Dir en grey (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).122.49.175.210 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:19:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Repeated reinsertion of information that several other editors either deemed improperly sourced or irrelevant to the article. Other (properly cited) content was removed in the process. -Cyrus XIII19:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
This user has also been edit warring elsewhere (before the warning) inserting the same information on other pages:[1][2][3][4][5][6] I would be less concerned if this was just an edit war, but it seems to be something more.Denaar19:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Free-Will (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).122.49.175.210 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:19:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
As data provided by WHOIS, as well as certain behavior patterns seem to match, could the reviewing administrator take a look at these previous 3RR violations and determine whether there is a genuine scope for relation?[7][8][9][10] This would imply at least six 3RR violations from the same person. -Cyrus XIII19:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Sciencewatcher (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:21:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
(Not a new user, but warning was placed. Can see the response on myTalk page.)
Sciencewatcher has continued to revert the removal of a controversial sentence which has had a citation request tag on it since May. Editors have attempted to engage this user on the article's talk page, but have not had success.Taroaldo21:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Monica Bellucci (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Barateiro (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:21:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Reported byVidemus OmniaTalk21:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Hurrians (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)Armenia (name) (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)Armenian language (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)Proto-Armenian language (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)Graeco-Aryan language (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).NAME_OF_USER (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:21:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
The information I have added on the above article has been removed for no reason by the two stated editors. One of the editors,User:Ghirlandajo has been blocked before for inciting a 3RR edit war, which is what I believe he is trying to do now. AndUser:Dbachmann is not holding himself to the higher standards of an administrator, nor is he neautral, nor does he cite the reasons why he revertedMoosh8821:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
revertsheretothis revision, so you're getting blocked for 24 hours. No actions to Ghirlandajo and Dbachmann at this time. -Penwhale |Blast him /Follow his steps08:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Smoking (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Peter Isotalo (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:Naacats23:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I hope I did this right. This user is preventing any editing or discussion of the article. I placed a discussion and he deleted it. I requested citations, he removed them. He removed the neutral point of view tag I placed as well. While the 3 revisions didn't happen in 24 hours, he's been consistantly doing it, not only to me, but to anyone who tries to improve the article (which he originally wrote) I also see he's been reported for this before, in this very same article, and been banned for it.
RMS Lusitania (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).141.161.98.98 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:00:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
The line was removed byMiguel1626 with a note on the talk page[31]. This IP has repeatedly re-added the line despite warnings and suggestions to discuss changes on the talk page. – |00:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
John Smoltz (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Street20 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:02:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Street20 keeps undoing a correct edit onJohn Smoltz, replacing the player's years with the organization with the years he was healthy, which is not how it is traditionally done. So not only has user violated 3RR, his edit is incorrect. User has been engaged in discussion on talk page but has yet to respond. He maintains his edit is common but has not backed this up - because it is a false claim.►ChrisNelson02:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Settlers of Catan (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Quelt42 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:09:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Reverts within 24-hour period:
Warnings:
User:Quelt42 added an external link to a Java implementation ofSettlers of Catan, which was removed in line withWP:EL. He has reverted that and all subsequent attempts to remove the link. Listed reversions are not the only ones, but are the four that have come within a 24-hour period despite warnings.Percy Snoodle09:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Ontario Health Insurance Plan (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Estgeorge (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:14:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
He continues to inject his own POV, unreferenced opinion into the article.GreenJoe14:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Mauro Orbini (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).DIREKTOR (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:15:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
A short explanation of the incident.
I've tried different versions and I've tried an agreement (see history). All my edits in all the articles are regulary reverted by user Direktor, acting toghehter other users.. He refuse all the compromises, just imposing his POV as it is.Giovanni Giove15:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Athens (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).85.74.44.243 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:22:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
85.74.44.243 continues to revert changed made through a discussion on the talk page about limiting the number of images on the Athens article. See also the above discussion: 85.74.151.103 The user not only continues to spam the article with images, the user now revert text, which has been spell checked and edited. The user continues to ignore that, and has done so before:85.74.252.219 back on Aug 31, 2007 He has also started onThessaloniki See:Before Sept 21After Sept 21El Greco (talk ·contribs)16:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Operation Spooner (edit | [[Talk:User:Operation Spooner|talk]] |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Arcayne (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:01:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Arcayne is involved in a long term content dispute withUser:Operation Spooner onRonald Reagan and has beenharassing him on his user and talk pages with multiple reverts in Operation Spooner'suser space. Arcayne insists he is removing personal attacks, but according toWP:NPA this does not appear to be the case. The content in question appears to be a personal essay by Operation Spooner concerning ownership issues/strategies that neither mentions user names or points fingers. I made an attempt to rewrite the User content to satisfy Arcayne's concerns, who is convinced that the essay is about him, but I was reverted. My compromise attempt consisted of removing ambiguous wording and helping the User focus on addressing his own personal experience withWP:OWN, which is what his user page appeared to suggest (Please seemy efforts). Having direct experience with writing portions ofWP:OWN some time ago, and focusing on specific aspects thatUser:Operation Spooner describes, this task greatly appealed to me. As his block log shows, Arcayne is very familiar with 3RR. —Viriditas |Talk01:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
-Arcayne(cast a spell)02:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Slither (2006 film) (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Tromaintern (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:03:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
David Vitter (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).MattJanovic (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:04:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
New user continues to post lengthy, speculative text derived from from a site calledyardbird.com into the lead. At least three editors have reverted the addition of this text, and two have expressed opposition to the addtion of this text on thetalk page.
--Proper tea is theft04:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Rick Mercer (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Bearcat (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:06:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
No warning given, but Bearcat is an admin and so should know better
A few days ago, in accordance with WP:BLP, I deleted unreferenced claims that Mercer is homosexual. Bearcat restored them once w/o a reference (outside the 3rr window), then again with a reference (1st revert, above), then reverted trimming of the material, and details of its wording. --Lonewolf BC06:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Bourbon whiskey (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).82.29.19.133 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:10:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
Anonymous user determined to place phonemic pronunciation guides, againstrelative guidelines, on a number of pages includingBourbon whiskey,Bourbon biscuit,Ciabatta,Johann Sebastian Bach, and other pages.Jester10:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Jajah (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).RolandR (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:14:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
RolnadR has been blocked for 3Rr 3 times before.
Misogyny (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).71.72.130.221 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:14:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
The user has repetitively been inserting commentary into quoted text. I have tried to explain why this is problematic, and warned for 3RR. I am an admin, but because I was involved in the undoing, I am not going to use the tools myself to block, and would like an uninvolved admin to review the case. The last edit seems to be trying to accommodate my concerns, however all the user did was remove the quotes so it was no longer inserting the commentary into quoted text (however, removing the quotes is an issue in itself due to copyvio/plagiarism concerns, which is another issue entirely). Needless to say, the last diff still is inserting the same basic text.Andrew c [talk]14:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Denial of Soviet occupation (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Digwuren (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:19:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks like User:Digwuren thinks heowns the article. He rejected any tag, and added references that don't cover the text they supposedly reference. I tried to put a version supported by sources (one of them being supported by Digwuren's proposed DYK) and to ask for further references to support Digwuren's claim, but I was reverted every time.Anonimu19:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Digwuren's reverts (times in GMT)
OR tags were explained at talk and added by three different editors but Digwuren just ran a sterile revert war. It is 6RR not even a 3RR. --Irpen21:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Killian_documents.74.77.222.188 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:21:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
A short explanation of the incident.Callmebc21:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I guess it depends on your viewpoint -- I'm either: 1) engaged in an edit war with a few anonymous IP addresses, possibly a sockpuppet or two, most especially a hothead at 74.77.222.18 who doesn't seem to thinkWP:BLP,WP:NPAWP:TPG andWP:CIV (for starters) have any bearing on Talk page "discussions"; 2) dealing with right wing vandals who don't want any updates made to certain articles near and dear to them; or 3) just having a lively Wiki discussion. Perhaps if I indicate what 74.77.222.18 keeps reverting, that might help:[42].
Libby, Montana (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).17.221.13.236 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:21:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
REF:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libby%2C_Montana&action=history
Help!WikiDon22:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Hugh Hefner (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).JerryGraf (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported: 21:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)JerryGraf did 4 reverts in a 24 hour period[43], after adding what is ment to be a negative statement about the biography of a living person, after i removed it he keeps reverting it back. Not to mention the comment should actually be on a different page as well. I did 3 in the 24 hour period. But he just did his 4th. And apparently has no plans on stoppingRogue Gremlin21:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
USS Liberty incident (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Louie33 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:22:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
Looks likeUser:Louie33 thinks he is the world expert regarding that matter[45] so he feels free to add POV, and to remove sourced statements. -Myanw22:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
5 reverts in a 24 hour period on September 25th against longstanding consensus (user tried to remove all references toanarcho-capitalism from theAnarchism in the United States article). Check it out:1st reversion2nd reversion3rd reversion4th reversion5th reversionSkomorokhincite22:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Frida Kahlo (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).70.18.5.219 (Talk) (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:01:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I repeatedly asked this editor to discuss the issue in dispute on the talk page of the article atTalk:Frida Kahlo as did an administratorFisherQueen who issued aWP:3RR warning. After the warning he reverted again, leaving insulting messages in his edit summaries and finally a very insulting message on the talk page.[51]Modernist01:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Chris Conley (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Eusebeus (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:04:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Despite clear consensus to the contrary,User:Eusebeus seems to be convinced that theChris Conley does not meet standards of notability, despite the inclusion of multiple, reliable and verifiable sources. Suggestions to take this article to AfD have been ignored. This is the 14th time thatUser:Eusebeus has blanked the article into a redirect, undoing the work of at least 11 different Wikipedia editors who clearly believe that individual notability has been established.Alansohn04:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Coral Smith (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Loansince (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:09:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
I edited theCoral Smith to remove the unsourced/POV stuff, improve the grammar, etc. Loansince reverted it, remarking in his Edit Summaries, "reverted unsourced info back to sourced information". (I added no unsourced info to the article.) When I tried to open a dialogue on his Talk Page, his only response was to blank his Talk Page, revert again, and remark in his Edit Summary, "find sources / this has been sourced". When I again tried to explain to him how things were done on WP, he reverted again with the Summary: "Nightscreem stop reverting. You find sources". When I tried again to speak with him, and repeatedly warned that he could be blocked for this behavior, he placed the following message on my Talk Page:"I'm writing this message here because it seems you have had a serious talking to by more users than just my self (up above) about adding unsourced contributions to wikipedia. The Coral Smith info you are adding into the article is unsourced and I have told you that repeatedly. Until you get sources for that info, stop adding it in and being so irritating." For the record, I have have been given no admonishments about unsourced info, nor has he told me this "repeatedly", nor have I been "irritating", or anything other than polite to him. Reading his Talk Page (or its history) will not only verify this, but will show other instances of his deliberately ignoring WP rules and consensus.Nightscream09:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Battlezone (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).65.57.245.11 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:16:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Editor was warned on 3RR violation. Editor keeps trying to remove and/or alter reference material of publicly known Californian collector Scott Evans who runs AtariGames.Com and owns the Bradley Fighting Vehicle simulator in question, and has public page about it. Editor's IP is an open proxy in Colorado with long history of problems. Would like an sprotect on the page as well possibly. --Marty Goldberg16:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Please also see the topic recently started on Battlezone's talk page. --Marty Goldberg16:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
David Hicks (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Brendan.lloyd (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:17:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
All edits remove "pled guilty" from the first paragraph. User is edit-warring against an edit he agreed to just a few days ago, after just coming back from a block for edit-warring. Seethis talk-page thread about the block. -Merzbow17:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Richard Stallman (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Thumperward (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:17:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
There was also a fifth revert, of the exact section, at 17:15, 25 September 2007 :[60] I warned Themperward that he is gaming 3RR by making his 4th revert at 24hours + 4 minutes, and he responsed with a dismissive comment.ViolentCrime17:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Yoon Bong-Gil (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Wikimachine (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:23:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Also violated (intentional gaming, three minutes outside 24h) onAn Jung-geun.
User since 2005, clearly aware of 3RR, gaming the 3RR system while warning others[61]. Continuous removal of category he disputes on these two articles. Other editor tried to reinsert, but eventually gave up[62] when Wikimachine made it clear[63] he was declaring an all out revert war and not interested in discussion. Wikimachine was blocked recently for 48 hours for blatant refusal to cooperate or discuss edits. He has a pattern of planning revert wars, trying to game the system recently saying,[64] "When our 24 hrs limit is up, we can revert...back."
Pro-pedophile Activism (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).SqueakBox (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:02:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Edit war. Block log reveals a history of similar behaviour.82.45.15.12102:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-pedophile_activism&diff=160566522&oldid=160565773
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-pedophile_activism&diff=160726383&oldid=160725340
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-pedophile_activism&diff=160562657&oldid=160560070
Pol6417:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
User talk:GreenJoe.Sunray (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:02:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
He keeps harassing me by reverting my talk page. I'm frustrated now by his behaviour.GreenJoe02:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Killian documents authenticity issues (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).SEWilco (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:05:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
Note that there was another revert by a short lived IP address:14:10, 24 September 2007
A short explanation of the incident.Callmebc05:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but this so convoluted that I don't know if I can make it that short...but:User:SEWilco had added a new sub-section called "Mother's Day"[76] involving an anecdote by an old friend of Bush, William Campenni, that appeared in some unknown form (there is no easy way to access the article -- the link SEWilco keeps using is broken) in the Washington Times, a conservative (well, actually right wing) newspaper a couple of years ago. Basically Campenni claims that one of the Killian memos in which Killian is ordering Bush to report to a physical has to be forged because, to quote Campenni,For the weekend that 1st Lt. Bush was supposedly ordered to report for his physical, May 13-14, 1972, the Ellington Air Guard Base was closed.. The problem is that the memo in question doesn't say that. It's dated May 4th and the exact quote is:"You are ordered to report to commander, 111 F.L.S, Ellington AFB, not later than (NLT) 14 May, 1972 to conduct annual physical examination." Also Campenni's claim that the base would be shut down that entire weekend, because of Mother's Day, appears to be unsupported by any other source.
So while Campenni claims that Bush was ordered to reporton the weekend of the 13-14, the memo clearly saysby the 14th, which was Bush's last day on base (according DoD records). A not so slight difference.But then SEWilco posts the assertion by referencing the Washington Times piece but actually using the wording from the memo -- which is fabrication, I do believe. SEWilco also adds that even if the memo was dated May 4th (a Thursday that year), it would not reach Bush by mail before the weekend -- which is not only wild speculation but is utterly nonsensical: bases have their own mail room, so the memo would just be put into Bush's mail box. Lastly SEWilco also adds that the address on the memo is wrong without providing a reference for that, and some Google searching indicates that the address is correct -- it's Bush's parents, and it shows up also in official records. See the talk discussion here[77].
I keep pointing these things out and removing the add, but SEWilco simply says that it's "verifiable" and then puts it back. So...
Template:ScientologySeries (edit | [[Talk:Template:ScientologySeries|talk]] |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) andTemplate:Template:Scientologyfooter (edit | [[Talk:Template:Template:Scientologyfooter|talk]] |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views). Time reported: 04:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This is the second time this users 3RRs on the same article, ignoring missing consent and missing coverage byWP:V andWP:RS for his robotic changes. The first time he was blocked accordingly (Diff here
Per 3RR rule the continuous revert does not need to be only within 24 hrs.Shutterbug04:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Shutterbug04:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Conservapedia (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Joaquín Martínez (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:12:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
User is pushing POV statements in the article - after being warned, his response was "go and use 3rr, it is an indication of liberal style to try and lock others out of debate".McGeddon12:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Blocked 24-hours for edit-warring.Ronnotel02:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Kraków (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Matthead (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:13:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Matthead, a veteran of 2 3rr blocks, has now engaged in edit warring over a GA-candidateKraków, pushing - against consensus - his version of the name as well as section headings (among other things). I hope that such a 6rr violation will merit some form of an escalation block - we even cannot work on the articles to meet GA reviewer concerns to due his revert edit conflicts. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 13:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Matthead has been blocked for 48 hours, as this is not his first offense. He saw this report, knew the jig was up, and 6RR is not acceptable no matter how right one believes they are. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson -Shazaam! -<*>13:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Template:Countries and territories of Middle America (edit | [[Talk:Template:Countries and territories of Middle America|talk]] |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Jcmenal (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:13:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Jcmenal added an additional level of regions (subregions) to what should be a simple regional template -- without discussing proposed changes first/at all and labelling changes as 'cleanup'. In the span of minutes, Jcmenal reverted my restorations of the simpler,alphabetised template. Each of his reverts supports a point-of-view regarding the classification of territories in this region or, more appropriate, the inclusion of Mexico in 'North America' alone (i.e., to the exclusion of other schemes). These issues have recurred elsewhere as well.User has been warned, and user hypocritically did the same.Corticopia16:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Dianne Feinstein (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).More Truthiness (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:19:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The second revert could be argued to be the correction of a mistake, but there is still a violation here. User was warned about 3RR yesterday.
Crockspot19:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Blocked for 12 hours.Gamaliel(Angry Mastodon! Run!)20:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
P. G. Wodehouse (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Komusou (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:20:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This is a content dispute. Komusou appears to object to calling Wodehouse English although Wodehouse himself did, and insists on reverting to the clumsy "British writer of English origin". If there were a dispute whether Wodehouse were in some sense, say, Welsh, this would be a different matter.
Several editors have objected to this on the talk page, especiallyhere; I have tried different texts. Both of us have edited the article at other points, but Komusou has exactly reverted four times at the point at issue. Please note that, although I have edited the passage four times myself, the first was not a revert, but an independent effort to clean up execrable English, and the third was intentionally a new idea, taken from the Britannica, in the hope it might assuage Komusou's eccentric concerns. Enough.SeptentrionalisPMAnderson20:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I claim that Pmanderson did the 3RR he accuses me of. Here, a dual timeline will give a better picture than his truncated one-sided view. I have noted "E" his edits towards the controversial version (article saying only "was an English writer") and "C" my edits towards the compromise version (article saying "was a British writer from England").
Last versions of the competing older revisions:
Events (UTC):
My claim summary: Pmanderson is the original 3RR violator, his first edit that day was a revert to an older version (reverting from a compromise version to a controversial one), thus he initiated the 3RR count on his first edit. I am basing myself onWikipedia:Revert stating that "in the context of the English Wikipedia three revert rule, a revert is defined far more broadly as any change to an article that partially or completely goes back to any older version of an article." (Note: I was of course aware that Pmanderson had 3RR'ed but I dislike using 3RR as a tool for entrapping others or silencing opposition. Of course, Pmanderson avoided to notify me of his 3RR report. Since he is in the habit of trying to deflect blame by preventively accusing others of his faults, I am unsurprised by his deceptive report.)
Additional 3RR-related comments:
IMO, if the revert count isn't performed like this, but as Pmanderson would like it, then a warrior would always either get his way or force his opponent into 3RR, because the attacker would have his count always one point less than the article's defender. Counting so would actually *favor* edit wars rather than prevent them, because a premium would be given to any attacker for going against the status quo. (That may also be why Pmanderson gleefully attacked in this manner without actual discussion on the talk page, he hoped to mechanically come on top of a 3RR without having his first revert be noticed.)
I may also be blamable for my 4th restoration, so I want to explain:
His reverts aren't about a convoluted dispute, but a clear cut case of sourced content removal. His reverts are identical to someone who would repeatedly go and replace a lead "Joe is a Canadian writer from Quebec" with just "Joe is a Quebec writer" by deleting mention of the sovereign nation. Such as special case may not be "simple vandalism", but I think he is knowingly removing a basic and central information for a biography, the official nationality (British passport, there is no English passport just like there is no Quebec passport). It is thus both ethnic POV-pushing and a deliberate attempt at removing information and lowering the content of the lead section, thus closer to vandalism than to disputed encyclopedic edits.
This is not a case of my reverting between "B" for me and "E" for him (that would be regular content dispute). It is about my restoring "B and E" (complete and encyclopedic, superset of his version, compromise) against his just "E" (deletion of the official nationality, subset of my version, no compromise).
I would also point out his non-debate behavior: after he reverted to a controversial version, and I restored the compromise version while sending him to the talk page, he should have left the compromise version in place and focussed on the talk page debate. Instead, he never try to address or rebuke any point of the debate, simply dropping on the talk page a short note to the effect of "he is English because he is English" then going back to revert.
And since it's a vital criterion for "vandalism", I contend that his edits summaries show clear cut bad faith. For instance, his stating that the neutral and precise compromise "British writer from England" is "neither neutral nor precise" and replacing it with just "England"[96] which is a subset neither neutral nor precise, shows him using the tactic of deliberately accusing the other party of precisely what he's doing at the same time. Hard for me to take this double-talk, and the rest, as anything else than clear bad faith.
I thought those points could be taken into consideration, maybe in a manner of considering that each of my reverts doesn't necessarily count for "1 full revert" but maybe "0.5 revert" (figuratively), for such a case that's not about delicate disputed points but restoring the very basic information of nationality that an encyclopedia should provide.
Conclusion:
My belief at this point is that either both of us should be considered 3RR (if each one of my reverts is counted for "1", then we both 3RR'ed, him first), or only him (if my revert count gets some relativization) – but not just me, since he initiated the 3RR. (Thank you for going through this, I realize it's rather lame and boring, but I believe that if we don't defend the basics such as official nationality, we're going nowhere.)
— Komusou talk @09:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Gnome (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).75.112.134.14 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:22:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The guy is on a rampage. He was warned about vandalism and about 3RR.Alexf(Talk/Contribs)22:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Template:Countries and territories of Middle America (edit | [[Talk:Template:Countries and territories of Middle America|talk]] |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).
Corticopia (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Corticopia has been edit warring and violating 3RR several times in the past as you can check here[110]. He is a very uncivil user and uses bad words and profanity and personal attacks even on edit summaries and he has been blocked for that[111][112].
The 3RR policy says that constant edit warring and 3RR violations must be punished accordingly to the amount of times it has been repeated and this would be his 9th 3RR violation. He has been blocked for 1 month in the past. Much of his violations has not been reported because I guess the new users that he edit wars with don't know about this policy.
And the user is well aware of this and other policies, he just reported another user for 3RR but didn't report himself.Supaman8923:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
User_talk:70.20.46.65 (edit | [[Talk:User_talk:70.20.46.65|talk]] |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).
User_talk:70.20.46.65 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Checkhistory of User_talk:70.20.46.65, keeps making improper edits in articles, then when is warned, just BLANKS user page. 10 blanks from 24 SEP to 28 SEP.
[this is being refiled with better data and a request for reconsideration.]
Instant Runoff Voting (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).72.75.46.82 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:06:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)instead of diffs, I have posted the Contributions pages which list all the edits. This is clearly a single user on an IP pool, so there are three IPs.
Special:Contributions/72.75.26.158 2 reverts, one edit which was actually an extensive revision including exact reversions but not stated as such. This edit was not a part of the original complaint (and not within 24 hrs).
Special:Contributions/72.75.46.82 4 reverts
Special:Contributions/72.75.48.229 4 reverts
User has not been specifically warned on the "user pages." User has different IP with each session, there is no reason to expect next login will have same IP, though it is possible.
The first set of six gave as a reason, "Avid proponent of other systems trying to change article," which is no reason for reversion at all, inappropriate material would be. Next four reverts gave no reason.
Notice was made of 3RR policy on Talk page after the first six reverts. User has posted to Talk page (from 72.75.46.82).[113]Abd06:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Race and ancient Egypt (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Taharqa (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:18:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
^^Not a new user, however note was still left warning of the reverts.
User:Taharqa continues to revert material added by another user to theRace and ancient Egypt article. NOTE, This would be the9th 3rr violation from this user in the past 5 months. I believe this should be considered when determining duration of potential block. Longest was for 5 days.(talk)18:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
This report is misguided for two reasons..
^Removal of entire section..
^^These two are back to back (probably can count as one), reverting material that was removed..
2 of the last 3 concern the revisions that he's reporting on, and the last one is a removal of cited material that was restored only hours prior. All with in the past 24. I left him a message on his talk page, giving him the benefit of the doubt and pleading for discussion and compromise and he seemed hip to that actually.[123]
With the protection, I feel that it will give us time to discuss any disputes and gain a bit of common ground, in the absence of edit warring or content disputes.Taharqa20:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I would disagree, I left a note on your talk page.(talk)23:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
By my count only one editor has violated 3RR, so the editors are unable to edit the article in question as a result of one person's mistake...
1 (It is a revert, the info was added earlier by another editor.so it was a reversion)
Wikidudeman Corrected 1
2
Wikidudeman Corrected 2
3
Another editor corrected 3
4
Anynobody03:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Logical connective (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).122.163.102.174 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)122.163.102.167 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)122.163.102.102 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) : Time reported:21:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
Repeated removal ofCullinane's crediting of text to his web site. I assume this means he's giving permission for the text to occur here. Otherwise, removal of the #Venn diagram tables may be required as a copyvio. —Arthur Rubin |(talk)21:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Glace Bay.142.68.12.214 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:01:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, Thehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._Morgan has been reverted many times. These reverts go to non-sencal down right silly vandalism. This person needs to be stoped. I could have 7 examples for this stuff.
Keeps reverting artciles to include either unsourced, unverifable information that means nothing to the article, or out right vandalizing pages.Kirkoconnell01:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Point Roberts, Washington (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Gnatdroid (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:02:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I made several edits to the page in question. Some of the edits I made was removing external links from within the article. The user in question has reverted those removals three times. I wrote on his talk page regarding this and in the talk page of the article. Even after these two attempts to politely request he stop, he still reverted my changes.Kmsiever02:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Ustaše (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Brkić (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:11:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
From 19:55 of 28 september user:Brkic is forcing that article must have statement from obscure book which is without confirmation on internet (or better to say google).Rjecina11:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Hotaki dynasty (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Anoshirawan (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:16:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
This user, despite the fact that he has already been blocked three times for edit warring, continues to revert theHotaki dynasty article to a version based on a work of fiction.
Here are some examples of his earlier reverts. I have not included all reverts, but you can check the the article history, the revert war goes back all the way through the month of july.
Here are his most recent reverts:
There has been an RFC for this article. All those involved agreed that Anoshirawan's version was wrong, and that his arguments were unconvincing, and yet he continues to revert the article mindlessly. This is the worst edit war I've ever seen and it's time someone put a stop to it.
He has also been revert warring on theCuisine of Afghanistan article. Here are the reverts:
This time, in his haste to erase the word "Afghan", he has been reverting to a version where large portions of content have been deleted, thus badly disrupting the article.
He seems to have made reverting a way of life! It is clear from this and from his three previous blocks, that this user has no respect for the wikipedia rules of conduct. Isn't it possible to do something about this outrageous person?Raoulduke4716:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Bhutanese democracy (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Bramlet Abercrombie (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:17:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Warnings issued: n/a because user responded to another 3RR report three days ago.
A long history of edit wars without talking. I reported the user 3 days ago for 3RR for a separate violation but I withdrew it when I thoughthe was willing to discuss it. He tried removing other links along with these, but the above four are sufficient for a block. The user tries totime his edits to avoid 3RR/24hr and has been blocked before. (Details on the underlying issue are atTalk:Bhutan Times) --Darana17:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC) (aka 24.61.222.132 or 71.181.46.151 when not logged in)
Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Commator (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:18:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
This is a repeat occurance of a prveious incident. Due to lack of other interested editors, a stalemate back and forth reversion between myself and Commator has been going on for a while; the issue is the inclusion or removal of references to several non notable things in a "tributes" section of the article. RecentlySdsds commented on the page asking for sources to assert notability, though this has been more or less ignored by Commator.Rainwarrior18:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
See also previous incident:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive55#User:Commator_reported_by_User:Rainwarrior_.28Result:_.29
Buddhism and Hinduism (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Truthseeker81 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:19:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
There were some intermediate edits of mine which are unrelated. The main issue is that this user has been repeatingthis diff despite being told why it is unacceptable.
The user has already been warned, and then blocked for this exact same 3RR vio. He has been repeatedly told that using partisan websites and wikipedia for information then forwarding his own unsourced theories about the Bhagavad Gita is unacceptable. The user ignores posts to his talk page and does not use edit summaries, preferring to edit-war with myself and now another editor.Arrow74019:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
University of Cambridge (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).65.110.155.53 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:21:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
...
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
Anon user wishes a certain individual to be on the short list of alumni onUniversity of Cambridge and keeps adding him.Stephen Turner (Talk)21:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Ustaše (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Brkic (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:23:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Revert warring with controversial edits. //laughing man23:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Indonesia (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Wikimuppy (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:15:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
User has been already warned twice:
Editor has been ignoring comments from three other editors atTalk:Indonesia that their additions to this article are not suitable.
(Caniago16:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC))
Office_Open_XML (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).HAl (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:20:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
A short explanation of the incident.Kilz20:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
A discussion of this ciritism was conducted on the talk page ofOOXML User HAl was against the inclusion of referenced information. I added the information. User HAl added a biased edit.his was used as the base article link.I edited the section to restore NPOV , adding more information from the reference. User HAl removed the referenced information below line 494(first revert in part) I explained the claim was referenced[165] and replaced the blanking of it[166]. User Hal removed the claim again[167] I replaced and gavewarning of 3rr.[168] User Hal then made a 3rd revert of the edit in part below section line 494[169] User Hal's talk page has sections from other editors about reverting.Hal later reverted another editor within the 24 hour time for his 5th revert.Halscontributions should also be looked at. As a majority of them are removing anything he considers negative from the Office_Open_XML page. His bias editing is hurtingWP:NPOV of the article as he will remove anything that he considers negative.—Precedingunsigned comment added byKilz (talk •contribs)19:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Ehsan Aman (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Hon203 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:23:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
Note: This user is very likely a sockpuppet ofQbzad (talk ·contribs), who has been edit warring as far back as two weeks ago on the very same issues. This report was supposed to be forAhmad Zahir (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views), but he has only made three reverts on this article, though the edits of Qbzad go back furhter than that. 23:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Ehsan Aman (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Anoshirawan (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:02:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
Edit warring with Hon203.hbdragon8802:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
University of Cambridge (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).65.110.155.53 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:16:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
Anon user wishes a certain individual to be on the short list of alumni onUniversity of Cambridge and keeps adding him.asyndeton17:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
This user violated 3RR as noted below, on the Loyola Law School wikipedia page. He keeps removing a sourced quote.
No 1[178] 07:24, 1 October 2007
No 2[179]
no 3[180]
no 4[181] 18:24, 1 October 2007
After given a warning[182], he did it again and challenged me to report him for 3RR. See his comment "Go ahead" in his last edit. --Brickexistab18:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
RESPONSE BY EDITORESQUIRE:
The user, and others, is part of a cadre of people (perhaps even the same person under different user names) trying to use the Loyola Law School wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyola_Law_School) to denigrate the school -- founded on the same biased motives that wiki editors rejected.
This dispute has been months in the making, dating from at least June 2006, when editors sought to include biased and non-encyclopedic references to "Loyola 2L" in the Loyola Law School wiki page. I submitted a request for third party review, all of which is in the Discussion page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Loyola_Law_School).
Loyola 2L references were found in violation of wiki standards for several reasons, all of which are detailed in my description and wiki editor comments in the Discussion page.
Now, people who apparently went to a competiting law school and are seeking to denigrate Loyola to bolster their own alma matter, are trying to re-insert the same line of discussion in the Loyola Law School wiki page. This time, it is the school's dean, being mischaracterized and quoted out of context for a subjective purpose (like in a legal brief), commenting on the Loyola 2L dispute which wiki already determined was in violation of its rules.
This reference has no place on wiki. It is not encyclopedic, not informative, out of context, cannot be presented subjectively, is the dean reacting to the attacks that wiki editors ruled were prohibited by wiki standards in the first place, and is clearly inserted for the purpose of denigrating the school.
Brickexistab's reporting of me is intended to stop me from policing the wiki page from his/her subjective and violative content.
And contrary to his/her assertion, which is out of context, I attempted to amicably resolve this with him/her by compromising on the content - which is clearly stated in the history page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Loyola_Law_School&action=history). I stated: "the moment in the interest of resolving this edit war -- The reference to the dean is biased and I deleted. I kept the comparative statistics, but will agree to disagre for the moment" (from 18:11, 1 October 2007).
I should add that this is one of a number of attacks by users with a motive to hurt the school, by using the wiki page as airspace. For instance, in the discusion page, there is a dispute raised by a user Coolcaesar that the school is not "in" downtown. That dispute was really petty, and I suggested he/she write "near" or "adjacent to" downtown if he/she really believed it was an issue. The user never did that, but did chastize me for not looking at his/her user page which showed that he/she was a graduate of a law school with a higher bar pass rate than Loyola Law School.
I implore the wiki administrators community for help and guidance.
Thank you. EditorEsquire.
EditorEsquire18:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Fart (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Recury (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:20:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
User:Recury would like the page to be a redirect toflatulence. Discussion in 2006 on the talk pageTalk:Flatulence#Requested_move andTalk:Flatulence#Requested_move_.28June_2006.29 was not in favour; there was a recent AfD discussion on the article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fart) in whichUser:Recury advocated redirection, but the outcome was a snowball keep. Recury is acting against consensus and has now made the same contested edit 5 times in just over 1 hour, claiming "policy trumps voting".BencherliteTalk20:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Hugh Hefner (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Rogue Gremlin (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:20:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The 1st one he has was not a revert it was an edit as clearly seen if you examine what was done, Regimund had changed links to references and and what I did was clean up some of the wording, It clearly has nothing to do with the 3 reverts after it. Also he had included "who foundedPlayboy, continues to overseePlayboy Magazine as Editor-In-Chief." And as you can clearly see it was in was already in the same paragraph right above it. So I deleted that statement. So I did not make 4 reverts on the same material. Also to my knowledge there is NO LIMIT on editsRogue Gremlin20:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Eugenics (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).EliasAlucard (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:21:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
User continues to reinstate section that has been removed by at least three editors (including me) over the past few days.Proper tea is theft21:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Abortion (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Severa (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:00:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
A short explanation of the incident: This user has repeatedly reverted edits made by consensus between several established editors. These edits were agreed upon in lieu of new citations and references. I asked for Severa to engage the rest of us in the Talk page, but there was significant resistance. I don't want to resort to Revert wars on a consistent basis.IronAngelAlice00:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Aishwarya Rai (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).DaGizza (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:01:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Editor Da gizza is reverting aidol repeatedly on Aishwarya Rai article. I think it is very rude. He has repeatedly reverted five times. I think this is violation. I request admins to please take a look and block this rude editor.Randymcintosh01:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Korean cuisine (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Badagnani (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:04:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Has violated 3rr before on this article but I just warned him and didn't report in hopes of extending good faith and trying to engage editor in productive editing. He's been RW'ing even more since and I was going to let this one go too but he's not pulling back his RW'ing and is shadowing my edits even on little grammar fixes and reverting, I feel, punitively.melonbarmonster04:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
L. Ron Hubbard (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Shutterbug (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) formerlyCOFS (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:07:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Other editors and I created aWP:LEAD section usingWP:RS citations and quotes from references which reflect the sources in a NPOV way but not according to what Shutterbug believes. Through outright reverts and minor POV enhancements Shutterbug is making the article more pleasing to her POV. This is apparent in revert number 3, which was an odd occurence where the citation ended up contradicting the text after Shutterbug's edit. I added ref name="77biop3" as a citation saying the subject made a claim to have knowledge of nuclear physics, Shutterbug removed the text that this applied to...or explain why past biographies cite knowledge of nuclear physics. Thus making it sound like the subject never made such claims, despite the fact that the citation refers to...his understanding of nuclear physics.Anynobody07:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Per theArticle probation which the ArbCom has recently put scientology-related articles on, I have pagebannedUser:Shutterbug for 30 days from these articles, includingL. Ron Hubbard. See notification of and reasons for the banhere. This 3RR report is thereby moot, and no longer of interest.Bishonen |talk11:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC).
Orange Institution (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Traditional unionist (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:14:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Editor keeps restoring unsourced material and refuses to provide citations.BigDunc14:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Fellowship_of_Friends (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Wantthetruth? (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:15:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Editor keeps restoring unsourced material even after 3 editors reverted his edits.Love-in-ark15:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Up series (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).70.111.101.111 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:20:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Editor keeps adding unsourced POV (ie the editors) criticism of the series. I have added warnings to the editors talk page but they continue to put back in their opinion. I have refrained from removing it a third time to avoid violating the 3RR myself. I have not made a report at this page before so if there is anything that I have not done that needed to be done or done something wrong please let me know. Thanks for your time.MarnetteD |Talk20:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Transsexuality in Iran (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).70.176.144.149 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):Benjiboi22:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Anon IP keeps asserting gender pronouns ("He" instead of "She") and edit war has simply gone back and forth with little constructive dialog stalling article from positive attention. It also seems this may be spreading to other articles but i didn't want to wade in if this is simply a vandalism issue. Any help or ideas appreciated.
Alexander Litvinenko (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).82.27.39.34 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:02:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Editor is continuously removing cited statements.Strothra02:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
4 reverts from 3:20 to 4:51, 02 October 2007
When you break the rule you get suspended, I'm no suspect and all material I add to the page is cited with references. Everytime something is added, users Skybunny, Snowfire51, and Gonzo fan2007 revert it and call it sockpuppets of some starwars1955, well that's been well over a year ago and all the new users updating are being penned as this starwars1955, so knowone can add to the page, it's a lnchmob and against wikipedia policy, I'm no starwars1955 or a sockpuppet of any kind. When wikipedia was created it was to be a online public encyclopedia, now this page is being taken over by a few users, this is against wikipedia policy and action should taken against them, look at my edits to theBrett Favre page, they are legitimate, and they keep reverting back to incorrect number stats, so they can never be corrected because of a past user from over a year ago, Brett Favre's stats have to be incorrect forever, because they are not looking at my edits and deciding whether they should be there and correcting them themselves, they are reverting to incorrect material, it's redicioulous, you don't own wikipedia, it's a public encyclopedia and I have cits and refs and just because your not getting your way, you have no right to revert and break the 3RR and pen people as socks. Maybe the person you keep blocking is a simple person that has tried to edit here onBrett Favre amd you people keep blocking them so they keep going to the Brett Favre page, because it's unfair, I'm no starwars1955, and this is not right and something needs to be done about this, you don't own wikipedia, Thanks, --4 Brett Favre 04:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Brandi Gibson4 Brett Favre04:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)--
I know who I sign in as, I'm no sock and I'm allowed to have multiple accounts, you can create 6 every 24 hours, do the math, I'm not a sock, and I signed my qoute genius. You are a controlling person trying to take over theBrett Favre page, that's against policy and user Skybunny reverted 4 times in a hour, that breaks the 3RR, --4 Brett Favre 04:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)4 Brett Favre4 Brett Favre04:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)--
I'm not a sockpuppet, and theBrett Favre page is full of errors that you are reverting back to the errors, your making no attempt to correct them, you should be banned for life, but I'm not a sock and that's a fact, so your exception is void, Thanks, --4 Brett Favre 05:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)4 Brett Favre4 Brett Favre05:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)--
I'm not a sock, the three users are taking control of the Brett Favre page, and it's a shame, but why doesn't Gonzo fan2007 take his efforts to correct the many mistakes that I fixed in the page with my last edits, because he doesn't care about it or the page, isn't it funny that none of them are doing that, I'm not a sock and they are making a big mistake, but whatever, he just created a good users page with all the users that are lynch mobbing theBrett Favre page, but they are getting away with it and the page is laughable, I supprised that a few non administartors are getting away with this and the continuous errors remain on the page, I'm not starwars1955, but starwars1955 created the playoff stats and added 13 of the records and milestones that are on the page, we have just updated them after every game, but he created them, what are you going to do, go back and delete all them cause he added them a year ago, no you can't revert those, to late, but I spent all day going back and he created them, but I'm not starwars1955 and have nothing to do with it, I'm just trying to correct the mistakes on the page, but you keep reverting them King Bee, Gonzo fan2007, Skybunny and Snowfire51, good job, the errors on the page really look educated, why don't you go to my last edit, see my changes and fix them yourself, or can Brett's correct number and stats never go on the page cause I put them there first and I'm not even starwars1955, this is so immature, but in the meantime, Skybunny broke the 3RR, Thanks, --4 Brett Favre 06:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)4 Brett Favre4 Brett Favre06:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)--
Korean cuisine (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Sennen goroshi (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:05:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment: sennen has been participating in this article for the sole purpose of making anti-Korean edits in the controversial "Dog meat" section. Has never contributed to this article before but has engaged in POV edits tweaking words here and there and reverting to force his edits. Editors on different sides have disagreed editing this section a plenty, but this editor's reverts are disruptive and unproductive. Please help.melonbarmonster05:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I have tried to make edits that are constructive, while I agree that there has been a heated discussion by many editors, when I have seen a looming edit war, I have attempted to keep my edits constructive, and instead of reverting the previous edit, I have tried to make an edit that concentrates on another aspect of the topic. Just because I made a few edits, does not = 3RR - the edits were not reverts, they changed many aspects of the article, NPOV/POV, wording, grammar, etc. I have tried to discuss these points when I saw an disagreement, but the person in question does not seem to respond.Sennen goroshi06:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
This seems rather petty for me to mention - however the editor reporting me has the habit of taking his reverts up to the limit of 3 on every edit, which might be within the rules of wikpedia, but not in the spirit of wikipedia. POT/KETTLE/BLACKSennen goroshi06:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment:I coudn't agree more with Melonbarmonster. Sennen goroshi has not produced any constructive contribution on Korean-related article with his/her own intention. There are numberless trouble cause by the user. He or she has an obssession to degrade Korea with POV language including racil slurs all the times. --Appletrees11:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Your comments are not unexpected, considering that you are two editors who seem to disagree with my edits, and dislike me taking issue with your pro-Korean/anti-Japanese edits. I have no issue with people disagreeing with my edits, but to use a 3RR complaint as a tool in a debate is a wastes the time of me/you/anyone who reads this. Your POV is just as strong and blatant as anyone else's your edits are just as provocative and disruptive and your nationalistic pride is glaringly obvious.
My edits were in my opinion designed to balance the articles, taking them to a neutral point, from their current highly pro-Korean POV, since I have started to edit Korean based articles, I have experienced nothing but people taking their 3 reverts in 24hrs, people team reverting, etc.
If I get banned for a while, it wont be the end of the world, but it wont solve anything - there will still be a world of disruption in these articles, and one editor who wishes to use the word "eaten" instead of "tried" being banned isnt going to solve a thing. If you want to remove the disruption you should look a little closer to home, there is a lack of compromise and totally stubborn attitude displayed by some editors that is the cause of the disruption, the lack of respect by pro-Korean editors who refuse to accept anything that does not portray Korea in exactly the light that they require, has more to do with the disruption than anything else.
I actually have nothing against Koreans or Korea, I am just unwilling to accept to constant POV regarding Korea, neither am I willing to accept the double standards with Japanese/Korean articles, if someone says anything negative on a Korean article - they are assumed to be a Korea-hating racist, but if someone removes a negative comment (such as Japanese murderers or Japanese facist) they are also deemed to be supporting every single war crime committed by Japan.
Ban me or don't - it won't make any difference to the constant disruption and bickering in these articles, if you want to remove the disruption everyone has to compromise and understand the opinions of others, or leave the editing to someone without any interests/bias/agenda relating to Korea/Japan.Sennen goroshi14:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Melonbarmonster
so well done melon, you managed to make 3 reverts on 3 different articles within 24 hours - are you trying to play the system and get as close to breaking the 3RR as possible?
now lets take it back a little further
you were a little careless that time and made 5 in 24hours. I have no issue with that, I didn't even consider making a report, I would rather discuss that reporting.
that time was only 4 within 24hr.
I see no need for anyone to be banned, I certainly dont think my actions warranted a ban, and to be honest I would rather discuss things with Melon, than see him banned either - unless its a lifetime ban, with full IP banning as well, the problem is only going to rear its head again and again - but then again if I get banned, I think there are other candidates for a quick 'time out'Sennen goroshi14:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Ralph Nader (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).71.139.1.184 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported: 08:13, 3 October 2007CGijits08:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
User:71.139.1.184 is disrupting the editing process. He/she fails to utilize the article talk page and is in violation of three-revert rule. User fails to recognize that a consensus version was established in March and June. His/her proposed changes must be discussed, as users like Cool Hand Luke are doing. In short, this user is not participating in a democratic way.CGijits08:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Banten (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).58.181.249.244 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Jakarta (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).58.181.249.244 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:08:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
IP editor keeps removing reliably sourced information about the percentage breakdown of ethnic groups in the province. This information is direct from the year 2000 Indonesian census. They have been warned here:[193]
Caniago08:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation onInstant-runoff voting (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Abd (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:14:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Abd has accused me (while I was editing from my IP address) of POV-pushing for the Center for Voting and Democracy, with which I have only had a passing acquaintance several years ago. I was concerned about my IP address being associated with his accusations, and so I created this account. After I warned him that he violated 3RR, Abd accused me of being a sockpuppet, just as he has accused at least two other users and IPs. Beyond the accusations, Abd insists on his version against consensus. Abd is apparently an advocate ofApproval voting, a competing method. He insists that the description of the newRobert's Rules of Order which recommends IRV in some circumstances be phrased in such a way as to downplay it, and removed from the lead where it has been for months at least. He also insists on removing mention ofArrow's impossibility theorem which states that all ranked election methods fail some formal criteria. In his zeal, he has broken 3RR several times. I warned him yesterday, and as you can see from the other link above that he certainly knows about it.
Even though he is on his 5th revert, I don't believe a lengthy block is necessary. I should think that a short block would let him know that 3RR is a serious rule and would help him be more careful about it in the future.P-j-t-a14:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Deeceevoice (edit | [[Talk:User:Deeceevoice |talk]] |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Neil (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:15:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
See alsoUser_talk:Neil#Deeceevoice
Is this really the kind of place where criticism is censored? It was not a personal attack it was criticism. I find this all very disturbing.futurebird15:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Hugh Hefner (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).JerryGraf (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:16:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
As of today his other warning is still on this page "3.22 User:JerryGraf reported by User:Rogue Gremlin (Result: User Warned)"
A short explanation of the incident. This is the second time in less than a week this user has violated this policy. He was warned but has deleted it from his talk page. He was told by several editors what he was placing did not belong on the page. But refuses to stop putting it backDead velvet elvis16:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).71.141.104.61 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:18:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
User continues to replace a section that was removed to another article for good reason, without giving any justification other than the false "there are other duplicatives on this page."Kuralyov18:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Killian documents authenticity issues (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).68.242.153.205 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:20:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
A short explanation of the incident.Callmebc20:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)A shortlived anonymous IP editor making a bunch of highly political POV edits and reverts with no attempt to discuss or justify, regardless of whatever effort is made to point out how incorrect they are, and no matter how heavily ref'd the changes I'm attempting. You know the story (He/she did make a few nonsensical comments after my 3RR warning). In this particular case, I'm trying to fix a section of blog-originated allegations that literally don't have a single supporting cite or ref for those allegations. You think I exaggerate? Go look:[197]. I would really, really appreciate a partial lock put on the article; otherwise I will be here every other day with a different anonymous IP editor (well, probably the same one physically). I've already been automatically blocked a couple of times over 3RR dealing with these rotating, right wing, IP vandals (which is what they really are), and I want to be careful about stepping over the line again. Thanks in advance for any help. -BC
Jester7777 did 3 revertions at articleNelly Furtado:
I made a change in the article and discussed it atNelly Furtado's talk page. He just reverted me, writing nothing in the talk page.Opinoso00:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I wish to report two 3RR violations by the same user. Note that the same user is making false accusations of "vandalism", when in actual fact he is reverting consensus edits by myself and [User:Eekadog] to the consensus version (viz. he is cherry-picking citations to push a POV and then asserting that any deletion of those citations is "vandalism"). We have explained to him ad nauseum our objections to his POV pushing, and why we revert his edits. I even gave himample opportunity to self-revert before reporting this. Happy to explain more if requested.
Article:History of Hawaii
Article:Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy
Thank you.Arjuna00:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
First Vision (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).John Foxe (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:02:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
A short explanation of the incident.74s18102:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)We were discussing this part of the article on the talk page. During a discussion on the talk page, I identified a factual error in the article, corrected it, added a quote from the existing ref. John Foxe reverted, I re-added it with attribution, John Foxe reverted. Etc.
John Foxe has a history of using reverts to resist changes that don't agree with his POV. He's been repeatedly warned, 3RRs filed, the article has been protected twice that I know of. Recently he has become more subtle, making his reverts look less like reverts, adding a word, moving words around, etc. The fact remains, someone made a change, John Foxe removed it, repeatedly. And yes, these edits took place in 24 hours and 20 minutes, not 24 hours, but I see this as more evidence that John Foxe is a problem reverter.
Camp meetings were held in nearby towns during Smith's adolescence from 1818 to 1820,[26] and in 1824-25, a religious revival occurred in the area around Palmyra and Manchester.
Camp meetings were held in nearby towns during Smith's adolescence from 1818 to 1820,[26] and a religious revival occurred during 1824-25 in the area around Palmyra and Manchester.
Camp meetings were held in nearby towns during Smith's adolescence from 1818 to 1820,[26] and a religious revival occurred in 1824-25 in the area around Palmyra and Manchester.
Camp meetings were held in nearby towns during Smith's adolescence from 1818 to 1820,[26] and a religious revival occurred in 1824-25 in the area around Palmyra and Manchester.
Camp meetings were held in nearby towns during Smith's adolescence from 1818 to 1820, and an interdenominational religious revival occurred during 1824-25 in the area around Palmyra and Manchester.
74s18102:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
George Galloway (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Hypnosadist (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:09:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
Continually placing unsourced and irrelevant attack on third party inGeorge GallowayRolandR09:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Hugh Hefner (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).JerryGraf (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:16:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
As of today his other warning is still on this page "3.22 User:JerryGraf reported by User:Rogue Gremlin (Result: User Warned)"
A short explanation of the incident. This is the second time in less than a week this user has violated this policy. He was warned but has deleted it from his talk page. He was told by several editors what he was placing did not belong on the page. But refuses to stop putting it back. (reported yesterday, when came was told it was incomplete so i resubmitted it. I believe it is complete nowDead velvet elvis11:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Thessaloniki (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Obstacle (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:13:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
User Obstacle insists on removing mentions of the Greek Macedonia region from the article onThessaloniki. He has been warned that reverting more than thrice within a 24-hour time frame is disruptive behaviour contrary to Wikipedia's rules, and yet has continued deleting the references in question from the article (more than three times within 6 hours).Porfyrios13:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Jurassic Park franchise (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Gonzomuppet (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:15:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
Editor needs adding minor video game mention to lead section despite lack of notability (and imbalanced mention with no other video games of the franchise mentioned in specific). Editor has not responded to messages on the talk page.Erik (talk •contrib) -15:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
User talk:Taharqa (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Taharqa|talk]] |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Taharqa (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:17:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Revert warring on another article[200][201][202]. Other party in the dispute was blocked.208.77.91.1517:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
(un-dent)Uh, no.Ronnotel18:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Bronze Soldier of Tallinn (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).RJ CG (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:17:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
User has four previous blocks for edit warring[204]. He does not attempt to discuss controversial edits, despite being asked to do so many times. --Sander Säde17:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Mexican-American War (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Ghost account 2 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:19:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
There has been a long history of a specific reversion on this article – first by a series of IP posters and more recently by a “single purpose only poster”Ghost account 1 who was banned. This poster has returned and is making the same edits – basically changing Mexican-American War throughout the article to Mexican War.Tom (North Shoreman)19:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Kraków (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Matthead (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:20:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be an edit war between Matthead and other users resulted in the 3RR issue. There is a lot of mess so I am not precisely sure there are not some false reports between listed reverts, however all of them seems to break 3RR.Matthead was blocked a few days ago for 3RR too[210].≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈20:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Cleander (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:11:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Warned by User:Kudret Abi on his talk page about 3RRhere.
User:Cleander has been adding the same section for weeks now despite being reverted by a number of editors. This is beside his racist rants referring to Turkish editors as "my fellow mongols", "Kemalist facists" and the "descendants of the Seljuk wild beasts"here. I think a more serious ban should be considered for these remarks alone.A.Garnet11:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Alexander Lukashenko (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).M.V.E.i. (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:13:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
User M.V.E.i insists on an unsubstantiated paragraph with spelling mistakes, and engages in personal attacks. It has been brought to his attention in talk.Bakersville13:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Chris Benoit (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Multiplebraininjuries (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:15:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
User claims he will continue to revert any edits made to the article, and has been extremely uncivil.Scorpion042215:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Mexican-American War (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Ghost account 8 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:16:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
Sock puppet situation There has been a long history of a specific reversion on this article – first by a series of IP posters and more recently by a “single purpose only posters”Ghost account 1 andGhost account 2 both of whom have been banned. This poster has returned and is making the same edits – basically changing Mexican-American War throughout the article to Mexican War.Tom (North Shoreman)16:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Killian documents authenticity issues (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Jmcnamera (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:16:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
A short explanation of the incident.Callmebc16:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Not to get into the gory details, butKillian documents authenticity issues has had for quite some time a "Formatting" section that started offIt has been claimed that the formatting of the Killian memos is inconsistent with the Air Force style manual in effect at the time, but without any refs whatsoever to any such "manual". That wasn't enough, though, to not use this imaginary "style manual" to comment on supposed formatting problems with the Killian memos (no, I'm not exaggerating). However, there is one, genuine "Air Force style manual" that is available: Air Force document "AFH33-337," aka "The Tongue and Quill," which originated in the mid-70's. So I thought to include references to that, and in doing so touched off this latest revert war. Why? Because its section on "Memorandum for Record" directly contradicts all of the allegations regarding the alleged formatting inconsistencies, which apparently didn't sit well with some folks of a certain extreme political persuasion, most notably "Jmcnamera," who kept removing refs to it.
And while I'm here, I suppose I should mention that "Jmcnamera" is kinda obviously a sockpuppet with alternate ID's ofUser talk:209.145.67.172 andUser talk:68.242.153.205.
Check their contrib histories:
You should note that Jmcnamara accidently became "209.145.67.172" at 13:45, 4 October 2007 in the midst of a series of earlier reverts:[216]
"Jmcnamera"may also be the same person who was making very similar hostile edits and reverts a week ago, resulting in one block, under the ID's ofuser:74.77.222.188 andUser:Clashwho before abruptly stopping. See[217] as confirmation that they are indeed the same person. Also compare "their" contrib histories to the ones above:
Note especially thatUser talk:68.242.153.205 was blocked after I filed a 3RR complaint,[218], for exactly the same pattern of reverting, and note well the time: 20:31, 3 October 2007.
If you check the time of "Jmcnamera" starting his revert war, 17:33, 4 October 2007, that's not quite 24 hours, is it? And isn't there some sort of Wiki rule about using a sockpuppet to evade a block? FYI.
Field Commander (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Hungrywolf (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:16:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Diffs of 3RR warnings
The user keeps adding unencyclopedic information to the article regardless of concensus on the articles discussion page. He frequently makes uncivil and rude comments in response to legitimate disputes, on many occasions accusing others of sock puppetry and vandalism without ever providing evidence of such.Game Collector16:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).V-Dash (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:18:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
That's 6 reversions in a 24 hour period. Additionally, there are several more reversion that did not take place over the past 24 hours.
Warning was given over 3 hours prior to the latest reversion:10:39, October 5, 2007
This user continues to try to haveThe Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass listed as an RPG instead of action-adventure, which is the consensus genre for all the Zelda games. He briefly discussed the change on the talk page, but has since gone back to edit warring.Dlong18:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Carbon monoxide poisoning (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).84.66.98.7 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:19:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Edit-warring over UK/US English spelling. Making related bad-faith edits to subvert how obvious his warring is (clear fromthis change that he read edit summary ofmy previous reversion and is adjusting his tactics accordingly) and assorted other vandalism to the page along the way.DMacks19:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Aisha (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Jagged 85 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:05:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The issue is that the following statement (or variations of it) were removed based on a solid concensus about the reliability of sources:
"A minority of Muslims calculate the age of Aisha to have been over 13 and 14, perhaps between 17 and 19.[1]"
User:Jagged 85 reinstated it (and much more) five times:
New: 6th revert:07:04, 6 October 2007
Mainstream scholars (such as Watt, Lewis, Peters, and Rodinson) state certain chronological issues involving Muhammad's marriage to Aisha unequivocally. Jagged is revert-warring to include counter arguments from highly partisan or unqualified (in the field of Islamic studies) sources that were discussed at great length and rejected atTalk:Aisha's age at marriage, a page that Jagged was directed to multiple times, but reverted following each reminder.Arrow74005:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Mayfly (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).204.210.193.71 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:05:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
Restoring trivia against consensus.Paul Erik05:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Salma Hayek (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).C6758 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:15:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Repeated reversions onSalma Hayek to replace non-free images in violation of Wikipedia copyright policy.Videmus OmniaTalk15:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
ResolvedRichard Dawkins (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).RucasHost (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:16:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
SummerSlam (2007) (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Monnitewars (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:23:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
Keeps reverting "trivia" (which is actually properly sourced information).KipSmithersT/C23:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
S-400 Triumf (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Necator (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:06:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
first warning:22:01, 4 October 2007; second warning:03:36, 6 October 2007
User:Necator has continued to push a POV-based introduction and body of the articleS-400 Triumf, and continues to revert to an older version that also lacks proper inline citations and sourcing. Other editors have warned him more than once for this kind of business, and he has accused those in an opposition viewpoint ofWP:SOCK violations and disregarded current consensus of article wording.MalikCarr06:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Tokyo (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Cosc (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:16:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
This user has persistently made large revert edits to theTokyo article against the general consensus on almost a daily basis. While there do seem to be some communication problems due to English (apparently) not being the user's first language, repeated warnings on his/her talk page have been ignored.DAJF16:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Circumnavigation (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Sandhurst (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:17:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
1st revert was at 18:11, 6 October 2007 4th was at 12:57, 7 October 2007
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
Homeopathy (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Whig (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:20:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
User gaming the system by going up to third revert. Seediff for his approach to this.Tim Vickers20:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Killian documents (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).SEWilco (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:20:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
A short explanation of the incident.Callmebc20:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to keep coming back here, but it's safe to say that bothKillian documents authenticity issues andKillian documents have had more than their fair share of anonymous IP's, sockpuppets, and editors of less than noble intentions messing with them. This 3RR stuff has been good, though, at weeding out the more blatent pests, so...here I be again. In this latest case, there was an obvious -- to me at least -- attempt to also game the reverts to avoid 3RR blocking:SEWilco -- whose "contributions" to the Killian wikis so far have only amounted to inserting a fabricated & false anecdote and blocking adding refs associated to unref'd POV assertions -- has recently been reverting a major clean-up of theKillian documents. I listed a long list of some of the problems I corrected on the Talk page for comments and error checking, whichSEWilco also twice removedhere on 15:24, 7 October 2007, andhere on 16:05, 7 October 2007.
The gaming bit involvedSEWilco bringing in another "editor,"HiramShadraski, with no prior history of contributing to either Killian wiki,[236], to do 2 of the reverts listed, #2 and #5, the last which provoked a full lock on the page to its older, rather (so to speak) inaccurate version. That of course also keptSEWilco's reverts to only three.
I should mention that because of all the recent sockpuppet issues I've had do deal with, I now analyze any new "editor" popping in to revert stuff without discussion. And I do believe, for various reasons, thatHiramShadraski should recuse himself from having anything whatsoever to do with any wikis involving the Killian docs, including Dan Rather (go ask him directly if you like). FYI. Thanks in advance for your consideration -BC
However,Callmebc looks like he has reverts at 13:36, 15:28, 16:08 and 17:52. The page has now been fully protected but I am disappointed to see Callmebc again revert-warring on these articles. In addition his talk page contributions are aggressive and bordering incivil. This approach is not only highly disruptive to the articles, it is needlessly aggravating and I am considering whether there should be an administrative response.Sam Blacketer21:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Erotica (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).151.197.111.178 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:21:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
Anon editor repeatedly restores a "Student erotica" section againstWP:CONSENSUS (perTalk:Erotica#.22Student_erotica.22_edit_war}. Section has been removed by two other editors (and historically removed by a third) — editor threatens on User talk pages to report these editors to admins.
Editors does not appear new, having utilizedWP:RFPP, and giving reversion reasons similar to a previous editor (from over a month ago).
Warned explicitly on user and article talk pages (both of which were read and responded to). Last reversion included a phoney edit-protect which could be ignorance (but considering the aggressive editing, I cannot 100% AGF, sorry).edg☺★21:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Pro-pedophile activism (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).SqueakBox (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:22:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Note thatSqueakBox has an extensivehistory of blocks for edit-warring and other disruption.John25422:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
SpartazHumbug!18:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
{{Nobel Prize in Economics Laureates 2001-2025}}.Liftarn (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:14:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Liftarn keeps undoing title change of this template either by adding "Memorial" or "so called".-- VisionThing --14:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Solar power (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Mrshaba (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:17:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
This user has been warned multiple times about taking ownership ofSolar power and not letting other editors provide input. He has taken to blindly reverting any proposals made by any other editors. An RFC to generate proposals for the lead generated little response, and he refused to accept the response that it did generate. This user has said that they are looking for a mentor, and I hope that they find one.199.125.109.2717:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Solar power (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Mrshaba (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:
A user is stopping progress on the Solar power page. I have had to revert the edits of 199.125.109.27 repeatedly. This is an advanced user of WP but the content this IP-user is bringing is confusing and he/she is not answering direct simple questions on the discussion page.
A recent RFC went for 3 weeks and 14 versions. The pictures on the page are being blocked. Discussion is getting blocked. The GA nomination was blocked. The assumption of good faith has long since been buried under a pile of passive aggressive garbage.I also suspect this user is using Nailedtooth and Sunny Planet as sockpuppets based on similar word usage.
I like this subject. I don't know what this guy's deal is.I need some help. I'm asking here. Please direct me elsewhere if that is the process.Mrshaba18:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Dravidian people (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).82.5.117.20 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) andDtothH (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:18:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
Athens (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).85.74.121.70 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)62.38.216.95 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:20:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
This IP user continues to vandalize the page by reverting other users edits in the process without discussing them. This user has done this before in the past, and if you check your 3rr log, you'll find that user there under a different IP address but it'll be the same user on the same page. There are two entire sections on theTalk:Athens page for this user, one at the very bottom (IP:62.38.216.95) and one discussing that there are too many photos on the Athens page. Neither of which this IP user has bothered to discuss. Those different IP's ARE THE SAME USER! Check the archivesSept 24El Greco(talk)20:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Jena Six (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Ophois (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:20:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Ophois has repeatedly reverted cited, sourced information despite efforts made to meet all of Wikipedia's standards for verifiable information. This user seems to be exhibiting behavior that is warned against inWP:OWN and is selectively removing information he doesn't agree with, both from myself and other editors. I have warned Ophois about this behavior, and enjoined him to discuss his concerns, but to no avail. I regrettably need to report this violation of WP rules in the hopes that, perhaps, this editor will learn that WP is indeed a collective effort, and someday become a better contributor after appropriate disciplinary action has been taken.Mael-Num20:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Family_Guy_episodes (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).NAME_OF_USER (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:22:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
A short explanation of the incident.Grande1322:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)]]
No action taken, report empty. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs22:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
List of Family Guy episodes (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Sceptre (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:22:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
User insists on adding unverifiable original research to episodes, citing "the director told me!" or an unreliable source.Sceptre22:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
List of American Dad! episodes (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Grande13 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:23:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
See above.Matthew23:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Pro-pedophile activism (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Lundiaka (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:00:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
No violation. One includes adding a link. Two other edits are the same revert and the last is different. There is also no pattern of removing the same content. This is the second invalid report submitted by the same user in 24 hours. Please be careful to ensure that future reports are actually violations as repeated invalid reports are disruptive.SpartazHumbug!05:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
|edit]] | [[Talk:Karolina Proniewska|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/Karolina Proniewska|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/Karolina Proniewska|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/Karolina Proniewska|delete]] |links |watch |logs |views).Halibutt (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:14:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Halibutt was blocked for 3RR violation several timesalready, so contributor is familiar with policy. Currently he conducted edit warring on the same article for several dayswith completely unacceptable edit summaries (please not he also accused established editor of vandalism as well). And 3RR policy states:An editor must not perform more than three reverts,in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving thesame ordifferent material each time.M.K.14:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
massive edit war raging on
Regina Neighbourhoods (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Kmseiver (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:16:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Releveant sentence, keeps being deleted.I speculate due to POV.207.6.12.13716:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Vergina Sun (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).ChrisO (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:18:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
This is a content dispute (see report below), centered on the reliability of a certain source used for a claim in the article. In addition to violating 3RR by making 5 reverts in 24 hours, it seems thatUser:ChrisO has also abused his admin privelges by protecting the article after reverting it to his favored version.Isarig18:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Vergina Sun (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).PBD55 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:18:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
This is a content dispute, centered on the reliability of a certain source used for a claim in the article. See above report.Isarig18:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Canada (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Quizimodo (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): Time reported:23:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
For 3rr warnings, see at the bottom of Quizimodo's talk-page and also some of the edit-summaries in the edit-war, but Quizimodo is not a new user.
This is an edit-war over use of "dominion" in the article's lead. The article's talkpage shows a roughly 2/3 majority in favour of not using it there. Quizimodo disagrees. Soulscanner, the main counter-reverter, likely has also broken 3rr, but see for yourself on that (I can't be bothered to make a second report). The Quizimodo's third revert is arguably legitimate, taken by itself, because it deletes a (presumably) accidental doubling of some text by Soulscanner. The seeming intent of Soulscanner's edit was to change that back to "federation", though, and the effect of Quizimodo's edit was to undo that. In any case, there are 5 reverts even without it.
Lonewolf BC23:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)