Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions
→[[User:71.242.208.204]]: yes but |
|||
Line 1,108: | Line 1,108: | ||
*** You and these IPs have been tag-team revert warring with Edward_NZ, so I'm not sure what you want us to assume. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 08:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC) |
*** You and these IPs have been tag-team revert warring with Edward_NZ, so I'm not sure what you want us to assume. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 08:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC) |
||
**** Uh, good faith? I've never been accused of (nor blocked for) sockpuppetry before. There is absolutely '''zero''' reason to assume anything about my actions here. Yours on the other hand are a textbook example of [[WP:STALK]]; continue this and I'll make a seperate complaint to [[WP:AN/I]]. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 09:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC) |
**** Uh, good faith? I've never been accused of (nor blocked for) sockpuppetry before. There is absolutely '''zero''' reason to assume anything about my actions here. Yours on the other hand are a textbook example of [[WP:STALK]]; continue this and I'll make a seperate complaint to [[WP:AN/I]]. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 09:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC) |
||
*****For the record, the IP 67.42.93.179 in question here are my home connection (Well, I may recycle it now), and I am not [[User:Locke Cole]], nor do I know him or have spoken or otherwise communicated with him. That we have ''some'' of the same opinions and both live in Washington State are coincidence. [[User:131.30.121.23|131.30.121.23]] 22:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC) |
*****For the record, the IP 67.42.93.179 in question here are my home connection (Well, I may recycle it now), and I am not [[User:Locke Cole]], nor do I know him or have spoken or otherwise communicated with him. That we have ''some'' of the same opinions and both live in Washington State are coincidence. In any case, if you look at [[User:Locke Cole]]'s comments and mine, you will see that I do not have much of a knowledge about Wikipedia rules (but I can smell BS), and so his arguments should at least have more weight than mine, which are clearly a bit more emotional... [[User:131.30.121.23|131.30.121.23]] 22:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC) |
||
===[[User:Zarbon]]=== |
===[[User:Zarbon]]=== |
Revision as of 22:08, 16 February 2006
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard | ||
---|---|---|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
| ||
Violations
Three revert rule violation on Mark Levin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). :
- 1st revert: Revision as of 04:57, 12 February 2006
- 2nd revert: Revision as of 20:20, 12 February 2006 UTC
- 3rd revert: Revision as of 20:25, 12 February 2006 UTC
- 4th revert: Revision as of 20:53, 12 February 2006 UTC
- 5th revert: Revision as of 21:57, 12 February 2006 UTC
- 6th revert: Revision as of 22:25, 12 February 2006 UTC
- 7th revert: Revision as of 00:50, 13 February 2006 UTC
Reported by Eleemosynary 21:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Anonymous user has also been reported for vandalism. Article in question is a political radio show host, and the ensuing edit war is not uncommon in Wikipedia. However, a glance at some comments about the anonymous user's activities on the Article and Talk Pages [1] should help illuminate things. Eleemosynary 21:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Typhoid Mary (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DrBat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- 1st revert: Revision as of 20:58, 7 February 2006 UTC
- 2nd revert: Revision as of 21:41, 7 February 2006 UTC
- 3rd revert: Revision as of 22:01, 7 February 2006 UTC
- 4th revert: Revision as of 20:24, 8 February 2006 UTC
Reported by: AriGold 13:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Unless you have proof that the anonymous user and DrBat are the same person, I'm afraid this doesn't count as a 3RR violation. howcheng {chat} 17:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 17:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- It's not an anonymous user anymore. He just reverted it again under his own name, but I did the check anyway, thanks. [Here] AriGold 20:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 17:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I asked him to give up his image. If he persists, then I'll impose a block on him. howcheng {chat} 22:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
AriGold; 1)I'll expect an apology from you when its confirmed the anon-IP isn't me.
2)The fourth reversion happened a day later than the first three reversions (Feb. 8, while the first three were on the seventh). If I'm not mistaken, I thought the limit was 3 reversions per a day? If not, you broke the 3RR limit as well. --DrBat 23:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- It's a limit of 3 reversions within a 24 hour period, not per calendar day. AriGold did indeed break it, but I'm hoping that instead of just doling out punishments the issue is resolved and we'll leave it at that. howcheng {chat} 00:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Howcheng, reverting vandalism more than 3 times is a violation? All I was doing was reverting the picture back to its original form while DrBat kept reuploading and inserting versions of his picture that has just been deleted. AriGold 13:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- DrBat, if you are not 201.17.89.78, I do apologize. And you reverted it more than 3 times in 24 hours, which is a no no. AriGold 13:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- This isn't vandalism -- it's a content dispute over which image should be used. I'm assuming good faith that when DrBat says the new image is different from the deleted image, it's different. howcheng {chat} 17:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- This all started with two images. His image of artwork was deleted in favor of mine that was the comic cover. Then, he proceeded to reupload the artwork images and keep inserting it, and I kept changing it back to the comic cover. That is reverting vandalism, as far as I can tell. AriGold 19:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- It was deleted because you said that the image was modifed, which wasn't true at all (and despite all my proof, you refused to believe it until after the image was deleted). It was deleted on false pretenses. And the second image I uploaded was a different version (if you notice, it lacked the exposed nipple of the original version. I also posted both images on the WikiComics project post, if you want to compare.)
- And regardless, it wasn't vandalism. Vandalism is "any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia". If anything, your edits are vandalism for repacing high-quality images with poor, low-quality images. Why you insist on replacing decent images with ugly images that only hurt the article is beyond me.--DrBat 22:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- It was deleted because I said that the image was used on a comic cover and the consensus was that the cover itself was better use. I see you've been following what everyone has told you and gone and changed the pics to the actual covers, do you not understand that that was my point? I seriously wish you would understand that and we could move on. You are a great contributor and I think you took my challenge of your contribution too personally. AriGold 22:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- It wasn't personal, I just thought that your image was of a poor quality, and it detracted from the article. --DrBat 02:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- This all started with two images. His image of artwork was deleted in favor of mine that was the comic cover. Then, he proceeded to reupload the artwork images and keep inserting it, and I kept changing it back to the comic cover. That is reverting vandalism, as far as I can tell. AriGold 19:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- This isn't vandalism -- it's a content dispute over which image should be used. I'm assuming good faith that when DrBat says the new image is different from the deleted image, it's different. howcheng {chat} 17:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- This user has AGAIN reuploaded the image that was deleted and reinserted it into the Typhoid Mary article despite the opinions of 3 mods! AriGold 15:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lumiere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
- 1st revert: [2:36 8 Feb]
- 2nd revert: [3:24 8 Feb]
- 3rd revert: [4:18 8 Feb]
- 4th revert: [7:21 8 Feb]
Reported by: Sethie 15:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Given this edit, it seems to me that Lumière is open to compromise, so I'll let him off with a warning. Next time, please use m:Diffs when reporting 3RR violations. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 17:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Mariah Carey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 204.110.99.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 14:55, 6 February 2006
- 1st revert: 14:45, 7 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 17:17, 7 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 19:27, 7 February 2006
- 4th revert: 09:37, 8 February 2006
Reported by: Extraordinary Machine 17:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User fails to cite sources for his/her edits or discuss them, even after being requested to do so. Extraordinary Machine 17:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked both 204.119.99.41 and .42 for 24 hours. howcheng {chat} 17:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 80.202.111.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: [2]
- 1st revert: [3]
- 2nd revert: [4]
- 3rd revert: [5]
- 4th revert: [6]
- 5th revert: [7]
Reported by: Pepsidrinka 01:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
2006-02-09 02:44:55 Anonymous editor blocked "80.202.111.88 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 31 hours (3rr twice, was warned) William M. Connolley 18:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Colle has violated the 3rvt rule on the talk page of Safe Sex by reverting my comment 4 times (the last in part). I don't really want him blocked because overall he may be a good editor, but I believe I have a right to reply to a comment, and the repeated removal is infuriating. So if he does agree to revert himself I have no problem letting it go as I said on his talk. Chooserr 03:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- You can see the full history [8]. I, while not violating the 3rvt rule, probably should have let it go sooner, but this is my opinion and a reply to a statement on the same talk page. I believe this amounts to little more than censorship. Chooserr 03:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
His fifth revert can be found [9] if anyone is interested. Chooserr 03:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oh and number is here if anyone is intent on serving justice. He is unlikely to revert himself and continues on reverting the page to his version. Chooserr 03:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- I tried discussing this with Colle to no avail. User persisted and has been blocked for 24 hours. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Children of Bodom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Leyasu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: [10]
- 1st revert: [11]
- 2nd revert: [12]
- 3rd revert: [13]
- 4th revert: [14]
Reported by: 220.239.77.250 14:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User has attempted to get away with reverts by making slight changes. It's essentially the same article.
- User has a history of edit warring and conflict with other users.
- User deems newer good-faith edits by others to be "POV" and "vandalism" and uses these as justifications for reverts.
- A number of users are trying to make positive changes to this article but the constant reverting is stifling the process. Some have tried to reason with this user without success.
- The revert in question is to a version with factual inaccuracies and spelling and grammar mistakes.
- Blocked for 48 hours this time considering he resumed his edit warring almost immediately after his last block expired. howcheng {chat} 17:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Freemasonry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Basil_Rathbone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
Reported by: Ardenn 16:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Continues to vandalize. Won't discuss edits. Ardenn 16:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Not reverts? Certainly, adding a link to Secret Society is innocuous. Perhaps attempting to engage him would work better than constantly edit warring with him? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- He's been asking to discuss his edits and fails to do so. Ardenn 16:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- There was only one person asking, and that was me. Revert warring someone into a violation of 3rr is incredibly bad faith. This user deserves to be talked with, not revert warred apon. Some of his changes could be valuable. I assume he has been sockchecked with the arbcom sanctioned user. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- He's been asking to discuss his edits and fails to do so. Ardenn 16:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the situation with Basil is strikingly similar to what happened in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lightbringer. Almost to the point of being the same information.--Vidkun 16:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
User indef blocked as sock of arbcom blocked user. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zarbon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- 1st revert: 00:56, 9 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 02:41, 9 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 05:17, 9 February 2006
- 4th revert: 13:05, 9 February 2006
- 5th revert: 16:20, 9 February 2006
- 6th revert: 18:45, 9 February 2006
- 7th revert: 19:24, 9 February 2006
Reported by: Papacha 18:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User has a history of edit warring and conflict with other users.
- User has an admitted sock puppet User:72.227.132.62 and two suspect IPs User:149.68.168.159 and User:149.68.168.136 make the same reverts and edits throughout this week, once on one topic of conversation in the synopsis of article, now in another. User:72.227.132.62 is the primary IP on this article causing the most strain.
- Has said he has "no problem constantly resetting it. i can do it too, see who gets tired first".
- Will not discuss reverts, insisting it be done a certain way. Says other users will have to "deal with it".
- Has been caught using sock puppet to second his edits on the history page.
Blocked User:72.227.132.62. Note that although User:72.227.132.62 claims to be Zarbon, I don't see Z claiming to be User:72.227.132.62. So I warned Z, just in case. William M. Connolley 20:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC).
Three revert rule violation on Kelly Clarkson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). HeyNow10029 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 14:47, 9 February 2006
- 1st revert: 17:43, 9 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 17:52, 9 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 18:01, 9 February 2006
- 4th revert: 18:19, 9 February 2006
Reported by: Extraordinary Machine 19:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User appears to be engaged in an edit war/dispute with Wwfanz (talk · contribs) as seen on Talk:Kelly Clarkson regarding the use of one infobox over another, though it should be noted that Wwfanz replaced Template:Infobox Band with Template:Infobox Celebrity on several articles without any prior discussion. Extraordinary Machine 19:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Is the user aware of WP:3RR? I didn't see any warnings at User talk:HeyNow10029. Jkelly 19:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- I placed the {{3RR}} warning on the user's talk page. HeyNow10029 (talk · contribs) has also been edit warring on Image:KellyClarksonGrammys.jpg. Based on comments in edit summaries and on the user's talk page, I think there may be a serious misunderstanding of the fair use and WP:OWN policies. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 19:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- I placed the {{3RR}} warning on the user's talk page. HeyNow10029 (talk · contribs) has also been edit warring on Image:KellyClarksonGrammys.jpg. Based on comments in edit summaries and on the user's talk page, I think there may be a serious misunderstanding of the fair use and WP:OWN policies. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 19:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Is the user aware of WP:3RR? I didn't see any warnings at User talk:HeyNow10029. Jkelly 19:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Template talk:WikiProject Computer science (edit | [[Talk:Template talk:WikiProject Computer science|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dzonatas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- 1st revert: 21:25, 9 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 21:46, 9 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 21:52, 9 February 2006
- 4th revert: 22:11, 9 February 2006
Three revert rule violation on Template:WikiProject Computer science (edit | [[Talk:Template:WikiProject Computer science|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dzonatas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 01:35, 8 February 2006
- 1st revert: 20:02, 9 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 21:07, 9 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 22:24, 9 February 2006
- 4th revert: 21:40, 9 February 2006
Reported by: —Ruud 21:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- On the talk page Dzonatas kept removing a comment, claiming it was a personal attack, which it clearly is not. He keeps changing the template itself from the one agreed upon on the talk page. Seems to be doing this just to be distruptive as he is not a member of the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R.Koot (talk • contribs)
- User:R.Koot did not warn me of this before my last edit. — Dzonatas
- User:R.Koot has not justified his reason he thought these are reverts as asked on the talk page. — Dzonatas
- User:R.Koot has not answered the questions presented to him. — Dzonatas
- User:R.Koot tries the illustrate a point (to get this block) instead of answer the questions and simply state the point. — Dzonatas
- These are not identical reverts above in whole or in part. — Dzonatas
- User:R.Koot has stated his reverts were over grammar, which is taken as a personal attack because has not simply stated where I am wrong about the grammar if I really am wrong about the grammar. — Dzonatas 22:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- I followed Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks, but User:R.Koot insists on a version that judges me. — Dzonatas 22:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for 24h for 3RR on the Template. Not technically 3RR on the Talk because the first edit wasn't a revert, just a total waste of everyones time. Dzontas: please learn to get along with people. D's complaints about personal attack I judge totally unfounded. William M. Connolley 22:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC).
Three revert rule violation on Template talk:WikiProject Bulgarians (edit | [[Talk:Template talk:WikiProject Bulgarians|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
- Previous version reverted to: [ 23:48, February 7, 2006]
- 1st revert: [ 23:48, February 7, 2006]
- 2nd revert: [00:22, February 8, 2006]
- 3rd revert: [01:17, February 8, 2006]
- 4th revert: [14:46, February 9, 2006]
- 5th revert: [00:21, February 10, 2006]
Reported by: Macedonia 01:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Has continually been puting in false information, claiming the non existence of a another ethnic group, which I have felt was a sense of racism/propaganda/hatred. My self (removed by FunkyFly 04:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)) have continued to remove this certain edit which may have caused some confusion or anger among readers.
- 85.187.163.40 (talk · contribs) has no template talkspace contributions. Jkelly 01:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Plasma cosmology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Elerner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: [19]
- 1st revert: [20]
- 2nd revert: [21]
- 3rd revert: [22]
- 4th revert: [23]
- 5th revert: [24]
- 6th revert: [25]
- 7th revert: [26]
Reported by: Joke 03:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Four reverts as 200.83.204.54 (talk • contribs • block log) and three as Elerner (talk • contribs • block log). See this diff [27] with edit summary I'm not nnon, I'm Lerner, who wrote most of this, operating remotely indicating the IP address is Lerner.
- Please see also the relevant old RfC, including a past violation. Lerner seems unwilling to discuss changes on talk and threatens to "get User:ScienceApologist banned." –Joke 03:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked for 24 hours. howcheng {chat} 07:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on East Sea (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Appleby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 18:06, 3 February 2006
- 1st revert: 01:19, 10 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 03:40, 10 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 04:00, 10 February 2006
- 4th revert: 07:27, 10 February 2006
Reported by: Endroit 10:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User:Appleby is a repeat offender of 3RR. After returning from a recent 72-hour block, he proceeded today to another edit war in the exact same East Sea (disambiguation) page where he broke 3RR twice before. He may have carefully evaded 3RR this time, but some of us had received warnings last time from admin User:katefan0, not to edit war. And so I refrained this time, but obviously Appleby hasn't.
- I don't think Appleby is willing to communicate with us (or even listen to us) to reach any concensus. And some communication we already had in Talk:Sea of Japan shows that we are very far apart. Please discuss with admin User:Katefan0 what to do. I left a note with Katefan0 already. If you suggest mediation or arbitration, please lock this page (preferably at a concensus version) and we shall go into arbitration (or mediation) right away. Thank you.--Endroit 10:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Blocked (again) for however long he was blocked last time William M. Connolley 13:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC).
Robsteadman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Repeated identical reverts to Jesus Blocked once for 3RR on this same page. not learning his lesson. Please block for longer period this time.
While last revert changed one word, it is, for all intents and purposes, a revert and he is clearly gaming the system and causing more toruble on the same page (just like before) Please block.Gator (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Now he's up to at least 3 reverts with "religous scholars" instead of "Christian scholars." That's at least 6 or 7 reverts of the same thing in my opinion. Please block and help bring peace to the article!Gator (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Blocked 24h. Jesus, Prince of Peace :-) William M. Connolley 16:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC).
nb: there was some slight strangeness with a space before the username... hope that is fixed now. William M. Connolley 16:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I blocked him 48 hours instead since this was his second violation and he seems awfully aggressive in his comments. howcheng {chat} 17:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Repeated additions of image of Devil to Talk: Pope Pius XII.
- 1st insert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pope_Pius_XII&diff=38936878&oldid=38927511
- deleted with comment rv nefarious edit
- 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pope_Pius_XII&diff=38947251&oldid=38943844
- deleted with sarcastic comment about exorcism
- 2d revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pope_Pius_XII&diff=38950500&oldid=38949972
- deleted with summary rv trolling
- 3d revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pope_Pius_XII&diff=38951802&oldid=38950728
- deleted with summary remove trolling again
- 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pope_Pius_XII&diff=38957321&oldid=38955289
Robert McClenon 20:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked for 24 hours. howcheng {chat} 17:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Jehovah's Witnesses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User:69.129.82.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: [33]
- 1st revert: [34]
- 2nd revert: [35]
- 3rd revert: [36]
- 4th revert: [37]
- 5th revert: [38]
Reported by: Duffer 18:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User removes resource without explanation. Duffer 18:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
More edits:
please help. joshbuddy 21:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Link was removed as completely "off-topic" for the article on Jehovah's Witnesses. Its own description shows that it has nothing to do with Jehovah's Witnesses or the Watchtower, but is merely a personal site set up to attack a former associate of theirs. It's my understanding that that makes the link off-topic and irrelevant as a Resource link placed under Positive or Neutral Resources for the article. Unless wikipedia now allows for these sorts of links, I feel that the removal of the link was appropriate under Wikipedia guidelines, but will defer to the admins. You may also note that a separate link provided by the submitter concerning the Watchtower's teaching on 607 was never touched, as it IS on-topic and relevant to the article. Timothy Kline 22:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Link was removed 8 times without a single reason given. Tim, that is not appropriate Wikiquette (are you user:69.129.82.150?), and is a clear, and persistent (anon user was warned (and notified)) violation of WP:3RR. You may disagree with the links inclusion but you must talk these things out on the appropriate talk page when it is clear that others take exception to its removal. Duffer 23:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- I was unaware of how to insert a reason during the removal process, and apologize for not providing a reason at the time. I believe I have since properly noted my confusion at the inclusion of the link, at the talk page for the article on Jehovah's Witnesses, and now await any responses there. Even so, it does not appear that the link at issue serves as a resource pertaining to the article itself, so much as it unabashedly admits to being a site devoted to criticizing another website and little else--thus constituting itself less a proper resource for the article on Jehovah's Witnesses and MORE as a proper resource of criticism against the e-watchman site. However, this discussion would probably be better served at the talk page. I simply wanted to respond to the complaint against my actions (I didn't know about the 3-max edits at the time, but now do and will not violate it further) and apologize accordingly. Timothy Kline 23:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm fine with that. Duffer 05:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Freemasonry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sunday_Service (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
Reported by: Ardenn 21:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Sockpuppet of Lightbringer (talk · contribs) and Basil_Rathbone (talk · contribs)
- I would say possible sock, based on speed of edits, and that it was reversions back to blocked User:PM GL PA's edits. Additionally, subject has now made a false accusation on the vandalism page against me.--Vidkun 21:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
There is no 3rr, the only reverts are the 2nd and 3rd. In the first he is changing the information in a section. In the 2nd and 3rd he reverts back to that change. In the 4th he changes a completly seperate section, and in the 5th he changes a ton. The amount of invalid 3RR reports that have been coming off of the Freemasonry and Freemasonry talk pages recently is alittle disturbing. Seraphim 22:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not terribly familiar with Lightbringer's MO, but on a cursory glance it appears similar enough to me that I blocked 24 hours, pending David Gerard having a minute to look himself. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 22:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Abortion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Informativemiss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: [47]
- 1st revert: [48]
- 2nd revert: [49]
- 3rd revert: [50]
- 4th revert: [51]
- 5th revert: [52]
- 6th revert: [53]
Reported by: Natgoo 21:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- It is believed that the user first reverted using an anon IP, then performed the 2nd to 6th reverts under User:Informativemiss. There is no consensus for the changes on the talk page or anywhere else. She has now demonstrated that she is indeed User:198.237.84.66 with this edit: [54]. Natgoo 21:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- I am sorry that you think I am User:198.237.84.66 because I have no idea about any of his/her previous edits. This is humorous, since that is not my IP address. -Informativemiss 22:01, February 10, 2006
- Earlier reverts of the same content made by Liz_xox here and here.-Kyd 21:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- So now I am three people? I am very confused. I reverted the links that I saw were deleted by someone "reverting." This seems like a personal attack.-Informativemiss 22:07, February 10, 2006
- Disagreeing with your insistence on ignoring consensus is not a personal attack, and the consensus is that links to shock sites are not to be included in the article. You still reverted the addition of the links five times. Natgoo 23:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- In fact, your first edit was to revert that link. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- I know, I wrote 'additions' in the comment above when I meant 'removals'. I'm a twit - sorry it wasn't clear. Natgoo 23:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- In fact, your first edit was to revert that link. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Biblical inerrancy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User:199.29.6.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- 09:51, 09 February: User:Kdbuffalo adds "Inerrancy.org" and "Christian Thinktank" links
- 10:48, 09 February: User:KHM03 removes said links
- 10:34, 10 February: User:192.135.227.163 removes 3 links: "Skeptics Annotated Bible", "A Few Bible Contradictions", and "ErrancyWiki"
- 10:36, 10 February: User:192.135.227.163 readds "Inerrancy.org" and "Christian Thinktank" links
- 11:50, 10 February: User:KHM03 removes "Inerrancy.org" and "Christian Thinktank" links and readds "Skeptics Annotated Bible", "A Few Bible Contradictions", and "ErrancyWiki" links
- 12:13, 10 February: User:199.29.6.2 removes "Skeptics Annotated Bible", "A Few Bible Contradictions", and "ErrancyWiki" links
- 12:18, 10 February: User:199.29.6.2 readds "Inerrancy.org" and "Christian Thinktank" links
- 12:22, 10 February: User:KHM03 removes "Christian Thinktank" link
- 12:25, 10 February: User:KHM03 readds "Skeptics Annotated Bible", "A Few Bible Contradictions", and "ErrancyWiki" links
- 12:26, 10 February: User:199.29.6.2 readds "Christian Thinktank" link
- 12:29, 10 February: User:199.29.6.2 removes "Skeptics Annotated Bible", "A Few Bible Contradictions", and "ErrancyWiki" links
- 12:32, 10 February: User:KHM03 removes "CreationWiki on Biblical inerrancy", "Inerrancy.org", and "Christian Thinktank" links
- 12:36 - 12:38, 10 February: User:199.29.6.2 readds "CreationWiki on Biblical inerrancy", "Inerrancy.org", and "Christian Thinktank" links (3 revs)
Reported by: KHM03 23:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- I believe that User:199.29.6.2, User:192.135.227.163 and User:Kdbuffalo are the same user, utilizing different addresses to circumvent the system. This article has been the site of problems in the past, and I (and others) have tried to keep a balanced approach, esp. in the external links. I encouraged this user to help with that goal, to little avail. KHM03 23:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Hyper-Calvinism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Williamo1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: [55]
- 1st revert: [56]
- 2nd revert: [57]
- 3rd revert: [58]
- 4th revert: [59]
- 5th revert: [60]
- 6th revert: [61]
Reported by: Lbbzman 01:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Constant reversion despite pleas on the article's and user's talk page. Lbbzman 01:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked both User:Williamo1 and User:KHM03 for 24 hours. -- Chris 73 | Talk 09:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Anselm_of_Canterbury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). KarlBunker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
- 1st revert: 17:26, February 10, 2006
- 2nd revert: 23:54, 10 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 02:07, 11 February 2006
- 4th revert: 02:22, 11 February 2006
Reported by: Br Alexis Bugnolo 02:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:Karl Bunker is claiming 3op rule, falsely to justify his vandalism. I have already warned him 2 times, and will warn him again, right after posting this.
- Blocked for 24 hours -- Chris 73 | Talk 09:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Also blocked Br Alexis Bugnolo for a 3RR on the same article ([62] [63][64][65] -- Chris 73 | Talk 09:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on PlayStation Portable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.203.142.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 17:29, February 10, 2006
- 1st revert: 22:17, February 10, 2006
- 2nd revert: 23:15, February 10, 2006
- 3rd revert: 23:32, February 10, 2006
- 4th revert: 00:35, February 11, 2006
- 5th revert: 01:28, February 11, 2006
- 6th revert: 03:16, February 11, 2006
Reported by : Seraphim 07:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments: He removed information from the article that was created via a discussion on the talk page, information that we feel to be NPOV and necessary to include because it is standard in all Game Console articles to have a blurb about marketshare. He's also removing the disclaimer that notes that sony only reports console's they have shipped not sales figures. Both are very POV changes. I placed the 3rr warning on his talk page, and he did it again without ever responding. Also the only edits the user has ever made are vandalizing Sony Playstation Series articles. Seraphim 07:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked for 24 hours -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Erika_Steinbach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Maria_Stella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- 1st revert: 13:43, February 10, 2006
- 2nd revert: 17:08, February 10, 2006
- 3rd revert: 18:32, February 10, 2006
- 4th revert: 18:43, February 10, 2006
- 5th revert: 21:51, February 10, 2006
Reported by: Chris 73 | Talk 08:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Also see User:Space Cadet (3) below -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
First offence, but you warned her. 12h. William M. Connolley 11:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Space Cadet (3)
Three revert rule violation on Erika Steinbach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Space_Cadet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- 1st revert: 14:32, February 10, 2006
- 2nd revert: 20:29, February 10, 2006
- 3rd revert: 23:05, February 10, 2006
- 4th revert: 23:47, February 10, 2006
Reported by: Chris 73 | Talk 08:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- This is the third 3RR of User:Space Cadet currently on WP:AN/3RR, This edit war is like the other edit wars of User:Space Cadet also about the question how German/Polish something (here the birthplace of Erika Steinbach) is or was. I had previous conflicts with this user, so I did not block him, but I would propose a longer block for repeated edit warring on multiple articles (the other 3RRs being Nicolaus Copernicus and Treaty of Welawa above). Also see User:Maria Stella above -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked 48h. Now to proceed upwards... William M. Connolley 11:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Ariel Sharon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tasc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
5 reverts [66] within a few minutes, also the reverts may be considered simple vandalism as he is removing valid content. [67]
- this "valid content" is mentioned in the article. aparently you have been reading it. --tasc 11:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- All the other things mentioned in the introduction are also mentioned in the article. The idea of an introduction is to provide an overview of the article. The criticism for war crimes is misleading if only Sabra & Shatila are mentioned - when all the favourable things are mentioned the criticism also needs to be dealt with in an appropriate way. Anyway, this doesn't matter. You broke the rule. Bye bye, see you when you are unblocked in 24 hours. Perhaps you then are ready to discuss your edits.
Both editors in violation. Page protected while they work it out. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- it'd better to discuss everything before changing on such a controversial topic. --tasc 11:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
weird, admins look even on unformated reports. --tasc 20:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Online creation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.162.148.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- 1st revert: 23:56, 10 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 15:42, 11 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 16:17, 11 February 2006
- 4th revert: 16:51, 11 February 2006
- 5th revert: 17:06, 11 February 2006
Reported by: Ehheh 17:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- He appears to be the same person as User:Eggster and User:151.201.32.118 in one of the earlier 3RR reports that still is on this page and hasn't been archived yet. A few minutes ago I gave a warning to 151.201.32.118 after he did 5 reverts, at which point he switched over to Eggster and has done at least 1 revert as Eggster, possibly more as I'm writing this. I'm not going to go to any effort to prove that it's a sock puppet since it'll just be the same as last time, but an admin can easily check. While logged in as Eggster, he has had warnings for multiple things in the past, and has blanked his talk page [68]presumably thinking that everyone'll forget that he already had violated 3RR in the past and had been warned already. --Atari2600tim 17:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Blocked 68.162.148.34. I'm off for a bit now, so no time to look at Eggster for a bit... William M. Connolley 18:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- He's now using 66.101.59.248 and reverted again. I've restored page. Jlambert 19:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- OK, 68.162.148.34 is definitely Eggster. I'll block him too. William M. Connolley 20:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- And the talk page strongly suggests that 66.101.59.248 is the same; blocked. See-also User_talk:Jlambert William M. Connolley 21:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC).
Three revert rule violation on Jonathan Sarfati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Agapetos_angel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 20:52, 10 February 2006
- 1st revert: 21:24, 10 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 21:53, 10 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 22:40, 10 February 2006
- 4th revert: 02:12, 11 February 2006
Reported by: FeloniousMonk 18:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- The 4th revert is a complex revert within an edit that attempts to disguise the restoration of User:Agapetos_angel's preferred wording.
- This is the 3rd 3RR violation for User:Agapetos_angel at this article in the last 2 weeks
- Page had been protected due to the actions of User:Agapetos_angel. User:Agapetos_angel filed misleading RfPP for unprotection, and was rv'ing again within 36 hours.
I can see bits of #4 that could be considered reverts. But can you make them explicit, please? William M. Connolley 18:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC).
Reverts (between 3 and 4) some are not word for word, but the tenor, the purpose, the spirit of the edit is effectively a revert:
Biography
3
He has also had papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals including co-authoring a "Letters to Nature"
4
Sarfati has had papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals (Abstracts available on ScienceDirect.com).
Writings
3 His latest book, Refuting Compromise is a rebuttal of the day-age creationist teachings of Dr. Hugh Ross, who attempts to harmonize the Genesis account of creation with the belief that the earth is billions of years old, a position which Sarfati rejects.
4
His latest book, Refuting Compromise is a rebuttal of the day-age creationist teachings of Dr. Hugh Ross, who attempts to harmonize the Genesis account of creation with the belief that the earth is billions of years old, a position which Sarfati rejects.
Also, Agapetos_angel continued to place Chess above Scientist in all four edits. This in spite of the large difference in Safarti's prominence as a YEC (working, per AiG, as a scientist) and as a chess player. Jim62sch 19:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Blocked (I thought I'd said that before... hmmm) William M. Connolley 20:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC).
- My talk page outlines why that fourth revision was an edit not a revert[69]. Also, the assertion that I continued to place subsection Chess above subsection Scientist in all four edits is a false statement, as proven here that the subsections remained in the same order before and after each of my edits. In fact the order had not changed, aside from a typo by FM that he restored, until # 4, which made that the first true change,
an edit in the overhaulwhere subsection Moral Issues was moved down. This is not a revert, because the Chess subsection has remained above Scientist thoughout all the edits by all the editors since long before the page protection. This is another false accusation. agapetos_angel 20:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)- The chess bit in indeed wrong, but the 4th edit is a revert. Please get over this, and return to productive edting. William M. Connolley 23:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC).
- Yes, I misread the order of events. AA only reverted the order once. Jim62sch 11:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Continually reverting in an edit war on Online Creation. I have twice reverted, and he claims he has reverted over 8 times today. He is not the article's owner, nor is he an administrator. This user is making it impossible to retain concise, accurate article Online Creation. 66.101.59.248 19:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Please format correctly. If you can't be bothered to do that, why should anyone bother to investigate your report? William M. Connolley 19:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC).
Three revert rule violation on Clay Aiken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.183.15.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: Feb. 11 19:01
- 1st revert: Feb 11 22:59
- 2nd revert: Feb 11 23:07
- 3rd revert: Feb 11 23:18
- 4th revert: Feb 11 23:25
Reported by: · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 04:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Anon insists on adding improperly sourced, speculative information against consensus. Has been warned (see user talk page). · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 04:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked for 24 hours --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Gordon Campbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Boggle99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 05:43, 12 February 2006
- 1st revert: 04:32, 12 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 06:58, 12 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 07:22, 12 February 2006
- 4th revert: 07:32, 12 February 2006
Reported by: Colle|File:Locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 07:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Boggle's edit breaks NPOV policy, reads like a Liberal press release, has party friendly speculation, deletes/mitigates criticism... see talk page if interested... PLEASE revert to the standard version (tawker's above.) I have reached my revert limit.--Colle|File:Locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 07:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- This is a new user, and there is no evidence that s/he was warned prior to breaking the 3rr. I have warned him/her, and instructed her/him not to edit the article again for 24 hours. Guettarda 08:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on LJ Drama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). USERNAME (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
Warned about possible violation here Reported by: badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment As you can see in the history and in my talk page, LJ Drama airs nothing but rumour/gossip/PoV. If the content was changed to be more NPov, or if they cited their sources, or if they were willing to take into account that there is a more truthful version of events than their heavily slanted version, I just might concede. I stand by my deletions and will keep removing lies and rumour until my point has been made. -- Nathan 21:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'll note that no effort has been made in talk at the article to reach any sort of consensus on the section. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- I have blocked the user for twenty-four hours. Tom Harrison Talk 21:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Some agreement seems to have been reached, so I have unblocked the user. Tom Harrison Talk 03:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Template:Olympic games medal count. CyclePat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- 1st revert: 12:03, February 12, 2006
- 2nd revert: 12:22, February 12, 2006
- 3rd revert: 14:05, February 12, 2006
- 4th revert: 14:45, February 12, 2006
- 5th revert: 15:54, February 12, 2006
- 6th revert: 15:55, February 12, 2006
Reported by: Mike (T C) 22:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User AFD'd the article in bad faith to make a point, an admin removed the bad faith tags, however cyclepat kept reverting to his version with improper AFD tags.
- This user was given a 3RR warning in November. I've blocked for 24 hours, and I wouldn't object to an extension for the WP:POINT violation. —David Levy 22:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Children of Bodom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Leyasu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: [70]
- 1st revert: [71]
- 2nd revert: [72]
- 3rd revert: [73]
- 4th revert: [74]
Reported by: 130.102.0.177 23:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Continually reverts to an older version of the page. User is clearly the only one in favour of this version, as these reverts have been undone by a number of users.
- Blocked twice before over the last few days for 3RR. [75] Blocks don't appear to be much of a deterrent.
Three revert rule violation on Dick Cheney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hbutterfly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
N.B. Times in UTC+11 for Australian EDST.
- 1st revert: 10:41, February 13, 2006
- 2nd revert: 10:49, February 13, 2006
- 3rd revert: 11:01, February 13, 2006
- 4th revert: 15:15, February 13, 2006
- 5th revert 15:20, February 13, 2006
- 6th revert 15:37, February 13, 2006
Reported by: Harro5 05:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- New user mainly concerned with toning down any criticism of right-wing political interests in the US (eg. Bush, Cheney, Delay, FOX News). Harro5 05:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Mucky Pup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JohnBWatt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
Reported by: MikeWazowski 06:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User continually reverts to last version posted by him. Will not accept any changes to "his" text. Semi-abusive and very abrasive in edit summaries. MikeWazowski 06:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Jungle music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tactik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 13:43, 10 February 2006
- 1st revert: 0:13, 12 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 11:37, 12 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 21:41, 12 February 2006]
- 4th revert: 00:49, 13 February 2006
Reported by: Themindset 08:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Merge poll results were 8 to 1 in favour of mergin Jungle music into Drum and bass. User refuses consensus, uses IPs and sockpuppets to vote against merge. Has also deleted various user comments in Talk:Jungle music and Talk:Drum and bass. And broke 3RR. Themindset 08:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- No 3rr violation as the 4th edit was 36 minutes after the 24 hours. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Cuba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 205.240.227.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: [80][00:35, 13 February 2006]
- 1st revert: [81][00:38, 13 February 2006]
- 2nd revert: [82][01:10, 13 February 2006]
- 3rd revert: [83][17:49, 13 February 2006]
- 4th revert: [84][22:41, 13 February 2006]
- 5th revert: [85][23:10, 13 February 2006]
- Et al.
Comments: SEE (partially complete)Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/205.240.227.15. User has been adding nonsense for ages.--Colle|File:Locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 23:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
2006-02-14 01:35:05 Nlu blocked "205.240.227.15 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 8 days (3RR, edit warring on Cuba) William M. Connolley 21:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- 1st revert [86] Feb 13 2006
- 2nd Revert [87] Feb 13 2006
- 3rd Revert [88] Feb 13 2006
- 4th revert [89] Feb 13 2006
Reported by --Astriolok 03:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- I doubt that reverting myself counts towards a 3RR. —Ruud 03:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- It ould still be construed as a fourth revert, since you didn't undo your third revert, but the 3RR is not designed to be punative, and I see no reason to doubt that Ruud was acting in good faith. And to Astriolok, please read the instructions and post properly. Guettarda 03:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Al-Khwarizmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Astriolok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 06:00, 13 February 2006
- 1st revert: 02:43, 14 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 02:53, 14 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 02:57, 14 February 2006
- 4th revert: 04:10, 14 February 2006
Three revert rule violation on Arabic numerals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Astriolok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 16:38, 29 December 2005
- 1st revert: 05:34, 13 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 02:42, 14 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 02:58, 14 February 2006
- 4th revert: 03:10, 14 February 2006
Reported by: —Ruud 03:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments: He is also reverting to very old version at al-Battani. —Ruud 03:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Blocked 24h William M. Connolley 21:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on List of Star Wars books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User:68.49.68.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: [90]
- 1st revert: [91]
- 2nd revert: [92]
- 3rd revert: [93]
- 4th revert: [94]
Reported by: Jedi6 04:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments: I have warned this User several times to use the discussion page before making unexplained edits. Both myself and User:Deckiller have reverted his/her edits and warned them but he/she has continued to revert to their version. They have now gone over the three revert rule. Please join in the conversation on his/her talk page if you want.
Three revert rule violation on Christianity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 19:03, 12 February 2006
- 1st revert: 19:24, 13 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 20:54, 13 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 21:03, 13 February 2006
- 4th revert: 22:02, 13 February 2006 With User:BelindaGong sockpuppet
Reported by: Tom Harrison Talk 05:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Per checkuser [95], User:Giovanni33 is also User:BelindaGong. Tom Harrison Talk 05:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked both for 24 hours.--MONGO 05:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- I believe User:Freethinker99 is a sockpuppet of User:Giovanni33/User:BelindaGong, et al. Here is the evidence. On Christianity, Freethinker99 reverted three times to Giovanni33's preferred version, then User:MikaM arrived and began reverting. I don't know the connection, if any, between MikaM and Giovanni33/BelindaGong/Freethinker99. Tom Harrison Talk 04:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Best thing is to request checkuser on the whole bunch. Giovanni33, Freethinker99 and BelindaGong were all blocked by me for 48 hours.--MONGO 05:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- I have asked for a checkuser. [96] Tom Harrison Talk 15:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- User:Kecik may be another sock. KHM03 02:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Also User:FionaS. KHM03 02:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- I have asked for a checkuser. [96] Tom Harrison Talk 15:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Russophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 81.31.160.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 15:25, 14 February 2006
- 1st revert: 01:12, 15 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 01:20, 15 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 02:19, 15 February 2006
- 4th revert: 02:43, 15 February 2006
Reported by: --Ghirla | talk 12:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Nasty revert warring, accompanied by violations of Wikipedia:Good faith and reiterated defamatory comments on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. The user seems to be well acquainted with wikirules, see his talk. --Ghirla | talk 12:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Current events (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Get-back-world-respect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 10:49, 14 February 2006
- 1st revert: 12:31, 14 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 14:37, 14 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 15:16, 14 February 2006
- 4th revert: 15:23, 14 February 2006
and about 5 more after that.
Reported by: Kurando | ^_^ 16:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Relates to insistence on including details of what happens in the video of British Army soldiers in southern Iraq which was disclosed at the weekend. Get-back-world-respect wants to include what is, in my judgment, excessive information about what was done by the soldiers to the Iraqis, and has also (at times) reverted my inclusion of some of the context which was a mortar attack on the base immediately before this incident. David | Talk 17:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- See my comment about Dbiv over same incident in following section. NSLE (T+C) 00:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- I have blocked Get-back-world-respect for twenty-four hours. Tom Harrison Talk 01:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Current events (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dbiv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 15:29, 14 February 2006
- 1st revert: 16:07, 14 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 16:12, 14 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 16:46, 14 February 2006
- 4th revert: 16:53, 14 February 2006
- 5th revert: 18:43, 14 February 2006
Reported by: Get-back-world-respect 17:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- As I got reported I show the other side, too, removed factual information without discussion, last one even marked "minor". The alleged mortar attack was not reported in the sources linked to as the rules for current events require. Get-back-world-respect 17:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- This is an entirely erroneous report as can be shown in the article history. The "2nd revert" cited above is not a revert but an attempt at compromise by separating two separate releases of videos: [97]. The "3rd revert" did not go back to the version of 16:07, nor even to that of 16:12, but was a new edit with a new attempt at compromise in which I included slightly more details about the abuse of the Iraqis: [98]. The "4th revert" is a revert to this edit as by now it was clear that GBWR was uninterested in compromise. David | Talk 17:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Why do you change these links such that nothing can be seen any longer but do not change in the same way the links above? You deleted four times the information that the youths were kicked at, as can be seen in the links I provided: 1: 16:07, 14 February 2006 2:16:12, 14 February 2006 3:16:46, 14 February 2006 4: 16:53, 14 February 2006 Get-back-world-respect 18:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- It's called the "Three revert rule", not the three edit rule. I made one revert using the rollback function. I made other edits. See Wikipedia:Revert. It's not a violation of the 3RR to edit a page to try to get a consensus, as I did. It is if you do as you do and blindly insist on your own version and refuse to accept any other. Hope this helps. David | Talk 18:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- You deleted the same words four times, so it is as much reverting as what I did and not an attempt to compromise. You even marked one as "minor" although we were in a content dispute and there was not even discussion at the talk page. Now you even go for a fifth time when another user readded them. [99] That is what administrators should do on a Valentine's Day? Get-back-world-respect 18:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- The 'fifth revert' is not a revert either. It adds to the gravity of the allegation by reporting the subsequent arrests. Please will someone block GBWR for his blatant breach of 3RR as I am getting bored of this. David | Talk 18:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- You deleted the same words that were added by two different users five times, once even marking it "minor". Now you are ignoring the discussion. Calm down. Get-back-world-respect 19:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- The 'fifth revert' is not a revert either. It adds to the gravity of the allegation by reporting the subsequent arrests. Please will someone block GBWR for his blatant breach of 3RR as I am getting bored of this. David | Talk 18:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- You deleted the same words four times, so it is as much reverting as what I did and not an attempt to compromise. You even marked one as "minor" although we were in a content dispute and there was not even discussion at the talk page. Now you even go for a fifth time when another user readded them. [99] That is what administrators should do on a Valentine's Day? Get-back-world-respect 18:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- It's called the "Three revert rule", not the three edit rule. I made one revert using the rollback function. I made other edits. See Wikipedia:Revert. It's not a violation of the 3RR to edit a page to try to get a consensus, as I did. It is if you do as you do and blindly insist on your own version and refuse to accept any other. Hope this helps. David | Talk 18:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- I am considering blocking both of you for violating the three-revert rule, and for disrupting the page with your edit-warring. I would prefer that you both take a break from the page, and then use the talk page to work out your disagreements. Tom Harrison Talk 19:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Despite this warning, David made a sixth revert, again deleting factual information about the people being kicked repeatedly while they were forced to the ground: [100] Get-back-world-respect 00:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Like I noted at Talk:Current events, I'm of the opinion that Dbiv's version is correct. HOWEVER this does not give him, nor anyone, the right to revert war. Get a consensus. Remember, it takes two to revert war - just leave it alone and someone else who thinks your version is right will change it. NSLE (T+C) 00:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- I have blocked Dbiv for twenty-four hours. Tom Harrison Talk 00:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Phaistos Disc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 80.90.37.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 23:06, 8 February 2006
- 1st revert: 08:34, 14 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 16:24, 14 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 23:05, 14 February 2006
- 4th revert: 23:17, 14 February 2006
Reported by: --Latinus (talk (el:)) 23:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- This anon keep adding extremely dubious fringe theories to high points in the article. It should be noted that this anon is a suspected sockpuppet. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 23:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on NiMUD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Young_Zaphod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 68.162.148.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 151.201.48.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 20:03, 12 February 2006
- 1st revert: 02:10, 14 February 2006 by 68.162.148.34
- 2nd revert: 03:02, 14 February 2006 by Young Zaphod
- 3rd revert: 10:49, 14 February 2006 by 68.162.148.34
- 4th revert: 20:25, 14 February 2006 by Young Zaphod
- 5th revert 11:14, 15 February 2006 151.201.48.208 (rv It's not vanity. You're gay.)
- 6th revert 11:16, 15 February 2006 Young Zaphod (rv Nope.)
- 7th revert 13:42, 15 February 2006 by Young Zaphod
- 8th revert 18:25, 15 February 2006 by 151.201.48.208
(note that while 1-8 are more than 24 hours, 1-4 are within 24 hours, and 5-8 are as well) Reported by: Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 02:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Young Zaphod (talk · contribs) and 68.162.148.34 (talk · contribs) are the same person. My evidence is:
- The label [101] of third revert is a reference to the short story Young_Zaphod_Plays_it_Safe by Douglas Adams. My belief is that 68.162.148.34 typed the "play it safe and take a walk"[102] without realizing that he was not logged in as Young Zaphod; basically playing the character of Young Zaphod without realizing that he wasn't logged in yet in order to pose as him.
- Young Zaphod's contribution history is all on articles that 68.162.148.34 feels ownership of.
- Young Zaphod is a new user that appeared after 68.162.148.34 already had started doing reverts today.
- 68.162.148.34 has been proven [103] to use sock puppets in the past to avoid 3RR, and was blocked for socks and 3rr [104].
- I have given him a warning [105] at 16:24, between the third and 4th revert he's done in the same day. Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 12:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Also please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:68.162.148.34 as user may be using previously ided sockpuppet 66.101.59.248 as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlambert (talk • contribs)
- Yes, he has used multiple sock puppets aside from the 2 I listed (I only listed the ones involved with the last few reverts); he seems to edit from home, his local university, and via proxy from the site in Texas that hosts his web site. Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 13:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'd also like to point out this edit: [106] which shows Young Zaphod correcting the IP addy's signature to his user account.Ehheh 17:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Online_creation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Young Zaphod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 68.162.148.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 151.201.48.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- 1st revert 20:49, 14 February 2006 Young Zaphod m (?Monster)
- 2nd revert 21:08, 14 February 2006 68.162.148.34 (rv Nope.)
- 3rd revert 11:13, 15 February 2006 151.201.48.208 (rv Nope.)
- 4th revert 12:10, 15 February 2006 151.201.48.208 (rv Go have socks with somebody else.)
- 5th revert 13:32, 15 February 2006 Young Zaphod m
- 6th revert 18:20, 15 February 2006 151.201.48.208 (rv Customization)
- 7th revert 12:08, 16 February 2006 Young Zaphod m (rv Unsubstantiated claims and vandalism by atari2600tim.)
Comments:
02/15/06 12:57:57 dns 151.201.48.208 nslookup 151.201.48.208 Canonical name: pool-151-201-48-208.pitt.east.verizon.net Addresses: 151.201.48.208
02/15/06 13:00:19 dns 68.162.148.34 nslookup 68.162.148.34 Canonical name: pool-68-162-148-34.pitt.east.verizon.net Addresses: 68.162.148.34
- This editing [107] I think also establishes connection between the above two IPs.
- They also exhibit a remarkable confluence of interests and timing.[108]
User also marked both articles Talk pages and Atari200Tim's user page for speedy deletion which I removed. Also see comments above. Jlambert 18:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Actually the speedy deletion tag on our talk pages was partially my fault. He created a personal vanity template at Template:snub which said "This user has been snubbed by Young Zaphod", which he put onto our talk pages, and then when I saw it I added the speedy delete tag onto the template, without thinking to put the tag inside of noinclude tags, which resulted in our talk pages including the entire template including the speedy delete tag. Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 21:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Added latest reverts. If we're reporting something wrong or not doing this right I wish an Admin would say so. Should we elevate this vandalism? Ask for page protection? Jlambert 02:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- If you're sure Young Zaphod is the same as these anon editors, you should ask at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser. I'd also suggest you leave a note on Young Zaphod's talk page discussing the situation, informing of the 3RR, and asking him directly (but politely) if he has been editing as those anonymous users. -- SCZenz 02:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Should I do that for every persona that he uses? He's made edits from about 10 accounts and quite a few IP's that are all at the same (dynamic).pitt.east.verizon.net (as Jlambert's nslookup thing shows). It seems silly to give multiple warnings to each persona when it's blatantly obvious that he's the same person as Eggster whose 3RR violation and subsequent 24h ban happened so recently that it hasn't even been archived off of this page yet, and the same with the CheckUser that happened linking Eggster to the anons. Should all computers in the same computer lab making similar edits as anons with no discussion be treated as separate people? --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 12:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Place names considered unusual (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sertraline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 10:22, 15 February 2006
- 1st revert: 15:11, 15 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 16:58, 15 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 19:34, 15 February 2006 AEST
Reported by: A Y Arktos 10:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- The user has been referred to discussion on talk page and refuses to accept concensus. More than one user has reverted the reversions of Sertraline. The user is attempting to list a place name of an intersection, where the wikipedia article is in fact a redirect to a very usually named road. Previous discussions have agreed that a listed place should be able to have a wikipedia article, (i.e. a town or suburb is acceptable, but minor streets, streams, ETC) are not. There have been more than 4 reversions to date, but 4 within the last 24 hours. --A Y Arktos 10:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Noob. Warned. Please, in future, *you* can warn then after the first few reverts! William M. Connolley 22:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC).
Three revert rule violation on Lastovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 220.237.20.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: [109]
- 1st revert: [110]
- 2nd revert: [111]
- 3rd revert: [112]
- 4th revert: [113]
Reported by: Deskana (talk) 09:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User has been blocked for 3RR quite recently. Deskana (talk) 09:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- User CONTINUES to revert and is now on his fifth revert in the time period. Likely to continue. Deskana (talk) 09:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
User was indeed blocked recently, but was then unblocked (see log). This time he has clearly broken 3rr. Since it was a while ago and has now stopped (indeed has stopped editing), I'm almost inclined to do nothing, but will instead block for 8h. William M. Connolley 22:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC).
Three revert rule violation on Macedonian language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bomac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 04:44, 15 February 2006
- 1st revert: 13:07, 15 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 13:12, 15 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 13:17, 15 February 2006
- 4th revert: 13:25, 15 February 2006
- 5th revert: 13:30, 15 February 2006
Reported by: Theathenae 13:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User has attempted to evade the 3RR by making extremely minor changes which don't change the content of his version whatsoever. He has also repeatedly ignored my attempts to reach a compromise solution or to leave out the offending material.--Theathenae 13:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Theathenae was reverting a sourced statement. Also he tried to delete it. And I never said that I'm for "Theathenae's imaginary compromise". He was putting-on that "compromise" by force. He was not using the discussion-page. Plus, see his 3RR on Arvanitic language and Arvanites. Bomac 14:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Macedonian language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Theathenae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 12:38, 14 February 2006
- 1st revert: 13:05, 15 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 13:10, 15 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 13:15, 15 February 2006
- 4th revert: 13:20, 15 February 2006
Reported by: 198.180.251.157 14:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- According to WP:3RR: Do not revert any single page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours. (Or else an Administrator may suspend your account.) Theathenae did just that! He reverted partially to yesterday's disambiguation note: (This article is about the Slavic language, not to be confused with the ancient Macedonian language.). Partial reverts count as well according to the policy. Regards, 198.180.251.157 14:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Blocked both, 24h William M. Connolley 22:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC).
Three revert rule violation on Pink Floyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
71.242.208.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 04:58, 15 February 2006
- 1st revert: 06:32, 15 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 08:07, 15 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 08:22, 15 February 2006
- 4th revert: 08:33, 15 February 2006
Reported by: dharmabum 21:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User has repeatedly added his site to the top of the external links in bold text despite consensus on the article's talk page that his site, which is for the illegal trading of bootlegs, violates WP:EL in several ways. After the above reverts, user created account Pink_Floyd_For_Free (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and has contributed to the talk page discussion on the issue, but has not reverted again while logged in.
- Well, I've put a message on the anon talk page, which you should have done! At the moment, he looks like a Noob who needs some guidance. Come back if he stops talking and starts reverting. William M. Connolley 21:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- User has already reverted while logged in as Pink_Floyd_For_Free (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), though not beyond the limit of the 3RR. He has nevertheless, like said, participated in the discussion on the inclusion of the link, violating other Wikipedia policies, including WP:NPA. He has participated in the discussion both anonymously and with the newly created account, even going back to the anonymous postings and signing them as User:Pink_Floyd_For_Free. —Rotring 21:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- As far as I can see his reverts as PFFF are within bounds (even including the anon?). He is clearly trying to get his site included; he will fail; this will cause you some short-term pain most likely. But thats not an issue for here. If you think PFFF+anon have broken 3rr, thats another matter. William M. Connolley 22:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- User has already reverted while logged in as Pink_Floyd_For_Free (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), though not beyond the limit of the 3RR. He has nevertheless, like said, participated in the discussion on the inclusion of the link, violating other Wikipedia policies, including WP:NPA. He has participated in the discussion both anonymously and with the newly created account, even going back to the anonymous postings and signing them as User:Pink_Floyd_For_Free. —Rotring 21:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Western Sahara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Daryou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 12:38, 2006 February 14
- 1st revert: 02:56, 2006 February 15
- 2nd revert: 14:39, 2006 February 15
- 3rd revert: 14:41, 2006 February 15
- 4th revert: 15:02, 2006 February 15
Reported by: Reisio 22:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Pretty clear-cut violation. Second infraction on this same article, according to block log. ¦ Reisio 22:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Big Spring, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 209.181.19.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 05:01, 31 January 2006
- 1st revert: 23:08, 15 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 01:14, 16 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 01:16, 16 February 2006
- 4th revert: 01:18, 16 February 2006
Reported by: OhNoitsJamieTalk 01:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- This is the second time I've had to file a 3RR for this article. It's a different IP address, but quite possibly the same individual. OhNoitsJamieTalk 01:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Addendum to this: same user is now in violation of the 3rr on the same article with a different ID (65.122.236.133). Kuru talk 03:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Iowa class (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MateoP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): The same guy got banned for some time for keep deleting same info from the article and installing NPOV tag. He was so desperate, that he tried to modify one of WP:policy in his favor. Recantly he come up with Original Research tag. Most ppl do not see that phrase as a POV, and original research was not even mentioned until few days ago. It worth to say, that the only contribution of same very guy to an article is an edit war he started to promote his opinion. He never introduced any other edits. What could be done with that troll? As for today - he made 5 edits, 4 of which was some kind of reverts. But blocking for few hours do not work, unfortunately. And yes, all the changes was made were backed by sources. And multiply attempts were made to reach a consencus or just to find middle ground. He is the only one to introduse his POV, but his deletions was reverted not only by me, but by 3-4 other guys. TestPilot 03:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Big Spring, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 65.122.236.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 03:22, 16 February 2006
- 1st revert: 03:26, 16 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 03:31, 16 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 03:33, 16 February 2006
- 4th revert: 03:33, 16 February 2006
Reported by: OhNoitsJamieTalk 03:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Comments:
- This is the third time I've had to file a 3RR for this article (first time was on the same IP). This user refuses to acknowledge the obvious WP:POV issues of the revision, despite efforts from several editors to explain them on the talk page. OhNoitsJamieTalk 03:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on PhpBB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User-multi error: "Edward_NZ" is not a valid project or language code (help).:
- Previous version reverted to: 00:11, February 16, 2006
- 1st revert: 05:05, February 16, 2006
- 2nd revert: 05:58, February 16, 2006
- 3rd revert: 06:29, February 16, 2006
- 4th revert: 07:05, February 16, 2006
- 5th revert: 07:21, February 16, 2006
Reported by: —Locke Cole • t • c 07:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Unfortunately I don't think he's been warned about WP:3RR, however if you look at the article history this is a long drawn out edit war over an external link that is being omitted on very dubious grounds. I think a short block (12 hours or something) would be reasonable since this has been ongoing for at least a week.. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Added his 5th revert. I've now warned him of WP:3RR on his talk page. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry to have caused any trouble, I won't revert it again until it's safe to do so :) Edward NZ 08:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think we need a CheckUser. User:Locke Cole (per his user page) is from Washington state. The anons that's been tag-team revert-warring on this page -- 67.42.93.179 (talk · contribs) & 67.42.85.2 (talk · contribs) -- are from an ISP in Washington (see http://www.whois.sc/67.42.93.179). -- Netoholic @ 08:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- More blatant trolling? BTW, nice of you to assume good faith. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- You and these IPs have been tag-team revert warring with Edward_NZ, so I'm not sure what you want us to assume. -- Netoholic @ 08:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Uh, good faith? I've never been accused of (nor blocked for) sockpuppetry before. There is absolutely zero reason to assume anything about my actions here. Yours on the other hand are a textbook example of WP:STALK; continue this and I'll make a seperate complaint to WP:AN/I. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- For the record, the IP 67.42.93.179 in question here are my home connection (Well, I may recycle it now), and I am not User:Locke Cole, nor do I know him or have spoken or otherwise communicated with him. That we have some of the same opinions and both live in Washington State are coincidence. In any case, if you look at User:Locke Cole's comments and mine, you will see that I do not have much of a knowledge about Wikipedia rules (but I can smell BS), and so his arguments should at least have more weight than mine, which are clearly a bit more emotional... 131.30.121.23 22:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Uh, good faith? I've never been accused of (nor blocked for) sockpuppetry before. There is absolutely zero reason to assume anything about my actions here. Yours on the other hand are a textbook example of WP:STALK; continue this and I'll make a seperate complaint to WP:AN/I. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- You and these IPs have been tag-team revert warring with Edward_NZ, so I'm not sure what you want us to assume. -- Netoholic @ 08:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- More blatant trolling? BTW, nice of you to assume good faith. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Frieza family tree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zarbon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- 1st revert: 20:23, 15 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 21:34, 15 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 21:41, 15 February 2006
- 4th revert: 22:46, 15 February 2006
- 5th revert: 22:48, 15 February 2006
- 6th revert: 03:04, 16 February 2006
- 7th revert: 03:08, 16 February 2006
- 8th revert: 03:30, 16 February 2006
03:30, 16 February 2006
Reported by: Papacha 08:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- User has a history of edit warring and conflict with other users (some detailed above on this page.
- User has one sock puppet IP User:72.227.132.62 which had been banned and as well as IPs 71.255.73.82, 149.68.168.114, User:149.68.168.138, User:149.68.168.193 User:149.68.168.159 and User:149.68.168.136 make the same reverts and edits throughout, the majority seen on this article. Signs Zarbon to edits, as seen on the discussion/history pages on which IPs post.
- Advertises own forum as a link at bottom of the page which has nothing to add to the content at hand, other than be about the anime DragonBall Z. When told multiple times by different users Wiki has rules about promotion, will revert any and all edits.
- Deletes clean-up tags when they are applied to article. As seen on his talk page, " wants to have a page where others won't dictate things", which violates Wikipedia standard and nulls any potential for article growth. Under the impression others are pushing him around when they edit.
- Also on the article's discussion page - calls any edits he disagrees with "vandalism" and demands to be informed of any changes so he may approve them beforehand. Believes because he created article others should not touch it, and reverts others' work unecessarily because of it.
- Insulted other users on same page, telling them to "get a life".
Three revert rule violation on The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wiki4Christ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 09:49, 16 February 2006
- 1st revert: 10:34, 16 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 11:20, 16 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 11:36, 16 February 2006
- 4th revert: 11:44, 16 February 2006
Reported by: AvB ÷ talk 11:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Suspected sock or meat puppet of User:Jason Gastrich (upcoming ArbCom case). AvB ÷ talk 11:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keeps reverting after warning/block announcement. AvB ÷ talk 12:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Currently on his ninth revert of the page. I've already used up my three reverts and AvB has gone beyond them, a swift block and final revert would be much appreciated. --Malthusian (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked for 24 hours.--MONGO 12:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). PaxTerra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
Additional reverts below against User:Jdonnis since initial report... some quick help here would be greatly appreciated!
- 12:52, 16 February 2006 PaxTerra (refactored for clarity and to explain context. Please discuss your edits to controversial sections on the talk page.)
- 13:10, 16 February 2006 PaxTerra (restore content deleted by Jdonnis who entered a false edit summary claiming to have refactored but instead deleted. Deletion of meaningful content is vandalism)
- 12:22, 16 February 2006 PaxTerra (Lets stick to the topic of the list, which is comparisons that have been made in published discussion as documented on the talk page. This is your third revert Netscott and you didn't "swap" anything.)
- 09:38, 16 February 2006 PaxTerra (→Comparable references - include reference to legal control of incitement and hate speech, restore summary introducing list)
- 09:28, 16 February 2006 PaxTerra (consensus was to order sequencially by most recent volatile discussion of issue)
- 08:59, 16 February 2006 PaxTerra (→Comparable references - restore another widely cited comparison repeatedly deleted by Netscott)
- 06:37, 16 February 2006 PaxTerra (→Comparable references - restore to consensus version or 12./15)
- 04:59, 16 February 2006 PaxTerra (→Comparable references - restore as per 02/15/06 concensus)
Reported by: Netscott 12:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments: This individual has been repeatedly reverting over the edits of myself and User:MX44, as well as once over User:David.Monniaux. After numerous discussions in the Talk area there seems to be little compromise.
Talk:MX44 would surely verify this report.
PaxTerra Comments:
Please note that Netscott directs readers here to various edits that are not all reversions of the same content. Also please note that PaxTerra (myself) has comprimised extensively -- the comprimise Netscott seeks seems to be removal of all content contributed by PaxTerra, though PaxTerra has offered dozens of references. Also note Netscott himself has entered the same content he accuses PaxTerra of reentering over his objection [114].
Also please note restoration of content by PaxTerra that was deleted by User:Jdonnis under a false edit summary claiming to have refactored:[115] Also please compare PaxTerra's limited and neutral contribution vs. Netscott's sustained deletions, Netscott's editing contrary to agreement on talk page (re: list of mentioned comparisons) , PaxTerra's tedious and extensive explanation on talk page of fewer than 40 words contributed to article, PaxTerra's cooperation in refactoring contributions where possible, extensive documentation of contributions, PaxTerra's balanced contribution and lack of consensus over Netscott's proposed deletions [116] Oh ... and there's MX44's scatalogical argument [117][118] PaxTerra 13:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on VBulletin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Locke_Cole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- 1st revert: 13:10, 16 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 13:15, 16 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 13:25, 16 February 2006
- 4th revert: 14:04, 16 February 2006
Reported by: Pti 13:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- I'd like to know who 218.148.3.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is, and how he suddenly jumped in to accuse Locke Cole of disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point, right after Pti's third revert. Mackensen (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- I pointed out the page to a few other people. If this is a violation, please correct me. It looks like he was disrupting to me. Pti 14:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
This is perhaps all a bit silly, since its over non-visible text, but it appears to me that LC is in the right: the text Pti wishes to add appears invalid. LC has opened a discussion of this on the talk page; I trust Pti will join it. William M. Connolley 21:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC).
- He was in the right to breach the 3RR? I guess we can all go and breach the 3RR whenever we're in the right, then. Pti 21:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jdonnis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- 1st revert: 13:10 02/16/06
- 2nd revert: 12:52 02/16/06
- 3rd revert: 12:22 02/16/06
Reported by: PaxTerra 14:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Thats 3 not 4. William M. Connolley 15:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC).
- Ah, it's >3. got it.
Three revert rule violation on Macedonians (ethnic group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Macedonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 15:33, 16 February 2006
- 1st revert: 15:48, 16 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 16:06, 16 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 16:14, 16 February 2006
- 4th revert: 16:28, 16 February 2006
Reported by: --Latinus (talk (el:)) 16:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- I have warned him on multiple occasions about the 3RR both in edit summaries and on his talk page, and he ignored me. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 16:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Latinus has never warned me on my talk page about this incident
- Latinus has continually been removing facts from the article, and reliable sources were provided all over the article with the same topic. Macedonia 16:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Really, what about those diffs? Either way, you've been blocked for violating the 3RR before, so you don't need me to warn you in advance. You know about it. Also, where are these sources? And what are these names, "Pirin Macedonia", "Aegean Macedonia"? The official names for these places are Blagoevgrad Province and Greek Macedonia (actually, in Greece, it's plain "Maceodnia"). The bottom line is that there is no excuse for violating the 3RR. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 16:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm unclear now on what you really want. Do you want sources? They were right below the part that you were reverting in the Major Populations by Country section where it states that Macedonians live in northern Greece and southwestern Bulgaria. Aegean and Pirin are just other names for these same regions (see the dab page Macedonian), just like how the official name of the Republic of Macedonia' is simply that, but in Greek articles it is refered to as FYROM, or how the official name of Macedonians is simply that, but in Greek articles its Slavicmacedonians. Macedonia 19:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Anyway, it looks like you were purposely ignoring the sources I was referring to, sources and explainations that were impossible to miss, perhaps you were removing those facts for a different reason? --Macedonia 20:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Is still reverting. Uninvolved admin needed. Jkelly 19:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm unclear now on what you really want - I want you to obey WP:3RR. Please read the rules. Blocked 24h William M. Connolley 21:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC).
Three revert rule violation on Marsha Blackburn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.174.165.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 9:35 February 15, 2006
- 1st revert: 10:27 February 16, 2006
- 2nd revert: 11:12 February 16, 2006
- 3rd revert: 12:01 February, 16 2006
- 4th revert: 12:09 February 16, 2006
- 5th revert: 12:47 February 16, 2006
- 6th revert: 13:13 February 16, 2006
- 7th revert: 13:21 February 16, 2006
- 8th revert: 13:31 February 16, 2006
Reported by: —User:ACupOfCoffee@ 19:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- This started just after an IP in the House of Representatives was blocked for 3RR violation on only a portion of the content this IP's reverts focused on. I have warned him.
Report new violation
Place new reports ABOVE this header, using the template below. Do not edit the template itself. See the example at the top of the page for full details. Take the time to do the job right to get the quickest responses. From the article's History page, use diffs (links labelled "last"), not versions, and the "compare versions" button to clearly highlight the changes between versions of the article and show what has been reverted.
===[[User:USERNAME]]=== [[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy}}. {{3RRV|USERNAME}}: * Previous version reverted to: [Link Time] * 1st revert: [DiffLink Time] * 2nd revert: [DiffLink Time] * 3rd revert: [DiffLink Time] * 4th revert: [DiffLink Time] Reported by: ~~~~ '''Comments:''' *