September 2006 (PDT)
Comments: Complete disregard to WP rules. Obsessive namecalling and editwarring. Disclaimer: I (as well as other users) reverted him also but did not break 3RR. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I looked into this. Humus has been edit warring on this article for some time. He called others "crusading liars" but I haven't seen any namecalling from others, inc ParadoxTom (Where are the diffs for "namecalling", Humus?) "Slim Virgin" myseteriously joined the fray and began warring immediately, gaming this new user into a 3RR. If any, all three should be sanctioned, the more experienced receiving longer blocks. It may be worth noting that Humus has been warring to insert the POV phrasing "All mainstream jewish groups (religious and secular) are strongly opposed to Jews for Jesus".ParadoxTom has been working to remove this (and other) inappropriate wordings. Justforasecond 02:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Wrong on all points. This was about Justforasecond's POV/OR argument. So far nobdy called you anything: I made it conditional upon your failure to prove your own words. Serious claims require serious sources.
- As for "gaming this new user into a 3RR" - are you saying she made him do it? ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- You have been edit warring on this article for some time. One look at the article history will confirm. One (longer) look at the talk page will confirm your name-calling, incivility and failure to assume good faith.Justforasecond 02:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Blocked by Nandesuka 21:50, 5 September 2006 Nandesuka (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "ParadoxTom (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (Egregious 3RR violation on Jews for Jesus) [139] --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Justforasecond reported by User:Benedictine (Result:both blocked for 24hrs)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Academy_Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Justforasecond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:[Sorry, I don't understand this section]
- 1st revert: 4 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 5 September 2006]
- 3rd revert: 5 September 2006]
- 4th revert: 5 September 2006]
Time report made: 02:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User:Justforasecond is engaged in irrational, POV-driven reverting of an article and topic that is one of the most transparent and visible nomenclatures in the world. User seems more concerned with being right than in being factual. User's edit trail and Wiki history reveals a catalog of his being banned and being threatened with being banned for his repeat violations. Thank you.
- Uhhh yall might wanna check that history.1st "revert" is a first-time tag application 2nd, 3rd, 4th are re-applications of the "worldwide view" tag. Policy is pretty clear about not removing tags before settling the matter discussed.
- I'm filing a counter claim against this user.He/she has reverted 4x.
- 02:19, 6 September 2006[140]
- 02:13, 6 September 2006[141]
- 01:46, 6 September 2006[142]
- 21:58, 5 September 2006[143]
Justforasecond 02:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Both users blocked for 24 hours for revert warring. Nandesuka 03:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on
2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 80.135.147.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:04:25:55
- 1st revert: 04:26:58
- 2nd revert: 04:31:04
- 3rd revert: 05:20:46
- 4th revert: 06:16:12
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :
Time report made: 06:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: As the user's edits have come from a number of edits in the range listed above, any block should be to its entirety. The user continuously reverted several other editors. I left a 3RR notice on the page's Talk because of the nature of the IP, though the IP responded to it before their last reversion, and thus was surely aware. TewfikTalk 06:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Counterstatement: Please see Tewfik's actions regarding the article lead:
- Previous version reverted to:02:01, 5 September 2006
- 1st revert: 15:42, 5 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 16:08, 5 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 04:24, 6 September 2006
- 4th revert: 14:39, 6 September 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :
Time report made: 16:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Tewfik systematically reverted information that was introduced, proofread, acknowledged and copy-edited by numerous WP contributors five times over the course of 36 h, thus skewing the article towards POV and reinserting unsourced and/or unverifiable information. 80.135.138.52 16:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- 24 hours. 80.135.138.52, please cite the diffs of the 3RR violation that you claim Tewfik has committed (on your talk page, since you're blocked, but following the above format), and if it checks out, he as well will be subject to censur. El_C 16:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Fluence reported by User:Richyard (Result:)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Keane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Fluence (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:[144]
- 1st revert: [145]
- 2nd revert: [146]
- 3rd revert: [147]
- 4th revert: [148]
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :
Time report made: 09:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Fluence is determined to keep this article the way he edited it and reverts changes without discussion. On the article Talk page, I have reminded him of WP:3RR and he waited 8 minutes after the expiry of the 24 hour period to make his last change. Richyard 09:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
User:LUCPOL reported by User:Wildnox (Result:24 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Rapcore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). LUCPOL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:01:50, 4 September 2006
- 1st revert: 17:03, 5 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 10:29, 6 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 12:25, 6 September 2006
- 4th revert: 13:00, 6 September 2006
Time report made: 13:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Edit war on Rapcore, revived after unprotected, two users violated 3rr. Both users have been previously blocked for edit warring. --Wildnox 13:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- For some reason, I missed this report when blocking LUCPOL. Either way, Lucpol was blocked for 24 hours. The page was protected. alphaChimp(talk) 15:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on
Rapcore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Egr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:01:50, 4 September 2006
- 1st revert: 07:48, 6 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 10:40, 6 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 6 September 2006
- 4th revert: 13:19, 6 September 2006
Time report made: 13:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Edit war on Rapcore, revived after unprotected, two users violated 3rr. Both users have been previously blocked for edit warring. --Wildnox 13:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have blocked User:Egr for 24 hours per WP:3RR. I am also blocking User:LUCPOL for 24 hours, as he was the other party involved in the revert war. Both have a history of 3RR warnings, and were warned before their most recent revert. alphaChimp(talk) 13:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
User:DeathSeeker reported by User:Nandesuka (Result: 24 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Xbox_360 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). deathSeeker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:07:52, 5 September 2006
- 1st revert: 23:02, 5 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 23:43, 5 September 2006
- Note:"2nd revert" is made in 7 different edits which have the effect of reverting to the previous version.He's done this a few times now.
- 3rd revert: 05:42, 6 September 2006
- 4th revert: 14:13, 6 September 2006
Reverting continues (we've lapped 24 hours, here, but these latest reverts still make over 3 in the past 24 hours --I'll let the reviewing admin untangle it).
- 5th revert: 7 September 2006
- 6th revert: 05:08, 7 September 2006 with the edit summary "I've given the wiki policy stating why this reversion stays. If you don't like, make comments on the policy page, not here. Being wiki policy a reversion relating to this does not fall under the 3RR.)"
- 7th revert: 05:44, 7 September 2006 with the edit summary "Violation of wikiguideline. Wikipedia:Abundance and redundancy It is a preferred solution that material be included rather than excluded to resolve an edit war."
Time report made: 15:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- While I have no checkuser evidence, this user's manner, grammar, and substantive edits closely parallel those of User:74.33.0.16, recently blocked for 3RR violations on the same article, very closely.See the article history for details. Nandesuka 15:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Could someone please look at this? It shows no signs of ending anytime soon. Nandesuka 05:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
5/6/7 are clear enough. 4 isn't so clear to me William M. Connolley 11:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- The specific issue under dispute here is whether the "hardware" section should be a bulleted list containing every spec historically in the article versus text paragraphs containing less detail.DeathSeeker favors the former.Hope that helps. Nandesuka 11:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- It seems clear enough and I see he was warned, so 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
User:KSmrq reported by User:Melchoir (Result: No action)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Proof that 0.999... equals 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (possibly moved to 0.999... (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in the next few days). KSmrq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:00:50, 20 June 2006 (except for one phrase; I may be an edit or two off, but that's the ballpark.)
- 1st revert: 08:22, 5 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 08:27, 5 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 18:15, 5 September 2006
- 4th revert: 04:38, 6 September 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :
Time report made: 16:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Now that the page has been protected, I personally don't see a need to block KSmrq, and it would make it harder for him to participate on the talk page, should he so choose. Some kind of warning would be nice though. Melchoir 03:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Second diff does not appear to be a revert. El_C 10:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- It undoes this move immediately prior. Melchoir 15:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not immediately seeing a difference between the revisions, nor what was reverted. El_C 08:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- The Anome moved/renamed Proof that 0.999... equals 1 to 0.999..., and KSmrq moved it back to Proof that 0.999... equals 1. I was under the impression that reverted moves count towards 3RR...? Melchoir 16:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
anon user 87.203.235.185
[edit]Please look into anon user 87.203.235.185 as they have been edit warring and vandalising the article [skrewdriver]. L0b0t 12:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- 24 hours. El_C 10:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Lucaas reported by User:LambiamTalk (Result: 24h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Modern geocentrism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lucaas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:01:37, September 5, 2006 (UTC)
- 1st revert: 18:27, September 5, 2006 (UTC)
- 2nd revert: 20:34, September 5, 2006 (UTC)
- 3rd revert: 12:40, September 6, 2006 (UTC)
- 4th revert: 17:49, September 6, 2006 (UTC)
- 5th revert: 22:51, September 6, 2006 (UTC)
Comments
- The technical violation is the 4th revert. The user keeps pushing a text, in spite of the arguments against his text brought by other editors: original research, irrelevant, incoherent. These arguments are dismissed by the user as if we don't know what we're talking about. --LambiamTalk 23:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :
Time report made: 18:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- 24 hours. El_C 10:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
User:3bulletproof16 reported by User:JB196 (Result:No action needed)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Vic Grimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 3bulletproof16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:[149] (that's the version they kept reverting to
- 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vic_Grimes&oldid=73877906 (3:21)
- 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vic_Grimes&oldid=73875295 (3:01)
- 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vic_Grimes&oldid=73872925 (2:45)
- 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vic_Grimes&oldid=73871879 (2:38)
- 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vic_Grimes&oldid=73871336 (2:34)
- 6th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vic_Grimes&oldid=73870746 (2:30)
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :
Time report made: 18:59
Comments: The first page I would like to report him for violating it is Vic Grimes. He reverted the Vic Grimes page to EXACTLY as it was at a previous time on not one, not two, not three, but SIX times on September 5. Therefore, he violated WP:3RR and he should be suspended. I want to know why he was not suspended as I was. Here are the links to 3bulletproof16’s edits on the Vic Grimes page, all of which are EXACTLY “identical to how [the page] used to be at some previous time,” and therefore constitute a blatant violation of WP:3RR which should be dealt with accordingly
- Part of a campaign by JB196 since his own 3RR block. See further notes.
User:3bulletproof16 reported by User:JB196 (Result:No action necessary)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
User talk:3bulletproof16 (edit | [[Talk:User talk:3bulletproof16|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 3bulletproof16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:[150] (that's the version they kept reverting to
- 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:3bulletproof16&oldid=73875376 (3:02)
- 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:3bulletproof16&oldid=73877501 (3:18)
- 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:3bulletproof16&oldid=73879554 (3:33)
- 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:3bulletproof16&oldid=73880786 (3:43)
- 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:3bulletproof16&oldid=73881325 (3:47)
- 6th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:3bulletproof16&oldid=73881893 (3:52)
- 7th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:3bulletproof16&oldid=73883656 (4:06)
- 8th revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:3bulletproof16&oldid=73886795 (4:31)
- 9th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:3bulletproof16&oldid=73887549 (4:37)
- 10th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:3bulletproof16&oldid=73888004 (4:40)
- 11th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:3bulletproof16&oldid=73888355 (4:43)
- 12th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:3bulletproof16&oldid=73888775 (4:47)
- 13th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:3bulletproof16&oldid=73889398 (4:52)
- 14th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:3bulletproof16&oldid=73889499 (4:53)
- 15th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:3bulletproof16&oldid=73889740 (4:55)
- 16th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:3bulletproof16&oldid=73890871 (5:04)
- 18th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:3bulletproof16&oldid=73891086 (5:06)
- 19th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:3bulletproof16&oldid=73891364 (5:08)
- 20th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:3bulletproof16&oldid=73891692 (5:11)
- 21th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:3bulletproof16&oldid=73892432 (5:17)
- 22th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:3bulletproof16&oldid=73892972 (5:22)
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :
Time report made: 18:59
Comments: The second complaint I would like to file against 3bulletproof16 for violating WP:3RR refers to User talk:3bulletproof16. He reverted the User talk:3bulletproof16 page to EXACTLY as it was at a previous time on not one, not two, not three, but OVER TWENTY (20) times on September 5. They all fall directly under the wording of WP:REVERT (see paragraph 2 above) and therefore constitute a violation of WP:3RR that was not dealt with. This user’s belligerent reversion vandalism of his own user page is clearly visible at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:3bulletproof16&action=history, where he constantly reverts constructive comments despite being told repeatedly not to do so, and told again not to do so…and told again not to do so…and told again…and told again…and again…and again…and so on. This user is belligerent and should be dealt with accordingly.
- Exported from JB196's Talk Page:
- Okay, please stop editing 3bulletproof16's talk page: period. It's not helping matters. Let's take it up here. I think 3BP16 is warranted in wanting to remove the large chunk of text from his talk page - there's no good reason to keep it as it's clearly just copied text from another talk page. So it should be no problem to remove it, as it's preserved elsewhere. The only comment that is unique to 3BP16's talk page will be preserved - all duplicate information will be removed. I'll perform the removal myself. Objections? --PeruvianLlama(spit) 05:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- ...
- I just saw your (JB196) comment on my talk page. The comment under Extraordinary Machine is no longer relevant if there isn't the issue of who should be revert who any more - once we resolve this, it will no longer be needed. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 05:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- ...I was asking you to stop so we could get on with resolving things. Which brings us to this: it is Wikipedia policy that users should not remove warnings from their talk pages regarding their disruptive behaviour or simple vandalism. 3bulletproof16's edits do not fall under either of these categories, and so while it may be frustrating, he is free to remove your comments from his talk page. Since the content dispute is regarding the Vic Grimes article anyway, the conversation can be continued on its related talk page. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 05:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- For myself, I suggest you heed his advice, and I suggest that this report be dropped without action. --Calton | Talk 00:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Part of a campaign by JB196 since his own 3RR block. See further notes.
User:TripleH1976 reported by User:[[User:--12.74.187.90 19:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)]] (Result: indefinite)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Eric Robert Rudolph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TripleH1976 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- User was reverting vandalism! just like me - watch the edit history! Lordkazan 19:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- 1st revert: 18:01, 6 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 18:19, 6 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 18:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- 4th revert: 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked indefinitely. El_C 10:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Sliat 1981 reported by User:Khoikhoi (Result: 24h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on Macedonian_Australian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sliat_1981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:04:50, 5 September 2006
- 1st revert: 11:59, 6 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 22:52, 6 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 00:04, 7 September 2006
- 4th revert: 01:48, 7 September 2006
Comments
- User has been here since 2005. Also broke 3RR on List of VFL/AFL players by ethnicity and Peter Daicos. —Khoikhoi 01:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- 24 hours. El_C 10:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Halbared reported by User:DXRAW (Result:24h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Triple_H (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Halbared (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
- 1st revert: [151]
- 2nd revert: [152]
- 3rd revert: [153]
- 4th revert: DiffTime
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :
Time report made: 12:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:User:Halbared has changed heights on many other pages and also has been blocked for 3RR before.
- 24h for 2nd 3RR violation. --WinHunter (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
User:82.12.86.64 reported by User:+Fin- (Result: 24h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Age of Mythology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 82.12.86.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:09:25, 5 September 2006 (user did not explicitly revert to the same version, but consistently added content when it was removed)
- 1st revert: 16:49, 6 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 08:25, 7 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 15:43, 7 September 2006
- 4th revert: 16:05, 7 September 2006
- 5th revert: 16:08, 7 September 2006
- 6th revert: 16:14, 7 September 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :
- 16:55, 6 September 2006 (User was not told explicitly that they might break 3RR, but was asked to stop adding content)
Time report made: 15:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User was not told explicitly that they might break 3RR, but was asked to stop[155].
- "Shouted" in edit summaries[156]
- Twice removed warning from talk page[157][158].
- Twice vandalised a user page[159][160].
24h William M. Connolley 19:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Ali doostzadeh reported by User:Barefact (Result: no block)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
| Peoples | .png?lang=en) | |
|---|---|---|
| Culture | ||
| Regions | ||
| Related |
| |
. Ali doostzadeh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
- 1st revert: [[[Scythia]] 18:42, 7 September 2006]
- 2nd revert: [[Scythia 18:32, 7 September 2006]
- 3rd revert: [[Scythia07:55, 7 September 2006](69.86.16.239 is a sockpuppet for Ali doostzadeh
- 4th revert: [[Scythia07:51, 7 September 2006]
- 5th revert: [[[Scythia]]07:39, 7 September 2006]
- 6th revert: [[Scythia07:38, 7 September 2006]
- 7th revert: [[Scythia 07:16, 7 September 200606]
- 8th revert: [[[Scythia]] 04:54, 7 September 2006]
Comments:
- User was asked to stopdoostzadeh.
- "Shouted" in edit summaries
- Continuously removed warning from talk pagedoostzadeh[161].
- Continuosly vandalised article by removing references and context
- Uses stealth methods of vandalism
Edits that are done contiguously count as 1 William M. Connolley 20:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- This has to be among the worse formatted, most obscure 3RR reports I've ever read. Please take the time to read through the instructions. El_C 08:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Jeff Relf reported by User:teb728 (Result: 24h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Albert Einstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jeff_Relf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:16:15, 5 September 2006
- 1st revert: 14:21, 6 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 17:05, 6 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 22:58, 6 September 2006
- 4th revert: 12:45, 7 September 2006
- 5th revert: 13:42, 7 September 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :
Time report made: 21:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- All times are PDT (UTC-07:00)
- This user was previously blocked for 3RR violation on this article. --teb728 21:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
24h
User:Mike18xx reported by User:Islamic (Result:)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Islam and Slavery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mike18xx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- He is making minor modifications to keep his changes
- 1st revert: 04:33, 8 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 04:25, 8 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 04:22, 8 September 2006
- 4th revert: 22:49, 7 September 2006
- 5th revert: 7 September 2006
- 6th revert: 22:43, 7 September 2006
The user is known for a long violation of 3RR.
Time report made: 05:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- This 3RR report cites no warning or original version, and the permlinks are not diffs. Please take the time to read through the instructions. El_C 08:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Alanmak reported by User:Yuje (Result:48h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Manchukuo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Alanmak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:[162]
- 1st revert: 16:38, September 6, 2006
- 2nd revert: 21:50, September 7, 2006
- 3rd revert: 21:59, September 7, 2006
- 4th revert: 23:26, September 7, 2006
- 5th revert: 01:02, September 8, 2006
Time report made: 09:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Revert war stemming from objections to an edit on Manchukuo. User:Alanmak wishes to add the (perjorative) word "false" to the Chinese name of Manchukuo, so that it's name would be "False Manchukuo". I and another user felt this was violating NPOV policy by ignoring both the state's own official name and by labelling it pejoratively. The resulting edit war ensued. --Yuje 09:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for 48h because the user has previous record of edit-warring blocks. --WinHunter (talk) 09:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
User:DXRAW reported by User:CelebHeights (Result:24h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Triple H (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DXRAW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
- 1st revert: 11:13, 7 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 11:25, 7 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 12:09, 7 September 2006
- 4th revert: 21:39, 7 September 2006
Time report made: 12:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User:DXRAW had User:Halbared blocked for doing exactly the same thing only hours ago.
- Blocked for 24hrs. --WinHunter (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Myspaceaddictaust reported by User:zzuuzz (talk) (Result:8 hour)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
MySpace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Myspaceaddictaust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
- 1st revert: 08:17, 8 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 14:20, 8 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 14:39, 8 September 2006
- 4th revert: 14:40, 8 September 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :
- [163] See below
Time report made: 15:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: This user is a suspected sockpuppet of banned user Pnatt. He has been using IPs to evade the block from 149.135.* and 203.49.*, in this case User:149.135.54.173. Also blocked recently for 3RR as User:203.49.223.254. See Requests_for_comment/Myspaceaddictaust and its talk page for more info. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Initially blocked for 8 hours for 3rr violation; will look into sock puppetry too. --Robdurbar 16:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
::Has continued to revert as an IP and has explicitly stated that he will ignore the 3rr rule by using his dynamic IP. Given this sockpuppetry, I will block for 1 month; I would block indefinatly but will leave such a decision to the ongoing RfC. --Robdurbar 16:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC) User has been blocked indefinatly as a sockpuppet. Robdurbar 16:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
User:HongQiGong reported by User:User:Mngln
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Template:User Manchu (edit | [[Talk:Template:User Manchu|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). HongQiGong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
- 1st revert: [164]
- 2nd revert: [165]
- 3rd revert: [166]
- 4th revert: [167]
Comments:
- HongQiGong has been repeatedly reverting the original contents of the article, please block this use to prevent further abusive editing. Mngln 15:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- And User:Mngln is probably a sockpuppet of User:Edipedia.Please check this[168], and Mngln's contribution history.Account was created after User:Ilgn, another sockpuppet of Edipedia, was blocked, and edits are similar.I was merely undoing the edits his sockpuppets made.--- Hong Qi Gong 15:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Givne the sockpuppeteering, I have warned HQG but noted that he will be blocked if he breaks the rule again. User:Mngln is banned as a sockpuppet. Robdurbar 18:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Myspaceaddictaust reported by User:-- Chris chat edits essays (Result:User already blocked)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
MySpace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Myspaceaddictaust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:
THe reverts he's made are complex and often change, however, he has stated on my talk page that he reveerts any edit he disagrees with on site. He's reverted 5 times in the last 24 hours... and he's benn breaking it for days, using his dynamic IP to dodge bans. Good thing we have a username to block now.
Time report made: 16:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Please note that 3RR reports should always follow the format under the instructions. However, this user's reverts have already been reported - see above.
User:John Smith's reported by User:--- Hong Qi Gong (Result: 6h each)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Jung Chang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). John Smith's (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- 1st revert: 2006-09-08 07:54:59
- 2nd revert: 2006-09-08 08:22:11
- 3rd revert: 2006-09-08 08:25:30
- 4th revert: 2006-09-08 11:56:58
- 5th revert: 2006-09-08 14:27:11
- 6th revert: 2006-09-08 15:10:29
- 7th revert: 2006-09-08 16:19:05
3RR Warning
Comments:
- Note that the text in question is in the section of the article titled "Celebrity".User has also made many reverts in other sections in the past 24 hours[169].--- Hong Qi Gong 16:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hong has made a false report. If you check carefully, I have not made four reverts at all. I have merely been trying to find suitable edits to meet the concerns of several editors. Edits made previously were accepted by editors after discussion.[170] Also Hong has not indicated what version I previously reverted to. John Smith's 16:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- That is still not four-plus reverts of the same kind - they are merely different edits. John Smith's 19:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Edits of the same sentence, if I might add.They were all reverts of what other editors did on the same sentence.--- Hong Qi Gong 19:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Where there were any conflicts over that sentence, in each case they have been resolved. You yourself said that you would accept comprimise I suggested. And yet you think I should be blocked for 3RR? The rule is there when people can't agree. In both cases I have reached a solution - and I should point out that you disagreed with Sumple's agreement over "outside Asia". So really I think your argument is invalid. John Smith's 19:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- I "accepted the compromise" because I didn't want to do any more reverts and turn our edits into edit-warring[171].Whether or not I disagreed with User:Sumple and whether or not I've come to a "compromise" is irrelevant to the fact that you violated 3RR.--- Hong Qi Gong 20:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- 3RR is not trying to find new edits that are acceptable to other parties! John Smith's 20:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- So you mean if I actually reverted your edits again, then you would have violated 3RR?Because that would be evidence that we have not come to a compromise.In fact, why don't I do that, then.There.We have no compromise.--- Hong Qi Gong 20:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Dude, what the hell is wrong with you?! You're reverting again after you said you wouldn't. The fact you've changed your mind because by that logic you can get me blocked shows your own bad faith. John Smith's 20:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Dude..."Trying to find a compromise" does not mean reverting other editors' edits more than 5 times.Regardless of my own edits, you have violated 3RR.And please remain civil.There's "nothing the hell wrong with me".--- Hong Qi Gong 20:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- A revert is not if you're making different edits. Just because I am not agreeing that "English" is correct does not mean that it is anti-3RR. It would be anti-3RR if I was pushing the same edit. You have demonstrated bad faith by withdrawing your own agreement not to edit more, just because I tried to argue that reaching a comprimise meant there wasn't 3RR. You're really silly for showing that you want to get me blocked. John Smith's 20:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Again, please remain civil.Your edits were all made to revert other edits made by various editors on the same sentence.We may disagree on how to apply 3RR violations here, but I'm done with this discussion because of your inability to remain civil.I'll let the admins decide.--- Hong Qi Gong 20:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well your determined effort to get me blocked when I haven't broken 3RR rules is enough to drive anyone around the bend! As Goebells said, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." Unfortunately that does work sometimes, so I have to fight my case to ensure no one is fooled into believing you. John Smith's 20:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Again, please remain civil.Your edits were all made to revert other edits made by various editors on the same sentence.We may disagree on how to apply 3RR violations here, but I'm done with this discussion because of your inability to remain civil.I'll let the admins decide.--- Hong Qi Gong 20:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- A revert is not if you're making different edits. Just because I am not agreeing that "English" is correct does not mean that it is anti-3RR. It would be anti-3RR if I was pushing the same edit. You have demonstrated bad faith by withdrawing your own agreement not to edit more, just because I tried to argue that reaching a comprimise meant there wasn't 3RR. You're really silly for showing that you want to get me blocked. John Smith's 20:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Dude..."Trying to find a compromise" does not mean reverting other editors' edits more than 5 times.Regardless of my own edits, you have violated 3RR.And please remain civil.There's "nothing the hell wrong with me".--- Hong Qi Gong 20:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Dude, what the hell is wrong with you?! You're reverting again after you said you wouldn't. The fact you've changed your mind because by that logic you can get me blocked shows your own bad faith. John Smith's 20:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- So you mean if I actually reverted your edits again, then you would have violated 3RR?Because that would be evidence that we have not come to a compromise.In fact, why don't I do that, then.There.We have no compromise.--- Hong Qi Gong 20:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- 3RR is not trying to find new edits that are acceptable to other parties! John Smith's 20:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- I "accepted the compromise" because I didn't want to do any more reverts and turn our edits into edit-warring[171].Whether or not I disagreed with User:Sumple and whether or not I've come to a "compromise" is irrelevant to the fact that you violated 3RR.--- Hong Qi Gong 20:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Where there were any conflicts over that sentence, in each case they have been resolved. You yourself said that you would accept comprimise I suggested. And yet you think I should be blocked for 3RR? The rule is there when people can't agree. In both cases I have reached a solution - and I should point out that you disagreed with Sumple's agreement over "outside Asia". So really I think your argument is invalid. John Smith's 19:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Edits of the same sentence, if I might add.They were all reverts of what other editors did on the same sentence.--- Hong Qi Gong 19:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- That is still not four-plus reverts of the same kind - they are merely different edits. John Smith's 19:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Last note - In the context of 3RR, reverting means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part, and that's exactly what User:John Smith's has done.--- Hong Qi Gong 20:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
My judgement is that JS's has technically broken 3RR, although was probably striving in good faith to find an acceptable wording. But its perfectly clear its a 2-sided war so HQG gets a similar length block for edit warring too William M. Connolley 21:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
User:69.196.61.55 reported by User:CQJ (Result: 8h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Krav Maga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.196.61.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- 1st revert: [172]
- 2nd revert: [173]
- 3rd revert: [174]
- 4th revert: [175]
- 5th revert: [176]
- 6th revert: [177]
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :
- User_talk:69.196.61.55 multiple warnings, including linkspam and do not re-add material
Time report made: 18:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User has been involved in two separate 3RR violations over the last two days, but had not been warned before today.CQJ 18:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Whooops, blocked for 8h last night William M. Connolley 08:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Update: As of 10:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC), following the expiration of their 8h block, this user repeated the same behavior for which they were blocked by posting objectional material on the Krav Maga page.See: [178].Perseverantia 20:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
User:69.156.83.143, User:69.156.80.134, User:64.230.66.198 and User:64.230.69.196 reported by User:Dark Tichondrias (Result:)
[edit]This edit by IP 69.156.83.143, this edit by IP 69.156.80.134, this edit by IP 64.230.66.198, and this edit by IP 64.230.69.196 have all been the same reversion on the same day (September 8, 2006).They all come from the same Ottawa Ontario Canada area as checked by Domain Name Test.I suspect these four reverts are all the same person, meaning they have broken Wikipedia's three-revert rule.Three of the IPs have half their edits on Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, Australoid, pushing that genetic races exist. The other IP is connected to the previous three other than its Ottawa Ontario Canada location, because his/her edits on the Black people article have been pushing that the Black race is determined by genetics. --Dark Tichondrias 22:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
User: 70.223.69.136 reported by User:Bertilvidet (Result:)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on Iran-Iraq War
Iran-Iraq_War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.223.69.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:17:04, 8 September 2006
- 1st revert: 8 September 2006
- 2nd revert: [179]
- 3rd revert: [180]
- 4th revert: [181]
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :
Time report made: 21:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Possibly it should have been reported as vandalism, as the edits consist of removing text, inserting a false protected-tag, and inaccurate information about Saddam Hussein’s title. Notice that one of the edit summaries goes like "WP is about verification not truth". Bertilvidet 21:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- After having posted here, what more should be done in order to let the issue be adressed? Bertilvidet 20:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
User:DeathSeeker (2nd violation) reported by User:Nandesuka (Result: 48 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Xbox 360 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DeathSeeker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:13:27, 8 September 2006
- 1st revert: 23:05, 8 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 23:35, 8 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 00:36, 9 September 2006
- 4th revert: 00:47, 9 September 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :
Time report made: 00:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Fresh off of his 3RR block yesterday (see [183]), DeathSeeker jumps back in with both feet and reverts the page four times in 2 hours.I encourage the reviewing admins to read both his talk page; he seems quite intent on ignoring any and all advice. At this point my honest belief is that his only intent is to disrupt.Nandesuka 00:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- 48 hours, and I'll leave a note on his talk page saying I'll unblock early if he agrees to stop this. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Winhunter has already blocked him for 48. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yea.. looks like we both thinking the same thing. Though please feel free to do the above unblock action if and when you find appropriate. --WinHunter (talk) 02:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Jeff Relf reported by User:teb728 (Result: 48h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Albert Einstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jeff_Relf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:13:42, 7 September 2006
- 1st revert: 17:02, 8 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 18:59, 8 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 22:11, 8 September 2006
- 4th revert: 00:21, 9 September 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :
Time report made: 09:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- All times are PDT (UTC-7:00)
- This is the user’s third 3RR violation and his second in 2 days. --teb728 09:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
48h this time William M. Connolley 09:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on
Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DAde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:11:29, 8 September 2006
- 1st revert: 14:20, 8 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 10:47, 9 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 14:07, 9 September 2006
- 4th revert: 14:18, 9 September 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :
Time report made: 18:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- I have blocked the user for 12 hours per WP:3RR. alphaChimp(talk) 18:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
User:E104421 reported by User:Clevelander (Result: protected)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Justin McCarthy (American historian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). E104421 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:17:23, 3 September 2006
- 1st revert: 09:16, 3 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 10:01, 3 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 17:14, 3 September 2006
- 4th revert: 17:53, 3 September 2006
Time report made: 21:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: This user has attempted to remove cited information from Wikipedia and has violated the Three-Revert Rule in the process. -- Clevelander 21:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- 2006-09-06T01:35:10 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Justin McCarthy (American historian): edit-warring [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
User:66.25.118.240 reported by User:AuburnPilot (Result:24h each)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Birmingham, Alabama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 66.25.118.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:[184]
- 1st revert: 9 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 9 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 19:47, 9 September 2006
- 4th revert: 19:50, 9 September 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :
Time report made: 21:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User is continually reverting uncited commentary stating that the increase in crime within Birmingham, Alabama is due to people who left New Orleans after hurricane Katrina as well as uncited information that corruption within the government has led to increased sewage bills. The diffs above are related to the crime reversions. AuburnPilot
- Both users have clearly violated 3RR and have been blocked for 24h each. --WinHunter (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Pete_K reported by User:Hgilbert (Result:)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Rudolf_Steiner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pete_K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
- 1st revert: 17:03, 9 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 16:06, 9 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 15:19, 9 September 2006
- 4th revert: 03:08, 9 September 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :
Time report made: 22:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Edit war over introduction of long quotes in article; different quote each time.
- Ahhhh... there you have. A different quote each time is not clearly a revert. Interesting William M. Connolley 09:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Jigahurtz reported by User:Nandesuka (Result:24 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Xbox_360 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jigahurtz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:00:47, 9 September 2006
- 1st revert: 9 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 23:22, 9 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 23:29, 9 September 2006
- 4th revert: 00:08, 10 September 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :
Time report made: 00:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User is reverting the "Hardware" section of the Xbox 360 article in the same way that User:DeathSeeker was before he was blocked for 2 separate 3RR violations this week.DeathSeeker is still under his 3RR block now.I have some suspicion that this is the same user — I've filed a request for CheckUser — but no actual proof. Nandesuka 00:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked for 24 hours for the 3rr violation. Although according to WP:SOCK#Identification_and_handling_of_suspected_sock_puppets checkuser is only one of the ways to determine if someone is a sockpuppet and the editing behaivor here suggests that they are the same person, you may therefore want to consider an indef block for him. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
User:CovenantD reported by User:The Judge (Result:)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
List of characters appearing in Batman: The Animated Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). CovenantD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
- 1st revert: [185]
- 2nd revert: [186]
- 3rd revert: [187]
- 4th revert: [188]
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :
- DiffTime The user just did thes same a week ago.
Time report made: 00:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
As you can see from the summaries, I added the underconstruction sign to indicate I was going to edit there for a while before he does his next edit. The user ignored it. This is the second time he does this. He has been following me to edit war.--The Judge 00:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have posted to your talk page requesting that you complete the 3RR report. alphaChimp(talk) 01:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I get I'm missing stuff I only don't get what it is. I hate to fill this kind of things. Can you explaind me Like if I were a 5 years old?...please. --The Judge 05:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- You're missing the "prev reverted to" so we can't tell if the first revert, is. You missed the times. You used {{ }} not [[ ]] on the article link William M. Connolley 09:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
User:ParadoxTom reported by User:PinchasC (Result: 1 week)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Jews for Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ParadoxTom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:21:30, 6 September 2006
- 1st revert: 03:57, 9 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 04:31, 9 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 13:58, 9 September 2006
- 4th revert: 18:31, 9 September 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :
- N/A as he has been blocked 4 times for this already. [189]
Time report made: 00:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User is removing the Christianity template from the page. He has been blocked 4 times previously for 3rr violations on this page [190]. The last two blocks being for 48 hours each. I would recommend a longer block here of a week. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Given the pattern of 3RR violations, I have blocked the user for 168 hours (1 week). alphaChimp(talk) 00:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Rex_Germanus reported by User:Colonel_Mustard (Result:48h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Dutch language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rex_Germanus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:[191]
- 1st revert: 21:20, 8 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 07:34, 9 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 18:20, 9 September 2006
- 4th revert: 9 September 2006
Time report made: 11:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: 4 Reverts in 26 hours. Rex_Germanus' extremely aggressive (leaving threats and insults on other users' Talk pages) and uncivil (see all of Talk:Dutch) mode of editing Wikipedia would seem, in my humble opinion, to deserve yet another slap on the wrist. He's already been blocked four times for 3RR violations on Dutch-language-related articles. Colonel Mustard 11:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- 48h for
repeated 3RR violatorgaming the system. Rex merely did not break 3RR for reverting 2 hours after the 24 hours period. --WinHunter (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Something14 reported by User:Ryūlóng (Result: 16 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Pluto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Something14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
- 1st revert: 21:16, 10 September, 2006
- 2nd revert: 22:00, 10 September, 2006
- 3rd revert: 22:12, 10 September, 2006
- 4th revert: 22:16, 10 September, 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :
Time report made: 22:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- This user consistantly has added a link to yet another group who complains about Pluto's reclassification to dwarf planet status. Ryūlóng 22:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- 16 hours. El_C 08:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Irishguy reported by User:81.179.243.112 (Result:24 hours each)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Steve_Buscemi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Irishguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:14:49, 7 September 2006
- 22:52, 10 September 2006
- 22:47, 10 September 2006
- 22:40, 10 September 2006
- 22:33, 10 September 2006
- 22:24, 10 September 2006
- 21:54, 10 September 2006
- 21:32, 10 September 2006
- 21:19, 10 September 2006
- 21:07, 10 September 2006
- 18:36, 10 September 2006
- 16:21, 10 September 2006
- 23:53, 9 September 2006
Time report made: 23:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Clearly, I am also guilty of far too many reverts.I took Irishguy's reverting without any discussion or explanation to be vandalistic and carried on reverting.Block me if you feel it necessary, but I think Irishguy's behaviour has been appalling and felt obliged to report it somewhere.I tried to discuss on talk, but was met with continuous unexplained reverts instead of any attempt to explain himself.81.179.243.112 23:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- The above editor was wholesale deleting entire sections. His talk consisted of calling people morons [192]. He was warned by multiple editors, policy was outlines to him, and yet he continued to delete entire sections and use abusive edit summaries and comments. IrishGuy talk 23:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
It was an content dispute anyways, not vandalism. 24 hours each Jaranda wat's sup 23:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Paul_venter reported by User:--chris.lawson (Result: 8 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on Comair_Flight_5191 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Paul_venter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:09:06
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :
Time report made: 23:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Actually, it appears to me that the editor introduced the material with 22:33 9 Sept.It was removed (according to previous discussion on the talk page), and that removal was reverted during a series of edits including the one listed above as the previous version.The reported reverts would then be the 2nd through 5th. VxSote 02:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
8 hours William M. Connolley 07:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
User:129.252.106.44 reported by User:Jiang (Result:24 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
List of countries by Human Development Index (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 129.252.106.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:14:58, 9 September 2006
- 1st revert: 15:35, 10 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 15:45, 10 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 15:56, 10 September 2006
- 4th revert: 16:03, 10 September 2006
- 5th revert: 16:12, 10 September 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :
Time report made: 23:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Repeatedly changing the ranking of this list to insert Taiwan despite citations on the talk page to do otherwise. Was warned. Reverting a whole host of other articles.--Jiang 23:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
User:83.130.97.111 reported by User:Carbonate (Result:semiprotection)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Casualties_of_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 83.130.97.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:13:41, 9 September 2006
- 1st revert: 22:01, 9 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 22:16, 9 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 22:27, 9 September 2006
- 4th revert: 08:56, 10 September 2006
- 5th revert: 17:06, 10 September 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :
- 10:25, 10 September 2006
- 10:25, 10 September 2006
- 10:27, 10 September 2006
- Warning placed on article talk page and response from other party on 11:51, 10 September 2006
Time report made: 01:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: The user in question seems to be coming from a dynamic IP address that are all from the same ISP.All the posts to the talk page have followed a similar style so I have concluded that this is a 3RR violation.In an attempt not to bite, I posted a warning to the articles talk page and suggested a cooling off periode which was later broken in a 5th revert in 24hrs. I'm sure that this is a matter of a new editor not knowing the policies (they have finally started signing their posts) but this is a senetive issue and these actions have been disrupting the efforts to make improvements to the material in question;CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project has been helping in this regard.I'm not sure a formal block is in order as I suspect that if the powers that be requested the user to stop, they would do so. Carbonate 01:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Article sprotected. El_C 08:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Huaiwei reported by User:Yuje (Result:72h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
National_dish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Huaiwei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:[193]
- 1st revert: 21:21, September 10, 2006
- 2nd revert: 05:15, September 11, 2006
- 3rd revert: 05:34, September 11, 2006
- 4th revert: 06:12, September 11, 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :
Time report made: 14:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Continuation of a months-old revert war. Frankly, I don't know why User:Huaiwei seems to deliberately keep targetting me for reverts. He originally objected to the additions on the basis that Hong Kong isn't a nation. When pointed to him that other countries appear on the list, he shifts is argument that Hong Kong-style milk tea et al doesn't exist. Long discussions and lists on links on the talk page shows that it does. He then disputes their prominence, which is shown through another list of external links. All throughout, he keeps on claiming I'm conducting original research, despite me providing links. He also keeps claiming none of my sources are valid, despite the fact that he seems quite intent on adding long lists of entries himself, without the same standard he sets for me (but no one else). [194] [195] [196] He has not responded to requests by me to confirm any of his own additions yet keeps demanding them from me. If you'll note the history page, you'll see that many of my entries were added or readded at some point or another by Instantnood, McyJerry, Novacatz, and Terence ong, while he seems to be the only one deleting them. If you'll see on the page, he's made whopping 46 reverts on this page. The lastest reverts stem from me adding a government postal stamp depicting of my entries. He reverted me, contending I'm still conducting original research, so I added more external links from government websites and a documentary to try to appease him, and he still kept reverting me a couple more times. Frankly, I think because of the fact that he's setting the standard of evidence, and seems to have declared himself both judge and jury, there'll be no standard he'll ever accept, and he just wants to keep reverting me to be difficult. Also, I think he might still be on a revert-war probation that stemmed from his countless revert wars. --Yuje 14:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- 72h because of repeated violation of 3RR by user on probation. --WinHunter (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
User:NinjaNubian reported by User:Errabee (Result: 12 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Alpha_Phi_Alpha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). NinjaNubian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:difficult to say, several minor additions, wikifying has been done as well.
- 1st revert: 10 September, 18:36
- 2nd revert: 11 September, 05:59
- 3rd revert: 11 September, 06:37
- 4th revert: 11 September, 07:08
- 5th revert: 11 September, 07:49
- 6th revert: 11 September, 14:51
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :
- not done, only after 6th diff warning was given: 11 September, 15:07 However, user seems to know about WP:3RR: 30 August, 05:12
Time report made: 15:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have blocked the user for 12 hours per WP:3RR. alphaChimp(talk) 21:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Ccson reported by User:Errabee (Result: warning)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Alpha_Phi_Alpha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ccson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:difficult to say, several minor additions, wikifying has been done as well.
- 1st revert: 11 September, 04:30
- 2nd revert: 11 September, 06:19
- 3rd revert: 11 September, 12:00
- 4th revert: 11 September, 15:40
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :
- not done, only after 4th diff warning was given: [197] However, user seems to know about WP:3RR: 30 August, 05:12
Comments: User:Bearly541 reverted the other two additions/reversions from User:NinjaNubian. Errabee 15:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Time report made: 15:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
With no "prev version" I think a warning is probably appropriate William M. Connolley 21:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- First of all, Errabee, I did not revert NinjaNubian's user page.Second, I reverted edits he made on Alpha Phi Alpha and Kappa Alpha Psi. Bearly541 03:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps if you wouldn't let your emotions interfere with your reading, you would notice that I never said you reverted NN's user page. I simply noticed NN made 6 (more or less identical) changes to Alpha Phi Alpha; Ccson more or less reverted four of those, and you reverted the other two. Errabee 03:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- First of all, Errabee, I did not revert NinjaNubian's user page.Second, I reverted edits he made on Alpha Phi Alpha and Kappa Alpha Psi. Bearly541 03:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Errabee, please clarify which page I reverted in order to avoid this mix-up, next time.I reverted his edits on Alpha Phi Alpha, not his user page.Thank you!Bearly541 03:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Can we please do this discussion in one place? I get a bit tired of placing the same answer on three different pages. I answered on your (Bearly541) talk page, let's keep the discussion there. (BTW, I'm going to sleep now, so don't expect an answer soon). Errabee 03:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Errabee, please clarify which page I reverted in order to avoid this mix-up, next time.I reverted his edits on Alpha Phi Alpha, not his user page.Thank you!Bearly541 03:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Carfiend reported by User:Bubba73 (talk), (Result: 24 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
List of space exploration milestones, 1957-1969 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Carfiend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
This user also has an RfC about him on a different article.Bubba73 (talk), 16:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
See: [| RFC] Here is a link to the RFC on Carfiend: [| RFC - Carfiend].Bubba73 (talk), 16:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked for 24 hours [202] - Glen 16:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Inxs001 reported by User:DutchSeduction (Result: 24h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
David_DeAngelo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Inxs001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
- 1st revert: [203]
- 2nd revert: [204]
- 3rd revert: [205]
- 4th revert: [206]
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :
Time report made: 21:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
There are possibly as many as 10 different reverts done by this link spammer. since late August.A look at his editing history shows only an untiring dedication to posting this one advertisement on this page!Thanks for the help.
Its not 3RR but it is pointless linkspam so I've blocked for that William M. Connolley 21:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Snowolfd4 reported by User:Trincomanb (Result: protected)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Snowolfd4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:[208]
- 1st revert: [209]
- 2nd revert: [210]
- 3rd revert: [211]
- 4th revert: [212]
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :
Time report made: 22:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
There had been an ongoing debate and it was shown by a number users that the extra reference and sentence did not add anything to the article and was simply POV motivated. However this user keeps reverting back to his version without any discussion on this with other users.Trincomanb 22:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Socks abound; article is protected; it wasn't 3RR anyway William M. Connolley 12:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
User:69.196.61.55 reported by User:Perseverantia (Result: 48h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Krav_Maga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.196.61.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
Time report made: 03:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: This user has already been warned twice previously and blocked once [219] for violations of 3RR.Please consider taking more permanent action. Perseverantia 03:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- 2006-09-12T11:34:20 Woohookitty (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "69.196.61.55 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (3RR on Krav Maga) William M. Connolley 21:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
User:BhaiSaab reported by User:CltFn
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
User:CltFn (edit | [[Talk:User:CltFn|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BhaiSaab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:[220]
- 1st revert: [221]
- 2nd Revert: [222]
- 3rd revert: [223]
- 4th revert: [224]
- 5th revert:[225]
Comments: 3rr doesn't apply towards vandalism.wrong case Also, you've also had four reverts within 24 hours: [226], [227], [228], [229]. BhaiSaab talk 11:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Note to Admin::Those are edits and besides they are edits in my user space --CltFn 12:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- This is the same case as here: [230]. CltFn seems to be admin-fishing. BhaiSaab talk 11:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- BhaiSaab, instead of trying to misdirect the blame else where you ought to recognize that you broke the 3RR rule.--CltFn 12:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- You ought to actually read the rule, particularly the part about 24 hours. BhaiSaab talk 22:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- BhaiSaab, instead of trying to misdirect the blame else where you ought to recognize that you broke the 3RR rule.--CltFn 12:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
User:BADMINton reported by User:Ragib (Result: 24 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Robert Vadra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BADMINton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:03:00, 29 August 2006
- 1st revert: 11:58, 11 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 13:32, 11 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 02:47, 12 September 2006
- 4th revert: 03:37, 12 September 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :
Time report made: 09:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User has engaged into inserting unreferenced libelous comments into the article. Despite removal per WP:BLP, and explanation of the policy to the user, s/he has repeatedly reverted the article, without providing any references. Also, violation of WP:CIVIL has occured in his comments in response to the citation requests/warnings. --Ragib 09:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 12:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Ernham reported by User:Ian Dalziel (Result: 24 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Michael_Schumacher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ernham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
and
Juan Manuel Fangio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ernham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:04:33, 12 September 2006
- 1st revert: 06:05, 12 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 11:33, 12 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 12:24, 12 September 2006
- 4th revert: 14:40, 12 September 2006
Time report made: 15:07, 12 September 2006 Comments:
Ernham has reverted the same sentence in the opening paragraph (of Michael_Schumacher) at least at 12:35, 10:02, 07:15, 04:08 and 03:46 today - there are more!
Several users have tried to get him to discuss his edits - the only response is extreme personal abuse. -- Ian Dalziel 13:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- User also started an edit war at Juan Manuel Fangio on the same topic; basically, the user claims that Schumacher is the greatest driver of all times, and erases the sourced statement that many consider Fangio to be the greatest. Several users tryed to reason with an this user, who often answered with personal attacks (see User talk:Ernham, Talk:Juan Manuel Fangio and Talk:Michael Schumacher. Mariano(t/c) 13:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
User:J henry waugh reported by User:Peephole (Result: 8h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
David Ray Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). J henry waugh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:11:01, 11 September 2006
- 1st revert: 01:01, 12 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 16:35, 12 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 20:24, 12 September 2006
- 4th revert: 21:28, 12 September 2006
- 5th revert: 22:03, 12 September 2006
Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :
Time report made: 20:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
User reverted article four times, I warned him, but he reverted the article a fifth time. --Peephole 20:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
8h William M. Connolley 21:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
User:MiamiDolphins3 reported by User:69.116.48.221 (Result:24 hours each)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
{{Article|Jason Michaels. MiamiDolphins3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
- 1st revert: [231]
- 2nd revert: [232]
- 3rd revert: [233]
Time report made: 21:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I was unaware of the 3RR until today but this user has been deleting every addition I make several times a day for quite some time now.Today he left me a message to "pour tea on my head" after I readded what he/she had deleted.Any info I post in the article and true and is sourced.There are source articles posted on the page for anyone to see.:
It's clear that both of you broke 3rr looking at the history, even though the formatting don't show it. 24 hours each Jaranda wat's sup 23:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Arthur Ellis reported by User:User:Bucketsofg (Result:24 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Rachel Marsden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Arthur_Ellis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:*15:51, 12 September 2006
- 1st revert: 18:37, 12 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 21:49, 12 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 22:12, 12 September 2006
- 4th revert: 22:46, 12 September 2006
- 5th revert: 23:16, 12 September 2006
Time report made: 22:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User:Arthur Ellis (a/k/a User:Mark Bourrie, a/k/a User:Ceraurus), who has previously been blocked numerous times for violating Wikipedia rules at Mark Bourrie, Warren Kinsella, Pierre Bourque and Rachel Marsden, alleges that the material he's removed from the article does not fall under 3RR because it violates BLP policy; however, the material has gone through one of the most careful source reviews I've ever seen on Wikipedia in order to ensure that it conforms to Wikipedia's verifiability and source requirements, and does not make any unsubstantiated claims. As such, it is not a BLP violation: as stated directly in BLP policy, If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.
Blocked for 24 hours Jaranda wat's sup 23:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Ccson reported by User:NinjaNubian (Result:)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Alpha Phi Alpha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ccson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:02:43, 30 August 2006
- 1st revert: 30 August 2006
- 2nd revert: 30 August 2006
- 3rd revert: 04:16, 30 August 2006
- 4th revert: 04:28, 30 August 2006
Time report made: 21:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: As can be seen above, this is his second 3rr violation in under two weeks. I want a documentation of Ccson's reversion as well as the on going edit war between users.
- These diffs are back in August and even earlier than the above warning? --WinHunter (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- yes this user has a constant history of 3rr behavior
User:ILike2BeAnonymous reported by User:SpinyNorman (Result: 24h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
An Inconvenient Truth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ILike2BeAnonymous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
Time report made: 07:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
I gave the user fair warning [238] and offered the opportunity to undo the violation but he didn't use the opportunity so I suggest he be blocked.--SpinyNorman 07:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- All four diffs are null edit? --WinHunter (talk) 07:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- All four are reverts within the same 24 hour period.The user in question has a history of 3RR violations and not responding positively when warned of such a violation.--SpinyNorman 07:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- history of 3RR violations ... !?
Amoruso 01:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
24h William M. Connolley 08:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
User:155.247.166.28 reported by User:Philip Baird Shearer (Result:)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Bombing of Dresden in World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 155.247.166.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- 1st revert: as of 23:44, 11 September 2006 155.247.166.28 -> Revision as of 23:50, 11 September 2006 155.247.166.28"please stop reverting, thank you"
- 2nd revert: 00:41, 12 September 2006 155.247.166.28 -> 00:55, 12 September 2006 155.247.166.28 "rvv"
- 3rd revert: 01:00, 12 September 2006 155.247.166.28 01:56 -> 12 September 2006 155.247.166.28 restored parts of introduction section, other minor changes.
- 4th revert: 01:57, 12 September 2006 ->23:13, 12 September 2006 155.247.166.28 no comment in history
Time report made: 09:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: This is not a case of one change being reverted too time and again. Instead the user first made a small change which was reverted
- 11 September 2006 user:32X rev: with your Stop_hand.svg count you should leave a message at the talk page first.
and has since continued to expand that small change despite two othe editors reversing the changes back to the original
- 23:44, 11 September 2006 user:Rama's Arrow rvv
- [ 00:44, 12 September 2006] user:Philip Baird Shearer Reverted to last version by Rama's Arrow. Too many changes too much new text without citations. dislike removeal of Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn POV to Stanton's POV.
- [ 01:04, 12 September 2006] Philip Baird Shearer revert to last version by PBS. 155.247.166.28 my reversion was not vandalism and please see [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule]'
- [12:45, 12 September 2006] Philip Baird Shearer Reverted to last version by PBS see talk page
On the talk page in a section called Lack of focus are detailed why I think some of the changes made by 155.247.166.28 are unacceptable, that 155.247.166.28 should make small changes and get consensus for them and:
- The Wikipedia:Three-revert rule states: that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period.--Philip Baird Shearer 01:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- BTW 155.247.166.28 your admission in the history "(restored parts of introduction section, other minor changes)" is a violation of 3R rule but I will not enforce it or ask a neutral third party to enforce it.--Philip Baird Shearer 12:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
There are entries by 155.247.166.28 on the talk page so 155.247.166.28 was informed about the 3R several times before the last valioation. As I am directly involved in this I would prefer that a disinterested admin looks at the case and block 155.247.166.28 for up to 24 hour if they agree with me that it is a violation of the 3R rule. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Shoushetzi reported by User:Grandmaster (Result: 8h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Shusha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Shoushetzi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:08:09, 12 September 2006
- 1st revert: [239]
- 2nd revert: [240]
- 3rd revert: [241]
- 4th revert: [242]
Time report made: 12:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
8h first offence William M. Connolley 16:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Viewfinder reported by User:Isarig (Result:24h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Mount Hermon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Viewfinder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:19:30, 13 September 2006
- 1st revert: 19:39, 13 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 20:08, 13 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 20:54, 13 September 2006
- 4th revert: 21:10, 13 September 2006
Time report made: 21:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User was warned after his 3rd revert [243], yet persisted in his revert war
User has now also violated 3RR on Israel, with a defiant edit summary of "rv - and find an admin willing to block me for reverting POV pushers"[244]
- I have blocked this user for 24 hours.Reviewing the action of others.--Konstable 21:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- The page may need protection, but because the argument is centred just over a very minor issue (one extra word and one extra category) I just left them a note on the article talk page asking editors to reach consensus before reverting.--Konstable 21:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
User:LifeEnemy reported by User:Mantanmoreland (Result:already blocked)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).LifeEnemy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:23:52 12 September 2006
- 1st revert: 15:24 13 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 18:06 13 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 19:32 13 September 2006
- 4th revert: 21:47 13 September 2006
Time report made: 22:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Revert warring in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. User given friendly warning after third revert.[245] Response was an obscenity and a refusal to abide by 3RR. ("I will have to refuse.")--Mantanmoreland 22:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Already blocked by William M. Connolley for 3RR in the said article. --WinHunter (talk) 06:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
User:68.42.137.160 reported by User:DMacks (Result:24h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Methane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.42.137.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- 1st insert: [246]
- 2nd insert: [247]
- 3rd insert: [248]
- 4th insert: [249]
- 5th insert: [250]
- 6th insert: [251]
Time report made: 01:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Edit-warring against multiple editors: repeatedly inserting bogus data despite reverts from several editors, who have consensus and given citations from wiki and external refs that his edits are factually wrong. Warned on his talk multiple times against edit-warring and failure to obtain consensus for controversial edits.
User:Dicksg reported by User:Vsion (Result: 8h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
National Service in Singapore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dicksg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:13 September 2006
- 1st revert: 14 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 07:25, 14 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 11:00, 14 September 2006
- 4rd revert: 14 September 2006
- 5rd revert: 15:58, 14 September 2006
Time report made: 16:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User has been warned clearly about 3RR violation [252] at 15:46, 14 September 2006, prior to his 5th revert, and has also been previously advised on various relevant wikipedia policies at User talk:Dicksg. --Vsion 16:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
8h William M. Connolley 18:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
User:74.112.105.78 reported by User:Perseverantia (Result:48h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Krav Maga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 74.112.105.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version to revert to:[253]. (I have not made this revert as doing so would put me in violation of the 3RR, as well.)
- 1st revert: [254]
- 2nd revert: [255]
- 3rd revert: [256]
- 4th revert: [257]
Time report made: 00:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: It believed that this IP address is a sock puppet for 69.196.61.55, who was reported previously for violation of the 3RR and received both an 8-hour and 48-hour block within the last few days.This belief is based on the nature of the edits, which are identical.In all cases, the user is posting commercial material about "Commando Krav Maga" copied directly from a website that is selling products and services.Despite the similar names "Commando Krav Maga" is not the same thing as Krav Maga, although this user is attempting to sell their system as an "improved" version of Krav Maga.I have been reverting their edits for a while now and have repeatedly attempted to engage them in a dialog with no success. Perseverantia 00:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- 48h because this is a clear spamming attempt. --WinHunter (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Mycats reported by JoshuaZ (Result:24 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Indigo Children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mycats (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
- 1st revert: [258]
- 2nd revert: [259]
- 3rd revert: [260]
- 4th revert: [261]
- 5th revert: [262]
- 6th revert: [263]
Time report made: 01:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
User was warned [264] Note that User:Mycats is almost certainly also216.193.146.206 and 216.193.146.193 who have both been repeatedly adding the image in and all three have made no attempt to discuss with any users despite repeated requests. As soon as I warned 216.193.146.206 that the user was close to 3RRV Mycats made the first of the edits listed above. Furthermore, both Mycats and 206 have made similar threats to the image talk page [265] [266] [267] [268] I would therefore recommend that both these IPs be blocked as well.JoshuaZ 01:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
![[265]](/w/index.php?title=Image:Indigoadult.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=75783959){kind=link}
![[266]](/w/index.php?title=Image:Indigoadult.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=75784205){kind=link}
![[267]](/w/index.php?title=Image:Indigoadult.jpg&diff=next&oldid=75784205){kind=link}
![[268]](/w/index.php?title=Image:Indigoadult.jpg&diff=next&oldid=75788401){kind=link}
Blocked 24 hours. If anons revert the page - block them too. Vsmith 01:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Block extended to 48 hours due to block evasion by IP socks and blanking of warnings from user talk page. Vsmith 02:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
User:UtherSRG reported by User:154.20.161.143 (Result:24h for 154.20.161.143 and 24h for User:UtherSRG)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Paranthropus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). UtherSRG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:22:15, 6 September 2006
- 1st revert: [269]
- 2nd revert: [270]
- 3rd revert: [271]
- 4th revert: [272]
- 5th revert: [273]
- 6th revert: [274]
Time report made: 01:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: The last five reverts were made with a 24 hour period. I tried to have a discussion with the user on the talk page, but they responded by saying "rv I tked, we disagreed, i have nothing left to say." This user is an admin and is well aware of the 3RR. I also warned them on the talk page that they were about to break 3RR as well[275]. I may also have broken the 3RR, but I would like to note the fact that UtherSRG was the first reverter. 154.20.161.143 01:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- One should note the addition of dditional text in response to the anon but that wasn't good enough for them. They continued to add the tag, while I had twice added references and removed the tags. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- 154.20.161.143 is blocked for 24h because of 3RR and disruption. --WinHunter (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I have also blocked User:UtherSRG for 3RR violation, they violated it together.--Konstable 09:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)- After much discussion on IRC, the user has been unblocked.--Konstable 10:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
User:SpinyNorman reported by User:Humus sapiens (Result: 1 week)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Jews for Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SpinyNorman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- 1st revert: 16:20, 14 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 17:06, 14 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 20:40, 14 September 2006
- 4th revert: 21:32, 14 September 2006
Time report made: 07:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC) (23:48 PDT)
Comments: SpinyNorman keeps removing "Christian" and "evangelical" from the intro. After my warning he made another (more POV) revert. I gave him a chance to self-revert [276] but he made it a mockery by denying that the #1 is a revert. He knows it is untrue (see his yesterday's edit for example). Disclaimer: I was among those who reverted him today, but I did not violate 3RR. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
24h William M. Connolley 08:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- I edit congflicted here with William. I hope he doesn't mind if I unblock, and reblock for 1 week - this is far from the user's first 3RR block and the point needs to be hammared home that such editing is unacceptable. --Robdurbar 08:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well-deserved IMHO. The user has a long history of disruptions. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Marmoulak reported by User:Torturous Devastating Cudgel (Result: 8h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Iran-Iraq War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Marmoulak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:10:29, September 14, 2006;
- 1st revert: 18:28, September 14, 2006
- 2nd revert: 20:02, September 14, 2006
- 3rd revert: 21:13, September 14, 2006
- 4th revert: 00:24, September 15, 2006
Time report made: 15:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Marmoulak has repeatedly removed a well sourced piece of material and he has also removed a disputed tag place in the article, making for his forth revert. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
8h William M. Connolley 15:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Getaway reported by User:Gamaliel (Result: Already blocked)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Sean Hannity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Getaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:14 September 2006
- 1st revert: 21:31, 14 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 15 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 10:17, 15 September 2006
- 4th revert: 15 September 2006
Time report made: 15:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Already blocked for another 3RR violation (see below). Extraordinary Machine 12:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
User:RandomCritic reported by User:Kyaa the Catlord (Result:Protection)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
136199 Eris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RandomCritic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:Multiple versions.
- 1st revert: [277]
- 2nd revert: [278]
- 3rd revert: [279]
- 4th revert: [280]
- 5th revert: [281]
And probably more....
Time report made: 16:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: RandomCritic removes references to Discordianism, although based on discussion, this is factual information suitable for inclusion in the article. He rolls back to older versions, or simply removes the information that does not suit his POV. Kyaa the Catlord 16:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
There are only three reverts listed here. Gamaliel 16:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Fourth added. Sorry, the below form only had spaces set for three. Foolish me. Kyaa the Catlord 16:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I have protected the page to prevent the edit warring from continuing.Given that this user is engaging in significant talk page discussion, doesn't appear to be editing or interacting with other users in a combative way, and appears to be removing unverifiable speculation from the article, in my judgment a warning will be sufficient for this first offense.I have no objection if another administrator thinks a block is necessary, but I do not. Gamaliel 16:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Getaway reported by User:Gamaliel (Result:24h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Fred Phelps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Getaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:15 September 2006
- 1st revert: 10:19, 15 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 10:26, 15 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 11:28, 15 September 2006
- 4th revert: 11:44, 15 September 2006
Time report made: 16:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Made accusations of "censorship" against another editor (not me) and has previously violated 3RR today (see above).
- Blocked for 24 hours.--Nlu (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
User: Dudesleeper reported by User:Koavf (Result: No action)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on R.E.M. discography.
R.E.M._discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dudesleeper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Comments This user has refused to discuss on the talk page of the article or user talk. The last thing I did was post a {{disputeabout}} tag (without reverting the disputed content of the article), and put a comment on talk. He reverted with the edit summary "(Given up explaining now, will just keep reverting)" which is odd, considering he never did explain nor offer any sources. Please intervene. Thanks. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: For the admin's consideration. - Dudesleeper 22:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Further comments You'll notice Dudesleeper's belligerent, bad faith attitude at the above link to R.E.M. discography's talk, and evidence of vandalism. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Where are the diffs? El_C 19:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on
Spider-Man 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RR2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & RR3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
- 1st revert: [282] RR2
- 2nd revert: [283] RR2
- 3rd revert: [284] RR2
- 4th revert: [285] RR2
- 5th revert: [286] RR2
- 6th revert: [287] RR3
- 7th revert: [288] RR3
- 8th revert: [289] RR3
- 9th revert: [290] RR3
Time report made: 22:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- It is believed that RR2 and RR3 are the same individual, because they share the same name, revert the same edit made by RR2 original (which is also a personal attack that was removed). I have already reported them for sock puppetry, but I though I would cover all my bases and report them for everything they did, incase there isn't enough evidence for the socking, seeing as they continue to revert.Bignole 22:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have blocked User:RR2 for 48 hours and another admin has blocked User:RR3 indefinitely for sockpuppetry.RR2 may need an indef block also if he continues after the block expires.--Konstable 02:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. Hopefully RR2 will look at this and move on with his/her editing in a more civil manner. Bignole 02:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have blocked User:RR2 for 48 hours and another admin has blocked User:RR3 indefinitely for sockpuppetry.RR2 may need an indef block also if he continues after the block expires.--Konstable 02:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
User:WarpstarRider reported by Hbdragon88 (Result:protection)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Jessica Lee Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). WarpstarRider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:21:09, 14 September 2006
- 1st revert: [291]
- 2nd revert: [292]
- 3rd revert: [293]
- 4th revert: [294]
- [295]
- [296]
Time report made: 23:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Contentious edit warring on whether Jessica Lee Rose deserves her own article or not.Totally unacceptable behavior from both parties.WarpstarRider even reverted an AFD notice [297] even though it was clearly debated.
- No block is needed I think - new user, possibly not aware of 3RR, seems to have agreed to stop the war.Page protected by another admin already.--Konstable 13:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Marriedtofilm reported by Hbdragon88 (Result:protection)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Jessica Lee Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Marriedtofilm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:00:25, 15 September 2006
- 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jessica_Lee_Rose&diff=75798077&oldid=75797702
- 2nd revert: [298]
- 3rd revert: [299]
Time report made: 23:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Contentious edit warring on whether Jessica Lee Rose deserves her own article or not.Totally unacceptable behavior from both parties.THis rival the Angels and Airwaves battle.
- Same as the entry above.I think no block is needed.--Konstable 13:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Lucaas reported by User:ScienceApologist (Result: No action)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Talk:Modern geocentrism (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Modern geocentrism|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lucaas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:13:06, 14 September 2006
- 1st revert: [300]
- 2nd revert: [301]
- 3rd revert: [302]
- 4th revert: [303]
Time report made: 00:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:User does not seem to understand that comments on talkpages may be refactored if consensus determines the comments to be unrelated to improving the article per talk page guidelines. User has already been blocked before for 3RR. --ScienceApologist 00:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I do understand refactoring of the talk page but it states in the policy that this is only if it is "entirely and unmistakably" irrelevant.Yet the large section being removed by ScienceApology contains many points by various editors.Nor was there any consensus to remove it from the talk page though there was some agreement about reverting the article itself and which I did not revert further and about which I instead went to the talk page.--Lucas 01:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- The two sections were your critique of an unrelated issue: the Big Bang and cosmic inflation. Despite the misleading title you gave these sections, they were clearly not about the article in question and therefore "entirely and unmistakably" irrelevant. I refactored them to your talkpage and you removed them, they have just recently been restored by another user. --ScienceApologist 02:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Other users also discussed this in the section removed (one did quite alot research for it).The discussion itself was alsoabout whether or not Big Bang, Inflation were or were not related to the scientific section of this article entitled "There is no special position".Your edit assumed the outcome of the discussion and declared by fiat that they were not related and then went on to remove the entire discussion that occured over some days with multiple editors! Lucas 13:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- All other editors involved in the issue agreed that the discussion was not relevant to improving the article and should not be held on its talk page. --LambiamTalk 19:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please cite diffs that show what happned to the text in question. El_C 19:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
User:222.153.35.178 reported by User:Lvthn13 (Result: 24 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Satanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 222.153.35.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
- 1st revert: [304]
- 2nd revert: [305]
- 3rd revert: [306]
- 4th revert: [307]
Time report made: 07:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Unregistered user who has started edit wars before, resulting in a short page lockdown.Refuses to use discussion page, or heed administrator warning to cease edit wars.Documented at Talk:Satanism; see administrator comments at bottom of page requesting cease to edit war.When page was unlocked, user began the same process of reversion without discussion.
- 24 hours. El_C 19:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Arthur Ellis reported by User:Bucketsofg (Result:1 week)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Rachel Marsden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Arthur Ellis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:[308]
- 1st revert: 17:51, 14 September 2006 by Arthur Ellis
- 2nd revert: 19:32, 14 September 2006 by Arthur Ellis
- 3rd revert:22:30, 14 September 2006 by Craigleithian
- 4th revert: 22:47, 14 September 2006 by Craigleithian
- 5th revert: 18:11, 15 September 2006 by Arthur Ellis
- 6th revert:22:15, 15 September 2006 by Arthur Ellis
- 7th revert: 15 September 2006 by Craigleithian
- 8th revert:23:53, 15 September 2006 by Craigleithian
Time report made: 11:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Requests for checkuser confirms that Craigleithian and Arthur Ellis are the same; there is currently an ArbComm case coming to a close in which Arthur Ellis is found to be guilty of abusive sock-puppetry (evidence here, decision here).
- The user's
3rdviolation of 3RR.Blocked him for 1 week.And the sock Craigleithian has been used for nothing else, so has been blocked indefinitely.--Konstable- Actually that's 4th.--Konstable 12:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, actually, it's at least his 9th: Arb Comm's finding of fact is that he is User:Ceraurus (blocked twice), User:Mark Bourrie ([Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella/Proposed_decision#Socks_of_Arthur_Ellis blocked twice]), and User:Isotelus (blocked once). And there were many blocks for 3RR by 40 or so temporary IPs that he used as socks (see list here)Bucketsofg✐ 14:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Actually that's 4th.--Konstable 12:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Someguy0830 reported by User:Yy-bo (Result: Not a violation)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Oven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Someguy0830 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
- 1st revert: Revision as of 21:53, 14 September 2006
- 2nd revert: Revision as of 21:54, 14 September 2006
- 3rd revert: Current revision (01:03, 16 September 2006)
- 4th revert: [http://]
- reverts by other users (within 24 hours):
Time report made: 13:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Removal from the article argueable, but talk page contribution has been edited out as well; linked to OLDID version; same labelled as relevant version Talk:Oven. expansion template removed as well.
Revision as of 20:20, 13 September 2006 (edit)
- User has a total of three edits to the article with two reverts in over 24 hours. This is not a violation of 3RR and on examination it is not edit warring. —Centrx→talk • 15:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Ltnte reported by User:Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) (Result: 24 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Han Chinese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ltnte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- 1st revert: 2006-09-16 12:30:47
- 2nd revert: 2006-09-16 12:52:26
- 3rd revert: 2006-09-16 13:02:06
- 4th revert: 2006-09-16 13:21:17
- 5th revert: 2006-09-16 13:26:03
- 6th revert: 2006-09-16 14:28:58
Time report made: 17:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Account is a possible sockpuppet of User:Edipedia[309].It's a new account and edits are similar to that of Edipedia.Edipedia's main account is still blocked.Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- 24 hours. El_C 19:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Greier reported by User:Khoikhoi (Result: one week)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Talk:Transnistria (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Transnistria|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Greier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:16:55, 16 September 2006
- 1st revert: 17:27, 16 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 17:38, 16 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 17:40, 16 September 2006
- 4th revert: 17:45, 16 September 2006
Time report made: 17:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: The user is trying to post a large rant about another user William Mauco, in a separate thread. Please check Greier's block log. —Khoikhoi 17:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- The thread was created by me. It was unjustifiably moved by other user to a different place, so that all the links I created on the talk pages of several users not to work anymore. Anyway the content is very, very interesting for any wikipedian bureaucrat. Please take some time to read it About Wikipedia user William Mauco. Greier 17:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Note: I have retired from Wikipedia some time ago. I only camed to draw an alarm signal. Greier 18:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Was the user made aware of WP:3RR? El_C 18:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- I believe that's only necessary for new users. Greier has been blocked seven times for 3RR in the past, he knows the rules. —Khoikhoi 19:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- One week. El_C 19:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
User:FCYTravis reported by User:RalphLender (Result: No action)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Advocates for Children in Therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). FCYTravis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:[310]
- 1st revert: [311] Sept 16
- 2nd revert: [312] Sept 16
- 3rd revert: [313] Sept 16
- 4th revert: [314] Sept 16
- 5th revert: [315] Sept 16
- 6th revert: [316] Sept 16
- Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)
Note: User FCYTravis is an administrator who has abused his administrative priviledges and is acting in a manner not consistet with Wikipedia Policy.He has engaged in insulting other editors by name calling, continual reverts, using his priv to make edits to blocked pages, and he has refused to follow the findings of several polls.Furthermore he refused to mediate the dispute. Time report made: 21:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Those are not diffs. A quick look at the article history will show that the section in question (which is the subject of a long-term edit war over its appropriateness, neutrality and lack of sources) was reverted precisely the allowed three times within the alloted timespan. One, Two and Three. I will revert no more until at least the expiration of the specified 24-hour period. FCYTravis 21:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- I further note that the above user is reverting my insertion of the "Not verified" template into the article. FCYTravis 21:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
FCYTravis has continued his edit war and continues to violate Wikipedia Policy.A quick look at the edit history will show that he continues to the the only one to have an issue with the content.He has ignored two polls and he refused mediation...he continues to abuse his administrator status.RalphLendertalk 21:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please cite actuall diffs. El_C 21:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Why not provide the citation requested for the claims. If these are already noted, it should just be a matter of Ibid., though each citation needs to address each claim, specifically. El_C 21:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Tecunre reported by User:Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) (Result:24h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Han Chinese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tecunre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- 1st revert: 2006-09-16 15:07:53
- 2nd revert: 2006-09-16 16:32:35
- 3rd revert: 2006-09-16 16:37:30
- 4th revert: 2006-09-16 16:45:14
- 5th revert: 2006-09-16 17:41:29
Time report made: 00:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- These reverts are the exact same reverts as done by User:Ltnte, who was previously blocked today for violating 3RRs.Note the logs for both accounts.Block log of Ltnte - Account log of Tecunre.Tecunre was created mere minutes after Ltnte was blocked for 24 hours.Furthermore, both accounts may be socks of User:Edipedia.Check suspected socks noticeboard report here[317].Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have blocked for 24 hours.Should be extended to indefinite when they are proven to be socks of User:Edipedia.--Konstable 02:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
User:65.30.152.217 reported by User:Atom (Result: 24 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Semen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 65.30.152.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
- 1st revert: [318]
- 2nd revert: [319]
- 3rd revert: [320]
- 4th revert: [321]
- 5th revert: [322]
Comments: User changed from reverts to Linkimage revert so that diffs would not match
- 24 hours. El_C 02:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
User:125.60.241.90 reported by User:Wookipedian (Result:1 week)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Yoga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 125.60.241.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
- 1st revert: [323] (maybe this one doesn't count as a revert, but there are plenty more below)
- 2nd revert: [324]
- 3rd revert: [325]
- 4th revert: [326]
- 5th revert: [327]
- 6th revert: [328]
- 7th revert: [329]
- Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) edit comment and talk page comment and another talk page comment and another (I guess the 1st talk page comment about 3RR violation was after the 1st report, but substantially before the last above-listed actions, and see below)
Time report made: 05:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: I've never made such a report before - hope I'm getting it approximately right.The anon user is repeatedly deleting external links on various pages while accusing the links of being "spammy".That may be somewhat true, but the list of reference citations is also getting deleted from the Yoga page and the user is doing it over and over rather rudely.
When making one of these edits, the anon user asserted that "I have already discuss this issue to the Arbitration Committee".Although this person is anon, I think it is clear that they are not a naive new user.
Another vague reference asserting "This issue is been forwarded to Arbitration Committee" was made in a subsequent edit.I don't know what this refers to - I suspect it is misinformation.
Note that the list of reference citations, not just the external links, is getting repeatedly removed from the article.
The user has been informed of this report.
- Due to the high number of reverts and the lack of civility displayed, I have blocked the anon for 1 week.--Konstable 06:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks very much. I plan to now revert the last above-listed action by the anon, which will be my fourth revert on this page. I hope that is OK considering the background of my action. —Wookipedian 06:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Uknewthat reported by User:Dual Freq (Result:24 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Hafele-Keating experiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Uknewthat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
- 1st revert: 15:58, September 16, 2006
- 2nd revert: 23:41, September 16, 2006
- 3rd revert: 01:53, September 17, 2006
- 4th revert: 11:50, September 17, 2006
- 5th revert: 13:25, September 17, 2006
- Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)[330]
- Uknewthat removed warning from talk page [331]
Time report made: 15:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User continually reverts equations and adds POV original research pertaining to GPS to the Hafele-Keating experiment article. Each edit is a series of 4 edits that removes equations and adds the OR. User is new and performed the same reverts in the past as an anonymous user. Article was semi-protected August 26, 2006 due to these same reversions. Dual Freq 15:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- 24 hour block. Also reverted talk page warning removal. Vsmith 15:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm a fairly new user so I need to ask. Will this block affect the validity of the RFC now occuring on User:Uknewthat? Cardamon 01:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Pflanzgarten reported by User:After Midnight 0001 (Result: 24h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Jim Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pflanzgarten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:05:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- 1st revert: 21:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- 2nd revert: 13:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- 3rd revert: 18:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- 4th revert: 19:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) 19:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Time report made: 19:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- This identical revert has been made many times by Pflanzgarten and sockpuppets over a period of months. He has repeatedly been asked to discuss changes, but ignores discussion and reverts in total. -- Ian Dalziel 19:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
24h William M. Connolley 20:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
User:UnDeRsCoRe reported by User:Rob110178 (Result:)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Rouge_the_Bat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). UnDeRsCoRe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
- 1st revert: [http://]
- 2nd revert: [http://]
- 3rd revert: [http://]
- 4th revert: [http://]
- Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)
Time report made: 20:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Couldnt figure out how to include the revert versions. This page has been in an edit war for about 2 days now
Impressively badly formatted. If you can't be bothered to work out how to do diffs, I can't be bothered to check your report out, and anyway its only some cartoon character that should probably be VFD'd anyway :-) William M. Connolley 21:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Fastifex reported by User:Merope (Result:8 hr block)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on Bishop_of_Auxerre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
Fastifex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) [336]
Time report made: 21:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: After doing some work on double redirects, I warned this user against undoing the work of others by purposefully recreating a double redirect.I linked him to WP:2R and asked him to review the policy.He reverted the work again.His message on my talk page said that he believes he should be deliberately introducing a double redirect, and I left a message on his talk page that this was in violation of WP policy.He reverted again.I realize that I myself edited this article three times in 24 hours, and I understand that I am also responsible for violating 3RR.I will be more cautious in the future, and will follow protocol more closely.
I would also like to note that this is not the only article he is reverting to create double redirects.A look at his contributions will show a number of edits creating double redirects after I had left a message asking him to stop.
Other recent violations of the 3RR rule include:
-- Merope Talk/Review 21:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
This isn't 3RR, because its not within 24h or even close. But it does seem to be a rather pointless campaign against policy and several other users, so I think a short block to point that out is probably a good idea. 8h William M. Connolley 21:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's very close to 24h; however, the other two I listed are within 24 hours.-- Merope Talk/Review 21:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on
Mellat_Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Axam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:17:27, September 14, 2006
- 1st revert: [339]
- 2nd revert: [340]
- 3rd revert: [341]
- 4th revert: [342]
- 5th revert: [343]
- 6th revert: [344]
- Three revert rule warning diff: [345]
Time report made: 22:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: : In addition to the 3RR, the user has made personal attacks which has been noted at Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard. -- Jeff3000 22:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- He was also warned by another user [346], but has blanked his warnings [347]. -- Jeff3000 23:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Also note this logged out diff. Ansell 23:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
User:jeff3000 reported by User:Axam (Result: Axam blocked for 24 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Mellat_Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jeff3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
- 1st revert: [348] by Jeff3000
- 2nd revert: [349] by Jeff3000
- 3rd revert: [350] by Jeff3000
- 4th revert: [351] by Ex-Nintendo Employee
- Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)
Time report made: 22:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: This user has been attacking and vandalizing the Mellat Park from the beginig. He has changed his user name (from Jeff3000 to Ex-Nintendo Employee) to avoid his 4th revert notice. His personal attack was deliberate. He changes the Iranian People to Iran which does not make any sense and has personnaly been attacking.--Axam 22:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Not, only has User:Axam gone far past 3RR, performed personal attacks, he has now accused people of sockpuppetry, when User:Ex-Nintendo Employee and myself are clearly different people. -- Jeff3000 23:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Note, I have only done 3 reverts, and User:Ex-Nintendo Employee 2 reverts.Check user can clearly distinugish the two users. -- Jeff3000 23:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Also note that Iranian people is not the correct disambiguation as it refers not to the citizens of Iran, but a wider ethnic group that includes the Kurds and others.Please see the article for more details. -- Jeff3000 23:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- There can be different ways to hide sicjpuppetry, asking your friends to do it for you. This is even worse than doing it yourself--Axam 00:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- User:Jeff3000 seems to not understand that when we refer to Iranian people, all ethnic groups are included. In Tehran, the capital, the people are not only persian but turks, kurds, gilkais, mazandaranis, lurs etc. Thus the correct link should be toward Iranian people and not Iran, since it is not the country that acts but its citizen.--Axam 00:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have blocked Axam for 24 hours for violating 3RR. There is clearly no other violation here. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
User:64.230.48.114 reported by User:JoshuaZ (Result: 8h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
An Inconvenient Truth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 64.230.48.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
- Version initially reverted to [352]
- 1st revert: [353]
- 2nd revert: [354]
- 3rd revert: [355]
- 4th revert: [356]
- Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)
Time report made: 03:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: This is possibly User:SpinyNorman who was blocked for a week for repeated 3RRV at this article and others and who made almost identical edits to these. JoshuaZ 03:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems likely that this is the same as 64.230.88.56, in which case a block isn't going to work... but I've done it anyway... 8h William M. Connolley 08:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Alecmconroy reported by User:Stick to the Facts (Result: No action)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Stormfront (website) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Alecmconroy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
- 1st revert: [358]
- 2nd revert: [359]
- 3rd revert: [360]
- 4th revert: [361]
- 5th revert: [362]
- 6th revert: [363]
- Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)
Time report made: 09:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Continues to revert the same sentence over and over - sentence has 11 cites, no non-NPOV argument, no argument to delete it at all. Has been warned.Not a new user.
Another badly formatted report, which I've partly fixed. At least one of your reverts listed is a removal of pure vandalism [364]. I suggest that you go through and remove the junk from your report, and put the times in as you are supposed to. Better still, examine your own actions in this William M. Connolley 09:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Reverting vandalism does not count as a revert (!). El_C 09:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- I beleive this should be posted at WP:ANI (Stick to the Facts had posted the other user at WP:AIV already, which I just happened to be watching at the time). This seems to be a content dispute of some kind, and administrator intervention would really help.--KojiDude (viva la BAM!) 09:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- In my defense, only two of these edits are genuine reversions, relevant to the content dispute that's on-going.
- The 1st & 4th edits cited here were reversions of simple vandalism by an anonymous IP user.
- The 2nd edit restored material that had been inadvertantly deleted.
- The 3rd edit restored material that had been deleted for being uncited, and provided citation for that material.
- In my defense, only two of these edits are genuine reversions, relevant to the content dispute that's on-going.
- The 5th and 6th edits ARE genuine reversions, resulting from a content dispute.User:Stick to the facts has added this material repeatedly.Four different users have deleted it, and it has been extensively discussed on talk.
- I sincerely believe I have acted in good faith, and I have great respect for Wikipedia policies.If my edits violated policy (or even if you just feel they were inappropriate), let me know, and I will immediately self-revert and apologize.
- Even after WMC fixed the report, your diffs remain unclear. While I did notice he made a few reverts today, I'm willing to overlook these in light of the potential for my recent edits to resolve the dispute, and providing no further reverts are made by the editor in the next 24 hours. El_C 11:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- But is it a matter of 'overlooking it in the interests of peace', or did I not do anything wrong?In my mind, I made two edits which consciously reverted the page in question, to prevent the insertion of material which, after much discussion, had a pretty substantial (4-1) consensus against it.I did this based on the understanding that my other edits were not reversions, and that the appropriate thing to do in the situation was to make the edits I did.
- Blocking aside-- should I not have done what I did?This edit war seems to be have concluded, but for the future-- DID I do anything wrong, such that you're willing to overlook it?Or did I do what you're supposed to do? --Alecmconroy 23:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Szhaider reported by User:Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk (Result: 8h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Abrar-ul-Haq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Szhaider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)
Time report made: 14:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
8h. Possibly one of the more trivial edit wars William M. Connolley 18:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
User:William_Mauco reported by User:MariusM (Result: No action)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Transnistria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). William_Mauco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- 1st revert: [370]
- 2nd revert: [371]
- 3rd revert: [372]
- 4th revert: [373]
- 5th revert: [374]
- 6th revert: [375]
- 7th revert: [376]
- 8th revert: [377]
- Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)
Time report made: 19:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Diffs not Oldids please. What was there about "These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is" that you found difficult? William M. Connolley 20:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sory, I corrected.--MariusM 21:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Errrm, you seem to have confused "edit" with "revert" and have simply listed all edits. Why is [378] supposed to be a revert, for example? William M. Connolley 21:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- I took out spelling corrections from the list, however, there are still more than 3.--MariusM 22:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please edit your report so only diff of reverts are indicated. El_C 11:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Will314159 reported by User:Isarig (Result:24 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Neo-Fascism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Will314159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:9 September 2006
- 1st revert: 23:00, 18 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 00:44, 19 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 01:28, 19 September 2006
- 4th revert: 03:28, 19 September 2006
- Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)
User is not new, knows about 3RR, and has been blocked for 3RR violations before [379], and has been warned not to violate 3RR on this page before his 4th revert.
Time report made: 04:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User repeatedly inserts claims from a personal blog, despite having been reverted on this issue by at least 4 different editors, all of whom have explained theirs reasons on the the article's Talk page. Having failed to convince the others of his position on Talk, User:Will314159 has stopped discussing the issue, and resorts to blind reverts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Israig (talk • contribs)
- Second offense, though the previous was a while ago - 24 hours.--Konstable 11:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Dan534 reported by User:BlankVerse (Result: 8h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
RMS Queen Mary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dan534 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:09:34, 17 September 2006
- 1st revert: 8:44, 17 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 21:26, 17 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 01:53, 18 September 2006
- [380] 02:45, 18 September 2006 BlankVerse issued warning about possibility of 3RR violations
- 4th revert: 03:48, 18 September 2006
- 5th revert: 08:27, 18 September 2006
- Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) [381]
Time report made: 05:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
There has been a revert war going on at RMS Queen Mary. This is the first of two or three 3RR reports I will be doing.
All of the edits by User:Dan534 involve deleted the following link: http://www.sterling.rmplc.co.uk/visions/index2.html. There are 5 reverts in 13 hrs 43 minutes. note: Since two out of the three total edits done by probable [[Wikipedia:sockpuppet}]] user:Johnpedder did the exact same edit, it is really 7 reverts within 15 hrs 20 minutes. BlankVerse 05:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
8 h William M. Connolley 08:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
User:CThornton reported by User:BlankVerse (Result: 8h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
RMS Queen Mary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). CThornton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:14:17, 16 September 2006
- 1st revert: 21:36, 16 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 22:03, 16 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 08:13, 17 September 2006
- 4th revert: 18:55, 17 September 2006
- 5th revert:21:37, 17 September 2006
- 02:45, 18 September 2006 warned about the #RR rule by User:Blank Verse
- 6th revert: 07:40, 18 September 2006
- 7th revert: 08:37, 18 September 2006
- 8th revert: 11:43, 18 September 2006
- Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)02:45, 18 September 2006
Time report made: 06:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
There has been an edit war going on at [[RMS Queen Mary between a number of new editors and some anon IPs.
All of User:CThornton's edits have been to add the following link, http://www.sterling.rmplc.co.uk/visions/index2.html, to the External links section (and sometimes deleting the official Queen Mary link, http://www.queenmary.com/ at the same time). In the reverts above, the forth edit in a row is always a 3RR violation, and the last five are within 24 hrs.
8h William M. Connolley 08:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
User:John Spikowski reported by User:Roguegeek (Result: 24 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Panotools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). John_Spikowski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:03:16, 10 November 2005
- 1st revert: 22:32, 18 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 23:46, 18 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 00:46, 19 September 2006
- 4th revert: 01:16, 19 September 2006
Time report made: 09:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Go through the history and you will see there are a lot of other forms of more severe vandalism that have taken place tonight by this user, but this one will get the quickest results right now. Hopefully this is all it will take for them to understand Wikipedia policies and help them become a constructive editor instead of the destructive one they were tonight. Roguegeek 09:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- "Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed(necessary for new users)." Why did you not add the warning as instructed? "These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs" Why did you add oldids & not diffs as instructed? 24 hours. El_C 11:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- This is the first time I've had to deal with a situation that couldn't be worked out in a discussion. I'm sure there were mistakes I made in trying to report this user (as it was my first time). The more information you could give me, the more effective I will be if the situation ever comes up again (which it hopefully wont). Thanx. Roguegeek 15:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Corrected OLDIDs to DIFFs for archive purposes. Roguegeek (talk) 01:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Ikonoblast reported by User:Hkelkar (Result: 24 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Votebank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ikonoblast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: [382]
- 1st revert: [383]
- 2nd revert: [384]
- 3rd revert: [385]
- 4th revert: [386]
- Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users):This user is not new.
Time report made: 10:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:This user has been blocked for 3rr violations before (see block log). Plus, if one looks at his edit summaries, he has clearly not observed WP:Civility and has made accusatory attacks both against myself and the other involved user User:Gamesmasterg9. While technically, the first and last reverts are 26 hours apart (not 24), it seems to me that he is clearly violated the spirit of WP:3RR by engaging in persistent revert-warring with User:Gamesmasterg9 over the issue of merging the article in question with another article.As a reference to his attitudes, I point the admin to the talk page Talk:Votebank where Gamesmasterg9 has provided what seems to me to be adequate reasons for his position, and Ikonoblast (formerly User:Holywarrior) has responded pejoratively to him and with persistent incivility, lending weight to the point that he intends to revert-war further.Hkelkar 10:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with User:Hkelkar on the need to block User:Ikonoblast. This is not the first time he has engaged in egregious edit wars. Previously, he violated the 3RR on the article Mamta Kulkarni [387], but he gave up on that issue, so I let is slide. He has an unfortunate habit of treating edits to pages created by him as personal violations, and I have no doubt that he will indulge in such behaviour again, if unchecked.Gamesmaster G-9 20:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- 24 hours. El_C 11:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Waya 5 reported by User:Chappy84 (Result:24 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Galatasaray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Waya 5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:15:24, 17 September 2006
Time report made: 11:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User Waya 5 keeps on removing legitimate information (claiming it's vandalism) about Glatasaray's history including the rivalry with english clubs, which is part of galatasaray's history and also keeps on reverting the scoreline of the UEFA Cup final to Galatasaray 1-4 Arsenal here even though the original scoreline was 0-0 with glatasaray winning 4-1 on penalties shown here, He seems to want the page exactly how he wants it set out and to not allow anyone else to alter the page. --Chappy84 11:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- No {{3RR}} or other warning were given to someone who seems like a relatively new user.But because of the added lack of civility I have blocked this user for 24 hours.--Konstable 11:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
User:220.246.167.18 reported by User:J.L.W.S. The Special One (Result: 24 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Chelsea_F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 220.246.167.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)
Time report made: 12:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Chelski is a derogatory and insulting nickname for Chelsea, used by Chelsea haters to suggest Chelsa succeeds only because of money. An anonymous POV-pusher has repeatedly inserted "Chelski" into the Nickname(s) section of the infobox. After he violated 3RR, I reported him to an admin, who promptly semi-protected the article. The anonymous POV-pusher then attacked my talk page.[392][393] For attacking my talk page, I think he should be blocked for more than the usual 24 hours. I would appreciate it if my talk page was semi-protected as well; this is not the first time it has been attacked by anonymous vandals. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have blocked this user for only 24 hours because this is an IP.And as far as I can tell it has only been used for this guy for a total of 24 prior to the block.If he comes back with abuse he can always be re-blocked.--Konstable 13:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
User:JimRaynor55 reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result:)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on Star Wars canon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JimRaynor55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:09:57, September 6, 2006
- 1st revert: [394]
- 2nd revert: [395]
- 3rd revert: [396]
- 4th revert: [397]
Time report made: 14:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: JimRaynor55 has demanded that his own views be given precedence in the Star Wars canon article, and refuses to admit any discussion or links in the article to a differing viewpoint. He has continually reverted good-faith efforts by other editors who have tried to improve the article to include relevant information. User demands explanations from other editors, and then ignores them once given. This situation has been going on for some time, and the user has been warned for personal attacks and vandalism in the recent weeks, and has skirted the boundaries of 3RR since being warned about that as well. This is the first time he's actually violated 3RR, though. MikeWazowski 14:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Hookerj and User:DanV reported by User:Will (Glaciers melting in the dead of night) (Result: 8/24h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Stupid Girls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DanV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Hookerj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Continual edit warring for the past hour, see [398] here
- Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)
Time report made: 19:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
8/24h William M. Connolley 21:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
User:The_Hungry_Hun reported by User:ابراهيم (Result: 16 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The_Hungry_Hun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here and on his talk-page too
Time report made: 22:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: He has been adding a picture in "Conquest of Mecca" section of Muhammad article since last three days. All those revert are about adding the same picture in the article. Count: (above 5 and then) 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12 and the list continue... (see his contributions)
Btw 6-10 all above reverts are carried out in one day and hence that was another violation of 3RR. Once again he is adding the same picture.
He has been properly warned twice. Please stop him for this reverts flood.
- Given the very large number of reverts, I have blocked the user for 16 hours per WP:3RR. alphaChimp(talk) 22:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Y2kcrazyjoker4 and User:68.163.201.96 reported by Hetar (Result:)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Mariano Rivera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
- 1st revert: [404]
- 2nd revert: [405]
- 3rd revert: [406]
- 4th revert: [407]
- 5th revert: [408]
- 6th revert: [409]
- Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users): User:Y2kcrazyjoker4 is clearly aware of the 3RR as he warned 68.163.201.96 not to break it in this edit: [410]
Time report made: 06:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Out of fairness I should mention that I came into the picture towards the end of this debate, and reverted twice myself. --Hetar 06:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
User:67.116.242.125 reported by User:Coredesat (Result: no action)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
2005_Pacific_hurricane_season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.116.242.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
- 1st revert: [411]
- 2nd revert: [412]
- 3rd revert: [413]
- 4th revert: [414]
- Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users): [415] (no diff available)
Time report made: 07:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Anon keeps attempting to add a button bar to 2005 Pacific hurricane season against consensus. I reverted twice. --Coredesat talk! 07:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
No prev version: why was first edit a revert? William M. Connolley 09:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Afrika paprika reported by User:HolyRomanEmperor (Result: 24h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Pagania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Duklja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Afrika paprika (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
- 1st revert: [416]
- 2nd revert: [417]
- 3rd revert: [418]
- 4th revert: [419]
- Blocked already for 3RR violation by User:William M. Connolley because of edit warring/POV pushing at Nikola Tesla
Time report made: 08:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: The User is leading a content dispute but refuses to discuss at the corresponding talk pages (Talk:Duklja, Talk:Zahumlje, Talk:Travunia) and agreed to discuss only to an extent at Talk:Pagania. Responds only at his personal talk page, but lately he didn't discuss there either.
24h William M. Connolley 09:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Machocarioca reported by User:alidoostzadeh (Result: protected)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Anousheh_Ansari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Machocarioca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
- 1st revert: 07:19, 20 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 07:50, 20 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 07:55, 20 September 2006
- 4th revert: 08:39, 20 September 2006
- 5th revert: 08:56, 20 September 2006
- Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)
Time report made: 09:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
This user has been block two or three times [424]and he understands wikipedia policy. Check the record on his talk page.The user removes quotes from ABC news, USA today , Reuters as he wishes!He refuses to discuss it in the talkpage before editing.Removing valid information from Reuters, USA today, ABC news without discussion on the talk page seems like vandalism. Also the comments from the user is less than friendly.For example he says: Do not remove the correct facts YOU. ABC and USA Today are completely wrong, of course! Read and try understand Helen Sharman's article, please[425] and YOU are wrong. You have no reason, just wrong sources (as many of them often are).) .He does not provide a source for his material and just claims that he can is absolutely right and I am wrong and ABC and Reuters are wrong as well! --alidoostzadeh 09:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- I support this report, as Machocarioca (talk · contribs · count) has been reverting the article (which is a highly visited article at the moment since Anousheh is in orbit), rejecting the sources, claiming they are wrong (!) --K a s hTalk | email 11:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Article is currently protected: no block William M. Connolley 20:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Homeopathy
Homeopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Homy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:[426]
- 1st revert: [427]
- 2nd revert: [428]
- 3rd revert: [429]
- 4th revert: [430]
- 5th revert: [431]
- 6th revert: [432]
- Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) [433]
Time report made: 12:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User has also been repeatedly inserting crank physics, but this is the clearest 3rr violation. English does not appear to be the users first language. Jefffire
Comment: the expression crank physics is also used by moderator user:Geni Please control WP:SOCK. history Homeopathy: cur) (last)10:52, 20 September 2006 Geni (Talk | contribs) (rv back to verison without cranck physics) --Homy 13:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC) Link:[434]
- I think I'm being accussed of being a sock puppet of Geni. Jefffire 17:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
8h William M. Connolley 20:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
User:24.60.85.190 reported by User:TenebraeTenebrae (Result: 24h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on 08:58, 20 September 2006
Marvel Comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.60.85.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:[435] Revision as of 08:58, 20 September 2006 (edit)
- 1st revert: [436] :04, 20 September 2006
- 2nd revert: [437] 08:48, 20 September 2006
- 3rd revert: [438] 08:53, 20 September 2006
- 4th revert: [439] 08:58, 20 September 2006
- Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)
Time report made: 13:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Several editors, including User:Bayerischermann, User:CovenantD and and User:Charlesknight have left posts on this anon-IP's talk page, to no avail. He was temporarily blocked by User:Steel359 at 21:24, 17 September 2006, but came right back when his 48 hours were up. He is a non-stop vandal, clearly dismissive of the rules, with the only intent being to spread links to his personal blog. Since blocking only made him so obstinate that he's 3RR'd, and since he doesn't seem to have any interest in making worthwhile contributions, it might be time to think about banning this IP. -- Tenebrae 13:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Slightly dodgy, this. I've blocked, but not CovenantD, although C has broken 3RR too, not too sure of the immunity status of rm linkspam William M. Connolley 20:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
User:86.142.208.76 reported by User:Demiurge (Result:24h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on Bangor, County Down
Bangor, County Down (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 86.142.208.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:11:22, 19 September 2006
- 1st revert: 10:56, 20 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 14:59, 20 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 15:41, 20 September 2006
- 4th revert: 15:52, 20 September 2006
- Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) [440]
Time report made: 15:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Keeps reinserting an external link in violation of WP:EL ("Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research"). Very unconstructive attitude, including personal attacks [441]. Warned about linkspam multiple times User_talk:86.142.40.188, User talk:86.142.204.152 Demiurge 15:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
2006-09-20T16:10:25 Guinnog (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "86.142.208.76 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3rr, pov pushing, personal attacks) William M. Connolley 20:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Mykungfu reported by User:Mr. Darcy talk (Result:24h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on User:MrDarcy (my user page)
User:MrDarcy (edit | [[Talk:User:MrDarcy|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
Mykungfu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:08:40, 19 September 2006
- 1st revert: [442]
- 2nd revert: [443]
- 3rd revert: [444]
- 4th revert: [445]
- 5th revert: [446] (by anon address, after User:Mykungfu was blocked)
- Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)
- User is clearly aware of 3RR rule, as he attempted to report me for a violation earlier today on this page: [447]
Time report made: 20:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User has been harassing me with bogus sock-puppetry allegations for several days. (I have no idea why; I don't know this user at all and I haven't been editing often for the last few months). S/he opened a sock-puppet case against me [448]; the case was closed, so I removed the sockpuppet template from my user page. The case page doesn't actually include any evidence against me; it appears to be targeting three other users. Frankly, I'm just sick of the harassment. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Note - At the current time, MrDarcy's userpage is protected by me.Mykungfu is blocked 24 h for restoring the templates after I asked him not to (pending RFCU).Mykungfu is using his AOL-ness to evade the block...but at the same time we can't block aol ips for more than 15 minutes. Syrthiss 20:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- retaliation 3rr after one was posted by myself.[449] . Mykungfu 23:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- 5th revert: [209] (by anon address, after User:Mykungfu was blocked) is bogus and wasn't not by me.Mykungfu 00:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- retaliation 3rr after one was posted by myself.[449] . Mykungfu 23:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
User:William_Mauco reported by User:MariusM (Result:Warning)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on Transnistrian referendum, 2006
Transnistrian referendum, 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). William_Mauco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
- 1st revert: [450]
- 2nd revert: [451]
- 3rd revert: [452]
- 4th revert: [453]
- 5th revert: [454]
- 6th revert: [455]
- Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)
Not a new user. However, I warn him [456]
Time report made: 21:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
This user want to have a "veto" right in all Transnistria-related articles. This is why he keep reverting evrything he don't like.–MariusM 21:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- I added the 6th revert.--MariusM 21:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Experienced user who broke the rule but I will give a severe warning and benefit of the doubt here, as the reverts were fairly minor. Robdurbar 11:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
User:BertWoodall reported by User:Ryūlóng (Result: 24 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Northcentral_University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BertWoodall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:21:23, February 27, 2006 (UTC)
- 1st revert: [457]
- 2nd revert: [458]
- 3rd revert: [459]
- 4th revert: [460]
- Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%20talk%3ABertWoodall&diff=cur&oldid=prev
Time report made: 05:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: This user has constantly been disrupting that he is claiming ownership of to the extent that he has blanked it, tried to get it deleted, and reverted back to his original draft. Ryūlóng 05:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR, WP:NPA, and WP:OWN. I'd welcome others to review and/or change my block time. alphaChimp(talk) 05:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Christadelphians
[[:]] (edit | [[Talk:|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). VIOLATOR_USERNAME (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
- 1st revert: [http://]
- 2nd revert: [http://]
- 3rd revert: [http://]
- 4th revert: [http://]
Here is history. 11:28, 21 September 2006 RAW (Talk | contribs) (page reverted. see discussion - there is consensus. Please sign in.) 11:23, 21 September 2006 58.107.151.115 (Talk) (Deletion of links without thorough discussion and consensus at talk page is vandalism) 11:19, 21 September 2006 RAW (Talk | contribs) (58.107.151.115 please sign in - you are in violation of policy. Please stop vandalising page) 11:18, 21 September 2006 58.107.151.115 (Talk) (Links should not be deleted without a thorough discussion on talk page) 11:14, 21 September 2006 Wikiadelphia (Talk | contribs) (58.107.151.115/ekklesiastic- it has been discussed- please read the link section in the talk page- please read wiki about linking to gain 'traffic'- please read owners of websites should not link) 11:10, 21 September 2006 58.107.151.115 (Talk) (Links should not be deleted without a thorough discussion on talk page) 11:05, 21 September 2006 Wikiadelphia (Talk | contribs) 11:04, 21 September 2006 Wikiadelphia (Talk | contribs) (Forum links are not within wiki guidelines- see talk page 58.107.151.115/Ekklesiastic- see three revert link) 10:58, 21 September 2006 58.107.151.115 (Talk) (Restored vandalised links)
Person has reverted 5 times is less than one hour. Discussion page explains why links removed and there is consensus, but person continues to place them back including link to forum owned by them.
Is this all the information you need? I wish to avoid a "war" so hope this will help. RAW 11:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I wouldn't expect anyone to bother to decipher this incomprehensible blob. Please see WP:DIFF for proper format. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Ekajati reported by User:User:kt66 I report also myself (Result:8h to both - multiple reports)
[edit]see History and Talk pages of:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kelsang_Gyatso&action=history
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Roach&action=history
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dorje_Shugden&action=history
Ekajati goes through the articles like a lumberjack I never had such a situation. I could found - except a quote to copyrights and some very view source problems - no good explained reason why she is that strict and repeating like a formular: "(rv per WP:LIVING, inadequately sourced negative material CANNOT remain on the page while you search for sources)" - however, a neutral look would be fine. I do not say I didn't make faults. --Kt66 21:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- This is not a place for discussing content (use article's talk for that) or dispute resolution. I don't see a WP:3RR violation in your report. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on
Michael Roach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kt66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:11:33, 21 September 2006
- 1st revert: 18:46, 21 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 20:40, 21 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 20:53, 21 September 2006
- 4th revert: 21:14, 21 September 2006
- Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)
Time report made: 21:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Both violated 3RR, gave each 8 hours. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on
Dorje Shugden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kt66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:0:36, 19 September 2006
- 1st revert: 16:17, 21 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 20:37, 21 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 20:40, 21 September 2006
- 4th revert: 21:08, 21 September 2006
- Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) see previous report
Time report made: 21:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Both users were blocked for the previous case. --WinHunter (talk) 07:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on
Kelsang Gyatso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kt66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:16:54, 19 September 2006
- 1st revert: 15:46, 21 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 20:07, 21 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 20:39, 21 September 2006
- 4th revert: 21:07, 21 September 2006
- Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) see previous report
Time report made: 21:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Both users were blocked for the previous case. --WinHunter (talk) 07:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Sima Yi reported by User: Myciconia (Result:)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Template:Major Canadian Conservative Parties (edit | [[Talk:Template:Major Canadian Conservative Parties|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sima Yi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:23:32, 20 September 2006
- 1st revert: 01:23, 21 September 2006
- 2nd revert: 18:39, 21 September 2006
- 3rd revert: 22:01, 21 September 2006
- 4th revert: 22:16, 21 September 2006
- Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)
Time report made: 22:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please properly file this report until it can be processed, we need diff links not version links. Thanks. --WinHunter (talk) 07:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Giovanni33 reported by A.J.A. (Result: 12h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on September 21, 2006.
Zionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:08:33, September 13, 2006
- 1st revert: 04:13, September 21, 2006
- 2nd revert: 20:01, September 21, 2006
- 3rd revert: 22:34, September 21, 2006
- 4th revert: 23:16, September 21, 2006
Time report made: 06:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
User has been blocked for 3RR in the past. The first two reverts are partial.A.J.A. 06:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- The date and times reported above are not accurate. These 4 reverts span over two days, most being the 22nd, today (three) , and the others from the previous day, and part of compromise that was solved, with another editor. I'd happy self-revert if this is a 3RR violation. And please look at talk which I have relied in in order to work out editing issues. In anycase, I happy refrain from reverting (see how I did not revert and used the talk), and I will impose on myself a self-ban from making any further reverts this week to show that I indeed wish to follow the 3RR rule. Therefore given my pledge to self revert and to abstain from reversions, and given that the purpose of block on editors is strictly for prevention of edit warring and not to be punitive, I ask that no block be issued, even if I did slip in this case. Thanks.Giovanni33 06:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- You probably have your time zone set differently. Posting on Talk is hardly a license to violate the 3RR, even if you are dealing with a permanently shamed "repudiated person".A.J.A. 07:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- That might explain it. I show these 4 reverts span over two days. Also, I do not make an excuse; there is no liscence to violate 3RR. I state it was an accident if it did occure, and my intention is clear that I do not intend to revert, which is why I left it your 3rd revert in the condition you left it and argued my case on talk, instead. There is no danger of me contining to revert here, and I say if I did go over 3 reverts it was an accident that I'd gladly self-revert on. Blocks, which you seek, are to be used as prevention, not punishment.Giovanni33 07:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- You probably have your time zone set differently. Posting on Talk is hardly a license to violate the 3RR, even if you are dealing with a permanently shamed "repudiated person".A.J.A. 07:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Since I am apparently that "another editor", I won't take an action but will comment here. Giovanni33 (talk · contribs) have clearly violated WP:3RR (within 24 hours) and denying this fact does not look good. He generally misbehaved there (mass solicitations, insisting on unreliable sources, trolling, etc). I am sorry to see his history of disruptive edits go on. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- I did not deny the fact, I said if I did do it, it was an accident. I do deny any alleged "misbehaving" as my only goal is to improve the article in question, for which I have support of other editors and for which there has been progress in improving the article to conform to NPOV guidelines--but this is not a place to talk about article content, its about 3RR rule. Since I pledge not to revert on my own accord no block is necessary against me. Block are to be preventive not punitive. I can continue to improve other articles and stick to the talk page for this article.Giovanni33 07:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Clearly 3RR; hasnt actually admitted it properly here; has promised not to R for a bit... 12h William M. Connolley 08:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Jaiwills reported by User:Atom (Result:72h)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
List of sex positions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jaiwills (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
- 1st revert: [462]
- 2nd revert: [463]
- 3rd revert: [464]
- 4th revert: [465]
- 5th revert: [466]
- 6th revert: [467]
- 7th revert: [468]
- 8th revert: [469]
- 9h revert: [470]
- Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)
Time report made: 06:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:Consensus of many to put lead image as thumb, and he disagreed
- 72h for reverting 9 times in total. --WinHunter (talk) 07:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Epf reported by User:71.198.59.81 (Result: no block)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on Austrians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Epf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:04:28, 26 August 2006
- 1st revert: 19:46, 26 August 2006
- 2nd revert: 19:51, 26 August 2006
- 3rd revert: 02:24, 27 August 2006
- 4th revert: 17:10, 27 August 2006
Block log indicates 3RR priors. Dogged edit warrior with an immature editing style, it takes quite a bit of effort to engage on talk pages.
Time report made: 08:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Contiguous edits count as one: no block William M. Connolley 08:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean by "Contiguous", he deleted an infobox entry from this article four times within 24 hrs and has been edit warring over the same issue since July 1.
- A month ago??? Don't be silly William M. Connolley 10:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for graciously answering my question -- oh silly me. 71.198.59.81 16:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
User:TrishBunkey reported by User:Methnor (Result: 8 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Nigel_McGuinness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TrishBunkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:20:47, 21 September 2006
- 1st revert: [471]
- 2nd revert: [472]
- 3rd revert: [473]
- 4th revert: [474]
- 5th revert: [475]
- Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users): link
Time report made: 11:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User insists on removing the real name of a professional wrestler despite it being public information.
- I have blocked the user for 8 hours per WP:3RR. alphaChimp(talk) 12:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Omallystwin reported by User:Allen3 (Result: 8 hours)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Alton Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Omallystwin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:13:12, September 21, 2006 (UTC)
- 1st revert: 15:26, September 21, 2006 (UTC)
- 2nd revert: 15:44, September 21, 2006 (UTC)
- 3rd revert: 20:42, September 21, 2006 (UTC)
- 4th revert: 12:00, September 22, 2006(UTC)
- Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) [476]
Time report made: 14:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: He's been blocked for eight hours by user:William M. Connolley). Extraordinary Machine 22:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Koavf reported by User:BGC 14:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)(Result: 24h each)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on
Template: R.E.M. (edit | [[Talk:Template: R.E.M.|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Koavf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
- 1st revert: [477]
- 2nd revert: [478]
- 3rd revert: [479]
- 4th revert: [480]
- Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)
Time report made: 14:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments:User insists on having the template set up according to his tastes (repeatedly stating that his way looks best "for everyone").I've tried to make the page look better aesthetically by justifying some of the names, and separating their E.P. into its own section, and properly use full album names.The user will not even discuss the issue democratically, and when he does, he responds with patronizing language (see [481]) that is not suitable for this type of forum, forcing me to use to similar words but to no avail.I do believe he thinks he own the R.E.M. pages.At least, this one.
24h, and for you too. Why are people so un-self-aware? William M. Connolley 15:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Wortzman aka User:162.84.136.215 reported by User:Byrgenwulf (Result: No violation)
[edit]Three revert rule violation on Theory of everything.
Theory of everything (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wortzman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 162.84.136.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- This user keeps adding unwanted information on a non-notable pseudophysics "gyroverse" theory to the Theory of everything article.
- 1st revert: 13:03, September 22, 2006 (UTC)
- 2nd revert: 13:42, September 22, 2006 (UTC)
- 3rd revert: 13:46, September 22, 2006 (UTC)
- 4th revert: 14:47, September 22, 2006 (UTC)
- Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) [482]
Time report made: 15:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Note that the first edit came from an IP address, but it is fairly obvious it's the same person.It would also appear from the username that the user is, in fact, the creator of the theory in question (Donald Wortzman).They were warned on their talk page.Unfortunately I cannot revert their changes myself, or I would be in violation of this rule...but it is obvious that the material is original research which is not wanted in the article (there is already a discussion on the talk page to remove other pseudoscience theories which are far more longstanding in the article than this one).
- The first edit wasn't a revert, so a 3RR violation hasn't occurred. I'll leave the user a warning, though. Extraordinary Machine 22:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)