Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive15
Three revert rule violation on Socialism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). infinity0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 20:04, 23 April 2006 (he rearranged links before revert, leaving rearrangment after rv)
- 1st revert: 14:28, 24 April 2006
- 2nd revert: 20:19, 24 April 2006
- 3rd revert: 20:53, 24 April 2006
- 4th revert: 15:23, 25 April 2006
Reported by: -- Vision Thing -- 19:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Comments: 4th revert happened 24 hours and 55 minutes after first revert, but this user already broke 3RR 3 times (1 2 3) in last 3 months and I think he delayed last revert on purpose to avoid breaking 3RR technically. -- Vision Thing -- 19:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- Vision Thing seems to have a thing against me. In my defence, I did NOT violate 3RR, and Vision Thing's (spam) edits were reverted by other users too. -- infinity0 19:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- Infinity0: it is best to show diffs containing the reverts Vision Thing did -- your response will have more weight in you handle it this way. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 19:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- OK, here are Vision Thing's insertion and reinsertion of links: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. -- infinity0 20:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on The Ave. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gephart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 22:21, April 25, 2006
- 1st revert: Revision as of 08:29, April 26, 2006
- 2nd revert: Revision as of 21:50, April 26, 2006
- 3rd revert: Revision as of 00:17, April 27, 2006
- 4th revert: Revision as of 00:29, April 27, 2006
Reported by: Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Experienced user. Reverts concern the removal of a pic which no-one else so far has had a problem with. He is assuming bad faith and has already declared his intention here to carry out a revert war until he gets his way . - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- I dont exactly know if users have the option to defend themselves or were they would do it, so I, Gephart, will do it right here (if this is not the place, please direct to the appropriate area or let me know i have not chance). Although i have been using wikipedia for a little under a year, i can honestly say i never knew about the 3RR (i know for the future). I guess i have never had any trouble with other users up until today. Calgacus continued to revert what i had done without being willing to discuss the picture in question. And, as i noticed above, he posted another 3RR violation, stating "the persons unwillingness to discuss," so i know he can imagine the frustration i was feeling. I posted twice on the article talk page and once on his user page, but got no direct answer to the simple questions i asked him; he continually beat around the bush to put it. I know i violated policy is "declaring an edit war" in my last post, put that simply came out of frustration, and my intents were never genuine. Anyways, that is my side of the story.--Gephart 00:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but this edit to your own user page is quite ridiculous, shocking and disgraceful, containing falsehoods such as "Calgacus will start a mini-revert war" (actually, you, as you admit here, started it), "he intentionally ignores talk pages" (I actually responded to all your comments all the talk page) and slander "cause you to violate the 3RR rule" (you yourself did this), "intentionally" (who could you know?). I reported you here because I like to edit articles and concentrate on content, so I report all 3RRs I come across. The latter edit has discredited your attempt to convince of your own good faith. I remind you to consult WP:Assume good faith, and very much hope you don't need a block to reform your character. Thanks. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Cold fusion controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JedRothwell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: [6]
- 1st revert: 13:34, 27 April 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion_controversy&diff=50419455&oldid=50419132
- 2nd revert: 13:44, 27 April 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion_controversy&diff=50420518&oldid=50419787
- 3rd revert: 14:07, 27 April 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion_controversy&diff=50423391&oldid=50422134
- 4th revert: 14:21, 27 April 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion_controversy&diff=50425225&oldid=50424171
Reported by: KillerChihuahua?!? 14:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- 5th revert: 15:24, 27 April 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion_controversy&diff=50433449&oldid=50424171
Comments:
Note that this is the second time that Jed has gone over 3RR and he was again warned before his 4th revert: [7]. JoshuaZ 15:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- 24h. Note that I have some history over this article, though it was a long time ago, so feel free to review this block if required William M. Connolley 15:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on April 27 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.144.93.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: [8]
- 1st revert: [9]
- 2nd revert: [10]
- 3th revert: [11]
- 4th revert: [12]
- 5th revert: [13]
Reported by: Asbl 15:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments: 5th revert came after I put a warning on the anon's talk page.
- 8h. Sorry I forgot to note that earlier William M. Connolley 22:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Kosovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Manojlo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
- 1st revert: [14]
- 2nd revert: [15]
- 3rd revert: [16]
- 4th revert:[17]
- 5th revert: [18]
- 6th revert: [19]
Reported by: Ilir pz 19:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments: If looked at Special:Contributions/Manojlo user continues to revert continuously, hiding behind the claim that "minor parts" are edited, and misleads with the Comments, but in fact he is trying to impose his POV. I put several test warnings to him, but he just kept removing them from his talk page. Action is appreciated. Thank you, Ilir pz 19:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Stephanie Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). GODDESSY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
Comment 1-3 were the same reversion, 4 was removal of deletion tag, 5 was a partial reversion back to original version. Pretty basic edit war.--Isotope23 20:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps off topic, but the user seems to have WP:OWN issues about the article.--Isotope23 21:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- 24h, for 3RR and self-biog William M. Connolley 21:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Squamish, British Columbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 207.81.122.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
- 1nd revert: 23:14, 27 April 2006
- 2rd revert: 23:23, 27 April 2006
- 3th revert: 23:30, 27 April 2006
- 4st revert: 23:38, 27 April 2006
Reported by: TeaDrinker 00:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments: This seems to all be one user, but a very persistant one. He has been doing these reverts for months. He has been warned on multiple accounts previously (note that he removes warnings from talk pages), and uses many accounts.
- 207.81.122.3 (talk • contribs)
- Wikipedia_Indian_Name_Control (talk • contribs)
- S2s_ranger (talk • contribs)
- Squamish_Nation (talk • contribs)
- Wwjbd (talk • contribs)
- Qromenov (talk • contribs)
- Indian_Name_Control (talk • contribs)
- HD_123321 (talk • contribs) (probable)
Three revert rule violation on Argentina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Demographics of Argentina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Al-Andalus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Argentina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Demographics of Argentina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Reported by: OneEuropeanHeart 03:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- My and other users reverts were in responce to those reverts done by the user now reporting this 3RR. For a background to this please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#RVs at Argentina and Demographics of Argentina and relevant Talk:. Al-Andalus 20:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User has been warned four times [36] [37] [38] [39] by three different users, refusing to discuss the issue or change his behavior. --OneEuropeanHeart 03:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick response. Homever, this user has started to vandalise and revert other users' contributions again. Can someone please block him again? --OneEuropeanHeart 18:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Liancourt Rocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 211.225.70.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 09:39, 27 April 2006
- 1st revert: 07:08, 28 April 2006
- 2nd revert: 09:31, 28 April 2006
- 3rd revert: 10:30, 28 April 2006
- 4th revert: 11:37, 28 April 2006
- 5th revert: 12:21, 28 April 2006
- 6th revert: 12:33, 28 April 2006
- 7th revert: 12:58, 28 April 2006
Reported by: Endroit 12:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments: This user keeps reverting against consensus, to variations of East Sea (instead of Sea of Japan). A warning has been placed on the user page after the 6th revert.--Endroit 13:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Seems to have got bored and gone off. Warned. William M. Connolley 19:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Aromanians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Greier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 11:59, 28 April 2006
- 1st revert: 12:16, 28 April 2006
- 2nd revert: 12:18, 28 April 2006
- 3rd revert: 12:24, 28 April 2006
- 4th revert: 12:28, 28 April 2006
- 5th revert: 17:59, 28 April 2006
Reported by: Telex 13:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- But User:Greier is one more time challanged by you Telex. You don't speak with him on talk page first. You just report him here. --Steaua 18:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- It's not my job to babysit him - how many users is that ludicrous propaganda of his being reverted by? He knows he oughtn't continue reverting, but he does it anyway. Quite evidently (from his user talk page), many users have tried to speak with him, alas, in vain. Telex 18:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I haven't seen you try to talk with Greier...--Steaua 18:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've seen you just reverting his work. If you complain of something go to the talk page first. This is Wikipedia...--Steaua 18:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Edit summary - after my hard work was called bullshit, he hurt my feelings. Telex 18:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, unless you're Node I don't see why you're so upset and why your feelings are hurted. That's really bulshit what you have written there. That work deserve immediatelly reverted. --Steaua 18:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User has been warned of the 3RR and has been blocked before on numerous occasions. One may also be interested in these lovely edit summaries and have a word with him about them [40], [41] and [42]. Telex 13:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't agree with this, User:Greier was challanged by User:Telex. --Steaua 13:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- In fact, Telex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was also on Administrator's noticeboard [43] warned not to revert and to make compromise on talk page first. --Steaua 13:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Steaua (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of permabanned Bonaparte (talk · contribs · block log) - for more info, see User:Bonaparte/sockpuppetry. Telex 13:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Don't you think that Greier is his sock, too? From what I know of both, their style of editing seems to have much in common. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Steaua for support. I know Romanians on wikipedia are on a constant... let`s call it stress, from a combined pack of Greeks, Russians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Hungarians, Ukrainians.... They all have theyr own (apparentelly contrasting) ideas on what Romanian/Aromanian/Vlach people mean, from where Romanian/Aromanians/Vlach camed from, on what Romanians/"Vlach" language means... About your propose to block me... haa hahahaha hahah haaaa haha... Greier 18:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
2006-04-28 18:54:09 Mikkalai blocked "Greier (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (WP:3RR acc. to report) which seems fair enough William M. Connolley 18:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
A russian coallition of force...russian blocking, just fine...--Steaua 19:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on User talk:137.186.145.102. 137.186.145.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
Reported by: Ardenn 16:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments: He violates etiquette about the talk page. Ardenn 16:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Getting into edit wars on peoples own talk pages is unproductive and offensive. William M. Connolley 18:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I concur. I've already spoken with Ardenn about how ridiculous it is to consider as vandalism a user's removal of his obviously too large signature from their talk page (the image in Ardenn's current signature is much smaller that the one he left on the talk page in question), as he left a message about vandalism over this issue prior to this report of a 3RR violation. I am absolutely certain that Ardenn understands that what he is arguing over is exceedingly unimportant, and yet he insists on making an issue out of it. OZLAWYER talk 20:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Pope Benedict XVI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DevoutOne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
- 1st revert: 18:09, 28 April 2006
- 2nd revert: 18:20, 28 April 2006
- 3rd revert: 18:25, 28 April 2006
- 4th revert: 18:35, 28 April 2006
Reported by: Dominick (TALK) 18:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Looks like this account was created only to insert links to Pope Benedict XVI in the article. I posted on talk, he replied with a template. May be a sockpuppet.
- Of the pope? :-))) In that case, only 1h for now as a gentle reminder that the rules can be enforced William M. Connolley 19:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Persian Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 00:58, 28 April 2006
- 1st revert: 00:58, 28 April 2006
- 2nd revert: 04:25, 28 April 2006
- 3rd revert: 22:34, 28 April 2006
- 4th revert: 23:35, 28 April 2006
- 5th revert: 00:05, 29 April 2006
Reported by: —Khoikhoi 23:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User has been blocked for 3RR before. —Khoikhoi 23:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The only previous time I was blocked the admin apoligized later [49]. In this case however I will admit I broke the 3RR as I forgot I rv a couple of times yesterday and could not revert myself as I had already been reverted. I apoligize.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- No action now. Warned. `'mikka (t) 01:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Werner_Herzog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 154.20.148.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 02:34, 27 April 2006
- 1st revert: 20:28, 27 April 2006
- 2nd revert: 15:59, 28 April 2006
- 3rd revert: 18:14, 28 April 2006
- 4th revert: 18:51, 28 April 2006
- 5th revert: 01:26, 29 April 2006
Reported by: Stephan Schulz 00:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked 48h. `'mikka (t) 01:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Both the first four and the second four reverts constitute a 3RR violation.
- I warned the user after the first violation, without effect.
- He was blocked for similar offenses previously (see his talk page). --Stephan Schulz 00:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Ann Coulter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Daveinaustin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 20:55, 28 April 2006
- 1st revert: 20:55, 28 April 2006
- 2nd revert: 20:57, 28 April 2006
- 3rd revert: 21:02, 28 April 2006
- 4th revert: 23:34, 28 April 2006
- 5th revert: 00:18, 28 April 2006
Reported by: AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User is repeatedly adding POV to the article and removing legitimate text, though he refuses to cite sources (not that that's relevant when investigating 3RR)
- His submissions have been reverted by three separate editors.
- User has been sufficiently warned, yet refuses to stop.
- Are these really reverts? They look like insertions of different POV text William M. Connolley 08:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- I was just about to say the same thing. Ami, can you show where he has reverted to text you had deleted, or repeatedly inserted something? SlimVirgin (talk) 08:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- No, I suppose I can't. I've only reverted one of his edits, and then one of the article's main contributors (of which I'm not) asked me to do something about him as he had refused to stop inserting POV into the article. Looking at the history it seemed to be 3RR, so I listed him here. I guess I should have looked more closely. He seems to have either given up now or gone to bed, so I guess there's no reason to take any action. If the problem persists, hopefully they'll open up an RfC--I was just trying to find a quick and temporary solution to a problem that I shouldn't have gotten involved with in the first place. Sorry for taking your time. AmiDaniel (Talk) 18:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
3RR violation on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Version reverted to: 02:23 April 29; this is the archiving of the page, which the next four reverts undo most of.
- 1st revert 06:29 April 29
- 2nd revert 06:59 April 29
- 3rd revert 07:30 April 29
- 4th revert 07:48 April 29
Reported by SlimVirgin (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments
Gene Nygaard has reverted my archiving of the talk page four times in 90 minutes, part of a pattern of disruption from him that has been going on there for days. He has been editing for some time and is familiar with the 3RR policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Um. It looks like no-one (including me) wants to step into your edit war with GN. You both know whats-what. You (both) shouldn't be edit warring over archiving a talk page. For what its worth, my preference is to archive, unless people object, in which case it can be left for a week or a month or whatever William M. Connolley 22:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- William, are you saying it's okay for him to violate 3RR because it's a talk page? If so, he'll simply keep on doing it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Don't you feel downright silly for having said that, then being blocked yourself for the same thing? Gene Nygaard 02:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Violating 3RR to scuttle the archiving of a page is not just lame, but disruptive. There's no legitimate excuse. Blocked for 24 hr for the 3RR vio. Any further disruption when the block expires will earn him another 24. FeloniousMonk 01:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Seems like SV has also violated 3RR (see below) and in this case seems to have archived discussion less than a day old. Given my experience of her removing comment she doesn't like, I am, unfortunately, not surprised. We should expect evenhandedness in applying 3RR. In fact I'll go further and say admins who violate policy should be dealt with more firmly than ordinary users. Mccready 05:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- She reverted herself on that long before you even made your complaint, as you well know, so this accusation is little more than trolling at this point. Also, this section is about Gene Nygaard's 3RR violation, it's not a venue for attacking people you don't like; furthermore, your continued Wikistalking of User:SlimVirgin must cease. Jayjg (talk) 05:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Have you actually read WP:CIVIL yourself, Jayjg? Why are you going off on a personal attact on an editor who is not even a subject of a notice of 3RR violation, engaging in namecalling and in an ad hominem argument unrelated to anything that editor has said here? Gene Nygaard 03:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Jay, I don't well know that at all. In any case her comments below appear to be a mea culpa. I don't suppose you'd consider apologising to me? May I remind you to be civil and not make illogical accusations? Mccready 06:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Her self-block goes above and beyond the call of duty, and just serves to highlight her acute sense of responsibility, justice and fairplay. I'd recommend not putting words in her mouth, especially considering the amount you have been harassing her. I don't suppose you'd consider desiting from your continued violations of WP:CIVIL? Jayjg (talk) 07:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Geber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jidan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: [50]
- 1st revert: 00:49, 29 April 2006
- 2nd revert: 01:44, 29 April 2006
- 3rd revert: 02:49, 29 April 2006
- 4th revert: 11:34, 29 April 2006
- 5th revert: 12:09, 29 April 2006
- 6th revert: 13:38, 29 April 2006
Reported by: ManiF 12:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User:Jidan has been previously blocked for 3RR, on three occasions during the last six weeks. --ManiF 12:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- They aren't all reverts. Prodego talk 14:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- There are more than 3 reverts in the period of time. Some are just complex reverts to accomplish the same goal. Blocked for 48 hours. He should know better. Wikibofh(talk) 14:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't mean to intrude, but there is a theoretical 3RR violation (depending on how nitpicky the admin wants to be). If you check all diffs, you'll notice that he's removed the link Persians at least five times (so we have four reverts). According to the policy, partial reverts count as well. Telex 14:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see any more then three reverts. Prodego talk 14:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- There are six reverts there. As per WP:3RR, not all the reverts have to be the same, any undoing of another editor's work counts as a revert. --ManiF 14:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- It's three straight forward reverts, and then two more edits to accomplish the same thing (change to an ethnicity of Arab). Looks like a straight forward attempt at wikilawyering to me, and he should know better.
Wikibofh(talk) 14:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Anarchism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hogeye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: Original
- 1st revert: 1st revert at 2006-04-29 16:57:46 (Difference between 0th and 1st reversions)
- 2nd revert: 2nd revert at 2006-04-29 17:49:32 (Difference between 1st and 2nd reversions)
- 3rd revert: 3rd revert at 2006-04-29 18:26:54 (Difference between 2nd and 3rd reversions)
- 4th revert: 4th revert at 2006-04-29 18:39:21 (Difference between 3rd and 4th reversions)
- 5th revert: 5th revert at 2006-04-29 18:58:07 (Difference between 4th and 5th reversions)
Reported by: -- infinity0 17:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments: This is the user's first group of edits since being banned for a month for personal attacks and disruptive editing.
There's eight now (not counting the sockpuppet edit mentioned below); for easy viewing: [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58]. The user also made other changes to the article that were reverted, but those ones were all around the same things. Four of the reversions to his edits were by myself, and I'd rather avoid making any more. Sarge Baldy 20:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
There's another one by an anon which is most likely Hogeye at [59]. Fightindaman 20:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Um, OK, this is getting silly. Errm... 48h? William M. Connolley 22:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Elo_rating_system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wolfkeeper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: Original
- 1st revert: 2006-04-29 17:47
- 2nd revert: 2006-04-29 21:10
- 3rd revert: 2006-04-29 22:04
- 4th revert: 2006-04-29 22:26
Reported by: Dionyseus 03:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments: I attemped mediation so that someone can explain to him why you cannot include unsourced and unfounded claims in the article, and for a full day the Elo_rating_system article was at peace, but apparently he has become restless because he began reverting my edits again, and worse he calls my edits vandalism, displaying lack of faith on me as an editor WP: Assume Good Faith. Dionyseus 03:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC) Furthermore he is now posting on my userpage, calling me names and insulting me, and deleted my earlier attempts to mediate with him on his userpage. Dionyseus 06:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- 12h for first offence William M. Connolley 07:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Abdullah Öcalan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Metb82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 09:52, 8 April 2006
- 1st revert: 18:16, 29 April 2006 (as 85.97.8.133 (talk · contribs), who is the same person as Metb82; proof: [60])
- 2nd revert: 00:28, 30 April 2006 (as 85.97.8.133)
- 3rd revert: 00:40, 30 April 2006 (as Metb82)
- 4th revert: 00:43, 30 April 2006 (as Metb82)
Reported by: —Khoikhoi 03:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User has been blocked for 3RR before. —Khoikhoi 03:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked for 48 hours. --InShaneee 00:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on 2003 invasion of Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lemuel_Gulliver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 04:33, 30 April 2006
- 1st revert: 04:33, 30 April 2006
- 2nd revert: 04:46, 30 April 2006
- 3rd revert: 04:54, 30 April 2006
- 4th revert: 05:05, 30 April 2006
Reported by: Merecat 05:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments: These editor is clearly aware of what he is doing. His edit summaries state:
- "Such an assertion needs to be made in the body of the text, attributed and explained. Not stated so baldly"
- "This is another way it could be done"
- "Attributed version. The simplest solution is not to include it"
- "Quotes alone is another option"
- He was warned on his talk page here as well as with edit summary which stated:
"rv / v Gulliver - You have reverted this 3 times already. The last 2 times were vandalism. Stop now or face 3RR and vandal report"
- Here are the real diffs: revert 1, partial revert 1, attempted compromise 1, attempted compromise 2, attempted compromise 3. At that point I left the article for others to worry about. Incidentally, I don't actually like those compromises. As I argued, I believe it is best to make such a controversial assertion ("part of the War on Terrorism") in the body of the text, where it can be attributed and explained.
- It is also worth noting that Merecat is refusing to enter discussion on the matter, by deleting comments on his talk page. He has also misused vandalism templates and been warned for it. He has also reverted the article three times and risks breaking the 3RR. — Gulliver ✉ 05:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Gulliver's knowledge of procedure is sufficient that he knew enough to come looking for this page. With such knowledge, he's certain to know that the place to dialog is the article talk page, not by leaving insults on my talk page. Please review the article talk page see that Gulliver is part of a small group of POV warriors, determined to delete this category from the article. Merecat 05:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- "Part of a small group of POV warriors"? Please keep conspiracy paranoia off this page. I happened across the article, noticed unattributed POV, and tried to remedy it in various ways. — Gulliver ✉ 06:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, how about "one of a number of POV reverters"? Merecat 06:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- "A Wikipedian implementing NPOV policy as usual" is fine. In any case, there is no 3RR violation, and so I won't entertain you further by engaging you in unnecessary debate. The admins who manage this page have better things to read. — Gulliver ✉ 06:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 05:04 UTC 29 April
- 1st revert: 06:54 UTC, 29 April 2006
- 2nd revert: 07:02 UTC, 29 April 2006
- 3rd revert: 07:36 UTC, 29 April 2006
- 4th revert: 0:06 UTC, 30 April 2006
WP should be about even-handedness not sysops supporting each other without adequate research.
Reported by: Mccready 05:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- same activity involving #User:Gene Nygaard in report above
- Mccready 05:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- She reverted herself on that long before you even made your complaint, as you well know, so this accusation is little more than trolling at this point. Also, your continued Wikistalking of User:SlimVirgin must cease. Jayjg (talk) 05:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Jay am I wrong that she arhived the page 4 times within 24 hours? I don't understand what you mean by saying she reverted herself. I'm always happy to learn. Mccready 06:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- I hadn't reverted four times when I reported Gene Nygaard. After he was blocked (or around the same time; I forget the sequence exactly), I went back to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources and I restored the archiving that Gene had reverted, without realizing that I was still within the 24 hour period. As soon as I realized, I reverted myself. Normally, that's enough to avoid a block for 3RR. However, as an admin, I should have been more careful, and as someone who had just reported someone else for 3RR, I should have been more careful still, so I'm going to block myself now for 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
This appears noble Slim and I assume good faith, but to make it more lifelike would you agree that Gene should be able to nominate (at any time within the next 30 days) a time for you to go offline for 24 hours from the time of his nomination? Mccready 07:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Wow, what a solution Mcready, I can obviously see how it relates to your complaint.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Let's keep this in perspective. SV was trying to archive a talk page that contained nothing more than fruitless and disruptive agitation from a chronic malcontent. Gene Nygaard's opposition to the archiving was nothing more than insisting on yet further disruption. SV was in the right to archive and Gene Nygaard was in the wrong to repeatedly revert it. In responding to Gene Nygaard's unwarranted reversions, SV's actions did not rise to the level of a block for 3RR, while Gene's certainly did. I'm fine with SV being unblocked, but not with Gene Nygaard. FeloniousMonk 15:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- It's nice to see your selective indignation at work, FeloniousMonk! What happened to "Violating 3RR to scuttle the archiving of a page is not just lame, but disruptive"?
- Note also that SlimVirgin also has a history of using "archiving" of active discussion as a pretext for stifling talk page discussion. This isn't the first time she's pulled that out of her bag of tricks, nor the first time edit-war about it. It should surprise no one when such actions are not submissively acceded to. See, e.g., Talk:Pan Am Flight 103/Archive 1 and the corresponding talk page edits on those dates. Gene Nygaard 02:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- It's nice to see your selective indignation at work. Let's see: selective: "[T]ending to select; characterized by careful choice; "an exceptionally quick and selective reader"- John Mason Brown. [C]haracterized by very careful or fastidious selection; "the school was very selective in its admissions" Seems appropriate. --Calton | Talk 02:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not the only one who found SlimVirgin's actions offensive. See Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Why are 3 day old comments from active discussions in the talk archive?, and note that the originator of that section was often on the opposite side of the discussion from me. Gene Nygaard 02:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yea I don't understand why she blocked herself in the first place.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Always have to throw in an attempt to show that you are the boss here, don't you, SV?
- I notice that, unlike the sysop who blocked me, the one who blocked you gave you an opportunity to offer an explanation here first.
- In a more sensible world, some other sysop would tack on an additional 24 hours for conduct unbecoming a sysop, in presuming to act as a judge in your own case.
- Curiously, your self-reversion of your own fourth revert not only came a rather long 4 h 26 minutes after that reversion, but also and more tellingly, only after I had pointed out to User:FeloniousMonk by email (because he was the one who blocked me, and because I therefore could not post it here) that you had also violated 3RR. Any connection? FM never bothered to reply to me; looks mighty suspicious about him contacting you, however, and that being the real reason behind your 5th revert in 24 hours being a self-revert. Gene Nygaard 02:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Can someone please unblock Slim? Blocks are not punishments and it's clear that she understands what she did wrong and one would hope will try not to do it again. It is strangely difficult though, one notes, to do the right thing when Gene Nygaard is involved. Why is that, I wonder? Grace Note 02:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- I suspect that SlimVirgin took the unusual step of acting as a judge in her own case was to make it less likely that someone would be damn fool enough to do that, and expose an inherent unfairness in the way sysops treat other sysops in this process. Gene Nygaard 03:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- I suspect that you are not familiar with this policy or this one. I don't see any need to indulge you further until you are well acquainted with both. -- Grace Note.
- Huh? If there is any "good faith" issue here, that possibility is giving her every benefit of the doubt. Any other explanation I could think of to try to explain acting as a judge in her own case would involve an improper abuse of power. Gene Nygaard 04:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe it would help if I were more to the point. I think it would be a good thing if that is what she had in mind. I'm not assuming bad faith; that would be a good reason. You might take me to task about speculating about something I don't know for sure, but a lecture on assuming good faith is out of place. Gene Nygaard 14:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Generally if a person reverts four times in error and self-reverts their fourth revert, it isn't judged as a 3rr vio - after all, the point of the rule is preventative, not punitive. I would read the matter in the same way whether it was an established editor I liked, or a newcomer I didn't care for much. Guettarda 05:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- She self-reverted after she was caught. In fact, there was so much elapsed time that had she added something rather than deleting it, what she'd added would have been ripe for archiving by her standards. That Jayjg undid her self-reversion within minutes also hints that that may have been preplanned too, before she self-reverted. Gene Nygaard 09:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- The whole situation seems kind of sad, really. I will add that if Slim is that determined to revert you, I'd think long and hard about what I am changing :). Just another star in the night T | @ | C 10:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Unlike the sysop who blocked me, the sysop who blocked SlimVirgin afforded her an opportunity to offer an explanation here before being blocked.
That favoritism is part of the procedural issue here. Gene Nygaard 13:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- What? The "E-mail this user" link on your browser is busted? The {{Unblock}} tag doesn't work on your talk page? Man, you'd better ask at the Village Pump, see if anyone can help you with those tehnical issues. --Calton | Talk 13:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Now that you mention it, one thing that is broken about the "E-mail this user" feature is that it doesn't provide a copy to the originator, nor any other log that the E-mail were sent, so that even if someone were inclined to deal with rampant speculation such as yours, whether or not the evidence could be produced would be at the whim of the recipient.
- Furthermore, SlimVirgin's blocking sysop gave her an opportunity to respond here, on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, not just on her own talk page. Gene Nygaard 13:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- ...rampant speculation' You're right, when you said you were unable to comment, I assumed you were actually serious instead of making stuff up. My mistake. --Calton | Talk 13:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Just my two cents: With due regards to all participants, I would like to add that we make a lot of fuss even about obvious matters. She did something which she believed to be in order, and immediately upon realizing the matter, she set the “house’ in order. Bringing the matter here is prima facie fine, but seeing the discussion above I remember these words: “a codified set of rules on an issue, so they can subvert the spirit while adhering to the letter.” (Rule number 18, Section: Laws by others on this page. In my opinion, SV had done nothing wrong to warrant a report here. --Bhadani 10:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Makes reverts based on personal dislike of certain businesses, regardless of actual relevance.
Makes requests based on biased personal opinions.
Three revert rule violation on Jay Bennish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lemuel_Gulliver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 13:34, 16 April 2006
- 1st revert: 13:34, 16 April 2006
- 2nd revert: 05:29, 30 April 2006
- 3rd revert: 06:00, 30 April 2006
- 4th revert: 06:11, 30 April 2006
Reported by: anon Comments:
- Sorry, but it has to be more than 3 reverts within 24 hours. In this case, only 3 of the reverts are. —Khoikhoi 06:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- You wouldn't happen to be a sockpuppet, would you? Two false accusations of 3RR violation in such a short space of time! As Khoikhoi correctly notes, the first revert was not within 24 hours (it was a fortnight ago!). The edit marked as the fourth revert was an attempt at compromise. Two reverts do not a 3RR violation make. Please do not flood this page with bogus reports. — Gulliver ✉ 06:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Asian fetish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gnetwerker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 03:06, 29 April 2006
- 1st revert: 22:53, 29 April 2006
- 2nd revert: 06:39, 30 April 2006
- 3rd revert: 06:55, 30 April 2006
- 4th revert: 07:07, 30 April 2006
- 5th revert: 08:55, 30 April 2006
Reported by: Wzhao553 07:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
User continues to insert two poorly referenced sections ("Popular terminology" and "Academic terminology") and to relabel another section on Origins as my personal essay on Origins. Other editors have called for the deleted sections to go, e.g.:
- If the claim that "Postcolonialists and Neomarxists have argued that the alleged commodity fetishism of Asians arises in a similar manner." can't be cited, the whole section needs to go. Gazpacho 17:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I have tried to explain my edits several times, explaining why the referenced "Origins" section should replace the "Popular terminology" and "Academic terminology" sections, but user refuses to listen, accusing me of promoting a personal agenda. The extreme irony in this situation is that I was the one who wrote 75% of the two unsourced sections, and now I want to replace my own unsourced work with sourced work. The relevant discussion can be found here:
Talk:Asian_fetish#Original_Research_in_this_article
User also has a history of violating WP:OWN, not to mention m:MPOV. More to the point, he continues to believe that, as an Asian American, I am somehow always writing with a POV and that I am intellectually incapable of striving for NPOV, and that he has become the "unofficial mediator" of the article. I have tried to reason and to assume good faith, but he refuses to reason. Personally, I think that that is somewhat racist, but that's my personal opinion. Cheers, Wzhao553 07:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Asian fetish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wzhao553 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: [61]
- 1st revert: [62] - 17:36, April 29, 2006
- 2nd revert: [63] - 22:53, April 29, 2006
- 3rd revert: [64] - 23:06, April 29, 2006
- 4th revert: [65] - 00:49, April 30, 2006
Reported by: Gnetwerker 09:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments: After a long period of stability on a controversial topic, User:Wzhao553, who has proclaimed that he edits "with an Asian American POV", has inserted a mjor section of original research. While this has reluctantly been retained for discussion, Wzhao wishes for it to dominate the article, and consistently reverts to his version of the article, despite edits aiming to preserve his opinion while maintaining a balance in the article. The basline version includes his edit, but not as the sole purpose of the article, yet he consistently reverts. -- Gnetwerker 09:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Developed country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 125.172.23.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 2:21 30 April 2006
- 1st revert: 3:20 30 April 2006
- 2nd revert: 4:44 30 April 2006
- 3rd revert: 5:02 30 April 2006
- 4th revert: 7:32 30 April 2006
Reported by: Deiaemeth 09:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Keeps removing South Korea from the article, even though other users (including me) have reinstated them back. Keeps claiming that he is reverting vandalism. Deiaemeth 09:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked for 24h Will (E@) T 16:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Caroline_Cox,_Baroness_Cox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hale-Byrne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 11:03, 27 April 2006
- 1st revert: 15:35, 30 April 2006
- 2nd revert: 16:31, 30 April 2006
- 3rd revert: 16:39, 30 April 2006
- 4th revert: 16:46, 30 April 2006
Reported by: David | Talk 16:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User has on four occasions removed the same paragraph of sourced information. He has accepted some minor changes that are not in that paragraph and so the previous version is not exactly the same as the version reverted to. Please note this edit, made in the middle of his edits to this page, which is to my biographical article.
- User did violate 3RR, however blocks are meant to be preventative measures, not punishments. Therefore, I will not block the user. I will speak to them about it though. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 15:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Kiev Metro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kuban_kazak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- User:Kuban kazak was blocked for 3RR violation on this article on 8 March 2006
- Previous version reverted to: 19:54, 9 March 2006
- Previous version reverted to: 20:25, 9 March 2006
- 1st revert: 14:20, 30 April 2006
- 2nd revert: 18:27, 30 April 2006
- 3rd revert: 19:01, 30 April 2006
- 4th revert: 19:21, 30 April 2006
Reported by: KPbIC (134.84.etc) 19:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments: After the collapse of USSR, Soviet symbols and attributes were partially removed from Kiev Metro. User:Kuban kazak is pushing his opinion that it "created a conflict with the original architectural composition", instead of a neutral statement that it "altered the original architectural composition".
- Compared to simultaneously two heavy edits. If they qualify as reverts someone has to augment the WP:Revert policy... --Kuban Cossack
20:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- I self-reverted anyway until there is a consensus, speaking of which: If an architect designs a structure (say a metro station) which includes political slogans and motives in the decoration (say Communist symbols). Then years later under polical reasons someone decides to remove them. Wouldn't that be a conflict with the original design of that sturucture, based on the architects plan?--Kuban Cossack 20:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- I self-reverted anyway until there is a consensus, speaking of which: If an architect designs a structure (say a metro station) which includes political slogans and motives in the decoration (say Communist symbols). Then years later under polical reasons someone decides to remove them. Wouldn't that be a conflict with the original design of that sturucture, based on the architects plan?--Kuban Cossack
- There is clearly an article development being going on, rather than an edit war. Two editors are old fellas, so to speak, and I say, just let the article's development run its course. Plain revert wars harm the articles by rendering the pages of useless history. This here, is an article development. Discretion is advised. While it may be pleasant to throw a block or a warning here and/or there, the goal of 3RR rule is to stop edit wars that damage articles, not punish someone and not to get a self-esteem boost by having an ability to punish someone. I suggest leaving this as is. I will mediate between these editors, as I've done in the past. --Irpen 20:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Talk:Davie Dodds (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Davie Dodds|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). KarateKid7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 01:53, 1 May 2006
- 1st revert: 01:59, 1 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 02:14, 1 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 02:16, 1 May 2006
- 4th revert: 02:17, 1 May 2006
- 5th revert: 02:29, 1 May 2006
Reported by: TheMadTim 02:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
In addition to breaching WP:3RR, The user continus to vandalise the talk page of the Davie Dodds article. I have attempted to engage the editor in some form of dialogue, but they instead continue to vandalise the article talk page, and my own userpage.--TheMadTim 02:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The content which was being deleted was obviously vandalism. TheMadTim was warned about the vandalism but persisted to vandalise the talk page. The editors original edits to the article were very suspicious, were insulting to the subject of the page and were given non-notable sources. KarateKid7 02:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I'm sure that you will now be able to give a full explanation of exactly why you view my contributions as vandalism? KarateKid7 is unable to supply any examples of this alleged 'vandalism', which includes "You see, I've been over to WP:VAND, and it states : "Talk page vandalism Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, or deleting entire sections thereof, is generally considered vandalism." You have now deleted my comments three times dude. Please discontinue your vandalism. --TheMadTim 02:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)". KarateKid7 is attempting to cover up their own breach of WP:3RR and WP:VAND (of which they have been advised, but chose to delete it from the talk page) by falsley labelling my own contributions as vandalism. No mitigating circumstances have been offered by KarateKid7 for their breach of Wikipedia policies. --TheMadTim 02:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Your edits are vandalism. Talk pages relating to articles are for talking about the article. KarateKid7 03:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Hmmm hmmm yes yes, reminding you that your actions are in violation of WP:VAND, really is vandalism isn't it? LMAO. How many entries to the talk page did you make when you just made your five edits dude? --TheMadTim 03:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I have not vandalised any article, all I was doing was removing your vandalism. KarateKid7 03:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment So you keep saying, yet despite the overwhelming evidence I have shown for your disregard for Wikipedia Policies, still you are unable to supply evidence of any such vandalism on my part? Most strange indeed. I shall leave others to make their own judgements. --TheMadTim 03:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I have not vandalised any article, all I was doing was removing your vandalism. KarateKid7 03:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Hmmm hmmm yes yes, reminding you that your actions are in violation of WP:VAND, really is vandalism isn't it? LMAO. How many entries to the talk page did you make when you just made your five edits dude? --TheMadTim 03:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Your edits are vandalism. Talk pages relating to articles are for talking about the article. KarateKid7 03:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like the KarateKid7 was acually removing a unessarry talk page comment/vandalism not a 3rr violation in my view. Jaranda wat's sup 03:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment The page has been locked to prevent TheMadTim from vandalising the page. KarateKid7 03:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Dude! WTF!?!?!? No it wasn't! You Lie! You Liar! Dude! Like, how can you sleep at night? That's just like a total blatant lie you just told dude. WTF?!?!?!? Dude, are your pants on fire?--TheMadTim 03:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Notice This article (Davie Dodds) has been protected due to borderline incivility, I will revist protection in a few days. I will not personally be protecting the talk page, as it is needed as grounds to work out any diferances. — xaosflux Talk 03:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- I tend to disagree with Jaranda's message. KarateKid7 unilaterally reverted and blanked comments that he didn't want to see from the talk page. Could another admin please review this report? I would suspect either or both users may need a block, although User:TheMadTim has left Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- So you feel that adding "LMAO" with no context to a talk page is justified? I reverted this as TheMadTim continued to vandalise and moan about my initial blanking I just continued to revert. Or do you suggest that talk pages become filled with the kind of nonsense that User:TheMadTim was attempting to put up? --TheKarateKid7 20:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Per the KK7 report below, and discussion on ANI I believe... KK7 was blocked indef as a sockpuppet of Karatekid7, an indefblockeduser. --Syrthiss 14:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Allen Iverson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 203.214.91.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 17:17, 29 April 2006
- 1st revert: 17:32, 29 April 2006
- 2nd revert: 18:46, 29 April 2006
- 3rd revert: 14:11, 30 April 2006
- 4th revert: 16:14, 30 April 2006
Reported by: —Lesfer (talk/@) 03:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Just won't stop. Has also started an attempt to disrupt combo guard article by proposing a non-sense merge with point guard.
Uhh no 3rr warning and those reverts are not within a 24 hour period. Jaranda wat's sup 03:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Not within a 24 hour period? I see 22 hours and 42 minutes in there. —Lesfer (talk/@) 04:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Gurunath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hamsacharya_dan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 03:44, 30 April 2006
- 1st revert: 03:44, 30 April 2006
- 2nd revert: 05:11, 30 April 2006
- 3rd revert: 06:31, 30 April 2006
- 4th revert: 03:16, 1 May 2006 (partial revert)
Reported by: Hanuman Das 06:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User does not agree with wording and other uses section and keeps rewording and removing otheruses section. Does not discuss on talk page. Has been blocked twice before for 3RR on related article, Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath, Is currently the subject of an RfC for habitually eliminating POVs other than his own from articles. —Hanuman Das 06:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- I can't see why R4 is a revert William M. Connolley 19:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- He missed it on his first revert, but he has been habitually reverting that particular sentence as well. It's hard to make it clear b/c he sometimes does it as one edit, sometimes as two: [66],[67], [68], [69].
- Also, today he has done two controvesial reverts in his usual article, Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath: [70], [71]
- Should I try to put the material back? or wait until another editor does so? —Hanuman Das 19:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
My recommendation
I am not taking side. However, I may add that setting up RfC does not mean anything unless the matter gets wider support from other users. While I do not approve of such reverts, as they are against the policies, I would like that sometimes the other side (one or more editors) precipitate the matter in such a way that an editor is laid into the “trap” of doing more reverts than permitted. In my opinion, one should set a self-imposed limit to doing reverts. However, while examining issues of reverts, the pertinent point is the contents, which come forth or vanish after reverting. I would like to illustrate the point with an example. Suppose, a person is blanking a page, and one is reverting it – shall it attract the 3RR?. Further, the issue of contents coming or going on account of the reverts are also important. While I do not approve of such violation, I find that in the present case, instigation for reverts were available to induce this user to revert. Under the circumstances, I recommend that the matter may be closed, and the user User:Hamsacharya dan should be warned to refrain from violating the policies. I am warning him right now. Thanks. --Bhadani 11:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Already warned by me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hamsacharya_dan#3RR:warning My interaction with him has revealed that he is basically a good editor. I wish that he shall never violate wiki-policies in future. --Bhadani 11:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on St. Petersburg paradox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TaisukeMaekawa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 23:54, 28 April 2006
- 1st revert: 00:14, 1 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 04:36, 1 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 09:14, 1 May 2006
- 4th revert: 10:06, 1 May 2006
Reported by: — ciphergoth 10:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: This user insists on putting their mathematically incorrect original research into the article. Discussion on the Talk page and warnings on their user page have had no effect; they rudely assert that their insertion is correct and ignore all calls for consensus. This is the only article the user has edited. — ciphergoth 10:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked for 24 hours Just another star in the night T | @ | C 10:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm, it appears User:Matt Crypto layed down the hammer with an indef block. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 10:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't think it's fair that the editors of that page should put up with any more of his disruption. If he gives even a hint that he would be interested in following our policies (rather than pushing his OR), then I'd be happy enough to unblock him. But his contributions really sum this up. — Matt Crypto 11:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed. I just spent a loong time writing a comment on the users talk page and he reverted just over a minute later with no discussion or even an edit summary, so I am a little hurt :(. It seems like a classic "expert editing on wikipedia" case though. I will add that if he shows even a glimmer of being interested in following policies he should be unblocked (well, besides the 3rr block time for now unless someone thinks otherwise), otherwise I agree with Matt for now, unfortunately :\. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 11:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm, it appears User:Matt Crypto layed down the hammer with an indef block. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 10:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- a classic "expert editing on wikipedia" case - what do you mean? If they were an expert, they would understand the error in their analysis — ciphergoth 11:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps the "nonexpert editing on Wikipedia under the delusion that they are an expert" case, then ;-) — Matt Crypto 11:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- a classic "expert editing on wikipedia" case - what do you mean? If they were an expert, they would understand the error in their analysis — ciphergoth 11:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Ardahan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Denix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 08:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- 1st revert: 08:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- 2nd revert: 09:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- 3rd revert: 09:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- 4th revert: 10:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Reported by: Moby 10:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: I was asked to help on this issue by User:Khoikhoi on my talk page. See also the talk at Talk:Ardahan and User talk:Denix --Moby 10:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked for 24 hours. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 11:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Linkspam violation on Rosary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
- Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 03:16, 1 May 2006
Reported by: 70.236.4.136 11:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- This page isn't for Linkspam, this page is only for 3RR. Consider putting a notice up on WP:AN/I. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 11:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- This is childish retaliation by a user who owned a domain, and used Wikipedia for page rank. When we rooted this person out, they got upset and hence, the people at that website occaisionally retaliate. Dominick (TALK) 19:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Ridge Racer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Megaman_Zero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 10:03, 28 April 2006 (partial 3rd revert consitent with the changes)
- 1st revert: 06:49, 29 April 2006
- 2nd revert: 11:23, 29 April 2006
- 3rd revert: 16:49, 29 April 2006 (partial revert)
- 4th revert: 17:22, 29 April 2006
Reported by: -- Natalya 16:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Reversions relate to the inclusion of R:Racing Evolution in the Ridge Racer games section. Reversions have been going back and forth between User:Megaman Zero and anonymous IPs (possibly the same user?). There has been ongoing discussion on the topic at Talk:Ridge Racer. -- Natalya 16:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed. My only defense is the fact I supported my revsions with established policy and large amounts of sources. This is becoming a ongoing style lately with the new additions of editors making and subtracting amounts of content without any fact or sourced rebuttals. I've no problem with the block, and wasn't aware I had violated 3RR in this timeframe. In my most recent edit [72], I attempted comprimise with a discerning of subsections. I'm hopeful this will solve things. -ZeroTalk 17:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The report is a bit old but the reverting continues. So 24h William M. Connolley 19:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Michael Scheuer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Commodore_Sloat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: [73]
- 1st revert: [74]
- 2nd revert: [75]
- 3rd revert: [76]
- 4th revert: [77]
Reported by: RonCram 18:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Editors are trying to work out a rewrite and have asked this editor to leave all the material in so it can be seen and evaluated but he continues to revert. Others have reported four reverts by the same editor on [Larry C. Johnson]] article as well.
- Please format reports properly, it's difficult to figure out what's going on without difflinks and times... but I'll take a look. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 18:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Larry C. Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 04:56, April 30, 2006
- 1st revert: 15:50, April 30, 2006
- 2nd revert: 19:30, April 30, 2006
- 3rd revert: 11:02, May 1, 2006
- 4th revert: 11:27, May 1, 2006
Reported by: Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Second violation today. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Abdullah Öcalan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TuzsuzDeliBekir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 08:32, 30 April 2006
- 1st revert: 04:55, 1 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 09:28, 1 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 17:38, 1 May 2006
- 4th revert: 19:16, 1 May 2006
Reported by: —Khoikhoi 19:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User has been blocked for 3RR 6 times before. —Khoikhoi 19:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, he's only been blocked five times for 3RR violations. Telex 19:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well actually 6 now because of his violation on the Adana article. He has received several 48h blocks, perhaps it is time he receives a longer penalty? Dionyseus 22:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
On Adana
Three revert rule violation on Adana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TuzsuzDeliBekir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 11:30, 29 April 2006
- 1st revert: 20:32, 30 April 2006
- 2nd revert: 05:02, 1 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 09:22, 1 May 2006
- 4th revert: 20:04, 1 May 2006
Reported by: Telex 20:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- He's violated the 3RR on this article before. IMO this violation is a rather sad affair: he was only 20 minutes from the 24 hour bar. Telex 20:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
48h then William M. Connolley 20:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
violation on September 11, 2001 attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mmx1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): ===
- 1st revert: [78]
- 2nd revert: [79]
- 3rd revert: [80]
- Left a warning on [User:Mmx1|Talk] after the third violation
- 4th revert: [81]
- Left a second warning on [User:Mmx1|Talk]
- Received a nasty comment on my own [User:Digiterata|Talk] page which includes f****
- I don't delete my userpage comments and now am stuck with filthy language in plain view. I don't appreciate.
'Comment:' I haven't done this before as I am relatively new and do not wish to inflame anyone since the topic of discussion is highly sensitive to many, but I don't know if I have any other choice. --Digiterata 21:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Badly formatted (use diffs not versions) but correct. 8h first offence William M. Connolley 21:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Boston_latin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). NYC5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 20:08, 28 April 2006
- 1st revert: 16:33, 30 April 2006
- 2nd revert: 23:33, 30 April 2006
- 3rd revert: 17:15, 1 May 2006
- 4th revert: 21:11, 1 May 2006
Reported by: Hashbrowns 02:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
No warning for that article and the reverts are not in a 24 hour period, Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 02:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Yogiraj_Gurunath_Siddhanath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hanuman_Das (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 05:23, 30 April 2006
- 1st revert: 05:23, 30 April 2006
- 2nd revert: 02:51, 2 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 02:53, 2 May 2006
- 4th revert: 02:58, 2 May 2006
- 5th revert: 03:27, 2 May 2006
Reported by: Hamsacharya dan 05:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: I'm reporting these 3RR violations per the talk page comments by Admin Jossi (talk · contribs). I asked to protect this page due to revert warring [82]. Jossi stepped in and put up a warning notice to start with. After being warned not to make 3 reverts within 24 hours [83], Hanuman Das has gone ahead and done it anyway. He has also made threatening remarks on my talk page [84] and has never contributed anything constructive to the Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath article in the history of its existence, only criticisms full of weak sources, a trend for which he has been warned by Admin Bhadani (talk · contribs) [85], whose comments Hanuman Das removed, claiming these comments to be incivil when they clearly were stated with utmost of civility [86].
Egregious misapplication of 3RR by User:Bhadani
This was posted below. I'm moving it here to a more appropriate place. I am not commenting further. Snoutwood (tóg) 16:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Please see bogus 3RR complaint against User:Hanuman Das above [87] and his response on his talk page [88] which I quote:
- "I did not violate the three revert rule. Revert #1 is not in a 24 hour period. #2 is an edit and not a revert. #3 is also an edit and not a revert. # 4 is an edit and not a revert. Only #5 is a revert.m Also, please take a close look at the version he claims I am reverting to. Every single one of the edits lists takes the article away from that version, not back toward it. Hamsacharya dan is attempting to game the system with a false report and Bhadani has not checked the details of the report."
User Hanuman Das appears to be right that the rule was misapplied. Only #5 appears to be a revert. 192.35.232.241 16:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- I continue to maintain that I took the correct step - sometimes we have to be original to deal with situation where the wiki-spirit is violated while the letter of the rule book is maintained. Hanuman Das appears to be a master of this game - to violate the spirit of wikipedia while maintaining the letter of the rule. Our policies also provide that in exceptional circumstances, exceptional measures may be employed - I am referring to the "rule" that do not follow any rule. And, I was constrained to do the same. --Bhadani 16:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I cannot agree with B here. 1 week is completely over the top for a first offence. Further, its not at all clear that this is even 3RR. William M. Connolley 16:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- NOT A FIRST OFFENCE: Please see [89] HANUMAN DAS is the NEW username of ADITYANATH [90] Hamsacharya dan 21:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I would request you to please unblock him. Please do me this favor. Thank you Connolley (that is, C) and more thanks for giving me a new wiki-identification of "B". --Bhadani 16:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm rather confused about what is going on here, but 1 week is far too long; so I am indeed unblocking William M. Connolley 17:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Tawker - can you please clarify your comment that "it doesn't seem to be 3RR at all"? The edits that I've displayed demonstrate reversions to previous versions of the article or sections of text. As I understand these are the types of reversions considered under 3RR, as also defined by WP:REVERT as well as by Jossi (talk · contribs) who includes the qualification of undoing other people's edits repeatedly in the [91]. It could be that I improperly cited the "previous version reverted to". I would like to get a clear understanding of your logic, if possible, so that I identify the misunderstanding.
- 1st reversion: clearly a revert to much previous version somewhere in the vicinity of this month old diff 31 March 2006
- 2nd reversion: undid part of an edit in which a quote was also added a month ago 3 April 2006
- 3rd reversion: DITTO - this section had been around since almost the beginning of the article 15 March 2006, and in it's mature form here: 19 April 2006
- 4th reversion: Undid another section that had been in there since almost the beginning of the article: 15 March 2006
- 5th reversion: SELECTIVELY reverted to his old version, deleting valid, sourced, verifiable, reliable cited text that directly contradicted his weak inclusions 2 May 2006
- What you might not immediately see is that Hanuman Das has added almost nothing of value to this article, and on the contrary, since the BEGINNING (see the history for yourself) has vandalized it with his corrosive edits or deletions. His monumental accomplishment was the "conflicting views" section, which carries no academic weight - but it takes someone with experience to see that. Which begs the question why? Well, you might notice that his interest in this article directly corresponded to my interest in the Nath article. He started attacking this article to divert me from adding information to the Nath article - which he has guarded closely like a bulldog for the longest time. You will see that his interest in Yogiraj Gurunath started at about the same time as my interest in the Nath article started [92]. Hamsacharya dan 20:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- What Hamsacharya dan neglects to mention is that the conflicting views section was a collaborative effort created by four editors, myself, Chai Walla, Priyanath, and Baba Louis, and that he himself has repeatedly removed it so many times that the other editors have mostly given up and gone away. He also does not mention that he himself called for mediation, and went through two mediators, both of whom approved the section he refers to as both neutral and adequately cited. I myself did not edit the article for at least a month while Baba Louis attempted to discuss with Hamsadan without any better result. He also does not mention that all his repeated removals of our work has been documented in an RfC opened against him, [93], which all four of the authors of the section have signed. —Hanuman Das 21:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Blocked by me for a week
I report that I have blocked this user for a week as notified to him:
Re: The following report about you:
In view of the violation of Three revert rule of Yogiraj_Gurunath_Siddhanath you have been blocked for one week. I trust that when you come back, you shall continue to contribute positively. I wish you better time in future. --Bhadani 08:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on User talk:Anonymous editor (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Anonymous editor|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Anonymous_editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 05:58, 2 May 2006
Reported by: Timothy Usher 06:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Anonymous editor has been altering and deleting comments on his talk page, those of other editors along with his own, such as to manipulate and obscure the history of the discussion. He has also engaged in this behavior on User talk:Aminz. I recognize that user talk pages are typically exempted from the purview of this policy, but if discussions assailing other editors are to take place therein, it becomes less an issue of personal space than it normally would be.Timothy Usher 07:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comments
My regards to Timothy Usher and I do generally agree with you. However, my understanding of the issue is that the point raised by you does not require invocation of 3RR. References are always available from the links to the deleted contents. Moreover, he has placed a notice at the top of his page that he shall remove the contents which are useless - though in my opinion 'useless' is a relative term. In my ultimate analysis, he has a right to maintain his talk page in any way he wishes to maintain unless it negatively impacts the main objective of the Project, that is, building the best global encyclopedia. And, I do not find that his action as mentioned above adversely affects the Project in anyway. Moreover, there are perhaps 100s of users who do not archive the contents of the talk page and continue to delete on an on-going basis. Accordingly, 3RR can not be invoked in this particular case. Thanks. --Bhadani 09:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- This isn't a 3RR matter. You are essentially immune for 3RR on your own talk page, except in exceptional circumstances. If AE is truely altering the sense of peoples comments, thats vandalism, and should be reported as such. But I've looked, and the ones you mention aren't like this at all. Repeatedly re-adding unwelcome content to peoples talk page is harassement - don't do it William M. Connolley 12:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with you. But, did you mean me? I think your comments were general comments applicable to all editors. --Bhadani 14:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- No, I meant TU William M. Connolley 15:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- It is ok. --Bhadani 16:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- No, I meant TU William M. Connolley 15:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks William and Bhadani. Timothy's being doing this a lot and the reason I remove Joturner's comment is because it's a repeat of his talk page where the discussion was taking place. Timothy however has violated a real 3rr on an article which was just unprotected and his arbitrary moves are equivalent to vandalism. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with you. But, did you mean me? I think your comments were general comments applicable to all editors. --Bhadani 14:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Although Anonymous editor has stated in several places that I violated 3RR, and although I was blocked for it, it is incorrect, as discussed on my User talk page. Moreover, Anonymous editor has engaged in the same behavior there as I'd complained about above, substantially altering the sense of his comments after I'd responded thereto.Timothy Usher 23:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Nearly two days later, notwithstanding the inquiries of five editors, neither Anonymous editor not the admin who blocked me at his behest, Sean Black, has provided diffs to support AE's very specific ("...he fully reverted to your his version for the fourth time in 24 hours [emphasis mine]") claim of 3RR violation 19:36, 2 May 2006, 19:47, 2 May 2006, 12:13, 3 May 2006, 12:19, 3 May 2006, most likely because they don't exist. I ask that he, and Sean Black, either provide diffs or publically withdraw this false charge.Timothy Usher 11:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Anonymous editor, part 2
I did not support a block in the case of Anonymous editor reverting his own talk page. However, this business seems to have led to what I perceive as an injustice. Anonymous editors posted here that Timothy had carried out a real 3RR violation, and Timothy was blocked four minutes later, presumably as a result of that claim. Timothy has asked repeatedly for diffs, but they have not been supplied.
I think that every editor accused of 3RR violation, and blocked as a result does have the right to have the diffs supplied if he contests his block. I have seen comments on various talk pages, indicating that Timothy was not particularly upset about being unable to edit for 24 hours, but was upset that this alleged violation is now in his records. I have therefore taken the time to look at the history of the Isa article. I found no 3RR violation from Timothy, but did find one from Anonymous editor, which was made after Timothy's last revert, but before Timothy's block.
- Correction. I realize now that Anonymous editor's last revert took place on a different date, and I apologize for the error. I stand by the rest of what I wrote.AnnH ♫ 06:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not looking for any sanctions against any editors or administrators, but as I think an injustice has been done, I would appeal to some administrators to go to the section I started at Timothy's talk page and comment on the situation. Note that when I say "injustice", I do realize that an editor can be blocked for disruption even when he does not go beyond three reverts, but I feel that in such a case, when that edit war is between two individuals and when the blocked editor's opponent is reverting to an equal extent and is not blocked, there is a certain unfairness.
Before we move on, I think Timothy Usher is entitled to receive an acknowledgment that the five claims that he violated 3RR were inaccurate. AnnH ♫ 14:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Gnosticism in modern times (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ndru01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 02:37, 30 April 2006
- 1st revert: 21:10, 1 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 21:44, 1 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 00:27, 2 May 2006
- 4th revert: 08:40, 2 May 2006
Reported by: Cedderstk 11:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Persistent adding of link or links to an article currently nominated for deletion, which has itself repeatedly been recreated and appears to be original research; also adding links in inappropriate places like Consciousness. Previously blocked for 3RR, and this time warned by User:Hetar at User talk:Ndru01. Is it a defence that the user may also need to respond to points on the AfD page? --Cedderstk 11:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
24h William M. Connolley 15:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Graeme Dott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). KarateKid7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 10:31, 2 May 2006;
- 1st revert: 11:26, 2 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 11:42, 2 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 11:51, 2 May 2006
- 4th revert: 11:57, 2 May 2006
Reported by: TheMadTim 12:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: 2nd 3RR report in 2 days. User is a persistent violator of 3RR.
- Comment the last time you accused me of this were you succesful? This time your bias is making you remove facts from articles and claim that they are unsourced when they are sourced quite clearly. KarateKid7 12:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- You fail to point out that you have also reverted more than 3 times. KarateKid7 12:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment: If this is the position, both should be blocked. --Bhadani 14:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I obviously disagree as I was reverting vandalism by TheMadTim. --KarateKid7 14:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Bhadani, please check out the page history here [94]. You can see for yourself that KarateKid7 is lying again, as they did in the previous 3RR nomination [95]. I've only made 3 edits to the page. KarateKid7 is a persistant liar and vandal, and attempts to create confusion by falsely labelling my own contributions as vandalism. --TheMadTim 14:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Strange I can count 5 edits by you in the last 24 hours, all relating to you wanting proof that Graeme Dott supports Rangers F.C even though it was clearly in the external links. KarateKid7 14:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Strange. If you knew it was there, why didn't you just add the citation in, as I had requested with the [citation needed] tag? As to whether or not removing your vandalism counts as a 'revert', I'll leave that to the discretion of others. --TheMadTim 14:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment because the information was clearly sourced in the external links. You knew this but decided to vandalise the page because of your agenda. Why was this the only fact in the article that you felt needed clarification? Do you not think calling me a liar, and quoting WP:DBAD to me is a WP:ATTACK. --KarateKid7 15:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Strange. If you knew it was there, why didn't you just add the citation in, as I had requested with the [citation needed] tag? As to whether or not removing your vandalism counts as a 'revert', I'll leave that to the discretion of others. --TheMadTim 14:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Strange I can count 5 edits by you in the last 24 hours, all relating to you wanting proof that Graeme Dott supports Rangers F.C even though it was clearly in the external links. KarateKid7 14:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sysop action: I have blocked both the reporter and the reportee for 24 hours. The former because of a 3RR vio, the latter because of incivility, and both to give them a chance to cool down. —BorgHunter
ubx(talk) 15:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Spring_holiday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). CrazyInSane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 17:44, 16 April 2006
- 1st revert: 15:35, 1 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 21:05, 1 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 00:06, 2 May 2006
- 4th revert: 00:35, 2 May 2006 - this one is done by User:142.176.56.175, it is his only contribution. Do we ned a CheckUser here or is it obvious enough?
Reported by: Dijxtra 15:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- For the record, CiS claims the IP is not him. I was tempted to request a CheckUser but thought again after seeing that it's not a simple process and should probably only be used in persistant cases. Powers 21:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Spring_holiday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Thumbelina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 01:26, 29 April 2006
- 1st revert: 19:33, 1 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 00:01, 2 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 00:27, 2 May 2006
- 4th revert: 00:38, 2 May 2006
Reported by: Dijxtra 15:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
OK, 3h to both William M. Connolley 18:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Armenian Genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lutherian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 18:23, 1 May 2006
- 1st revert: 06:37, 2 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 07:02, 2 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 09:23, 2 May 2006
- 4th revert: 15:40, 2 May 2006
Reported by: Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
24h William M. Connolley 18:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hamsacharya_dan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 05:23, 30 April 2006
- 1st revert: 18:17, 1 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 19:16, 1 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 16:03, 2 May 2006
- 4th revert: 16:09, 2 May 2006
- 5th revert: 16:16, 2 May 2006
Reported by: Baba Louis 16:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- This is not 3RR because reverts 3, 4 and 5 are without intervening editors and thus count as one edit, since they could have been made as one. No block William M. Connolley 18:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. Will count correctly in the future. Thanks for you comment to help me understand how these are looked at. —Hanuman Das 19:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User:Hamsacharya dan has been previously blocked twice for reverting this same article. There is also another recent 3RR report on another article above. [96] ---Baba Louis 16:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Recommendations
I would repeat my recommendations given earlier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Hamsacharya_dan
However, in view of the issue being repeated, i would request other editors/ administrators to please examine the mattter. Thanks.
Amazing, some editors always come in group to raise the same issue - they appear to be close friends. --Bhadani 16:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I emailed the complaint to Baba Louis because you had blocked me on an obviously false, malicious complaint. Yes, we are friends, as you appear to be with User:Hamsacharya dan. Is there something wrong with that? —Hanuman Das 19:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Portal:Macedonia/Intro (edit | [[Talk:Portal:Macedonia/Intro|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Macedonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 19:55, 1 May 2006
- 1st revert: 21:33, 2 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 21:41, 2 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 21:57, 2 May 2006
- 4th revert: 22:15, 2 May 2006
Reported by: Telex 22:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User keeps removing the Albanian name and I told him in the edit summary before his fourth revert not to revert or he would violate the 3RR, so he reverted. He has been blocked numerous times before. Telex 22:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- User blocked... but I'm not willing to revert the edit that he made myself. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 22:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
User:154.20.148.186 (again)
Three revert rule violation on Werner_Herzog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 154.20.148.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 16:48, 1 May 2006
- 1st revert: 16:04, 2 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 17:47, 2 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 19:47, 2 May 2006
- 4th revert: 20:47, 2 May 2006
- 5th revert: 00:16, 3 May 2006
Reported by: Stephan Schulz 22:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- The user just came back from his second block for the same violation on the same page: [97]. He immediately reverted to his preferred (but unsourced) version. The first two or so reverts were yesterday and did not quite trigger 3RR.
- Attempts to contact him on this issue via his talk page have been met with page blanking: [98],[99], [100]
- I have no idea what except for a new block could be a reasonable answer. --Stephan Schulz 22:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- OK, we can try 48h William M. Connolley 18:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on September 11, 2001 attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Digiterata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 09:16, 2 May 2006
- 1st revert: 19:22, 2 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 19:57, 2 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 20:43, 2 May 2006
- 4th revert: 21:13, 2 May 2006
Reported by: --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 02:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Digiterata wasn't warned has been warned several times, but considering that he reported another user for 3RR on the same article yesterday, I think it is safe to assume that he is familiar with the 3RR policy. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 02:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Safavid_dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Vox_Magna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 03:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- 1st revert: 08:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- 2nd revert: 08:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- 3rd revert: 09:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- 4th revert: 09:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Reported by: --Darkred 09:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: This user uses different IPs and this username to put in his POV without any source and keeps on reverting when someone reverts his edits.
- 8h first offence William M. Connolley 21:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Left Party (Sweden) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Soman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 08:01, May 3, 2006
- 1st revert 15:10, May 2, 2006
- 2nd revert 07:49, May 3, 2006
- 3rd revert 08:01, May 3, 2006
- 4th revert 08:47, May 3, 2006
Reported by --Constanz - Talk 09:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- 5th revert 10:02, May 3, 2006
--Constanz - Talk 10:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments The Left Party (Sweden) article has been subject to revert war for half a year. Soman is continuously removing whole sourced paragraphs critical of the political party concerned.--Constanz - Talk 11:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've blocked Soman and unprotected the page. I'll notify VoA. More on the article talk William M. Connolley 20:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Battle of the Lower Dnieper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). AndriyK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 12:59, 27 April 2006
- 1st revert: 08:06, 3 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 09:23, 3 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 10:02, 3 May 2006
- 4th revert: 10:57, 3 May 2006
Reported by: Kuban Cossack 
11:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Restoring NPOV tag on article that has been assaulted repeteadly (after it was agreed that there is no problem with neutrality). User previously blocked by arbcom (for reasons including bad faith reverts) and tried to insert tag on in a similar manner Russian Architecture in over three dozen attempts resulting in the article being locked several times. --Kuban Cossack 11:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Now protected, so a block would serve no purpose William M. Connolley 20:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- What is the purpose of this page, if anyone guilty of violating 3RR may evade a block by asking an admin to protect the reverted article from further editing? --Ghirla -трёп- 11:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Armenian Genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 212.156.163.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 00:38, 27 March 2006
- 1st revert: 12:17, 3 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 12:25, 3 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 12:29, 3 May 2006
- 4th revert: 12:39, 3 May 2006
Reported by: Telex 13:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Anon keeps adding unexplained tag and was warned before the fourth revert. Telex 13:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- 8h first offence William M. Connolley 20:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Encyclopedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Paul Skalić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):
- 83.131.51.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 83.131.49.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 83.131.109.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: 13:46, 3 May 2006
- 1st revert: 12:25, 3 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 13:33, 3 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 14:34, 3 May 2006
- 4th revert: 14:45, 3 May 2006
- et al.
Reported by: E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Though this anonymous user – one and the same, methinks – has made some compelling arguments, continues to include notations that Mr. Skalić is (just) Croatian, remove cited information in articles to the contrary, and leaving nasty-grams (with name calling) on various user pages that disagree with said viewpoint and insinuations of content. The anon has been warned on various talk pages and edit summaries, but persists in counterproductive behaviour ...
- Given this ongoing disruptive behaviour, incompatible with Wp norms, perpetual blocks of the IPs noted should be considered. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Concur with statements above. In addition, anon user is leaving uncivil angry messages on talk pages. Person needs to cool out for a couple days. --Stbalbach 19:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- This user is apparently disruptive enough, but the IPs he's using are non-fixed ADSL IPs that can be switched by just disconnecting and connecting again. Blocking these for any long period of time would likely be no obstacle for this user, but would harm those "inheriting" these IPs after the user disconnects. So please be cautious. Thanks. --Elephantus 20:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Noted; I think we have been cautious and tolerant, though. So, what remedy is there? I too have a dial-up connxn, and the above is almost a blank cheque to engage in or tolerate retaliatory editing from anonymous IPs ... a condition that would not be as problematic if said user did so using a bona fide alias (as has been suggested) or would be more problematic for registered users (like me and compatriots) when rectifying anon edits and possibly violating 3RR in the process.
- In the very least, the anon IPs should be blocked temporarily and or the articles be protected from editing by new/anon users. Please advise; thanks. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- I have no problem with blocks if necessary, just that blocking these IP's for anything longer than 6 hrs might be unproductive. Protecting the article(s) in question from IP editing might be better. --Elephantus 20:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Great; if I may be so bold, please do both and – in the very least – the latter (protect both articles from IP editing). Let me know if you've any questions. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Regular Grand Lodge of England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 86.140.96.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
Reported by: Ardenn 22:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Won't discuss edits on the talk page. Ardenn 22:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). VeraB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 10:26, 3 May 2006
- 1st revert: 11:35, 3 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 13:23, 3 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 14:08, 3 May 2006
- 4th revert: 22:11, 3 May 2006
Reported by: David | Talk 22:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User is removing a paragraph of sourced information. User is almost certainly an abusive sockpuppet of Hale-Byrne, who makes the same edit for the exact same reasons.
- It's not clear that there are more than three reverts here. Additionally, your diffs do not provide any useful information. I'm going to warn VeraB about the 3RR. Stifle (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Lex_Luthor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DrBat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
Reported by: CovenantD 00:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: This user has a long history of reverting pages to show artwork that he prefers on many different comics related pages.
- There have to be more than three reverts within 24 hours to breach the three revert rule. There are at most three reverts here, and one is not reverting the same changes. --bainer (talk) 04:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on 2004 United States presidential election controversy, exit polls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Phil_Sandifer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 23:24 3 May, 2006
- 1st revert: 23:33 3 May, 2006
- 2nd revert: 23:37 3 May, 2006
- 3rd revert: 23:44 3 May, 2006
- 4th revert: 23:53 3 May, 2006
Reported by: -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User:Phil Sandifer has revert warred his re-introduction of an NPOV tag to a host of articles related to the 2004 election irregularities and controversies (listed off the top of my head):
- 2004 United States election voting controversies, Ohio (now protected)
- 2004 United States presidential election controversy, vote suppression
- 2004 United States presidential election controversy, exit polls
- 2004 United States election voting controversies, Florida
- 2004 United States presidential election recounts and legal challenges
- Timeline of the 2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities
Etc. Quite disruptive. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ryan beat me to it. Phil knows better than to break the 3RR. He was also issuing threats to Ryan for disagreeing with his drive-by tagging. Very egregious violation by a very expereinced admin. Guettarda 05:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- 8h for a first offence William M. Connolley 12:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for not following the appropriate format. Please take a look at Holodomor's edit history. There's some serious 3RR violation going on. Thank you. Dietwald 09:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- If you can't be bothered to try to format it, I can't be bothered to investigate it William M. Connolley 15:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- I tried. It looked weird. I will try again. Dietwald 09:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Kosovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
- Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
- 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo&oldid=51407741
- 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo&oldid=51403317
- 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo&oldid=51374040
- 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo&oldid=51371481
Reported by: dardanv
Comments: I would appreciate it if you take some measure against the user Manojlo who is continuously disrupting in bad faith the Kosovo article and other Albanian related articles. He has reverted some 7 times today the Kodovo article. He keeps alos deleting warnings on his talk page. Thanks, dardanv
- 8h first offence William M. Connolley 12:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Vlachs of Serbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Greier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: 15:14, 1 May 2006
- 1nd revert: 19:00, 3 May 2006
- 2rd revert: 06:25, 4 May 2006
- 3th revert: 09:09, 4 May 2006
- 4th revert: 09:14, 4 May 2006
- 5th revert: 11:10, 4 May 2006
- 6th revert: 12:19, 4 May 2006
Reported by: Aldux 13:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:This editor has already been blocked for violating the 3RR on April 25. But more impressive still is his utter incivilty, that has brought him being blocked twice recently. And his manners don't appear to have improved recently: today he said to an editor "And now I ask you hypocrit, what does "vlach Language mean", you troll" [109]. His Talk page is better still: among many insults he says on April 29 to Telex Your kind of people are the mold, the clay for traitors, killers in the name of self-wellfare, sellers of honour., and immediately before he tells him: God... how can you live with yourself? honestly? can you at least answer this question? please... I`m serious: Do you ever think that you might be a hypocrite? Honestly, do you? Please answer, and yet before he tells him I`ve just realised. You are such an incredible hypocrite. I saw your edits.... You`re a greek ultra-nationalist... I see you edits the Human rights in Turkey... such hypocricy... How about the minority rights in Greece for start? huhh hypocrite? Incredible... Few people like you exit in this world, and in a normal enviroment (apparantelly unlike Wikipedia) they should be completely punished for their lack of character... [110]. When Greier is invited to stop he adopts a simple solution; he simply removes everything from the talk page.--Aldux 13:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- For some bizzare reason, he wants the name of the language, as it is described officially in the country it is spoken and by the people it is spoken by in quotation marks. Telex 13:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- This is getting really wild and requires prompt attention... NikoSilver (T) @ (C) 14:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
48h - well over 3RR + incivility William M. Connolley 15:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Adana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TuzsuzDeliBekir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 21:58, 1 May 2006
- 1st revert: 20:56, 3 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 05:16, 4 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 15:47, 4 May 2006
- 4th revert: 15:59, 4 May 2006
- 5th revert: 16:08, 4 May 2006
Reported by: Telex 16:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User keeps removing a link and has been blocked for 3RR no less than six times before, with at least two being on this article. Telex 16:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gellersen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 09:50, May 3, 2006
- 1st revert: 14:10, May 3, 2006
- 2nd revert: 18:34, May 3, 2006
- 3rd revert: 19:38, May 3, 2006
- 4th revert: 20:00, May 3, 2006
- 5th revert: 21:41, May 3, 2006
- 6th revert: 00:20, May 3, 2006
- 7th revert: 04:01, May 4, 2006
Reported by: Sue Anne 16:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Dispute is over how a local region should be referenced. This user and User:Trödel keep reverting each other. I don't have any opinion on the matter, but the ping-pong game back and forth needs to stop. Sue Anne 16:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- You have provided links to oldids, not diffs as requested. This makes it a lot harder for admins to check up on the violation report. Please post diffs in future.
- Both blocked for 12 hours. Stifle (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Cogent Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 66.28.3.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 12:53, 24 April 2006
- 1st revert: 13:46, 4 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 17:10, 4 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 18:28, 4 May 2006
- 4th revert: 18:45, 4 May 2006
- 5th revert: 18:59, 4 May 2006
Reported by: Jnk 19:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Dispute began over tier two vs. tier one status. Cogent claims it is a tier one carrier but according to the Wikipedia article on tier one carrier's they do not meet the requirements (because they buy transit from Verio). This user continually replaces the article with the standard company description that Cogent puts in their press releases about themselves, and remove any content (including a reference to a Gartner report) that says anything negative about Cogent. This IP is also in Cogent's IP space. This user has also failed to participate in the discussion on the talk page. —Jnk 19:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Not obviously all reverts William M. Connolley 20:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment on their talk page. I still feel that each of these changes was actually a revert back to a version of the article that didn't include the depeering information. I just noticed this article yesterday, but this user refuses to participate in the discussion on the talk page and has been repeatedly cleansing the article of all negative content about Cogent since January.
- Even if you ignore the first revert, they've still exceeded the 3RR:
- The user removes information about purchasing transit from Verio [111]
- Information about buying transit from Verio was added back [112] and then the user removed it again, and replaced the page with Cogent's stock press release "about cogent" statement [113]
- Article was restored, user then replaced it with the stock press release statement again [114]
- Article was restored, user then replaced it with the stock press release statement yet again [115]
- Even if you ignore the first revert, they've still exceeded the 3RR:
- Each time they reverted to a version that did not include a description of the depeering or the 2005 Gartner report reference to "no-frills." —Jnk 21:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I agree. Also pasting in the Cogent press release is a copyvio; repeats of that are vandalism. 24h William M. Connolley 21:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Rachel_Marsden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.25.91.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 19:36, 4 May 2006
- 1st revert: 20:10, 4 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 21:20, 4 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 21:22, 4 May 2006
- 4th revert: 21:23, 4 May 2006
- 5th revert: 21:27, 4 May 2006
Reported by: Bucketsofg✐ 21:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: This IP is used by Ceraurus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is currently under indefinite suspension for using it to subvert 3RR on this article.
- Editor is also using IPs: 65.93.165.129, 192.197.82.153, 70.51.209.95. MilesVorkosigan 22:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that 192.197.82.153 (which resolves to Canada's Parliament!) is someone else. He/she is acting in cohoots with Ceraurus = 70.25.91.205, but probably is not identical. About the other two, I have no idea Bucketsofg✐ 22:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Already blocked by UkPaolo. I'm sprotecting the page for a while. Stifle (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that 192.197.82.153 (which resolves to Canada's Parliament!) is someone else. He/she is acting in cohoots with Ceraurus = 70.25.91.205, but probably is not identical. About the other two, I have no idea Bucketsofg✐ 22:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
</nowiki>
Three revert rule violation on Goce Delchev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 62.220.217.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 00:35, 3 May 2006
- 1st revert: 21:10, 4 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 22:06, 4 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 22:16, 4 May 2006
- 4th revert: 23:02, 4 May 2006
Reported by: Telex 23:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Anon was warned before his fourth revert. Telex 23:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked for 24 hours Prodego talk 23:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- 62.220.217.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is evading the block. FunkyFly 02:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sliat_1981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 5:52 May 5 2006
- 1st revert: 6:30 May 5 2006
- 2nd revert: 6:31 May 5 2006
- 3rd revert: 6:42 May 5 2006
- 4th revert: 6:58 May 5 2006
Reported by: ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Seems to have stopped; warned William M. Connolley 16:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on The Origin and Deeds of the Goths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Aldux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 20:43, 3 May 2006
- 1st revert: 20:43, 3 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 09:41, 4 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 11:11, 4 May 2006
- 4th revert: 22:46, 4 May 2006
Reported by: 217.28.208.168 08:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- I haven't violated the 3RR, as can be clearly seen. More important, this block has been proposed by an anon. editor, [[116]], that clearly states at the article Vlachs of Serbia [117] that he is User:Greier, subject at the moment to a 48h block. If I'm not wrong, this is a clear example of block evasion, made simply to take revenge of having signalled the 3RR violation on Vlachs of Serbia that has got him now blocked.--Aldux 12:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- If you can read, and have at least two neurons, you can cleary see that indeed in is a 3RR. About Greier... I can sign with any name I want, so may it be a coicidence, or maybe that I am indeed Greier, that does not, and should not, spare you from receiving a rightfull and objective judgemnt about your actions on the The Origin and Deeds of the Goths. Telex.
The reverts need to be in 24h. I've blocked the anon as a presumed Greier sock William M. Connolley 16:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Elections_in_Cuba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Adam_Carr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 16:51, 5 May 2006
- 1st revert: 16:51, 5 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 17:27, 5 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 18:12, 5 May 2006
- 4th revert: 18:23, 5 May 2006
Reported by: Carl Kenner 09:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Adam_Carr also violates civility towards other users (not just me).
Such hypocrisy. Adam 10:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Carl, you've reverted at least as much as, if not more than, anyone else. I've protected the page and that should deal with it. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
User:204.102.211.115 possibly identical with User:Zvesda@netscape.net
Three revert rule violation on Holodomor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 204.102.211.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
- 1st revert: [118] 20:33, 3 May 2006
- 2nd revert: [119] 20:37, 3 May 2006
- 3rd revert: [120]20:38, 3 May 2006
- 4th revert: [121] 20:39, 3 May 2006
Reported by: Dietwald 09:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Reported user most likely identical with Zvesda@netscape.net (talk · contribs)who made the same changes earlier. Dietwald 09:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- 2006-05-03 20:39:52 RexNL blocked "204.102.211.115 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandalism) which seems enough William M. Connolley 19:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. Dietwald 08:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on User talk:Shaft121 (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Shaft121|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). PKtm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
- 1st revert: 14:51, 5 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 14:50, 5 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 07:26, 5 May 2006
- 4th revert: 22:25, 4 May 2006
Reported by: Shaft121 17:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Seemingly still has a vendetta against me for an edit war about a month ago. He has done this before but I let him get away with it then. Gone too far now - Shaft121 17:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this is 3RR. But it is unproductive. Will warn William M. Connolley 19:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)On reconsideration (pointed out to me by PKtm) this was npa, nap2 and npa3 not reverting. Warning was wrong; removed William M. Connolley 20:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Xeni Jardin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Motor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 14:21, 5 May 2006
- 1st revert: 10:51, 5 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 12:27, 5 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 13:02, 5 May 2006
- 4th revert: 14:21, 5 May 2006
Reported by: 63.107.91.99 15:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- 2006-05-05 14:30:28 Deskana m (Protected Xeni Jardin: edit warring [edit=sysop:move=sysop]). No block William M. Connolley 19:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Alan Chartock - article
I know this is the wrong format, but I just want someone to look at the edit war at the above article. It appears two users are using multiple usernames to edit war. Thank you.
- Not really 3RR but was some people playing silly games. Article was copyvio; deleted William M. Connolley 20:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
User:71.141.23.168 User:71.141.6.244 User:71.141.6.244 User:71.139.187.51 User:71.139.172.18 User:71.139.189.114 User:71.141.9.99 User:71.139.204.89 User:71.139.190.176 User:71.141.6.148 User:71.141.13.173
Three revert rule violation on Tom Leykis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
Same User: 71.141.23.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 71.141.6.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 71.141.6.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 71.139.187.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 71.139.172.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 71.139.189.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 71.141.9.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 71.139.204.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 71.139.190.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 71.141.6.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 71.141.13.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: 2006-05-05 14:48:57
- 1st revert: 2006-05-04 17:30:28
- 2nd revert: 2006-05-05 00:32:55
- 3rd revert: 2006-05-05 02:38:47
- 4th revert: 2006-05-05 07:39:11
- 5th revert: 2006-05-05 12:23:53
- 6th revert: 2006-05-05 12:47:10
- 7th revert: 2006-05-05 13:02:17
- 8th revert: 2006-05-05 13:22:37
- 9th revert: 2006-05-05 14:08:16
- 10th revert: 2006-05-05 14:34:08
Reported by: Abe Froman 20:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Anon user, also suspected of Sockpuppetry (see the user talk pages), posting WP:OR to Tom Leykis article. An unconstructive, profane editor.
It's an indefinitely-banned user. I've semi-protected the article, and have blocked the latest IP. Will take a look at the others shortly. AnnH ♫ 21:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Kizilbash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tajik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 00:14, 5 May 2006
- 1st revert: 16:09, 5 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 19:40, 5 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 20:08, 5 May 2006
- 4th revert: 20:30, 5 May 2006
Reported by: Grandmaster 21:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
8h first offence William M. Connolley 21:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
But Gm has broken 3RR too, so gets 8h too William M. Connolley 21:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
User:Rjensen (result: 8h)
Three revert rule violation on New Deal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rjensen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
- 1st revert: 04:08 6 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 04:15 6 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 04:22 6 May 2006
- 4th revert: 04:29 6 May 2006
Reported by: RJII 04:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: He keeps deleting the a credible source from the article. It's a published sourced from a prolific scholar. I mentioned it on the talk page to help avoid an edit war, and he won't even stop to discuss it on the talk page. talk page What's more, he even claimed in his explanation in his last reversion that it was the source was a "self published blogs" That's not true at all and he knows it, because the name of the book, the publisher, and page number is right there in front of him. That's what he's deleting. Thanks for your assistance. (addendum: he has said something on the talk page since i made this request)
8h first offence William M. Connolley 11:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Wal-Mart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kamikaze_Highlander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 01:31, 6 May 2006
- 1st revert: 05:45, 6 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 05:52, 6 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 05:58, 6 May 2006
- 4th revert: 06:10, 6 May 2006
- 5th revert: 06:19, 6 May 2006
- 6th revert: 06:31, 6 May 2006
- 7th revert: 06:35, 6 May 2006
Reported by: Tuxide 06:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Fighting over what kind of POV tag to put on the article? I don't get it...
- They seem to have stopped, but they are both warned, and further reverts ought to be immediately blockable. --bainer (talk) 07:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- User:Ase500 wrote: While it is easy to see how critics may come to this conclution, Wal-Mart did have plans to close this store prior to the union vote. Infact the union vote was a last ditch effort by associates to keep the store open. This clearly violates NPOV, it's misspelled, and he used no source for it. So I removed it. Then he continued to revert it, which is by definition vandalism. Reverting vandalism does not violate 3RR, but continuing to repost pov opinions does. Kamikaze Highlander 14:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- You are wrong. People often try to define their opponents edits as vandalism, but it very rarely works. Stick to less than 4 reverts. Anything that is *real* vandalism will be picked up by others. If only you think its vandalism, it isn't. William M. Connolley 16:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I'd like to point out that had I reported his violation of 3RR, he might have been blocked and I wouldn't be in this situation. As it stands, I did not, and he has been allowed to walk free while I am treated equally, despite the fact that I've made over 150 useful edits to Wikipedia and I've never engaged in pov-pushing. I really hope someone can see why I don't appreciate this. Kamikaze Highlander 16:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous. I've been patient while waiting for someone to review this and come to a fair conclusion, but all I've seen are people who just see the allegations that someone brought against me and are reposting old templates that have nothing to do with this situation. What's the point in forming an opinion about this situation if you have no idea what has been going on and you don't really care? Don't form opinions and then just leave when you run out of templates to throw at me. Anyway, we've already resolved the dispute, so please remove the tags from my talk page. Kamikaze Highlander 19:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Come to a conclusion and remove this tag. Don't just go off and ignore me. 21:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- The fair conclusion is that you violated the 3RR (to put it mildly); because you hadn't been warned before, you didn't immediately draw a 24 hour block. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- To be honest, I wasn't at all aware of how serious anyone takes 3RR violations. I was under the impression that it was just a general guideline to avoid pov-pushing and disagreements over facts. But since it's over and done with, I'd really appreciate it if you could remove this section from the board. Kamikaze Highlander 01:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- It will roll off the board like all the rest of the notices, most of which are about editors who are certain they didn't do anything wrong. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Your only goal is to annoy me, and you've succeeded. His edits are being referred to as vandalism by three other established users. Now quit trying to make yourself feel special and stop throwing templates at me. Don't you have anything better to do? Kamikaze Highlander 01:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- It will roll off the board like all the rest of the notices, most of which are about editors who are certain they didn't do anything wrong. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- To be honest, I wasn't at all aware of how serious anyone takes 3RR violations. I was under the impression that it was just a general guideline to avoid pov-pushing and disagreements over facts. But since it's over and done with, I'd really appreciate it if you could remove this section from the board. Kamikaze Highlander 01:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- The fair conclusion is that you violated the 3RR (to put it mildly); because you hadn't been warned before, you didn't immediately draw a 24 hour block. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Come to a conclusion and remove this tag. Don't just go off and ignore me. 21:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous. I've been patient while waiting for someone to review this and come to a fair conclusion, but all I've seen are people who just see the allegations that someone brought against me and are reposting old templates that have nothing to do with this situation. What's the point in forming an opinion about this situation if you have no idea what has been going on and you don't really care? Don't form opinions and then just leave when you run out of templates to throw at me. Anyway, we've already resolved the dispute, so please remove the tags from my talk page. Kamikaze Highlander 19:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I'd like to point out that had I reported his violation of 3RR, he might have been blocked and I wouldn't be in this situation. As it stands, I did not, and he has been allowed to walk free while I am treated equally, despite the fact that I've made over 150 useful edits to Wikipedia and I've never engaged in pov-pushing. I really hope someone can see why I don't appreciate this. Kamikaze Highlander 16:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- You are wrong. People often try to define their opponents edits as vandalism, but it very rarely works. Stick to less than 4 reverts. Anything that is *real* vandalism will be picked up by others. If only you think its vandalism, it isn't. William M. Connolley 16:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Wal-Mart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ase500 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 00:42 6 May 2006
- 1st revert: 00:45 6 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 00:52 6 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 00:58 6 May 2006
- 4th revert: 01:10 6 May 2006
- 5th revert: 01:19 6 May 2006
- 6th revert: 01:31 6 May 2006
Reported by: Tuxide 06:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: fighting with User:Kamikaze Highlander on what kind of POV tag to include on the article (wth?)
- They seem to have stopped, but they are both warned, and further reverts ought to be immediately blockable. --bainer (talk) 07:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- User:Ase500 wrote: While it is easy to see how critics may come to this conclution, Wal-Mart did have plans to close this store prior to the union vote. Infact the union vote was a last ditch effort by associates to keep the store open. This clearly violates NPOV, it's misspelled, and he used no source for it. So I removed it. Then he continued to revert it, which is by definition vandalism. Reverting vandalism does not violate 3RR, but continuing to repost pov opinions does. Kamikaze Highlander 14:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm beginning to regret not having reported his violation of 3RR, despite the possibility that it might have resulted in his being blocked. Kamikaze Highlander 16:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- It would also have resulted in you being blocked, since the 3RR is applied equally to all parties. --bainer (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- No, since I wouldn't have been in violation of 3RR, since he violated it before I did. Kamikaze Highlander 00:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Nobody's forcing you to comment. If you have no intention of looking into the situation and coming to a fair conclusion, and you really just don't care, why do you bother making comments? It seems like a waste of time. Kamikaze Highlander 00:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Not true, Kamikaze Highlander. I hate to contribute to this lame discussion, but you violated 3RR before Ase500 did. I reported both of you, and I reported you first. That's why yours appears before his. If you really want to contribute to the article, then consider other ways besides trying to make yourself feel superior. Thanks. Tuxide 00:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- I don't appreciate being treated as if what I did was wrong. His statement had no place in Wikipedia. Similar snip comments have been added to the article several times, and have always been reverted as vandalism. If he wanted his comment to remain, he should have discussed it in the talk page, since I and others have already come to consensus on this sort of thing many times before. 3RR was not designed so that this sort of thing would just remain if it survived three reverts. I don't appreciate that you insist on labelling this a "content dispute" or "edit war" because that implies that his comment was in any way a legitimate edit, which it was not. It was written to hurt the quality of the article. Kamikaze Highlander 00:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- I would like to add that while my editing may have been preemptive, however I had planned to post links to my factual sources, and I was editing out false facts that are known to be frauds, inside documents, which do not bare any of the marks of a walmart corp document, nor bares the file attibs that a corp PDF would, this document was produced with an Unregisterd copy of Word then spooled into PDF format, also it is worth noting that Walmart does not use PDF for communications to its stores or assocates, they send E-Mails from with in The Smart System, the smart system is Walmarts "god" software, it runs everything from POS ordering and registers, to Assocate Time Requests and adjustments. The only place PDFs are used are on The Wire, which is a Job and howto center, Things like is a job open in TLE or How do I prep Chickens, as well as benefit info. The other place PDFs are used by walmart is outside of the company on The My Benefits Site. Niether the Wire or My Benefits would be used to distribute such documents. They would have been e-mailed from with in the Smart program. Now as for the quebec store closeing every month walmart turns out walmart world its corp news letter and human intrest mag, in the back few pages, are a list of store opening and closings, as well as people who have hit differnt years with walmart, the store closer was listed in Walmart world, 2 months prior to the union vote. Also a french canadian news service had also run the story about the union vote and why the workers there had voted union, they have since taken the story off their site, I am trying to get a copy of the news clipping myself, and when I get both I will find away to post them as proof. while I was doing editing, not just of that section, I was also looking for the page with the proof on it, however I was running long and fear a copy conflict, so I saved the page. With in Seconds, Kamikaze had reverted my edits, not even enuf time had passed for me finsh looking for my sources, that I was going to post in a few mins, and so started the edit war. by the end I was so sick of dealing with wiki anything that I was ready to just leave. Now it appears pointless to even deal with the edits and attempt to work anyway with the current entry because of the new draft. It just seems funny to me, that I am an hourly assocate with walmart, one of the very people that they treat so badly, and when we come foward to help edit this entry and give some information and remove some misinformation, we are basicly told to sit down, and shut up, because we are not negitive enough about walmart. And I am not the only one that has said that, I have talked to several walmart assocates that have tried to help with this entry and have been treated with the same resistance and disrespect. I only hope that moving forward that this draft can become a fair view of walmart as rather then a critic sounding board, We owe the people that come here to do research that. Ase500 12:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
User:60.234.157.64 (result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on Socialism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 60.234.157.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 10:33, 2 May 2006
- 1st revert: 09:38, 3 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 08:41, 4 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 13:14, 5 May 2006
- 4th revert: 13:44, 5 May 2006
- 5th revert: 05:18, 6 May 2006
- 6th revert: 09:53, 6 May 2006
And probably more by now. Also same thing in Criticisms of socialism.
Reported by: Liftarn 10:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Repeat offender. See talk page.
24h William M. Connolley 11:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Did it again.
Three revert rule violation on Criticisms of socialism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 60.234.157.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 05:23, 6 May 2006
- 1st revert: 06:13, 10 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 02:16, 11 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 07:50, 12 May 2006
- 4th revert: 08:31, 12 May 2006
Reported by: Liftarn 09:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Possible violation of 3RR on Freemasonry as soon as yesterdays block expired for the same thing.
- Diff from yesterday: [5th May 13.01]
- Todays first revert to that state: [6th May 1358]
- Second: [6th May 1427]
- Third: [6th May 1430]
- Fourth: [6th May 1432]
Although I'm conscious that the 24 hr nblock may mean this isn't actually a violation, that's up to Admins to decide. TIAALR 13:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
In addition note similar systemic reversion/ content blanking in [Anti-Masonry] and [Christianity and Freemasonry]ALR 13:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked for 3 hours, but it's a dynamic IP and I don't know if it's liable to be of any use. Please post on WP:RFPP if you get continued IP vandalism there. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Many thanks, just got back from swimming so off to take a look.ALR 17:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Natalee Holloway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yamla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 01:54, 3 May 2006
- 1st revert: 23:00, 3 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 18:05, 4 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 18:16, 4 May 2006
- 4th revert: 18:31, 4 May 2006
- 5th revert: 20:59, 4 May 2006
Reported by: Stifle (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- I'm fully aware that I'm an admin and capable of doing blocks myself, but Yamla is as well, so I want another opinion. These are all rollback reverts. Yamla appears to feel (see User talk:69.76.194.176) that the edits of 69.76.194.176 were vandalism by adding uncited edits to the article, but this is not simple vandalism and is probably not 3RR-exempt. Stifle (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- It is my contention that I was reverting vandalism and my edits were therefore exempt from the 3RR. The information introduced was either a low-quality link (the first revert) or deliberately inflamatory and uncited (the other four reverts). Please note that I asked the user to cite the statements he or she added and would have been happy with any explanation as to why he or she was adding these statements and removing well-cited information from the article. Clearly the information added and removed was not "simple" vandalism but I believe it was vandalism nonetheless. That said, I will not take offence if I am blocked under the 3RR. It could well be that I overstepped my boundries. --Yamla 23:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- This appears to have been ignored so I am reposting it here. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
User:Lockedandloaded2 (result: 8h)
Three revert rule violation on International Solidarity Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) & Rachel Corrie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Lockedandloaded2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: [122]
- 1st revert: [123]
- 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Solidarity_Movement&oldid=51890357]
- 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Solidarity_Movement&oldid=51891206
- 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Solidarity_Movement&oldid=51893033
Reported by: Ckessler 22:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Since this user has been reported he has twice resorted to blanking the entire page.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- 8h first offence William M. Connolley 08:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Republic of Macedonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Vlatkoto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 09:53, 6 May 2006
- 1st revert: 19:51, 6 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 20:08, 6 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 21:53, 6 May 2006
- 4th revert: 22:17, 6 May 2006
- 5th revert: 00:09, 7 May 2006
Reported by: Telex 00:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User was warned of the 3RR before his fourth revert, but he ignored it and proceeded to revert two more times. He keeps removing the Albanian name, refusing to recognise that the Republic of Macedonia has two official languages and that Albanian was made co-official under the Ohrid Agreement in 2002. Sources have been cited, he ignores them and does not respect the consensus (he has been reverted by at least three users). Telex 00:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- I concur: not only do V.'s reverts run counter to WP:V but are ignorant of other article edits recently made (and unrelated, e.g., political divisions, nixing of contentious regional map). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- You mean he's been making blind (absolute, lazy etc) reverts. Anyway, he's been blocked for 24 hours by User:FrancisTyers. Telex 00:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes; thanks. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
User:Instantnood (result: banned from article for 2 weeks, and User:SchmuckyTheCat banned from article for 1 week)
Three revert rule violation on Template:Hong Kong (PRC) (edit | [[Talk:Template:Hong Kong (PRC)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Instantnood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 23:54, 4 May 2006
- 1st revert: 22:20, 6 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 02:00, 7 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 03:32, 7 May 2006
- 4th revert: 06:56, 7 May 2006
Reported by: Hunter 03:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- The stated user has previous 3RR violation and should be aware of the 3RR rule. Hunter 03:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Previous 3RR is an understatement, he's under arbcom sanction for being disruptive. He should be page banned for disruptive revert warring (the exact same issues he's been banned from other articles for!) but this isn't 3RR on THIS article - the last edits are reverts of me changing parentheses to a comma, the first reverts are reverts of Winhunter changing the flag image. SchmuckyTheCat 04:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Probationary page bans issued at Template:Hong Kong (PRC) for edit warring over a trivial matter: Instantnood is banned for two weeks, SchmuckyTheCat is banned for one week. --Jiang 06:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Why two reverts per each of the issues qualifies page ban? For the first and second reverts, user:Winhunter is clearly ignoring the differences between the two flags, and she/he is not talking. For the third and fourth edits, the same trouble has already happened with many other lists and articles. User:SchmuckyTheCat should know he should have proposed it before modifying the template with his point of view, but he only went to the the talk page after he implemented his point of view. — Instantnood 08:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Not every edit to an article requires a "proposal". In fact, in the spirit of being bold, the vast majority of edits do not. As long as the parties are discussing, I see no reason to have an edit war going on. It is preferable wait until the discussion has reached some sort of consensus before trying to implement a change either way because edit warring is disruptive. Wikipedia is not going to self destruct just becuase a parenthesis was replaced with a comma. My understanding of the 3RR is that any revert, in part or in whole, constitutes a revert towards the 3RR limit. However, it is my hope that we can avert a block here because a specific page ban achieves the same "cooling down" effect the 3RR is meant to achieve.--Jiang 08:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- User:SchmuckyTheCat's similar edits to many other articles, lists, etc., to replace "Hong Kong" and "Hong Kong (People's Republic of China)" with "Hong Kong, People's Republic of China" or "Hong Kong, China" have been debated. WP:BOLD obviously doesn't apply here. By doing so he's effectively spreading an unresolved debate to affect more Wikipedia entries. As discussion is already in process, he should have restored the template to its status quo before his edits; or else I see no basis nor sincerity to discuss. — Instantnood 09:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- As I have stated on your talk page, if this is a dispute spread over several articles, then the way to arrive at a solution would be to discuss it at a centralized place, such as WP:MoS-China. Either the discussion can arrive at a consensus on how the current rules favor one form over the another, or a proposal can be made to the guidelines. If this is an unresolved debate, then the solution is not to edit war over several articles: it is to discuss and refrain from reverting until a consensus is achieved. Claiming "no basis nor sincerity to discuss" is an assumption of bad faith. Going around and banging things with a big stick, especially when you're on probation, isn't really going to help your case, even if you happen to be right on a particular issue.--Jiang 10:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Should what the lists, articles, templates were like before the edits be restored? — Instantnood 12:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- If not you're giving the benefit of the ban to one of the two parties. — Instantnood 20:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Your question is irrelevant. The goal is to arrive at a mutually supported version through discussion and consensus. Quibbling about who is right - whose has a better right to revert - does nothing to promote this consensus. Wikipedia is a not a court of law. If you think you are right, then try persuading the others to agree with you. --Jiang 00:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Should what the lists, articles, templates were like before the edits be restored? — Instantnood 12:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- As I have stated on your talk page, if this is a dispute spread over several articles, then the way to arrive at a solution would be to discuss it at a centralized place, such as WP:MoS-China. Either the discussion can arrive at a consensus on how the current rules favor one form over the another, or a proposal can be made to the guidelines. If this is an unresolved debate, then the solution is not to edit war over several articles: it is to discuss and refrain from reverting until a consensus is achieved. Claiming "no basis nor sincerity to discuss" is an assumption of bad faith. Going around and banging things with a big stick, especially when you're on probation, isn't really going to help your case, even if you happen to be right on a particular issue.--Jiang 10:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- User:SchmuckyTheCat's similar edits to many other articles, lists, etc., to replace "Hong Kong" and "Hong Kong (People's Republic of China)" with "Hong Kong, People's Republic of China" or "Hong Kong, China" have been debated. WP:BOLD obviously doesn't apply here. By doing so he's effectively spreading an unresolved debate to affect more Wikipedia entries. As discussion is already in process, he should have restored the template to its status quo before his edits; or else I see no basis nor sincerity to discuss. — Instantnood 09:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Not every edit to an article requires a "proposal". In fact, in the spirit of being bold, the vast majority of edits do not. As long as the parties are discussing, I see no reason to have an edit war going on. It is preferable wait until the discussion has reached some sort of consensus before trying to implement a change either way because edit warring is disruptive. Wikipedia is not going to self destruct just becuase a parenthesis was replaced with a comma. My understanding of the 3RR is that any revert, in part or in whole, constitutes a revert towards the 3RR limit. However, it is my hope that we can avert a block here because a specific page ban achieves the same "cooling down" effect the 3RR is meant to achieve.--Jiang 08:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Why two reverts per each of the issues qualifies page ban? For the first and second reverts, user:Winhunter is clearly ignoring the differences between the two flags, and she/he is not talking. For the third and fourth edits, the same trouble has already happened with many other lists and articles. User:SchmuckyTheCat should know he should have proposed it before modifying the template with his point of view, but he only went to the the talk page after he implemented his point of view. — Instantnood 08:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- The third and the fourth ones ([124] [125]) are not dealing with the same thing as the first and second ones ([126] [127]). — Instantnood 08:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Let me point out the reverting definition as stated in WP:3RR - "Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part". Also, further to your earlier comments, on top of this page, "this is not the page to bring up accusations of bad faith, or POV pushing", please do not push your POV about the flags or some editing view here. --Hunter 08:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- In the third and the fourth ones user:Winhunter have listed, user:Winhunter's edits to the flag image was preserved. — Instantnood 09:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Since Jiang has banned In from the article for 2 weeks, this one is solved. Also it didn't quite look like 4R to me William M. Connolley 08:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
User:Sandertje (result: 8h)
Three revert rule violation on Wilhelmus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sandertje (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 18:53, 6 May 2006
- 1st revert: 09:24, 7 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 13:54, 7 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 15:23, 7 May 2006
- 4th revert: 16:18, 7 May 2006
Reported by: Vilĉjo 17:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: The willingness of this user to engage constructively in the editing process may be gauged from this "edit summary": Now you listen to me. I am not the one that is supposed to convince you.you are the one supposed to convince me your version is better.Refrain from rv-ting untill then, and mind the 3RR (this edit summary, ironically, accompanying his fourth exact revert in under 7 hours.) Vilĉjo 17:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- 8h first offence William M. Connolley 18:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Chabad-Lubavitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Meshulam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 01:30, 5 May 2006
- 1st revert: 07:50, 7 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 11:48, 7 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 12:52, 7 May 2006
- 4th revert: 13:04, 7 May 2006
- 5th revert: 13:22, 7 May 2006
Reported by: Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: He is adding in links and he has already been warned. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
User:Hollow are the Ori (result: 8 hours)
Three revert rule violation on Kimberley Strassel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hollow_are_the_Ori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 16:29, 6 May 2006
- 1st revert: 01:48, 7 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 13:35, 7 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 13:59, 7 May 2006
- 4th revert: 14:22, 7 May 2006
- 5th revert: 14:43, 7 May 2006
Reported by: Gamaliel 18:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User believes quotes should not contain wikilinks and has reverted the inclusion of wikilinks five times. Was previously warned about the 3RR on Talk:Kimberley Strassel by User:Deglr6328 on May 3.
- 8h first offence William M. Connolley 19:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
User:TipPt (result: 12h)
Three revert rule violation on Circumcision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TipPt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 02:56, 7 May 2006
- 1st revert: 14:17, 7 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 18:32, 7 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 19:16, 7 May 2006
- 4th revert: 21:59, 7 May 2006
Reported by: Nandesuka 23:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- There is an awful lot of stuff being edit warred over here, but the paragraph beginning "Parental decisions regarding circumcision are dominated by cultural ritual considerations" is a reasonably representative chunk of where TipPt has violated 3RR. It's also worth noting that TipPt had already been warned for violating the 3RR (see here) at the time he made his fourth revert (I'm being generous and not going back to May 6th for the first revert). Nandesuka 23:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
12h William M. Connolley 09:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
User:190_Proof (result: 12h)
Three revert rule violation on Council on American-Islamic Relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 190_Proof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: [128]
- 1st revert: 04:44, 7 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 20:46, 7 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 01:01, 8 May 2006
- 4th revert: 02:09, 8 May 2006
User:190_Proof also seems to have a similar pattern of edits (although not to 3RR) on the Arab-Israeli_conflict article. See:
Reported by: Nloth 06:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
User:Liberalpunt (result: 8h)
Three revert rule violation on Hapa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Liberalpunt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: [131]
- 1st revert: [132] from an anonIP; clearly the same person
- 2nd revert: [133] as Liberalpunt
- 3rd revert: [134] as Liberalpunt
- 4th revert: [135] as Liberalpunt
Should be noted that he is spamming the same link at Mulatto, Blasian, and Eurasian (mixed ancestry).
Reported by: Zora 05:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- 8h first offence William M. Connolley 19:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
User:Bright888 (result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on Liancourt Rocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bright888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 20:17, 7 May 2006
- 1st revert: 00:49, 8 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 00:55, 8 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 01:01, 8 May 2006
- 4th revert: 04:37, 8 May 2006
- Comment: Persistent violator of the 3RR rule. Has been warned multiples of times fore inserting POV views onto controversial articles, and has been blocked before for similar actions. Also likes to falsely attribute materials from sources, states that Korean government is not abiding by the international law when the cited source clearly says otherwise.
Reported by Deiaemeth 07:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- 24h for him, and 24h for you, since you too have broken 3RR. Sorry. I trust you'll understand... William M. Connolley 19:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
User:71.99.87.180 and User:Zanatic (result: 3h each)
Three revert rule violation on Czech Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.99.87.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 14:06 8 May 2006
- 1st revert: 14:09, 8 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 14:17, 8 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 14:21, 8 May 2006
- 4th revert: 14:24, 8 May 2006
- 5th revert: 14:28, 8 May 2006
Three revert rule violation on Czech Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zanatic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 13:04 7 May 2006
- 1st revert: 14:07, 8 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 14:10, 8 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 14:18, 8 May 2006
- 4rd revert: 14:22, 8 May 2006
- 5th revert: 14:27, 8 May 2006
Reported by: —Whouk (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Revert war in progess...
3h each. No-one seems to have warned them William M. Connolley 13:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- I warned the anon editor yesterday on the talk page of the IP he was using then User_talk:71.99.105.130 - to which he replied several times. I tried to file a 3RR here, but computer crashes meant I couldn't complete it. This is one of the slightly grey areas where Zanatic's actions could be seen as simple vandalism reversion - the disputed text is the result of a lot of talk-page discussion and is otherwise universally supported; the anon editor has not engaged in any serious discussion of his edit, despite explicitly being asked to. Zanatic would have been better to call in the cavalry, but in his defence he filed for a page-protection which was deleted without comment- if an administrator had intervened then, the edit war today might have been prevented. I'd still ask for his block to be reconsidered. Thanks, Aquilina 15:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well its too late to unblock now... my personal rule for "is it patent vandalism?" is, cunningly, "only if an outside observer would immeadiately recognise it as such". Since I didn't, it wasn't ;-) William M. Connolley 18:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
User:Wiki-star and User:Daishokaioshin (result: 12h each)
Three revert rule violation on Buu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Daishokaioshin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 23:39, 7 May 2006
- 1st revert: 23:55, 7 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 00:00, 8 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 00:10, 8 May 2006
- 4th revert: 00:18, 8 May 2006
Reported by: -- Natalya 15:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Engaged in an edit war with User:Wiki-star (also in violation of 3RR).
Three revert rule violation on Buu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wiki-star (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 23:50, 7 May 2006
- 1st revert: 23:59, 7 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 00:05, 8 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 00:14, 8 May 2006
- 4th revert: 00:21, 8 May 2006
Reported by: -- Natalya 15:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Engaged in an edit war with User:Daishokaioshin (also in violation of 3RR, reported above).
- This has to go down at least in my experience as the most mindboggling trivial revert war I've ever had the pleasure to have known... William M. Connolley 18:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
User:E_Pluribus_Anthony & User:Ardenn (result: 12h each)
Three revert rule violation on Lieutenant Governor (Canada) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Lieutenant-Governor (Canada) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). E_Pluribus_Anthony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- 6th revert:
- 7th revert:
Reported by: Ardenn 17:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: I'll admit to having violated 3RR too, please block me as well. Ardenn 17:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've tried to start a dialogue at Talk:Lieutenant Governor (Canada) but he's not even willing to talk about it. Ardenn 18:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above report is a mass of terminological inexactitudes. First, I haven't violated 3RR and do not intend to: the above deals with three unique articles/redirects – Lieutenant governor, Lieutenant Governor (Canada) (recently created by A.), and Lieutenant-Governor (Canada) (created as redirect by A.). The recently created article (L G (C)) was parsed from the main article (L g) by A. without discussion; while I do not besmirch that, it was moved haphazardly and into a subarticle without consideration of the hyphenated rendition indicated (L-G (C)) in the accompanying usage note (esp. in French) and consistent with other Wp articles about Cdn. L-Gs. This information wasn't even migrated in A.'s moves. Next, my corrections (move and note restorations) were labelled by A. as vandalism (rvv), clearly in error and arguably an incivil personal attack.
- Throughout, I've provided rationale for my actions (as above), while A. defers to being bold amid accusations. I'm all for discussion regarding this or that, but I will not do so with this user amid insinuations of impropriety and hereby request some sort of sanction on A. Thanks. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- I moved the article under WP:BOLD. I wasn't aware there would be any issue over a stupid hyphen. When disagreement arose, I left a message and an olive branch to discuss it, which he refused. There is now some discussion going on without him. I labelled it rvv because he refused to discuss his edits and kept reverting back. I was not trying to attack him personally. Ardenn 18:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've started an RFC to get a wider consensus. Ardenn 18:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- You thought wrong: if you actually paid attention to the article content throughout – evidenced by your omission of the usage note about the 'stupid' hyphen – you would've realised that. I merely brought the article in-line with other Wp articles about the topic and corrected for your oversights regarding its summation (in the main article, which wasn't done previously) and the restoring/reformatting of information lost in your move. You then reverted, despite my edit summaries, and labelled my actions as rvv. Your initial message and subsequent one (about 3RR) were definitely not olive branches, counterproductive, and you remain rather non-descript. Please familiarise yourself with notions of Wp vandalism, which I clearly did not do. If anyone has escalated this situation, you need only look in the mirror and self-reflect on your lack of Wikipedia:Wikiquette. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- 12h each. This is based on the finding that the two pages (with and without hyphen) can be considered one page William M. Connolley 18:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
User:TheRegicider (result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on University_of_California,_Riverside (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TheRegicider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
- 1st revert: [143]
- 2nd revert: [144]
- 3rd revert: [145]
- 4th revert: [146]
Reported by: UCRGrad 23:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: This is TheRegicider's second violation of 3RR. He has attempted to impose his viewpoints and censor this article by using reverts, rather than engaging in a reasonable discussion, like other editors of this article. While both camps don't always agree, it really makes it hard when someone isn't playing fair.
Bit tricky but looks like 4R to me William M. Connolley 13:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
User:Gnetwerker (result: 3h)
Three revert rule violation on Windows Aero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gnetwerker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: variations of 18:29, 6 May 2006
- 1st revert: 01:56, 7 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 11:25, 7 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 14:35, 8 May 2006
- 4th revert: 15:19, 8 May 2006
- 5th revert: 21:49, 8 May 2006
- 6th revert: 22:00, 8 May 2006
Reported by: Warrens 03:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User added this section, which has POV and relevance problems and has repeatedly reverted removals of parts of, or the entirety of their content. User also engaged in similar edit warring on Windows Vista in the last two days, and has also attempted to recruit help from other editors by posting to the talk pages for Aqua and Mac OS X. Also of note is that another 3RR was filed against Gnetwerker on April 30. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrens (talk • contribs)
- The edits listed above are to different texts, which was edited in the interim by the complainer and others, they are also outside of a 24-hour period (they cover almost 48 hours),
and finally the so-called "6th revert" is alleged to take place before the 5th. In reality, there was no case where 3RR on the same text was violated -- this may have been an edit war (of which the complainer is an instigator), but it is not a 3RR violation. If it is a violation, then the complainer has also violated.
- Here are Warrens's four reverts:
- 1st revert: 10:10, May 8, 2006
- 2nd revert: 12:01, May 8, 2006
- 3rd revert: 17:13, May 8, 2006
- 4th revert: 19:30, May 8, 2006
- Finally, the complainer has alleged "another 3RR on April 30", but omits that this was also an unwarranted, false accusation and was not ultimately judged to be a violation. As in this case, the complainer was also guilty of edit warring. -- Gnetwerker 06:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- You're supposed to provide links to diffs. If you had, it could be easily shown that the first of those four edits you point out is this, which is me fixing a markup error in another part of the article. Nice try, though. Warrens 11:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I can't see 4R by Warrens. I can by G: [147], [148], [149] and [150]. 3h William M. Connolley 13:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
User:Erdogan Cevher (result: 12h)
Three revert rule violation on List of unrecognized countries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Erdogan_Cevher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- 1st Revert: 06:24, May 8 2006
- 2nd Revert: 06:25, May 8 2006
- 3rd Revert: 06:31 May 8 2006
- 4th Revert: 06:47 May 9 2006
- 5th Revert: 08:20 May 9 2006
- 6th Revert: 10:17, May 9, 2006
- 7th Revert: 11:00, May 9, 2006
Reported by --Robdurbar 08:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments
- A note was left on the article's talk page after this and another dispute had (independently) come close to the rule. Though the 4th revert is clearly 20 minustes outside the 24h period, the policy does state 'a fourth revert in 24 hours or very close to it.' I added the 5th, even though it falls outside this rule, just to show that this is ongoing. --Robdurbar 08:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Corrected the list to add (diffs). The user used the move-technique to conceal his same POV edits in the article in the middle of the process. The last four reverts are all within a timeframe of around 4 hours. NikoSilver (T) @ (C) 12:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
12h William M. Connolley 13:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. In the meantime...
- 8th Revert: 12:45, May 9, 2006
Regards NikoSilver (T) @ (C) 13:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
User:Hollow are the Ori (result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on Kimberley Strassel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hollow_are_the_Ori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 14:43, 7 May 2006
- 1st revert: 18:25, 8 May 2006
- 2nd revert: 23:50, 8 May 2006
- 3rd revert: 00:05, 9 May 2006
- 4th revert: 02:53, 9 May 2006
Reported by: Gamaliel 15:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Second offense on this article. Was blocked by User:William M. Connolley for his/her first offense on this article.
- 24 hour block. Gamaliel is sailing close to the wind here too, be careful. Stifle (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)