위키백과:관리자 알림판/3RRARchive35

User:Radiant! 사용자가 보고함:John254(결과: 경고)

위키백과의 3역 규칙 위반:토론, 투표하지 말 것 (편집 [토크:위키백과:토론, 투표하지 않음]] 기록 보호 로그 보기 삭제 링크).복사! (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):

• 이전 버전이 다음으로 복구됨: 복잡한 부분 되돌림

• 첫 번째 되돌리기: 09:37, 2006년 12월 25일 이전에 페이지에 추가된 빨간색 물음표가 있는 논쟁 태그 제거
• 2차 되돌리기: 12:06, 2006년 12월 25일 이전 편집에서 추가된 "일치된 언어 없음" 제거
• 3차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 11일, 12월 25일 "이 페이지는 위키백과의 작동 방식에 대한 명확하고 정확한 설명"을 복구하며, 이전 편집에서 삭제했다.
• 4번째 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 25일 12:17, "이세이"를 제거하고 "페이지"로 대체하여 이전 편집을 취소함

설명:넷스콧의 네 번째 편집은 되돌리기가 아니다.존254 15:42, 2006년 12월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

존, 여기서 기술적인 위반이 있었지만, 나는 프로젝트 페이지의 태그 분쟁에 대한 사전 차단 없이 기존 편집자를 차단하고 싶지 않아.또한 첫 번째 되돌리기는 거의 틀림없이 편집이다.나는 단지 그에게 앞으로 되돌아가는 모습을 지켜보라고 부탁하는 쪽지를 남기고 싶다.SlimVirgin 11:25, 2006년 12월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

그는 관리인이기 때문에 더 잘 알아야 한다.만약 그가 논의 중인 일을 되돌리는데 열심이라면(나는 그가 이렇게 하는 것을 전에 본 적이 있다) 그것은 부적절하다.만약 그가 위반한다면, 그는 다른 편집자처럼 다루어져서 차단되어야 한다.행정관이라고 해서 특별대우를 받아서는 안 되고 행동의 기준을 적게 잡아서는 안 된다. -THB 12:46, 2006년 12월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

여러 가지 이유에서죠, THB.첫째, 보고서가 모호한데, 왜냐하면 첫 번째 되돌리는 것이 되돌리는 것이라는 것이 분명하지 않기 때문이다. 그리고 어쨌든 편집된 내용을 보면, 그들이 결의안을 향해 가고 있다는 것을 알 수 있을 것이다. 그것은 단지 무의미한 오락가락이 아니다.둘째, 2005년 2월 이후 이곳에 있었음에도 불구하고, 이 편집자는 그의 이름에 아무런 블록도 없는 확립된 편집자(관리자)이다.셋째, 프로젝트 페이지의 태그에 대한 논쟁이었다.그 세 가지 이유 때문에, 나는 그의 페이지에 있는 메모가 여기서 적절하다고 생각한다.SlimVirgin^(talk) 13:39, 2006년 12월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

전적으로 동의한다. -- Szvest - 13:45, 2006년 12월 26일 (UTC)[응답하라]

사용자의 올바른 통화:슬림비긴.내 생각에 그건 엄밀히 말하면 vio...SlimVirgin의 추론은 사용자:빛나는!'의 페이지/활동은 오히려 몇 달 동안 잠잠했다.(→넷스코트) 2006년 12월 26일 15시 52분 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:Mamin27 사용자가 보고함:Khoikhoy (결과: 24시간)

Han_Chinese에 대한 3회전 규칙 위반(대화 기록 보호 로그 보기 보기 삭제)Mamin27(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):

• 이전 버전이 2006년 12월 20일 06:39로 복구됨
• 1차 되돌리기: 06:25, 2006년 12월 25일
• 2차 되돌리기: 02:43, 2006년 12월 26일
• 3차 되돌리기: 04:08, 2006년 12월 26일
• 4회 되돌리기: 04:24, 2006년 12월 26일

댓글: 블록 로그를 확인하십시오.Khoikhoy 05:34, 2006년 12월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

1ne은 그를 24시간동안 막았다.SlimVirgin 11:20, 2006년 12월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:Chuck0 보고:재판장님(결과: 페이지 보호됨)

Chuck Moonson에 대한 3회전 규칙 위반(대화 기록 편집으로 로그 보기 링크 삭제 보호)Chuck0(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):

• 이전 버전이 다음으로 복구됨: [1]
• 1차 되돌리기: 04:44, 2006년 12월 26일
• 2차 되돌리기: 05:00, 2006년 12월 26일
• 3차 되돌리기: 05:20, 2006년 12월 26일
• 4회 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 26일

조금 전 관리자가 자신의 토크 페이지에서 3RR 경고: [2]

설명:

이것은 3RR 위반으로 보이지 않는데, 위의 첫 번째 되돌리기가 첫 번째 편집으로 보이기 때문이다.어쨌든 그것은 Will Beback이 페이지를 보호했기 때문에 모호한 지점이다.SlimVirgin 11:18, 2006년 12월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:Hillock65 보고:휴머스 사피엔스(결과: 24시간)

우크라이나의 유대인 역사에 대한 3반전 규칙 위반(대화 기록 편집 보호, 로그 보기 링크 삭제)Hillock65(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):

• 이전 버전이 02:46, 2006년 12월 25일로 변경됨
• 1차 되돌리기: 03:01, 2006년 12월 25일
• 2차 되돌리기: 03:31, 2006년 12월 25일
• 3차 되돌리기: 04:27, 2006년 12월 25일
• 4회 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 25일 20시 19분
• 5회 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 25일 20시 55분
• 6회 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 25일 22시 44분

경고: 2006년 12월 26일 01:08

전에도 3RR을 차단당했으니까 24시간 동안이요SlimVirgin 11:10, 2006년 12월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:Rajsingam 보고:라히루_k(결과: 3h)

Anton Balasingham에 대한 3회전 규칙 위반(편집 [[토크:Anton Balasingham talk]] 기록 보호 로그 보기 삭제 링크).Rajsingam(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):

• 이전 버전이 2006년 12월 26일 01:43로 복구됨
• 1차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 26일 05:41:001
• 2차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 26일 10시 3분
• 3차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 26일 10시 49분
• 4회 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 26일 14시 40분
• 5회 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 26일 14시 58분
• 6회 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 26일 16시 9분
• 7회 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 26일 16시 36분
• 8회 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 26일 16시 53분
• 9회 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 27일 13시 37분

설명:그는 589개의 총 편집수를 보유하고 있는 3개월 연상의 위키피디아 전문가로, 일부 스리랑카 관련 논쟁 주제에서 볼 수 있다.그래서 나는 그가 그 보고서에 앞서 어떠한 3RR 경고도 필요하지 않다고 생각한다.[3] --############################################################

참고 - 그는 믿을 수 없을 정도로 정확한 방법으로 정보를 제공하고 있었다.나는 그가 왜 rediff를 사용하지 않았는지 모르겠다.바카만 16:49, 2006년 12월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자 Rajsingam이 Anton Balasigam 기사에서 실제로 모의실험을 하고 있다고 논평한다.그는 대화 페이지에 아무런 언급도 하지 않고 다른 사람들의 편집 내용을 되돌렸다.토크 페이지에서 코멘트를 하는 것은, 되돌리기 전에, 위키피디아의 일반적인 규칙이며, 나는 이 사용자가 이 근본적인 원리를 깨는 것을 허용해서는 안 된다고 생각한다.게다가 그는 내가 편집한 내용을 마지막 시간 안에 3번 뒤집어서 총 위반 횟수를 7회 이상 만들었다.

--이와자키 17:41, 2006년 12월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

논평 나는 행정관들이 불필요한 반전 전쟁을 막기 위해 이 개인에 대해 조치를 취할 것을 강력히 촉구한다.그는 유명한 테러 고문 안톤 발라싱햄에 비판적인 믿을만한 소식통으로부터 인용된 논평자를 끈질기게 제거해 왔다.그는 여러 번 탈주하라는 경고를 받았지만 듣지 못했다.커 에이번 13:43, 2006년 12월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

이제 조용해진 것 같다.3시간 블록으로 윌리엄 M. 코놀리 20:45, 2006년 12월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:61.68.119.205가 보고함:코엘라칸(결과:블록 없음)

What_the_Beep_Do_We_Know!에 대한 3반전 규칙 위반? (토크 히스토리 편집으로 로그 보기 삭제 링크 보호). 61.68.155.155(토크 · 기여 · 로그 삭제, 로그 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그):

• 이전 버전이 2006년 12월 23일 06:38로 복구됨
• 1차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 25일 13시 9분
• 2차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 25일 22:06
• 3차 되돌리기: 01:01, 2006년 12월 26일
• 4회 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 26일 14시 28분

설명:이 사용자는 최소 사용자:61.68.119.205 사용자:61.68.191.123 및 사용자:61.68.177.89의 IP를 여러 개 가지고 있다.이 토크 페이지에서 경고를 받았다.합의를 기다리지 않고, (다른 편집자들이 논쟁했던) 토크 페이지에 메시지가 남겨졌기 때문에, 이것은 즉흥적으로 어떤 것이라도 추가할 수 있는 면허증이라고 주장한다.속도를 줄이고 합의를 기다리라는 요청을 받았지만, 그러지 않을 것이다.4회 반전은 25시간 19분에 걸쳐 발생하지만 WP:3RR은 "사용자가 하루에 3회 이상 되돌리지 않더라도 편집 전쟁이나 교란으로 인해 차단될 수 있다"고 말하고 있으며, 토크 페이지 편집의 경고 및 논쟁적 성격(NPA의 경우 사용자도 2회 경고를 받아야 했다)에 비추어 볼 때 이것은 특별한 경우라고 생각한다.— 코엘라칸 토크 — 2006년 12월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

User:210.10.150.170. — coelacan talk — 17:35, 2006년 12월 27일 (UTC)[응답]에서 새로운 IP로 이동

이것이 24시간 이내가 아니었고, 지금은 상당히 오래되었고, 여러 개의 IP가 있는 것을 감안하면, 나는 블록에서 어떤 포인트도 볼 수 없다.William M이 재발하면 다시 가져와라. 코놀리 20:41, 2006년 12월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

User:Hipocrate by User:Netscott(결과: 블록 없음)

• rv1 11:48, 2006년 12월 26일
• rv2 13:12, 2006년 12월 26일
• rv3 15:30, 2006년 12월 26일
• rv4 15:39, 2006년 12월 26일

보고된 시간: 2006년 12월 26일 17:24(UTC)

설명:처음 3개는 단지 세 개의 별도 편집기(세 번째는 이전에 안정된 버전의 페이지를 복원하려고 했던 곳)에 걸쳐서 직진하는 것이지만 마지막은 이 사용자가 나의 마지막 편집을 대부분 취소했다는 것을 보여준다.WP:3RR에 대한 나의 이해에 따르면 이 또한 되돌리는 것이다.나는 이것을 이 편집자의 주의를 끌었고 그는 그것이 되돌리는 것이라고 동의하지 않았다.User:Hipocrite는 좋은 지위에 있는 사용자로, 만약 내가 이러한 반전에 대해 정확하다면, 나는 그가 차단되는 것을 원하지 않을 것이다(User와 같이 경고만 많이 했을 뿐:위에!) 그러나 조금 더 권한을 가진 사람들이 이것을 분명히 해 주면 고맙겠다.고마워요.(→넷스코트) 2006년 12월 26일 17:24 (UTC)[응답]

네번째 편집은 너의 형편없게 망가진 영어를 고쳐주는거야, 원격으로 되돌리는게 아니야.Hipocrite - «Talk » 17:26, 2006년 12월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

게다가, 나의 두 번째 편집은 "많은 사용자"라는 단어를 추가하기 때문에 직접적인 되돌리기가 아니다. 그것은 최소한 당신을 만족시킨 것 같다.Hipocrite - «Talk » 17:29, 2006년 12월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

거기 히포크라테스도 마찬가지로 CIV를 준수하는 것이 좋을 것이다...내 말이 맞다면 나는 너의 예의 부족이 너에게 조금이라도 도움이 될 것이라고 기대하지 않아. (→넷스콧) 17:30, 2006년 12월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 너의 편집을 "끔찍하게 망가진 영어"라고 부른 것은 유감이다.나는 대신에 그것이 "분명히 부적절한 문법"이라고 썼어야 했다.이것에 대해 사과할게.이제 사용자 페이지에 불필요한 경고와 주의사항을 표시하고 해당 대화 페이지를 참조하기 위해 모든 시간을 낭비하지 마십시오.고마워요.Hipocrite - «Talk » 17:35, 2006년 12월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

3R; 4번째가 왜 rv William M인지 모르겠다. 코놀리 20:37, 2006년 12월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:사용자가 보고한 Venom-smasher:TKD(결과:24시간 블록)

Star_Wars_에피소드에 대한 3역전 규칙 위반II:_Attack_of_the_Clones(대화 기록 편집으로 로그 보기 보기 삭제)독-스마셔(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그):

• 이전 버전이 2006년 12월 25일 22:51로 반환됨
• 1차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 25일 23시 1분
• 2차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 26일 00:02
• 3차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 26일 11시 48분
• 4회 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 26일 13시 23분

전에 경고했었습니다.

설명:이 사용자와 필메이커(토크 · 기부)는 며칠 전부터 스타워즈 영화 몇 편을 오가고 있다.나는 사태를 진정시키기 위해 에피소드 1페이지의 기사 보호를 시도했고, 편집 전쟁을 재개하면 블록이 생길 것이라고 경고했다.그러나, 나는 그 이후 관련 논의에 참여했으므로, 나는 계속적인 역전 전쟁을 막기 위해 다른 누군가에게 연연해야 한다고 생각한다.시간은 UTC -5 — TKD::토크 19:53, 2006년 12월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

두 사용자 모두 24시간 동안 차단됨.계속하면 페이지를 보호하겠다. --Robdurbar 22:38, 2006년 12월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:사용자가 보고한_Filmaker:TKD(결과:24시간)

Star_Wars_에피소드에 대한 3역전 규칙 위반II:_Attack_of_the_Clones(대화 기록 편집으로 로그 보기 보기 삭제)The_Filmaker (talk · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• 이전 버전이 2006년 12월 25일 22:32로 반환됨
• 1차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 25일 22시 38분
• 2차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 25일 22시 56분
• 3차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 25일 23시 43분
• 새로운 기본 버전: 2006년 12월 26일 09:55
• 4회 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 26일 13시 9분
• 5회 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 26일 13시 40분

설명:시간은 UTC -5이다. 이 되돌리기 전쟁의 나머지 절반은 위에서 보라.에피소드 I 기사를 보호하지 않을 때 3RR에 대해 경고했지만 이후 직접 토론에 들어갔기 때문에 이번 논쟁에서 블록 적용이 부담스럽다.더 나은 해결책이 있기를 바랐지만, 다른 사람들이 보여주듯이, 그것은 꽤 추악해졌다.— TKD:Talk 19:53, 2006년 12월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

위와 같이. --Robdurbar 22:39, 2006년 12월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:12.170.101.194가 사용자가 보고함:바리스타림(결과: 12시간)

Baklava에 대한 3회전 규칙 위반(대화 기록 편집으로 로그 보기 보기 삭제)12.170.101.101.101 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):

• 이전 버전이 다음으로 복구됨: [4]
• 1차 되돌리기: [5]
• 2차 되돌리기: [6]
• 세 번째 되돌리기: [7]
• 4번째 되돌림: [8]

오늘 아침 다른 기사에 대한 3RR 경고가 있었다[9].

설명:수많은 뜨거운 민족 분쟁에서 전쟁을 편집해 온 IP다.애논이지만 위키 정책을 잘 아는 것 같다.나는 또 다른 논설[10]에서 이전에 그에게 3RR에 대해 경고했었다.사용자 대상은 주로 한 민족에 관한 기사이며, 여기 [11] 바리스타림 21:00, 2006년 12월 26일 (UTC)[응답]과 같은 수많은 극단적인 POV 편집을 해왔다.

• 나는 WP:3RR. 알파벳 1개당 12시간 동안 사용자를 차단했다.2006년 12월 26일 23:31(UTC)[응답하라]

User:ramdrake 보고:Benio76 (결과:24시간 블록 없음)

푸아그라에 대한 3회전 규칙 위반(대화 내역 편집 및 삭제 링크 감시 로그 보기)램드레이크(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):

• 이전 버전이 2006년 12월 26일 18:16으로 변경됨
• 1차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 26일 18:18
• 2차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 26일 18시 39분
• 3차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 26일 20:01
• 4회 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 26일 20:11

설명:사용자 램드레이크는 나의 기여를 "강한 부정적인 편견을 가져온다"는 시늉을 하며 푸아그라에 대한 사이언티컬한 설명으로 되돌렸다.그러나 나의 공헌은 그가 인정하는 사실의 서술이었고, 주관적인 평가도 없었다.사실을 말하는 것은 마치 WP:NPOV에서 권고한 것처럼 사담 후세인이 사람을 죽였다고 말하는 것처럼 부정적인 편견을 주는 것이 아니다.

• 이것들은 기사의 다른 영역들에서 다른 반향이다.만약 베니오76이 이것을 램드레이크에서 3RR이라고 부르고 싶다면, 그 자신은 다른 모든 사람에게 6RR을 가지고 있다.여러 사용자가 이 기사의 여러 섹션에 대해 베니오76을 되돌리고 있다.Benio76은 Schmoukey 기사에서 의제를 추진하기 위한 단일 목적의 계정이다.TheCat 22:55, 2006년 12월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

• • 이 정책은 "편집자는 24시간 내에 하나의 위키백과 페이지에 전체 또는 부분적으로 세 번 이상 반전을 수행해서는 안 된다고 명시되어 있다." 람드레이크는 2시간 이내에 네 번 반전을 했다.베니오76 23:51, 2006년 12월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

이런 엄밀히 말하면 되돌릴 수 없다.버전 간의 차이는 충분히 다르기 때문에 나는 그것들이 되돌아간다고 생각하지 않는다.다른 관리자의 의견이 다를 경우, 반드시 블록을 발행하십시오.--CSTAR 20:23, 2006년 12월 27일(UTC)[응답]

람드레이크의 이 네 가지 편집은 분명히 되돌아가고 있다.그것들은 당신이 얻을 수 있는 가장 평범한 반향이다!

• 2006년 12월 26일 편집 1: 램드레이크는 소개 단락에서 "그리고 많은 국가와 지방 관할 구역"이라는 문구를 삭제했다.나는 방금 그 문구를 삽입했었다.확인하려면 이전 편집으로 돌아가십시오.

• 2006년 12월 26일 편집 2, 18:39: 람드레이크도 추가 조각을 제거하여 문장을 엉망으로 만든 것을 제외하고, 같은 구절에 관해서도 같은 것.되돌리기임을 확인하려면 이전 두 편집기로 돌아가십시오 [12] 및 [13].

• 2006년 12월 26일 편집 3, 20:01: 램드레이크는 "그들의 이름은 지방간 또는 기형성이라고 불리는 병리학"이라는 문장과 사용자 베니오76이 방금 넣은 두 단어를 추가로 삭제했다.되돌리기임을 확인하려면 이전 편집본 두 개[14]와 [15]로 돌아가십시오.

• 편집 4, 20:11, 2006년 12월 26일: 동일한 되돌림.확인하려면 이전 편집으로 돌아가십시오.

이러한 것들이 용어의 엄밀한 의미에서나 3RR 가이드라인 정신에서나 되돌리지 않는다면, 나는 정말로 무엇이 되돌릴 수 있는 자격이 있는지 모르겠다!

램드레이크는 다른 사용자들과 함께 푸아그라 페이지에 자신이 원하는 것을 정확히 할 수 있는 동시에 자신들과 의견이 다른 사람들을 상대로 3RR 규칙의 엄격한 시행에 기대를 걸고 있다.그 규칙들은 그들에게 적용되지 않는가?한 당사자는 자신이 원하는 것을 할 수 있고, 다른 당사자는 마비된 채 앉아 있는 것이 NPOV인가?

데이비드 올리비에 23:16, 2006년 12월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

개정된 보고서에서는 이를 복잡한 되돌리기(이전 주(동일한 상태는 아님)라고 명시하고 있다.--CSTAR 01:49, 2006년 12월 29일(UTC)[응답]

사용자:Aminz 보고:Beit Or (결과: 블록 없음)

History_Persecution_by_Jews(대화 기록 편집으로 로그 보기 삭제 보호)에 대한 3반전 규칙 위반.Aminz(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):

• 첫 번째 되돌리기: 12:03, 2006년 12월 26일 다른 사용자가 2006년 12월 26일 11:04에 추가한 NPOV 태그 제거
• 두 번째 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 26일 22시 40분, 이 구절의 복원 "유대인들은 서기 66~70년 로마에 맞서 메시아로 받아들였던 바르 코흐바(Bar Cochba)의 주도로 전쟁에 참전했다.이 전쟁은 기독교인과 유대인 사이에 분열의 원인이 되었다.군국주의에 반대하는 기독교인들은 전쟁에서 유대인들을 돕지 않았다.그들은 열성적인 군국주의가 예수의 가르침과 모순된다고 생각했다.키프로스와 시레나이카에서 유대인에 의한 살인적인 살육은 갈라진 틈만 늘렸을 뿐이다.바르 코흐바와 그의 추종자들은 이 전쟁을 국가 전쟁으로 간주했고 그들의 유대인 브레인을 돕지 않은 기독교인들에게 중형을 선고했다.기독교인들이 군국주의를 거부한 것도 2006년 12월 26일 21시 58분, 다른 이용자에 의해 제거된 바 코흐바를 메시아로 받아들임으로써 예수가 메시아가 될 자리를 남겨두지 않았기 때문이다.
• 세 번째 되돌림: 08:02, 2006년 12월 27일 문장의 복원 "게다가 에스더 (8:14)의 책에 따르면 푸림 행사 중 유대인을 두려워하여 유대교로 개종한 페르시아인이 다수" 2006년 12월 27일 00:31에 다른 사용자에 의해 제거되었다.
• 4번째 되돌림: 09:25, 2006년 12월 27일 "관용을 그들이 숭배하는 모든 것에 대한 나약함 또는 심지어 사악함의 표시로 간주한다.종교 중에서도 관용은 승리하기 위해 필요한 박해받는 자들에게 요구되며, 너무 자주 자기 차례에서 박해를 시작한다." 다른 사용자가 2006년 12월 27일 08:17에 제거했다.

설명:

• 이것은 전혀 3RR 위반으로 보이지 않는다.단지 내용 추가.—류룽 (竜龍) 2006년 12월 27일 10:18 (UTC)[응답]
  • 실제로, 리턴트 2, 3, 4는 이전에 다른 사용자가 삭제한 콘텐츠의 재첨가였다.관리자가 이 보고서를 처리할 때까지 기다리는 중.Beit Or 10:55, 2006년 12월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

댓글을 달다.그렇다면 이것은 3RR vio의 자격이 되지 않는다.3회 이상 반전이 있어야 한다.--CSTAR 20:13, 2006년 12월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

그럼 첫 번째 되돌리는 건 어때?BeitOr 20:21, 2006년 12월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

그것은 나에게 되돌아가는 것처럼 보이지 않는다.처음 두 버전 사이의 차이를 고려하십시오. [16]:이들 버전은 실질적으로 다르다--CSTAR 20:29, 2006년 12월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

같은 버전으로 되돌릴 필요는 없다.위에서 연결한 두 번째 되돌리기는 분명해 보인다: 편집 요약이 전쟁 문제를 복구한다..."유대인들은 전쟁에 관여했다"는 말로 시작하는 구절을 복원한다.차북은 이 통로를 없앴고, 아민즈는 그 통로를 복구했다[17].그것은 분명히 되돌리는 것이다.BeitOr 20:37, 2006년 12월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

난 그렇게 생각하지 않아.WP 정의에 따르면:되돌리기

그러나 영어 위키백과 3번 되돌리기 규칙의 맥락에서, 되돌리는 것은 기사의 일부 또는 완전히 이전 버전으로 되돌아가는 기사의 변경으로 훨씬 더 광범위하게 정의된다.

아르민츠에 의해 두 번째 편집에 대해 취한 액션은 그것을 첫 번째 편집과 같은 버전으로 되돌리지 않는다.또한 3RR 보고서를 제출할 때 "버전으로 되돌림"도 제공하는 것이 바람직하다는 점에 유의하십시오.어떤 경우든 나는 이것을 번복으로 보지 않지만, 만약 당신이 동의하지 않는다면, 다른 관리자에게 나의 해석을 검토해 달라고 요청하라.--CSTAR 20:56, 2006년 12월 27일 (UTC)[응답하라]

한 가지 더 언급하자면, 나는 너의 추가와 제거의 비교에 의해 제안된 차이점을 살펴보았다.이 버전들의 차이점은 나에게 같지 않다.하지만 다시 한 번 말했듯이, 다른 사람에게 물어봐 줘.--CSTAR 21:09, 2006년 12월 27일 (UTC)[응답하라]

내 유일한 목적은 그 기사에 내용을 추가하는 것이었다.예를 들어 첫 번째 편집은 되돌리는 것이 아니다.토크 페이지 사용자: 찰리는 기사 제목이 본질적으로 POV라고 생각했기 때문에 태그를 추가했다.그러나 나는 우리가 기독교인에 의한 역사 박해와 무슬림에 의한 역사 박해에 관한 기사를 가지고 있다고 주장했고 그 태그를 제거했다.그 후 그는 또 "나는 아마도 과민반응을 보였다.그러나 나는 아직도 그 내용의 상당 부분이 매우 POV라고 생각하고 있어..." 그가 콘텐츠 분쟁을 지적하자마자 나는 태그를 제거하지 않았다.꼬리표를 떼는 것이 되돌리자는 뜻이 아니었다.서로 편집한 뒤에 이야기가 있다.나는 특별히 유대교와 연결되는 새로운 섹션에 더 많은 내용을 추가하려고 했지만 그것이 되돌리는 것으로 여겨질까 봐 그렇게 할 수 없었다.그 상황에 대한 나의 느낌은, 비트 오르는 내가 덧붙인 것만 제거하고 있다. --Aminz 11:21, 2006년 12월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

'경고.역전의 배후에 사연이 있는지 없는지는 관계없다.3RR 리닛의 요점은 편집 충돌을 피하는 것이다. 이 경우 나는 3RR vio를 보지 못했는데, 당신이 편집 전쟁을 한 것이 거의 확실하다.다음에 편집 전쟁 증거가 있으면 기술적으로 3RR vio인지 아닌지에 관계없이 차단하겠다.--CSTAR 21:20, 2006년 12월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

User:89.172.195.192 User: User:단(결과:24시간)

Krashovani에 대한 3회전 규칙 위반(대화 내역 편집으로 로그 보기 링크 삭제 보호)89.155.1987(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):

• 이전 버전이 2006년 12월 27일 05:10으로 반환됨
• 1차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 27일 10시 25분
• 2차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 27일 12시 21분
• 3차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 27일 12시 43분
• 4회 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 27일 12시 47분
• 5회 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 27일 12시 51분

• 경고의 증거:사용자가 공백으로 작성한 토크 페이지의 첫 번째 편집; 12:45, 2006년 12월 27일, 추가 설명; 12:47, 2006년 12월 27일.
• 24시간 차단됨. --CSTAR 20:10, 2006년 12월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

User:Beit Or 사용자가 보고함:Hillock65(결과: 거부됨)

제2차 세계 대전 중 우크라이나와 독일 간 협업에 대한 3반전 규칙 위반(대화 기록 편집으로 로그 보기 링크 삭제 보호)Beit Or (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):

• 이전 버전이 다음으로 복구됨: [19]
• 1차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 27일 21:21:21
• 2차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 27일 15시 34분
• 3차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 27일 15:28
• 4회 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 27일 07:10

• 경고의 증거:2006년 12월 27일 22:23

• 거부됨.그 중 두 개는 우크라이나의 유대인 역사다.버킷소프 2006년 12월 27일 (UTC) 22:54 [응답]

설명:

사용자:jd2718이 사용자:jd2718에 의해 보고됨(결과:블록 없음)

혐의_of_Israeli_Apartheid(토크 내역 편집으로 로그 보기 링크 삭제 보호)에 대한 3반전 규칙 위반.jd2718(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):

• 이전 버전이 로 되돌림: 다른 버전이지만, 4개 중 3개가 동일한 단락을 삭제함

• 첫 번째 되돌리기: [20]
• 2차 되돌리기: [21]
• 세 번째 되돌리기: [22]
• 4번째 되돌림: [23]

경고의 증거는 없지만 사용자:jd2718은 반년 이상 위키백과에서 활동하고 있으며 거의 1000개의 편집이 있다.

설명:1번과 2번 리턴 사이에는 다른 편집이 없었기 때문에 아마도 그들은 하나의 리턴을 두 조각으로 구성한다.그러나 사용자:jayjg가 나에게 경고한 한, 나는 이것을 시행하거나 폐지해야 한다고 생각했다.

• 블록 없음. --CSTAR 15:40, 2006년 12월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:사용자 보고:68.1.78.129(결과:위반 없음)

List_of_anime_conventions(대화 기록 편집으로 로그 보기 보기 삭제)에서 규칙 위반 3회 발생.Farix(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그):

• 이전 버전이 다음으로 복구됨: 나열된 규칙 제거

• 1차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 27일 17시 53분
• 2차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 27일 18시 52분
• 3차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 27일 20:05

평.

• 토크 페이지에서 이에 대한 논의가 진행 중이고, 이를 위해 한 사람이 차단되려면 네 번의 반전이 있어야 한다.3명밖에 안 보여.--베르칼로스 07:23, 2006년 12월 28일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  • 2차 편집은 말할 것도 없고, 그 특정 협약에 대한 정확한 링크로의 회귀였다.--Vercalos 07:26, 2006년 12월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

• 이건 위반으로 보이지 않아.SlimVirgin 09:01, 2006년 12월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

• 목록 기준과 관련해 애논 편집자와 이견을 갖기 위한 시도가 있었지만, 여전히 기준과 무관하게 자신의 컨벤션에 포함되어야 한다고 주장한다(서부 플로리다와 같은 논리를 사용하는 것은 시간대가 다르기 때문에 플로리다의 나머지 주와 같은 주에 속하지 않는다).WP와 함께 지역화된 RfC:애니메는 그 문제를 해결하는 데 도움을 주기 위해 불려 왔다.[24] --TheFarix (Talk) 01:03, 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자: 사용자가 보고한 Fighting_for_Justice(결과: 페이지 보호됨)

David에 대한 3회전 규칙 위반_Westerfield(대화 기록 편집 보호 링크 삭제 로그 보기)Fighting_for_Justice(대화 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):

• 이전 버전은 다음과 같이 되돌아갔다: 시작점 [25], "정의를 위한 투쟁"은 먼저 기사의 마지막 두 링크를 삭제한 다음, 기사에 대한 모든 추가 사항뿐만 아니라 기사에 대한 모든 추가 사항도 되돌렸다.

• 1차 되돌리기: [26]
• 2차 되돌리기: [27]
• 세 번째 되돌리기: [28]
• 4번째 되돌림: [29]

• "정의를 위한 투쟁"은 경고와 경고를 동시에 받은 3RR에 매우 익숙하다.

설명:

이것은 오랜 논쟁의 일부분이다.간단히 말해서, 나는 그의 마지막 네 번의 반전을 주었을 뿐이다.

이것은 경박한 덧셈이다.사용자:196.15.168.40은 복수로 이 일을 하는 것인데, 왜냐하면 나는 페이지를 보호할 관리자가 있기 때문이다. 우리는 편집 전쟁을 벌이고 있다.게다가 위의 링크들 중 하나는 되돌리는 것이 아니다.나는 쓸모없는 고리를 제거했다.24시간 동안 날 금지하는 걸 고려하기 전에 데이비드 웨스터필드 기사의 역사를 살펴봐정의의 투쟁 2006년 12월 28일 (UTC) 08:04 (응답)

그럼 3RR을 위반했다는 걸 인정하시는 겁니까?링크의 초기 제거는 위의 네 가지 회전에 포함되지 않는다.198.40 04:28, 2006년 12월 29일(UTC)[응답]

마주치는 모든 판자를 파괴해야 하는가?관리자가 이 문제를 종결시켰다는 것을 모르십니까?하지만, 아니, 평소처럼 2센트를 던져야 해.정의의 싸움 2006년 12월 29일 04:37 (UTC)[응답하라]

196.15.168.40 그가 3RR을 위반했는지는 중요하지 않다. 왜냐하면 그 페이지는 현재 보호되고 있기 때문이다.블록은 징벌적이지 않고 예방적이다. --Wildnox(토크) 04:49, 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

196, 당신은 전체 기사에 대한 링크가 아닌 네 번의 반전을 보여주는 디프트를 제공해야 한다.SlimVirgin 09:00, 2006년 12월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

어쨌든 보호되고 있어.SlimVirgin 09:04, 2006년 12월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

더 이상 보호되지 않아다음은 4가지 차이점:

• 1차 되돌리기: [30]

• 2차 되돌리기: [31]

• 세 번째 되돌리기: [32]

• 4회 되돌리기: [33]196.168.408:27, 2007년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

추가 의견 나는 그 이슈를 그만둘 것을 제안한다.당신의 편집이 잘못되었다(문장 중간에 줄 바꿈 만들기, 기사에서 주요 정보 삭제 등).계속 잘못된 편집을 반복하고 있는데, 3RR 규칙으로 보호되는지 잘 모르겠어.그리고 당신은 적어도 그처럼 유죄인 것 같군.--베르칼로스 09:06, 2007년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]

무슨 소리야?문장 중간에 줄 바꿈?예를 들어, 코멘트의 모든 문장은 선을 넘나든다.주요 정보를 제거하는 중?정의를 위한 싸움이란 그런 것이지 내가 하는 게 아니다.너는 그것을 잘못 알고 있다.그래서 내가 다시 설치하고 있는 것은 좋은 편집이었다.3RR.196.168.404:06, 2007년 1월 4일 (UTC)[응답하라]에 따라 보호된다.

베르칼로스는 큰 두통을 줄이고 196.15.168.40을 그냥 무시한다.그는 말썽꾸러기에 불과하다그는 위키피디아의 정책이나 규칙을 전혀 고려하지 않는다.그는 3월부터 위키피디아를 방해하는 일을 하고 있다.그가 가장 좋아하는 기사는 데이비드 웨스터필드 기사다.아동 살해범도 마찬가지야그는 3RR 룰도 이해하지 못한다.그것은 공공 기물 파손으로부터 보호한다.당신이 누군가와 동의하지 않는 정보를 되돌리는 것은 아니다.사용자 또는 다른 사용자가 편집한 내용을 다시 설치하든 상관없이.너는 이 주변의 규칙들에 대해 너무 몰라.WP를 위반하기 때문에 편집 내용이 좋지 않을 수도 있다.OR. 2007년 1월 4일 04:15(UTC) 정의의 투쟁[응답]

사용자:Noah30 보고:웃는 남자 (결과: 24시간)

코소보 보호 군단에 대한 3회전 규칙 위반(대화 기록 편집 보호 로그 보기 링크 삭제)Noah30(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):

• 이전 버전이 다음으로 복구됨: 버전시간
• 1차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 27일 16:22
• 2차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 27일 17:09
• 3차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 27일 18시 48분
• 4회 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 27일 20:57
• 5회 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 28일 17시 31분
• 6회 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 28일 19시 8분
• 7회 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 28일 19시 55분

3RR 경고(사용자 대화 페이지에서 삭제된 이후) 2006년 12월 27일 21:10

의견: 이 기사에 대한 많은 논쟁, 모든 당사자는 3RR로 차단되어야 한다.

2006-12-28T20:47:05 Robdurbar (Talk contribs block) blocked "Noah30 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3rr violation) and 2006-12-28T20:47:10 Robdurbar (Talk contribs block) blocked "KosMetfan (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3rr violation) William M. 코놀리 20:49, 2006년 12월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

윌은 너무 빨리 움직여편집이 충돌함 - :두 사용자:Noah30 및 사용자:코스메트팬이 24시간 봉쇄했다.나도 한두 명의 다른 사용자들이 침입해 페이지들을 보호했다. --Robdurbar 20:51, 2006년 12월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

그런데, 코소보 관련 조항(보호관찰시)에 적용되는 중재 판결이 있다.위키백과:중재/코소보 요청.위키백과에 다음 블록을 기록하십시오.requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.안녕하십니까, 아스테리온 22:55^talk, 2007년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:사용자에 의해 보고됨:Orangemarlin(결과:위반 없음)

생성론에 대한 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반(대화 기록 편집 보호 링크 감시 로그 보기)Yous(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):

• 이전 버전이 다음으로 복구됨: [34]
• 1차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 28일 12시 51분
• 2차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 28일 13:00
• 3차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 28일 13시 14분

설명:

• 위반을 만들려면 반드시 네 번의 반전이 있어야 한다.숨막힘 (대화) 2006년 12월 28일 (UTC) 22:35 (응답)
• 또한 아무런 경고도 하지 않았다.그래도 내가 직접 한 장 줬어.--Wildnox(토크) 22:40, 2006년 12월 28일 (UTC)[응답하라]
• 고마워, 어느 쪽도 알 수 없었지만, '규칙'을 다시 읽었을 때 나는 더 명확하게 이해했다.내가 경고를 했다면 이 사용자가 나를 악마라고 비난했을까 봐, 다른 사람이 그렇게 해서 다행이다.도와줘서 고맙습니다.Orangemarlin 03:03, 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

User:Bryndza가 보고함:Bucksofg(결과 protect:)

제2차 세계 대전 중 우크라이나와 독일 간 협업에 대한 3반전 규칙 위반(대화 기록 편집으로 로그 보기 링크 삭제 보호)Bryndza(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):

• 이전 버전이 2006년 12월 27일 15:33으로 복구됨
• 1차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 27일 16시 8분
• 2차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 27일 20시 39분
• 3차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 27일 22시 14분
• 4회 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 28일 14시 56분

설명:두 번째 되돌리기는 IP 65.94.19.47에 의해 이루어지는데, 이는 그를 "좋다"라고 부르는 것이다: 위키백과:requests_for_checkuser#Bryndza.이후 편집이 자신의 (diff) Bucksofg 22:56, 2006년 12월 28일 (UTC) 후속 조치:[응답]

최근 금지된 [35] 프록시 반달 사용자:레드스톤357.이 문제에 대해 3RR 정책을 인용하는 경우:

• 금지되거나 차단된 사용자로부터 편집 내용 되돌리기

특정 페이지의 편집이 금지되거나 위키피디아에서 일반적으로 금지되거나 차단된, 그리고 어쨌든 직접 또는 양말 조각을 통해 편집을 계속하는 편집자들은 이 정책에 의해 확립된 한계에 대한 계산 없이 되돌릴 수 있다.

따라서 이 되돌리기는 3RR 요건을 준수하지 않는다.게다가 그것은 내가 그의 정당성을 되돌리는데 적용했을 때 버킷소프그 행정관이 직접 도발했다.[36]의 (1)을 참조하십시오.

또한 나는 3RR 정책에서 또 다른 단락을 인용하고 싶다.

• 정책의 취지

3반전 규정은 편집 전쟁을 중지하기 위한 것이다.참고로 제2차 세계대전 당시 우크라이나-독일 간 협력이 금지돼 있어 전쟁 복귀가 중단됐다.또한 WP에서 1년 이상 편집생활을 하면서 나는 편집전쟁에 전혀 관여하지 않았고, 더 이상 전쟁에 말려들 의향이 없다는 점도 고려해 달라. --Bryndza 05:20, 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

2006-12-28T15:14:00 Buketsofg (Talk 기여 블록) m (2차 대전 중 보호 우크라이나-독일 간 협업 : 편집 교전을 끝내기 위한 보호 [editsop])윌리엄 M. 코놀리 11:27, 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:Schmough사용자가 보고한 TheCat:올리비에드(결과: 경고)

Foie_gras에 대한 3회전 규칙 위반(대화 기록 보호 로그 보기 보기 삭제)슈마키TheCat(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):

• 이전 버전이 다음 버전으로 되돌림: 12월 26일 22:29
• 1차 되돌리기: 12월 26일 12월 22일
• 2차 되돌리기: 12월 26일 23:43
• 3차 되돌리기: 12월 27일 19:18
• 4차 되돌리기: 12월 27일 12월 22일:08
• 이전 버전이 다음 버전으로 되돌림: 12월 27일 23:50
• 5번째 되돌리기: 12월 27일 23:56
• 이전 버전이 다음 버전으로 전환됨: 12월 28일 00:03
• 6차 되돌리기: 12월 28일 00:12

설명:

처음 네 번의 반전은 슈모키에 의해 이루어졌다.24시간도 안 돼 같은 항목에 더캣은 푸아그라 기사의 토크 페이지에 "좋은 기사" 템플릿을 반복해서 다시 집어넣었다.그때마다 그는 GA 페이지에 있는 기사도 다시 게재했다.그는 또한 (예를 들어) 메인 푸아그라 페이지에서 완전히 분해된 템플릿을 한 번 이상 삭제했다.엄밀히 말하면, 그는 그 24시간 동안 4번 이상 반전을 했다.

그 반전은 그 자체로 논란이 되어서는 안 되는 이슈에 관한 것인데, 그것은 푸아그라 페이지가 논란이 되고 있다는 사실이다.슈마키TheCat은 동의하지 않는 목소리의 존재조차 인식하지 못하는 것처럼 보인다.

슈마키더캣은 네 번째 리턴(토크 페이지 여기 참조) 이후 나에게 경고를 받았지만, 그는 비웃을 뿐이었고, 같은 날 저녁 다른 문제들에 대해 두 번의 리턴을 계속했다.

나는 푸아그라 페이지에 있는 논란이 개수를 되돌리는 것으로 해결될 것이라고 생각하지 않는다; 하지만, 슈머키에게는 규칙과 자유가 있다.TheCat과 다른 사람들은 그러한 규칙들을 반복적으로 사용함으로써 그들에게 불공평한 이점을 줌으로써 그들이 토론하려는 모든 시도를 완전히 망각한 채 완전히 POV 방식으로 페이지를 편집하는 것을 허용한다.이것이 내가 지금 슈마키에 대해 취할 조치를 요구하는 이유다.더캣.

데이비드 올리비에 00:05, 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 David Olivier에게 이 항의를 제기하도록 격려했다 [37].David은 푸아그라에 대한 POV 전쟁의 패배 쪽에 있다.David은 그 기사의 좋은 기사 지위를 전투로 이용하려고 시도했다.GA 과정에는 기사를 삭제하는 검토 과정이 있다.데이비드가 그 과정을 따르지 않았을 때, 나는 GA 템플릿을 토크 페이지에 복원했다.그리고 나서 나는 데이빗이 해야 할 일을 따랐고 그를 위한 GA 리뷰를 그에게 GA 리뷰를 제출했다.Good_articles/Review#Foie_gras.POV 전쟁에서 그 꼬리표를 제거하는 것은 간접적인 반달리즘이다.태그를 복원하고, 검토할 필요가 없다고 생각될 때 검토하기 위해 기사를 나열하는 것은 선의의 편집이다.

기사 자체에 대한 메모 나는 세는 것에 엄격하지 않지만, 나는 일반적으로 한 이슈당 1RR을 따르려고 노력하고 있다.데이빗의 5, 6번 복귀는 서로 아무 상관이 없다.슈마키TheCat 00:23, 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

이 보고서를 검토하는 사람에게 - 두 명의 사용자(올리버드, Benio76)가 급진적인 POV 푸싱(PETA 활동)을 하고 있는 것을 중심으로 진행 중인 편집 전쟁이 있다는 것을 알려주기 바란다.이 문제는 기사의 Talk 페이지에서 상세히 논의되어 왔고, 변경사항이 번복된 사용자는 다른 편집자의 주장을 반복적으로 무시했다.알렉스 판크라토프 00:28, 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답하라]

WP에 따르면:GA/R, GA 태그는 기사가 기준을 충족하지 못하는 것을 볼 때 제거된다.그 검토 과정은 그 기사를 다시 쓰는 것이다.편집 전쟁이 계속되고 있다는 것은 논란의 여지가 없으며, 이 기사가 논란이 되고 있다는 사실에 이의를 제기하려고 하는 것은 특히 불합리하다.공공 기물 파손 행위를 당신과 의견이 다른 사람에 의한 편집이라고 하는 것은 단지 미사여구에 불과하다.데이비드 올리비에 01:13, 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

푸아그라의 중립성에 대해 큰 갈등이 있다.소수의 편집자들은 푸아그라 상업화를 추진하는 긍정적인 편견을 보존하기 위해 정기적으로 다른 편집자들의 개선을 거부하고 있다.이 사람들은 다른 편집자들이 제공한 WP 가이드라인에 대한 논쟁과 출처, 인용은 무시하며, 내가 양말 꼭두각시를 만들었다고 비난하기까지 했는데, 그것은 거짓이다.기사가 GA 기준을 충족시키지 못하기 때문에 슈미키에 의해 만들어진 반전은TheCat은 정당하지 않다, Benio76 01:51, 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답하라]

이 모든 게 별로 기쁘진 않지만...첫째, 기사와 토크 페이지는 별도로 계산된다(AFAIK).둘째로, STC는 GA 태그를 복원하기 위해 4번 rv'd를 가질 것이 아니라, 현재 반-stale을 가져야 한다. 그리고 나는 GA 태그를 단순히 제거해서는 안 된다고 생각한다.그래서 STC는 윌리엄 M에게 경고를 받는다. 코놀리 11:34, 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

토크 페이지를 되돌리는 것은 파괴적인 행동처럼 보이며 별도로 다루어져야 한다.일부 경우에서 대화 페이지의 번복은 정당하지만(외설, 명예훼손, 비열한 인신공격 등을 제거하기 위해) 다른 경우에서 왜 허용되어야 하는가? --CSTAR 17:27, 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

물론이지하지만 제 말은, 강연과 기사 페이지는 따로따로 4를 셀 때...적어도 나는 그들이 그렇다고 생각한다.윌리엄 M에 대해 얘기해 볼게. 코놀리 18:04, 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:Starwars1955 보고:Aviper2k7(결과: 72시간)

Brett_Favre에 대한 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반(대화 기록 보호 로그 보기 링크 삭제)Starwars1955(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):

• 이전 버전이 PSUMark2006에 의해 2006년 12월 28일 16:23으로 되돌아감
• 1차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 28일 17:44
• 2차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 28일 18시 15분
• 3차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 28일 18:35

설명:사용자는 이전에 두 번 또는 세 번 차단된 적이 있으며, 적어도 한 번은 3RR 위반으로 차단된 적이 있다.처음 차단된 게 여기야인용문도 없는 버전으로 되돌아가고 있어 WP:CITE는 인용문을 두 번 나열하는 것은 규칙에 어긋난다고 말한다.Brett Favre의 역사와 그가 무시하는 것처럼 보이는 우리의 토론 페이지를 보아라.++Aviper2k7++ 00:49, 2006년 12월 29일(UTC)[응답]

• 또한, 이 편집자는 ANI에서 자랐다.Heimstern Laufer 2006년 12월 29일 02:51 (UTC)[응답]

72시간 전에 윌리엄 M의 기록을 세웠다. 코놀리 11시 40분, 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:R9tkokks 보고:LUCPOL (결과: 24시간)

Metropolitude에 대한 3회전 규칙 위반(대화 기록 편집 보호 링크 감시 로그 보기)R9tkokunks(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)

• 이전 버전이 2006년 12월 20일 11시 45분으로 되돌아감
• 1차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 27일 18:37
• 2차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 28일 03:44
• 3차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 28일 20:27
• 4회 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 29일 00:30
• 5회 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 29일 02:02

설명:사용자:R9tkokunks(Hrödberht) 반달리즘(편집 전쟁, 3RR) 아크리클:메트로폴리스, 상부 실레시아 메트로폴리탄 연합, 오스트라바, 유명한 독일계 미국인 목록, 국가의 아버지 등그는 항상 되돌아온다.아르키클의 기록 보기(모두 편집 전쟁 R9tkokks vs 모든 아키클의 모든 사용자):[38], [39], [40], [41], [42] 등제발 도와주세요.이 사용자를 월(또는 그 이상)에 차단하십시오.LUCPOL 00:54, 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC) PS: 그는 오래된 링크를 조작하고, 오래된 링크를 허용한다. (다음으로부터 고도로 링크된 토론 참조...)9월 등).LUCPOL 00:54, 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

먼저 제공된 템플릿을 사용하십시오.둘째, 당신은 또한 적어도 하나의 기사에서 3RR을 위반했다.둘 다 3RR을 위반하고 있는데, 둘 중 한 명이 막히면 둘 다 막힌다. --Wildnox(토크) 01:08, 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

반복하겠다.그는 많은 편집 전쟁과 3RR을 이끈다!한두 개가 아니라 많음.도와줘(와일드녹스 제외)LUCPOL 01:56, 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

PS. 2006년 12월 말(사실상)과의 데이터(링크)인데, 나는 더 오래된 것을 찾지 않았다.LUCPOL 02:00 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

반달은 어떻게 막힐 수 있고, 반달리즘을 되돌린 기고자도 막힐 수 있을까?확실히 위키백과는 다른 곳에서 이런 일이 일어나지 않지?-- 흐뢰드베레흐트 02:08, 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답하라]

24시간 윌리엄 M. 코놀리 11:22, 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

User:LUCPOL 보고:R9tkokunks(결과: 24시간)

Metropolitude에 대한 3회전 규칙 위반(대화 기록 편집 보호 링크 감시 로그 보기)LUCPOL (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)

• 이전 버전이 2006년 12월 20일 11시 45분으로 되돌아감
• 1차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 27일 20:59
• 2차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 28일 11시 42분
• 3차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 28일 20:58
• 4회 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 29일 00:40
• 5회 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 29일 02:50

의견: 상황에 대한 배경(실제 보고서와 무관할 수 있지만):[43] [44] [45], [46], [47] -- Hrödberht 03:11, 2006년 12월 29일(UTC)[응답]

거짓말이다!: 1차 되돌리기 - 12월 27일, 3차, 5차 되돌리는 것은 되돌리지 않는다.이것이 현실화다.이것은 이전 버전[48]이다. 편지는 R9tkokunks (Hrödberht)에서 되돌아온다.나는 3RR을 만들지 않았다. [49], [50] - 나의 3 코너 에디션과 3은 R9tkokongks (Hrödberht) - 2006년 12월 28일 24시간 드래프트에서 되돌아온다.나는 3번 반전을 하지 않았어, 이건 3번 코너 에디션이야.LUCPOL 03:12, 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

아, 그래, 실제 보고서 바로 위는 이런 추가 논의--Hrödberht 03:22, 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 위에서 말한 것을 압축해 볼게.(I Removed it) 해당 글에서 두 사용자 모두 3RR을 위반한 것으로 보인다. --Wildnox(토크) 03:51, 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

또한 차단되는 사용자 중 하나 또는 둘 다 대신 이것과 관련된 다른 페이지(위의 보고서에 LUCPOL이 나열함)를 보호해야 한다는 제안을 추가하겠다.이를 통해 사용자들이 서로 자신의 문제를 논의할 수 있게 되고, 타협점을 찾기를 희망한다. --Wildnox(대화) 04:44, 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

24시간 윌리엄 M. 코놀리 11:24, 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:Mithril_Cloud가 사용자가 보고함:Pmgomez(결과: 블록 없음)

De_La_Salle-Santiago_Zobel_School(토크 내역 편집으로 로그 보기 삭제)에 대한 3회전 규칙 위반.Mithril_Cloud(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):

• 이전 버전이 2006년 12월 24일 09:38로 변경됨
• 1차 되돌리기: 03:51, 2006년 12월 29일
• 2차 되돌리기: 06:16, 2006년 12월 29일
• 3차 되돌리기: 06:37, 2006년 12월 29일
• 4회 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 29일 08:02

설명:사용자는 K-12 기관의 글이 명백하더라도 인포박스 중등학교 템플릿의 사용을 주장한다.

유효하지 않은 문장.보고 사용자는 분명히 3RR을 완전히 이해하지 못했다.흥미롭게도, 두 번째 되돌리기: 06:16, 2006년 12월 29일은 실제로 보고 사용자의 편집으로 그의 보고서가 무효가 되었다. --미쓰릴 클라우드 09:40, 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

유효한 명세서.되돌리기는 특정 사용자가 아닌 기사에 관련된다.{PMGOMEZ } 09:50, 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

• 그리고 내가 그 기사에 세 번 이상 되돌아간 적이 있는가?아니. 그래서 무효. --미쓰릴 클라우드 09:53 (UTC) 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 다시 말하지만, 당신이 기사를 되돌리는 것이 아니라 그 기사가 되돌아오는 것과 관련이 있다.{PMGOMEZ } 09:59, 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
    • 나는 여기 보고된 사람인데 너는 그 보고서가 내가 편집한 것과 관련이 없다고 말하는 거야?자세히 설명해 주시겠습니까? --Mithril Cloud 10:06, 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
      • 나는 더 이상 여기서 시간을 낭비하지 않을 것이다.나는 행정관이 심판하도록 이것을 맡길 것이다.만약 그들이 내 보고서가 타당하다고 생각한다면, 그것은 그렇다.그렇지 않다면 그렇지 않다.더 이상 왈가왈부하지 마.:) {PMGOMEZ } 2006년 12월 29일 10:11 (UTC)[응답]

차단할 수 없다.다음 번에는 버전이 아닌 diff를 사용하십시오.여기서 가장 가까운 블록은 고메즈 윌리엄 M이다. 코놀리 11:16, 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

고마워. --미쓰릴 클라우드 2006년 12월 29일(UTC) 12시 20분[응답]

User:RhalUmpf 보고:히포크라테스 (결과: 24시간)

Paul Thompson (researcher)에 대한 3회전 규칙 위반(대화 기록 편집으로 링크 삭제 보호 watch log 보기).NuclearUpf(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):

• 이전 버전이 22:50, 2006년 12월 28일 버전으로 전환됨시간
• 1차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 29일 15시 2분
• 2차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 29일 16시 38분
• 3차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 29일 16시 40분
• 4회 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 29일 18시 13분

• 경고 링크: [51]

• 자기역전 오퍼튜니티: [52]

• 자체 되돌리기 거부: [53]

설명:사용자가 다른 종류의 변화를 되돌리기만 하면 기사에서 원하는 만큼 되돌릴 수 있다고 잘못 믿고 있다.이것은 정확하지 않다.벼랑 끝 전술을 넘어서는 대화 페이지에서 토론하는 것을 꺼린다.Hipocrite - «Talk » 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자는 예를 들어 존재하지 않는다고 주장하는 소스 콘텐츠를 제거하여 기사를 파괴하고 있다.예를 들어, 리버스 4에서 나는 그가 이유 없이 삭제한 인용문을 다시 쓰고 있었는데, 출처가 진술을 뒷받침하지 않는다고 진술했다.그러나 첫 번째 라인은 다음과 같이 기술한다.그는 결코 테러리즘의 권위자가 되고자 하는 어떤 의도도 가지고 있지 않았다.소식통은 그가 테러의 권위자라고 분명히 밝히고 있는데, 왜 이것이 제거되는가?히포크릿은 테론J가 내가 만든 글이 가이드라인 안에 있다고 설명한 후 기사를 파기하기로 결정한 것 같다.[54] TheronJ의 진술은 나의 번복으로 페이지 공백이 방지되고 있었음을 보여준다. --NuclearZer0 18:31, 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

같은 편집에서 사용자는 의회 브리핑에 초대된 사실을 "2005년 톰슨은 하원의원[Cynthia McKinney]이 주관한 비공식 브리핑에 참석하도록 요청받았다"는 문구로 바꾸었다. 그는 심지어 토크 페이지에서 그것은 의회 브리핑이 아니라 출처 제목과 출처라고 주장하기도 한다.엘프는 다르게 말한다.출처는 ^ 7월 22일 의회 브리핑: 1년 후인 9/11 위원회 보고서: 시민의 반응 - 그들이 옳았는가? 신시아 맥키니 의원(2005년 7월 22일).--NuclearZer0 18:42, 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

백룸 거래 및 블랙 메일 시도: [55] [56] 내가 그의 말에 동의하면 보고를 취하할 것이라고 말하는 것은 분명 WP:3RR. --NuclearZer0 19:14, 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

H는 친절하게도 당신에게 셀프브레이브 기회를 제공했다.넌 어리석게도 그걸 받아들이지 않았어. 24시간 윌리엄 M 코놀리 19:55, 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

User:Hipocrate by User:잘못 그린 제프(결과:24시간)

Paul에 대한 3회전 규칙 위반_Thompson_(Researcher)(대화 기록 편집으로 로그 보기 삭제 링크 보호).Hipocrite(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):

• 1차 되돌리기: 09:32, 2006년 12월 29일
• 2차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 29일 11시 40분
• 3차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 29일 11시 42분
• 4회 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 29일 (2006년 12월 29일 13:46으로 되돌아감)

댓글 : 대규모 편집 전쟁의 일부. --badly drawjeff talk 20:10, 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

UT를 그 시간 동안 사용하십시오. 그렇지 않으면 결정 관리자가 차이점을 비교하기가 더 어려워진다.넷째는 되돌릴 수 있을 만큼 가깝다.

24시간 막힘--CSTAR 20:24, 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

User:Pernambucco가 보고함:마리우스M(결과: 8시간)

Transnistria에 대한 3회전 규칙 위반(대화 기록 편집 보호 로그 보기 보기 링크 삭제)Pernambuco(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):

• 이전 버전이 다음 버전으로 전환됨: 12월 28일 11:59
• 1차 되돌리기: 12월 28일 21:53
• 2차 되돌리기: 12월 29일 15:31
• 3차 되돌리기: 12월 29일 17:03
• 4차 되돌리기: 12월 29일 19:40
• 5번째 되돌리기: 12월 29일 20:12
• 6번째 되돌리기: 12월 29일 20:38

• 신규 사용자에게만 필요한 사항: 이 보고서가 여기에 제출되기 전에 3RR 경고의 차이점.새로운 사용자는 아니지만, 나는 그에게 12월 29일 17:57에 경고했다.

코멘트: 반전은 주로 다음에 관한 것이다.국경 문제 부분 제거, 주민투표 부분 확대, 야코블레프 미 국무부의 입장과 의견 제거, 여행 경고 제거.일부 반전은 2번과 3번 반전에 infobox를 추가하는 것과 같은 일부 편집과 결합된다(반전을 보려면 스크롤해야 한다).나는 그러한 환상을 공공 기물 파손으로 간주하고 있으며, 나와 다른 편집자들은 페르남부코의 행동을 바꾸도록 설득하지 않고 그의 토크 페이지[57]에서 페르남부코와 토론도 했다.되돌리기 5에서 그는 심지어 되돌리기에 대한 나의 동의까지 가지고 있다고 주장했는데, 그것은 전혀 사실이 아니다 - 나는 작은 문제(Nistru 대신 Dniester를 사용)에서 그와 동의했지만 그에게 항을 삭제하지 말라고 분명히 말했다[58].미국 국무부의 입장인 야코블레프(Yakovlev)의 의견과 국경 문제에 대한 대화 페이지의 불협화음도 참조하십시오.Talk에서 그는 단락을 삭제하는 사람이 12월 17:25의 이유를 설명해야 한다고 동의했지만, 이유를 설명하지 않고 계속 삭제했다.--MariusM 21:07, 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

윌리엄 M. 코놀리 23:13, 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

다이애나 테오도레스쿠(토크 · 기여)가 금지된 사용자 보나파르트의 삭푸펫이었기 때문에 나는 그를 차단했다.Khoikhoy 00:58, 2006년 12월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:69.123.136.59에 의해 보고됨:Bdve (결과: 24시간)

빈스 루소에 대한 3회전 규칙 위반(대화 기록 편집으로 로그 보기 보기 링크 삭제 보호)69.123.168.59 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그):

• 이전 버전이 다음으로 복구됨: [59]
• 1차 되돌리기: [60]
• 2차 되돌리기: [61]
• 세 번째 되돌리기: [62]
• 4회 되돌리기: [63]
• 5번째 되돌리기: [64]
• 6번째 되돌리기: [65]

• 신규 사용자에게만 필요한 사항: 이 보고서가 여기에 제출되기 전에 3RR 경고의 차이점.

보고서가 제대로 배치되지 않으면 무시될 수 있다.[66]

설명:적어도 이 정도까지는 눈에 띄지 않는 구간을 계속 추가하는 것."우리 12명 같은 사람들이 이런 일을 한다"는 주장에도 불구하고, 모든 변화는 같은 IP에서 나오고 있다.

더 나아가, 나는 증거가 없지만, 이것이 특정 레슬링 게시판에서 나온 것이라는 것을 거의 확신하고 있다.렉스 루거 기사를 지속적으로 파손한 동일인

24시간 윌리엄 M. 코놀리 23:16, 2006년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:Ravenfire 보고:닉번스(결과: 24시간)

Dusty Springfield(Talk history protect delete links watch log view) 내가 제대로 하고 있지 않다면 미안해...많은 반전이 있다(오늘 하루에만 3RR보다 훨씬 많다).....사용자의 기여 페이지로 이동하십시오.빈 사용자의 토크 페이지(다른 아니오)에 대한 편집 외에 사용자는 이 기사만 편집했다.사용자와 컨텐츠 분쟁 중인 것으로 나타남:외부 링크 위에 보리수.닉번스 00:10, 2006년 12월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

• 사용자가 수행한 블록:루나 산틴, 24시간 지속. --tjstrf talk 08:58, 2006년 12월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:사용자가 보고한 정책:Jd2718(결과:16시간)

Thessaloniki에 대한 3회전 규칙 위반(대화 기록 보호 링크 감시 로그 보기 편집)Politis(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):

• 이전 버전이 다음으로 복구됨:
• 1차 되돌리기: 02:16 현재 수정, 2006년 12월 29일 링크 삭제.편집 요약 없음.
• 2차 되돌리기: 09:03, 2006년 12월 29일 현재 수정 링크를 삭제했다.편집 요약 없음.
• 3차 되돌리기: 09:06 현재 수정, 2006년 12월 29일 링크 삭제.편집 요약: ('sigh's read politis in talk page of that link) 비록 나는 그가 언급하고 있는 코멘트를 찾을 수 없었지만, ('sigh's read politis in the talk page of that link)'를 읽어줘.
• 4번째 되돌리기: 수정 (23:49, 2006년 12월 29일) 현재 링크 삭제 (및 문구 변경)요약 편집: (비교와 명확성) 대화 페이지에서 이와 같은 것으로 보이는 절충안은 없지만, 요약 편집: (비교와 명확성)

설명:

• 각각의 역귀환은 마케도니아어(그리스어)의 슬라브어족과의 연결고리를 제거한다.
• 폴리티스는 신규 사용자가 아니다(2005년 12월 이후 약 2000년 편집).
• 내가 그의 토크 페이지에서 그가 여기서 3RR dif를 위반했다고 지적하고 스스로 복귀할 것을 제안하자, 그는 대신 이렇게 응답하여 링크를 반복적으로 삭제하는 것이 그의 '반전'의 정의에 맞지 않음을 나타냈다.심지어 이것이 사실일지라도(잘 모르겠다) 이것은 3RR의 정신에 게임을 하는 것처럼 들리고 계속 그렇게 할 의향이 있다.
• 내 토크 페이지의 요약 편집과 그의 노트가 반드시 토크 페이지의 변경사항이나 토론을 반영하지는 않는다는 점에 유의하십시오.

16h.--CSTAR 08:01, 2007년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:MelForbes 보고:바순(결과: 8시간)

British_Isles에 대한 3반전 규칙 위반(대화 내역 편집 보호 로그 보기 보기 링크 삭제)MelForbes(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):

• 이전 버전이 다음으로 복구됨:
• 1차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 29일 13시 39분 현재 개정
• 제2회 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 29일 16:41, 개정
• 3차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 30일 01:27 기준 개정
• 4회 되돌리기: 현재 개정(01:32, 2006년 12월 30일)
• User:MelForbes는 새로운 사용자가 아니다.

논평: 되돌리는 것은 기사에서 첫 번째 문장의 문구에 대한 것이다.사용자:멜포베스는 문제가 된 '영국 섬'이라는 용어가 가끔만 사용된다고 PoV를 밀어붙이고 있다.이 문제는 이미 한 달 전(11월 30일, Talk 14절)에 다루어졌다.영국령 섬.아일랜드의 일부에서는 확실히 이 용어가 거부되지만, 아일랜드에서는 일부에서, 그리고 영국에서는 대다수가 이 용어를 사용하고 있다.세상 다른 건 말할 것도 없고.— Bastun이 추가한 선행 서명되지 않은 의견(대화 • 기여)

User:Bastun, 전에 WP에서 나를 미행한 적이 있다.나는 3번도 돌아가지 않았고, NPOV 상황을 수정하려고 노력 중이다.사용자:바순, 그리고 나는 그가 이번 기회에 무시되어야 한다고 믿는다.멜포스 02:22, 2006년 12월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

뭐라고?!06년 8월 18일 (모욕을 당하며) 내 토크 페이지에 나타나셨습니다.난 네가 내 질문에 답하기 위해 네 집에 간 적이 있어."그림자"에 대해서는 - 난 아일랜드인이고, 넌 아일랜드인이고, 우리 둘 다 아일랜드인이 관심 있는 기사들을 편집해.바순 02:35, 2006년 12월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

당신은 몇 달 전 영국 섬들의 토크 페이지에서 나에게 심한 모욕감을 주었다.나는 지금 그 수정사항들을 찾을 시간이 없다.하지만 필요하다면 그렇게 할 거야멜포스 02:42, 2006년 12월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

증거도 없이 두 번째나 세 번째 주장인데, 다시 한 번 더.여기 [67]을 참조하십시오. 내가 그들에게 지적해 달라고 요청해도 응답하지 않는 경우?제발 내가 널 공격한 곳을 보여줘.바순 15:16, 2006년 12월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

넌 분명히 4번이나 돌아갔어. 윌리엄 M의 첫 번째 위반으로 8시간이야. 코놀리 10:43, 2007년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 편집한 것이지 되돌린 것이 아니다.나의 편집은 이제 수락되었다.MelForbes 18:55, 2007년 1월 1일 (UTC) 나는 William M에 대해 이의를 제기하고 싶다. 코놀리의 결정, 어떻게 된 거야?이런 종류의 허튼소리는 WP 프로젝트에 큰 피해를 주고 있다.멜포베 19:14, 2007년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

WP에서 보고할 수 있다.AN/I, 하지만 나는 그것이 아무런 도움이 될 것이라고 생각하지 않는다.내가 보기에는 그 블록은 정당했다.넌 4번이나 역전을 해서 막혔어.WP:3RR. --Wildnox(토크) 19:23, 2007년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]에 따라 당신이 말하는 "편집"은 되돌아가는 것으로 간주된다.

음, 첫째로, 나는 양말 편집자라고 믿었던 것을 되돌렸다.지금은 누구인지는 말하지 않겠다.그러자 바스툰은 다시 "소크" 편집으로 되돌아가기 시작했다.멜포베 19:33, 2007년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 삭푸페리의 증거를 볼 수 없고, 그 페이지의 어떤 사용자도 IP와 같은 나라에서 편집하는 것을 볼 수 없다.실제 증거가 있는가, 정말로 직감으로는 그런 주장을 할 수 없다. --Wildnox(토크) 19:42, 2007년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

그건 완전히 틀린 말이야.WP는 의심스러운 삭푸펫에 대해 "소크 리턴"을 허용하며, 리턴으로 계산되지 않는다.우선 체크유저에게 가야 할 것이고, 그 당시에는 그럴 가치가 거의 없어 보였기 때문에 그 양말이 그 순간이라고 말할 수 없다.그리고 체크 유저가 항상 결정적인 것은 아니다.그것은 작은 양말로 분류될 수 있다.2007년 1월 1일 멜포브스 19:51 (UTC)[응답]

사실 그건 완전히 사실이야, 최소한 양말풀이 증거가 필요해, 실제 증거도 없이 주장을 그냥 내던질 수는 없어.해당 글의 다른 이용자도 IP와 같은 나라 사람이 아니었고, 알려진 대리인도 아니어서 없는 것으로 보인다. --Wildnox(토크) 19:56, 2007년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

보아라, 그것은 WP의 조사다.편집자는 선의로 어떤 일을 할 수 없는가?, 증빙 문제 때문에 편집부에 양말을 쓰고 싶지 않았다.그리고 WP는 편집자들이 대담해질 것을 촉구한다.승산이 없는 상황이다.목을 내밀고 잘게 썬다.멜포베 20:03, 2007년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

사실, 당신은 그 사용자가 양말이라고 생각하는 것 같을 때 나쁜 믿음을 갖게 되는 겁니다.그 점을 요약해서 지적했더라도 증거가 없다면 여전히 차단되었을 것이다.내가 전에 말했듯이, 너는 항상 WP에서 이것을 보고할 수 있다.AN/잘못이 있었다고 생각한다면. --Wildnox(토크) 20:08, 2007년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

말씀드렸듯이 승산이 없는 상황, 닭고기와 달걀 난맥상이다.편집자는 익명의 사용자와 의심스러운 양말에게 매우 간단한 rv를 만들고, 그 다음에 갈기 위해 도끼를 가진 다른 편집자가 보고서를 만든다.위키피디아는 과거에 통제할 수 없는 어리석은 작은 일들로 인해 아주 훌륭한 편집자들을 잃었다.더 이상 신경 쓰지 않을 수도 있어, 생각해 볼게.멜포베 20:52, 2007년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자 203.220.171.80과 203.220.171.90은 서로 다른 사용자들의 속박이다.악의적이든 양성적이든 논쟁의 여지가 있지만, 넓은 원칙은 옳다.일부 사용자들은 추적가능성을 피하기 위해 동적 IP 주소를 사용하고 기사에 공공 기물 파손과 pov를 발생시킨다.Details; IP Address : 203.220.171.80 (80.171.220.203.dial.dynamic.acc01-aitk-gis.comindico.com.au ) ISP : COMindico Australia Organization : COMindico Australia Location : AU, Australia City : Melbourne, 07 - Latitude : 37°81'67" South Longitude : 144°96'67" East IP Address : 203.220.171.90 (90.171.220.203.dial.dynamic.acc01-aitk-gis.comindico.com.au ) ISP : COMindico Australia Organization : AU, AU : 멜버른, 07 - 위도 : 37°81'67" 남경 : 144°96'67" East MelForbes 12:43, 2007년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

요점은? 203.220.171.80은 이전 버전에서 편집한 것으로, 편집 요약에서 설명되었다.내가 토크 페이지에 그 얘기를 꺼냈는데도 불구하고 넌 네 번이나 돌아섰어.내가 여기 당신을 보고했소. 203.220.171.90 (거의 203.220.171.80과 거의 동일한 편집자) 후에 당신을 되돌렸다.요점은, 넌 여전히 3RR을 부러뜨렸다는 거야.

만약 당신이 203.220.171.x 사용자도 나라고 가정한다면, 나는 당신이 틀렸다고 확신할 수 있고, 내가 편집한 모든 것이 Esat/BT(또는 그들이 오늘 뭐라고 부르든 간에)로 보일 나의 집 IP 주소에서 비롯되었다는 것을 확인하기 위해 체크 사용자가 하는 것도 문제없을 것이다.바순 13:15, 2007년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

아니, 난 그게 너라고 생각하지 않아.IP 어드레스도 삭스푸펫이 될 수 있다는 것이 WP의 다른 사례에서도 정립되었다.이 경우도 별반 다르지 않다.엄밀히 말하면 203.220.171.80은 분필이나 치즈처럼 203.220.171.90과는 다른 성격이지만, 나는 그들이 유일하고 동일한 사용자라고 확신한다.멜포베 13:27, 2007년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

네 말에 동의하기 때문에 내기는 안 할 거야.요점은 - 203.220.171.80의 편집 후 네 번이나 되돌아갔다는 것이다. 203.220.171.90은 내가 당신을 보고할 때까지 나타나지 않았기 때문에 이 보고서와는 무관하다.바순 13:33, 2007년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

그들은 여전히 양말 퍼펫이고, 내 예감이 정확했고, 그 점에서 매우 유능한 위키피디아인들이다.유저는 신인이 아니다.2007년 1월 2일(UTC) 13:41, 멜포브스[응답]

User:A Man In Black 보고:페레그린피셔(결과: 3시간)

Ultimate_Spider-Man_(story_arcs)에 대한 3반전 규칙 위반(토크 내역 편집으로 로그 보기 링크 삭제 보호).A_Man_In_Black (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자·블록 로그) :

• 이전 버전이 다음으로 복구됨: [68]
• 1차 되돌리기: 06:22, 2006년 12월 30일
• 2차 되돌리기: 06:38, 2006년 12월 30일
• 3차 되돌리기: 06:47, 2006년 12월 30일
• 4회 되돌리기: 08:02, 2006년 12월 30일

설명:그는 위키피디아의 결과를 좋아하지 않았다.삭제/Ultimate Spider-Man(Story arcs).그는 한동안 이 일을 하려고 했다. 여기를 보라. - 페레그린피셔 08:45, 2006년 12월 30일 (UTC)[응답하라]

3h 윌리엄 M. 코놀리 20:32, 2006년 12월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:여름User:tjstrf(결과:moot)에서 보고한 Thunder

중국어 위키백과에 대한 3회전 규칙 위반(대화 기록 편집 보호 로그 보기 보기 링크)SummerThunder(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):

• 이전 버전이 로 되돌림: 2006년 12월 30일 01:24 기준 개정

이들 중 일부는 또한 기사의 관련 없는 섹션이나 재포맷을 엉망으로 만들기도 하지만 모두 진행자 하위 섹션이 추가된다는 점에 유의하십시오.

• 1차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 30일 02:29 현재 개정
• 제2회 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 30일 02:47 현재 개정
• 3차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 30일 02:56 현재 개정
• 4회 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 30일 06:33 현재 개정

사용자가 경고함:3RR과 공손함 위반 모두에 대해 호리호리.

설명:위의 모든 편집은 이 사용자가 zh.wiki 행정부를 금지한 것에 대해 "정부 스파이"라고 불신하기 위한 진행 중인 캠페인의 일부분이다.그는 또한 중국 본토에서 위키백과의 차단과 같은 다른 페이지에서 3RR 위반이나 그와 가까이(확인하지 않았다) 있으며 위키백과에 대해 수많은 독설을 퍼부었다.[69]와 같은 마을 펌프(기타)가 이 공격을 크게 한다.그는 비슷한 POV 푸싱과 NPA 위반으로 zh.wiki와 meta 모두에서 제외되었고, 이 시기에 몇몇 관리자에 의해 그의 행동은 용납될 수 없으므로 표준 24시간 손목을 때리는 것보다 더 심각한 처벌이 바람직할 수 있다고 경고하였다. --tjstrf talk 08:54, 2006년 12월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 뭔가를 놓치는 게 아니라면, 나는 그 어떤 반전도 볼 수 없다.나열된 어떤 편집도 이 사용자가 작성한 다른 편집 내용과 일치하지 않는다.또한 3RR에 대해 누군가를 신고할 때 시간을 변경하지 말아줘.당신이 인용하고 있는 편집본을 우리 관리자들이 맞추기가 매우 어렵다.고마워. --우후키티^Woohoo! 11:48, 2006년 12월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

위반사항이 보이긴 한데, 이것도 지금 거의 2주 전이라 보고서 작성에 전화했어.망고쥬이스^talk 16:34, 2007년 1월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:Kendrick7 보고:Beit Or (결과: 24시간)

Alphonso_de_Spina에 대한 3회전 규칙 위반(대화 기록 편집으로 링크 삭제 보호 watch log 보기)Kendrick7(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):

• 이전 버전이 2006년 12월 11일 22:27로 복구됨
• 1차 되돌리기: 06:37, 2006년 12월 30일
• 2차 되돌리기: 08:36, 2006년 12월 30일
• 3차 되돌리기: 09:59, 2006년 12월 30일
• 4회 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 30일 10시 8분

24시간 윌리엄 M. 코놀리 10:41, 2006년 12월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:DanRusso 보고:Bdve(결과: 8시간)

빈스 루소에 대한 3회전 규칙 위반(대화 기록 편집으로 로그 보기 보기 링크 삭제 보호)DanRusso(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):

• 이전 버전이 2006년 12월 29일 18:02로 복구됨
• 1차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 29일 18시 4분
• 2차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 29일 18시 10분
• 3차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 29일 23시 7분
• 4회 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 29일 23시 16분

• 2006년 12월 29일 18시 29분 경고

논평: 이것은 이전과 같은 장소에서 온 것이 확실하지만, 증거가 없다.그 조항은 선 아래로 반보호되어야 할 필요가 있을 수 있다.

윌리엄 M. 코놀리 20:26, 2006년 12월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

User:User가 보고한 Curtis Bledsoe:얀스

사용자:Jance가 사용자가 보고함:커티스 블레드소(결과:경고)

Breast Implant에 대한 3회전 규칙 위반(대화 내역 편집으로 로그 보기 링크 삭제 보호)Jance(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):

• 이전 버전이 다음으로 복구됨: 버전시간
• 1차 되돌리기: [70]
• 2차 되돌리기: [71]
• 세 번째 되돌리기:[72]
• 4회 되돌리기: [73]

커티스는 분명히 경고(바로 아래)를 받았다.이것을 편집한 다른 모든 편집자들은 극도로 길고 아마도 저작권 위반 텍스트 대신에 요약본을 추가하기로 동의했다.토크 페이지에는 론즈, 나, l'cast, 휴그, 와일드녹스의 수많은 불평이 있었다.그는 이 모든 것이 끝난 후에도 계속해서 모욕적이고, 되돌리는데 공격적이었다.그는 분명히 Wikipedia를 과시하는 데 문제가 없다.나는 그의 페이지에 경고가 있는 것을 보지 못하지만, 나는 누구라도 그가 여기서 토론하는 모든 것, 모든 불만 사항, 편집에 대한 의견 일치를 보고 그가 와이키피디아에 순응하고 있는지 나에게 말해줄 것을 부탁한다.누가 이런 짓을 하다니 믿을 수가 없어.Jance 19:59, 2006년 12월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

Breast Implant에 대한 3회전 규칙 위반(대화 내역 편집으로 로그 보기 링크 삭제 보호)Jance(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):

• 이전 버전이 다음으로 복구됨: 버전시간
• 1차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 30일 23시 51분
• 2차 되돌리기: 00:03, 2006년 12월 31일
• 3차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 31일 00:05
• 4회 되돌리기:2006년 12월 31일 00:20

설명:

사용자:Jance는 이 기사에 필요한 변경을 집요하게 되돌리고 3RR을 위반했다. --Curtis Bledsoe 00:33, 2006년 12월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

첫째, 사용자는 경고를 받은 적이 없으며 따라서 차단될 가능성이 매우 낮다.둘째, 해당 기사에 대해 3RR을 위반한 것으로 보인다. --Wildnox(토크) 01:11, 2006년 12월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

고마워, 윌드녹스.나는 3RR뿐만 아니라 모욕과 조롱, 일반적인 욕설 때문에 커티스에 대한 AN/I를 개설했고, 그의 편집 때문에 (내가 아닌) 누군가가 저작권 태그를 추가한 후 기사를 편집했다.가장 최근에 그는 다른 기사에서 편집자를 비방했다.그는 또한 나를 따라다니며 괴롭힘의 유일한 목적으로 또 다른 기사를 만들어 냈다.이것은 이미 논쟁을 불러일으킨 기사다.그는 몇 달 동안 긴 시간 동안 토론하고 토론했던 부분을 토론 없이 바꾸었다.잰스 02:07, 2006년 12월 31일 (UTC)[응답하라]

나는 이중 잣대를 이해할 수 없다.내가 3RR을 위반했는지는 중요하지 않다. 나는 3RR을 위반하지 않았다. 하지만 만약 당신이 내가 가지고 있다는 증거를 가지고 있다면, 당신도 나를 차단해도 좋다.그러나 그렇다고 해서 잰스가 명백하게 3RR을 위반했고 막아야 한다는 사실이 바뀌지는 않는다. --Curtis Bledsoe 03:11, 2006년 12월 31일 (UTC)[응답하라]

• (해당되는 경우, 그리고 이 경우, 이 보고서가 여기에 제출되기 전에) "3RR 경고 추가"를 기억하십시오.El_C 04:14, 2006년 12월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

당신의 보고서가 제대로 배치되지 않으면 무시될 수도 있다."

미안해, 이번이 처음이었어.평소 같으면 신고하지 않았을 텐데, 해당 이용자의 행동은 꽤 OTT였다."이 보고서가 여기에 제출되기 전에 3RR 경고의 지연"이라는 의미는? --Curtis Bledsoe 04:52, 2006년 12월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

4회 복귀 전에 3RR을 알고 있었다는 것을 증명할 수 없다면 경고의 차원을 보여야 한다는 뜻. --Wildnox(토크) 04:55, 2006년 12월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

Jance와 Curtis Bledsoe 둘 다 다양한 편집에 대해 9번 되돌리는데 기여했다. (단일 포인트가 2배 이상 동의하지는 않는다) - 위키백과:관리자_공지판/사고 #Breast_implant.2C_again - 정말 동의하는 3RR 또는 AN/I 고려사항인가? David Ruben ^Talk 05:03, 2006년 12월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 이것이 닫혔는지 아닌지 모르겠다.하지만 NCAHF와 커티스의 편집을 보는 사람은 누구든 환영한다.Jance 17:41, 2006년 12월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:SteveWolfer가 보고함:부리단(결과: 블록 없음)

템플릿에 대한 3회전 규칙 위반:철학_내비게이션.SteveWolfer(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):

• 이전 버전이 다음으로 복구됨: 버전시간
• 기타: [74]
• 1차 되돌리기: [75]
• 2차 되돌리기: [76]
• 세 번째 되돌리기: [77]
• 4회 되돌리기: [78]

버전이 아닌 다른 버전.이것은 24시간이나 심지어 아주 가까운 거리도 아니다.하지만 이건 멍청한 편집 전쟁이야. 그리고 네가 윌리엄 M으로 해결하려고 하지 않는다면 너희 둘 다 차단당할 위험이 있어. 코놀리 11시 5분, 2006년 12월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:Nadirali 보고:가네슈크 (결과: 24시간)

Indus Valley Civilization(대화 기록 편집 보호 링크 감시 로그 보기)에 대한 3회전 규칙 위반.Nadirali(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):

• 1차 되돌리기: 2006년 12월 31일 00:25
• 2차 되돌리기: 01:58, 2006년 12월 31일
• 3차 되돌리기: 06:40, 2006년 12월 31일
• 4회 되돌리기: 07:12, 2006년 12월 31일

설명:

24시간 윌리엄 M. 코놀리 11:13, 2006년 12월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:홍치공 보고:Endrote(결과: 24시간)

일본에 대한 3반전 규칙 위반(대화 기록 편집 보호 링크 감시 로그 보기)HongQiKong (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):

• 첫 번째 사건:
• 이전 버전이 2006년 12월 12일 19:16으로 복구됨
• 1st revert: 06:56, 27 December 2006
• 2nd revert: 16:48, 28 December 2006
• 3rd revert: 18:04, 28 December 2006
• 4th revert: 18:16, 28 December 2006

• 2nd Incident:
• Previous version reverted to: 07:03, 30 December 2006
• 1st revert: 08:50, 30 December 2006
• 2nd revert: 22:16, 30 December 2006
• 3rd revert: 08:38, 31 December 2006
• 4th revert: 10:37, 31 December 2006
• 5th revert: 18:48, 31 December 2006

Comments:

• HongQiGong appologised after the 1st incident here (20:37, 29 December 2006). But he broke 3RR in the 2nd incident.--Endroit 19:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the second "incident" - Notice the time stamp between the 1st and the 4th edits, there is more than a 24-hour gap. And my 5th edit was not a revert, but a new edit. Hong Qi Gong(Talk - Contribs) 20:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • HongQiGong kept adding 2 sentences which were not new. Those were unilateral additions.--Endroit 20:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The edit between my fifth edit and other edits are different, and offered as a compromise. Also, I'd like to point out, that Endroit never warned me of 3RR or notified me of his 3RR report here. Hong Qi Gong(Talk - Contribs) 20:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • We're requesting 3rd opinion from any admin. HongQiGong is a repeat violator of 3RR, as he has been blocked before.--Endroit 20:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • (Edit conflict with above response)But you have been given warnings in the past for other 3RR incidents, you don't need to be warned every time, just the first time. There is no requirement to notify users of the report either. --Wildnox(talk) 20:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Don't get me wrong, if an admin feels I should be blocked, then I won't argue with that. My edits are in good faith and Endroit here is basically trying to use 3RR to prevent an edit that he disagrees with, notice the revert-warring on the article. And I do maintain that my latest edit, which prompted this report, is a different edit offered as a compromise. Finally, I'm only citing what I read on the top of this page, which, to be honest, makes Endroit's motives questionable, if he has neither warned me nor notified me of this report:
          • Administrators are unlikely to block a user who has never been warned. If you report a 3RR violation here it is good form to inform the person you are reporting of this on their talk page and provide a link to this page WP:AN/3RR.Hong Qi Gong(Talk - Contribs) 20:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • The thing is you have been warned in the past, there is no requirement to do so for every new violation, as you can see in the template below it's only needed for new users. Also good form does not mean requirement, though I admit good form is always preferred. --Wildnox(talk) 20:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • HongQiGong, I'd like to see you in the talk pages AND GAIN CONSENSUS first before making those edits. And yes, your addition about "weaving cloth", etc. (2000 years ago) was repeated 4 times in 24 hours.--Endroit 20:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24h William M. Connolley 22:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:67.175.216.90 reported by User:Commodore Sloat (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Qur'an_desecration_controversy_of_2005 (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 67.175.216.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 00:35, 28 September 2006
• 1st revert: 01:54, 31 December 2006
• 2nd revert: 02:03, 31 December 2006
• 3rd revert: 12:51, 31 December 2006
• 4th revert: 16:23, 31 December 2006

Comments: User is adding an irrelevant link to the article; he tried to do so months ago and was warned to stop. He participated in discussion only briefly, to accuse those reverting him of being abusive and bullying, and never responded to the arguments against his addition to the article. He came back today making the same edits without discussing them. csloat 00:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

since csloat is telling essentially the same fibs he told [here[79], i'll quote from what i've written in response already.

i am in technical violation of 3RR (i've only reverted twice "today"), but i began seeking mediation prior to my first revert. in contrast, csloat has one revert left before violation. he has so far not returned to the talk page to explain his behavior. he has refused to communicate directly with me, but has shadowed me from page to page reverting my edits and telling fibs like the one above about the matter. ...when csloat testifies that my addition of a single, relevant cross-link is "disruptive," that is a chracterization, albeit one that fails the standard of reasonability. ... but when he asserts that i "refused to explain" my "actions in talk", it is - i really don't want to use harsh language - but it is a lie, and one which can be exposed by simply reviewing the talk page.

i hope this can be of help in administrating the issue. it is my understanding that deliberately reverting only three times per day, but in a nonetheless persistent and aggressive manner is called "gaming" 3RR and is considered a violation of its own sort. 67.175.216.90 04:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence of mediation, nor is it relevant to the 3RR. The evidence above shows four reverts in 24 hours. csloat 05:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clear cut case, it seems to me. 24h.--CSTAR

User:Shamir1 reported by User:Mostlyharmless (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Palestine:Peace_Not_Aparthied (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Shamir1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
• 1st revert: [80]
• 2nd revert: [81]
• 3rd revert: [82]
• 4th revert: [83]
• 5th revert: [84]

Comments: User has been warned by others over 3RR, and continued after 4RR.

If one actually looks, not all of the edits contained the same worded material. The last two in specific, have the information re-worded as per the discussion, which User:Mostlyharmless failed to mention. Reasons for inclusion of the short and sourced material (as per the inclusion of parallel/similar and longer material added and kept by others) can be found on Talk:Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid#The recent edit war. --Shamir1 00:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 24h.--CSTAR 07:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Raspor reported by User:Orangemarlin (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Intelligent design (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Raspor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 20:53 December 31, 2006
• 1st revert: [85]
• 2nd revert: [86]
• 3rd revert: [87]
• 4th revert: [88]
• 5th revert: [89]
• 6th revert: [90]
• 7th revert: [91]
• 8th revert: [92]

• Diff of 1st 3RR warning:21:20, 1 January 2007
• Diff of 2nd 3RR warning: 21:41 January 01, 2007

Comments:

This user has been warned in the past about the 3RR rule, and continues to violate it.

In addition, I edited[ [User:hump]] original complaint, since it was not done in the manner required for this report. It's time to block Raspor. Please.

Now 7. Humps 22:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24h William M. Connolley 23:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:TrueBahai reported by User:Jeff3000 (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Bahá'í Faith (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). TrueBahai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 01:46, January 1, 2007
• 1st revert: 16:25, January 1, 2007
• 2nd revert: 04:32, January 2, 2007
• 3rd revert: 04:39, January 2, 2007
• 4th revert: 04:46, January 2, 2007 (this edit done by his IP User:71.112.13.201 as can be seen by his previous edits in the day)

• Diff of 3RR warning: 04:42, January 2, 2007

Comments:

24h, on the presumption that the anon is him William M. Connolley 09:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Emokid200618 reported by User:Apostrophe (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Organization_XIII (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Emokid200618 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 21:49, 31 December 2006
• 1st revert: 21:59, 31 December 2006
• 2nd revert: 22:03, 31 December 2006
• 3rd revert: 22:09, 31 December 2006
• 4th revert: 18:00, 1 January 2007

Comments: User has been banned for 3RR before, thus understands the rule. His edits were against the consensus of the editors of this article. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 06:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24h William M. Connolley 09:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Armon reported by User:64.230.123.128 (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Armon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: [93]
• 1st revert: 14:01, 2 January 2007 (lots of removals)
• 2nd revert: 14:36, 2 January 2007 (more targeted removals)
• 3rd revert: 16:02, 2 January 2007 (single paragraph removal)
• 4th revert: 16:20, 2 January 2007 (single paragraph removal)

• Diff of 3RR warning: 16:23, 2 January 2007

Comments: There is discussion of proper references and accusations of OR but many of the things Armon is repeatedly removing are properly referenced, see the last two diffs here specifically for a clear case of edit summaries containing untrue accusations of OR or POV: [94], [95]. The paragraph in those two reports has been removed 4 times by Armon, thus while there is complex partial reverts some paragraphs have been consistently targeted by Armon. Thus the link given as the previous version is not really clearly the version Armon is reverting to. --64.230.123.128 16:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The user is well aware of the 3RR rule and has been blocked on 2 prior occasions, see block log. --64.230.123.128 16:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24h (even though your prev-version is wrong...) William M. Connolley 16:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fox33 reported by User:Merzbow (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Joseph_Stalin (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Fox33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 2006-12-29T09:19:30. All reverts remove 'dictator' from the intro.
• 1st revert: 2007-01-01T15:26:24
• 2nd revert: 2007-01-01T15:34:11
• 3rd revert: 2007-01-01T16:03:33
• 4th revert: 2007-01-02T13:28:50
• 5th revert: 2007-01-02T13:44:35
• 6th revert: 2007-01-02T13:55:36
• 7th revert: 2007-01-02T14:37:50

• Diff of 3RR warning: Almost certainly a sock puppet of Jacob Peters (talk · contribs), who loves nothing more than to remove 'dictator' from the intro of this article, obviously somebody's sock puppet given the contribution history.

Comments: This user is probably Jacob Peters (talk · contribs) socking for (hopefully) the last time. I'm filing this in hopes for a quicker block while the sock report is processed. See the RFCU here for the gory history. - Merzbow 22:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24h William M. Connolley 22:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:BrianSmithson and User:Mwhs reported by User:Shirahadasha (Result:No Block)

Three-revert rule violation on Mami Wata (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). BrianSmithson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Mwhs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: [96]

Comments: Both User:BrianSmithson and User:Mwhs appear to be involved in an edit war on the Mami Wata article

Appears to be no 3RR violation. Maybe take this to WP:AN/I? --Wildnox(talk) 01:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, User:BrianSmithson has violated 3RR. User:Mwhs has not. --Wildnox(talk) 01:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying heavy-handed enforcement is required, but thinking might be good for a neutral admin (someone not involved in the article) to weigh in, explain that constant reverts are bad for Wikipedia, give a warning, ask for a cooling-off, etc. Best --Shirahadasha 01:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* No Diffs. Upon inspection, not even close to 3RR. No Block. However, the plaintiff is correct. Constant reverts are bad for Wikipedia, You are hereby warned, please cool off.--CSTAR 03:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, I thought they were all the same day. --Wildnox(talk) 03:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gschadow reported by User:Rumpelstiltskin223 (Result:Warning)

Three-revert rule violation on Anti-Brahmanism (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Gschadow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: Multiple cases of half-reverts, but this is basically the version he reverts to 19:08, 1 January 2007

• 1st revert: 20:34, 1 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 20:45, 1 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 21:17, 1 January 2007 (note his edit summary "this is my third revert for the day", expressing intention)
• 4th revert: 07:52, 2 January 2007 second half-reverted version 22:19, 1 January 2007
• 5th revert: 12:40, 2 January 2007
• 6th revert: 21:07, 2 January 2007

Comments: :A user User:Gschadow makes controversial unsubstantiated edits [97]. When I made correction he challenged me in the talk page and expressed an intent to revert-war, violating WP:POINT [98]and reverted [99], saying that he has deliberately instigated edit-war (see summary). I asked him to stop [100] but he ignored[101]Rumpelstiltskin223 05:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Relatively new user (less than 50 edits); also though clearly 3 are reverts, the remaining edits need to be checked to see if they are technically reverts. In this instance, I'm inclined to just issue a warning.--CSTAR 06:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This user's short activity has displayed less than desirable collegiality. I will be less inclined next time around to look so finely at the technical details of the reverts.--CSTAR 06:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I plead with you, CSTAR, to look at the matter in detail and in context. The user who accuses me is playing the system very well. Please be so kind and follow through, and look at the RfC case I have opened on this subject. Gschadow 06:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note that the accusing user is misrepresenting the case. He accuses me of "controversial unsubstantiated edits", when the entire article is known to be controversial for many months now. Then he says "when I made corrections", but please go to the history of the article and see for yourself that the so called "correction" was a point blank revert. Please also note the comments made during the accusing users part in the edit-war and you will see personal attack. Now I trust your good judgement that you will determine any actions wisely. I have also asked you for personal advice. Thank you for lending and ear. Gschadow 06:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mel Etitis reported by User:Grcampbell (Result: 8h)

Three-revert rule violation on Olinde Rodrigues (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Mel Etitis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 13:25, 23 December 2006
• 1st revert: 01:20, 3 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 01:24, 3 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 01:26, 3 January 2007
• 4th revert: 01:33, 3 January 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 01:33, 3 January 2007

Comments:

This admin constantly violates the 3RR rule and is implementing a POV which has been discussed to not apply to this person.

Don't see why #1 is a revert - you haven't filled in the prev version (sigh) William M. Connolley 11:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what that means. Maybe it wikipedia procedure was written in English it would help... User is reverting the deletion of a category that should not be on this article. He has reinserted it four times. --Bob 16:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have inserted the prior version for the reporter. The relevent change is the addition of the Category:Occitan personnalities. As we all know, blocking valuable contributors over trivial crossings of bright-line rules is the most effective way of distancing contributors from the project. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a fair cop then, with warning. I've given 8h on the grounds of him being a sensible person in general William M. Connolley 16:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: ME has contested this via email to me; I'd be grateful if someone else would review it William M. Connolley 22:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm torn. While he is indeed in technical violation of 3rr, and should have used more descriptive edit summaries than 'rv' or vandalism rollbacks...if Grcampbell was indeed depopulating a category while it was up for CFR then he should have left it. I think Mel tried to convey this to Grcampbell, but failed to get an agreement and continued with less than helpful edit summaries. If Grcampbell was just removing the Occitan personalities cat from an article or two per reasoning that it doesn't belong on them then he should have been allowed to do so. If they were really Occitan (whatever that is ;) ) then once the cat was renamed or deleted or whatever someone would have re-added them. I would have personally handled the reversion situation differently, but I think if Mel agrees to not revert it again I'd be happy with an unblock. I find no fault with the application of 3rr; it was a tricky situation at best, which of several conflicting processes takes precedence. Syrthiss 22:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was very clearly four reverts and we should not give a free pass. The other editor tried to refer this to discussion, but the rollbacks continued. Oppose unblock. Jonathunder 22:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though the editor in question is a highly respected editor, I think this kind of free pass is a bad idea. I'm all in favor of leniency, but a 24h block is a painless reprimand. --CSTAR 20:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Himalayanashoka reported by User:Accurizer (Result: 48h)

Three-revert rule violation on India (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Himalayanashoka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: Complex partial reverts
• 1st revert: 05:00, January 3, 2007
• 2nd revert: 10:48, January 3, 2007
• 3rd revert: 11:39, January 3, 2007
• 4th revert: 13:15, January 3, 2007
• 5th revert: 14:29, January 3, 2007
• 6th revert: 19:16, January 3, 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 14:38, January 3, 2007

Comments:

• Additional discussion: 15:00, January 3, 2007
• Informed of dispute resolution process: 15:56, January 3, 2007

Fairly new but already seems to have notched up a fair tally of blocks. 48h William M. Connolley 20:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sir_Edgar reported by User:Endroit (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on Japan (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Sir_Edgar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 00:51, 13 December 2006 "migrants from China and Korea."
• 1st revert: 06:57, 3 January 2007 "migrants from the Korean Peninsula."
• 2nd revert: 23:48, 3 January 2007 "migrants from the Korean Peninsula."
• 3rd revert: 00:16, 4 January 2007 "migrants from the Korean Peninsula."
• 4th revert: 00:23, 4 January 2007 "migrants from China and Korea."

• Diff of 3RR warning: 23:56, 3 January 2007

Comments: Repetitive revert warring, on the section that begins with the words "The Yayoi period," .... We had just come up with a new consensus for this wording, and Sir Edgar starts revert-warring again, against consensus. Other excessive unilateral changes in the Japan article in the last 24 hours, resulting in more revert-warring there.--Endroit 00:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits are all different in quality, so your claim is not valid. :)--Sir Edgar 05:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any edit to the aforementioned "Yayoi" section should be based on the ongoing discussions in Talk:Japan. Sir Edgar, your 4 edits in this sections are all unilateral edits against such consensus. The fact that you are changing a few words here and there only show that you're trying to be evasive, but they're all reversions.--Endroit 06:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Endroit. You cannot skirt 3RR by hiding the same revert among several other changes and claim that they are substantively different. The exact same sentence was reverted by you more than 3 times, period.-Jefu 16:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this is too subtle for me. What is the "exact same sentence" that is being reverted? William M. Connolley 18:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the second paragraph of "early history". The relevant extract is as follows.

"The Yayoi period, starting around the 3rd century BC, marked the influx of new practices such as wet-rice farming, iron and bronze-making, and a new style of pottery, brought by migrants from the Chinese mainland and the Korean peninsula."

What Sir Edgar was doing was making different sorts of edits, but the general theme was to change and/or invalidate the above extract I mentioned, which was a consensus agreement. The first three times he did it with "migrants from the Korean Peninsula", the fourth with "migrants from China and Korea". The intent was the same, to change the focus of that part of the article. I agree with Jefu - he should not be allowed to avoid 3RR by making these changes by throwing in other edits. John Smith's 20:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was on that sentence. But I couldn't see 4R. You may be pushing the envelope of the defn of revert here - changing the focus of a part isn't necessarily a revert William M. Connolley 20:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it is if you would force the other party to break 3RR to restore the previous version, especially if it's consensus. People on wikipedia get bitten by the rules by making what they thought was a fair fourth edit, without even intending to annoy people - why should Sir Edgar get away with this when it's clear by his attitude (check his talk page and those of the article) he doesn't care what anyone else thinks? John Smith's 20:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is not a concensus-based decision, but let me just offer this - if the purpose of a block on him is to stop him from revert-warring, then the block would be quite pointless right now. He has already stopped revert-warring on his own. Plus, a block on him would prevent him from participating in discussion (correct me if I'm wrong), regardless of how stubborn some of us may think he is. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hong, I don't think having Sir Edgar around is actually helpful to the discussion. He has repeatedly indicated he only cares what he thinks is right - he doesn't think your opinion or my opinion (or that of any of the other editors) counts for anything. He needs to be blocked, else he will start this merry little dance all over again in 24 hours time. John Smith's 20:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree he is stubborn, but that's not enough a justification for a block. At least, not that I'm aware of. I'm sure that, as always, the admins will judge how they see fit, whether or not we agree with the decision. All I'm saying is that he has not kept up with his reverts after this report, so I'm not sure what the point of a block would be. I agree that his participation in discussion is hardly going to be helpful, if he keeps up his attitude. But we can't really block on what we think people will do in the future, IMHO. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make a few things clear. I was not trying to skirt the 3RR rule. In fact, I am not even aware if I did indeed revert 3,4 times. After I was warned by our friend Endroit here that I might be in violation of this rule, I did not edit the supposed sentence in question again. So, my intention to not violate the rule is without doubt. I was merely giving the article an overall edit. Obviously, you did not assume good faith. This is despite the fact that I recall offering alternative edits.

Regardless, it is up to the administrators to decide how to administer this site. Not you. Frankly, I don't give a damn whether I am blocked or not because I'll just come back and edit what I believe is the truth. My aim is to write and edit good articles that are based on the facts, not the consensus of a bunch of idiots. These people decided that they'd make a compromise between themselves and didn't even quote the articles that were sourced. I wanted to fix this.

The fact of the matter is, I am simply outnumbered here. In the past, I tried to maintain the highest standard of civility based on reason and thought. Instead, I was repeatedly attacked by a bunch of anonymous accounts and users that are now banned. That is what they are referring to and you can see this on my Talk page. But that does not matter. My intention is not to achieve popularity.

Now, I don't care about the opinion of people who are obviously biased and twisting the truth for their own satisfaction. I want to continue to contribute to making Wikipedia articles more accurate. Whether I have to fight this fight alone does not matter to me. I know that several people are ganging up on me using this rule or that rule to avoid getting into trouble while trying to get me into trouble (i.e. 3RR). See the History page of this article.

In other words: Consensus is less important to me than the facts. It is not my opinion or your opinion that matters. Just the facts.

By the way, do not equate my perception of Jefu's or Hong's opinion with yours. I do not value them on the same level.--Sir Edgar 00:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is now out of context of the 3RR report - but what do you mean by your last sentence and who were you addressing? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who constantly tries to edit a single paragraph isn't interested in the "truth" - it's called being obsessed with having things as they want them. Maybe you should book a session with a psychiatrist.... John Smith's 19:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a personal attack? You are suggesting that I am insane... and not as a joke. By the way, I don't like you either. You come off as a nasty person.--Sir Edgar 23:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Isuse33 reported by User:Guettarda (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Michael_Behe (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Isuse33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 05:40, 28 December 2006
• 1st revert: 04:28, 3 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 06:01, 3 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 23:04, 3 January 2007
• 4th revert: 23:23, 3 January 2007
• 5th revert: 03:54, 4 January 2007
• 6th revert: 04:57, 4 January 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 03:01, 4 January 2007

Comments:

• Isuse33 (talk · contribs) has a nearly identical edit history to 68.34.43.127 (talk · contribs), who has repeatedly inserted the same material into the article. Guettarda 04:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Added another rv. Guettarda 05:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Two more rv's by 68.34.43.127 (talk · contribs) 06:29, 4 January 2007 and 06:40, 4 January 2007 who signs a talk page post as User:Isuse33 Guettarda 06:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked per report below William M. Connolley 09:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sqrjn reported by User:Trödel (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Mountain Meadows massacre (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Sqrjn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 23:35, 30 December 2006
• 1st revert: 23:29, 2 January 2007 last
• 2nd revert: 04:16, 3 January 2007 last
• 3rd revert: 04:34, 3 January 2007 last
• 4th revert: 21:14, 3 January 2007 last

Comments I would have just let this go but the editor continues to be disruptive to the collaboration process:

• 03:13, 4 January 2007 combined changes between 3:08 and 3:13.

See also the talk page.

24h William M. Connolley 09:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Guardian sickness reported by User:Strothra (Result: no block)

Three-revert rule violation on Kriss Donald (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Guardian sickness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: [102]
• 1st revert: 21:45, 29 December 2006
• 2nd revert: 10:00, 2 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 11:01, 3 January 2007
• 4th revert: 20:03, 3 January 2007

Comments: Editor is engaging in an edit war by removing a substantial portion of cited material from notable sources by claiming that it is against concensus to add it yet the dispute is between himself and another editor. While these reverts are not within the same 24hr period, they are the same edits made over consecutive days. The edit war needs to end. The entire edit history of this editor is nothing but a history of this edit war. --Strothra 04:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - not even close to 3RR. You need to find some other venue for this problem William M. Connolley 09:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - He has been trying to discuss what has been happening and it is not even close to 3RR. --Darkest Hour ^{Ж Ж Ж Ж Ж} 21:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Isuse33 reported by User:Justin Eiler (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Michael Behe (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Isuse33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 23:57, 3 January 2007
• 1st revert: 23:57, 3 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 22:54, 3 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 18:23, 3 January 2007
• 4th revert: 18:04, 3 January 2007
• Possible 5th revert (Anon): 17:45, 3 January 2007
• Possible 6th revert (Anon): 01:43, 3 January 2007
• Possible 7th revert (Anon): 01:24, 3 January 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 22:01, 3 January 2007 by User:Guettarda

Comments: Poster has repeatedly made the same edit--anon has also made the same edit. There have been several more identical and similar reversions by the same user. THe material being removed is accurate and sourced--Isuse insists (despite repeated explanations of the WP:NPOV policy) that the material is "bias." (sic) Justin Eiler 05:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24h William M. Connolley 09:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:219.83.24.4 reported by User:RB30DE (Result:No block)

Three-revert rule violation on B'z (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 219.83.24.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 2007-01-04T21:05:47

• 1st revert: 2007-01-02T20:17:26
• 2nd revert: 2007-01-03T02:15:28
• 3rd revert: 2007-01-03T16:44:05
• 4th revert: 2007-01-03T16:45:35
• 5th revert: 2007-01-04T21:05:47

• Diff of 3RR warning: 2007-01-03T22:17:46

Comments: More than 24 hours. It's actually 48. And only 3 of the edits are actual reverts. No block. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First four are all within 24 hours, and all are reverts. (It is possible to revert without actually leaving the word "revert" expicitly in the edit history.) However I accept the outcome, and will say no more. RB30DE 19:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jackanapes reported by User:Bogdangiusca (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Dobruja (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Jackanapes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 09:15, 4 January 2007

• 1st revert: 12:27, 4 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 13:03, 4 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 13:09, 4 January 2007
• 4th revert: 13:16, 4 January 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 13:16, 4 January 2007

Comments: He is a new user, but he was aware of the 3RR policy: he was warned about this policy on another occasion by another user and I also warned him on his talk page. However he posted my warning on Talk:Dobruja saying that it was a "threat". bogdan 13:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours according to the above. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Apache- reported by User:The Kinslayer (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Trainer (games). Apache- (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 09:52
• 1st revert: 15:41
• 2nd revert: 15:31
• 3rd revert: 15:16
• 4th revert: 12:10

Comments: User has committed himself to reverting back a link to a website he admits to be his own. The account is single purpose with no edits outside of the article and other harassing messages left on user pages. Despite more than one person who disagrees with him, he by himself has reverted numerous peoples edit back to the same version.

• OK. I have blocked for 24 hours. No warning was given (Kinslayer, please warn in future, it makes everyone's lives easier including your own), but it is clear that the user is aware that revert-warring over links to his own site is problematic, per the discussions on Talk:Trainer (games). WP:3RR + WP:SPAM + WP:COI is unquestionably a problem. Guy (Help!) 16:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:68.166.71.100 reported by User:Philosophus (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know? (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 68.166.71.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 16:05, 4th Jan
• 1st revert: 16:40
• 2nd revert: 17:55
• 3rd revert: 18:36
• 4th revert: 19:13

• 3RR warning: See the IP's talk page. I didn't see a warning, but rory096 seemed to think that the notices there (or perhaps on the article talk page?) were sufficient.

Comments: The IP user is blanking parts of the article in a somewhat rolling fashion that makes it difficult to quantify reversions, and is also ranting on the talk page about having to stop us and not "let you [the rest of the editors] run free on this site." It appears that the user has been warring and ranting for some time, probably with many different IP addresses. --Philosophus ^T 19:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Examination of article history shows clearly disruptive activity.24h.--CSTAR 20:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Leonardo55 reported by User:Caper13 (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Saddam Hussein (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Leonardo55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
• 1st revert: 04:51, 4 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 06:59, 4 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 10:18, 4 January 2007
• 4th revert: 11:40, 4 January 2007
• 5th revert: 11:54, 4 January 2007

Comments: User keeps reinserting link to video into article. Refuses to discuss. Multiple users have removed link. He Simply reinserts it without comment or talk despite discussion on talk page. The only edits this user has made have been inserting this video into multiple articles. Caper13 20:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Clear cut case. Aside from this insertion of link to video is clearly questionable. 24h.--CSTAR 20:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:UBeR reported by User:Sfacets (Result: protected)

Three-revert rule violation on Execution_of_Saddam_Hussein (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). UBeR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Diff of 3RR warning: 22:01, 04:59, 31 December 2006 by User:Tariqabjotu

• 1st Rvt: [103]
• 2nd rvt: [104]
• 3rd rvt: [105]
• 4th rvt: [106]

note - User has been maintaining Ownership over the article, as is evident by his/her numerous reverts, contribution history, and user comments.

Comment: has been edit warring with 64.107.220.181 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) over video and execution time. Will ^{(talk to me)} 22:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is far too much reverting on that article: I have protected it William M. Connolley 23:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Germanium reported by User:CMummert (Result:31h)

Three-revert rule violation on Gödel's incompleteness theorems (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Germanium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• 1st revert: [107]2007-01-04T16:51:32
• 2nd revert: [108] 2007-01-04T17:10:09
• 3rd revert: [109] 2007-01-04T17:35:04
• 4th revert: [110] 2007-01-04T17:48:25 68.114.185.27
• 5th revert: [111] 2007-01-04T17:55:45

• Diff of 3RR warning: [112] 2007-01-04T17:39:15

Comments: I believe that Geranium is the same as 68.114.185.27 based on the edit history, but someone with the rights will have to verify this. Please block both the user and the IP. three of the above reverts are for the user, one (and the original addition) by the IP.

2007-01-04T23:01:16 Steel359 (Talk contribs block) blocked "Germanium (contribs)" with an expiry time of 31 hours (Edit warring to insert blatant OR into Gödel's incompleteness theorems). I've blocked the IP William M. Connolley 23:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:PBurns3711 reported by User:MikeHobday (Result: 3h)

Three-revert rule violation on Working terrier (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). PBurns3711 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• 1st revert: [113] 2007-01-03T22:34
• 2nd revert: [114] 2007-01-04T14:13
• 3rd revert: [115] 2007-01-04T16:04
• 4th revert: [116] 2007-01-04T21:19

No Diff of 3RR warning: not a new user

Comments: reversion despite my attempts to discuss at [117], [118], [119], and attempt to compromise at [120]. Instead, I am met with abuse at [121] and [122]. Final edit suggests use claims ownership over the article

3h William M. Connolley 10:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rumpelstiltskin223 reported by User:Siddiqui (Result:24h block)

Three-revert rule violation on Christianity in India (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). :

• Previous version reverted to:
• 1st revert: 00:25, 5 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 00:34, 5 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 00:51, 5 January 2007
• 4th revert: 01:00, 5 January 2007
• 5th revert: 01:34, 5 January 2007

Siddiqui 06:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

07:41, 5 January 2007 Srikeit (Talk contribs block) blocked "Rumpelstiltskin223 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Edit-warring on Christianity in India and History of India) --Robdurbar 20:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Siddiqui & User:HamzaOmar reported by User:Rumpelstiltskin223 (Result: prot)

Three-revert rule violation on History of Pakistan (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views) and Pakistani nationalism (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Siddiqui (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & HamzaOmar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Note:Please see comments to see why both users effectively count as one

• Previous version reverted to: 07:51, 3 January 2007- for History of Pakistan
• Previous version reverted to: 06:19, 3 January 2007 - for Pakistani nationalism

For History of Pakistan

• 1st revert: 17:20, 4 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 17:26, 4 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 17:36, 4 January 2007
• 4th revert: 17:43, 4 January 2007

For Pakistani nationalism

• 1st revert: 17:18, 4 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 17:27, 4 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 17:38, 4 January 2007
• 4th revert: 17:41, 4 January 2007

Comments: In both cases, the first two reverts are done by User:Siddiqui and the last two by User:HamzaOmar, a "new user". The two users should be treated as one and the same because of this case in WP:ANI[123]

User:Siddiqui has persistently gone against consensus in several articles relating to Pakistan, most notably Pakistani nationalism and History of Pakistan, where he has been repeatedly adding unreliable sources (random unverifiable geocities links) and steering the tone in favor of fringe sectarian views. His edit-warring, as evidenced here [124][125] and [126][127][128], [129], do not involve discussions or debates but simply persistent reverts over long periods of time. This user has expressed such disruptive behaviour before, advancing narrow, nationalistic and politically inflammatory minority views (see this). Then, when it was clear that reasonable people fixed his edits, he decided to recruit tag-team meatpuppets. He started to post to a certain group of ideologically biased users, such as User:Nadirali, User:szhaider (who considers India a threat to world peace - look at his userpage) and User:Unre4L(who is on a mission to "reclaim Pakistan's stolen heritage")[130][131][132][133] [134]to try to revert-war there, which they did[135][136][137]. In addition, he solicited a meatpuppet from off wiki, a user named User:AliHussain. This is evident from the fact that this user, a new user, immediately posted to Siddiqui's page upon logging in for the first time [138] about "seeing what he can do" and proceeded to revert-war again [139][140]. The users Nadirali and Unre4L were involved in some ridiculous debate over the nonexistent concept of "Ancient Pakistan" (based not on scholarly sources but Pakistani historical revisionism) in Talk:History of India Talk:History of Pakistan and Talk:Panini.They have been resoundedly refuted by several knowledgeable users like User:Dbachmann, User:DaGizza, User:Deeptrivia and User:Fowler&fowler but they continue to prowl the pages. There have been RfC posts by other users concerning their narrow fringe views[141]. in turn they tried to create a bogus article about an underground Islamic Fundamentalist/Pakistani nationalist website started by this group of singleminded editors that which got speedily deleted [142]. This problem is becoming increasingly difficult to contain and these users are rapidly getting disruptive.Bakaman 01:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More instances of such behaviour:[143][144][145]Rumpelstiltskin223 01:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, it is very likely that User:HamzaOmar, also a new user, is a meatpuppet of User:Siddiqui recruited from some forum somewhere and brought over to this article to engage in revert-warrings. It is also possible that they are one and the same person. Administrator may decide what action to take if the evidence presented is sufficient or not. Thaa. Rumpelstiltskin223 02:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007-01-05T03:48:50 Khoikhoi (Talk contribs block) m (Protected History of Pakistan: edit war [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) William M. Connolley 10:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Szhaider reported by User:Rumpelstiltskin223 (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Harappa (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Szhaider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 20:57, 3 January 2007
• 1st revert: 16:57, 4 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 19:41, 4 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 98571270 19:46, 4 January 2007
• 4th revert: 19:52, 4 January 2007

Three-revert rule violation on Muhammad Iqbal (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Szhaider(talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: revert by removal of text placed earlier (partial revert as per his own edit summaries)
• 1st revert: 19:36, 4 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 19:45, 4 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 19:49, 4 January 2007
• 4th revert: 19:53, 4 January 2007

Comments: See above post regarding more points about Szhaider, who is part of the tag-team meat puppet mentioned. Rumpelstiltskin223 04:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007-01-05T04:01:02 Shanel (Talk contribs block) blocked "Szhaider (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR) William M. Connolley 10:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rumpelstiltskin223 reported by User:SebastianHelm

WP:3RR violation on Christianity_in_India (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Rumpelstiltskin223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). :

• Previous version reverted to: 2006-12-27 18:56:49
• 1st revert: 2007-01-05 05:25:05
• 2nd revert: 2007-01-05 05:34:27, same as previous
• 3rd revert: 2007-01-05 05:51:49, same as previous
• 4th revert: 2007-01-05 06:04, partial reversion
• 5th revert: 2007-01-05 06:34:38, same as previous

Comments:
The 4th revert seems to be only partial. I am not familiar with the article and I have not researched if the reverts were legitimate.

The reason why I became aware of Rumpelstiltskin223 was that I am currently a mediator for Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-26 Decline of Buddhism in India, and Rumpelstiltskin223 repeatedly blanked text in Decline of Buddhism in India, which disrupts the mediation and adds fuel to the emotions of the parties. (Rumpelstiltskin223 is not party to the mediation.) Usually, Rumpelstiltskin223 writes no edit summary, so I wrote {{summary2}} on User talk:Rumpelstiltskin223. When I wanted to add diffs to the template, I noticed the 3RR incident. I have not written a notice on the talk page for that.

This is the first time I'm reporting a 3RR incident, and I apologize if I have made any mistakes. I'm particularly concerned about if I entered the right time stamps, since I'm getting tired now. I am a bit surprised about the insistence on the number 3. I came here after reading WP:3RR, which says "This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. Users may be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day."

2007-01-05T07:40:56 Srikeit (Talk contribs block) protected Christianity in India (Edit-warring [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) William M. Connolley 10:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Venki123 reported by User:Mudaliar (Result:24 h both)

Three-revert rule violation on Sengunthar (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Venki123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: revert by removal of text placed earlier
• 1st revert: 16:11, 5 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 16:12, 5 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 16:23, 5 January 2007
• 4th revert: 5 January 2007

Comments:

User: Venki123 has been constantly reverting articles. See also Mudaliar. He was blocked for reverting Mudaliar article and his ip address:65.34.150.19 was also blocked. Now he is using socket puppettry from ip address: 65.244.148.222 Please see contributions of (65.244.148.222) at Mudaliar talk page, dated 17:10, 5 January 2007. He forgets to sign in before posting and then signs in subsequently and sign the previous post as Venki. Please block both ip addresses for > 24h as he is a repeat offender. Thanks.

Sigh. User:Mudaliar has been using sockpuppets to avoid 3RR. I've indeffed two socks already, and I know there's a bunch more. If you block one, block them both. Or I'll do it (again, I blocked User:Venki123 the first time). Dina 02:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both for 24h.--CSTAR 22:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:BryanFromPalatine reported by User:BenBurch (Result:2 weeks)

Three-revert rule violation on Free Republic (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). BryanFromPalatine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 12:35, 5 January 2005
• 1st revert: 16:02, 5 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 20:20, 5 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 20:59, 5 January 2007
• 4th revert: 21:32, 5 January 2007
• 5th revert: 22:21, 5 January 2007
• 6th revert: 01:26, 6 January 2007

Comments: Editor is fresh off a one-week block for sockpuppeting, and now is edit warring on the same article the sock puppeting was over.

Additional Comment User:BryanFromPalatine, a confirmed sock puppeteer, also admits to one revert from an anon IP at 17:57, 05 Jan IP EDIT Please see this editors reply in the sockuppet charges against user User:ArlingtonTX, one of his suspected socks, and TWO sock puppet filings aginst him which haven't been dealt with by admins yet. ( what a back log) Thanks - Fairness And Accuracy For All 01:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this user's history (i.e. not just this 3RR vio, so it is > 24hrs) , I have decided to block for a full 2 weeks. Any admin should feel free to change the duration as they see fit. Prodego ^talk 02:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:NisarKand reported by User:Tajik (Result:3 day block)

Three-revert rule violation on Afghanistan (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). NisarKand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 18:59, 3 January 2007
• 1st revert: 03:55, 5 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 23:03, 5 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 23:33, 5 January 2007
• 4th revert: 00:58, 6 January 2007
• 5th revert: 01:13, 6 January 2007
• 6th revert: 02:44, 6 January 2007
• 7th revert: 03:18, 6 January 2007

Comment:

• User had been previously blocked for 3RR, so he knows the rules.
• User has a long list of banns, including a 1-week-ban because of racism, personal attacks, and sockpuppets.
• Right now, user is being watched by admins because of new personal attacks, including personal attacks against an admin, claiming that "he is drunk".
• User is ignoring the warnings on his talk-page.

Comment: This many reverts are almost impossible to happen without the other side having violated 3RR too. Of the counter-reverts, two were made by Beh-nam (talk · contribs) and three by 65.94.216.72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who is most likely the same person (same interests, same style, same geographical provenance, made edits in Beh-nam's userspace as if he was the owner). Therefore: Blocking both parties. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that anyone else has broken the three revert rule, though both sides show a deperessingly high amount of incivilty and bad faith. 07:11, 6 January 2007 Future Perfect at Sunrise (Talk contribs block) blocked "NisarKand (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 days (3RR on Afghanistan, personal attacks) --Robdurbar 11:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Okkar reported by User:Kintetsubuffalo (Result:Violation, no block)

Three-revert rule violation on Military of Myanmar (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Okkar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
• 1st revert: 17:38, 5 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 19:00, 5 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 19:13, 5 January 2007
• 4th revert: 19:31, 5 January 2007

Comments: I have warned Okkar about removal of material from this article that existed before he got here today, he continues to unilaterally do so without consensus. He told Metros232 that I was vandalizing the page (as facilitator of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Burma/Myanmar, it is not very likely that I am), at which point Metros232 rightfully put warnings on both our talk pages. Okkar has since reverted the article and ignored Metros232 warnings. Chris 23:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only three of those diffs involve Okkar, but all four of them involve you re-adding the image. So well done! You reported yourself for breaking the rule succesfully.

Given this, it suggests to me that there's some confusion over some of the policies on your part. So I'll presume that any block would be puniative and thus a warning and explanation on talk page is more approriate. Robdurbar 11:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Emokid200618 reported by User:Axem Titanium (Result:3 day block)

Three-revert rule violation on Organization XIII (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Emokid200618 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 03:50, January 2, 2007
• 1st revert: 14:34, January 5, 2007
• 2nd revert: 21:11, January 5, 2007
• 3rd revert: 00:02, January 6, 2007
• 4th revert: None, see comments

Comments: This user has been blocked before for violating 3RR (including once for this page) so he's definitely familiar with the policy. Anyway, although he didn't have a 4th revert this time, I felt like I should report it because of this message he left on a user's talk page, saying that he intentionally didn't make a 4th revert just to game the system while avoiding a block. Axem Titanium 01:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a violation of both WP:POINT and WP:3RR - teaches the user that gaming the system isn't the right way to look at this. Robdurbar 12:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kintetsubuffalo reported by User:Okkar (Result:Violation, no block)

Three-revert rule violation on Military of Myanmar (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). User:Kintetsubuffalo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
• 1st revert: 21:50, 5 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 23:11, 5 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 23:21, 5 January 2007

Comments: I have warned Chris with regards to adding facts that are against WP:NPOV and also out of scope and goals of [WikiProject Military history]. Wikipedia should not be use as a ground to settle political scores and no other "Military of the Country" articles contain informations such as the villa of a general and how much money he is earning. These are purely tabloid gossips which clearly does not belong in Wikipedia articles and also against WP:NPOV. His addition of so-called "facts" are politically motivated and please see the discussion page for further information on his threatening and bullying behaviour. I have additionally requested POVCHECK and noncomplaint on the article. I await your fair decision on this matter. Okkar 01:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Comments:[reply]

See response above. I've warned Chris about his conduct but given him a severe warning at this point - see explanation above! --Robdurbar 11:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Robdurbar for you fair decision and accessment. I look forward to contributing more to Wikipedia. Okkar 13:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islampedia reported by User:Simesa (Result:24H)

Three-revert rule violation on HIV_trial_in_Libya (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). User:Islampedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
• 1st revert: 09:03, 5 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 17:35, 5 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 18:31, 5 January 2007
• 4th revert: 19:06, 5 January 2007
• 5th revert: 22:37, 5 January 2007
• 6th revert: 22:45, 5 January 2007

Comments: Revert war where Islampedia insists on using POV words "only" or "few" for 21 victims (of 426). I and User:Scientizzle have battled with Islampedia continuously over the last three days over NPOV issues. Islampedia was warned 19:35 on 4 Januaryt in [146]Simesa 04:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's actually only 4 reverts, but that's still a violation. Blocked the user for 24 hours. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:User:Igor_"the_Otter" reported by User:Richwales (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Holocaust denial (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). User:Igor_"the_Otter" (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 14:51, 5 January 2007
• 1st revert: 05:34, 5 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 05:39, 5 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 05:45, 5 January 2007
• 4th revert: 11:09, 5 January 2007
• 5th revert: 14:46, 5 January 2007
• Diff of 3RR warning: 11:28, 5 January 2007

Comments: User repeatedly added back a POV comment about the Nizkor project even after being warned about edit-warring and the 3RR.

24h William M. Connolley 14:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:74.64.60.148 reported by User:Timeshifter (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on Iraq_Body_Count_project (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 74.64.60.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 03:22, 6 January 2007
• 1st revert: 03:38, 6 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 08:14, 6 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 08:35, 6 January 2007
• 4th revert: 06:35, 7 January 2007
• 5th revert: 07:42, 7 January 2007
• Diff of 3RR warning: 06:27, 6 January 2007

Comments: Anonymous user has been warned on his user talk page, the article talk page, and in edit summaries. On 2 different pages. He is up to 3 reversions on the other page: Lancet surveys of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq --Timeshifter 09:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is now up to 4 reversions of the same sourced material on that other page too. I have to make a report. --Timeshifter 09:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear why all these are reverts; and prev-version is by you. Or are you suggesting that he is reverting to you? William M. Connolley 13:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood the instructions. I think I have now put in the correct revision for "Previous version reverted to". --Timeshifter 16:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC) I think.[reply]

William, Timeshifter has constructed these whole sections of these pages basically by himself. He is the single most prolific editor, *by far*, of all these pages dealing with casualties in Iraq. They are effectively "his" babies, and reflect a particular POV narrative based on his own opinions, with material cherry picked and cited (or not cited and just made up) accordingly. I think this is beginning to border on invalidating all these pages as partisan opinion editorials rather than encyclopedic entries. I've now gotten in the way of his prolific editorializing with a couple small edits. Since I've gotten in the way of his carefully crafted 'narrative', he's now decided to 'tell on me', invoking this 3RR rule. I've described my reasons for removing some (a tiny fraction) of his voluminous edits in the talk pages. In the first case, on the Lancet study page, he is making up various claims about a "baseline rate" in an ILCS study and writing up theories of his own based on this. I've deleted these theories of his, which were masquerading as facts. He didn't like that. The other case is him putting a claim on the IraqBodyCount page that another party "disputes" a fact I cited, but he links to a recently POV-tagged section of the Lancet article (which, again Timeshifter wrote himself) which does not address the fact in question, but disputes something else.74.64.60.148 07:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeshifter is clearly a partisan for a particular POV centered exclusively around this Lancet mortality study, and all of his massive edits on all these Iraq casualty pages - and he seems to have hit all of them - are designed and constructed to proselytize that particular POV, mostly involving filling them all up with quotes and arguments from the authors of that study, or others who share the same POV, or various references that are cherry picked where they can support some aspect of that POV. His edits are all a very thinly veiled (and sometimes not at all veiled) exercise in proselytizing. Really, all of his edits should be reverted for POV violation, but then almost none of these pages would exist, since he is their main author by now. There'd be almost nothing left.74.64.60.148 07:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect he will "win" all of these little "edit wars" because I have neither the time, energy nor interest to keep up with that level of zealotry. It's simply a shame that this kind of thing should make wikipedia an unreliable source on any matters that are at all controversial. When one partisan on one side of an issue can construct virtually the whole pages to match that partisan POV, and then tries to get anyone banned who gets in the way of even a small part of that project, these pages become pretty useless.74.64.60.148 07:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As usual you do not read wikipedia instructions. You are not supposed to argue here. You might get some more respect if you got a user name. This is your 3rd IP address in the last few months of vandalizing these pages. --Timeshifter 07:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, most of what this anonymous editor has said here is untrue, but I can't reply in detail here due to the rules here. --Timeshifter 09:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions here say to explain the reversions in a few sentences if necessary. User:74.64.60.148 has been deleting sourced material now for months under several different IP addresses. I finally got fed up and decided to figure out 3RR incident reporting. The bottom line in this specific case is that he is deleting the same relevant sourced material, and putting out a fog of misinformation to cover it up. The diffs show the deletions clearly. I have been thanked several times by several editors of various Iraq War casualty pages. Only this anonymous editor seems to have a problem with my edits. --Timeshifter 09:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the diffs. He has 5 reverts. 4 of which occurred in the last 24 hours. --Timeshifter 07:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:74.64.60.148 reported by User:Timeshifter (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Lancet_surveys_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 74.64.60.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 04:55, 6 January 2007
• 1st revert: 06:13, 6 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 07:40, 6 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 09:34, 6 January 2007
• 4th revert: 06:38, 7 January 2007
• 5th revert: 07:47, 7 January 2007
• 6th revert: 08:24, 7 January 2007
• Diff of 3RR warning: 08:36, 6 January 2007

Comments: This is for a second page. He has been warned everywhere. User talk page, article talk page, edit summaries. --Timeshifter 10:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"prev version" is by you... so this is 3R but not clear the first is William M. Connolley 13:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood the instructions. I just put in the correct revision for "Previous version reverted to". I think. --Timeshifter 16:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The prev version has to be *previous*: you've just put in the first revert again, judging by the timestamp William M. Connolley 19:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is the revision that he keeps reverting to. So I guess that first deletion difference to get to that revision does not count as a revert. And so I guess he is only up to 3 reverts. To me that first deletion is a revert in my mind. He is reverting the page back to a point when it did not have that material. The instructions are very unclear. I can help rewrite the hidden notes if you wish. --Timeshifter 20:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the first deletion is a revert, then its a revert *to* something. Thats the version you need to fill in as the "prev version" William M. Connolley 21:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is the version there now. I will need to delete the first diff, and renumber the rest. I am going to wait though, to see if he reverts again. I am kind of busy right now. --Timeshifter 22:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This 2nd incident report fixed. User:74.64.60.148 is now up to 6 reverts of this 2nd article. 4 in the last 24 hours. --Timeshifter 08:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Success at last... 24h William M. Connolley 10:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ednas reported by User:Isarig (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Gilad Atzmon (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Ednas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 21:06, 5 January 2007
• 1st revert: 06:51, 6 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 13:10, 6 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 16:01, 6 January 2007
• 4th revert: 16:45, 6 January 2007

These are somewhat complex reverts. To best see a clear case of the same sentence being removed 4 times, scroll down to the "politics" section, and see that the short paragraph that begins with "His performance at the subsequent SWP summerschool 'Marxism 2005' in July 2005.." was removed in all 4 reverts.

• Diff of 3RR warning: 16:37, 6 January 2007 Since this is a new user, I warned him both on his Talk page, as well as on the Talk page of the article [147]. the user acknowledged reading the warning here, but as can be seen, rather than undoing his revert, chose to accuse me of stalking him (which is interesting in itself, as his first edit ever on WP was a revert of one of my edits on the same article, which I had been editing for months)

Comments: This is a new user, that chose to start his editing career on WP by alleging that users who have been opposed to his changes on this article are part of an 'undercover netwok[sic] of operatives working to further the Zionist agenda. "[148] (one of those editors happens to be a self-described and well known anti-Zionist activist). he was cautioned that this statement is a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, and asked to strike out those comments, but brazenly responded with "I stand by my postings and will strike out nothing I have written", followed by threats against those editors. Isarig 17:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems pretty clear. 24h. --CSTAR 18:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pete_K reported by User:Professor marginalia (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on PLANS (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Pete_K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 00:17, 28 December 2006
• 1st revert: 15:46, 6 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 19:29, 6 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 20:56, 6 January 2007
• 4th revert: 22:33, 6 January 2007

• User has been temporarily banned for past edit warring [149] and is currently continuing the edit warring pattern in articles including this one that went to arbitration to resolve [150].

Comments:

24h William M. Connolley 10:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:207.151.38.178 reported by User:Ultramarine (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Vladimir Lenin (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 207.151.38.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 23:37, 6 January 2007
• 1st revert: 23:39, 6 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 00:20, 7 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 00:38, 7 January 2007
• 4th revert: 00:47, 7 January 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: [151][152]

Comments: Or differently: [153] [154] [155] [156]. 4 simple reverts.Ultramarine 01:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Clear violation under the most rudimentary definition. 24h.CSTAR 01:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: already 24h blocked by another admin.--CSTAR 01:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:ArmenianJoe reported by User:OttomanReference (Result: 24h each)

Three-revert rule violation on Denial of the Armenian Genocide (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). ArmenianJoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 18:55, 17 December 2006
• 1st revert: 04:47, 7 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 04:53, 7 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 05:05, 7 January 2007
• 4th revert: 05:28, 7 January 2007

Comments: He/she is also adding spaces between paragraphs. I tried to informed the user.

24h each William M. Connolley 10:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Woodstock2010 reported by User:Jakew (Result:31h)

Three-revert rule violation on Foreskin (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Woodstock2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 06:50, January 7, 2007
• 1st revert: 07:07, January 7, 2007
• 2nd revert: 07:10, January 7, 2007
• 3rd revert: 07:18, January 7, 2007
• 4th revert: 09:56, January 7, 2007 (partial rv)
• 5th revert: 12:09, January 7, 2007
• 6th revert: 13:08, January 7, 2007
• 7th revert: 18:06, January 7, 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 12:19, January 7, 2007

Comments: User:24.28.143.218 made initial edits. Similar behaviour on circumcision (see history). Jakew 18:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked 31h. --CSTAR 18:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Szhaider reported by User:Bakasuprman (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on Purdah (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). szhaider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 2007-01-05T20:51:39
• 1st revert: 2007-01-07T07:25:30
• 2nd revert: 2007-01-07T15:41:28
• 3rd revert: 2007-01-07T15:49:59
• 4th revert: 2007-01-07T16:03:49
• 5th revert: [157]

Comments: User blocked for 3RR before. Constant removal of Hindi script and accusations of "Hindu imperialism" against a Christian Indian editor and a European Christian editor.Bakaman 23:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007-01-08T00:42:30 Rama's Arrow (Talk contribs block) blocked "Szhaider (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (making personal attacks, persistent incivility, provocative use of edit summaries, revert-warring on Iqbal) William M. Connolley 12:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rumpelstiltskin223 reported by User:Falcon2020 (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on 2002 Gujarat violence (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Rumpelstiltskin223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: [158]
• 1st revert: [159]
• 2nd revert: [160]
• 3rd revert: [161]
• 4th revert: [162]

Comments: User in question is also deleting large amounts of text containing facts supported by reliable sources. His deletions cause the article to violate WP:NPOV, and a couple of other WP rules and policies.

Wrong. The first edit was a correction to a biased edit made by this user. He is deliberately gaming the system to promulgate ignorant edits. I tried to explain them but he did not listen and just kept reverting, based on partisan sources when the article sourced neutral sources. See this attempt to canvass mass-reverters [163] and my attempt to explain the situation to him[164]. This edit summary is blatantly non-neutral and shows racist biases on his part [165], as well as the intent to game the system against neutrality.Rumpelstiltskin223 03:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, my first edit was not a revert, since I let his concerns about citations needed remain as they are legitimate. It is his extreme bias that I was attempting to correct. Furthermore, he did not discuss the issues I raised in my edit summaries and continued to revert, disrupting the editing process to make his point, violating WP:POINT (as evidenced by his biased edit summary). Other editors have also addressed his biases in the article on subsequent edits. Thus, there was no 3RR as first edit was not a revert.However, this user Falcon2020 clearly was edit-warring with no intention to discuss, tried to canvass support for revert-warring and refused to discuss his changes and tendentious edits.Rumpelstiltskin223 04:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain further. Falcon2020's first edit was this [166], a series of small edits made in quick succession which is essentially one major edit. The problem was that it reworded some section titles in a redundant way and tried to poison the reader to a particular point of view, particularly when the supersection had the issue well-described in the title. He also put some fact tags to sentences that are unsourced, which is perfectly acceptable. My subsequent edit [167] corrected his redundancies but left the fact tags as is on the grounds described above. So it is not a full revert, and I did not delete his changes just to edit-war but for the purposes of improving the article, which is the correct attitude for a wikipedia editor. In contrast, his attitude is the wrong attitude for a wikipedia editor. Not neutral, biased and extremely ill-informed about the situation.Rumpelstiltskin223 04:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The version presented by Falcon is biased and non-neutral compared to the earlier presented one by Rumpel. Nobleeagle ^{[TALK] [C]} 04:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, that is not a justification to violate 3RR. Secondly, my edits bring in data and facts collected from notable sources like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. The article in its previous condition began with apologetics justifying the killing of 2000 Muslims, as well as the rape of several hundred. The government has been accused by other governments and NGOs alike of participating directly in instigating and supporting the massacre. The editors here feel that the same government which COMMITTED the atrocity should be the soul source of information regarding the event. Falcon2020 04:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are expressions of partisan extremist groups that have an agenda to spread disinformation against certain ethnic groups of people. That much is eminently clear. however, their views are included in the article already,but it says thatthey are views, not corroborated facts. The corroborated facts scome from neutral sources, which is the OPPOSITION government, NOT the government that is accused of the rioting. This is what he either fails to understand, or understands and does not care becuase he is spreading misinformation on wikipedia.Rumpelstiltskin223 04:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[trim - William M. Connolley 13:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)][reply]

24h. Please learn to avoid 4R even under provocation. Your assertion that the first edit is not a revert are wrong. F warned re edit warring and civility William M. Connolley 13:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Elnurso reported by User:Mardavich (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Azerbaijan (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Elnurso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 17:41, 6 January 2007
• 1st revert: 17:47, 7 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 01:38, 8 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 03:04, 8 January 2007
• 4th revert: 06:02, 8 January 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 19:50, 4 January 2007

Comments: Please note that 70.244.144.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is obviously Elnurso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --Mardavich 06:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24h, assuming the anon is Elnurso William M. Connolley 12:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aicp reported by User:McKhan (Result: no block)

Three-revert rule violation on Al-Ahbash (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Aicp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 09:53, 7 January 2007
• 1st revert: 19:56, 7 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 20:03, 7 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 20:27, 7 January 2007
• 4th revert: 20:27, 7 January 2007
• 5th revert: 06:45, 8 January 2007

You seem to have confused "edit" with "revert". Anyway, contiguous edits count as one William M. Connolley 10:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Signaleer reported by User:BillCJ (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on CH-53 Sea Stallion‎ (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Signaleer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
• 1st revert: 22:46, January 7, 2007
• 2nd revert: 00:01, January 8, 2007
• 3rd revert: 01:27, January 8, 2007
• 4th revert: 01:51, January 8, 2007

01:51, January 8, 2007 01:51, January 8, 2007 01:57, January 8, 2007

Comments: The user's first three edits occured at one time; the fourth was done in four parts, without using the word "revert", as he had before. In addtion, similar reversions were committed on the C-47 Skytrain‎ and C-54 Skymaster articles in the same time period. I did attemp to discuss the matter with the user, but he continues to assert that he will revert my changes. I did not warn thei user about 3RR, as I have seen him do multiple reverts in the past while disregarding 3RR notices. The fast that he did separate edits for his fouth revert seems to indicate he is aware of the rule.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have also reverted at lest 4 times on each of the 3 pages mentioned, but also did not receive a 3RR warning. I will accept any penalty deemed necessary for this. - BillCJ 07:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24h for both; I do so wish people wouldn't edit war over picture sizes William M. Connolley 10:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Astrotrain reported by User:Vintagekits (Result:No Block)

Three-revert rule violation on Template:Precedence (edit [[Talk:Template:Precedence talk]] history protect delete links watch logs views). Astrotrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 14:48, 31 December 2006
• 1st revert: 17:14, 5 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 01:02, 7 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 18:56, 7 January 2007
• 4th revert: 00:02, 8 January 2007
• 5th revert: 10:09, 8 January 2007

Comments:

• It has to be more than 3 reverts within 24 hours- not just 3 in itself. I did try telling you that. Astrotrain 13:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverts are not within 24h period.--CSTAR 15:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Strothra reported by User:Guardian sickness (Result:48H)

Three-revert rule violation on Criticism of Islam (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Strothra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 15:57, 2 January 2007
• 1st revert: 19:39, 3 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 19:46, 3 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 19:52, 3 January 2007
• 4th revert: 20:33, 3 January 2007

Comments: This user seems to have used the IP address 68.50.74.95 to circumvent the 3RR policy with sock puppetry. I noticed him using this IP address on the Kriss Donald page, which he had previously reverted under his log in name, but then reverted with the above IP to avoid discussion. When I clicked on the IP address I found the same user also seemed to be circumventing the 3RR policy to edit the article “Criticism of Islam”. --Guardian sickness 14:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. These are 4 correctly reported simple reverts; however, I have no way of knowing if this IP is a sockpuppet of User:Strothra. I don't think there is enough evidence of this claim as yet to impose a block, although I suspect you may be right. If further evidence confirms this, then 48h block at least should be imposed.--CSTAR 15:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I looked at the other page you mentioned. I am satisfied that this is indeed the same user. 48H as per previous comment.--CSTAR 16:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:PBurns3711 reported by User:Headphonos (Result: No Block)

Three-revert rule violation on English White Terrier.

• PBurns3711 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert:

Revision as of 14:43, 6 January 2007 Removes the alternate name "Old English Terrier".

• 2nd revert:

Revision as of 21:52, 7 January 2007 Removes the alternate name "Old English Terrier".

• 3rd revert:

Revision as of 00:06, 8 January 2007 Removes the alternate name "Old English Terrier" with supporting citations.

• 4th revert:

Revision as of 14:43, 8 January 2007 Removes the alternate name "Old English Terrier" with supporting citations.

• 5th revert:

Revision as of 22:17, 8 January 2007 Removes the alternate name "Old English Terrier" with supporting citations.

• 6th revert:

Revision as of 12:21, 9 January 2007 Removed the citations and states "Old English Terrier" is not correct.

Comments

The editor believes that "Old English Terrier" is not an alternative name for the English White Terrier, I provided him with citations and there are plenty more available using google. This user's talk page reflects he was recently blocked for a previous 3RR violation. I would suggest the full 24 hour block this time. In addition, would you please revert the English White Terrier article back one so he realizes it should stay . Thank you Headphonos 15:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Reverts not within 24 h period. No block. Also please use reporting form below.--CSTAR 15:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As you can see they are within a reasonable close time proximity, involving the identical reverted item, would you please reconsider, thank you Headphonos 16:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two days? --CSTAR 22:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I note that you are not an Administrator, so why are you chiming in at all ? Second of all 24 or 48 hrs what is the difference, if a person reverts once every 24 hrs to circumvent the 3RR rule, is that okay with Wikipedia ? Use some common sense here ! Headphonos 22:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You bet I'm an admin. Cool it.--CSTAR 22:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admins are allowed to do all the "chiming" they(we) want, it is not uncommon for non admins to comment on admin noticeboards. For your case, the user has reverted again, and now has 4 reverts in 25, that is what is considered an attempt to circumvent the rule. --Wildnox(talk) 22:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our friend just reverted your revert :) Headphonos 22:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: No block.--CSTAR 22:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An admin does something ! Headphonos 23:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop listing extra reverts here that are clearly *not* violations of 3RR. Repeated reverting is undesirable but not listable here - you need WP:DR William M. Connolley 13:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Monkeybreath reported by User:Penwhale (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Strip_club (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Monkeybreath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 18:30, 8 January 2007
• 1st revert: 20:47, 8 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 21:18, 8 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 21:26, 8 January 2007
• 4th revert: 21:31, 8 January 2007

Comments: Edit warring between an IP anon(s?) and Monkeybreath; was reported to WP:RFP (with the result of no protection), however it is still a violation of 3RR. -PenwhaleBlast the Penwhale 08:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24h, and for 67.150.14.50 William M. Connolley 09:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Michaelsanders reported by User:Milo H Minderbinder (Result: 24 hrs)

Three-revert rule violation on Harry Potter (character) (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). {{3RRV Michaelsanders}:

• Previous version reverted to: 19:09, 8 January 2007
• 1st revert: 19:12, 8 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 19:35, 8 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 19:51, 8 January 2007
• 4th revert: 19:55, 8 January 2007
• 5th revert: 20:00, 8 January 2007

Comments: Five reverts within an hour. The situation escalated into a revert war because this editor was uncivil and made insulting edit summaries that didn't give a reason for the revert - a simple explanation would have stopped the reverting on both sides. Editor also fails to AGF by calling the edits he was reverting "vandalism" [168] when it was simply a content dispute. Even after 3RR was pointed out, the editor still defends his edit warring on the grounds that he was "right". --Milo H Minderbinder 16:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: this user does not appear to grasp what was happening. Originally reverted to remove do-nothing edit and misspelling of 'defence' as 'defense'; this was reverted by another user. I corrected the spelling of 'defense' to 'defence' itself within the article, summarising it with a rude comment to the original reverter; he then reverted it again. I reverted it again, giving a clear explanation: "DEFENCE IS SPELLED WITH A 'C', NOT AN 'S'". This was then deliberately reverted several times by "Amos Han", despite another warning by myself of 'no Americanisms'. I interpreted this flouting of the British English convention in British articles as deliberate vandalism: 3RR rule says, "This policy does not apply to self-reverts, correcting simple vandalism, reverting the edits of a banned or blocked user, or other specific scenarios listed in the Exceptions section below." It later transpired that the offending user did not know defence was spelling with a 'c' in Britain, but that did not change how it could be interpreted at the time. Nor is it an edit war if it is the removal of vandalism: either that, or 'Deathly Hallows' has been in a constant edit war for weeks. Meanwhile, 'Milobinder' is deliberately obscuring facts or lying: I did give a clear explanation of why I was correcting the spelling. He claims that 3RR applies to reversion of incorrect data - I see no indication of that, and find it very hard to believe (there are repeated vandalistic actions to 'Sirius Black' article, for example, how are those meant to be dealt with if we are in danger of being blamed?). Furthermore, the first example of my reversions 'Milobinder' gives is not even the same as the others: the first, I understand some might object to, but the others were an attempt to maintain the integrity of the article. Milobinder, however, does not appear to care: he is more concerned with misleading/lying and threatening me with blocking than he is with working out what happened. The second thing he takes me to task for, rudeness, I have already apologised for to the relevant parties. This user has not apologised for his lies and threats. I sincerely hope that my explanation - which I have repeatedly given - will be understood. Thank you. Michaelsanders 16:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above response is a perfect example of how Michaelsanders has been handling this whole situation. Accusations of "lies and threats", trying to justify a clear 3RR violation with "but my version was right", demonstrating lack of AGF by characterizing a one-letter spelling change in one word as vandalism, trying to dismiss criticism with "this user does not appear to grasp what was happening". The diffs above speak for themselves, five reverts. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reverts were right: Harry Potter is a British subject, so we do not use American spelling. You have been untruthful, by deliberately not looking at the matter in the context it happened i.e. I was reverting obviously false data. You threatened me with blocking or being taken here when I disputed your claim that reversions of vandalism are not allowed; lied, because the 3RR says that reversions of vandalism do not count, despite your claims to the contrary. As for vandalism: I know now that it wasn't vandalism - the user has explained himself. But at the time, when that user ignored several clear warnings that American spellings were not permitted, and persistently reverted to the American spelling, what was I supposed to think? And you clearly do not understand what was going on there if, despite my detailed explanation, you still do not grasp who was in the right and who in the wrong. Michaelsanders 17:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Michaelsanders edited my comments above to remove a diff, I have restored it. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I have removed it again. As you would know if you bothered to look, it shows a comparison which is entirely irrelevant: your removal of a vandal's accusation of you using a sockpuppet, which has absolutely no bearing on this matter. I am going to assume that the comparison link was relevant when you first put it in there, but it certainly isn't now: all it does is give the impression that I vandalised your talk page; and that you are, yet again, willing to mislead or distort facts in order to make others look bad. Correct the link, or leave it out. Michaelsanders 20:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion of whether a diff is relevant isn't grounds for editing other people's comments (now repeatedly). Whether it is relevant is up to the admin to decide. Do not edit my comments again, that is grounds for blocking as well. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion? That comparison shows that you removed the comment, left by an IP address, of "Why are you talking to yourself, sockpuppet?" Are you saying that that is at all relevant? Are you accusing me of leaving that comment? If you are, say it directly. If you aren't, use the right link, or leave it altogether. You seem to have a very strange attitude towards the truth. You also seem determined to wind me up. Why is this? Why do you have the gall to tell me off, when your attitude of deception and outright malice is far more damaging to wikipedia? I have repaired your link, since you seem unable to do it. If you revert it, I will assume that you are accusing me of that vandalistic sockpuppetry slander. Michaelsanders 20:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply asking you not to edit my comments, which you have done three times now. Doing so is unacceptable per WP:TALK. Is that so hard to understand? --Milo H Minderbinder 20:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it so hard to understand that the link you were attempting to maintain is wrong? Clearly you have issues with accuracy, but even so...As for why I first removed it, and then - when you were evidently too lazy to bother to find the proper one - fixed it: it did neither of us any good as it was: it made me look like a vandal, and you look like a liar. Is that so hard to grasp? Michaelsanders 20:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an issue with another users comments or evidence, you should point that issue out, not edit their comments. Did you read WP:TALK#Behavior that is unacceptable? --Milo H Minderbinder 20:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• admin comment. This is a clear violation of 3RR; vandalism is not at issue here. Bucketsofg 21:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:PBurns3711 reported by User:MikeHobday (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on League Against Cruel Sports (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). PBurns3711 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• 1st revert: [169] 080107T2213
• 2nd revert: [170] 090107T0202
• 3rd revert: [171] 090107T1150
• 4th revert: [172] 090107T1257
• 5th revert: [173] 090107T1442
• 6th revert: [174] 090107T1458

Comments: User already blocked once for edit warring, note reversion of edits by user:GWP. Suggest revert to seemingly consensual version of December at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=League_Against_Cruel_Sports&oldid=93610481] and protect?

24h William M. Connolley 20:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rumpelstiltskin223 reported by User:Falcon2020 (Result:48h of Falcon2020)

Three-revert rule violation on 2002_Gujarat_violence (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Rumpelstiltskin223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
• 1st revert: [175]
• 2nd revert: [176]
• 3rd revert: [177]
• 4th revert: [178]

Comments: User in question has already returned from a 24 hr block due to 3RR. He is well-familiar with WP policy on this matter.

Above is a lie. I have only made 3 reverts. The third edit is not a revert but copyedits. Please don't buy into this tactic to get me blocked so that he may put his biases into the article (see Talk:2002 Gujarat violence for racist commentary from him). Rumpelstiltskin223 19:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the user Falcon2020 has persistently engaged in edit-warring in the article twice. Here are his reverts

• 1st:08:43, 8 January 2007
• 2nd:09:06, 9 January 2007
• 3rd:09:34, 9 January 2007
• 4th 10:37, 9 January 2007

• These are the other way around. 48h block of Falcon2020 for abuse and edit warring.--CSTAR 20:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I removed the block on Falcon2020, based on this being a first reported offense and the newness of this editor.--CSTAR 00:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:MidEastSpecialist reported by SlimVirgin (Result:24h)

3RR on If Americans Knew (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views) by MidEastSpecialist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st edit 05:32 Jan 9
• 1st revert 05:53 Jan 9, simple revert, and added one sentence to the lead.
• 2nd revert 08:23 Jan 9, simple revert, and moved the newly added sentence in the lead
• 3rd revert 08:40 Jan 9, simple revert, and deleted one sentence
• 4th revert 19:19 Jan 9, fourth revert of first paragraph, fourth revert of external links

Continuing to revert:

• 5th revert 19:51 Jan 9, simple revert

Comments

Was warned about 3RR at 08:37 Jan 9. [179] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked 24H.--CSTAR 19:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Suemcp reported by User:Dina (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on École Polytechnique massacre (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Suemcp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 11:35, 7 January 2007
• 1st revert: 16:51, 9 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 18:50, 9 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 19:01, 9 January 2007
• 4th revert: 19:59, 9 January 2007

Comments: This is part of an ongoing problem with a disruptive editor, better described at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Suemcp. However, this is a pretty straightforward violation I believe. I can't do the block as I am somewhat involved in the dispute. I have warned her repeatedly, but for some reason she believes that 3RR is a rule I "invented". Dina 20:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Pretty clear. 24h.--CSTAR 20:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Woodstock2010 reported by User:Jakew (Result:4 days)

Three-revert rule violation on Foreskin (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Woodstock2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 18:06, January 7, 2007
• 1st revert: 01:13, January 9, 2007 (partial rv as User:24.26.237.251 - see comments)
• 2nd revert: 12:06, January 9, 2007 (as User:ShitakiMan)
• 3rd revert: 12:43, January 9, 2007 (as User:Woodstock2010)
• 4th revert: 19:44, January 9, 2007 (as User:Woodstock2010)

Comments: Woodstock2010 was blocked for 31h on 18:36, January 7, 2007 for same behaviour. ShitakiMan was created on 01:16, January 9, 2007. ShitakiMan's first edit was an autoblock unblock request because the IP (24.28.143.218) was the same as that of Woodstock2010. In all three cases, the editing behaviour is identical (see page history). Similar behaviour at circumcision, brit milah, etc. Jakew 20:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4 day block for both.--CSTAR 20:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:A Link to the Past reported by User:InShaneee (Result: 3 days)

WP:3RR violation on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. A Link to the Past (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• 1st revert: 17:58, 9 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 18:43, 9 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 18:51, 9 January 2007
• 4th revert: 19:06, 9 January 2007

Comments Link brought up on the RfC Talk Page his belief that the RfC against me was closed prematurely and innapropriately. During our discussion, he suddenly re-added a link to the RfC while claiming in the edit summary that not wanting the link there means I have something to hide. I reverted, and told him that he needs to wait until the discussion concludes before taking action. He persisted in readding it, all while continuing to insult me on the talk page. I still do not believe the link belongs there, but will await independent review before taking further action. --InShaneee 01:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3 days. Khoikhoi 01:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit there is not a revert. --tjstrf talk 01:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Asian2duracell reported by User:Venu62 (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Tamil people (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Asian2duracell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 16:33, 9 January 2007
• 1st revert: [180]
• 2nd revert: [181]
• 3rd revert: [182]
• 4th revert: [183]

24h William M. Connolley 10:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lakes reported by User:Hbdragon88 (Result: warning)

Three-revert rule violation on DDT_(professional_wrestling) (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Lakes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 12:03, 9 January 2007
• 1st revert: 20:42, 9 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 20:55, 9 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 20:46, 9 January 2007
• 4th revert: 21:46, 9 January 2007

Comments: A content dispute, not "vandalism" as Lakes called it. At the very least it's not obvious, simple vandalism, which is excused under WP:3RR. Probably not helpful that 129.7.35.* to call Lakes a "dumbfuck" while reverting him back, but nevertheless it should have been taken to the talk page, or taken to WP:AIV. Continued reverting still constitutes a 3RR, IMO.

2007-01-09T20:57:57 Viridae (Talk contribs block) blocked "129.7.35.194 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 month (Abusive edit summaries). Warning to Lakes William M. Connolley 10:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Leonardo55 reported by User:Caper13 (Result:48h)

Three-revert rule violation on Saddam Hussein (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Leonardo55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 13:06, 9 January 2007
• 1st revert: 13:15, 9 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 16:30, 9 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 16:43, 9 January 2007
• 4th revert: 16:58, 9 January 2007
• 5th revert: 17:50, 9 January 2007
• This user was blocked for 3RR LAST WEEK: 12:33, 4 January 2007

Comments: User was blocked for 3RR violations for the same edit on January 4. After the block expired, their FIRST EDIT since returning was to readd the exact same links they were blocked for previously. Additional warnings left on users talk page as well as requests to discuss their edits. All messages ignored and editor refuses to engage in discussion. Caper13 02:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Repeat offense. 48h.--CSTAR 03:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ahwaz reported by User:Behaafarid (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Ethnic minorities in Iran (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Ahwaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
• 1st revert: Revision as of 12:41, 10 January 2007
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 12:47, 10 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 13:00, 10 January 2007
• 4th revert: 13:18, 10 January 2007

Comments: This user a POV pusher and has been blocked dozens of times for breaking 3RR Behaafarid 13:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Dozens of times" is an exaggeration, but the community ban may well be considered. BeitOr 13:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was reverting vandalism. Those reverting my edits had done so after I voiced an opinion they objected to in Talk:Persian Gulf. They simply went to those articles and reverted everything, without even looking at the fact that what they deleted included updated wikilinks, fact tags and NPOV clean-ups. It is a case of blatant stalking and vandalism. Take a look for yourself.--الأهواز Hamid Ahwaz 14:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahwaz accumulated quite a long block list including at least 4 3RR blocks. On the other hand his edits appear to be in a good faith (I actually like his version better than the other) and he might mistakenly believe that restoring tags does not count towards 3RR. Thus, the block is relatively mild Alex Bakharev 16:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Martin181 reported by User:Halbared (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Brock Lesnar (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Martin181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
• 1st revert: [184]
• 2nd revert: [185]
• 3rd revert: [186]
• 4th revert: [187]

Comments: Poss sockpuppet ignores sourced info and always reverts to personal preferences

• Clear. 24h.--CSTAR 18:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:WeniWidiWiki reported by User:Jefferson Anderson (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on Plastic Paddy (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). WeniWidiWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 16:15, 10 January 2007 (except first revert which is to an earlier vesion)
• 1st revert: 15:22, 10 January 2007 (to 23:48, 8 January 2007)
• 2nd revert: 16:32, 10 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 16:44, 10 January 2007
• 4th revert: 16:49, 10 January 2007

Comments:

I hope I did this right. I assumed the diffs are supposed to be the single edit by the user, not a diff back to the "previous version reverted to". If I'm wrong about this, please let me know and I can fix it. Jefferson Anderson 18:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Look at the history of the entry. Most of those reverts were vandalism or restoring wholesale removal of large blocks of text. - WeniWidiWiki 18:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny, on two of the reverts you called the other editor's edit "POV". Only on the last revert did you call it vandalism. There's discussion on the talk page, and it looks like a content dispute to me. Jefferson Anderson 18:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: I agree he has broken WP:3RR. I made a couple of those edits that he reverted - I explained the edit and took them out because I considered them POV (which is also the consensus). Another anon editor also reverted them and then User:WeniWidiWiki accused it of being a sockpuppet of mine.--Vintagekits 19:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This isn't a revert of vandalism, it is a revert of terrible editing, which we do treat as "punishable". Personally, I would warn and discuss instead of blocking, but I leave it to another admin's discretion to make a final call if WeniWidiWiki refuses to revert themselves. Jkelly 19:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should be noted that the repeated removal of sourced material is considered vandalism. Also see this post on the Admin noticeboard/incidents showing that this editor "admits to using IP edits for disruption". --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 02:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Comment It also looked to me as if the IP editor was violating WP:POINT. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 03:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Phippi46 reported by User:Mastiboy (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Phippi46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 12:07, 10 January 2007
• 1st revert: 12:07, 10 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 12:08, 10 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 14:25, 10 January 2007
• 4th revert: 18:30, 10 January 2007

Comments, User warned couple of times but is continously deleting sections from the article. --Mastiboy 18:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Clear. Substantative deletions. 24h. --CSTAR 21:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Estavisti reported by User:PaxEquilibrium (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Josif Runjanin (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Estavisti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 23:54, 15 November 2006
• 1st revert: 02:50, 3 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 03:49, 3 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 04:12, 3 January 2007
• 4th revert: 17:03, 3 January 2007

• A very experienced user. Filed 3RR reports himself quite a number of times
• Very small change: 3RR nonetheless. 24h.--CSTAR 21:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:A2raya07 reported by User:Baristarim (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Nochiya Tribe (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). A2raya07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: [188]
• 1st revert: [189]
• 2nd revert: [190]
• 3rd revert: [191]
• 4th revert: [192]

• Filed a 3RR warning here [193] right before his last revert.

• User insisting on removing the POV-check and OR tags from an article that he wrote himself. Many notes have been left on his talk page and that of the article, and user is insisting on ignoring them and making accusations of being childish unfortunately. Baristarim 23:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 24h.--CSTAR 03:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jfrascencio reported by User:Caper13 (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Saddam hussein (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Jfrascencio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 00:12, 9 January 2007
• 1st revert: 23:15, 9 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 00:30, 10 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 10 January 2007
• 4th revert: 14:24, 10 January 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 14:54, 10 January 2007

Comments: User keeps effectively reverting my edit by adding comment marks around the addition I made to the article because he feels the New York Times is not a valid third party source due to it being an American Publication. The version being reverted to is, effectively, the state of the article just before I made the edit he keeps 'hiding' by commenting it out. (though other unrelated parts of the article have been changed by other editors in the meantime) Caper13 01:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Clear 3RR violation. However, may I suggest you find a non-american source which makes the same claim (that I'm sure is extremely easy in many languages).--CSTAR 01:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Certified.Gangsta reported by User:HongQiGong (Result:No Block)

Three-revert rule violation on User talk:Certified.Gangsta (edit [[Talk:User talk:Certified.Gangsta talk]] history protect delete links watch logs views). Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• 1st revert: 2007-01-11 01:28:39
• 2nd revert: 2007-01-11 01:32:29
• 3rd revert: 2007-01-11 02:42:09
• 4th revert: 2007-01-11 03:06:57

Comments: After Certified.Gangsta made three reverts on List of Chinese Americans[194][195][196] (in a revert war that I was not involved in), I put a 3RR warning on his Talk page[197]. He has repeatedly blanked out the 3RR warning despite my attempt to keep it there, reverting more than three times. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only person that violated 3RR is himself. 3RR doesn't cover my own personal talkpage. This is hilarious. You're lucky I didn't report you.--Certified.Gangsta 03:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Block. From WP:3RR

The 3RR is generally not enforced against editors reverting changes to user page space accorded them (this includes associated talk pages and subpages), on the principle that although you do not own it, your user space is "yours" (for project-related purposes).

Could you please take this spat somewhere else?--CSTAR 03:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nationalist reported by User:Bonafide.hustla (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on User talk:Nationalist (edit [[Talk:User talk:Nationalist talk]] history protect delete links watch logs views). Nationalist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• 1st revert: [[198]]
• 2nd revert: [[199]]
• 3rd revert: [[200]]
• 4th revert: [[201]]

Comments:24h. --CSTAR 06:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:HongQiGong reported by User:Bonafide.hustla (Result:Warning)

Three-revert rule violation on User talk:HongQiGong (edit [[Talk:User talk:HongQiGong talk]] history protect delete links watch logs views). HongQiGong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• 1st revert: [[202]]
• 2nd revert: [[203]]
• 3rd revert: [[204]]
• 4th revert: [[205]]

Comments:4 edits in the last 24 hrs on my talkpage. (not his) This not only violated 3RR but also an example of userspace harassment.--Certified.Gangsta 05:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No block. Pages are for communication between users, particularly concerning reverts. There was no obvious harrassment about the message complaining party deleted. Complaining affected party (Certified.Gangsta) is advised not to delete 3RR warnings. Warning issued to other party. --CSTAR 06:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:172 reported by User:Ultramarine (Result:No block, warning)

Three-revert rule violation on Origins of the Cold War (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 02:20, 27 March 2006
• 1st revert: 05:54, 11 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 06:01, 11 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 06:06, 11 January 2007
• 4th revert: 06:13, 11 January 2007
• Aware fo the rule, has been blocked previously for 3RR.

Comments: First 3 reverts are simple reverts, the last revert is more complex but as previously deletes the same large parts of the article.Ultramarine 06:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This report is misleading. I made four edits to the article today. [206] [207] [208] [209] The first was not a reversion but a major new edit, removing and/or cleaning up problem sections. My subsequent two edits were reversions of Ultramarine, who came along and undid my work, which he/she often does whenever I edit an article on his/her watchlist. My fourth edit was an attempt to reach a compromise with Ultramarine, restoring some savagable parts of content I had removed while removing two sections that did not fit into the structure of the article, and not a simple reversion. Ultramarine should be encourged to discuss his/her reversion of my clean-up, rather than gaming the system here. 172 Talk 06:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: although I only made two clear reverts, which may entitle me to make another one without skirting 3RR, I will refrain from editing the article for at least 48 hours, giving me more time to understand Ultramarine's (unclear) objections to my clean-up and figure out how to draft a new version. 172 Talk 06:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your first revert was a simple revert to your 27 March version, undoing many months of work. The next 2 reverts were also simple reverts to this old version. The last revert is more complex but again deletes the same large parts of the article.Ultramarine 06:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page had been stable for months. There is no real revert if there is no one in particular I am reverting. You reverted my clean up; so in all practical effect, you made the first revert of the day on the page, not me... Perhaps you may classify my first edit as a revert on the basis of a silly technicality. But since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a system of law, the spirt of policies like 3RR, not the legalisms, is what matters. I will be quite disappointed-- and I will appeal the decision-- if an admin decides to reward such a blatant attempt to game the system, rather than encouraging you to work toward compromise and positive change of the article. 172 Talk 07:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming good faith with 172 here (who has been a sysop earlier), on his assurance that he would keep away from the article for 48 hours. Ultramarine is requested to stop revert-warring, as four reverts are not an entitlement to any user, and they can be blocked for violating WP:POINT. 172, you have been warned — Nearly Headless Nick 07:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not reverted 4 times since I only have made 3 edits. 172 and I have reached an agreement per my talk page and I withdraw my report.Ultramarine 07:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rumpelstiltskin223 reported by User:Falcon2020 (Result:no block)

Three-revert rule violation on Talk:2002 Gujarat violence (edit [[Talk:Talk:2002 Gujarat violence talk]] history protect delete links watch logs views). Rumpelstiltskin223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
• 1st revert: 05:17, 11 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 06:19, 11 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 06:28, 11 January 2007
• 4th revert: 06:37, 11 January 2007

Comments:He has been blocked for 3RR before. As you can see, the page in question is a talk page. WP:Living is being used as an excuse to censor my comments repeatedly, just as other rhetorical arguements have been used to shut out reliable sources from the actual article.. Nothing I say is without support from at least 3 credible and verifiable reliable sporces, and "Indian Government" isn't covered by WP:Living anyway. I understand deleting the talk page entries is generally unacceptable. He is also harassing me on my own talk page by repeatedly placing a warning template. I have also filed an ANI report for personal attack and disregard for WP:RS & WP:NPOV. This editor's history shows he's made a sport out of being disruptive across pages and with different users. Falcon2020 06:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No block, issue is being discussed on WP:ANI. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon2020 is a confirmed sockpuppet by checkuser of banned user BhaiSaab. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:NYkid0709 reported by User:Nuggetboy (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Xbox 360 (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). NYkid0709 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• 1st revert: 2007-01-10 13:54
• 2nd revert: 2007-01-10 23:01
• 3rd revert: 2007-01-11 01:39
• 4th revert: 2007-01-11 12:45
• 5th revert: 2007-01-11 13:08

• Diff of 3RR warning: 2007-01-11-00:25

Comments: The warning was after the first 3RR violation (without a report): [210][211][212][213] - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 14:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24h William M. Connolley 14:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arrow740 reported by User:Itaqallah (Result:Warning)

Three-revert rule violation on Islam (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Arrow740 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

much of the diffs are constant and almost immediate undoings of changes incorporated by other editor:

• 07:12, 11 January 2007 which is an undoing of Aminz' insertion here

This is not a revert, it is removal. Is all removal reversion? I believe that was my first edit of the article in months. I don't know what was added when. Arrow740 06:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 08:03, 11 January 2007 which is another removal of Aminz' reinsertion

This is revert, the first one. Arrow740 06:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 14:07, 11 January 2007 which is an undoing of Aminz' edit here

Again, not a revert. A diplomat was being cited as an Islamic studies scholar and I removed it after this became apparent. I did not know when this material was first inserted.Arrow740 06:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 14:30, 11 January 2007 a straight revert of my prior edit

This is a revert. Itaqallah's edit summary made no sense. He has been engaged in revert warring on Muhammad's slaves (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Arrow740 06:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Diff of 3RR warning: unnecessary, user has been warned and blocked previously.

We have two reverts, on separate sections of an extremely long article. Arrow740 06:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: furthermore, User:Arrow740 has been revert warring on Muhammad's slaves (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views), and often treats 3 reverts as an entitlement. also, the disruption is compounded by User:Arrow740 engaging in recent inappropriate trolling [214][215] [216][217][218][219] (whilst admitting such) and indulging in personal attacks[220]. ITAQALLAH 15:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The trolling was inappropriate and after itaqallah pointed it out to me I kept my remarks topical. The "personal attack" is no such thing, User:Aminz has nominated articles about best-selling books for deletion. In any case an admin posted to my talk page about this already. I am in no way engaged in edit-warring on Islam (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views) as you can see. Arrow740 06:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:3RR, "Reverting, in this context, means undoing, in whole or part, the actions of another editor or other editors.", which is what you did in all four instances above, almost immediately after they were instated. i request you take your comments out of the report and place them here (where "comments" belong), as it obfuscates the report. by the way, for the last revert: you didn't read my edit summary closely enough. i'm warring on Muhammad's slaves? two reversions on 9th Jan isn't much to go by.. ITAQALLAH 06:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin, make up your own mind about Itaqallah's edit and summary before my last edit. I have not edited Islam in some time. I did not know what was added when. I went through parts of the article looking for problems. I did the same thing with Muhammad (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views) yesterday as a glance at the history will show. The latter article was in worse shape, probably because Islam was nominated for GA status recently and a lot of work was done on it. Arrow740 07:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aminz inserted a sentence and ref straight after you performed a reversion (13:52), and you removed it promptly thereafter (14:07). that seems to be a conscious removal, especially as you know the passage wasn't in the sect beforehand for your other reverts. drawing attention to unrelated matters such as your edits on Muhammad or the GA nom for Islam is a red herring. i repeat my request: please take your comments out of the report and put them in the comments section. ITAQALLAH 07:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you try to be more clear? They are not red herrings. If I am required by WP rules to move my responses to your accusations to the comments section then I will do so. We would all have been spared this trouble if you had given me a 3RR warning. I was not edit-warring. Arrow740 07:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

look at the other reports on the page, the responses are given in the comments section. interjecting your comments in the initial report makes the report itself rather unclear. you are in no need of another 3rr warning, as you are fully aware of the policy and have been blocked for it before. ITAQALLAH 07:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite clear! What is unclear about it? I guess it's not against the rules to respond as I did. I am aware of the rule, but was actually under the impression that the reverts must all be to the same version, which now know is not true. My point was that if you thought I had performed three reverts on that page you should have told me. Then I would have been clear on the rule and would not have performed any more reverts. But perhaps you wanted to get me blocked instead of insuring proper witiquette? Arrow740 07:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There would be no block as this happened more than 24 hours ago. I request both parties to assume good faith with each other. I will warn the defaulting user. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Michaelsanders reported by User:Milo H Minderbinder (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on Half-Blood Prince (character) (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Michaelsanders (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 00:41, 9 January 2007
• 1st revert: 09:06, 10 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 12:24, 10 January 200
• 3rd revert: 19:46, 10 January 2007
• 4th revert: 20:47, 10 January 2007
• 5th revert: 08:22, 11 January 2007

Comments: Note that the third revert above came twenty minutes after a 3RR block was lifted (lifted early because the editor promised not to do it again). [221] --Milo H Minderbinder 15:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two separate reversion issues. Have not exceeded 3RR on either. It is a content dispute, which I have several times asked the participants to discuss. Michaelsanders 15:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that some of these are partial reverts, and they are not all the same revert. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a content dispute but I suggest a short block. Don't edit war. --HIZKIAH(User • Talk) 16:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I asked the users several times to discuss the issue on the talk page; they refused, and almost always reverted (except the final incidence by pnwraven, which kept a few of my changes, but which changed everything of substance back to the version he liked). I didn't intentionally edit war, I simply removed their changes, which I felt were damaging, on the understanding that they were controversial enough to require explaining (at the same time explaining my own motivation - that the information was relevant). I also did not exceed the 3RR rule - I have made five reverts to the article in 24 hrs, it is true, but the first two were to the original text (prior to the changes); the next three were to the changes I instituted, which were a substantial rewrite which I hoped would satisfy both myself and the others. Secondly, another editor has now solved the issue in the short-term by intervening (some of my changes were retained, others were removed). Furthermore, the first revert in this round that I made (back to my rewrite) was because the editors had claimed their changes were 'minor': they were not, the editors knew that their changes would be controversial, and I therefore reverted, pointing out that such edits are not supposed to be claimed as 'minor'. I am now trying to discuss further changes, since at least one other relevant editor has expressed interest in doing so. Thirdly, I repeat, I have not violated the 3RR rule. I know that 3RR does not give me an automatic right to 3 reverts a day, but since I took care to explain myself, requested that the others discuss the issue (which was ignored), and since it now seems to be partially solved, I do not think blocking appropriate. Michaelsanders 16:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:217.134.118.7 reported by User:Samuel Blanning (Result: 8h)

Three-revert rule violation on Mike Mendoza (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 217.134.118.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 16:48, 9 January 2007
• 1st revert: 15:16, 11 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 15:26, 11 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 15:33, 11 January 2007
• 4th revert: 15:39, 11 January 2007

Comments:

• Warned on Talk:Mike Mendoza, continues to revert. There are more reverts than these which fall within 24 hours - four of the most recent provided for simplicity. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked the ip for 8 hours. Syrthiss 15:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Butterrum reported by User:BishopTutu (Result:no violation)

Three-revert rule violation on List of gangs in Grand Theft Auto series (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Butterrum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 02:47, 11 January 2007
• 1st revert: 02:58, 11 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 11:09, 11 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 22:52, 11 January 2007

Comments: Has been warned twice, as of now; POV of edits also supports that of one, and only one, user. In turn, said user is a suspected sock puppet, as well.

Only 3 reverts, no violation, user warned by reporter, no block. Mangojuice^talk 16:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The strange thing, you reported a user for 3RR vio, when he didn't violate the policy, but you did. --Wildnox(talk) 23:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that. The thing is is that the user "Butterrum" is a sockpuppet of another user; this so called "new" user is constantly making edits in the POV of the sock puppeteer. The page in question has experience a lot of warring in the past, and I did a great deal to resolve the issues that were warred over, but, because the sockpuppeteer doesn't agree with what is going on, he constantly changes it; I would have said something in the talk page, but that's just it: I already cleared this up. Because you somewhat warned me, I'll stop reverting, but I beg someone to do something about this issue. BishopTutu 23:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:66.191.222.111 reported by User:Sadena (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on National Socialist Movement (United States) (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 66.191.222.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: [222]
• 1st revert: 11:39, 11 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 14:16, 11 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 16:37, 11 January 2007
• 4th revert: 17:16, 11 January 2007

Prev-version is wrong; 1st rv listed links to history William M. Connolley 18:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC) - My bad, fixed link Sadena 20:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Warned, no impact. Edits are contrary to fact, and deleting sourced statements.

User:86.42.64.69 reported by User:CBFan (Result: 2h each)

Three-revert rule violation on Dingodile (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 86.42.64.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Comments: Constantly posting incorrect information, has been warned before about 3RR'ing, but still continues. This topic isn't the only one to be 3RR'ed.

Gross edit warring by both of you; and a malformed report. 12h for both of you William M. Connolley 19:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jor70 reported by User:SqueakBox (REsult:Warning)

Previous version reverted to *18.00 11 Jan

• 1st revert 18.15 11 Jan
• 2nd revert 18.17 11 Jan
• 3rd revert 18.21 11 Jan
• 4th revert 18.38 11 Jan
• 5th revert 18.55 Jan 11

User added /Malvinas to falklands is the revrt. he was amply warned on his user page and the 4th revert was deliberate, SqueakBox 00:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Cant you do something about this obvious sock--Vintagekits 01:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC) on the same page?[reply]

Err wrong page, Vintagem, if you think the anon is someone's sock get a user check and make the allegation in the right place, this isnt it, SqueakBox 01:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, he has just made 4 reverts within an hour--Vintagekits 01:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well report that though as they are a new user and only got warned after the alleged 4th revert it is right they shouldn't be reported unl;ess they do it again as warning newbies is vital, SqueakBox 01:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: [223]
• It's clear that the report is accurate. But before I block Jpr70 24h, it seems pretty clear complaining party has also violated 3RR; Am I miistaken? I also note that report does not follow suggested format.--CSTAR 01:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. I reverted 3 times and then stopped, at which time I warned Jor, so given that I stopped I dont feel I have violated even the spirit. The anaon is not me, its a London ip, and I have warned him too, SqueakBox 01:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Warning as per request of complaining party.--CSTAR 01:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 1st revert: DIFFTIME
• 2nd revert: DIFFTIME
• 3rd revert: DIFFTIME
• 4th revert: DIFFTIME

NYScholar reported by User:Morton_devonshire (Result:warning)

Three-revert rule violation on User_talk:Morton_devonshire (edit [[Talk:User_talk:Morton_devonshire talk]] history protect delete links watch logs views). NYScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 21:22 11 January 2007
• 1st revert: 21:23 11 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 21:28 11 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 21:45 11 January 2007
• 4th revert: 21:55 11 January 2007, with 2 intermediate revisions by the same editor

Comment: Please check his block log. Comments. This seems like gratuitous blanking of complaing party's talk page. If other party finds content objectionable as per WP:NPA, post request for deletion. Repeat offense 31h.--CSTAR 06:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Clear personal attacks on talk page. Unblock. Reduced to warning.--CSTAR 06:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Surena reported by Khoikhoi (Result:48h)

Three-revert rule violation on Persianization (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Surena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 11:43, 8 January 2007
• 1st revert: 07:48, 11 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 19:20, 11 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 05:55, 12 January 2007
• 4th revert: 06:40, 12 January 2007
• 5th revert: 06:55, 12 January 2007

Comments: Not a new user—she's been here since 2005. Khoikhoi 06:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

48h. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xviper2k reported by User:Billywhack (Result:Warning)

Three-revert rule violation on Stacy Keibler (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Xviper2k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• * Previous version reverted to: 18:44, 10 January 2007
• 1st revert: 02:58, 11 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 01:01, 12 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 01:43, 12 January 2007
• 4th revert: 01:47, 12 January 2007
• 5th revert: 04:10, 13 January 2007

Comments: I suggested to user that they use the talk page and user removed all comments from their talk page. Also, ignored suggestion in edits to discuss on talk page before reverting. --Billywhack 10:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs not versions please. Prev-version should *precede* first revert... William M. Connolley 10:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Billywhack 12:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any breach and you have not warned the user either. No block. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did warn him but he blanked his talk page. Whatever, if you just want our edit wars to continue, that's fine. Billywhack 13:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted again this morning. User treats page as own personal site and commonly reverts others posts. User also responds immaturely to requests for discussion. User refuses repeated attempts at opening a dialog and will not consider obvious facts. --Billywhack 12:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billywhack warned. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was I warned? According to you, it is impossible to list when somebody has an uncredited role unless it's a major media event. Unfortunately, a lot of uncredited roles go to actors on the way up, and are thus overlooked by the media. I'm not the only person to have noted this. All of my friends who watch South Park agree. Because they aren't into editing Wikipedia, I'm being persecuted? So to win this argument, all I need to do is to get them to make accounts and write that they agree with me? That seems awful shady. Xviper2k has posted a video he says wins his argument. The link takes me to Youtube to what appears to be the episode. I can't watch this video, but if it is the actual show, then my point is obviously reinforced. What is the recommendation of the admins on how to pursue this? Xviper2k acts like a child and responds to attempts to open a dialog by erasing my comments or just claiming he's right and reverting edits. It looks like whenever he doesn't agree with something somebody posts on the Stacy Keibler page, he just reverts. If he won't be reasonable, how are we supposed to settle this? --Billywhack 07:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got the video to work and watched it up to the part in question. It is horrible quality. Nothing could possibly be ascertained from watching that. --Billywhack 09:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:86.42.111.246 reported by User:CBFan (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Dingodile (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 86.42.111.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: [224]
• 1st revert: DIFFTIME
• 2nd revert: DIFFTIME
• 3rd revert: DIFFTIME
• 4th revert: DIFFTIME

Comments: This is actually the exact same user I told you about the other day (the one where both of us got blocked). This user simply got a new ID number and STILL continues to 3RR, despite the warnings.

Yet another malformed report but since this is blatant edit warring by both of you, you both get 24h. Please see WP:DR William M. Connolley 13:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tajik reported by User:Baristarim (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on Turkification (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: [225]

• 1st revert: [226]
• 2nd revert: [227]
• 3rd revert: [228]
• 4th revert: [229]

Comments: User insisting on adding an accuracy tag to a section. He is aware of the WP:3RR since he has been blocked numerous times already. He is already on WP:1RR by administrator decision by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise because of edit-warring with another user in many Turco-Persian articles. Baristarim 14:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have violated 3RR also. --Wildnox(talk) 20:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where? I could only count these [230], [231], [232]. Baristarim 08:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These [233], [234], [235], [236](partial reverts are still reverts). You also had a 5th, but you self reverted that one. --Wildnox(talk) 15:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok :) Baristarim 15:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User: Ararat arev reported by User:Eupator (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Armenian language (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Ararat arev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• * Previous version reverted to: [237]

• 1st revert: 22:29, 11 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 23:29, 11 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 23:53, 11 January 2007
• 4th revert: 09:45, 12 January 2007

Comments: He now also violated 3rr on Proto-Armenian language. Note that this user recently reverted six times within 24 hours on Armenia, see [238], but wa snot reported. He has been warned numerous times. He also has the habit of spamming user talk pages, making dubious, long and controversial edits and marking them as minor edits and constant incivillity and pesonal attacks that are even present in his edit summaries. I think a harsh block is long overdue.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would have been 24h, but 2006-12-13T09:16:32 Netsnipe (Talk contribs block) blocked "Ararat arev (contribs)" with an expiry time of 31 hours (Vandalism of another user's talk pages) William M. Connolley 16:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with this? Are you assuming this is his first 3RR offense ergo no block? Look at this warning from User:Baristarim for Arev's 6 reverts in 24 hours for example: [239].-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was in december. He is currently unblocked and has made reverts since your decision. --Wildnox(talk) 21:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please see Haik he broke the 3RR there also. Nareklm 21:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked him for 24 hours for violating 3RR on Proto-Armenian language. Khoikhoi 22:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:SimonBillenness reported by User:Okkar (Result:no block)

Three-revert rule violation on Myanmar (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). SimonBillenness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
• 1st revert: 12:58 12 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 15:25 12 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 16:08 12 January 2007
• 4th revert: 21:55 11 January 2007

Comments: This user has been readding again and again political infalmatory contents which are in clear contradiction with Wikipedia unbias policy.

The user has not reverted since he was warned. Please ensure users have been warned before you make a report. --Wildnox(talk) 20:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parties have stopped edit warring after I warned both, no block issued. Anyway, both parties should be blocked if a block is issued. Kusma (討論) 08:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S129162 reported by User:Professor_marginalia (Result: )

Three-revert rule violation on Talk:Yamashita's gold.

• * Previous version reverted to: [240], improved restore here with further repairs first restore missed [241]

• 1st revert: 07:40, 12 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 12:17, 12 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 14:40, 12 January 2007
• 4th revert: 16:21, 12 January 2007
• 5th revert: 16:37, 12 January 2007
• 6th revert: 16:38, 12 January 2007
• 7th revert: 16:40, 12 January 2007

[User:S129162] was warned to stop blanking at least 3 times in Talk page (not easy to show with diffs because the warnings were added with full text restores of page). This diff to full page restore will show reminders/warnings given in the page. His comments aren't easily cipherable because he believes other editors there, including me, are involved in some weird intrigue or conspiracy involving the subject, "Yamashita's Treasure". But I believe he thinks this page belongs to him and is an extension or project related to his private mining company business - see bottom of his edit [242]. He views the other editors and me as internet vandals fiddling with his company's website. Professor marginalia 17:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user has already been blocked for vandalism. --Wildnox(talk) 20:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:81.151.71.146 reported by User:Sześćsetsześćdziesiątsześć (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on Continuity Irish Republican Army (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 81.151.71.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: [243]
• 1st revert: [244]
• 2nd revert: [245]
• 3rd revert: [246]
• 4th revert: [247]
• 5th revert: [248]
• 6th revert: [249]
• 7th revert: [250]

Was warned on user talk page, didn't take it seriously. Sześćsetsześćdziesiątsześć 22:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kathanar reported by User:Rumpelstiltskin223 (Result:31H)

Three-revert rule violation on Hate group (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views) Kathanar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 14:10, 12 January 2007
• 1st revert: 100315207 14:20, 12 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 100318211 14:34, 12 January 2007 (partial revert, adding the same link again with others)
• 3rd revert: 100318665 14:36, 12 January 2007
• 4th revert: 14:44, 12 January 2007
• 5th revert: 20:21, 12 January 2007 - this edit is the same as a revert because his earlier cat Category:Religious supremacists to which he has been adding this article is up for CfD. So he created another cat Category:Hindu Fundamentalism to revert this article to THAT. This is a clear attempt to bypass the letter of 3RR but achieve the same effect.

Comments: User is a tendentious editor and also has created bogus categories to push an agenda Category:Religious supremacists Rumpelstiltskin223 22:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Similar pattern of revert-warring here: Hindutva [251] [252] [253][reply]

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh [254] [255] [256] Rumpelstiltskin223 22:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that this edit of mine [257] is not a counter-revert because I was removing vandalism put there by an anonymous user (the statement "kkk like black people").Rumpelstiltskin223 23:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similar revert-warring in: Sangh Parivar [258][259][260]Rumpelstiltskin223 04:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked user for 31 hours for edit warring on the 2 articles. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:81.151.71.146 reported by User:Amatulic (Result:24h block)

Three-revert rule violation on Continuity Irish Republican Army (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 81.151.71.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: [261]
• 1st revert: 2007-01-12 14:40:19
• 2nd revert: 2007-01-12 14:40:19
• 3rd revert: 2007-01-12 14:52:58
• 4th revert: 2007-01-12 14:57:36 (another editor gave anon user an informal warning)
• 5th revert: 2007-01-12 15:05:35
• 6th revert: 2007-01-12 15:22 (I warned user at this point, not knowing 6 reverts had already taken place)
• 7th revert: 2007-01-12 15:31:49
• 8th revert: 2007-01-12 15:50:11
• 9th revert: 2007-01-12 15:59:21 (added another 3RR warning to talk page about this time)
• 10th revert: 2007-01-12 16:05
• 11th revert: 2007-01-12 16:18:27

Comments: half a dozen major POV reversions in 1 hour. I reverted user 3 times and added a 3RR warning to user's talk page, after which the user promptly reverted again. Only then I realized the user had more than 4 reverts going in the space of an hour. Another user also put an informal warning at that time on the user's talk page before me. -Amatulic 22:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has also violated the 3RR at Óglaigh na hÉireann.--Rudjek 23:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also working toward a 3RR violation on Irish Government. -Amatulic 23:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has now made a personal attack Sześćsetsześćdziesiątsześć 23:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24h. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this anon user resumes edit warring after the 24h are up, then what? Post a new entry, or update this one? -Axlq 19:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest a new entry. --Wildnox(talk) 07:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guess so. User is now doing the same thing (identical edit patterns) from IP address 81.156.27.118. =Axlq 03:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ramananpi reported by User:Tametiger (Result: no block)

Three-revert rule violation on Periyar (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Ramananpi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• 1st revert: 17.47 4 Jan 2007
• 2nd revert: 18.25 4 Jan 2007
• 3rd revert: 19.01 4 Jan 2007
• 4th revert: 19.17 4 Jan 2007
• 5th revert: 5.46 5 Jan 2007

Comments: Despite the issue being raised to the India board by another user .The user has revert the page and the page is now protected due to actions of this user.He also deletes content even if well cited.He also used his sockpuppet Ramananrv123 to redirect the page. Tametiger 06:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is stale, and (as you point out) the page is protected. No block William M. Connolley 11:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Martin181 reported by User:Halbared (Result:72H)

Three-revert rule violation on Brock Lesnar (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Martin181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
• 1st revert: [262]
• 2nd revert: [263]
• 3rd revert: [264]
• 4th revert: [265]

Comments: Poss sockpuppet is back after last 24hr banning and has not entered into any discussions and continues with form to again ignore sourced info and revert back to personal preferences

Ahem. Was there anything about These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is that you didn't understand? William M. Connolley 11:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, thank you. Sorry.Halbared 11:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the user for 72 hours. I didn't do just 48 due to the fact that the user had just been blocked for this same offense on the same article. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 13:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:John Reaves reported by User:Michaelsanders (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on Caractacus Burke (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). John Reaves (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: [266]
• 1st revert: [267]
• 2nd revert: [268]
• 3rd revert: [269]
• 4th revert: [270]

Comments: Editor reverted four times, despite opposition from two editors in the summaries and on his talk page; several summaries were rude/offensive, and showed awareness of 3RR; he then proceeded to lurch into rudeness and personal accusations here [271] and here [272].

Blocked by J.smith (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Bucketsofg 21:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:86.42.80.244 reported by User:CBFan (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on Crash Bandicoot: The Wrath of Cortex (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 86.42.80.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: [273]
• 1st revert: DIFFTIME
• 2nd revert: DIFFTIME
• 3rd revert: DIFFTIME
• 4th revert: DIFFTIME

Comments: EXACTLY the same guy who continually vandalised the Dingodile pages, this time reverting relevant and true information. As you can see, he's been doing it for a long time now, despite the countless warnings, and blaming them entirely on me, when all I've been doing is trying to revert them back, and have only been partially involved as such. CBFan 16:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)CBFan[reply]

• No Action - can't do anything with out diff-links. See WP:DIFF for instructions. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I thought they were DIFF-links. Anyway, we're trying to resolve this. CBFan 20:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)CBFan.[reply]

User:Ramananpi reported by User:125.22.132.241 (Result:No Action)

Three-revert rule violation on Vaikom Satyagraha (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Ramananpi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• 1st revert: 18.28 2007 4 January
• 2nd revert: 19.26 2007 4 January
• 3rd revert: 2007 17.52 2007 5 January
• 4th revert: 2007 17.52 2007 5 January

Comments: Reverts and deletions of the several articles have been done by this user.125.22.132.241 17:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No action - I don't see 4 reverts to a single article here. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kamenaua reported by User:Anonimu (Result: 31h)

Three-revert rule violation on Romania (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Kamenaua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 21:25, 6 January 2007
• 1st revert: 11:02, 13 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 12:17, 13 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 13:37, 13 January 2007
• 4th revert: 19:26, 13 January 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 19:50, 13 January 2007

Comments: Reversion of a version of a disputed event that acquired community consensus. He probably used socks to evade 3RR.. see these diffs: 13:50, 13 January 2007 by user Miclovan (created today) and 18:35, 13 January 2007 (only contribution of IP 213.36.0.197). Anonimu 18:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked or 31 hours. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:24.17.42.210 reported by User:SqueakBox

Version reverted to

• 1st revert: 13.00, 13 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 13.28, 13 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 13.32, 13 January 2007
• 4th revert: 13.37, 5 January 2007

This user has also made false vandalism claims in spite of being warned that it isnt vandalism, has refused to discuss the issue on the talk page in spite of being asked and has been warned about 3RR before the 4th revert, which he removed from his talk page, SqueakBox 20:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both users appear to have violated 3RR on Offshoring. --Wildnox(talk) 03:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to accuse me of violating 3RR please provide the diffs, as I did not, SqueakBox 16:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1, 2, 3, and 4--Wildnox(talk) 17:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, looks like I did. My apologies, I had not realised. We appear to have come to a compromise and user 24.17.42.210 has gone offline sionce then, yesterday afternoon and the situation has calmed down, SqueakBox 18:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:DCincarnate reported by User:GentlemanGhost (Result:24hr block)

Three-revert rule violation on Celestial (comics) (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). DCincarnate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 17:15, 10 January 2007
• 1st revert: 15:30, 11 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 00:47, 12 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 02:16, 12 January 2007
• 4th revert: 03:37, 12 January 2007

Comments: This user is not a new user, having been around since July 2006. However, it appears that this user has never received a 3RR warning before. I put one on the user's talk page after the fact. Note: this user made other changes to the article on top of the reverts, so the diffs don't match completely. However, the substance of the changes, stemming from an edit war with another user, is essentially the same.

• Blocked for 24 hours. Hiding Talk 17:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Asgardian reported by User:GentlemanGhost (Result:31hr block)

Three-revert rule violation on Celestial (comics) (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Asgardian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 08:11, 11 January 2007
• 1st revert: 21:16, 11 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 01:59, 12 January 2007 - rv + add'l copy-editing and formatting
• 3rd revert: 03:27, 12 January 2007 - rv + add'l copy-editing
• 4th revert: 04:42, 12 January 2007 - rv + add'l copy-editing

Comments: This user has been blocked for violating the 3RR before. This instance is part of an edit war with User:DCincarnate, whom I reported above. I put a new 3RR warning on this user's talk page after the fact.

• Blocked for 31 hours. Hiding Talk 17:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Loremaster reported by User:MichaelCPrice (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Ebionites (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Loremaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• 1st revert: Revision as of 21:38, 13 January 2007
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 01:32, 14 January 2007
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 01:51, 14 January 2007
• 4th revert: Revision as of 02:21, 14 January 2007

Comments: Not a new user (according to user's talk page, one of Wikipedia's most proflic editors). User insists on inserting own original research (dubious inferences based on primary sources) into article, whilst deleting statements from secondary sources. Repeated attempts to explain WP:OR and WP:NPOV on article's talk page are rebuffed with accusations that others have an agenda, are wikilawyering, bullying etc. Attempts to undo damage to article are simply reverted, as above. 3RR warning posted to user's talk page [274] and 4th reversion occured within 6 minutes of warning.

Comments by Loremaster: I've repeatedly provided explanations for my revert edits in light of User:MichaelCPrice's repeated acts of vandalism. I have already explained why the Lead of the Ebionites article does not need to mention his inserts which are already mentioned elsewhere in the article. It is ridiculous of him to describe the deletion of these inserts as inserting original research. I've discussed all these issues on the Talk:Ebionites page and my views and actions are supported by user:Ovadyah. There is no consensus possible since Micheal is a master of wikilawyering who is trying to impose his own POV into the article which I am trying to remove to preserve a neutral point of view. Period --Loremaster 03:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you appear to have violated 3RR. I suggest you both stop, drop this report, and settle this on talk pages. --Wildnox(talk) 03:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loremaster does not seek talk page resolution, instead he continues to assume bad faith and uses this to avoid debate: [275] --Michael C. Price^talk 03:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean you should violate 3RR, there are many ways to handle this without reverts. You could have tried all the steps in dispute resolution beyond discussion or requested page protection. --Wildnox(talk) 03:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being the voice of reason, Wildnox. --Loremaster 04:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting continued. 24h each William M. Connolley 11:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scorpyiajansidanananananananana reported by User:MKoltnow (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Moldova (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Scorpyiajansidanananananananana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: [276]
• 1st revert: Revision as of 19:00, 13 January 2007
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 19:03, 13 January 2007
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 19:06, 13 January 2007
• 4th revert: Revision as of 19:12, 13 January 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: Revision as of 19:12, 13 January 2007

Comments: This user is edit warring a topic which is specifically commented to be discussed on the talk page. User's edit history shows a number of similar edits to other articles--contentious and undiscussed.

24h William M. Connolley 11:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alansohn reported by User:ExplorerCDT (Result:Protected)

Three-revert rule violation on Joyce Kilmer (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: [277]

• 1st revert: [278] 00:12, 14 January 2007 by Alansohn
• 2nd revert: [279] 23:43, 13 January 2007 by Alansohn
• 3rd revert: [280] 23:32, 13 January 2007 by Alansohn
• 4th revert: [281] 23:02 13 January 2007 by Alansohn

• 1st revert since reporting: [282] 01:02 14 January 2007 by Alansohn

Comments:

• User:Alansohn (also another user) has been a persistent pest over the past few weeks, trying to insert irrelevant genealogical information into the Joyce Kilmer article. This caused a rather acrimonious debate on the article's talk page. Despite justifying the removal and continued omission of such information under wikipedia's policies (WP:NOT, WP:WINAD), he's continued to do this. Tonight, he decided to attempt to re-insert the genealogical information claiming there was a consensus (there is not), and when I removed it per those policies he wised up a bit and decided to insert information that is improperly cited by an unreliable source (find-a-grave.com) and which I removed, justified, by WP:RS and WP:V. The last edit, he has placed a reference to source, a book review by Kilmer, which, has nothing to do with the fact, and is a deliberate attempt to decieve people into thinking there is a connection and that the previous, unreliably cited, dubious statement was true. It's a false reference. I have tried to talk to him about this on the talk page, but he ignores it. Instead, he's devolved to trading insults and anything in an attempt to smear (attempting to paint me as a hypocrite with non-analogous situations).

I have been guilty, slightly of WP:CIVIL and to a lesser extent an occasional violation of WP:NPA, but I am so unable to keep my cool with this user.

Right now, he's sacrificing accuracy just to feed his ego, and right now, the timbre of his edits is "win at all cost" with a campaign that is so antithetical to Wikipedia, he has to be punished for this, and severely. —ExplorerCDT 04:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I protected the page. The edits you present are not really reverts. But on the other hand, there is a bad war going on and I think things need to be worked out through dispute resolution. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kendrick7 reported by SlimVirgin (Result: 24h by Tawker)

5RR on Anti-Judaism (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views) by Kendrick7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Version reverted to 14:39 Jan 13
• 1st revert 06:03 Jan 14
• 2nd revert 06:10 Jan 14
• 3rd revert 06:12 Jan 14
• 4th revert 06:44 Jan 14
• 5th revert 06:53 Jan 14

Comment

The above are simple reverts — five in under an hour. Kendrick is trying to create Anti-Judaism as a fork of Religious antisemitism. He keeps removing the redirect and pasting in his preferred version of Religious antisemitism. He's been warned about 3RR several times and was blocked for it on December 30. [283]

Absurd; I am reverting vandalism which does not fall under this rule. Anti-Judaism was moved in the first place to Religious anti-Semitism without any consensus or even a move tag, so I agreed to split the topics, and have expanded Anti-Judaism from reliable sources considerably since then. All attempts at dialogue and requests for this to go thru normal channels (such as tags and waiting periods) have been ignored. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're compounding the disruption by calling other people's edits "vandalism." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it was vandalism, and I think this report is innacurate. I don't believe Kendrick7 is trying to create a fork, but trying to preserve an article which is repeatedly being deleted without explanation. SlimVirgin appears to be angry, as she is currently on a spree of reverting my edits as well, along with personally attacking me in edit histories ([284][285][286][287]) following a disagreement with Kendrick and me on the religious antisemitism page, in which she was also reverting without explanation. Truly, if anyone is blocked here, I think it should be SlimVirgin, and indeed I think this spree of hers does warrant a block, from the three above listed reverts on Folke Bernadotte without any explanation (and admittedly without even looking closely at the first two) and complete with baseless personal attacks.Mackan79 07:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anything POV forks are "vandalism", and please don't try to unilaterally re-write policy to punish people with whom you have been in considerable conflict, while excusing people with whom you have allied. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an outside observer I would strongly caution the blocking administrator to look into this supposed violation for himself before enforcing the 24h block as I would question the validity of any WP:3RR report filed by SV. KazakhPol 07:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're hardly an "outside observer", you're an editor who has been in constant conflict with SlimVirgin. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was a standard block for violating WP:3RR. SlimVirgin originally moved the article to a better name, and Kendrick7 continued to undo the move to reinstate his version, which has just continued with Mackan79 reinstating the version. And KazakhPol has recently been blocked due to edit warring with Slim Virgin as well. Kendrick7 can come back in 24 hours and edit constructively, which does not mean reverting the article, again.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, he talks! Ryulong, incidentally, was the source of the series of unexplained deletions of the anti-Judaism page, for what it's worth, and should be blocked for his disruption as well. ([288][289][290])Mackan79 08:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see three reverts by SlimVirgin – [291], [292], [293], which is completely inappropriate. I am not involved in the discussion, however I do not support an administrator reverting three times in a single day. Completely inappropriate behaviour by Ryulong, as well – [294], [295], [296], using scripts to revert other users. Use the anti-vandalism tool only for the job they are authorised for. Your actions potray that you were trying to induce the other users into breaching WP:3RR and getting blocked. I disapprove the block and request that it be lifted; as it is unilateral. Use dispute resolution as a means instead of making multiple reverts on a single day. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't try to unilaterally re-write policy. If you want the rule to be the "2RR" rule, then get consensus for that change. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not unilaterally trying to re-write policy. As an arbitrator, you should have a good understanding of what constitutes "gaming the system". Also, per your comment below this, don't try to bring content-dispute into this conversation. This is about the five reverts Kendrick made, three + three reverts that SlimVirgin made on two articles and three reverts that Ryulong made using Javascript. Please do not assume that people around are ignorant beings. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do have a good understanding of what constitutes "gaming the system". 4 revert in 24 hours and 2 minutes is "gaming the system"; two editors reverting someone who is trying to create a POV-fork, and who reverts 5 times to do so, is not "gaming the system". Nor, for that matter, are blocks of obvious 3RR violators in any way "unilateral", nor should you undo the blocks of other admins unless a very obvious error has been made, which, of course, wasn't the case. I don't assume people around are "ignorant beings", but I must say that you do not seem to be very familiar with WP:3RR. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too disapprove of the block: if anything, the page should have just been fully protected. SlimVirgin and Ryulong both made three reverts, with Ryulong not even doing it manually, and it only appears to look like they were gaming the system. I don't want to unblock myself, but I believe Kendrick7 shouldn't have been the only one, if any at all to have been blocked. --Majorly 13:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't compare consensus with "gaming the system". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[297], [298], [299] (diffs from Anti-Judaism). The page has been protected now, and I am going to lift the block. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely out of order. Kendrick7 is a serious troublemaker, and has been since he arrived at Wikipedia. He has created a fork of an article, in an area he clearly has no knowledge of, and continues to revert other editors' attempts to restore the redirect template, calling their edits "vandalism," which compounds the 3RR violation. He has elsewhere teamed up with other editors, including one long-term banned antisemite, to disrupt pages related to Judaism, Jews, and Israel. Nick, you had no call to unblock and to accuse others of editing disruptively. I request that the remainder of Kendrick7's block be restored. SlimVirgin^(talk) 02:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to escalate this to a wheel war, but I support the restoring of the block. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin's reading of this situation doesn't strike me as entirely accurate. It might be more appropriate to say that Kendrick7 is a frequent opponent of SlimVirgin in content disputes, and has been for several months. What SlimVirgin describes as "disruption" may be more accurately characterized as "disagreement". Moreover, the long-term banned antisemite edited the Allegations of Israeli Apartheid for several weeks under a sockpuppet pseudonym ("Kiyosaki"), and didn't make his bigotry known until the end of the period, at which point he was recognized and promptly banned. Kendrick7 should obviously not held be held responsible for that user's actions.

I'm not going to comment on the specifics of this 3RR request, but I suspect this may be a content dispute miscast as a policy violation. CJCurrie 02:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A content dispute miscast as a policy violation? Are you saying that it's not a policy violation? Do you mean that he didn't revert five times, or do you mean that policy allows you to revert five times as long as it's a content dispute? I'm puzzled. Musical Linguist 21:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not so about Kiyosaki, as you've been told before. He was long known to be a bigot, but it took us a few weeks to work out which banned editor he was, and he was blocked as soon as we found the evidence — not when he, as you say, "made the bigotry known," which was several weeks before the block. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we're discussing this point, I've asked you several times to provide evidence that Kiyosaki's bigotry was always manifest, and you haven't done so. I'm still waiting. CJCurrie 02:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SV's description of events appears perfectly accurate to me. Whether Kendrick7 is a frequent opponent of SV is beside the point; Kendrick7 violated 3RR, pure and simple. That being the case, I'm reinstating the block. The reporting party's motives are a non sequitur here. FeloniousMonk 02:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. 3RR is about 3RR, which Kendick7 knowingly and willingly violated. The fact that he used the pretext that re-directing his POV fork article to the main article was "vandalism" is neither here nor there. Nor, for that matter, is the piling on of various other editors with a grudge, discussing unrelated matters. 5RR violators should be blocked, and those blocks should not be undone, period. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fairly clear violation of the 3RR. That said, the other users involved hardly behaved admirably. There is no 2RR, but that can't be read to mean that editors are entitled to revert three times per day. Respected admins especially should know that all revert warring is inappropriate, and that some attempt should have been made to discuss the issue. - SimonP 05:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon, please inform yourself fully about Kendrick's behavior before commenting. He's been editing disruptively for a long time around anything to do with Jews, Judaism, or Israel. CJCurrie supports him because CJC never misses a chance to get a dig in, and I'm very surprised at you responding to his call for help, as you did with Homey when he was causing trouble. SlimVirgin^(talk) 06:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: (i) SlimVirgin may be interested to know that I haven't actively supported Kendrick7 in this matter (I'm not going to comment on the specifics of this 3RR request, but I suspect this may be a content dispute miscast as a policy violation.), and that I've made absolutely no comment whatsoever on the specific dispute at hand, (ii) I'm neither impressed nor amused by SlimVirgin's less-than-subtle insinuation that I'm compulsively driven to "disrupt" certain pages, (iii) I'm equally unimpressed with Slim's blanket condemnation of disagreement (here and elsewhere) as "editing disruptively" and "causing trouble", (iv) I find it odd that SlimVirgin hasn't acknowledged any criticism of her own behaviour. CJCurrie 16:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not impressed with this comment on my talk page. I've been witness to several disputes concerning SlimVirgin and Kendrick7, and I only intervened because I disagreed with SlimVirgin's summarization of a dispute that I was peripherally involved in. CJCurrie 16:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Slim. This is not looking good in anyway. The block was unilateral, and so I unblocked. Another uninvolved administrator agreed with me, in that context. Tawker did not raise any objections. If Simon is somebody's friend, so is Jayjg, and he cannot be called an uninvolved party. In no way the block would have helped. I protected the article before unblocking. How can you think a block would have helped? You were revert-warring on two articles on a single day, and left off at three edits each. That falls within the purview of gaming the system. I am not going to take this to WP:ANI, but if there is something I have learnt from my past, blocks don't help solve problems, especially when they look unilateral, just like this one. I suppose this is ripe time for going to WP:ANI? I have replied to your comments on my talk page. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 11:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are disagreements over the block & the article is now protected, it is reasonable to lift the block. --Aminz 11:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As another uninvolved admin, I was asked by Nicholas for my input on IRC, so I thought I'd chip in here as well. I really disagree with the controversy over this block. It was a very straightforward violation of the three-revert rule, and should have been left to stand. There is no such thing as a "unilateral" 3RR block - while there is, as with any other decision on Wikipedia, leeway, there is absolutely no need to sit down and gain consensus for a 3RR block, nor I have ever seen this argued anywhere else. I also strongly object to Nicholas' characterisation of SlimVirgin's reverts as gaming. These fairly standard reverts were warranted, and were rightfully backed up by other editors; "gaming", on the other hand, is the sort of behaviour where one waits until 24 hours and 10 minutes have passed and begins the behaviour again. As I said to Nicholas privately, it is ridiculous to be preaching about how one should handle disputes when you've never actually edited controversial articles yourself. Rebecca 11:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slim says of Kendrick that "He has elsewhere teamed up with other editors, including one long-term banned antisemite, to disrupt pages related to Judaism, Jews, and Israel." CJ rightly points out that "Kiyosaki"'s bigotry became known after the period in which he and Kendrick concurred on several edits. Bad-faith innuendos about antisemitism, as well as spurious guilt-by-association smears, unfortunately typify SlimVirgin's handling of content disputes with other editors.--G-Dett 18:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a blatant personal attack. I'd reconsider your method here were I you. FeloniousMonk 19:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Felonious, would you consider this to be a personal attack: "CJCurrie supports him because CJC never misses a chance to get a dig in,"? CJCurrie 19:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Felonious, I'd reconsider your reasoning. Unwarranted innuendos about antisemitism (and even other, less noxious speculations about the inner lives of other editors) constitute personal attacks. Guilt-by-association ruses of the sort SlimVirgin trades in [300][301][302][303]combine personal attack with logical fallacy. Identifying persistent abuses/sophistries of this sort, on the other hand, does not constitute a personal attack. The identification may be accurate, inaccurate, debatable, specious, etc., but it isn't a personal attack. If you think what I've pointed to is debatable, please debate it. As for reconsidering my method, I know of no way of dealing with ad hominem sophistries such as these other than identifying and confronting them; but I am, as always, open to suggestions.--G-Dett 20:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I feel that this should really be archived to prevent clogging up of this page with any more pointless squabbling, I want to say that I fully endorse Rebecca's remarks. I don't often block for 3RR, but I do follow this page a lot (and have done from before I was an admin), and this is a perfectly routine block. I'm not sure if Nick's use of "unilateral" refers to the fact that Tawker decided all by himself to implement the block, or that only the person who reverted five times in an hour got blocked, while those who reverted three times or under in 24 hours did not. If the former, it's a bizarre interpretation. The 3RR policy exists through community consensus. Individual applications of it in very straightforward cases do not need consensus. If Nick is referring to the fact that only Kendrick was affected by the block, then I'd point out that only he made that blatant violation, not only making five reverts in less than an hour but also calling edits he disagreed with "vandalism". And he had been blocked before, so he knew the rule. I can't understand why this thread has turned into a forum for criticizing those who did revert, but who neither blatantly violated the rules nor "gamed the system" by waiting one minute after the 24 hours. If the rule says, don't revert four times, you don't unblock someone who knowingly reverted five times on the grounds that someone else reverted three times! Musical Linguist 21:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mitsos reported by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise (Result: 2w)

Three-revert rule violation on Pontic_Greek_Genocide (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Mitsos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: Jan 13, 20:24
• 1st revert: Jan 14, 09:37
• 2nd revert: Jan 14, 09:50
• 3rd revert: Jan 14, 12:25
• 4th revert: Jan 14, 12:56

• Warning: not necessary, experienced user and repeat offender; edit summary of third revert shows he was aware of 3RR.

Comments: Repeatedly re-inserting inappropriate external links to nationalist lobby website. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: 2 weeks. User has a history of this. -- Steel 13:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Azerbaijani reported by User:Elsanaturk

Administrators, I want to update a poor article about Mammed Amin Rasulzade but user Azerbaijani every time returns back the old version which is very poor. I am putting my version to the talk page, please consider go and look at it and then judge. becuse that article is very bad quality and I want to improve it. Elsanaturk 18:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 3RR violation on Mammed Amin Rasulzade, both you and Azerbaijani are 1 away from violation though. --Wildnox(talk) 18:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Elsanaturk reported me for a 3rr violation which I did not commit, and I thank you for noticing that. As far as that article goes, he was removing sourced information which he did not like, and he made it very clear that he didnt like the information, and thus violated Wikipedia's policy of NPOV (he has also done this on other articles as well). I told him about the rule but he continued. Also, I updated the Mahmud Rasulzadeh article for him, becuase he was removing sourced information and added other information in an effort to cover it up. So anyway, I added his contributions while leaving the sourced information in there, hopefully he will stop his POV push and that this is a good enough compromise. My last edit is not a revert, its an attempt at a compromise.Azerbaijani 18:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was reporting not because of 3rr but becuase he or she hindered new article from page and after that he took my page and distorted it and deleted many facts that I have added and he or she calls it updating! look at original version of ine and look at his "Elsanaturk 18:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)update"[reply]

Then why, pray tell, did you report on the 3RR noticeboard? This board is for reporting 3RR violations, not just every content dispute. --Wildnox(talk) 18:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the looks of it, you have just violated 3RR Elsanturk. Isn't this a bit ironic? --Wildnox(talk) 18:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:194.144.111.210 reported by User:Wildnox (Result: 48h)

Three-revert rule violation on Reroute to Remain (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 194.144.111.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 14:57, 13 January 2007(it seems to go back to early january, so this is just another older revert)
• 1st revert: 17:15, 13 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 01:13, 14 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 15:00, 14 January 2007
• 4th revert: 16:05, 14 January 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: blocked in the past after prior warnings

Comments: User has also violated 3RR on Nu metal and List of thrash metal bands(actually it appears to me that he has just barely avoided 3RR there. --Wildnox(talk) 18:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: The user in question has been blocked at least two other times for 3rr, I (s)he should be blocked for more than 24 hours. Inhumer 21:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of ugly reverting going on there. Please take care. 48h William M. Connolley 22:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Max_rspct reported by User:Vision_Thing (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Anarchism (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Max_rspct (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 09:32, 13 January 2007

• 1st revert: 10:39, 13 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 11:44, 13 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 12:13, 13 January 2007
• 4th revert: 13:00, 13 January 2007

Comments: I suspect that Max rspct is the same user as 86.7.21.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If that is true, he broke a 3RR. In the past, Max rspct and 86.7.21.180 made some very similar edits. For example, they both edited articles: Mikhail Bakunin (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views) on 24 November 2006, and Detroit, Michigan (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views) "Performing Arts" section on 7 December 2006. Taking into consideration small number of edits by 86.7.21.180, I find that coincidence suspicious. Also, Max rspct was already blocked once for using a sockpuppet. -- Vision Thing -- 18:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24h, assuming that 86. is Mxr William M. Connolley 22:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Elsanaturk reported by User:Azerbaijani (Result:24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on Mammed Amin Rasulzade (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Elsanaturk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 18:11 Jan 14 I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. I just put the compromise version that the article should be. Please revert back to this.Azerbaijani 20:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 1st revert: 17:31 Jan 14
• 2nd revert: 17:41 Jan 14
• 3rd revert: 19:00 Jan 14
• 4th revert: 19:40 Jan 14

• Diff of 3RR warning: 17:42 Jan 14

Comments: Elsanaturk has made a lot of POV comments and edits on several articles. I told him about Wikipedia NPOV and Wikipedia 3rr but he did not listen to either warning and continue his disruptive edits. He makes claims like "this guy is spoiling my article! adminstators!" and he does not seem to understand that he does not own anything on Wikipedia and that there are rules and guidelines that he has to follow. Due to comments he has made, it is very evident that he is baised and removes information that he does not like. I believe that the IP address is his, and regarding, he has broken 3rr anyway, due to reverting and also making edits afterwards. Please asses the situation and take the necessary steps. You can check his contributions and and the history of the article in question.Azerbaijani 20:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well most of what would be need to be said has been said. I think these diffs are a little better though: 1, 2, 3, and 4. --Wildnox(talk) 20:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hope the administrators can take care of this problem soon and the article can go back to the way it was meant to be, without all the POV.Azerbaijani 21:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours. However, you seem to have made 3 reverts in 24 hours, Azerbaijani, and are involved in edit wars elsewhere at the same time (e.g.: Ottoman architecture). Consider this a warning that you will be blocked after any more edit warring as well. Dmcdevit·t 16:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:88.105.115.223 reported by User:strothra (Result: warned)

Three-revert rule violation on Christianity (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 88.105.115.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 07:38, 14 January 2007 and 13:37, 14 January 2007
• 1st revert: 08:08, 14 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 13:25, 14 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 13:44, 14 January 2007
• 4th revert: 17:30, 14 January 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: [304]

Comments:

• The first revert is by User:88.105.57.122, the second by User:88.105.127.80, and the third and fourth by User:88.105.115.223. Presumably these are the same individual, but let me think about the best way to handle this. Bucketsofg 00:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I decided that the best thing to do is to warn him. Bucketsofg 00:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:65.7.63.86 reported by User:Sarranduin (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Toad (Nintendo) (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 65.7.63.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 22:07, January 14, 2007

Comments: Person apparently uploaded and added Image:Toad999.PNG to the article. I removed it due to low quality and lack of copyright tags in the image's summary, plus the fact that the current image works well enough. Anon user promptly added it back in, and then chaos broke loose. User has reverted to same thing at least 8 times. Resulting discussion can be found here. I warned user on their talk page, and asked them to stop to no avail. -- Sarrandúin ^{[ Talk + Contribs ]} 04:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this anonymous user might be the same as User:Roguephantom and/or User:LoneCrusader. The original image that was being added has been deleted, but they have now added one uploaded a day or so ago, Image:Toad.PNG, which is exactly the same, and which also has no tags. -- Sarrandúin ^{[ Talk + Contribs ]} 06:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked anon and RP for 24h. Semi'd the article. William M. Connolley 09:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:88.113.137.249 reported by User:SmithBlue (Result: 24)

Three-revert rule violation on Taj El-Din Hilaly (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 88.113.137.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
• 1st revert: 01:38, 15 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 05:55, 15 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 08:56, 15 January 2007
• 4th revert: 10:20, 15 January 2007
• Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.

• Diff of 3RR warning: 10:35, 15 January 2007

Comments:

• 5th revert: 12:48, 15 January 2007

24f for incivility; probably 3RR too William M. Connolley 19:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User has history of vandalism as well, although this is not a pure vandal-only account; there have been a fair number of constructive edits. John Broughton ♫ 20:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:SaliereTheFish reported by User:Exvicious (Result: no block)

Three-revert rule violation on Civil War (comic book) (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). SaliereTheFish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 12:04, 14 January 2007
• 1st revert: 18:08, 14 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 01:40, 15 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 04:45, 15 January 2007
• 4th revert: 04:47, 15 January 2007
• 5th revert: 04:49, 15 January 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 06:27, 15 January 2007

Comments:

• Possible 6th revert [305] 06:46, 15 January 2007 as 212.219.57.77 (talk · contribs)

Contiguous edits count as one; there may be 3 in total. Mind you his edit comments are distinctly unhelpful William M. Connolley 19:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Amoruso reported by User:jd2718 (Result: Warned)

Three-revert rule violation on Folke Bernadotte (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Amoruso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&action=edit

• Previous version reverted to: 23:40, 10 January 2007
• 1st revert: 15:43, 13 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 23:42, 13 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 01:30, 14 January 2007
• 4th revert: 11:20, 15 January 2007
• 5th revert: 12:06, 15 January 2007

Comments: User:Amoruso has over 10,000 edits and has experience on this board. No warning was necessary. Worse, while he has not technically violated 3RR, he is taking 3 reverts every 24 hours, clearly in violation of the spirit of WP:3RR. Amoruso has also been editing the talk page, but generally puts up comments that indicate he has a personal strongly held belief [306] [307] or simply that everyone else is wrong and he intends to revert [308]. I would argue that intentional gaming by an experienced user is far more serious than the clumsy mistake of a newbie.

Further, there is adequate opportunity to talk. After her 3rd revert in an hour and a half (!) (I won't put in the diffs since they are part of a long argument above) user:SlimVirgin realized that the edit-warring was a problem and tried to cool things down. She intitiated a focused discussion [309] which several editors have participated in. Unfortunately, Amoruso's sole contribution has been limited to an accusation of slander and an indication that he was reverting yet again (which he did) [310]. Jd2718 15:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a muli-side edit war to me. More likely to end up protected... William M. Connolley 16:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are correct. But with one side discussing, and one side not? Jd2718 16:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One side is not discussing - you have been "guilty" of many reverts on this page [311] [312][313] [314] [315]. I find your behaviour strange. It does not look well on you. You seem not to have acted in good faith here and you may deserve a ban or at least a warning for this report IMO - that's for an administrator to decide but I'm bothered that a user reports false reports to fool the system. As for myself, I was clearly using the talk page to explain and it was in fact Jd2718 and another user who were reverting without any discussion. While I was being both polite and contributing to the page, Jd2718 is only a recent "contributor" to the page who is only reverting and not involved in genuine discussion despite his claims which are clearly not based on reality. I didn't break any 3RR nor game the system, the report is faulty. It's especially disturbing to see false allegations like "reverting 3 times every 24 Hours" as if I've been reverting for the past week, much like he did. His own examples refute his false allegations. Cheers, Amoruso 16:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was just unprotected. And everyone seems to have made three reverts in 24 hours, which is not constructive. I'll warn all around and block if anyone continues, 3RR or not. Dmcdevit·t 17:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ckoicedelire reported by User:ThePromenader (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Paris (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Ckoicedelire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 2007-01-13T13:13:57
• 1st revert: Revision as of 2007-01-15T23:58:56 + 1 previous revert
• 2nd revert: 2007-01-16T00:01:22
• 3rd revert: 2007-01-16T00:07:06 (+ next three edits)
• 4th revert: 2007-01-16T00:27:06
  • Warning: 2007-01-16T00:32:48
• 5th revert: 2007-01-16T01:11:50 (+ next two edits)
• 6th revert: 2007-01-16T07:20:54

Comments:

Such attachment to a former version seems a bit odd in the light of the user's history - may be a sockpuppet of User:Hardouin.

Practically certain: see comment of last revert by always deleting the informations about La defense for exemple - "always" ? Anyhow, not true, as La Défense is very prominent throughout the article. THEPROMENADER 22:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At present, certain that this is a sockpuppet of Hardouin. Typical two-step revert typical of someone copying from an "original" text - quite typical of aforementioned user. Repeat offender: will revert until "his" version is back in place. THEPROMENADER 00:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Six reverts by the user within eight hours. Are there any Admins watching this page at all? --Bob 07:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24h William M. Connolley 09:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ararat arev reported by User:Nareklm (Result:User blocked previously)

Three-revert rule violation on Haik (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Ararat arev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• 1st revert: DIFFTIME 1
• 2nd revert: DIFFTIME 2
• 3rd revert: DIFFTIME 3
• 4th revert: DIFFTIME 4
• 5th revert: DIFFTIME 5

Comments:

• User was already blocked for these edits. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Macedonia reported by User:NikoSilver (Result: 4d)

Three-revert rule violation on User:Macedonia (edit [[Talk:User:Macedonia talk]] history protect delete links watch logs views). Macedonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 15:31, January 15, 2007
• 1st revert: 00:52, January 16, 2007
• 2nd revert: 00:54, January 16, 2007
• 3rd revert: 00:55, January 16, 2007
• 4th revert: 01:00, January 16, 2007
• 5th revert: 01:10, January 16, 2007 (partial)

Comments: User warned twice (because he blanked the page) by admin Future Perfect at Sunrise. He/She persistently re-adds those pictures in his/her userpage. User experienced, and with a record of 3rr abuse. A WP:RfC regarding username being used to impersonate an article would probably be quite pertinent, but I don't know which of the two supercedes the other in this case: WP:3RR#Reverting copyright violations in combination with WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:POINT, and WP:USERNAME -or- WP:3RR#Reverting pages in your user space? NikoSilver 01:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FunkyFly and NikoSilver were vandalizing my userpage by removing images, and adding false licenses to my self made images that I have uploaded here to Wikipedia. Macedonia 02:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned by an administrator to remove the images, and you removed the warning. The administrator then himself removed the images in question. The image licence which you gave are untrue. /FunkyFly.talk_ 02:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FunkyFly also violated the rule while adding false copyright licencses to my images:

• 1st
• 2nd
• 3rd
• 4th

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Macedonia (talk • contribs)

Not true. The first edit is not a revert. It is only User:Macedonia who has broken 3RR on that page. /FunkyFly.talk_ 02:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 4d as repeat 3RR offender, for uploading the image with a false pd-self claim and edit-warring over it. Niko and Funky, I would have preferred it if this could have been done without the added drama of revert-warring over his userpage, you could have just left it to me and not escalate it like this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rjensen reported by User:Cielomobile (Result: 24h each)

Three-revert rule violation on Liberalism in the United States (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: 14:19, 11:47, 14 January 2007
• 1st revert: 18:38, 14 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 23:56, 14 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 11:56, 15 January 2007
• 4th revert: 12:31, 15 January 2007

Comments: Rjensen has made several other edits to the article which were partial revisions, but instead of responding to my comment on the talk page, he continued to revert. He has also engaged in an edit war over Conservatism in the United States, see User_talk:Rjensen#Conservatism_in_the_United_States. -- Cielomobile^{talk / contribs} 01:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't think so. I have been adding new material not changing the edits of other editors. Note that the original article was moved, with a new title that called for new material. The rules clearly say that the 3R rule is not additive across articles. I discussed this naming problem at length on the talk page --the new name requires a deep rewrite--but Cielomobile ignored all that, There was also a fraudulent move of the American conservatism article without any poll or discussion, which I reported and complained about and asked for help in the matter. Rjensen 02:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that alleged revert #4 was not a revert at all--i added new material and did not revert any editor. Note that #3 and #4 are from DIFFERENT ARTICLES from #1 and #2, and the 3R rule is explictly not additive across articles. Rjensen 02:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

??? 3&4 *are* from the same article. Based on "classical liberal" you've both broken 3RR so both get 24h William M. Connolley 09:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:84.135.255.238 reported by User:Angusmclellan (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Malcolm III of Scotland (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 84.135.255.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 16:06, 16 January 2007 (Complex: editor is actually reapplying the changes in this diff. The versions being reverted to are *not* identical, but the edit is the same.)
• 1st revert: 16:19, 16 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 16:54, 16 January 2007
• 3rd revert: 17:06, 16 January 2007
• 4th revert: 17:58, 16 January 2007
• 5th revert: 18:10, 16 January 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 17:31, 16 January 2007 (not a new user, anon aside, but warning given)

Comments:

24h. Still, I am Special WikiConstable 84.135.255.238 enforcing... was funny William M. Connolley 18:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that 89.50.12.11 (talk · contribs · count) 6th revert: 20:33, 16 January 2007 is the same editor. Same country, same edits. I am Special WikiConstable 89.50.12.11 (replacing 84.135.255.238 MIA) enforcing ... also seems familiar. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ararat arev reported by User:Nareklm (Result: 48 hour block)

Three-revert rule violation on Mitanni (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Ararat arev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• 1st revert: [316]
• 2nd revert: [317]
• 3rd revert: [318]
• 4th revert: [319]
• 5th revert: [320]
• 6th revert: [321]
• 7th revert: [322]

• Comment Ararat arev also broke it on Urartu. Nareklm 21:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three-revert rule violation on Urartu (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Ararat arev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Original: [323]
• 1st revert:[324]
• 2nd revert:[325]
• 3rd revert:[326]
• 4th revert:[327]

• Comment I have blocked the user for 48 hours for violating 3RR on two articles, after coming off a 3RR block just four days ago. Nishkid64 22:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Avocadop reported by User:Kaisershatner (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Tony Martin (professor) (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Avocadop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: [328] Revision as of 21:59, 16 January 2007
• 1st revert: [329] Revision as of 12:25, 16 January 2007
• 2nd revert: [330] Revision as of 13:40, 16 January 2007
• 3rd revert: [331] 21:59, 16 January 2007
• 4th revert:[332] Revision as of 20:38, 16 January 2007

Comments: Ignored two warnings and an offer to discuss edit concerns at talk, with no reply (see below).Kaisershatner 22:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24h. Dubious about B too. William M. Connolley 23:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]