Polarscribe (talk | contribs) |
David Levy (talk | contribs) →[[User:Chooserr]]: note |
||
Line 999: | Line 999: | ||
::::::::I understand what the 3rvt rule if for, and while not agreeing with it wasn't intent on violating it I believed that it was 2 on each day that I had made, and if someone had changed it once more I would have alerted someone else to the problem so as not to violate my third rvt which I still thought I possessed. As for the stepping back, no ones POV would be changed and I was just told by an admin who I'll add in a second that once it's consistent don't war at all. You initiated this and if anyone deserves blocking it's you. [[User:Chooserr|Chooserr]] 00:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC) |
::::::::I understand what the 3rvt rule if for, and while not agreeing with it wasn't intent on violating it I believed that it was 2 on each day that I had made, and if someone had changed it once more I would have alerted someone else to the problem so as not to violate my third rvt which I still thought I possessed. As for the stepping back, no ones POV would be changed and I was just told by an admin who I'll add in a second that once it's consistent don't war at all. You initiated this and if anyone deserves blocking it's you. [[User:Chooserr|Chooserr]] 00:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::[[Ignorantia juris non excusat]]. I hardly see how you can argue "I initiated it" given that you tried the same thing three times last week [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xenophon&diff=30029822&oldid=29127324] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xenophon&diff=30294176&oldid=30164542] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xenophon&diff=30383810&oldid=30358167] and were reverted by three different people. The fact that I was the one to catch it this time hardly makes me the initiator. [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] 00:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC) |
:::::::::[[Ignorantia juris non excusat]]. I hardly see how you can argue "I initiated it" given that you tried the same thing three times last week [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xenophon&diff=30029822&oldid=29127324] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xenophon&diff=30294176&oldid=30164542] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xenophon&diff=30383810&oldid=30358167] and were reverted by three different people. The fact that I was the one to catch it this time hardly makes me the initiator. [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] 00:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC) |
||
*[[User:Chooserr]] has yet to serve the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive54#Alleged sockpuppetry|24-hour block that he successfully evaded via the use of a sock puppet account and anonymous IP addresses]]. (His two following blocks were unrelated, but one was the result of date warring.) His next block should take this into account (and be extended for every evasion attempt). —[[User:Lifeisunfair|Lifeisunfair]] 00:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== To report a new violation == |
== To report a new violation == |
Revision as of 00:31, 17 December 2005
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard |
---|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
Example
User:BadUser
Three revert rule violation on Articlename (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
- Previous version reverted to: 18:46, November 28, 2005
- 1st revert: 14:32, 29 November 2005
- 2nd revert: 05:25, 30 November 2005
- 3rd revert: 05:42, 30 November 2005
- 4th revert: 06:01, 30 November 2005
Reported by: User:ReportingUser 14:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
- User will not listen to the consensus of the other editors. User:ReportingUser 14:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Violations
User:152.91.9.124
Three revert rule violation on Pseudoscience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 152.91.9.124 (talk · contribs):
- Previous version reverted to: 21:21, 6 December 2005
- 1st revert: 21:56, 6 December 2005
- 2nd revert: 22:13, 6 December 2005
- 3rd revert: 23:12, 6 December 2005
- 4th revert: 23:23, 6 December 2005
- 5th revert: 23:36, 6 December 2005
Reported by: --Prosfilaes 06:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
- Has reverted edits by three other editors
- Blocked - sockpuppet of User:Countach who has also been blocked for 3rr of same article. Vsmith 14:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
User:Chadbryant and User:RSPW Coaster
KTVX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - dig that edit history. Protected, added to WP:LAME and 24 hours each for really stupid 3RR violation - David Gerard 08:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Note: There's apparently been some sockpuppetry going on. I haven't time to look right now, but it might be severe enough to warrant investigation - David Gerard 08:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Lame indeed.--Sean|Black 21:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
User:EaZyZ99 and sock User:69.245.221.209
Three revert rule violation on
Female reproductive system (human) | |
---|---|
![]() A pictorial illustration of the female reproductive system | |
Details | |
Identifiers | |
Latin | systema genitale femininum |
Anatomical terminology |
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/Scheme_female_reproductive_system-number-full-cropped.svg/300px-Scheme_female_reproductive_system-number-full-cropped.svg.png)
9. Vagina: 10. Hymen; 11. Lumen; 12. Wall; 13. Fornix (lateral)
14. Uterus: Parts: 15. Cervix; 16. Body and 17. Fundus. 18. Orifices: external and internal; 19. Cervical canal; 20. Uterine cavity; Layers: 21. Endometrium; 22. Myometrium and 23. Perimetrium
24. Fallopian tube: 25. Isthmus; 26. Ampulla; 27. Infundibulum; 28. Fimbriae (with 29. Fimbria ovarica)
30. Ovary
31. Visceral pelvic peritoneum: 32. Broad ligament (with 33. Mesosalpinx; 34. Mesovarium and 35. Mesometrium)
Ligaments: 36. Round; 37. Ovarian; 38. Suspensory of ovary
Blood vessels: 39. Ovarian artery and vein; 40. Uterine artery and veins; 41. Vaginal artery and veins
Other: 42. Ureter; 43. Pelvic floor (Levator ani); 44. Femoral head; 45. Hip bone; 46. Internal iliac vessels (anterior branches); 47. External iliac vessels; 48. Abdominal cavity
The female reproductive system is made up of the internal and external sex organs that function in the reproduction of new offspring. The human female reproductive system is immature at birth and develops to maturity at puberty to be able to produce gametes, and to carry a fetus to full term. The internal sex organs are the vagina, uterus, fallopian tubes, and ovaries. The female reproductive tract includes the vagina, uterus, and fallopian tubes and is prone to infections.[1] The vagina allows for sexual intercourse and childbirth, and is connected to the uterus at the cervix. The uterus or womb accommodates the embryo, which develops into the fetus. The uterus also produces secretions, which help the transit of sperm to the fallopian tubes, where sperm fertilize ova (egg cells) produced by the ovaries. The external sex organs are also known as the genitals and these are the organs of the vulva including the labia, clitoris, and vaginal opening.[2]
During the menstrual cycle, the ovaries release an ovum, which transits through the fallopian tube into the uterus. If an egg cell meets with sperm on its way to the uterus, a single sperm cell can enter and merge with it, fertilizing it into a zygote.
Fertilization usually occurs in the fallopian tubes and marks the beginning of embryogenesis. The zygote will then divide over enough generations of cells to form a blastocyst, which implants itself in the wall of the uterus. This begins the period of gestation and the embryo will continue to develop until full-term. When the fetus has developed enough to survive outside the uterus, the cervix dilates and contractions of the uterus propel the newborn through the birth canal (the vagina).
The corresponding equivalent among males is the male reproductive system.
External genitalia
Vulva
The vulva is of all of the external parts and tissues and includes the following:[3]
- Clitoris: an organ located at the top of the vulva. It consists of the body and its pea-shaped glans that is protected by the clitoral hood. The corpora cavernosa are tissues of the clitoris that aid in erection by filling with blood during sexual arousal.
- Labia: two types of vertical folds of skin called the labia majora (thick and large outer folds that protect other parts of the vulva) and the labia minora (thin and small inner folds that protect the vestibule from dryness, infections and irritation).
- Mons pubis: a mass of fatty tissue where the pubic hair grows.
- Vulval vestibule: an almond-shaped area between the labia minora that contains the openings.
- Urinary meatus: the opening of the urethra for urine to pass through.
- Vaginal opening: entrance to the vagina.
- Hymen: connective tissue that covers the vaginal opening.
- Vestibular glands/female accessory glands: two pairs of glands in the vulval vestibule known as the Bartholin's glands, which produce a mucous fluid for vaginal lubrication, and the Skene's glands for the ejaculation of fluid as well as for lubricating the meatus.
Internal genitalia
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/Female_pelvis_with_extreme_anteversion_of_the_uterus.png/220px-Female_pelvis_with_extreme_anteversion_of_the_uterus.png)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8e/Blausen_0400_FemaleReproSystem_02.png/220px-Blausen_0400_FemaleReproSystem_02.png)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/Scheme_female_reproductive_system-en.svg/220px-Scheme_female_reproductive_system-en.svg.png)
Vagina
The vagina is a fibromuscular (made up of fibrous and muscular tissue) canal leading from the outside of the body to the cervix of the uterus. It is also referred to as the birth canal in the context of pregnancy. The vagina accommodates a penis during sexual intercourse. Semen containing spermatozoa is ejaculated from the penis at orgasm, into the vagina potentially enabling fertilization of the egg cell (ovum) to take place.
Cervix
The cervix is the neck of the uterus, the lower, narrow portion where it joins with the upper part of the vagina. It is cylindrical or conical in shape and protrudes through the upper anterior vaginal wall. Approximately half its length is visible, the remainder lies above the vagina beyond view. The vagina has a thick layer outside and it is the opening where the fetus emerges during delivery.
Uterus
The uterus or womb is the major female reproductive organ. The uterus provides mechanical protection, nutritional support, and waste removal for the developing embryo (weeks 1 to 8) and fetus (from week 9 until the delivery). In addition, contractions in the muscular wall of the uterus are important in pushing out the fetus at the time of birth.
The uterus contains three suspensory ligaments that help stabilize the position of the uterus and limits its range of movement. The uterosacral ligaments keep the body from moving inferiorly and anteriorly. The round ligaments restrict posterior movement of the uterus. The cardinal ligaments also prevent the inferior movement of the uterus.
The uterus is a pear-shaped muscular organ. Its major function is to accept a fertilized ovum, which becomes implanted into the endometrium, and derives nourishment from blood vessels, which develop exclusively for this purpose. The fertilized ovum becomes an embryo, develops into a fetus and gestates until childbirth. If the egg does not embed in the wall of the uterus, the female begins menstruation.[4]
Fallopian tubes
The fallopian tubes are two tubes leading from the ovaries into the uterus. On maturity of an ovum, the follicle and the ovary's wall rupture, allowing the ovum to escape and enter the fallopian tube. There it travels toward the uterus, pushed along by movements of cilia on the inner lining of the tubes. This trip takes hours or days. If the ovum is fertilized while in the fallopian tube, then it normally implants in the endometrium when it reaches the uterus, which signals the beginning of pregnancy.[5]
Ovaries
The ovaries are small, paired gonads located near the lateral walls of the pelvic cavity. These organs are responsible for the production of the egg cells (ova) and the secretion of hormones. The process by which the egg cell (ovum) is released is called ovulation. The speed of ovulation is periodic and impacts directly to the length of a menstrual cycle.
After ovulation, the egg cell is travels through the fallopian tube toward the uterus. If fertilization is going to occur, it often happens in the fallopian tube; the fertilized egg can then proceed to try and implant on the uterus's lining.[6][7] During fertilization the egg cell plays a role; it releases certain molecules that are essential to guiding the sperm and allows the surface of the egg to attach to the sperm's surface. The egg can then absorb the sperm and fertilization can then begin.[8]
Function
The female reproductive system functions to produce offspring.
In the absence of fertilization, the ovum will eventually traverse the entire reproductive tract from the fallopian tube until exiting the vagina through menstruation.
The reproductive tract can be used for various transluminal procedures such as fertiloscopy, intrauterine insemination, and transluminal sterilization.
Development
Chromosome characteristics determine the genetic sex of a fetus at conception. This is specifically based on the 23rd pair of chromosomes that is inherited. Since the mother's egg contains an X chromosome and the father's sperm contains either an X or Y chromosome, it is the male who determines the fetus' sex. If the fetus inherits the X chromosome from the father, the fetus will be a female. In this case, testosterone is not made and the Wolffian duct will degrade thus, the Müllerian duct will develop into female sex organs. The clitoris is the remnants of the Wolffian duct. On the other hand, if the fetus inherits the Y chromosome from the father, the fetus will be a male. The presence of testosterone will stimulate the Wolffian duct, which will bring about the development of the male sex organs and the Müllerian duct will degrade.[9]
Clinical significance
Vaginitis
Vaginitis is inflammation of the vagina and largely caused by an infection. It is the most common gynaecological condition presented.[10] It is difficult to determine any one organism most responsible for vaginitis because it varies from range of age, sexual activity, and method of microbial identification. Vaginitis is not necessarily caused by a sexually transmitted infection as there are many infectious agents that make use of the close proximity to mucous membranes and secretions. Vaginitis is usually diagnosed based on the presence of vaginal discharge, which can have a certain color, odor, or quality.[11]
Bacterial vaginosis
This is a vaginal infection in women. It differs from vaginitis in that there is no inflammation. Bacterial vaginosis is polymicrobial, consisting of many bacteria species. The diagnosis for bacterial vaginosis is made if three of the following four criteria are present: (1) Homogenous, thin discharge, (2) a pH of 4.5 in the vagina, (3) epithelial cells in the vagina with bacteria attached to them, or (4) a fishy odor. It has been associated with an increased risk of other genital tract infections such as endometritis.[11]
Yeast infection
This is a common cause of vaginal irritation and according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at least 75% of adult women have experienced one at least once in their lifetime. Yeast infections are caused by an overgrowth of fungus in the vagina known as Candida. Yeast infections are usually caused by an imbalance of the pH in the vagina, which is usually acidic. Other factors such as pregnancy, diabetes, weakened immune systems, tight fitting clothing, or douching can also be a cause. Symptoms of yeast infections include itching, burning, irritation, and a white cottage-cheese-like discharge from the vagina. Women have also reported that they experience painful intercourse and urination as well. Taking a sample of the vaginal secretions and placing them under a microscope for evidence of yeast can diagnose a yeast infection. Treatment varies from creams that can be applied in or around the vaginal area to oral tablets that stop the growth of fungus.[11]
Genital mutilation
There are many practices of mutilating female genitalia in different cultures. The most common two types of genital mutilation practiced are clitoridectomy, the circumcision of the clitoris and the excision of the clitoral prepuce. They can all involve a range of adverse health consequences such as bleeding, irreparable tissue damage, and sepsis, which can sometimes prove fatal.
Genital surgery
Genitoplasty refers to surgery that is carried out to repair damaged sex organs particularly following cancer and its treatment. There are also elective surgical procedures, which change the appearance of the external genitals.
Birth control
There are many types of birth control available to females. Birth control can be hormonal or physical in nature. Oral contraception can assist with management of various medical conditions, such as menorrhagia.[12] However, oral contraceptives can have a variety of side effects, including depression.[13]
Reproductive rights
The International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics was founded in 1954 to promote the well-being of women particularly in raising the standards of gynaecological practice and care. As of 2010, there were 124 countries involved.
Reproductive rights are legal rights related to reproduction and reproductive health. Women have the right to control matters involving their sexuality including their sexual and reproductive health. Violation of these rights include forced pregnancy, forced sterilization, forced abortion and genital mutilation. Female genital mutilation is the complete or partial removal of a female's external genitals.
History
It is claimed in the Hippocratic writings that both males and females contribute their seed to conception; otherwise, children would not resemble either or both of their parents. Four-hundred years later, Galen "identified" the source of 'female semen' as the ovaries in female reproductive organs.[14]
See also
- Conception
- Development of the reproductive system
- Evolution of sexual reproduction
- Female infertility
- Oogenesis
- Human sexuality § Female anatomy and reproductive system
- Orgasm § Females
References
- ^ Scoullar, Michelle J. L.; Boeuf, Philippe; Peach, Elizabeth (2021). "Mycoplasma genitalium and Other Reproductive Tract Infections in Pregnant Women, Papua New Guinea, 2015–2017 - Volume 27, Number 3—March 2021 - Emerging Infectious Diseases journal - CDC". Emerging Infectious Diseases. 27 (3): 894–904. doi:10.3201/eid2703.201783. PMC 7920647. PMID 33622474. Archived from the original on 9 October 2022. Retrieved 9 October 2022.
- ^ Ellis, Harold; Mahadevan, Vishy (2013). Clinical anatomy: applied anatomy for students and junior doctors (13th ed.). Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-118-37376-7.
- ^ "Female Reproductive System: Structure & Function". Cleveland Clinic. Retrieved 2023-12-19.
- ^ "Genital Tract | SEER Training". training.seer.cancer.gov. Retrieved 2023-12-19.
- ^ "Fallopian Tubes: Location, Anatomy, Function & Conditions". Cleveland Clinic. Retrieved 2023-12-19.
- ^ "Female Reproductive System: Structure & Function". Cleveland Clinic. Retrieved 2023-12-19.
- ^ "Ovaries: Anatomy, Function, Hormones & Conditions". Cleveland Clinic. Retrieved 2023-12-19.
- ^ Alberts, Bruce; Johnson, Alexander; Lewis, Julian; Raff, Martin; Roberts, Keith; Walter, Peter (2002), "Fertilization", Molecular Biology of the Cell. 4th edition, Garland Science, retrieved 2023-12-19
- ^ "Details of genital development". Archived from the original on February 25, 2020. Retrieved August 6, 2010.
- ^ Egan ME, Lipsky MS (2000). "Diagnosis of Vaginitis". American Family Physician. 62 (5): 1095–104. PMID 10997533. Archived from the original on 6 June 2011. Retrieved 7 July 2020.
- ^ a b c Zaino, Richard J.; Robboy, Stanley J.; Bentley, Rex; Kurman, Robert J. (2011). "Diseases of the Vagina". Blaustein's Pathology of the Female Genital Tract. pp. 105–154. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-0489-8_3. ISBN 978-1-4419-0488-1.
- ^ Iyer, V; Farquhar, C; Jepson, R (2000). Iyer, Vadeihi (ed.). "Oral contraceptive pills for heavy menstrual bleeding". Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2): CD000154. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000154. PMID 10796696.
- ^ de Wit, AE; Booij, SH; Giltay, EJ; Joffe, H; Schoevers, RA; Oldehinkel, AJ (2020). "Association of Use of Oral Contraceptives With Depressive Symptoms Among Adolescents and Young Women". JAMA Psychiatry. 77 (1): 52–59. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.2838. PMC 6777223. PMID 31577333.
- ^ Anwar, Etin. "The Transmission of Generative Self and Women's Contribution to Conception." Gender and Self in Islam. London: Routledge, 2006. 75. Print.
External links
- Female reproductive system Archived 2019-05-27 at the Wayback Machine
- Interactive diagram of female reproductive system
. EaZyZ99 (talk · contribs) and 69.245.221.209 (talk · contribs):
- Previous version reverted to: 16:08, 5 December 2005
- 1st revert: 03:03, 8 December 2005
- 2nd revert: 03:06, 8 December 2005
- 3rd revert: 04:13, 8 December 2005
- 4th revert: 04:15, 8 December 2005
- 5th revert: 04:21, 8 December 2005
Reported by: Nandesuka 04:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
- User:EaZyZ99 seems to be obsessed with inserting an alleged self-picture of his or her shaved vulva into the Vulva article. S/he has edited under the IP address User:69.245.221.209 in an attempt to avoid 3RR enforcement. I'd block them myself, but since I have been involved in this recent series of reverts, I decided it was more conservative to simply report them here and let other admins make the call. Nandesuka 04:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- Blocked user and IP sock for 24 hr. Vsmith 14:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
User:Ghirlandajo
Three revert rule violation on Katyń massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs):
- Previous version reverted to: 09:13, 7 December 2005 - this is wrong
- 1st revert: 03:18, 8 December 2005 Ghirlandajo
- 2nd revert: 05:12, 8 December 2005
- 3rd revert: 06:21, 8 December 2005
- 4th revert: 06:41, 8 December 2005
Reported by: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
- As I can be considered a party to this dispute, I don't want to block him myself. Besides, I am not an expert in judging how serious a 3RR violation is. I'd recommend a short block (about 3h, perhaps) meant to cool him down and realize that further breaking of 3RR is not wise.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- Nonsense. The first edit was not a revert but contribution of new stuff which never appeared in the article before. The fourth edit was completely out of line with the previous ones and was intended to fend off a dubious comment by a stray editor. So it makes two reverts instead of four. Even if someone thinks that techinically it is a 3RR violation, it was not intended to spawn edit wars and I have no intention to edit the page any more either today or in the nearest future. --Ghirlandajo 14:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
There were no 3RR violation here. Please do not waste other people's time to report the 3RR that were not. That said, I take no position at the article's content dispute. --Irpen 15:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- I rechecked and I stand by my statement that there was no 3RR violation here. --Irpen 21:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- In that case I apologise. It was the first 3RR I have ever reported and I guess I was somewhat unclear on reverts versus edit. Ghirlandajo insterted specific information four times, but I see now that the first insertion does not count as a revert. Still this doesn't change the fact that it would be beneficial if some neutral party would warn him that his actions (revets) are not the best choice he could have made.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
User:Halibutt
Three revert rule violation on Battle of Wołodarka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Halibutt (talk · contribs):
If Piotrus resorts to such dirty tricks as above to further his recent anti-Ghirlandajo quest, I may point out that his friend Halibutt violated 3RR more than once in my experience of conversing with him. Every time he went unpunished. It's time to put an end to such an impunity. --Ghirlandajo 14:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- Please report current violations, not two month old histories. Vsmith 14:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- While Ghirlandajo's late reporting seems a bit close to proving a point, he is right to point out that quite often a double standard is being applied about 3RR violations. --Thorsten1 15:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- Not every 3RR violation is reported and of these reported not every is "punished". This is left to administrator's discretion. It's not a question of double standards. --Wojsyl (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- While Ghirlandajo's late reporting seems a bit close to proving a point, he is right to point out that quite often a double standard is being applied about 3RR violations. --Thorsten1 15:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- This old 3RR violation was unpunished because I chose not to report it at that time as a courtesy to the editor, that's all. Unfortunately, it had little effect on the future editing of this article but that statute of limitations on that one is probably indeed expired. --Irpen 21:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
User:193.170.48.178
Three revert rule violation on September 11, 2001 attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 193.170.48.178 (talk · contribs):
- At least 16 reverts: Special:Contributions/193.170.48.178 | http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11%2C_2001_attacks&action=history
Reported by: User:Chaosfeary
Comments:
User:Anna2005
Three revert rule violation on Freemasonry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Anna2005 (talk · contribs):
- Previous version reverted to: Not sure. Looks like he cut-and-pasted his preferred sections in, rather than doing a wholesale revert as such.
- 1st revert: 08:22
- 2nd revert: 10:50
- 3rd revert: 11:31
- 4th revert: 11:41
- 5th revert: 11:59
Reported by: SarekOfVulcan 20:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
- Suspected sockpuppet of User:Lightbringer, who is indefinitely banned from editing Freemasonry-related topics.
- Blocked indef. Recycling exact content User:Lightbringer used to insert -- reverted Freemasonry and its talk page in a ridiculous manner. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 20:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
User:71.243.235.8
Three revert rule violation on Debra Lafave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.243.235.8 (talk · contribs):
- Previous version reverted to: 06:36, December 3, 2005
- 1st revert: 17:20, December 8, 2005
- 2nd revert: 17:25, December 8, 2005
- 3rd revert: 17:32, December 8, 2005
- 4th revert: 18:01, December 8, 2005
Reported by: Locke Cole 02:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
- I believe this is a sockpuppet of MagnaVox, who has been blocked twice already for violating WP:3RR over this same edit (inserting the Yahoo! group link). In any event he has been warned of WP:3RR on both his talk page and on my final revert before his 4th revert. Also note that he vandalized the article on this 4th revert, removing content under the claim of copyright (which is false). —Locke Cole 02:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- I concur with this analysis, given that it is the exact same spam link. I've blocked this IP address for a week. If other admins think this is too much, feel free to reduce the block. Nandesuka 02:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. =) I've flagged a few IPs he's used in the recent past with {{sockpuppet}} and created Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of MagnaVox. So far he's only used his account and two IP addresses (both from *.tampfl.fios.verizon.net), but this could change. —Locke Cole 03:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- I concur with this analysis, given that it is the exact same spam link. I've blocked this IP address for a week. If other admins think this is too much, feel free to reduce the block. Nandesuka 02:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
User:82.13.187.127
3RR violation on Racism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User's entire edit history today [5] (but one) consists of five reverts of the same sentence in this article.
Reported by Mwanner | Talk 20:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment: There are other instances of the same edit from a similar anon IP (User:82.13.187.155) going back to Dec 6.
User:165.247.214.230
Three revert rule violation on Winter Soldier Investigation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
- Previous version reverted to: 19:18, December 5, 2005
- 1st revert: 13:18, December 9, 2005
- 2nd revert: 16:16, December 9, 2005
- 3rd revert: 16:38, December 9, 2005
- 4th revert: 17:46, December 9, 2005
Reported by: TDC 22:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
- Although the subject of an ongoing RfArb, the anon earthlink user continually violates the 3RR. [6]. TDC 22:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
User:80.126.178.93, User:80.126.178.94, and User:Cb3rob
3RR] violations on CyberBunker. zetawoof (talk · contribs):
- Previous version: [7]
- First blanking as *.94: [8]
- Second blanking and page move as Cb3rob: [9]
- Third blanking as *.93: [10]
- Fourth blanking as *.93: [11]
- Fifth blanking as *.94: [12]
- Sixth blanking as Cb3rob: [13]
Comments: *.93, *.94, and Cb3rob are almost certainly all the same user.
User:Luxiake
Three revert rule violation on GNU-Darwin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
- Previous version reverted to: 20:55, 9 December 2005
- 1st revert: 09:12, 10 December 2005
- 2nd revert: 09:55, 10 December 2005
- 3rd revert: 10:12, 10 December 2005
- 4th revert: 11:40, 10 December 2005
Reported by: AlistairMcMillan 12:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
- Continually reverting against consensus on the Talk page. AlistairMcMillan 12:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
User:Csssclll
Three revert rule violation on Arabic Numerals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Csssclll (talk · contribs):
- Previous version reverted to: [14]
- 1st revert: [15]
- 2nd revert: [16]
- 3rd revert: [17]
- 4th revert: [18]
Reported by --Astriolok 14:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
User:Andries
Three revert rule violation on Criticism of Prem Rawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Andries (talk · contribs):
- Previous version reverted to: [19]
- 1st revert to material deleted in October: [20]
- 2nd revert: [21]
- 3rd revert: [22]
- 4th revert: [23]
Reported by: ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 17:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC) Comments:
- The first two are not reverts within 24 hours, but restoring information that was deleted long ago. I made exactly the same number of reverts as user:Jossifresco (that is three) who by the way is a follower of Prem Rawat. I also like the other admins to take a look at the content that user:Jossifresco insists on deleting. The contents is attributed referenced from notable sources. Andries 17:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- My allegiance to Prem Rawat is openly stated on my user page. In the spirit of disclosure, please also note that Andries is a vocal critic of Prem Rawat, colludes with a small group of critics to push their POV in Wikipedia articles. Andries is an ex-follower of Satya Sai Baba and a self-declared POV pusher [24], and avdocate against gurus . ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 17:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- Please note that the last and only time that I was blocked from Wikipedia was on the same subject i.e. Prem Rawat in a dispute with the same person, User:Jossifresco. And the person who blocked me, user:Geni, started editing the article as proposed by me and disputed by user:Jossifresco on the talk page. (moving stuff to Wikiquote). I would love to be blocked again in such a way. Andries 19:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- The article in question has now been blocked due to ongoing revert wars by opposing factions, but not by me anymore. The problem is that there is nothing to discuss anymore. Everything has been discussed ad nauseam and factions continue to disagree. Dispute resolutions have not helped either. Andries 22:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Looks like an isolated incident among many in a heated content dispute. Blocking doesn't seem necessary or useful here. --Ryan Delaney talk 05:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
User:DrBat
Three revert rule violation on Zatanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DrBat (talk · contribs):
- Previous version reverted to: 02:20, 10 December 2005
- 1st revert: 05:07, 10 December 2005
- 2nd revert: 13:24, 10 December 2005
- 3rd revert: 14:13, 10 December 2005
- 4th revert: 14:27, 10 December 2005
- 5th revert: 15:48, 10 December 2005
- 6th revert: 16:11, 10 December 2005
- 7th revert: 18:21, 10 December 2005 (partial, box image only)
Reported by: SoM 18:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
- See also #User:65.98.21.69 below
- Dr Bat blocked for 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
User:65.98.21.69
Three revert rule violation on Zatanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 65.98.21.69 (talk · contribs):
- Previous version reverted to: 04:49, 9 December 2005
- 1st revert: 02:35, 10 December 2005
- 2nd revert: 12:33, 10 December 2005
- 3rd revert: 13:59, 10 December 2005
- 4th revert: 14:20, 10 December 2005
- 5th revert: 15:44, 10 December 2005
- 6th revert: 15:51, 10 December 2005
Reported by:
Comments:
- See also #User:DrBat above
- Blocked for 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
User:24.147.103.146
Three revert rule violation on Jimmy Flynn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.147.103.146 (talk · contribs):
- Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
- 1st revert: 11:05, December 10, 2005
- 2nd revert: 11:19, December 10, 2005
- 3rd revert: 12:48, December 10, 2005
- 4th revert: 13:51, December 10, 2005
Reported by: Mwanner | Talk 19:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
- User is trying to get rid of a PD image that he imagines he holds copyright to 'cause it's on his website (among others)
He didn't strictly revert the page four times, andSince the warnings he received at 19:10 he has not persisted in his behavior. I will watch him for further violations, and to see if he persues his copyright claim through the appropriate channels he has been advised of, but don't recommend further action now. -- SCZenz 19:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- SCZenz, I've just blocked him for 24 hours. If you disagree, I'll be fine if you undo it. I blocked before I saw your message. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- I recognize this was a judgement call and appreciate your willingness to accept an unblock, which I will in fact do now. My logic (as above) is that he didn't continue to edit Jimmy Flinn after his recent round of warnings. However, I'll leave another message on his talk page and warn that the next blanking, image removal, or copyright info removal he does outside of process will result in a block. -- SCZenz 19:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- That sounds fair. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- I've blocked him 48 hours for continued page blanking after clear warnings. -- SCZenz 22:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- That sounds fair. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- I recognize this was a judgement call and appreciate your willingness to accept an unblock, which I will in fact do now. My logic (as above) is that he didn't continue to edit Jimmy Flinn after his recent round of warnings. However, I'll leave another message on his talk page and warn that the next blanking, image removal, or copyright info removal he does outside of process will result in a block. -- SCZenz 19:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- SCZenz, I've just blocked him for 24 hours. If you disagree, I'll be fine if you undo it. I blocked before I saw your message. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
User:Zero0000
Three revert rule violation on Riots in Palestine of 1929.
Initial state of the article : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Riots_in_Palestine_of_1929&oldid=29897058
An editor user:Zeq added the words "Ethnic Cleansing" in [25]
Zero has repeadly delted those words:
1st: [26] 10:20 on Dec 10
2nd: [27]
3rd: [28]
4th: [29] 05:19 On Dec 11
Comments:
This is user:Zero0000 2nd violation in short time in editing aricles abou the history Of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. He was able to talk his way out of the first one (not sure as it was an obvious violation with 5 times) : [30]
The discussion about these edit was on a diffrenet page Talk:Hebron_massacre as this page is a disambiguation page refering those who search for Hebron massacre to: Riots in Palestine of 1929 Reported by Zeq 07:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Reply:
Zeq has still not learned what a revert is. The first edit was not a revert but a rephrasing of new text in a form that had not existed before. That is, it was a perfectly normal edit. --Zero 08:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- This is true, but it would probably be wiser to discuss your edits instead of reverting even just three times, or attempt a compromise. Edit wars are lame, okay?--Sean|Black 08:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Reply to the "reply:" Again Zero tries to talk his way out of a 3RR revert. The deletion of the word "ethnic cleansing" is a clear revert: The word was not there, it was inserted by another editor (me) and Zero Deleted it 4 times. The diff s are very clear. This is his 2nd violaion in short time. Zeq 08:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- No. A revert is an edit that goes back to a previous version of the article. Zero has not done that over three times.--Sean|Black 08:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- No. This is not what Revert is (but you are making a common misconception) Here is quote: "This (rule) states that if we revert to a previous version of a page (in whole or in part, which can mean as little as one word in some circumstances), we may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours. See Wikipedia:Three revert rule for more details. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC) " Zeq 09:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed, if a revert combined with an edit is not a revert, it would mean that the 3RR may be easily circumvented by combining reverts with edits. Can anyone clear this matter out please? --Heptor 20:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- PS: I don't think Zero should actually be blocked for 24 hours, as WP:3RR#Enforcement may suggest, it would be too far-fetched, but it should be made clear that such behavior is not permitted on Wikipedia. --Heptor 20:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not blocking him (he stopped), but my point was that the first "revert" was Zero refactoring new text, which is not a revert. He then reverted to that version three times.--Sean|Black 00:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- I reviewed the first edit in question again, I am no longer sure if it may be counted as a revert myself... Certainly a borderline case, but not a clear revert. --Heptor 02:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not blocking him (he stopped), but my point was that the first "revert" was Zero refactoring new text, which is not a revert. He then reverted to that version three times.--Sean|Black 00:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- PS: I don't think Zero should actually be blocked for 24 hours, as WP:3RR#Enforcement may suggest, it would be too far-fetched, but it should be made clear that such behavior is not permitted on Wikipedia. --Heptor 20:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
User:Ian Pitchford
Three revert rule violation on 1948 Arab-Israeli War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ian Pitchford (talk · contribs):
- Previous version reverted to: 22:11, 7 December 2005
- 1st revert: 17:08, 11 December 2005
- 2nd revert: 17:14, 11 December 2005
- 3rd revert: 17:20, 11 December 2005
- 4th revert: Current version
Reported by: --Heptor 17:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
There is an ongoing dispute over the content of that article. Ian Pitchford threatened to submit the matter to the Arb Com for a while now (but didn't [31]), and even asked Jimbo Wales to intervene.
There was an offer for a compromise (after Ian trying to force his way) he never answered that offer. On the other hand all his requestes from others to provide souce were answered. After doing his 4th revert he requestd page protection (and got it) so now the page is exactly how he wanted it. Zeq 19:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
User:KDRGibby
Repeatedly trying to insert a section in article Communism disputed by others (see Talk:Communism): [32], [33], [34], [35], then violating WP:POINT when upset in order to try to prove a point to include his section: [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], . -- Natalinasmpf 19:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Anything going to be done about this? -- Natalinasmpf 00:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
User:DrBat again
Three revert rule violation on Zatanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DrBat (talk · contribs):
- Previous version reverted to: 2005-12-10 21:11:38
- 1st revert: 2005-12-12 02:19:38
- 2nd revert: 2005-12-12 02:24:51
- 3rd revert: 2005-12-12 02:32:19
- 4th revert: 2005-12-12 02:47:33
- 5+ reverts from then on (in one day)
Reported by: --Red-skinned femme-fatale black-latex-clad b-tch from Hell 02:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
- Previously blocked for 3RR on the same article, see this page, up above: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:DrBat
Note that there is a message on his talk page saying he is blocked, but this is from his previous 3RR breaking and not from this one he is happily ignoring 3RR at the moment
Please can you revert his revert that's breaking 3RR as I cannot because I am abiding by 3RR? Otherwise he just wins and so has profited from ignoring 3RR and will just do it again...
"more coming soon" - Will anything be done about this? also see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#DrBat ban evading as 200.162.245.104 and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:_DrBat_--_continuing_breaches_of_previous_ArbCom_ruling
- What is your problem???
- Those edits were made because you kept on reverting my edits and accusing me of being another IP address. You've been registered for two days, and almost all your edits are you out to get me.
- I'll just repaste my previous comment to you concerning the 'dodging ban bit' from the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents of the same topic:
- The mentioned user (who you think I am) once changed the cover of Catwoman #1 (which I uploaded) to #46 (a hughes picture which I didn't want, and reverted). You can also check out the Catwoman article and talk page to see how I was adamant in not having Hughes images, and having the first issue of the new volume. Then why would I make an edit removing the #1 image and replace it with one of the Hughes images? Do I suffer from multiple personality disorder or something? And why would I even try evading the ban in the first place if it was for only 24 hours? That's like a guy being in jail for a week, escaping, and being put back for a year. Common sense. [44] --DrBat 03:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
User:Zen-master
Three revert rule violation on Conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zen-master (talk · contribs):
- Previous version reverted to: 19:11, 10 December 2005
- 1st revert: 17:05, 11 December 2005
- 2nd revert: 21:44, 11 December 2005
- 3rd revert: 05:10, 12 December 2005
- 4th revert: 05:43, 12 December 2005
Reported by: Jayjg (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
- Has been blocked for 3RR many times before, including on this article. As the diffs show, is not even using complex reverts any more, but simply reverting to identical previous versions of the article. Jayjg (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Spoke to soon, he's followed up his 4 simple reverts with a complex revert: [45]. Jayjg (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Blocked for 24 hours. Carbonite | Talk 15:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- 24 hours is too soft here, he's done this before at this article, and at other articles according to the arbcom's findings. I'm blocking for 48 hours. karmafist 17:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
User:Adraeus
I've violated the 3RR attempting to protect Template:Infobox Company from incompetent and vandalistic editing that negatively affects a widely used template. The editor, User:Netoholic, claims to be attempting to "fix" the structure of the template per policy; however, his edits are destroying the template's formatting. I request administrative action. Thank you. Signing off. Adraeus 07:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Three revert rule violation on Template:Infobox Company (edit | [[Talk:Template:Infobox Company|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Template talk:Infobox Company). Adraeus (talk · contribs):
- Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
- 1st revert: 13:20, 11 December 2005
- 2nd revert: 22:19, 11 December 2005
- 3rd revert: 22:42, 11 December 2005
- 4th revert: 22:54, 11 December 2005
- 5th revert: 23:15, 11 December 2005 Adraeus 07:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comments
- Well, to make it official, I added the links above. These are four straight-up reversions - very angry reversions at that. To say I was committing vandalism is laughable. It seems that the fuss was all about some exceedingly minor formatting, which I offered to fix if he had just calmly described it. -- Netoholic @ 07:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- My talk page demonstrates that you are aware of the problems you've caused by "fixing" the structure of the template. Have you remedied these problems? No. You've simply persisted to commit the same changes without preserving the template's formatting. You are knowingly negatively editing a popular template. You are committing vandalism. Adraeus 07:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- My edits were to correct the poor formatting I saw (bad wikitable mark-up, excessive whitespace, and failure to adhere to WP:AUM). The template worked perfectly and looked better after each of my edits. Too bad you broke 3RR before you even told me what you thought was wrong with my version, which turns out to be a difference of inconsequential formatting. -- Netoholic @ 07:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- My talk page demonstrates that you are aware of the problems you've caused by "fixing" the structure of the template. Have you remedied these problems? No. You've simply persisted to commit the same changes without preserving the template's formatting. You are knowingly negatively editing a popular template. You are committing vandalism. Adraeus 07:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter why you edit warred. We have ways of dealing with that. Take it to WP:DR. Your incivility here and in the edit summaries is also unacceptable, and this seems to be a pattern. Just don't. Blocked for 24 hours. Dmcdevit·t 07:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- On a related note, I've blocked Netoholic for 24 hours for violating his Template namespace ban and revert restrictions. Ral315 (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
User:200.162.245.104
Three revert rule violation on Zatanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 200.162.245.104 (talk · contribs):
- Previous version reverted to: 18:21, 10 December 2005
- 1st revert: 14:03, 12 December 2005
- 2nd revert: 14:48, 12 December 2005
- 3rd revert: 15:30, 12 December 2005
- 4th revert: 16:21, 12 December 2005
- 5th revert: 18:19, 12 December 2005
Reported by: SoM 18:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
- Note also the edit-summary comments. This page is fast becoming a disaster (See also #User:DrBat again above.) - SoM 18:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Assuming that there's no evidence that this is someone's sockpuppet, then this user wasn't warned and should not be blocked. User has now been warned. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 19:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
User:Red-skinned femme-fatale black-latex-clad b-tch from Hell
Three revert rule violation on Zatanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Red-skinned femme-fatale black-latex-clad b-tch from Hell (talk · contribs):
- Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zatanna&oldid=30954745
- 1st revert: 02:16, 12 December 2005
- 2nd revert: 02:22, 12 December 2005
- 3rd revert: 02:27, 12 December 2005
- 4th revert: 14:07, 12 December 2005
- 5th revert: 14:22, 12 December 2005
Reported by: SoM 18:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
- See comments for the anon #User:200.162.245.104 above.
- Blocked for 48 hours: 24 for the violation after sufficient warning; 24 for offensive insults directed at another user. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 19:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
User:Delonnette
Three revert rule violation on Michelle Ryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
Delonnette (talk · contribs):
- Previous version reverted to: 21:14, 12 December 2005
- 1st revert: 21:15, 12 December 2005
- 2nd revert: 21:25, 12 December 2005
- 3rd revert: 21:31, 12 December 2005
- 4th revert: 21:38, 12 December 2005
Reported by: Extraordinary Machine 22:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
- User has uploaded a string of images with no source or copyright information and continues to insert them into articles unformatted, despite being asked not to do so by more than one editor (some of them have been deleted already). In this case, he/she uploaded the exact same image (albeit under different filenames) more than once and added it to the Michelle Ryan article; the fourth time was after he/she had been informed of the 3RR. Extraordinary Machine 22:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Already blocked for vandalism and ignoring copyright. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
User:Leifern
Three revert rule violation on Homeopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Leifern (talk · contribs):
- Previous version reverted to: 01:17, 12 December 2005
- 1st revert: 06:37, 12 December 2005
- 2nd revert: 14:56, 12 December 2005
- 3rd revert: 17:49, 12 December 2005
- 4th revert: 18:02, 12 December 2005
- 5th revert: 18:11, 12 December 2005
- 6th revert: 18:24, 12 December 2005
Reported by: Skinwalker (talk · contribs)
Comments:
- User has a lot of general incivility on this article, keeps trying to delete material critical of the subject.
Absolutely false allegation. I took great care not to do such reverts. This is abusive. --Leifern 00:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- I have blocked both User:Leifern and User:Jooler for 24 hours for violation of WP:3RR JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
User:Flying fox
Three revert rule violation on 2005 Sydney Race Riots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
Flying fox (talk · contribs):
Reported by: --Elliskev 03:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
- Refers to his reversions as fixing vandalism by me and my cabal. I'm not even involved. I guess he just picked my name from the talk page --Elliskev 03:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- User was blocked indefinitenly by User:Merovingian.Geni 00:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
User:Freestylefrappe
Three revert rule violation on Kumanovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Freestylefrappe (talk · contribs):
- Previous version reverted to: 18:00, December 7, 2005
- 1st revert: 17:28, 12 December 2005
- 2nd revert: 22:32, 12 December 2005
- 3rd revert: 00:39, 13 December 2005
- 4th revert: 02:38, 13 December 2005
Reported by:karmafist 03:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Comments: Freestylefrappe (talk · contribs) seems to be reverting back to an earlier version of Kumanovo with some fairly nasty edit summaries, and also blocked one of the people he was having issues with regarding the article earlier[50].
- Blocked for 24 hours. An admin should know better. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 14:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
User:69.245.221.209 (sockpuppet of User:EaZyZ99)
Three revert rule violation on Vulva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.245.221.209 (talk · contribs) and EaZyZ99 (talk · contribs):
- Previous version reverted to: 17:18, December 11, 2005
- 1st revert: 20:18, December 11, 2005 (as EaZyZ99 (talk · contribs))
- 2nd revert: 18:36, December 12, 2005
- 3rd revert: 19:30, December 12, 2005
- 4th revert: 19:42, December 12, 2005
- 5th revert: 15:58, December 13, 2005
- 6th revert: 17:13, December 13, 2005
Reported by: —Locke Cole 04:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
- User is posting from his sockpuppet IP address to evade WP:3RR. Proof of sockpuppetry can be acquired from this diff. User has been warned of 3RR before, and user has been blocked before. —Locke Cole 04:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- User is still reverting, unsure why he was only warned when he's been warned and blocked before. —Locke Cole 01:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- This users behavior needs to change. It is counter-productive to have a user endlessly reverting articles to their favorite version. ike9898 01:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Blocked for 24. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
===User:Absent=== (troll) Three revert rule violation on Beslan school hostage crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Absent (talk · contribs):
- Previous version reverted to: [Beslan_school_hostage_crisis&oldid=30923162 here]
- 1st revert: [Beslan_school_hostage_crisis&diff=30923162&oldid=30579805 07:21, December 11] (not part of the 3RR, due to time)
- 2nd revert: [Beslan_school_hostage_crisis&diff=31046000&oldid=30926378 08:28, December 12]
- 3rd revert: [Beslan_school_hostage_crisis&diff=31083675&oldid=31065748 14:23, December 12]
- 4th revert: [Beslan_school_hostage_crisis&diff=31099351&oldid=31087777 16:21, December 12]
- 5th revert: [Beslan_school_hostage_crisis&diff=31180004&oldid=31108003 06:45, December 13]
Reported by: Sherurcij
Comments:
- Is ignoring talk page, saying that Muslims do not deserve NPOV, and arguing that all Chechens are Jihadists User:Absent is a highly biased userpage, and he clearly states in each of his WP contributions that he hates Islam, and is trying to advance his agenda. Wouldn't mind seeing him blocked, since he hasn't yet contributed a single word that hasn't been reverted as vandalism.
- Although 3RR was linked to in the edit summary, I don't think this new user was sufficiently warned about the policy. I'm warning him in his talk page explicitly now, with any luck that might settle it. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 22:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Please note that he has now reverted Anders_Fogh_Rasmussen 6 times in the past 24 hours, now claiming that "all Muslim countries" called for the death of the Danish leader, and imposed sanctions on the country.[51] (patently untrue, several ambassadors sent a note requesting an apology). Can we get a ban now? Thanks Sherurcij (talk) (bounties)
- Blocking for 29 hours. Looks like 4 reverts to me, but that's still a violation. I have a gut feeling that this guy may well have the chance to meet arbcom in the not-too-distant future. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 14:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Please note that he has now reverted Anders_Fogh_Rasmussen 6 times in the past 24 hours, now claiming that "all Muslim countries" called for the death of the Danish leader, and imposed sanctions on the country.[51] (patently untrue, several ambassadors sent a note requesting an apology). Can we get a ban now? Thanks Sherurcij (talk) (bounties)
- Although 3RR was linked to in the edit summary, I don't think this new user was sufficiently warned about the policy. I'm warning him in his talk page explicitly now, with any luck that might settle it. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 22:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
User:DocOck
Three revert rule violation on Kate Beckinsale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DockOck (talk · contribs):
- Previous version reverted to: 16:05, December 13, 2005
- 1st revert: 16:08, December 13, 2005
- 2nd revert: 16:10, December 13, 2005
- 3rd revert: 16:14, December 13, 2005
- 4th revert: 16:19, December 13, 2005
- 5th revert:16:53, December 13, 2005
Reported by: --Yamla 17:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Comments: Informed user about 3RR. User read the comments and then went and performed 5th revert. --Yamla 17:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Where did the informing happen? Jkelly 17:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see where the problem is. For whatever reason user Stanley Ipkiss reverted my changes (and he also broke the 3 revert rule though it seems he goes unpunished). He finally saw my source for the changes and agreed to leave the article in my version. Yamla reverted it on principal despite the fact that there is no longer a conflict. I informed her of this and reverted it back to my (the agreed and verified) version. That's the story. DocOck 17:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- I have left messages at User talk:DocOck and User talk:Stanley Ipkiss. If the situation isn't resolved, let us know. Jkelly 17:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see where the problem is. For whatever reason user Stanley Ipkiss reverted my changes (and he also broke the 3 revert rule though it seems he goes unpunished). He finally saw my source for the changes and agreed to leave the article in my version. Yamla reverted it on principal despite the fact that there is no longer a conflict. I informed her of this and reverted it back to my (the agreed and verified) version. That's the story. DocOck 17:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
User:67.186.196.85
Three revert rule violation on 1.800.Vending (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.186.196.85 (talk · contribs):
- Previous version reverted to: 21:57 12 December 2005
- 1st revert: 22:24 12 December 2005
- 2nd revert: 22:41 12 December 2005
- 3rd revert: 23:03 12 December 2005
- 4th revert: 09:03 13 December 2005
Reported by: SarekOfVulcan 17:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
- Possibly the same as User:Alaska1050?
- blocked for 24 hours under the 3 revert rule.Geni 00:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
User:Moveapage
Three revert rule violation on Republic of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Moveapage (talk · contribs):
- Previous version reverted to: 10:37, 13 December 2005 (PST)
- 1st revert: 10:50, 13 December 2005(PST)
- 2nd revert: 10:57, 13 December 2005(PST)
- 3rd revert: 11:13, 13 December 2005(PST)
- 4th revert: 11:24, 13 December 2005(PST)
- 5th revert: 11:46, 13 December 2005(PST)
- 6th revert: 12:03, 13 December 2005(PST)
Reported by: Jiang 19:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
- User:Moveapage, who despite having few edits, is well aware of the 3RR and has engaged in wholesale reverts of my edits there, without answering to my reasons at Talk:Republic_of_China#Lead_section_edits for making such edits. Specifically, Moveapage has reverted 4 times every single change I made to the lead section here except for the removal of "on both sides of the Taiwan Strait", linking of warlordism, and shortening of "Republic of China (ROC)" to ROC.--Jiang 19:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC) The 5th revert reverted everything except the removal of "and one of the original five Security Council members" and made some modifications to the second and third sentences --Jiang 19:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 5th and 6th reverts are identical. --Jiang 20:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- These aren't just reverts and one should also note Jiang reverted me first before I removed his controversial insertions. Those exceptions that Jiang talks about is me compromising where it made sense, but leaving out what is too controversial to just leave in there without Jiang obtaining consensus first. Several of Jiang's insertions were brought up on the talk page but since consensus has not been obtained, I do not see why he should be able to just go ahead an insert. I enourage those concerned to take a look at subtance of the talk and the evolution of the edits. There is no knee-jerk reverting going on here, except by Blueshirts, who by his own user page appears to be quite partisan.Moveapage 20:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- 3 outright reverts and two near reverts (a couple of words changed). Blocked for 24 hours.Geni 00:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
User:Powo
Three revert rule violation on Computer science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
- Previous version reverted to: 20:44, 12 December 2005
- 1st revert: 20:44, 12 December 2005
- 2nd revert: 14:49, 13 December 2005
- 3rd revert: 17:24, 13 December 2005
- 4th revert: 20:26, 13 December 2005
Reported by: — Dzonatas 21:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
- has violated the three revert rule even when there is somewhat of a consensus on one version: 21:13, 11 December 2005
- has declared edits as vandalism, as if "gaming," that were clearly not vandalism, like deleted an entire section about careers: (and has been warned about WP:3RR)
- 1st: 14:14, 8 December 2005
- 2nd: 20:57, 8 December 2005
- 3rd: 22:32, 8 December 2005
- 4th: 16:19, 9 December 2005 Powo's summary: "reverted vandalism by Dzonatas"
- has shown attempts of character assasination in talk pages.
- has avoided questions in discussion and sequently reverted, instead. Powo suggests he doesn't need to explain.
- has been warned about WP:NOR for unsourced edits. — Dzonatas 21:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to appears to be the same edit as what you are claiming is the first revert. I can only find 2 reverts.Geni 00:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
User:8bitJake
Three revert rule violation on Morgan_Spurlock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 8bitjake (talk · contribs):
User has shown hostility toward discussing in talk or reaching a consensus, instead chooses to force POV pushes in edit wars. --badlydrawnjeff 03:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- blocked for 24 hours.Geni 12:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
User:badlydrawnjeff
Three revert rule violation on Morgan_Spurlock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs):
- 1st revert: [56]
- 2nd revert: [57]
- 3rd revert: [58]
- 4th revert: [59] User insists that biased links remain in place without note and stubbornly demands that only his edits stay.
--8bitJake 04:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- A careful inspection of the history would show that I've been a) trying to reach consensus via talk at the same time, and b) trying to reach some sort of middle ground with my edits. I was careful to not revert 3 times, and this is a misstatement of the edit history. Other issues brought up can be seen elsewhere in the article's talk page as to whether they have merit. --badlydrawnjeff 04:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I completely disagree. This user is hell bent on a edit war and will not accept any other contributions or edits to the article. He has behaved like he owns it. --8bitJake 04:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- 3 outright and a couple of near reverts. Blocked for 12 hours.Geni 12:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
User:SpinyNorman
Three revert rule violation on Hillary Rodham Clinton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SpinyNorman (talk · contribs):
- Previous version reverted to: 20:15, December 12, 2005
- 1st revert: 10:03, December 13, 2005
- 2nd revert: 11:56, December 13, 2005
- 3rd revert: 11:57, December 13, 2005 (Could be considered part of Revert #2)
- 4th revert: 12:20, December 13, 2005
- 5th revert: 12:31, December 13, 2005
- 6th revert: 00:25, December 14, 2005
- 7th revert: 00:30, December 14, 2005 (Could be considered part of Revert #6)
Reported by: —BorgHunter (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
- There is also a long discussion about this on the article's talk page. User has participated in discussion, but continues to revert changes.
User:Madchester
Three revert rule violation on The Amazing Race 9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Madchester (talk · contribs):
- Previous version reverted to: 13:52, 14 December 2005
- 1st revert: 17:04, 14 December 2005
- 2nd revert: 18:29, 14 December 2005
- 3rd revert: 18:44, 14 December 2005
- 4th revert: 20:10, 14 December 2005
Reported by: User:Netoholic
Comments:
- Madchester is inserting unsourced information and speculation about future unaired episodes of this series, even the ending. He's shown ownership tendencies on this article and related ones in the past. -- Netoholic @ 20:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Blocked for 24 hours. Carbonite | Talk 20:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
User:Tcsh
Three revert rule violation on Moral responsibility (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tcsh (talk · contribs):
- 1st revert: 12:17, 13 December 2005
- 2nd revert: 18:23, 13 December 2005
- 3rd revert: 12:30, 14 December 2005
- 4th revert: 14:11, 14 December 2005
Reported by: LeFlyman 20:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
- User was cautioned on his Talk page to desist in reverting link to Wiki-quote. Claimed not to be aware of the 3RR and will desist from reverting. Thus, this notice is informational, unless further warning is needed.
User:65.2.69.229
Three revert rule violation on Fidel Castro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 65.2.69.229 (talk · contribs):
- Previous version reverted to: 17:45, December 14, 2005 (UTC)
- 1st revert: 19:47, December 14, 2005
- 2nd revert: 19:50, December 14, 2005
- 3rd revert: 20:07, December 14, 2005
- 4th revert: 20:17, December 14, 2005
Reported by: → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 20:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
- This user has already been blocked for 3RR violations, and this notification is being made simply for the record. User also used abusive edit summaries, e.g. Fidel Castro is a dictator. (See 'List of dictators') This is not the place to debate this nonsense with ignorant stupid fucks and enough reverting you troll. It is likely that the user will be back under a different IP address forthwith, however. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 20:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
User:Brazil4Linux
Three revert rule violation on Ken Kutaragi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
He has hid behind sockpuppets, using IP addresses 200.147.97.92 and 200.151.100.114, among others, and using Quackshot sockpuppet. Hiding behind these, he's violated the 3 revert rule. Daniel Davis 00:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)(Doom127)
User:Doom127 (Daniel Davis)
Three revert rule violation on Ken Kutaragi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
- Previous version reverted to: 16:02, 14 December 2005
- 1st revert: 22:30, 14 December 2005
- 2nd revert: 23:53, 14 December 2005
- 3rd revert: 23:58, 14 December 2005
POV Pusshing, Personal Attacks, Provocations, Legal Threats and.. Reverts.--Quackshot 00:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Brazil4Linux, first off, I have never threatened you, never made any legal threats whatsoever. You, on the other hand, are hiding behind sockpuppets. By the way, the three revert rule regards EXCEEDING three reverts in the course of a day, not MAKING three reverts during the course of that day. I'm letting the other users on this page know that all you're doing here is trying to attack all the users from the Ken Kutaragi page who've exposed your sockpuppeting and multiple IP address reverts. Daniel Davis 01:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)
User:Aolanonawanabe
Eight revert rule violation on Fetal pain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Aolanonawanabe (talk · contribs):
- Previous version reverted to: 2005-12-15 00:21:26
- 1st revert: 2005-12-15 00:24:43
- 2nd revert: 2005-12-15 00:43:24
- 3rd revert: 2005-12-15 00:47:02
Other nonsense:
- Mergeto: 2005-12-06 00:11:24
- 1st revert: 2005-12-14 07:38:17
- 2nd revert: 2005-12-14 07:45:27
- 3rd revert: 2005-12-14 16:10:30
Reported by: Cyde Weys talkcontribs 08:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
- This user is repeatedly editing the article away from the NPOV standpoint and he is absolutely refusing to engage in any of the discussions on the Talk:Fetal pain page. He just keeps on reverting and reverting, first putting the mergeto on there, then putting the silly wording in there .... ugh. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 11:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment making 8 entierly different edits is not a violation of anything, and I'm sorry for adding silly comments to your perfectly NPOV article about the 'debate' over whether or not one needs a central nervous system in order to feel pain--Aolanonawanabe 18:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure if he's ever violated the 3rvt rule, I think he did once for I reported it, but he does tend to make articles he doesn't agree more POV. Chooserr 19:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
User:ShenandoahShilohs
Three revert rule violation on Shiloh Shepherd Dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by ShenandoahShilohs (talk · contribs)
- 19:38, 15 December 2005
- 16:16, 15 December 2005
- 18:32, 14 December 2005
- 18:29, 14 December 2005
- 18:25, 14 December 2005
- 18:16, 14 December 2005
- 16:32, 14 December 2005
User:ShenandoahShilohs seems to be doing reverts the "right" way so tracking them is easy.
There are reverts by the other main edit warriors: Tina M. Barber (talk · contribs) and 206.53.197.12 (talk · contribs).
These users seem to be putting the article back to the old viewpoint via cut and paste or retyping into specific sections - basically reverting the article the hard way.
I'm hesitant to suggest that the admins block a user on one side of an argument without blocking the other, but the diffs are not clear cut for the other side of the dispute. It is just not as clear for them.
Reported by: Trysha (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- I've warned both of the main users in the dispute and left a message on the article talk page -- I'll keep an eye on it and see if we can't get some cooperation instead of just the warring. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 02:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
User: Statio Radion
Three revert rule violation on Japanese media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Statio Radion (talk · contribs):
- Previous version reverted to: 00:27, 16 December 2005
- 1st revert: 00:38, 16 December 2005 - I DON'T WANT TO DIE!!!!!!!!
- 2nd revert: 00:50, 16 December 2005 - I'M SERIUOS!!!!!!!!
- 3rd revert: 010:56, 16 December 2005 - revert vandalism by Carlton
- 4th revert: 01:00, 16 December 2005 - revert vandalism by Fg2
Reported by: Calton | Talk 01:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
- User (and his IP number) keep changing the text "*[[Lists of radio stations in Asia]]" to "*[[Lists of statio radion in Asia]]", accompanied by frankly bizarre edit summaries such as the above or weird talk-page messages (THANKS A LOT OLORIN28. WITH YOUR ASIAN RADIO STATIONS YOU JUST DESTROYED MY LIFE. BECAUSE OF YOU I AM GOIN TO COMMIT SUICIDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. ARE YOU HAPPY NOW? GO AND LISTEN T YOUR STATIO RADION!! [60].
- I'd normally give him a warning because he's new, but this looks like vandalism, so I'll give him a block. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
User:Theodore7
Three revert rule violation on Astrology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Theodore7 (talk · contribs):
- Previous version reverted to: 18:12, 15 December 2005
- 1st revert: 23:42, 15 December 2005
- 2nd revert: 02:00, 16 December 2005
- 3rd revert: 02:10, 16 December 2005
- 4th revert: 02:27, 16 December 2005
- 5th revert: 02:31, 16 December 2005
- 6th revert: 03:05, 16 December 2005
- 7th revert: 19:29, 16 December 2005
Reported by:BorgQueen 04:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
- User will not listen to the consensus of the other editors. Reverted by several editors already. BorgQueen 04:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Response:
- Left warning on his talk page after latest revert, will block if it continues. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 20:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
User:24.168.61.123
Three revert rule violation on Supergirl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.168.61.123 (talk · contribs):
- Previous version reverted to: 10:13, 14 December 2005
- 1st revert: 07:56, 15 December 2005
- 2nd revert: 14:16, 15 December 2005
- 3rd revert: 17:02, 15 December 2005
- 4th revert: 20:08, 15 December 2005
Reported by: PurplePlatypus
Comments:
- User keeps adding material to Supergirl regarding said character's powers (a total of seven times now I beleive, five of them documented above) which, besides now being a 3RR violation, is not even vaguely NPOV, also violates WP:NOR, and directly contradicts facts clearly stated in recent issues of her comic series. (They're also rather poorly written, for whatever that's worth). Four different editors including myself have reverted these changes at least once, and not one has said anything in support of them. User has ignored two warnings on his talk page (note - these concerned the other policies he was violating, since it was not obvious at the time that he would violate 3RR, though the second one does hint at 3RR as well). User has not made the slightest attempt to seek consensus or compromise. PurplePlatypus 05:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- User has continued all of the above behaviour unabated, with no attempt at discussion. Will post further links soon if it continues with no action taken. I will say the user has greatly improved the wording of the addition he keeps making, but there were many problems with it and that was almost the least of them. The fact remains that it violates all three of the key policies (neutrality, NOR and verifiability), 3RR (twice over now, I think), and the user is making little or no attempt to find consensus. PurplePlatypus 23:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Response:
- Editor appears fairly new, trying a warning first. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 20:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
User:Quackshot
Three revert rule violation on Nintendo Virtual Boy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Quackshot (talk · contribs):
- Previous version reverted to: 15:23, 11 November 2005
- 1st revert: 16:26, 16 December 2005
- 2nd revert: 16:34, 16 December 2005
- 3rd revert: 16:47, 16 December 2005
- 4th revert: 17:03, 16 December 2005
Reported by: Jedi6 17:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
- The User seems to have a vendetta for User:Doom127. The User reverted edits made to a version over a month old. The User's reasoning was that it was Doom127 vandalism. But the edits were not done by Doom127 and were not vandalism. Then the user's reasoning was that the info. violated NPOV which it did not. THe User kept talking about Doom127's conspiracy section but that was not part of the reverts, which makes me suspect that the User didn't read what he/she was reverting. The User then reverted four times. Each time I would respond on the User's talk page or the article's talk page that the User's reasoning(vandalism by Doom127) was wrong. But the User kept reverting. Jedi6 17:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Admin response:
User:84.32.111.225
Three revert rule violation on Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 84.32.111.225 (talk · contribs):
- Previous version reverted to: 16 December 2005
- 1st revert: [61]
- 2nd revert: [62]
- 3rd revert: [63]
- 4th revert: [64]
- 5th revert: [65]
Reported by: --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Blocked, three hours. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 20:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
User:8bitJake
Three revert rule violation on Debbie Schlussel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 8bitJake (talk · contribs):
- 1st revert: [66] <---this reverts the removal of links in a rewrite.
- 2nd revert: [67]
- 3rd revert: [68]
- 4th revert: [69]
Reported by: badlydrawnjeff 20:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Comments: User continues to attempt POV edits, using deceptive edit summaries, and is hostile to consensus building in talk instead of trying to avoid edit wars. Second violation this week. I have requested page protection in the meantime. --badlydrawnjeff 20:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
This is a blatant bogus claim. I followed every rule of the Wikipedia. This is hypocritical considering he has constantly reverted my additions and has made no attempt to include. Page protection and this 3RR is not needed.[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff] is being petulant and vindictive. I backed everything up with documentation and kept NPOV. badlydrawnjeff should be banned from filing 3RR claims.
Response: Blocked for 24 hours. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 20:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
User:Badlydrawnjeff
Three revert rule violation on Template:Debbie Schlussel. Template:8bitJake:
Reported by:
Comments: Ironically this user violated 3RR before making a false 3RR claim against me. He has made 10 edits removing my additions over the last 24 hours.
--8bitJake 20:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Here we go again. Rewrite, One revert, two reverts, one attempt at a consenus link move. This is a bad faith nomination specifically in retaliation for my reporting him, and is getting increasingly frustrating. I have attempted to request page protection at WP:RfPP, and have requested mediation to deal with this continuing saga already. --badlydrawnjeff 20:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
This user clearly can't handle working with other users. --8bitJake 20:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Response:
- Blocked for 24 hours. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 20:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- After reviewing, the first edit I saw wasn't an actual revert. I've removed the block. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 21:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
User:62.194.8.235
Three revert rule violation on Ukrainian language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 62.194.8.235 (talk · contribs):
- Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
- 1st revert: [74] 13:36, December 16, 2005
- 2nd revert: [75] 15:24, December 16, 2005
- 3rd revert: [76] 16:47, December 16, 2005
- 4th revert: [77] 20:08, December 16, 2005
- 5th revert: [78] 20:27, December 16, 2005
Reported by: Irpen 21:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
- Anon user pushes his ideas into the article against consensus. 5 reverts in 7 hours.
Response:
- User seems fairly new, leaving warning on talk page. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 21:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with this action. I hope the user will get the message. --Irpen 00:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
User:R. fiend
I'm not sure what format to follow, since I'm not reporting a 3RR violation. I'm reporting a block for a 3RR violation, which I think was made in error. User:Essjay left Wikipedia recently, after people (including myself) voted to delete the Catholic Church of Wikipedia (which he had put a lot of work into). He announced that he would not be back. His user page is on my watchlist, so I have just seen this, where he says that he is not coming back, but in case anyone has seen the block log, he wants to explain that he had been reading an article and had "noticed a 3RR that hadn't been acted on". I looked at the block log, and found that it was User:R. fiend that he had blocked, for "3RR @ John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy". I looked at the history of that page, and found three reverts from R. fiend, not four. (Unless I'm missing something.) It doesn't seem to have been reported here, with diffs, and no message was left on R. fiend's talk page. (Well, I've just left one.) I'm a fairly new admin, and don't want to jump in and unblock someone that another admin has blocked, so I'd appreciate advice from someone more experienced. Thanks. AnnH (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm certainly not "more experienced", as I almost never use blocks, but I personally think you'd be ok to unblock. As a general rule, if there's no clear explanation for the block, I'd say it can be undone. Obviously, asking the blocking admin would be nice, but he's gone. At any rate, a block without a notification to the blocked user is certainly wrong. Friday (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- It's not a 3RR violation. I can see how confusion could have arisen, but I cannot construe that set of edits as a revert. I am unblocking. [[Sam Korn]] 22:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
User:Chooserr
Three revert rule violation on Xenophon (talk · history · watch). Chooserr (talk • contribs)
- 1st revert: [79] 23:46, 15 December 2005
- 2nd revert: [80] 01:32, 16 December 2005
- 3rd revert: [81] 04:51, 16 December 2005
- 4th revert: [82] 22:02, 16 December 2005
- 5th revert: [83] 23:35, 16 December 2005
Reported by: FCYTravis 23:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment, I don't believe all of these were within a twenty four hour period and if so it was to revert vandalism. Each time I gave an explanation, and I was truthfully unaware I had done so. Thanks, Chooserr 23:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Five were within a 24-hour-period - 23:46 GMT 12/15 to 23:35 GMT 12/16 - and engaging in an edit war over BC/BCE is hardly reverting vandalism. FCYTravis 23:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- It wasn't an edit war to me. I originally made it consistent under BC/AD (before it was 2 BC, and 2 BCE) and the other editors' the changes were against wiki policy, and if I'm blocked so should the others. Chooserr 00:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- The others (including myself) were careful not to violate WP:3RR. I stopped at three. You should have too. FCYTravis 00:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- It wasn't an edit war to me. I originally made it consistent under BC/AD (before it was 2 BC, and 2 BCE) and the other editors' the changes were against wiki policy, and if I'm blocked so should the others. Chooserr 00:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Five were within a 24-hour-period - 23:46 GMT 12/15 to 23:35 GMT 12/16 - and engaging in an edit war over BC/BCE is hardly reverting vandalism. FCYTravis 23:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Plus, it was a dirty trick and a ruse (wheel war?) to get me suspended from wikipedia. I believed the first 2 were in the 24 hour period and so were the latter 2. Chooserr 00:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Ha, so it was a Wheel War which I've been told by certain admins is against wikipedia policy. I would like to therefore nominate you for temporary expulsion from wikipedia. Chooserr 00:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- WP:3RR is a firewall that's supposed to get people to step back and examine things instead of endlessly reverting. I stepped back from the issue when I hit my limit. You didn't. You have been reverted by multiple users, and are the only person continuing this edit war. You had a choice - step back from the edit war to discuss the issue, or keep reverting. You chose to keep reverting. That violates policy. FCYTravis 00:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Ha, so it was a Wheel War which I've been told by certain admins is against wikipedia policy. I would like to therefore nominate you for temporary expulsion from wikipedia. Chooserr 00:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- I understand what the 3rvt rule if for, and while not agreeing with it wasn't intent on violating it I believed that it was 2 on each day that I had made, and if someone had changed it once more I would have alerted someone else to the problem so as not to violate my third rvt which I still thought I possessed. As for the stepping back, no ones POV would be changed and I was just told by an admin who I'll add in a second that once it's consistent don't war at all. You initiated this and if anyone deserves blocking it's you. Chooserr 00:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Ignorantia juris non excusat. I hardly see how you can argue "I initiated it" given that you tried the same thing three times last week [84] [85] [86] and were reverted by three different people. The fact that I was the one to catch it this time hardly makes me the initiator. FCYTravis 00:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- I understand what the 3rvt rule if for, and while not agreeing with it wasn't intent on violating it I believed that it was 2 on each day that I had made, and if someone had changed it once more I would have alerted someone else to the problem so as not to violate my third rvt which I still thought I possessed. As for the stepping back, no ones POV would be changed and I was just told by an admin who I'll add in a second that once it's consistent don't war at all. You initiated this and if anyone deserves blocking it's you. Chooserr 00:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- User:Chooserr has yet to serve the 24-hour block that he successfully evaded via the use of a sock puppet account and anonymous IP addresses. (His two following blocks were unrelated, but one was the result of date warring.) His next block should take this into account (and be extended for every evasion attempt). —Lifeisunfair 00:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
To report a new violation
Place new reports **ABOVE** this header, using the template below. Do NOT edit the template itself. See the example at the top of the page for full details. Take the time to do the job right to get the quickest responses. Use diffs, not versions, and the "compare versions" button!
===[[User:USERNAME]]=== [[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|ARTICLENAME}}. {{User|USERNAME}}: * Previous version reverted to: [Link Time] * 1st revert: [DiffLink Time] * 2nd revert: [DiffLink Time] * 3rd revert: [DiffLink Time] * 4th revert: [DiffLink Time] Reported by: '''Comments:''' *