Three-revert rule violation onWikipedia:Discuss, don't vote (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote|talk]] |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Radiant! (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: Thefourth edit byNetscott is not a reversion.John25415:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onHan_Chinese (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Mamin27 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: Please check his block log.Khoikhoi05:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onChuck Munson (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Chuck0 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
3RR warning just a short while ago previously by an administrator on his talk page:[2]
Comments:
Three-revert rule violation onHistory of the Jews in Ukraine (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Hillock65 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Warning:01:08, 26 December 2006
Three-revert rule violation onAnton Balasingham ([[Special:EditPage/Anton Balasingham|edit]] | [[Talk:Anton Balasingham|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/Anton Balasingham|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/Anton Balasingham|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/Anton Balasingham|delete]] |links |watch |logs |views).Rajsingam (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: He is three month older wikipedian who holds 589 total edit count and can be seen on someSri Lanka related controversial topics. So I don't think that he does need any 3RR warning prior to the report.[3] --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪Walkie-talkie15:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
--Iwazaki17:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Seems to have gone quiet now. 3h block as a tokenWilliam M. Connolley20:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onWhat_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!? (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).61.68.119.205 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: This user has multiple IPs, at the leastUser:61.68.119.205User:61.68.191.123 andUser:61.68.177.89. Was warned atthis talk page. Doesn't wait for consensus, insists that because a message has been left on the talk page (which was disputed by other editors), this is license to add anything at whim. Was asked to slow down and wait for consensus, but won't. The four reverts occur over 25 hours and 19 minutes, butWP:3RR says "Users may be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day" and in light of the warning and disputatious nature of talk page edits (user also had to be warned twice for NPA), I think this is a special case. — coelacantalk —15:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Given that this was not within 24h, and is now fairly stale, and its multiple IPs, I can't see any point in a block. Bring it back if it recurrsWilliam M. Connolley20:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Time reported: 17:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Comments: The first three are just straight reverts across three separate editors (the third is where I tried to restore a previously stable version of the page) but the last shows that this user undidmost of my last edit. According to my understanding ofWP:3RR this is a revert as well. I brought thisto the attention of this editor and he disagreed that it was a revert.User:Hipocrite is a user in good standing and if I am correct about these reverts then I would not want him to be blocked (just warned much likeUser:Radiant!above) but I would appreciate if those with a bit more authority could clarify this. Thanks.(→Netscott)17:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
3R; I can't see why the 4th is a rvWilliam M. Connolley20:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onStar_Wars_Episode_II:_Attack_of_the_Clones (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Venom-smasher (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: This user andThe Filmaker (talk ·contribs) have been going back and forth on a few of theStar Wars movie pages for a couple of days. I tried article protection on theEpisode I page to calm things down, and warned that resumption of edit warring would result in blocks. However, I think that, having since joined relevant discussion, I should defer to someone else to block for the continuing revert war. Times are UTC -5. —TKD::Talk19:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onStar_Wars_Episode_II:_Attack_of_the_Clones (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).The_Filmaker (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: Times are UTC -5. See above for the other half of this revert war (Venom-smasher (talk ·contribs)). Iwarned about 3RR when I unprotected the Episode I article, but have since entered discussion myself, so I don't feel comfortable applying blocks in this dispute. I was hoping that there would be a better solution to this, but, as the diffs show, it's gotten pretty ugly. —TKD::Talk19:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onBaklava (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).12.170.101.194 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
3RR warning on a different article was made this morning[9].
Comments: This is an IP that has been edit warring in a number of hot ethnic disputes. Even though he is an anon, he seems to know Wiki policies well. I had warned him of the 3RR before in another disputed article[10]. User targets mainly articles concerning one ethnicity and has been making numerous extremely POV edits like the one here[11]Baristarim21:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onFoie gras (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).ramdrake (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: The user ramdrake reverted my contribution to a scientifical description of foie gras (as an effect of steatosis pathology) pretending that it "imparts a strong negative bias". But my contribution was a description of a fact, which he recognizes, and there were not any subjective valuations. Telling facts does not impart negative bias, just like telling that Saddam Hussein killed people is not a negative bias but just "letting the facts speak for themselves", as recommanded inWP:NPOV.
These four edits by Ramdrake clearlyare reverts. They are the plainest reverts you can get!
If these are not reverts, both in the strict sense of the term and in the spirit of the 3RR guidelines, I really do not know what might qualify as a revert!
Ramdrake, along with other users, is counting on the strict enforcement of the 3RR rule against those who disagree with them, while being able to do exactly what they want to the foie gras page. Do the rules not apply to them? Is it NPOV for one party to be able to do what it wants, while the other sits paralyzed?
David Olivier23:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onHistorical_Persecution_by_Jews (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Aminz (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments:
My only purpose was to add content to the article. The first edit for example is not a revert. As one can see from the talk page User: Charlie added the tag because he thought the title of the article is inherently POV. However I argued that we have articles onHistorical Persecution by Christians andHistorical persecution by Muslims and removed the tag. Later he added the tag again commenting that: "I overreacted, perhaps. But I still think that much of the content is very POV..." As soon as he pointed out the content dispute, I didn't remove the tag. I didn't mean the removal of the tag to be arevert. There is a story behind each other edits. I was about to add more content to the new section I've created which specifically ties the section to Judaism but couldn't do that because I was afraid it would be considered a revert. My feeling of the situation is that Beit Or is only removing whatever I add. --Aminz11:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onKrashovani (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).89.172.195.192 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three-revert rule violation onUkrainian-German collaboration during World War II (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Beit Or (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments:
Three-revert rule violation onAllegations_of_Israeli_Apartheid (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).jd2718 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
No evidence of warning, butuser:jd2718 has been a wikipedian for over half a year and has nearly 1000 edits.
Comments: There were no other edits between the 1st and 2nd revert, so perhaps they make up a single revert, in two pieces. But insofar asuser:jayjgwarned me I thought I should bring this here to be enforced or dropped.
Three-revert rule violation onList_of_anime_conventions (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).TheFarix (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three-revert rule violation onDavid_Westerfield (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Fighting_for_Justice (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments:
This is part of a long-standing dispute. For simplicity, I have given only his last four reverts.
It's not protected any more. Here are the 4 diffs:
Further CommentsI'd suggest dropping the issue. Your edits were badly done(Making a line break in the middle of a sentence, removing key information from the article) etc. You keep re-instating a bad edit, and I'm not sure if that's protected under the 3RR rule. And you're at least as guilty as he is, it seems.--Vercalos09:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Line break in the middle of a sentence? That’s COMMON: for example, EVERY sentence in your comment overflows a line. Removing key information? That’s what “Fighting for Justice” does, not me. You’ve got it the wrong way round. So it was GOOD edits I was reinstating. Which IS protected under the 3RR.196.15.168.4004:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onKosovo Protection Corps (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Noah30 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
3RR warning (since removed from users talk page)21:10, December 27, 2006
Comments: lots of warring on this article, all parties should be blocked for 3RR.
2006-12-28T20:47:05 Robdurbar (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Noah30 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3rr violation) and2006-12-28T20:47:10 Robdurbar (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "KosMetfan (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3rr violation)William M. Connolley20:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onCreationism (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Ymous (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments:
Three-revert rule violation onUkrainian-German collaboration during World War II (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Bryndza (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: Second revert is by an IP 65.94.19.47, which is "likely" him:Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Bryndza. He has subsequently admitted the edit is his (diff)Bucketsofg22:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Follow up:
Editors who have been banned from editing particular pages, or banned or blocked from Wikipedia in general, and who continue to edit anyway, either directly or through a sock-puppet, may be reverted without the reverts counting towards the limit established by this policy.
The three-revert rule is intended to stop edit wars. For your information, articleUkrainian-German collaboration during World War II have been blocked from editing and revert war stopped. Please also consider that in my 1+ year of editing experience at WP I was never involved in editing wars and have no intent to be drawn into them anymore. --Bryndza05:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
2006-12-28T15:14:00 Bucketsofg (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II: protect to end edit warring [edit=sysop:move=sysop])William M. Connolley11:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onFoie_gras (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).SchmuckyTheCat (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments:
The first four reverts were done by SchmuckyTheCat in less than 24 hours, on the same item: he repeatedly put back the "good article" template on the talk page of the foie gras article. Each time, he also relisted the article on the GA page. He also at least once (such as inthis diff) deleted the TotallyDisputed template from the main foie gras page. Strictly speaking, he has thus done a lot more than 4 reverts in those 24 hours.
Those reverts are on an issue that in itself shouldn't be disputed, which is the fact that the foie gras pageis disputed. SchmuckyTheCat appears unable to recognize even theexistence of disagreeing voices.
SchmuckyTheCat was warned by me after the fourth revert (seehere on the talk page) but he only sneered, and went on to perform two other reverts that same evening, on other issues.
I do not think the controversy on the foie gras page is to be resolved by revert counting; however, there are rules, and the liberties that SchmuckyTheCat and others repeatedly take with those rules gives them an unfair advantage, allowing them to go on editing the page in a totally POV manner while remaining completely oblivious of all attempts to discussion. This is why I now ask measures to be taken against SchmuckyTheCat.
David Olivier00:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
As perWP:GA/R, the GA tag is to be removed when a user sees that the article does not satisfy the criteria. The review process is forrelisting the article. That there is an ongoing edit war is uncontroversial, and it is particularly absurd to try to dispute the fact that the article is disputed. To call vandalism an edit by someone who disagrees with you is just rhetoric.David Olivier01:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not very happy with all this, but... firstly, reverts to article and talk pages are (AFAIK) counted separately (this could be a Good Question). Secondly STC should not have rv'd 4 times to restore the GA tag, but its semi-stale now; and I don't think the GA tag should simply be removed. So STC gets a warningWilliam M. Connolley11:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onBrett_Favre (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Starwars1955 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: User has beenblocked two or three times before, at least once for violating 3RR.here's the first time he was blocked. He's reverting to a version with no citations, which violatesWP:CITE and then says that listing citations twice is against the rules. SeeBrett Favre history and our discussion on thetalk page which he seems to ignore.++aviper2k7++00:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
72h given previous recordWilliam M. Connolley11:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onMetropolis (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).R9tgokunks (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Comments:User:R9tgokunks (Hrödberäht) vandalise (edit war, 3RR) arcicles:Metropolis,Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union,Ostrava,List of famous German Americans,Father of the Nation etc, etc. He's always revert. See history in arcicles (all edit war R9tgokunks vs all users in all arcicles):[38],[39],[40],[41],[42] etc. Please help. Please blocked this user on month (or more).LUCPOL 00:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)PS: He manipulates, it lets old links (see highly - links discussion from... september etc).LUCPOL00:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I will repeat. He leads many edit wars and 3RR! Not one or two - many. Please help (except Wildnox).LUCPOL01:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
How can the vandal get blocked,and the contributor who reverted the vandalism also get blocked? Surely this doesn't happen elsewhere on Wikipedia, does it?-- Hrödberäht02:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
24hWilliam M. Connolley11:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onMetropolis (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).LUCPOL (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Comments:Background on the situation(although it might be irrelevant to the actual report):[43],[44][45],[46],[47]-- Hrödberäht03:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
It is lie!: 1st revert - 27 December, 3rd and 5th revert is not revert. This is actualization. This is previous version[48], letter is reverts from R9tgokunks (Hrödberäht). I did not make 3RR: see:[49],[50] - My 3 corner edition and 3 reverts from R9tgokunks (Hrödberäht) - in draught 24h, 28 december 2006. I did not make 3 reverts, this is 3 corner edition.LUCPOL03:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Let me condense what I said above.(I Removed it)BOTH users appear to have violated 3RR on the article in question. --Wildnox(talk)03:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
24hWilliam M. Connolley11:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onDe_La_Salle-Santiago_Zobel_School (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Mithril_Cloud (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: User insists the use of Infobox Secondary school template even if article is clearly that of a K-12 institution.
Invalid statement. Reporting user obviously did not understood 3RR fully. Interestingly enough, the 2nd revert:06:16, 29 December 2006 was actually an edit of the reporting user, making his report invalid. --Mithril Cloud09:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Valid statement. Revert pertains to the article, not to specific users.{ PMGOMEZ }09:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
No block. Next time use diffs not versions. The one closest to a block here is GomezWilliam M. Connolley11:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onPaul Thompson (researcher) (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).NuclearUmpf (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: User incorrectly believes he can revert as many times as he wants on the article as long as he reverts different kinds of changes. This is not accurate. Unwilling to engage in discussion on talk page beyond brinkmanship.Hipocrite -«Talk»18:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
H kindly offered you the opportunity to self-rv. You foolishly didn't take it. 24hWilliam M. Connolley19:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onPaul_Thompson_(researcher) (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Hipocrite (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: Part of massive edit war. --badlydrawnjefftalk20:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onTransnistria (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Pernambuco (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: Reverts are mainly about: Removing Border issues section, expanding referendum section, removing US Department of State position and opinion of Yakovlev, removing travel warnings. Some reverts are combined with some edits, like adding an infobox in reverts 2 and 3 (you need to scroll to see the reverts). I consider those reverts as vandalism also, and I and other editors as well had discussions with Pernambuco in his talk page[57] without convincing him to change his behaviour. In revert 5 he even claim that he has my agreement for the revert, which is totally untrue - I agreed with him in a small issue (using Dniester instead of Nistru) but clearly told him not to remove the paragraphs[58]. See also disscussion in talk page aboutparagraph with Yakovlev opinions (where he even denied he deleted)border issues,US Department of State position. In Talk he agreed that the person who delete a paragraph should explain why29 Dec 17:25, however he kept deleting without explaining why.--MariusM21:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
8hWilliam M. Connolley23:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onVince Russo (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).69.123.136.59 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.[66]
Comments: Continually adding a section that is by no means notable, at least not to this degree. Despite claims that "theres like 12 of us doing this" all of the changes are coming from the same IP.
24hWilliam M. Connolley23:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Dusty Springfield (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)Sorry if I am not doing this right....There are many reverts (many more than 3RR today alone).....Please go to the user's contribution page. Other than edits to blank user's talk page (another no-no), user has only edited this article. Appears to be in a content dispute withUser:Barleywater over external links.NickBurns00:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onThessaloniki (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Politis (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments:
Three-revert rule violation onBritish_Isles (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).MelForbes (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: Reverts are to the wording of the first sentence in the article. User:MelForbes is pushing PoV that the term in question, "British Isles" is only used sometimes. This issue had already been thrashed out a month ago (30th November, section 14 ofTalk:British Isles. While the term is certainly rejected by some in Ireland, it is still the term for the group of islands,is used by some in Ireland, and by a majority in the UK. Not to mention the rest of the world.— Precedingunsigned comment added byBastun (talk •contribs)
You obviously have reverted 4 times; 8h for a first offenceWilliam M. Connolley10:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I have edited, not reverted. MY edit has now bee accepted.MelForbes 18:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)I want to make an objection againstWilliam M. Connolley's decision, how is that done please. This sort of nonsense is doing big damage to the WP project.MelForbes19:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Users 203.220.171.80 and 203.220.171.90are sockpuppets of one another. Whether malign or benign is debatable, but the broad principle is correct. Some users use dynamic IP addresses to avoid traceability and to incur vandalism and pov into articles.Details;IP Address :203.220.171.80 (80.171.220.203.dial.dynamic.acc01-aitk-gis.comindico.com.au )ISP : COMindico AustraliaOrganization : COMindico AustraliaLocation : AU, AustraliaCity : Melbourne, 07 -Latitude : 37°81'67" SouthLongitude : 144°96'67" EastIP Address :203.220.171.90 (90.171.220.203.dial.dynamic.acc01-aitk-gis.comindico.com.au )ISP : COMindico AustraliaOrganization : COMindico AustraliaLocation : AU, AustraliaCity : Melbourne, 07 -Latitude : 37°81'67" SouthLongitude : 144°96'67" EastMelForbes12:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onUltimate_Spider-Man_(story_arcs) (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).A_Man_In_Black (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: He didn't like the result ofWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Spider-Man (story arcs). He's been trying to do this for a while;see here. -Peregrinefisher08:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
3hWilliam M. Connolley20:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onChinese Wikipedia (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).SummerThunder (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Note that some of these also mess around with unrelated sections of the article or reformat it, but they all add the Moderators subsection.
Warned byUser:Hoary for both 3RR andcivility violations.
Comments: All of the above edits are part of an ongoing campaign by this user to discredit the zh.wiki administration as "government spies" for banning him. He's also either in 3RR violation or close to it (didn't check) on other pages such asBlocking of Wikipedia in mainland China, and has made numerous vitriolic comments on theWikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) such as[69] this attack rant. He has been removed from both zh.wiki and meta for similar POV pushing and NPA violation, and warned by several administrators in his time here that his behaviour is unacceptable, so a more serious penalty than the standard 24hr slap on the wrist may be preferable. --tjstrftalk08:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onAlphonso_de_Spina (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Kendrick7 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
24hWilliam M. Connolley10:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onVince Russo (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).DanRusso (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: Pretty sure this is coming from the same place as before, but have no proof. Article may need to be semi-protected down the line.
8hWilliam M. Connolley20:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onBreast Implant (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Jance (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Curtis has clearly had a warning (just below).Every other editor who has edited this agreed that a summary be added, instead of extremely lengthy & possibly copyright violation text. There have been numerous complaints by Ronz, me, l'cast, Hughgr, Wildnox on thetalk page.He has continued to be insulting, and aggressive in reverting - after ALL OF THIS. He obviously has no problem flaunting WIkipedia. I do not see a warning on his page, but I ask anyone to look at all t he discussion here, all the complaints, the consensus on his edits, and tell me if he is complying with WIkipedia. I can't believe anyone would do this.Jance19:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onBreast Implant (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Jance (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments:
TheUser:Jance has persistently reverted necessary changes to this article and violated the 3RR. --Curtis Bledsoe00:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand the double-standard. Whether or not I have violated 3RR is irrelevant - I haven't violated 3RR, but if you have evidence that I have, then you're welcome to block me as well. But that doens't change the fact that Jance has demonstrably violated 3RR and should be blocked. --Curtis Bledsoe03:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly."
Three-revert rule violation onTemplate:Philosophy_navigation.SteveWolfer (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Diffs not versions please. This isn't in 24h or even very close. But it is a stupid edit war, and you both risk being blocked if you don't try to work it out on talkWilliam M. Connolley11:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onIndus Valley Civilization (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Nadirali (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments:
24hWilliam M. Connolley11:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onJapan (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).HongQiGong (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments:
24hWilliam M. Connolley22:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onQur'an_desecration_controversy_of_2005 (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).67.175.216.90 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: User is adding an irrelevant link to the article; he tried to do so months ago and was warned to stop. He participated in discussion only briefly, to accuse those reverting him of being abusive and bullying, and never responded to the arguments against his addition to the article. He came back today making the same edits without discussing them.csloat00:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onPalestine:Peace_Not_Aparthied (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Shamir1 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: User has been warned by others over 3RR, and continued after 4RR.
If one actually looks, not all of the edits contained the same worded material. The last two in specific, have the information re-worded as per the discussion, whichUser:Mostlyharmless failed to mention. Reasons for inclusion of the short and sourced material (as per the inclusion of parallel/similar and longer material added and kept by others) can be found onTalk:Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid#The recent edit war. --Shamir100:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onIntelligent design (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Raspor (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments:
This user has been warned in the past about the 3RR rule, and continues to violate it.
In addition, I edited[ [User:hump]] original complaint, since it was not done in the manner required for this report. It's time to block Raspor. Please.
24hWilliam M. Connolley23:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onBahá'í Faith (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).TrueBahai (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments:
24h, on the presumption that the anon is himWilliam M. Connolley09:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onOrganization_XIII (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Emokid200618 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: User has been banned for 3RR before, thus understands the rule. His edits were against the consensus of the editors of this article.'(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)06:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
24hWilliam M. Connolley09:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onMiddle_East_Media_Research_Institute (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Armon (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: There is discussion of proper references and accusations of OR but many of the things Armon is repeatedly removing are properly referenced, see the last two diffs here specifically for a clear case of edit summaries containing untrue accusations of OR or POV:[94],[95]. The paragraph in those two reports has been removed 4 times by Armon, thus while there is complex partial reverts some paragraphs have been consistently targeted by Armon. Thus the link given as the previous version is not really clearly the version Armon is reverting to. --64.230.123.12816:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
24h (even though your prev-version is wrong...)William M. Connolley16:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onJoseph_Stalin (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Fox33 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: This user is probablyJacob Peters (talk ·contribs) socking for (hopefully) the last time. I'm filing this in hopes for a quicker block while the sock report is processed. See the RFCUhere for the gory history. -Merzbow22:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
24hWilliam M. Connolley22:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onMami Wata (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).BrianSmithson (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)Mwhs (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: BothUser:BrianSmithson andUser:Mwhs appear to be involved in an edit war on theMami Wata article
Three-revert rule violation onAnti-Brahmanism (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Gschadow (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: :A userUser:Gschadow makes controversial unsubstantiated edits[97]. When I made correction he challenged me in the talk page and expressed an intent to revert-war, violatingWP:POINT[98]and reverted[99], saying that he has deliberately instigated edit-war (see summary). I asked him to stop[100] but he ignored[101]Rumpelstiltskin22305:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onOlinde Rodrigues (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Mel Etitis (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments:
This admin constantly violates the 3RR rule and is implementing a POV which has been discussed to not apply to this person.
Don't see why #1 is a revert - you haven't filled in the prev version (sigh)William M. Connolley11:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
No idea what that means. Maybe it wikipedia procedure was written in English it would help... User is reverting the deletion of a category that should not be on this article. He has reinserted it four times. --Bob16:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Seems a fair cop then, with warning. I've given 8h on the grounds of him being a sensible person in generalWilliam M. Connolley16:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm torn. While he is indeed in technical violation of 3rr, and should have used more descriptive edit summaries than 'rv' or vandalism rollbacks...if Grcampbell was indeed depopulating a category while it was up for CFR then he should have left it. I think Mel tried to convey this to Grcampbell, but failed to get an agreement and continued with less than helpful edit summaries. If Grcampbell was just removing the Occitan personalities cat from an article or two per reasoning that it doesn't belong on them then he should have been allowed to do so. If they were really Occitan (whatever that is ;) ) then once the cat was renamed or deleted or whatever someone would have re-added them. I would have personally handled the reversion situation differently, but I think if Mel agrees to not revert it again I'd be happy with an unblock. I find no fault with the application of 3rr; it was a tricky situation at best, which of several conflicting processes takes precedence.Syrthiss22:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onIndia (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Himalayanashoka (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments:
Fairly new but already seems to have notched up a fair tally of blocks. 48hWilliam M. Connolley20:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onJapan (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Sir_Edgar (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: Repetitive revert warring, on the section that begins with the words "TheYayoi period," .... We had just come up with a new consensus for this wording, and Sir Edgar starts revert-warring again, against consensus. Other excessive unilateral changes in theJapan article in the last 24 hours, resulting in more revert-warring there.--Endroit00:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid this is too subtle for me. What is the "exact same sentence" that is being reverted?William M. Connolley18:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Let me make a few things clear. I was not trying to skirt the 3RR rule. In fact, I am not even aware if I did indeed revert 3,4 times. After I was warned by our friend Endroit here that Imight be in violation of this rule, I did not edit the supposed sentence in question again. So, my intention to not violate the rule is without doubt. I was merely giving the article an overall edit. Obviously, you did not assume good faith. This is despite the fact that I recall offering alternative edits.
Regardless, it is up to the administrators to decide how to administer this site. Not you. Frankly, I don't give a damn whether I am blocked or not because I'll just come back and edit what I believe is the truth. My aim is to write and editgood articles that are based on the facts, not the consensus of a bunch of idiots. These people decided that they'd make a compromise between themselves and didn't even quote the articles that were sourced. I wanted to fix this.
The fact of the matter is, I am simply outnumbered here. In the past, I tried to maintain the highest standard of civility based on reason and thought. Instead, I was repeatedly attacked by a bunch of anonymous accounts and users that are now banned. That is what they are referring to and you can see this on my Talk page. But that does not matter. My intention is not to achieve popularity.
Now, I don't care about the opinion of people who are obviously biased and twisting the truth for their own satisfaction. I want to continue to contribute to making Wikipedia articles more accurate. Whether I have to fight this fight alone does not matter to me. I know that several people are ganging up on me using this rule or that rule to avoid getting into trouble while trying to get me into trouble (i.e. 3RR). See the History page of this article.
In other words:Consensus is less important to me than the facts. It is not my opinion or your opinion that matters. Just the facts.
By the way, do not equate my perception of Jefu's or Hong's opinion with yours. I do not value them on the same level.--Sir Edgar00:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onMichael_Behe (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Isuse33 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments:
Blocked per report belowWilliam M. Connolley09:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onMountain Meadows massacre (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Sqrjn (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
CommentsI would have just let this go but the editor continues to be disruptive to the collaboration process:
See also the talk page.
24hWilliam M. Connolley09:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onKriss Donald (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Guardian sickness (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: Editor is engaging in an edit war by removing a substantial portion of cited material from notable sources by claiming that it is against concensus to add it yet the dispute is between himself and another editor. While these reverts are not within the same 24hr period, they are the same edits made over consecutive days. The edit war needs to end. The entire edit history of this editor is nothing but a history of this edit war. --Strothra04:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry - not even close to 3RR. You need to find some other venue for this problemWilliam M. Connolley09:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree - He has been trying to discuss what has been happening and it is not even close to 3RR. --DarkestHourЖЖЖЖЖ21:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onMichael Behe (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Isuse33 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: Poster has repeatedly made the same edit--anon has also made the same edit. There have been several more identical and similar reversions by the same user. THe material being removed is accurate and sourced--Isuse insists (despite repeated explanations of theWP:NPOV policy) that the material is "bias." (sic)Justin Eiler05:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
24hWilliam M. Connolley09:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onB'z (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).219.83.24.4 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments:More than 24 hours. It's actually 48. And only 3 of the edits are actual reverts. No block. --WoohookittyWoohoo!12:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onDobruja (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Jackanapes (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments:He is a new user, but he was aware of the 3RR policy:he was warned about this policy on another occasion by another user and I also warned him on his talk page. However he posted my warning onTalk:Dobruja saying that it was a "threat".bogdan13:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours according to the above. --Szvest -Wiki me up ®14:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onTrainer (games).Apache- (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: User has committed himself to reverting back a link to a website he admits to be his own. The account is single purpose with no edits outside of the article and other harassing messages left on user pages. Despite more than one person who disagrees with him, he by himself has reverted numerous peoples edit back to the same version.
Three-revert rule violation onWhat_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know? (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).68.166.71.100 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: The IP user is blanking parts of the article in a somewhat rolling fashion that makes it difficult to quantify reversions, and is also ranting on the talk page about having to stop us and not "let you [the rest of the editors] run free on this site." It appears that the user has been warring and ranting for some time, probably with many different IP addresses. --PhilosophusT19:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onSaddam Hussein (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Leonardo55 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: User keeps reinserting link to video into article. Refuses to discuss. Multiple users have removed link. He Simply reinserts it without comment or talk despite discussion on talk page. The only edits this user has made have been inserting this video into multiple articles.Caper1320:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onExecution_of_Saddam_Hussein (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).UBeR (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
note - User has been maintainingOwnership over the article, as is evident by his/her numerous reverts, contribution history, and user comments.
There is far too much reverting on that article: I have protected itWilliam M. Connolley23:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onGödel's incompleteness theorems (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Germanium (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: I believe that Geranium is the same as 68.114.185.27 based on the edit history, but someone with the rights will have to verify this. Please block both the user and the IP. three of the above reverts are for the user, one (and the original addition) by the IP.
2007-01-04T23:01:16 Steel359 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Germanium (contribs)" with an expiry time of 31 hours (Edit warring to insert blatant OR into Gödel's incompleteness theorems). I've blocked the IPWilliam M. Connolley23:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onWorking terrier (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).PBurns3711 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
No Diff of 3RR warning: not a new user
Comments: reversion despite my attempts to discuss at[117],[118],[119], and attempt to compromise at[120]. Instead, I am met with abuse at[121] and[122]. Final edit suggests use claimsownership over the article
3hWilliam M. Connolley10:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onChristianity in India (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views). :
Siddiqui06:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onHistory of Pakistan (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) andPakistani nationalism (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Siddiqui (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) &HamzaOmar (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Note:Please see comments to see why both users effectively count as one
Comments: In both cases, the first two reverts are done byUser:Siddiqui and the last two byUser:HamzaOmar, a "new user". The two users should be treated as one and the same becauseof this case inWP:ANI[123]
User:Siddiqui has persistently gone against consensus in several articles relating to Pakistan, most notablyPakistani nationalism andHistory of Pakistan,where he has been repeatedly adding unreliable sources (randomunverifiable geocities links) and steering the tone in favor of fringesectarian views. His edit-warring, as evidenced here[124][125] and[126][127][128],[129],do not involve discussions or debates but simply persistent revertsover long periods of time. This user has expressed such disruptivebehaviour before, advancing narrow, nationalistic and politicallyinflammatory minority views (see this).Then, when it was clear that reasonable people fixed his edits, hedecided to recruit tag-team meatpuppets. He started to post to acertain group of ideologically biased users, such asUser:Nadirali,User:szhaider (who considers India a threat to world peace - look at his userpage) andUser:Unre4L(who is on a mission to "reclaim Pakistan's stolen heritage")[130][131][132][133][134]to try to revert-war there, which they did[135][136][137]. In addition, he solicited a meatpuppet from off wiki, a user namedUser:AliHussain.This is evident from the fact that this user, a new user, immediatelyposted to Siddiqui's page upon logging in for the first time[138] about "seeing what he can do" and proceeded to revert-war again[139][140].The users Nadirali and Unre4L were involved in some ridiculous debateover the nonexistent concept of "Ancient Pakistan" (based not onscholarly sources but Pakistani historical revisionism) inTalk:History of IndiaTalk:History of Pakistan andTalk:Panini.They have been resoundedly refuted by several knowledgeable users likeUser:Dbachmann,User:DaGizza,User:Deeptrivia andUser:Fowler&fowler but they continue to prowl the pages. There have been RfC posts by other users concerning their narrow fringe views[141]. in turn they tried to create a bogus article about an undergroundIslamic Fundamentalist/Pakistani nationalist website started by this group of singleminded editors that which got speedily deleted[142]. This problem is becoming increasingly difficult to contain and these users are rapidly getting disruptive.Bakaman01:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
2007-01-05T03:48:50 Khoikhoi (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected History of Pakistan: edit war [edit=sysop:move=sysop])William M. Connolley10:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onHarappa (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Szhaider (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three-revert rule violation onMuhammad Iqbal (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Szhaider (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: See above post regarding more points about Szhaider, who is part of the tag-team meat puppet mentioned.Rumpelstiltskin22304:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
2007-01-05T04:01:02 Shanel (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Szhaider (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR)William M. Connolley10:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:3RR violation onChristianity_in_India (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Rumpelstiltskin223 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log). :
Comments:
The 4th revert seems to be only partial. I am not familiar with the article and I have not researched if the reverts were legitimate.
The reason why I became aware of Rumpelstiltskin223 was that I am currently a mediator forWikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-26 Decline of Buddhism in India, and Rumpelstiltskin223 repeatedly blanked text inDecline of Buddhism in India, which disrupts the mediation and adds fuel to the emotions of the parties. (Rumpelstiltskin223 is not party to the mediation.) Usually, Rumpelstiltskin223 writes no edit summary, so I wrote{{summary2}} onUser talk:Rumpelstiltskin223. When I wanted to add diffs to the template, I noticed the 3RR incident. I have not written a notice on the talk page for that.
This is the first time I'm reporting a 3RR incident, and I apologize if I have made any mistakes. I'm particularly concerned about if I entered the right time stamps, since I'm getting tired now. I am a bit surprised about the insistence on the number 3. I came here after readingWP:3RR, which says "This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. Users may be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day."
2007-01-05T07:40:56 Srikeit (Talk | contribs | block) protected Christianity in India (Edit-warring [edit=sysop:move=sysop])William M. Connolley10:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onSengunthar (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Venki123 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments:
User: Venki123 has been constantly reverting articles. See alsoMudaliar. He was blocked for revertingMudaliar article and his ip address:65.34.150.19 was also blocked. Now he is using socket puppettry from ip address: 65.244.148.222 Please see contributions of (65.244.148.222) atMudaliar talk page, dated17:10, 5 January 2007. He forgets to sign in before posting and then signs in subsequently and sign the previous post as Venki. Please block both ip addresses for > 24h as he is a repeat offender. Thanks.
Three-revert rule violation onFree Republic (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).BryanFromPalatine (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: Editor is fresh off a one-week block for sockpuppeting, and now is edit warring on the same article the sock puppeting was over.
Three-revert rule violation onAfghanistan (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).NisarKand (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comment:
Three-revert rule violation onMilitary of Myanmar (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Okkar (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: I have warned Okkar about removal of material from this article that existed before he got here today, he continues to unilaterally do so without consensus. He toldMetros232 that I was vandalizing the page (as facilitator of theWikipedia:WikiProject Burma/Myanmar, it is not very likely that I am), at which point Metros232 rightfully put warnings on both our talk pages. Okkar has since reverted the article and ignored Metros232 warnings.Chris23:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onOrganization XIII (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Emokid200618 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: This user has been blocked before for violating 3RR (including once for this page) so he's definitely familiar with the policy. Anyway, although he didn't have a 4th revert this time, I felt like I should report it because ofthis message he left on a user's talk page, saying that he intentionally didn't make a 4th revert just togame the system while avoiding a block.Axem Titanium01:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onMilitary of Myanmar (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views). User:Kintetsubuffalo (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: I have warned Chris with regards to adding facts that are againstWP:NPOV and also out of scope and goals of [WikiProject Military history]. Wikipedia should not be use as a ground to settle political scores and no other "Military of the Country" articles contain informations such as the villa of a general and how much money he is earning. These are purely tabloid gossips which clearly does not belong in Wikipedia articles and also againstWP:NPOV. His addition of so-called "facts" are politically motivated and please see the discussion page for further information on his threatening and bullying behaviour. I have additionally requested POVCHECK and noncomplaint on the article. I await your fair decision on this matter.Okkar01:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Comments:
Three-revert rule violation onHIV_trial_in_Libya (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views). User:Islampedia (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: Revert war where Islampedia insists on using POV words "only" or "few" for 21 victims (of 426). I andUser:Scientizzle have battled with Islampedia continuously over the last three days over NPOV issues. Islampedia was warned 19:35 on 4 Januaryt in[146]Simesa04:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onHolocaust denial (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views). User:Igor_"the_Otter" (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: User repeatedly added back a POV comment about theNizkor project even after being warned about edit-warring and the 3RR.
24hWilliam M. Connolley14:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onIraq_Body_Count_project (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).74.64.60.148 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: Anonymous user has been warned on his user talk page, the article talk page, and in edit summaries. On 2 different pages. He is up to 3 reversions on the other page:Lancet surveys of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq --Timeshifter09:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Not clear why all these are reverts; and prev-version is by you. Or are you suggesting that he is reverting to you?William M. Connolley13:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I fixed the diffs. He has 5 reverts. 4 of which occurred in the last 24 hours. --Timeshifter07:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onLancet_surveys_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).74.64.60.148 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: This is for a second page. He has been warned everywhere. User talk page, article talk page, edit summaries. --Timeshifter10:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
"prev version" is by you... so this is 3R but not clear the first isWilliam M. Connolley13:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
This 2nd incident report fixed. User:74.64.60.148 is now up to 6 reverts of this 2nd article. 4 in the last 24 hours. --Timeshifter08:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Success at last... 24hWilliam M. Connolley10:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onGilad Atzmon (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Ednas (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
These are somewhat complex reverts. To best see a clear case of the same sentence being removed 4 times, scroll down to the "politics" section, and see that the short paragraph that begins with "His performance at the subsequent SWP summerschool 'Marxism 2005' in July 2005.." was removed in all 4 reverts.
Comments: This is a new user, that chose to start his editing career on WP by alleging that users who have been opposed to his changes on this article are part of an 'undercover netwok[sic] of operatives working to further the Zionist agenda. "[148] (one of those editors happens to be a self-described and well known anti-Zionist activist). he was cautioned that this statement is a violation ofWP:AGF andWP:CIVIL, and asked to strike out those comments, but brazenly responded with "I stand by my postings and will strike out nothing I have written", followed by threats against those editors.Isarig17:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onPLANS (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Pete_K (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments:
24hWilliam M. Connolley10:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onVladimir Lenin (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).207.151.38.178 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: Or differently:[153][154][155][156]. 4 simple reverts.Ultramarine01:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onDenial of the Armenian Genocide (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).ArmenianJoe (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: He/she is also adding spaces between paragraphs. I tried to informed the user.
24h eachWilliam M. Connolley10:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onForeskin (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Woodstock2010 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments:User:24.28.143.218 made initial edits. Similar behaviour oncircumcision (see history).Jakew18:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onPurdah (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).szhaider (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: User blocked for 3RR before. Constant removal of Hindi script and accusations of "Hindu imperialism" against a Christian Indian editor and a European Christian editor.Bakaman23:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
2007-01-08T00:42:30 Rama's Arrow (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Szhaider (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (making personal attacks, persistent incivility, provocative use of edit summaries, revert-warring on Iqbal)William M. Connolley12:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation on2002 Gujarat violence (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Rumpelstiltskin223 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: User in question is also deleting large amounts of text containing facts supported by reliable sources. His deletions cause the article to violate WP:NPOV, and a couple of other WP rules and policies.
The version presented by Falcon is biased and non-neutral compared to the earlier presented one by Rumpel.Nobleeagle [TALK] [C]04:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
[trim -William M. Connolley13:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)]
24h. Please learn to avoid 4R even under provocation. Your assertion that the first edit is not a revert are wrong. F warned re edit warring and civilityWilliam M. Connolley13:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onAzerbaijan (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Elnurso (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: Please note that70.244.144.225 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) is obviouslyElnurso (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log). --Mardavich06:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
24h, assuming the anon is ElnursoWilliam M. Connolley12:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onAl-Ahbash (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Aicp (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
You seem to have confused "edit" with "revert". Anyway, contiguous edits count as oneWilliam M. Connolley10:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onCH-53 Sea Stallion (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Signaleer (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
01:51, January 8, 200701:51, January 8, 200701:57, January 8, 2007
Comments: The user's first three edits occured at one time; the fourth was done in four parts, without using the word "revert", as he had before. In addtion, similar reversions were committed on theC-47 Skytrain andC-54 Skymaster articles in the same time period. I did attemp to discuss the matter with the user, but he continues to assert that he will revert my changes. I did not warn thei user about 3RR, as I have seen him do multiple reverts in the past while disregarding 3RR notices. The fast that he did separate edits for his fouth revert seems to indicate he is aware of the rule.
In the interest of full disclosure, I have also reverted at lest 4 times on each of the 3 pages mentioned, but also did not receive a 3RR warning. I will accept any penalty deemed necessary for this. -BillCJ07:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
24h for both; I do so wish people wouldn't edit war over picture sizesWilliam M. Connolley10:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onTemplate:Precedence (edit | [[Talk:Template:Precedence|talk]] |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Astrotrain (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments:
Three-revert rule violation onCriticism of Islam (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Strothra (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: This user seems to have used the IP address 68.50.74.95 to circumvent the 3RR policy with sock puppetry. I noticed him using this IP address on theKriss Donald page, which he had previously reverted under his log in name, but then reverted with the above IP to avoid discussion. When I clicked on the IP address I found the same user also seemed to be circumventing the 3RR policy to edit the article “Criticism of Islam”.--Guardian sickness14:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onEnglish White Terrier.
Revision as of 14:43, 6 January 2007 Removes the alternate name "Old English Terrier".
Revision as of 21:52, 7 January 2007 Removes the alternate name "Old English Terrier".
Revision as of 00:06, 8 January 2007 Removes the alternate name "Old English Terrier" with supporting citations.
Revision as of 14:43, 8 January 2007 Removes the alternate name "Old English Terrier" with supporting citations.
Revision as of 22:17, 8 January 2007 Removes the alternate name "Old English Terrier" with supporting citations.
Revision as of 12:21, 9 January 2007 Removed the citations and states "Old English Terrier" is not correct.
The editor believes that "Old English Terrier" is not an alternative name for theEnglish White Terrier, I provided him with citations and there are plenty more available using google. This user's talk page reflects he was recently blocked for a previous 3RR violation. I would suggest the full 24 hour block this time. In addition, would you please revert theEnglish White Terrier article back one so he realizes it should stay . Thank youHeadphonos15:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Please stop listing extra reverts here that are clearly *not* violations of 3RR. Repeated reverting is undesirable but not listable here - you needWP:DRWilliam M. Connolley13:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onStrip_club (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Monkeybreath (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: Edit warring between an IP anon(s?) and Monkeybreath; was reported toWP:RFP (with the result of no protection), however it is still a violation of 3RR. -Penwhale |Blast the Penwhale08:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
24h, and for 67.150.14.50William M. Connolley09:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onHarry Potter (character) (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views). {{3RRV|Michaelsanders}:
Comments: Five reverts within an hour. The situation escalated into a revert war because this editor was uncivil and made insulting edit summaries that didn't give a reason for the revert - a simple explanation would have stopped the reverting on both sides. Editor also fails to AGF by calling the edits he was reverting "vandalism"[168] when it was simply a content dispute. Even after 3RR was pointed out, the editor still defends his edit warring on the grounds that he was "right". --Milo H Minderbinder16:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
My opinion? That comparison shows that you removed the comment, left by an IP address, of "Why are you talking to yourself, sockpuppet?" Are you saying that that is at all relevant? Are you accusing me of leaving that comment? If you are, say it directly. If you aren't, use the right link, or leave it altogether. You seem to have avery strange attitude towards the truth. You also seem determined to wind me up. Why is this? Why do you have the gall to tell me off, when your attitude of deception and outright malice is far more damaging to wikipedia? I have repaired your link, since you seem unable to do it. If you revert it, I will assume that youare accusing me of that vandalistic sockpuppetry slander.Michaelsanders20:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onLeague Against Cruel Sports (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).PBurns3711 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: User already blocked once for edit warring, note reversion of edits by user:GWP. Suggest revert to seemingly consensual version of December athttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=League_Against_Cruel_Sports&oldid=93610481] and protect?
24hWilliam M. Connolley20:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation on2002_Gujarat_violence (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Rumpelstiltskin223 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: User in question has already returned from a 24 hr block due to 3RR. He is well-familiar with WP policy on this matter.
3RR onIf Americans Knew (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) byMidEastSpecialist (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Continuing to revert:
Was warned about 3RR at 08:37 Jan 9.[179]SlimVirgin(talk)19:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onÉcole Polytechnique massacre (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Suemcp (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: This is part of an ongoing problem with a disruptive editor, better described atWikipedia:Requests for comment/Suemcp. However, this is a pretty straightforward violation I believe. I can't do the block as I am somewhat involved in the dispute. I have warned her repeatedly, but for some reason she believes that 3RR is a rule I "invented".Dina20:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onForeskin (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Woodstock2010 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: Woodstock2010 was blocked for 31h on 18:36, January 7, 2007 for same behaviour. ShitakiMan was created on 01:16, January 9, 2007. ShitakiMan's firstedit was an autoblock unblock request because the IP (24.28.143.218) was the same as that of Woodstock2010. In all three cases, the editing behaviour is identical (see page history). Similar behaviour atcircumcision,brit milah, etc.Jakew20:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:3RR violation onWikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct.A Link to the Past (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments Link brought up on theRfC Talk Page his belief that the RfC against me was closed prematurely and innapropriately. During our discussion, he suddenly re-added a link to the RfC while claiming in the edit summary that not wanting the link there means I have something to hide. I reverted, and told him that he needs to wait until the discussion concludes before taking action. He persisted in readding it, all while continuing toinsult me on the talk page. I still do not believe the link belongs there, but will await independent review before taking further action. --InShaneee01:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onTamil people (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Asian2duracell (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
24hWilliam M. Connolley10:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onDDT_(professional_wrestling) (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Lakes (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: A content dispute, not "vandalism" as Lakes called it. At the very least it's not obvious, simple vandalism, which is excused underWP:3RR. Probably not helpful that 129.7.35.* to call Lakes a "dumbfuck" while reverting him back, but nevertheless it should have been taken to the talk page, or taken toWP:AIV. Continued reverting still constitutes a 3RR, IMO.
2007-01-09T20:57:57 Viridae (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "129.7.35.194 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 month (Abusive edit summaries). Warning to LakesWilliam M. Connolley10:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onSaddam Hussein (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Leonardo55 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: User was blocked for 3RR violations for the same edit on January 4. After the block expired, their FIRST EDIT since returning was to readd the exact same links they were blocked for previously. Additional warnings left on users talk page as well as requests to discuss their edits. All messages ignored and editor refuses to engage in discussion.Caper1302:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onEthnic minorities in Iran (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Ahwaz (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: This user a POV pusher and has been blocked dozens of times for breaking 3RRBehaafarid13:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Ahwaz accumulated quite a long block list including at least 4 3RR blocks. On the other hand his edits appear to be in a good faith (I actually like his version better than the other) and he might mistakenly believe that restoring tags does not count towards 3RR. Thus, the block is relatively mildAlex Bakharev16:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onBrock Lesnar (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Martin181 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: Poss sockpuppet ignores sourced info and always reverts to personal preferences
Three-revert rule violation onPlastic Paddy (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).WeniWidiWiki (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments:
Comment: Look at the history of the entry. Most of those reverts were vandalism or restoring wholesale removal of large blocks of text. -WeniWidiWiki18:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment:: I agree he has brokenWP:3RR. I made a couple of those edits that he reverted - I explained the edit and took them out because I considered them POV (which is also the consensus). Another anon editor also reverted them and thenUser:WeniWidiWiki accused it of being a sockpuppet of mine.--Vintagekits19:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment It should be noted that the repeated removal of sourced material is considered vandalism. Also seethis post on the Admin noticeboard/incidents showing that this editor "admits to using IP edits for disruption". --Pigmantalk • contribs 02:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Comment It also looked to me as if the IP editor was violatingWP:POINT. --Pigmantalk • contribs03:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onMirza Ghulam Ahmad (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Phippi46 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments, User warned couple of times but is continously deleting sections from the article. --Mastiboy18:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onJosif Runjanin (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Estavisti (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three-revert rule violation onNochiya Tribe (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).A2raya07 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three-revert rule violation onSaddam hussein (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Jfrascencio (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: User keeps effectively reverting my edit by adding comment marks around the addition I made to the article because he feels the New York Times is not a valid third party source due to it being an American Publication. The version being reverted to is, effectively, the state of the article just before I made the edit he keeps 'hiding' by commenting it out. (though other unrelated parts of the article have been changed by other editors in the meantime)Caper1301:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onUser talk:Certified.Gangsta (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Certified.Gangsta|talk]] |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Certified.Gangsta (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: After Certified.Gangsta made three reverts onList of Chinese Americans[194][195][196](in a revert war that I was not involved in), I put a 3RR warning on his Talk page[197]. He has repeatedly blanked out the 3RR warning despite my attempt to keep it there, reverting more than three times.Hong Qi Gong(Talk -Contribs)03:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The only person that violated 3RR is himself. 3RR doesn't cover my own personal talkpage. This is hilarious. You're lucky I didn't report you.--Certified.Gangsta03:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onUser talk:Nationalist (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Nationalist|talk]] |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Nationalist (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments:24h. --CSTAR06:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onUser talk:HongQiGong (edit | [[Talk:User talk:HongQiGong|talk]] |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).HongQiGong (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments:4 edits in the last 24 hrs on my talkpage. (not his) This not only violated 3RR but also an example of userspace harassment.--Certified.Gangsta05:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onOrigins of the Cold War (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).172 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: First 3 reverts are simple reverts, the last revert is more complex but as previously deletes the same large parts of the article.Ultramarine06:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
This report is misleading. I made four edits to the article today.[206][207][208][209] The first was not a reversion but a major new edit, removing and/or cleaning up problem sections. My subsequent two edits were reversions of Ultramarine, who came along and undid my work, which he/she often does whenever I edit an article on his/her watchlist. My fourth edit was an attempt to reach a compromise with Ultramarine, restoring some savagable parts of content I had removed while removing two sections that did not fit into the structure of the article, and not a simple reversion. Ultramarine should be encourged to discuss his/her reversion of my clean-up, rather than gaming the system here.172 |Talk06:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onTalk:2002 Gujarat violence (edit | [[Talk:Talk:2002 Gujarat violence|talk]] |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Rumpelstiltskin223 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments:He has been blocked for 3RR before. As you can see, the page in question is a talk page. WP:Living is being used as an excuse to censor my comments repeatedly, just as other rhetorical arguements have been used to shut out reliable sources from the actual article.. Nothing I say is without support from at least 3 credible and verifiable reliable sporces, and "Indian Government" isn't covered by WP:Living anyway. I understand deleting the talk page entries is generally unacceptable. He is also harassing me on my own talk page by repeatedly placing a warning template. I have also filed an ANI report for personal attack and disregard for WP:RS & WP:NPOV. This editor's history shows he's made a sport out of being disruptive across pages and with different users.Falcon202006:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onXbox 360 (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).NYkid0709 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: The warning was after the first 3RR violation (without a report):[210][211][212][213] - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs)14:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
24hWilliam M. Connolley14:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onIslam (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Arrow740 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
much of the diffs are constant and almost immediate undoings of changes incorporated by other editor:
Comments: furthermore, User:Arrow740 has been revert warring onMuhammad's slaves (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views), and often treats 3 reverts as an entitlement. also, the disruption is compounded by User:Arrow740 engaging in recent inappropriate trolling[214][215][216][217][218][219] (whilstadmitting such) and indulging in personal attacks[220].ITAQALLAH15:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onHalf-Blood Prince (character) (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Michaelsanders (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: Note that the third revert above came twenty minutes after a 3RR block was lifted (lifted early because the editor promised not to do it again).[221] --Milo H Minderbinder15:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onMike Mendoza (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).217.134.118.7 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments:
Three-revert rule violation onList of gangs in Grand Theft Auto series (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Butterrum (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments:Has been warned twice, as of now; POV of edits also supports that of one, and only one, user. In turn, said user is a suspected sock puppet, as well.
Three-revert rule violation onNational Socialist Movement (United States) (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).66.191.222.111 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Prev-version is wrong; 1st rv listed links to historyWilliam M. Connolley 18:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC) - My bad, fixed linkSadena20:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Comments: Warned, no impact. Edits are contrary to fact, and deleting sourced statements.
Three-revert rule violation onDingodile (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).86.42.64.69 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Comments: Constantly posting incorrect information, has been warned before about 3RR'ing, but still continues. This topic isn't the only one to be 3RR'ed.
Gross edit warring by both of you; and a malformed report. 12h for both of youWilliam M. Connolley19:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Previous version reverted to *18.00 11 Jan
User added /Malvinas to falklands is the revrt. he was amply warned on his user page and the 4th revert was deliberate,SqueakBox00:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Err wrong page, Vintagem, if you think the anon is someone's sock get a user check and make the allegation in the right place, this isnt it,SqueakBox01:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
You are mistaken. I reverted 3 times and then stopped, at which time I warned Jor, so given that I stopped I dont feel I have violated even the spirit. The anaon is not me, its a London ip, and I have warned him too,SqueakBox01:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onUser_talk:Morton_devonshire (edit | [[Talk:User_talk:Morton_devonshire|talk]] |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).NYScholar (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comment: Please check his block log.Comments. This seems like gratuitous blanking of complaing party's talk page. If other party finds content objectionable as perWP:NPA, post request for deletion. Repeat offense 31h.--CSTAR 06:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Clear personal attacks on talk page. Unblock. Reduced to warning.--CSTAR06:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onPersianization (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Surena (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: Not a new user—she's been here since 2005.Khoikhoi06:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onStacy Keibler (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Xviper2k (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: I suggested to user that they use the talk page and user removed all comments from their talk page. Also, ignored suggestion in edits to discuss on talk page before reverting. --Billywhack10:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Diffs not versions please. Prev-version should *precede* first revert...William M. Connolley10:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Fixed.Billywhack12:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Why was I warned? According to you, it is impossible to list when somebody has an uncredited role unless it's a major media event. Unfortunately, a lot of uncredited roles go to actors on the way up, and are thus overlooked by the media. I'm not the only person to have noted this. All of my friends who watch South Park agree. Because they aren't into editing Wikipedia, I'm being persecuted? So to win this argument, all I need to do is to get them to make accounts and write that they agree with me? That seems awful shady. Xviper2k has posted a video he says wins his argument. The link takes me to Youtube to what appears to be the episode. I can't watch this video, but if it is the actual show, then my point is obviously reinforced. What is the recommendation of the admins on how to pursue this? Xviper2k acts like a child and responds to attempts to open a dialog by erasing my comments or just claiming he's right and reverting edits. It looks like whenever he doesn't agree with something somebody posts on theStacy Keibler page, he just reverts. If he won't be reasonable, how are we supposed to settle this? --Billywhack07:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onDingodile (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).86.42.111.246 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: This is actually the exact same user I told you about the other day (the one where both of us got blocked). This user simply got a new ID number and STILL continues to 3RR, despite the warnings.
Yet another malformed report but since this is blatant edit warring by both of you, you both get 24h. Please seeWP:DRWilliam M. Connolley13:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onTurkification (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Tajik (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: User insisting on adding an accuracy tag to a section. He is aware of theWP:3RR since he has been blocked numerous times already. He is already onWP:1RR by administrator decision byUser:Future Perfect at Sunrise because of edit-warring with another user in many Turco-Persian articles.Baristarim14:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onArmenian language (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Ararat arev (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: He now also violated 3rr onProto-Armenian language. Note that this user recently reverted six times within 24 hours onArmenia, see[238], but wa snot reported. He has been warned numerous times. He also has the habit of spamming user talk pages, making dubious, long and controversial edits and marking them as minor edits and constant incivillity and pesonal attacks that are even present in his edit summaries. I think a harsh block is long overdue.--ΕυπάτωρTalk!!15:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Would have been 24h, but2006-12-13T09:16:32 Netsnipe (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Ararat arev (contribs)" with an expiry time of 31 hours (Vandalism of another user's talk pages)William M. Connolley16:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Please seeHaik he broke the 3RR there also.Nareklm21:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onMyanmar (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).SimonBillenness (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: This user has been readding again and again political infalmatory contents which are in clear contradiction with Wikipedia unbias policy.
Three-revert rule violation onTalk:Yamashita's gold.
[User:S129162] was warned to stop blanking at least 3 times in Talk page (not easy to show with diffs because the warnings were added with full text restores of page). This diff to full page restore will show reminders/warnings given in the page. His comments aren't easily cipherable because he believes other editors there, including me, are involved in some weird intrigue or conspiracy involving the subject, "Yamashita's Treasure". But I believe he thinks this page belongs to him and is an extension or project related to his private mining company business - see bottom of his edit[242]. He views the other editors and me as internet vandals fiddling with his company's website.Professor marginalia17:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onContinuity Irish Republican Army (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).81.151.71.146 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Was warned on user talk page,didn't take it seriously.Sześćsetsześćdziesiątsześć22:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onHate group (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)Kathanar (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: User is a tendentious editor and also has created bogus categories to push an agendaCategory:Religious supremacistsRumpelstiltskin22322:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Similar pattern of revert-warring here:Hindutva[251][252][253]
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh[254][255][256]Rumpelstiltskin22322:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Similar revert-warring in:Sangh Parivar[258][259][260]Rumpelstiltskin22304:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onContinuity Irish Republican Army (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).81.151.71.146 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: half a dozen major POV reversions in 1 hour. I reverted user 3 times and added a 3RR warning to user's talk page, after which the user promptly reverted again. Only then I realized the user had more than 4 reverts going in the space of an hour. Another user also put an informal warning at that time on the user's talk page before me. -Amatulic22:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The IP has now made apersonal attackSześćsetsześćdziesiątsześć23:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onPeriyar (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Ramananpi (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: Despite the issue being raised to the India board by another user .The user has revert the page and the page is now protected due to actions of this user.He also deletes content even if well cited.He also used his sockpuppet Ramananrv123 to redirect the page.Tametiger06:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
This is stale, and (as you point out) the page is protected. No blockWilliam M. Connolley11:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onBrock Lesnar (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Martin181 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: Poss sockpuppet is back after last 24hr banning and has not entered into any discussions and continues with form to again ignore sourced info and revert back to personal preferences
Ahem. Was there anything aboutThese MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look upHelp:Diff if you do not know what a diff is that you didn't understand?William M. Connolley11:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onCaractacus Burke (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).John Reaves (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: Editor reverted four times, despite opposition from two editors in the summaries and on his talk page; several summaries were rude/offensive, and showed awareness of 3RR; he then proceeded to lurch into rudeness and personal accusations here[271] and here[272].
Blocked byJ.smith (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA)Bucketsofg21:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onCrash Bandicoot: The Wrath of Cortex (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).86.42.80.244 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: EXACTLY the same guy who continually vandalised theDingodile pages, this time reverting relevant and true information. As you can see, he's been doing it for a long time now, despite the countless warnings, and blaming them entirely on me, when all I've been doing is trying to revert them back, and have only been partially involved as such.CBFan16:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)CBFan
Three-revert rule violation onVaikom Satyagraha (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Ramananpi (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: Reverts and deletions of the several articles have been done by this user.125.22.132.24117:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onRomania (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Kamenaua (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: Reversion of a version of a disputed event that acquired community consensus. He probably used socks to evade 3RR.. see these diffs:13:50, 13 January 2007 by userMiclovan (created today) and18:35, 13 January 2007 (only contribution of IP213.36.0.197).Anonimu18:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
This user has also made false vandalism claims in spite of being warned that it isnt vandalism, has refused to discuss the issue on the talk page in spite of being asked and has been warned about 3RR before the 4th revert, which he removed from his talk page,SqueakBox20:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Oops, looks like I did. My apologies, I had not realised. We appear to have come to a compromise and user 24.17.42.210 has gone offline sionce then, yesterday afternoon and the situation has calmed down,SqueakBox18:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onCelestial (comics) (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).DCincarnate (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments:This user is not a new user, having been around since July 2006. However, it appears that this user has never received a 3RR warning before. I put one on the user's talk page after the fact. Note: this user made other changes to the article on top of the reverts, so the diffs don't match completely. However, the substance of the changes, stemming from an edit war with another user, is essentially the same.
Three-revert rule violation onCelestial (comics) (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Asgardian (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments:This user has been blocked for violating the 3RR before. This instance is part of an edit war withUser:DCincarnate, whom I reported above. I put a new 3RR warning on this user's talk page after the fact.
Three-revert rule violation onEbionites (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Loremaster (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: Not a new user (according to user's talk page, one of Wikipedia's most proflic editors). User insists on inserting own original research (dubious inferences based on primary sources) into article, whilst deleting statements from secondary sources. Repeated attempts to explainWP:OR andWP:NPOV on article's talk page are rebuffed with accusations that others have an agenda, are wikilawyering, bullying etc. Attempts to undo damage to article are simply reverted, as above. 3RR warning posted to user's talk page[274] and 4th reversion occured within 6 minutes of warning.
Comments by Loremaster: I've repeatedly provided explanations for my revert edits in light ofUser:MichaelCPrice's repeated acts of vandalism. I have already explained why the Lead of theEbionites article does not need to mention his inserts which are already mentioned elsewhere in the article. It is ridiculous of him to describe the deletion of these inserts as inserting original research. I've discussed all these issues on theTalk:Ebionites page and my views and actions are supported byuser:Ovadyah. There is no consensus possible since Micheal is a master ofwikilawyering who is trying to impose his own POV into the article which I am trying to remove to preserve a neutral point of view. Period --Loremaster03:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Reverting continued. 24h eachWilliam M. Connolley11:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onMoldova (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Scorpyiajansidanananananananana (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: This user is edit warring a topic which is specifically commented to be discussed on the talk page. User's edit history shows a number of similar edits to other articles--contentious and undiscussed.
24hWilliam M. Connolley11:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onJoyce Kilmer (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Alansohn (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments:
I have been guilty, slightly of WP:CIVIL and to a lesser extent an occasional violation of WP:NPA, but I am so unable to keep my cool with this user.
Right now, he's sacrificing accuracy just to feed his ego, and right now, the timbre of his edits is "win at all cost" with a campaign that is so antithetical to Wikipedia, he has to be punished for this, and severely. —ExplorerCDT04:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
5RR onAnti-Judaism (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) byKendrick7 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
The above are simple reverts — five in under an hour. Kendrick is trying to createAnti-Judaism as a fork ofReligious antisemitism. He keeps removing the redirect and pasting in his preferred version ofReligious antisemitism. He's been warned about 3RR several times and was blocked for it on December 30.[283]
This was a standard block for violatingWP:3RR. SlimVirgin originally moved the article to a better name, and Kendrick7 continued to undo the move to reinstatehis version, which has just continued with Mackan79 reinstating the version. And KazakhPol has recently been blocked due to edit warring with Slim Virgin as well. Kendrick7 can come back in 24 hours and edit constructively, which does not mean reverting the article, again.—Ryūlóng (竜龍)08:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Look, Slim. This is not looking good in anyway. The block was unilateral, and so I unblocked. Another uninvolved administrator agreed with me, in that context. Tawker did not raise any objections. If Simon is somebody's friend, so is Jayjg, and he cannot be called an uninvolved party. In no way the block would have helped.I protected the article before unblocking. How can you think a block would have helped? You were revert-warring on two articles on a single day, and left off at three edits each. That falls within the purview ofgaming the system. I am not going to take this toWP:ANI, but if there is something I have learnt from my past, blocks don't help solve problems, especially when they look unilateral, just like this one. I suppose this is ripe time for going toWP:ANI? I have replied to your comments on my talk page. Regards, —Nearly Headless Nick11:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Slim says of Kendrick that"He has elsewhere teamed up with other editors, including one long-term banned antisemite, to disrupt pages related to Judaism, Jews, and Israel." CJ rightly points out that "Kiyosaki"'s bigotry became known after the period in which he and Kendrick concurred on several edits. Bad-faith innuendos about antisemitism, as well as spurious guilt-by-association smears, unfortunately typify SlimVirgin's handling of content disputes with other editors.--G-Dett18:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Although I feel that this should really be archived to prevent clogging up of this page with any more pointless squabbling, I want to say that I fully endorse Rebecca's remarks. I don't often block for 3RR, but I do follow this page a lot (and have done from before I was an admin), and this is a perfectly routine block. I'm not sure if Nick's use of "unilateral" refers to the fact that Tawker decided all by himself to implement the block, or that only the person who reverted five times in an hour got blocked, while those who reverted three times or under in 24 hours did not. If the former, it's a bizarre interpretation. The 3RR policy exists through community consensus. Individual applications of it in very straightforward cases do not need consensus. If Nick is referring to the fact that only Kendrick was affected by the block, then I'd point out that only he made that blatant violation, not only making five reverts in less than an hour but also calling edits he disagreed with "vandalism". And he had been blocked before, so he knew the rule. I can't understand why this thread has turned into a forum for criticizing those who did revert, but who neither blatantly violated the rules nor "gamed the system" by waiting one minute after the 24 hours. If the rule says, don't revert four times, you don't unblock someone who knowingly reverted five times on the grounds that someone else reverted three times!MusicalLinguist21:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onPontic_Greek_Genocide (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Mitsos (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: Repeatedly re-inserting inappropriate external links to nationalist lobby website.Fut.Perf.☼13:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Administrators, I want to update a poor article about Mammed Amin Rasulzade but user Azerbaijani every time returns back the old version which is very poor. I am putting my version to the talk page, please consider go and look at it and then judge. becuse that article is very bad quality and I want to improve it.Elsanaturk18:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onReroute to Remain (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).194.144.111.210 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: User has also violated 3RR onNu metal andList of thrash metal bands(actually it appears to me that he has just barely avoided 3RR there. --Wildnox(talk)18:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Comments: The user in question has been blocked at least two other times for 3rr, I (s)he should be blocked for more than 24 hours.Inhumer21:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a lot of ugly reverting going on there. Please take care. 48hWilliam M. Connolley22:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onAnarchism (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Max_rspct (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: I suspect that Max rspct is the same user as86.7.21.180 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log). If that is true, he broke a 3RR. In the past, Max rspct and 86.7.21.180 made some very similar edits. For example, they both edited articles:Mikhail Bakunin (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) on 24 November 2006, andDetroit, Michigan (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) "Performing Arts" section on 7 December 2006. Taking into consideration small number of edits by 86.7.21.180, I find that coincidence suspicious. Also, Max rspct was already blocked once for using a sockpuppet.-- Vision Thing --18:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
24h, assuming that 86. is MxrWilliam M. Connolley22:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onMammed Amin Rasulzade (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Elsanaturk (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments:Elsanaturk has made a lot of POV comments and edits on several articles. I told him about Wikipedia NPOV and Wikipedia 3rr but he did not listen to either warning and continue his disruptive edits. He makes claims like "this guy is spoiling my article! adminstators!" and he does not seem to understand that he does not own anything on Wikipedia and that there are rules and guidelines that he has to follow. Due to comments he has made, it is very evident that he is baised and removes information that he does not like. I believe that the IP address is his, and regarding, he has broken 3rr anyway, due to reverting and also making edits afterwards. Please asses the situation and take the necessary steps. You can check his contributions and and the history of the article in question.Azerbaijani20:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Well most of what would be need to be said has been said. I think these diffs are a little better though:1,2,3, and4. --Wildnox(talk)20:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onChristianity (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).88.105.115.223 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments:
Three-revert rule violation onToad (Nintendo) (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).65.7.63.86 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: Person apparently uploaded and addedImage:Toad999.PNG to the article. I removed it due to low quality and lack of copyright tags in the image's summary, plus the fact that the current image works well enough. Anon user promptly added it back in, and then chaos broke loose. User has reverted to same thing at least 8 times. Resulting discussion can be foundhere. I warned user on theirtalk page, and asked them to stop to no avail. --Sarrandúin[Talk +Contribs ]04:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onTaj El-Din Hilaly (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).88.113.137.249 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
Comments:
24f for incivility; probably 3RR tooWilliam M. Connolley19:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onCivil War (comic book) (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).SaliereTheFish (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments:
Contiguous edits count as one; there may be 3 in total. Mind you his edit comments are distinctly unhelpfulWilliam M. Connolley19:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onFolke Bernadotte (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Amoruso (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&action=edit
Comments:User:Amoruso has over 10,000 edits and has experience on this board. No warning was necessary. Worse, while he has not technically violated 3RR, he is taking 3 reverts every 24 hours, clearly in violation of the spirit of WP:3RR. Amoruso has also been editing the talk page, but generally puts up comments that indicate he has a personal strongly held belief[306][307] or simply that everyone else is wrong and he intends to revert[308]. I would argue that intentional gaming by an experienced user is far more serious than the clumsy mistake of a newbie.
Further, there is adequate opportunity to talk. After her 3rd revert in an hour and a half (!) (I won't put in the diffs since they are part of a long argument above)user:SlimVirgin realized that the edit-warring was a problem and tried to cool things down. She intitiated a focused discussion[309] which several editors have participated in. Unfortunately, Amoruso's sole contribution has been limited to an accusation of slander and an indication that he was reverting yet again (which he did)[310].Jd271815:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onParis (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Ckoicedelire (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments:
Such attachment to a former version seems a bit odd in the light of the user's history - may be a sockpuppet ofUser:Hardouin.
Six reverts by the user within eight hours. Are there any Admins watching this page at all? --Bob07:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
24hWilliam M. Connolley09:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onHaik (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Ararat arev (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments:
Three-revert rule violation onUser:Macedonia (edit | [[Talk:User:Macedonia|talk]] |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Macedonia (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: Userwarnedtwice (because heblanked the page) by adminFuture Perfect at Sunrise. He/She persistently re-adds those pictures in his/her userpage. User experienced, and with arecord of 3rr abuse. AWP:RfC regarding username being used to impersonate an article would probably be quite pertinent, but I don't know which of the two supercedes the other in this case:WP:3RR#Reverting copyright violations in combination withWP:COPYRIGHT,WP:POINT, andWP:USERNAME -or-WP:3RR#Reverting pages in your user space?NikoSilver01:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
FunkyFly and NikoSilver were vandalizing my userpage by removing images, and adding false licenses to my self made images that I have uploaded here to Wikipedia.Macedonia02:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
FunkyFly also violated the rule while adding false copyright licencses to my images:
— Precedingunsigned comment added byMacedonia (talk •contribs)
Three-revert rule violation onLiberalism in the United States (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Rjensen (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: Rjensen has made several other edits to the article which were partial revisions, but instead of responding tomy comment on the talk page, he continued to revert. He has also engaged in an edit war overConservatism in the United States, seeUser_talk:Rjensen#Conservatism_in_the_United_States. --Cielomobiletalk /contribs01:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
??? 3&4 *are* from the same article. Based on "classical liberal" you've both broken 3RR so both get 24hWilliam M. Connolley09:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onMalcolm III of Scotland (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).84.135.255.238 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments:
24h. Still,I am Special WikiConstable 84.135.255.238 enforcing... was funnyWilliam M. Connolley18:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onMitanni (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Ararat arev (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three-revert rule violation onUrartu (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Ararat arev (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three-revert rule violation onTony Martin (professor) (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Avocadop (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comments: Ignored two warnings and an offer to discuss edit concerns at talk, with no reply (see below).Kaisershatner22:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may beblocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that thethree-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked foredit warring, even if they do not technically violate thethree-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.— Precedingunsigned comment added byBenisek (talk •contribs)
24h. Dubious about B too.William M. Connolley23:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
