Three revert rule violation onBi-Digital O-Ring Test (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).RichardMalter (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:PhilosophusT08:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
As an update to this we now have:
For the category reversion, I also did not notice this one:
--PhilosophusT16:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Comments:
I unfortunately was not able to warn this user in time, but as he kept telling me to read Wikipedia's policies, I thought he had read them. The user keeps removing any pseudoscience/quackery category, and also the assertion that the "diagnostic" has not been published in any reputable peer-reviewed journal. All other editors on the talk page seem to be in agreement with the rationale behind these additions. --PhilosophusT08:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
This user has now reverted again, and has responded to the warnings on his talk page. I also notice that I forgot one of the earlier reversions from the last 24 hours. --PhilosophusT16:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onMartin Luther (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Ptmccain (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported bySlimVirgin(talk)09:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments
Ptmccain has been revert warring over the intro for a couple of weeks, trying to delete, move, rewrite, or bury two sentences about the Nazi's use of Luther's writings about Jews. He has violated 3RR several times at this article, and has been blocked for it twice.[4] The six reverts above are not to the same version of the intro, but he is reverting any changes that other editors make (even when correcting his errors, like repeating sentences twice), and will only allow his own version(s) to stand. The reverting is accompanied by personal attacks, calling other editors "duplicitous,"[5] "shameful and dishonest,"[6] "obnoxious,"[7] accusing someone of vandalism,[8]and demanding that editors "state [their] qualifications."[9][10][11]SlimVirgin(talk)09:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onZionism (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Saladin1970 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) aka62.129.121.63 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Version reverted to:06:41 May 18
Reported bySlimVirgin(talk)11:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments
Four straightforward reverts within 90 minutes to the same version. I have no evidence that Saladin1970 is 62.129.121.63 but it seems highly likely, and that IP has turned up before on this page to revert to Saladin1970's versions.SlimVirgin(talk)11:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
just for the record.this is my first ban ever and here are the response to the allegations1) unsourced pov. There has only been one possible unsourced POV (non reliable source), everything else has been sourced. Granted with two references, i used another wiki page, and a home page as a source. I was never warned that these are inadmissible. Is this justification for a permenant ban
2) copyright violations. This turns out to be a false charge. There has only be one citation by jaygy for copyright violations and this turns out to fufil every criteria listed on wikipedia for fair use.
3)attacks on the talk pages. There has only been only one possible example of personal attacks. This was when i stated that jayg was following me around and this is what you expect from a zionist. Hardly ranks in the hall of fame of personal attacks, and one has to question if this remotely comes near justification for an indefinate ban, or ban at all.
4) sock puppet. As i explained earlier, shared computer , same ip, same session on the internet explorer. But that aside there was only one single instance of this alledgedly being used to violate wikipedia rules. Where on one occasion . Note one occasion only in the entire history of my wikipedia usage a page was reverted more than 3 times.
given any fair, and clear policy by wikipedia, an inpartial adminstrator would question a ban at all, let alone an indefinate ban.
Also I would like to question the predjudice of many of the administrators who have commented on this case (see the wiki email section). I post under the name of saladin. My email is abuhamza1970@hotmail.com. During the last 5 days I have been accused of being an al qaida sympathiser, of not sharing the views of civilised society, sympathise with 911, and am a general threat to wikipedia, all because my email is abu hamza, and i have made contributions to the 'zionist' page and reverted changes to the harold shipman page, amongst many other contributions. All of which fall within the remit of wikipedia rules and NPOV (see major, minor view, proportinality etc).
My experience over the last 3 days has been a real eye opener, and i have been exposed to the most horrendous predjudice, accusations ranging from al qaida operative to 911 sympathiser to anti semetic, etc, etc. And these are from the administrators (slim virgin jaygy, philip welch). This hardly gives me or my community a fuzzy warm feeling that Wikipedia is an open community based project that seeks to include others outside of the anglo american community. If my experience is anything to go by, then it does not bode well for my community or other non anglo american, judaic communities.— Precedingunsigned comment added by62.129.121.62 (talk •contribs) 11:50, 22 May 2006
Three revert rule violation onStadium Arcadium (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Wangoed (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) andZagozagozago (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Jtrost (T |C |#)16:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Reverts were made to the first paragraph underChart Performance. Both authors made other, minor changes throughout the article, but the cause of conflict is this first paragraph.Jtrost (T |C |#)16:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I left messages for this other fellow telling him to keep it to the discussion page (where I started a sub-heading for the point in question) and on his user page, linked all sources, etc. This worked & the editing from both sides stopped, but thanks for your vigilance where the rules are concerned.Wangoed16:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onSpanish Inquisition (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).24.145.184.199 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Stbalbach17:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Violation of arbcomm 1/7RR parole[12] onNikola_Tesla (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Reddi (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Note: all 3 are labelled, correctly, as reverts. Reddi is limited to 1R per week, and is aware of this - see his talk pageWilliam M. Connolley19:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onActuarial Outpost (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Avraham (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):Three revert rule violation onActuarial Outpost (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).TheActuary (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments:Might as well delete the article. The owners of the site are trying to use wikipedia as free advertising rather than an accurate historical account of what has happened there. Rather than allow balance and different points of views on events they delete any point of view different than their own. No team work. No balance. No tolerance for differences of opinion.
— Precedingunsigned comment added byBlisterino (talk •contribs)
I have started the sock puppetry issue here:Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA --Avi21:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onJean Grey (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).MetaStar (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Exvicious21:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Three revert rule violation onJuan Cole/sandbox (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Commodore_Sloat (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by: ←Humus sapiensну?23:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:The editing is going on inJuan Cole/sandbox becauseJuan Cole is protected. The corresponding talk isTalk:Juan Cole. ←Humus sapiensну?23:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onKobe Bryant (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Hganesan (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
I'm not sure how to fill this out correctly but there has been a lot of reverting going on from this user on that article and others, and after he was banned, from some IPs that are defending his edits. All three IPs so far have been banned for varying periods...
See
Reported by:++Lar:t/c23:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:I may have been too hasty in handing out some of these blocks, I dunno (I seeUser:Sam Blanning gave some out too. I wasn't intending to get involved, I was just marvelling at how well writtenthis was and wanted to see what the fuss was about and next thing you know I'd reverted one article 3 times myself trying to get it to hold still. Oops. Sorry if this is the wrong place or format.++Lar:t/c23:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onIraq War (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Zer0faults (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Mr. Tibbs02:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Also a mediation request related to this here:[17]. Went through this entire arguement a long time ago too:[18]. --Mr. Tibbs02:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onRoger Needham.67.159.26.65 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Rosicrucian04:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Repeated and intentional vandalism of article, stated intention to continue vandalism on talkpage.
Three revert rule violation onWikipedia:WikiProject Azeri (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:WikiProject Azeri|talk]] |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).72.57.230.179 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Telex12:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Three revert rule violation onIllyrians (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Deucalionite (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Previous version:5 May, 17:10
Reported by:Fut.Perf.☼14:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:User insists on inserting a longish section, half based on some fringy racialist study byCarleton S. Coon, half OR, trying to push the POV of a racial connection between ancient Illyrians and Greeks. Was warned about 3RR on his talk page.Fut.Perf.☼14:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onRachel_Marsden (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).192.197.82.153 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Bucketsofg✐17:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: This is this users second time violating 3RR for this page; he's been blocked three times before for vandalizing this page.
Three revert rule violation onThaksin Shinawatra (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).203.144.143.9 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Paul C17:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
8h as a first offenceWilliam M. Connolley19:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onPhil Reiss (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Xed (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg |Talk00:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:User had been warned both on his personal talk page as well as the article's talk page. As you can see on his last edit summary he indicated that he was aware of the 3RR and that he was in violation of it, but chose to disregard it. He has been blocked several times before.-Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg |Talk00:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Previously reported and blocked asUser:Hganesan (see entry on this page from a day or two ago) and numerous IPs. Almost certainly a sockpuppet, judging by writing style, pages edited and actual content of edits. Requesting a substantial block here (more than just a few hours).
Reported by:Simishag03:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Madchester blocked "12.134.204.214 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (npov violation, despite warnings)William M. Connolley10:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onWii (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).72.130.21.164 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:DivineShadow21805:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:User keeps rverting to delet an external link is a site with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in the article. discluding these reverts, this user has less then 10 edits, I have also warned him/her/it about it.
Three revert rule violation onLilian Garcia (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).AutumnLeaves (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by: --24.196.175.11010:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User continues to delete a useful and relevant link. It appears that the account has been created solely to address this page. Warning given.
Thanks for your attention. While I understand the spirit of the rule, I have conformed to "the 3RR applies to reverts after the third within a 24 hour period". --24.196.175.11011:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onFethullah Gülen (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Netscott (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:talk13:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
It is important to note that Mokotok is now indefinitely banned as a sockpuppet of the indefinitely banned userRgulerdem (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log). --Cyde↔Weys17:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onFethullah Gülen (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Mokotok (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:talk13:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Following up revert scuffle atFethullah Gülen, users notified and warned on that talk page.talk13:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onFethullah Gülen (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Azate (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:talk13:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Following up revert scuffle atFethullah Gülen, users notified and warned on that talk page. Page protected.talk13:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onCanada (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Jeff3000 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Reported bymav14:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onChinese classic texts (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Mel Etitis (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) [&Eiorgiomugini (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)]
I had told him that it was a tidied up job, but he seems not to believe or understand this and I don't sees any problems with my version, unless he could point it out, unfortunately he refused. Some of the edits are really just aminor changes, which is why it doesn't required any reasons on edit summaries.
Reported by:Eiorgiomugini18:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the second cases onwards. Its perfectly clear that you've both broken 3RR. Sigh. 24h eachWilliam M. Connolley19:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onFriedrich Nietzsche (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Petrejo (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Non-vandal04:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Comments:
Thats 5R, but not in 24h or close. An awful lot of new users there... socks? On both sides?William M. Connolley09:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
User:Petrejo has reverted this article four times in the last four hours.mgkelly17:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I've resurrected this from the archive since the violator is still very active. We need some serious action undertaken. Thanks.Non-vandal20:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onKosovo (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Ilir pz (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Krytan21:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Ilir keeps pushing his Albanian propaganda by removing a map of Kosovo as a part of Serbia and Montenegro. As you know, the current status of the province is being discussed at Vienna, but for now, according to the UN resolution 1244, Kosovo remains a part of FRY, which has changed its name to Serbia and Montenegro in February 2003. This is clearly stated in the article (or was, maybe he removed it again). Something must be done about this. --Krytan21:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The time difference is over 24h.Asterion21:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onKaiser Permanente (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Pansophia (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Rhobite21:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
2006-05-21 03:57:06 JoshuaZ blocked "Pansophia (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (48 hour block for 3RR and abuse of anons)William M. Connolley10:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onRachel Summers (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).DrBat (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:SoM01:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
2006-05-21 03:47:36 JoshuaZ blocked "DrBat (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RRV on Rachel Summers)William M. Connolley09:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onRachel Summers (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).MetaStar (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:SoM01:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
I've given both the Dr and Meta 24 hour blocks in which time they will hopefully cool off.JoshuaZ03:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onLibertarianism (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Irgendwer (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by: --rehpotsirhc█♣█ ▪Talk07:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User has already been blocked once for 3RR/vandalism on this article. --rehpotsirhc█♣█ ▪Talk07:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
24hWilliam M. Connolley09:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Wrong conviction!
The "1st revert" was the original and "4th revert" was because of vandalism ofrehpotsirhc who want to killUser:Irgendwer. --Krtzskpsjf14:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onVladimir Žerjavić (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Nelodkan (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Elephantus09:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: A note was left about WP:3RR on this user's talk page before his 4th revert here. All times are CEST (subtract 02:00 to get UTC, shouldn't be too important as it's about intervals, not absolute times). --Elephantus09:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
You have broken 3RR and are now blocked for 12h for itWilliam M. Connolley10:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Adding vanity of toGiggleswick School andSchool of Oriental and African Studies self-important 24-year old founder of a "think tank", which consists of one webpage and has one google hit. Has violated 3RR onGiggleswick School. I've spent all my reverts. —Dunc|☺10:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onTemplate:Socialism sidebar (edit | [[Talk:Template:Socialism sidebar|talk]] |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).
The Middle East Conflict Man (talk ·contribs):
Reported by:Liftarn14:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
2006-05-21 15:23:22 Katefan0 blocked "The Middle East Conflict Man (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Three revert rule violation at Template:Socialism)William M. Connolley15:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onVlachs (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Greier (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Telex17:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
I haven't seen Telex as a tollerant guy here. --Vlachul19:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onList of popular Kollywood films (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Prince_06 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Anwar22:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:This editor keeps reverting to his POV, which itself changes over time. He blanks links in the process.
Continued use ofsockpuppet, now makingthreats as well. User from this IP is almost certainly a sockpuppet ofUser:Hganesan who has already been blocked for at least a week (maybe more) for revert warring, personal attacks, ranting on WikiEN-L... the list goes on and on.
Now he has posted a threat to myself and/orUser:Duhon on my talk page.[58]
Reported by:Simishag23:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Update: at least 2 other users have attempted to sprotectSteve Nash but this guy is removing the protection tags to continue making his own edits.Simishag23:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onGo (board game) (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Deiaemeth (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:OneVeryBadMan00:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: I'm sorry, I couldn't figure how how to get the information for DiffLink and DiffTime. But this guy and another have made about 20 reverts between them over the last hours.
It looks likeUser:RevolverOcelotX andUser:Deiaemeth have both broken 3RR. Have given both 24 hours to cool down.JoshuaZ01:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onNSA call database (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Philwelch (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Travb (talk)
01:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User began to edit section when I put an {{inuse}} tag in the section, when I brought this to his attention on his talk page, he told me it was my fault, not his, and then began reverting my graph, despite {{inuse}} tag, stating: "no edits in past hour so apparently not in use"[60] which is clearly not true because of the edit 1 minute before.Travb12:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I would likePhil Welch blocked for 3RR, as per policy. He started the revert war. 5 minutes later Jareth unblocked him.
Philwelch stated here:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR And I've already blocked myself for 24 hours—I had no idea Jaroth would unblock me, and I don't even know him. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 22:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
This is not true:[62][63] Phil does know Jareth, despite what he said. Phil has worked with Jareth before.
Jareth is not the impartial observer that he claims, and Philwelch stated he didn't know Jareth, when he does.
I would like someone who has never been involved in this incident, who does not know the three of us, to resolve this matter. I will be satisfied with the result. And this incident will die.
This whole incident reeks of favortism.Travb (talk)01:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
15:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Three revert rule violation onWushu (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Subwaynz (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Llort02:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:This is the second time this user has violated the 3RR rule on this article - and has been blocked once already.[64] A number of editors have attempted to get Subwaynz to gather consensus, but have been ignored. Subwaynz has also stated that he will "re edit this every time"[65]
24hWilliam M. Connolley08:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onNeo-Nazism (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Mir_Harven (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Maayaa04:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
2006-05-21 12:57:39 William M. Connolley blocked "Mir Harven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (incivility; extending) - will that do?William M. Connolley09:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onNeo-Nazism (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Roberta_F. (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Maayaa04:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
3RR violation onRobin Webb (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) bySpinyNorman (talk ·contribs)
Reported bySlimVirgin(talk)07:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments
These are straightforward reverts by SpinyNorman, four in under two hours, to previous versions, changing that "Robin Webb runs theAnimal Liberation Press Office in the UK to "Robin Webb is press officer for theAnimal Liberation Front in the UK." He has been warned before about 3RR.[69]
SpinyNorman turned up at several vivisection and animal-rights related articles in December 2005, and proceeded to add small errors to them, repeatedly reverting to his versions against all arguments, and being very disruptive. He stopped after a few weeks, but suddenly started again today, reverting to the same versions.
His change at Robin Webb implies that Webb only answers media enquiries for the Animal Liberation Front, which is not correct, and that he is their only press officer, which is also not correct. In fact, Webb runs the Animal Liberation Press Office, which handles media enquiries for a number of activist groups (as their website makes clear[70]), and there are other press officers working under him.SlimVirgin(talk)07:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
He has also violated 3RR onCenter for Consumer Freedom (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views), which is run by the Washington lobbyist Richard Berman, removing that it's funded by the alcohol and tobacco industries. Even though 3RR is not dependent on content, here are some sources indicating that it is indeed so funded.[71][72][73][74][75] Berman himself is a well-known lobbyist on behalf of tobacco and alcohol.
Reported bySlimVirgin(talk)08:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onIslamophobia (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Irishpunktom (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Karl Meier09:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Irishpunktom has just returned from his previous 3rr ban on the same article, and for some reason he immidiately started to revert the efforts that has been made to make the definition of the term that is mentioned in the intro section referenced and attributed to the mentioned source. Several editors including myself has opposed his actions, but despite this, he has continued to revert. --Karl Meier09:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onUkrainian Insurgent Army (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).83.22.217.63 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Ukrained11:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Repetitiously adding inflammatory unsourced statements/pictures, accompanied by trollish foreign language edit summaries.
Three revert rule violation onMakedonska Kamenica municipality (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Vlatkoto (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log),194.141.39.2 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by: /FunkyFly.talk_ 17:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
24hWilliam M. Connolley19:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onChristian views of Jesus (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Bbagot (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Andrew c03:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: On May 19th,Bbagot broke the 3RR rule. Iinformed the editor as a warning because the user is new. However, Bbagot neverreversed the violation. Fast foward to tonight. The editor is back at it again with the edit warring. The editor is intent on adding a disclaimer warning at the top of the article, and removing a sentence explaining the Jewish POV (that was sourced after initial concern by Bbagot). I have also been involved in slow edit wars with this user atGospel of Matthew,Gospel of Luke, andMessianic prophecy. I have tried to voice my concerns on the talk pages, but this editor seems to be a little trigger happy about adding disputed content to the article right in the middle of content disputes. I personally feel the best corse of action at this time would be administrator intervetion informing the user of policy and pointing out the disruptive nature of their edit warring. (A ban may be prudent as well, but it may be premature for that. However, obviously that isn't my call).--Andrew c03:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Bbagot03:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot
3h eachWilliam M. Connolley07:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Per SlimVirgin, I have unblocked Jayjg.Sjakkalle(Check!)08:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
For the record there was an 8th revert (7 minutes off from a 2nd 3RR violation)
-Andrew c13:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry... I've been offline. Apologies to Jayjg: I was too hasty. Bbagot would have got longer only I wanted to be symmetrical for once; so the block increase, now, is fine by meWilliam M. Connolley15:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onCriticism of Mormonism (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).A.J.A. (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:DavidBailey03:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: On May 22ndA.J.A. broke the 3RR rule. Iinformed the editor as a warning. User continues to revert over multiple edits by multiple users claiming that the information is inaccurate when it is at least reasonably relevant and pertinent as to warrant discussion rather than wholesale reversions. (IE- definition ofTheosis and other related information) User has been requested by moderator to adopt a less critical tone and to discuss rather than continue to revert. User has continued reversions, insults, and condescending tone. It is obvious fromuser's talk page that edit wars and reversions have been an issue and that he is used to getting his way regardless of other views or editing efforts.
24hWilliam M. Connolley07:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
3RR violation onWikipedia:No personal attacks (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs) byCol. Hauler (talk ·contribs)Reported bySlimVirgin(talk)13:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
CommentsThese are straightforward reverts, each time removing text about off-wiki attacks being policy violations. He has been blocked before for 3RR (actually 9RR).[86] This time, he was warned and was offered the opportunity to revert himself but did not do so.User_talk:Col._Hauler#3Rr_warningSlimVirgin(talk)13:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment: maybe it's me, but this report seems malformed.SlimVirgin, shouldn't there be links in your report to diffs that demonstrate four reverts (or effective reverts)? My own search shows three, and I want to be sure I'm not missing something. Thanks.RadioKirktalk to me16:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand this block. It seems punitive.User:SlimVirgin did not present the proper evidence of violation of 3RR. This seems like an attempt to keep a version of a page against consensus in talk. --Malber (talk •contribs)16:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onNintendo DS (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Ed g2s (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Malamockq16:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
This Admin Holds weaker standards for himself than he holds for other users. He has Offended Multiple users by removing fair use images yet has a userspace with one of the worst Fair use Violations on wikipedia. I have addressed the issue on his talk page. A block in nothing he should loose admin privilegesUser_talk:Ed_g2s#Fair_use_Disgrace--E-Bod02:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
This user has Since gotten Into More revert wars enforcing the fair use PolicyTalk:List_of_Lost_episodes#Outrage_at_Ed_g2s. During this revert war Other uninvolved Constructive edits were reverted back and forth and not just the issues at had. This user May have every right to Enforce WP:FUC but he is not good at avoiding conflicts. I need to be more civil when dealing with this user but he can't continue to remove Fair use images if he does not care to remove them in the least offence manner.--E-Bod22:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onArdahan (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Denix (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:User:Telex16:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Three revert rule violation onNikola Tesla (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).72.144.60.85 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:William M. Connolley22:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Oh b*ll*cks, this just isn't my day :-(. OK, add[96] (72.144.150.233) as the 0th revert. The 72.144's are almost without a doubt the same (they locate to florida). Hmm, but that would require a range block to be of any use. Semi-protect perhaps?William M. Connolley22:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
And another just now:[97] (72.153.86.152). --PhilosophusT23:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onUser:CrnaGora (edit | [[Talk:User:CrnaGora|talk]] |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).C-c-c-c (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Telex00:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Blocked for 25 hours.JoshuaZ01:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onDiscjockey (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) andDiscJockey (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Lexio (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
(and on a substantially similar page)
Reported by:Chaser (T)07:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: I warned him on his talk page without response. Both of the articles are candidates for redirect and protection to prevent him from messing again, IMHO.Chaser (T)
Three revert rule violation onMakedonska Kamenica municipality (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Vlatkoto (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) a.k.a.194.141.39.2 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Telex11:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Three revert rule violation onNeil Lennon (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Karatekid7 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:LloydEstralondo12:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
I know and admit that I have reverted the article more than 3 times. However I believe that there is a bit of sockpuppetry involved here that is trying to get me into trouble.
Editors to the page apart from me are:
all I believe are the same person. who is perma banned disruptive vandal and master of puppetsTheMadTim (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·nuke contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
The user who reported the 3RR violation has one edit to his name? You would have to be very familiar with Wikipedia policy that your first edit to wikipedia is to report a violation ofWP:3RR but if you are a sockpuppet of a user who is known to attack other users such asuser:공수 아이는 수음자 이다 then it is not so strange is it?
--Karatekid719:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I've been sort of following this saga. All of the edits were reverting sock-puppets of a blocked user who is also resorting to using open proxies to continue his abuse. As they were removing changes made by a blocked user, the 3RR doesn't apply. The reporting user is probably yet another sock. --GraemeL(talk)21:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Another new sock has appeared.
TheMadTim has previously accused me of usinguser:Bill_the_Bear as a sockpuppet a fact that I totally dispute. This must surely be a username violation? --Karatekid723:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onGnosticism_in_modern_times (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Demiurge010 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Weregerbil 14:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC); adjusted by:LambiamTalk16:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Yes, I think this is simple vandalism (so why are you reporting it as 3RR...?). Blocked 24h anyway.William M. Connolley17:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onList of cities in Bulgaria (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).TodorBozhinov (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Todor Bozhinov →15:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Three revert rule violation onList of cities in Bulgaria (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Хаха (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by: /FunkyFly.talk_ 15:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Three revert rule violation onGnosticism in modern times (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Demiurge011 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:LambiamTalk21:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Indef blocked all 3 as socksWilliam M. Connolley08:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onSeptember 11, 2001 attacks (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).69.114.54.15 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Bill22:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Seems to have stopped; can have 3h as a first offenceWilliam M. Connolley09:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onSaints Cyril and Methodius (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).192.88.212.43 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Telex23:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
8hWilliam M. Connolley15:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onMacedonia (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).MatriX (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Telex11:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
MatriX11:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
This is 4 clear reverts - I don't understand the discussion - in each case M removes "Republic of Macedonia/former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". 24h
Three revert rule violation onSuppressive Person (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Olberon (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by: -GlTC(Stollery)13:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments
Times above are in my local time (New Zealand - UTC + 12)
Has self-reverted; no blockWilliam M. Connolley13:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onFirst Amendment to the United States Constitution (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).
Pythagoras (talk ·contribs):
Reported by:Paul Cyr15:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
24h, since you could do with some peaceWilliam M. Connolley16:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onTalk:Fethullah Gülen (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Fethullah Gülen|talk]] |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Netscott (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Irishpunktom\talk16:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:User had made reversion to anearlier version still, earlier, but those are four to the exact same edition. Userwas informed that they had breached the 3rr, and merely retorted "by all means report me". user wanted to srike out a Sokpuppets additions, which meant most of the page was struck out. It made the page ugly and illegable. --Irishpunktom\talk16:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea if there is any policy or guideline that mandates stiking out of suckpuppet contributions on talk pages, and I'm too lazy to find out. I think the easiest course of action would be to simply archive the talk page, with or without strikes, and for the two of you to stop this ado about nothing. It's just a stupid talk page! Everybody with half a mind will come to the correct conclusions about the value of the contributions on that page, regardless of them being stroke (striked/struck?) out or not. I'd counselUser:Netscott to not file a 3RR againstUser:Irishpunktom as he probably could and would, and I'd counselUser:Irishpunktom to revoke this 3RR report.Azate18:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
So. I archived the talk page (without the strikeouts) because the legibility problem is real. I also added a last section that shortly summarizes the RFCU result. This will serve the same purpose as the strikeouts. Everybody happy now?Azate18:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment bySzvest - All i have to say for the moment is that this case doesn't deserve all this fuss. The page is a talk page and what one side of this conflict did is to strike a comment by a sockpuppet of a user evading a block. Indeed, the page is already archived and both should forget about it. I believe it is a kindav of anunwanted compromise but well, it's done. Please try to forget about this case guys and focus on other stuff as to resolve your dispute(s). You are both considered as established users and you are due to cooperate instead. I already offered both users a mediation from my partsee Tom talk page andScott's one and both are willing to pursue it, i believe. Let's look forward for now. We don't want you to waste your time on abstract stuff. Cheers --Szvest19:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Wiki me up™
3RR violation onAhmad Thomson (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) bySpinyNorman (talk ·contribs)
Reported bySlimVirgin(talk)20:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
CommentsSpinyNorman is engaged in complex, partial reverts, apparently in an effort to get round 3RR, by repeatedly removing or rewriting material about criticism ofAhmad Thomson that appeared in several British newspapers. In the above diffs, he either removes the entire section of criticism, which is based on articles in theDaily Telegraph orGuardian (both respectable newspapers); or he removes links to the newspapers, leaving the material unsourced; or he rewrites the material to remove parts of the criticism. He was blocked for 3RR just a few days ago,[108] and was today offered the opportunity to revert himself.[109]SlimVirgin(talk)20:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onDorset (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Steinsky (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Anwar22:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:The user is an admin! He claims the table is redundant, inappropriate and meaningless. He has posted ainuse tag.
AKA User:Canadia, User:70.27.46.241Three revert rule violation onAnti-Canadianism (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Canadia (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):Vandalism, fake protection tags, edit warring, refusal to respond to reason on talk page, personal attacks, even stated outright a contempt for 3RR[115]
Reported by:CanadianCaesarCæsar is turn’d to hear00:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onGoce Delchev (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).62.162.195.81 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by: /FunkyFly.talk_ 01:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
The anonymous user is removing the name "Bulgarian" and other sourced information such as the text of the statue, which is given in a document in the page. /FunkyFly.talk_ 01:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onGoce Delchev (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).FunkyFly (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by: /FunkyFly.talk_ 15:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Three revert rule violation onCanada (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Gbambino (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Gbambino believes that the article should contain the term "kingdom". This is under dispute, with at least two users on each side, atTalk:Canada. We have had an admin join the fray, mostly to say "settle this here, before you change the main article". SINCE then, Gbambino has edited the main article twice, both times without contributing to the discussion.
Reported by:AshleyMorton16:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The debate appears to be taking a more productive turn - perhaps I reported too soon.AshleyMorton16:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onSocialism (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).172 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:-- Vision Thing --16:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Recently 172 made acomplete rewrite of Socialism article and now he doesn't allow any significant changes to it.-- Vision Thing --17:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, this report is trollish.Vision Thing (talk ·contribs) has been making baffling reversions tosocialism for days, ignoring the input of every other editor who has reviewed the rewrite. Vision Thing has never considered the advice ofCberlet, who told him: "Simply reverting it back to previous versions, or plopping in huge POV sections from past versions, is not constructive editing." He has ignored Cberlet's second plea: "If folks want to change paragraphs and discuss them, that is one thing, but this childish revert war must stop. 172 did a major edit that much improved the article. Simply reverting it back to previous versions, or plopping in huge POV sections from past versions, is not constructive editing." My pleas have similarly fallen on deaf ears. A look at the article talk page will demonstrate that Vision Thing is uninterested in compromise, and merely making an attempt to game the system here. I will be disappointed if an administrator decides to reward his bad behavior.
On a related note, an anon IP seems with Vision Thing's editing pattern and interests is making the same reversions tosocialism as Vision Thing.72.139.119.165 I will appreciate it if an administrator looks into the matter.172 |Talk08:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't try to smear me by posting unsupported claim, if you suspect something there is a place for reporting violations. In my view, I'm only one who has been working towards compromise, since I moved a part of the old content to other article instead of "plopping" it into a new one. But that didn't stoped you in folowing me, and blanking new article three times[121] even though it had Tottalydisputed tag. Also, you didn't reverted just me but TheTrueSora, MarxistJiggers and 72.139.119.165[122].-- Vision Thing --08:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Even if we exclude reversion of MarxistJiggers's edit, you still reverted to your version 4 times in 24h period. For 72.139.119.165 edits, he did reverted my adding "Types of socialism" section but then he added shorter version of it[125] and you reverted him[126].-- Vision Thing --13:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onList of ethnic slurs (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Tyutmf (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by: tasc talkdeeds23:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onList of ethnic slurs (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views). As shown above, he attempted to delete material with citations from a printed dictionary.Tasc (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Tyutmf06:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onAbortion (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).84.146.250.16 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments:This user is quite likely the same person asUser:84.146.204.38, based not only on the IP but their editing pattern. However, even asUser:84.146.250.16, there were more than 4 reverts. I only listed the most recent ones.User:Alienus
Thanks. Hopefully, that'll get them to log in and join the other editors in discussion.Al18:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onTourism in Croatia (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).
Reported by:EurowikiJ12:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:The user has dismissed the call to self-revert as he purports to be fighting vandalism.EurowikiJ12:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The user keeps reinserting the POV passage on the supposed conspiracy of Croatian tourism industry to silence the mine-awarness campaign in Croatia. He is opposed by a number of Croatian contributors as the whole issue has finally been dealt with the help of an administrator onMinefields in Croatia in a more encyclopeadic manner (though another like-mindedUser:Maayaa and he have been contesting the new version). Also, the user insists on inserting an "Attacks on tourists from former Yugoslavia" section whose inclusion and inflammatory wording has also been opposed by a number of Croatian contributors but to no avail, not least as it purports to include Slovenia where Croatia happens to be the most popular tourist destination. Please see the articles's discussion page.EurowikiJ12:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onGay rights opposition (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Alienus (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:CovenantD19:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments I hope I have the format of this correct. I'm not sure what is meant by "* Previous version reverted to: [http://VersionLink VersionTime] . If I've done this incorrectly, hopefully an admin will explain to me exactly what I did wrong and how to do it right.CovenantD19:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onGolden_Dawn_tradition (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).JMax555 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:20:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:This revert warring has been going on for a while on the article. Others aside fromJMax555 may need to be blocked for 3RR as well. --20:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onVlachs (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Greier (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by: --Aldux21:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Has been blocked six times, three times this month.--Aldux21:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
At last an easy one. Another 3 daysWilliam M. Connolley21:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Where is the tollerance of Telex here? --Vlachul19:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
reported byRex GermanusTesi samanunga is edele unde scona22:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Well thats all very well, but you haven't used the full template and (more importantly) you've broken 3RR yourself. So 12h apieceWilliam M. Connolley10:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
reported by —Khoikhoi01:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: He removes the sources and then asks for sources. Gave 24 hr. Please use the#Report a new violation pattern next time. Thanks. ←Humus sapiensну?10:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onJesse Jackson (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Politician818 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:jpgordon∇∆∇∆03:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: I noticed that the user has been already blocked for 24hr. ←Humus sapiensну?10:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onRachel Corrie (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Arniep (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: User insist adding links to sites which do not fitWP:RS. The links were added intially by an anon editor (?) and were removed by several editors.Zeq03:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
The diff shows no diff because the result of the edit is a 100% reveret, hence no change.Zeq18:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
24hWilliam M. Connolley10:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onMethylphenidate (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Fsk (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Dr Zak03:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:Adds links to partisan websites. Has been pointed outinseveralplaces that such links are not accepted per the external links policy yet continues inserting them.Dr Zak03:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Reported by:Deiaemeth06:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:Acts against consensus and removes Korea and messes up the article out of one's own hatred against Korea, was blocked before because of exact same offense. Carelessly deletes information off the page and has, on the last edit, accidentally removed theUnited States off the list instead ofSouth Korea.
Three revert rule violation onHoisin sauce (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).RevolverOcelotX (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Yuje11:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Three revert rule violation onHoisin sauce (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Yuje (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:RevolverOcelotX12:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Three revert rule violation onTemplate:Socialism_sidebar (edit | [[Talk:Template:Socialism_sidebar|talk]] |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).172 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:-- Vision Thing --13:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:Now this is just dishonest. The third difference was not a revert[145]. In that edit I was working toward a compromise whereby Vision Thing's personal fork "types of socialism" can be hidden until he addresses the serious problems noted onTalk:Types of socialism. After Vision Thing ignored the offers of compromise onTalk:Types of socialism, never commenting on the problems concerning his fork, I made the edit reported in the fourth difference (which happens to be only the second, not the thrird or fourth, in a 24 hr window) out of frustration. This 3RR report is just an attempt to game the system by an editor who is unwilling to engage in a serious discussion of substantive feedback on article content.172 |Talk14:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
This is clearly 4R - hiding the text in the article is functionally the same as deleting it; arguing otherwise is sophistry. VT - you nearly got blocked too... you're edit warring too. Be carefulWilliam M. Connolley19:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I just made a compromise offer to him[146]. I hope that that will set things right between us.-- Vision Thing --19:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Note: this was overturned by Tawker: see 172's talk pageWilliam M. Connolley22:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onJarmann_M1884 (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Tyhopho (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:WegianWarrior14:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Comments
Gets off with a warning this time, since seems to be new and to have stoppedWilliam M. Connolley19:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onDaz Sampson (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).
You currently appear to be engaged in anedit war according to the reverts you have made on74.65.39.59. Note that thethree-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 thethree-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try todiscuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains aconsensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seekdispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to requestpage protection. If the edit warring continues,you may beblocked from editing without further notice. :
Reported by:Englishrose17:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Comments:
Three revert rule violation onRochdale (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).82.69.96.41 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:18:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:Two editors warring over the external links to theRochdale page - both want theirs to be the only link. Not all the diffs areexactly the same, as in the rush to include their links they are also destroying the section title, interwiki links and categories; 3RR has certainly been broken however. First user was warned of 3RR earlier todayhere18:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked 82.69.96.41 for 24h. Not sure if this will help, as may be on a new IPWilliam M. Connolley08:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onAstrology (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).32.106.141.211 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Marskell22:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:The first edit was by .212 and the last three by .211. The first was called a "vandalism revert", so I'm presuming this user has done this before. Another editor rv'ed the first and I've done three since (sorry). Do note what's being reverted is sourced and that the second edit of mine was an attempted compromise.
3h as a first offenceWilliam M. Connolley08:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
This last one is still in the three hour period of the initial block.Marskell10:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onKosovo Liberation Army (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Bormalagurski (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:ilir_pz23:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:The user above has refused to check theWikipedia:Reliable_sources when editing and using his NPOV propaganda pushing, and kept reverting accordingly. The user is well-known for his NPOV revert war waging, has been blocked 4 times previously, for 3RR and personal attacks, having sockpuppets and impersonating wikipedia users[149]. Furthermore he keeps calling people liars, if they do not agree with his POV. Some action against this user would be appreciated. Thank you in advance!
-23:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)-00:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Three revert rule violation onPatrick_Henry_College (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Aplomado (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Guettarda01:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
User is obviously aware of the 3RR, since he has used the following edit summary:
(cur) (last) 23:14, 28 May 2006 Aplomado (rv - if you revert again, you will be listed at WP:3RR)
As he clearly knows about 3RR, I've blocked for 24 hours.SlimVirgin(talk)03:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onSaints Cyril and Methodius (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Nedko (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Miskin01:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:The user has been POV-pushing, abusing POV-tags, sockpuppeting and edit-warring for several days on the same article, each time for a different reason. The past two todays a large number of people spent their time to explain to him how wikipedia works and finally persuaded him to stop POV-pushing. Today he creates a completely different problem and finds another reason to start edit-warring (adding POV-tags over a category). The user was warned on his third revert[156].Miskin01:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
All reverts were to re-add the POV tag, stating the easy provenfact that page neutrality is being disputed on the talk page.Nedkoself bias resist03:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, all reverts in the past 3 hours or so. You've been edit-warring for several days (sometimes under different usernames) and it's obvious that you intend to continue doing so by inventing new problems every day. I'm sorry but I have wasted too much of my time and energy trying to explain to you how this encyclopaedia works. It appears that some people can only learn the hard way.Miskin03:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
24hWilliam M. Connolley08:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onAnaheim Hills, Anaheim, California (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Ericsaindon2 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments:I appreciate his earnesty and hard work, but despite the fact that the staw poll revealed that the article shouldnot include an infobox, he has insisted upon it and ignored our removal of it. We have warned him a number of times, including on his userpage, but he remains determined. We need to protect this article so we do not have to waste our time babysitting him.Adambiswanger104:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Reported by:Adambiswanger104:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onMahmoud Ahmadinejad (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Jeremygbyrne (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Zeq10:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: All edit summeries indicate a revert. The last 4 are in the last 24 hours but the violator shows a pattern of ownership over this (and other Iran related) articles pushing away edits and trying to push editors who don't fit his POV. He also made threats ("go away") such as the one in this edit summary:[163] and to top it off he even reverted the talk page of that article....
Has any admin looked at this issue ??????????Zeq11:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone applied a remedy on this case ???????????????Zeq04:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onApartheid (disambiguation) (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).HOTR (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:PinchasC |£€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€12:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:He is adding in the paragraphs about Israeli apartheid and apartheid wall. He has been previously blocked twice for 3rr violations.[164]
SeeTalk:Apartheid (disambiguation), there has been a repeated attempt to vandalise the article by removing links to articles that use the term "apartheid" in a way Pecher and a few others don't like. There removal of the sentences is simply vandalism and is in violation of our policy onWikipdia:Disambiguation.Homey19:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I am blocking him for 24 hours, it should be more since this is his third offence. For some reason on the 3rr report by Pecher below he got away with a warning however he should know better since he has been previously been blocked twice for this and he is an admin. --PinchasC |£€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€21:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onViews and controversies concerning Juan Cole (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Armon (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:csloat12:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:Fourth revert is a partial revert as the other parts that he had been reverting had not been changed back. Armon was repeatedly warned in talk about this revert and asked to explain each of his changes, specifically the deletion he made in the fourth revert. He refused to respond in talk and only used cryptic and misleading edit summaries to justify what he was doing.--csloat12:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, 8h as first offenceWilliam M. Connolley21:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onIsraeli_apartheid (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).HOTR (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:PecherTalk13:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: The first two reverts were removals of the unencyclopedic tag inserted by another editor; the last two reverts were re-insertions of material from sources the reliability of which is disputed. See also a report above on the 3RR violation by HOTR onApartheid (disambiguation).PecherTalk13:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
3RR does not apply when one is reverting vandalism. Zeq attempted to blank a large part of the article (the "pro" side if you will) leaving only the "anti" side.Homey20:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
It is not "well established" there. Please don't make things up. As for vandalism, this edit by you isclearly an act of vandalismHomey20:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
And my first two reverts did not touch the content of the articleat all. They were about an unsupported tag, one that the person who put it there has subsequently agreed to remove.Homey20:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not desperately happy about this... but judging a genuine misunderstanding of the rules by Homey, and this reply[166], I'm giving him a warning and reminder of the rulesWilliam M. Connolley20:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)