Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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:The_Ungovernable_Force reported by User:64.15.129.173 (Result:)

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

  • 23:47, 7 July 2006 The Ungovernable Force
  • 23:39, 7 July 2006 The Ungovernable Force
  • 23:30, 7 July 2006 The Ungovernable Force
  • 23:02, 7 July 2006 The Ungovernable Force
  • 20:47, 7 July 2006 The Ungovernable Force
  • 20:05, 7 July 2006 The Ungovernable Force

Time report made: 00:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: User was reverting a banned user operating through open proxies. Sarge Baldy 00:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sarge, about to say that myself. Glad to have some validation. The Ungovernable Force 03:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Whoops, that was an earlier report on me I didn't know about. Hogeye just made another report on me with their sock User:Drowner. The Ungovernable Force 03:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Batman2005 reported by User:Seraphim (Result: 12 hours)

Three revert rule violation on Lukas_Podolski (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Batman2005 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Time report made: 22:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Repeated removal of material from an article "choosing not to sing the German anthem when facing off against his native Poland, as in all games". Not simple vandalism, therefore it is a 3rr violation. Previous admin who looked at the situation only blocked the person who was reported by Batman2005 however he failed to also block Batman2005 who was also in violation of the 3rr. 22:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Its not 3RR if you're removing vandalism! Please see [1]. I was removing vandalism from the article, as was stated in EVERY one of my edit summaries. Batman2005 23:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
From the 3rr page "In cases of simple vandalism that is clearly not a content dispute, the three-revert rule does not apply.", in this case it is not simple vandalism, it is a content related dispute and therefore not exempt from the 3rr policy. Just because you mark a revert as "rvv" does not make it not count as a revert. Seraphim 23:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes it does, it was not a content dispute, it was vandalism. Inserting dubious or unsourced information into an article continuously after being asked to cite sources is vandalism. Reverting vandalism is what I was doing and is not punishable under the 3RR. Batman2005 23:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, sockpuppetry to deceive and insert dubious information (as the users were doing) is vandalism as well, the reversions of which were clearly noted. Batman2005 23:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
As I said to you earlier, only reverts of simple vandalism are waived, if you can find on the WP:VAND page a category of simple vandalism that fits the situation explain it and i'll gladly remove this and admit I was wrong. Seraphim 23:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
AND, you'll notice that earlier today I posted this problem on the noticeboard [2] and had yet to receive action or further instruction. Thus, in an effort to disallow the vandals to continue to insert misinformation into the encyclopedia and to quickly deal with vandalism, I reverted. Batman2005 23:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Adding from Seraphim's talk page * Sneaky vandalism: Vandalism which is harder to spot. Adding misinformation, changing dates or making other sensible-appearing substitutions and typos. You'll notice that one editor [3] asserted that Podolski never sings the national anthem before games (a fact which is supported by watching the games on television). The, now blocked, editors continued to add misinformation into the article, which is why I kept removing it as I, and two or three others, saw it as vandalism. Additionally, said users were given and opportunity to provide a source [4] for their claim. Again, they chose to ignore and reinsert the vandalism. Batman2005 23:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Sneaky vandalism is defined as vandalism that is hard to spot. Adding a sentence to an article over and over does not qualify as sneaky vandalism. Seraphim 23:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
it does when its misinformation, as this case was. Batman2005 23:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
What you should have done is do your 3 reverts and then waited for someone else to continue reverting, and if that means leaving the trivial information in the article for a few hours untill the admin gets around to blocking the user that's what must happen. That's what the 3rr says to do. Simply reporting someone does not give you a get out of jail free card. Seraphim 23:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If its all the same to you Seraphim I think you have made your points and I think I have defended mine. I suggest we wait and see what an admin. will consider appropriate. I do think that you should assume good faith in the future and not immediately think that I'm trying to win an edit war. Batman2005 23:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Batman: S is probably correct. I don't see your edits as reverting simple vandalism. I'm inclined to just warn you this time, providing that you're prepared to promise not to do it in future. Only blatant vandalism counts; this wasn't William M. Connolley 09:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Imacomp reported by User:Seraphim (Result: )

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

Time report made: 23:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:User has now reverted 4 times attempts to unobsfucate the talk page, in particular so the user's comments aren't included in an unrelated section of the talk page. Seraphim 23:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Added fifth revert UK time.ALR 09:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sir Paul reported by User:TJive (result: 3 hours)

Three revert rule violation on Oliver Kamm (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Sir Paul (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Time report made: 01:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Three of these reverts are listed as reverts and the others are clearly reverting to previous versions of the same material. He is not a new user and I informed him well ahead of my time (and especially in light in his incivility), that I would report if he went forward and broke 3RR; he ended up breaking it with two reverts beyond in a matter of a few hours. --TJive 01:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I encourage administrators to take a look at the background. Before I even addressed him, User:TJive labelled one of my contributions a "hit piece", and subsequently threatened to ban me. His uncivil demeanour during this whole affair is especially egregious given the time and effort that I put in my additions, and the demonstrably incorrect statements that this user has insisted in reinstating. Sir Paul 01:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
My comment that the article was a hit piece was made without regard to any contributor but rather the content, which has been going back and forth for weeks with political arguments about the subject. Today is only the second day I can recall ever editing the article whatsoever, and I had never heard of this user before nor particularly cared one way or the other whose contribution made the article biased and poorly written. Furthermore, his comments here are merely his provision of a justification for clearly violating revert policy, which was explained to him in advance and which he chose to flagrantly disregard. No matter how valid of a reason you think you have for continuing to revert in content disputes, policy says to stop at three. Period. --TJive 01:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I had always assumed that the three revert rule applied to reverts to a single earlier version of the article. I have now re-read the policy and it seems that this is not the case. If so, I am guilty of the accusation. I note, however, that the number of relevant reverts was three, not five, and that all of them were always openly acknowledged as such in the edit summary (“reverts” number two and four are ordinary edits). My last (“fifth”) revert, furthermore, reverted to a previous version of the article which was not the one disputed, but rather an attempt by me to retain TJive's additions while removing statements that were either factually false, poorly written, or misplaced. This version also reinstated quotes that were originally removed by users Gezza and Delworth, now permanently banned from Wikipedia. Writing this version, fact-checking the whole article and referencing the many unsourced allegations took me about two hours. I would have expected TJive to at least make an attempt to seriously consider my proposal. Instead, he immediately reverted, knowing that I didn't have any further reverts left. It is depressing to see Wikipedians using someone's position of comparative disadvantage to push their own political agenda, disregarding both quality and civility in the process. Sir Paul 02:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The two edits that you mention revert the same disputed introductory paragraph and would qualify as such even were it not so that reverts refer simply to the same version. There is no basis for claiming ignorance in that respect. --TJive 02:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I have already told you that my original understanding of the three revert rule was that all reverts should be to the same earlier version of the article. This implies that two separate reverts that reinstate the same paragraph would not, in my understanding of the rule, count as reverts if the article versions to which they revert are different. Your unwarranted presumption of bad faith suggests, once again, that you are not interested in listening to the merits of my arguments or taking a look at the quality of my contributions. Sir Paul 02:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
If you presumed that all reverts must be to the same version, the reversion (five times) of the introduction qualifies. Otherwise you could simply change a sentence (rather than half a dozen, which you did) and say that you weren't simply reverting. I did not believe you to be of low intelligence, so I am in fact assuming good faith by stating that this is an invalid argument of innocent intention. --TJive 02:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I rest my case. You have proven yourself to be unworthy of my time. Sir Paul 03:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

3 h as a first offence William M. Connolley 07:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Krms reported by User:Appleby (Result:warning)

Three revert rule violation on Joseon Dynasty (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Krms (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

  • 1st revert: [5]
  • 2nd revert: [6]
  • 3rd revert: [7]
  • 4th revert: [8]

Time report made: 18:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: user warned about 3rr, wikipedia policy explained. same edit/revert at about a dozen articles. Appleby 18:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC) sorry, i edited the example, what an idiot. fixed example below, & the above links. i'm not sure what "previous version reverted to" is supposed to be, is that the version just before the first edit by the reverter? Appleby 18:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats 4 badly formatted diffs, of which 2-4 are reverts but its not clear that #1 is, becasue you forgot the version-reverted-to William M. Connolley 18:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:71.198.78.191 reported by User:Mad_Macs (Result: No action, only 3 reverts)

Three revert rule violation and possible sockpuppetry on Occidental_College (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 71.198.78.191 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Anonymous user repeatedly adding own biased POV to article. Discussion has been initiated, but not responded to.

Time report made: 23:10, 3 July 2006 (PST) 06:19, 4 July 2006 The time originally indicated on this user's report was false. How could a report be made before the supposed violation? This report was filed at (06:19, 4 July 2006) . Netscott 09:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The "previous version" is of a different article. A quick check gives strong reason to believe that the anon IPs do not proceed from the same location. However, Mad Macs, despite his very limited and single-purpose contribution history, is himself an experienced user operating under a new username, as evidenced by his terminology, and by this report. He has himself violated 3RR, as shown below.Timothy Usher 06:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • What sort of evidence can be offered to show that Mad Macs is an experienced user? El_C 07:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Who files a 3RR report (admittedly, a defective one) on his eleventh edit, after just a little over 24hrs of editting? I suppose it's...conceivable. I am now confused about his backdating of his report - check the date of the diff vs. that of the signature[9]. Timothy Usher 08:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • That is the evidence? Could be that he looked up 3RR when he heard of it, reached this board, and beat you to it with an this (impropperly-formatted) report. This appears to be well within the boundaries of WP:AGF. El_C 08:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Krsont reported by User:Nobleeagle (Result: page protected)

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

Time report made: 09:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I have warned this user via edit summaries and on their talk page but they have paid no heed to my warnings. Thus I am forced to stop this revert war. I disengaged from revert warring after 3 reverts. Nobleeagle (Talk) 09:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

  • You've warned the user on his/her fifth revert, but how is the sixth one a revert? El_C 10:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:WikiDoo reported by User:AbsolutDan (Result:)

Three revert rule violation on Regional Municipality of Peel, Ontario (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). WikiDoo (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Time report made: 15:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User also edits interchangeably with IP address 216.154.134.91, on which he has already been blocked for 3RR. Has been warned again on username's talk page --AbsolutDan (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Not clear that #1 is a rv, since you haven't provided the prev-rv-to William M. Connolley 17:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm having trouble pinning down a black & white rv-to version as his edit warring initially involved more subtle wording changes. I've added a new rv. though, which at the very least makes 2-5 within 24 hours, if you want to use #1 as the "source" --AbsolutDan (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiRoo 00:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC) I am tired of being persecuted by these thugs trying to buly me with their propaganda. I am trying to add good content and have tried repeatedly to edit my work to apease these purvayors of goverment propaganda in Ontario Canada by masaging the wording. Their problem apears to be that they don't want the public to see the truth about corrupt government in Ontario Canada, and are acting like they are in somekind of fascist dictatorship rather than in a free and democratic country which Canada pretends to be.

[edit] User:Mvickere reported by User:tmopkisn tlka (Result:3 hours)

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

Time report made: 05:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I tried to tell the user to post a message on the talk page if they wanted to remove something, but they refused. I also warned them twice before adding them to this list. tmopkisn tlka 05:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The user had not been warned about 3RR; I have just done so. Further, the Previous version is around 36 hours before the first revert, so it shouldn't count, although there have been four reverts in 24 hours so that is a moot point. -- Avi 05:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The user was warned, on my talk page, sure it wasn't formal... but I'm pretty sure they got the point. tmopkisn tlka 05:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked for 3 hours as an first offence and as a rather new user, hopefully he will stop. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 06:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zafarnamah reported by User:63.172.27.2 (Result: 24h)

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

Time report made: 06:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The user does not have a 3RR warning currently on his talk page but has a history of blanking his talk page. [14] And he is not a new user.

I have not given a previous version as he himself claims to revert in the edit summaries of all the above edits. Also the ip 138.49.98.53 is indeed him as he admits here [15] -- 63.172.27.2 06:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  • There's only three reverts there, consecutive edits count as a single revert. El_C 07:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC) Wait, I overlooked the anon bit. El_C 07:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, here's the fourth one [16] -- 63.172.27.2 07:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 24 hours. El_C 07:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Please note that the reverts have started again by an IP User:138.49.154.24 suspiciously similar to the user/ip that was blocked above. Can this IP also be blocked and the article semi protected please. -- 63.172.27.2 13:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ganga_Hare reported by User:CRCulver (Result:)

Three revert rule violation on Indo-Aryan Migration (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Ganga_hare (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Time report made: 12:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Diffs not versions please; also spell the article correctly William M. Connolley 17:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Nescio reported by User:Zer0faults (Result:24h)

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

Time report made: 15:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Broke 3RR, also a violation of WP:POINT. But I think that is for others to decide. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I will not restore the manipulated page and blocking is not punative. Very considerate of this user that is teaming up with others to harras me. This is not an article so 3RR hardly applies, second this user refuses to restore my comments there which he deleted. All I am doing is trying to correct his and his teammate's harrasment of my person. Never fear, I am bringing this up for mediation since he apparently insists on stalking me and then reporting me here out of spite. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 15:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • You broke 3RR. Please adhere to the rules of Wikipedia. Your attempts to blank out all of your comments on the page are a violation of WP:POINT, especially after those comments have been responded to. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to stage a protest. YOu have been told you comments as welcomed anywhere on the page except the header. Changing the questions after 30+ people have voted is disrution and manipulation of a straw poll. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
      • While I agree with Zer0faults that modifying a poll after 30 people have voted is wrong, both Nescio and I tried to modify the proposal very early on and were met with the very same resistance. So while you may be right, comments on the header were never welcomed, which is absolute BS in my mind, but I'm happy with the compromise so this is all I will say on the matter. --kizzle 16:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me that there is a fair amount of childishness and POINT on all sides here. However NN has certainly broken 3RR and so gets 24h. I've said on his talk that if he can convince me of any purpose to his campaign I may unblock William M. Connolley 17:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sjorford reported by User:Matthew Fenton (contribs) (Result: No action)

Three revert rule violation on Template:User wikipedia/Administrator (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Sjorford (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Time report made: 16:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Asked user not to revert, still did + plus warn. (User should set an example -- he is an admin!)

To violate the three revert rule, one must make more then three reverts. However I suggest both of you stop reverting and discuss the matter with others. Prodego talk 16:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm done with it for the time being — I have more interesting things to waste my time on out in the Real World. My opinion is already on the template talk page. — sjorford++ 16:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, the User:MatthewFenton has made as many reverts as the user he is reporting. Both should discuss. Thanks/wangi 16:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I am open to discussion and will continue commenting on the talk page. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:86.29.116.177 reported by User:RedHotRadiators (talk) (Result: No action)

Three revert rule violation on Jeremy_Clarkson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 86.29.116.177 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Time report made: 17:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User was warned, then proceeded to revert once more //RedHotRadiators (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No "previous version reverted to" given, so this is only 3 reverts. Mangojuicetalk 15:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Malber reported by User:Hipocrite (Result: 24h)

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

  • More complicated 5th Reversion with Bonus Misleading Edit Summary: 20:28, 5 July 2006 reverts content changes in [17]

Time report made: 21:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User was warned and asked to revert self by me on his talk page. He declined to do so, writing "I don't see the need to make a destructive edit." Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Revisions were made to restore referenced content that was maliciously deleted by an anonymous user. There is substantial evidence in the talk page that there is consensus from a majority of editors that the material and the references are relevant. I suspect that this may be a bad faith report as the anonymous IP may be a sock of the reporter. However, I won't go so far as to request a checkuser. In reviewing the user's talk page, he has a penchant for edit warring and reporting for 3RR. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 22:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Used popup assist that clearly indicates 4 revisions in less than 24 hours. 3RR is an electric fence. Reversion were not to blatant vandalism. Wikibofh(talk) 00:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:82.198.252.2 reported by User:TCC (talk) (contribs) (Result: no action)

Three revert rule violation on Roman Catholic Church (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 82.198.252.2 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Time report made: 21:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Note that the "previous version reverted to" above was itself a partial reversion by the same user. Compare 01:37, 5 July 2006 and 00:20, 5 July 2006.

I see that he was warned about 3RR by Musical Linguist and doesn't seem to have reverted after that, so it's probably not appropriate to block, but please let us know if he starts up again. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Feline1 reported by 172 | Talk (Result:24 hours)

Three revert rule violation on British Isles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Feline1 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [18]
  • 1st revert: [19]
  • 2nd revert: [20]
  • 3rd revert: [21]
  • 4th revert: [22]

Time report made: 22:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I have been restoring a version of the article supported by Jtdirl, a professional historian and journalist with extensive expertise on the subject, only to be reverted by Feline1 (talk • contribs), who seems totally unwilling to address Jtdirl's concerns in a serious manner on the talk page. 172 | Talk 22:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Feline1 has been trying to delete an opening paragraph that explains the complexity of a problem, and replace it with his version that implies that there is no dispute and no complexity, even though queues of people have been telling him there is a problem. Though others disagree with his behaviour he went ahead anyway and continually reverted. I left a message on his page telling him that he had breached 3RR and invited him to correct it by reverting his fourth revert rather risk being blocked for 3RR. He declined to revert his fourth revert. It is a clearcut case, as a result, warranting a block. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

He has now added a fifth revert, and is taunting others who will not breach 3RR. Will someone please block him and revert his edit. This is ridiculous. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Since he was blatently abusing his position and no admin seemed to be around to block him, I did so myself. Normally I would not do so as I was involved in an edit war with him, but something had to be done instantly. Will an admin please review the block and rule on whether to continue it or repeal it. I only did it has a holding measure as the user was openly breaking 3RR and flaunting users over the fact that he had been able to break 3RR and get away with it. He had climbed to 5 and if not stopped would have done a sixth and further. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Nice to see a 3RR report where the diffs are easy to read. I endorse the block. Wikibofh(talk) 00:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:167.7.39.205 reported by User:Ideogram (Result:12 hours)

Three revert rule violation on Republic of China (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 167.7.39.205 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [23]
  • 1st revert: [24]
  • 2nd revert: [25]
  • 3rd revert: [26]
  • 4th revert: [27]

Time report made: 23:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

12 hours as first offence Jaranda wat's sup 01:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rudyab reported by User:Isarig (Result: Warning)

Three revert rule violation on Israeli West Bank barrier (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Rudyab (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Time report made: 00:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Repeated changes of previous text to POV claim that the wall is a ghettoization of th epopulation.

  • It is a 3RR infringement; I have warned the user as he only appears to be here a few days. Stifle (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Wing_Nut reported by User:FeloniousMonk (Result:24 hours)

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

Time report made: 00:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

FM, do you happen to know whether he reverted after he was warned, or whether he'd ever been warned before? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The warning was afterwards. No further action. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I see what happened here. Someone has their preferences set differently, so that the first diff above looked like it was 17:49. I'll block for 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:206.191.56.34 reported by User:Geedubber (Result:no action)

Three revert rule violation on Mark_Bourrie (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 206.191.56.34 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Time report made: 02:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Was warned.

Hi Geedubber, do you happen to know whether he reverted after being warned, or whether he had been warned about 3RR at any other time? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
oh yeah.. the timing doesn't work out. I am pretty sure this guy is a sock of Ceraurus though, who is indefinately banned, so I am sure he knows of the 3rr rule. He will most likely revert the page again within 24hrs so we can just wait till then I guess. Geedubber 06:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll semi-protect it and put it on my watchlist. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Slim Geedubber 08:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:TDC reported by User:Cberlet (Result:24 hours)

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

Paragraph reverted:

"Former NLG executive vice president Kit Gage replaced Sami al-Arian as president of the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom (NCPPF) after al-Arian's February 2003 arrest on charges of funding terrorists. Al-Arian has since pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiring to provide services to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad."

Time report made: 03:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: In addition, Revert Probation for [[User:TDC] is for any article. See this:

  • TDC placed on revert parole
  • 5) TDC is hereby limited to 1 content revert per article per day and must discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page for one year. He may be briefly blocked for up to a week for violations. After 5 such blocks the maximum block time increases to a year. [29]

User:TDC is aware of this revert issue and 3RR, and has bragged that he is sliding under the probation through slick editing. See: [30] I disagree. and seek an investigation into the parole violation even if the 3RR is not sanctioned.--Cberlet 03:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, this is not a violation of the 3RR or my Arbcom parole as there are significant and fundamental differences in the article with each edit, and User:Cberlet is using this tactic as leverage in an edit war, but look at the differences yourself and settle this once and for all. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 04:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
You kept adding one key passage, so it clearly is a violation. I've blocked for 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Gbdill reported by User:JimWae 05:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC) (Result: 24 hours)

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

SockPuppets:


Time report made: 05:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User got 24 hour block just yesterday

  • Previous version reverted to [31]

1st edit 2006-JUL-05 18:32

2nd [32]

3rd [33]

4th [34]

5th [35]

6th [36]

7th [37]

8th 2006-JUL06 01:56

9th [38]

10th 2006-JUL-06 02:09


  • 02:41, 2006 July 6 Antandrus (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by 68.197.211.127 (talk) to last version by Xaosflux)
  • 02:41, 2006 July 6 68.197.211.127 (Talk) (→Early life)
  • 02:10, 2006 July 6 Xaosflux (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by 70.249.155.89 (talk) to last version by GHe)
  • 02:09, 2006 July 6 70.249.155.89 (Talk) (→Religious beliefs)
  • 01:59, 2006 July 6 GHe (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 62293371 dated 2006-07-06 01:56:45 by GHe using popups)
  • 01:58, 2006 July 6 Gbdill (Talk | contribs) (→Religious beliefs)
  • 01:56, 2006 July 6 GHe (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 62293116 dated 2006-07-06 01:54:51 by GHe using popups)
  • 01:56, 2006 July 6 Gbdill (Talk | contribs) (→Religious beliefs)
  • 01:54, 2006 July 6 GHe (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 62292850 dated 2006-07-06 01:52:44 by Antandrus using popups)
  • 01:54, 2006 July 6 70.249.155.89 (Talk) (→Religious beliefs)
  • 01:52, 2006 July 6 Antandrus (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by 70.249.155.89 (talk) to last version by GHe)
  • 01:52, 2006 July 6 70.249.155.89 (Talk) (→Religious beliefs)
  • 01:51, 2006 July 6 GHe (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 62275198 dated 2006-07-05 23:32:52 by A Musing using popups)
  • 01:50, 2006 July 6 70.249.155.89 (Talk) (→Religious beliefs)
  • 23:32, 2006 July 5 A Musing (Talk | contribs) (rv - please discuss on talk page before deleting sourced and discussed text)
  • 23:24, 2006 July 5 Gbdill (Talk | contribs) (→Religious beliefs)
  • 19:22, 2006 July 5 ElKevbo (Talk | contribs) (No, really - that's POV-pushing and vandalism to remove well-cited material in favor of your own contrary POV; take it to Talk, please)
  • 18:51, 2006 July 5 207.67.145.219 (Talk) (→Religious beliefs)
  • 18:48, 2006 July 5 ElKevbo (Talk | contribs) (rv: vandalism (see Talk for ongoing discussion))
  • 18:36, 2006 July 5 207.67.145.219 (Talk) (→Religious beliefs)
  • 18:32, 2006 July 5 DragonflySixtyseven (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by 207.67.145.219 (talk) to last version by 65.3.71.94)
  • 18:32, 2006 July 5 207.67.145.219 (Talk) (→Religious beliefs)
24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:O-B-Trice reported by User:Matthew Fenton (contribs) (Result:24h)

Three revert rule violation on Windows Live Messenger (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). O-B-Trice (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Time report made: 10:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User recieved two spam 1 warnings, and one spam 2 warning; user recieved test warnings; user recieved civil notices (after playing with my userpage and putting uncivil things on it twice) user swore; above reverts are only past 24 hours he started adding his links on 3rd of July; out of hand now so he is reported.

2006-07-06 10:44:33 Samuel Blanning (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "O-B-Trice (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (WP:3RR violation on Windows Live Messenger) William M. Connolley 11:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Bignole reported by User:Renesis13 (Result:24h)

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

Time report made: 17:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Insists that everyone agrees with him and that he has consensus, and reverts anyone who changes this section (several different editors).

OK, 24h

[edit] User:Ptmccain reported by User:Mantanmoreland (Result: 1 week)

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

Time report made: 17:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Series of reverts made by this user to other editors' work. Editor has been blocked four times previously for 3RR violations of this article.

Revert #1 is a reversion of edit by editor SlimVirgin, re-inserting paragraph properly removed and reverting other changes made by that editor.

Revert #2 is an identical reversion as the first.

Revert #3 is a reversion of a previous edit that had changed the order of paragraphs.

Revert #4 is identical to the first two reverts.

Revert #5 is a reversion of this edit [39], made several hours before to remove unecessary hagiographic quote. Reversion is inaccurately described by Ptmccain in edit summary "rv. vandalism."

Revert #6 is a reversion of an edit made by myself one hour previously.

In addition to the above, this editor has also vandalized my user page, leaving an inflammatory, anti-Semitic edit summary [40], made a personal attack on Talk:Martin Luther twice requiring deletion [41][42] inaccurately called legitimate edits "vandalism" in edit summaries, as here [43]. I believe a substantial block is merited for this repeat violator.

1,2,3 are rv's. 4,5 are part of the same block (and not obviously rvs) so don't count. 6 is rv. In view of repeated 3RRs on this page, a longer block seems called for: 1 week William M. Connolley 19:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Truthwanted reported by User:CobaltBlueTony (Result:24h)

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

Time report made: 19:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

All together now... Diffs not versions please. And how about naming the article, just like the example asks? William M. Connolley 20:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, this is only my (third?) attempt at this. Might be millionth for you, so please don't bite my head off. - CobaltBlueTony 21:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
(User:Wikibofh/3RR Reports  :) Wikibofh(talk) 21:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, there is a nice template to help you, you're supposed to copy it and fill it in. Anyway. Yes it seems to be a valid report; blocked 24h William M. Connolley 21:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Appleby reported by User:Mythologia (Result: warning)

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

Time report made: 20:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • You have provided oldids, not diffs, making it impossible to see three reverts. Please provide diffs instead. Stifle (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry. I have fixed it.Mythologia 13:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • OK. Appleby was not warned at any stage, so I have warned him now. Stifle (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I thought that Appleby has a well knowledge of 3RR. I will warn him next. Mythologia 08:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple anon edits reported by — Arthur Rubin | (talk) (Result: Sprotected)

Three revert rule violation on Afshar experiment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). (See below for 3RR vandals)

Time report made: 21:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: #0 and 1 have been blocked for vandalism, and #3 has warned for vandalism. The timing suggests they're probably all the same user. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Added 5th revert. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Even if this is one individual, there is no obvious way to solve the problem by blocking an IP. The page may need to be semiprotected. Jkelly 21:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. Semi-protecting now. Stifle (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lancsalot reported by User:Jhamez84 (Result: No violation)

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

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

Time report made: 22:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This user is editing articles against the consensus outlined at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places), and against WP:V. The motivations are part of his affilation with pressure group County Watch, and he is trying to assert a disused system of British land division onto articles.

I warned him not to break WP:3RR (which he swiftly reverted) as I highlighted above, and to also edit within the guidelines. Although in triplets they are timed precisely not to fall within 24 hours, it is six reverts to the exact effect in just 30 hours.

Given this, the warnings and unconsensual edits, it is appropriate for a block - for reflective purposes if nothing else. Jhamez84 22:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As he admits I have not broken 3RR so he should not be posting here. He is wasting admin time in a vindictive campaign against me including numerous unfounded personal attacks such as the one above (I have no affiliation with County Watch). My edits above are all in line with the conventions - his were not and are a deliberate attempt to stir up trouble. Lancsalot 09:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no 3RR violation here, but Lancsalot is severely warned to not game the system. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that. I'm sure I'll be back however! Jhamez84 15:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:AdilBaguirov reported by User:TigranTheGreat (Result: Protected, review needed)

Three revert rule violation on Nagorno-Karabakh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). AdilBaguirov (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Please note that this user has been warned several times on his user page against engaging in revert wars, including here: [44] 21:48, June 10, 2006, by User:KimvdLinde

Time report made: 22:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User:AdilBaguirov keeps reverting others by either restoring a POV introduction or by removing cited population data (while adding unsupported data). He continuously engages in revert wars without discussion, for which he has been warned several times on his User page, and which have resulted at least 2 articles getting locked--TigranTheGreat 22:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that the edit war was started by TigranTheGreat, who made a far from NPOV edit of the compromise intro of the above article without discussing it with other users. Since then the article is in a permanent state of an edit war, while the article was stable for many months before the actions of this user. The info included by Adil is well referenced, but it keeps being reverted by the above user and a couple of his supporters, including anonymous IPs, which might as well be sockpuppets. Overall, the article desperately needs the attention of the wiki community. Grandmaster 09:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
The revert war was started by AdilBaguirov and reinforced by grandmaster to this day as a result of adding completely unreferenced and pov material that was blatant propaganda. In any case, 3RR was violated and the appropriate action should be taken.--Eupator 11:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
All the material added is very well referenced, but despite this it is constantly being removed. Also we need to request checkuser to see if the anons reverting the page have connection with registered users. And it does not appear that 3RR rule was violated by Adil. Grandmaster 11:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Your insinuations are only insinuations, you know that all those who contributed in the article are veterans who would play cheap in using an IP to participate, when this could threaten their entire contribution on the project. But do request checkuse. As for the claim of it being well referenced. Adding the Azerbaijani Coat of arms, the flag is jusitifable? Can you find any precendent? Even Quebec the province of Canada does not have Canada coat of arm or the flag. What you call well sourced has been opposed as being well sourced by everyone besie you and Adil. I don't see how well sourced can it be when the census 1897 entire population of Karabakh is presented as those of Nagorno Karabakh. I don't see how words such as 'created' can be well sourced when such words impute in this cases a position as truth. I don't think it is in the spirit of the community, to edit war to impose what is opposed by everyone else. Fad (ix) 23:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I am not certain that #1 and #4 are reverts. I've protected the page. Stifle (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


I disagree; it is apparent that the source of the edit war was not user:TigranTheGreat, but user:Grandmaster as is visible from the history. He was the user who originally started reverting and changed the editing atmosphere.
User:AdilBaguirov’s edits always follow user:Grandmaster’s in essence, topic, and sequence as is clearly visible in the articles history page as illustrated her [[45]].
The ongoing discussion and dialogue has continually and unfortunately been obstructed by the disappointing, if not repulsive uncalled for behaviour of user:Grandmaster. He agitates other editors and starts conflicts, one may be excused for even thinking he acts as an antagonist vis-à-vis proxy, as can be claimed in this situation. He refuses to acknowledge consensus as an application to certain particulars in the editing of Wikipedia. He rules out sources he does not agree with and justifies this through circular arguments. He continuously makes edits to the article without discussion and agreement by the other editors. The history page for the article is painful to the eye. Nationalist propaganda has to be put aside. In all he is creating a negative environment for discussion and editing by making uncivil comments such as this [[46]] when he does not have his way.
Already a large portion of the article has been modified to meet his unaccompanied individualistic demands. User:TigranTheGreat has tried to resolve all conflicts and tried to compromise, the claims againt him are false and totally untrue. It is Grandmaster who has been the source of the problem and setbacks on the article; user:Grandmaster wants nothing short of total and utter appeasement. I suggest this issue be looked at with further scrutiny, because there is an unhealthy trend of editing and behaviour, by this particular editor.
Thank you 69.196.164.190 17:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
This is now the 4th article that has been locked as a result of Grandmaster's and AdilBaguirov's edit warring (a total of 3 articles remain locked). Muh of Adil's addition, which when reverted Granmasters always reverts back to are nothing short of vandalism (such as the addition of the flag of Republic of Azerbaijan to the NK article).--Eupator 18:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I want to add that the revert wars resume each time Grandmaster and AdilBaguirov decide to revert edits introduced by the moderators on the article, reverting them to a clearly POV version. Please note that User Grandmaster was recently blocked for 24 hours for engaging in a revert war on the article.--TigranTheGreat 21:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I still can't find a 3RR vio, despite TigranTheGreat requesting me to do so on my talk page. If another admin could look into this, it would be much appreciated. Stifle (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe this disrupting trend of editing should be taken to arbitration/committee. The problem will not be solved here; it is an ongoing problem , not just in this article but others. 69.196.164.190


Explanation of Reverts: Since User:Stifle was not sure why #1 and #4 were reverts (while apparently he agreed that #2 and #3 were), I have provided detailed explanation (with versions reverted to, and the segments reverted to). Hopefully this will make it clear that User:AdilBaguirov made 4 reverts in a 24 hour period, which is a violateion of 3RR. Regardless of the protection of the page, 3RR violations are serious, and the rule should be applied universally, so users will abide by it. Please note that partial reverts (i.e. reverting part of the text, while making other edits) is still defined as a revert, and is subject to the 3RR rule.

What was reverted: User restored the following two segments:

| [[Stepanakert]] (Khankendi)''
| '''[[President of Nagorno-Karabakh|Leader of Armenian community]]'''
| '''[[Leader of Azerbaijani community]]'''
| [[Nizami Bakhmanov]]

and

Nagorno-Karabakh is de jure a region of Azerbaijan, but has remained largely de facto independent of Azerbaijan and maintains control over the large part of its territory and other surrounding districts, although not recognized as independent internationally. The regional capital is Khankendi (Stepanakert). It is about 270 kilometres (170 miles) west of the Azerbaijani capital of Baku, and very close to the border with Armenia.


What was reverted: User restored the following paragraph (data unsupported by the source):

|[[1919]]<ref>Richard Hovannisian, The Armeno-Azerbaijani Conflict over Mountainous Karabagh, 1918-1919, The Armenian Review, Vol. 24, 2-94, Summer 1971, p. 5, footnote 4.</ref>
|137,000
|47,000
|N/A


What was reverted: User restored the following paragraph (data unsupported by the source):

|- align="center"
|[[1919]]<ref>Richard Hovannisian, The Armeno-Azerbaijani Conflict over Mountainous Karabagh, 1918-1919, The Armenian Review, Vol. 24, 2-94, Summer 1971, p. 5, footnote 4.</ref>
|137,000
|47,000
|N/A


What was reverted: user restored prior edits, including the following intro paragraph:

Nagorno-Karabakh is de jure a region of Azerbaijan, but has remained largely de facto independent of Azerbaijan and maintains control over the large part of its territory and other surrounding districts, although not recognized as independent internationally. The regional capital is Khankendi (Stepanakert). It is about 270 kilometres (170 miles) west of the Azerbaijani capital of Baku, and very close to the border with Armenia.


Please note that, as I mentioned earlier, this user has been warned several times on his user page against engaging in revert wars, including here: [47] 21:48, June 10, 2006, by User:KimvdLinde. --TigranTheGreat 05:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Three revert rule violation on Petar Pop-Arsov (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Cigor (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Time report made: 22:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The user is aware of the 3RR rule and has been blocked before on two occasions for such violations.   /FunkyFly.talk_  22:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Both of the blocks were made by skillful coordination of FunkyFly and Telex, and today this is also the case. I created the article and FunkyFly started to vandalize. He is not providing any reference to back up his claim. His companion, Telex has no clue about Petar Pop-Arsov, probably never heard of him. In addition, they are consistently deleting the reference I provided at the end of this section Petar_Pop-Arsov#Stambolovism_and_its_Representatives_in_Macedonia. I understand the value of 3RR rule but what FunkyFly and Telex are consistently doing is an abuse, especially considering that they barely use the talk page. --Cigor 23:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
So you admit breaking the 3RR rule? What makes you think you are exempt from it? References have been provided on the talk page, as well as indirectly in other articles.   /FunkyFly.talk_  23:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I was not aware of breaking them, nor was I warned. Reference were not provided, FF stated some book whithout any quote about Pop-Arsov. --Cigor 23:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that, but you were warned on no less than four occasions and blocked twice, the last time for 48 hours. That should have rung some bells.   /FunkyFly.talk_  23:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
The warnings were related to other articles. How can I have four reverts if I modified the original text (by adding reference). Once again, I was not aware of breaking 3RR. But like I previously said, what Telex and FunkyFly are doing is an abuse. --Cigor 23:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'm afraid the reverts are 4, within less than 24 hours, by inserting the claim that the person belongs to the Macedonian ethnic group.   /FunkyFly.talk_  23:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There are the warnings:

  1. [48]
  2. [49]
  3. [50]
  4. [51]

  /FunkyFly.talk_  23:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

So? For the Macedonism I got two blocks. After that and after warnings I stop reverting. Unlike you I don't have allies to abuse Wikipedia. There goes Hectorian, another standard member of the gang to revert. He also probably never heard of Pop Arsov. --Cigor 23:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
And what does this have to do with you breaking 3RR?   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
--Guys, just some impartial advise (I'm not an admin, nor have affilations with either user, or a stake in the article you list) - at this rate you are both going to get blocked! I'd advise you to keep calm now, take a day or so away from the article, and then try to come to a consensus between you on the article's talk page or each others.
I know it's hard, but you can't work this out whilst you're both blocked, and arguing here under the eyes of admin could get you in even more trouble. I hope that helps a little, and points you towards the right path on this issue. Jhamez84 00:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Jhamez, thanks for your advice. This page however is for reporting people breaking 3RR, and only Cigor thus far qualifies for such report.   /FunkyFly.talk_  01:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 24 hours. Stifle (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dollarfifty reported by User:Mythologia (Result: Further Information required)

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

Time report made: 05:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Can't investigate this, please provide diffs and not oldids. Stifle (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry. I have fixed it. Mythologia 13:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Tortfeasor reported by User:junmai

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




Comments:

Comment: Previous version notes reason to edit that "Not significant enough to put into article". However, Tortfeasor reverted to another version without reason.--Junmai 07:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment: First, Junmai has blanked information that is fact, cited, and relevant to the article. Secondly, this user is an obvious sockpuppet. User:Nihonjoe, an administrator, asked for a check user request on this user with User:Forestfarmer being the main name. [53]. One of Junmai's many alter egos, User:Mythologia reverted after I restored the blanked information so that Junmai could avoid the three revert rule.
Comment: I'm not a sockpuppet of anyone. And of course it mean nothing to your 3RR violation. Mythologia 12:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a bit of a mess; there is definitely an edit war there with charges of socks and vandal being thrown around. TF is the only obvious one who has broken 3RR so I've blocked. I don't see any *evidence* for socks William M. Connolley 13:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Worldtraveller reported by User:12.72.71.161 (Result: waring)

Three revert rule violation on Red rain in Kerala (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Worldtraveller (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Time report made: 13:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: A spelling war. —12.72.71.161 13:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. And one on which you're on the wrong side. Shall I block you for pointless violation of policy? Anyway: WT gets a warning William M. Connolley 20:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I can only apologise for getting into a really stupid revert war. I would say, though, that I thought these completely arbitrary spelling changes, being imposed by an anonymous editor whose only edits were to this one article, looked very much like vandalism to me. Worldtraveller 21:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
As noted elsewhere, the article was a mish-mash of spellings before it was made consistently American; no one has made it into Indian-English (which is not British English); and Worldtraveller's argument is just that he began the article using British spellings and so the spelling should be British (something that he made no attempt to effect during the period when the spellings were allowed to become a mix). Articles shouldn't be changed from one otherwise correct spelling convention (in this case American) to another otherwise correct spelling convention (in this case British) — with no substantive changes — based on whim, prejudice, or spite. —12.72.71.1 00:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Bubba_ditto reported by User:Hipocrite - «Talk» (Result: 8h)

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

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


Time report made: 17:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: None. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

8h William M. Connolley 20:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Donnog reported by User:Lysy (Result: 8h each)

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

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

Time report made: 22:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • The user is aware of wikipedia blocking policy as evidenced e.g. by his threat in this edit summary. --Lysytalk 21:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It is possible that the user logged out before being able to read the 3RR warning on his talk page. As a courtesy, I suggest to not block him before his next edit, to give him the opportunity to revert back. --Lysytalk 21:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Lysy and comrades reverted an equal number of times, besides their edits counts as simple vandalism as proved on talk page. In total, Lysy has reverted that article very, very, very many times, and as continously engaged in edits wars there he is obviously not a neutral rapporteur. Donnog 22:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Donnog has been notified of his 3RR violation being reported. --Lysytalk 22:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Donnog has broken 3RR and gets 8h. However, Lysy, while staying within the letter of the 3RR, you've done very little other than participate in a sterile revert war, so I'm blocking you for 8h as well for disruption. Stifle (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Block of Lysy seems surprising here and not deserved. While he could have exersided a better judgement he was obviously not acting in bad faith. That he technically didn't violate 3RR is also notewrothy while by itself 3RR technicality isn't everything, of course. A warning would have had an as much effect on the user with much less disruption, bad blood and less damage to Wikipedia by having a contgributing editor blocked and aggravated. --Irpen 22:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: [56] Sciurinæ 22:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Block of Lysy is astonishing and appears to me to be completely arbitrary.--Pokipsy76 19:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Looks like we might have a serious case of a rogue admin. Pawel z Niepolomic 23:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:71.137.128.152 and User:Pal reported by User:hoopydinkConas tá tú? (Result: IP blocked, user warned)

Three revert rule violation on Boston College (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 71.137.128.152 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [57]
  • 1st revert: [58]
  • 2nd revert: [59]
  • 3rd revert: [60]
  • 4th revert: [61]
  • 5th revert: [62]
  • 6th revert: [63]
  • 7th revert: [64]

Time report made: 22:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

More reports added: 18:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Both User:Pal and User:71.137.128.152 have been engaged in an edit war since 5 July over a rankings issue involving the status of Boston College.
As for my part in this, I didn't even realize I had technically violated the rule. I was caught up in the frustration of attempting to contact the other user in an attempt to resolve the dispute, only to see the same edit over and over without comment. For that I apologize.
As for the case above, I have added three more edits by another anonymous account (User:68.7.56.229). I was suspicious that this user and the one reported above were the same person since the user contributions made by both accounts [65][66] consist almost entirely of placing the disputed info into the article in question. This suspicion was confirmed on the article's talk page. After first making corrections to User:71.137.128.152's comment, User:68.7.56.229 then responds to another user's comment by demonstrating that he is the same person that posts under the User:71.137.128.152 account.
This seems to be a case of using multiple accounts to subvert the 3RR. - Pal 18:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I've blocked the 71.137... IP for 3 hours; 68.7... hasn't broken 3RR (yet). Pal gets a warning, at least he/she was attempting to discuss things. Stifle (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lowg reported by User:Dado (Result:)

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


Time report made: 23:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This is getting out hand, hopefully a neutral 3rd party can help with this article now that it has been brought to your attention. Please see the discussion about these reverts as Dado's rational for these edits seem to all be politically motivated. --Lowg 01:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I believe this page is used to report 3RR offenders and not attacking the messangers --Dado 05:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I believe this comments section is for comments regarding the basis of the report is it not? I don't know why you consider it an "attack" when I'm asking for 3rd party neutral perspective on this issue?--Lowg 18:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:152.163.100.8 reported by User:Lbbzman (Result: sprotect article)

Three revert rule violation on Texas Tech University (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 152.163.100.8 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


Time report made: 01:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: AOL user refuses to discuss changes on talk page as urged. Most recent edit summary was, "round two, fight!!!" Lbbzman 01:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

  • No real point in blocking AOL users. Sprotected article. Wikibofh(talk) 02:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Smitty Mcgee reported by User:Humus sapiens (Result:24 hours)

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

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

Time report made: 03:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Initially, he inserted the tag [71]. See also talk. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

He keeps reverting, even using a sock, so 24 hours Jaranda wat's sup 19:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Spicynugget reported by User:Jeff3000 (Result:24 hours)

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

Time report made: 03:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: SpicyNugget has consistently added these links to the Prayer page, even though all other editors agree that it is linkspam, and does not add to the article. -- Jeff3000 03:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

He's already been blocked for his incessant linkspamming. -- Jeff3000 03:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • 03:17, 8 July 2006 Naconkantari (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Spicynugget (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (linkspam) Jaranda wat's sup 19:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Grandmaster reported by User:TigranTheGreat

Three revert rule violation on Nagorno-Karabakh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Grandmaster (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous versions reverted to, if applicable: Prior versions are given individually in the description of each revert.
  • Comment: Please note that this user is fully aware of the 3RR rule, and has been blocked 3 times already for violating it--last time for 24 hours (which was for violating 3RR on the same Nagorno-Karabakh article). Also, when User:Stifle protected the article earlier, User:Grandmaster's 4th revert just prior to the protection remained unnoticed. The 3RR rule should still be applied in this case, as the user clearly violated it.

Time report made: 07:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


Explanation of Reverts: Below is detailed and clear explanation of each revert (with versions reverted to, and the segments reverted to). Please note that partial reverts (i.e. reverting part of the text, while making other edits) is still defined as a revert, and is subject to the 3RR rule.

What was reverted: User restored the following paragraphs:

The [[Soviet Union]] created the '''Nagorno-Karabakh [[Autonomous oblasts of the Soviet Union|Autonomous Oblast]]''' ('''NKAO''') in the predominantly [[Armenian people|Armenian]] region in the [[Azerbaijan SSR]] in [[1923]]. On [[December 10]] [[1991]], as the [[collapse of the Soviet Union|Soviet Union was collapsing]], a referendum held in the NKAO and the neighboring district of [[Shahumian]] resulted in a [[declaration of independence]] from Azerbaijan as the '''Nagorno-Karabakh Republic''' ('''NKR'''), which [[List of unrecognized countries|remains unrecognized]] by any [[international organization]] or [[country]], including Armenia.

and

After that, the Russian Empire began a massive relocation of the Armenian population into Karabakh and other regions of Transcaucasia to achieve the Christian support in that region.<ref>[http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-44252 Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Armenia: The people.]</ref> <ref>[http://feb-web.ru/feb/griboed/texts/piks3/3_4_v3.htm A.S. Griboyedov. Report on the settlement of Armenians from Persia in our provinces (in Russian)]</ref>


What was reverted: user restored prior edits, including the following intro paragraph:

Nagorno-Karabakh is de jure a region of Azerbaijan, but has remained largely de facto independent of Azerbaijan and maintains control over the large part of its territory and other surrounding districts, although not recognized as independent internationally. The regional capital is Khankendi (Stepanakert). It is about 270 kilometres (170 miles) west of the Azerbaijani capital of Baku, and very close to the border with Armenia.


What was reverted: User restored prior edits, including the following two segments (the first adds Azeribaijani flag/coat of arms/anthem):

|-
| align=center width=148 | {{border|[[Image:Flag of Azerbaijan.svg|125px]]}}
| align=center width=148 | [[Image:Azerbaijan_coa.png|125px]]
|-
| align=center width=148 | ''[[Flag of Azerbaijan's Nagorno-Karabakh region|Flag]]''
| align=center width=148 | ''[[Coat of Arms of Azerbaijan's Nagorno-Karabakh region|Coat of Arms]]''
|-
| align=center colspan=2 | [[national anthem|Anthem]]: ''[[Azərbaycan Respublikasının Dövlət Himni]]''<br>March of Azerbaijan

and

Nagorno-Karabakh is de jure a region of Azerbaijan, but has remained largely de facto independent of Azerbaijan and maintains control over the large part of its territory and other surrounding districts, although not recognized as independent internationally. The regional capital is Khankendi (Stepanakert). It is about 270 kilometres (170 miles) west of the Azerbaijani capital of Baku, and very close to the border with Armenia.


What was reverted: user restored prior edits, including the following intro paragraph:

Nagorno-Karabakh is de jure a region of Azerbaijan, but has remained largely de facto independent of Azerbaijan and maintains control over the large part of its territory and other surrounding districts, although not recognized as independent internationally. The regional capital is Khankendi (Stepanakert). It is about 270 kilometres (170 miles) west of the Azerbaijani capital of Baku, and very close to the border with Armenia.

--TigranTheGreat 07:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:64.12.116.134 reported by User:Sarah Ewart (Talk) (Result:No block)

Three revert rule violation on Same-sex marriage (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 64.12.116.134 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Time report made: 07:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

AOL, happened about 12 hours ago, no block Jaranda wat's sup 19:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Nkcs reported by Astrotrain 10:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC) (Result: 3h)

Three revert rule violation on Flag of the Falkland Islands (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Nkcs (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

  • Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [72]
  • 1st revert: [73]
  • 2nd revert: [74]
  • 3rd revert: [75]
  • 4th revert: [76]


Time report made: 10:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • 4 reverts in less than an hour, leaves deflamatroy remarks in the edit summary. Astrotrain 10:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, 3h first offence William M. Connolley 19:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:FeloniousMonk reported by User:Deuteronomy2000 (Result: No block. Invalid report)

Three revert rule violation on Fox News Channel controversies and allegations of bias (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • 1st revert: 05:07, 7 July 2006 reversion of "fact" tag added in previous edit by another user
  • 2nd revert: 17:18, 7 July 2006 "(rv The talk page of another wiki, sourcewatch, is not a reliable source. Read WP:RS and WP:V)"
  • 3rd revert: 21:37, 7 July 2006 "(rv James Taranto is a partisan commentator, advocating the conservative viewpoint. Read his article)"
  • 4th revert: 22:55, 7 July 2006 "returning Taranto, and noting that he's a conservative columnist"

Comment: Was warned and refused to self-revert[77]

Time report made: 08:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Report made by sockpuppet. The Deuteronomy2000 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) account was created specially to make this report. AnnH ♫ 08:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Not a party to dispute but this seems like a valid 3RR violation, which was removed by Musical Linguist, after her non-relevant commment about puppetry, above.Giovanni33 11:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't look at it properly last time, because I found creating a puppet specially to make a report a rather low kind of behaviour. (Maybe that's just the British influences on my upbringing — "not playing the game", "not cricket, etc."

However, since Giovanni33 insists on restoring it, I have looked in detail. I went through the history of the page, and saw no evidence that the fourth "revert" was a revert. I could not find a previous edit that was removing what FeloniousMonk inserted. I went back as far as June. How far is an administrator expected to go back, for probably-bogus reports that ignore the please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert instruction?

I note also that in the evidence of FM's refusal to self revert, he is accused of removing material in that so-called "fourth revert". But the diff shows that he added something.

By the way, just to anticipate what Giovanni33 is likely to say, I have never, to the best of my knowledge, edited on the same article as FeloniousMonk, and looking at the dispute in question, I think it's quite likely that I'd be on the "other side."

No block. AnnH ♫ 12:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Likely to say? I am not familiar with this incident and have no opinion about its validity, except to say that it looked like a valid report so it should not be removed, simply because someone decided to create a puppet to be anonymous in reporting it. I don't think that is wrong, as it protects the user from possible retaliation (I would know about that!). Puppets are legal provided they are not used for abuse. If there is a legitimate reason to create a puppet, such as for this purpose, then I think its fine. Anyway, thanks for looking into the specifics here.Giovanni33 12:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • This is clearly a simple case of Giovanni33 taking revenge against me for reinstating his 4 day block for chronic disruption. Not only was his reinstating a bogus 3RR report against me initially filed by Deuteronomy2000 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) an act of revenge, but Giovanni33 has a long history of sockpuppetry and Deuteronomy2000 is an obvious sockpuppet created just for the occasion, making the initial bogus report an instance of using a sockpuppet to disrupt the project. This all something I had warned him about yesterday when I let his unblocking go unchallenged: [78] I'm inclined to not only restore the initial block but to extend it for his additional disruption. Since Rebecca has been so insistent that he be given a yet another chance, which he's now squandered on lashing out at me and fanning the flames [79], I've asked Rebecca to be the one to reinstate the remaining two days of his original block. Otherwise, I'll reblock, but for an extended period. This editor is apparently irredeemable, his actions upon return have only been to cause further disruption with false reports, sockpuppetry, and trying to expand the conflict to include other editors. FeloniousMonk 14:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Giovanni33 is a troublesome user who seems to thrive on conflict for its own sake. When I stopped editing for a few days in June, he took to posting taunts on my talk page, saying I hadn't left, I'd be back, I was being emotionally manipulative etc, posting 11 times and reverting when I or anyone else removed the posts. Yet I'd had no prior dealings with him whatsoever. He just seemed absolutely delighted to have the opportunity to make someone unhappy. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • This is yet another false accusation without a single shred of evidence being offered. Zilch. Yet according to FeloniousMonk who wants to block me and had his block overturned, its 'obvious." Really? Then pretell, provide the evidence. I ask the the evidence be provided to support the charge that Deuteronomy2000 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is in ANYWAY connected to me. If you violated the 3RR rule, I'd proudly report you. Why the need for a puppet to do so? FeloniousMonk is grasping at straws to fuel his obvious desire to block me again, having his unjust block reversed by a good admin and former member of the ArbCom. He is also repeating other false accusations that lack any merit. Not having any good reason to block me he is inventing this as a reason. Let this serve as an examination of bad admin conduct. His bad faith accusations and hyperbole is conduct unbecoming for an admin. For the record, I don't believe in revenge so please refrain from projecting your own methods on to others. That goes for distrupting, which you are enganging in with these bogus accusations.
  • As for "toublesome" yes, I speak my mind and that is the real issue here. Some editors react very defensively and emotionally instead of being guided by logic and reason. What Slim says above is not true either. We had reverting conflicts on one of her favorite articles, New Anti-Semitism. After some edit conflicts with her I walked away instead of pursuing it, which is something I do on occasion for the sake of peace. I have no real problem with SV except her for her stunt to pretend to leave to influence the outcome of a dispute. I, along with others, added our views on the subject. I was not motivated by any malice whatsoever. She took offence and suppressed my comments, while leaving others there who said the same thing I did. Later I was educated as to the fact that a user page is allowed to censor others comments. So, I respected her decision. Obviously, she is still mad with me over my speaking my mind. Giovanni33 15:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
A few things. First, no matter how 'bogus' a 3RR report may be, removing it will always look bad. If it is really that obviously incorrect then you should be able to make that clear with just a few sentences of comment. Second, regardless of whether there was a 3RR here there was clearly edit warring, incivility, and apparently blocks issued by admins involved in the dispute... all bad things. Third... it actually was a 3RR violation under current policy. If you read the 3RR page you will find that 'revert' is there defined as any removal OR re-addition of material - and need not be the same material each time. In the third edit Felonious removed a link to an article and a quotation that some poll was "pure propaganda" by a guy named Taranto... in the fourth edit Felonious re-added that link and quotation. Which makes those both reverts. Nor does this qualify for the 'self revert' exception (which 'doesn't count' against the 3RR total) because he did not restore the full text he removed in the third edit. Just part of it. Ergo, this was a 3RR violation. I've seen regular users blocked on less clear cases several times. --CBD 16:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, the removal was perhaps based on a cultural dislike of someone stooping to create an account specially to file a 3RR report. It could be the British influences on my upbringing that made me feel it "wasn't cricket"; it wasn't "playing the game", etc! The report was made the next day, too — something that is never looked on very kindly. On a more serious note, I completely disagree with your interpretation, which seems to be that if you revert yourself as a straight revert, that's allowed, but if you remove something, and then readd it yourself in a modified form, if counts as two reverts. That's definitely not the case, and I've never seen that argument before. And I am very familiar with the 3RR policy page, and have, in fact, contributed to it.
For the record, I'd like to say that I don't see any reason to suppose that Deuteronomy2000 is a Giovanni puppet. But the account is definitely a puppet account. AnnH ♫ 17:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
[ec]So you (CDB) are saying that undoing a change you made counts as a revert? That's a rather strange argument. The 3RR exists to control edit warring. If you revert someone else's edit, you increase the likelihood that they will revert. If you (after discussion, careful reflection, a few deep breaths) decide that part of the changed text should stay, you are actually reducing the likelihood that the other editor will revert. So it certainly isn't within the spirit of the 3RR. Guettarda 17:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
You can't just make a statement like "blocks issued by admins involved in the dispute" without offering up some evidence. Be specific. Who blocked who and when? --Cyde↔Weys 18:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
No Guettarda, that's not what I'm saying... because that's not what happened here. Felonious did not 'undo a change he made'. That's called a self-revert and specifically excluded from 3RR... but it isn't what he did. Another user had added the info about 'Taranto' as 'supportive evidence' and Felonious removed it. That's clearly a revert (the third above). After a few more people made edits Felonious then re-added some of the same info, but rewrote it to describe Taranto as a conservative whose opinion should be discounted as partisan. That's clearly not 'undoing' his own action. As to the blocks, Cyde... FeloniousMonk blocked Giovanni. He was clearly involved in a dispute with Giovanni at the time. Indeed, Felonious cited this 3RR report as a reason to block Giovanni... when in fact it is a reason that >he< should not be the one doing so. --CBD 18:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
A sockpuppet, possibly operated by a user who has been nothing but trouble, arrives with a dodgy 3RR report, and yet a bunch of good admins are arguing about it, and others turn up to try to change the blocking policy. Come on, folks. Giovanni33 and his army of sockpuppets have been unpleasantness personified. Whether this is one of them or not (and it looks as though it may be), it's clearly someone out to cause trouble, so let's not facilitate it. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Please review WP:Civility and WP:AGF. Thanks!Giovanni33 18:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that we should not argue and/or facilitate trouble and Giovanni may very well be as bad as advertised... but I'm still gonna say that there is a way to handle things and a way not to handle things. Edit warring, whether to four reverts or three and 'one not counted because it is almost sort of a self revert... but not really', is one of the ways not to handle things. As are blocks of people you are in dispute with. As is hostility towards people who try to point these things out. Tempers flare... lines are crossed... it happens. Pointing out that it has happened shouldn't be a bad thing, but a reminder to step back behind the line. --CBD 18:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I just want to say two things: I disagree completely with the idea that if you revert someone (or some people) three times, and then restore some, but not all, of what you reverted, the last edit counts as a fourth revert because it the fact that it was a partial revert means it doesn't count as a self-revert. I find that quite bizarre. I've never seen anyone blocked for that. And I'm quite sure that any such block would be quickly overturned. However, if this needs to be discussed further, we should take it to WP:3RR. However, my other point is more important. It has been claimed that FeloniousMonk blocked Giovanni33 when he was involved in a dispute. I think we have to be sensible about what being involved in a dispute means. I don't know what articles Felonious edits, but I never encounter him, and I encounter Giovanni a lot, so there obviously wasn't a content dispute. Giovanni was already blocked. He evaded the block by logging off and posting anonymously. Will Beback reset the block, and Rebecca unblocked. Felonious reinstated the block, and Rebecca unblocked again. Felonious reblocked, after discussing it with Rebecca, and after she had indicated that she didn't object, as he had continued to be disruptive.
There are cases when an admin obviously shouldn't be the one to carry out the block. I should never block Giovanni33, or Alienus, for example, as I'm in content dispute with them. But when an uninvolved admin resests a block for a disruptive user who has been evading his block, and that user, while temporarily unblocked, continues to be disruptive (to the blocking admin as well as to others), that admin is not "involved" they way he would be if he were reverting the user's edits on an article page. It's like saying that a judge would have to reecuse himslef from a particular case if the prisoner said something rude to him in the middle of the trial. AnnH ♫ 02:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Giovanni33 reported by User:Tom Harrison Talk (Result: No violation)

Three revert rule violation on User:NPOV77 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Time report made: 12:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

These are all user pages, and the fourth reverts are nearly 25 hours after the first, so I list this partly as a test case to see if 3RR applies here. Tom Harrison Talk 12:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


  • 3RR does not count, in this case, even though there is no 3RR violation here. This is because its malicious, defamation of character. Instead, I've asked for a warning to be issued Timothy to stop placing socketpuppet labels on numberous user pages. You will see on his talk page that he has been warned about a related vanalism to "Giovanni's 33" talk pages. In some cases, Timothy is edit warring with those users themselves, who are reverting the changes he is making to their user pages. It's very uncivil and becoming increasingly disruptive. Tom Harrison here has a long history of content dispute with me on the Christianity article so his "test" case is a test of other things as well.
  • I've asking for an admin intervention in this case because I think it's silly for me and others to keep reverting him too when he not only persists but each time expands the list to include yet new users. I note he has even decided to publicize my persional home IP address as well: User:64.121.40.153 with the label. I've never denied this is my IP address, and it only occurs when I get unintentionally logged off. Still, I prefer to keep my IP address private. Needless to say this is not a "puppet" and he knows this but does it just to harass. In this, is it not also a violation of privacy? I've removed all of Timothy's additions. I would like an admin intervention to tell him to stop this distruptive, wiki-stalking behavior. He might listen if he is given an official warning from an admin. I've already taking him to informal mediation over this issue in IRC with no luck, despite agreement from the mediator that he stop. I claim this is malicious because Timothy is aware of these users not being my socketpuppets given he was edit warring with one of them on their talk pages about this issue at the same time he was chatting with me in IRC with the mediator at a time I was not able to edit. The mediator made a note on my talk page to this effect. That Timothy continues is harassment. Tom Harrisons report here is a case of blaming the victim. Giovanni33 13:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
We don't do test cases.Geni 13:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Times weren't in UTC. Ignoring the sockpuppet allegation, it's just over 24 hours for the 4 reverts. The rest of the complaint isn't appropriate for here. I'd recommend this needs to go to WP:RfC Wikibofh(talk) 19:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If we are to take the sock stuff seriously, there needs to be some evidence, which I don't see William M. Connolley 19:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Review the contribution histories of these usernames; it's clear as day.Timothy Usher 20:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm the admin that blocked Gio for the last 3RR and extended it for sockpuppeting. I was tempted to block him since this looked like gaming the system, but I don't think that it would do much good. Instead, I recommend WP:RfC, otherwise, what are you trying to accomplish? I'll block him for a week, and we'll follow the same cycle that started a week a half ago, instead, direct your efforts towards resolution. Wikibofh(talk) 20:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I do not know of any IP evidence linking MikaM to Giovanni. Musical Linguist has collected a lot of evidence at User:Musical Linguist/Easter. That and my own familiarity with Giovanni33's editing convinces me that MikaM is not independent of Giovanni33. Among other socks, MikaM has shown up to support Giovanni33 when he 'ran out' of reverts. MikaM and Giovanni33 have similar writing styles and some idiosyncrasies in common. Devote no more time than you think is reasonable to reviewing the editing patterns and Musical Linguist's evidence. If you don't find it convincing, then let it go. Pursuing Giovanni33 and his socks is a tedious and unrewarding business. Tom Harrison Talk 20:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • For the record, the 3RR has not been broken. Any discussion of non-3RR misbehaviour can be please taken up on WP:ANI. Stifle (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:85.187.163.40 reported by User:Todor→Bozhinov (Result:No block)

Three revert rule violation on Blagoevgrad Province (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). User:85.187.163.40 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [80]
  • 1st revert: 15:01
  • 2nd revert: 15:04
  • 3rd revert: 15:42
  • 4th revert: 17:41

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


Time report made: 15:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • The dispute has been resolved and it's unlikely the user would revert again. I don't think it's anymore necessary to block him. Todor→Bozhinov 17:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I orginally blocked for 12 hours, but I saw your comment. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 18:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Instantnood reported by User:Vsion (Result:48h)

Three revert rule violation by Instantnood (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) on three related articles (two are supposed to be redirects)


Time report made: 18:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • In a related content dispute concerning the term "city", Instantnood was banned from editing in Singapore, (see Talk:Singapore). --Vsion 18:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The page ban was not related to the City of Singapore and the City Council articles. Please kindly check the diff links and see if they were true reverts and were over the same thing (e.g. the so-called 10th revert). (Note also the time stamps are not in UTC.) — Instantnood 18:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed to UTC. --Vsion 19:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The page ban was not related to the City of Singapore and the City Council articles. The chief reason for Instantnood's ban from the Singapore article was over his views on the city status of Singapore and the existance of its capital city [82]. After facing universal opposition from the wikipedian community, he unilaterally attempted to create a seperate article called Singapore City to support his assertion that the gazetted city of Singapore during the colonial era is distinct from the present city, hence his believe that no city exists in Singapore contemporarily [83] [84]. When this move was again resisted by other wikipedians, he initiated other articles such as City Council (Singapore), Singapore City (historical entity), City Council of the City of Singapore, Mayor of Singapore, Singapore City Council election, 1957 and Singapore City Council by-election, 1958, amongst other articles to stamp his viewpoint, and resulting in the wikiwar spreading to all of them. I therefore doubt his assertion that these reverts were not essentially "over the same thing".--Huaiwei 13:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Merits 48h for the 3RR I think, and probably violating probation too but I'll leave that for someone else William M. Connolley 19:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Please indicate (by providing diff links) which four edits constituted the violation. Thanks. — Instantnood 22:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • That would, hmmm, the 4th one, perhaps. See above, numbered for your convenience. --Calton | Talk 00:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Only three were founded. Which four constituted the violation? — Instantnood 20:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word. Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting. --Stephan Schulz 18:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Welsh4ever76 reported by User: deeceevoice (Result:3h each)

Three revert rule violation on Thomas Jefferson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Welsh4ever76 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log): Deeceevoice (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)


Comments:

  • Constant edit warring on a variety of points with false edit summaries and mostly generally nonresponsive comments on the discussion page with regard to this particular issue and other matters. "Thomas Jefferson lived longer in years and had a much better life than Sally Hemings and her two sons. He was much loved then and is today. Does this make you angry? Don't let it bother you too much. Having such anger is not good for your health." User:Welsh4ever76 07:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • At first, I thought this editor's problem with me was a personal one, but the last change User:Welsh4ever76 reverted was not an edit by me, but of another, User:Dpbsmith, who had reverted the text back to the last version by me with the edit note: "Reinserting material all of which is properly sourced, the reader is able to evaluate it for him- or herself." User:Welsh4ever76's response: "This is incorrect information or has been stated elsewhere" -- a patently false statement. The material appears nowhere else in the article and is footnoted.

Time report made: deeceevoice 19:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like 3RR... but so have you. Sigh. 3h each William M. Connolley 19:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

  • deeceevoice is continuing to try and edit and is creating loads of AOL colateral damage, could someone please get on the autoblock log and try and fix some of it--152.163.101.12 22:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Appleby reported by User:[[User:Mythologia]] (Result: Didn't I just handle this?)

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

Time report made: 19:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

I have added required information .Mythologia

  • I handled this in its original post. Stifle (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dollarfifty reported by User:[[User:Mythologia]] (Result: Further information needed)

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

Time report made: 19:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

I have added required information .Mythologia

  • These diffs are useless. You need to be choosing two radio buttons next to each other, so that we can see that there is a revert. Stifle (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    • What are you talking about? These diffs are perfect, they show straight reversions and required the use of the radio button. My problem is that it's a report from 2 days ago, and 3rr isn't designed to be puntitive. Wikibofh(talk) 00:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I will do with neatness when I report next. Mythologia 08:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:KOCOBO reported by User:Dado (Result: 8h)

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


Time report made: 20:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • In last 5 days 2 other users have also violated 3RR on this article so urgent attention would be appriciated.--Dado 20:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I have not reverted to the same version, I have tried to find a solution to the dispute, it is Dado who constantly kept reverting. --KOCOBO 20:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Additionally, he keps removing a map of Republika Srpska which is absolutely valid. Why? I have no idea. --KOCOBO 20:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
      • That is a content dispute that was discussed with involved parties on the dicussion page. This noticeboard is for 3RR violations. Also this user is aware of the 3RR which he also violated yesterday and he has aknowledged that he read the policy [87] --Dado 20:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, I am 100% aware of the rules, but I'm not sure that you are. I didn't revert to the same version, I kept changing every edit in hoping to find a compromise. Yet, you didn't like a single edit, thats your opinion, but it's not against the rules. --KOCOBO 21:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
          • The extent of your editing is to force a disputed and problematic Image:Rs lokacija.PNG map. Again that is a content dispute and admin can see the complete discussion that was taking place at Talk:Republika Srpska a discussion that was yielding results before you sabotaged it by violating 3RR. --Dado 21:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

8h first offence William M. Connolley 21:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:CAYA reported by User:ChrisB (Result: 24h)

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

Time report made: 02:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Not only 3RR, but also reverting against consensus after extensive discussion. User:CAYA insists that a hard copy of a magazine cannot serve as a verifiable source since he cannot see it for himself. Several editors have tried to explain to him that "see it for yourself" is not the threshold for verifiability, but he has refused to acknowledge them, choosing instead to simply remove the content. -- ChrisB 02:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


24h

[edit] User:168.253.23.214 reported by User:Ideogram (Result: 8h)

Three revert rule violation on People's Republic of China (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 168.253.23.214 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

  • [92] (first comment on page)

8h first offence William M. Connolley 10:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Giovanni33 reported by User:Timothy Usher (Result: 24 hours)

Three revert rule violation on User:Deuteronomy2000 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to, if applicable: No page existed prior to addition of sockpuppet template.

Time report made: 08:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Giovanni33 is well aware of 3RR, having been blocked for it on several occasions. One might allow an exception for one’s own userpages...but then that would be an admission of the puppetry which underlies this content dispute; see this.Timothy Usher 08:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Al-Andalus and User:Yukirat reported by User:Zetawoof (Result: 24h each)

Two three five-revert rule violations on White (people) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Al-Andalus (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

And Yukirat (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Time report made: 09:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Yikes. There's actually more reverting going on right now, but I can't be bothered to post more diffs. Yukirat clearly knows about 3RR, as s/he specifically mentioned it in an edit summary, and warned Al-Andalus on talk page. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh wonderful... 24h —The preceding unsigned comment was added by William M. Connolley (talk • contribs) .

[edit] User:Albertomu reported by User:User:Rick James Style (Result: Further information needed)

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

Comments: Four reverts in 24 hours. Continual history of reverts by Albertomu on this page and elsewhere, possibly also using IP address 82.194.62.22 which has frequently been warned and blocked by admin for repeated vandalism and destruction of content.

Time report made: Rick James Style 11:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Rick, your links don't show the diffs. We need to see the diffs that show the actual reverts. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Free iran reported by User:UlTiMuS - ( T | C ) (Result:Warning)

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

Time report made: 11:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Used anon IP as well, but comparing the edits, it doesn't take a genius to see that it's just sockpuppetry.

Ultimus, I can't see any indication that he was warned about 3RR, so I'm going to leave a warning for him. I agree that he's being disruptive, so I'll have no hesitation in blocking him if it happens again. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Gwernol reported by 70.225.184.6 (Result: Invalid report)

70.225.184.615:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC) did 3 edits on nice guy syndrome should not be excepted because is admin.

You'll have to format this properly if you want someone to look at it. Please see the example below. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Attasarana reported by User:Nat Krause(Talk!) (Result: only three reverts)

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

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

Again, not clear that rv#1 is one; version reverted to doesn't look right (refuge; etc) William M. Connolley 18:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The portions that were reverted in the first difference I listed above are the paragraphs beginning, "Presecular Buddhism – This term properly refers only to the Nikayas", "Currently, most forms of Buddhism engage in ritualistic and superficial idolatry", and "Earliest records show that no 'transmissions' ever occurred on the basis of master/pupil confirmation". The one beginning "The only refuge in Buddhism, according to Gotama in the oldest existing Nikayan texts" is apparently new.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 02:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Time report made: 17:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User:Attasarana usually edits as one of a variety of IP addresses beginning with 4. I have warned this user on his user talk page and that of the relevant IP's about 3RR violations on four separate occasions in the past.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 17:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Macarion reported by User:--MPerel ( talk | contrib) (Result: 24h)

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

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


Time report made: 17:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Macarion appears to be a relatively new user, was warned but ignored warning. I suspect s/he may also be the user behind anon ip User:75.3.49.50 who created the category being reverted, though there hasn't necessarily been a sockpuppet violation, just this 3RR. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 17:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Not at all clear that rv#1 is a revert - seems to be a original edit William M. Connolley 18:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually the original edit is here by anon 75.3.49.50 at 03:07 (I'm fairly certain is the ip of Marcarion), which in that case would make this a possible sockpuppet violation as well. That would make the original ip edit plus 4 reverts under Macarion. oh...and he just made a 5th revert and now a 6th anyway I've added above. S/he's been reverted by five different editors and persists. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, 24h William M. Connolley 19:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Xombie reported by User:Mailer Diablo (Result: 8h)

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

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


Time report made: 21:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • And the admin may like to look through my contribs, and remove the 3RR notice on my talkpage. Take your pick on the reversions. - Mailer Diablo 21:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

8h first offence William M. Connolley 21:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Batman2005 reported by User:Metros232 (Result: No action)

Three revert rule violation on Ronaldo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Batman2005 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Also of note, there was a revert by user at 18:12, 9 July, 2006 about four hours outside the 24 hour window.

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


Time report made: 22:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Several other users are close to 3RR on this article but Batman2005 appears to be the first to go over the 3RR rule and the user was blocked on 3 July 2006 for 12 hours for 3RR violations. Metros232 22:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't reverting the same information, you'll notice I was inserting the Prinz bit, then when talk page discussion about that was ignored, I removed a completely different piece about Zidane. Batman2005 22:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Please read WP:3RR where the guidelines state (in bold font): "Note: There is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count." Metros232 22:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
That's ridiculous, I removed a different piece of information, I was not doing so out of spite, you'll notice it was reinserted while the user ignored the talk page discussion. If you want to ban me then fine, whatever, you're just pushing me further and further away from wanting to edit here and put up with the constant biting and bickering. I made one edit, removed some information, you'll notice that I didn't readd the information after Metros gave me notice on my talk page, I revisited talk page discussion. Which was ignored by the other user who reinsterted the information himself because "he doesn't care about women's football." Like I said, block me if you want, i just don't care anymore, if i'm blocked i'll likely quit editing here because i'm sick of this bullshit. Batman2005 23:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
And though you're saying it's not that you were reverting the same information, it was part of the same dispute. The Zidane mention reverts were only part of the issue because you did it to prove a point. "Well if my mention can't stay then no one else's mention can stay." That kind of thing. So even though this isn't an issue, your reverts are all related to the main thing.
And I added a comment to what is currently listed as the 4th revert. Metros232 23:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


Fine, then block me, i just don't care anymore, i'm sick of wikipedia and i'm done editing here if that's the case. i didn't remove to prove a point I removed because the other user was blatantly ignoring the talk page discussion and inputing only what he "cared" about, as seen in his edit summaries. You'll also notice that the discussion has been there since June 5th, yet he kept removing it saying that nobody cared, without ever coming to the talk page to discuss it. But yeah, I deserve to be blocked....riiiiight. Whatever, like I said, block me or whatever you want to do, if that's what it is i'm done editing here. Batman2005 23:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me also point out that while this was being posted here, we were in fact working it out amicably and civily on the talk page of the Ronaldo article. This wasn't an "edit" war or "point proving" it was simply an ongoing discussion with some unfortunate changes made before discussion had gotten underway. When the other party was made aware of the discussion, he joined in and we worked to a consensus, good thing I wasn't foolishly blocked before that happened. Batman2005 00:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Seeing as you're all discussing and being nice, and that 3RR isn't for punishment, I'm going to leave this one go. Let's hope the niceness continues, eh? Stifle (talk) 09:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:129.252.106.200 reported by User:Ideogram (Result:12 hours)

Three revert rule violation on Taiwan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 129.252.106.200 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


Time report made: 00:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

12 hours Jaranda wat's sup 04:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:68.145.236.153 reported by User:Ardenn (Result: 3h)

Three revert rule violation on Saskatchewan Party (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 68.145.236.153 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


Time report made: 03:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • POV pushing. Ardenn 03:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You should be punished for doing the exact same thing and continuing to vandalize the same page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.145.236.153 (talk • contribs).
  • Blocking IPs is rarely effective, but 3h all the same. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jaranda reported by 64.12.117.12 (Result: no violation)

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

  • 1st revert [119]
  • 2nd revert: [120]
  • 3nd revert: [121]
  • 4th revert: [122] Notice he adds the same info that was reverted in the first
  • 5th revert: [123]

Time report made: 03:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Admin who does WP:3RR blocks, should know about policy 64.12.117.12 03:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

First revert was about 26 hours ago, and fifth revert was vandalism. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 04:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR doesn't apply when vandalism is being reverted. Unjustified notice, I'm afraid. --Pilotguy (roger that) 04:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  • No violation, but very close to one. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:WHS reported by User:UCRGrad (Result: only 3 reverts)

Three revert rule violation on University of California Riverside (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). WHS (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


Time report made: 05:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This user has made repeated attempts to add a misleading and inappropriate statement to the article, and has failed to address reasons from two editors as to why this detracts from the article's accuracy. Instead, he has just resorted to incessant reverts, only providing trivial reasons in TALK. WHS is not a new editor, and is aware of, or is expected to be aware of, the 3RR. Thanks.

The second "revert" wasn't actually a revert. I kept the information added by TFNorman. Furthermore, if you'll notice, in reverts two, three, and four, I added information on top of what was there instead of replacing it as in the first one in an attempt to reach comrpomise with UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower. That version has only been reverted to by myself twice, "revert" two being the version reverted to. --WHS 06:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, reverts 2, 3, and 4 are IDENTICAL. Thanks. UCRGrad 07:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Did I say they weren't? "Revert" two was a change from the first revert, reverts three and four were reverts back to the second one. Of course they would be identitcal. So, two reverts back to the second "revert" (which wasn't an actual revert as content changed), and one revert back to the one you cited as the version reverted to, that's a total of three reverts.--WHS 07:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I can't see how #1 is a revert, so no violation. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Live Forever reported by User:KOCOBO (Result: 8h)

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

Time report made: 07:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User is aware of the rules, he has been here since November 2004. Keeps deleting images of Republika Srpska in the article, and even the word "Serbian" from the Serbian translation of the name of the article. Since it's a first offence, I request an 8h block, thank you. --KOCOBO 07:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

8h first offence William M. Connolley 07:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User_talk:Pusyamitra Sunga reported by User:Anwar (Result: 24h)

Three revert rule violation on 2002 Gujarat violence (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Pusyamitra Sunga (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Time report made: 15:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Check user returned a possible use of sockpuppetry by the fundamentalist puppetteer User_talk:Subhash bose. Pusyamitra was already blocked for 3RR violation in Babri Mosque Anwar 15:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

24h, doesn't look new William M. Connolley 19:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:134.193.168.99 reported by User:KarlBunker (Result:)

Three revert rule violation on Directed-energy weapon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 134.193.168.99 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [137] Previous version made under sockpuppet 204.56.7.1
  • 1st revert: [138]
  • 2nd revert: [139]
  • 3rd revert: [140]
  • 4th revert: [141] under sockpuppet 204.56.7.1

Comments User usually edits under User:204.56.7.1; started editing today under User:134.193.168.99 for his first 3 RVs

204... is Reddi, who has a 1/7R parole from arbcomm; so I've blocked that for 48h. Will check 134... William M. Connolley 19:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, 134 looks a likely sock; blocking for 48h too William M. Connolley 19:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lowg reported by User:Live Forever (Result:)

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

18:45: 18:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User keeps removing tag highlighting an ongoing dispute, reverts my edits and demands explanations (even though they were repeatedly offered in the edit summaries and on the talk page), and until just now had refused to participate in talk page discussion. Is well aware of the rules as he has seen them implemented on the vary page just recently. Live Forever 18:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Not obvious that #1 is a rv, since you didn't fill in the previous version link William M. Connolley 19:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. I have fixed the information to make it more clear. Live Forever 19:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

8h first offence. However, if the wars on that page continue it *will* get randomly protected William M. Connolley 19:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

    • Over 100 edits in less than 2 days. I went ahead and protected. Wikibofh(talk) 19:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Luka Jačov reported by User:Tēlex (Result:48 hours)

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

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

  • Has been blocked for 3RR before - he certainly knows about it.

Time report made: 21:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User keeps removing the sourced fact that the Greek language is spoken in FYROM. See the talk page (and Ethnologue if you want). He keeps coming every few days and conducts tiring edit wars trying to push some odd POV. --Tēlex 21:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

48 hours, repeat offender Jaranda wat's sup 21:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kiding reported by User:Birdmessenger (Result:)

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

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

Time report made: 22:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Despite notices, User:Kiding has inserted the same text multiple times describing a documentary film into child marriage, (where he violated WP:3RR), as well as marriage and wedding, among others.

2006-07-10 22:53:43 Kungfuadam (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Kiding (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (continued spam and defacing of Marriage related page was warned) William M. Connolley 07:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/d/m/Wikipedia%7EAdministrators%27_noticeboard_3RRArchive22_d8a8.html"