Anderson12 (talk | contribs) |
Lou franklin (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 1,507: | Line 1,507: | ||
*Blocked for 24 hours. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>[[User:BorgHunter/AntiUBX|ubx]]</s></sup> ([[User_talk:BorgHunter|talk]]) 02:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC) |
*Blocked for 24 hours. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>[[User:BorgHunter/AntiUBX|ubx]]</s></sup> ([[User_talk:BorgHunter|talk]]) 02:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC) |
||
===[[User:Sethmahoney]]=== |
|||
[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Societal attitudes towards homosexuality}}. {{3RRV|Sethmahoney}}: |
|||
* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Societal_attitudes_towards_homosexuality&diff=41571373&oldid=41571152] |
|||
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Societal_attitudes_towards_homosexuality&diff=41565406&oldid=41561823] |
|||
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Societal_attitudes_towards_homosexuality&diff=41561737&oldid=41561608] |
|||
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Societal_attitudes_towards_homosexuality&diff=41561608&oldid=41561446] |
|||
Reported by: [[User:Lou franklin|Lou franklin]] 05:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Report new violation == |
== Report new violation == |
Revision as of 05:52, 28 February 2006
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard |
---|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
Violations
User:Wyss
Three revert rule violation on Adolf Hitler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wyss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Revert #1 [[1]]
- Revert #2[[2]]
- Revert #3[[3]]
- Revert #4[[4]]
- Revert #5[[5]]
Comments
- This user has been edit warring for some time, and has violated the 3RR rule a number of times. Has been warned to stop by other users but does not. Hence I feel I have to report this so she can have a cool down period.
- I note she will often threaten to report anyone who might revert.
- A warining about civility policy is in order. See other user complaint as example of abusive patterns on the Admin noticeboard Incidents on for this same page:[[6]]
4.243.158.251 23:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The comments are rather distorted. The above user is likely the same as all the other red-linked users/sockpuppets who have been revert-warring at AH in the first place. Wyss 00:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- The comment is not distorted at all. Once again Wyss tries to defame other users to defend her own edits (most recently, she twice posted and defended this statement "The evidence is building rapidly that User:Giovanni33 is now using sockpuppets User:Kecik and User:MikaM to continue this disruptive revert war." even though there was no such evidence and a check eventually proved her assertion to be false.) I request admin to check the block log and the list of incidents reported here - and to pre-empt Wyss's defamations, a user/sockpuppet check will also reveal that I am not the poster above or any of the other users Wyss mentions. -- Simonides 02:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
User:70.19.53.214
Three revert rule violation on List of Catholic American Actors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
70.19.53.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 02:50, 16 February 2006
- 1st revert: 20:36, 16 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 22:48, 16 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 22:57, 16 February 2006
- 4th revert: 23:09, 16 February 2006
- 5th revert: 23:17, 16 February 2006
Reported by: Demiurge 23:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Personal abuse [7] [8], and ignoring requests to follow WP:CITE [9]. Demiurge 23:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Blocked 24h for 3rr William M. Connolley 20:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC).
User:68.110.9.62
Three revert rule violation on List of the monarchs of the Kingdom of England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.110.9.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
- 1st revert: [DiffLink Time]
- 2nd revert: [DiffLink Time]
- 3rd revert: [DiffLink Time]
- 4th revert: [DiffLink Time]
Reported by: Mais oui! 23:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Well, have you told User:TharkunColl about this rule? 68.110.9.62 23:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Personal abuse: [10]--Mais oui! 23:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Personal abuse:[11]--68.110.9.62 00:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Reverted a personal attack is not abuse. --
Rory09600:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)- rv infant, is most certainly abusive speech. 68.110.9.62 15:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- I have blocked TharkunColl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 68.110.9.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for violating WP:3RR on List of the monarchs of the Kingdom of England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). —bbatsell ¿? 00:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
User:87.202.17.146
Three revert rule violation on Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 87.202.17.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 01:05, 17 February 2006
- 1st revert: [12]
- 2nd revert: [13]
- 3rd revert: [14]
- 4th revert: [15]
Comments: Despite repeated warnings, User:87.202.17.146 continues to revert to his preferred version, with vandalism included. [16]
Reported by: Phædriel ♥ tell me - 01:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked for a week by User:Jkelly--MONGO 02:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Various on NiMUD
User:151.201.48.208
Three revert rule violation on NiMUD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Young_Zaphod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 68.162.148.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 151.201.48.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 20:03, 12 February 2006
- 1st revert: 02:10, 14 February 2006 by 68.162.148.34
- 2nd revert: 03:02, 14 February 2006 by Young Zaphod
- 3rd revert: 10:49, 14 February 2006 by 68.162.148.34
- 4th revert: 20:25, 14 February 2006 by Young Zaphod
- 5th revert 11:14, 15 February 2006 151.201.48.208
- 6th revert 11:16, 15 February 2006 Young Zaphod (rv Nope.)
- 7th revert 13:42, 15 February 2006 Young Zaphod
- 8th revert 18:25, 15 February 2006 151.201.48.208
- 9th revert: 21:50, 15 February 2006 151.201.48.208
- 10th revert: 20:24, 16 February 2006 151.201.48.208
Reported by: Jlambert 03:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User have been repeatedly entreated to discussion on talk page.
- Users warned
- Checkuser requested for Young_Zaphod yesterday
- See prior complaint Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Young_Zaphod
- See prior complaint and ban for 3RR/socks Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:68.162.148.34
- User gaming the system/w socks
User:68.162.148.34
Three revert rule violation on NiMUD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Young_Zaphod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 68.162.148.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 151.201.48.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 20:03, 12 February 2006
- 1st revert: 02:10, 14 February 2006 by 68.162.148.34
- 2nd revert: 03:02, 14 February 2006 by Young Zaphod
- 3rd revert: 10:49, 14 February 2006 by 68.162.148.34
- 4th revert: 20:25, 14 February 2006 by Young Zaphod
- 5th revert 11:14, 15 February 2006 151.201.48.208
- 6th revert 11:16, 15 February 2006 Young Zaphod
- 7th revert 13:42, 15 February 2006 Young Zaphod
- 8th revert 18:25, 15 February 2006 151.201.48.208
- 9th revert: 21:50, 15 February 2006 151.201.48.208
- 10th revert: 20:24, 16 February 2006 151.201.48.208
Reported by: Jlambert 03:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Users have been repeatedly entreated to discussion on talk page.
- Users warned
- Checkuser requested for Young_Zaphod yesterday
- See prior complaint Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Young_Zaphod
- See prior complaint and ban for 3RR/socks Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:68.162.148.34
- User gaming the system/w socks
These are a bit stale now, but: you need to get checkuser to confirm they are one person, or some other good evidence. William M. Connolley 17:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC).
- I'm not actually sure how to get them to confirm it aside from posting it in their list of things to confirm, which as Jlambert points out, is what I did on the 16th :P They seem to have a bit of a backlog to go through. Would it have been better for me to make my reports here only after getting the results there? I figured that the results for Eggster would have been good enough to show that it's likely to be the same person this time as well, especially considering these IPs are still in Pittsburgh, and that Eggster stopped contributing when Young Zaphod started, and the remarkable similarity with their edits. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 22:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Checkuser request was made 2 - 3 days ago, so they would be stale. Jlambert 02:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know what would be good evidence, but here is an example of the 151 address going back 10 minutes later and adding more text to one of Young Zaphod's AFD comments. I've noticed him doing similar things on talk pages before. There's also this which I posted on 3RR before, showing Young Zaphod changing the signature on one of 68.162.148.34's comments to his own. Ehheh 20:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Checkuser request has results. And yes the continual reverting has continued. He's reverting everyday since this was reported. Now gaming the 24 hour clock. Jlambert 04:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Chcknwnm
Three revert rule violation on Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chcknwnm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: various
- 1st revert: 09:43, February 16, 2006
- 2nd revert: 20:07, February 16, 2006
- 3rd revert: 01:32, February 17, 2006
- 4th revert: 03:10, February 17, 2006
- 5th revert: 03:48, February 17, 2006
- Blocked for 24 hours.Geni 04:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
82.141.187.170
Three revert rule violation on Fresno, California. 82.141.187.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 00:33, 16 February 2006
- 1st revert: 11:41, 16 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 20:10, 16 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 22:14, 16 February 2006
- 4th revert: 09:23, 17 February 2006
Reported by: Dsol 08:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Leyasu
Three revert rule violation and vandalism on Gothic music and nu metal. - Deathrocker 13:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- You too are violating 3RR. I've protected Gothic music to calm you both down Sceptre (Talk) 13:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Would you please do something about User:Leyasu? As you can see higher up this page, they are frequent in their vandalism and breaking of the 3RR, thanks! - Deathrocker 13:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Is there any consensus that Gothic music is Goth music? Sceptre (Talk) 13:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
The only person who seems to think other wise is User:Leyasu, I think its pretty obvious that Gothic music, is Goth music. - Deathrocker 13:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Any on-wiki proof on consensus??? Sceptre (Talk) 14:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked both of you under 3rr until tommorow night. Sceptre (Talk) 17:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
User:MikaM
Three revert rule violation on Adolf Hitler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MikaM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
Please see the case of User:Kecik reported above. Like Kecik, MikaM was a newly-registered user whose purpose seemed to be to revert for Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See comments above (at Kecik section) for information about Giovanni's link to BelindaGong and Freethinker99. All four editors revert constantly to Giovanni's version, and support him on the talk page. With the exception of Freethinker99, who was blocked after Giovanni accidentally signed a post while logged on as Freethinker 99, they all follow Giovanni to other articles (which they would be unlikely as newcomers to find by chance), and revert for him and vote for his edits there.
It is hard to give a "previous version reverted to", as sometimes they are partial reverts. The dispute seems in part to have been over Giovanni's Kecik's, MikaM's (etc.) wish to use the word "fascist", which met with opposition on the talk page.
- 1st revert 03:18, 16 February (Edit summary shows it's a revert.
- 2nd revert 15:25, 16 February
- 3rd revert 00:06 17 February
- 4th revert 00:36 17 February
- 5th revert 00:48 17 February
Reported by: AnnH (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- MikaM removed a warning of danger of violation of 3RR from his/her talk page.[17] Later, he/she removed a reminder of having violated it.[18]
Another point: MikaM acknowledged here that the IP address 69.107.7.138 was his/hers. 69.106.243.31 is probably the same person, as it's a very similar address and an edit which MikaM wanted, according to discussion on the talk page. So it was interesting to see the appearance of 69.107.21.3 to support MikaM:
- This shows a strong connection between the three IP addresses.
I asked MikaM on the Christianity talk page to state whether or not the IP edits came from him/her, saying that if so, we'd still be willing to move on, and that we had always been very slow to report 3RR violations at that page, especially when it involved a newcomer, but that following Giovanni's behaviour, we really did need to know if anyone was using sockpuppets, meatpuppets or alternating between username and IP address to get round 3RR. MikaM was offended, and refused to answer. Note also that a checkuser did not show any connection between MikaM and other registered users, but of course would not look for reverts done while not logged in. AnnH (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- comment: It's not suprising seeing AnnH selectively go after MikaM, who she is also attacking due to her Pov dispute. The continued allegations are in bad faith being pushed by a handful of edit warriors as a result of POV differences. This borders on harassment, and has been very disruptive. The aggressive hounding by AnnH of this matter, by repeating it as often as she can, and expanding it to anyone whose agreed with me, is taking the form of an inquisition; users have left Wikipedia in protest describing it as such, included valued older users. Yet, AnnH continues to lead this attack spreading bad faith interpretations and distruptive speculations. She is careful to follow the letter of the rules herself (only once slipping past her 3 reverts in 24 hour that she describes as an accident), although this McCarthy like witch hunt is certainly violating the spirit of several other equally important wiki rules and principals.Giovanni33 08:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- I must take exception to the statement that users have left Wikipedia in disgust over my "aggressive hounding". SOPHIA seems to have gone, only temporarily, I hope, after a checkuser showed that she was sharing an IP address with another user, and an uninvolved administrator tagged the other user as a sockpuppet. I had requested the checkuser, as many brand new users were supporting Giovanni and reverting to his versions, but had not included SOPHIA in it. I removed the sockpuppet notice from her husband's user page, and when she complained that it would still be in the history, I deleted that edit from the history, and asked her to let me know if I could do anything else to help. (The checkuser request was certainly justified, as it showed that Giovanni33 and BelindaGong, who both reverted constantly to each other's versions while pretending not to know each other, were editing from the same IP.) The other user who may have left over this is Freethinker99 who (if he exists) was blocked after trying to give the appearance of a brand new user who just happened to agree with Giovanni (and reverted three times to something Giovanni wanted) and then accidentally signed Giovanni's post while logged on as Freethinker. AnnH (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked Sceptre (Talk) 17:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Lou franklin
First incident
Three revert rule violation on Societal attitudes towards homosexuality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lou_franklin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- 1st revert: 22:33, February 16, 2006
- 2nd revert: 23:26, February 16, 2006
- 3rd revert: 23:34, February 16, 2006
- 4th revert: 00:40, February 17, 2006
- 5th revert: 07:38, February 17, 2006
Reported by: Rhobite 17:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Second incident
Three revert rule violation on Societal attitudes towards homosexuality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lou_franklin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- 1st revert: 26 février 2006 à 15:52
- 2nd revert: 26 février 2006 à 15:21
- 3rd revert: 26 février 2006 à 14:43
Reported by: Cleduc 21:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Third incident
Three revert rule violation (up to six today) on Societal attitudes towards homosexuality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lou_franklin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- 12:43, 26 February 2006
- 13:21, 26 February 2006
- 13:52, 26 February 2006
- 19:28, 26 February 2006
- 19:44, 26 February 2006
- 20:03, 26 February 2006
Reported by: Georgewilliamherbert 03:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC) But wait, there was more before User:Guanaco blocked him...
Updated: Georgewilliamherbert 03:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
User: 69.196.139.250
69.196.139.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on Kurdish_people
- Previous version [19]
- 1st revert: [20] [21]
- 2nd revert: [22]
- 3 rd revert: [23] [24]
- 4th revert Possible (99%) suckpuppet: [25]
Comments:
Unfortunately this user systematically and continuously vandalises this page as well as some other kurdish related articles. (Has many strange claims without any citiation.) Diyako Talk 19:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- It doesn't look like vandalism, but a content war. OTOH it does like a 3rr break; blocked 36h. William M. Connolley 20:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC).
User:Humus sapiens
Three revert rule violation on Washington_Institute_for_Near_East_Policy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Humus sapiens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
- 1st revert: [26]
- 2nd revert: [27]
- 3rd revert: [28]
- 4th revert: [29]
Reported by: User:70.108.165.240
Comments:
For some reason, Hummus Sapiens does not want users to see the trustees of this organization, and uses the "well poising" phrase to explain his censorship.
- Comment by ←Humus sapiens ну?. As you can see, one of the reverts is not mine, but the reporting anonymous. As a matter of fact, it is s/he who broke the 3RR (unreported as of yet) and failed to discuss the edits on talk. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest that both editors read Wikipedia:External links. You both, however, broke 3RR. So I'm blocking you both until midnight tonight, GMT Sceptre (Talk) 09:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- I insist that I have not violated the 3RR policy. I am afraid Sceptre believed an anon IP who provided fake diffs, please doublecheck: the #4 is his edit and not mine. In the spirit of good faith I fixed the 3RR entry (filed against myself, because the anon broke the format of 3RR page) and added a comment. The anon failed to respond at talk and chose to engage in edit war. This is my first block in all my 2.5 years here. Since I have been blocked unjustly, I request it to be erased from my record. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- I believe that only a developer can erase these things. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- I insist that I have not violated the 3RR policy. I am afraid Sceptre believed an anon IP who provided fake diffs, please doublecheck: the #4 is his edit and not mine. In the spirit of good faith I fixed the 3RR entry (filed against myself, because the anon broke the format of 3RR page) and added a comment. The anon failed to respond at talk and chose to engage in edit war. This is my first block in all my 2.5 years here. Since I have been blocked unjustly, I request it to be erased from my record. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Deiaemeth
Three revert rule violation on Korean-Japanese disputes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Deiaemeth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 16:46, 16 February 2006
- 1st revert: 02:38, 17 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 15:34, 17 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 01:02, 18 February 2006
- 4th revert: 02:33, 18 February 2006
- Revert by possible sockpuppet: 22:15, 17 February 2006, by DueDiehcal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Reported by: Endroit 03:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- There may be other reverts by Deiaemeth inbetween in the same 24-hour period.
- There are other reverts beyond this, and the Edit War is continuing now between Deiaemeth and others.
- I have filed a WP:RCU to see if DueDiehcal (talk · contribs) and others are sockpuppet(s) of Deiaemeth. See Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser#DueDiehcal (talk • contribs) and others.
- I believe Deiaemeth has been warned about 3RR before. Please check his talk page.--Endroit 03:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked for 24 hours Sceptre (Talk) 09:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Macedonia 2
Three revert rule violation on Macedonians (ethnic group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Macedonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 05:33, 17 February 2006
- 1st revert: 21:55, 17 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 22:18, 17 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 17:29, 18 February 2006
- 4th revert: 18:03, 18 February 2006
Reported by: --Latinus (talk (el:)) 18:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- The user is deleting sourced information. The source can be seen on the diff pages. This user has also violated the rule on the same article two times [30] after being reverted by multiple users. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 18:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Already blocked by User:Sceptre. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 18:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
User:86.42.143.118
Three revert rule violation on Radio Telefís Éireann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 86.42.143.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 09:48 17th February.
- 1st revert: 18:57 18th February
- 2nd revert: 19:15 18th February
- 3rd revert: 19:29 18th February
- 4th revert: 19:48 18th February
Reported by: Kiand 19:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Constantly returning an external link to their site pushing a heavy POV about the Irish television licence - which is not levied by and does not entirely go to RTÉ. Was warned about the 3RR, proceeded to break it. He changes the title of the link every time, however its still a revert as its the same link.
- Blocked for 24 hours Sceptre (Talk) 20:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Space Cadet
Three revert rule violation on Treaty of Welawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Space_Cadet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- 4th revert: [34]
Reported by: Schwartz und Weiss 22:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
That's ridiculous! The fourth one is not even a revert! Space Cadet 22:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC) It was Ksenon who reverted four times, double check. Space Cadet 22:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- (Ksenon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Oh stop it the pair of you. Both blocked, you can have half each. William M. Connolley 23:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC).
- I think SC is right here: his fourth edit was not a revert, just inclusion of minor information that does not seem to be disputed on the talk page.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Its marginal. If he wasn't a serial offender, I probably wouldn't have blocked him. If he wants to skate this close to the line, he should read the rules more carefully. William M. Connolley 09:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC).
User:LaszloWalrus
Three revert rule violation on Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). LaszloWalrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 20:09, 17 February 2006
- 1st revert: 15:48, 18 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 00:35, 19 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 01:20, 19 February 2006
- 4th revert: 02:33, 19 February 2006
Reported by: Alienus 07:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- There's been some disagreement about whether Rand fits into the LGBT rights opposition category. This has been handled in Talk so far, but now LazloWalrus has decided to abandon discussion and just edit war. After I rebutted his last attempt to justify deleting the category, he's given up on trying to argue based on the facts and is instead deleting the category repeatedly. With each restore, I ask him to come back to Talk and continue the discussion, but he's refused. Instead, even after I warned him — in the article and the discussion page and his own talk page — that he's approaching 3RR, he's violated it. I'm asking for a 24 hour ban so that he'll be motivated to discuss his desired change rather than forcing it. Alienus 07:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Alienus's accusation borders on lying. He is the lone supporter for Rand's categorization in "LGBT rights opposition," against a consensus of four or five to delete this categorization; I am merely expressing the will of the consensus. LaszloWalrus 07:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- While there's controversy, presumably because strong, self-avowed supporters of Rand (such as yourself) are embarassed by her stance against homosexuality, the fact is that this categorization is accurate and sourced. I freely admit that the categorization is not popular, but nobody has actually come up with an excuse to remove it that withstands basic scrutiny. The big difference between you and others who dislike it is that you're not willing to talk about it. This isn't the first time you edit-warred over it, just the first time you got caught in a 3RR violation. For that matter, it's not as if I'm the only person who thinks this category is appropriate: 132.241.41.170 must have, else they wouldn't have inserted the category to begin with. Look, the bottom line here is that this is a content dispute, not simple vandalism, so even if I'm dead wrong about the categorization, you're out of line. I want you to be given a day where you can't edit-war, so that you'll be motivated to actually talk. Maybe you can actually support your point and convince me to back off. Alienus 08:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Adidas98
Three revert rule violation on Mike Del Grande (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Adidas98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 12:07, 18 February 2006
- 1st revert: 05:19, 19 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 05:21, 19 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 05:38, 19 February 2006
- 4th revert: 05:42, 19 February 2006
- 5th revert: 05:47, 19 February 2006
Reported by: Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 13:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- The page seems to have been under steady attack by several anons until it was semi-protected; I have a feeling Adidas98, a new user with edits ONLY to the article in question is an account created to get by the protection. -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 14:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked for 24 hours Sceptre (Talk) 15:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Space Cadet (4th time this month)
Three revert rule violation on Prussia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Space_Cadet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- 1st revert: 15:05, February 19, 2006
- 2nd revert: 00:03, February 19, 2006
- 3rd revert: 22:21, February 18, 2006
- 4th revert: 14:55, February 18, 2006
Reported by: Chris 73 | Talk 17:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Space cadet has already been blocked 3 times this month for a 3RR. While the reverts on Prussia are not within 24 hours, the last revert is only 10 minutes outside of the 24 hour period, gaming the rule. It seems, a 24 hour block does not impress him, and I believe a block for more than 24 hours is well justified. -- Chris 73 | Talk 17:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Leifern
Three revert rule violation on Homeopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Leifern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 14:30, 18 February 2006
- 1st revert: 15:30, 18 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 15:43, 18 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 10:46, 19 February 2006
- 4th revert: 11:16, 19 February 2006
Reported by: Skinwalker 17:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User insists on removing a paragraph on the scientific efficacy of homeopathy, without discussion or consensus on the talk page. This paragraph is the result of several months of negotiation and revision by pro- and anti- editors. Skinwalker 17:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
User:RPJ/User:66.91.203.81
Three revert rule violation on Lee Harvey Oswald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RPJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/66.91.203.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 16:47, 18 February 2006 RPJ
- 1st revert: 00:04, 19 February 2006 RPJ
- 2nd revert: 03:39, 19 February 2006 66.91.203.81
- 3rd revert: 16:30, 19 February 2006 RPJ
- 4th revert: 17:19, 19 February 2006 RPJ
Reported by: Gamaliel 22:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- RPJ and 66.91.203.81 are the same person. This isn't a sockpuppet so much as RPJ just not logging in. RPJ goes back and signs 66.91.203.81's posts when s/he logs in, so there really isn't any dispute about this.
Hipocrite
I believe Hipocrite has violated the 3rvt rule on Emergency Contraception even though he didn't explicitly call his reverts as such. The reason is that the rule says that to revert in full or part more than three times is to violate the rule, and the first two were in full while the last two were in part. Chooserr 00:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Reverts:
Comments:
And while I'm not sure if this matters or if you want to hear about it here he was also inconsistent as to the reason he was reverting, at first stating WP:NOR, before moving on to accuse me of instating a bias into my text, when I pointed out the link I'd added. Chooserr 00:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Is anyone monitoring this page? Chooserr 00:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC) (well the fact that you put in a report to a redlinked page probably didn't help... corrected William M. Connolley 20:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC))
- Comment: The second, third, and forth revert are simply attempts to re-ad a {fact} flag on incorrect material. By using the {fact} flag, Hipocrite is showing good faith.--Colle|File:Locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 00:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment:Colle's version isn't quite accurate, but that is the reason I provided the links. If you were to compare the current version to that prior to my last version you will also notice he deleted the entire first paragraph. Chooserr 00:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
My suspicion is that the fairest thing would be to split the block between you. But since the warring appears to be over for the moment, I won't (others feel free to disagree). Please both stop edit warring and talk nicely. William M. Connolley 20:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC).
I need not have agonized: 2006-02-20 03:20:28 GTBacchus blocked "Chooserr (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (3RR on Abortion) [39]
User:Kuban kazak
Three revert rule violation on Belarusian Byzantine Catholic Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kuban_kazak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 12:47, January 22, 2006
- 1st revert: 21:53, February 18, 2006
- 2nd revert: 12:42, February 19, 2006
- 3rd revert: 22:20, February 19, 2006
- 4th revert: 00:22, February 20, 2006
- 5th revert: 10:14, February 20, 2006
Reported by: Gentgeen 11:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- I'm involved in the dispute. This user has been blocked for 3RR violations in the past, with apparently not much improvement in behavior. Gentgeen 11:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Moreover the 4th and 5th reverts if you compare with the first three third are not exactly the same, in fact I took note of the comments and attempted to NPOV the article with the 4th editIf one compares them.--Kuban Cossack 13:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Blocked 24h. Reverts don't have to be exact. More on your talk page. William M. Connolley 20:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC).
User:Licorne
For Licorne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Three revert rule violation on David Hilbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (too many reversions to count)
- Three revert rule violation on Albert Einstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (many reversions)
I'd also like to see David Hilbert and Priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories protected.
Reported by: CH 04:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments: This is part of a content dispute as ugly as anything I've seen in 9 months at WP. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Licorne. Note that it seems that User:De kludde at White Nationalist Wiki is same as User:De kludde here at WP; this user may have written the following articles at wnwiki:
- [wnwiki.ath.cx/index.php/Corry_Renn_Stachel_paper Corry Renn Stachel paper]
- [wnwiki.ath.cx/index.php/Henri_Poincaré Henri Poincaré]
- [wnwiki.ath.cx/index.php/Albert_Einstein Albert Einstein]
Numerous users have repeatedly asked Licorne to stop making these inflammatory and highly POV edits. Can an admin please protect these pages until the content dispute is resolved? (Versions by Joke 137, FastFission, Paul August, are IMO minimally inflammatory versions; versions by Licorne and De_kludde and anons tend to be highly POV). ---CH 06:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see the edits where he revert repeatedly in the last day? Can you point them out? He has edited but he's only reverted twice as far as I can tell or am I missing something? Sasquatch t|c 09:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I was doing something else. In reverse order, see
For maximal effect you need to check the differences and look at the RfC. ---CH 09:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not abusing wikiterminology or something, am I? Licorne doesn't revert to his previous version in the strict sense. He keeps making highly inflammatory edits which multiple other users keep reverting. Where can I complain about that? As I see it, the point is that the multiple reversions by all these other users represent better judgement in this case of what makes a suitable WP article. This seems to be consensus view, if that matters. In any case, I think the cure is to temporarily protect these pages and to counsel Licorne to seek remediation via the RfC. ---CH 10:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Its a complex pattern, but it looks (I only checked David Hilbert) like (a) 3rr and (b) blatant disruption. Blocked William M. Connolley 10:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC).
Good, thanks. I hope he turns his attention to the RfC when he comes back. ---CH 10:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Badagnani
Three revert rule violation on Kent State shootings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Badagnani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: [43]
- 1st revert: [44] at 1:19
- 2nd revert: [45] at 1:20
- 3rd revert: [46] at 1:23
- 4th revert: [47] at 1:29
Reported by: Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 06:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- A Kent State student, Badagnani refuses to deal with issues on the talk page recently, won't even address them except to say it's ridiculous, his version is better
- reverts hours of work improving an article, including re-inserting misspellings and incorrect apostrophe use
- reverts stuff that has been "disputed" on the talk page since December, that he's never bothered even trying to address
- was warned repeatedly through edit summaries about 3RR ((rvt, That's 2 reverts for you, 2 for me. PLEASE CONSIDER USING THE TALK PAGE TO ADDRESS SUBJECTS and There, that's 3 reverts each. Any more and either of us would be banned for breaking WP:3RR.
- I'm not sure what admin policy is on undoing reverts made past 3RR, since I am at my third revert on that article tonight, I would appreciate if it could be put back, as it is one of the articles featured on WP:Bounty that we are trying to bring to Featured Status.
- My edits do not constitute >3RR as three of the reverts are for one section of the article, and the other revert mentioned was for another. Sherurcij has been deleting valid information (including, for example, a sourced quote from Governor James Rhodes and a mention of the slashing of firehoses during the ROTC building fire), in the interest of "improving" the article. These deletions show his/her lack of knowledge about the subject. S/he also makes NPOV comments on the Discussion page, and, worst of all, often uses profanity and SHOUTING. Badagnani 06:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- They are all reverting the same edits, so yes they do. (Even if you did revert things seperately to try and be "sneaky"). Also, the quote from Rhodes is still listed, what I removed was the "generous extrapolation" which was never sourced. ("A riot destroying the University" is sourced "planning to overthrow the US Government" is not. Also, "slashing firehoses with pocketknives" has been mentioned as being physically impossible on the talkpage, and surprise...you've never addressed it). I think you're confusing NPOV and POV, but I'm curious about your comments, since you seem to refuse to address anything on the discussion page. I'm a he, yes I sometimes say "damn", you can learn to live with it, it's not like I'm putting it in the damn article. And I don't shout, I use ALL CAPS when it seems you are ignoring edit summaries. In summary, this is a 3RR page, if you want to argue semantics about firehose physics use the damn talk page for the article. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 07:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The last one wasn't really a revert. He changed back a cery small section of the edit. Either way, both of you should stop edit warring. Period. Take the next 24 hours off to think about how you can compromise. Sasquatch t|c 09:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Molobo
Three revert rule violation on German Eastern Marches Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Molobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 23:23, 16 February 2006
- 1st revert: 18:52, 20 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 19:06, 20 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 19:15, 20 February 2006
- 4th (partial) revert: 20:19, 20 February 2006 & 09:03, 21 February 2006
Reported by: Sciurinæ 11:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments This RfCed user is a repeated offender of the 3RR and would often join User:Space Cadet's (see above) frontline in revert wars. He has started revert warring even on my talk page ([48], [49], [50]) and would become very personal on talk pages in general. This particularly war started when Molobo disliked an edit by User:Maria Stella and reverted to a version over which Molobo and I had already had disagreement. The fourth revert are edits by him to that effect. He vowed to continue the war. Given that he should maybe follow his own principles concerning a Wikibreak anyway, I see no reason why a cool-down period for him shouldn't be appropriate. Sciurinæ 11:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed. Molobo is an experienced revert warrior whose edits consist of little but reverts. He should know the rules better than anyone posting on this page, so he tries to fool the admins and eschew 3RR violations by introducing minor modifications to his reverts. I believe he would be glad to share the fate of his buddy Kosmak, who is blocked for a week. --Ghirla | talk 11:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Blocked 24h (though I considered longer). 4th is a revert William M. Connolley 12:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC).
User:Harmil
Three revert rule violation on Psionics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Harmil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
Reported by: Ardenn 16:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User:Ardenn is a vandal who regularly removes text and links from articles without explanation and refuses to engage in substantive discussion on talk pages, and who regularly "games" the 3RR rule himself. Monicasdude 17:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
User:85.219.173.251 and User:131.173.252.9
Three revert rule violation on Gdańsk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 85.219.173.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 131.173.252.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- 1st revert: 17:18, February 21, 2006
- 2nd revert: 21:30, February 20, 2006
- 3rd revert: 20:56, February 20, 2006
- 4th revert: 19:45, February 20, 2006
and
- 1st revert: 15:29, February 21, 2006
- 2st revert: 20:59, February 20, 2006
- 3st revert: 20:43, February 20, 2006
- 4st revert: 18:03, February 20, 2006 (Multiple edits)
Reported by: Chris 73 | Talk 17:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Both blocked for 24 hours. Other admins may unblock if they think this block is not justified. The article is frequently reverted, two registered users are currently blocked for a 3RR. Not sure if any of these URL's are sockpuppets. -- Chris 73 | Talk 17:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
User:WAREL
4 partial reverts in less than 12 hours at Real number
The user has been warned before: [59]
We, mathemticians, agreed that the information in question is not relevant in that article, see also the article history. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
User:69.196.199.49
Three revert rule violation on Wayne Gretzky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.196.199.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
new anon IP user
Reported by: Mr Pyles 19:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Mark Bourrie
Three revert rule violation on Rachel Marsden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mark_Bourrie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- 1st revert: [64]
- 2nd revert: [65]
- 3rd revert: [66]
- 4th revert: [67]
- 5th revert: [68]
- 6th revert: [69]
Reported by: Cyberboomer 22:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User has been blocked before.
Blocked 24h; could be more? William M. Connolley 22:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. Should be more. User got a 7th revert one minute before you blocked him. Thank you William. --Cyberboomer 22:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- 7th revert: [70]
- User is on a National Library of Canada computer user:142.78.64.58 and continues to revert. --Cyberboomer 21:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
User:66.56.216.163
Three revert rule violation on Mystery Science Theater 3000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 66.56.216.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
Reported by: TheRealFennShysa 00:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Anonymous user keeps insterting commercial bootleg site. Consensus on talk page has been to keep such links off the site. User continually re-adds site.
Blocked 24h. William M. Connolley 09:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
User:85.206.164.9
Three revert rule violation on Brokeback Mountain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 85.206.164.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
Reported by: eaolson 00:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- A similar IP, presumably the same individual, has tried to add an external link several times; each time it was removed. This time it seems to have sparked a revert war.
- User has been removing the entire External Links section, in apparent retaliation for his link not being included.
SamuelWantman blocked "85.206.164.9 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Violation of WP:3RR after warning.) William M. Connolley 10:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Zmmz
Three revert rule violation on Parthia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zmmz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- 1st revert: 15:13, 21 Feb
- 2nd revert: 16:18, 21 Feb
- 3rd revert: 18:35, 21 Feb
- 4th revert: 20:59, 21 Feb
- 5th revert: 21:23, 21 Feb
Reported by: siafu 02:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- This user also edits from the IP 149.68.55.134. See Talk:Parthia for dispute; user continues to refuse to discuss the issue at hand, repeatedly stating "this discussion is over" &c. This is also not the first 3RR violation by this user.
- Also keeps repeatedly adding half-baked stuff to Babylon, 4RR now in the past 24 hrs and numerous similar edits in the past few days... been reverted by myself and once by DBachman who both advised him to stay on topic ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't have time to check this properly, sorry; have left warning (please do this next time!). William M. Connolley 10:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Amibidhrohi
Three revert rule violation on Ann Coulter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Amibidhrohi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
Reported by: Rhobite 04:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Sorry for not following the format.. I'm kind of busy right now. 5 reverts. Rhobite 04:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Blocked 48h; previous blocks. William M. Connolley 12:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Wikidugaren
Three revert rule violation on Inner Mongolia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wikidugaren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 19:22, February 20, 2006
- 1st revert: 00:02, February 22, 2006
- 2nd revert: 03:45, February 22, 2006
- 3rd revert: 06:40, February 22, 2006
- 4th revert: 06:55, February 22, 2006
Reported by: ran (talk) 07:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Editor has already been warned about 3RR after the second revert. -- ran (talk) 07:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Please in future warn them on their talk page as well - warnings on article space are hard to find, especially in future. In this case, its a newbie, so I've left them a warning; if they keep it up they'll get blocked. William M. Connolley 12:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- William M. Connolley's warning about 3RR: 12:04, February 22, 2006
- 5th revert: 14:27, February 22, 2006
- Made from an anonymous IP. this sequence of edits suggests that it's very likely the same user; is there a way of making sure? This anonymous IP has a history of jumping in together with Wikidugaren and reverting where he left off.
-- ran (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Oddly enough, the two warring IPs both seem to come from Brisbane... to be sure, see the "requests for checkuser" at the top of the page. William M. Connolley 17:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- 6th revert: 23:35, February 22, 2006
- Made by User:Enkhbatt, which is newly created. I suspect that it's a sockpuppet, though of course this needs to be confirmed.
-- ran (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
It's been confirmed that the 5th revert from the anonymous IP was also carried out by User:Wikidugaren. -- ran (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Psychomelodic
Three revert rule violation on Green Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Psychomelodic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: [16:15, 22 February 2006]
- 1st revert: 21:13, 22 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 21:17, 22 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 21:26, 22 February 2006
- 4th revert: 21:38, 22 February 2006
- 5th revert: 22:41, 22 February 2006
Reported by: Spook (my talk | my contribs) 13:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Isnt the first time.
- Does not follow consensus and does not ask for permission on the talk page. - Anirudh 14:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked for 24 hours. Incidentally, no one requires permission to make an edit to an article, though obviously five reverts is a bit...bad. —BorgHunter
ubx(talk) 15:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Haham hanuka
Three revert rule violation on Yigal Amir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Haham hanuka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to (includes some edits unrelated to the dispute): 21:03, February 21, 2006
- 1st revert: 6:50, 22 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 7:10, 22 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 7:23, 22 February 2006
- 4th revert: 11:34, 22 February 2006 anon with similar i.p. and identical edits, please check
Reported by: gidonb 17:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "similar IP"? It looks like the same person given the edits, but unless you've seen him do logged-out edits before, the IP doesn't mean much unless you ask for a check to be done. android79 18:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- I do ask for a check to be done. I have seen him do edits with the first two groups of three digits, but not with three. Is that the break-off point? gidonb 18:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
User:ChiWhiteSox7
Three revert rule violation on Chicago White Sox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ChiWhiteSox7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
- 1st revert: 18:59, 21 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 19:42, 21 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 19:54, 21 February 2006
- 4th revert: 22:14, 21 February 2006
- 5th revert: 03:37, 22 February 2006
- 6th revert: 03:57, 22 February 2006
- 7th revert: 06:19, 22 February 2006
- 8th revert: 06:43, 22 February 2006
- 9th revert: 07:25, 22 February 2006
Reported by: Linnwood 21:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- This particular user contiunes to remove an external link even though an admin has noted that there is no "consensus to remove link". James Roberts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may also be a sockpuppet of User:ChiWhiteSox7
User:Robsteadman
Three revert rule violation on Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Robsteadman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
Reported by: Gator (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- This is a reapt 3RR offender and a two time receipient of blocks for 3RR violations. In fact this is third time that this user has violated the 3RR on this page alone. First block was for 24, then 48 (both for 3RR violations so he's just ignoring the rule now) Stopped at 3d revert and is now just clearly gaming the system. Normally, I wouldn't report for 3 and wait for 4, but given the fact he's done numerous this and has been blocked twice I don't think he should be allowed to game the system like this and should not be afforded special leniency when he has such a history. He needs to be blocked in my humble opinion. User just doesn't seem to get it and is incredibly disruptive. Very unfortunate.Gator (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- There have to be more than three reverts. --Latinus 00:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Sadly there now are. I think Gator should have waited for 4; I wouldn't have blocked on 3. Blocked 48h as repeat offender. William M. Connolley 00:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC).
That's what he was blocked at last time and it obviously didn't work . You think 48 is enough?Gator (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Zmmz & User:149.68.55.134
Three revert rule violation on Parthia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zmmz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & 149.68.55.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- 1st revert: 20:13, 21 Feb
- 2nd revert: 21:18, 21 Feb
- 3rd revert: 23:35, 21 Feb
- 4th revert: 2:23, 22 Feb
- 5th revert: 20:04 22 Feb
Reported by: Aldux 21:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments: There is little that can be added to what has already been said of User:Zmmz for violating the 3-revert-rule on the same article in this same day, when he was reported by Siafu. For this he got a warning from the admin. William M. Connolley on his talk page, a warning he saw since he even awnsered there. There can be no doubt that Zmmz and 149.68.55.134, as already observed by Codex Sinaiticus, and can be verified observing his contributions or his atitude on Talk:Parthia. I'll add here Codex Sinaiticus, since it concerns his first violation on Parthia. Aldux 22:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- This user also edits from the IP 149.68.55.134. See Talk:Parthia for dispute; user continues to refuse to discuss the issue at hand, repeatedly stating "this discussion is over" &c. This is also not the first 3RR violation by this user.
- Also keeps repeatedly adding half-baked stuff to Babylon, 4RR now in the past 24 hrs and numerous similar edits in the past few days... been reverted by myself and once by DBachman who both advised him to stay on topic ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- While Zmmz is a new user, who doesn't seem to grasp a lot of the finer points of wikipedia right away (like signing one's comments, for instance) he has now revert warred by inserting the jingoistic sentence "Persia became the pre-eminent power of the world--in fact, it became the world’s first global empire" into an article about the city of Babylon at least ten times in the past 24 hours -- depite all attempts of myself and 2 other editors to reason with him. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- His latest edit to Babylon just now was not a total revert, he didn't change anything but the heading, so it appears he has actually read the compromise version, that took his positions into account, and hopefully, some stability will resume now...ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- For whatever it's worth, I'm with Codex Sinaiticus on this. -Ben 22:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- His latest edit to Babylon just now was not a total revert, he didn't change anything but the heading, so it appears he has actually read the compromise version, that took his positions into account, and hopefully, some stability will resume now...ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- While Zmmz is a new user, who doesn't seem to grasp a lot of the finer points of wikipedia right away (like signing one's comments, for instance) he has now revert warred by inserting the jingoistic sentence "Persia became the pre-eminent power of the world--in fact, it became the world’s first global empire" into an article about the city of Babylon at least ten times in the past 24 hours -- depite all attempts of myself and 2 other editors to reason with him. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Blocked. Its a bit of a mess, but on Babylon his last edit appears to be adding [87] as a disguised way of getting global empire in. Oh, but I'd want some better evidence - specific diffs - to link him to 149. William M. Connolley 22:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC).
- Look at Talk:Parthia: he's just [[88]] now as User:Zmmz the edit he [[89]] made as User:149.68.55.134. Since it doesn't seem a sockpuppet, you could also ask Zmmz if they're the same. Aldux 23:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- OK, thats convincing. William M. Connolley 23:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- No sooner did his block expire, but the same ludicrous edit war revs right back up again... Padding the Babylon article even further with all this lengthy, off topic nonsense about Persia being the world's greatest superpower, and edit warring ad infinitum to keep it there... This was funny but now is turning disruptive, and wearing me down... It's not technically a 3RR, but can't something be done? The last 24 hrs were really relatively peaceful... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- OK, thats convincing. William M. Connolley 23:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh wonderful. Blocked again, 48h this time William M. Connolley 22:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Aegeis
Three revert rule violation on Homeopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Aegeis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homeopathy&oldid=40479272 15:39, 20 February 2006]
05:18, 22 February 2006]
14:47, 22 February 2006]
15:26, 22 February 2006]
- 4th revert: 16:14, 22 February 2006
Reported by: Skinwalker 22:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User has been reverting (30 times since 1 January 2006) article to an
outdated version. He makes these changes without discussion on the talk page. He posts under the username Aegeis as well as anonymously with ip addresses in the 193.193.195.xxx range. It's a minor irritant (we're all quite used to reverting him on sight), but I would appreciate it if an admin could look into the situation beyond the current 3rr violation. Cheers, Skinwalker 22:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- You really need to provide some kind of hint as to why 193.193.195.148 is aegeis. Requests for checkuser (see top of page) could be your answer, if its serious enough William M. Connolley 00:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, I wondered what good an RFC would do in this case. Aegeis reverted[90] again overnight, for his 4th revert in 24 hours that was performed from his account. To address your question on why we believe 193.193.19x.xxx addresses are aegeis, reverts from that ip range are identical in content and tone of edit summary to those performed from his account. Additionally, last fall he re-signed comments[91] under his ip as his account name. Is this sufficient evidence that aegeis=193.193.19x.xxx, or should I file a formal checkuser request?
- Blocked, since that was 4R. Your last diff, for signing, is wrong: thats in the article space. Which did you mean? William M. Connolley 17:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC).
- Ack! I cut-n-pasted the wrong diff. Here is the correct one[92].
- Yes, thats convincing. Don't bother with checkuser. If you need to report Aegeis/193 in combination again, remember to put that in as evidence in csae we forget... William M. Connolley 19:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Kocoum
Three revert rule violation on Grozny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kocoum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 01:03, 22 February 2006
- 1st revert: 10:55, 22 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 13:07, 22 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 13:44, 22 February 2006 - incl. removal of NPOV tag
- 4th revert: 20:48, 22 February 2006 - once again removed NPOV tag
Reported by: Kuban Cossack 23:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User also made heavy POV edits to all Chechen relatated pages. --Kuban Cossack 23:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
2006-02-22 22:53:33 Ezhiki blocked "Kocoum (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation on Grozny) William M. Connolley 00:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
User:-Inanna-
Three revert rule violation on Turkmen people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). -Inanna- (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: 13:13, 22 February 2006
- 1st revert: 13:45, 22 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 20:54, 22 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 21:04, 22 February 2006
- 4th revert: 22:15, 22 February 2006
- 5th revert: 23:56, 22 February 2006
- 6th revert: 00:04, 23 February 2006
- 7th revert: 00:20, 23 February 2006
Reported by: Latinus 00:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User has been blocked many times for violating the 3RR before. Someone may also want to have a word with her about personal attacks in edit summaries. --Latinus 00:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Trying 48h this time :-( William M. Connolley 00:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Also, note inexplicable vandalism (?) at Ottoman Turks: [93]. siafu 00:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Cigammagicwizard
Three revert rule violation on Saw III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). }:
- Previous version reverted to: 00:17, February 22, 2006
- 1st revert: 09:39, February 22, 2006
- 2nd revert: 19:11, February 22, 2006
- 3rd revert: 20:36, February 22, 2006
- 4th revert: 21:29, February 22, 2006
- 5th revert: 22:56, February 22, 2006
Reported by: keepsleeping slack off! 02:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User has reverted to his own version of the article, which consists of unsourced and apparently imaginary "information" about this upcoming film, removing properly sourced information in order to do so.
- Blocked for 24 hours. —BorgHunter
ubx(talk) 13:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Pirveli
Three revert rule violation on List of sovereign states (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). }:
- Previous version reverted to: 17:41, 14 February 2006 (PST)
- 1st revert: 03:14, 22 February 2006 (PST)
- 2nd revert: 09:56, 22 February 2006 (PST)
- 3rd revert: 01:41, 23 February 2006 (PST)
- 4th revert: 02:04, 23 February 2006 (PST)
- 5th revert: 02:13, 23 February 2006 (PST)
Reported by: Jiang 10:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Warned user after committing 4th revert, but user proceeded to revert the article for a 5th time. all reverts are clean-cut total mass reverts.--Jiang 10:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked for 24 hours. —BorgHunter
ubx(talk) 13:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Wzhao553
Three revert rule violation on Asian fetish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Wzhao553 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
- 1st revert: [94]
- 2nd revert: [95]
- 3rd revert: [96]
- 4th revert: [97]
- 5th revert: [98]
Reported by: Gnetwerker 08:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- See in-progess RfC: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Asian_fetish
- Please note that I was reverting repeated vandalism by Gnetwerker of a well-sourced section about the opinion of Asian American women.
This user Gnetwerker has also made racist comments toward me that I should not be writing because he believes that English is not my native language and that I am not very good at English, even though I was born and raised in the U.S. See: Talk:Asian_fetish#3 --Wzhao553 08:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
An examination of those edits will show multiple attempts at edits that would be acceptable to User:Wzhao553, not reversions of his edits -- Gnetwerker 08:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- On a controversial article, this user refuses to accept any position other than his own. He has already claimed that he has "no vested interest (or special knowledge) of this subject" (Talk:Asian_fetish/Archive_6), but insists on having the final say in all editing matters. Several users have attempted to explain to him that his knowledge of cited references is inadequate or sometimes wrong, but so far they have not prevailed. Indeed, Gnetwerker should be blocked in violation of the 3RR rule. --Wzhao553 09:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Bit of a mess; but looks like a breach. OTOH first offence and no warnings given that I can see; blocked 3h William M. Connolley 17:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
User:JohnFM
3RR violation on Pro-Test (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Previous version reverted to: 04:28 February 24
- 1st revert 08:47 February 24
- 2nd revert 09:25 February 24
- 3rd revert 10:42 February 24
- 4th revert 10:55 February 24
Reported by: SlimVirgin (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
JohnFM (talk · contribs) is a single-issue editor who supports and may be involved in the protest movement the article's about. He keeps removing from the first sentence that Oxford University is building an animal-testing facility, replacing "animal testing" or "animal research" with "biomedical research", reverting against two editors.
I am nothing to do with Pro-Test, but I am an Oxford University Student. Therefore I wish to see clear reporting about this subject, without the use of emotive language. Both editors in question are supporters of the animal rights groups in question, and therefore have more of an interest in the inclusion of "animal research" over "biomedical research". JohnFM 11:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you, ESkog. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Ultramarine
Three revert rule violation on Liberal democracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
Reported by: Solidusspriggan 19:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- I believe this is a violation of the rule. Ultramarine is in constant violation of many wikipedia policies, constantly waging edit wars and adding tangental information to promote his stated political agenda. I attempted to balance his tangental edits to this article but to no avail. He just kept adding more and more information promoting his viewpoint. I and a few others decided that the original version before this edit war of sorts was fine. I, along with mulitple anons and registered users have attempted to keep the article in its previous form. But with no luck as user ultramarine runs the page on democracy like a dictator, being the only one to support his version. He has already had one RFA. His edits are so numerous and comments so systematic that I believe that he either has automated help, is actually a number of users, and/or has a set of responses ready to copy and past into talk pages to dispute generically other's arguments.Solidusspriggan 19:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Ummmmmm... that looks like *3* reverts to me William M. Connolley 19:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC).
User:Jazzabelle, User:Ghetoo, User:CasanovaAlive
Three revert rule violation on Talk:Simon Strelchik (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Simon Strelchik|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). }:
- Previous version reverted to: [107]
- 1st revert: [108]
- 2nd revert: [109]
- 3rd revert: [110]
- 4th revert: [111]
Reported by: pm_shef 01:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments: I think I did the above right. I filled in the history pages of the blankings in the 1st-4th revert slots. I've been reverting the blankings for a few days now, but today is out of control. There had been a discussion on the subject's noteablity and then someone else added comments regarding additions they made to the article itself and there are a number of Users including User:Jazzabelle, User:Ghetoo and User:CasanovaAlive who continue to delete massive parts of this article. Help!! pm_shef 01:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've blocked Jazzabelle for 24 hours, for disregarding a direct administrator warning to cease blanking comments from the talk page. (Jazzabelle, for what it's worth, also blanked this very section from this page, as well as at WP:AN/I.) I've advised them on their talk page that if they want to allege that the page contains personal attacks, they can ask an administrator to review the situation. However, I would advise that the page continue to be watched, since it's been a concerted campaign by multiple users — Jazzabelle is just the only one so far who's actually committed a blockable offense. Also note that this is tied to an extremely contentious AFD discussion. Bearcat 02:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Update: User:Israelforever was also blocked for 24 hours, again for altering user comments on this talk page after a direct warning not to. I've also blocked another user, User:Kredible, whose very first Wikipedia edit under that user name involved, guess what, altering other users' comments on Talk:Simon Strelchik. These folks really seem to have trouble understanding that they're not allowed to do that. Bearcat 20:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Metb82/User:85.96.215.120
Three revert rule violation on Galatasaray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Metb82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 85.96.215.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 12:12 22 February 2006
- 1st revert: 12:11 24 February 2006 as 85.96.215.120 (talk · contribs)
- 2nd revert: 12:41 24 February 2006 as 85.96.215.120 (talk · contribs)
- 3rd revert: 14:30 24 February 2006 as Metb82 (talk · contribs)
- 4th revert: 15:12 24 February 2006 as Metb82 (talk · contribs)
- 5th revert: 17:08 24 February 2006 as Metb82 (talk · contribs)
- 6th revert: 23:49 24 February 2006 as 85.96.215.120 (talk · contribs)
- 7th revert: 00:16 25 February 2006 as 85.96.215.120 (talk · contribs)
- 8th revert: 10:16 25 February 2006 as Metb82 (talk · contribs)
- 9th revert: 10:21 25 February 2006 as Metb82 (talk · contribs)
Blocked; incivility and 3RR. William M. Connolley 12:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC). Reported by: Englishrose 11:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
A check user check confirmed that 85.96.215.120 (talk · contribs) and Metb82 (talk · contribs) are the same. Englishrose 11:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Lou franklin 2
Three revert rule violation on Societal attitudes towards homosexuality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lou_franklin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 21:48, February 23, 2006
- 1st revert: 07:48, February 24, 2006
- 2nd revert: 19:28, February 24, 2006
- 3rd revert: 22:23, February 24, 2006
- 4th revert: 06:19, February 25, 2006
- 5th revert: 06:59, February 25, 2006
Reported by: Rhobite 17:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Lou franklin was blocked on February 17 for a 3RR violation in the same article. Rhobite 17:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Blocked 24h William M. Connolley 18:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Skinmeister
Three revert rule violation on Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Skinmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 06:12, February 25, 2006
- 1st revert: 15:09, February 25, 2006
- 2nd revert: 16:13, February 25, 2006
- 3rd revert: 16:58, February 25, 2006
- 4th revert: 20:11, February 25, 2006
Reported by: Kafziel 01:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- 4th revert was made by his sock puppet, User:Rennix.
User:Ardenn
- User: Ardenn has violated 3 Revert Rule by deleting edit. Also violated Vandalism rule by offering no explanation for deletion. Request user banning from editing topic.
- [1st Revert]
- [2nd Revert]
- [3rd Revert]
- [4th Revert]
- [Deleted posting of 3RR notice on users talk page]Anderson12 04:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments
- The reporting user is a vandal, likely a sockpuppet of Lightbringer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He won't discuss his edits. Ardenn 05:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- The reported user is a vandal. He has made derogatory complaints on users talk page about being banned from Wikipedia, he has deleted notice of this complaint from his discussion page, he has repeatedly deleted edits offering no explanation for his deletions. Edits I made were fully referenced and summarized.Anderson12 05:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- I left standard {{subst:test}} tags on the user's talk page. I removed the notice because it didn't belong on my talk page. Further, his edits weather referenced or not weren't relevant to the article. Ardenn 05:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Notices left on my talk page were certainly not "standard" they falsely implied Ardenn was an administrator. Users are not permitted to make such postings on talk pages, it is considered vandalism. Ardenn also vandalized my user page User: Anderson12 by posting a false 'sockpuppet' notice. Users are not permitted to place 'sockpuppet' notices on other users talk pages.Anderson12 05:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Any user can leave those tags. See WP:VAND. Ardenn 05:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- No 'any user can not leave those tags'. It is vandalism, as was your deletion of 3rr notice from your talk page, as was accusing me of vandalism (rvv) three times.Anderson12 05:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Any user can leave those tags. See WP:VAND. Ardenn 05:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- The reported user is a vandal. He has made derogatory complaints on users talk page about being banned from Wikipedia, he has deleted notice of this complaint from his discussion page, he has repeatedly deleted edits offering no explanation for his deletions. Edits I made were fully referenced and summarized.Anderson12 05:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Sadly in this case ardenn did infact violate the 3rr. He reverted content changes with no edit reason. He labled his reverts "rvv" when it is not a case of simple vandalism, it's a content change. With that said Anderson12 is guilty also.Seraphim 05:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Since the article is protected...I am warning them both now that, any more revert warring anywhere today and they are getting blocked. By policy they should be blocked for 25 hours...but let this be their final warning. Reverting 3 times every day to game the system will also result in a block.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 05:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like Raul315 just put on a 24 hour block.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 05:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, my apologies for forgetting it to post it here. I blocked Anderson12, and not Ardenn, because I think there may be something to the comments that Anderson12 may be a sock of Lightbringer or another user, particularly given Anderson12's knowledge of Wiki policy and terms. Ral315 (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. When you make a disputed change...you should discuss. He is already on thin ice...and I didn't know about the sock issue.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 06:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- I did not violate the 3 RR rule. I restored my edit three times that is not a violation. User: Ardennviolated the 3 RR rule by reverting four times. Secondly it is vandalism to post sockpupppet accuasations to another users page, it is vandalism to delete content from a talk page, especially a 3rr notice, it is vandalism to make rvv claim when it is not, and it is vandalism to accuse another user of vandalism when clearly they are not. I made full edit summaries and made full references, user Ardenn made no summaries at all. I demand this user be blocked for violating 3rr rules and for vandalizing my talk page and the article itself by his unsummarized edits.Anderson12 04:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. When you make a disputed change...you should discuss. He is already on thin ice...and I didn't know about the sock issue.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 06:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, my apologies for forgetting it to post it here. I blocked Anderson12, and not Ardenn, because I think there may be something to the comments that Anderson12 may be a sock of Lightbringer or another user, particularly given Anderson12's knowledge of Wiki policy and terms. Ral315 (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like Raul315 just put on a 24 hour block.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 05:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
User:MarkSweep
- User:MarkSweep has violated 3 Revert Rule by repeatedly deleting an image. At least one other user besides me has supported the image, so this is a controversial edit.
- [1th Revert]
- [2st Revert]
- [3nd Revert]
- [4rd Revert]
- [5th Revert]
Comments
- This user is harassing the rankism page in coordination with User:Rhobite (3 more reverts) as a result of an editing dispute on the Kaiser Permanente page. Besides this WikiStalking, he has been making numerous reverts on the Kaiser Permanente page while threatening me with 3RR and other dire consequences [112] if I dare oppose his editorial stance. He's being a bully! Please make it known that he can't threaten without the same rule applying to him. --Pansophia 05:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- That image violates neutral point of view policies. We don't take sides on an issue, and we do not vote on things that violate policy. Ral315 (talk) 05:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- There is disagreement on whether the image violates policy since it expresses meaning of the concept. Please enforce the rule you've been allowing MarkSweep to go around threatening people with in order to protect his own editorial stance from opposition. Letting him get away with these tactics is taking sides and furthermore enabling a bully who engaged in WikiStalking.--Pansophia 08:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Reverts 3 and 4 you have listed are the same. Reverts 1,2,3,5 are not within 24h. William M. Connolley 11:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- That's just my pasting error (now fixed) - please check the actual page history. There are at least 5. For my own knowledge, is 24 hours delimited by date (i.e., anything occuring on Feb. 24) or "within a 24 hour period". MarkSweep did make a series of very good edits after the last revert, but that also has the effect of burying the violation of 3RR, which I believe to be deliberate. This particular 3RR is not only WikiStalking, it is WikiPoint because it is involved with MarkSweep's efforts to suppress my protest of prominently placing corporate branding on articles: he represents my principled protest as "vandalism" while demonstrating that he can go delete my images in retaliation. --Pansophia 01:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Continued Revert Harassment by User:MarkSweep
- [1th Revert]
- 2st Revert]
- [3nd Revert]
- [4rd Revert]
--Pansophia 06:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
User:71.118.32.15
Three revert rule violation on Republic (dialogue) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.118.32.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
- 1st revert: 21:31, 25 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 02:06, 26 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 03:31, 26 February 2006
- 4th revert: 06:32, 26 February 2006
Reported by: Kentaur 07:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- This is about the dozenth time the anonymous user has reinserted a POV paragraph, which has just been labled as vandalism. A Request for Comment was initiated, during which 71.118.32.15 vowed that his/her "organization" is beginning a "wholescale assault on the sham that is Wikipedia". I'm not making this up: see Talk:Republic (dialogue), under the Request for Comment. A request for arbitration has also been made.
Blocked for 48 h for 3RR, and for [113]. William M. Connolley 11:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Matthead
Three revert rule violation on Frombork (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Matthead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Matthead 1st revert: 00:21, February 25, 2006
- Matthead 2nd revert: 01:36, February 25, 2006
- Matthead 3rd revert: 01:54, February 25, 2006
- Matthead 4th revert: 02:34, February 25, 2006
Reported by: Chris 73 | Talk 09:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Yet another Polish-German dispute. Matthead has been warned of the 3RR before. Please note that User:Balcer was reverting Matthead at least three times, ([118][119][120]), but I leave it up to another admin if another complex edit by Balcer [121] was a revert or not. -- Chris 73 | Talk 09:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
User:134.84.101.39
Three revert rule violation on The Minnesota Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 134.84.101.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
- 1st revert: February 26, 2006
- 2nd revert: February 26, 2006
- 3rd revert: February 26, 2006
- 4th revert: [DiffLink Time]
Reported by: Jsaxton86 09:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The guy has a dynamic IP. Perhaps it will be necessary to block his entire subnet.
- Sprotected, for now no edits from anon or new users allowed. A number of IP's and Jsaxton86 violating the 3RR -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Emir Arven
Three revert rule violation on Stephen II Kotromanić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User-multi error: "Emir_Arven" is not a valid project or language code (help).:
- Previous version reverted to: 19:05, 24 February 2006
- 1st revert: 16:19, 25 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 16:29, 25 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 11:22, 26 February 2006
- 4th revert: 14:11, 26 February 2006
Reported by: Latinus 17:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Arven has been deleting the Serbian side of the story and leaving only the Bosniak side in direct contratiction to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which maintains that all sourced views should be kept. I have tried to co-operate and compromise with his (obvious from the diffs) by explicitly saying that Serbian historians maintain that view and he persists in deleting it. If possible, please have a word with him about the way he describes his fellow editors as "nationalists" and their sources as "nationalistic". --Latinus 17:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- This is not true. I asked User:HolyRomanEmperor for the source. User:HolyRomanEmperor showed me the source, a book by Corovic. When I checked the book there was nothnig there to support his thesis. I asked him again to show me the section. He said he was not able to do that. So his thesis was not verified.--Emir Arven 17:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- The site that he showed me was nationalistic site quoted by Slobodan Milosevic in his trial. That site also supports nazi collabortor Draza Mihailovic. It is called Serbian Unity. I just used the right term.--Emir Arven 17:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- The user is intent on hating anything that has a prefix "Serb-" so that is the reason why he didn't count that. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- This is crap and very serious accusation without any argument.--Emir Arven 18:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- For those who care, Arven has also violated the 3RR at Mehmed Pasha Sokolović. --Latinus 18:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
User:MB
Three revert rule violation on Al-Khwarizmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 05:09, 26 February 2006
- 1st revert: 05:40, 26 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 17:32, 26 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 17:50, 26 February 2006
- 4th revert: 18:49, 26 February 2006
Reported by: —Ruud 18:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
You should warn them on their talk page; I'll do that now. William M. Connolley 20:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC).
User:80.90.38.214
Three revert rule violation on Phaistos_Disc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 80.90.38.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
point direction
point references
museum director
- Revert 10 Revision as of 17:01, 26 February 2006
There are a lot more but 10 times seems to be enough for the moment.
Comments
- The page was already semi-protected because 80.90.xx.xx has violated 3RR [122]
- The page was already protected because 80.90.xx.xx has violated 3RR [123]
- At the moment the page is again protected, with the comment to fill 3RR. See [124]
- 80.90.xx.xx has every day a new IP-Adress (See [125]).
- 26.2 80.90.38.214
- 25.2 80.90.39.118
- 24.2 80.90.37.22
- 23.2 80.90.37.246 ...
Reported by Kadmos 20:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- anon refuses to get an account in spite of engaging in prolongued disputes and edit wars. his reverts are numerous, but there were at least two sets of four reverts of a single point. He was warned about 3RR at the time of semi-protection. Banning edit-warriors is preferable to protection or even semi-protection. dab (ᛏ) 21:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- I totally deny the accusations made by User Kadmos and Mr Bachman. With one or two other of their friends (in particular Pmanderson), they are betraying the WP spirit and the WP spirit. They are the true responsible of the Editwars, by censoring any theory they don't like, acting separately and in alternance to escape to an accusation of the 3RR-violation. They have threatened WP-users who were on my side, to isolate me. A simple look at the Talk:Phaistos Disk page by an arbiter is enough (if they don't have deleted it, as they already did !) for judging of their aim which is to impose by force their POV (i.e. the disc's script is related to Linear A, the Proto-Ionic solution is vithout value, etc.).(80.90.38.214 21:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC))
- There is no censorship going on. Just an attempt to give appropriate weight to all theories, including the one being pushed by 80.90.x. --Macrakis 14:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Blocked, 24h. William M. Connolley 22:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC).
- Still editing the same article under IP 80.90.38.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Admits to being the same anon in post on WM Connolley's user page. He is also repeating the same reversions; for example,
- this reversion 11:00, 27 February 2006 repeats
- this reversion 11:23, 26 February 2006
- Septentrionalis 16:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Irakliy81
Three revert rule violation on List of sovereign states (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Irakliy81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 14:52, 26 February 2006
- 1st revert: 19:10, 26 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 19:58, 26 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 0:10, 26 February 2006
- 4th revert: 20:23, 26 February 2006
- 5th revert: 21:03, 26 February 2006
Reported by: Latinus 21:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Sigh. Blocked 24h. A newbie but looks like a determined one :-( William M. Connolley 21:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Astrotrain
Three revert rule violation on King George Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Astrotrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: [21:37, 25 February 2006]
- 1st revert: [18:35, 26 February 2006]
- 2nd revert: [18:38, 26 February 2006]
- 3rd revert: [22:40, 26 February 2006]
- 4th revert: [22:49, 26 February 2006]
Reported by: Mais oui! 23:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Astrotrain has moved the page to attempt to disguise 3rr transgression. Has even made a 3RR pact with fellow disruptor Normalmouth (talk · contribs) in order to pervert Wikipedia procedures. Left personal abuse on my Talk page.--Mais oui! 23:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
You don't provide actual diffs so its rather hard to be sure. But I can only see 4 identical edits (the first one not being a revert, in that case). The only edit for 22:49 is the page move - no? Also, whilst moving a page in the middle of an edit war might well be impolite, the move itself seems defensible, if it is indeed the only KGI going William M. Connolley 23:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC).
- Yes the 4th edit was a rename from the previous King George Island (South Shetland Islands). There is no other KGI page on Wikipedia so no harm in moving it to the better named title. Astrotrain 22:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
User:SeraphimXI
Three revert rule violation on Jahbulon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SeraphimXI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: [126]
- 1st revert: [127]
- 2nd revert: [128]
- 3rd revert: [129]
- 4th revert: [130]
- 5th revert: [131]
- 6th revert: [132]
Reported by: ALR 10:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- whilst not simple reversions these changes are removing substantive changes to the article which remove extranious material and make clear a level of ambiguity about the validity of the subject. User is not participating in constructive debate on the talk page as contributions tend towards unrelated hyperbole. VMTALR 10:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- Just to add, I did consider reporting this as vandalism, but I think it's more appropriate as a 3RR violation, grateful for an admin view as it's becoming very frustrating trying to get any improvement in the article and it's easy to be too close to the issue.ALR 10:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- I am reverting unverifiable edits that ALR is making also his blanking vandalism. 3RR does not mean that a user can continue to add information that is false, or remove information that is relevant in an attempt to get the article deleted due to lack of information. I suggest instead of giving out 3rr blocks that the page be locked untill we get a mediator approved. 3rr is not intended to solve content disputes in this case ALR wants me blocked so his version of the article can stand. Seraphim 21:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- From WP:CITE "Disputed edits can be removed immediately, removed and placed on the talk page for discussion, or where the edit is harmless but you dispute it and feel a citation is appropriate, you can place [citation needed] after the relevant passage. " the reverts are of disputed edits (which you are allowed to do under WP:CITE especially on contravercial pages) and we are discussing them on the talk page, it is not a 3rr issue. Seraphim 22:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- I am reverting unverifiable edits that ALR is making also his blanking vandalism. 3RR does not mean that a user can continue to add information that is false, or remove information that is relevant in an attempt to get the article deleted due to lack of information. I suggest instead of giving out 3rr blocks that the page be locked untill we get a mediator approved. 3rr is not intended to solve content disputes in this case ALR wants me blocked so his version of the article can stand. Seraphim 21:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Disputed edits can indeed be removed; but all such editing is subject to 3RR, which you've broken; blocked 8h as an apparent first offence William M. Connolley 23:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
User:213.249.58.34
Three revert rule violation on Edward Said (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 213.249.58.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 08:01, February 24, 2006
- 1st revert: 08:14, February 27, 2006
- 2nd revert: 09:57, February 27, 2006
- 3rd revert: 10:17, February 27, 2006
- 4th revert: 13:36, February 27, 2006
- 5th revert: 14:50, February 27, 2006
Reported by: Pecher Talk 15:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- 213.249.58.34 (talk · contribs) has been disrupting Edward Said (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for days. Pecher Talk 15:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
If so, why is there nothing on the talk page? No warning on his talk page? William M. Connolley 22:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Terryeo
Three revert rule violation on Space opera in Scientology doctrine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Terryeo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 15:44, 23 February 2006
- 1st revert: 23:11, 26 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 02:50, 27 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 10:02, 27 February 2006
- 4th revert: 08:56, 27 February 2006
Reported by: ChrisO 18:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User warned previously not to engage in edit wars, but has persisted on a number of articles, including this one.
- Already blocked for 3RR on Space opera in Scientology doctrine. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Farhansher
Three revert rule violation on Dhimmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Farhansher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 20:46, February 26, 2006
- 1st revert: 20:51, February 26, 2006
- 2nd revert: 05:17, February 27, 2006
- 3rd revert: 12:24, February 27, 2006
- 4th revert: 19:36, February 27, 2006
Reported by: Pecher Talk 20:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- The user is persistently removing sourced material from the article. Pecher Talk 20:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm rather reluctant to block, because I see no warning on his talk page and no attempt by you (or him) to discuss your reverts on the article talk page. William M. Connolley 22:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC).
Sockpuppets of blocked User:80.90.38.214
Three revert rule violation on Phaistos Disc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rose-mary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 80.90.38.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 80.90.38.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) :
- All three accounts exist only to edit this article.
- Previous version reverted to: 18:29, 27 February 2006
- 1st revert: 19:07
- 2nd revert: 19:22
- 3rd revert: 19:26
- 4th revert: 19:47
Reported by:Septentrionalis 21:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- IP evidence confirms it: Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#User:Rose-mary_vs._User:80.90.57.154. --Latinus 21:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'm convinced. I'm going to block for a period of time I shall now determine...) William M. Connolley 22:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC). OK, I did Rose-mary for 24h; and the anons for a week. If they come back, let me know... William M. Connolley 22:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
[User:CBDunkerson]
Three revert rule violation on Middle-earth canon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), The Silmarillion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Middle-earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).:
For the Middle-earth article
- Previous version reverted to: 22:59, February 22, 2006
- 1st revert: 17:54, February 24, 2006
- 2nd revert: 23:12, February 27, 2006
- 3rd revert: 00:11, February 28, 2006
- 4th revert: 01:38, February 28, 2006
For the Middle-earth canon article
- Previous version reverted to: 16:26, February 27, 2006
- 1st revert: 14:06, February 27, 2006
- 2nd revert: 22:13, February 28, 2006
- 3rd revert: 00:47, February 28, 2006
For The Silmarillion article
- Previous version reverted to: 19:01, February 25, 2006
- 1st revert: 23:01, February 27, 2006
- 2nd revert: 00:14, February 28, 2006
- 3rd revert: 00:43, February 28, 2006
CBDunkerson has been editing Tolkien and Middle-earth articles to insert his specific point of view. When I have corrected the misinformation, he has reverted the edits claiming I am inserting POV. He provides partial citations taken out of context and ad nauseum posts with the full knowledge that only someone with access to all the source books can see that he is being intentionally misleading and deceptive.
Reported by: Michael Martinez 02:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- There is no violation here. User warned about revert warring, but no block issued. —BorgHunter
ubx(talk) 03:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Michael Martinez
Three revert rule violation on Middle-earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Michael_Martinez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: 21:49, 23 February 2006
- 1st revert: 13:46, 27 February 2006
- 2nd revert: 15:38, 27 February 2006
- 3rd revert: 16:11, 27 February 2006
- 4th revert: 17:38, 27 February 2006
Reported by: TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Content dispute; user consistently characterizes alternate article version as "vandalism". Note that in above report by user against User:CBDunkerson, the first revert was several days ago.
Mr. Dunkerson inserted his point-of-view violations into the content several months ago. When the errors of fact and misinformation were corrected, he began reverting the corrections. Michael Martinez 02:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
In subsequent comments posted to [Talk:Middle-earth TCC admits to bias in this matter.Michael Martinez 02:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked for 24 hours. —BorgHunter
ubx(talk) 02:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Sethmahoney
Three revert rule violation on Societal attitudes towards homosexuality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sethmahoney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
Reported by: Lou franklin 05:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Report new violation
Place new reports ABOVE this header, using the template below. Do not edit the template itself. See the example at the top of the page for full details. Take the time to do the job right to get the quickest responses. From the article's History page, use diffs (links labelled "last"), not versions, and the "compare versions" button to clearly highlight the changes between versions of the article and show what has been reverted.
===[[User:USERNAME]]=== [[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|ARTICLENAME}}. {{3RRV|USERNAME}}: * Previous version reverted to: [Link Time] * 1st revert: [DiffLink Time] * 2nd revert: [DiffLink Time] * 3rd revert: [DiffLink Time] * 4th revert: [DiffLink Time] Reported by: ~~~~ '''Comments:''' *