Comment User ignoring discussion to insert irrelevant possibly erreneous information.
Guy Montag00:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onFurry_fandom (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).ContiE (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
- Previous version reverted to:[5]
- 1st revert:[6]
- 2nd revert:[7]
- 3rd revert:[8]
- 4th revert:[9]
Time report made: 01:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's customary to give a user a warning before reporting them.Stifle (talk)10:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onNational Public Radio (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).MSTCrow (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 01:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Three revert rule violation onChristianity (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Kara Umi (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) and82.101.143.154 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 07:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments: I requested a usercheckhere, with examples of identical spelling mistakes from registered user and IP. It was declined as the case seemed to be "fairly obvious 3RR evasion and [could] be treated as such."AnnH♫07:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- 24 hours. 13:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onSniper rifle (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Qwasty (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 07:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User has made in excess of 200 edits between 21 and 23 July 2006
- Many other reverts are subtle in nature not exactly using earlier text
- User might be using Wikipedia for hidden agenda (soapbox/propaganda)
- User ignores consensus on Talk page or pretends to agree or fails to respond
- User has been referred toWikipedia:Etiquette
- User sometimes edits without being signed in (as 67.166.121.148)
- 1 is not a revert. #2 is. #3 and #4 are edits without any change in between by another user, and so count as the same revert. #5 is not by the same user, and even if it was, it would only be the third. No violation.Stifle (talk)10:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onMark 6 (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Roy_Brumback (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Time report made: 10:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- The other editor involved,User:Ahrarara, just stopped editing after the third revert. Maybe a way to break the rule in spirit but not in form?
- The same two editors are involved in revert wars over other articles,Luke 2,Luke 3,Mark 12, andMark 13. Note that for the latter article,User:Roy Brumback reverted 4 times in a day, andUser:Ahrarara three times:
Three revert rule violation on2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Tewfik (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Time report made: 11:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- The user performed 2 full reverts plus 4 identical edits to2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict in just over 5 hours.
- User is a regular violator of the 3RR rule and is openly warning other users not to violate it.
- FightCancer is currently engaged inmediation with me, where I pointed out that two of the edits are rvv, and one was the removal of an empty header and move of the link contained to "See also" after others had reverted the text, bringing the total rvs to 3.TewfikTalk03:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Mediation was filed against you for harassment against another user by another user--not me. Regardless, how do the two reversions marked (fullWikipedia:Revert) above qualify as "vandalism"?The first full revert resulted in adding one single word, "extremist", to describe Hezbollah.The second full revert resulted in changing the topmost picture from Haifa to Beirut. How were you preventingvandalism with those reverts?
- While I admit policy is grey on this, I was reverting disconnected, unconstructive IP edits back to the consensus page. The picture had been moved by dozens of unrelated IPs over the course of the day, and were always reverted per talk by numerous other users. The POV description was also reverted from random, disconnected IP edits countless times, by many users. I may add that these two edits were of a different POV than my reversions of your insertions, and were not part of any edit-war.TewfikTalk04:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's customary to warn people first, and only to report them here when they continue to revert. Tewfik: consider yourself warned.Stifle (talk)10:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on1994 FIFA World Cup (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).SndrAndrss (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 19:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments:We've asked for communication onhis talk page and onthe article's talk page, and even via our edit summaries inthe article's edit history, but he hasn't responded to anyone. There are now four users trying to sort this with no success so far,User:DeLarge,User:StuartBrady,User:Oldelpaso andUser:BlueValour.
The user does not use the 'Edit preview' option, so makes changes over many edits, however, he has been attempting to apply his version to this page since at least as far back as20:37, June 25, 2006
Three revert rule violation onMike Hawash.Anomicene (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
- Previous version reverted to, if applicable:[17]
- 1st revert:[18]
- 2nd revert:[19]
- 3rd revert:[20]
- 4th revert:[21]
A couple of things to note: the third revert was done, obviously, by an IP. Here is where Anomicene adds a signature to that IP on talk:[22]
Also, these reverts are small. Ordinarily, I would just let it go or issue them an invitation to self-revert. However, this user is more interested in harassing me and trolling for a reaction than he is in actually working on the article. Here is a diff indicating where this user has employed a sockpuppet to harass me a few months ago:[23]. He was askedhere to stay away from me, and not only has ignored this, but followed me to other pages as well. He's just been warned again[24].
Time report made: 19:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- The alleged Second revert[25] isn't a revert at all, but an attempt at compromise. The compainer let it stand, and even modified it. Regarding the other charges, please seeWP:ANhere.--Anomicene20:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is a revert. You (again) removed the words "himself and."IronDuke20:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- The Anomicene account has just beenblocked as a sock. I don't know what the policy on 3RR is then, whether it gets dropped, but I thought I'd let you know.IronDuke19:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onPella Palace (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Ghirlandajo (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
See alsoRelevant post at AN/I.Circeus20:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- I corrected/added GMT timestamps to all diffs for clarity as the complaint, initially did not include any time stamps (making a report invalid) and his later added time stamps still included errors and one ommission.
- Now, first of all, note the lack of the time stamps in the original "report" above. If the complaining party cared to include them, one would see that the first revert is from three days ago. While, any number of reverts over any period of time is ideally too many, care is need as each case is different
- Besides,Circeus (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA)' summary is not complete and one-sided. Circeus forgets to give a full context as their other edit conflict (not flawless byboth parties) was "won" by Circeus in the end of the day by simplyCirceus' blocking his opponent. The nearest to the detailed description of that conflict could be found in the archives of WP:AN at the following links:
- In the first of the discussions linked above, the lack of time-stamps in 3RR reports is given as an example of things that make any report look suspicious. Such reports should be carefully looked at before taking action. I assume that in this case we have an honest error of the complaining party rather than a second attempt to achieve a "victory" in the edit conflict by having an opponent blocked, just through other means.
- Since this is not 3RR, the rest of the discussion belongs toWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Circeus and Ghirlandajo, again -Irpen20:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've rechecked the date and freely admit a ridiculous mistake in my reading of the first date, prompted by the fact most of the edit war occured today, and hereby withdraw this report.— Precedingunsigned comment added byCirceus (talk •contribs)
Three revert rule violation onDark and Shattered Lands (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).69.6.167.240 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 20:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Warned user on talk page. Revert is repeated removal of the Controversy section.Ehheh20:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hasn't edited the page since the warning.Sasquatcht|c23:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- From my perspective it looked as if he had, but I see now that the warning and the 4th revert were made nearly simultaneously.Ehheh00:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onMaryse Ouellet.68.69.100.243 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
- Previous version reverted to, if applicable:[26]
- 1st revert:[27]
- 2nd revert:[28]
- 3rd revert:[29]
- 4th revert:[30]
Time report made: 22:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments:Keeps adding rumor (that I can't find any link of whatsoever) that Maryse Ouellet is datingMike Mizanin, the Mizanin page also has the same info put on it as well. Will not provide any link to verify.
- Hasn't edited that page since the warning but I will warn again about unsourced info. And please sign all posts with four tildes (like this: ~~~~). Thanks.Sasquatcht|c23:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onList of Welsh Americans (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).IP Address (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Time report made: 23:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments:Aside from the previous 3RR, another, identical violation onDave Mustaine. User is uncivil, as can be seen from comments on[36] (including blanking of discussion),[37],[38] and[39]. Has been warned about 3RR and continues to revert to the same version, even though he has been told by me andUser:ElKevbo that he needs a reliable source for it, which he has continually not produced.Mad Jack23:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
All I can say is that Mad Jack is a hypocrite in most regards he attacks me, who love edit wars and marking his territory:
Please note:
- If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.
IP Address23:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked for 48 hours pending user history.Sasquatcht|c23:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onSusan Fennell (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).WikiWoo (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Time report made: 06:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Problemmed editor making multiple reverts with no changes; many editors have become frustrated trying to explain to him proper sourcing, NPOV, etc.; User mostly interested in POV-pushing with respect to government of Region of Peel, Ontario.
- Reply Comment We have a group of editors working together to persecute my work whatever it may be. They have been monitoring my every edits making mountains out of mole hills on every opportunity. They are working collectively to frustrate me by deleting work over and over again rather than making constructive edits of interesting factual content, concertrating on my form rather than my substance. I make every effort to modify the wording when I fix the vandalism they do to try to reach consesus, but I am infaliable after having to fix their vandalism dozens of times. There was no revert three times one after the other. I did not bother to review carefully the instancesa just noted, but I do not recall making pure reverts more than once or twice. They construe my contributions in an area of my expertise as me having an agenda with Peel Region. The reason I am stuck on still edditing only Peel Region and have not yet gotten to editing the other Regions of Ontario is that they are making it difficult to get one area done so I can move on to the other Regions and related areas of my expertise.WikiWoo13:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Reverts again After beinginformed that this 3RR violation had been reported and responding above, he again reverted (for a fifth time) within 24 hours[47] at 13:27, 25 July.
- And again -- his fifth reversion of the page within 24 hours[48], after participating in this discussion and after being blocked for 48 hours two weeks ago for 3RR violations asUser:WikiRoo.[49]
- Yet again at 20;27. For those keeping score at home, this is six revisions in 24 hours.[50]
- Another revert at 23:37, July 25.[51] 6 reverts in the last 24 hours
- Comment This comlaint is a gross exagetation and not in the spirit of Wiki. If reviewed carefully they are not reverts. A review of the history of edits over the last few days will find that there is editing going on and not vandalism. Other than the vandalism by the dark side pushing their POV by censoring information and facts. We are making some progress with theSusan Fennell page and I urge everyone to review the entirety of the evolution of that article so that everyone can see how Wiki Works! to generate a balanced article with interesting and important information on subjects. I am proud of our work together thus far. Too bad some people have to take it personal when they can't get their way.WikiWoo23:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- My way? I couldn't give a fig about Susan Fennell. I just don't want unsourced POV nonsense being inserted into WP.JChap (talk •contribs)00:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- 7th revert in the last 24 hours at 23:56, July 25[52]
Three revert rule violation onDjehuty (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).24.151.41.250 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
- Previous version reverted to, if applicable:[53]
- 1st revert:[54]
- 2nd revert:[55]
- 3rd revert:[56]
- 4th revert:[57]
Time report made: 07:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Anon was warned, and didn't listen.SynergeticMaggot07:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Those edits were not reverts. User has been blocked for vandalism. Report should have been made atWP:AIV. If youare making a 3RR report, you must give the times of the reverts as well as the links to the diffs. Also, if you have warned the user, don't forget to give a diff for the warning.AnnH♫07:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll remember that next time. I guess I posted here too quickly. But thanks again.SynergeticMaggot07:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onSniper rifle (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Qwasty (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 08:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
This person was doing mass-delete vandalism to the article. I reverted all of the deletions. Since this person posted here, I suspect the vandalism was an attempt at luring me into the realm of a 3-revert violation so he could get some leverage from administrators on his personal issues with me.Qwasty09:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- False claim by accused, these were good faith edits and anything but vandalism.Deon Steyn10:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Is this what good-faith edits look like?:
- Deleted 4 paragraphs, and rewrote onediff
- Deleted 3 paragraphs -the whole section, and replaced it with a run-on sentencediff
- The edit notes from this vandalism session make heavy use of the wordremove. Bolded below for easy reading:
- 07:41, 25 July 2006 Deon Steyn (Talk | contribs) (→Capabilities -Clean up irrelevent info)
- 07:38, 25 July 2006 Deon Steyn (Talk | contribs) (→Range vs. accuracy -clean up irrelevant information in attempt totrim bloated article exceeding size guidelines)
- 07:32, 25 July 2006 Deon Steyn (Talk | contribs) (→Accuracy -remove advertising)
- 07:15, 25 July 2006 Deon Steyn (Talk | contribs) (→Capabilities -remove unreliabel source (conversation cant' be used, please see Wikipedia:Citing sources))
- 07:11, 25 July 2006 Deon Steyn (Talk | contribs) (→Action - factual errors, spelling, grammar)
- 07:08, 25 July 2006 Deon Steyn (Talk | contribs) (→Action -remove factual error ("original research"))
- 07:07, 25 July 2006 Deon Steyn (Talk | contribs) (→Action -remove irrelevant info (belongs on sniper page))
- 07:06, 25 July 2006 Deon Steyn (Talk | contribs) (→Distinguishing characteristics - unrevert)
- 07:05, 25 July 2006 Deon Steyn (Talk | contribs) (→Classification -remove invented "anti-personnel rifle" category)
- 07:02, 25 July 2006 Deon Steyn (Talk | contribs) (→Classification -remove "sniper" information (see discussion))
- Enough said -Qwasty05:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I would like to add that the "Three revert rule warning diff" above is the same one as used in another 3RR complaint against me by this same person[58]. That complaint has already been resolved in my favor, so I contest the validity of this complaint not only on the grounds that the reverts were done in response to vandalism, but also because of the fact that the evidence cited has already been evaluated in another instance that has already been decided.Qwasty19:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- The second complaint was made before the first one had been resolved. The new complanied contained clearer evidence and refers to new reverts, only the "warning" is the same (and does not have to change, it just documents that the user has been warned).Deon Steyn05:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onJapanese war crimes (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Grant65 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Time report made: 09:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
I had discussed the changes on the talk page, but Grant refused to accept I had a valid point so kept reverting. Even after he made 4 reverts, I didn't report him as I assumed good faith and asked him to self-revert, as can be seen if you look on his talk page. I did give him a formal warning as well. But he rejected my offer to start reverting again at a later period. So I have reported him for the original violation.John Smith's09:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I should point out that he didn't even respond to my offer of a self-revert rather than me report him, which is one reason why I was more inclined to report him. If he had said something I still might have let it pass.John Smith's09:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- 3RR, as I understand it, is not designed to protect users who make unilateral changes to longstanding material...and then time their own reversions to evade a 3RR complaint! Which is exactly what John Smith's has done. Thanks,Grant65 |Talk12:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Just because something has been in an article for a time doesn't mean "everyone" agrees upon it. It also doesn't justify you to keep reinserting material. My edits had stood for a while until you came along - no one else kept throwing them back in.
- Plus if you're accusing me of timing my reversions to make a complaint, you're extremely petty given that I didn't report you until you'd rejected my offer of a self-revert by reverting again. You have only yourself to blame for the 3RR vio.John Smith's10:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Tasc (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Time report made: 13:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments:This user has been reverting over and again for days since the start of this article. He reverts everything which is not to his liking. User has been banned 2 times before for revert wars: see links,ban 1 andban 2. Furthermore, his talk page is filled with warnings about his constant reverts on many pages.ArmanJan13:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is not technically 3RR, but I have had issues with this user deleting entire sections without any prior or subsequent discussion of it on the relevant Talk page. If you read his Talk page, you will see I am not alone. It is more of an extremeWP:AGF violation than a 3RR violation, but I'm not sure where else to report it. He at least needs a talking to. --Jaysweet14:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).ArmanJan (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Time report made: 15:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments:The user changed the existing version and inserted that it was "according to Israel", he also later added another version of events labeled "according to Lebanon". This was rejected by other editors, but he kept reverting (with several insignificant variations).He continues to revert [13:01, 25 July 2006].
He almost always marks his edits as minor even when they're not, and edit summaries are often misleading. He clearly knows about [[[WP:3RR]].[59]User_talk:ArmanJan#WP:3RR_and_Lebanon-Israel_beginning_of_conflict
- I don't know if I am allowed to reply to this, but in my defence I would like to add that I did the reverts to prevent vandalism, and knowing the rule that I am exempted from the three revert rule to prevent vandalism.Wikipedia:Three_revert_rule#Reverting_vandalism. The following link shows that I have done my best to help bring forth a consensus to stop the edit wars:Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict/POV#Reaching_consensus_on_.22Beginning_of_conflict.22_sectionArmanJan17:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onThe Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Akolsrud (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
- 1st revert:07:27, July 24, 2006 (presumed, IP 130.164.72.107)
- 2nd revert:07:59, July 24, 2006
- 3rd revert:10:36, July 24, 2006
- 4th revert:18:31, July 24, 2006
- 5th revert:07:33, July 25, 2006 (4th in 24h)
- 6th revert:10:34, July 25, 2006 (4th in 24h by 2mins)
Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :
My apology for the past mistakes. I am a newbie but have now read and understood the Wikipedia policy and rules. I am hoping to contribute quite a bit of positive and neutral contents throughout the Wikipedia - ranging from cars to physics to electronics. SincerelyAkolsrud03:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onList of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A-E (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).69.142.211.106 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
- Previous version reverted to:06:41, 24 July 2006
- 1st revert:21:57, 24 July 2006
- 2nd revert:12:46, 25 July 2006
- 3rd revert:17:23, 25 July 2006
- 4th revert:17:36, 25 July 2006
- 5th revert:19:43, 25 July 2006
- 6th revert:19:53, 25 July 2006
- 7th revert:19:59, 25 July 2006
- 8th revert:20:20, 25 July 2006
- 9th revert:20:46, 25 July 2006
- 10th revert:23:36, 25 July 2006
Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :
- 19:47, 25 July 2006 (this was the 3rd warning, given between the 6th and 7th revert; previous warnings had been given between 4th and 5th; and between 2nd and 3rd)
Time report made: 20:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Three revert rule violation onJapan (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Saintjust (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
- Previous version reverted to, if applicable:[61]
- 1st revert:[62]
- 2nd revert:[63]
- 3rd revert:[64]
- 4th revert:[65]
Time report made: 21:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comments
Multiple reversions, re-editing, and repeated blanking, onBerber peoplehere.
No so much simple reversion as simply cut-and-pasting old information in as new edits.
- -Beowulf31415902:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- First of all I am a new user of Wikipedia and had no idea that users had to abide by rules. I thought it was a 'free' encyclopedia that anyone could edit. I did not realize that users had such spare time on their hands *Beowulf* actually the original used brute force, you're simply using brute ignorance to perpetuate factitious information that you or whoever it is keeps posting on the Berbers page and other relevant pages. I looked up the word and was shocked to find such misleading, inaccurate and fictitious information posted and links of the most absurd kind! One link, the first among many, was of a madman's website in which numerous black americans claim that the berbers are black and that they are somehow inheriots of a history that has shunned them and has absolutely nothing to do with them! they go so far as to post a picture of blacks, who are undoubtedly servants/slaves (sad but true) and label them berbers though clearly to anyone in the region they are black. The posting of sources matters little if the source if not a dependable one. As I am from the region and have done quite a bit of research in the area, I tried to edit by removing misleading information that is really mindboggling to say the least but someone, I suppose this beowulf of bathcat, keeps reverting it to the original, factitious, fraudulent nonsense. If this is the sort of project that encourages mad men and women to write history as they see fit, then fine so be it. But I think to write a history that never was and is not, and my comments are verifiable, is really absurd and the greatest form of transgression. I have contacted the admins and I simply ask that they do some proper research before allowing such nonsense to be permanently posted, thanks to the persistent ignoramuses who keep reposting it. It should also be noted that history is written by individuals with an agenda and in the case of 'Berbers' though the term itself is inaccurate as it refers to practially hundreds of different ethnic groups in an immense region! (largest continent) and thusly enmeshes them incorrectly, at the cost of accuracy and truth. You can keep posting nonsense but truth shall prevail! And whoever keeps insisting that these people have any relation to sub-saharan,black africans is only doing a disservice to sub-saharan blacks as they are making fictitious claims when in truth blacks in North Africa are not accepted and are mostly thought of as slaves and used as servants. The subjects that were used in one of the sources were from the southern most regions of Morocco, from the periphery, near Mauritania..and not Arab regions and only about 44 were used..and these people are meant to represent the pure and Germanic Amazigh peoples of Algeria for instance or Tunisia? Some of whom even bear BRITISH NAMES! A clear indication of their heritage though not enough research has been done but will hopefully some day soon! This is sheer nonsense and this sort of ignorance and the breeding of lies should not be tolerated. Beowulf also sent me a message in which he basically threatened me by insinuating that my naivety, as I am new will prevent any reasonable editing from taking place is really unacceptable. Nothing should stand in the way of truth, Mr.Beowulf..especially not childish games of the sort that you are playing with me or trying to. People like you will only turn this project into a laughingstock. I hope the admins can do something about this, they owe it to humanity! THis beowulf is also lying..I am not pasting anything I simply kept removing the FALSE information that is SHEER NONSENSE and writing instead a short and accurate description, namely by dismissing the nonsense by removing it. Batcat also sent me a threat of sorts, accusing me of damaging people's "hard work" laughable indeed LOOL as none of it was actually written by users but rather copy and pasted from inaccurate sources. Sources are like A-holes, everyone has them and if they do not, in OUR world today, they can make up their own! So..don't give me that nonsense. Unless it is truly a verifiable source, say a study carried out by Ivy League universities, Museums etc.. then no, it does not count. And also, one must look at the subjects. For people familiar with the region, MEEEEEEE, inaccuracy is hastily discerned. I have seen the different ethnic people that inhabit the region, and I can assure all that is posted on them here is FALSE. I would appreciate some advice on how I could properly edit the site and not childish threats or accusations as I am only after the TRUTH..and if the truth bothers some people with an incentive to lie, then ...Wikipedia has a responsibility to exclude such ignorant users. Another thing, Beowulf sends me messages but I cannot reply as he does not accept messages. I wonder what you're afraid of?! Nicoletta
- Nicoletta assertions are demonstativly inaccurate - not withstanding that thier information and artilcle contributionsmay be defensible, even if their behavior is not.
- This is not a place to defend the edits, only the behaviors of the users in question.
- The user was informed that their behavior was unacceptable in a message left on their talk pagehere. This is, to the best of my knowledge, a standard warning in Wikipedia. Despite it's standard phrasing, this is the "threat" that Nicoletta claims was made on their page.
- Reference was made to the 3RR rule in an edit summary,here, although it may not be clear to a newbie. It is also clear from the edit summary that blanking and reversion is considered a violation of wiki ettiquite. The user distregarded both notices 11 times after the first notice, three times specifically after being told explictily that their acts could be considered vandalism, seehere.
- To the best of my knowledge, my own talk page is open - and has had messages left on it today. See the edit loghere. I have even gone so far as to log out, and post a message to my own talk pageas an anonymous guest - showing that the talk page is open toanyone. I suspect Nicoletta's "failure" to do so is a result of ignorance, errors in using a talk page, or an attempt at outright deciet.
- Nicoletta is correct that my statement about theiradding information is inaccurate. It was my impression that they were cut-and-pasting an old version of the page - but they are essentially correct: they are not cut-and-pasting information, they have been unilaterally expunging information without discussion, or presentation of counter balancing sources. I fail to see how this is fundementallybetter - but at least this is a moreaccurate representation of their acts.
- Despite claiming to haveverifiable references, they have not attempted to present any of these in talk. In fact, they have gone so far as to expunge and edit parts of other people's comments in the talk page that they find "objectionable": seehere. Their 'tactic' seems to be "shout loud, shout repeatably, erase anything without explanation or support that you find objectionable".
- Nicoletta claims "I have contacted the admins and I simply ask that they do some proper research before allowing such nonsense to be permanently posted". Such a "contact" is lacking in their contribution log to be foundhere.
- Given the general style of argument, personal abuse, rhetoric, and command of English, it may be advisable to do a "network analysis" of the IP addresses used by "Nicoletta" and "Kara Umi", who it should be noted has recently been banned for violation of the 3RR.
- Given that Nicolettamay be a new user (although they may also simply be a new sockpuppet), leniancy for actsleading up to this complaint might be in order, at the discretion of the admins.
- However, now that proper Wiki ettiquite has been explained, I would urge thatfuture blankings be treated according to wiki policy on 3RR and vandalism, as they would be for any experienced user.Beowulf31415907:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onCyrus II (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).SG (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
- Previous version reverted to, if applicable:[67]
- 1st revert:[68]
- 2nd revert:[69]
- 3rd revert:[70]
- 4th revert:[71]
Time report made: 05:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment:User:SG even sent a 3RR warning "stating" we both had reverted 3 times after his 4th revert:[72].All 4 reverts include the replacing of an image from the introduction to headline!
User SG violated the 3RR once again on his own talk page:[73] by reverting my valid warning 4 times. My warnings was a response to his once again engaged revert war and his own warnings.
Three revert rule violation onWhites (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).
Please review. Thanks.Yukirat07:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - both users have already been blocked for edit warring on the noted article. The whole history page is filled with their battles over the last five hours. I suggest that whoever deals with this cleans up the page history.MER-C08:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- I welcome any admin to come and see what is happening. If I am to be blocked, I'm sure it will be done with the article's best interest in mind. One thing I would ask is for the admin who intervenes in this, that s/he read the relevanttalk and all the personal attacks directed not only to my person, all the complaints against the user, and also actually review the changes, deletions, unverifiable sources, POV, and personal reinterpretation of otherwise verifiable sources (deeming them useless) being introduced by the user into the article, then to proceed handing out reprimands to one and all, in whichever way it is seen appropriate.Al-Andalus08:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- I welcome it also, but mostly a review of the actual article text which Al-Andalus continually reverts without making contributions to or justifying his edits. I have postedWP:NPA many times to stop nonsense. The article text is most important to discuss, but by all means read the Discussion too.Yukirat08:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Al-Andalus that the page has problems, even so breaking 3RR is not permissible. Yukirat has been at least as guilty, and has been rather offensive as well. I recommend that both users be blocked for some period of time. -Will Beback09:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onClinton Foundation (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).206.165.97.2 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Time report made: 17:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The unregistered user appears to be a sockpuppet forUser:Clinton Foundation who reverts to the same original article and has reverted from rereverts twice in the last hour.
Three revert rule violation onStaying Fat For Sarah Byrnes (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Litclass (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
- Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
- 1st revert:12:42, July 26, 2006
- 2nd revert:13:10, July 26, 2006
- 3rd revert:13:14, July 26, 2006
- 4th revert:13:57, July 26, 2006
- 5th revert:14:01, July 26, 2006
Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 18:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments:This professor has been posting on this article's AfD that we do not have the right to revert the article. She has already been blocked once for removing my speedy tag 4 times in a row.αChimplaudare18:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Gave user a warning, as reverts have stopped for the time being. However, I made it quite clear to Litclass that any more misbehavior will engender a block in short order.RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!)23:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onR40A (New York City Subway car) (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).71.247.125.25 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Time report made: 18:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments
Three revert rule violation onWrestleMania X8 (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).TheTruth2 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
- Previous version reverted to:07:26, July 25, 2006
- 1st revert:13:27, July 25, 2006
- 2nd revert:08:46, July 26, 2006
- 3rd revert:12:32, July 26, 2006
- 4th revert:12:49, July 26, 2006
Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 20:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Please talk to Malo. I have been cival to Bullet after discussing it with him. I have not been warned by others. I have only spoken to TJ Spyke. He seems to be OK. Bullet seems to have some issues. Bullet is the one that appears to have a seriousWP:OWN problem with the article. I have been updated Malo about the situation and have follewed his suggestions.--TheTruth220:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not OK. I don't know why you kept reverting it TheTruth2, even after I pointed out why you shouldn't keep reverting it. I even requested arbitration because you wouldn't stop reverting it and we couldn't aree.TJ Spyke21:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I was warned at 20:23 I did not revert it at all after the fact. He just warned me and I did nothing and then he reports me?
These "wrestling guidelines" followed. Also Bullet does not own the article. He is the one who hashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OWN issues I was just improving the article. As I stated If there are no summaries of the match at that particular event then they WILL GO TO OTHER SITES. Their goal is go get noticed and if you include summaries of the matches then more people will come and see that article. --TheTruth221:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- This isn't about getting more people to visit a website this about writing an encyclopedia.Wikipedia is not a soapbox And this timereally read it instead of claiming you did just to shut the people referring you to the guideline up. --3bulletproof16 21:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC
- Both blocked per below. Edit warring is wrong. Period.Sasquatcht|c00:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
3Bulletproof16 reported by User:TheTruth2 (Result: Both blocked for 12 hours)
Three revert rule violation on {{}http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WrestleMania_X8}.3Bulletproof16 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Time report made: \04:00
Comments:I have warned him in regards to the 3RR rule. It seems that he has “ownership” issues over the article. I have been in contact with Malo in regards to Bullet and I have been talking with TJ Spyke about it as well.--TheTruth221:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
You are still not following th guidelines agreed upon by at at WikiProject: Professional Wrestling. I have submitted this issue for arbitration since you don't seem to get that you are wrong and should stop changin my correct edits. TJ Spyke 20:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
MY last edit was around 19;46 but TJ and I are ok--TheTruth222:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Format the report so it reads properly and I'll look at it. It's not understandable at all in this state. Take a look at other 3RR reports to see the formatting conventions. Thank you. --Lord Deskana (talk)22:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- After some review, both have been editwarring and will be blocked for 12 hours.Sasquatcht|c00:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- The page in question should follow theWikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling format. It looks like Bullet and TJ have been protecting that agreed upon format.(Halbared22:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC))
Three revert rule violation onShock and awe (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).ED_MD (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) - formerly known asER_MD (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Time report made: 08:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments:User is aware of 3RR rule. Note that technically ED MD avoided 24 hours by just four minutes, howeveras ER MD he was blocked for vandalism, personal attacks, removing warnings from his talk page, and then blocked again twice for block evasion. I don't know ifhe changed his user name to get a clean talk page and block log -- he claims it was because he was transferred at his work from the Emergency Room to the Emergency Department, if you can buy that.Starcare08:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
ER_MD: I am attempting to remove POV inclusions into the article such as statements that "shock and awe" was directed at the insurgency. It was never driected at the insurgency! Also the claim that the "shock and awe" campaign lead to 285,000 deaths is a lie as well since this is the upper limit of the most liberal estimation of causualties for the entire war. Ovbviously since the shock and awe campaign only lasted 2-3days, the inclusion of the number 285,000 is ridiculous. Other removals such as references that claim that the US was engaging in terrorism. This is a content dispute. I believe that mainstrean ideas should be kept in and extremist sites like "world socialist web page" are not good references to truly explain the subject.ED MD09:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Further aggravating circumstances:ED MD changed references versions in survey question to include his version created after survey responses were recorded.Starcare09:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Close enough to deserve block I think... 24hWilliam M. Connolley09:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. I feel like I can sleep now. Wikipedia shouldn't be that important to anyone.Starcare09:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onIslamophobia (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Netscott (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Previous block of user:[81]
Irritating, yes, but the 4th revert isn't close enough I'd sayWilliam M. Connolley10:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments:Deuterium (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·page moves ·block user ·block log) may well be due for a block soon relative to his edit warring in general (against others too) on this article.This talk about citing sources and original research is quite pertinent to this report.(→Netscott)11:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onBill Gates (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)
THEREALVIEW (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
68.51.56.112 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
- Previous version reverted to:11:05, July 26, 2006 (User's first additions to this page)
- 1st revert:11:52, July 26, 2006 (ByUser:THEREALVIEW)
- 2nd revert:17:58, July 26, 2006 (ByUser:68.51.56.112)
- 3rd revert:00:25, July 27, 2006 (ByUser:68.51.56.112)
- 4th revert:07:47, July 27, 2006 (ByUser:68.51.56.112)
- 5th revert:07:53, July 27, 2006 (ByUser:68.51.56.112)
- 6th revert:08:07, July 27, 2006 (ByUser:68.51.56.112)
- 7th revert (NEW):08:30, July 27, 2006 (ByUser:THEREALVIEW)
Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :
- N/A - User has been warned about not adding disputed content several times.
Time report made: 14:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments:This user has been adding the same exact material toBill Gates repeatedly and has been changing captions of photos of Bill Gates to add POV to make him sound like a criminal. Repeated warnings have not been responded to other than immediate reinsertion of the same content. --Renesis1314:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks fair enough. Anon definitely; TRV on the assumption they are the same. 24. BTW - in future, its best to *explicitly* warn them about 3RRWilliam M. Connolley14:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onWrestleMania_X-Seven (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).3Bulletproof16 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Time report made: 17:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments:He was warned at 16:41
--TheTruth217:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC){{
- Malformatted. Please look at the other reports above for the appropriate format... --Lord Deskana (talk)17:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
It is following the same format, except the revert section does ot show the times but it does take you to the site. For some reason I cannot get the times on there.--TheTruth217:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- The times are one of the most important parts of the report, so it can be determined whether or not the violation has been committed. Without it, no action can be taken. Instructions on how to add times was provided on my talk page. --Lord Deskana (talk)17:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onWorld War III (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Esaborio (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
- Previous version reverted to, if applicable:07:25, 26 July 2006
- 1st revert:01:07, 27 July 2006
- 2nd revert:04:07, 27 July 2006
- 3rd revert:17:31, 27 July 2006
- 4th revert:17:50, 27 July 2006
- 5th revert:18:12, 27 July 2006 -User:201.199.77.202, logged out to evade 3rr
- 6th revert:18:16, 27 July 2006, as above
Time report made: 18:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Blocked the IP address.Sasquatcht|c19:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Back from his block, he seems to be continuing where he left off:
Tom HarrisonTalk00:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onIslam_in_China (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).He's repeatedly reinserted a massive chunk of text from another site, in flagrant violation of their copyright.
- This isn't even close to a 3RR as the 4 reverts span one and a half week and it's formatted wrong.Sasquatcht|c19:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onEcumenical council (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).71.213.37.142 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 22:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User was not warned of 3RR, but is aware of it. See edit remark on 3rd revert above. Note this was a false statement, asUser:ASDamick had not in fact made even 3 reverts, let alone a fourth. User continues to edit war on the article; see a revert made today:19:19, 26 July 2006
first revert,second revert,third revert,fourth revert, intervention is required--FurnaceOfMonkl22:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Rv1 isn'tWilliam M. Connolley08:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onCrystal_Gail_Mangum (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Abe.Froman (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Time report made: 06:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments:User continues to delete content from this page despite being asked not to. Leykis information on this page is relevant as he is the original source who reported her name publicly.
Needs to be within 24hWilliam M. Connolley08:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Anon's insert duplicative information into the article, which I revert. See this diff for an example[88]. Same information, one passage above and below the other.Abe Froman13:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onChinese (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).RevolverOcelotX (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Time report made: 06:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Report revised 08:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC) byUser:Kevin Breitenstein
Comments:User continues to violate 3RR despite being warned on his talkpage. Also commits spamming, personal attack, wikilawyering, and other violations. An independent user has reverted to my original version, which shows RevolverOcelotX's edit are obvious pov pushing. [[89]]. Thanks--Bonafide.hustla06:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- There is no policy violations here. The first edit was not a revert and there have been only 3 reverts made byboth myself andBonafide.hustla (talk ·contribs). Bonafide.hustla was the person labeling other editor's completely legitimate reverts as "vandalism". Many of Bonafide.hustla edits are bogus and POV pushing. Seethis ANI post andBonafide.hustla's contributions for more details. His contributions speak for themselves. Bonafide.hustla has now resorted to making bogus vandalism reports which were promptly rejected,here and a bogus checkuserhere. Bonafide.hustla should be blocked for constant disruption and wikilawyering. --RevolverOcelotX06:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Please date the reverts properly, and provide the "prev version" so we can assess whether rv1 is a revert or notWilliam M. Connolley07:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hi I redid this 3RR. I had to pick a rather old revision to get the exact text put back, though recent edit wars show(onTaiwain) in the same spot being re-inserted by RevolverOcelotX, but that's disputable, so I went back to june 16th. There's an ongoing edit war on mentioning 'Taiwain' there and on what the japanese interwiki link points. Reported appears to be aware of 3RR by virtue of previous blocks.Kevin_b_er08:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- The first edit was definatelynot a revert. The edit made was clearly(Taiwan) rather than "(onTaiwan)". Note that this is a subtle, but very important difference with different meanings. This edit was made according toWikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese), "on Taiwan" would refer to the island geographically, while(Taiwan) would refer to usually refer to the most common political name usage. Geographic and political references arevery different. The first edit was used in a geographic context while the later ones equate the the political entity with its commonly used term. Unfortunately, this was repeatedlyreverted byBonafide.hustla (talk ·contribs) who labeled the clear content dispute as "vandalism" as well as POV pushing on many other articles. Thus, there have been only 3 reverts between myself andBonafide.hustla (talk ·contribs) and there have been no policy violations in the mentioned article. --RevolverOcelotX08:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Too sublte for me... I was about to block you but2006-07-28 10:15:06 Alex Bakharev (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "RevolverOcelotX (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation on Chinease)William M. Connolley14:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onImjin_Wars (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Appleby (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 20:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments:User has been reported repeatedly and blocked at least once (last month) for violating 3RR (though it's not on his talk page now). After removing it from his talk page, he received another warning by a different admin. He was reported on another article higher up on this page for a different article/violation, but no result was made. User continues to suggest not revert warring, while revert warring. Other reverts for the same change fall a few hours shy of inside the 24 hour limit.
Technically 7 mins outside 24h...William M. Connolley20:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe I jumped the gun... but if you look at the following two additional reverts, it seems clear (to me) that he's just being careful to edit war "by the rules":
- "5th" revert:16:34, 27 July 2006
- "6th" revert:16:13, 27 July 2006
- I apologize if I was too hasty; it just seems that after being blocked and warned several times for the same kind of action, nothing is really gained except slower warring.LactoseTI01:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Confirmed — Sockpuppetry has just been confirmed forAppleby (talk ·contribs). SeeWikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/HSL for details. Here are the most active sockpuppets that I saw:
The sockpuppets were used in various articles to cleverly avert 3RR. Appleby had created 12 sockpuppets, and they are all indefinitely blocked now. However the main user Appleby got only 24 hours.--Endroit03:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onJob (professional wrestling) (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).WillC (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Time report made: 22:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments:This user has been arguing over the placement of relatively irrelevant information within the article, we have a 3 to 1 consensus to leave as-is, and this individual user insists on having things his way. When I joined the fray to supply an unbiased point of view, he beginsmaking personal attacks. I do not doubt that his edits arein good faith, but it's gone on too long and he needs an administrator to join the discussion to take anything seriously.
-NickSentowski22:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- This does not fall under 3RR as there are never more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. Try posting onWP:AN/I. --Lord Deskana (talk)22:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Also, you claim the user has reverted to the version dated 13:59, 28 July 2006, but all of the reverts you listed have been performedbefore that date? --Lord Deskana (talk)22:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- My bad, didn't fully understand theWP:3RR nomination process, I feel the editor was intentionally avoidingWP:3RR. Even though the block is denied, the nomination has served its purpose, thank you for quick resolution. -NickSentowski23:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Category:Pseudoscience.Jim_Butler (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Time report made: 03:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Jim Butler is already aware of the 3RR rule:[90]
I don't see a version reverted toWilliam M. Connolley08:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Honest mistake on my part, cf.User_talk:Jim_Butler#Three_revert_rule. FM, I look forward to continuing our discussion onCategory_talk:Pseudoscience, and hope you agree that attracting more editorial attention (and thus allowing the dispute-tag to stay) is the way to go. Thx,Jim Butler(talk)04:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on24 (TV series) (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).71.99.111.52 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :
24hWilliam M. Connolley08:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onFermat's_Last_Theorem (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).69.34.69.254 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 08:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
24hWilliam M. Connolley09:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on ArticleMartin Luther.
The user attempted to remove a link at top of page several times and reverted other work done on the page:
[91]
[93]
[94]
[95]
I posted a friendly warning on his talk page about this:[96]
Time report made:Bailan22:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Perhaps an admin warning would work better? Or perhaps a 24 hour block? He’s been blocked before for 3RR.[97]Bailan22:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- User:Peyna was reverting changes by an anon IP that was very obviously a sockpuppet of indefinitely bannedUser:Ptmccain. Thus the three-revert rule does not apply. Also would like to point out that User:Bailan is bringing this 3RR complaint in his very first day and seventh hour of existance as an editor. The creation of this brand new editor coincides with the indefinite ban on Ptmccain, which took place yesterday. At the time that he was banned, in one of the various comments deleted by administrators, he posted from AOL IP addresses and indicated on several occasions an intent to continue posting via sockpuppets.[98] --Mantanmoreland23:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Bailan appears to be a sockpuppet of bannedUser:Ptmccain. The edits of banned users may be reverted without counting toward 3RR.SlimVirgin(talk)23:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Not that it matters at this point, but first, thanks to those who stuck up for me, since I didn't have the chance to. What has been marked as "First Revert" was not a revert at all, but rather a good faith edit (to my knowledge that line could have been on the page for ages). "Second Revert" and "Third Revert" I will admit to. "Fourth Revert" is the same link as "Second Revert." "Fifth Revert" was another good faith edit, where I clicked the link that was provided as the source of a quotation, noticed the quotation text was incorrect and corrected it. I have no idea how that could be a revert at all, since it is certainly improving the integrity of the encyclopedia to have accurate quotations.
- At any rate, I just felt the obligation to point out that this was a bad faith report, and it doesn't matterwho I reverted, because the rule clearly was not violated.Peyna13:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onLe Sage's theory of gravitation (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).SJC1 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
- Previous version reverted to, if applicable:03:52, July 29, 2006
- 1st revert:13:32, July 29, 2006
- 2nd revert:15:42, July 29, 2006
- 3rd revert:18:20, July 29, 2006
- 4th revert:22:23, July 29, 2006
Time report made: 05:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
12hWilliam M. Connolley08:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onBulgaria (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).TodorBozhinov (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
I have started an RfC against on his general behaviour:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/TodorBozhinov --Eliade19:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- He also used slang expressions like cr*p..."oooh, this is so full of propaganda/fringe theory cr*p, I'd like the old (established) history back, please no WP:OR anymore". --Eliade07:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Time report made: --Eliade07:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Contiguous edits only count for one revertWilliam M. Connolley08:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- The user does not seem to understand the definitions of 'revert' and 'three revert rule'. I made a total of 2 reverts, the same number that Eliade also made. The other edits here were changes to the article. Also, I don't see anything with informal edit summaries, as long as they give information regarding the changes, and I've even self-censored myself.Todor→Bozhinov10:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- If you understand so well why have you reverted one more time?http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bulgaria&diff=66734640&oldid=66700102 We spoked about it after your 3R violation and you seem not willing to accept a compromise, not even now. --Eliade06:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Another 3Rhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bulgaria&diff=66831933&oldid=66812705 This user forced me to open an RfC against him. --Eliade10:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I have started an RfC against on his general behaviour:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/TodorBozhinovEliade19:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onUser talk:Bonafide.hustla (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Bonafide.hustla|talk]] |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Bonafide.hustla (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 12:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Bonafide.hustla (talk ·contribs) repeatedlyremoved warnings from hisuser talk page despite repeated warnings and removed warnings from his talk page AFTER the final warning. In the process,Bonafide.hustla has also clearly broken the 3RR on hisuser talk page. Bonafide.hustla alsoshows a disregard for the intent of the 3RR. --RevolverOcelotX12:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Is anyone else getting annoyed by the constant bickering of these two idiots everywhere on Wikipedia?-Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg |Talk13:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps all parties involved should be given a mandatory rest period.Peyna14:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Administrator's comments. First of all, 3RR is not usually enforced against users who remove content from their own talk pages. Secondly, a 3RR warning template is appropriate for a new editor who is in danger of violating a rule that s/he doesn't know about. If an established editor is coming close to violating 3RR, it's probably more courteous to send a brief warning in your own words; the editor probably knows about the rule anyway. If a user removes such a warning, you may consider it uncivil, but it is not a violation of policy, and it's simply harassment to replace it along with a{{Wr}} and{{Wr4}}, as RevolverOcelotX did, threatening that the user would be blocked and his talk page protected. These templates exist for the purpose of warning people who may not know of the 3RR rule, or real vandals who are blanking legitimate vandalism warnings from their talk page, or inserting obscenities into them. They arenot intended as black marks that you can give to naughty people who are then obliged, as punishment, to display them on their talk page until such time as they can be reasonably permitted to archive. I suggest the editors just get back to writing an encyclopaedia.AnnH♫15:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Bonafide.hustla (talk ·contribs)expressed an "entitlement to 3RR" at theTaiwan independence article which is definitely not in accord with policy. Bonafide.hustla is clearly against theintent of the 3-Revert Rule. An admin heresupported this claim. To add to that, Bonafide.hustla's repeatedremoval of warnings from hisuser talk page is disruptive and against theintent of the 3-Revert Rule. SeeBonafide.hustla's contributions for more details. --RevolverOcelotX20:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onJoseph_Stalin (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Nixer (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Time report made: 20:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments:Blocked many times before for 3RR violations but does not seem to get the message.Ultramarine20:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
48h (again)William M. Connolley21:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onPanorama_Tools_(software) (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).John_Spikowski (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 23:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Constantly adds 5 links to his private wiki (see his userlisthttp://www.panotools.info/mediawiki/index.php?title=Special:Listusers) and changes the links from panotools.org to panoramatools.org or removes them completely.Addition: Threatened me on my user pagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Wuz&diff=66764943&oldid=66752312--Wuz00:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onConservatism (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Rick_Norwood (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 00:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Rick Norwood claims edits to sections as blanked sections, or reverts.
- Is it just me, or are the "1st revert" and "3rd revert" the same edit? --LV(Dark Mark)01:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Corrected complaint.--Scribner03:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Two problems there, only three reverts (you need four for a violation to have taken place) and no warning given. No infringement.Stifle (talk)12:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onAtheism (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).67.187.9.149 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 00:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments:This user is possiblyUser: DotSixUser does not acceptWP:3RR rule -http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A67.187.9.149&diff=66771914&oldid=66769515 --JimWae01:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Might be a Gastrich sock too, 22hStifle (talk)12:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onDerek_Smart (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Supreme_Cmdr (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Time report made: 01:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments:Userwarned again this time around on talk page, and was blocked for 3RR on this article about a week ago.Ehheh01:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- This is a definite violation, but I am involved in editing the page and am not willing to block. Can another admin please fulfill? Thanks.Stifle (talk)12:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onMama's Family (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).
DtownG (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
65.31.100.211 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
- 1st revert:23:11 29 July
- 2nd revert:23:30 29 July
- 3rd revert:00:09 30 July (note switches wording here, but still arguing over "pro-active")
- 4th revert:00:39 30 July
- It goes on like this, alternating with the edits I linked above for DtownG. My copy-and-paste fingers are getting tired. Suffice it to say they both have well over 10 reverts.
Time report made: 01:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Three revert rule violation onhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_SmartSupreme_Cmdr (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Comments:User has had a 3RR block on the same page for similar edits onon 16:53, 21 July 2006
He has been participated in the talk page and been informed by editors and administrators about the rules.
He has also taken part in two mediation efforts for this page.[110]and[111]
User sometimes uses non-descriptive edit summaries and/or makes other very-minor additional edits to avoid the letter of the law.
Time report made: 02:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onTalk:List of Justice League episodes (edit | [[Talk:Talk:List of Justice League episodes|talk]] |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).T-man, the Wise Scarecrow (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Time report made: 02:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments: This user is constantly harassing editors on this talk page, and has for months. He has been banned a number of times for his interactions on this page, but the bahvior continues. In the edits above, he re-added a fair-use-violating image section that two editors had previously removed. Additionally, he created a section on the talk page solely for patting himself on the back and for attacking other people's work on the article by not including them in the list he was creating there. Two different editors have removed the section, saying that it was created in bad faith, but he has restored it three times. Oh, and he also has deleted other editors' comments within the past 24 hours.[117] --Chris Griswold02:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onTemporomandibular joint disorder (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Pat8722 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): - Gaming of 3RR
Time report made: 03:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments:This user is game playing the 3RR with antagonistic trolling on the article's talk page about other editors removing a simplistic list of symptoms in favour of a fuller explanatory description. The user already has aWikipedia:Requests for comment/Pat8722 about them and has been previouslyblocked several times, including for "incivility, disruption" and "Gaming of the three revert rule. It is not an entitlement; it is rather an electric fence intended to stop edit wars". I think their further actions today amounts to the same, exemplified in the final edit summary of "Third revert for today, see talk page. See you next Sunday". Given that several editors have repeatedly explained their reasoning for reworking the section on symptoms, having a continuous torrent of uncivil argument with accusations of vandalising being thrown back is disruptive to the Wikipedia process. The user is clearly deliberately reverting the several other editors active on this article to the maximum possible limit assuming that failure to collaborate and reach a consensus is permitted and that deliberately reverting thrice a day is acceptable.David RubenTalk03:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onLance Armstrong (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Socafan (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) : Preveiously blocked for 3RR on this article.
Time report made: 03:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Three revert rule violation onDerek Smart (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Supreme_Cmdr (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 05:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Long term revert war on this page. Has been protected before; after unprotection revert war promptly started up again. --Ideogram05:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onDerek Smart (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).75.17.140.41 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :
- [129] (initial comment on page)
Time report made: 05:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Long term revert war on this page. Has been protected before; after unprotection revert war promptly started up again. --Ideogram05:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- I did not realize thatNote: There is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count. even though it is in bold on the 3RR page - I read the warning, but thought that the reverts had to be in a related area and had no intention of violating the rule. I made the 4th revert (the unique one which removed the "weasel words" tag) as a good faith edit after other editors had removed all of the "weasel words" to the talk page. I have since put back the "weasel words" tag and added discussion about its removal to the talk page.75.17.140.4108:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- I am unable to inform User:Ideogram of this because his talk page is semi-protected.75.17.140.4108:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onChristopher_Michael_Langan (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).DrL (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :
- User has been blocked before for 3RR, and was recently notified onUser_talk:DrL about another case of near-3RR over the same article.
Time report made: 06:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
I had thought that DrL's problem with the documentary description added byByrgenwulf was that he was attributing it toErrol Morris, so I added a revised description noting the proper source of the description, which the website of Errol Morris' production company. --PhilosophusT06:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I did not simply revert, I made new changes each time to try to improve the article and reach consensus. The material that is being added by Philosophus is from a poor source (a mouse rollover on a website without attribution).DrL06:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- In my overflowing-with-humility judgment, the fact that the text is only visible via mouse roll-over is just poor Web design. (Gosh, there's a real shortage ofthat, isn't there?) It wasn't hard to guess which image to mouse-over, either; I got it on the first try! (-: The version as edited by Philosophus attributes the quotation correctly and meetsWP:V.Anville14:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
24hWilliam M. Connolley19:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onAtlantique_Incident (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Red_aRRow (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
[143]
Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 12:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
The said user hasalready been warned by adminUser:Ragib for 3rr and I've kindly pointed out that the sources don't say "stolen" which is his main grouse. I have also tried to include (in the last edit) what he has to add to by adding his external link but he is unable to point out the line where the word "stolen" occurs in the links he has provided and keeps reverting to his version. He has also been reverted by another user and keeps removing information regarding the background of the international case and accuses me of POV. Please help.Idleguy12:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- PS: Please some admin act with immediate effect. I made further compromises - without compromising factual accuracies - provided updated references and still he goes ahead and reverts. I'm feeling like throwing up in the face of blatant misrepresentation of facts. HELPIdleguy14:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Someone take action against this guy. I don't have much time left either. Admins, admins where are you ppl? Sorry if I'm being impatient. :|Idleguy06:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onShock and awe (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).ED_MD (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Time report made: 10:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments: ED MD was blocked a few days ago for 3RR violation by William M. Connolley (09:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:ED MD reported by User:Starcare (Result: 24h))
- Starcare has repeatedly attempted to place POV. Please see the talk page of shock and awe. If you notice, I have been developing the article and included source supported criticism, whereas, Starcare only wishes to place POV issues that did not have sources beyond blog references and half-truths. Here is the block from William M. Connolley[144]. Please read it over it. Starcare can only report "policy violations" becuase most of the editors disagree with him. Specifically, Starcare attempts to place the following line that has not references repeatedly: To some, shock and awe is equivalent to terrorism. To those in the US, such perceptions may be incomprehensible, but they are real and cannot be ignored.[1] Terrorism and shock and awe share in common the use of indiscriminate civilian deaths; for example, the March, 2003 bombing campaign killed more civilians in Baghdad than ever before.[2]
- If you read the links, they do not support what he is writing. He obviously is more skilled at wikipedia, as I am not to good with links and all, but really the problem person is Starcare and his insistence on attempting to place unsourced and extreme POV idea such as those from the "world socialist webpage" into the article.ED MD10:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Another example: Starcare has written: "The words "shock" and "awe" are in fact both synonyms of "terror." He attempts to use synonyms of a word to prove the point that Shock and Awe is terrorism. Other editors have commented that this is essentially original research since he has not found a link on the web that supports his claim. None of which Starcare has listened to. That is also on theShock and Awe talk page. Thanks.ED MD10:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Totally untrue -- I have been including sourced statements, and responding to ED MD's objections to them, and he has been simply reverting them, often without discussion. I set up acurrent survey which ED MD tried to game three different ways (see his previous 3RR violation above.) The claim that "most of the editors disagree with" me is particularly egregious since ED MD didn't have a single survey respondent in agreement with him until he decided tosolicit responses on his friends' talk pages. All the sources support the inclusions which ED MD is complaining about -- he is simply lying about this. The "synonyms" statement was supported by dictionary and thesarus links, as is perfectly clear onTalk:Shock and awe.Starcare11:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Again proof that Starcare thinks that he can make encylcopedic entries based not on references but on synonyms!!!!! (I'm actually laughing at that statement since it is so funny) In reference to the "survey" Starcare tried to distort my position that I opposed a "criticism" section. Since that time, I have written the "criticism of execution" section and the "causualties" section. His words are lies.Please read the article for youself and make the determination of who is contributing to the article in an unbiased way. Thanks.ED MD11:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Nope, I'm going to look at the edits and see who has broken 3RR. Which is EDMD. Please stick to the rulesWilliam M. Connolley17:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onCaste (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Yeditor (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 12:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments: The user Yeditor is continuing to vandalize and make personal attacks in my talk page. Please take action.Netaji12:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
12h for 3RR and pers attacksWilliam M. Connolley17:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onChristopher Michael Langan (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Philosophus (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Time report made: 13:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments:For the first edit here, I was trying to create an accurate wording for a paragraph on the documentary mainly based on the description on the production company's website, but addressing DrL's concerns about attribution. I certainly didn't intend to be seen as reverting a really non-controversial statement about Cannes, and that certainly wasn't disputed. Since Tim Smith seems concerned about it, I'll add it to the current version. --PhilosophusT13:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- In fact, the statement about Cannes was addedhere, then removedhere, then addedhere, and then removed again by Philosophus. That is very clearly a revert.Tim Smith13:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- If I inadvertently removed something that was undergoing an edit war when I made my new version of that paragraph, I apologize. It is back now. --PhilosophusT13:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the substance of that edit was to re-add a disputed quote which had been addedhere, removedhere, addedhere, removedhere, addedhere, and removedhere with a call to discuss further changes on the talk page. Attribution to the Web site had already been disputedhere, and the quote itself had been disputed as insensitive hype contrary to WP:LIVING. The edit was very clearly a revert.Tim Smith14:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please also note that 3RR blocks arepreventive. The discussion I read on the talk page led me to believe that DrL's problem with the quote was that it was attributed improperly, and that the website was unclear about its authorship, as it didn't have anything about who was operating it. I confirmed that the website was the website of Morris' production company, fixed the attribution, and also changed the content of the quote to make it include positive claims about Langan as well. If you see this as a revert, I apologize, but I saw this as an improvement of the paragraph that fixed the concerns DrL had, not a revert. We are discussing that paragraph on the talk page now. I am trying to get this paragraph into a state which follows NPOV and V while addressing DrL's concerns. --PhilosophusT14:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- When Philosophus re-added the disputed material, DrL had already noted that the Web site appeared to belong to a production company, and had already objected to the quote as insensitive hype contrary toWP:LIVING. DrL's last edit had called for talk-page discussion of further changes, but Philosophus reverted anyway. And that was hisfirst revert. He then madethree more, simply overriding DrL's edits and restoring his own versions when he knew perfectly well that DrL objected to them.Tim Smith15:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks like 4R to me... 24h. Remember, if in doubt, don't revertWilliam M. Connolley17:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onBulgaria (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Eliade (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log),159.148.3.187 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 14:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- The user insists on inserting the name Romanians before Vlachs despite the fact that Romanians and Vlachs are counted separately in the Bulgarian census. The anonymous user reverts to the same version as Eliade. /FunkyFly.talk_ 14:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- This is a false accusation. Actually /FunkyFly.talk_ was announced byuser:TodorBozhinovon his user talk page in order to come and break the 3R rule[151]. --Eliade14:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Don't forget that at least 3 other users didn't approve with the changes made by only 2 users (user:TodorBozhinov and /FunkyFly.talk_ ), alsoUser:Bogdangiusca,User:Eliade andUser:159.148.3.187 were against them.--Eliade14:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- One should see the I didn't even break the rule. There aren't any four edits at all, this is a lie, and yes, please don't count the edits of other 2 Users that agree with meUser:Bogdangiusca andUser:159.148.3.187. Cheers, --Eliade14:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- User:159.148.3.187 is an obvious sockpuppet, more than likely ofUser:Eliade. Investigation's in progresshere. Also, Bogdan did not agree with you, he was searching for a compromise but was possibly not familiar with my arguments.Todor→Bozhinov15:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- AlthoughUser:Eliade's edits are similar withUser:Bogdangiusca andUser:159.148.3.187 should not be taken into account.--Eliade16:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Your edits are not similar with those of Bogdangiusca. /FunkyFly.talk_ 16:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It's Bonaparte, see the behavioral evidencehere. —Khoikhoi18:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Blocked the anon. Dunno about the restWilliam M. Connolley20:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onThe Open Championship (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).PaddyBriggs (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Time report made: 17:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments:PaddyBriggs continues to add the word "incorrectly" in the intro paragraph, despite strong consensus on the talk page that's it's completely inappropriate. He also refuses to cite sources.Aren't I Obscure?17:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, this is just about 3RR... 8hWilliam M. Connolley20:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onLaDainian Tomlinson (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).TheTruth2 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Time report made: 19:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
TheTruth2 kept adding a PoV badly sourced paragraph inLaDainian Tomlinson. I warned him after the third revert but readded the paragraph. I might have broken 3rr as well so if I get blocked I don't mind but I stopped revert warning in the article. ThanksJarandawat's sup19:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours by Zscout370Jarandawat's sup21:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onBad Nenndorf (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).KarlV (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Comment: This user has previously been involved in edit wars on the German Wikipedia.
Time report made: 20:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- 2006-07-31 20:03:45 Samsara (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "KarlV (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation at Bad Nenndorf)William M. Connolley22:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
3RR violation atAnimal rights (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) byDocEss (talk ·contribs)
Reported bySlimVirgin(talk)20:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment:
These are straightforward reverts,four six inless than an hour. User was warned about 3RR three times.[157][158][159]
He does not appear to be editing in good faith; one of his edit summaries was "Animals have the right to be TASTY."[160]
- He has since reverted twice more, against three editors.SlimVirgin(talk)20:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- And again.SlimVirgin(talk)20:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
24h, even if its badly formatted. Are you a newbie :-)?William M. Connolley20:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onMelinda Halliwell.72.235.172.197 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Time report made: 00:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments:This user has repeatedly added back in the same information, right or wrong, in an inappropriate part of the page. No matter who reverts them, they say that they will keep adding in the information. User warned on talk pageUser talk:72.235.172.197 by various editors.
Three revert rule violation onSlavic translations of the Bible (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Filip_M (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 04:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments:The user has been inserting Macedonian language as a heading of the section, despite the fact that it is an anchronism in the context of the 19th century. It was not acknowledged as a language until early 20th century. /FunkyFly.talk_ 04:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- 24 hours.SlimVirgin(talk)14:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on2006 Colorado Buffaloes football team (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) andThree revert rule violation on2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) and alsoThree revert rule violation onMelora Walters (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).ed_g2s (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Colorado:
Time report made: 07:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Oklahoma:
Time report made: 14:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Melora Walters
- Previous version reverted to, if applicable: Partial revert to[161]
Time report made: 14:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments: This user is a sysop, he was not warned because:
- He had already violated 3RR
- 3RR is generally something he holds sacred and should know not to break it him self.
- He is an admin, he behaved inappropriatley.
- Has made 3 3RR vios in 24H.
I have presented 5 reverts above.MatthewFenton (contribs)07:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Just a note but this user often gets into revert wars. And as a sysop he should be a role model.MatthewFenton (contribs)14:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Edited above to add 2nd RR vio.MatthewFenton (contribs)14:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Repeated copyright violations. These are not content disputes, and so have to be dealt with.ed g2s •talk14:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- You violated 3RR three times, accept it!MatthewFenton (contribs)14:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Also you seem to believe they are copyvios even tho each time you have been proven wrong, 3rd has a FUR.MatthewFenton (contribs)14:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The rationale was for a different page, and even there it was a bit weak.ed g2s •talk14:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe you believe it was weak however this is not the problem, please do not divert attention from the fact that you violated 3RR 3 times in 24H!MatthewFenton (contribs)14:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- 3RR doesn't apply to "copyright vandalism". Although it is a harsh term, you have been told several time the image is not usable on the page as is.ed g2s •talk15:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Again stop diverting attention Edward, you have been told again and again tehse are not cv's and have been asked to converse. This abuse will not be tolerated.MatthewFenton (contribs)15:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- User also refered for action hereWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ed_g2s_is_not_being_civil. Frequent requests to stop until dispute is solved via mediator are not being heeded. --MECU≈talk15:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- As an administrator, I offer my opinion that these are not copyright violations. These images have been discussed and found to be fair use. Ed doesn't like that consensus, so he is acting unilaterally to try to remove them. He is hiding behind a bogus claim of removing copyright vandalism, when this is really improper behaviour on Ed's part.Johntex\talk15:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- May i also add he could of avoided a vio of all three 3RRs if he had be willing to converse.MatthewFenton (contribs)15:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for a week. He's supposed to be a role model, but breaking the same policy three times in one day is not on.Will(Take me down to theParadise City)15:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'd like to ask you to reconsider this block and instead refer this matter toWP:RFC. It is not obvious to me that removing images in violation ofWP:FUC should be treated as a content dispute, and we very much do not need to create a climate in which the few admins willing to do image cleanup work have to worry about being punitively blocked for it. At the very least, I'd like you to discuss the matter with Ed g2s and evaluate whether or not the user is a danger to the project.Jkelly15:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I believe the block was fair, if he was unblocked it would be extremley unfair to those users who really have accidentley violated 3RR yet accept there block and wait it out. I also believe that it could of been a bit longer as three 3RRs is extremley distirbing especially in less then 24H.
- As a role model Ed should be duely punished and wait out his block. I my self consider him a bad role model and would (myself) liek to see his powers removed even more after this extreme 3RR vio.MatthewFenton (contribs)15:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Same. I think that at the very worst case, 1 week is extraordinarily harsh. Ed has never been blocked before for anything.Syrthiss15:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ed has never been blocked before because no one has stood up to him, now he has been caught red handed. It is not just one user asking him to stop it is numerous. I think he should take this week to cool down and reconsider his role in wikipedia. He could even try to improove the project for the better.MatthewFenton (contribs)15:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I don't want to diminish JKelly's opinion in any way, as I respect JKelly's opinion and contributions. However, I do wish to point out that JKelly has been involved in the discussion over these images and has expressed his opinion that the images are copyright violations. That is his opinion and Ed's but it is not shared by everyone. I happen to also be an administrator, I do work both on uploading usable images and removing those that are not usable. It is my opinion that JKelly and Ed are wrong on this. I just want to point out that JKelly is not completely uninvolved in this matter. I think a one-week block is appropriate. Ed needs to cool down and learn to discuss these things before being so convinced that he knows best.Johntex\talk15:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't want to diminish yours or JKelly's opinions, but also as an administrator with NO stake in this, I feel thats extraordninarily harsh. At least one other admin (Johnleemk) agreed with Ed, and I'd much rather see the project protected from liability than err on the side of having a pretty page.Syrthiss15:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Your comment could be considerd bias, as why should a sysop be blocked for less time then a user when he has commited worse crimes then some users. If anything the block should be longer then an avg. user as he is expected to be a role model.MatthewFenton (contribs)16:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
You don't need to ask me to reduce the block, just do it if you feel it should be, but please, don't get into a wheel war.Will(Take me down to theParadise City)16:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Honestly, I'm not an admin and I'm against Ed on this matter but even I feel a one week ban to be overly harsh. I wasn't expecting anything for 3 days. The fact of the matter is is several of us completely disagree with Ed's interpretation on his particular matter but he does do a lot of work that not many other people want to do on Wikipedia. I think his banishment should come down to no lower that 24 hours and preferably 3 days.--NMajdan•talk16:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I ask if his block is shortend that it be reduced to no less then 4 days, as he is an admin and has caused extreme disruption.MatthewFenton (contribs)16:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not going to touch the block, as "what the right thing to do" and "what consensus is" appear to be in conflict to me; the perfect ingredients for a wheel war. I'd like you to reconsider, or to involve more people in the discussion.Jkelly16:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think the block is possibly too long, since his input would be needed in the discussion of whether these images are being used correctly. I would support removal of the block after 24 hours, if and only if ed agrees to refrain from making further removal of images in dispute until the matter is solved, specifically to allow him to contribute to the discussion that needs to occur. --MECU≈talk16:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
This is utterly absurd. None of edits have been content disputes. All the images used are in clear violation of our policy. Images must be used for critical commentary. I would expect other administrators to investigate the matter a bit more thoroughly before handing out pointless blocks.ed g2s •talk16:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- The fact you call your block absurd shows you dont care for policy much.MatthewFenton (contribs)16:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Also please do not edit while you are blocked, as you are blocked so it is wrong to edit.MatthewFenton (contribs)16:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- FreakofNurture has lowered the duration of the block to 24 hours. The fact that Ed calls the block absurd is a sure indication that a one day block is not sufficient to teach him that his interpretation is not the only one. I request that his block be extended either back to the original one week, or at least to 3 days as has been suggested here. Admins should demonstrate better behavior than Ed is displaying.Johntex\talk18:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think the ban should be three days. He is an admin which means he should know better and set an example. Also, lets not forget he did violate the 3RR policy three times in one day! And yet he receives the same punishment as those who violated the policy once.--NMajdan•talk18:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm guessing this wasn't extended. An admin violates the rule three times in 24 hours and gets the same punishment as someone who violated it once.--NMajdan•talk14:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onHuman_rights_in_Israel (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Time report made: 08:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Member engages in revert warring on several articles he has taken personal ownership of.
- Member reverts without discussion on article talk page.
- Member has removed warnings several times from his user page, and "relatiates" with warnings on others pages.
--Oiboy7708:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
When the system wasn't working right I kept trying to edit the article but for some reason it wouldn't register, when it started working again all the attempts must have worked at the same time. I guess Sarastro was doing the same thing I was and so it looked like a revert war when both of us thought we were only making one reversion.-Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg |Talk08:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- If this was the case, it would be quite improbable that thetiming would match exactly that of an edit war (revert by 1, revert by 2, revert by 1, revert by 2, revert by 1, revert by 2, revert by 1 (breaking 3RR)). —xyzzyn08:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Think about it, we both kept clicking the button over and over again, so even if I clicked it twice and then Sarastro clicked it once, and then I clicked it twice again, it would still register as I made one edit then Sarastro made one then I made another. I have been editing on wikipedia for a long time, I would not knowingly make such an obvious violation of the 3RR policy. If you ask Sarastro he will probably say the same thing as me.-Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg |Talk08:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- So your computer rememberd four submissions and then went back in time to submit the other 3, i dont know how you could make multiple submissions at the time you say it was broken?MatthewFenton (contribs)09:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with my computer. The system I was referring to was wikipedia, if you look at the record if it exists WP was updating software or something during that period, when both me and Sarastro kept clicking thesave page button Wikipedia was backed up (although the time that we clicked the button was also saved), when it starting working again all the edits came back at the same time and made it look like a revert war occured that actually hadn't.-Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg |Talk09:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Oiboy's points. This user habitually reverts large amounts of info without discussion or explanation -[162][163].Deuterium09:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you feel the edit summary was so inadequate, but it should be obvious that when one inserts an inappropriate amount of pov into an article then "rv pov" should be an understandable response.-Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg |Talk10:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- First, it is disingenuous of Oiboy77 to make such report. As a new user, he was repeatedly forgiven for doing all kinds of mischief. Second, this is politically motivated, as MCHAS was not alone but Oiboy77 reported him only. See the article's history. Third, I don't know exactly what happened and how, but there was WP system upgrade a couple hours ago. I was prevented from editing. ←Humus sapiensну?09:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I had a similar problem a few hours ago. I kept trying to save an edit that appeared not to be taking; when the server problems stopped, I saw the same edit had been made about six times. It's easy to see how an apparent 3RR violation could happen between two editors both repeatedly saving the same edits, not realizing that they were being saved.SlimVirgin(talk)09:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is utterly ridiculous- please stop making excuses and accept a 3RR block for Moshe Constantine just as everyone else has to accept it, regardless of supposed server hiccups, mistake or provocation.Arniep14:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Peoplecan be blocked in cases of mistakes ("I lost count") or provocation, but should never be blocked simply because server problems cause the history to show more reverts than they intentionally made.AnnH♫19:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Just from looking at what happened, I completely believe MCHAS. While he and the other user from the "edit war" may indeed disagree, neither of them has shown a propensity for this sort of warring waithout proper discussion. Furthermore, Oiboy77 is a known vandal with mutiple blocks and warnings who seems to bring these sort of accusations for sport. He is the worst kind of troll and anything he alleges should be treated with a large dose of suspicion.Schrodingers Mongoose16:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Just have a look at ALL the users who have commented on the one. You will find a strange pattern. They seem to be protecting one anothers posts. All editing articled dealing with Israel. The 3RR applies to everyone. Not just a few people.
If you notice also if he just pressed the button 3 times as he claims. The reverts would all be the same. This is not the case each revert has minor changes in things like punctuation or one or two extra words.--Oiboy7718:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Just a note:User:Sarastro777 would need to be included as well in this, as the reverts were of each other:
(cur) (last) 00:21, August 1, 2006 Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (Talk | contribs | block) (rv) (cur) (last) 00:05, August 1, 2006 Sarastro777 (Talk | contribs | block) (→Declaration of Independence - Put in notable omission from Balfour which slanted entire piece) (cur) (last) 00:03, August 1, 2006 Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (Talk | contribs | block) (rv) (cur) (last) 00:02, August 1, 2006 Sarastro777 (Talk | contribs | block) (→Declaration of Independence - Put in notable omission from Balfour which slanted entire piece) (cur) (last) 00:00, August 1, 2006 Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (Talk | contribs | block) (rv) (cur) (last) 23:56, July 31, 2006 Sarastro777 (Talk | contribs | block) (→Declaration of Independence - Put in notable omission from Balfour which slanted entire piece) (cur) (last) 23:52, July 31, 2006 Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (Talk | contribs | block) (rv to Humus sapiens and also removing other pov and weasel words) (cur) (last) 23:42, July 31, 2006 Sarastro777 (Talk | contribs | block) (→Declaration of Independence - Put in notable omission from Balfour which slanted entire piece) (cur) (last) 21:14, July 31, 2006 Humus sapiens (Talk | contribs | block) (→United Nations - UNCHR is replaced with UNHRC)
And further, seeTalk:Human rights in Israel#Edit war and 3RR where both MCHAS and Sarastro agree that it was likely a database failure. --Avi18:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I had the same thing happen a couple of weeks ago even without a server problem. I was making a series of small changes, saving between each one, and unknown to me another editor was undoing them as I was going along. So I would save, go back to editing, see my edit hadn't "taken" (or thinking I'd somehow forgotten to do it), and I'd make it again. The other editor was doing the same thing: reverting, checking, seeing that his revert hadn't "taken," (because I had redone the edit), and reverted again. Either the edit conflict thing wasn't working, or we were inadvertently timing our edits precisely between the other's. Anyway, it looked like a revert war, but it was just a series of misunderstandings.SlimVirgin(talk)18:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Explanation accepted. No block.AnnH♫19:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is a complete nonsense. Moshe's 1st edit was at 3:52, the 2nd at 4:00, the 3rd at 4:03, the 4th at 4:21- how can you possibly say that was not 4 reverts? Both he and Sarastro should be blocked.Arniep19:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- WP:AGF. Is it so hard to imagine that at least one or two of these clicks were due to the maintenance? ←Humus sapiensну?01:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Especially since the third one is just three minutes after the second one, and has an identical edit summary (as does the fourth one).AnnH♫12:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onLouis Farrakhan.Chifumbe (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 13:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User three times removed a category tag, and twice reverted edits by IronDuke. Fifth revert took place after user was warned.
- 24 hours.SlimVirgin(talk)14:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Macedonism
Three revert rule violation onMacedonism (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).ElevatedStork (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Comments:Nature of reverts explained above. /FunkyFly.talk_ 17:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Bulgaria
Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Comments:The user has persistently included the Turkish name of Bulgaria, depite the fact that Turkish is not an official language in the country. /FunkyFly.talk_ 20:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
He is reverting without discussing!!!ElevatedStork20:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Let me explain that turkish is an official language in Bulgaria. I provided sources. Funkyfly was reverting without checking the talk page.ElevatedStork
1. I did self revert onMacedonism. --ElevatedStork20:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Let me explain that Turkish is an official language in Bulgaria. I provided sources. Funkyfly was reverting without checking the talk page.
3. In fact I didn't broke the 3RR onBulgaria. --ElevatedStork20:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Why? Because:
- 1. I inserted information
- 2. revert
- 3. revert
- 4. revert
- And he (FunkyFly) he has put the previous version as "12th july".ElevatedStork20:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Its actually a bit earlier. Make sure you read therule next time before you start reverting. /FunkyFly.talk_ 20:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not true, your first "addition" was actually a revert to an earlier version. And I did attempt to discuss it. /FunkyFly.talk_ 20:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Btw, Turkish is not official in Bulgaria. The constitution of the country defines Bulgarian as the only official language, and that cannot be overriden by some website. /FunkyFly.talk_ 21:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- What's the situation now? Is ElevatedStork still engaged in revert warring, or have the 3RR violations both been self-reverted? Whether the edit being reverted to is a good one or not is not really the issue.Jkelly21:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- User made their last edit at 20:49, 1 August 2006 — further note, as the user points out they bought this up onTalk:Bulgaria but received no reply. It seems FunkyFly was reverting without any kind of discussion. Perhaps if he'd supplied a source to counter this the war might not have gone on so long. -FrancisTyers·21:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- There is the source[166]. You cannot deny there are four reverts in less than 24 hrs. /FunkyFly.talk_ 21:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I must admit that is quite a bit of hunting you've done. Are you sure that the edits on the24th January and the edits on the1st August are the same user — or that the user was even aware of that "previous version". Might they not perhaps be two different users who had the same source trying to add the same information? Thanks for your source, but you still should have mentioned it on the talk page of the article when requested, it may have put an end to this farce. -FrancisTyers·22:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes well, that's why the policy reminds "When in doubt, do not revert". There is nothing restricting the usage of a previous version. Even so, there might be a fresher one. The user was warned on at least four occasions though. /FunkyFly.talk_ 22:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- You didn't point out that ancient version. -FrancisTyers·22:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- What are you arguing about? I gave him plenty of warnings. /FunkyFly.talk_ 22:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Blocking is preventative not punative. If the user has stopped reverting and you're trying to get them blocked using an 8 month old version of the article then thats pretty poor form. -FrancisTyers·23:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- So are you going to impose extra restrictions on the 3RR, or you're feeling free to interpret it in your own way, as well as interpret my motivation? Answer this - did he or did he not break the rule? /FunkyFly.talk_ 23:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- You misunderstand the purposes of the 3RR, seeWP:3RR, "Blocking is always preventative, not punitive. Historical incidents are of no interest — please do not report anything other than current and ongoing problems." Also take heed of, "The fact that usersmay be blocked for excessive reverting does not necessarily mean that they will be blocked. Equally, reverting fewer than four times may result in a block depending on context." and "Use common sense; don't participate in an edit war. Rather than exceeding the three-revert limit, discuss the matter with other editors. "
- Instead of discussing your reversions on the talk page, you chose to simply "warn" the user and continue edit warring. What you did smacks ofgaming the system. The user no longer appears to be a threat, and has self-reverted in at least one instance before stopping editing. Ergo, why is the block required? -FrancisTyers·23:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- If you look at the history, you'll see agressive edit warring on his behalf. Just because he's stopped now it does not mean he wont resume in the future. You are yet to show where he self-reverted. Gaming the system is nothing but guidelines, anyway dont see where you're going with it. Making accusations? Nice defence though. /FunkyFly.talk_ 23:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- And if the user starts again, then they can be blocked. -FrancisTyers·23:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Furthermore, don't consider I am defending or condoning this behaviour. The both of you have edit warred in this case, and should one be blocked I would imagine the other should too. -FrancisTyers·23:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- You are saying this only because you were directly involved in editing the article and therefore biased. /FunkyFly.talk_ 23:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Which is why I'm neither closing this report, nor blocking either of you. -FrancisTyers·23:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, so we have the second time edit war Francis ammendment? OK, I'll keep it in mind for future refence. I admit I might have been thrown off by the four or five edit wars by started by that user in short succession. /FunkyFly.talk_ 23:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- One might say thatyou started the edit war when you removed cited information without discussion. -FrancisTyers·23:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I gave an edit summary. Later I gave a source. /FunkyFly.talk_ 23:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- After you'd filed this report. -FrancisTyers·23:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Better late than never. Anyway, there has been a discussion about that in the talk page, which was not read by the user obviously. /FunkyFly.talk_ 23:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- At least in Bulgaria the issue still remains. I'll check on the other aticle. /FunkyFly.talk_ 21:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
And now to bed. Until tomorrow. -FrancisTyers·23:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- One more curious thing, since you opened up the topic of gaming the system and systematically reverting, how come you letthis comment slide? Were you blissfully unaware of the edit wars Cigor participated in? /FunkyFly.talk_ 00:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Case closed. Sock of Bonaparte. /FunkyFly.talk_ 15:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Time report made: 17:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onRepublika Srpska (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Svetislav Jovanović (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Time report made: 18:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments: All changes are simillar.
No block, only 3 reverts in a 24 hour period, the others are over 2 weeks oldJarandawat's sup20:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onAzerbaijan Democratic Republic (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Eupator (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 19:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
This user has been previuosly blocked for 3RR violation and is aware of the rule.Grandmaster19:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
AsWilliam M. Connolley said before,"Protection pretty well implies no 3RR block."[174]. The articleAzerbaijan Democratic Republic has been protected. Otherwise, we would have to block other users for violating the 3RR on that very article (such asUser:Plato77).--TigranTheGreat00:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onChinese people (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Edipedia (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Time report made: 23:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Three revert rule violation onWikipedia:Schools (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Schools|talk]] |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).A Man In Black (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
- Previous version reverted to:05:37, August 2, 2006 (note: not always to this version, but always to one of his prior versions)
- 1st revert:05:46, August 2, 2006
- 2nd revert:07:10, August 2, 2006
- 3rd revert:07:11, August 2, 2006
- 4th revert:07:20, August 2, 2006
There were four reverts for the same article, but not always to the same version. --Rob07:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Comments:
- As a sysop this user needs to be punished. He as a sysop should know not to violate 3RR or edit war.MatthewFenton (contribs)08:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This looks like a violation under the "any revert counts" clause. I'veasked the user to self-revert.Jkelly16:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
It's moot. The proposal has been rewritten. -A Man InBl♟ck(conspire |past ops)23:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't reporting you for making a proposal (which I welcome), so the fact it's been changed is irrelevant. The above report, is related to disruptive behaviour, in violation of policy. The appropriate measure is a 24 hour block. Admins shouldn't get special treatment. --Rob23:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- 3RR blocks are preventative instead of punitive, and the issue is wholly moot. Neither version is significantly reflected in the current form, and there's no edit war ongoing. -A Man InBl♟ck(conspire |past ops)03:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
A block now who be completely punitive, and be of no benefit to the project.ed g2s •talk17:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onForeign_relations_of_Israel (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Deuterium (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
- Previous version reverted to:07:33, July 31, 2006
- 1st revert:04:48, August 1, 2006
- 2nd revert:09:17, August 1, 2006
- 3rd revert:09:33, August 1, 2006
- 4th revert:04:52, August 2, 2006
Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :
- The warning is not necessary because the user was previously blocked for 3RR violations.
Time report made: 08:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments: The 4th revert was done 24 hours and 4 minutes after the first one, which is a clear case of 3RR gaming.PecherTalk08:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- The rules say 4 reverts in 24 hours, not 4 reverts in 24 hours and 4 minutes. And it doesn't say that users accused of "gaming the system" can be summarily blocked.Deuterium
- Result:Blocked for 24 hours for gaming the system, there are 4 reverts in 24 hours and 4 minutes. --PinchasC |£€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€18:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onChristianity (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Biblical1 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :
- 10:36 1 August (also check thetwo edit summaries in the diff for the fourth revert)
Time report made: 12:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Account registered on 24 July. Because he was a new user, I ensured that he knew of the rulebefore his fourth revert, and then offered him a chanceafter it to avoid a block by self reverting. He said he didn't know how to self revert. (It wasn't complicated, as it did not involve a whole page revert, just the insertion or removal of a particular paragraph.) I explained how, and he made a very unconvincing show of trying to.[175] I explained that he had simply removed a full stop, and told him again how to revert the page. He then said that he would not revert it, apparently because he had looked upmy interests and had seen "Catholic theology and lives of saints", and stated that if I banned him he would "record [my] name and state the relevant facts."[176]. For full exchange, seehere andhere.AnnH♫12:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for 12 hours. --Avi15:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Tasc (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :
User has also been warned before about the Three Revert Rule.
Time report made: 12:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- don't forget to report yourself and your friends. -- tasc wordsdeeds13:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onIsrael and the United Nations (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).86.27.55.184 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 13:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments:Not only is this an example of 3RR, it is also a POV issue. Annan's statement is as much his opinion as are the reports painting Annan to be anti-Israel. More importantly, this section is the section about the UN's anti-Israel bias. The interpretation of Annan's statement, backed up byfour citations from reliable, reputable, and well-known peridocals and papers, not just blogs, including the written statement by the Chief of Staff for the United Nations Protection Force or UNPROFOR, demonstrates that this is pertinent to the section. Not only should86.27.55.184 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·filter log ·WHOIS ·RDNS ·RBLs ·http ·block user ·block log) be sanctioned for 3RR, the article should be reverted tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel_and_the_United_Nations&oldid=67124049 to show this sourced, reliable, and pertinent information. --Avi13:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
There may also be evidence of votestalking:
--Avi13:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
User isstill trying to push their POV, by moving the section after deleting the well-sourced evidence:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel_and_the_United_Nations&curid=479389&diff=67256772&oldid=67242140
--Avi16:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
This may also prove useful:Talk:Israel and the United Nations#Annan's statement --Avi16:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
2006-08-02 19:46:52 Jaranda (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "86.27.55.184 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 12 hours (3rr on Israel and the United Nations)William M. Connolley19:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
What I see, Avi broke 3rr as well by rollback reverting FayssalF. I saw four non-vandalism reverts in less than 24 hours. I blocked him for 8 hours.Jarandawat's sup19:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- How naughty - reporting someone else when you're guilty of the self same "offence". Thanks for being fair.86.27.55.18422:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Repeated insistence on changing longstanding consensus version of the introduction to the article ontruth.
- Was warned after three reverts, yet presses on despite notifications of the consensus and explanation on the talk page
Stevertigo was notified on the talk page after the third revert. This is an experienced user who really should know better.
Kenosis19:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Seems clear enough. 24hWilliam M. Connolley19:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Ford&diff=67269710&oldid=67267472 of 17:17, 2 August 2006 (edit) removal of cite tags
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Ford&diff=67271376&oldid=67271325 as of 17:28, 2 August 2006 (editremoval of reference to Detroit News interviewRevision
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Ford&diff=67271431&oldid=67271376 Revision as of 17:28, 2 August 2006 (editremoval of Logsdon quote, replacement with different quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Ford&diff=67279260&oldid=67275703 Revision as of 18:12, 2 August 2006 Removal of Longsdon quote
Warning:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rjensen&diff=67272628&oldid=67212683 Revision as of 17:35, 2 August 2006 (edit)
Three revert rule violation onHenry Ford (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Rjensen (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 20:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User made two of these reverts after he was warned to watch for 3RR. User has been blocked four times in the past for 3RR violations in other articles. Suggest one week block.
Note: Complaint is pending against this editor in AN/I.[179] Was not aware of that when I lodged this complaint.--Mantanmoreland00:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- RJensen comments: I have made hundreds of edits to the Henry Ford article over the last 6 months or so--for example I provided almost all of the bibliography and summary. When asked for cites today I replaced the[citation needed] code with the citation, as requested. I removed (once) a duplicate sentence. I removed (twice) a long quote from an undergraduate, explaining it was not Wiki quality. All actions fully explained on the talk page.
- As can be seen, this edit shows the cite tags removed, not replaced with proper cites, with the explanation in the edit summary that the book "has a good index." The talk page does indeed show how Rjensen's conduct was upbraided by user Jayjg.--Mantanmoreland20:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello - I reported yesterday on another board that Rjensen also violated 3-Reverts six times on another article. I'm told this is a better place to report it. He seems to be a chronic violator of this rule and has already started revert warring again today, though not at 3...yet. Here are the ones where he did 6 in less than 24 hr.
- [180] - Revert #1 at 06:27, 17 July 2006
- [181] Revert #2 at 06:43, 17 July 2006
- [182] Revert #3 at 06:53, 17 July 2006
- [183] Revert #4 at 06:59, 17 July 2006
- [184] Revert #5 at 07:21, 17 July 2006 Rjensen
- [185] Revert #6 at 07:46, 17 July 2006
Thank you. -MightyMo
- Even though the above reverts were a couple of weeks ago, I believe that they were recent enough to be taken into consideration in imposing a penalty on this editor. Note that his last block was July 1.--Mantanmoreland22:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Rjensen comments. Mantanmoreland seems to be pretty busy tracking me down--he's put a lot of working looking though the 1000 or so edits I did in the last couple weeks. Perhaps he can explain why he's doing all that work regarding articles he has never even looked at before? In the Confederate States business I actually called for a RFC on July 17 to solve that little edit war, but the other person vanished.Rjensen22:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- The stuff about your 3RR violations inConfederate States of America was added byUser:MightyMo, not myself. I have never even read that article.--Mantanmoreland23:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- My apologies to user Mantanmoreland for misreading his record.Rjensen23:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Please note that, as alluded to by User:MightyMo above, there is already a separate AN/I complaint against User:Rjensen[186] now pending, also involving 3RR and edit warring.--Mantanmoreland00:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onChinese people (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Edipedia (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Time report made: 21:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Three revert rule violation onRace and intelligence (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).JereKrischel (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
- Excuse me, this wasn't a revert, this was an attempt at compromise wording:
URL from original version cited, to version cited as a revert --JereKrischel
- This was not a revert either (to either the original cite, or to the previous version:URL from previous version cited as "2nd Revert" to version cited as "3rd Revert" --JereKrischel
- This was the first revert:cited "3rd revert" compared to cited "4th revert" --JereKrischel
Time report made: 22:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- This was the second revert:
cited "4th revert" compared to cited "5th revert" --JereKrischel
Courtesy notice of 3RR reporting given at22:42, 2 August 2006
- This was another attempt at compromise wording:cited "5th revert" compared to new compromise version --JereKrischel
- This was another attempt at compromise wording:
"6th revert" compared to new compromise version --JereKrischel
Comments:
- 3 other users opposed my edits, but they were not reverts. --[[User:JereKrischel|JereKrischel]
- Will you please reconsider in light of the evidence? I did not 3RR, I reverted at most 2 times, and after that tried to find compromise wording. --JereKrischel
- WP:3RR policy is technically "Do not revert any single page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours, except in the case of obvious, simple vandalism." In my opinion, even under a liberal interpretation of policy the above links meet the criteria of reverts: reverts to "according to their model," "they predicted," and "their model showed" are for these purposes the same.--Admissions20:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Block evasion is not permitted. If you wish to contest the block please provide a clear account on your talk page. Thanks.El_C20:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onSteven E. Jones (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).B3X11 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 00:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments: All times are PDT (UTC -07:00)--teb72800:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation onAMC Matador (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Wiarthurhu (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):
- Previous version reverted to:22:40, July 24, 2006
- 1st revert:23:19, August 2, 2006
- 2nd revert:01:16, August 3, 2006
- 3rd revert:01:27, August 3, 2006
- 4th revert:02:20, August 3, 2006
- 5th revert:02:46, August 3, 2006
Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :
Time report made: 02:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments:User has repeatedly inserted information and multiple photos of models he has built/bought, into an article about the AMC Matador. Consensus on thearticle's discussion page was that the information was poorly formatted and did not contribute anything about the car itself, and was removed. The editor has repeatedly reinserted it many times, culminating in a 3RR violation today.
