Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Noticeboard archives

v • d • e
Noticeboard archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68
Incident archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159
3RR archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34
Other links
Talk | Checkuser | ArbCom enforcement | Backlog

Contents

[edit] User:Larry Dunn reported by User:JCScaliger (Result:24h)

Three revert rule violation on


Knight (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Larry_Dunn (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):


    • Please note that these are exact reverts of different versions of well-sourced material, including one which omits the controversial material altogether; these were indicated as changes, as an effort at compromise. If Larry Dunn were willing to make counter-compromises, that would be fine; but he appears to have ownership problems. Choess has commented on his unwillingness to discuss on his talk page.

Time report made: 20:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Restored after anon deletion: 21:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Extension request for evasion: 16:47 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:


Extension request:Larry Dunn has reverted again, as anon User:69.118.244.33: 13:42 23 September, evading 24-hour block of 06:17 23 September Identity of user established by this compound edit of Talk:Knight, which is making the same argument from the same source as this post by Dunn to his talk page. JCScaliger 16:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)




[edit] User:80.176.2.49 reported by User:JediLofty (Result:)

Three revert rule violation on 80.176.2.49

Kaddy_Lee-Preston (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 80.176.2.49 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):


Time report made: 09:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This guy obviously has something against Kaddy Lee-Preston.

[edit] User:Hookerj reported by User:Extraordinary Machine (Result:48 hours)

Three revert rule violation on Who Knew (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Hookerj (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):


  • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users): 21:27, 21 September 2006 (though he was blocked for violating the 3RR very recently; see above)

Time report made: 21:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: It's not just edits with which this user disagrees that (s)he's reverting; (s)he's undoing every change, including basic formatting and MoS fixes, that move the article away from his/her preferred version. Hookerj is reverting without an edit summary, which I've already told him about. (S)he was blocked just three days ago for violating the 3RR on another article (see above). Extraordinary Machine 21:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

48 hours Jaranda wat's sup 00:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ibrahimfaisal reported by User:Opiner (Result:)

Three revert rule violation on Muhammad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Ibrahimfaisal (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

Time report made: 00:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: He made at least six reverts in exactly 24 hours probably more. They were, removing mentioning Muhammad founding the Caliphate, removing the words said and claimed so to make the article say again that Muhamamad DID have revelations from God instead of that he said he did, and removing pictures of Muhammad like he has been doing every day for awhile now. I tried to warn him[2] before doing this report but instead of saying thanks he wrote, I moved a picture, do not revert it. Anyway you can report whenever you like.[3]Opiner 00:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

They are not revert but contributions and different from each other. Opiner do not know what WP:3RR is and need to read it carefully. I always keep good check on my edits and that is why never get banned so far. ---- ابراهيم 00:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The contributions are all reversing things other people just wrote and things he's been making making edit wars over for the past couple days like the pictures. And so are reverts. 3RR policy, I read it already and it says they don't have to be related.Opiner 00:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Many of the contributions I have done had no edit war. Many times no one change what I have done. Revert and improving mistake (and improving the text) are different things. --- ابراهيم 00:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Here are JUST his removing the pictures and this is only the last couple days. He said something on the discussion page that he was doing this for a long time and will keep doing it until theyre gone.12:35, 21 September 2006, 12:35, 21 September 2006, 23:08, 20 September 2006, 22:03, 20 September 2006, 22:02, 20 September 2006, 21:07, 19 September 2006, 20:53, 19 September 2006. All the other changes were things other people had just written and he keeps undoing them.Opiner 01:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: There are serious disagreement over the introduction of the Muhammad article and also on the pictures (but fortunately not on the rest of the article). The article was blocked for a long time but despite tons of discussions on the talk page no consensus was achieved. Now that the article is unblocked, as we expect lots of changes are happening in the intro and the images. I think this is inevitable and hopefully this would settle down soon. If the article reaches a state where people stop discussion on the talk page, then 3RR blocks maybe a good momentary solution. The good news is that it seems to me that we have had some progress. I tried to reduce the tension by making a tag and adding it to the article. I personally don't think applying any block on any involved editor could be useful at the moment. --Aminz 01:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I never even revert same image more that 3 times a day. May be twice (there are more than one image in the article). The above images are different and I also "moved" image from one place to another (not sure if that move is counted above as deletion). They are welcome to ban me but I am sure that I have not violate 3RR. ---- ابراهيم 01:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I never use such words that I will continue reverting util those images are gone. Please stop making false claims. --- ابراهيم 01:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's another example from today of what Ibrahimfaisal is calling here 'contributions' and 'improving mistakes.' He put up a picture which said 'The mountain of Hira, where Muhammad had his first revelations.' That is saying that this actually happened but we're not supposed to take a position on that! It's not neutral. So I added that he claimed it [4] and then Ibrahimfaisal went through the whole article to make it say that this really happened [5]. Was that a 'contribution' or the 'improving of a mistake?' It looks like a revert to me.Opiner 01:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Opiner there is active talk about your introduction of word "claim" at Muhammad page. Anyway, I leave the decision of my 3RR on admins and will not try to post more message here. You can continue posting here and make whatever false/true allegation. --- ابراهيم 01:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

What about these [6], [7]? Three different editors just collaborated to write this and right away you started revert warring because you didnt want to mention the Caliphate. Were those 'contributions' or 'improving of a mistake?'Opiner 01:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Not obviously all reverts: most are different. If you want them to be reverst, you need to provide reverted-to for each William M. Connolley 10:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The pictures hardly need a reverted to, obviously they were there and as you see above he's been edit warring to remove them for a while now. Two others are the same [8],[9] sp at very least the first is the 'reverted to' of the second. Then her my edit [10] was undone [11]. Even without more evidence that is four and if you look through evidence youll see asa I said its six. But right here you can see four.Opiner 10:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay as the pictures have been dealt with pretty extensively here is a previous version for diffs two, three and four. 22:30, 21 September 2006. He removed things added after this by Aiden me and JimWae. So now you have a previous version for all six diffs, the two picture removals, the three introduction reverts and the revert of 'said' and 'claimed' as shown above. Six proven reverts in 24 hours.Opiner 10:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

some of the diffs are clearly not reverts, and many of the edits are unrelated. there doesn't seem to be any breach of WP:3RR. ITAQALLAH 11:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

ALL of them were reverts. Read the policy WP:3RR its very clear that it doesn't matter if the reverts are related to each other.
Since no one stopped him after his six revertings in 24 hours, User:Ibrahimfaisal keeps blankin g pictures from the Muhammad article.20:05, 23 September 2006, 20:06, 23 September 2006. Please someone put a check on all these reverts and vandalism.Opiner 00:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


In this user's last edit summary for this edit he gives the reason for his deletion for this as "Useless imaginary picture. There are much more historically correct pictures than this one." Through my university collection I have confirmed the authenticity of this picture that he repeatedly deletes, through the various books on Rashid al-Din. I have added this bibliographic data to the picture. This picture comes from an historically important manuscript, described here as it comes from an early Islamic artist. So the statement that it is "useless" as it does depict an actual event in the article subject's life is false. The statement that it is "imaginary" is also false, as it's authenticity has been verified. The statement that "There are more historically correct pictures than this one." is also false, as it accurately depicts this event in Muhummad's life.

In Ibrahimfaisal's edit summary for this edit states that it is "useless imaginary picture with no prove relationship with Muhammad." This image that he also repeatedly deletes resides in a Paris museum, and is a common theme with Islamic artists. So this edit summary is also false.

Ibrahimfaisal logs-in day -after day- -after day- -after day- to delete pictures, and I'm grateful that Opiner has been counting, because I have also been trying to keep track with what little time I have. It's hard to count all the times he deleted pictures because he doesn't always say that he's deleting a picture in his edit summary like here and here It's more than Wikipedia:POV pushing, and falls under Wikipedia's Wikepedia is not censored or vandalism policy. Here he delete's an image of a statue of Homer in the British Museum because as his edit summary says "I do not think that the picture represents Homer correctly and hence should not exist." Not only is he fostering edit wars (when more than one editor wants to contribute images), he is unravelling the hard work others have put in, keeping this (and other) important articles at a very substandard (C-) level by keeping pictures out. In fact, this behavior puts into question the integrity of all articles he edits.

Really, the block on this user needs to sting to prevent further Wikipedia censorship (let's call it what it is) or we're back here again wasting everyone's time in the future Nodekeeper 02:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all nothing is 3RR. To answer above allegations, I have added at least three New pictures in Muhammad article too. ONE, TWO, and THREE. What about them???
There was a reason being deleting Humor picture (just once) and The reason I had deleted Homer picture is because of this discussion. Adding some picture showing Muhammad (imaginary) face is highly disputed and have messively divided wikipedia into two groups. There are many (around dozen may be) dicussion about that For example few in the near part are One (a long one) and Second (in very near past). One can easily list poeple that are against adding some specific pictures in Muhammad article. I believe those people are more than those (above) who want to add pictures. I think a voting could easily reveal that fact. Once again I have not done 3RR and delete pictures "based on dicussions" just once in whole day. --- ابراهيم 02:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Quote from WP:3RR. Note: There is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count. You're saying you're allowed to make exactly three reverts of pictures every day PLUS three reverts of text as shown in report?Opiner 02:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The editors complaining about Ibrahimfaisal have been keeping the Muhammad article in a continuous uproar due to their insistence on pictures and phrases that are offensive to Muslims. While I would be the first to insist on NO CENSORSHIP (if anyone remembers the debate over a woman's right to bare arms while looking at a Qur'an), I don't see the point of insisting on various matters just to PROVE that we don't care about Muslim sensibilities. I've been staying out of the fray because I can't trust myself to keep my temper, but I must say that I don't like what's going on. Zora 03:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The 'pictures that are offensive to Muslims' are ANY depictions of the prophet Muhammad. Real question here, do pictures give Ibrahimfaisal the right to make SIX reverts every 24 hours???Opiner 04:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Nodekeeper is asking for other people help to support their goal]. Should I also do that? I am sure more people will stand with me? --- ابراهيم 03:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly the problem with you Ibrahimfaisal. You see everything as a fight. I did post to the Hungry_Hun's page because he is the one who is responsible for the pictures and he has been the one sticking them back in after countless deletions. If you noticed, I haven't being participating that much with them, only the last couple of days to verify and clarify the sources to show the strawman arguments that you use in your edit summaries as a basis to delete them.
Also, to respond to your earlier comment please review Wikpedia is not a democracy policy. Because, yes, then could get a bunch of your muslim fundamentalist brothers together and you could vote out all the pictures on wikipedia. The pictures have deleted and been disappearing so many times a day that I think you are "tag-teaming" with your pals to delete the pictures. This time you skated over the line and Opiner, bless his heart, caught you. BTW reverting edits can apply to any edit, not just pictures. But this raises the other question. Sure, you manage (barely) to keep the rules, but it's keeping the spirit of the rules which is also very important and considered by admins, and by any account you fail miserably with that. And so much as some and I do mean small minority some disagree with pictures, anyway you cut it it's still religious censorship. If that's allowed, then half of wikipedia (with things like evolution) would disappear. When we have to start getting the ok to post something from a muslim cleric, Wikipedia ceases to be "the free encyclopedia" in every sense of the word. When the day is done, wikipedia is a secular encylopedia, and not intended as religious text. I disagree with a lot of stuff on wikipedia, but I don't go around deleting it wholesale, and respect other's intellectual pursuits and freedoms.
Opiner, myself, and the other editors have tried very hard to be respectful of people's beliefs. But there is a point when that's taken advantage of by not collaberating or developing consensus, insisting above all else that it's your way or the highway. You barely just added a couple of pictures now after a month of no compromise whatsoever. Oh, I think you did add that fuzzy letter pic because you decided that it was your consensus. If you note, the pictures you have deleted came from Arabic sources painted by Islamic artists (one of them painted near Mecca). So you want us to respect you and your culture, but yet you want us to throw away our culture of 'freedom of expression and thought' and live by your culture of 'censorship' and 'oppression'. It's oppressing when we have to fight. over. every. single. word. and. picture.
I hate to say it, but blocking you for a half a year to end your 'picture jihad' would be too short in my opinion Nodekeeper 04:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Independent of what is going on here, User:Nodekeeper is conspiracy theorising and accusing editors of maliciously tag-teaming or trying to "supress" information. [12], [13],[14],[15],[16] --Aminz 04:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
That's right, it's off topic here (for now). I did defend bluerain's version because it was the most fair and complete introduction I have seen to date. She swept in and organized the article wonderfully one night and left. I see one version of the page at night (done by other editors like bluerain), and I wake up the next day to see your version again over and over. Now we're back to a complete mess with the introduction. So where was I wrong with that comment? Anything that changes at night, your version shows up again the next morning. It's like groundhog day wikipedia-style. Just like Ibrahimfaisal, you skate around the 3RR rule day in and day out to change the article to your version, no matter what anyone else thinks. So yes, I'm saying the emperor has no clothes here.Nodekeeper 05:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ibrahimfaisal at nine reverts in two days plus anti-Semitic insinuatings

User:Ibrahimfaisal continues to edit war to make Muhammad article say tha Muhammad definitely did get revelations from God [17], [18] and now is leaving anti-Semitic insinuatings on my user talk page[19]. With the earlier picture removals[20], [21] thats now NINE reverts on one article in two days.Opiner 08:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly if you removed/change source matterial then I have to change it back. Secondly, that is 3 days not 2 days. Lastly, all of them are not reverts. --- ابراهيم 08:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh sorry, nine reverts in fifty eight hours. Thats one every six hours! and SIX in 24 HOURS in above report all POV pushing and youre still going. If you are using sources that say Muhammad definitely DID have revelations from God than you are using wrong/non-scholarly sources! And whats with the Jewish question on my user talk page?Opiner 08:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I used THERE books to write that section of "truce of Hudaybiyya" and spend hours. You just use your one brush-stoke and start changing it. If I change it back makes me a POV pushing then I am one? I give remarks on your userpage after you removed Moses twice. Let the remarks on your page read by anyone neutral person and it was not anti-Jewish. --- ابراهيم 09:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:68.90.226.209 reported by User:Khoikhoi (Result: 24h)

Three revert rule violation on ‘Abdu’l-Hamid II (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 68.90.226.209 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users): [22]

Time report made: 02:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

24h

[edit] User:Demosfoni reported by User:--Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) (Result: 24h)

Three revert rule violation on


9/11 conspiracy theories (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Demosfoni (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):


  • Previous version reverted to: [23]

Demosfoni added text to the intro 20:56, 22 September 2006, which was reverted.

  • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)

User has been warned about 3RR before, has been blocked for 3RR violation before, and warning was mentioned in edit summary this time. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 02:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


Time report made: 02:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The first edit (inserting the text) was done by an IP, which Demosfoni admitted to being on the Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories page. User has history of POV pushing, and ignoring rules such as 3RR. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 02:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

24h (nb: no need for initial text insert to be same editor) William M. Connolley 10:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Tigeroo reported by User:Opiner (Result: no block)

Three revert rule violation on Muhammad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Tigeroo (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

Time report made: 09:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Tigeroo has reverted the introduction of this article four time in 22 hours. Although here and there the language is rearranged and there are several previous versions besides he one mentioned above which are being used here, the heart of the reverts is seen in the language 'Muslims regard Muhammad/Muslims view Muhammad/Muhammad is regarded' and what follows this.Opiner 09:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The version reported as being reverted to is wrong reference. The first diff is the first edit I made, and the next three are the partial Reverts to it. Another would have been a violation of 3RR, though marginally and a case for exception could have been for possible vandalism, in the continual removal of notable, cited material and corrections to OR. I beleive I have kept the spirit by keeping the discussion moving on the talk pages, and leaving in changes reflecting some accomodations made at that point by discussion.--Tigeroo 09:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Other editors have also kept the discussion moving on the discussion page but without violating the three revert rule. The policy page says it doesnt have to be the exact same material. Each edit undid another editors work which according to the policy counts as revert. 'Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part.' That its all minor variations on a single reverted text just makes it easier to see.Opiner 09:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Quote from revert: "To revert is to undo all changes made after a certain time in the past. The result will be that the page becomes identical to how it used to be at some previous time. A partial revert undoes only some of those changes." Note to count as a revert it must become identical to a previous version, that only occurred thrice.--Tigeroo 09:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't find the prev-version convincing, so not at all sure that first edit is a revert William M. Connolley 10:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a revert because its undoing other editors work. THat what the policy says anyway I guess I cant make you follow it.Opiner 10:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:MONGO reported by User: User:XP (Result: 12 hours for both XP and Mongo)

Three revert rule violation on


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). MONGO (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):


  • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)

As stated, "necessary only for new users". This user has many edits, so I did not do this, as stated in these instructions.


Time report made: 13:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: XP (talk • contribs) has been edit warring in regards to readding a comment that I made that I deleted myself[28], [29] and continues to add a link to a previous Afd debate on this same article and I see no reason that a previous debate has in terms of this new debate. This editor has violated 3RR[30], [31], [32], [33] and referred to my edits as vandalism [34] and threatened further escalation[35].--MONGO 14:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Other AfD in question, which was for both articles, including the one up now one week later (again). Also, Afd policy states to not remove additions by others; this user has no authorization from me to remove my comments. Finally, I did not refactor in his comments--I quoted them and linked to them, which is allowed per policy. If a single user does not like having old or removed comments linked/quoted to, that is irrelevant under existing policy unfortunately, and the comments were very on topic for the AfD which I quoted. My revision of this user was to undo his vandalism against-policy removal of my OWN comments on AfD. You simply CANNOT remove/refactor our others's statements on AfD (especially with the admin tool of all things). · XP · 14:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    I had removed my comments, and you replaced them...twice, in a sole effort to harass. The previous afd discussion has nothing to do with the last one and I have left a note on the current afd stating as such. Every edit I made was merely an attempt to keep the current afd focused on the current nomination. The previous article was up for deletion partly because it was a split from the 9/11 conspiracy theories article and done so without consensus. Lastly, this editor not once notified me on my talkpage about this report and I see every action he has taken on this matter to be purely retalitory for my nominating said article for deletion.--MONGO 14:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    There was no harassment and your stating of such appears to be an attempt to deflect criticism of yourself with some sort of ad hominem defense/attack on myself and can be safely disregarded as vapor. I will leave it to the neutral deciding admin to decide, but the above comments were nonsensical. There was nothing in retaliation; there was a 3rr vio. No one is above the law, not even administrators. Reviewing admin: your decision if my RVs were allowed under policy; however, I will point out that MONGOs were emphatically *not*. If I need to be blocked as well as him, I will not protest if that is your decision. NOTE: MONGO was blocked for 3rr before.· XP · 14:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    XP (talk • contribs) is now edit warring on the Steven E. Jones article and has made has one initial edit[36] and three reverts dealing with several editors there.[37][38][39]. That 3RR block on me was from June 2005...ah, like 20,000 edits ago for me. No doubt this editors sole purpose currently is disruption.--MONGO 15:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    Quick note on that one: the cited initial edit was from 72+ hours ago. was not a rr/revision, but a correction to misstatement/policy vio (it was altering an unsourced statement) so I believe it is exempt anyway. Also, it wasn't a revision · XP · 15:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • No edit warring at all on that article, working on talk pages to discussion/concensus. Please view my full contribs--do not take this disruptive person at their word please. Also, please review this. This explains why my edits on that article are allowed per policy, and also note I have not violated 3rr on that Jones article: 1rr, 2rr, 3rr. However, this MONGO user appears to be here for disruption based on edits related to this mess of 9/11 issues, expressing advocacy of points counter to neutrality and NPOV (which is against our policies). Anyway, I recommend that MONGO violated, and again I will not protest if the admin deems I did as well (although I will disagree quietly silently and politely). · XP · 15:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    Well, all you've done lately is edit war, and the changes you made to the Steven E. Jones article were not supported by the cited reference that was there, so you've now been reverted by a third person. 3rr rules don't permit gaming the rule...you're not "entitled" to 3 reverts a day. Besides, as I menetioned, you twice replace comments I have made earlier that I myself had removed, solely for harassment. You then repeatedly link to the old afd discussion which has no bearing on the current one, unless your deliberately trying to push a POV...which it definitely looks like to me.--MONGO 15:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    Reviewing your edit history it appears you generate significant conflict in your wake, whilst all I do is edit and fix articles--I think your veracity of protest might be equated with guilt? Anyway, READ the other afd which clearly except to the blind is about the same article. Further, I quoted your comments. Are you telling me I can't cite/quote comments now, removed or otherwise? If they are in the legal edit history, I shall quote them if I choose--such is allowed. Further, I'm not gaming anything, and I'm attempting to discuss the policy NPOV violation on that talk page. · XP · 15:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    I guess I'm blind then.--MONGO 15:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked both of you for 12 hours for violating 3RR. JoshuaZ 03:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Cochese8 reported by User:Wmahan. (Result: 8 hours)

Three revert rule violation on

Logo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Cochese8 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

Time report made: 16:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This is the result of almost a month of discussion about one external link, which Cochese8 insists on re-adding to the article despite a clear consensus against it and attempts by numerous editors to reason with him. See Talk:Logo. I was one of the ones reverting his edits but I believe that there is a clear consensus for my position. -- Wmahan. 16:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:CltFn reported by User:BhaiSaab talk (Result: blocked)

Three revert rule violation on


Craig_Winn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). CltFn (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):


Time report made: 20:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The first rv is a partial rv. I and another editor have continued to revert this edit, because he is "self-published" and the use of the word "self-published" hardly falls under WP:BLP. BhaiSaab talk 20:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Not true , the first alleged revert is an edit , all the others are reverts of user:bahai's unsubstantiated OR , POV motivated attempt to discredit author and living BIO--CltFn 20:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually the first edit is indeed a revert of an edit made by User:Uucp on 09:20, 22 September 2006. BhaiSaab talk 20:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Its tagges as living bio. the 3 RR rule does not apply is a problem William M. Connolley 08:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

2006-09-24T04:26:24 Netsnipe (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "CltFn (contribs)" with an expiry time of 329 hours (Reinstating block pending further consultation with other admins) William M. Connolley 08:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:FunkyFly reported by User:FrancisTyers · (Result: 24h)

Three revert rule violation on


Template:EU countries_and_candidates (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). FunkyFly (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):


  • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)


Time report made: 21:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

The nature of the revert is to move a textual note explaining the alternative referent to the Republic of Macedonia from the bottom of the template to the middle. - FrancisTyers · 21:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Also see discussion below on my report.   /FunkyFly.talk_  00:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 08:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Wmahan reported by User:Joe (Result:Page Protected)

Three revert rule violation on


Logo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Wmahan (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):


Comments: This irks me to do, but rules are rules and though Wmahan is a prolific editor, it doesn't make him above the rules.

Not 4 reverts in 24 hours but there is lots of revert warning in the article the last few days, settle it in talk page, page protected. Jaranda wat's sup 21:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:FrancisTyers reported by User:  /FunkyFly.talk_  (Result: 24h)

Three revert rule violation on Template:EU countries and candidates (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). FrancisTyers (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)

FrancisTyers has been moving the name under which the Republic of Macedonia is to be accepted by the Europen Union to a somewhat obscure place under the pretext that it looks better.

Time report made: 21:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Nonsense, I had no idea that version existed. - FrancisTyers · 22:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah well, of course you're going to claim you did not know it existed. The previous edit you point on on your report is only two days before mine. You shouldve checked the history.   /FunkyFly.talk_  23:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
You mean I should have checked the history of the article after agreeing to make a change with other users on the talk page? That's absurd. - FrancisTyers · 23:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you need to watch your reverts. As I said, I did not agree to your changes.   /FunkyFly.talk_  23:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, if you observe the talk page Template talk:EU countries and candidates, you will see that this was OK'd by other parties to the dispute, "Feel free to put asterisks or whatever. I won't object. " - FrancisTyers · 22:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I did not agree to that.   /FunkyFly.talk_  23:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
My first edit to the page was on the 23rd September, so I find it hard to believe you want to pin me with something done almost 10 days before. - FrancisTyers · 23:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
As a matter of fact your 4 reverts took less time than mine. Also is not almost 10, but 7 exactly. Your "pinning" is 6 days.   /FunkyFly.talk_  23:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
You mean my three reverts. The first was an original edit. - FrancisTyers · 23:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
So you claim. You actually revert the structure of the template and you know it. It was myself who made the original simplification to the template, and you reverted it later.   /FunkyFly.talk_  23:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Incorrect. I made a suggestion on the talk page and followed it through with my first edit to the page. - FrancisTyers · 00:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
For the 3rd time, I did not agree to it. Plus just because you mention something on the talk page doesnt excuse you from reverting the article. And just because you are not aware of old versions you're not excused for reverting as well, so 4 reverts you have. Obviously you claim I was aware of a 6 day old version when you reported me, but you claim you yourself were not aware of a 7 day old version? What does that mean?   /FunkyFly.talk_  00:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Your name is in the edit summary. You agreed to that version. You knew it was there. My name wasn't in the edit summary. I had no idea it was there. I didn't agree to that version.
I guess you've run out of arguments. Of course you did not agree, why would you revert then? I did not agreee as well. It was the edit of a 3rd party's summary that had my name, so what? I cant keep track of what all people editing the template write in their user summaries.   /FunkyFly.talk_  00:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
You didn't make any attempt to discuss on the talk page. I was reverting to a version that was agreed upon by myself and Niko. - FrancisTyers · 00:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
With all respect to Niko, I dont think he's the one to excuse your reverts. Plus do you call "I think something will be better" a discussion? You did not present any valid (to me) reasons for your chages. All other dialogue is in the edit summaries.   /FunkyFly.talk_  00:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
You should have read the talk page and made your discussion there. You did not use the talk page once, whereas I explained my rationale on there clearly. Now, avast! and goodnight. - FrancisTyers · 01:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
You explained it and rushed into reverts? Very clearly? Again, you should've kept track of the your reverts.   /FunkyFly.talk_  01:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like 3RR to me. William M. Connolley 08:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Since I was implicated in the discussion, let me confirm that although I'd have no problem with Francis' version, evidently I would prefer that of FunkyFly. That was the reason I did not take part in the reverts. On the issue of 3RR, I am not an expert, and since I consider both users my wiki-friends, I am in a very difficult position. Guys, I really hate it that you had to bring this here. :-( The only thing I would like to request is equal treatment and justice. •NikoSilver• 09:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:William Mauco reported by User:MariusM (Result: user warned)

Three revert rule violation on

Transnistria (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). William Mauco (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):


  • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) Not a new user


Time report made: 22:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User:William_Mauco want to impose his POV in all Transnistria related articles, this is why he can not abtain reverting the work of others.

  • The user has now been warned per 3RR not to let this happen again. alphaChimp(talk) 00:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest a block for him. Nevermind he will engage in a revert war as soon as possible. --168.167.253.97 15:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Machocarioca reported by User:SiobhanHansa (Result: 16 hours)

Three revert rule violation on 2006-09-23


Anousheh Ansari (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Machocarioca (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):


  • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users): Not new.


Time report made: 23:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:User was blocked briefly for the same behavior on the same artice on 2006-09-20 and the page protected (see #User:Machocarioca_reported_by_User:alidoostzadeh_.28Result:_protected.29). The changes he is making are strongly contested on the talk page and The image he is trying to insert is the same as one that has been deleted by admins on several occassions as a copyright violation.

[edit] User:Michaelbluejay reported by User:Atom (Result: user warned)

Three revert rule violation on


Criticism_of_the_clothes_free_movement (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Michaelbluejay (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):


  • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)


Time report made: 01:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period. 'This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day.

User:Michaelbluejay has reverted a number of times in the past few days. I make a number of changes, and he reverts, making no changes. He considers the article to be his. I have asked politely a number of times for him to stop. I have asked for Wikipedia:Requests for comment and gotten no response. I warned him on his talk page and on the talk page of the article.

The user has never been told about the 3RR on his talk, so I warned him about it. -- Where 02:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Ikonoblast reported by User:Hkelkar (Result: 24h)

Three revert rule violation on


Votebank (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Ikonoblast (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):


  • Previous version reverted to: [48]
  • 1st revert: [49]
  • 2nd revert: [50]
  • 3rd revert: [51]
  • 4th revert: [52]


Time report made: 11:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:The user has edit-warred on this and other articles before and has been warned by admins to desist but he does not listen.Hkelkar 11:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment:Also, he is not a new user. He has changed his name from Holywarrior (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) where he has a rather rich history of edit-warring and being blocked, then vigorously arguing against it, even to the point of attacking admins.Hkelkar 11:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

24h

Admin should have checked gaming part committed by Hkelkar,and also that vandalism rvereted does not count in 3RR.Take care it is 3rd bogus reporting by Hakelkar.Carry on.user:ikonoblast Ikon |no-blast 11:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:MagicKirin reported by User:David Schaich (Result: 20 hours)

Three revert rule violation on


A.N.S.W.E.R. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). MagicKirin (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):



Time report made: 17:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I have listed all reversions over the past couple of days; it is easy to note many that fall within various 24-hour periods. The substance of the reverts was to add unsourced accusations of support for terrorism against Israel and the United States to the article. This is not quite simple vandalism, so I'm reporting the issue here. This new user, who has contributed little beyond these edits and never yet used an edit summary, has been warned several times by multiple Wikipedians. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 17:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

MagicKirin made a 12th revert at 17:41, 24 September 2006. I have already removed these accusations three times today, so I'll leave it for one of the other five users who have also taken care of them. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 19:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Given the particularly egregious nature of the violations and the obvious POV pushing, I have blocked the user for 20 hours per WP:3RR. alphaChimp(talk) 19:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:User:Editingoprah reported by User:Zaphnathpaaneah (Result:Nothing)

Three revert rule violation on Black_people


Black_People (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Editingoprah (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):


Time report made: 07:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User:Editingoprah has frequently disrupted the flow of the Black People article with his solitary objections to including some Asian and Pacific groups as Black, such as the Aeta, Negrito, Dalit, etc (namely groups whose name translates specifically as black person in their language, or whose features resemble strongly black Africans and African Americans.). He is trying to avoid the 3RR rule by slightly modifying his edits, (which retain essentially the same kind of content). At this very moment, he is simply jumping around trying to weasel word the article. Please block him. We have been through his interference quite a few times, and honestly, he has taken very little constructive criticism, and has offered very little constructive contributions to the article. In fact, during the last foray, the article had to be locked twice, and should not be locked again for his sake.

For example, the sixth edit [[59]] was a deliberate misuse of the service. He removed the reference that was there <ref>[[http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/filipinos.html]]</ref>. , then added in the ((fact)) wiki-code in it's place, blatently violating the use of the service.

I and others have routinely discussed the matter civilly with him, but he has escalated frequently this issue towards an unprovoked edit war, or through ignorant comparisions, as the current example indicates. Even though I retained his contributions regarding Black Irish/Dutch (which I totally disagree with), he still does not stop. No one will mistake a Black-Irish for a black African, but because the word "black" is used in "black-irish" he thinks that they should figure prominently in the article. His goal is to exclude all people (except black Africans and black African Americans) from being identified as black in the article. His method is to show the most unlikely analogies so that undisciplined readers will throw the baby out with the bathwater. For example in one of the edit/reverts he says "I can consider the Irish more Black than they (the Asians/Australians) are." But no one else does, not even the subjects in question he uses. I can find no reference anywhere where a "black-irish" regards himself as black in the same sense or moreso than a Dalit, Aboriginie, or Aeta!

--Zaphnathpaaneah 07:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Zaph it's your own fault for making the article so POV. By not providing any clear referenced definition of Black and including anyone you want, you're inviting others to do the same. The fact of the matter is that Black Irish is an extremely common and well documented term, so if the article is about how the term is used, then Black Irish have more of a right to be there than South Asians. Being a compound word means nothing. That's just to distinguish the Black Irish from the Irish people who aren't swarthy. So please provide a referenced definition of Black that is broad enough to include South Asians, but narrow enough to exclude the Black Irish Editingoprah 08:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

And btw, I was the one who provided the reference I removed, and I provided it to be used in the context of South Asians being mistaken for members of the African disaporas. You kept the reference but removed the context, when I was challenging you to provide a coherent definition of a Black person, not an example of South Asian being called Black by an extremist theorist. Editingoprah 08:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
First of all, please stop edit warring. Secondly, only one of the edits listed is actually a revert. Zaphnathpaaneah, a revert is when someone takes a page back to a previous version. It does NOT mean when someone removes material. Just to demonstrate the difference, this is a revert. This is not a revert. And if you ever report a 3RR again, please post diffs not versions of pages. A diff is a comparison between 2 versions. Just pasting in the version of the page as it appeared on such-and-such a date doesn't help us much. Thanks. --Woohookitty(meow) 07:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:MarkThomas reported by User:Irishpunktom\talk (Result: 8h)

Three revert rule violation on


George Galloway (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). MarkThomas (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):



Time report made: 13:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Reverts to intro paragraph. His edits presented one POV and were removed by at least three different editors, before user reverted them back in. Two of the five reverts were made using Pop-Ups, which should only be used to combat vandalism, not to edit and revert war over a content dispute. --Irishpunktom\talk 13:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom was ignoring mediation attempts on the heavily disputed Galloway page that I was attempting to maintain by editing out his change that had been done without reference to the discussion. I also note the very many heavily POVist edits carried out by this user elsewhere. MarkThomas 15:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Additional comment: ascan be seen from the talk page, this user does not respect WP:NPA, WP:CIV or WP:BLP either. Viewfinder 14:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Both of the above comments are deliberate distortions by politically charged-up defenders of pro-Galloway POV on this very political article. The facts are that I made a perfectly reasonable edit (which they present as a revert) and then reverted it 3 times. One of the others in their list is a change to an entirely different section. I will be monitoring the activities of both editors to ensure they toe the line absolutely and will report any deviations from rules here. Thanks. MarkThomas 14:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I also quote from another user on the main Galloway talk page:
Cripes! It's all kicking off! I'm keeping my head down personally. To be honest I am not 100% sure what MarkThomas did really should count as 3RR. After all, at the end there he was reverting to MY wording, and I am one of the people who disagrees with him, and one of the folks he is having a dispute with! He added something provocative which I don't think belonged in the intro. I deleted it. He reverted my deletion. I edited it to adopt a compromise position, which he said on the talk page he was willing to go along with. Someone deleted the whole thing again. He reverted to my compromise proposal. That's how I see it. --SandyDancer 14:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC) MarkThomas 15:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I am wrong, but the user appears to be threatening to stalk other users. Here he says "I will be monitoring the activities of both editors to ensure they toe the line absolutely" and on my own talk page he says "Your edits are absolutely saturated with POV. You hardly deserve to be left on Wikipedia - your activities are going to be monitored". This is thoroughly uncivil. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Just pointing out directly that you are a very POVist editor - and that I intend to review your future contributions and see if they are accurate. If not, I will report them, as you have. Of course, the monitoring allegation you make of stalking is absurd, but not untypical of your editing behavious, as anyone who reviews your past contributions will see for themselves. MarkThomas 15:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
You, in my opinion, just defined wikistalking. --Wildnox 15:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, if that's true (and it isn't - I only wish to make it clear that Irishpunktom is a problem user) then others got there before me; Irishpunktom has been banned from editing a bunch of pages and is clearly determined to spread POV wherever he goes - people like me who try to stand up to him end up with accusations against them. His deletion of my cited, appropriate and factual edit on George Galloway without reading the discussion and against mediation attempts was arrogant, high-handed and his comments against the edit were full of distortion. In my opinion I did the right thing reverting him and can only hope that other users take note of his many highly POVist Islamist edits and take appropriate steps to keep WP truthful and not a basket of lies controlled by Osama Bin Ladin. MarkThomas 17:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
In all honesty you were making a reasonable point there, before going off on one in your last sentence and looking a bit loony. --SandyDancer 17:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Am I Osama Bin Laden? Or is Bin Laden controlling me as a proxy ? I am curious, so please do tell.--Irishpunktom\talk 17:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether you did the right thing in reverting him once, I don't know. But breaking 3RR is definitely not on; 8h as a first offence William M. Connolley 19:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Nottingham reported by User:Emcee (Result:24h for NPA)

Three revert rule violation on


Hong Tran (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Nottingham (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):



Time report made: 20:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Nottingham made the four reverts above. He is a new user and I have warned him on his talk page; barring further reversions, I'm not requesting a user block. However, since the article has now been put up for AfD I'm asking that it be reverted to the immediately previous version: 04:34, 25 September 2006 and also protected, for the purposes of the AfD discussion so that those who are visiting for the first time will see a reasonably complete article. I admit to being one of the participants in this edit war, although I respected the 3RR, and had been trying to seek mediation prior to the AfD request. I think this comparison [60] shows that the nature of Nottingham's deletions/additions in the reverted edition he was persisting with are not balanced.

Added 04:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC): It appears that Nottingham has now gotten himself blocked for 24 hours by personal attacks against User:Rebecca and User:Snottygobble, a sysop and admin, respectively. Rebecca was advising him on his edits/reverts, and Snottygobble was advising him on his personal attacks against Rebecca and other users. He also acussed User:Sdedeo of being my sock puppet for his contributions to the AfD page on Hong Tran. Nottingham has shown no signs of remorse or improvement for his actions and actually seems to be getting worse as things progress. I would ask that the admin(s) who review this request keep an eye on his actions with respect to this article and the AfD request, in the coming days, as I suspect that even stricter action might become necessary.Emcee

[edit] User:Burneville reported by User:After Midnight 0001 (Result:12h)

Three revert rule violation on

Jim Clark (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Burneville (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

Time report made: 02:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: These are reverts to the same version for which Pflanzgarten was blocked here [61]

[edit] User:164.107.252.198 reported by User:Hbdragon88 (Result:Not violation)

Three revert rule violation on GameFAQs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 164.107.252.198 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):


  • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)

Time report made: 04:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: They aren't wholesale reverts, but the anon user keeps adding the same link in there despite the fact that antoher user agreed [62] and also removed the same link. Hbdragon88 04:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that this isn't an entirely new user: uses "rv" and knows how to fully revert, as well as using {{cite web}} and talk pages. Hbdragon88 08:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Only three reverts are presented, and 3RR violation occurs only when the 4th revert occurs. --WinHunter (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Machocarioca reported by User:SiobhanHansa (Result: 48 hours)

Three revert rule violation on 2006-09-26


Anousheh Ansari (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Machocarioca (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):


  • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users): Previously blocked for 3RR on 2006-09-23.


Time report made: 09:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User was blocked earlier for 3RR or the same article - WP:AN/3RR#User:Machocarioca_reported_by_User:SiobhanHansa_.28Result:_16_hours.29. Since that block expired s/he as continued to revert changes s/he disagrees with. But has not posted any discussion to the talk page or taken other steps to engage with editors on the article.

Blocked for 48 hours. User clearly knew what he was doing. --Yamla 14:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:FordPrefect42 reported by User:Catholic from Berlin (Result: No block, users cautioned)

Three revert rule violation on


Lea Rosh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). FordPrefect42 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):


  • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)


Time report made: Catholic from Berlin 14:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Was warned before making his fourth revert, and in reply stated he would disregard the 3RR policy. Catholic from Berlin 14:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by FordPrefect42: Clearly an edit-war. All reverts clearly marked as reverting vandalism. User:Catholic from Berlin has repeatedly vandalised the article by stating "facts" with no sources, while the sources cited on Talk:Lea Rosh clearly prove that the opposite is correct. --FordPrefect42 14:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Clearly an edit-war, and you are not above Wikipedia policy. This is not the place for discussing the facts, which I am willing to do elsewhere, but for discussing your 3RR violation. Some of the content you were reverting was translation from German Wikipedia, and well referenced facts. You claim her birth name is Rosh, while other sources, including several German newspapers, disagree. She lost her case against those reporting her name change. Catholic from Berlin 14:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I never claimed to be above Wikipedia policy, and you are neither. You have broken the 3RR yourself by now, and it was by mere chance that your vandalism forced me to be the first on this. You are willing to discuss facts? Fine, so please start it! All I have read by you so far is polemics, and you were not able to prove one single of your alleged "facts". --FordPrefect42 14:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

  • The content being reverted is a violation of WP:BLP and therefore exempt from 3RR. Both users were advised to utilise the talk pages and refrain from edit warring. No block. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Kosmopolis reported by User:Tewfik (Result: 48h)

Three revert rule violation on


2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Kosmopolis (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):



Time report made: 15:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The user has violated 3RR three times in the past (used IP to get around original block, the IP was blocked for 3RR, and when it became clear they were one and the same, the user was again blocked for bypassing the 1st block with the IP).

48h William M. Connolley 16:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mrdthree reported by User:Duke53 | Talk (Result: 8h)

Three revert rule violation on


Anti-Americanism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Mrdthree (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):


  • Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
  • 1st revert: [http://]
  • 2nd revert: [http://]
  • 3rd revert: [http://]
  • 4th revert: [http://]
  • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)


Time report made: 17:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Yet another poorly formatted report. However the violation exists... 8h William M. Connolley 17:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Peroxisome reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: 8h)

Three revert rule violation on John_Brignell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Peroxisome (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):


  • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) [72]


Time report made: 08:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

User blocked for 8 h. Syrthiss 14:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

[edit] User:Justif reported by User:David | Talk (Result: 24h)

Three revert rule violation on Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Justif (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):


  • Warned about previous 3RR violation, and informed about the rule here.


Time report made: 15:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User claims deletion justified under WP:BLP, but this is a manifestly incorrect claim as the information is not negative, is neutrally phrased, and has a reliable source. David | Talk 15:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

User Justif (talk • contribs) is an SPA and I would really appreciate an admin strolling on over to help out. --Irishpunktom\talk 18:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

24h for both William M. Connolley 19:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to chime in here; Justif is obviously somebody's sockpuppet or a role account and is disrupting the article. I would suggest unblocking Dbiv. Mackensen (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Dbiv can be unblocked in the same way as anyone else: to promise to stick to 3R in future. At the moment, he is still (vociferously; see his talk page) claiming to have not even broken 3RR (which I think is absurd). As far as I know, there is no exception in 3RR for "I was reverting a sock puppet", and there probably shouldn't be, otherwsie we'd be swamped by such claims William M. Connolley 19:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
A role account blindly reverting simply cannot be treated in the same fashion as a good faith article editor; it's clear from the talk page that Justif is a minority of one. I thank you for responding; I'm unblocking Dbiv. Mackensen (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:ParadoxTom reported by Humus sapiens (Result: 1 week)

Three revert rule violation on


Jews for Jesus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). ParadoxTom (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):


  • Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)


Time report made: 22:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Keeps reverting in spite of having been warned (after his third RV). Has a history of RV-warring. Claims "consensus" even while being reverted by a number of other editors. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at the edits, IMHO this is the biggest tempest in a teapot in WP history. Best Wishes. Will314159 22:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for a week... I think if he does it again he should probably be indef blocked. This is, indeed, very silly William M. Connolley 08:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zorkfan reported by User:PinchasC (Result: 24 hours)

Three revert rule violation on Alternative Judaism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Zorkfan (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

Also continuting at Synagogue:

  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

He is the same person as the ip see [73] and the changes that were made, and this ip was blocked previously [74]

User was also warned about 3rr here and here. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 00:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Time report made: 00:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

As he's been warned, 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zandvoort reported by User:Ian Dalziel (Result: 48 hours)

Three revert rule violation on Jim_Clark (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Zandvoort (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

Time report made: 00:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

These are identical reverts apparently by yet another sockpuppet of User:Pflanzgarten, who has already been banned, and User:Burneville who is currently banned for the same thing.

This doesnt appear to be a 3RR violation, but a violation of WP:SOCK. It also appears on first glance that you yourself have violated 3RR. --Wildnox 00:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Ignore the stricken comment, I was mistaken. --Wildnox 00:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Duly ignored.  :)
As for the first comment, isn't it a violation of WP:3RR to use a sockpuppet to repeat a revert whilst banned? User:Burneville is currently under a 48hr ban for the identical revert. -- Ian Dalziel 00:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that is covered under WP:SOCK, I'm not sure though. Either way, it's better to have a report here than nowhere. --Wildnox 01:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment - while not realizing that you were posting this here, I was posting a block evasion notice at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible block evasion --After Midnight 0001 02:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • 48 hours for 3RR; I suggest WP:RFCU to collate the suspected sockpuppets -- Samir धर्म 02:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Perrymason reported by User:Gamaliel (Result: 3h)

Three revert rule violation on Fox News Channel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Perrymason (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

Time report made: 20:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

No warning or form; 3h William M. Connolley 20:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:67.170.33.237 reported by User:EncMstr (Result: 8h)

Three revert rule violation on Alpental (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 67.170.33.237 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: (sorry, I don't understand what this means)
  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
  • 1st 3RR
  • 2nd 3RR2

Time report made: 05:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This user has not responded to messages on his/her talk page, so I didn't attempt using the article's talk page and they rarely enter a "summary", let alone one justifying the edits. Fortunately, they haven't figured out how to use the "revert" operation of the article history, so it takes them several edits to subvert the page each time.

It seems to me they are violating the spirit of 3RR. Certainly they have frustrated several of us who are trying to keep the article useful. Maybe blocking the user isn't the perfect answer, but I'm challenged to think of a better solution. — EncMstr 05:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This is quite a mess.... you need to date you diffs; you also need to dcide if you're reporting 65. or 67. William M. Connolley 07:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about the mess. The edits are frequently bewildering and that kept me uninvolved for some time after this was going on. The user/IP is now changed to the proper source, and the diffs have the timestamp of the edit. — EncMstr 07:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

8h William M. Connolley 08:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Astrotrain reported by User:Mariano(t/c) (Result: 24h)

Three revert rule violation on ARA San Luis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Astrotrain (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

Time report made: 06:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • The user (with already more than 5'000 edits) has a history of erasing appearences to the widely referenced Spanish name of the Falkland Islands, this time in an Argentine ship's article where it should be available for further (re)search of a reader. Note that his first revert didn't even have an edit summary, for the second didn't even create a subject at the talk page. He has been already blocked twice. Mariano(t/c) 06:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Not within 24h. NExt time, please add dates as requested William M. Connolley 07:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to add the timestaps. But the 4 edits were done within 24 hours, even within the same calendar day (at least in my time zone) Mariano(t/c) 08:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair point: 24h

[edit] User:Jreem22 reported by tjstrf (Result: indeef)

Three revert rule violation on Lolicon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Jreem22 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Time report made: 07:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Konstable (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Jreem22 (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (nothing but disruption and bad faith edits) William M. Connolley 07:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC) This guy's sole purpose in life seems to be adding links to imageboards to the Lolicon page. He was blocked for it once, started right up again. --tjstrf 07:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Mike18xx reported by User:Itaqallah (Result: 48 hours)

Three revert rule violation on


Mutaween (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Mike18xx (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):


  • Previous version reverted to: 05:21, 25 September 2006
  • 1st revert: [85]
  • 2nd revert: [86]
  • 3rd revert: [87]
  • 4th revert: [88] (almost identical to the above but includes minor relocation of a source/link)


Time report made: 23:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: the only difference between the version reverted to and the presented diffs is the ref-tagging of a passage already present in the article. the actual prose within the article is constant in the original version and the subsequent reverts to it. this user has been blocked in the past for 3RR violations, and on this occasion constantly reverted to a very charged narrative. ITAQALLAH 23:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sweet Pinkette reported by 152.3.65.159 07:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC) (Result: no violation)

Three revert rule violation on her talk page. Sweet Pinkette (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [89]

Time report made: 07:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment- This user was recently accused of being a suspected sockpuppet of Cute 1 4 U. She repeated delete warnings on her talk page as well. Her IP address, as she claims, is 66.55.225.212.

People don't get blocked for 3RR on their talk pages. OTOH you may be if you persist there William M. Connolley 08:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
In my defense the reason I deleted his/her comments is because this user continued to post snide "warnings" Anonymously on my talk page, despite asking him not to and the despite the initial warning that all unsigned comments (aside OFFICIAL warnings and notices from WP staff and Admins) would be deleted. This user continued to post the same message (I counted about 6 times). He/She was just trying to start drama on my talk page. And apparently is trying to move the drama to this notice board.
And FYI I was CLEARED of the said charges of being a sockpuppet of Cute 1 4 U and even User:Aeon1006 apoligised to me about the matter on my talk page. Thanks for your time over this ludicrous matter. Sweet Pinkette 14:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] [[User:]] reported by User:Charlesknight (Result: no violation)

Three revert rule violation on [[]] ([[[:Template:Fullurl:]] edit]|[[Talk:|talk]]|[[[:Template:Fullurl:]] history]|links|[[[:Template:Fullurl:]] watch]|logs). Tangoedit (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • 1st revert: [94]
  • 2nd revert: [95]
  • 3rd revert: [96]
  • 4th revert: [http://]
  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Time report made: 16:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Tango edit keeps reverting to a version with an unsourced claim and will not commmunicate about it's inclusion

  • Improperly formatted report. Please fix it. alphaChimp(talk) 23:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • No proper report, no revert 4, no violation. alphaChimp(talk) 03:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:84.12.22.129 reported by User:I already forgot (Result: 24h)

Three revert rule violation on Andrew Murray (tennis player) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 84.12.22.129 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Time report made: 02:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

2006-09-29T05:33:13 Wangi (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "84.12.22.129 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (violation of 3RR on Andrew Murray (tennis player)) William M. Connolley 07:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:MagicKirin reported by User:Axlq (Result: 24h)

Three revert rule violation on A.N.S.W.E.R. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). MagicKirin (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [97]


Time report made: 04:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: 7 reverts made on 2006-09-29. User persists in adding blatantly POV statement to article. User made 4 of the 7 reverts on 2006-09-29 (shown above); other reverts back to original version were made by different users. My last revert on (first revert of 2006-09-30) restores to original version without POV statement.

24h William M. Connolley 18:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:MagicKirin and sockpuppet User:MagicKirin1 created to circumvent above ban. Reported by User:Axlq (Result: indef)

Three revert rule violation on A.N.S.W.E.R. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). MagicKirin (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) (reverted as sockpuppet MagicKirin1):

  • Previous version reverted to: [102] (my reversion to original form)
  • 1st revert: [103] (User MagicKirin)
  • 2nd revert: [104] (User MagicKirin)
  • 3rd revert: [105] (User MagicKirin)
  • 4th revert: [106] (Sockpuppet MagicKirin1)

Time report made: 15:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User:MagicKirin was banned for 24 hours for violating WP:3RR. This user subsequently created the sockpuppet account User:MagicKirin1 to circumvent the ban, and promptly made another reversion (last reversion shown above). Appropriate sockpuppet/sockpuppeteer tags have been added to both user pages.

I've blocked MK1 indefinitely William M. Connolley 18:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:69.255.0.91 reported by User:antiuser (Result:)

Three revert rule violation on Gol_Transportes_Aéreos_Flight_1907 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 69.255.0.91 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Time report made: 21:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User insists on adding a section to the article which is of little or no importance and relevance. What little pertinent information there was in his addition was added to another section of the same article, but user keeps on re-adding the same section. - antiuser 21:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Please use diffs and proper format for the report. -- Avi 05:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Ramdrake reported by Ernham (Result:)

Three revert rule violation on {{Race and intelligence}}. Ramdrake (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [111]

-->

Time report made: 23:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Warned previoulsy in his talk page and I recently warned him as well of him violating 3RRV, yet he refused to comply or discuss logically in the discussion page. I started writing this up, but then he finally said he would revert the info back to what was there, and i was satsified with that. I looked at the page and saw that the top of the edit history showed he had in fact reverted back to what i had there prviously, but then when i looked at the current article again, it was back to what it was when he reverted my edition wholy or in part previously. So then i looked back at the edit page and magically the last edit he had on the edit page, the edit that supposedly reverted the material back, had somehow vanished. I can only guess he also edited the edit history of the page as well. So it looks like he not only went over the 3 revert limit, he also wentand altered the history of the page somehow. That's purely speculation however, and I assume you guys have some way of checking that. I've never filled one of these out before so hopefully I did it resonably correctly.

Explanation from Ramdrake:
While I have gone to 3 reverts on this occasion, the 4th revert attributed to me is in fact an edit. I have tried to be reasonable with this editor (please see the edit summary of Intelligence quotient along with the talk page: Talk:Intelligence_quotient, but he has shown to be totally illogical (as per the talk page of Intelligence Quotient), verbally abusive (to the point I had to leave a warning on his user talk page) on Talk:Intelligence_quotient and launched into a revert war. My only error was to let myself get dragged into said revert war. Should I be found guilty of 3RR violation, I would only ask that consideration be given that this user also engaged in the revert war, and that penalties be meted out on both sides, as the reviewing admin sees fit for both behaviors. Thanks for hearing me out.--Ramdrake 23:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, for the record, the user has now reinstated twice an uncivil comment and personal attack removed from a talk here as per WP:NPA
Here is my initial removal:[116]
And here are the two instances he reinstated them. Please also notice the edit summaries accompanying these reverts:[117][118]--Ramdrake 23:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
User Ernham has just reverted the removal of his uncivil comments once more: [119]. Could an admin please look into it and issue the proper warnings or actions? This user seems totally out of control.--Ramdrake 23:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Now he has continually reverted my comments in the discussion, breaking the 3RR -- again. He feels that my opinion of some of the studies he cites as being "trash" science because they are written like op-eds in a newspaper is somehow a personal attack. I'm not even reading any of the stuff he wrote above. I've had enough of him and his control-freakish behaviorErnham 03:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Here are user Ernham's comments in question:
Bunch of trash that reads like op-ed pieces in the New York times. Pfft. You got a PhD in BS, I figure, sure, uhuh. Ernham 22:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC) ([120])
He has been warned there and on his talk page that this constitutes a personal attack and uncivil language. Nevertheless, he has continued with a fourth revert to this foul language (ref just above). I haven't reverted any other comments of his. I would dare say his constant reintroduction of this injurious material constitutes vandalism, and the appropriate warning has been placed on his user talk page, in addition with the previous warning about NPA. I rest my case.--Ramdrake 03:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Now he continues to (he has been all night) bothering me in various ways on my talk page, usually a variety of veiled threats. Mr. Ramdrake claims to have a PhD in BS,yet he continually cites athropological and psychology studies. This lead me to the sarcastic response of "Yeah, sure, you have PhD in BS." I doubt he does. In any event, he made it clear on his first response of supposed personal attack(either in my own talk page or the discussion page he just violated anothher 3RR on, i forget which) that it was not anything rleated to my sarcastic responce of PhD of BS(biological science), but instead of calling the cites/studies he supplied as "trash". Now he's changed those comments and wants to pretend he had issue with the PhD comment I made and immediately clarified its meaning. i actually work with half a dozen PhDs of BS, and i have this funny feeling he isn't one. Heh. But that's neither here nor there. I'm not responding to him or this matter again until this matter has touched upon by an admin Ernham 03:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Diffs not versions please. I've blocked Ernham for 3h for incivility William M. Connolley 07:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

As Ernham's talk page will attest, the "veiled threats" are simply two standard warnings: one for incivility (already dealt with), the second because the multiple reversal of the removal of his comments on the talk page of Intelligence quotient (removal as per WP:NPA and WP:RPA) can and was interpreted as vandalism and treated as repeated addition of nonsense (under WP:VANDAL). All the other interactions that took place on his page are merely explanations related to one or the two points in this paragraph. For authentic veiled threats, please refer to the comments user Ernham left on my talk page: [121]. And again, sorry if this situation mixes up a 3RR situation with one of misbehavior from the part of a user.--Ramdrake 11:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to add this again as an afterthought, but for the record I have no admin rights whatsoever, so I couldn't have done what Ernham is suspecting me of doing (altering an article's history page).
Also, when I pointed out my qualifications I mentioned my Ph.D. was in neurobiology. He then retorted by calling it a Ph.D. in BS which under the circumstances I view as a direct insult.--Ramdrake 14:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
This is disgrace that you would dare block me for incivility after someone is reported for violating the 3RR TWICE within hours of each other! Outrageous adminstrator bias. If you would have bothered to take the time to actually read the history of edits on here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligence_quotient&action=history
You would have seen that, when making those comments about PhD in BS that he did not have issue with them. Nope. He had issue with me calling some cites trash. If that is the grounds by which you ban people for hours or even SECONDS, almost the entire wikipedia community would be banned the majority of their liftetimes. This is disgusting and smacks of biased moderation. Ernham 19:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


And you better go look up what sarcasm is. What i said was no different from saying "why is it that someone that PhD in a biological science when you only supply cites from psychology and ahtropology sources when you are trying to disprove something related to biological science". needless to say it's much shorter. Do you "get it"? I'm going to be reporting this behavior to any other mods that listen. Totally bogus treatment. Ernham 19:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
And finally, the second 3RRV and supposed "uncivility" issue did not have anytign to do with the previous violation of the 3RR, the one that is fully reported above. So you took the time to punish me for some trumped up "uncivility" claim, yet you did not bother to process the above complaint. Would you care to explain yourself and your behavior before I write you off as being a completely biased admin??Ernham 19:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Just wondering how long this is supposed to stay up, with no additional input from the plaintiff? Thank you for your attention.--Ramdrake 10:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zhang Qiang reported by User:Niohe

I want to report User:Zhang Qiang for clear violation of WP:3RR on the following pages:

Hope you can deal with this promptly.--Niohe 21:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You should use the proper format when reporting, please. -- Avi 05:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. Here is my report in what I hope is proper format. User:Zhang Qiang has repeatedly deleted verifiable information in the heading of Dalian and Shenyang, and refused to engage in any serious discussion on the topic on Talk:Dalian#Dalny and Talk:Shenyang#Mukden.

Dalian

Shenyang

Hope you can deal with this.--Niohe 15:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Antman reported by User:Rex (Result: prot)

Three revert rule violation on German language (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Antman (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: (originally) 00:18, 29 September 2006 but the user made various other (but very related) reverts.

Time report made: 22:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Antman is insultive, refuses to accept consensus and refuses to provide references for his highly controversive edits/text.

User has been warned by another user prior to this was posted (warned for 4 reverts, see his talk page) Rex 22:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

If one cares to actually look at my so-called reverts, one would see that only 2, possibly 3 are actually reverts, the others are edits. Ameise -- chat 22:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Request seconded by User:LucVerhelst
[122] Another revert, with edit summary : "Yes, I just violated the 3RR, but so did you." --LucVerhelst 01:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I just violated the 3RR, but I do not believe that I did when this claim was made. Ameise -- chat 01:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

2006-10-01T01:53:25 Grandmasterka (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected German language: Cool down a raging edit war [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) William M. Connolley 09:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rex Germanus reported by User:Antman (Result:No violation)

Three revert rule violation on German language (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Rex_Germanus (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: (originally) 16:38, September 28, 2006, but the user has also made various other (and signifigantly related) reverts.

I did not give this user a warning.

Time report made: 22:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Rex Germanus is abusive and makes repeated comments against me, calling me ignorant. He follows my edits and often reverts them with little or no description besides things such as utter bollocks. He often demands that others give him references, while never giving citations nor references himself. User has not been warned. Ameise 22:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No warning, these are not reversions of the same edit, and they span signficantly more than 24 hours. Please read the 3RR policy before making reports. Thank you. -- Avi 05:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
In that case, my reverts are all of different edits and don't apply either. Ameise -- chat 05:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me but why were a number of comments deleted? Rex 09:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zorkfan reported by User:PinchasC (Result: 48 hours)

Three revert rule violation on Alternative Judaism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Zorkfan (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
User was blocked previously for 3rr. [123]

Time report made: 00:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Coming off a 24hr block for 3rr user has done nothing but edit war. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Also note that User:Zorkfan vandalised this page after this report was filed. See this diff. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Also note that every SINGLE WAKING ONE OF ZORKFAN'S ARTICLES ARE BEING REMOVED BY A HATEFUL LEGALIST WITHOUT SUFFICIENT EXPLANATION.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zorkfan (talk • contribs) 20:43, September 30, 2006 (UTC)

I am not a participant in this, but I read some of Zorkfan's edits, and it does appear as though PinchasC is simply reverting [User:Zorkfan|Zorkfan]]'s edits for the sake of reversion, and not for content; this is not the place to debate that, though. Ameise -- chat 00:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
His edits have been reverted by multiple editors and it was explained on the talk page adn on his talk pages when he was editing as an ip and edit summaries why he was reverted. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. Content dispute is not an excuse for 3RR. -- Avi 00:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Haksve reported by User:AndersL (Result: no vio)

Three revert rule violation on JAS 39_Gripen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Haksve (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • 1st revert: [124] 16:32, 29 September 2006
  • 2nd revert: [125] 20:53, 30 September 2006
  • 3rd revert: [126] 23:37, 30 September 2006
  • 4th revert: [127] 00:54, 1 October 2006
  • 5th revert: [128] 01:13, 1 October 2006


  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Time report made: 02:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:Warned several times not to remove content from the Gripen article. Encouraged to use the talk page, several times without complying until his 5th revert. Haksve is suspected for the same behaviour on the Nynorsk wikipedia aswell. --AndersL 02:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Not with 24h William M. Connolley 09:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Wearegoingtowin reported by User:Atrian (Result:No violation)

Three revert rule violation on Toronto municipal election, 2006 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Wearegoingtowin (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):


  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Time report made: 03:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: There is a clear warning about placing these types of edits on the article talk page but this user is insistent.

Please read the policy, 3RR requires FOUR reverts in a 24 hour period. -- Avi 05:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a fourth (made after this was reported, but before the admin's judgement):

I had placed a friendly warning to stop on User_talk:Wearegoingtowin before the fourth revert was made. It looks like this game will continue until an admin does something. Wolfchild 05:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:WLU reported by User:Mystar 05:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC) (Result: 12h each)

Three revert rule violation on Terry Goodkind.

WLU (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [133]Revision as of 02:27, 1 October 2006


  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Time report made: --Mystar 05:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Also see Terry Goodkind Disscussion page, WLU talk page, Sword of Truth Wikipedia Project Talk page.

Obviously enough, you have *both* broken 3RR, so can have 12h each William M. Connolley 09:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Peroxisome reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: 16 hours)

Three revert rule violation on John Brignell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Peroxisome (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: not needed; all are marked as reverts
  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Time report made: 11:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

===User:Wearegoingtowin reported by User:Wolfchild (Result: 24)===h

Three revert rule violation on Toronto municipal election, 2006 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Wearegoingtowin (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 00:00, 1 October 2006 [139]

Time report made: 15:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This is an extension of a previously filed and closed report (above). This report contains further information including a warning issued to the user and a fourth revert which occured after that warning.

Thats 3R, but the first "R" isn't, since the prev-rev-to doesn't include the linking. Furthermore... I really don't understand why removing the link is a good idea William M. Connolley 15:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Unwisely, WAGTW has now reverted again, so gets blocked William M. Connolley 18:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zaparojdik reported by User:Khosrow II (Result: 24h)

Three revert rule violation on Pan-Turkism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Zaparojdik (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

Time report made: 19:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Zaparodjik made a total of ten reverts/edits on this page, I just listed 4 of them. He also broke 3RR on this article: Turko-Iranian. This user continuously starts revert wars and has been blocked for 3RR several times. I hope admins take all of this into consideration when blocking this user, as per the amount of time they should give him. He has been warned of the 3RR rule many times by me, but he just doesnt care about it the rules. Thanks.Khosrow II 19:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 19:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Fastifex reported by User:Roleplayer (Result:)

Three revert rule violation on Æthelwold (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Fastifex (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Time report made: 19:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

I don't know if it counts, but this user has been restoring the same information to the article previous to this occasion, however this is the latest string of straight-reverts. User does not appear willing to engage in discussion regarding the extra information. -- Roleplayer 19:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Diffs not version please, and these aren't in 24h William M. Connolley 19:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Yugigx60 reported by User:Ryūlóng (Result:Protected)

Three revert rule violation on Template:Pokepisode (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Yugigx60 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [149]

Time report made: 21:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: While I do not have a fourth revert, I have mentioned something at WP:ANI concerning this whole debacle in which the user I have reported went out of his way to change a template that is in high use on this and a few other pages so that the images would be used and then asked for it to be protected on his version. I have not been able to contact the protecting admin as best as I could, but he has not yet replied to me. Ryūlóng 21:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I have changed this report to that on the template itself, in which I am unfortunately assuming that the anons were this user, as well. Ryūlóng 21:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Template is protected Jaranda wat's sup 23:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It is protected, but now the users involved in the disruption have gone about to try and get around the protection by making a forking template. I've mentioned this here, ANI, and at RFCU. Ryūlóng 23:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I've deleted the forked template (pokepisode2) and blocked one newcomer for incivility William M. Connolley 19:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Anonymous 57 reported by User:Jeff3000 (Result:3 hours)

Three revert rule violation on The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Anonymous 57 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

Time report made: 22:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Has been adding unreferenced tags to many pages (including featured articles), when references exist (but not in ref tags). See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive behavior from user_Anonymous57 -- Jeff3000 22:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Three hours Jaranda wat's sup 23:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kosmopolis reported by User:Tewfik (Result:72 hours)

Three revert rule violation on 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Kosmopolis (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

This is this user's 5th 3RR in the last few weeks. Just this week he was blocked for 48h for 3RR.

Time report made: 22:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I request that the admin revert back to the consensus version - this has been a very disruptive experience. TewfikTalk 22:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments by reported user: The report is invalid. These diffs are not related to each other. The first diff presented [165] is a series of edits I made over the course of 8 hours, not a reversion (see my name on the top). I have heavily edited the article and have carefully watched not to revert any part more than three times in 24h. As for the reporter's allegations: I have been blocked *two* times for 3RR, not four or five times like the reporter states. Also, the 48h block was last week, not this week. He is actually the one who had reported me those two times I were blocked, he has been accusing me of bad faith on the talk page and we had several content disputes in the past weeks. Since the reporter's last edit yesterday, the article has been edited by 10+ editors already (excluding me), without anyone challenging the current version, so it is unclear what the reporter means by "consensus version". Obviously, he is the only person that personally objects to the edits that were made. Regardless of the content disputes and the reporter's false assertions, I would like to stress that this report is neither valid nor justified, and that no 3RR violation has taken place. Thanks. Kosmopolis (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record: the diffs do not have to be related to each other - please see WP:3RR. I won't block you because earlier I was involved in opposing User:Kosmopolis there - so his claim that User:Tewfik was alone against him (or even against the consensus) is false. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I have *never* had a conflict in a discussion with the above user at said article. In fact, the last edit of this user to the article dates back to August 13. At this time, I wasn't even editing the article. However, on a related article, above user indiscriminately reverted my removal of a conspiracy claim (which was presented as fact and which originated from an anonymous' writer's blog), without leaving a comment, a behaviour which I assessed as an attempt to abuse adminship. Kosmopolis (talk) 08:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
There have been many precedents that demonstrate that the reversions do not have to be related to one another and User:Kosmopolis knows this. He has continually re-inserted similar tendatious material all the while writing extremely combative and all-around rude comments on the talk page, so one could argue that in spirit the diffs were related anyways.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The last contribution of this user to the article dates back to September 6. Before and after that, virtually all of his edits are mass-reverts of *multiple* editors (including me), usually without providing a single comment and without engaging in a discussion, whereas he regarded my critique of the tedious and continuous insertion of a clearly POV quote by non-RS as "uncivil" and "inappropriate". Kosmopolis (talk) 08:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The user was blocked three (3) times under this username, and once as an IP 80.135.***.** (one of the user blocks was for using the named account to avoid the IP's 3RR block) - the last block (48h) was on 09-26 - a bit over 5 days to this report, and thus within the week. I've altered (expanded) the first diff to more clearly show how these were related, though the 3RR policy makes no such stipulation, especially since these edits were reverting the same bloc of information. I stand by this report (if the blocking admin has any questions about the other points raised above, I would be glad to discuss them at the venue of their choosing, but I recognise that this isn't the place to discuss anything but 3RR). TewfikTalk 01:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. I have been blocked two (2) times under my username, and once as an IP. *All* reports were by the same user, namely Tewfik, and even the first one was questionable. On this occasion, a user which hadn't edited the article before and which has *never* showed up since came timely to his help to drive me into 3RR violation, at a time I did not know that such rule existed. Tewfik *immediately* reported me while I (as a total newbie) was in the process of completing my self-revert, a few minutes after I had been warned that I violated a policy. Again, I have taken great care not to revert more than three times within 24h. Also, the reporter has already undone any of my edits again, an effort which he is continuously engaged in. The massive amount of time the reporter has been investing to defame me here (and on multiple talk pages) and to instigate others against me is evidently a clear sign of harassment. This may also have taken place off-Wikipedia, since I cannot explain otherwise the timely arrival of other users (on this occasion and earlier ones) without a trace of discussion on any talk page, which obviously goes against Wikipedia's policies of transparency and openness. I would appreciate it if the reviewing admin could assess and consider the reporter's behavioural pattern, as I regard this behaviour as harassment. And I would very much appreciate it if this could be done by someone who is not contributing in the same subject area as above users and has no affiliation whatsoever to them. Thanks. Kosmopolis (talk) 08:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This is simply not true. Relevant to this discussion: a quick review of the page's history will establish that there were no self-reverts. The user was blocked three times plus once as an IP (one of the user blocks was for avoiding the IP block which I stated above) - they should be familiar enough with the 3RR policy at this point. TewfikTalk 15:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the self-reverts: the commit that led to me violating 3RR was a commit I checked in only to retain my pending (non-disputed) changes, because there was an edit conflict and I did not know how to do it, otherwise. After I had committed, I immediately started reverting the disputed section to meet consensus. At the same time, I was warned by User:SlimVirgin that I had violated 3RR (as a consequence of her indiscriminate reverting, combined with my inexperience). One hour later, Tewfik reported me. Like I said, I was a new user at that time, and was unaware of the rule. A few hours later, I was blocked. Regarding the current issue, I left an honest invitation to compromise on his talk page at 14:29, to try and resolve our ever-recurring differences. [166] His response here on this page is dated 15:42, but I have no answer from him, yet. Over the course of today, I have poured a lot of effort into making the article better, fixing references, converting links to refs, copy-editing, etc. [167]. I made these contributions in the interest of all readers and editors of the article and in the interest of Tewfik as well, so I don't understand why Tewfik is insistently wanting to have me blocked, instead of at least considering an honest and well-meaning peace proposal. Kosmopolis (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 72 hours.:
    1. Per WP:3RR, Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word (or punctuation mark). Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting. "Complex partial reverts" refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time, which is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR, regardless of the editor's intention.
    2. This the fourth time he has violated 3RR on this article, including reverting with IPs while blocked.
    3. He continues to revert the article (e.g. [168]) even while arguing here he should not be blocked for his 3RR violation. Jayjg (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This was a very unfair action. Administrator jayjg should have recused himself from any administrative role involving any Israel related action. The lack of fairplay and ganging up that occured above is shameful and a travesty. There needs to be balance in WP and its absence some self-policing. Best Wishes. Will314159 18:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:24.68.248.210 aka User:Lightbringer reported by User:Blueboar (Result:)

Three revert rule violation on Freemasonry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 24.68.248.210‎ (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log): Comments: User:24.68.248.210‎ is strongly suspected of being a sock puppet for long term abuser User:Lightbringer (note IP addresses and edit pattern). He is actually very careful not to be in technical violation of 3rr (he makes the same reverts twice during any given day and then waits until 24 hours have passed and again reverts with the same edits). However this is a clear case of "gaming the system".

See his contribution history: here


2006-10-01T19:45:23 Pilotguy (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "24.68.248.210 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (banned user attempting to edit) William M. Connolley 19:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:64.131.205.160 reported by User:Mr. Darcy talk (Result:)

Three revert rule violation on Alpha Kappa Alpha (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 64.131.205.160 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

Other reverts presumed to be the same user (from other AOL IPs):

  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

User:64.131.205.160 was blocked on September 25th for spamming the 3RR page with a bogus 3RR report.

User in question is User:Mykungfu, blocked for one week for 3RR spam, 3RR violations, and generally disruptive behavior. New sockpuppetry allegation posted at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Mykungfu_(2nd).

Time report made: 01:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


2006-10-02T02:46:07 Cowman109 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "64.131.205.160 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (Blocked user evading block..) William M. Connolley 19:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pete_K reported by User:Goethean (Result: blocked elsewhere)

Three revert rule violation on Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Pete_K (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

Time report made: 17:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Nevermind...I just realized that his last revert was not the same. This section can be deleted or struck out --- whatever is the procedure. — goethean ॐ 17:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Update -- now I believe that he has reverted four times. — goethean ॐ 22:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This is 3RR, but: 2006-09-02T21:11:05 Longhair (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Pete K (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Violation of WP:3RR at Waldorf education) William M. Connolley 20:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Antman reported by User:Rex (Result: 24h)

Three revert rule violation on Heliand (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Antman (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • User is fully aware of the 3 revert rule. He is known to edit war.

Time report made: 18:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User is currently also reported for personal attacks. Please block him so wikipedians who want to improve wikipedia can have a constructive conversation without persons claiming to be American German nationalist and who place hate userboxes on their talk pages. Rex 18:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 19:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:GWP reported by User:Siobhan Hansa (Result:)

Three revert rule violation on Natasha_Kampusch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). GWP (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.21:47 October 1, 2006

Time report made: 19:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:GWP is being repeatedly reverted by what looks like one other editor operating from IPs in the 80.141.8x.xxx. Hopefully you can do something about that too (short semi-protect?). Thanks. --Siobhan Hansa 19:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, semi'd William M. Connolley 21:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Waya 5 reported by User:Englishrose (Result:)

Three revert rule violation on Template:Gündüz Kılıç. Waya 5 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Time report made: 21:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Typical content dispute from user who has already broken 3RR this will and has broken it on and other article since, who is also closing to breaking more 3RRs. Englishrose 21:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Waya 5 (again) reported by User:Englishrose (Result: 24h)

Three revert rule violation on Template:Football hooliganism. Waya 5 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Time report made: 21:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: It started when I readded a paragraph that had been deleted a month ago without me or any of the other editors noticing. To be fair, under normal cases I’d have tried to sort it out on the talk page. However, after he made this personal attack towards me straight away [185], I felt like I would have been wasting my time trying to do, especially considering he has been in already broken the 3RR once today and been unwilling to sort matters out on the talk page. It was agreed on the Galatasaray talk page that some of the content should be moved here instead of the main article, which was unamiously agreed to. Englishrose 21:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 21:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

===User:DXRAW reported by User:HamishMacBeth (Result:24hr)===

[edit] User:69.230.87.101 reported by User:Ckessler (Result:Article sprotected)

Three revert rule violation on Coyote Shivers. 69.230.87.101 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

Time report made: 22:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User insists on removing information, calling it gossip, and stating that the writer is a friend of one of the subjects. Information comes for Fox News, perfectly acceptable by the standards of WP:RS. User has been warned about 3RR on this article once before.

  • Article sprotected. Jayjg (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Uknewthat reported by User:Dual Freq (Result:24 hours)

Three revert rule violation on Hafele-Keating_experiment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Uknewthat (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed on the users talk page for both GPS and H-K articles.

Time report made: 01:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Way past 3RR on Hafele-Keating experiment and Global positioning system. Blocked for 3RR in the past. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Uknewthat for more reverts on H-K article. Possibly an SPA for POV pushing on GPS and Hafele-Keating experiment. --Dual Freq 01:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Khosrow II reported by User:baristarim (Result:24 hours)

Three revert rule violation on List of Azerbaijanis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Khosrow II (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Time report made: 01:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User keeps on adding an unsourced statement relating to a dispute over ethnicity, basically trying to prove that a certain ethnicity considers itself one thing more than another thing.. The usual; however, this has been going on for a while now, and what worries me is the fact that this has been made a national cause as can be seen here [190] - I don't know what the solution would be..

[edit] User:BhaiSaab reported by User:Bakaman Bakatalk (Result:)

Three revert rule violation on Bakasuprman (talk • contribs), Bilbobaggins8 (talk • contribs).

BhaiSaab (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):


Time report made: 02:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User has been blocked for 3rr. Checkuser was over two months ago and merely showed one account used before I became active.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Bakasuprman's first edits were during early July. [199]. Both sockpuppets made their edits concurrently during late July. His removal of the template is vandalism. BhaiSaab talk 02:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, WP:3RR states "The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period." BhaiSaab talk 02:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The template was unwarranted. The account was throwaway made before I stsrted contributing. Anyway gpod job violating 3RR.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The account Bilbobaggins8 last edited 10:58, July 27, 2006. That's a long time ago. May I just inquire as to the reason you are pushing the template? I hope it is something out of good faith. Thanks! zephyr2k 02:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Because other admins have stated that the sockpuppeteer template may not be removed. Are they wrong, or is there some sort of expiration date? I don't know of any policy regarding this, other than what User:Blnguyen, an admin, stated. BhaiSaab talk 02:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Its not good faith, its bad faith and malignment. 17 edits means absolutely nothing.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
You used one of the accounts to make this edit and you're accusing me of malignment. BhaiSaab talk 02:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Again 17 edits two months ago. Seems some people cant get over old grudges and contribute to wiki.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:47,
  • shrugs* I am no expert on wikipedia policy. I've only been around only for a few months. But in my opinion, to forever force someobody to carry the sockpuppet template for a mistake made on the first month on WP is quite harsh. You yourself admit to not knowing of whether there is a policy regarding the permanency of the sockpuppeteer template. How much more would someone editing on the first month know about WP policy on the use of sockpuppets? zephyr2k 02:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
You should take that up with Blnguyen. BhaiSaab talk 03:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There isn't really any hard rule for this, so it seems. Looks like Baka used the account to insult a few users two months ago, and at the time he wasn't gaming the system by using two accounts to give the illusion of two users, to vote-stack/team revert/evade block, etc, etc. In this case, the sockpuppet isn't "cheating" the system as he did not gain an unfair advantage through this second account. He was however blocked as he was responsible for the personal abuse of BilboBaggins. Since then there has been calm editing and he has written a group of new articles, some of which were good quality and made. So I think that the tag should be removed as it doesn't really apply to "cheating the system" and also as it seems long past. This is not the same situation, as say User:Anwar saadat who evaded blocks and revert-warred using socks, or Subhash_bose, who evaded the block with Pusyamitra Sunga. Baka did not gain an unfair advantage using a sock, he made a personal attack for which his main account was held accountable. He has not been involved in anything since. I would suggest not having the template there. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much Blnguyen! I hope this clears things up a bit for all of us. I really do hope that the two of you will find a way to peacefully settle your differences. Happy editing! zephyr2k 04:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Blnguyen's comment is just astonishing. If his description of how Baka used the Bilbo account is true, then Baka never used sockpuppets. Users are allowed to have multiple accounts. If Baka continued to edit under the Baka account while the Bilbo account was blocked for making personal attacks, then he was block evading, not using sockpuppets. Do not add the sockpuppeteer template again. DRK 04:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Baka did not edit (aside from his userspace) whilst Bilbo was blocked. So they weren't block evading. There was no advantage gained by the multiple accounts. One of the accounts broke NPA and both were held to account. Inquiries to my talk page welcome, as this is not really about 3RR. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Baka did try to edit and got autoblocked.Does blnguyen mean to say one is permitted to make abusive sock to abuse like this and call it throwaway account .So ,Blnguyen gives baka permission to make as many such throaway account as he wish and just maintain a clean main account.Shameful. Ikon |no-blast 08:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

by allowing aggressive/abusive editors to keep a fleet of "alternate accounts" is shooting ourselves in the foot. Let Bakaman use a single account (permablock all others) and pledge to refrain from harassing people. We have better things to do than babysit people playing puerile games with the system, after all. dab (ᛏ) 08:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No, sorry, you do not have the authority to make that kind of decision. If you want to restrict him to one account then you can take this to arbcom. Since apparently he never used sockpuppets, any user who re-adds the sockpuppeteer template should warned for violating WP:POINT. Your implication that Bakaman is an aggressive/abusive editor is barely avoiding a personal attack. DRK 19:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
As I stated, I threw away "Bilbobagins8" two months ago, (though I did learn a lesson from the throwaway account). I dont have any respect for dab and will not honor his other request because dab's comments are rude and incivil. Bakaman Bakatalk 22:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jlambert reported by User:Aaron Brenneman (Result: User warned)

Three revert rule violation on Online creation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Jlambert (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Time report made: 04:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Meant to hit "preview" so this isn't finished. - brenneman {L} 04:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

All right, that's finished. I will note two further item: The editor has not received a warning, and that the edit summaries given are not terribly accurate. - brenneman {L} 05:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

A look at this user's contribs is illuminating. I've left a note on this user's talk page, pointing him in the general direction of WP:OWN, and advising him to attempt to reach some sort of compromise with his fellow editors. He's been blocked for 3RR before on the same article, but the soft answer turneth away wrath and all that. If he persists, I'll gladly give him a brief vacation. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 05:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I have not noticed that Extreme Unction already have given User:Jlambert a warning for the 3RR violation and gave him a 24h block since he has already been blocked on the same article and was unblocked on the promise to avoid revert warring. I am not familiar with the history of the article so feel free to unblock the guy if you feel I was to harsh. abakharev 05:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I have indeed unblocked him, and I thank you for your prompt response. ΞU

[edit] User:82.168.59.236 reported by User:Ugur Basak (Result:Long term block)

Three revert rule violation on Galatasaray (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 82.168.59.236 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

diff: Not a new user but i again send a warning message.

Time report made: 07:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

This user has already blocked several times for 3RR rule. He is also using socks and they've blocked several times to. Other accounts and ips. User:Burak18, User:82.92.94.108, User:194.171.121.31, User:Johnny200. If his (their) contributions checked, it can be easily seen that sole purpose is just reverting and edit-warring. He also removes, notes, interwikis etc, this shows that he has no intention for improvement of articles. Cheers --Ugur Basak 07:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Definate Break of 3RR. Will initially block for 8 hours, whilst investigating sock puppet claim. --Robdurbar 08:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Robdurbar, previously i filled a checkuser request but it's turned back. His last block for sock by Konstable is here. Cheers --Ugur Basak 08:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Given that the user has a history of many week/month long blocks for personal attacks and general disruption, I've blocked the IP (which doesn't appear to be shared) for 6 months. --Robdurbar 08:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:194.46.174.81 reported by User:Demiurge (Result:)

Three revert rule violation on Bertie Ahern (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 194.46.174.81 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Warned about 3RR twice: [200] [201]
    • And still reverting today [202], can we get a block please? Demiurge 10:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Tonycdp reported by User:PaxEquilibrium (Result: 24h)

Three revert rule violation on Shkodër (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Tonycdp (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

Time report made: 11:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Incivil user (as per the ArbCom) banned by the ArbCom from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo from Kosovo-related subjects. Known for editing under IPs pretending to be someone else. --PaxEquilibrium 11:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't see anything about a ban in the arbcomm stuff. OTOH its 3RR William M. Connolley 15:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo/Proposed_decision#Topical_Probation_for_parties. I quote: For the duration of this case, any of the named parties may be banned by an uninvolved administrator from Kosovo or related pages for disruptive edits. Now see User_talk:Tonycdp#WP:POINT; quote User:Consumed_Crustacean: As an above section states (and I missed, apparently), you may be placed on a ban from Kosovo and related articles while the arbitration case is underway. Consider that ban now active, thanks to these edits of yours. It will be lifted once the case is over, and whatever decision they make will take its place. If you create or edit any articles related to Kosovo, you will be blocked (by myself or another administrator) from editing the Wikipedia for some period of time. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC) What do you mean by "OTOH"? --PaxEquilibrium 18:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pflanzgarten User:Burneville User:Zandvoort reported by User:Ian Dalziel (Result:)

Three revert rule violation on Jim_Clark (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Pflanzgarten (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

Time report made: 13:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Burneville and User:Zandvoort are established sockpuppets of User:Pflanzgarten. All three have previously been banned for this identical months-old revert. -- Ian Dalziel 13:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Please provide the evidence for them being socks William M. Connolley 15:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
[207] -- Ian Dalziel 15:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
OK. So... Samir has blocked Burneville indef; Z is blocked 24h; if these are all socks then please can you put notices on the userpages. I guess Pf ought to be blocked too William M. Connolley 17:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Derouch reported by User:R. S. Shaw (Result: 24h)

Three revert rule violation on Binary numeral system (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Derouch (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

Note: capitalization and/or other minor details may vary.

Time report made: 19:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User has been adding same external link repeatedly (with slight variations in capitalization) usually less than 3 times/day. Reverted 4 times on 21/22 September, when above 3RR warning was given. Several editors removing the link. Has ignored discussion of this external link on article talk page. -R. S. Shaw 19:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours, warned to stop adding the link. --Michael Snow 01:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Halbared reported by User:DXRAW (Result: declined)

Three revert rule violation on Template:List of famous tall men. Halbared (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • 1st revert: [212]
  • 2nd revert: [213]
  • 3rd revert: [214]
  • 4th revert: [http://]
  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Time report made: 22:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User has been banned 2x before for 3RR

  • Only three reverts, no violation. That this is the focus of a revert war is still not good, of course, and both parties need to work on finding a solution rather than continuing. --Michael Snow 01:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lochdale reported by User:Onefortyone (Result: )

Three revert rule violation on Elvis Presley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Lochdale (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

Time report made: 23:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Warned about 3RR: [223]

Comments: User:Lochdale frequently removes contributions by User:Onefortyone from the Elvis Presley article, attacks this user and claims false things. Lochdale's user identity primarily seems to have been created in order to harass user Onefortyone. See Lochdale's contribution history from the beginning: [224], [225].

I'm finding this report too confusing, because some of the diffs show him apparently reverting himself. Can you choose one set of four reverts, plus a diff showing the first edit was a revert, and give the dates and times, please? Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 04:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Certainly the report must be rather confusing, as this user is removing paragraph by paragraph. So it looks as if he is reverting himself. Here is a list of several paragraphs from the Elvis Presley article which were removed again and again. See [226], [227], [228], [229] [230], [231], [232], [233], [234], [235], [236]. I hope this may help. Onefortyone 10:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Please note that I continue to explain my reverts in the Talk Page of the artcle. This is an article that User:Onefortyone has been banned from a number of times. He has made multiple efforts to get me baned as well (not only from the article but from wiki). I am thinking that perhaps this needs to go to arbitration as it is a recurring issue. Lochdale 22:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zaparojdik reported by User:ManiF (Result: 48 hours)

Three revert rule violation on Pan-Turkism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Zaparojdik (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: 18:56

Time report made: 00:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Zaparojdik just returned from a 24hr block for 3RR, and he immediately re-engages in disruptive edit-waring and reverts the same article 4 times in 4 hours against the consensus of the other editors at that article and despite numerous 3RR warnings. --ManiF 00:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Because he's just back from a block for 3RR on the same page, 48 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Englishrose reported by User:Waya 5 (Result:)

Three revert rule violation on Football hooliganism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Englishrose (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

Time report made: 01:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User:Englishrose insists on adding that paragraph to the article despite even her sources admitting that no members of the Galatasaray football club or its supporters were involved in the incident (meaning there was no football hooliganism on the part of any Turkish supporters eliminating the need for a "Turkey" section. However, there were definitely Leeds United supporters there. Also, a great deal of misinformation is presented, and crucial information left out (too long to mention here) as demonstrated in my arguments here: [245] and here: [246] and here: [247].

We need a diff showing that the first edit was a revert. The diff you gave was dated after the first edit. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
comment stale report see here for backgound. (Two reports) Agathoclea 10:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
commentFirst revert looks like a revert when it’s not, it was more of a readding old information that got deleted many months ago. Thus, for the first “revert” I was not reverting anything or reverting to any previous page, thus it’s not a revert and yes it is stale revenge. Englishrose 10:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:82.168.59.236 reported by User:User:Waya 5 (Result:)

Three revert rule violation on several articles including Galatasaray (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and Turkey national football team (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and Gündüz Kılıç (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and Turkcell Super League (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 82.168.59.236 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • This user has been blocked before for this as seen here [264].

Time report made: 01:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This anonymous user insists on reverting pages to outdated states and does not mention on the edit talk or talk page why he does so.

Waya, can you choose one article and give the times and dates of the reverts, and a diff showing that the first revert was a revert and not an edit? There's too much to look through otherwise. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 03:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Yakuman reported by User:Michael Snow (Result: 24 hours)

Three revert rule violation on Paul_McKenna (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Yakuman (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

Time report made: 01:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Warning was given, but edit summary for second revert shows counting, suggesting awareness of the policy beforehand anyway. Editor has bizarre notion that he's immunized from the rule because the article is a biography of a living person. But he's the one adding the information, if anybody's protected it's the people reverting him. --Michael Snow 01:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
He clearly knew about the rule, so 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I violated no rules and this charge is absolutely unfounded. "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals." While I respect your right to comment about Wikipedia content, the statements here go beyond what could be considered legitimate criticism. The above constitutes a defamatory statement against me that injures my reputation. Yakuman 04:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Justanother reported by User:Antaeus Feldspar (Result: 24 hours)

Three revert rule violation on Scientology and celebrities (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Justanother (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • 1st revert: [265]
  • 2nd revert: [266]
  • 3rd revert: [267] (removing only the portions he considers "gossip")
  • 4th revert: [268] (removing only the portions he considers "gossip")
  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Time report made: 02:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Justanother is removing information that he knows was verifiably reported by the Washington Post. He is also aware of WP:3RR. However, he claims to believe that WP:BLP covers his actions; he considers the material that the Post reported on to be just "gossip" and therefore automatically poorly sourced no matter who reports on it. He has already had explained to him that Wikipedia works on a principle of "verifiability, not truth" but claims to believe that "bios of living people have special rules (e.g. 3RR does not apply if I decide to pull this)." Note: Even in the edits where his edit summaries claimed he was only removing the parts that were "gossip" -- he also removed the only reference the section had. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:67.72.98.84 reported by Coredesat (Result: week)

Three revert rule violation on Mark Foley scandal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 67.72.98.84 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

[281]

Time report made: 03:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Anon user is persistently trying to insert irrelevant details into Mark Foley scandal, such as Mark Foley's stance on abortion. There have been 12 reverts of this user, and he is also removing other, more relevant, details in response to people removing "pro-choice" from the lead. There is extensive discussion on the user's talk page. --Coredesat (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Note user is claiming that part of the info can be removed per WP:BLP even though it has 3 sources (and has been repeatedly told this). JoshuaZ 04:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
13th reversion- [282]. JoshuaZ 04:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
14th reversion- [283] JoshuaZ 04:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

1 week. Appears determined to revert. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[284][285]. Two more reverts from a different IP - started as soon as the block went into affect. JoshuaZ 04:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
This relates to the Mark Foley reverter above, so I'm moving it. Septentrionalis 18:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Skyemoor reported by: Septentrionalis (result: 8h)

Three revert rule violation on Democratic-Republican Party (United States) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Skyemoor (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

Reported at: 04:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment First reversion exact; second reversion missed a word; fourth reversion changed it back. For whatever it may be worth, the third reversion avoided collateral damage to the rest of the article, but is exact on the point at issue, the first paragraph of the intro. Note that these are reverts of three different editors, all of whom edited the section. Septentrionalis 04:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


I'm confused? Which "block"? Nonetheless, this seems to be 4R, so 8h William M. Connolley 18:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:ArielS reported by User:Walloon (Result: 14h)

Three revert rule violation on Katharine Hepburn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). ArielS (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

Time report made: 05:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The latest of a series of reversions going back several weeks. 3RR warning given by User:Rossrs. — Walloon 06:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 09:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Nothing But The Truth reported by User:Leuko (Result: 24h)

Three revert rule violation on Naked_short_selling (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Nothing_But_The_Truth (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. --> [292] and [293]

Time report made: 20:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User:Nothing But The Truth keeps trying to insert an external link to a non-notable blog (which I can only assume is his), which should be avoided under WP:EL, since it is not a reliable source. Multiple editors have attempted to remove the link in question. User:Nothing But The Truth has been made aware of 3RR, and the 5th revert above is after such warning, placing link back in.

24h William M. Connolley 10:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:129.2.37.134 reported by User:Ronz (Result: 24h)

Three revert rule violation on Human–computer_interaction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 129.2.37.134 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

Time report made: 21:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User introduced a link that was agreed to be inappropriate per Talk. User is ignoring discussion on user's and article talk page as to why the link (and the section the link is in) is inappropriate. User is repeatedly restoring the removed section that includes the link he introduced.

24h

[edit] User:recury_No edit Summary and 4 reverts reported by User:Buforiadmin (Result:)

Three revert rule violation on Template:Bufori. recury (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):


  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. -->

Time report made: 03:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:


2006-10-05T03:54:49 Luna Santin (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Buforiadmin (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR at Bufori, was warned) William M. Connolley 10:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pmanderson_4 reverts reported by User:Skyemoor (Result:)

VIOLATION violation on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive28. Pmanderson (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. -->

Time report made: 12:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Interestingly enough, PManderson submitted my name for 3RR (I'm a newby at this, so was caught by surprise), and assumed I wouldn't figure out what happened.

[edit] User:Mikedk9109 reported by User:BertieBasset (Result:)

Three revert rule violation on Glen Jacobs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Mikedk9109 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.


Time report made: 13:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Warned user on his talk page, but he seems argumentative to a ridiculous point. BertieBasset 13:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No "prev version" so unclear if 1st is a revert William M. Connolley 20:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:PStrait reported by User:Muchness (Result:)

Three revert rule violation on Mung (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). PStrait (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

Time report made: 15:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The user indicated prior knowledge of 3RR before his fourth revert (see this diff and this edit summary). The editor in question is also possibly engaging in meatpuppetry and WP:POINT: he admits that the motivation for his actions was a "litmus test" to see if he could get editors to object by adding a "totally disgusting" edit. The only objection then, as now, is that the edit lacks adequate sourcing. --Muchness 15:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:166.102.231.101 reported by User:Mmx1 (Result: 1 month)

3RR violation on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive28. 166.102.231.101 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. -->

Time report made: 16:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: It is believed that this IP is a sock of User:Jacknicholson, on which a case has been filedWikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Jacknicholson; 10 such IP's have been used in the last few days to perform this revert; Jacknicholson was the only registered user to also do so. A checkuser on four of the IP's came back "likely". Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Jacknicholson--Mmx1 16:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

2006-10-05T18:58:13 Kilo-Lima (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "166.102.231.101 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 month (IP being used to avoid 3RR detection; also large scale vandalism) William M. Connolley 20:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Blockader reported by User:-- Vision Thing -- (Result: 3h)

Three revert rule violation on Anarchism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Blockader (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

Time report made: 18:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

It is 4R but arguably somewhat subtly... 3h first offence William M. Connolley 19:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Nikpapag reported by User:Argyriou (Result: 24h)

3RR violation on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive28. Nikpapag (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

(difftimes are UTC -7)

Time report made: 19:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 19:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Uzumaki & User:BhaiSaab reported by User:tjstrf (Result:1 Indefblocked user sockpuppet, and 1 briefly 25RR block overturned by blocking admin.)

VIOLATION violation on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive28. Uzumaki (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) & BhaiSaab (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

Uzumaki:

etc.

BhaiSaab:

etc.


  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. Uzumaki, BhaiSaab -->

Time report made: 21:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Due to the complicating factors of sockpuppetry accusations, general incivility, and the fact that it was in userspace, I'm not sure whether to simply file a 3RR report or if there is some other location to take this. --tjstrf 21:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well this dude is obviously a sockpuppet. He edits the same articles in the same fashion, and registered shortly after a host of other sockpuppets from the same sockpuppeteer were banned. See my report on the vandalism page. [327]. BhaiSaab talk 21:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Well this dude is obviously a jackbooted moron. I only have one interest, that's making Wikipedia better. I told him in edit summary that I would not edit that page again. He's a vindictive ass whose interest is harassing me for touching his precious page? HE CAN FUCKING HAVE IT. He can have complete control over it. I don't care. I just want him to LEAVE ME ALONE AND STOP LYING ABOUT ME AND HARASSING ME. Uzumaki 21:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. BhaiSaab and his two cronies are deliberately harassing me for making a good faith edit somewhere, and are continuing to harass me even after I told them I would not edit their precious page anymore, they can own it if they want to. BhaiSaab is even going as far as using a bot to vandalize my user pages. I do not see why this clear harassment is tolerated. Uzumaki 21:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no bot. I don't care if you won't edit the disputed page anymore - you're a sockpuppet and I'd like to see you get banned. BhaiSaab talk 21:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
It even admits it's a bot named popups, you LIAR. Uzumaki 21:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Please don't play "noob" - you're well aware of popups is. You purported to know a lot about Wikipedia with your first edit but youe attitude changed quickly after the sockpuppet accusations came. BhaiSaab talk 21:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Knowing about Wikipedia from a friend, and knowing where things are, are two different things, you bot-using liar. Uzumaki 21:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
All the sockpuppets seems to have those "friends" these days. They just loving talking about Wikipedia all day long. BhaiSaab talk 21:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
You are just completely fucking batshit cocksucking insane. Uzumaki 21:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I strongly advise due care be given to this matter. While it is easy to block on sight given the huge number of reverts involved, Uzumaki has been clearly identified as being Freestylefrappe. A breather can't hurt, but giving in to Freestylefrappe will only embolden him. That's my 2 cents, in any case. Jean-Philippe 21:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Jean-Philippe is a crony of BhaiSaab and a damned moron, too. I have no relation to Freestylefrappe, whoever or whatever it is. Uzumaki 21:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Incident concluded User:Uzumaki was blocked indefinitely for being a sock of User:Blainetologist. Bhaisaab was blocked for his ~25RR violation, but unblocked 21 minutes later after the checkuser case confirming Uzumaki as a banned sock was completed. So this case can be closed out/archived. Not sure on the procedures here. --tjstrf 03:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jango Davis reported by User:csloat (Result:24h)

VIOLATION violation on Scott_Ritter. Jango_Davis (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Warning when he was doing this earlier


Time report made: 02:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • The user keeps placing the disputed content - a link to a mugshot - on the web page. While he occasionally responds to comments in talk and on his user page about it, his argument has been refuted and he simply keeps repeating it. On his talk page, he simply brushes off the claim, demanding intervention from an admin if he is to pay attention to the issue at all. It has become very frustrating.--csloat 02:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 08:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Epf reported by User:71.198.59.81 06:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC) (Result:)

Three revert rule violation on Austrians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Epf (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

Block log indicates 3RR priors. Four reverts in less than 5 hours by a dogged edit warrior with abrasive and immature editing style. Epf, does not like to engage on talk pages or work towards consensus wording.

Time report made: 06:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Make up your mind guv - Austrians or Welsh? And vn rev to doesn't seem to fit William M. Connolley 08:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, this is a really rude comment! I'm not involved in the Welsh people article at all. User:Epf likes to edit war and you seem to like to be rude people. Wikipedia must be a truly wonderful place. 71.198.59.81 16:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User PeteK reported by User:Thebee (Result: Warning)

VIOLATION violation on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive28. Pete K (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

Time report made: 08:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User PeteK has been blocked once before for 3rr violation. This time, he has deleted completely verifiable description of published original sources two times, and then omitted it two times when reinserting large text part of section, deleted by someone else as excessive and belonging to a sub article. With all four reverts, he has has reverted the section to the basic form it had before my addition at the end of an overview description of RS' views on the causes for the near extinction of the American Indians.

I'm going to be leniant on this one and warn the user only. Although he has been banned once before, so this might seem a strange route to go down, I do think that Pete has engaged well on the talk page and is certainly editing in good faith. HOWEVER, I (and I hope other admins) would conisder any future violations of the rule as being very serious.
User:Thebee; please note the format of the other reports and try to stick to those in future; it makes everything much easier. --Robdurbar 16:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I've never reported a 3rr violation before, and it took some time to figure out how to write it using the template. Does this mean that it is OK for me to add the by P.K. deleted paragraph at the end of the section, without it being considered a violation of the 3rr rule? Again, thanks.
Is Pete a 'a decent good faith user'? Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thebee/WikiViolationsByPK --Thebee 17:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Grazon reported by User:Derex 09:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC) (Result:)

VIOLATION violation on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive28. Grazon (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

Was advised of 3RR. Technically, his last 2 are WP:POINT, but clearly fall within the intent of 3RR.

Last 24 hours:

Previous 24 hours:

Comments

Has been reverted by User:Mattarata, User:Ds13, User:Rosensteel, User:Derex, and User:Omicronpersei8. Their is a link to Mark Foley scandal at that place. Further commentary on his homosexuality is tangential there, as determined by 5 other editors, with no editors supporting his edit. Grazon persists, and has not made a case on Talk.

[edit] User:194.9.5.12 reported by User:Rex (Result: 24h)

3RR violation on Various terms used for Germans (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 194.9.5.12 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):


Time report made: 14:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


Comments: User continuously inserted Frisians into the article, after he was thoroughly proven wrong, now he insists on "East Frisians" being inserted. He edits wars and has been warned before. Rex 14:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request

If possible could an Admin make the article in question protected against anonymous users for a while? Rex 14:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 14:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:62.101.126.216 reported by User:NeonDaylight (Result: sprot)

3 revert rule violation on Carlos I of Portugal. 62.101.126.216 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

Time report made: 17:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: There seems to have been an edit war going on here for quite a while. I haven't reported the other user in this case as they're under a shared IP.

I sprotected the page William M. Connolley 19:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:PPGMD reported by User:DJ Clayworth (Result: 24h)

Three revert rule violation on Bowling for Columbine. PPGMD (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):


Warning supplied here.

Time report made: 19:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 08:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC) (but blocked earlier)

[edit] User:62.101.126.216 reported by User: 195.93.21.136 20:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

3 revert rule violation on Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza. 62.101.126.216 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

Time report made: 20:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Second break of the rule today

24h William M. Connolley 08:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:J Di reported by User:SchmuckyTheCat (Result:)

VIOLATION violation on Talk:Windows 3.1x (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and Image:Windows-3.2-desktop.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) J Di (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [345]

On the image:

1 [350]
2 [351]
3 [352]
4 [353]

Time report made: 23:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Discussion: [354]

Prev version is same as 1st rv William M. Connolley 08:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If I may comment on this, I feel my reverts are justified as each one has been done to either to remove fair use images from a talk page or to re-add an {{orfud}} tag that is being removed by SchmuckyTheCat (talk). SchmuckyTheCat believes these images can be used in talk pages because of what this webpage says. I've told him that Wikipedia's fair use policy should not be ignored because of Microsoft's rules, and did ask him to stop removing the {{orfud}} tag from the image's page ([355]). jd || talk || 10:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mikedk9109 reported by User:HamishMacBeth (Result: 24h)

Three revert rule violation on Shawn Michaels (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Mikedk9109 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. -->

Time report made: 00:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User refuses to take on board anybody else's opinion that may render his wrong and also has a another 3RR complaint above. HamishMacBeth 00:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 08:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Hkelkar reported by User:BhaiSaab talk (Result: no block)

VIOLATION violation on Indian_caste_system (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Hkelkar (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

Time report made: 05:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The third revert was a partial revert while the others were full reverts. BhaiSaab talk 05:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The first is a revert cos it says so. The others appear to be unrealted edits. If they are reverts, you'll need to demonstrate that William M. Connolley 08:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure. The second edit was a revert of this edit, made at 22:53, 6 October 2006. The third edit was a partial revert of this edit, made at 00:38, 7 October 2006. The fourth edit was a revert of this edit, made at 00:58, 7 October 2006. BhaiSaab talk 18:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks.The others are unrelated edits in different sections (and extremely well-sourced ones). Non of BhaiSaab's edits were sourced and, besides, by that reasoning, BhaiSaab has also violated 3RR per these diffs which can be construed by his own reasoning as "partial reverts":
  1. [360]
  2. [361]
  3. [362]
  4. [363]

All of these "edits" are (largely unsourced) attempts to bring in the same bias into the article, thus, by BhaiSaab's own line of reasoning, qualify as "partial reverts". It is my opinion that BhaiSaab tried to get me blocked by hoping that merely "posting a complaint" will lead an admin to make a summary judgement against me. I am glad that admin User:William M. Connolley has looked into this matter in greater detail. re-affirming my belief that the Gaussian white-noise created by users such as BhaiSaab can be recognized as such.Hkelkar 10:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

How are they reverts? Reverts are undoing another editors work; those edits do not undo anyones work. BhaiSaab talk 18:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  1. 3 is a bit too weak I'm afraid, for my tastes, so no block. OTOH if you both keep edit warring you'll probably both get blocked just to give us some peace William M. Connolley 19:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Chadbryant reported by User:Lil crazy thing (Result: 48h)

VIOLATION violation on Randy Orton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). and John Cena (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)Chadbryant (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

Randy Orton page

John Cena page

  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. -->

Time report made: 07:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User it's reverting pages back to what he wants them to be. He is always making up his own rules and expecting everyone to go by them, he edits many pages and acts like he owns them and that other peoples edits aren't allowed, he regulary breaks the 3RR because of the above statement, many people disagree with his edits but he will carry them on know matter how many tims he has toe dit a page. He has been very uncoprative. The user has many problems with alot of users because he does not accept anyone removing anything he has done so he will continously revert the page back.

WP:FUC and WP:OWN are not "made up". This user has been reminded numerous times that fair-use images are to be used sparingly, and that she is not the owner of Randy Orton. She refuses to be held to these standards either out of complete ignorance, or a feeling that said standards do not apply to Randy Orton's biggest fan. - Chadbryant 07:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Do not make personal attacks that is also braking a rule whcih you have done twice now. I am not randy ortons biggest fan, i know alot about the Orton famiyl as a whole. The use of two/three images is not excessive in anyway, the images go by a section of the article so it is allowed. I know i do not own the page but i will remove un-needed edits from the page, which is what the edits are that your making. Please do not reply on this page no more, this page is because you have broken the 3RR yet again not for anything else an admin will decide what to do not you. Lil crazy thing 07:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I can and will respond to your misleading and inaccurate claims as I see fit. You are not an admin, and I respectfully request that you not attempt to act like one. - Chadbryant 09:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Diffs not version please William M. Connolley 08:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, i've corrected them, Lil crazy thing 08:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see this DXRAW 12:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

There appears to be a causality violation here - the prev version is *after* the reverts... William M. Connolley 19:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

there you go yet again, there both exactly the same anyways, please can you do something he is still carrying on, and because you are not doing anything his gettign away with it so he has no reason to stop.Lil crazy thing 20:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The JC one looks more convincing... 48h William M. Connolley


[edit] User:Groser reported by User:Todor→Bozhinov (Result: 3h)

3RR violation on Stara Zagora (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Groser (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here. Warned twice in Bulgarian: 18:58, 19:04

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. -->

Time report made: 16:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

With this redaction is removed only one link. That is subject of advertisement that the content does not correspond to the ethics and the rules of the Wikipedia. User:Groser


Comments:

  • User keeps deleting the link http://sz.free.bg , and is even edit warring removing that link from the talkpage [364] and his own talkpage [365]. Presumably, he doesn't want to inflate its Google ranking.--Tekleni 17:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The user really needs to be blocked ASAP, he's going on with the reverting despite the warnings and this report. Todor→Bozhinov 18:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

3h first offence. Please don't warn people in Bulgarian on the english wiki cos we won't have a clue what it says William M. Connolley 19:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Wikipediatrix reported by User:66.93.144.171 (Result: 24h)

VIOLATION violation on Make_Love_Not_Warcraft (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Wikipediatrix (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. -->

Time report made: 18:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Under a flawed understanding of the WP:OR rule, user continues to unilaterally blank two sections of the entry. From her 2nd entry on the discussion page on the topic, she indicated she intended to keep doing so, and would only stop if arbitration were brought in, which is supposed to be the last step, not the first.

24h William M. Connolley 19:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Kedorlaomer reported by Szvest (Result:)

Three revert rule violation on Qiryat Gat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Kedorlaomer (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

Time report made: 20:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: - 5 reverts in less than 24h. -- Szvest 20:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up ®

User:Kedorlaomer was warned on his user-page, and asked to self-revert here. --Huldra 20:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Baristarim reported by User:Khosrow II (Result: no block)

VIOLATION violation on Turkic peoples (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Baristarim (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Necessary only for new users: Not a new user.

Time report made: 04:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: 3 reverts, one "partial revert", and one edit all within a 24 hour period

User in question - In my last edit I actually reverted myself (the third edit mentioned), because I actually was looking at another version other the one that I had wanted to revert, therefore I ended up putting another map than was mentioned, that's why there was only a difference of three minutes and no edits by anyone else between the third and fourth edit mentioned.. I am aware of the 3RR and was aware of it while doing the edits in question, I have never had a 3RR warning before. Sorry if this has caused confusion and disruption.. Baristarim 04:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
It was not a self revert. You totally reverted back to a previous version without even bothering to come to an agreement on the talk page, when two opposing versions of the map were already on the article so that we could discuss on the talk page.Khosrow II 04:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry you took it that way, in my third edit I was honestly trying to put the map that I had put on the fourth one, it was a mistake, that's why there are only three minutes and no edits by anyone else between the last two.. That's why I am saying that it was a self revert, I was trying to undo my third edit.. This is the truth, believe me - I wasnt aware of the last version.. Baristarim 05:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Rv 3 and 4 are contiguous and so count as one William M. Connolley 09:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:AManSac reported by User:Banana Republic (Result:3h)

VIOLATION violation on

Cerritos,_California (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). AManSac (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log): User keeps removing the section ==City Image==

3h William M. Connolley 09:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:72.75.104.188 reported by User:Khoikhoi (Result: 24h)

VIOLATION violation on Turkish Armed Forces Medal of Honor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 72.75.104.188 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):


Time report made: 09:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Oops, forgot to note blocking: 24h William M. Connolley

[edit] User:Mahawiki reported by User:KNM Talk - Contribs (Result: 8h)

VIOLATION violation on Belgaum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Mahawiki (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):


3RR Warnings: This user was cautioned about Wikipedia:3RR policy more than once, in previous revert wars.

Time report made: 14:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: In the current revert war at Belgaum article, the user has been consistently reverting the changes by other Editors and adding a citation from non-English source. As per Wikipedia:Citing sources#When_you_add_content completely, "If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it."

However, the user has not provide the translation along with the original-language quote and still reverting back the questioning of other Editors. The similar reverts have happened in Belgaum border dispute article as well, and there also WP:3RR violation has happened from the same user in last 24 hours.(Diffs: One, Two, Three, Four.

8h William M. Connolley 15:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Killerman2 reported by User:Isarig (Result: 24h)

VIOLATION violation on Lehi (group) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Killerman2 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. --> User has been warned about 3RR many times on his Talk page, the most recent one being this [370]

Time report made: 15:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User is engaged in a repeated pattern of adding a contorversial category to the page. In addition to the above listed 4 reverts, he has made the same revert at least 13 more times in the last 2 weeks, often making a 4th revert just 24 hours + a few minutes after a previous set of 3 reverts, in an attempt to game the system. This revert seems to be his sole contribution to the page, and he has not attempted to discuss his change on Talk.

24h. Sorry, forgot to sign earlier William M. Connolley 18:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zaparojdik reported by User:Tekleni (Result:1 week)

VIOLATION violation on Template:Turkic-speaking nations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Zaparojdik (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Has been blocked for violating the 3RR many times before, so he knows about it.

Time report made: 16:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • No comment.--Tekleni 16:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Blocked for one week. He's just coming off a 48 hour block, and he's been edit warring all over the place, as well as being incivil. --InShaneee 17:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Msbjustice reported by User:Signpostmarv (Result: 3h)

VIOLATION violation on Second Life (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Msbjustice (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

Time report made: 17:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User doesn't seem to understand WP:V and WP:NPOV. I'm also not sure if I'm violating the 3RR rule myself.

You most certainly have broken 3RR; OTOH it isn't clear that Msbj has, since I'm not convinced #4 is a rv, and your "prev version" is not prev at all. 3h for you William M. Connolley 18:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Tajik reported by User:85.102.187.247 (Result: 12h each)

VIOLATION violation on Timur (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Tajik (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

Time report made: 19:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Is it possible for you to have a look at the article 'Timur'? User Tajik tries to falsify the older text about his ethnicity. Furthermore you can have a look at the article 'Turco-Mongol' to be able to understand why his ethnicity was written as Turco-Mongol. I suggested to talk with him but he didn't reply. Instead he preferred to revert it for five times. I don't wanna go ahead in the article since I'm new and don't know the rules in detail. But as far as I understand from this page, he violated the rules.

You have *both* broken 3RR so can both have a block William M. Connolley 19:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I am currently investigating this case. I will contact both affected parties. — Edward Z. Yang(Talk) 22:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:J Di reported by User:SchmuckyTheCat (Result:)

VIOLATION violation on Talk:Windows 3.1x (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

  • Previous version reverted to: [371]

Time report made: SchmuckyTheCat 19:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Discussion: [376] Removal of a non-fair use image while claiming it is being removed because it is fair use counts as just plain annoying vandalism, right? This is failing to make sense to me. SchmuckyTheCat 19:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The license tag that was on the image page at the time of these edits said that the image I was removing was a fair use image. jd || talk || 00:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
An image can be both permission AND fair use. As well, image tagging states that multiple tags can be applied to one image if appropriate. Add software-screenshot as a template is appropriate for a software screenshot regardless of the rights information in the template. Your level of remaining ignorant on this regardless of how many times I have stated is astounding. SchmuckyTheCat 05:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
If the two images are both fair use images used with permission, shouldn't {{withpermission}} be used instead of {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}}? jd || talk || 14:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:PPGMD reported by User:Schrodinger82 (Result: no block)

VIOLATION violation on Bowling_for_Columbine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). PPGMD (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. -->

Time report made: 01:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This user was just blocked for 24 hours on two days ago for violation on the 3rr on the same page 2 days ago, and is now doing it again. Keeps putting in "Unbalanced" tag, while refusing to explain why in accordance with Wiki guidelines. Ironically, is now insisting that I am not allowed to revise his latest entry, because "Once more and you are in violations of the 3RR rule," despite the fact that he has just violated this rule himself (Thus showing that he is well aware of it.). Habitual offender.

I added the tag per my discussion in talk and then added as the user deleted it without attempting to gain concensus. One of the edits was simply getting the tag name correctly. If he deletes it once more he is in violations, as would I if I placed it again if it gets deleted without a violations of 3RR PPGMD 01:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Rvs 4&5 are contguous so count as 1. Prev-vn isn't. No block. Discussion trimmed William M. Connolley 08:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:RuthieK reported by User:Mardavich (Result:)

violation violation on List of Arab scientists and scholars (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). RuthieK (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Necessary only for new users: --> [383].

Time report made: 10:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User:RuthieK keeps adding a self-created "POV fork" list to the "List of Arab scientists and scholars", which is absolutely against the consensus on the talk page. He's also previsly broken 3RR on the same article, for which he was warned but not reported.[384] --Mardavich 10:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

2006-10-09T11:02:00 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "RuthieK (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3rr on List of Arab scientists and scholars) William M. Connolley 21:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kdbuffalo reported by User:Andrew c (Result: no block)

VIOLATION violation on Bible scientific foreknowledge (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Kdbuffalo (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Was warned about 3rr at least once before back in June, in addition to being warned about edits on Jesus a few weeks ago.

Time report made: 13:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Reverts 2, 3, and 4 belong to an anon that most likely, based on the editing time frame and edit history, is Kdbuffalo not logged in. This is the epitome of edit warring. An attempt to discuss this matter was brought to talk back in August, but it seems as if talking is not enough and Kdbuffalo will do nothing short of simply removing this content. (Kdbuffalo has a habit of this, such as removing categories from Richard Carrier and removing the same link about a dozen times over the past 5 months at Biblical inerrancy). While the vast majority of these edits do not violate the 24 hour rule, it is clear that this user does not intend to discuss these things further on talk, but instead shows up every few weeks to make the exact same deletions at a number of articles. I think this aspect of the user's editing habits is very unproductive, and what is happening recently at Bible scientific foreknowledge is simply unacceptable. (all that said, this user is knowledgeble and otherwise contributes positively at wikipedia, despite POV-warrior tendencies, removing any critical comments from user talk, and these few slow edit wars). It also appears a similar edit war is going on at Bible prophecy[385]--Andrew c 13:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Whilst irritating, this doesn't fall within 3RR: no block William M. Connolley 19:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was looking more at This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day. Even if no block results from this, I would appreciate someone with more authority than me pointing out to this user that this sort of editing behavior is not only counter-productive, but also unacceptable. Thanks for reviewing the case.--Andrew c 20:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This isn't excessive (yet). If this continues (especially with no edit comment and no talk page justification) then it will become excessive. You can use this edit if you like... William M. Connolley 21:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Iantresman reported by User:— Arthur Rubin | (talk) (Result: 24h)

VIOLATION violation on Eric Lerner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Iantresman (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Time report made: 16:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: He claims states he is to be protecting WP:BLP, but that could be protected by removing the unsourced information. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC) edited 16:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This is nowhere near bad enough for BLP to be a problem. Nor is it necessary to risk blocking for BLP... 24h William M. Connolley 19:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:207.67.146.232 reported by User: Propol

Three-revert rule violation on Peter Roskam (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 207.67.146.232 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

Time report made: 23:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, there are multiple personal attacks.

2006-10-10T04:25:51 Gamaliel (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "207.67.146.232 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (sock of banned user) William M. Connolley 07:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jakov.miljak reported by User:Dijxtra (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on Croatian War of Independence (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Jakov.miljak (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

Time report made: 07:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • OK, this is not "in less than 24 hours" but it is 24 hours and 40 minutes. Furthermore, first and last diff are not pure reverts since there was some information addition to the article, but the result field of the infobox is what the edit war is all about and I think that nice 24 hour block would help the situation although this is not the purest 3RR you've ever seen. --Dijxtra 07:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:SunniPride reported by User:Truthpedia (Result: 8h)

Three-revert rule violation on Barelwi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). SunniPride (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log):

  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. -->

Time report made: 15:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This user has a other violations such as personal attacks. He was warned of the 3RRV policy but he ignored it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Truthpedia (talk • contribs).

the first revert (the list above is given the wrong way around) is outside of the twenty-four hour timespan, although he has still violated 3RR:

-- ITAQALLAH 15:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

8h William M. Connolley 15:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/d/m/Wikipedia%7EAdministrators%27_noticeboard_3RRArchive28_f6a1.html"