Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Noticeboard archives  v • d • e • h 

Community sanction archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Administrators' 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
Incidents 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
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170
171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180
181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190
191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200
201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210
211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220
221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230
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 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
Other links
Talk | Checkuser | ArbCom enforcement | Backlog

Contents

[edit] User:68.116.251.13

Three revert rule violation on Mark Levin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). :

Reported by Eleemosynary 21:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous user has also been reported for vandalism. Article in question is a political radio show host, and the ensuing edit war is not uncommon in Wikipedia. However, a glance at some comments about the anonymous user's activities on the Article and Talk Pages [1] should help illuminate things. Eleemosynary 21:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:DrBat

Three revert rule violation on Typhoid Mary (comics) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). DrBat (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: AriGold 13:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Unless you have proof that the anonymous user and DrBat are the same person, I'm afraid this doesn't count as a 3RR violation. howcheng {chat} 17:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I asked him to give up his image. If he persists, then I'll impose a block on him. howcheng {chat} 22:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

AriGold; 1)I'll expect an apology from you when its confirmed the anon-IP isn't me.
2)The fourth reversion happened a day later than the first three reversions (Feb. 8, while the first three were on the seventh). If I'm not mistaken, I thought the limit was 3 reversions per a day? If not, you broke the 3RR limit as well. --DrBat 23:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a limit of 3 reversions within a 24 hour period, not per calendar day. AriGold did indeed break it, but I'm hoping that instead of just doling out punishments the issue is resolved and we'll leave it at that. howcheng {chat} 00:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Howcheng, reverting vandalism more than 3 times is a violation? All I was doing was reverting the picture back to its original form while DrBat kept reuploading and inserting versions of his picture that has just been deleted. AriGold 13:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
DrBat, if you are not 201.17.89.78, I do apologize. And you reverted it more than 3 times in 24 hours, which is a no no. AriGold 13:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
This isn't vandalism -- it's a content dispute over which image should be used. I'm assuming good faith that when DrBat says the new image is different from the deleted image, it's different. howcheng {chat} 17:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
This all started with two images. His image of artwork was deleted in favor of mine that was the comic cover. Then, he proceeded to reupload the artwork images and keep inserting it, and I kept changing it back to the comic cover. That is reverting vandalism, as far as I can tell. AriGold 19:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
It was deleted because you said that the image was modifed, which wasn't true at all (and despite all my proof, you refused to believe it until after the image was deleted). It was deleted on false pretenses. And the second image I uploaded was a different version (if you notice, it lacked the exposed nipple of the original version. I also posted both images on the WikiComics project post, if you want to compare.)
And regardless, it wasn't vandalism. Vandalism is "any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia". If anything, your edits are vandalism for repacing high-quality images with poor, low-quality images. Why you insist on replacing decent images with ugly images that only hurt the article is beyond me.--DrBat 22:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
It was deleted because I said that the image was used on a comic cover and the consensus was that the cover itself was better use. I see you've been following what everyone has told you and gone and changed the pics to the actual covers, do you not understand that that was my point? I seriously wish you would understand that and we could move on. You are a great contributor and I think you took my challenge of your contribution too personally. AriGold 22:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't personal, I just thought that your image was of a poor quality, and it detracted from the article. --DrBat 02:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
This user has AGAIN reuploaded the image that was deleted and reinserted it into the Typhoid Mary article despite the opinions of 3 mods! AriGold 15:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:lumiere

Three revert rule violation on Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Lumiere (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
  • 1st revert: [2:36 8 Feb]
  • 2nd revert: [3:24 8 Feb]
  • 3rd revert: [4:18 8 Feb]
  • 4th revert: [7:21 8 Feb]

Reported by: Sethie 15:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Given this edit, it seems to me that Lumière is open to compromise, so I'll let him off with a warning. Next time, please use m:Diffs when reporting 3RR violations. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 17:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:204.110.99.42

Three revert rule violation on Mariah Carey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 204.110.99.42 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Extraordinary Machine 17:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User fails to cite sources for his/her edits or discuss them, even after being requested to do so. Extraordinary Machine 17:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Blocked both 204.119.99.41 and .42 for 24 hours. howcheng {chat} 17:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:80.202.111.88

Three revert rule violation on Islam (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 80.202.111.88 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [2]
  • 1st revert: [3]
  • 2nd revert: [4]
  • 3rd revert: [5]
  • 4th revert: [6]
  • 5th revert: [7]

Reported by: Pepsidrinka 01:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

2006-02-09 02:44:55 Anonymous editor blocked "80.202.111.88 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 31 hours (3rr twice, was warned) William M. Connolley 18:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colle

User:Colle has violated the 3rvt rule on the talk page of Safe Sex by reverting my comment 4 times (the last in part). I don't really want him blocked because overall he may be a good editor, but I believe I have a right to reply to a comment, and the repeated removal is infuriating. So if he does agree to revert himself I have no problem letting it go as I said on his talk. Chooserr 03:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You can see the full history [8]. I, while not violating the 3rvt rule, probably should have let it go sooner, but this is my opinion and a reply to a statement on the same talk page. I believe this amounts to little more than censorship. Chooserr 03:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

His fifth revert can be found [9] if anyone is interested. Chooserr 03:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh and number is here if anyone is intent on serving justice. He is unlikely to revert himself and continues on reverting the page to his version. Chooserr 03:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I tried discussing this with Colle to no avail. User persisted and has been blocked for 24 hours. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Leyasu

Three revert rule violation on Children of Bodom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Leyasu (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [10]
  • 1st revert: [11]
  • 2nd revert: [12]
  • 3rd revert: [13]
  • 4th revert: [14]

Reported by: 220.239.77.250 14:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User has attempted to get away with reverts by making slight changes. It's essentially the same article.
  • User has a history of edit warring and conflict with other users.
  • User deems newer good-faith edits by others to be "POV" and "vandalism" and uses these as justifications for reverts.
  • A number of users are trying to make positive changes to this article but the constant reverting is stifling the process. Some have tried to reason with this user without success.
  • The revert in question is to a version with factual inaccuracies and spelling and grammar mistakes.
Blocked for 48 hours this time considering he resumed his edit warring almost immediately after his last block expired. howcheng {chat} 17:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Basil Rathbone

Three revert rule violation on Freemasonry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Basil_Rathbone (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Ardenn 16:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Continues to vandalize. Won't discuss edits. Ardenn 16:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Not reverts? Certainly, adding a link to Secret Society is innocuous. Perhaps attempting to engage him would work better than constantly edit warring with him? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    • He's been asking to discuss his edits and fails to do so. Ardenn 16:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
      • There was only one person asking, and that was me. Revert warring someone into a violation of 3rr is incredibly bad faith. This user deserves to be talked with, not revert warred apon. Some of his changes could be valuable. I assume he has been sockchecked with the arbcom sanctioned user. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

User indef blocked as sock of arbcom blocked user. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zarbon

Three revert rule violation on Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Zarbon (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Papacha 18:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User has a history of edit warring and conflict with other users.
  • User has an admitted sock puppet User:72.227.132.62 and two suspect IPs User:149.68.168.159 and User:149.68.168.136 make the same reverts and edits throughout this week, once on one topic of conversation in the synopsis of article, now in another. User:72.227.132.62 is the primary IP on this article causing the most strain.
  • Has said he has "no problem constantly resetting it. i can do it too, see who gets tired first".
  • Will not discuss reverts, insisting it be done a certain way. Says other users will have to "deal with it".
  • Has been caught using sock puppet to second his edits on the history page.

Blocked User:72.227.132.62. Note that although User:72.227.132.62 claims to be Zarbon, I don't see Z claiming to be User:72.227.132.62. So I warned Z, just in case. William M. Connolley 20:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] User:HeyNow10029

Three revert rule violation on Kelly Clarkson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). HeyNow10029 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Extraordinary Machine 19:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

[edit] User:Dzonatas

Three revert rule violation on Template talk:WikiProject Computer science (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Dzonatas (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Three revert rule violation on Template:WikiProject Computer science (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Dzonatas (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: —Ruud 21:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • On the talk page Dzonatas kept removing a comment, claiming it was a personal attack, which it clearly is not. He keeps changing the template itself from the one agreed upon on the talk page. Seems to be doing this just to be distruptive as he is not a member of the project. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by R.Koot (talk • contribs).
  • User:R.Koot did not warn me of this before my last edit. — Dzonatas
  • User:R.Koot has not justified his reason he thought these are reverts as asked on the talk page. — Dzonatas
  • User:R.Koot has not answered the questions presented to him. — Dzonatas
  • User:R.Koot tries the illustrate a point (to get this block) instead of answer the questions and simply state the point. — Dzonatas
  • These are not identical reverts above in whole or in part. — Dzonatas
  • User:R.Koot has stated his reverts were over grammar, which is taken as a personal attack because has not simply stated where I am wrong about the grammar if I really am wrong about the grammar. — Dzonatas 22:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I followed Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks, but User:R.Koot insists on a version that judges me. — Dzonatas 22:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24h for 3RR on the Template. Not technically 3RR on the Talk because the first edit wasn't a revert, just a total waste of everyones time. Dzontas: please learn to get along with people. D's complaints about personal attack I judge totally unfounded. William M. Connolley 22:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] User: 85.187.163.40

Three revert rule violation on Template talk:WikiProject Bulgarians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs).

  • Previous version reverted to: [ 23:48, February 7, 2006]
  • 1st revert: [ 23:48, February 7, 2006]
  • 2nd revert: [00:22, February 8, 2006]
  • 3rd revert: [01:17, February 8, 2006]
  • 4th revert: [14:46, February 9, 2006]
  • 5th revert: [00:21, February 10, 2006]

Reported by: Macedonia 01:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Has continually been puting in false information, claiming the non existence of a another ethnic group, which I have felt was a sense of racism/propaganda/hatred. My self (removed by FunkyFly 04:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)) have continued to remove this certain edit which may have caused some confusion or anger among readers.

85.187.163.40 (talk • contribs) has no template talkspace contributions. Jkelly 01:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Elerner

Three revert rule violation on Plasma cosmology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Elerner (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Joke 03:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Four reverts as 200.83.204.54 (talk • contribs • block log) and three as Elerner (talk • contribs • block log). See this diff [27] with edit summary I'm not nnon, I'm Lerner, who wrote most of this, operating remotely indicating the IP address is Lerner.
  • Please see also the relevant old RfC, including a past violation. Lerner seems unwilling to discuss changes on talk and threatens to "get User:ScienceApologist banned." –Joke 03:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours. howcheng {chat} 07:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Appleby

Three revert rule violation on East Sea (disambiguation) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Appleby (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Endroit 10:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User:Appleby is a repeat offender of 3RR. After returning from a recent 72-hour block, he proceeded today to another edit war in the exact same East Sea (disambiguation) page where he broke 3RR twice before. He may have carefully evaded 3RR this time, but some of us had received warnings last time from admin User:katefan0, not to edit war. And so I refrained this time, but obviously Appleby hasn't.
  • I don't think Appleby is willing to communicate with us (or even listen to us) to reach any concensus. And some communication we already had in Talk:Sea of Japan shows that we are very far apart. Please discuss with admin User:Katefan0 what to do. I left a note with Katefan0 already. If you suggest mediation or arbitration, please lock this page (preferably at a concensus version) and we shall go into arbitration (or mediation) right away. Thank you.--Endroit 10:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked (again) for however long he was blocked last time William M. Connolley 13:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC).


[edit] User:Robsteadman

Robsteadman (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). Repeated identical reverts to Jesus Blocked once for 3RR on this same page. not learning his lesson. Please block for longer period this time.

While last revert changed one word, it is, for all intents and purposes, a revert and he is clearly gaming the system and causing more toruble on the same page (just like before) Please block.Gator (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Now he's up to at least 3 reverts with "religous scholars" instead of "Christian scholars." That's at least 6 or 7 reverts of the same thing in my opinion. Please block and help bring peace to the article!Gator (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 24h. Jesus, Prince of Peace :-) William M. Connolley 16:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC).

nb: there was some slight strangeness with a space before the username... hope that is fixed now. William M. Connolley 16:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I blocked him 48 hours instead since this was his second violation and he seems awfully aggressive in his comments. howcheng {chat} 17:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:149.150.236.125

Repeated additions of image of Devil to Talk: Pope Pius XII.

Robert McClenon 20:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours. howcheng {chat} 17:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:69.129.82.150

Three revert rule violation on Jehovah's Witnesses (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). User:69.129.82.150 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [33]
  • 1st revert: [34]
  • 2nd revert: [35]
  • 3rd revert: [36]
  • 4th revert: [37]
  • 5th revert: [38]

Reported by: Duffer 18:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User removes resource without explanation. Duffer 18:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

More edits:

please help. joshbuddy 21:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Link was removed as completely "off-topic" for the article on Jehovah's Witnesses. Its own description shows that it has nothing to do with Jehovah's Witnesses or the Watchtower, but is merely a personal site set up to attack a former associate of theirs. It's my understanding that that makes the link off-topic and irrelevant as a Resource link placed under Positive or Neutral Resources for the article. Unless wikipedia now allows for these sorts of links, I feel that the removal of the link was appropriate under Wikipedia guidelines, but will defer to the admins. You may also note that a separate link provided by the submitter concerning the Watchtower's teaching on 607 was never touched, as it IS on-topic and relevant to the article. Timothy Kline 22:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Link was removed 8 times without a single reason given. Tim, that is not appropriate Wikiquette (are you user:69.129.82.150?), and is a clear, and persistent (anon user was warned (and notified)) violation of WP:3RR. You may disagree with the links inclusion but you must talk these things out on the appropriate talk page when it is clear that others take exception to its removal. Duffer 23:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I was unaware of how to insert a reason during the removal process, and apologize for not providing a reason at the time. I believe I have since properly noted my confusion at the inclusion of the link, at the talk page for the article on Jehovah's Witnesses, and now await any responses there. Even so, it does not appear that the link at issue serves as a resource pertaining to the article itself, so much as it unabashedly admits to being a site devoted to criticizing another website and little else--thus constituting itself less a proper resource for the article on Jehovah's Witnesses and MORE as a proper resource of criticism against the e-watchman site. However, this discussion would probably be better served at the talk page. I simply wanted to respond to the complaint against my actions (I didn't know about the 3-max edits at the time, but now do and will not violate it further) and apologize accordingly. Timothy Kline 23:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. Duffer 05:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sunday_Service

Three revert rule violation on Freemasonry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Sunday_Service (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Ardenn 21:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

    • I would say possible sock, based on speed of edits, and that it was reversions back to blocked User:PM GL PA's edits. Additionally, subject has now made a false accusation on the vandalism page against me.--Vidkun 21:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no 3rr, the only reverts are the 2nd and 3rd. In the first he is changing the information in a section. In the 2nd and 3rd he reverts back to that change. In the 4th he changes a completly seperate section, and in the 5th he changes a ton. The amount of invalid 3RR reports that have been coming off of the Freemasonry and Freemasonry talk pages recently is alittle disturbing. Seraphim 22:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not terribly familiar with Lightbringer's MO, but on a cursory glance it appears similar enough to me that I blocked 24 hours, pending David Gerard having a minute to look himself. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 22:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Informativemiss and User:198.237.84.66

Three revert rule violation on Abortion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Informativemiss (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Natgoo 21:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • It is believed that the user first reverted using an anon IP, then performed the 2nd to 6th reverts under User:Informativemiss. There is no consensus for the changes on the talk page or anywhere else. She has now demonstrated that she is indeed User:198.237.84.66 with this edit: [54]. Natgoo 21:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I am sorry that you think I am User:198.237.84.66 because I have no idea about any of his/her previous edits. This is humorous, since that is not my IP address. -Informativemiss 22:01, February 10, 2006
  • Earlier reverts of the same content made by Liz_xox here and here.-Kyd 21:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • So now I am three people? I am very confused. I reverted the links that I saw were deleted by someone "reverting." This seems like a personal attack.-Informativemiss 22:07, February 10, 2006
    • Disagreeing with your insistence on ignoring consensus is not a personal attack, and the consensus is that links to shock sites are not to be included in the article. You still reverted the addition of the links five times. Natgoo 23:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
In fact, your first edit was to revert that link. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I know, I wrote 'additions' in the comment above when I meant 'removals'. I'm a twit - sorry it wasn't clear. Natgoo 23:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:199.29.6.2

Three revert rule violation on Biblical inerrancy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). User:199.29.6.2 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: KHM03 23:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I believe that User:199.29.6.2, User:192.135.227.163 and User:Kdbuffalo are the same user, utilizing different addresses to circumvent the system. This article has been the site of problems in the past, and I (and others) have tried to keep a balanced approach, esp. in the external links. I encouraged this user to help with that goal, to little avail. KHM03 23:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Williamo1

Three revert rule violation on Hyper-Calvinism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Williamo1 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Lbbzman 01:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Constant reversion despite pleas on the article's and user's talk page. Lbbzman 01:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:KarlBunker

Three revert rule violation on Anselm_of_Canterbury (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). KarlBunker (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Br Alexis Bugnolo 02:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:Karl Bunker is claiming 3op rule, falsely to justify his vandalism. I have already warned him 2 times, and will warn him again, right after posting this.

[edit] User:69.203.142.41

Three revert rule violation on PlayStation Portable (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 69.203.142.41 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by : Seraphim 07:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments: He removed information from the article that was created via a discussion on the talk page, information that we feel to be NPOV and necessary to include because it is standard in all Game Console articles to have a blurb about marketshare. He's also removing the disclaimer that notes that sony only reports console's they have shipped not sales figures. Both are very POV changes. I placed the 3rr warning on his talk page, and he did it again without ever responding. Also the only edits the user has ever made are vandalizing Sony Playstation Series articles. Seraphim 07:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Maria Stella

Three revert rule violation on Erika_Steinbach (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Maria_Stella (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Chris 73 | Talk 08:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

First offence, but you warned her. 12h. William M. Connolley 11:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Space Cadet (3)

Three revert rule violation on Erika Steinbach (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Space_Cadet (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Chris 73 | Talk 08:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This is the third 3RR of User:Space Cadet currently on WP:AN/3RR, This edit war is like the other edit wars of User:Space Cadet also about the question how German/Polish something (here the birthplace of Erika Steinbach) is or was. I had previous conflicts with this user, so I did not block him, but I would propose a longer block for repeated edit warring on multiple articles (the other 3RRs being Nicolaus Copernicus and Treaty of Welawa above). Also see User:Maria Stella above -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Blocked 48h. Now to proceed upwards... William M. Connolley 11:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Tasc

Three revert rule violation on Ariel Sharon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Tasc (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

5 reverts [66] within a few minutes, also the reverts may be considered simple vandalism as he is removing valid content. [67]

this "valid content" is mentioned in the article. aparently you have been reading it. --tasc 11:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
All the other things mentioned in the introduction are also mentioned in the article. The idea of an introduction is to provide an overview of the article. The criticism for war crimes is misleading if only Sabra & Shatila are mentioned - when all the favourable things are mentioned the criticism also needs to be dealt with in an appropriate way. Anyway, this doesn't matter. You broke the rule. Bye bye, see you when you are unblocked in 24 hours. Perhaps you then are ready to discuss your edits.

Both editors in violation. Page protected while they work it out. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

it'd better to discuss everything before changing on such a controversial topic. --tasc 11:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

weird, admins look even on unformated reports. --tasc 20:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:68.162.148.34

Three revert rule violation on Online creation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 68.162.148.34 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Ehheh 17:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • He appears to be the same person as User:Eggster and User:151.201.32.118 in one of the earlier 3RR reports that still is on this page and hasn't been archived yet. A few minutes ago I gave a warning to 151.201.32.118 after he did 5 reverts, at which point he switched over to Eggster and has done at least 1 revert as Eggster, possibly more as I'm writing this. I'm not going to go to any effort to prove that it's a sock puppet since it'll just be the same as last time, but an admin can easily check. While logged in as Eggster, he has had warnings for multiple things in the past, and has blanked his talk page [68]presumably thinking that everyone'll forget that he already had violated 3RR in the past and had been warned already. --Atari2600tim 17:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 68.162.148.34. I'm off for a bit now, so no time to look at Eggster for a bit... William M. Connolley 18:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  • He's now using 66.101.59.248 and reverted again. I've restored page. Jlambert 19:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, 68.162.148.34 is definitely Eggster. I'll block him too. William M. Connolley 20:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Agapetos_angel

Three revert rule violation on Jonathan Sarfati (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Agapetos_angel (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: FeloniousMonk 18:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • The 4th revert is a complex revert within an edit that attempts to disguise the restoration of User:Agapetos_angel's preferred wording.
  • This is the 3rd 3RR violation for User:Agapetos_angel at this article in the last 2 weeks
  • Page had been protected due to the actions of User:Agapetos_angel. User:Agapetos_angel filed misleading RfPP for unprotection, and was rv'ing again within 36 hours.

I can see bits of #4 that could be considered reverts. But can you make them explicit, please? William M. Connolley 18:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC).

Reverts (between 3 and 4) some are not word for word, but the tenor, the purpose, the spirit of the edit is effectively a revert:

Biography

3

He has also had papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals including co-authoring a "Letters to Nature"

4

Sarfati has had papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals (Abstracts available on ScienceDirect.com).

Writings

3 His latest book, Refuting Compromise is a rebuttal of the day-age creationist teachings of Dr. Hugh Ross, who attempts to harmonize the Genesis account of creation with the belief that the earth is billions of years old, a position which Sarfati rejects.

4

His latest book, Refuting Compromise is a rebuttal of the day-age creationist teachings of Dr. Hugh Ross, who attempts to harmonize the Genesis account of creation with the belief that the earth is billions of years old, a position which Sarfati rejects.

Also, Agapetos_angel continued to place Chess above Scientist in all four edits. This in spite of the large difference in Safarti's prominence as a YEC (working, per AiG, as a scientist) and as a chess player. Jim62sch 19:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked (I thought I'd said that before... hmmm) William M. Connolley 20:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC).

My talk page outlines why that fourth revision was an edit not a revert[69]. Also, the assertion that I continued to place subsection Chess above subsection Scientist in all four edits is a false statement, as proven here that the subsections remained in the same order before and after each of my edits. In fact the order had not changed, aside from a typo by FM that he restored, until # 4, which made that the first true change, an edit in the overhaul where subsection Moral Issues was moved down. This is not a revert, because the Chess subsection has remained above Scientist thoughout all the edits by all the editors since long before the page protection. This is another false accusation. agapetos_angel 20:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The chess bit in indeed wrong, but the 4th edit is a revert. Please get over this, and return to productive edting. William M. Connolley 23:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC).
Yes, I misread the order of events. AA only reverted the order once. Jim62sch 11:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:jlambert

Continually reverting in an edit war on Online Creation. I have twice reverted, and he claims he has reverted over 8 times today. He is not the article's owner, nor is he an administrator. This user is making it impossible to retain concise, accurate article Online Creation. 66.101.59.248 19:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Please format correctly. If you can't be bothered to do that, why should anyone bother to investigate your report? William M. Connolley 19:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] User:67.183.15.135

Three revert rule violation on Clay Aiken (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 67.183.15.135 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 04:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Anon insists on adding improperly sourced, speculative information against consensus. Has been warned (see user talk page). · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 04:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boggle99

Three revert rule violation on Gordon Campbell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Boggle99 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Colle|Image:locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 07:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Boggle's edit breaks NPOV policy, reads like a Liberal press release, has party friendly speculation, deletes/mitigates criticism... see talk page if interested... PLEASE revert to the standard version (tawker's above.) I have reached my revert limit.--Colle|Image:locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 07:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a new user, and there is no evidence that s/he was warned prior to breaking the 3rr. I have warned him/her, and instructed her/him not to edit the article again for 24 hours. Guettarda 08:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Nathanrdotcom

Three revert rule violation on LJ Drama (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). USERNAME (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Warned about possible violation here Reported by: badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment As you can see in the history and in my talk page, LJ Drama airs nothing but rumour/gossip/PoV. If the content was changed to be more NPov, or if they cited their sources, or if they were willing to take into account that there is a more truthful version of events than their heavily slanted version, I just might concede. I stand by my deletions and will keep removing lies and rumour until my point has been made. -- Nathan 21:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll note that no effort has been made in talk at the article to reach any sort of consensus on the section. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have blocked the user for twenty-four hours. Tom Harrison Talk 21:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Some agreement seems to have been reached, so I have unblocked the user. Tom Harrison Talk 03:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:CyclePat

Three revert rule violation on Template:Olympic games medal count. CyclePat (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Mike (T C) 22:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User AFD'd the article in bad faith to make a point, an admin removed the bad faith tags, however cyclepat kept reverting to his version with improper AFD tags.
  • This user was given a 3RR warning in November. I've blocked for 24 hours, and I wouldn't object to an extension for the WP:POINT violation. —David Levy 22:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Leyasu

Three revert rule violation on Children of Bodom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Leyasu (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [70]
  • 1st revert: [71]
  • 2nd revert: [72]
  • 3rd revert: [73]
  • 4th revert: [74]

Reported by: 130.102.0.177 23:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Continually reverts to an older version of the page. User is clearly the only one in favour of this version, as these reverts have been undone by a number of users.
  • Blocked twice before over the last few days for 3RR. [75] Blocks don't appear to be much of a deterrent.

[edit] User:Hbutterfly

Three revert rule violation on Dick Cheney (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Hbutterfly (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

N.B. Times in UTC+11 for Australian EDST.

Reported by: Harro5 05:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • New user mainly concerned with toning down any criticism of right-wing political interests in the US (eg. Bush, Cheney, Delay, FOX News). Harro5 05:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:JohnBWatt

Three revert rule violation on Mucky Pup (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). JohnBWatt (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: MikeWazowski 06:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User continually reverts to last version posted by him. Will not accept any changes to "his" text. Semi-abusive and very abrasive in edit summaries. MikeWazowski 06:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Tactik

Three revert rule violation on Jungle music (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Tactik (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Themindset 08:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

No 3rr violation as the 4th edit was 36 minutes after the 24 hours. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:205.240.227.15

Three revert rule violation on Cuba (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 205.240.227.15 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [80][00:35, 13 February 2006]
  • 1st revert: [81][00:38, 13 February 2006]
  • 2nd revert: [82][01:10, 13 February 2006]
  • 3rd revert: [83][17:49, 13 February 2006]
  • 4th revert: [84][22:41, 13 February 2006]
  • 5th revert: [85][23:10, 13 February 2006]
  • Et al.

Comments: SEE (partially complete)Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/205.240.227.15. User has been adding nonsense for ages.--Colle|Image:locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 23:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

2006-02-14 01:35:05 Nlu blocked "205.240.227.15 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 8 days (3RR, edit warring on Cuba) William M. Connolley 21:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:R.Koot

  • 1st revert [86] Feb 13 2006
  • 2nd Revert [87] Feb 13 2006
  • 3rd Revert [88] Feb 13 2006
  • 4th revert [89] Feb 13 2006

Reported by --Astriolok 03:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that reverting myself counts towards a 3RR. —Ruud 03:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
It ould still be construed as a fourth revert, since you didn't undo your third revert, but the 3RR is not designed to be punative, and I see no reason to doubt that Ruud was acting in good faith. And to Astriolok, please read the instructions and post properly. Guettarda 03:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Astriolok

Three revert rule violation on Al-Khwarizmi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Astriolok (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Three revert rule violation on Arabic numerals (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Astriolok (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: —Ruud 03:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments: He is also reverting to very old version at al-Battani. —Ruud 03:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 24h William M. Connolley 21:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:68.49.68.102

Three revert rule violation on List of Star Wars books (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). User:68.49.68.102 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [90]
  • 1st revert: [91]
  • 2nd revert: [92]
  • 3rd revert: [93]
  • 4th revert: [94]

Reported by: Jedi6 04:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I have warned this User several times to use the discussion page before making unexplained edits. Both myself and User:Deckiller have reverted his/her edits and warned them but he/she has continued to revert to their version. They have now gone over the three revert rule. Please join in the conversation on his/her talk page if you want.

Now rather old, and revert war seems to be ended. *Please* warn them in future... William M. Connolley 20:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Giovanni33

Three revert rule violation on Christianity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Tom Harrison Talk 05:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I believe User:Freethinker99 is a sockpuppet of User:Giovanni33/User:BelindaGong, et al. Here is the evidence. On Christianity, Freethinker99 reverted three times to Giovanni33's preferred version, then User:MikaM arrived and began reverting. I don't know the connection, if any, between MikaM and Giovanni33/BelindaGong/Freethinker99. Tom Harrison Talk 04:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    Best thing is to request checkuser on the whole bunch. Giovanni33, Freethinker99 and BelindaGong were all blocked by me for 48 hours.--MONGO 05:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I have asked for a checkuser. [96] Tom Harrison Talk 15:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Kecik may be another sock. KHM03 02:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Also User:FionaS. KHM03 02:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:81.31.160.4

Three revert rule violation on Russophobia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 81.31.160.4 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: --Ghirla | talk 12:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Nasty revert warring, accompanied by violations of Wikipedia:Good faith and reiterated defamatory comments on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. The user seems to be well acquainted with wikirules, see his talk. --Ghirla | talk 12:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. Shanel 03:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC) William M. Connolley 20:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Get-back-world-respect

Three revert rule violation on Current events (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Get-back-world-respect (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

and about 5 more after that.

Reported by: Kurando | ^_^ 16:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Relates to insistence on including details of what happens in the video of British Army soldiers in southern Iraq which was disclosed at the weekend. Get-back-world-respect wants to include what is, in my judgment, excessive information about what was done by the soldiers to the Iraqis, and has also (at times) reverted my inclusion of some of the context which was a mortar attack on the base immediately before this incident. David | Talk 17:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • See my comment about Dbiv over same incident in following section. NSLE (T+C) 00:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have blocked Get-back-world-respect for twenty-four hours. Tom Harrison Talk 01:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dbiv

Three revert rule violation on Current events (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Dbiv (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Get-back-world-respect 17:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • As I got reported I show the other side, too, removed factual information without discussion, last one even marked "minor". The alleged mortar attack was not reported in the sources linked to as the rules for current events require. Get-back-world-respect 17:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This is an entirely erroneous report as can be shown in the article history. The "2nd revert" cited above is not a revert but an attempt at compromise by separating two separate releases of videos: [97]. The "3rd revert" did not go back to the version of 16:07, nor even to that of 16:12, but was a new edit with a new attempt at compromise in which I included slightly more details about the abuse of the Iraqis: [98]. The "4th revert" is a revert to this edit as by now it was clear that GBWR was uninterested in compromise. David | Talk 17:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Why do you change these links such that nothing can be seen any longer but do not change in the same way the links above? You deleted four times the information that the youths were kicked at, as can be seen in the links I provided: 1: 16:07, 14 February 2006 2:16:12, 14 February 2006 3:16:46, 14 February 2006 4: 16:53, 14 February 2006 Get-back-world-respect 18:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
It's called the "Three revert rule", not the three edit rule. I made one revert using the rollback function. I made other edits. See Wikipedia:Revert. It's not a violation of the 3RR to edit a page to try to get a consensus, as I did. It is if you do as you do and blindly insist on your own version and refuse to accept any other. Hope this helps. David | Talk 18:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
You deleted the same words four times, so it is as much reverting as what I did and not an attempt to compromise. You even marked one as "minor" although we were in a content dispute and there was not even discussion at the talk page. Now you even go for a fifth time when another user readded them. [99] That is what administrators should do on a Valentine's Day? Get-back-world-respect 18:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The 'fifth revert' is not a revert either. It adds to the gravity of the allegation by reporting the subsequent arrests. Please will someone block GBWR for his blatant breach of 3RR as I am getting bored of this. David | Talk 18:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
You deleted the same words that were added by two different users five times, once even marking it "minor". Now you are ignoring the discussion. Calm down. Get-back-world-respect 19:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I am considering blocking both of you for violating the three-revert rule, and for disrupting the page with your edit-warring. I would prefer that you both take a break from the page, and then use the talk page to work out your disagreements. Tom Harrison Talk 19:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Despite this warning, David made a sixth revert, again deleting factual information about the people being kicked repeatedly while they were forced to the ground: [100] Get-back-world-respect 00:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Like I noted at Talk:Current events, I'm of the opinion that Dbiv's version is correct. HOWEVER this does not give him, nor anyone, the right to revert war. Get a consensus. Remember, it takes two to revert war - just leave it alone and someone else who thinks your version is right will change it. NSLE (T+C) 00:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have blocked Dbiv for twenty-four hours. Tom Harrison Talk 00:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:80.90.37.175

Three revert rule violation on Phaistos Disc (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 80.90.37.175 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: --Latinus (talk (el:)) 23:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This anon keep adding extremely dubious fringe theories to high points in the article. It should be noted that this anon is a suspected sockpuppet. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 23:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Young Zaphod

Three revert rule violation on NiMUD (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Young_Zaphod (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and 68.162.148.34 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and 151.201.48.208 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

(note that while 1-8 are more than 24 hours, 1-4 are within 24 hours, and 5-8 are as well) Reported by: Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 02:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Young Zaphod (talk • contribs) and 68.162.148.34 (talk • contribs) are the same person. My evidence is:
    • The label [101] of third revert is a reference to the short story Young_Zaphod_Plays_it_Safe by Douglas Adams. My belief is that 68.162.148.34 typed the "play it safe and take a walk"[102] without realizing that he was not logged in as Young Zaphod; basically playing the character of Young Zaphod without realizing that he wasn't logged in yet in order to pose as him.
    • Young Zaphod's contribution history is all on articles that 68.162.148.34 feels ownership of.
    • Young Zaphod is a new user that appeared after 68.162.148.34 already had started doing reverts today.
    • 68.162.148.34 has been proven [103] to use sock puppets in the past to avoid 3RR, and was blocked for socks and 3rr [104].
  • I have given him a warning [105] at 16:24, between the third and 4th revert he's done in the same day. Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 12:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Also please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:68.162.148.34 as user may be using previously ided sockpuppet 66.101.59.248 as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jlambert (talk • contribs).
    • Yes, he has used multiple sock puppets aside from the 2 I listed (I only listed the ones involved with the last few reverts); he seems to edit from home, his local university, and via proxy from the site in Texas that hosts his web site. Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 13:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd also like to point out this edit: [106] which shows Young Zaphod correcting the IP addy's signature to his user account.Ehheh 17:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation on Online_creation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Young Zaphod (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and 68.162.148.34 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and 151.201.48.208 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments:

02/15/06 12:57:57 dns 151.201.48.208 
nslookup 151.201.48.208 
Canonical name: pool-151-201-48-208.pitt.east.verizon.net
Addresses:
  151.201.48.208

02/15/06 13:00:19 dns 68.162.148.34
nslookup 68.162.148.34
Canonical name: pool-68-162-148-34.pitt.east.verizon.net
Addresses:
  68.162.148.34
  • This editing [107] I think also establishes connection between the above two IPs.
  • They also exhibit a remarkable confluence of interests and timing.[108]

User also marked both articles Talk pages and Atari200Tim's user page for speedy deletion which I removed. Also see comments above. Jlambert 18:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually the speedy deletion tag on our talk pages was partially my fault. He created a personal vanity template at Template:snub which said "This user has been snubbed by Young Zaphod", which he put onto our talk pages, and then when I saw it I added the speedy delete tag onto the template, without thinking to put the tag inside of noinclude tags, which resulted in our talk pages including the entire template including the speedy delete tag. Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 21:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Added latest reverts. If we're reporting something wrong or not doing this right I wish an Admin would say so. Should we elevate this vandalism? Ask for page protection? Jlambert 02:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If you're sure Young Zaphod is the same as these anon editors, you should ask at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser. I'd also suggest you leave a note on Young Zaphod's talk page discussing the situation, informing of the 3RR, and asking him directly (but politely) if he has been editing as those anonymous users. -- SCZenz 02:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Should I do that for every persona that he uses? He's made edits from about 10 accounts and quite a few IP's that are all at the same (dynamic).pitt.east.verizon.net (as Jlambert's nslookup thing shows). It seems silly to give multiple warnings to each persona when it's blatantly obvious that he's the same person as Eggster whose 3RR violation and subsequent 24h ban happened so recently that it hasn't even been archived off of this page yet, and the same with the CheckUser that happened linking Eggster to the anons. Should all computers in the same computer lab making similar edits as anons with no discussion be treated as separate people? --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 12:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sertraline

Three revert rule violation on Place names considered unusual (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Sertraline (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Reported by: A Y Arktos 10:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • The user has been referred to discussion on talk page and refuses to accept concensus. More than one user has reverted the reversions of Sertraline. The user is attempting to list a place name of an intersection, where the wikipedia article is in fact a redirect to a very usually named road. Previous discussions have agreed that a listed place should be able to have a wikipedia article, (i.e. a town or suburb is acceptable, but minor streets, streams, ETC) are not. There have been more than 4 reversions to date, but 4 within the last 24 hours. --A Y Arktos 10:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Noob. Warned. Please, in future, *you* can warn then after the first few reverts! William M. Connolley 22:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] User:220.237.20.25

Three revert rule violation on Lastovo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 220.237.20.25 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Deskana (talk) 09:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User has been blocked for 3RR quite recently. Deskana (talk) 09:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • User CONTINUES to revert and is now on his fifth revert in the time period. Likely to continue. Deskana (talk) 09:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

User was indeed blocked recently, but was then unblocked (see log). This time he has clearly broken 3rr. Since it was a while ago and has now stopped (indeed has stopped editing), I'm almost inclined to do nothing, but will instead block for 8h. William M. Connolley 22:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] User:Bomac and User:Theathenae

Three revert rule violation on Macedonian language (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Bomac (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Reported by: Theathenae 13:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User has attempted to evade the 3RR by making extremely minor changes which don't change the content of his version whatsoever. He has also repeatedly ignored my attempts to reach a compromise solution or to leave out the offending material.--Theathenae 13:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Theathenae was reverting a sourced statement. Also he tried to delete it. And I never said that I'm for "Theathenae's imaginary compromise". He was putting-on that "compromise" by force. He was not using the discussion-page. Plus, see his 3RR on Arvanitic language and Arvanites. Bomac 14:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on Macedonian language (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Theathenae (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: 198.180.251.157 14:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • According to WP:3RR: Do not revert any single page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours. (Or else an Administrator may suspend your account.) Theathenae did just that! He reverted partially to yesterday's disambiguation note: (This article is about the Slavic language, not to be confused with the ancient Macedonian language.). Partial reverts count as well according to the policy. Regards, 198.180.251.157 14:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked both, 24h William M. Connolley 22:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] User:71.242.208.204

Three revert rule violation on Pink Floyd (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs).

71.242.208.204 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: dharmabum 21:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User has repeatedly added his site to the top of the external links in bold text despite consensus on the article's talk page that his site, which is for the illegal trading of bootlegs, violates WP:EL in several ways. After the above reverts, user created account Pink_Floyd_For_Free (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and has contributed to the talk page discussion on the issue, but has not reverted again while logged in.
Well, I've put a message on the anon talk page, which you should have done! At the moment, he looks like a Noob who needs some guidance. Come back if he stops talking and starts reverting. William M. Connolley 21:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
User has already reverted while logged in as Pink_Floyd_For_Free (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), though not beyond the limit of the 3RR. He has nevertheless, like said, participated in the discussion on the inclusion of the link, violating other Wikipedia policies, including WP:NPA. He has participated in the discussion both anonymously and with the newly created account, even going back to the anonymous postings and signing them as User:Pink_Floyd_For_Free. —Rotring 21:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can see his reverts as PFFF are within bounds (even including the anon?). He is clearly trying to get his site included; he will fail; this will cause you some short-term pain most likely. But thats not an issue for here. If you think PFFF+anon have broken 3rr, thats another matter. William M. Connolley 22:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, what is not strictly 3rr belongs elsewhere, I know, it was just to clarify that:
  1. the actions are not guided by "noobiness", but with intention
  2. User:71.242.208.204 (which has, reportedly, alone, violated the 3rr) and User:Pink_Floyd_For_Free are the same
—Rotring 22:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Daryou

Three revert rule violation on Western Sahara (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Daryou (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Reisio 22:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Pretty clear-cut violation. Second infraction on this same article, according to block log. ¦ Reisio 22:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:209.181.19.117

Three revert rule violation on Big Spring, Texas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 209.181.19.117 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: OhNoitsJamieTalk 01:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This is the second time I've had to file a 3RR for this article. It's a different IP address, but quite possibly the same individual. OhNoitsJamieTalk 01:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Addendum to this: same user is now in violation of the 3rr on the same article with a different ID (65.122.236.133). Kuru talk 03:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:MateoP

Three revert rule violation on Iowa class (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). MateoP (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log): The same guy got banned for some time for keep deleting same info from the article and installing NPOV tag. He was so desperate, that he tried to modify one of WP:policy in his favor. Recantly he come up with Original Research tag. Most ppl do not see that phrase as a POV, and original research was not even mentioned until few days ago. It worth to say, that the only contribution of same very guy to an article is an edit war he started to promote his opinion. He never introduced any other edits. What could be done with that troll? As for today - he made 5 edits, 4 of which was some kind of reverts. But blocking for few hours do not work, unfortunately. And yes, all the changes was made were backed by sources. And multiply attempts were made to reach a consencus or just to find middle ground. He is the only one to introduse his POV, but his deletions was reverted not only by me, but by 3-4 other guys. TestPilot 03:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:65.122.236.133

Three revert rule violation on Big Spring, Texas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 65.122.236.133 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: OhNoitsJamieTalk 03:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Comments:

  • This is the third time I've had to file a 3RR for this article (first time was on the same IP). This user refuses to acknowledge the obvious WP:POV issues of the revision, despite efforts from several editors to explain them on the talk page. OhNoitsJamieTalk 03:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Edward NZ

Three revert rule violation on PhpBB (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Edward NZ (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: —Locke Cole • t • c 07:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Unfortunately I don't think he's been warned about WP:3RR, however if you look at the article history this is a long drawn out edit war over an external link that is being omitted on very dubious grounds. I think a short block (12 hours or something) would be reasonable since this has been ongoing for at least a week.. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry to have caused any trouble, I won't revert it again until it's safe to do so :) Edward NZ 08:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I think we need a CheckUser. User:Locke Cole (per his user page) is from Washington state. The anons that's been tag-team revert-warring on this page -- 67.42.93.179 (talk • contribs) & 67.42.85.2 (talk • contribs) -- are from an ISP in Washington (see http://www.whois.sc/67.42.93.179). -- Netoholic @ 08:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    • More blatant trolling? BTW, nice of you to assume good faith. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
      • You and these IPs have been tag-team revert warring with Edward_NZ, so I'm not sure what you want us to assume. -- Netoholic @ 08:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Uh, good faith? I've never been accused of (nor blocked for) sockpuppetry before. There is absolutely zero reason to assume anything about my actions here. Yours on the other hand are a textbook example of WP:STALK; continue this and I'll make a seperate complaint to WP:AN/I. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
          • For the record, the IP 67.42.93.179 in question here are my home connection (Well, I may recycle it now), and I am not User:Locke Cole, nor do I know him or have spoken or otherwise communicated with him. That we have some of the same opinions and both live in Washington State are coincidence. In any case, if you look at User:Locke Cole's comments and mine, you will see that I do not have much of a knowledge about Wikipedia rules (but I can smell BS), and so his arguments should at least have more weight than mine, which are clearly a bit more emotional... 131.30.121.23 22:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zarbon

Three revert rule violation on Frieza family tree (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Zarbon (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

03:30, 16 February 2006

Reported by: Papacha 08:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

  • User has a history of edit warring and conflict with other users (some detailed above on this page.
  • User has one sock puppet IP User:72.227.132.62 which had been banned and as well as IPs 71.255.73.82, 149.68.168.114, User:149.68.168.138, User:149.68.168.193 User:149.68.168.159 and User:149.68.168.136 make the same reverts and edits throughout, the majority seen on this article. Signs Zarbon to edits, as seen on the discussion/history pages on which IPs post.
  • Advertises own forum as a link at bottom of the page which has nothing to add to the content at hand, other than be about the anime DragonBall Z. When told multiple times by different users Wiki has rules about promotion, will revert any and all edits.
  • Deletes clean-up tags when they are applied to article. As seen on his talk page, " wants to have a page where others won't dictate things", which violates Wikipedia standard and nulls any potential for article growth. Under the impression others are pushing him around when they edit.
  • Also on the article's discussion page - calls any edits he disagrees with "vandalism" and demands to be informed of any changes so he may approve them beforehand. Believes because he created article others should not touch it, and reverts others' work unecessarily because of it.
  • Insulted other users on same page, telling them to "get a life".

[edit] User:Wiki4Christ

Three revert rule violation on The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Wiki4Christ (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: AvB ÷ talk 11:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Suspected sock or meat puppet of User:Jason Gastrich (upcoming ArbCom case). AvB ÷ talk 11:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keeps reverting after warning/block announcement. AvB ÷ talk 12:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Currently on his ninth revert of the page. I've already used up my three reverts and AvB has gone beyond them, a swift block and final revert would be much appreciated. --Malthusian (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    Blocked for 24 hours.--MONGO 12:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:PaxTerra

Three revert rule violation on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). PaxTerra (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Additional reverts below against User:Jdonnis since initial report... some quick help here would be greatly appreciated!

  • 12:52, 16 February 2006 PaxTerra (refactored for clarity and to explain context. Please discuss your edits to controversial sections on the talk page.)
  • 13:10, 16 February 2006 PaxTerra (restore content deleted by Jdonnis who entered a false edit summary claiming to have refactored but instead deleted. Deletion of meaningful content is vandalism)
  • 12:22, 16 February 2006 PaxTerra (Lets stick to the topic of the list, which is comparisons that have been made in published discussion as documented on the talk page. This is your third revert Netscott and you didn't "swap" anything.)
  • 09:38, 16 February 2006 PaxTerra (→Comparable references - include reference to legal control of incitement and hate speech, restore summary introducing list)
  • 09:28, 16 February 2006 PaxTerra (consensus was to order sequencially by most recent volatile discussion of issue)
  • 08:59, 16 February 2006 PaxTerra (→Comparable references - restore another widely cited comparison repeatedly deleted by Netscott)
  • 06:37, 16 February 2006 PaxTerra (→Comparable references - restore to consensus version or 12./15)
  • 04:59, 16 February 2006 PaxTerra (→Comparable references - restore as per 02/15/06 concensus)

Reported by: Netscott 12:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This individual has been repeatedly reverting over the edits of myself and User:MX44, as well as once over User:David.Monniaux. After numerous discussions in the Talk area there seems to be little compromise.

Talk:MX44 would surely verify this report.

PaxTerra Comments:

Please note that Netscott directs readers here to various edits that are not all reversions of the same content. Also please note that PaxTerra (myself) has comprimised extensively -- the comprimise Netscott seeks seems to be removal of all content contributed by PaxTerra, though PaxTerra has offered dozens of references. Also note Netscott himself has entered the same content he accuses PaxTerra of reentering over his objection [114].

Also please note restoration of content by PaxTerra that was deleted by User:Jdonnis under a false edit summary claiming to have refactored:[115] Also please compare PaxTerra's limited and neutral contribution vs. Netscott's sustained deletions, Netscott's editing contrary to agreement on talk page (re: list of mentioned comparisons) , PaxTerra's tedious and extensive explanation on talk page of fewer than 40 words contributed to article, PaxTerra's cooperation in refactoring contributions where possible, extensive documentation of contributions, PaxTerra's balanced contribution and lack of consensus over Netscott's proposed deletions [116] Oh ... and there's MX44's scatalogical argument [117][118] PaxTerra 13:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Locke Cole

Three revert rule violation on VBulletin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Locke_Cole (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Pti 13:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I'd like to know who 218.148.3.138 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is, and how he suddenly jumped in to accuse Locke Cole of disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point, right after Pti's third revert. Mackensen (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I pointed out the page to a few other people. If this is a violation, please correct me. It looks like he was disrupting to me. Pti 14:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd like to know who 86.132.212.174 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is, and how he suddenly jumped in to add links, right after William M. Connolley's revert. Okay, so I'm just making a point with this comment; but at least I'm not breaching WP:POINT. Pti 02:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This is perhaps all a bit silly, since its over non-visible text, but it appears to me that LC is in the right: the text Pti wishes to add appears invalid. LC has opened a discussion of this on the talk page; I trust Pti will join it. William M. Connolley 21:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC).
    • He was in the right to breach the 3RR? I guess we can all go and breach the 3RR whenever we're in the right, then. Pti 21:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I didn't breach 3RR, your report is inaccurate. I made 1 edit and 3 reverts (and actually, with my last "revert" I attempted to compromise by leaving the comment in, but modifying the wording heavily). I note you left out which version I was reverting to in your report. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Because there was not a specific version you were reverting to; you were reverting an addition made prior to intervening edits. As for compromise; as per Netoholic, you replaced the comment with what an experienced editor should, in any case, have assumed in the absense of the comment. That's not much of a compromise. Pti 02:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Please read Wikipedia:Revert and educate yourself as to what constitutes and reversion and what constitutes an edit. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
            • See below for super fun mega ultra duped comments. Pti 14:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Locke made 4 edits to remove the notice - three times he removed it, and the last time he just replaced it with other text to game 3RR. -- Netoholic @ 00:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Wrong. I made 1 edit and 3 reverts. Please see Wikipedia:Revert and educate yourself. And while you're at it, please see WP:STALK and WP:HA, which I am now going to report you for on WP:AN/I. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Please read WP:3RR, which is the article most pertinent to this. I quote: "Reverting in this context means undoing the work of another editor. It does not necessarily mean going back into the page history to revert to a previous version." Pti 12:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
        • You'll be sure and get back to me when they rename The Three Revert Rule to The Three Edits That Undo Anothers Work Rule. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Allow me to quote another section, and please read the article yourself: "Reverting doesn't only mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. It means undoing the actions of another editor, and may include edits that undo a previous edit, in whole or in part, or that add something new.". If you wish to stand on the basis that the name of the rule is more important than the substance, that is your choice. However, someone with so much experience of Wikipedia should not have such (deliberate?) difficulty understanding Wikipedia policies. I would suggest that Locke Cole be reminded that Wikipedia policies are not an intellectual obstacle course to be vaulted over with word games, or cast aside with the rhetoric that we all love so dearly. Pti 14:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
            • That language was intended to avoid a loophole where people claimed they weren't reverting because they weren't actually going into the article history and reverting to a prior version. I think it's clear to anyone that my first alleged revert was actually an edit (as evidenced by the fact that you've provided no "previous version" above). BTW: I note you continue to remove that form field; don't. This is a form and every field is mandatory, don't manipulate it to hide your mistakes or omissions. This is the 4th time I've re-inserted it I believe. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
              • No, I think it's quite clear what revert refers to, because it's right there for us in the wording. You undid the actions of previous editors, that is a revert. You should be well aware of this. And if you can find anything stating that the first field is mandatory, I'm sure all the other people on this page leaving out the first field will be interested to hear it. If you have a pressing need for the field, you can have this one instead; it's in line with the wording on WP:3RR. But let's not have a revert war on WP:AN3. Pti 12:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Pti, I don't have a lot of sympathy for you when you do things like this [119]. William M. Connolley 12:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC).

  • Firstly, I don't think this is relevant at all. Secondly, I blanked the page because I'd read your message and felt no need for it to be left there. If someone wants to check out all the messages others have been sending to me, they can snoop in the page history. You could also bring up the equally irrelevant [120], blanked for the same reasons; because I had read the message and did not find it to be important, since it did not bring any new information or present vital historical context for people with an urge to read my talk page. Pti 12:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jdonnis

Three revert rule violation on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Jdonnis (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Reported by: PaxTerra 14:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

[edit] User:Macedonia

Three revert rule violation on Macedonians (ethnic group) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Macedonia (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: --Latinus (talk (el:)) 16:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Latinus has never warned me on my talk page about this incident
  • Latinus has continually been removing facts from the article, and reliable sources were provided all over the article with the same topic. Macedonia 16:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Really, what about those diffs? Either way, you've been blocked for violating the 3RR before, so you don't need me to warn you in advance. You know about it. Also, where are these sources? And what are these names, "Pirin Macedonia", "Aegean Macedonia"? The official names for these places are Blagoevgrad Province and Greek Macedonia (actually, in Greece, it's plain "Maceodnia"). The bottom line is that there is no excuse for violating the 3RR. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 16:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm unclear now on what you really want. Do you want sources? They were right below the part that you were reverting in the Major Populations by Country section where it states that Macedonians live in northern Greece and southwestern Bulgaria. Aegean and Pirin are just other names for these same regions (see the dab page Macedonian), just like how the official name of the Republic of Macedonia' is simply that, but in Greek articles it is refered to as FYROM, or how the official name of Macedonians is simply that, but in Greek articles its Slavicmacedonians. Macedonia 19:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Anyway, it looks like you were purposely ignoring the sources I was referring to, sources and explainations that were impossible to miss, perhaps you were removing those facts for a different reason? --Macedonia 20:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Is still reverting. Uninvolved admin needed. Jkelly 19:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm unclear now on what you really want - I want you to obey WP:3RR. Please read the rules. Blocked 24h William M. Connolley 21:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] User:69.174.165.129

Three revert rule violation on Marsha Blackburn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 69.174.165.129 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: —User:ACupOfCoffee@ 19:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This started just after an IP in the House of Representatives was blocked for 3RR violation on only a portion of the content this IP's reverts focused on. I have warned him.

[edit] User:Kecik

Three revert rule violation on Adolf Hitler (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Kecik (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Wyss 22:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • This user does not to my knowledge participate on the talk page and does tend to somewhat misrepresent the talk page disucssion in his edit summaries...
  • A sockpuppet check might be helpful. Wyss 23:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • He knows all about 3rr, in one of the edit summaries of his later reverts he asks editors not

to break 3rr and to stop edit warring : P Wyss 23:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Notice that the 3RR violation reported by Wyss above is not accurate. The 1st revert and 3rd revert are identical edits, repeated twice, but she lists them as if they were additional reverts so as to create an appearence of a 3RR violation when there is in fact none. This is in keeping with a pattern of deception by user Wyss described below. See evidence, given below of this pattern, [[121]]and note the user Wyss is genuinely in violation of Three revert rule with 5 repeated reverts, shown below. 4.243.158.251 00:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pointing out my copy paste errors. Someone called me on the phone when I was doing it and I said, "I know I'm going to f*** this up now," and I did. I believe the diffs are correct now, the vio is clear. Sorry. However, the repeated accusations of deception are vios of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Wyss 01:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments and correction of diffs by Musical Linguist. I have problems with the "previous version reverted to", supplied by Wyss. It seems to be a diff comparing a 2006 version with a 2002 version. In any case, it is sometimes very hard to show a "previous" version reverted to, as people do partial reverts (which still violate 3RR), so there may not be identical versions. Part of the dispute seems to be Kecik's wish to use the word "fascist". There have been various reverts over this, and the choice of word has met with considerable opposition on the talk page. I am going to try to give the diffs for Kecik's reverts. The edit summary of the first one shows clearly that it is a revert.

Please see also a message I left on his talk page asking him if a revert from an anonymous IP address just after he had "run out of" reverts was his, and offering to overlook it, if so? He has not replied to my query.

Note also that Kecik is one of the newly-registered, redlinked users (along with User:MikaM) who appeared on Wikipedia when Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) had met with opposition on the Christianity article, and supported Giovanni, tried to give an appearance of consensus, voted for whatever he voted for (following him to various articles throughout Wikipedia), and constantly reverted to his version. A checkuser established that BelindaGong (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) edited from the same IP as Giovanni (who had carried out an elaborate pretence of having no connection to Belinda, and who now says that she is his wife), but found no connection between Kecik and Giovanni. Nevertheless, Kecik's contributions indicate strongly that his purpose on Wikipedia is simply to support Giovanni. Giovanni also accidentally signed something while logged on as the newcomer Freethinker99 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) (who reverted three times to Giovanni's version while Giovanni was blocked) [122], and then tried to get rid of the evidence [123]. When it was spotted, he claimed that he knew Freethinker, and was at his house, and that Freethinker had forgotten to log off before allowing Giovanni to use his computer. AnnH (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Per other user's comments these continued allegations are in bad faith being pushed by a handful of edit warriors as a result of POV differences. It also borders on harassment, and has been very disruptive. The aggressive hounding by AnnH of this matter, expanding it to anyone whose agreed with me, is taking the form of an ugly inquisition, pushing users have left Wikipedia in protest who describe it as such, included valued older users. Yet, AnnH does not stop. She continues to lead this attack with her bad faith interpretations. I should not have to keep repeating that keeping my marriage private was my right; that I chose to not share this fact is irrelevant to the fact that she is my wife and hence not a sockpuppet, which is all that should matter (I've offered to prove it-- if any arbcom admin is interested, by sending you our respective ID's for Giovanni and Belinda Gong, our real names). I disclosed this after a usercheck showed our connection to offer a valid explanation for the appearance of sockepuppetry. We were both blocked. However, due to the POV dispute I've had with AnnH and a couple others, they are now taking advantage of this to continue what is essential a personal attack, including all others who agree with my pov. Even after a usercheck has cleared them, they keep making all kinds of accusatory speculations in bad faith. The result is in effect to disrupt constructive edit work to improve the substance of articles, harassing those they are in a POV dispute with. The role that AnnH describes of my wife, exactly matches her role in pushing for her own Pov with user Str1977; they use up 3reverts between them and have even accidently gone over in a 3RR vio herself. AnnH says that was an accident and I believe her. She is careful to follow the letter of the rules, although this McCarthy like witch hunt is certainly violating the spirit of several other equally important wiki rules and culture. She is going after these users based on their Pov, and not their violations. Violations by those who edit war on her side are ignored.Giovanni33 08:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment:About Freethinker, this is an example of a failer not to bite newcomers. Freethinker was a newcomer, yet as soon as he explained his relation to me he was attacked, blocked, and his page defaced with a socket puppet label. This is the opposite of assuming good faith. Now he doesn't want to come back. Infact you called him a "meatpuppet" outright, after he explained his connection to me. He was new and wanted to help with the POV disputes. I mentioned before to you that the Wiki policy states, "Do not call these users "meatpuppets"; be civil." It should be reasonable to understand (yet you said you can't understand it after it was explained) The only time I used another account was once when I was at a friend's (freethinker) house, to introduce him to Wikipedia(I think getting a more diverse body of pov's is healthy, not bad), and I used his account only to respond to a question on my talk page. This was all open and disclosed by me. Its lot logical to assume that this is an attempt by me to use a socketpuppet, esp. when I use his PC and even sign his name to my message (which I corrected, to my name when I know full well about the usercheck abilities. Yet, despite this you keep spreading a negative bad faith interpretation that assumes a negative intenion on my part. I also will say that as a result he was blocked, and I was blocked for an additional 48 hours (72 in total for having my wife edit and inviting a friend). I don't protest this, even though I'm innocent of any sockepuppetry, and did not violate 3RR or any rule. What I do protest in the strongest way possible is the continued distruption with constant socketpuppet allegations of me and others based on allegations and variations of different half-truths that insult, disrupt, and distract from honest editing. Giovanni33 10:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The editors on the Christianity page have been very slow to report violations. My earlier report of Giovanni was the first time that I had ever reported a 3RR violation. It was after he had continued to revert after being warned, so there was no possibility of being unaware of the rule, or of having miscounted. The reporting of his sockpuppet or wife was done by Wesley, also after he/she had been given many warnings, many chances, and had shown no indication of being prepared to stop. As with Giovanni, the reverts continued after so many warnings that it was impossible that it could have been an accidental slipping into a fourth revert. I am not married to Str1977; in fact, I have never met him. We both have a long edit history of editing independently of each other, with some overlap, particularly more recently. The question as to whether or not it is appropriate for a wife to have over 95% or her contributions agreeing with her husband, voting with him, and reverting to his version, while they both pretend not to know each other can be better discussed elsewhere. Concerning Freethinker99, nothing was "open and disclosed" until Giovanni accidentally signed while still logged on as Freethinker99. Before that, "Freethinker99" had simply claimed to be a new user who had taken the time to read the talk page and archive, and who agreed with Giovanni. His arguments and writing style were similar. Nothing was "open and disclosed" by Giovanni/Freethinker until the checkuser and the accidental signature under the wrong name. With regard to the accusation that I am going after users based on their POV and not their violations, I'd like to point out that the history of my edits will show offers by me to overlook 3RR violations by Giovanni, Belinda, Mika, and Kecik, provided that they did not continue. It's possible that someone with my POV accidentally did four reverts. (I did myself a few weeks ago — the first time ever — and rolled myself back when I realized.) Nobody with my POV did eleven reverts, or kept reverting after being made aware of having passed the threshold. AnnH (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I note that Kecik has now been blocked by Sceptre AnnH (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and you were quick to report and get MikaM blocked yet you ignored the more serious 3RR vio of another user, Wyss who supports your Pov.Giovanni33 23:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


Added March 1st:



[edit] User:Wyss

Three revert rule violation on Adolf Hitler (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Wyss (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments

  • This user has been edit warring for some time, and has violated the 3RR rule a number of times. Has been warned to stop by other users but does not. Hence I feel I have to report this so she can have a cool down period.
  • I note she will often threaten to report anyone who might revert.
  • A warining about civility policy is in order. See other user complaint as example of abusive patterns on the Admin noticeboard Incidents on for this same page:[[129]]

4.243.158.251 23:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The comments are rather distorted. The above user is likely the same as all the other red-linked users/sockpuppets who have been revert-warring at AH in the first place. Wyss 00:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The comment is not distorted at all. Once again Wyss tries to defame other users to defend her own edits (most recently, she twice posted and defended this statement "The evidence is building rapidly that User:Giovanni33 is now using sockpuppets User:Kecik and User:MikaM to continue this disruptive revert war." even though there was no such evidence and a check eventually proved her assertion to be false.) I request admin to check the block log and the list of incidents reported here - and to pre-empt Wyss's defamations, a user/sockpuppet check will also reveal that I am not the poster above or any of the other users Wyss mentions. -- Simonides 02:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It appears that she did violate 3RR, so I'm blocking her (the edits she reverted weren't vandalism, as far as i can see)Sceptre (Talk) 09:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:70.19.53.214

Three revert rule violation on List of Catholic American Actors (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs).

70.19.53.214 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Demiurge 23:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 24h for 3rr William M. Connolley 20:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] User:68.110.9.62

Three revert rule violation on List of the monarchs of the Kingdom of England (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 68.110.9.62 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
  • 1st revert: [DiffLink Time]
  • 2nd revert: [DiffLink Time]
  • 3rd revert: [DiffLink Time]
  • 4th revert: [DiffLink Time]

Reported by: Mais oui! 23:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Comment. Reverted a personal attack is not abuse. --Rory096 00:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
rv infant, is most certainly abusive speech. 68.110.9.62 15:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I have blocked TharkunColl (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and 68.110.9.62 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) for violating WP:3RR on List of the monarchs of the Kingdom of England (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). —bbatsell ¿? 00:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:87.202.17.146

Three revert rule violation on Greece (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 87.202.17.146 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments: Despite repeated warnings, User:87.202.17.146 continues to revert to his preferred version, with vandalism included. [139]

Reported by: Phædriel ♥ tell me - 01:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for a week by User:Jkelly--MONGO 02:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Various on NiMUD

[edit] User:151.201.48.208

Three revert rule violation on NiMUD (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Young_Zaphod (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and 68.162.148.34 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and 151.201.48.208 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Jlambert 03:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

[edit] User:68.162.148.34

Three revert rule violation on NiMUD (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Young_Zaphod (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and 68.162.148.34 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and 151.201.48.208 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Jlambert 03:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

These are a bit stale now, but: you need to get checkuser to confirm they are one person, or some other good evidence. William M. Connolley 17:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC).

I'm not actually sure how to get them to confirm it aside from posting it in their list of things to confirm, which as Jlambert points out, is what I did on the 16th :P They seem to have a bit of a backlog to go through. Would it have been better for me to make my reports here only after getting the results there? I figured that the results for Eggster would have been good enough to show that it's likely to be the same person this time as well, especially considering these IPs are still in Pittsburgh, and that Eggster stopped contributing when Young Zaphod started, and the remarkable similarity with their edits. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 22:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Checkuser request was made 2 - 3 days ago, so they would be stale. Jlambert 02:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what would be good evidence, but here is an example of the 151 address going back 10 minutes later and adding more text to one of Young Zaphod's AFD comments. I've noticed him doing similar things on talk pages before. There's also this which I posted on 3RR before, showing Young Zaphod changing the signature on one of 68.162.148.34's comments to his own. Ehheh 20:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Checkuser request has results. And yes the continual reverting has continued. He's reverting everyday since this was reported. Now gaming the 24 hour clock. Jlambert 04:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Chcknwnm

Three revert rule violation on Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Chcknwnm (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Blocked for 24 hours.Geni 04:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 82.141.187.170

Three revert rule violation on Fresno, California. 82.141.187.170 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Dsol 08:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked Sceptre (Talk) 17:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Leyasu

Three revert rule violation and vandalism on Gothic music and nu metal. - Deathrocker 13:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You too are violating 3RR. I've protected Gothic music to calm you both down Sceptre (Talk) 13:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you please do something about User:Leyasu? As you can see higher up this page, they are frequent in their vandalism and breaking of the 3RR, thanks! - Deathrocker 13:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there any consensus that Gothic music is Goth music? Sceptre (Talk) 13:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The only person who seems to think other wise is User:Leyasu, I think its pretty obvious that Gothic music, is Goth music. - Deathrocker 13:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Any on-wiki proof on consensus??? Sceptre (Talk) 14:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Blocked both of you under 3rr until tommorow night. Sceptre (Talk) 17:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:MikaM

Three revert rule violation on Adolf Hitler (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). MikaM (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Please see the case of User:Kecik reported above. Like Kecik, MikaM was a newly-registered user whose purpose seemed to be to revert for Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). See comments above (at Kecik section) for information about Giovanni's link to BelindaGong and Freethinker99. All four editors revert constantly to Giovanni's version, and support him on the talk page. With the exception of Freethinker99, who was blocked after Giovanni accidentally signed a post while logged on as Freethinker 99, they all follow Giovanni to other articles (which they would be unlikely as newcomers to find by chance), and revert for him and vote for his edits there.

It is hard to give a "previous version reverted to", as sometimes they are partial reverts. The dispute seems in part to have been over Giovanni's Kecik's, MikaM's (etc.) wish to use the word "fascist", which met with opposition on the talk page.

Reported by: AnnH (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • MikaM removed a warning of danger of violation of 3RR from his/her talk page.[140] Later, he/she removed a reminder of having violated it.[141]

Another point: MikaM acknowledged here that the IP address 69.107.7.138 was his/hers. 69.106.243.31 is probably the same person, as it's a very similar address and an edit which MikaM wanted, according to discussion on the talk page. So it was interesting to see the appearance of 69.107.21.3 to support MikaM:

This shows a strong connection between the three IP addresses.

I asked MikaM on the Christianity talk page to state whether or not the IP edits came from him/her, saying that if so, we'd still be willing to move on, and that we had always been very slow to report 3RR violations at that page, especially when it involved a newcomer, but that following Giovanni's behaviour, we really did need to know if anyone was using sockpuppets, meatpuppets or alternating between username and IP address to get round 3RR. MikaM was offended, and refused to answer. Note also that a checkuser did not show any connection between MikaM and other registered users, but of course would not look for reverts done while not logged in. AnnH (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  • comment: It's not suprising seeing AnnH selectively go after MikaM, who she is also attacking due to her Pov dispute. The continued allegations are in bad faith being pushed by a handful of edit warriors as a result of POV differences. This borders on harassment, and has been very disruptive. The aggressive hounding by AnnH of this matter, by repeating it as often as she can, and expanding it to anyone whose agreed with me, is taking the form of an inquisition; users have left Wikipedia in protest describing it as such, included valued older users. Yet, AnnH continues to lead this attack spreading bad faith interpretations and distruptive speculations. She is careful to follow the letter of the rules herself (only once slipping past her 3 reverts in 24 hour that she describes as an accident), although this McCarthy like witch hunt is certainly violating the spirit of several other equally important wiki rules and principals.Giovanni33 08:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I must take exception to the statement that users have left Wikipedia in disgust over my "aggressive hounding". SOPHIA seems to have gone, only temporarily, I hope, after a checkuser showed that she was sharing an IP address with another user, and an uninvolved administrator tagged the other user as a sockpuppet. I had requested the checkuser, as many brand new users were supporting Giovanni and reverting to his versions, but had not included SOPHIA in it. I removed the sockpuppet notice from her husband's user page, and when she complained that it would still be in the history, I deleted that edit from the history, and asked her to let me know if I could do anything else to help. (The checkuser request was certainly justified, as it showed that Giovanni33 and BelindaGong, who both reverted constantly to each other's versions while pretending not to know each other, were editing from the same IP.) The other user who may have left over this is Freethinker99 who (if he exists) was blocked after trying to give the appearance of a brand new user who just happened to agree with Giovanni (and reverted three times to something Giovanni wanted) and then accidentally signed Giovanni's post while logged on as Freethinker. AnnH (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Blocked Sceptre (Talk) 17:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lou franklin

[edit] First incident

Three revert rule violation on Societal attitudes towards homosexuality (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Lou_franklin (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Rhobite 17:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Blocked for 24 hours Sceptre (Talk) 17:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second incident

Three revert rule violation on Societal attitudes towards homosexuality (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Lou_franklin (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Cleduc 21:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third incident

Three revert rule violation (up to six today) on Societal attitudes towards homosexuality (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Lou_franklin (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  1. 12:43, 26 February 2006
  2. 13:21, 26 February 2006
  3. 13:52, 26 February 2006
  4. 19:28, 26 February 2006
  5. 19:44, 26 February 2006
  6. 20:03, 26 February 2006

Reported by: Georgewilliamherbert 03:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC) But wait, there was more before User:Guanaco blocked him...

  1. 20:09, 26 February 2006
  2. 20:11, 26 February 2006
  3. 20:13, 26 February 2006

Updated: Georgewilliamherbert 03:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User: 69.196.139.250

69.196.139.250 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) on Kurdish_people

Comments:

Unfortunately this user systematically and continuously vandalises this page as well as some other kurdish related articles. (Has many strange claims without any citiation.) Diyako Talk + 19:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  • It doesn't look like vandalism, but a content war. OTOH it does like a 3rr break; blocked 36h. William M. Connolley 20:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] User:Humus sapiens

Three revert rule violation on Washington_Institute_for_Near_East_Policy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Humus sapiens (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
  • 1st revert: [149]
  • 2nd revert: [150]
  • 3rd revert: [151]
  • 4th revert: [152]

Reported by: User:70.108.165.240

Comments:

For some reason, Hummus Sapiens does not want users to see the trustees of this organization, and uses the "well poising" phrase to explain his censorship.

Comment by ←Humus sapiens ну?. As you can see, one of the reverts is not mine, but the reporting anonymous. As a matter of fact, it is s/he who broke the 3RR (unreported as of yet) and failed to discuss the edits on talk. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that both editors read Wikipedia:External links. You both, however, broke 3RR. So I'm blocking you both until midnight tonight, GMT Sceptre (Talk) 09:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I insist that I have not violated the 3RR policy. I am afraid Sceptre believed an anon IP who provided fake diffs, please doublecheck: the #4 is his edit and not mine. In the spirit of good faith I fixed the 3RR entry (filed against myself, because the anon broke the format of 3RR page) and added a comment. The anon failed to respond at talk and chose to engage in edit war. This is my first block in all my 2.5 years here. Since I have been blocked unjustly, I request it to be erased from my record. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe that only a developer can erase these things. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Deiaemeth

Three revert rule violation on Korean-Japanese disputes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Deiaemeth (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Endroit 03:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • There may be other reverts by Deiaemeth inbetween in the same 24-hour period.
  • There are other reverts beyond this, and the Edit War is continuing now between Deiaemeth and others.
  • I have filed a WP:RCU to see if DueDiehcal (talk • contribs) and others are sockpuppet(s) of Deiaemeth. See Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser#DueDiehcal (talk • contribs) and others.
  • I believe Deiaemeth has been warned about 3RR before. Please check his talk page.--Endroit 03:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 24 hours Sceptre (Talk) 09:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Macedonia 2

Three revert rule violation on Macedonians (ethnic group) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Macedonia (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: --Latinus (talk (el:)) 18:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • The user is deleting sourced information. The source can be seen on the diff pages. This user has also violated the rule on the same article two times [153] after being reverted by multiple users. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 18:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:86.42.143.118

Three revert rule violation on Radio Telefís Éireann (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 86.42.143.118 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Kiand 19:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Constantly returning an external link to their site pushing a heavy POV about the Irish television licence - which is not levied by and does not entirely go to RTÉ. Was warned about the 3RR, proceeded to break it. He changes the title of the link every time, however its still a revert as its the same link.
  • Blocked for 24 hours Sceptre (Talk) 20:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Space Cadet

Three revert rule violation on Treaty of Welawa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Space_Cadet (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Schwartz und Weiss 22:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

That's ridiculous! The fourth one is not even a revert! Space Cadet 22:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC) It was Ksenon who reverted four times, double check. Space Cadet 22:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

(Ksenon (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
Oh stop it the pair of you. Both blocked, you can have half each. William M. Connolley 23:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC).
I think SC is right here: his fourth edit was not a revert, just inclusion of minor information that does not seem to be disputed on the talk page.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Its marginal. If he wasn't a serial offender, I probably wouldn't have blocked him. If he wants to skate this close to the line, he should read the rules more carefully. William M. Connolley 09:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] User:LaszloWalrus

Three revert rule violation on Ayn Rand (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). LaszloWalrus (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Alienus 07:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • There's been some disagreement about whether Rand fits into the LGBT rights opposition category. This has been handled in Talk so far, but now LazloWalrus has decided to abandon discussion and just edit war. After I rebutted his last attempt to justify deleting the category, he's given up on trying to argue based on the facts and is instead deleting the category repeatedly. With each restore, I ask him to come back to Talk and continue the discussion, but he's refused. Instead, even after I warned him — in the article and the discussion page and his own talk page — that he's approaching 3RR, he's violated it. I'm asking for a 24 hour ban so that he'll be motivated to discuss his desired change rather than forcing it. Alienus 07:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Alienus's accusation borders on lying. He is the lone supporter for Rand's categorization in "LGBT rights opposition," against a consensus of four or five to delete this categorization; I am merely expressing the will of the consensus. LaszloWalrus 07:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • While there's controversy, presumably because strong, self-avowed supporters of Rand (such as yourself) are embarassed by her stance against homosexuality, the fact is that this categorization is accurate and sourced. I freely admit that the categorization is not popular, but nobody has actually come up with an excuse to remove it that withstands basic scrutiny. The big difference between you and others who dislike it is that you're not willing to talk about it. This isn't the first time you edit-warred over it, just the first time you got caught in a 3RR violation. For that matter, it's not as if I'm the only person who thinks this category is appropriate: 132.241.41.170 must have, else they wouldn't have inserted the category to begin with. Look, the bottom line here is that this is a content dispute, not simple vandalism, so even if I'm dead wrong about the categorization, you're out of line. I want you to be given a day where you can't edit-war, so that you'll be motivated to actually talk. Maybe you can actually support your point and convince me to back off. Alienus 08:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Blocked both of you Sceptre (Talk) 10:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Adidas98

Three revert rule violation on Mike Del Grande (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Adidas98 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 13:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • The page seems to have been under steady attack by several anons until it was semi-protected; I have a feeling Adidas98, a new user with edits ONLY to the article in question is an account created to get by the protection. -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 14:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 24 hours Sceptre (Talk) 15:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 02:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Space Cadet (4th time this month)

Three revert rule violation on Prussia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Space_Cadet (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Chris 73 | Talk 17:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Space cadet has already been blocked 3 times this month for a 3RR. While the reverts on Prussia are not within 24 hours, the last revert is only 10 minutes outside of the 24 hour period, gaming the rule. It seems, a 24 hour block does not impress him, and I believe a block for more than 24 hours is well justified. -- Chris 73 | Talk 17:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Blocked for a week Sceptre (Talk) 17:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Leifern

Three revert rule violation on Homeopathy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Leifern (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Skinwalker 17:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User insists on removing a paragraph on the scientific efficacy of homeopathy, without discussion or consensus on the talk page. This paragraph is the result of several months of negotiation and revision by pro- and anti- editors. Skinwalker 17:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Blocked for 24 hours Sceptre (Talk) 17:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:RPJ/User:66.91.203.81

Three revert rule violation on Lee Harvey Oswald (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). RPJ (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)/66.91.203.81 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Gamaliel 22:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • RPJ and 66.91.203.81 are the same person. This isn't a sockpuppet so much as RPJ just not logging in. RPJ goes back and signs 66.91.203.81's posts when s/he logs in, so there really isn't any dispute about this.
    • Blocked for 24 hours. Jayjg (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hipocrite

I believe Hipocrite has violated the 3rvt rule on Emergency Contraception even though he didn't explicitly call his reverts as such. The reason is that the rule says that to revert in full or part more than three times is to violate the rule, and the first two were in full while the last two were in part. Chooserr 00:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverts:

Comments:

And while I'm not sure if this matters or if you want to hear about it here he was also inconsistent as to the reason he was reverting, at first stating WP:NOR, before moving on to accuse me of instating a bias into my text, when I pointed out the link I'd added. Chooserr 00:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone monitoring this page? Chooserr 00:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC) (well the fact that you put in a report to a redlinked page probably didn't help... corrected William M. Connolley 20:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC))

  • Comment: The second, third, and forth revert are simply attempts to re-ad a {fact} flag on incorrect material. By using the {fact} flag, Hipocrite is showing good faith.--Colle|Image:locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 00:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment:Colle's version isn't quite accurate, but that is the reason I provided the links. If you were to compare the current version to that prior to my last version you will also notice he deleted the entire first paragraph. Chooserr 00:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

My suspicion is that the fairest thing would be to split the block between you. But since the warring appears to be over for the moment, I won't (others feel free to disagree). Please both stop edit warring and talk nicely. William M. Connolley 20:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC).

I need not have agonized: 2006-02-20 03:20:28 GTBacchus blocked "Chooserr (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (3RR on Abortion) [162]

[edit] User:Kuban kazak

Three revert rule violation on Belarusian Byzantine Catholic Church (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Kuban_kazak (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Gentgeen 11:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I'm involved in the dispute. This user has been blocked for 3RR violations in the past, with apparently not much improvement in behavior. Gentgeen 11:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    • What I see here is a blatant provokation of 3RR violation by Gentgeen and an affiliated IP. The nominator deserves half the block, for it takes two to tango, you know. --Ghirla | talk 12:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Moreover the 4th and 5th reverts if you compare with the first three third are not exactly the same, in fact I took note of the comments and attempted to NPOV the article with the 4th editIf one compares them.--Kuban Cossack 13:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 24h. Reverts don't have to be exact. More on your talk page. William M. Connolley 20:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC).


[edit] User:Licorne

For Licorne (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

I'd also like to see David Hilbert and Priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories protected.

Reported by: CH 04:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This is part of a content dispute as ugly as anything I've seen in 9 months at WP. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Licorne. Note that it seems that User:De kludde at White Nationalist Wiki is same as User:De kludde here at WP; this user may have written the following articles at wnwiki:

  • [wnwiki.ath.cx/index.php/Corry_Renn_Stachel_paper Corry Renn Stachel paper]
  • [wnwiki.ath.cx/index.php/Henri_Poincaré Henri Poincaré]
  • [wnwiki.ath.cx/index.php/Albert_Einstein Albert Einstein]

Numerous users have repeatedly asked Licorne to stop making these inflammatory and highly POV edits. Can an admin please protect these pages until the content dispute is resolved? (Versions by Joke 137, FastFission, Paul August, are IMO minimally inflammatory versions; versions by Licorne and De_kludde and anons tend to be highly POV). ---CH 06:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the edits where he revert repeatedly in the last day? Can you point them out? He has edited but he's only reverted twice as far as I can tell or am I missing something? Sasquatch t|c 09:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was doing something else. In reverse order, see

For maximal effect you need to check the differences and look at the RfC. ---CH 09:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not abusing wikiterminology or something, am I? Licorne doesn't revert to his previous version in the strict sense. He keeps making highly inflammatory edits which multiple other users keep reverting. Where can I complain about that? As I see it, the point is that the multiple reversions by all these other users represent better judgement in this case of what makes a suitable WP article. This seems to be consensus view, if that matters. In any case, I think the cure is to temporarily protect these pages and to counsel Licorne to seek remediation via the RfC. ---CH 10:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Its a complex pattern, but it looks (I only checked David Hilbert) like (a) 3rr and (b) blatant disruption. Blocked William M. Connolley 10:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC).

Good, thanks. I hope he turns his attention to the RfC when he comes back. ---CH 10:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Badagnani

Three revert rule violation on Kent State shootings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Badagnani (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [166]
  • 1st revert: [167] at 1:19
  • 2nd revert: [168] at 1:20
  • 3rd revert: [169] at 1:23
  • 4th revert: [170] at 1:29

Reported by: Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 06:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • A Kent State student, Badagnani refuses to deal with issues on the talk page recently, won't even address them except to say it's ridiculous, his version is better
  • reverts hours of work improving an article, including re-inserting misspellings and incorrect apostrophe use
  • reverts stuff that has been "disputed" on the talk page since December, that he's never bothered even trying to address
  • was warned repeatedly through edit summaries about 3RR ((rvt, That's 2 reverts for you, 2 for me. PLEASE CONSIDER USING THE TALK PAGE TO ADDRESS SUBJECTS and There, that's 3 reverts each. Any more and either of us would be banned for breaking WP:3RR.
  • I'm not sure what admin policy is on undoing reverts made past 3RR, since I am at my third revert on that article tonight, I would appreciate if it could be put back, as it is one of the articles featured on WP:Bounty that we are trying to bring to Featured Status.
My edits do not constitute >3RR as three of the reverts are for one section of the article, and the other revert mentioned was for another. Sherurcij has been deleting valid information (including, for example, a sourced quote from Governor James Rhodes and a mention of the slashing of firehoses during the ROTC building fire), in the interest of "improving" the article. These deletions show his/her lack of knowledge about the subject. S/he also makes NPOV comments on the Discussion page, and, worst of all, often uses profanity and SHOUTING. Badagnani 06:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
They are all reverting the same edits, so yes they do. (Even if you did revert things seperately to try and be "sneaky"). Also, the quote from Rhodes is still listed, what I removed was the "generous extrapolation" which was never sourced. ("A riot destroying the University" is sourced "planning to overthrow the US Government" is not. Also, "slashing firehoses with pocketknives" has been mentioned as being physically impossible on the talkpage, and surprise...you've never addressed it). I think you're confusing NPOV and POV, but I'm curious about your comments, since you seem to refuse to address anything on the discussion page. I'm a he, yes I sometimes say "damn", you can learn to live with it, it's not like I'm putting it in the damn article. And I don't shout, I use ALL CAPS when it seems you are ignoring edit summaries. In summary, this is a 3RR page, if you want to argue semantics about firehose physics use the damn talk page for the article. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 07:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The last one wasn't really a revert. He changed back a cery small section of the edit. Either way, both of you should stop edit warring. Period. Take the next 24 hours off to think about how you can compromise. Sasquatch t|c 09:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Molobo

Three revert rule violation on German Eastern Marches Society (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Molobo (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Sciurinæ 11:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments This RfCed user is a repeated offender of the 3RR and would often join User:Space Cadet's (see above) frontline in revert wars. He has started revert warring even on my talk page ([171], [172], [173]) and would become very personal on talk pages in general. This particularly war started when Molobo disliked an edit by User:Maria Stella and reverted to a version over which Molobo and I had already had disagreement. The fourth revert are edits by him to that effect. He vowed to continue the war. Given that he should maybe follow his own principles concerning a Wikibreak anyway, I see no reason why a cool-down period for him shouldn't be appropriate. Sciurinæ 11:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Molobo is an experienced revert warrior whose edits consist of little but reverts. He should know the rules better than anyone posting on this page, so he tries to fool the admins and eschew 3RR violations by introducing minor modifications to his reverts. I believe he would be glad to share the fate of his buddy Kosmak, who is blocked for a week. --Ghirla | talk 11:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Support a block. he was blocked for a 3RR the last time less than a month ago -- Chris 73 | Talk 12:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 24h (though I considered longer). 4th is a revert William M. Connolley 12:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] User:Harmil

Three revert rule violation on Psionics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Harmil (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Ardenn 16:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User:Ardenn is a vandal who regularly removes text and links from articles without explanation and refuses to engage in substantive discussion on talk pages, and who regularly "games" the 3RR rule himself. Monicasdude 17:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:85.219.173.251 and User:131.173.252.9

Three revert rule violation on Gdańsk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 85.219.173.251 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and 131.173.252.9 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

and

Reported by: Chris 73 | Talk 17:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Both blocked for 24 hours. Other admins may unblock if they think this block is not justified. The article is frequently reverted, two registered users are currently blocked for a 3RR. Not sure if any of these URL's are sockpuppets. -- Chris 73 | Talk 17:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:WAREL

4 partial reverts in less than 12 hours at Real number

The user has been warned before: [182]

We, mathemticians, agreed that the information in question is not relevant in that article, see also the article history. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Sasquatch t|c 19:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:69.196.199.49

Three revert rule violation on Wayne Gretzky (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 69.196.199.49 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

new anon IP user

Reported by: Mr Pyles 19:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Warned. Sasquatch t|c 19:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mark Bourrie

Three revert rule violation on Rachel Marsden (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Mark_Bourrie (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Cyberboomer 22:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User has been blocked before.

Blocked 24h; could be more? William M. Connolley 22:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Should be more. User got a 7th revert one minute before you blocked him. Thank you William. --Cyberboomer 22:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
User is on a National Library of Canada computer user:142.78.64.58 and continues to revert. --Cyberboomer 21:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:66.56.216.163

Three revert rule violation on Mystery Science Theater 3000 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 66.56.216.163 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: TheRealFennShysa 00:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Anonymous user keeps insterting commercial bootleg site. Consensus on talk page has been to keep such links off the site. User continually re-adds site.

Blocked 24h. William M. Connolley 09:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:85.206.164.9

Three revert rule violation on Brokeback Mountain (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 85.206.164.9 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: eaolson 00:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • A similar IP, presumably the same individual, has tried to add an external link several times; each time it was removed. This time it seems to have sparked a revert war.
  • User has been removing the entire External Links section, in apparent retaliation for his link not being included.

SamuelWantman blocked "85.206.164.9 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Violation of WP:3RR after warning.) William M. Connolley 10:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zmmz

Three revert rule violation on Parthia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Zmmz (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: siafu 02:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This user also edits from the IP 149.68.55.134. See Talk:Parthia for dispute; user continues to refuse to discuss the issue at hand, repeatedly stating "this discussion is over" &c. This is also not the first 3RR violation by this user.
  • Also keeps repeatedly adding half-baked stuff to Babylon, 4RR now in the past 24 hrs and numerous similar edits in the past few days... been reverted by myself and once by DBachman who both advised him to stay on topic ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't have time to check this properly, sorry; have left warning (please do this next time!). William M. Connolley 10:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Amibidhrohi

Three revert rule violation on Ann Coulter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Amibidhrohi (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Rhobite 04:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Sorry for not following the format.. I'm kind of busy right now. 5 reverts. Rhobite 04:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


Blocked 48h; previous blocks. William M. Connolley 12:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Wikidugaren

Three revert rule violation on Inner Mongolia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Wikidugaren (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: ran (talk) 07:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Editor has already been warned about 3RR after the second revert. -- ran (talk) 07:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Please in future warn them on their talk page as well - warnings on article space are hard to find, especially in future. In this case, its a newbie, so I've left them a warning; if they keep it up they'll get blocked. William M. Connolley 12:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

-- ran (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the two warring IPs both seem to come from Brisbane... to be sure, see the "requests for checkuser" at the top of the page. William M. Connolley 17:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

  • 6th revert: 23:35, February 22, 2006
    • Made by User:Enkhbatt, which is newly created. I suspect that it's a sockpuppet, though of course this needs to be confirmed.

-- ran (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It's been confirmed that the 5th revert from the anonymous IP was also carried out by User:Wikidugaren. -- ran (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Psychomelodic

Three revert rule violation on Green Day (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Psychomelodic (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Spook (my talk | my contribs) 13:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Isnt the first time.
  • Does not follow consensus and does not ask for permission on the talk page. - Anirudh 14:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 24 hours. Incidentally, no one requires permission to make an edit to an article, though obviously five reverts is a bit...bad. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Haham hanuka

Three revert rule violation on Yigal Amir (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Haham hanuka (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: gidonb 17:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "similar IP"? It looks like the same person given the edits, but unless you've seen him do logged-out edits before, the IP doesn't mean much unless you ask for a check to be done. android79 18:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I do ask for a check to be done. I have seen him do edits with the first two groups of three digits, but not with three. Is that the break-off point? gidonb 18:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
It all depends on the network layout. Make a request at WP:RCU and reference this 3RR report. (Only a small subset of administrators can perform this check; I can't.) android79 18:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I have left a request. The i.p. went on to make several Hebrew text replacements. Haham hanuka is the only person I know to make such replacements manually. gidonb 18:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC) There is always a small chance that someone mimicked his behavior. gidonb 21:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:ChiWhiteSox7

Three revert rule violation on Chicago White Sox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). ChiWhiteSox7 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Linnwood 21:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Blocked for 1 days Sceptre (Talk) 21:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Robsteadman

Three revert rule violation on Jesus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Robsteadman (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Gator (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This is a reapt 3RR offender and a two time receipient of blocks for 3RR violations. In fact this is third time that this user has violated the 3RR on this page alone. First block was for 24, then 48 (both for 3RR violations so he's just ignoring the rule now) Stopped at 3d revert and is now just clearly gaming the system. Normally, I wouldn't report for 3 and wait for 4, but given the fact he's done numerous this and has been blocked twice I don't think he should be allowed to game the system like this and should not be afforded special leniency when he has such a history. He needs to be blocked in my humble opinion. User just doesn't seem to get it and is incredibly disruptive. Very unfortunate.Gator (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • There have to be more than three reverts. --Latinus 00:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sadly there now are. I think Gator should have waited for 4; I wouldn't have blocked on 3. Blocked 48h as repeat offender. William M. Connolley 00:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC).

That's what he was blocked at last time and it obviously didn't work . You think 48 is enough?Gator (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zmmz & User:149.68.55.134

Three revert rule violation on Parthia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Zmmz (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) & 149.68.55.134 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Aldux 21:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments: There is little that can be added to what has already been said of User:Zmmz for violating the 3-revert-rule on the same article in this same day, when he was reported by Siafu. For this he got a warning from the admin. William M. Connolley on his talk page, a warning he saw since he even awnsered there. There can be no doubt that Zmmz and 149.68.55.134, as already observed by Codex Sinaiticus, and can be verified observing his contributions or his atitude on Talk:Parthia. I'll add here Codex Sinaiticus, since it concerns his first violation on Parthia. Aldux 22:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

  • This user also edits from the IP 149.68.55.134. See Talk:Parthia for dispute; user continues to refuse to discuss the issue at hand, repeatedly stating "this discussion is over" &c. This is also not the first 3RR violation by this user.
  • Also keeps repeatedly adding half-baked stuff to Babylon, 4RR now in the past 24 hrs and numerous similar edits in the past few days... been reverted by myself and once by DBachman who both advised him to stay on topic ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • While Zmmz is a new user, who doesn't seem to grasp a lot of the finer points of wikipedia right away (like signing one's comments, for instance) he has now revert warred by inserting the jingoistic sentence "Persia became the pre-eminent power of the world--in fact, it became the world’s first global empire" into an article about the city of Babylon at least ten times in the past 24 hours -- depite all attempts of myself and 2 other editors to reason with him. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
      • His latest edit to Babylon just now was not a total revert, he didn't change anything but the heading, so it appears he has actually read the compromise version, that took his positions into account, and hopefully, some stability will resume now...ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
        • For whatever it's worth, I'm with Codex Sinaiticus on this. -Ben 22:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Its a bit of a mess, but on Babylon his last edit appears to be adding [210] as a disguised way of getting global empire in. Oh, but I'd want some better evidence - specific diffs - to link him to 149. William M. Connolley 22:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC).

Look at Talk:Parthia: he's just [[211]] now as User:Zmmz the edit he [[212]] made as User:149.68.55.134. Since it doesn't seem a sockpuppet, you could also ask Zmmz if they're the same. Aldux 23:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, thats convincing. William M. Connolley 23:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
No sooner did his block expire, but the same ludicrous edit war revs right back up again... Padding the Babylon article even further with all this lengthy, off topic nonsense about Persia being the world's greatest superpower, and edit warring ad infinitum to keep it there... This was funny but now is turning disruptive, and wearing me down... It's not technically a 3RR, but can't something be done? The last 24 hrs were really relatively peaceful... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Consider an RFC to bring in more editors and clarify consensus? siafu 02:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Zmmz has just broken 3RR again, with 4 identical reverts to Babylon just since getting unblocked today...! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh wonderful. Blocked again, 48h this time William M. Connolley 22:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Aegeis

Three revert rule violation on Homeopathy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Aegeis (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homeopathy&oldid=40479272 15:39, 20 February 2006]

05:18, 22 February 2006]

14:47, 22 February 2006]

15:26, 22 February 2006]

Reported by: Skinwalker 22:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User has been reverting (30 times since 1 January 2006) article to an

outdated version. He makes these changes without discussion on the talk page. He posts under the username Aegeis as well as anonymously with ip addresses in the 193.193.195.xxx range. It's a minor irritant (we're all quite used to reverting him on sight), but I would appreciate it if an admin could look into the situation beyond the current 3rr violation. Cheers, Skinwalker 22:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You really need to provide some kind of hint as to why 193.193.195.148 is aegeis. Requests for checkuser (see top of page) could be your answer, if its serious enough William M. Connolley 00:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I wondered what good an RFC would do in this case. Aegeis reverted[213] again overnight, for his 4th revert in 24 hours that was performed from his account. To address your question on why we believe 193.193.19x.xxx addresses are aegeis, reverts from that ip range are identical in content and tone of edit summary to those performed from his account. Additionally, last fall he re-signed comments[214] under his ip as his account name. Is this sufficient evidence that aegeis=193.193.19x.xxx, or should I file a formal checkuser request?
Blocked, since that was 4R. Your last diff, for signing, is wrong: thats in the article space. Which did you mean? William M. Connolley 17:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC).
Ack! I cut-n-pasted the wrong diff. Here is the correct one[215].
Yes, thats convincing. Don't bother with checkuser. If you need to report Aegeis/193 in combination again, remember to put that in as evidence in csae we forget... William M. Connolley 19:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kocoum

Three revert rule violation on Grozny (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Kocoum (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Kuban Cossack 23:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User also made heavy POV edits to all Chechen relatated pages. --Kuban Cossack 23:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

2006-02-22 22:53:33 Ezhiki blocked "Kocoum (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation on Grozny) William M. Connolley 00:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:-Inanna-

Three revert rule violation on Turkmen people (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). -Inanna- (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Reported by: Latinus 00:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User has been blocked many times for violating the 3RR before. Someone may also want to have a word with her about personal attacks in edit summaries. --Latinus 00:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Trying 48h this time :-( William M. Connolley 00:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Cigammagicwizard

Three revert rule violation on Saw III (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). }:

Reported by: keepsleeping;;;; slack off! 02:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User has reverted to his own version of the article, which consists of unsourced and apparently imaginary "information" about this upcoming film, removing properly sourced information in order to do so.
  • Blocked for 24 hours. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 13:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pirveli

Three revert rule violation on List of sovereign states (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). }:

Reported by: Jiang 10:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Warned user after committing 4th revert, but user proceeded to revert the article for a 5th time. all reverts are clean-cut total mass reverts.--Jiang 10:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 24 hours. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Wzhao553

Three revert rule violation on Asian fetish (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Wzhao553 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
  • 1st revert: [217]
  • 2nd revert: [218]
  • 3rd revert: [219]
  • 4th revert: [220]
  • 5th revert: [221]

Reported by: Gnetwerker 08:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Please note that I was reverting repeated vandalism by Gnetwerker of a well-sourced section about the opinion of Asian American women.

This user Gnetwerker has also made racist comments toward me that I should not be writing because he believes that English is not my native language and that I am not very good at English, even though I was born and raised in the U.S. See: Talk:Asian_fetish#3 --Wzhao553 08:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

An examination of those edits will show multiple attempts at edits that would be acceptable to User:Wzhao553, not reversions of his edits -- Gnetwerker 08:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

On a controversial article, this user refuses to accept any position other than his own. He has already claimed that he has "no vested interest (or special knowledge) of this subject" (Talk:Asian_fetish/Archive_6), but insists on having the final say in all editing matters. Several users have attempted to explain to him that his knowledge of cited references is inadequate or sometimes wrong, but so far they have not prevailed. Indeed, Gnetwerker should be blocked in violation of the 3RR rule. --Wzhao553 09:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Bit of a mess; but looks like a breach. OTOH first offence and no warnings given that I can see; blocked 3h William M. Connolley 17:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:JohnFM

3RR violation on Pro-Test (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Reported by: SlimVirgin (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

JohnFM (talk • contribs) is a single-issue editor who supports and may be involved in the protest movement the article's about. He keeps removing from the first sentence that Oxford University is building an animal-testing facility, replacing "animal testing" or "animal research" with "biomedical research", reverting against two editors.

I am nothing to do with Pro-Test, but I am an Oxford University Student. Therefore I wish to see clear reporting about this subject, without the use of emotive language. Both editors in question are supporters of the animal rights groups in question, and therefore have more of an interest in the inclusion of "animal research" over "biomedical research". JohnFM 11:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Blocked for 24 hours. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, ESkog. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ultramarine

Three revert rule violation on Liberal democracy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs).

Reported by: Solidusspriggan 19:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I believe this is a violation of the rule. Ultramarine is in constant violation of many wikipedia policies, constantly waging edit wars and adding tangental information to promote his stated political agenda. I attempted to balance his tangental edits to this article but to no avail. He just kept adding more and more information promoting his viewpoint. I and a few others decided that the original version before this edit war of sorts was fine. I, along with mulitple anons and registered users have attempted to keep the article in its previous form. But with no luck as user ultramarine runs the page on democracy like a dictator, being the only one to support his version. He has already had one RFA. His edits are so numerous and comments so systematic that I believe that he either has automated help, is actually a number of users, and/or has a set of responses ready to copy and past into talk pages to dispute generically other's arguments.Solidusspriggan 19:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Ummmmmm... that looks like *3* reverts to me William M. Connolley 19:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] User:Jazzabelle, User:Ghetoo, User:CasanovaAlive

Three revert rule violation on Talk:Simon Strelchik (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). }:

Reported by: pm_shef 01:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I think I did the above right. I filled in the history pages of the blankings in the 1st-4th revert slots. I've been reverting the blankings for a few days now, but today is out of control. There had been a discussion on the subject's noteablity and then someone else added comments regarding additions they made to the article itself and there are a number of Users including User:Jazzabelle, User:Ghetoo and User:CasanovaAlive who continue to delete massive parts of this article. Help!! pm_shef 01:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked Jazzabelle for 24 hours, for disregarding a direct administrator warning to cease blanking comments from the talk page. (Jazzabelle, for what it's worth, also blanked this very section from this page, as well as at WP:AN/I.) I've advised them on their talk page that if they want to allege that the page contains personal attacks, they can ask an administrator to review the situation. However, I would advise that the page continue to be watched, since it's been a concerted campaign by multiple users — Jazzabelle is just the only one so far who's actually committed a blockable offense. Also note that this is tied to an extremely contentious AFD discussion. Bearcat 02:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Update: User:Israelforever was also blocked for 24 hours, again for altering user comments on this talk page after a direct warning not to. I've also blocked another user, User:Kredible, whose very first Wikipedia edit under that user name involved, guess what, altering other users' comments on Talk:Simon Strelchik. These folks really seem to have trouble understanding that they're not allowed to do that. Bearcat 20:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Metb82/User:85.96.215.120

Three revert rule violation on Galatasaray (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Metb82 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), 85.96.215.120 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Blocked; incivility and 3RR. William M. Connolley 12:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC). Reported by: Englishrose 11:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

A check user check confirmed that 85.96.215.120 (talk • contribs) and Metb82 (talk • contribs) are the same. Englishrose 11:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lou franklin 2

Three revert rule violation on Societal attitudes towards homosexuality (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Lou_franklin (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Rhobite 17:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Lou franklin was blocked on February 17 for a 3RR violation in the same article. Rhobite 17:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 24h William M. Connolley 18:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:192.5.36.24

Three revert rule violation on Anti-French_sentiment_in_the_United_States (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 192.5.36.24 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Mal 03:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This user has repeatedly reverted the article in question to his own extremely POV version. General consensus by various editors has been to revert his edits, though he has persisted in changing them back over the last 12 hours. I have put three warnings on their user discussion page in the hopes that they would get the message and behave, but this doesn't seem to have affected them. The guidelines regarding reporting abuse are slightly complex, and this user seems to be in breech of more than one rule in any case. Nevertheless, my apologies if this report is inappropriate in any way. --Mal 03:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • "Previous version reverted to" matches "3rd revert." I only count 3 reverts, and as 24 hours has expired this won't become a violation. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I counted four. There were several edits by the user, but I included only each attempt at reverting. --Mal 20:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:MarkSweep

  • User:MarkSweep has violated 3 Revert Rule by repeatedly deleting an image. At least one other user besides me has supported the image, so this is a controversial edit.

Comments

  • This user is harassing the rankism page in coordination with User:Rhobite (3 more reverts) as a result of an editing dispute on the Kaiser Permanente page. Besides this WikiStalking, he has been making numerous reverts on the Kaiser Permanente page while threatening me with 3RR and other dire consequences [235] if I dare oppose his editorial stance. He's being a bully! Please make it known that he can't threaten without the same rule applying to him. --Pansophia 05:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    • That image violates neutral point of view policies. We don't take sides on an issue, and we do not vote on things that violate policy. Ral315 (talk) 05:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
      • There is disagreement on whether the image violates policy since it expresses meaning of the concept. Please enforce the rule you've been allowing MarkSweep to go around threatening people with in order to protect his own editorial stance from opposition. Letting him get away with these tactics is taking sides and furthermore enabling a bully who engaged in WikiStalking.--Pansophia 08:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverts 3 and 4 you have listed are the same. Reverts 1,2,3,5 are not within 24h. William M. Connolley 11:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

    • That's just my pasting error (now fixed) - please check the actual page history. There are at least 5. For my own knowledge, is 24 hours delimited by date (i.e., anything occuring on Feb. 24) or "within a 24 hour period". MarkSweep did make a series of very good edits after the last revert, but that also has the effect of burying the violation of 3RR, which I believe to be deliberate. This particular 3RR is not only WikiStalking, it is WikiPoint because it is involved with MarkSweep's efforts to suppress my protest of prominently placing corporate branding on articles: he represents my principled protest as "vandalism" while demonstrating that he can go delete my images in retaliation. --Pansophia 01:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Continued Revert Harassment by User:MarkSweep

--Pansophia 06:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

They are duplicate links. Maybe you didn't link them right I don't now, but having duplicate links as such is just pointless. Stop trying to get this user blocked over nothing. Report only legitamate violations. If you keep doing this, you may end up blocked yourself for disruption. Just calm down and edit other things if this still bothers you.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 03:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets of blocked User:80.90.38.214

Three revert rule violation on Phaistos Disc (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Rose-mary (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), 80.90.38.185 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), 80.90.38.214 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) :

  • All three accounts exist only to edit this article.
    • 80.90.38.214 blocked for "gross 3RR violation", this article 22:11, 26 February 2006
    • Rose-mary admits to being 80.90.38.214: [236]
    • 80.90.38.185 admits to being 80.90.38.214: [237]



Reported by:Septentrionalis 21:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm convinced. I'm going to block for a period of time I shall now determine...) William M. Connolley 22:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC). OK, I did Rose-mary for 24h; and the anons for a week. If they come back, let me know... William M. Connolley 22:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Back today as 80.90.37.153 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), as you've probably seen on your own talkpage. Lukas (T.|@) 20:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


Renewed three revert rule violation on Phaistos Disc (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs):

Reported by: Lukas (T.|@) 14:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC) and 16:10

[edit] User:Aucaman

Three revert rule violation on Persians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Aucaman (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: ManiF 06:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Aucaman keeps reverting and placing a dispute tag on Persians to bully his POV despite the fact that his concerns have already been addressed on Talk:Persian_people by different users citing different sources and the majority of users on Talk:Persian_people (ManiF, Kash, Tajik, Zmmz, Amir85, Gol, Aytakin, 194.170.175.5) have fully addressed Aucaman's concerns and voiced their opinion in favour of the version and thereof have reached a majority consensus on the matter. Aucaman however continues to revert to his preferred version without a consensus. --ManiF 06:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


Aucaman continues to break the 3RR rule on Persians, abusing the dispute system, and pushing his point of view, despite the majority's disapproval. --ManiF 09:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
In all this nobody warned Aucaman or the other involved editor of the 3RR. I have warned both, and will not block this time as the page in question has already been protected. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Chadbryant

California State Route 15 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Chadbryant (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log): [238] --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

He keeps replacing the exit list with a huge unwieldly infobox, without even verifying that it is correct (the mileage, for instance, is wrong, as there is a milepost equation, which my version shows correctly). --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You should both be blocked for violating the 3RR. Gentgeen 07:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I reverted three times. I have now stopped rather than break 3RR. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I count 1 page move revert and three content reverts by you, for a total of four reverts in 24 hours. Gentgeen 07:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't aware page moves counted. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Leyasu

Three revert rule violation on Classic metal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Leyasu (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):


This user is reverting any contributions made to the Classic metal article apart from amny other articles like Gothic metal, etc. apart from getting into edit wars with many others. He/she has already been reported at arbitration committee for violations of the article Gothic metal. This user also gets personal and attacks other users calling them oxymorons, sockpuppets, etc. Also, other's edits and contributions are termed POV and nonsense by him. Unnessecary merger notices are put by him in many articles, viz. Black metal.

Gothic Hero 13:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

In the case of this, Gothic Hero is a sock puppet of the user New Rock Star, who has been editing articles and inserting Uncited Original Research into articles. An editoroial consensus has been reached on certain content on articles such as Gothic Metal, which the user completely dismissed and violated. The user has also been removing Merger Templates for mergers that are being discussed. The user first almost violated 3RR on the Classic Metal article with the name New Rock Star [239], [240], [241], and then went on to violate the 3RR openly, marking his reverts as minor and making Personal Attacks in the edit summaries [242], [243], [244], [245].
I had warned the user of this behaviour however on their talk page (visable here), which was completely ignored.
Its also intresting to note how the user proclaims they are new to Wikipedia, yet also already know all of Wikipedia's customs, and how the account was created today and has only been used for reverting articles in which New Rock Star has tried to push their POV onto despite editorial consensus [246].
As such i admit to violating 3RR by one revert. But however, as has been demonstrated, this has been a ploy by one user using a sock puppet to set me up to be banned for 3RR, and i ask for this banning to be overturned due to this sock puppet use, unless both New Rock Star and his sock puppet Gothic Hero are banned as well. Tbank yew. Ley Shade 14:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
(Edit) In regards to the comment about Oxymorons, i made this comment to New Rock Star in a edit summary before the Gothic Hero user existed [247]. In this case i also linked to Oxymoron so that the user could see for themselfs that this wasnt a personal attack, as the word moron is often used in a degrading manner, where as Oxtmoron is a statement that contradicts itself.
Also my Arbcom case has been going for over a month and involves more users than just myself, and was originally started against another user before being weighed in as action being taken against both of us. This case has currently not seen any action for weeks however, and due to an overwhelming amount of evidence in my favour not just from myself, but other users, i fail to find this as a reason to accuse me of 3RR violations, when the user has deliberatly user New Rock Star has deliberatly used a Sock Puppet to provoke me into violating 3RR. Ley Shade 14:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say much as far as my alleged sockpuppetry. It's kinda joke ! But I would say that Leyasu has violated 3RR rules not once but many times. He has reverted kinda 7 times. Also, Leyasu says that classic metal is not a genre of heavy metal music, when everyone knows that it infact is. Also, he tries to put his POV and then tries to defend it vehemantly going to the extent of personally attacking others. I checked some of his edits and I understood one thing that he has been trying to merge many unrelated genres and he puts deletion notices too. Why he tried to merge classic metal and glam metal too. And now he is trying to merge Pakistani black metal with Black metal, which has been discussed and Leyasu and his sockpuppets are the only user(s) who are supporting the merger. Still, he refuses to remove the template. He perfectly fits the definition of those Wikipedia users who think Wikipedia is their own site and forget that it is a public domain. Please block this user Leyasu, since he is likely to deliberately modify contents of other articles. And what else can be expected from a user who has been blocked kinda 5 times.

Gothic Hero 17:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Accusing me of sock puppets on the black metal article is folly, when many of the users involved all support merging or not merging for different reasons. Also, i refuse to remove a template when a merger is being discussed, simply because New Rock Star's sock puppet demands it as so.
Taken from the above:
  • Also, Leyasu says that classic metal is not a genre of heavy metal music, when everyone knows that it infact is.
To the contrary, both article Heavy metal music and List of heavy metal genres explicity state that it isnt a genre. Somewhat ironic that 'everyone knows it is' when the main article and the list article both say it isnt.
Taken from the above:
  • He perfectly fits the definition of those Wikipedia users who think Wikipedia is their own site and forget that it is a public domain.
I also find this ironic, when ive worked with several editors and im part of WP:HMM. I also, if my userpage is read, make no claims that Wikipedia is my own. I am also known for notifying people when they are acting Meglomanical, which is one thing ive been accused of as doing as a personal attack against one user in my arb com case who explicitly said people werent allowed to edit an article without his permission.
Taken from the above:
  • Please block this user Leyasu, since he is likely to deliberately modify contents of other articles.
Wikipedia is a public domain as this user just said. Thus, complaining when article are edited by anyone is oxymoronic, due to the fact he is accusing me of claiming ownership, yet he is trying to stop anyone from editing articles without his permission. Ironic, no? Ley Shade 17:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Leyasu has again vandalised the Classic metal page. He deleted two sub-sections apart from putting "classical metal" instead of "classic metal" in a few sentences. I had to revert it. Please someone block this user as he is directly violating Wikipedia rules. The link of the version he vandalised - [[248]].

Gothic Hero 17:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The user is claming vandalism, yet is violating the three core policys (WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:CITE). This user is also making it very hard to abide by WP:BITE. I am now, in direct violation of 3RR. However, New Rock Star's use of sock puppets achieves nothing, when by doing what he is doing now, he is violating WP:SOCK as well. That is, in total, a violation of six Wikipedia policys, ( WP:3RR, WP:BITE, WP:CITE, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:SOCK). Ley Shade 17:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I will reproduce a text from the merge archives of classic metal -

I am very confused as to why this is an entry. I have never heard of Classical Metal before. I have heard of Neo-Classical Metal, but that is a completely different form of metal. Further, all of the bands supposedly in this genre fit much more easily into different genres. Plus the article seems to just make things up. I'd love to hear how Glam Metal and Thrash Metal have similar styles. Thankfully one of the authors had the sense to point out the diversity of the lyrical content of this supposed genre. Of course the content would be different since many of the bands played completely different forms of Heavy Metal. After googling "Classical Metal" I found 0 pages that had anthing to do with this article. Finally, how is AC/DC connected to this thing again? They aren't even Metal, let alone the definition of a Metal genre. I wouldn't merge this page with Glam Metal as it is complete trash. I am clueless as to what precise information would be lost with this page. My vote is for deletion. marnues 09:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

And check this edit that Leyasu or Ley Shade did in classic metal article -

"This however is attributed due to the varying genres that make up the term classical metal."

Both have mistakenly used "classical" metal. I can understand one of them using that but both. I do smell a rat here. User:marnues is a sockpuppet of User:Leyasu.

Gothic Hero 17:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

In regards to User:marnues being a sock puppet of mine, i authored a check user comment to see, [249]. Ley Shade 17:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Appropiate

Three revert rule violation on HIStory (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Appropiate (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: android79 14:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • See the edit summary of the previous version reverted to: "I've made account after my improvemments deleted by gorm "Funky Monkey" I HAVE BACKUPS SO I WILL ONLY RESTORE". This refers to Funky Monkey's earlier removal [250] of the same material added by 81.106.165.39. Appropiate and 81.106.165.39 are clearly the same person, and it's hard to believe that the other two IPs are not him as well. See also Talk:HIStory where Appropiate describes his opinion as "fact". android79 14:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Whoops. Looks like I technically violated the rule myself. In my defense, I was reverting obviously POV material, and forgot about my first revert, which I labeled as fixing grammar. I'll voluntarily cease editing for three hours and stay away from Michael Jackson-related articles for the rest of the day. android79 14:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Appropiate says she is off. Nonetheless I've blocked her, and the ...39, for a token 8h William M. Connolley 19:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Al-Khwarizmi article

The articles history is a mess, someone more familiar with the 3rr policy should check article history for violations of 3rr. --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Voice of All has protected it William M. Connolley 19:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Yahya01

Three revert rule violation on Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Yahya01 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

28 reverts made on 28th Feb 4 reverts on March 1

Reported by: Tanzeel 20:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments: He is constantly vandalising the article with POV edits and reverting them back each time they are removed. Have tried discussion. Please block this user, this isn't the only article he's an offender on. 28 reverts in 24 hours - that's the worst I've witnessed. Address this issue soon, please. Just take a look at the history!

Blocked 8h; newbie but an impressive revert tally. *Please* in future put an explicit warning about WP:3RR on peoples talk pages! Now for the other side... William M. Connolley 20:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked Siddiqui too, 24h, since has previous blocks William M. Connolley 20:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:88.152.202.122

Three revert rule violation on Ice hockey at the Olympic Games (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 88.152.202.122 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Andrwsc 22:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC) Updated: Andrwsc 19:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User will not abide by consensus reached at Wikipedia talk:Olympic conventions with respect to medal table formats
  • Some edits could be considered vandalism (in addition to content dispute) as the USSR/Unified Team/Russia medal total is sometimes edited as 37, clearly wrong.
  • The edit made by User:88.154.218.148 at 13:47, 25 February 2006 [251] started this whole mess. It was first cleaned up at 20:07, 26 February 2006 by User:Jizz [252]
  • I attempted to appeal to this user via the talk page, and by adding additional content to the main page, but the user persists in changing the table format, against agreed upon conventions.

I've blocked that anon, but only briefly, because (a) its a first offence and (b) *you didn't put a WP:3RR warning on their talk page* William M. Connolley 23:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok, I didn't realize before now that anon users had talk pages... I will take note of this. Thank you for your assistance. Andrwsc 00:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Update:

[edit] User:201.235.45.28

Three revert rule violation on Falkland Islands (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 201.235.45.28 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Astrotrain 00:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Left personal abuse on my talk page, and deleted the 3RR warning on talk page. Has also vandlised his own entry here.
  • I've blocked the anon for 3h for repeatedly editing this report into a report on you. It looks like 3RR on the article to me, as well, but I'm not going to block them myself cos I probably have an interest in that article. William M. Connolley 00:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I am not an Admin, but to me it looks to me as a 3RR of User:201.235.45.28. User:Astrotrain remains just within the 3RR limites, but this edit war seems to be going on for quite some time. --KimvdLinde 00:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Chadbryant

Three revert rule violation on RSPW. Chadbryant (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments:

Those aren't all within a 24-hour period, and you have been asked not to insert fictional information into the article. You also violated WP:NPA in your edit summaries for rec.sport.pro-wrestling history, and with the message you left on my talk page. - Chadbryant 01:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Bryant has been banned twice thus far for violation of the Three revert rule. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eat At Joes (talk • contribs) 03:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC).

Doesn't look like 3RR to me. OTOH, WillC (co-incidence!) *has* been blocked, I think for vandalism here... William M. Connolley 20:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lou franklin

Three revert rule violation on Societal attitudes towards homosexuality (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Lou_franklin (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Cleduc 03:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Lou franklin continues to remove a quote against consensus of all other editors (as documented on the talk page). This is the fourth or fifth time he has been reported for this, resulting in three previous blocks. Charmingly, he's now apparently timing his edits to achieve exactly four reverts per day.

2006-03-02 05:01:26 Guanaco blocked "Lou franklin (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR again on Societal attitudes towards homosexuality) William M. Connolley 17:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:70.29.239.249

Three revert rule violation on Alan Shefman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 70.29.239.249 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Reported by: Mangojuice 04:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Edit in question was blanking out a section of a page. This page is already being considered for deletion, so deletion of the material there can certainly be considered under discussion. Note that user User:pm_shef is the one who reverted the blanking each time; I warned him about the 3RR just now, but I would have undone the blanking myself if I had noticed. Mangojuice 04:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Further comment: I just noticed that User:70.29.239.249 has also been doing some inappropriate edits to User talk:pm_shef, deleting other users' signatures. Seems 70.29.239.249 wants to start a little war. Mangojuice 04:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 8h William M. Connolley 17:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:68.48.79.237

Three revert rule violation on Michael Graham (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 68.48.79.237 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 3h for first offence William M. Connolley 16:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Vulturell

3RR violation on List of British Jews (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Vulturell (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Reported by: SlimVirgin (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment

The four reverts involve David Milband's name being added to the list despite objections by two editors. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Each of the reversions was to restore cited information. Last reversion done with new citation added. Information removed by SlimVirgin and the other editor co-responded directly with citation. Not to mention that two editors are not exactly the final decision makers on anything. Vulturell 05:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
We're not claiming to be. But Wikipedia's policies, including in this instance the 3RR, are. Grace Note 05:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Again - cited, factual information presented in wording that directly reflected the citation. Not to mention a second citation was added, etc. Co-responds with the way the rest of the page is organized, as well. Vulturell 05:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
It makes no difference whether you believe you're right or wrong, because 3RR applies regardless of content. Two editors dispute the quality of your source and what it says. You should discuss the issue further on talk. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
No, that's incorrect. No one ever disputed either the quality of my source or what it said. Both of the sources were renowned British newspapers and not one of you expressed concern in regards to their accuracy. As for "what it says", the wording on the article reflected the exact wording in the sources and did not present any information that was not exactly there. Vulturell 05:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and as for discussing the issue further on talk - neither my reply to you or my latest reply to Grace Note on that talk page, nor my new message about the new source were replied to by either one of you. That's three dead ends where the conversation seems to have stopped without your reply. Vulturell 05:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, I take one of those back. The very last message about the new citation was just replied to. Thank you, Grace Note. Vulturell 06:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

No warning on talk page; but has broken 3RR and [262] is incivil; blocked... 8 hours? William M. Connolley 13:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

William, may I ask you to consider blocking for the full 24 hours? Vulturell has effectively taken ownership of that page. He is very rude to anyone who tries to edit it in a way he disapproves of, and the 3RR violation was quite blatant. He also declined the opportunity to revert himself, even though he could have done so for hours because the violation had been pointed out and no one reverted his last edit. He seems to think that, because he believes he is right, 3RR doesn't apply to him, which seemed to be his point above. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, will think (must be off now for an hour or so, so if anyone else wants to answer, feel free!). Also: wot about the page move? William M. Connolley 17:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The page move is kind of a separate issue, though the reason he did it was to justify retaining the edit that kept being reverted (long story, but basically the edit he wanted was not appropriate given the title's description of the contents, so he moved the title). The point for me is the blatant 3RR violation. Discussion about the content dispute is continuing, and if Vulturell thinks he can argue his way out of a 24-block, he'll carry on violating 3RR throughout the dispute, which means more reverting instead of discussion, which means less chance of resolution. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, on your advice and a review, I'll increase to 24h. Can you let me know if you want the page move undone or not? William M. Connolley 19:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, William. I'll leave the issue of the page move to the other editors. There's a poll going on on the talk page about the content dispute, so hopefully some clarity will emerge from that. Thank you for your help. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pm_shef

Three revert rule violation on Article|Talk:Alan_Shefman}}. Hars_Alden (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Hars Alden 06:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

These are not reverts but simply adding to the discussion. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Let's be very clear about this; if any 3RR violation has happened here, User:70.29.239.249 and User:69.156.151.42 are every bit as guilty of it. This posting is an attempt to discredit pm_shef by falsely painting him as singlehandedly responsible for a content dispute that's essentially political in nature, and it's extremely problematic that this complaint is User:Hars Alden's first ever Wikipedia edit...especially considering that the dispute has been perpetrated by an ongoing series of brand new users from the beginning. Bearcat 07:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Six reverts in 4 hours is a violation of the three revert rule.
You seem to have a misunderstanding as to the 3RR. He did not revert the page but added comments and that is allowed. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad you know your math, Hars. That makes it easier for me to explain this part: User:70.29.239.249 also reverted content six times. So if six equals six, and both six and six are greater than three, then why are you singling User:pm_shef out for a complaint, and not proposing a similar sanction against User:70.29.239.249's six reverts? And why was posting this complaint your first Wikipedia edit ever? Bearcat 09:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I used to always post with my ip - nothing to do with this. Ok so let me know, why are you ok with this guy breaking the rules? Hars Alden 11:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hars, you need to read WP:3RR. He did not revert the talk page in those links you provided, he "added" comments. From the 3RR page - "Reverting in this context means undoing the work of another editor." He did not revert the work of another editor. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
YOU need to read WP:3RR. This user has reverted 6 different edits. He did not add any comments. He reverted back to this old version EVERY time. See: 06:24, 21:24, 14 February 2006 Hars Alden 20:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Replied at User talk:Hars Alden CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:MarkSweep

WP:3RR violation on Template:User pro-cannabis, removed the associated category five times, four of them qualify as reverts.

Reported by: Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • This seems pretty straightforward. Unless given a really good reason in two minutes, I'll apply the standard block for 3RR violations. - brenneman{T}{L} 11:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Sigh. I had the questionable pleasure of dealing with this. I blocked Mark and warned the other side about shouting "vandalism". Zocky | picture popups 11:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
User was blocked for 3 hours, which I think was inappropriate in this instance, given that the 3RR violation was accompanied by wheel warring and repeated use of rollback button in content dispute. 24 hours would have been appropriate. Babajobu 11:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
And for that matter, using rollback immediately after I lectured him on the proper use of the feature. This user acts unilaterally, with no assumption of good faith and with no respect for policy. I agree 24 hours would have been more appropriate. There's no need to play favorites with someone just because they have sysop qualifications. An RfC might also be in order. Sarge Baldy 16:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Something needs to be done about him, that's for sure, what between the wheel warring, the blatant disruptions to the community, the improper use of admin functions, et cetera. Babajobu 16:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Some clarifications: I don't block vandals for the maximum time allowed, and I don't see why I would do that to regular editors. And Babajobu, this was not a content dispute. Zocky | picture popups 22:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, he was using the rollback button to revert to his preferred version. It did not involve vandalism, which is what the rollback button is supposed to be used for. Babajobu 03:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Molobo (again)

Three revert rule violation on Września (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Molobo (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Sciurinæ 11:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments About the word 'torture'. I had had a dispute with him over it all before (see history of the article and the old disputes at Germanisation. The last discussion over it ended with this statement. However, the day when Space Cadet was suspected of sock puppetry, Molobo reopened the dispute, apparently thinking that this time he could 'win' by mere revert warring. He was reverted by User:Ksenon, who is Polish himself. Molobo continued, again not thinking of discussing things through first. The four edits are reverts in effect. He was blocked little more than a week ago for similar behaviour, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive11#User:Molobo, the administrator responsible noting "Blocked 24h (though I considered longer)" and on Molobo's talk page advising, "Don't label your reverts as anti-vandalism; it only makes things worse." Molobo wouldn't take that advice (see 3rd revert) and if one assumes good faith and doesn't consider this duplication of the whole page as an attempt at interrupting the page that Space Cadet was reported on, Molobo just needs a longer cool-down period. Sciurinæ 12:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sciurinæ is a nationalist user who continues to delete information about any kind of discriminatory policy of German state in the past, tries to erase information about German war crimes and believes that forcing Poles out of their lands is "strenghtening national unity". If you will closely at the edit you will that it is not a revert but expansion with a link to the school in Wrzesnia where it is a large section where the events are described. Sciurinæ went to delete it at a sight without any explanation whatever, despite that I expanded the information and added link. No reason was given by Sciurinæ as to why he deleted expanded section. The link I gave gives accurate description of events which I translated upon the page-flogging and beatings leading to stripping of flesh from children's bodies. When I gave that translation on the page to finally stop Sciurinæ from reverting the sentence, he simply deleted it without any explanation. I stand by word that actions by him are vandalism as Wikipedia policy on vandalism states clearly:
  • Blanking

Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) is a common vandal edit. --Molobo 13:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. You have broken 3RR and I've blocked you. Please learn the correct definitions to avoid future pain; better still, avoid even getting close to 3RR by using WP:1RR William M. Connolley 13:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
First of all, Molobo, learn to write your stuff separated form others, as I had to un-do that mess for you. Second, do you really try to teach about Wiki policies here? And third, you seem to attribute to others what you think and do yourself. There must be a proper psychological term for that - if not, Morbus Molobo would fit. There are enough cases were you removed undoubtedly useful, non-controversial edits with your trademark blind reverts, if the previous editor was one of the many you don't trust. --Matthead 13:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Funny, I could say the same about you Matthead. 153.19.48.103
William, please double the block for block evasion. Molobo again makes fun of 3RR, just like so many times before. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Molobo accusing others of nationalism? That's made my day. It heartens me to see wikipedia's admins cracking down on these revert warriors. Doubtlessly though we'll see either him or Space Cadet here again soon. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Molobo: It is totally irrelevant here if your opponents are "nationalists", or if Polish pupils were "tortured". There is a rule against reverting three times within 24 hrs. You keep violating this rule, so you got blocked. If you are fined for speeding you can hardly protest that you had to overtake "nationalist" drivers who cover up torture. The same applies here.
Apart from that, calling your opponents "nationalists" really seems like a Pavlovian habit of yours. As for torture or no torture, you seem to be unaware that severe corporal punishment was the order of the day in schools until well into the 2nd half of the last century. As cruel as this may seem to us today, this practice is not normally called "torture" in general usage. --Thorsten1 15:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Reset and extended to 48h for evasion. Also blocked the IP. Please keep the discussion off this page William M. Connolley 16:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This is very kind. Molobo has been behaving appallingly; it's genuinely shocking how he speaks to many of his colleagues. Note his recent response to your block here. He routinely mischaracterizes people, misrepresents edits, and does almost nothing on wikipedia except POV pushing/revert warring, either for extreme Polish nationalism or else related anti-Germanism. Disputed tags follow him magnetically, as does anger at his behaviour. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:William M. Connolley

Three revert rule violation on User Talk:William M. Connolley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Seraphim 17:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • After I posted a question to him for the first time about his interpertation of the 3rr rule he reverted 04:44, March 2, 2006 it with the message "ask on the 3rr talk page" which I assumed (WP:AGF) was an honest mistake because I was alittle ambiguious in my question. Every time he removes it I have attempted to explain exactly what i'm asking better but it still gets reverted. The diff's speak for themselves. (Warning is unneeded user informed me personally that 3rr applies on user talk pages) Seraphim 17:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    This page is not a proper arena for trolling. Go read what 3RR is all about: it doesn't cover edits on one's talk pages. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    It does, the exception is for reverting on one's own user page, there is no exception for your talk page. He is the one that actually pointed this fact out to me. diff "3rr on talk pages: "Please note that 3RR applies to user talk pages too William M. Connolley 17:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)" This is a clear 3rr violation and it should be dealt with. If I was trolling I would have listed his first revert in the report also. Seraphim 18:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    3RR doesn't apply to your own talk page. If he doesn't want your message on his talk page, that's his business. It may be rude, but he's not going to get blocked for it. android79 18:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    That is not true, show me where that is in policy and i'll remove this report. It clearly states "User page" never says anything about your own talk page. I've seen people be blocked for 3rr on their own talk pages before when removing warnings. Seraphim 19:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC) Here's the quoted relevant text from WP:3rr "The 3RR is generally not enforced against editors reverting changes to their own user page space, on the principle that your user space is yours (for project-related purposes)." a users's own talk page is not given an exemption. Seraphim 19:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    Please don't Wiki-lawyer. It quite clearly says "their own user page space". User-space is understood to mean anything preceded by "User:" (and, by extension, "User talk:"). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    User Page Space is a diffent namespace then user talk space, it clearly states that it is talking about user page space, not simply user space. It is obvious that the 3rr thing is not talking about user-talk pages. The purpose of a user talk page is not used for project-related purposes, the purpose of the user-talk pages is for other users to leave you messages. Are we changing official policy here? I've looked through the history of the 3rr discussion page and nowhere was a proposal made to make it apply to user talk pages also, infact on aug 19 2005 (from the archive) user Nate Ladd posted a message that pointed out exactly what I am, that user talk pages are not covered by the current policy (it hasn't changed since then). If you want to make up new policy that's fine, however currently the 3rr exemption about user pages does not apply to user talk pages. Seraphim 21:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Seraphim 21:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • This is trolling. However, if you examine the history, I think youll see 4RR by S on my talk page, so... William M. Connolley 18:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    I have 1 revert, and that's the first one when I thought you removed the question because it was ambiguious. Seraphim 19:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a waste of time. Under your interpretation of these rules, people can leave annoying, offensive, or obnoxious messages on someone's user talk page, and that person can't remove them without getting into a revert war and risking a 3rr violation. This is an open invitation to trolls.

I don't know what the underlying dispute is, but please work it out some other way besides wikilawyering. No one is going to block WMC for removing messages from his own talk page, and on the slim chance anyone does, he will be quickly unblocked. Gamaliel 21:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There are other policies that cover removal of annoying, offensive, or obnoxious messages, for example WP:NPA. What he is removing without comment is simply me asking him a simple question that any administrator should beable to answer. How that particular admin decides when it is too late to ban someone under 3rr. It is a simple question that any admin who polices the 3rr page should beable to answer. The is no reason I can think of for him to refuse to answer the question. It's not a personal attack, or offensive/obnoxious in any way. Seraphim 21:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Its up to the judgement of the admin and varies greatly on the particular circumstances; there's no easy answer. Perhaps you should have taken your question to the 3rr talk page as asked and avoided all this? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 21:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeup i'm completly aware about that. However I am not interested in how other administrators interperate the policy, I am interested in WMC's specifically, which I explained on his talk page after he said to ask about it on Talk:3rr. Seraphim 22:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Many times I have been pestered by trolls who have posted obnoxious messages on my talk page and then, when confronted, claim they were merely asking an innocent question. I have no reason to doubt that your motives were perfectly innocent, but your motives are irrelevant. A person should be able to decide who he or she wishes to converse with and doesn't need to provide you with an explaination. Gamaliel 21:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
What I am attempting to do is help add information about his recent block of me and the subsequent discussion to a RFC case that is already being built against him by a few users who he has wrongfully blocked. When he blocked me he did not do research into the 3rr request, just assumed the 3rr report was valid. During our discussion after his blocking of me I pointed out that blocking policy says you must treat both sides equally, and I proved that if he blocked me for 3rr he should also have blocked another user. His reply to that was that it is too late to block the other user. I am interested in how he came to the decision that it was too late to block the other user, since there was no changes to the situation between my block and when WMC decided that it was too late to block the other user. Just FYI when I was blocked the 3rr request was 10 hrs old, we had already reached an agreement that called a cease fire and we had filed a joint request to get the page locked and all agreed to official mediation. Since his blocking of me obviously wasn't to stop edit warring (we had already called a cease fire and agreed to not edit the page untill mediation starts) it implies that he rules on 3rr's by time elapsed since the 3rr report, however when he decided to not block the other user less time had expired between that user's reverts and his decision to not block that user, then the amount of time between my reverts and him blocking me. I am simply interested in what his interpertation of the 3rr policy is that he used to make the decision to block me but not the other user. Seraphim 22:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
None of that matters. Whether or not WMC should have answered your question is a matter for WMC and no one should be making that call for him or forcing him to do it. If you didn't recieve a satisfactory answer, you should have asked another administrator or inquired on WP:AN. Gamaliel 22:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't file this 3rr because he was refusing to answer the question, him blanket reverting it without adknowledging it is considered to be a hostile act and provides me with the same type of information I was trying to get by asking it. That is not the point of this 3rr. The point of filing this 3rr was that he clearly violated 3rr. Nowhere in policy does it give an exception for users editing their own talk page, if people want that to be policy they should formally request it. Seraphim 22:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Restriction of user talk pages only applies to vandalism. That is, anonymous editors removing warnings, or users removing 3RR notices or other warnings, or block notifications, etc. (as the community needs to know that). Deleting inquiries is not vandalism, although if extreme can show fallout with the community. Deletion of inquiries is merely non-cooperation, something to be brought up in RFAr or RFC with other grievances. Seraphim, this is not the place. File an RFC if you wish. Please do not wikilawyer. The user talk space is within the userspace. Follow the spirit of the law, this is not codification. Remember, even if this was converted into a legal system Wikipolicy would basically be restated common law, subject to liberal interpretation. But this is not a legal system so your complaint does not stand either way. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 00:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Firmitas

Three revert rule violation on Truthiness (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Firmitas (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Jcbarr 17:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • The page is a mess because of all the attention last night, but I think the examples above should be at least 4 reverts to the same text he wants to add. -Jcbarr 17:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 8h as a first offence William M. Connolley 19:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't want to just delete this entry, but I'd like to withdraw this nomination. Firmitas has been trying to play by the rules as he's learned of them and I while he still deserves a close eye, I may have bit the newbie a bit too hard. -Jcbarr 19:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mais oui!

Three revert rule violation on {{Infobox Scotland place}}. Mais_oui! (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Aquilina 18:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I can fully see the user's point, and would be perfectly happy for his version to stand: however, the user has recently been engaged in a couple of other edit-wars [263], [264], and this 3RR violation came only half an hour after admin User:JzG warned him for edit-warring [265]

I know the editor's heart is in the right place, and I agree with his edits in all bar one case above(!); but he is not above the rules and needs a cool-off period, as it's now becoming disruptive. Let's use the talk pages first Aquilina 18:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia would not gain by blocking Mais Oui!; he does much laborious work, and I know from experience his edits are the result of good integrity. This listing will almost certainly be enough for the intended effect. On the other hand, there are plenty of users who by habit hug the 3RR rule to engage in POV revert warring and go largely unpunished, and with whom blocking is a "hazard of the job" as they say, rather than a means of reducing revert wars. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've been talking with the user, and there is a valid concern with vandalism and POV pushing. I should also have notified them that they were near the three rvert threshold when I was looking at the history of the template (plus I poured petrol on the flames by clicking in haste). This is fundamentally a good solid editor with no malice, and the revert could defensibly be viewed as anti-vandalism. I am also looking at the user with whom he has the dispute, and I don't like what I am finding. I say give Mais Oui! a pass on this one. Just zis Guy you know? 19:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The editor has been revert warring both on this template and other articles. A lesson in not doing so is in order, so I will block for 24hrs. You don't get a pass for disliking the user you are warring with, and the revert is not anti-vandalism. -Splashtalk 19:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:I AM

Three revert rule violation on Palestinian exodus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). I_AM (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Palmiro | Talk 18:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • If any kind administrator would take a look at this guy's edit summaries and posts to User_talk:Ramallite and block him for longer for being a dick, I would be eternally grateful. Palmiro | Talk 18:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 24h (3RR and incivility), so I guess I don't get your eternal gratitude :-( but others will free to earn it I'm sure William M. Connolley 18:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:McKhan

Three revert rule violation on Qibla (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). McKhan (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Pepsidrinka 19:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments: There have been 16 more reverts for a total of 20 reverts. The other user, User:Muslim sunni also reverted quite a number of times, almost 15. Also, an IP reverted 4 times. User:65.92.130.151.

I have blocked McKhan, Muslim_sunni, 65.92.130.151 and 62.131.149.252 for 24 hours each. -Splashtalk 19:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any of the parties have gotten a 3RR warning. I've protected the page and issued a collective warning to everybody on the talk page. Gamaliel 19:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

They're all blocked. Why protect it? -Splashtalk 19:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I protected it before we simultaneously posted here, so I didn't know anyone was blocked. If you want to keep an eye on this edit war, I'll unprotect it and leave the matter to you, that's fine with me. Gamaliel 19:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Ohhh, nononono. I'm not going to take the edit war under my Wikipedic wing. Hopefully 24 hours will give them each enough to take a cold shower. Perhaps leave protection in place for a few hours against the anon(s) who have been fooling around to, and then see if the blocks serve their purpose. -Splashtalk 20:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll downgrade it to sprotect for now. Gamaliel 20:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Heja helweda

Three revert rule violation on Iranian peoples (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Heja helweda (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Zmmz 03:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:Dear admin the user in question was warned before, however, the user erased the warning, and was warned again to no avail. User:Heja helweda is a chronic 3rr violator in the Iranian people article page, as well as, the Persian people, and perhaps elsewhere. The user also frequently violate the good faith assumption policy and has, and continues to write excessive amount of text in the discussion pages of the articles mentioned, and in other articles too. This is my first time reporting, and I am not certain if I have entered all the data correctly. Kindly look into this matter. Thanks. Zmmz 03:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

  • It's a bit messy because you didn't format it right, but I don't see any 3RR violation here. Although Heja helweda has been a frequent contributor to the page over the last few hours, no two versions of the page by this user are the same. For unresolvable content disputes, see requests for comment, three doors down. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


  • The user has utilized sneaky language, and he put the same contents back on the page previously edited by another user. Non of that is good enough? It was not good enough for user Aucaman either, huh? Doesn`t it qualify as a partial revert? Zmmz 04:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't see any reverts by this user, and I definitely don't see four of them to the same version of the page, which is what is required for a 3RR violation. As I said, if you feel that there is an unresolvable content dispute, you need to open up an RFC or use some other dispute resolution mechanism. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Madchester

Three revert rule violation on The Amazing Race 9 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Madchester (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Netoholic @ 05:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

I would block Neto for this, and indeed David Levy did but SS unblocked:

  1. 2006-03-03 05:15:29 Snowspinner unblocked Netoholic (contribs) (Block seems unfair)
  2. 2006-03-02 23:14:51 David Levy blocked "Netoholic (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (disruptive 1RR violation, per ArbCom ruling: edit warring at The Amazing Race 9, claiming that the onus is strictly on other editors to initiate discussion and justify their stance)

William M. Connolley 10:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment Sounds like a simple spite to me. The 3RR rule hasnt been violated by Madchester yet this Neto character has violated his Arbcom case several times, and baited another user into violating 3RR. Simple answer is to ban the obvious trouble maker. Ley Shade 17:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Any comments here about me are just poisoning the well... Madchester reverted 4 times here, and it's not the first time. -- Netoholic @ 17:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:69.174.230.64

Three revert rule violation on NASCAR (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 69.174.230.64 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: -- SonicAD (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User has repeatedly posted spam link to his website, on this page and various other NASCAR-related page. Later on within NASCAR, he copied over a section on website from the talk page, having first added his own site to it, presumably under the guise of it being a good reason for inclusion of his own. He has also been hostile on his talk page, and was later warned of the 3RR. -- SonicAD (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hrs for violating WP:3RR.... could have actually been blocked for spamming too. --Madchester 15:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Anderson12

Three revert rule violation on Freemasonry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Anderson12 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log): Sock of Lighbringer

Reported by: ALR 19:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Sockpuppet of Lightbringer using the same tactics as previous puppet Basil Rathbone with exactly the same material and approach (no discussion, random accusations, demands all Masoic editors be barred). Although note that the material inserted does move around the page each time it's included.ALR 19:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The "1st revert" listed above is not a revert, it's the same as the "Version reverted to". Thus there are only 3 reverts here to this point. If there is a fourth within a 24-hour period, drop me a note and we can talk about a block, as this user has been blocked before for the same offense on the same page, and has been warned this time around. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah... I just blocked based on the history... I suppose I'd better check again. Though if this is indeed a Lightbringer sock, does it need 4RR for a block? William M. Connolley 20:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... based on a closer check, I guess I'm obliged to admit this is only 3RR. And in the absense of any evidence of socking, I think I shall unblock for now William M. Connolley 20:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

He was Checked against Basil Rathbone a couple of days ago [[276]] and there have been three requests for Admin assistance to enforce the ArbCom ruling. [[277]] [[278]] [[279]]. ALR 21:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, yes, so he was. So... none of this should be here, and he should be long-blocked :-) William M. Connolley 21:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rjensen

Three revert rule violation on Richard J. Daley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Rjensen (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Skinwalker 21:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User is altering the description of a well-known and well-documented quote from Richard J. Daley, against consensus. We've tried to engage him on the talk page but he insists on reverting to his version.

Appears to be a generally sensible though perhaps somewhat stubborn editor. No warning; so I've given him one William M. Connolley 22:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:kdbuffalo

Three revert rule violation on Jesus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Kdbuffalo (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
  • 1st revert: 16:34
  • 2nd revert: 16:41
  • 3rd revert: 16:58
  • 4th revert: 17:54

Reported by: Justin Eiler 23:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Raisinman also made an identical edit at 16:53. Raisinman is tagged as a suspected sockpuppet of kdbuffalo, making this a violation of WP:SOCK as well as WP:3RR. However, I am not aware of any checkuser requests or results for Raisinman. Justin Eiler 23:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't see that as four reverts. The first one seems to be simply an edit; it's not reverting to a previous version. Therefore, the "second revert" is really the first one, and the third is really the second, etc. If he's using a sockpuppet to get round the reverts, that's another matter, of course, but at the moment I think we have to wait either for a real fourth revert or for the sockcheck results. AnnH ♫ 23:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry--previous examples of inserting the contested paragraph are further in the edit history, and do fall outside the 3RR rule. The report was a misunderstanding on my part (unless the checkuser does indicate a sock), and I withdraw it. Justin Eiler 21:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I woz just going to say that :-) William M. Connolley 23:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Although this is an old (and withdrawn) report at this stage, just for the record, Jayjg established through a usercheck that Raisinman was a sock for kdbuffalo, and blocked the sock indefinitely. So it seems that the Raisinman revert did bring it up to four reverts. AnnH ♫ 10:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:134.161.241.176

Three revert rule violation on The Last Supper (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 134.161.241.176 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This is the same vandal/troll who comes back to wikipedia every few months and edit wars indefinitely with disruptive, pov-pushing "mythology" cats to Last Supper, Sermon on the Mount, and other New Testament-related articles in violation of WP:POINT, despite having been warned by numerous editors not to push this pov on such articles. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Note, this user just tried to blank out this violation report, also he has crossed 3RR on Sermon on the Mount. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, somehow i smashed my OWN comments on this... Codex is trying to misuse categories and avoid calling an apple an apple through simple vandalism. if it is a myth, from the christian belief system, it should go in the christian mythology section, simple as that.

  • Blocked for 24 hours for the 2 3RR violations. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Same user, fresh off his 24 hour block, back to edit warring the same edits, on the same articles, just passed 3RR on the 2 above-mentioned articles again despite being reverted by 3 editors ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry that you have missed my comments ON THE RELEVANT CATEGORY TALK PAGES as pointed out in my edit comments. You will not get away with your vandalism, Codex.

All i am doing is replacing the category back on a page, according to the discussion on the category talk page. Codex Sinaiticus appears to be upset that it is against his religious POV, and whines about having things correctly categorized. 134.161.241.176 01:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, just like EsKog and other admins have repeatedly told you, your only hope of changing anything on wikipedia is through established consensus on the discussion page. Edit warring your edits 5 times in one hour always gets you exactly no-where. That's our system. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


and since the consensus on the category talk pages, while far from complete, leans towards MY edits, perhaps you should heed your own advice. 134.161.241.176 01:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, it does not. There is no discussion on any page for putting Sermon on the Mount into a "mythology" category, and even if there were, it won't happen without editor consensus at Talk:Sermon on the Mount. It doesn't work like that. Now, please read WP:POINT and WP:3RR, and do contribute some worthwhile edits after your next block expires! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


I am sorry, but how can you POSSIBLY believe that your bias needs to be over come on EVERY page? one central discussion is perfectly acceptable! 134.161.241.176 02:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)



Let me clarify: Codex is inisting that on every page that fits into a Abrahamic or Christian mythology that a debate be held to add it to said category, and his SOLE argument against the categorization boils down to him being offended that the word mythology is used (even though it is dictionarily correct, and used int he same context as every other major religion on wikipedia) he is attempting to make legitimate edits overly difficult and force his POV into the articles by placing rediculace barriers to editing. 134.161.241.176 02:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it's POV pushing, you don't want to engage in discussion to see if editors think "Last Supper" or "Sermon on the Mount" falls into the category of "mythology", I mentioned that the consensus at the Mythology category talk pages you keep mentioning, was that we have specifically created a load of alternate less pov-pushing categories for such articles, and you responded in an edit summary "What other appropriate categories? You mean Category:Fiction?" Your pov pushing is clear, this category is not to be abused that way, and you have edit warred 5 or 6 times in one hour, even after having been blocked and warned, because you think your own POV is so sacrosanct that it trumps all rules. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
No, the reason I keep editing is because you are refusing to read the relevant talk pages and are imposing arbitrary rules revolving around discussing an argument ( " i am offended because I don't care to learn the definition of a word") that should not even have to be addressed at wikipedia, and are forcing arbitrary obsticles against progress on the wiki due to your POV, nothing more, nothing less. You are being a simple vandle, pushing your religious framework and you know it! 134.161.241.176 02:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

User has been blocked a second time for the same violation. Further action may be necessary if the behavior continues. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Just off his second block, now he's broken 3RR a third time, same articles ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • notice, Codex is proforming simple vandalism, since he refuses to discuss his changes, ergo I am exempt from 3rr. His refusal to discuss means that it cant be a content dispute.
I have blocked again, this time for 72 hours (3rd violation on 2 articles). I recommend an RfC or other action if it happens again. I reject the claim that Codex's edits are vandalism - this is clearly a dispute over content, regardless of the level of fresh discussion being generated. One user may not indefinitely demand that users who have formed a consensus justify themselves. Edit patterns suggest a consensus has indeed formed at these articles. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:151.213.167.25

Three revert rule violation on Michael Jackson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 151.213.167.25 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Count Chocula 01:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This user has been consistently removing the nickname 'Wacko Jacko' from the opening parapraph, and has been warned a number of times to stop. A consensus has been reached to keep the nickname, though it doesn't seem to stop the user from continuing to remove it--Count Chocula 01:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:69.205.1.109

Three revert rule violation on Tom Swift (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 69.205.1.109 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Antaeus Feldspar 04:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This anon has been trying to make these changes, under multiple IP addresses, for literally months. No one supports them except him; all the changes that he wanted to make that other editors were willing to go along with, were made. He, however, refuses to consider any other outcome except for all the changes he wants being made -- removing weblinks that he views as too commercial, and removing information about links between the different series that share the title. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Thats an awful lot of reverts, but *no message on the anon talk page*. I've left one. William M. Connolley 09:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverts continued; blocked 8h William M. Connolley 15:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that the scale of the problem here is bigger than the non-problem of the lack of a message on a talk page! -Splashtalk 16:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
And so I've made it 24hrs. Longer would have been justified. -Splashtalk 16:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, as I said, this anon has been trying to force these changes through for months, under too many different IPs to count. I don't know how many of them would have to be searched to find the one where he was warned... -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:129.241.11.201

Three revert rule violation on Lost (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 129.241.11.201 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: — Scm83x talk 12:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 8h as first offence William M. Connolley 15:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mir_Harven

Three revert rule violation on Franjo_Tuđman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Mir_Harven (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Reported by: Mylan 22:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Mir Haven has made 5 reverts in 12h, and has the page was protected due to edit war

with HIS version (though he achieved that by heavily violating the rule). The disputed change is discussed on talk page at least at two places as far as I can see (near the end and at the very end), but he has made no reply to that. In fact, he seems to be a known vandal with a history of disruptive behaviour. He claims on his edit summary that he is correcting a "vandalism" and has even claimed that the quote he was removing is false, which is certainly not true as it is a well known quote of Tudjman he is certainly aware of. If holocaust denial can be attacked as POV it is certainly something that should be mentioned - article has plenty of Croatian propaganda also, it is clearly not NPOV. See the discussion or simply google Tudjman holocaust denial. Also, the infamous quote about him being happy about his wife not being Serbian or Jewish is padded with comments - while it should be a pure quote, with no comments in the brackets. These are the issues to be discussed on talk pages, but Mir Haven did not reply to any of the issues (while other people have) and still keeps reverting.

I've blocked MH for 12h as a first offence but warned before. If there is substantial evidence of disruption elsewhere I guess others might wish to reconsider the length William M. Connolley 23:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Perspicacious

Three revert rule violation on Seventh-day Adventist Church. Perspicacious (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Fermion 00:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This user has been warned on several occasions about reverting this edit. We have been having problems with them linkspamming several pages to www.everythingimport.org (see User:Perspicacious for examples and sock puppetting). He has been warned that he was close to 3RR, but hasn't heeded this warning. Further, his article on Graham Maxwell has been nominated for deletion, and there have been several votes to this effect. The article on Graham Maxwell and the stuff he his trying to put on the Seventh-day Adventist Church are basically the same issue.
    • Both Perspicacious and MyNameIsNotBob appear to have violated 3RR on this article in the past 24 hours - I've blocked each for 6 hours. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Terryeo

Three revert rule violation on Space opera in Scientology doctrine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Terryeo (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: ChrisO 02:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Terryeo has previously been blocked for repeatedly reverting this article, but has continued to revert it nonetheless (see history) in defiance of consensus among the article's other editors. He has stated in a user talk page that he will continue to revert articles but at a lower frequency: "I am re-doing the Dianetics article about once a day and staying under the 3 times a day thing". [285] This is a clear example of "gaming" the rules, a practice which is prohibited at WP:3RR#Enforcement. I will be taking this to the ArbCom in due course as part of a broader RfC/RfA, but in the meantime I think a further block is merited. This has been going on since 23 February; this user is an incessant edit warrior and will continue in the same vein unless blocked.
    • These reverts are one per day - 3RR specifies that there must be 4 reverts in the same 24-hour period to merit action. Possibly annoying to deal with, maybe requiring some other dispute resolution, but decidedly not a 3RR violation. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
      • The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others. The fact that users may be blocked for excessive reverting does not imply that they will be blocked. Equally, reverting fewer than four times may result in a block depending on context.
      • He's been pulling this stunt on multiple pages, often giving transparently bogus reasons (a disambiguation notice at the top of a page constitutes "original research", don't you know[286]). --Calton | Talk 13:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
      • As Calton said. The Arbitration Commmittee has already unanimously enforced this in similar instances - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute/Proposed decision#3RR is not an entitlement. The 3RR isn't simply a mechanistic "3 strikes and you're out" policy - it also addresses the underlying problem of revert warring. -- ChrisO 14:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Then it is a question for the ArbCom or some other higher authority. I'm not comfortable blocking this user on the basis of the three-revert rule. From a couple paragraphs down on the 3RR page from your quote: Some users recommend spacing out your reverts to one per day - which appears to be what this user is doing. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
          • I hadn't realized "Some users recommend" = "policy". My bad. --Calton | Talk 03:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
            • It doesn't. The policy is clear on this subject, and I'm disappointed that ESkog doesn't want to follow it. I'll raise it on WP:AN to canvass a wider range opinion. -- ChrisO 09:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:IceOwl

Three revert rule violation on Homosexuality (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). IceOwl (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: —Guanaco 07:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I reverted IceOwl's edits twice on this page, so I am not blocking him myself. —Guanaco 07:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 12h William M. Connolley 10:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Al-Andalus

Three revert rule violation on Chile (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Al-Andalus (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
  • 1st revert: [287]
  • 2nd revert: [288]
  • 3rd revert: [289]
  • 4th revert: [290]

Reported by: (XGustaX 16:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC))

Comments:

  • He has revert more then three times the same page.
  • The reverts have to be within the same 24-hour period to be a 3RR violation. I can't see that Al-Andalus has done that. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the 3RR reverter here is user XGustaX. He left a threatening comment on my talk page and then proceded to report me for "vandalism". I contacted the user, thinking he was of sound mind and willing to dialogue any difference, but he has refused my inviation, and instead further reported me here for having to revert his deletion of information provided by Chilean Census figures (I wrote detailed "summaries" on my edits and posted on the talk page.) He then cowardly ran to deleted my comment from his talk page (difference between revisions) to erase any track of my attempts at resolution. If you notice the history of his talk page, you will see that he has also had problems with other users on different matters, and instead of engaging in dialogue at the request of those users on his talk page regarding certain problems, he deletes the entries in his talk (difference between revisions) and ignores and avoids interaction with the community trying to work with him and giving him the benifit of the doubt. He basically works alone in "his" wikipedia, enforcing his original research, and ignores, denies, or just blatently deletes sources researched by other users which are contrary to his opinion. Al-Andalus 01:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC).

[edit] User:Emir Arven

  • Never mind, I seem to have misinterpreted the rule, User:HolyRomanEmperor's reports of this user being hostile and rather POV-pushy still stand, though. --Obli (Talk)? 18:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation on Bosnian War (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Emir Arven (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: --Obli (Talk)? 17:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This is a very controversial article and this is a long standing edit war. Please consider protecting the page instead of blocking, as both sides (Emir and PANONIAN below) have violated the 3RR (oops...). --Latinus 18:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I just want to say, that my 3rd revert was not the same as 1st and 2nd, because I provided the source, and explained it in the talk page. I put it in the article.--Emir Arven 18:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
So, I didnt violate 3RR. I will not comment HolyRomaEmperor case, because noone wanted to warn him for his statemens about my contribution. He goes from user to user to talk about my contribution in a very bad manner.--Emir Arven 18:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, Emir, you didn't violate the rule. Don't revert again, or you will though... --Latinus 18:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:PANONIAN

Three revert rule violation on Bosnian War (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). PANONIAN (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: --Obli (Talk)? 17:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This is a very controversial article and this is a long standing edit war. Please consider protecting the page instead of blocking, as both sides (PANONIAN and Emir above) have violated the 3RR (oops...). --Latinus 18:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:RTS

Three revert rule violation on Christianity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). RTS (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Diffs omitted while reporting in haste.

Reported by: AnnH ♫ 19:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I'm being a bit naughty here, because I'm reporting without taking the trouble to fill in everything properly. I have to go to dinner in about two minutes, so please forgive me. Could an admin have a look at the recent history of Christianity, and also the messages I left on User talk:RTS. I NEVER report newcomers normally, and I really mean that. In the past, I have left many messages for newcomers, telling them that they had broken the rule but that I wasn't going to report them because they were new, and I hoped they'd stop. I also NEVER report people who might have accidentally slipped into a fourth revert through losing count. As I started this message, RTS had done seven, in little over an hour. He had been warned, in edit summaries, and on his talk page. He's almost certainly connected to User:Giovanni33, who reverted like that when he arrived, and then got at least two sockpuppets or meatpuppets (as established by evidence) to help. He's also reverting to Giovanni's version. Pleeeeeeeeease help. And I promise I'll fill in all the diffs properly after dinner. Really, though, the diffs aren't necessary. A brief look at the history of Christianity will show you everything you need to know. AnnH ♫ 19:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for three hours to deal with the immediate behaviour; obviously a checkuser and possible (much) longer block may be indicated here. Alai 19:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the three-hour respite. I've finished dinner now. :-)
  • Previous version reverted to: can't really give one, as they were partial reverts, not identical. The edit summary and the comments on the talk page show that it was a revert, as he was restoring something which User:Giovanni33 inserted (without consensus) on Tuesday, and which was reverted by another user.

His contributions show that he started editing today. His first two edits were to his user page and talk page; his third edit was a partial revert to Giovanni33's version. Giovanni started in exactly the same way, massively violating 3RR, taking advantage of the fact that we didn't want to report new editors, posting a defence of his version on the talk page, and then immediately reverting to that version without consensus, even when it involved a large change. He was then joined by BelindaGong, who reverted constantly to his version, followed him around to vote for his version on various talk pages, grossly violated 3RR, also taking advantage of the fact that we didn't want to report a new user. A user check established that Belinda was a sockpuppet for Giovanni. He then claimed she was his wife, although they had pretended not to know each other. While they were both blocked, a "new user", Freethinker99 turned up, said he was new, had read the talk page and agreed with Giovanni, then started immediately reverting to Giovanni's version (several times). Then Giovanni answered a question which had been posted to his talk page, forgetting that he was logged on as Freethinker.[291] He changed it immediately,[292] but it was too late, as we had already seen it. He then claimed that he just happened to be at Freethinker's house, and was showing him how to edit Wikipedia, and that Freethinker had allowed him to answer a question on his talk page, from Freethinker's computer.

Update: while I was typing this, NPOV77 (talk • contribs) reverted to RTS's (Giovanni's) version. I looked at his contributions, and saw that he also started today, and that this revert was his third edit, the first two being to his user and talk pages. I immediately blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. I refrained from blocking BelindaGong, Freethinker99, and RTS when they arrived, because I was involved in that article, even though there was every indication of sockpuppetry. However, I know that admins do block obvious sockpuppets to pages they edit themselves, and there are just too many "brand new" users who appear, revert to Giovanni's version, argue for his version on the talk page, and otherwise show familiarity with Wikipedia. I am going to report this on WP:AN or WP:AN/I now, and if an admin undoes my block, I will accept that, and will not in anyway consider it to be "wheelwarring". My block was just a quick reaction to the beginning of another war. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 21:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Reviraz

Three revert rule violation on Bat Ye'or (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Reviraz (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) (Pecher (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)):

Reported by: Pecher Talk 20:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • The user was warned on his talk page to stop reverting. Pecher Talk 20:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Looks very clearly four reverts; OTOH why is he having to revert deletion of sourced material? I won't block myself, due to earlier involvement (and the temptation to go with R's version, on its merits). OTOH, the Reviraz account looks very suspicious to me (some "sleeper" edits, then use as a "role" account); I suggest a checkuser request would be in order. Alai 20:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Pecher also has 4 reverts (the initial removal of the material [293] is a revert, a-la [294]). So I shall block them both for edit-warring, for... 12h apiece. William M. Connolley 21:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Infinity0

Three revert rule violation on Anarcho-capitalism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Infinity0 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: RJII 01:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The kid is deleting information with 4 sources, over and over again. I keep adding more sources and more caveats to satisfy his concerns, and he just keeps reverting back the information. RJII 01:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This was User:Infinity0's second 3RR violation this week, so blocked for 48 hours. —Ruud 02:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
User:RJII violated 3RR as well, so he gets blocked for 24 hours, plus 24 hours for violating his probation. —Ruud 03:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
No I did not! I reported Infinity's violation here to avoid an edit war. I challenge you to provide the diffs. RJII 03:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Here are the diffs: previous version, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th. —Ruud 03:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I've unblocked User:RJII. He points out correctly on his talk page that this doesn't constitute a 3RR, and I think he's right. In particular, the first alleged revert is not in any way related to the other edits listed. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I've replied on your talk page. —Ruud 11:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks like 4RR to me. The first revert is not relate to the others, but is nonetheless a revert William M. Connolley 17:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not. See my Talk page for a detailed analysis. The first is not a revert at all. The second supposed revert is not a revert but an addition of sources. I'm trying to do my best here by reporting someone for violating the 3RR instead of edit warring back with him, and you guys are hassling me. Please lay off. Thanks. RJII 17:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The first revert is not relate[d] to the others... In all his reverts he added "individualist anarchism" to the list, although with sources the 2nd through 4rd time, but I fail to see how this makes the firt revert unrelated? —Ruud 17:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I guess I meant, isn't the same. But it doesn't matter, its a revert, whatever RJII may say. RJII: reporting someone for 3RR doesn't confer immunity on you William M. Connolley 17:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
No matter how you look at it, I did not violate the 3RR. RJII 17:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It does look like this scenario:
    1. User A inserts statement XXX.
    2. User B does not think XXX is valid and deletes it.
    3. User A, a few days later, re-inserts XXX. This is possibly the sort of revert 3RR is about, possibly not.
    4. User B deletes XXX again. This certainly is 3RR-worthy.
    5. User A reinserts XXX with a source.
    6. User B does not think XXX with the source is valid and deletes it
    7. User A reinserts XXX and source with yet another source
    8. User B still doesn't think XXX is valid and deletes it.
I don't think this is what 3RR is for. 3RR is to stop edit wars, in particular edit wars of the form "Is too!" "Is not!" "Is too!" "Is not!". Adding information to bolster a position is not edit warring, it is responsible editing. So at least one of RJII's edits was not a revert under 3RR. On the other hand, Infinity0 freely admits his was a 3RR violation in email to me, so there's no controversy there. I've been asked to reblock; I appreciate being asked, but I still don't think the block was appropriate. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that adding references does not make this a 3RR violation. It is not my task to judge the validity of the refrences and so by your logic anyone could evade a 3RR violation by adding some (possible irrelevant) sources. —Ruud 18:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention, I even left his last edit sitting there though I strongly disagree with it just to avoid edit warring. RJII 19:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Also... [Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RJII_v._Firebug#Remedies] (thought I'd mention it; found via the just-rejected [295]) William M. Connolley 19:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:24.69.14.159

Also editing via proxy as 24.64.223.203 (talk • contribs). Warned.

Three revert rule violation on Prem Rawat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs).


Reported by: ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • The first one doesn't count as a revert, so he made only three reverts so far. —Ruud 15:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Ruud: It is the same person, he does not dispute that. See [296] He evens signs his post withn the 24.69.14.159 IP... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    • That's not the point. Unless you can fill in the "previous version reverted to" his first "revert" wasn't a revert, but just a normal edit. —Ruud 15:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
      • The first edit he did was this one: [297] ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't see how what you claim to be his first revert is a revert to the version you gave me. —Ruud 15:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Let's wait and see if he reverts again, so it will be unambiguos. Thanks for your help. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Arianitr

Three revert rule violation on Gostivar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Arianitr (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
  • 1st revert: [298]
  • 2nd revert: [299]
  • 3rd revert: [300]
  • 4th revert: [301]

Reported by: Bitola 18:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

This user is constantly reverting the article about the Macedonian town of Gostivar changing the pictures previously added by me and changing the names in official use in the country. The user was already warned twice:

[302],[303]

He recently responed to my warnings with this:[304]

Blocked, 8h as a first offence, though he does look rather determined William M. Connolley 19:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC).

[edit] User:JohnnyBGood

On Interstate 605 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). JohnnyBGood (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log): [305]

Comments

Insists on using an infobox that is too big. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually if he'd ever read the 3RR he'd notice you have to revert 4 times during a 24 hour period to be in violation... which I have not per the history located here [306]. This user has been on an anti-consensus tear acting unilaterally removing a long time infobox that has been agreed apon by consensus and has been edit warring myself and others at this page California State Route 15 and now California State Route 283. SPUI is also on probation.JohnnyBGood 01:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
20:10, 6 March 2006 JohnnyBGood (rv. SPUI give it up. Revert again and you'll be in violation of the 3RR.)
20:08, 6 March 2006 JohnnyBGood (rv vandalism by SPUI)
20:04, 6 March 2006 JohnnyBGood (rv the "common sense" per consensus, rules lawyering, and all other things that make wikipedia great.)
13:46, 6 March 2006 JohnnyBGood (rv to keep inline w/ other state routes. Interstates in CA are CA routes. Also the CA Wikiproject has been granted priority on CA 3dis so the CA box takes precedent. Nice try SPUI but no cigar for you)
--SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
If you'll read the actual history you'll note SPUI has changed the dates on the 3 most recent edits.JohnnyBGood 01:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
You must be in a different time zone. 3RR is per 24 hour period, not per quantized day. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
SPUI I'm on GMT just like you are. All users are.JohnnyBGood 01:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Paste what you have for your revert times. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. (cur) (last) 01:10, 7 March 2006 JohnnyBGood (rv. SPUI give it up. Revert again and you'll be in violation of the 3RR.)
  2. (cur) (last) 01:09, 7 March 2006 SPUI (rv)
  3. (cur) (last) 01:08, 7 March 2006 JohnnyBGood (rv vandalism by SPUI)
  4. (cur) (last) 01:07, 7 March 2006 SPUI (rv)
  5. (cur) (last) 01:04, 7 March 2006 JohnnyBGood (rv the "common sense" per consensus, rules lawyering, and all other things that make wikipedia great.)
  6. (cur) (last) 00:31, 7 March 2006 SPUI (you are rules lawyering, while I am using common sense.)
  7. (cur) (last) 18:46, 6 March 2006 JohnnyBGood (rv to keep inline w/ other state routes. Interstates in CA are CA routes. Also the CA Wikiproject has been granted priority on CA 3dis so the CA box takes precedent. Nice try SPUI but no cigar for you)
You missed your first one. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
You mean this one? Note it's a day earlier.JohnnyBGood 01:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
That's less than seven hours earlier. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
It is one day earlier however.JohnnyBGood 01:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't make a difference. The ban is on four reverts in any 24-hour period, not four reverts in a single quantized day. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Isn't a day 24 hours?JohnnyBGood 01:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
All four of your reverts were made within 24 hours of each other. Thus you have broken 3RR. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Well if that's the way they say it is then I guess I did. They should make it more clear however. Doesn't change the fact you're just as cupable with your edit warring on all the listed pages, and against consensus no less. At least I have right on my side. JohnnyBGood 02:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Riiiiight. Maybe you should actually look carefully at both versions, until you realize that mine makes more sense. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

(back to left side) - JohnnyBGood will be blocked 12 hours for a first violation of the 3RR - SPUI only has 3 reverts to this point but is cautioned not to revert again. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

"They should have made it more clear"? JohnnyB, you are wikilawyering. The idea of what "twenty four hours" means is pretty clear, and is meant to discourage revert warring. The 3RR is an electric fence. If you thought that not knowing that this meant across different days, and not merely in one day, is a mitigating circumstance, think again. SPUI, a caution to you — just let it sit there and ask for a third party next time, there's barely any damage in a longer infobox, just that it looks a tad uglier/too long. The hostility is more damaging than the aesthetics, or the omission of information on the infobox. I will not be taking any action, other administrators may, but this is a warning, JohnnyB. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 02:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Pardon, ESkog has already blocked JohnnyB. Well, I guess that will mean an observance of the "electric fence". Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 02:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

SPUI has been reverting against consensus however. Note WP:AN/I. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. And his edits could be considered edit warring.Gateman1997 02:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
They do not violate the 3RR though. Bring this up at an RFC some dispute resolution processes, this page is for 3RR violations; I agree it is worrying. Has he violated the 3RR? If not, bring this to another page. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 03:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Well regardless he is edit warring and thank you for those who said so.JohnnyBGood 19:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Chadbryant

Three Revert Rule violation on Nashville Municipal Auditorium. Chadbryant (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)


Not a violation of 3RR, and Linden Arden is suspected of being a sockpuppet for someone involved in several content disputes in order to circumvent 3RR. - Chadbryant 03:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The claim of sockpuppetry by Chadbryant is unfounded, untrue, and potentially libelous. In reaction to a content dispute, Chadbryant is attempting to besmirch my reputation on Wikipedia. Linden Arden 15:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
It is not your place to say whether or not your behavior violates the 3RR rule just as it is not MY place to say whether or not your behavior violates the rule. However, you have previously been blocked for a 24 hour period due to a violation of the rule, and warned on numerous occassions.
As a result, whenever someone such as Linden Arden reports your behavior for a possible violation, the administrators must investigate, bogus claims or no bogus claims. In my own opinion, I believe it does not help your case any when you immediately claim as your defense that the individual who has made the challenge is a "sockpuppet" -- especially given your behavior towards them. You run "willy nilly" around Wikipedia placing the DickWitham sockpuppet tag on so many IP numbers and User accounts, yet you refuse to allow others to place a potential sockpuppet tag on accounts that may be sockpuppets of your own.
While this is hypocritical, it is not my point. My point is that the more you engage in such radical behavior and then try to use it to your own defense while attempting to erradicate or manipulate it under other conditions, it can do nothing but serve to remove any legitimate verification or trust you may or may not hold within the Wikipedia community. This is really no different than you removing comments from your talk page which make you look in a negative light or disagree with your views, then trying to hide behind the excuse of the comments being removed due to "bad faith edits." --Eat At Joes 03:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Chadbryant is blocked 24 hours for this 3RR violation. Although he did change some words he also reverted the "RSPW held a convention" text 4 times in under 2 hours. This is not a productive way of resolving the dispute. Rhobite 03:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Eat At Joes

Three revert rule violation on Rec.sport.pro-wrestling (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Eat_At_Joes (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Has reverted article to a version with ambiguous links four times in less than two hours:

- Chadbryant 03:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a violation of 3RR, and Chadbryant is suspected of being a sockpuppet for someone involved in several content disputes in order to circumvent 3RR. --Eat At Joes 03:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
But seriously, this is just more childish crap from MR. Bryant. The only reason he is adding my name here is because of the comments I made above. He has a mind like (self-censoring the rest to avoid violation of the Wikipedia policy on personal attacks). --Eat At Joes 03:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Eat At Joes has been blocked for 3 days: 24 hours for this 3RR violation and 48 hours for his continuing incivility towards other users (see this comment). Rhobite 03:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:209.158.227.190

Three revert rule violation on H. William DeWeese (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). USERNAME (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
  • 1st revert: [314]
  • 2nd revert: [315]
  • 3rd revert: [316]
  • 4th revert: [317]

Reported by: Montco 04:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Not sure if this is the best forum for this sort of thing. The individual in question obviously does not care for the content in the article and has taken to deleting it four times. There are notes on their talk page as well as on the article's talk page, but there has never been a response. Would like some guidance on the issue.
    • I only count one revert in the last 24 hours - the rest are still very old. Pretty stale edit war, all things considered. Try a request for comment or seek a third opinion. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah the individual comes back every week or so to delete the content. Look I can keep going back and fixing this stuff, but a third opinion doesn't help since the individual does not respond to any inquiries.

[edit] User:Chadbryant

Three revert rule violation on Rec.sport.pro-wrestling (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Chadbryant (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

He is once again trying to enforce his minority opinion onto the article:


Reported by: TruthCrusader 07:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User:Chadbryant was already blocked for 24 hours for reverting on this article. User:TruthCrusader is clearly upset about his arbitration request agagainst Chad being unanimously rejected, and is on another campaign to harass him in any way possible. Master Of RSPW 08:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The above user is a strongly suspected sockpuppet of Chad Bryant. TruthCrusader 08:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Only by you and another user who constantly try to followed Chad Bryant here and constantly find any way possible to harass him for having a presence on Wikipedia. You lost in your bid to get Chad "in trouble" and now you're dragging other people into the dispute to "get back" at him. You need to find something better to do with your time. Master Of RSPW 08:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The original user didn't really make the 3rr violation clear, but it undeniably a valid 3rr report Master of RSPW. Here are the diffs he should have provided. Previous version reverted to19:27 March 421:10 March 5(first revert)19:51 March 6(second revert)20:26 March 6 (third revert)20:31 March 6 (fourth revert)21:04 March 6th (5th revert)It should also be pointed out that he was using misleading edit summaries for all of these edits which apparently part of the reason Eat at Joes was reverting him. Chadbryant was claiming that he was fixing links however he was not at all. First 2 reverts had no message, third said "fixing ambiguous links is not vandalism" fourth "restored correct links - cite which item I'm removing, or cease with the misinformation" 5th "restored correct links - cite which item I'm removing, or cease with the misinformation". He wasn't just changing links, he was using his link changing to hide the fact that he was adding the line "RSPW held a convention prior to an ECW show in Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania, on February 4, 1995." over and over. Seraphim 13:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I also need to point out that User:Master Of RSPW keeps removing the suspected sockpuppet template from his user page, while adding sockpuppet templates to other users pages and then reporting them for 'vandalism' when THEY remove it. Does reverting your own talk page 5 times count against the 3R rule? TruthCrusader 20:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the fact-checking, Seraphim. I'm blocking for 24, as I did the other 3RR on this page.
TruthCrusader: This is a bit of a complex issue. WP:VAND clearly states that removing warnings for vandalism and 3RR is vandalism. Suspected sockpuppet tags with no evidence can be considered harassment; be sure you actually have something for the evidence. I would say, if there is no evidence, remove the tag on your page. That is my unresearched off-the-cuff opinion, however, I suggest a little checking is in order. If you suspect someone of sockpuppetry, file at RFCU rather than posting an unsubstantiated suspected sockpuppet tag. If you want to pursue this question further, it needs to go to a different venue, a talk page for one of the related policies or another talk page. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Garglebutt

Three revert rule violation on Dean McVeigh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Garglebutt (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: 2006BC 08:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User:Garglebutt is breach of the 3RR by reverting on five occasions within the period allowed. Without discussion, he/she decided to merge the article with another, that is only partly related. I am concerned that I am a little out of my depth with discussing the rules here but Longhair referred me to the '3RR' page which linked me here and I would welcome action to block Garglebutt as he seems very reluctant to compromise at all. I have tried to engage him/her and haven't much of a response other than threats, even things like "So be it" which I suppose was meant to intimidate out of editing in a way he disagreed with. --2006BC 08:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Sigh! Please have a look at Talk:Dean McVeigh to see that there was never going to be agreement from those directly involved in the topic of the article. Also worth looking at User talk:DarrenRay to get a broader perspective. Garglebutt / (talk) 09:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how any of that relates to you breaching a rule you were quick to warn me not to breach. Perhaps being blocked will be a help to your relating with others. 2006BC 09:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Please note Garglebutt's warning to me not to breach the 3RR: [329]. --2006BC 09:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
User:DarrenRay and User:2006BC are political alies and are running a coordinated campaing of POV pushing and reversions. User:Garglebutt was merely undoing their vandalism. Something that I, and other editors have also been trying to do. Also User:DarrenRay has easily himself breached 3rr numerous times now. Xtra 10:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Newly created user User:AChan chose to revert the redirection of this article as one of their first edits. Not that I'm necessarily suggesting collaborative disruption. Garglebutt / (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The anonymous/pseudonymous user Garglebutt has blatantly breached this rule. I have not done so as far as I'm aware. I assume I'm checking in the right way and will continue to be careful. Garglebutt on the other hand has done even more reverts after 2006BC put this complaint up. I think there are now even more reverts of the same material by Garglebutt. DarrenRay 14:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is now protected. Go work out your differences on the talk page William M. Connolley 14:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Has Garglebutt been blocked yet? Sorry for my ignorance about such things. Also I refer to Xtra's claim that Garglebutt was "undoing their vandalism." Please check the links and you will see that is not true. --2006BC 23:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Ben, (AKA 2006BC) what you did constituted vandalism and the fact that you and your friend AChan are here on Darren Ray's request and syncronising your edits concerns me about your future here. Xtra 23:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Thought: why shouldn't Garglebutt be blocked for inappropriate user name? --Nlu (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Garglebutt has been here over six months and has made over 1000 contributions. A bit late now. Xtra 23:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Call me thick, but I have realised the unfortunate meaning of "Garglebutt." This is very unpleasant and physiologically challenging. --2006BC 23:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Tskoge

Three revert rule violation on Svalbard (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Tskoge (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Big Adamsky 16:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Refuses to discuss his changes, occasionally makes grumpy/uncivil remarks in edit summaries.

Please read the rules William M. Connolley 17:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Now it's four. //Big Adamsky 18:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

  • In the last 24 hours or so, I count precisely 3 reverts from Big Adamsky and 3 by Tskoge. The next revert after this point by either party would result in a short timeout. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Tskoge (again)

Three revert rule violation on Svalbard (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Tskoge (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Big Adamsky 16:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Continues to remove certain links and categories, and refuses to compromise or even discuss.

[edit] User:Siddiqui

Three revert rule violation on Qadianism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Siddiqui (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Pepsidrinka 17:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User is unwilling to compromise. Is claiming ownership of article and telling other users to go to arbcomm before changing the article. Refuses, by his actions, to main a NPOV. Has been blocked for 3RR twice before. Pepsidrinka 17:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 3rr, disruption and claims of ownership William M. Connolley 17:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:134.84.5.71

Three revert rule violation on Kiev Metro (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 134.84.5.71 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Kuban Cossack 18:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • That are only three reverts. Please fill in the "previous version reverted to field". —Ruud 18:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Original was uploaded by me [346] and my upload was vandalised four times.--Kuban Cossack 19:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud 19:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kuban kazak

Three revert rule violation on Kiev Metro (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Kuban kazak (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: 134.84.5.194 18:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • That are only three reverts. Please fill in the "previous version reverted to" field. —Ruud 18:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Compare the versions they are not identical reverts.--Kuban Cossack 19:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
There is no need for the reversions to be exactly identical. —Ruud 00:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You still did not fill out the report correctly and I only counted three reverts myself. —Ruud 20:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • One more revert added. Please pay attention to change Ukr - Rus this is the only important change.--Bryndza 00:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Compare the revert versions, all are different. I have made small additions to the text of the article in the main body. Yet Petriv seems to be preoccupied with reverting to the same version throughout, despite my calls for a discussion on the talk page. --Kuban Cossack 00:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud 00:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Superdan8

Three revert rule violation on Eurofighter Typhoon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Superdan8 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Mark83 19:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User constantly removing this and other valid information and will not listen to any discussion of the issues.
Blocked for 24 hours. User:85.168.200.129 was blocked as well. —Ruud 20:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Netkinetic

Three revert rule violation on Flamebird (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Also, Jason Rusch (comics) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and Doctor Mid-Nite (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Netkinetic (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 20:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User bunches some of my comic book article edits together, assuming that they all pertain to the same thing and reverting them without care, and slapped an inappropriate test template onto User talk:68.254.180.58 over this. I complained about his treatment of the anon, but it was removed off his user talk page. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 20:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Please give links to version differences, not just the old versions, in your report. —Ruud 21:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud 21:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Bryndza

Three revert rule violation on History of Christianity in Ukraine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Bryndza (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Kuban Cossack 21:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Each version is different and this appears to be a more complex edit war than the 3RR is designed to handle. My opinion is that this would be a better discussion to have via an article RfC, but others are free to overrule me if they feel the substance of Oleh's edits is identical. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:12.108.52.196

Three revert rule violation on Republic of Moldova (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 12.108.52.196 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Latinus 21:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User is pushing a radical Romanian POV and refers to the work of his fellow editors as "vandalism". --Latinus 21:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 21:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Falcon007

Three revert rule violation on Pakistan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Falcon007 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Ragib 22:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Falcon007 (talk • contribs) insists that the country Pakistan was never under British rule. His claim is that when British Parliament gave independence of Pakistan and India on August 14, 1947, no country called Pakistan existed at the moment the rule reverted from Britain to Pakistan. Therefore, he claims that Pakistan cannot be considered a "Former British colony" and put in the category Category:Former British colonies along with other members of the Commonwealth of Nations. He also states that this is an insult to Pakistan to be tagged. However, other countries like India, Bangladesh, Singapore and other former British colonies all are included in the category. I am involved in this as I have reverted his edits, (and am refraining from any further reverts there), so I am not taking any administrative actions. I, and also other regular editors of the page have discussed the matter in Talk:Pakistan and the official Pakistan Govt. stance has been noted to acknowledge the fact (obviously!). User:Falcon007 also claims that the 3RR warning placed in his talk page regarding his reverts was a misuse in part of me (as what I'm not sure, but definitely not as an admin), so I'd ask the admin looking into it to clarify that as well. Thanks. --Ragib 22:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud 22:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
      • You were right in placing a warning on his talk page, this is even strongly adviced and admins may even dicide not to block for 3RR violation if this has not been done. Cheers, —Ruud 22:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:KDRGibby

Three revert rule violation on Participatory economics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). KDRGibby (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 22:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:


[edit] User:Molobo (*sigh*, yes, again)

Three revert rule violation on Talk:History of Poland (1939–1945) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Molobo (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Sciurinæ 22:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  1. revert war on a Talk:Page
  2. repeated offender
  3. previous violation, see above, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Molobo_.28again.29
  4. this would be the third three revert rule violation within 15 days
  5. first Molobo made four reverts, then asked if it was okay to do so Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Is_restoring_my_own_comments_on_discussion_page_a_violation_of_3RR
  6. given that he has reverted at least 22 times today(excluding the four reverts above), it is of course natural that he may happen to do more than the usual three reverts per page per day
  7. disputed text is an attention-grabbing (over 1300 words counted by a word processor) copy of a copyrighted source[348] ("Copyright © 2003, H-Net, all rights reserved."). Ironically, the source's html headline is "Copyright" and the copyright is mentioned above and below the contents and cannot be overlooked easily.
  8. user was told already long before and during the dispute to avoid this quoting practice
  9. comments should not be edited and not deleted unless they violate a policy. This comment does: "Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL." reads the Editing window also when you edit a talk page

Sciurinæ 22:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

As a notorious revert-warrior, it's no surprise to see him reverting again. I'm kinda shocked though that he's actually violated again so soon. He used to be very careful about that sort of thing. It's seems he probably doesn't care about the little blocks he keeps getting. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Molobo was running amock all day. Just threatened me to start adding Polish spellings to the lead in Moscow and articles about other Russian towns. Merits severe block. --Ghirla -трёп- 23:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days this time. -Splashtalk 23:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Isotelus

Three revert rule violation on Rachel Marsden (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Isotelus (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Bucketsofg 00:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Bucketsofg 00:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The evidence of sockpuppetry was pretty convincing, so blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud 00:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: The user's suspected suckpuppetteer Mark Bourrie (now User:Ceraurus), has been blocked for 24, 24, and 72 hours for repreatedly reverting that article. [349] Ianking 01:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:SteveInPrague

Three revert rule violation on User:Master Of RSPW (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). SteveInPrague (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

This user is harassing User:Master Of RSPW with frequent changes to his user page, and is most likely User:Eat At Joes evading a 72-hour ban for violating 3RR and WP:CIVIL. - Chadbryant 04:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This user has now violated 3RR on rec.sport.pro-wrestling:
He has been warned, and once again it is highly likely that he is a sock of User:Eat At Joes, who is serving a 72-hour suspension for violating 3RR & WP:CIVIL. - Chadbryant 05:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
User:SteveInPrague has now reverted rec.sport.pro-wrestling five times in the last 24 hours. - Chadbryant 05:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I wonder who whines more -- Chad, or his elementary school-aged sons? Must be painful to the ears around dinner time...Just a thought...--SteveInPrague 05:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


I was not "warned"; rather, my talk page was vandalised by Chad Bryant. He IS User:Master Of RSPW and MoR has violated the 3RR rule numerous times. Ask yourself why Chadbryant's name is on this list twice before you make any rash decisions. --SteveInPrague 05:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
What Chadbryant "forgot" to add was that User:Master Of RSPW is suspected of being HIM, as noted by User:TruthCrusader, User:WillC, myself, and even User:Rhobite. He used/uses this account for evading a 24-hour ban for violating 3RR. As for myself, I have done nothing. You will, however, find that User: Master Of RSPW has numerous violations of the 3RR within the last 24 hours. --SteveInPrague 04:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Blocked 60 hours for 2 3rr violations, probable sockpuppetry, harassment of other users, and general incivility. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
And now editing as User:166.102.104.55 - a checkuser should be run, I think. - Chadbryant 05:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/d/m/Wikipedia%7EAdministrators%27_noticeboard_3RRArchive11_c3d8.html"