Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎[[User:Edward NZ]]: added 5th revert, note, and note on 3RR warning
Line 1,096: Line 1,096:
*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.. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 07:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
*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.. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 07:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
**Added his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PhpBB&diff=39849400&oldid=39849161 5th revert]. I've now warned him of [[WP:3RR]] on his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEdward_NZ&diff=39850835&oldid=39125717 talk page]. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 07:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
**Added his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PhpBB&diff=39849400&oldid=39849161 5th revert]. I've now warned him of [[WP:3RR]] on his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEdward_NZ&diff=39850835&oldid=39125717 talk page]. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 07:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

* I think we need a CheckUser. [[User:Locke Cole]] (per his user page) is from Washington state. The anon that's been tag-team revert-warring on this page ({{user|67.42.93.179}}) is an ISP in Washington (see http://www.whois.sc/67.42.93.179). -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 08:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


== Report new violation ==
== Report new violation ==

Revision as of 08:35, 16 February 2006

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    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 {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    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.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    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.

    Click here to create a new report



    Violations

    User:68.116.251.13

    Three revert rule violation on Mark Levin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). :

    Reported by Eleemosynary 21:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    User:DrBat

    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):

    Reported by: AriGold 13:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    User:lumiere

    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)[reply]

    User:204.110.99.42

    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):

    Reported by: Extraordinary Machine 17:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    User:80.202.111.88

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Colle

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    His fifth revert can be found [9] if anyone is interested. Chooserr 03:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    User:Leyasu

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    User:Basil Rathbone

    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)[reply]

    Comments:

    User indef blocked as sock of arbcom blocked user. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Zarbon

    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):

    Reported by: Papacha 18:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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).[reply]

    User:HeyNow10029

    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):

    Reported by: Extraordinary Machine 19:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    User:Dzonatas

    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):

    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):

    Reported by: —Ruud 21:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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)

    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).[reply]

    User: 85.187.163.40

    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)[reply]

    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.[reply]

    85.187.163.40 (talk · contribs) has no template talkspace contributions. Jkelly 01:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Elerner

    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):

    Reported by: Joke 03:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Blocked for 24 hours. howcheng {chat} 07:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Appleby

    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):

    Reported by: Endroit 10:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Blocked (again) for however long he was blocked last time William M. Connolley 13:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]


    User:Robsteadman

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Blocked 24h. Jesus, Prince of Peace :-) William M. Connolley 16:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    User:149.150.236.125

    Repeated additions of image of Devil to Talk: Pope Pius XII. 

    Robert McClenon 20:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for 24 hours. howcheng {chat} 17:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:69.129.82.150

    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):

    Reported by: Duffer 18:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    More edits:

    please help. joshbuddy 21:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I'm fine with that. Duffer 05:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sunday_Service

    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)[reply]

    Comments:

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    User:Informativemiss and User:198.237.84.66

    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):

    Reported by: Natgoo 21:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • 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
    • 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)[reply]
    In fact, your first edit was to revert that link. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    User:199.29.6.2

    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):

    Reported by: KHM03 23:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    User:Williamo1

    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):

    Reported by: Lbbzman 01:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    User:KarlBunker

    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):

    Reported by: Br Alexis Bugnolo 02:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    User:69.203.142.41

    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):

    Reported by : Seraphim 07:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hours -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Maria Stella

    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):

    Reported by: Chris 73 | Talk 08:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    First offence, but you warned her. 12h. William M. Connolley 11:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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):

    Reported by: Chris 73 | Talk 08:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Blocked 48h. Now to proceed upwards... William M. Connolley 11:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tasc

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    it'd better to discuss everything before changing on such a controversial topic. --tasc 11:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    weird, admins look even on unformated reports. --tasc 20:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:68.162.148.34

    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):

    Reported by: Ehheh 17:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    User:Agapetos_angel

    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):

    Reported by: FeloniousMonk 18:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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).[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Blocked (I thought I'd said that before... hmmm) William M. Connolley 20:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    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 overhaul where 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)[reply]
    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).[reply]
    Yes, I misread the order of events. AA only reverted the order once. Jim62sch 11:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:jlambert

    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)[reply]

    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).[reply]

    User:67.183.15.135

    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):

    Reported by: · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 04:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hours --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Boggle99

    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):

    Reported by: Colle|File:Locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 07:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    User:Nathanrdotcom

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]

    User:CyclePat

    Three revert rule violation on Template:Olympic games medal count. CyclePat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Mike (T C) 22:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    User:Leyasu

    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)[reply]

    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.

    User:Hbutterfly

    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.

    Reported by: Harro5 05:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:


    User:JohnBWatt

    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)[reply]

    Comments:


    User:Tactik

    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):

    Reported by: Themindset 08:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    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)[reply]

    User:205.240.227.15

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    User:R.Koot

    • 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)[reply]

    I doubt that reverting myself counts towards a 3RR. —Ruud 03:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    User:Astriolok

    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):

    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):

    Reported by: —Ruud 03:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: He is also reverting to very old version at al-Battani. —Ruud 03:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 24h William M. Connolley 21:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:68.49.68.102

    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)[reply]

    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.

    User:Giovanni33

    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):

    Reported by: Tom Harrison Talk 05:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    I have asked for a checkuser. [96] Tom Harrison Talk 15:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Kecik may be another sock. KHM03 02:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also User:FionaS. KHM03 02:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:81.31.160.4

    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):

    Reported by: --Ghirla | talk 12:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    User:Get-back-world-respect

    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):

    and about 5 more after that.

    Reported by: Kurando | ^_^ 16:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    • See my comment about Dbiv over same incident in following section. NSLE (T+C) 00:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dbiv

    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):

    Reported by: Get-back-world-respect 17:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]

    User:80.90.37.175

    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):

    Reported by: --Latinus (talk (el:)) 23:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    User:Young Zaphod

    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):

    (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)[reply]

    Comments:

    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):

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    User:Sertraline

    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):


    Reported by: A Y Arktos 10:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Noob. Warned. Please, in future, *you* can warn then after the first few reverts! William M. Connolley 22:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    User:220.237.20.25

    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):

    Reported by: Deskana (talk) 09:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    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).[reply]

    User:Bomac and User:Theathenae

    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):


    Reported by: Theathenae 13:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]


    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):

    Reported by: 198.180.251.157 14:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Blocked both, 24h William M. Connolley 22:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    User:71.242.208.204

    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):

    Reported by: dharmabum 21:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    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)[reply]

    User:Daryou

    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):

    Reported by: Reisio 22:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    User:209.181.19.117

    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):

    Reported by: OhNoitsJamieTalk 01:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    User:MateoP

    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)[reply]

    User:65.122.236.133

    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):

    Reported by: OhNoitsJamieTalk 03:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Comments:[reply]

    • 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)[reply]

    User:Edward NZ

    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).:

    Reported by: —Locke Cole • t • c 07:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    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|ARTICLENAME}}. {{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:'''
*
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=39854207"