Three revert rule violation onEchidna (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).UtherSRG (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by: —Benzert17:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Administrator abusing privileges. —Benzert17:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onVergina Sun (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Macedonia (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Telex22:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
This page is only for discussion 3RR violations. This discussion can continue onUser talk:Deskana. :-) --Lord DeskanaDark Lord of the Sith10:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onHamas (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Amibidhrohi (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Jayjg(talk)23:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
3RR violation atHamas (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) byAmibidhrohi (talk ·contribs)
And if it's needed, another revert adding the phrase "over 90 per cent of its work is charitable" to the intro
Reported bySlimVirgin(talk)01:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment
Amibidrohi has been making complex partial reverts in order to add "illegally occupying" or "illegally occupied," inserting them in different places in the intro in an effort to game the system. He has also started reverting over the claim, also in the intro, that over 90 per cent of Hamas's work is charitable. He's been blocked four times before, twice for 3RR.[6] He andUser: Tazmaniacs (see report above) have both violated 3RR on this page today.SlimVirgin(talk)01:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for 48 hours bySushiGeek. ThanksJarandawat's sup02:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onAjith (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Deepujoseph (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Anwar saadat23:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:This user does not speak Tamil language, nor is he aware of this actor. Yet he reverts to his POV randomly here blanking lines, paragraphs, sections and even links.Anwar saadat23:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onSeptember 11, 2001 attacks (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Joetkeck (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by: --rehpotsirhc█♣█ ▪Talk23:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User violated 3RR yesterday and was warned on his talk page. --rehpotsirhc█♣█ ▪Talk23:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for 25 hours bySushiGeek, obvious 3rrJarandawat's sup23:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
User is evading block through IP[7], does not appear to comprehend 3RR. The IP editor is signing as Joetkeck and making identical reversions. --Mmx119:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onList of unrecognized countries (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Erdogan_Cevher (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by: NikoSilver (T)@(C)09:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
24hWilliam M. Connolley09:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onCriss Angel (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).207.200.116.13 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Sarah Ewart (Talk)12:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Unfortunately this is an AOL proxy, so there is not a lot to be done; we're not really allowed to block for long. All I can do is give you carte blanche to revert them as often as you like, and maybe (semi-)protect the page if neededWilliam M. Connolley22:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Note that here we have removal/restoring of reference, so it could be a case of vandalism and reverting of vandalism. Dunno, I'm all but NPOV on this thing so somebody else please decide what to do.
Three revert rule violation onSerbs_of_Croatia (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Luka_Jačov (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Dijxtra16:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Three revert rule violation onSerbs_of_Croatia (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Ante_Perkovic (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Dijxtra16:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Three revert rule violation onMinsk (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Rydel (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Kuban Cossack.svg)
17:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:User repeatedly inserts POV material has stalked all of my edits today, has been blocked previously onBelarusian language where he managed to continued an edit war for about four months resulting in that article being locked TWICE.--Kuban Cossack17:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
3RR atMartin Luther (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) byPtmccain (talk ·contribs)
Reported bySlimVirgin(talk)22:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments
The above are straightforward reverts where Ptmccain removes the same second paragraph from the intro each time, the 14th time he has done so without discussion, reverting against at least five editors. He has violated 3RR before on a related article, but was offered the chance to revert himself[8] and was given a 3RR warning by an uninvolved admin.[9] He has also engaged in page blanking and was warned about that too.[10][11][12] He removes all warnings from his talk page and continues with the same behavior.SlimVirgin(talk)22:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
24hWilliam M. Connolley22:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onJapanese history textbook controversies (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).222.1.45.125 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Deiaemeth09:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onRealms_of_Kaos (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).70.125.129.203 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by: Sarysa
Comments: Violation of 3RR rule on the said article. This person deletes a selection they disagree with over and over again. He/She thinks that something with extremely close ties with the main article does not deserve a section. Has been writing over other peoples' edits with his/her version since and has not been paying heed to his/her own errors.
Three revert rule violation onWeb 2.0 (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Jjzeidner (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Dhartung |Talk19:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Whether the information belongs there or not, the user has failed to engage in Talk and simply reverts. Newbie probably unaware of 3RR.Correction: User registered name in 2004, but rarely edited before. --Dhartung |Talk19:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onChiropractic (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Hughgr (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by: —Arthur Rubin |(talk)20:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:Hughgr,Steth, andAED seem to agree on this version, while I,Jefffire, and others, have tried to get an NPOV version of the fact that Chiropractic has little scientific support into the lead. "5th revert" is not quite identical, but it is a reversion by adding qualifiers. (Note also thatUser:Steth been blocked for 3RR before.)
In all honesty, I have violated 3RR also if either 0th is is considered a reversion, or my revert/self-revert is included as a reversion:
Three revert rule violation onThe Marin School (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).24.5.80.41 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Bill21:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: The version the user is reverting to is copied directly from the site:[19]
Three revert rule violation onSailor Moon (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).KAS (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by: Denelson83 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onMilitary_history_of_France (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).UberCryxic (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Duckdid23:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
He's reverted that article about 20 times today, but luckily for him, the Wikipedia process for reporting someone is so bureaucratic and time-consuming that I'm not going to properly fill out the report.Duckdid23:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
He was warned in his talk page, but keep on reverting, I was the 172 IP that warned him, too many reverts to be listed. ThanksJAbeach23:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
But most aren't look closer, he reverted about 40 times, some of them were vandalism but look at the early difs, easy 3rr violationJAbeach01:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I violated the 3RR rule onAbortion.ackoz
23:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onMany-worlds interpretation (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Michael_D._Wolok (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by: -lethetalk+00:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: I have already blocked this user for 24 hours. -lethetalk+00:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onDi-dehydroepiandrosterone (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Jahat (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Rockpocket(talk)00:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: EditorJahat andUser:67.101.144.52 are the same person[20]. He was warned that further reverting to his OR would result in a 3RR block[21].Rockpocket(talk)00:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onRani Mukerji (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Shez_15 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Zora01:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:One of those reverts is by Shez 15, not logged in -- that's the static IP associated with his account.
We have been having problems with Shez for months. He is obsessed with Rani Mukerji. He feels he "owns" her article; he modifies articles on films likeVeer-Zaara to give Rani top billing, even when she's a supporting actress; he attacks other actress articles; for a while, he was modifying the disambiguation page forRani page so that the Rani (Bollywood actress) entry read #1 Bollywood actress. See discussions on talk pages, talk page forWP:INCINE, the Indian cinema project. We are discussing mediation.
Three revert rule violation onGreater Croatia (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Frankman (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:serbiana-talk01:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
User is reverting theGreater Croatia page even though we reached an agreement about the way the page should look on the talk page. He is constantly asking for sources, even though they are given at the External links part of the page. I have nothing else to say, he has been warned about the 3RR, he's not cooperating, just reverting. --serbiana-talk01:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I don't know... 8h eachWilliam M. Connolley07:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onHuman rights in Turkey (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Deepblue06 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)/152.2.10.46 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)/24.211.192.250 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Reported by:ManiF03:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Three revert rule violation onCyrus the Great (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Togrol (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:ManiF13:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Four reverts in less than two hours. The user has been warned and knows the 3RR rule. --ManiF13:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
24hWilliam M. Connolley16:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onList of unrecognized countries (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Erdogan_Cevher (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by: NikoSilver (T)@(C)14:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
2006-05-12 14:53:47 Lightdarkness blocked "Erdogan Cevher (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3rr on List of unrecognized countries)William M. Connolley15:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onBagrationi (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Sosomk (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)/192.240.93.52 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by: —Khoikhoi18:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Three revert rule violation onUser:Merecat (edit | [[Talk:User:Merecat|talk]] |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Merecat (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:User:RyanFreisling@19:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User was found by Checkuser ([28],[29],[30]) to be a 'likely sockpuppet of Rex071404 and Anon Texan', and has violated 3RR deleting the sockpuppet warning from his user page. --User:RyanFreisling@19:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
3RR onMartin Luther (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) byPtmccain (talk ·contribs)
Reported bySlimVirgin(talk)20:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment
For the past 10 days or so, practically the only edits to Wikipedia Ptmccain has made have been to delete the phrase: "Luther is also known for his writings about theJews where he proposed that Jews' homes be destroyed, theirsynagogues and schools burned, their money confiscated, and their rights and liberties curtailed" from the intro ofMartin Luther, either by deleting it, moving it, or rewriting it to remove any reference to what Luther actually said about Jews from the intro. He has reverted it 18 times so far. He was warned about 3RR, then was blocked for it on May 10,[31] but the first article edits he made after returning from the block were to violate 3RR again over the same issue.SlimVirgin(talk)20:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Ever so slightly marginal, but OK: 24hWilliam M. Connolley21:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onAdolf Hitler (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Drogo_Underburrow (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Timothy Usher05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: The following text, and its variants, appears to be the main point of the edits:
Comment — This charge of violating 3-RR is most unexpected. I don't see where I reverted anything four times, but if it makes Timothy happy, I have self-reverted "He never renounced his belonging to the Catholic church." from the last edit. I'm not going to make any edits now for awhile. Had Timothy simply asked me on my talk page to not put in that sentence, I would have been happy not to. I think this is a completely frivolous claim of violating 3-rr.Drogo Underburrow05:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment — User's first offence, and he seems to have been unaware about partial reverts and different reverts counting. He has already partially (but not fully) reverted himself after being told of the violation. I suggest he reviewsWP:3RR, reverts himself fully, and maybe stays away from the article for the next few hours.AnnH♫07:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment — The second "revert" is not a revert. The second edit isadding new material, which is not the same as in the first edit, to an entirely different version of the article. The third "revert" is also not a revert. It says something new, different than the second edit, and different from the first and fourth edits, again to a different base version of the article, in an effort to find a compromise that is acceptable. The fourth "revert" was the same material as in the first, and I self-reverted it.Drogo Underburrow07:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onAdolf Hitler (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Timothy_Usher (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Drogo Underburrow09:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: - Timothy Usher is trying to game the system by making his fourth and fifth reverts just past 24 hours
Three revert rule violation onList of countries by GDP (PPP), 2006 (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Jiang (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Edit history:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29%2C_2006&action=history
Reported by:Alan10:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
May someOTHER administrators please take action to stop him from messing around with the articles? Thanks. -Alan10:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
ArticleOffice of Special AffairsReversions:
After his third I warned him both on the article talk page and his talk page. Despite this he continued and article is in the state he left it in.If you look at the article history you'll see no less than 5 editors (including sysops) constantly reverting his edits. Please take action accordingly. -GlenTC(Stollery)10:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onAmerican Airlines Flight 77 (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Richb1111 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Tom HarrisonTalk18:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Heintends to persist unless blocked.Tom HarrisonTalk18:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
24hWilliam M. Connolley21:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onGnosticism in modern times (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).64.187.60.98 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Cedderstk20:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Same article also suffered the same change fromUser:Ndru01 who was blocked for 24 hrs, and evaded block using sockpuppets. --Cedderstk20:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onAnte Starčević (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Purger (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Elephantus22:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:User was blocked for 3RR on this article before. Now apparently he's trying to avoid 3RR by logging-out every second revert or so. --Elephantus22:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onPeople questioning the 9/11 Commission Report (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Striver (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Jersey Devil02:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: The reintroduction of the "former skeptics" section is common on all of the reverts.--Jersey Devil02:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule onWii (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Col._Hauler (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Multiple editors have repeatedly asked him politely to stop his behavior; his responses to them have either been ignoring and reverting, or accusing them of sockpuppetry. All attempts to discuss the matter with this user on his talk page have been ignored. He repeatedly tries to claim "vandalism", when in reality any changes to the Wii page have been discussed prior on its talk section.
Previous version reverted to:[32]
Daniel Davis12:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onUnited States (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Ryz05 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Marielleh12:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User repeatedly reverts to his version of "science and technology" and other sections stalking other editors' edits. Doesn't comment his edits or try to seek consensus in discussion page. Has been noted numerous times about problems of his edits and ignoring.--Marielleh12:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onArmenian Genocide (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Deepblue06 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by: —Khoikhoi16:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Three revert rule violation onKosovo_Liberation_Army (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Ferick (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by: —Asteriontalk to me19:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User insists on removing verifiable links. I have tried to discuss the matter and compromised over the language used but he or she insists on deleting content instead of having a verifiable article reflecting all points of view.
Possible 3RR violation on my side and another user (check history) too, if we count my original edit, where I expanded the article considerably but also added a previously removed link by another user which I considered necessary to reflect oppossing POVs. I have good intentions but it seems I touched somebody else's POV spot, I am afraid. Regards,Asteriontalk to me19:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Update: It has been three days since the events and things have cooled down. It is my intention to ask for a Request for Comments on the article. Therefore, I would suggest no punitive action is taken. Regards,Asteriontalk to me06:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onMinefields in Croatia (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Petrinja (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Ante Perkovic20:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Three revert rule violation onMuhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).CltFn (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by: —Ruud03:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Please see his block log. —Ruud03:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onKaiser Permanente (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Pansophia (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
(Note* times above are +4 hours UTC)
Reported by:Rhobite03:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Three revert rule violation onCuba (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).KDRGibby (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:LotLE×talk03:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Repeated insertion of POV material.
Three revert rule violation onCuba (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Myciconia (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Drogo Underburrow05:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User edit-wars, reverting attempts of other editors to change the article.
Three revert rule violation onCuba (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Drogo Underburrow05:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User edit-wars, reverting attempts of other editors to change the article. Doesn't always revert to exactly the same version, but does partial reverts that undo the point of the editor whose work he is undoing.
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has undid the actions of another editor five times in less the 24 hours. -Drogo Underburrow08:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onNationalist Movement Party (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Ruzgar (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
also recently:
Reported by:Moby11:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Seel also comments onTalk:Nationalist Movement Party.User:Ruzgar' other recent contribs also need review. May beUser:85.107.81.200 - see:09:40, 12 May 2006 --Moby11:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
See also:more deletion --Moby11:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onArmenian_Genocide (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Ruzgar (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Angus McLellan(Talk)12:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: And see above report reNationalist_Movement_Party and I can't be bothered to check the user's edits toKurdistan_Workers_Party.
Three revert rule violation onNSA call database (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Philwelch (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Travb12:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User began to edit section when I put an {{inuse}} tag in the section, when I brought this to his attention on his talk page, he told me it was my fault, not his, and then began reverting my graph, despite {{inuse}} tag, stating: "no edits in past hour so apparently not in use"[39] which is clearly not true because of the edit 1 minute before.Travb12:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I've unblocked you; feel free to take a 10 minute time out if you must, corner's thataway. 3RR blocks are not punative, they stop edit warring. This is clearly not the case and Travb even got an apology. Drop it and go back to making meaningful contribs. .:.Jareth.:.babelfish14:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I would likePhil Welch blocked for 3RR, as per policy. He started the revert war.
Blocking is not done as punishment; the issue in your 3RR report is obviously over so a block would not serve to end a disruption.
I don't agree withUser:Jareth justification, I was the one who stopped the edit war, notPhil Welch. ByUser:Jareth rationalization, the 3RR report would only have been succesful if I continued the revert war. This obviously is against wikipedia policy: to encourage people to continue revert wars. Instead of continuing the revert war, I came here, and reported it, assuming that it would be taken care of, and the revert war would stop. I do not agree withPhil Welch solution, which is moving my edits to another page, in the middle of a revert war, and after he ignored my inuse tag four times.
Signed:Travb23:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onDepleted uranium (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).DenisDiderot (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Dr Zak15:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:The dispute is if a reference to a book by Siegwart-Horst Günther should be included
Three revert rule violation onMohammad Reza Pahlavi.Paradoxic (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) reported byUser:Kashk.
Comments:Dispute was discussed in the talk page, user could not provide a reliable source as needed for biographies. User was warned earlier in his talk pagehere -- - K a s hTalk |email16:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onMilitary of France (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).UberCryxic (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule violation onViews of the French military (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).UberCryxic (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:violet/riga(t)17:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onMilitary history of France (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).UberCryxic (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:violet/riga(t)21:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
UberCryxic has undone his own revert. I'm not sure why he's apparently backed down, but I think a block would now be harsh.violet/riga(t)18:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
A further edit war and another 3RR violation on another related article.violet/riga(t)21:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onPreved (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).72.232.102.130 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Thatcher13118:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:One of several IPs vandalizingPreved with unrelated linkspam; this is the only one to violate 3RR so far.
Three revert rule violation onCarnot heat engine (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).24.93.101.70 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
CommentsThis IP has added links to many articles on thermodynamics and related subjects. All point to the same paper, but often use different titles. SeeUser_talk:24.93.101.70. User is responding to removal of these links by repeated reversion. 3RR is also violated atEntropy.Nonsuch21:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onParis (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Hardouin (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule violation onNice (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Hardouin (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule violation onMarseille (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Hardouin (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule violation onToulouse (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Hardouin (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule violation onBordeaux (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Hardouin (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule violation onNantes (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Hardouin (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule violation onStrasbourg (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Hardouin (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule violation onLille (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Hardouin (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule violation onLyon (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Hardouin (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
User:Hardouin has just made his/her fourth consecutive revert to theParis page, and is in the process of reverting around nine other articles for a fourth time. Before posting here I left a noticehere, but he is well past theWP:3RR line now. Thanks in advance for putting an end to this user's long history of unjustified, abusive and wholesale reverts.
Reported by:THEPROMENADER23:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The current infobox template that ThePromenader intends to replace with his own template has been in existence for more than a year now. I am aghast at reading the lies contained in ThePromenader's latest message (supposedly I sort of created the template recently to "bypass" a discussion going on?). Anyway, it is not very wise to lie on Wikipedia, because everything can be checked. So let's check: the current infobox template was created in February 2005 (one year and 3 months ago) in individualised forms (such asTemplate:Toulouse infobox andTemplate:Bordeaux infobox) and was merged into a single template in March 2006 (Template:Large French Cities). For more than a year this template has received absolutely no criticism, except from ThePromenader starting a few months ago. ThePromenader has now proceeded to create his own template (Template:Major French Cities) and upload it into nine large French cities articles after removing the currently existing Template:Large French Cities from these articles. I have asked him not to do so until the dispute concerning his new template is solved and mediation completed.Hardouin00:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onKobe Bryant (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Hganesan (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
User continually places a copyright violation image into the article which is essentially vandalism. There are also a significant number of text related reverts in the same period. User was warned the last time he violated the 3RR a few days ago on his/hertalk page. There may be other 3RR by other editors on the page, I haven't checked yet. I am requesting a 24 hour minimum block and I'll work on sorting out the content disputes later.
Reported by:PS2pcGAMER (talk)02:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
8hWilliam M. Connolley18:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I would put up diffs and users, but it's just 2 Users reverting back and forth, perhaps over 20 times now. Someone please lock the page for now:Controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians.
Too many to counthttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Controversy_over_race_of_Ancient_Egyptians&limit=250&action=history(above unsigned comment was made byJustforasecond at 15:22, 16 May 2006. Moved here from bottom for relevance)
Three revert rule violation onWushu (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).203.173.131.97 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Llort03:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Appears to be non-encyclopedic content. User himself claims it is just an "in-joke"
hi there, thats me, and yes i did make that addition to the wushu page, i see no reason for lort to keep on altering it, whilst it is an in joke, so is many other entries such as the "Liz Shaw" entry. My entry concerned a member from our forum who became rather famous for his behaviour. Therefore i felt this warranted noting in wikipedia so that when new members ask about him, we can point them in a positive direction to the entry located here.
User blocked for vandalism. —Phil Welch (t) (c)03:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onPamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Relucio83@yahoo.com (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by: --Howard the Duck |talk,04:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Keeps on reinserting copyrighted material.
Three revert rule violation onClassical liberalism (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Kitteneatkitten (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:RJII05:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: The editor keeps putting in original research and won't discuss the issues. I even requested a mediation with this editor to resolve the issue but he refused to participate:[51] He tried to make it an arbitration case against me by requesting a case but it was declined. He doesn't seem to want to go through any normal dispute resolution process but just wants to revert.RJII05:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
8hWilliam M. Connolley07:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onList_of_unrecognized_countries (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Erdogan_Cevher (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Previous version:13:45, 12 May
Reported by:Fut.Perf.☼06:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:Was already blocked 3 times within 4 days for 3RR on same article (9 May, 10 May, 12 May). Continues to revert, 5 fresh reverts of identical material in the last 24 hours, since last block.Fut.Perf.☼06:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
48h, sighWilliam M. Connolley07:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onAzerbaijani people (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).72.57.230.179 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Telex12:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Three revert rule violation onMinefields_in_Croatia (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Ante_Perkovic (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule violation onParis (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Hardouin (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comment: I would like to call your attention to the above - this user has single-handedly, without any prior comment or discussion, reverted a consensus-approved template improvement over nine pages - four times straight. This is not a minor misdemeanor, as the work reverted is a result of a several-week discussion and approval by many contributors. This user is unable to supply any valid argument to justify his action, yet will continue to revert until all grow tired of this and his/her vacuous talk-page 'justifications' based neither on reason nor fact, and will even continue to revert after each and every claim has been disproven even with referenced fact. This user has a long history of similar behaviour. Please attend to this as soon as you can: You can see consensus and approval for the reverted workhere, and the catalogued revert-spree - already posted above, but unanswered - here -->#User:Hardouin. I would also like that someone reinstate the consensus-approved template to the pages for which it stayed - approved and unhindered for almost a week - until the venue of a single disgruntled reverter. Thank you for your attention.THEPROMENADER15:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked H for 24h. If your version has consensus, someone will revert to it no doubtWilliam M. Connolley18:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onBruce_L._Gordon (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).216.254.25.10 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:FeloniousMonk19:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Stoated for 12hWilliam M. Connolley20:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onGnosticism in modern times (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Ndru01 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:LambiamTalk22:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: This involves inserting a link to deleted material, most of the time to some copy in user space, but sometimes to a recreated copy in main space, which then gets speedied. This has been going on for several days, also using anons. User has been blocked three times before for 3RR in the last month, and has also used sockpuppetUser:Infoandru01.
Three revert rule violation onMegadeth (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Emperador Lord Fenix (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by: --nae'blis(talk)23:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Three revert rule violation onFriedrich Nietzsche (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Petrejo (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Non-vandal04:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Thats 5R, but not in 24h or close. An awful lot of new users there... socks? On both sides?William M. Connolley09:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
User:Petrejo has reverted this article four times in the last four hours.mgekelly17:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onAyaan Hirsi Ali (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).137.224.252.10 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Netscott11:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Three revert rule violation onSeptember 11, 2001 attacks (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Joetkeck (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Updates:
Reported by: --rehpotsirhc█♣█ ▪Talk15:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User has already been blocked twice for 3RR on this article. --rehpotsirhc█♣█ ▪Talk15:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onApollo moon landing hoax accusations (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).For great justice (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:ScienceApologist16:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onAromanians (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Greier (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by: —Khoikhoi19:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Three revert rule violation onHelp:Footnotes (edit | [[Talk:Help:Footnotes|talk]] |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Omniplex (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Francis Schonken19:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Three revert rule violation onJosef Stalin (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).SuperDeng (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Ultramarine21:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:Or differently:
In addition, violation ofWikipedia:Civility[64]
Also, violation ofWikipedia:No Personal Attacks[65]:
Has been blocked previously for similar behavior.Ultramarine22:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
(Note, the section below, including my signatures, is material copied and added by SuperDeng. I have not signed anything on this page below the line.Ultramarine22:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC))
Hello. Why are you reverting obvious factual errors?Ultramarine20:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
But again, the text you reverted to had this as a source. Are saying that this information is incorrect? Then the whole paragraph should be removed.Ultramarine20:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
SuperDeng, please explain why you have deleted sourced material:[67]Ultramarine21:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
This is the bigest problem with POW pushers like you even when qouteing your own sources you fail to see the details now let us see what you say :"The purging of the army, meanwhile, saw about 35,000 military officers shot or imprisoned." You do not see the word imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned So there is no way in hell that you can uderstand that when the war broke out that all except 8 thousand were back and you still do not see the big picture which was that the army grew from 1.8 million to 5.4 million between 1939 and 1941 but the officer corp did not grow in the same rate this is what you and your POW pushing mind do not see and can not see. (Deng21:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC))
And even more can be seen on theStalin Discussion page (Deng22:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC))
Anyone who reads the complete discussion page will see that Ultramarine has tried to push his unsourced POW before but failed, and now that I have given real and verifiable sources to every last one of his unsourced claims he tries to have me blocked for something that he himself does but in a less obvoius way. (Deng22:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC))
And more importantly I added the refrences on the industrial capacity but could not figure them out so I need to read about references. I added the references, the process went wrong so I made them less flashy then after I hade read about makeing references I changed it back to a more correct version. It most be pointed out that Ultramarine removed the Part about industrial capacity, I then referenced the part but with some complications.(Deng22:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC))
Three revert rule violation onDhimmi (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Pecher (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Reported by:Faisal22:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:This is his second 3RR violation in last two days. The reason I am reporting this is not of only 3RR violation but he wants to make the article ofDhimmi one sided view. If anyone tries to make it more neutral then he revert that change. The reason he give are usually original-research, see-the-discussion etc but if you see the differences then that is not the case. For example Seethis a author tries to add things written even in this same article in the introduction so that the article introduction could be more neutral but [User:Pecher] revert that change saying original research (which is ridiculous).
Three revert rule violation onBattle of Plataea.User:65.95.91.176 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Comment: User been edit-warring under variable IP addresses on several articles; does not respect academic nor editor consensus; has provocatively delivered personal attacks of ethnic content despite warning not to do so.Reported by:Miskin01:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onBrit Hume (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).24.163.205.147 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Reported by:Lawyer2b04:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: This 3RR violation is part of an ungoing issue wherebyUser:24.163.205.147 is inserting unsourced, POV, and non-notable material regarding supposed interaction betweenBrit Hume and someone named Todd Ouellette while refusing to respond to communications left both on the article's[76] and his user talk page[77] regarding the material. The material he inserts in the article has also included an unsupported (and false, I might add) accusation against me specifically[78] and other "wikipedia members" who he claims "have repeatedly censored this entry in an effort to protect Brit Hume's reputation"[79]. I believe his actions are in violation ofWP:AGF and possibly other policies. I don't feel I have any other recourse other than to request he be banned from editing this article for a time.Lawyer2b04:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)