Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Noticeboard archives

v • d • e
Administrators' archives Search
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
Incidents archives Search
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
231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240
241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250
251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260
261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270
271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280
281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290
291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300
301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310
311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320
321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330
331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340
341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350
351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360
361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370
371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380
381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390
391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400
401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410
411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420
421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430
3RR archives Search
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
Arbitration enforcement 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
Community sanction archives Search
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14
Other links
Talk | Checkuser | Backlog

Contents

[edit] User:195.92.67.75

Three revert rule violation on TalkSPORT (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 195.92.67.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Kiand 17:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Was warned about it, been at this for literally months but this is the first time theres been 4 in 24.

Has just changed to 195.92.67.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Range block? --Kiand 18:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
And now 217.134.125.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Appears to be the range for backup dialup on Energis, his ISP. --Kiand 18:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The ISP seems to have users who make constructive edits; we may have to resort a block eventually but for now I have just sprotected the page; afraid of collateral damage. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 18:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:85.64.227.133

Three revert rule violation on Mariah Carey singles discography (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 85.64.227.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Extraordinary Machine 02:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: 85.64.227.133 (talk · contribs) may be an IP used by Vorash (talk · contribs): as soon as Vorash stopped repeatedly reverting to a weeks-old version of the article without any discussion or explanation, the IP address took over and started reverting to the exact same version. Note that these reverts are completely and utterly blind: they undo whatever edits were made in the meantime, reintroduce a plethora of inaccuracies into the article (which had been removed by other editors), and remove references and important material. This has gone beyond a content dispute as those reverts made by Vorash and the IP (who may very well be one and the same, though this is unconfirmed) count as vandalism. Extraordinary Machine 02:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

24 hours. --He:ah? 03:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:64.185.45.196

Three revert rule violation on House of Yahweh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 64.185.45.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: pm_shef 03:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User was warned with {{test-n}} templates rather than 3RR templates as I had initially reported it at WP:AIV but was told instead to report it here. pm_shef 03:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This user is blocked. Rx StrangeLove 04:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Androson

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

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

Reported by: Ned Scott 05:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the version reverted to? it's a lot of reverts, but i can't find the original version, so this just looks like one edit and three reverts from where i stand . . . (and Ned, you're one away as well.) --He:ah? 05:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I have refrained from doing any more edits because I am aware of that fact, although the issue isn't exactly clear as it says that the 3RR doesn't apply to vandalism correction. This user might not have reverted to an exact version of the page, but if you look, he's basically trying to revert to a version similar to the others, but now with a different image (since the previous image was deleted). Had the original image not been deleted this would be even more clear. Maybe a borderline issue, but it's pretty clear what he's trying to do. -- Ned Scott 05:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
nm, found the pic in question before the protect. blocked for 24 hours. --He:ah? 05:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Constantzeanu

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

Reported by: —Khoikhoi 05:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User knows about 3RR from here. —Khoikhoi 05:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Besides, user labels edits he disagrees with "Vandalism", see the edit summary of these edits. --Irpen

[edit] User:Constantzeanu (again)

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

Reported by: --Asterion 04:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: As for Khoikhoi's comments. User also warned to stop marking his reverts as minor edits here but chose to ignore it. --Asterion 04:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:OutRider2003

Three revert rule violation on Dalip Singh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). OutRider2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: ZsinjTalk 18:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Originally reported on WP:RFI by User:McPhail. McPhail has initiated conversation on talk pages, but OutRider2003 blanks his user talk page as if it never happened. Currently the copyrighted image is on the article instead of the original free image.

This is now very stale - I guess all the admins have been off on hols. OR has none of the last 100 edits, anyway William M. Connolley 19:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:LorenzoRims

Three revert rule violation on The Real World: Denver (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). LorenzoRims (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: HeyNow10029 19:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The user seems dead-set on adding an external link of a blog he set up ( The Real World: Denver Blog) to the article. In the blog he posts about pictures of people who he claims are future castmembers on the next instalment of The Real World with no information to back those claims up - he just expects people to believe anything he writes and take it as fact. In the articles' discussion forum I led him to Wikipedia's policy on external links and verifiability, which the blog doesn't pass, but he continues to add the link to the article. As of now, the blog has three posts, two of which are dedicated to what he calls an edit war between him and Wikipedia. This is getting really juvenile. HeyNow10029 19:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks a bit stale now; no warning; I've warned LR; you should have William M. Connolley 19:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Stvjns

Three revert rule violation on Crop circle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs).

Reported by --BillC 22:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Multiple reverts of Crop circle, including four times within the last 24 hours as above. No edits to talk page. No response to warnings on his/her talk page. Only one edit summary (a taunt). --BillC 22:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you BillC, I had just prepared a nearly identical post. --Darkfred Talk to me 22:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

12h for first offence but no obvious good work to compensate William M. Connolley 19:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Piotrus

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

  • Previous version reverted to: [6]
  • 1st revert: [7]
  • 2nd revert: [8]
  • 3rd revert: [9]
  • 4th revert: [10]

Reported by: Number 6 02:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The user is question is an admin, who should be fully aware of 3RR and whose attitude should be quite different. Nonetheless, the user ignores all words of reason and resorts to personal attack.

Well, well, well, I was wondering if Number 6 (talk · contribs) (no talk page, all edits up till now limited to POV pushing and revert warring at Red Army) would make his first edit to other page - and he did. His knowledge of Wikipedia procedures suggest sockpuppetry or at least disruptive trolling and I'd recommend appopriate action. In any case, I have not broken 3RR as my reverts today were not to my own version but to Irpen's compromise version from earlier today.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It is funny that you should be calling me names and accusing me of POV and other nonsense. All of this is true of you, not me. Your logic is fascinating: Number 6 knows something about wikipedia, ergo an “appropriate action” is recommended. Your lies about my edits are manifest to anyone willing to check my edits. However, I do admit that you did not formally violate 3RR in that article, even though the “compromise” version you’re referring to was hardly different from your original revert. Number 6 12:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like 4R to me. 3h as a first offence William M. Connolley 18:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Now this would be funny if it wasn't so sad. On one side we have a new user with no edit history or talk page and devotion to a single page, on the other - a well-respected contributor and an admin. And now the funny thing: the latter is blocked for violating not the 3RR, but some strange 2RR. Check for yourselves: 1st revert, 2nd revert, 3rd revert, which is also the current version. No 4th revert whatsoever. Of course I'm not impartial here, but it seems to me like William Connolley overreacted. I believe Piotrus should be unblocked ASAP. If not for his past contributions with this project and not for the benefit of a doubt, then at least for the fact that he has not broken the rules. //Halibutt 00:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The block was short and I am back here, so this is not the question of unblocking but of fairness of block. To play the devil's advocate (against myself...) I'll note that there are two reverts carried by me on the previous day (for example, this one) that on a cursory glance may look like a basis for 3RR violation. However, as Number 6 pointed above himself, they are not the same, as my recent 3 reverts were to the compromise version we worked together with Irpen ([11]). And I think that those two versions are far from 'hardly different' ([12]). In any case, I have explained this in detail in am email I sent to William few hours ago, and I am no waiting for his reply.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
And not a Pole to begin with, right? Sheesz. Please stick your chauvinism where it belongs, with your lies about my "no edit history". It is a big relief that there are objective admins, so my case is not lost yet. Number 6 12:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll put my side on the talk page William M. Connolley 14:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mark 2000

Three revert rule violation on The Daily Show (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Mark_2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: JDoorjam Talk 03:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I did a pretty thorough scrub of The Daily Show a few days ago. Today, User:Mark 2000 accused me of repressing the facts, and threatened to engage in "a war" if I did not clear further changes with him. I reverted his edits, because they were still just as editorial and rife with weasel words as they were when I took them out days earlier. I then moved his message from my talk page to the talk page of The Daily Show and explained that I thought his insertions required sources. Rather than comment in the discussion section (which my edit summary asked him to do), he reverted my changes with no edit summary of his own. I reverted his edits a second time, asking again that he comment on the talk page. He wrote on the talk page that finding sources was not his responsibility because his assertions were common knowledge. Rather than revert him a third time, I moved the content around a bit, and altered some of the language to bring it to a neutral point of view. He apparently did not accept my attempt at compromise and reverted a fourth time. I would ask that he be blocked for the standard 24 hours, that his last edit be reverted to the compromise I attempted to broker, and that an admin or multiple administrators take a look at the content in question to determine the best course forward with regards to making the article informative and neutral. JDoorjam Talk 03:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I see some discussion on the talk page. I don't see any warnings about 3RR though. So Mark can have 3h as a warning William M. Connolley 18:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Hipi Zhdripi/User:172.183.72.117 (again)

Three revert rule violation on Serbia and Montenegro (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Hipi_Zhdripi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [13]
  • 1st revert: [14]
  • 2nd revert: [15]
  • 3rd revert: [16]

Reported by: Duja 19:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

'Comments: alghouth it's an anon user, it can be (easily?) tracked down to User:Hipi Zhdripi, (also sockpuppeting as User:Kanuni, User:Vete). No one else can write such, um, English. Duja 19:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

For the moment, I've sprotected the article. I could block the IPs, but there is precious little point William M. Connolley 20:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Alixus

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

Reported by: gidonb 19:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Comments: I suspect that this newly created user is a sockpuppet of the person who under different identities tried and for a long time and sometimes succeeded through edit wars to delete or totally diminish the holocaust from the Germany page in the past. User also started personal attack on the talk page that is totally unfounded. The very personal style of this "new" user, as if he knows me a long time (I have protected in the past the very inclusion of the holocaust on the Germany page), sort of gives him away. gidonb 19:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

3h as a first offence William M. Connolley 21:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
User also made personal racism related attacks against me on his talk page (and on the Germany talk page): The user who insists on adding material to a section which is already way too long is a Jew who is primarily engaged in Zionist POV pushing, as one can see from his contributions. Needless to say that except for being a Jew there is no truth in his remarks. I actively remove POV texts from Wikipedia, especially Zionist POV. See the award on my user page for some detail. It is the tip of the iceberg. I am disgusted by all types of racism and very active against it. I am partially of German decent myself. I thank User:Stephan Schulz for confronting user:Alixus with his misbehavior. gidonb 22:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Nrcprm2026

Three revert rule violation on Uranium trioxide (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Nrcprm2026 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

19:53, 17 April 2006

Reported by: Dr Zak 19:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Continues despite warning and has been blocked before for revert warring on this article. The conflict over uranium-related subject matter is part of an arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium.

Replacing several statements supported by sources from the peer-reviewed scientific and medical literature which are being removed for no other reason than to obscure them and their obvious implication is reverting vandalism, which is defined as "... deletion or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia.... Not all vandalism is blatant, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism: Careful attention needs to be given to whether the new data or information is right or whether it is vandalism." A cursory glance at the edits in question show that I've merely been replacing, and expanding in some cases, the source-supported research being deleted. --James S. 20:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, James, but you are involved in a long-standing content dispute on this page. As far as I can tell, this is just a continuation of it. 3RR is only suspended for simple vandalism. --Stephan Schulz 20:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This looks like a content war, and JS has broken 3RR. 24h. Because I have some history with JS (though not over this article) I shall list this block at WP:AN/I to allow it to be checked William M. Connolley 21:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sgrayban

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

Reported by: 172 | Talk 20:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Continually reverting factual content that displays the Castro regime in a negative light. This user is also being disruptive on the talk page. This threat directed toward me is particularly telling: Yes I am keeping tract until you are gone from here. --Scott Grayban 19:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC) The user later made a bad faith report about my edits on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. [17] 172 | Talk 20:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Disputed. I reverted there continued vandal of them removing the {{POV}} tag. User:172 has repeated flammitory statements in Talk:Cuba that the people trying to get a NPOV are communist propagandist and fidelistas and they will do anything defeat them. The medcabal has asked User:172 and User:CJK to stop reverting and they refuse to do so. Futher more the links above are of me reverting the {{POV}} tag back into the article Cuba which they are tring to remove. Consensus has not been reached and the 2 users mentioned are enforcing there POV. --Scott Grayban 20:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Trimming discussion. Sg has clearly broken 3RR, which applies to POV tags as to everything else except blatant vandalism. 8h as a first offence William M. Connolley 20:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:NColemam

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

  • Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
  • 1st revert: 20:26
  • 2nd revert: 20:49
  • 3rd revert: 21:39
  • 4th revert: 22:22

Reported by: ____G_o_o_d____ 22:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

2006-04-17 23:48:52 Naconkantari blocked "NColemam (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3rr on Abortion) William M. Connolley 08:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:ER MD

Three revert rule violation on Depleted uranium (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). ER_MD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Philip Baird Shearer 00:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: At first view it may seem as if these are not all similar reverts but a comparison of the latest revert against the original which others are reverting too shows that it is a very big edit which even with some sections replaced still delets a lot of text. 20:32, 17 April 2006 ER MD against latest revert 20:33, 17 April 2006 Shanel. The Shanel version is the same version as the one before ER MD started to edit the page earlier today: 00:09, 17 April 2006 202.63.40.214 compred with 20:33, 17 April 2006 Shanel --Philip Baird Shearer 00:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This user has already been blocked for his massive deletions. Pepsidrinka 03:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Goodandevil

Three revert rule violation on Partial-birth abortion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Goodandevil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Reported by: Andrew c 00:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: G&E is edit warring over the first sentence of partial-birth abortion. While some efforts have been made to resolve this conflict on the talk page, G&E seems to jump the gun on resolution and simply change content without consensus. You can look at the talk page and see that weeks ago, G&E tried to get consensus to change the first paragraph after a string of edit wars stemming from the first paragraph, but that proposal was rejected. Ever since, a slow edit war has ensued, and today it seems the reverts have gone out of hand.--Andrew c 00:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Blocked for twenty-four hours. Repeat offender. Jkelly 01:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Skinmeister

Three revert rule violation on List of shock sites (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Skinmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Mangojuice 02:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User was reverting the addition of {{advert}} to List of shock sites, by User:Conrad Devonshire. Skinmeister was recently blocked for personal attacks against Conrad Devonshire [18], and repeatedly referred to the addition of the advert tag as "vandalism." Definite article ownership issues going on here. Mangojuice 02:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • If I'm blocked for this, then so should User:Conrad Devonshire for doing exactly the same thing (but the other way round) at 21:25, 17 April 2006, 19:18, 17 April 2006, 19:01, 17 April 2006 and 18:05, 17 April 2006. That user is upset about his afd nomination on this article not going on his way, so he he is trying to destroy the article any way he can. The tag I have been removing *is* vandalism, because it isn't relevant, and was added for purely malicious reasons. Skinmeister 06:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 48h, as per User talk:Woohookitty William M. Connolley 09:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I got the wrong end of the stick here, sorry. So... now I know what WHK really meant, 48h is too much; in fact SM and CD can share the 24h half each. William M. Connolley 11:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:O.P.Nuhss

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

Reported by: GTBacchus(talk) 04:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User was edit warring over the long disputed inclusion of the word "death" in the definition of abortion. User was advised to use the talk page, but user's only contribution there was uncivil. It was also the user's only edit, besides the four reverts above, and user is a probable sock puppet of NColemam, above.

2006-04-18 05:26:54 Natalinasmpf blocked "O.P.Nuhss (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (suspected sockpuppet) William M. Connolley 09:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:UCRGrad and User:TheRegicider

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

[edit] UCRGrad

  • Previous version reverted to: [19]
  • 1st revert: [20]

(as 71.198.58.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), who manually signed as "UCRGrad" [21])

[edit] TheRegicider

  • Previous version reverted to:

[25]


Reported by: szyslak (t, c, e) 08:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User:UCRGrad is aggressively trying to add a disputed passage on hate crimes in the Inland Empire area of Southern California, in which UC Riverside is located. User:TheRegicider reverted him four times, and I reverted him once. This article was protected a little over a week ago, due to edit wars over other issues. On Talk:University of California, Riverside, there has been a lot of heated discussion between the two, with personal attacks and incivility all around, especially from UCRGrad. I think another page protection may be in order. szyslak (t, c, e) 08:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
As newbies, they can have a brief 3h block each, but I will extend it if they return to reverting William M. Connolley 11:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Please please, william, I believe the politically correct term is edit count challenged. Thank You.

[edit] User:Gamahucheur

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

Reported by: cmh 18:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Dispute purports to be about archaic spelling. The aggressiveness with which the user is pursuing the debate on the article's talk page is stopping me from making the charitable assumption of good faith on his/her part. Note that 3RR has come up on the talk page and this user is aggressively reverting despite this. I have proposed an RfC on the article. I think the article needs to be temporarily protected from the user in order to allow the RfC to proceed calmly. -- cmh 18:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverting continues. New threats of disruption of WP via "friends". -- cmh 19:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Oops! I didn't see this up here. I put it down there instead. Joey 19:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

8h for fairly persistent 1st offence William M. Connolley 20:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Bertilvidet

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

Reported by: 1652186 18:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Not obviously 4 reverts; you should provide diffs not versions William M. Connolley 20:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed; Sorry about that. 1652186 20:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:154.20.148.186

Three revert rule violation on Werner Herzog (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 154.20.148.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Elephantus 18:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I warned User:154.20.148.186 on his talk page, he's been reverting this page for several days without writing anything in Talk to support his claim. --Elephantus 18:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 20:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:212.18.236.179 and User:212.85.24.83

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

Reported by: Urthogie 19:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Although user has a different IP address in the first revert, its the same person, as is made clear by the edit summaries. User also refuses to read essential policies concerning verification such as WP:V.

Even if so, thats only 3R not 4 William M. Connolley 20:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rogerman

Three revert rule violation on Joseph Sobran (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Rogerman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Dick Clark 20:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This is the result of an ongoing edit war where User:Rogerman and User:CaliforniaDreamlings have repeatedly performed simple reverts while refusing to engage in substantive discussion on the article talk page. This article was just unprotected yesterday by User:Katefan0.

As someone involved with the article currently, there is a need to come to a consensus one way or the other, and Rogerman is aware of the violation which I chose not to report with the need for consensus in mind. While he has violated, and I'm not trying to step on DCM's toes, I would personally rather see some leniency in this case and allow Rogerman to at least have an opportunity to discuss on the talk page rather than having a 24 hour lag time in between. Just my two cents. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 20:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I would defer to badlydrawnjeff if admins care to look the other way on this occasion. I am more interested in seeing the article improved than getting 24hrs of "justice" and then starting over tomorrow. Dick Clark 20:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
That's fine with me . . . i'll leave him a note to make sure he's aware that he violated 3rr.--He:ah? 20:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Brian02139

Three revert rule violation on Stubhub (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Brian02139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Ben-w 00:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I'm not sure if this qualifies exactly as vandalism or 3RR -- the user may have some axe to grind against the company in question, I don't know, but this is NPOV, original research, and I'm not too fond of the ad homininem attacks or vandalism of my user page either.

I'll warn him and if he does it again, I'll block him. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Brian02139 created a sockpuppet to continue reverting on Stubhub after being asked to stop, so he's been blocked for 24 hours for disruption, vandalism, 3RR, and sockpuppetry, and the sockpuppet account has been blocked indefinitely. I've also sprotected the page for a short period in case he comes back with more IPs. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User: Walkerson

Three revert rule violation on American Israel Public Affairs Committee (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Walkerson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: 21:42, 18 April 2006[31]
  • 1st revert: 22:03, 18 April 2006 [32]
  • 2nd revert: 22:41, 18 April 2006[33]
  • 3rd revert: 23:10, 18 April 2006 [34]
  • 4th revert: 23:27, 18 April 2006 [35]
  • 5th revert: 00:00, 19 April 2006 [36]


Reported by: Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:- This user was warned both on his personal talk page and on the article's talk page after the 4th revert, but chose to revert again. The only source for his additions are a propaganda website, although he claims there is corroborating sources he hasn't produced any.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

As he was warned, I'll block him for 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I've unblocked him after four hours because he says he didn't fully understand 3RR, and he's promised not to edit that article or talk page, or insert similar edits elsewhere, for 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Wikiwriter706

Three revert rule violation on Law School Rankings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Wikiwriter706 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [37] 23:49, 18 April 2006
  • 1st revert: 00:12, 19 April 2006[38]
  • 2nd revert: 00:21, 19 April 2006 [39]
  • 3rd revert: 00:22, 19 April 2006 [40]
  • 4th revert: 00:26, 19 April 2006[41]

Reported by: Xoxohthblaster 00:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This user continues to reinsert references to the non-notable law school rankings concept "top fourteen" into this article. This issue has been discussed at length in the course of a deletion debate regarding an article on this very term: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T14. The consensus was to delete this article on the basis that this is a non-notable neologism. A day or two later, this Law School Rankings article showed up with extensive top 14 discussion-- seems like a sneaky way to get around the earlier consensus for deletion. Xoxohthblaster 00:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

User currently has only 3 reverts in 24 hours, as a quick glance at the history makes clear. no block. --Heah? 00:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User: Ben-w

Three revert rule violation on Stubhub (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Ben-w (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

· Previous version reverted to: 08:56, 28 March 2006 · 1st revert:[42] · 2nd revert:[43] · 3rd revert: [44] · 4th revert:[45] · 5th revert:[46] · 6th revert:[47] · 7th revert:[48] · [49]

Reported by: Brian02139 00:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


Comments: 3RR . I don't know, but this is NPOV, and I'm not too fond of the ad homininem attacks or vandalism of my user page either.

Brian, I've already discussed this with Ben. He was reverting what he saw as your vandalism. I've also left a note on your talk page to that effect. Please discuss whatever your objections are on the article talk page. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Brian02139 created a sockpuppet to continue reverting on Stubhub after being asked to stop, so he's been blocked for 24 hours for disruption, vandalism, 3RR, and sockpuppetry, and the sockpuppet account indefinitely. I've also sprotected the page for a short period in case he comes back with more IPs. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Nrcprm2026 (again)

Three revert rule violation on Uranium trioxide (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Nrcprm2026 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Dr Zak 02:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Had been blocked for revert warring on this article less than 48 hours ago. The focus of the dispute between James and everyone else is whether combustion of uranium is relevant or not. There is also an emergent edit war on if a rather silly image should be included.

48 hours. --Heah? 03:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:NYC5

Three revert rule violation on Horace Mann School (New York City) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). NYC5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

  1. (cur) (last) 02:45, 19 April 2006 NYC5 m
  2. (cur) (last) 02:45, 19 April 2006 NYC5
  3. (cur) (last) 02:35, 19 April 2006 NYC5 (→Rankings)
  4. (cur) (last) 02:33, 19 April 2006 NYC5 (→Rankings)
  5. (cur) (last) 02:26, 19 April 2006 NYC5 m (Please follow the Wiki Guidelines. This is not a page for boosterism.)
  6. (cur) (last) 02:20, 19 April 2006 NYC5
  7. (cur) (last) 01:48, 19 April 2006 NYC5 (→The Review)
  8. (cur) (last) 01:48, 19 April 2006 NYC5 (→The Review)
  9. (cur) (last) 01:41, 19 April 2006 NYC5 m (→The Cinemann)
  10. (cur) (last) 04:59, 18 April 2006 NYC5 (→Rankings)
  11. (cur) (last) 04:59, 18 April 2006 NYC5 (→Rankings)
  12. (cur) (last) 04:57, 18 April 2006 NYC5
  13. (cur) (last) 04:56, 18 April 2006 NYC5
  14. (cur) (last) 04:55, 18 April 2006 NYC5

Reported by: CherryPop CherryPop 02:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)CherryPop

Currently this report is a complete mess, Looking at NYC5 contribs, I only see 3 reverts not 4. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 03:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hadn't seen Jaranda's response above when i hit "edit" . . . you've only given a list of 14 edits, and i can only find two or three that are reverts, after searching through the edit history. I know it's annoying and time consuming, but please format this as demonstrated below, or it is difficult to find the reverts. a list of the times of the last 14 edits this user made doesn't in any way provide evidence that they reverted four times. And after going through the history . . . I don't think there are four. come back when there are, and please format it properly!! no block for now. --Heah? 03:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:69.108.50.39

Three revert rule violation on 2003 Texas redistricting. 69.108.50.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [02:06, 19 April 20]
  • 1st revert: [10:33, 18 April 2006]
  • 2nd revert: [20:37, 18 April 2006]
  • 3rd revert: [20:47, 18 April 2006]
  • 4th revert: [20:55, 18 April 2006]
  • 5th revert: [04:28, 19 April 2006]
  • 6th revert: [04:34, 19 April 2006]
  • 7th revert: [04:44, 19 April 2006]
  • 8th revert: [05:59, 19 April 2006]

Reported by: BehroozZ 05:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: 69.108.50.39 seems intimately familiar with Wikipedia procedures and "minor edits" as well as sockpuppetry, so is perhaps either a banned user or has a problematic account. Has continued to revert even after another user, also anonymous, noted a violation of the three-revert rule on discussion page.

an edit is different from a revert. you have given a list of this users last 8 edits to the article, many of which were successive, and this doesn't in any way suggest that the user has reverted 4 times in 24 hours. People can edit as many times as they would like in any given period of time . . . I of course went to the history and checked the diffs as well, and i still don't see over three reverts in the last 24 hours, but it was kinda confusing. if you can format the above properly and convince me (or another admin) otherwise, go for it . . . (and please follow the below example and fomat it correctly!!) but right now, i don't see it, so no block. --Heah? 08:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
He's reverting. He's not editing. He's simply changing his copy back to what he had before. He's also mislabeling it as "rv." Because he's doing it in multiple steps, I simplified it for you:
first reversion
second reversion
third reversion
fourth reversion
Thanks. BehroozZ 16:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Those are versions. You need to provide *diffs*. Go to the page history; the "last" and "cur" and "diff versions" buttons are the ones you want William M. Connolley 18:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Gidonb

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

Reported by: Haham hanuka 09:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I request that User:Haham hanuka, who was an extremely rich history in 3RR and other violations, will be blocked for frequent abusing the Administrator noticeboards to launch his false allegations against me. As you will see in the Germany history and his personal history, making false allegations against me is one of his major activities on Wikipedia. gidonb 18:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Either of you fix the details of the diff-links above to prove either way. Agathoclea 18:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[Discussion trimmed]. I notice you didn't post the times. Checking out the diffs, its clear that they are not within 24h. Gb: rather than discussion, it would have been more helpful of you to point that out. Anyway, complaint dismissed William M. Connolley 18:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I did link the Germany edit history - that went unlinked - to this complaint and said there is no truth in this allegation. I did not check the individual links supplied by Haham hanuka. As you know, I am getting used to personal, racist and other attacks on Wikipedia as well as discriminatory treatment. It comes with editing contested topics. gidonb 19:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Irishpunktom and possibly User:Netscott

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

User:Irishpunktom

Original research reverts (likely to obfuscate the issue)

User:Netscott

First version

Reported by: Netscott 17:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Irishpunktom has been notified of this report. Netscott 17:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Irishpunktom has been doing his best to keep out verifiable information on the infidel article via reverts. His motivation has been such that he's in fact reverted across two independent editors. Irishpunktom was less than civil in Personal Attackish editorial comment, "reverting known racist" directed towards the other editor.

There is easily verifiable (just look at the link provided) original research in the current version that should be edited out. This would be the verifiable version (according to Encyclopedia Britannica and Kafir).

I'm reporting myself as well for although I did make some minor changes in my diffs above, it could be argued that I violated 3RR in spirit (to establish a verifiable version) so depending upon the view of the admin(s) who read this I may indeed merit a blocking as well. Netscott 17:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

IPT has enough 24h blocks: 48h. You Nescott... ah what to do with you? Admire your honesty in reporting yourself? Give you a good kick for being pretty sure you were breaking 3RR but doing it anyway? Well... as a first offence, 8h (other admins may wish to review this) William M. Connolley 18:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I was wrong: it wasn't N's first offence, he should have had 24h. But... both N and IPT have Promised To Be Good William M. Connolley 22:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ndru01

Three revert rule violation on Morphic field (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Ndru01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Alienus 21:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

This user has violated WP:3RR and was let off with a warning by a lax admin. As a result, he never learned that 3RR is the law, not just a good idea. He needs to be banned, and not just for a short period of time. Not only is this a violation of 3RR, but it is an example of a persistant habit of inserting personal essays into articles, violating WP:RS, WP:CITE and WP:OR, among others. He completely ignores consensus, no matter how many times other editors request that he source his text and otherwise maintain even the lowest level of acceptable quality. In conclusion, he needs banning and he needs it bad. Alienus 21:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

24 hours. (blocked, that is. a ban is something different.) --Heah? 21:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
(btw, i wouldn't call William M. Connolley lax. He's just better at assuming good faith than most of us are.) --Heah? 21:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
On his talk page, you said that he was blocked from one article. Is he blocked from one article or from editing altogether? — goethean ॐ 21:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see, the section heading is misleading. i meant that he was blocked due to his 3rr vio on morphic field, not that he was blocked from that article. I'll fix that. Sorry and thanks. --Heah? 23:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Assuming good faith is only a virtue to the extent that good faith actually exists. As for Connelley, "lax" is definitely not the best word to describe him, but civility prevents me from being more accurate. In any case, Ndru01's blocked, so maybe this is the first step to learning how to get his edits kept. Then again, based on his responses on the Talk page, maybe not. If it turns out for the worse, I'm ready to file more reports. Alienus 04:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

User has evaded block using IP address. He was warned on his talk page. He then contuinued to evade block, adding original research and vandalism to article talk page. — goethean ॐ 17:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:71.212.31.95

Three revert rule violation on Plame affair (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 71.212.31.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: sigmafactor 23:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This user continues to add the NPOV tag to the Plame article without detailing any POV issues, even though more than seven editors have requested them. A consensus was reached that while the article isn't perfect because it is a current event, that the majority of the issues were corrected. Add to that that 71.212.31.95 (talk • contribs) has run the talk page in circles and only edits tags into the article and refuses to do any substantive edits him/herself. This is more than just a 3RR violation, but it isn't a content dispute. --sigmafactor 23:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

24 hours. --Heah? 23:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zarbon

Three revert rule violation on Brendan Filone (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Zarbon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Kafziel 00:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I'd like to make it clear that this is not a content dispute; admin Woohookitty has stated (on Zarbon's talk page) that my edits are anti-vandalism as consensus has been firmly established. This user came off a week-long block today and started vandalising the article again. Has been blocked for 3RR violations before and says he doesn't care. Kafziel 00:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

User has been blocked for 1 week by Kungfuadam for 3RR. Thanks. Kafziel 00:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pnatt

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

Reported by: Objectivist-C 00:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: He keeps removing the Beliefs / Political Parties (and occasionally Regional Politics) categories from the page, in spite of the general consensus of leaving them there until a userbox policy is set, and ignores requests to discuss the matter on the Talk page / his User page. He also has a history of vandalizing articles.

  • He has another revert war going on in Matthew Werkmeister as well.
    • Yes, this appears to be a problematic user. He is probably well meaning, but he is sloppy and not willing to discuss his edits. I will not block him myself, because I am somewhat involved in the revert war. I'll let an impartial admin get involved. -- JamesTeterenko 02:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
24 hours. --Heah? 08:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • He's back to his old mischief on the Japan article, should I report it separately? -Objectivist-C 14:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:68.46.186.126

Three revert rule on Madonna (entertainer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 68.46.186.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log).

Reported by: --Fallout boy 02:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Also claims that anyone who reverts his/her edits is "vandalizing". --Fallout boy 02:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:67.172.194.15

Three revert rule violation on Star Sonata (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 67.172.194.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: ---J.Smith 02:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Reverts actually boarder on vandalism. Large amount of sourced info removed and unverifiable info inserted. I'd really like an admin to look into this whole situation deeper as well. ---J.Smith 02:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

User is on his 5th revert now. ---J.Smith 05:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Hasn't been warned, so i've gone ahead and done so. come back if he/she continues. --Heah? 08:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:81.159.12.112 and other IP addresses

Three revert rule violation on Circumcision. 81.159.12.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Nandesuka 04:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User has not engaged in any substantive discussion on the talk page, despite attempts to engage. User has also edited from 81.159.10.202, and 81.159.14.95.

Hasn't been warned, at least in this incarnation, so no block. If another admin wants to look at this again that's fine by me --Heah? 08:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:217.74.217.54

Three revert rule violation on LOL_(Internet_slang) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 217.74.217.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
  • 1st revert: [56]
  • 2nd revert: [57]
  • 3rd revert: [58]
  • 4th revert: [59]

Reported by: Donald Albury(Talk) 12:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User:217.74.217.51 and User:217.74.217.54 (!?) have been having a revert war. Would there be any justification for blocking both IPs? I suspect this is one person, or two working together at a school.

As there are two IPs involved, I've sprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:60.240.88.48

Three revert rule violation on American_and_British_English_differences (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 60.240.88.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [60]
  • 1st revert: [61]
  • 2nd revert: [62]
  • 3rd revert: [63]
  • 4th revert: [64]

Reported by: JackLumber 14:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Australian user keeping on reverting my changes for no apparent reason. Allegedly also known as 60.240.88.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log).

I keep explaining to him my reasons, but he chooses to ignore them. He is also braking the three revert rule. 60.240.88.48 14:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I did NOT break the 3RR. --JackLumber 14:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Of coarse you did, even if your blinded to it. 60.240.88.48 14:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
If I did please show me when and how I did.--JackLumber 14:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay here you go:
60.240.88.48 14:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
And the 4th, you newbie? Lost in the mail?--JackLumber 14:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The fourth as requested [68]
And please don't get nasty or personal. 60.240.88.48 14:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC) (striking by JackLumber)
You are unfair and in bad faith, unless you are just kidding. That was restoring your own change because it was appropriate, not reverting to my previous version!!!!!--JackLumber 14:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay I miss-read your change, excuse its late. 60.240.88.48 14:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

12h William M. Connolley 18:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:HereToHelp

Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Community Portal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). HereToHelp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [69]
  • 1st revert: [70]
  • 2nd revert: [71]
  • 3rd revert: [72]
  • 4th revert: [73]

Reported by: Zzzzz 17:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: 4th revert on community portal breaks 3RR. an admin who doesnt know their own policy? i believe there is no special favours for admins. they then locked the page to "win" their argument. Zzzzz 17:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't see any excuse. 8h for a first offence. But I can't say I approve of your part, though you did stop at 3R. William M. Connolley 18:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Irpen

Three revert rule violation on Uprising of Khotin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Irpen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Andrei George 18:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That's plain ridiculuous. I rewrote the entire article from scratch yesterday and cited my sources. After that the user twice placed a POV tag. I removed it because it was not accompanied by any explanations at the talk page. He can't just through tags at the whim. A good faith explanation is required when placing a POV tag over a whole article. Besides, this new user seems very familiar. Likely a reincarnation of a certain permabanned editor. Will be more specific as I watch more of his edits. --Irpen 18:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
This contributor knows very well what is or not legal in Wikipedia. He constanly reverted my edits, he constantly deleted POV tags. He made it more than 4 times. He needs to be blocked since he is aware of the consequences of his edits. His personal attacks are not welcome also. He proofs to avoid rules of Wikipedia. --Andrei George 18:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Now let's analyze the frivolous complaint:

  1. What he calls "first revert" was an edit made at 05:35, April 19, 2006. (note the time as well) I merely added references to back the numbers someone flagged with the "fact" tag and, as the numbers were sourced, removed a disputed tag
  2. What he calls "2nd revert" was a total article rewrite at 07:46, April 20, 2006. More sources were added and the summary called for any disagreements to be brought up at talk page
  3. What he calls "3rd and 4th reverts" are indeed reverts (as such there are only two reverts) and all I did was called whoever places a global POV tag over an article to explain the dispute at talk.

As such, these four edits are not at all within 24 hours to begin with. Two of them are not reverts at all and the last two is a call for whoever places a POV tag to explain it at talk. The user places a global POV tag without explanation and assaults a whole bunch of articles with Bonaparte-style immature Romanian nationalism. Please consider whether such behavior warrants an action on its own. For details, see User:Bonaparte/sockpuppetry, user talk:Bonaparte/sockpuppetry and Sockpuppetry by Bonaparte. --Irpen 18:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is Bonaparte. `'mikka (t) 18:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I had my doubts too but not for long. --Irpen 18:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't much like all this. AG is clearly someones sock, the question is, whose. Please *don't* discuss that here though. Irpen gets a stern warning re 3RR. However, since I've felt obliged to protect the page, I don't feel inclined to block. Others feel free to review William M. Connolley 18:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
...and I am hereby removing the "stern warning". There were only two reverts by Irpen. And place a stern warning upon Connolley for siding with trolls without checking facts. `'mikka (t) 20:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Irpen has 3 definite reverts ([74], [75], [76]) and one [77] which on reflection isn't really a revert. M, you should not unprotect and article that you've been reverting William M. Connolley 20:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Please check your quotations. Of 3 refs, only two are reverts, one of them being a very formal classification, since the whole article was significantly rewritten. I am aware that people often lose track of edits/reverts and on a second thought I agree that Irpen must be more careful indeed. As for unprotecting, there is no edit war yet. `'mikka (t) 20:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
To back Irpen, I'll point out that User:Andrei George has been pulling the same stunts on the Transylvania page. There was no explanation for his gestures there, and the man did not even add a tag - he just erased text. Dahn 20:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to stress the importance of spirit of the law. Irpen significantly expanded the article, and I think that content creation should be rewarded, not penalized. And although he removed the tag four times (or rather 2 different tags twice each), in the meantime he has been expanding the article, and I don't see his opponent even explaining the tag addition in the talk page. Even if Irpen has broken 3RR (and this is disputed as the discussion shows) I certainly think that warning is enough and that such useful contributors should not be blocked unless they do something much more disruptive.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Please everyone, let's get clear about the facts. Of the four edits pointed out by a troll and recited by William, only the last three fell within the 24 hour window at all! Here are the diffs pointed out by William in his 20:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC) post above

  • The time of this edit, indeed a revert, was 18:14, April 20, 2006.
  • The time of this edit, also a revert, I admit, was 18:07, April 20, 2006.

Please note that both "reverts" above, were just removals of the POV tag placed on an article without any explanation. I am sorry, but the POV tag says that the neutrality is disputed and refers the reader to a talk page for a discussion. The article have just been totally rewritten by me and there were not a single entry at talk page by the tag placers. Even if these two edits count as reverts, despite they were removals of tags placed in bad faith (no explanation was given), there were only two, not 4 reverts. I always try my best to avoid reverting good faith edits by good faith users. These were not the case. Let's now check the other diffs cited by William:

  • This edit made at 07:46, April 20, 2006, was not even close to a revert. This was a complete article rewrite using a new set of sources, all cited. Any tags, placed on the old version were inapplicable, because I made a new article out of it. In what way was this a revert?
  • Let's now look at the fourth diff, cited by William. Please care to check its timing: 05:35, April 19, 2006.

That is way more than 24 hours away from the first diff above! Also, check the diff itself. The edit is replacing the "fact" tags with the sources I added to the reference list and changing some of the numbers in accordance to a new found citation. A while ago a user placed a bunch of "fact" tags on several statements in the article and added a "disputed" tag based on that. The original tag placer had all the time in the world to study my edit and, if he disagrees with facts, reinsert the tag, explaining at talk what was wrong with the new article I just wrote. It didn't happen.

In any case, there are no 4 edits within 24 hours, let alone 4 reverts, to speak about. The formal 3RR could not have been violated if there were no four edits of the same article within 24 hours! That a sock who placed the frivolous complaint simply didn't list times of the "reverts" should have alerted anyone who wanted to look at the matter. Instead, we get the dispute about stern warnings and call for user:Irpen to be "more careful" and thankful for being "forgiven". There are two issues here:

  • The letter of the 3RR law was not violated. That the compliant conveniently omitted time stamps in the diffs should have alerted anyone. Sadly, it didn't. I do realize that 3 reverts is not an entitlement even when 4 reverts were not made, so we are coming here to the second issue.
  • While only two reverts (not even three) were made by me here, there was no content dispute. The "reverts" were removal of the POV tags when the tagger refused to explain his reasons at talk, despite asked.

And this brings us to the last questions.

  • Mikka's saying that I should have been "more careful". I hope he, as everyone, can now see that I was careful here. Not that I don't make mistakes, but this was not the case.
  • William placing a "stern warning" at my page, later partially retracted but still with a non-committed apology. I could see how nice it could feel to decide who to punish and who to spare, but getting into judging the issues requires an utmost responsible and careful approach. The simple fact that time stamps were not added should have alerted anyone. Studying the matter carefully before making a hasty decision should be a must. Yes, people a busy, but no one requires from any admin to enforce the 3RR. If one takes upon himself to enforce the rules whose misapplication is emotionally sensitive to the editors involved, he should take an extra time to study the matter.

We've seen the aggravation of some very respected editors involved into this very discussion for being illegitimately blocked on the sock/troll provocation when the blocking Admin didn't care to study the matter or was too eager to exercise the powers, either because those were newfound or because they were acquired too long ago to remember about the responsibilities that come with them.

Thanks to all for the attention and support and I hope the matter can be brought to a closure now. --Irpen 00:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Was he blocked yet? --Andrei George 09:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

As confirmed by Checkuser, the author of this frivoulous complaint, user:Andrei George is a sockpuppet of Bonaparte permabanned for "malicious sockpuppetry and running a botnet". With such pattern, we should expect more Bonaparte socks to be created exclusively to run edit wars and rig the voting surveys. --Irpen 04:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Philosophically, are sockpuppets people? or have they become mere simulations of people?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dardanv

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

Reported by: Asterion 20:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Aside the obvious reverts, pay attention to offensive edit summaries. Asterion 20:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

At last an easy one :-). 12h for a first offence William M. Connolley 21:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Not sure about the efficiency of your actions, Mr.Connolley. You tend to only block people who you are reported for, and not instead take the time to see the reverts by the reporter of the reverts. That might give you some hints, that the reporter might be violating the 3RR rule as well, and thus issuing a block to both sides would make you more professional in enforcing the 3RR rule. You once blocked me as well, in the same manner, and I thought you would in the future reconsider that technique. I still hope you consider this in the future. Ilir pz 13:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:IP Address

Three revert rule violation on Norse-Gaels (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). IP_Address (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Reported by: Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Violation concerned reverting the removal of text by me and others (User:An_Siarach and User:Mais oui!). Firstly, the inclusion of an irrelevant link to Richmondshire, and secondly on irrelevant text regarding the later history of the same region. User is fully aware of 3RR (e.g. [78]), and has displayed himself to be highly uncivil (e.g. [79], [80]). - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

User has continued to revert even though he knows he has already been listed for violation of 3RR. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I love being ganged up on; it's how those violate 3RR by proxy. Thanks for being fair; you pushing your own bigotry and ignorance about a place you have no connection to, but I do. I should make judgements about your own places of origin. That would make me a big man. IP Address 23:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Another revert. So you saw your listing, and reverted again? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Aside from the 3RR, your take on me doesn't mean shit. You can grow some fucking balls and go to your fucking library and learn a thing or two about the topic, or you can play these games and bullshit! IP Address 23:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Let's say that calling people "troll" is not a personal attack...Your comrade in arms against Richmondshire is flawless. IP Address 23:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The truth is, you think I'm encroaching on your territory and that England has no business in Norse-Gaels. If that's your position...so be it! IP Address 23:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours, not the first offence. Stifle (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Merecat

Three revert rule violation on Talk:2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Merecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: User:RyanFreisling @ 23:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This user, who already is the subject of an RfC, has been deleting the 'TrollWarning' tags I added to two specific discussion threads in which trollsome behavior is directly alleged. He has violated 3RR both in literal terms (4 reverts to a talk page in 24 hours), and in essential terms (without pause for consensus, he is ready to revert war even a 'talk' page, to prove a point). Please block. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I count three. The first two being seperate tags. Oh, and it takes two to tango and so on and so forth... Arkon 23:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Can you confirm the count, please? The literal rule isn't 'exactly the same reverts', it's 'reverts'. There are four reverts by Merecat in 24 hours, on a talk page. You'll also notice I only reverted twice to Meercat's 4. I'd like to stay above revert wars and let the original content issue (the tag) stand for a more informed discussion. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I still see three, but perhaps an admin will take the removal of the one tag in each edit on the first two as seperate. Arkon 23:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Not a 3RR violation. Second revert was a self-revert, so doesn't count. Stifle (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
No it wasn't.I do appreciate your attention but I disagree. Merecat did not self-revert. Merecat reverted my edits alone, in four reverts. If I were interested in gaming 3RR, I would revert again, and force him to violate - but it's about the spirit of 3RR as well, and I believe in this case this behavior, 'on a talk page, is definitely a violation of the spirit of 3RR as well as the literal policy. In this case, my report and concern are about respecting policy. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ryan is making trouble on that page with vandal edits. He's inserting a page tag in a section as a taunt. Please review his comments on that page. Merecat 00:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The 3RR is quite strict. He did not make four reverts, therefore he isn't being blocked. However, both of you are liable to be blocked per WP:IAR if you persist in posting content issues here. Use WP:3O. Stifle (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jaranda and User:Chris2008

Three revert rule violation on Three_6_Mafia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Jaranda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Chris2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [81]
  • 1st revert: [82]
  • 2nd revert: [83]
  • 3rd revert: [84]
  • 4th revert: [85]

Reported by: --205.188.116.70 23:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Edit war over a copyvio image in the article, --205.188.116.70 23:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not blocking Jaranda over this one, the AOL IP who was re-posting was making insultive edit summaries upon removal of the copyvio and was blocked for 10 min. -- Tawker 00:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Edit conflict, I ended up blocking Jaranda and Chris2008 for 8 hours each for 3RR violation, but Tawker correctly pointed out that removing a copyvio image (only) is/should be exempt from the 3RR (simple vandalism) and unblocked him. I also ineffectively blocked 205.188.116.6 for 15 minutes. Stifle (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Medule

Three revert rule violation on Borovo Selo raid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Medule (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [86]
  • 1st revert: [87]
  • 2nd revert: [88]
  • 3rd revert: [89]
  • 4th revert: [90]

Reported by: Dr.Gonzo 00:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Revert war over inserting unverifiable and factualy inaccurate claims that are highly disruptive to the NPOV of the article. Does not want to discuss on Talk page and acts very much like a common vandal.

12h William M. Connolley 08:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ldingley

Three revert rule violation on Bagratid Dynasties (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Ldingley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [91]
  • 1st revert: [92]
  • 2nd revert: [93]
  • 3rd revert: [94]
  • 4th revert: [95]

Reported by: Eupator 00:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Revert war over the origin of the dynasty but the actual edits are concerning other details of the page (ie: order of names, semantics of regions etc.)

  • You have posted oldids instead of diffs. I can't find a 3RR violation. Stifle (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:WCityMike

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

Reported by: Ardenn 01:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Keeps reverting speedy tag. Ardenn 01:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

My own position is that Ardenn is very rapidly abusing the speedy deletion process. Wikitruth.info is of course not the most popular subject among Wikipedia admins, but it achieved a 'no consensus' during its last AfD, a process during which, I should note, Ardenn also repeatedly attempted numerous speedy deletions. {{db-repost}} is an entirely inappropriate guideline for speedy deletion as the substance of the article has been extensively developed since it was first speedy deleted by someone. — WCityMike (T | C) 01:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

WCityMike is wikilawyering to keep his article that violates db-repost. Ardenn 01:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

He's also beem reported at WP:ANI for violating WP:NPA. Ardenn 01:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
This does not qualify for the 3-revert rule. He was removing your improper speedy deletion tag, and he explained himself on your talk page. ~MDD4696 01:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
It was not improper. Now block him and be a nice responsible admin. Ardenn 01:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I would respectfully note that an examination of Wikitruth.info's history indicates that Ardenn himself by reposting his speedy deletion note, violated the 3RR rule he now accuses me of: [100], [101], [102], [103], [104]. I say this not as a formal complaint but as ironic note. Further, his accusation of personal attack, which I will also note on the appropriate page, appears to be founded on nothing more than the words "bad faith" in my edit description. — WCityMike (T | C) 01:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, because you see asswipe, you're supposed to assume good faith. Ardenn 01:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. Should I now open something on INA ANI? — WCityMike (T | C) 01:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe it is Ardenn who is the violator here, at least technically. She tagged this thrice yesterday, waited until a few hours after 24 hours had expired, and added it thrice again in short order. Then there are also the personal attacks, incivility, and numerous other violations. -- Gnetwerker 01:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I am a guy Ardenn 02:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I have blocked Ardenn for 1 hour for violating the 3RR rule, incivility, and disruption. I will block again (for a longer period of time) after this block expires if there are furthur problems. ~MDD4696 01:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Here's my formal explanation, which I posted on Ardenn's talk page:
The WikiTruth article is not a candidate for speedy deletion because it does not satisfy the criteria on WP:CSD. The point you cited, CSD G4 "Recreation of deleted material" does not apply in this case because the current article had been completely rewritten. Articles are usually deleted under CSD G4 when the new content is identical to the deleted content, or an article has been through the AfD process and the subject deemed unfit for Wikipedia.
Regarding your block: Strictly speaking, you did not violate the 3RR rule just now--I made a mistake. You did act inappropriately by vandalizing WCityMike's user page [105], making incivil comments [106], and by escalating the disagreement by reporting the incident to WP:AN and WP:3RR. I had blocked you for 1 hour to give us all some breathing room, however I will block you again for a longer period of time if need be.
Your block will expire in a few minutes. I recommend that you avoid editing the Wikitruth article for some time now. There is currently no need to contact WCityMike either. If you choose to do either, that's fine, but realize that taking a short break may be beneficial. Please leave any questions or comments you have on my talk page, thanks. ~MDD4696 02:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Although Ardenn did not technically violate the 3RR rule, he did make additional reverts shortly after the 24 hour limit, which is considered bad form. ~MDD4696 02:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dariush4444

Three revert rule violation on Iranian Azerbaijan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Dariush4444 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: —Khoikhoi 05:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User knows about 3RR from here. —Khoikhoi 05:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Blocked Will (E@) T 16:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:87.196.164.251 (plus other 87.196.* IP addresses)

Three revert rule violation on Kurt Cobain (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 87.196.164.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: ChrisB 08:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I know this is a few days old, but I was under the mistaken impression that it was already reported. Yes, that's nine reversions in the span of a little over an hour. The problem persists, however, as the user's sole intention in editing the article is to include the link to a petition regarding Cobain's death. Several editors have deemed it linkspam, but the user refuses to back down.

The problem is that he's apparently using a dial-up account, so his IP keeps shifting. (All IP's are in the 87.196.* range, belonging to Novis Telecom in Portugal.) But, in the last day:

Plus a vandalization of my Talk page: 20:34, 20 April 2006 (as User:87.196.129.83)

Honestly, I'm as much reporting the 3RR as I'm looking for advice as to how to handle the situation. I'm not willing to commit 3RR myself to revert the attempts today. Apologies if this should have been reported to another admin location. -- ChrisB 08:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Whole range blocked for six hours (dynamic IP) Will (E@) T 16:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Melbedewy

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

Reported by: Natoma 20:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: After much discussion amongst the people editing this article, we came to a consensus on various issues. However, Melbedewy refuses to listen to that consensus and reverts it every day. I along with several other users have created discussions on the talk page as well as his personal talk page, all in an attempt to get him to source his material appropriately as well as cease his reversions.

He simply refuses and continues to revert once a day. We have all been erasing his changes for the past couple of weeks. A few days ago he made the "threat" that he would start spamming the Corrigan entry every single day and for us to "enjoy it". Today was the first time that he broke 3RR while various editors removed his article spam, but it is apparent from the revision history that this problem has existed for a long time.

Requesting intervention with Melbedewy and if that fails, a block on the username and protection on the article, again, against unregistered IPs and new users. He said on the talk page that he does not care if he gets banned and will merely sign up with a new user name as his IP is dynamic, and start all over again

This isn't really 3RR, since its only 3R. But it does appear to be vandalism (and probably copyvio) by just pasting in text from elsewhere. I shall do a short block to reinforce the point William M. Connolley 21:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Just so you know, he's back at it again. As you can see from his history, he normally only reverts once a day, and he did so today. He'll be back everyday doing the same thing, i.e. pasting that useless text over and over again. That's also why I requested a lock on the article from anonymous IPs and new users, as well as a ban on Melbedewy. I believe there are more than enough editors at wiki today to maintain the article going forward. He's simply being a troll and will use his anon-ip status in the future, as threatened, to continue the consensus warring. Natoma 19:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Back again... Natoma 16:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

He continues. A permanent ban is probably required at this point given the attempts at intervention as well as his contribution history. I would also request protection on the article as well, if possible, to stop further incursions by anon-ips and this same individual simply signing up with a new identity and continuing the spamming. Natoma 14:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:12.217.35.198 and 12.207.89.76

Three revert rule violation on Carol Kaye (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 12.217.35.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

version reverted to title=Carol_Kaye&oldid=49379993

  1. (cur) (last) 00:51, 22 April 2006 12.217.35.198
  2. (cur) (last) 00:43, 22 April 2006 12.217.35.198
  3. (cur) (last) 00:25, 22 April 2006 12.217.35.198
  4. (cur) (last) 02:47, 21 April 2006 12.207.89.76

The odd IP is a sock for the other one. THese are all the same user. Im sure by his tone and phrasing and the fact he keeps erasing the same 2 items. Reported by: Light current 00:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not a 3RR violation unless the first edit was a revert to a previous version. There's also no point in blocking for 3RR if dynamic IPs are involved. I can sprotect if it's vandalism, but not if it's a legitimate content dispute. Which is it, in your view? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Its a content dispute. Anyway I think he's given up now--Light current 18:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I just read the talk page and his vow never to give up, plus personal attacks, so I'm willing to semi-protect. You're able to revert again, so I'll keep an eye on it and sprotect if he returns. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lou franklin

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

Reported by: Cleduc 03:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

one month, considering the number of blocks and the lengths of time imposed in the past. If another admin cares to review this and reduce the length, feel free to do so. --Heah? 03:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ptmccain

3RR violation on On the Jews and Their Lies (Martin Luther) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) by Ptmccain (talk · contribs)

Reported by SlimVirgin (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Ptmccain is repeatedly almost blanking the page. He was warned after the first time that he might be blocked if he did it again. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I offered him the opportunity to revert himself and he replied that he didn't know about 3RR, and appears to have tried to revert himself, though someone else had already done it. [107] Whoever deals with this may want to take that into account. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
It looks like he has calmed down now. I think just a Stern Warning will do... William M. Connolley 20:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Trialsanderrors

Three revert rule violation on Mary O. McCarthy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Trialsanderrors (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • 1st revert: [108] 16:53, 22 April 2006
  • 2nd revert: [109] 17:23, 22 April 2006
  • 3rd revert: [110] 17:37, 22 April 2006
  • 4th revert: [111] 17:56, 22 April 2006

Reported by: --DaveThomas 18:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverts made by his own admission see history page [112]

Since you've broken 3RR too, you can have 12h each William M. Connolley 20:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dr amr

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

Reported by: — Zerida 23:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Dr amr has been on Wikipedia for less than a week and is already edit warring over a simple content dispute at the article in question. Today, I requested input from two Wikipedian linguists before he made the 4th revert. Consensus was previously attempted on Talk:Egyptian Arabic, but he uses an uncivil tone that makes it difficult to continue the discussion. Strange thing is, he warned me of 3RR shortly before he made his last revert, but then he also says "reverting will lead you nowhere, cause I'll always be there to revert it again" [114]! See other comments on talk page — Zerida 23:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Has now been warned, and seems to have stopped. Come back if he repeats William M. Connolley 16:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Joshbuddy

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

Reported by: Alohamaru 02:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Seems to have been involved in a revert war for a long time.Alohamaru 02:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would say that it is per the talk page and the other editor has refused to discuss it ion the talk page despite being asked, I would strongly strongly suggest ignoring this 3RR violation, if we want to call it a violation -- Tawker 04:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Salucao, User:Naturtrina, User:Ibstroking have all been attempting to revert the page destroying peoples good faith edits. Numerous attempts to communicate have gone without any response. 1 After User:Naturtrina was blocked for 24 hours, another IP came back to make this exact same edit to the page. I consulted with two admins in IRC User:TigerShark and User:Anonymous editor about this issue, along with User:Shanel on a pervious occasion. I think a sockpuppet check is in order here. User:Salucao has already been blocked for being a sockpuppet. joshbuddytalk 04:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a gut feeling a sock puppet check on User:Alohamaru would be a good thing as well. joshbuddytalk 04:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
The other IP involved is User:62.128.202.55. joshbuddytalk 05:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This is slow vandalism: [115][116][117][118][119][120][121] joshbuddytalk 21:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Darkred

Three revert rule violation on Iran-Iraq War (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Darkred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: 15:30, 22 April 2006 [122]
  • 1st revert:15:30, 22 April 2006 [123]
  • 2nd revert: 01:45, 23 April 2006 [124]
  • 3rd revert: 05:13, 23 April 2006 [125]
  • 4th revert: 05:30, 23 April 2006 [126]

Reported by: Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User was warned both on the article talk page and on his user talk page, although I'm not sure if he had a chance to see the comment on his user talk page. He also continued to label his reverts as minor and usually had an edit summary that said he was reverting vandalism. The passage that he continually re-inserted originally had no source at all, when pressed he inserted an extremely dubious source that also linked George W. Bush to various conspiracies.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

  • The user has now been warned per 3RR. Not technically a violation. Only 3 reverts were the same/similar.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 06:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the diffs, but just want to point out that not all the reverts have to be the same. Any undoing of another editor's work counts as a revert. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are mistaken, he only reverted me three times but the first revert was of another person in the same 24 hour period, please give it a closer look.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I see 3 reverts of the same content, other edits changes some other content, but that is not against 3RR. If I reverted out a sentence and a reference 3 times, and change some other things, that is not against 3RR.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 07:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, I see it mixed there...then I'll have to block.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 07:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

4 any non vandalism reverts in a 24 hour period breaks the 3RR rule, same or not. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 16:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

4 reverts yes...but removing content in one place (not a revert), then another (not a revert), and then reverting a different peice of content 3 times does not violate 3RR, though if it is from a repeat offender, then s/he may get blocked for disruption. In this case, he reverted in sentence 4 times, so it passed 3RR.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 18:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Please note that Moshe has reverted DarkRed's additions four times over three days ([127] [128] [129] [130]). Moshe played this game with me a few weeks ago on another article where he reverted 9 times over 4 days (see [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138]) but reported me soon as I reverted 4 times over 2 days (other people were responsible for undoing Moshe's changes -- I didn't revert all 9.) Moshe is being a bully who is abusing reverting himself which provokes otheres into violating the 3RR which Moshe then uses to get the provoked user banned. While Moshe engaged in his reverting he did not meaningfully participate in talk -- i.e. he never sourced his additions in good faith but seemed to be motivated by personal conviction of the correctness of his edits. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 03:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
LLG, you edit using a number of IP addresses, and I believe, names, and have been extremely rude and disruptive. If you revert more than three times in 24 hours, you're likely to be blocked, and it doesn't matter what the context is, and who is right or wrong. Please learn the rules, including NPA and CIV, and try to edit in accordance with them, then you'll have no trouble. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
SM, please note that it was you that has supported Moshe's 3RR rule abuse in my banning instance -- see [Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive13#User:64.230.120.237]. Your characterization of me is not consistent with what I have done -- you seem to have read Moshe's slanted 3RR complaint about me and made some erroneous inferences rather than actually looking at my work, I can understand that, you are busy. The only time I have been angry on Wikipedia was immediately surrouding the time I was banned in part by you via Moshe's report (while he engaged in 9 reverts over 4 days without repercusion as documented above) and I later crossed that attack as per advice. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 05:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Just want to chime in that I've had similar experiences with Moshe. The guy likes to use slow edit wars to get people to cross the 3RR limit. He is, on the whole, a very partisan and unreasonable editor, so people get frustrated with him. Alienus 03:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry your feel that way but I am not sure it is particulary relavent.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:JedRothwell

Three revert rule violation on Cold fusion controversy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). JedRothwell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: 17:41, 23 April 2006 [139]
  • 1st revert: 17:39, 23 April 2006 [140]
  • 2nd revert: 18:03, 23 April 2006 [141]
  • 3rd revert: 18:43, 23 April 2006 [142]
  • 4th revert: 19:07, 23 April 2006 [143]

Reported by: JoshuaZ 19:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Note that in the third revert in the edit summary Jed basically promised to keep edit warring. He has made similar comments on the talk page such as "I will ungut them if I disagree" and "Please edit with care or I will revert" which show a serious WP:OWN problem. JoshuaZ 19:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC) Also, he just reverted again- [144] - He was warned on his talk page before he made this revert. And is clearly not interested in stopping by his own declaration: [145]. JoshuaZ 22:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

  • And he has no reverted for what is I think a 6th time- [146]
    • I have blocked User:JedRothwell for 24 hours for a 3RR violation. ~MDD4696 02:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dzoni

Three revert rule violation on Alessandra Mussolini (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Dzoni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Lou Crazy 22:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Not only he keeps reverting edits by many other editors, he insults everyone in the Talk page, dispensing accusations of communism, homosexuality, stupidity, etc. etc. He also claims all other editors are the same person.

I hope something can be done with him to avoid further problems.


Blocked for 24 hours.Geni 02:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Hurricane Devon

Three revert rule violation on HD 217107 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Hurricane_Devon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Worldtraveller 23:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User ignored several requests to explain why he was using unnecessary HTML markup in articles, and has now broken the 3RR when I removed his misuse of a template to insert markup from this article. Worldtraveller 23:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours.Geni 02:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Instantnood

Three revert rule violation on Hong Kong (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Instantnood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: SchmuckyTheCat 02:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Note: The fourth revert is outside 24 hours - but this is an obvious case of gaming and trolling the 3RR system by someone under Arbcom sanction for revert warring. I'd like to request that he be page banned from this article per the terms of his arbcom ruling. And, like the 3RR policy states, In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day. Since he's under arbcom sanction for being a revert warrior, doing three reverts in 90 minutes and then abruptly stopping and picking up the next day is edit warring and disruptive. The fact being reverted to is the statement that Victoria City is the capital of Hong Kong - something the Hong Kong government denies. It's interesting to note that you have to go back more than a year to find what he's reverting to - that's how long he's willing to carry on revert wars for.

Hmmm... no-one seems to have picked up on this, and now its stale. I'm not going to block for this. You might want to consider asking TS to add HK to the list of banned article from IN, as an alternative? Will warn William M. Connolley 20:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I should have checked: 2006-04-24 04:10:30 Ashibaka blocked "Instantnood (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (ignoring his imposed article bans) William M. Connolley 20:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Alienus

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

Reported by: Timothy Usher 08:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Addition from Musical Linguist Timothy didn't give all the diffs, so I'm expanding the report, as we are dealing with a repeat offender.

Comments: Repeat offender. Very aggressive. Constantly accuses people who revert him of edit warring, and threatens to have them "banned". Constantly uses popups to revert non-vandalism edits from his opponents, though repeatedly asked not to. Lots of snide remarks about the "Christian Cabal". Accuses other editors of "vandalism" when it's simply a content dispute. Is well aware that different reverts count towards the three-revert rule. [152], [153], [154] AnnH ♫ 08:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: In all fairness, Musical Linguist is often in content dispute with Alienus, and her descriptions above are a little bias. I do not find Alienus "very agressive,"--not anymore than her own edits---nor have I seen him "threaten" anyone to have them "banned." This is not even relevant to a 3RR vio which may have occured--if it did he is not the only one and it happens on both sides, although it's often not reported. This goes for Musical Linguist herself, who I've given the chance to undo her 3RR vio, which she says was an accident (more than once). The "snide" remarks go for both sides, as well, including ML's who has made many snide remarks. Again, not relevant but to balance the comments above, which seem to be to make Alienus a bad member of the community, which is not true. There is a history of conflict and if tempers sometimes seem short its due to the historical context of edit waring on both sides over Christianity POV issues. To Aliunus credit, he does insist that users who are removing large amounts of text discuss their major edits on the talk page first and gain consensus. He also says he will respect consensus. This was the issue of the latest edit war and resulted, in perhaps, his 3RR vio, above. See here: [155] And:[156]I think a warning, and getting a committment from him would suffice as he makes good contributions.Giovanni33 10:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Gio, please. Everything you said is true, but you're wasting your time. Look who's here: the fix is in. Nothing good will come of your efforts. There is no justice to be had here. Move along now and don't get yourself hurt. Alienus 12:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I'd never encountered Alienus (or Musical Linguist) prior to this talk page, nor engaged with him in any content dispute, yet right off the batt he accused me of being part of a shadowy "Christian cabal" and characterized my good-faith, hard-earned edits as "vandalism", reverting them on seemingly no basis beyond this prejudiced hostility.Timothy Usher 10:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Your edits suck. Mostly, you delete stuff that might embarass Christianity. You refuse to justify your broad changes and you like to edit-war. The History shows this quite plainly. Alienus 12:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Please note that Alienus' comment above originally read, "Your edits suck and so do you."[157].Timothy Usher 12:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Don't worry. He makes similar accusations everywhere, it seems. See the history of his talk page (he wipes it frequently) and also a draft RFC on his behaviour. Jakew 10:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Jake is a proud member of the Kill Everyone Who Doesn't Love Circumcision Cabal, and he's working very hard behind the scenes to get me Robert Blair'ed out of here. This shows that he's a hostile partisan, so his opinion is worthless. Thanks for chiming in against me, Jake. I knew I could always count on you to show bad faith!
Oh, and for the record, I keep archives of all the stuff that goes on my Talk page EXCEPT fake warnings from your buddy, Nandesuka. His stuff, I delete on sight, because he permanently acts in bad faith, just like you. Now move along and let AnnH handle this. She's perfectly capable of a unjustified block without your help. Alienus 12:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Thank you, I won't. However, as Giovanni33 has included diffs designed to give the impression that Alienus was willing to discuss things on the talk page, I feel compelled to point out that this is wholly untrue. I’d attempted to engage him several times to no avail, as shown: [158], [159], [160], [161]
I've still not heard one word from him about content, and in any case, how does this excuse violation of WP:3RR?Timothy Usher 10:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The Talk page shows that I asked you to justify your deletions, and you refused to. Let's not pretend for a moment that your hands are clean. Rather, you are a vandal who has done nothing other than delete and mangle content. I don't really care what your motives are, just that you have not made one good edit yet. Alienus 12:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

(preceding comments were wiped by User:Alienus. Restored by User:Jakew.)

No, they were deleted by the software bug.AnnH ♫ 16:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
You know, this is so funny that I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry. If you actually look at what's going on, you'll see that Tim is guilty of removing large blocks of text without explanation. That's not content dispute, that's vandalism, which means 3RR doesn't apply. The assorted nastiness from Ann is to be expected, but it's irrelevant here. What's relevant is that the 3RR charge had to be cooked up after the fact. Anyhow, I fully expect to be blocked regardless of my innocence, so go do your thing and wake me up when it's over. I have better things to do than argue with a kangaroo court. Bye. Alienus 12:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
It's good to know that there is no Christian cabal, just as there is no Pro-Circumcision cabal. Oddly, AnnH and JakeW are the respective leaders of these two cabals that don't exist, and although they don't much care about each other's hot topic, they've got one thing in common: a hatred of anyone who opposes their zealotry. In other words, they both hate people like me, and it's only a matter of time before they run me off Wikipedia. I'm writing this so that it's here for the record. See ya. Alienus 12:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, I'm not sure what sort of Wikibug caused the wiping of the above comments, but it's clearly not something I did intentionally. Alienus 12:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It's true, there is a software bug that causes an edit to wipe out a few of the previous edits, without the editors being aware of it. It has happened to me in the past. We all need to check diffs after editing. AnnH ♫ 16:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to attempt to refute Giovanni's post, as I know from experience that a reply will attract another lengthy post from him, and it's unfair on the admins who are policing this page to make them have to wade through lots of squabbles that have nothing to do with whether or not someone has broken the three-revert rule. Anyone who thinks that I edit war like Giovanni, or make hostile aggressive remarks like Alienus can compare our contributions. I will just say that I do not accept Giovanni's statement, and anyone who wants further information is welcome to contact me on my talk page.

On the subject of squabbles at the Christianity article, I would appeal to editors to respect the intentions of the bureaucrat who added a website to the spam filter, and also to bear in mind the amount of time it cost administrators to remove spam, and not to get round it by telling people about about the websites without actually linking them. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 16:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Without regard to this specific 3RR issue, I have blocked User:Alienus for 72 hours for his repeated, ongoing, and egregious personal attacks and disruption on this page. Civility is not optional here. Any admin that applies a block for 3RR should be aware of this, so you don't accidentally shorten the existing block. Nandesuka 16:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Hale-Byrne

Three revert rule violation on Caroline_Cox,_Baroness_Cox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Hale-Byrne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Irishpunktom\talk 16:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User has been warned three times not to breach th 3rr, but did so anyway. Users only contributions have to to remove sourced criticisms from this article. User has been invited to dicuss problems with the article but has not edited a single talk page. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a fair cop. 24h, since warned so well to so little effect William M. Connolley 17:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

    • Since Hale-Byrne was blocked, Gung has cropped up and made two edits: firstly to revert to Hale-Byrne's version of the Baroness Cox article, and second to blank Hale-Byrne's talk page. This looks like a possible block evasion. David | Talk 22:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
      I've left Gung a note explaining that blanking pages and block evasion are unnacceptable, and that another revert of Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox or more blankings will result in a block of that account. --Heah? 23:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
      Now it's Vbar. David | Talk 08:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dardanv (again!)

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

Reported by: --Asterion talk to me 16:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Aside the obvious reverts, pay attention to offensive edit summaries (again). --Asterion talk to me 16:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I would encourage the admin before taking any action, to check carefully what content is reverted by Asterion. He is involved himself in a revert war, and reporting the opponent is a technique which he uses often. You've wrongly blocked his opponents several times, this time I rely on a more just decision from your side. Thank you in advance, Ilir pz 17:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
You and DardanV know the rules and these are made for everyone. Dardan was invited many times to discuss his arguments, instead he continues to engage on edit-warring and insulting everybody else. This is not the place to discuss content clashes and you should know that as well. --Asterion talk to me 17:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like 4R by D and no-one else. 24h William M. Connolley 17:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Professionally done, Mr. Connolley, for the 2nd or 3rd time in a row. And indeed you are helping the attempts to stop the revert war. Congratulations.Ilir pz 17:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Its Dr Connolley to you; but you can call me WMC if you like William M. Connolley 20:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:General Eisenhower

Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship General_Eisenhower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
  • 1st revert: [162]
  • 2nd revert: [163]
  • 3rd revert: [164]
  • 4th revert: [165]

Reported by: General_Eisenhower (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)

Comments: Turned myself in. General_Eisenhower (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)

Uhh. those are links from a week ago, not worth a block, also don't use the admin template with your username as you are not. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 00:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Where has General Eisenhower used the admin template? BlueGoose 00:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

See the edit page, he signed with admin|General_Eisenhower Jaranda wat's sup 01:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
A couple of places. [166] and [167] are a couple of examples. DarthVader 01:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
An even more odd example: [168] DarthVader 01:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • No action taken on 3RR; blocks are not punishment. However, warned user on disruption of Wiki by use of admin template. NSLE (T+C) at 01:30 UTC (2006-04-25)

[edit] User:152.163.100.130

Three revert rule violation on Alpha Phi Alpha (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 152.163.100.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: AndyZ t 01:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The IP user is registered to America Online (AOL) and is shared by multiple users. The user has recently received a test4 and bv template (I was inclined to list him on WP:AIV first, but thought that this page would be more appropriate), and now is continuously reverting Alpha Phi Alpha to a previous version without discussion, using edit summaries like "fixed grammar" or "revert vandal --". Thanks, AndyZ t 01:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

His last edit to that page was more than 3 hours ago so he stopped, because it's AOL, not worth a block Jaranda wat's sup 01:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, since it is an AOL user, I agree. AndyZ t 22:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Worldtraveller

Three revert rule violation on HD 217107 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Worldtraveller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: HurricaneDevon @ 03:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User removes hours of edits, takes sections and unnecessaraly makes it it's own artical, and has now broken the 3RR in the prossess to prove wikipedia wrong. — HurricaneDevon @ 03:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This is two reverts, three if WP:3RR is interpreted liberally. the 2nd revert listed is you reverting worldtraveller's 1st revert; the fourth is not a revert, but the removal of different information from the page- information that is redundant with other articles, as User:ALoan stated in his revert back to one of Worldtraveller's versions. so no block. you should keep the limits imposed by 3RR in mind when counting your own reverts as well; there are a lot on that page from many different parties, including you. --Heah? 07:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pvsheridan

Three revert rule violation on American Airlines Flight 77 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Pvsheridan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User has been warned and is being disruptive. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • It's confusing to try and sort this out, but I found another diff, 18:56, 23 April 2006 that shows where Pvsheridan first inserted the material and was reverted. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
He hasn't reverted since the warning, so no block on first offense. --Heah? 19:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:TuzsuzDeliBekir

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

Reported by: —Khoikhoi 17:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User has been blocked for 3RR four times before. —Khoikhoi 17:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I have confirmed the 3RR violation and blocked accordingly. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Bomac

Three revert rule violation on Clement of Ohrid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Bomac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by:  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 19:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This user is continuously trying to push FYROM nationalistic POV in all kinds of articles and talks and at all costs. The user has already been blocked for 3RR four times in the past.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 19:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • The user that reported me doesn't even takes place in the article about Clement of Ohrid, he is only spying on me and living with the thought of nationalism. I don't know how clever is that, but isn't saying ,,FYROM" a little bit nationalistic? Or even more? Bomac 19:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Thats not a WP:3RR, the last revert was on the 24th, the others were on the 25th. I will be keeping an eye on the page. - FrancisTyers 19:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes it is, because there are four reverts within 24 hours. Date is irrelevant. FunkyFly 19:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
All were within 18 hours, despite the dates; so blocked for 48 hours for his/her fifth 3RR vio. (If you disagree, Francis, feel free to drop me a note or change it.) --Heah? 19:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. FunkyFly, was correct and got me first. Also, for the record (a) I wasn't spying on Bomac, I was tipped off, and (b) using FYROM is as nationalistic as being Kofi Annan.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 19:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Heah. Note, however, that the "revert to" link is wrong (ots one of the 25th's) so the question of whether the first revert was actually a revert arises. I think it was, though William M. Connolley 19:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair cop, I should have noted the times :) - FrancisTyers 19:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:204.108.80.12

IP Address 204.108.80.12 has blanked Secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes four times. The vandalism was reverted, but they restored their changes shortly thereafter. - Michael Goonan(talk) 20:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thats vandalism not 3RR. 2006-04-25 18:01:08 UkPaolo blocked "204.108.80.12 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 hours (vandalism despite warnings) William M. Connolley 20:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:87.116.171.209

Three revert rule violation on List of legendary kings of Britain (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 87.116.171.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Francis Schonken 20:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

8h William M. Connolley 20:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sathyalal

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

Reported by: Ragib 21:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

OK, 8h for a first offence William M. Connolley 21:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reports from Raphael1 on cartoon controversy

Responding to all of the below: the latter two are old, and you claim you want "justice"; punishment is explicitly not the purpose or a permissable use of WP:3RR. Your behavior certainly seems disruptive, as perhaps two-thirds of the reverts listed below are reverting your edits. Further edit warring will most likely result in the page being temporarily protected. No blocks from me, another admin is of course more than welcome to review. --Heah? 00:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Only 4 of the 21 reverts are reverting my edits. Not a single of Pegasus1138 reverts is reverting my edit. Raphael1 00:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pegasus1138

Three revert rule violation on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.

Reported by: Raphael1 07:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Those appear to be reversions of vandalism, which wouldn't count as a violation of the 3RR. Blackcap (talk) 07:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
They are not reversions of vandalism, because according to WP:VANDAL any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. User:80.76.67.97, like many other editors, apparently feels, that the article is better without the offending resp. disrespectul cartoon images. Raphael1 08:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
There is a blindingly obvious, huge, SCREAMING disclaimer in the source of that page explaining why the images are there, that they are there by community consensus after heated discussion and polls, and that removing them is indeed considered vandalism. Regardless of wether one agrees with that disclaimer (I do), it certainly is enough to excuse User:Pegasus1138's reverts. --Stephan Schulz 08:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
The disclamer is incorrect, because neither NPOV violations nor Bullying or Stubbornness and least of all changing articles without consensus constitutes vandalism. Raphael1 08:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
You're right that it's not technically vandalism as defined in WP:VAND, however, it is a consistent overriding of consensus on a contentious issue, when it is clearly marked at the top of the page in massive capital letters to discuss changes on the talk page. Due to this disruptive behavior and the warning message, which was again determined by consensus, the same thing that created WP:VAND, I would leave Pegasus free to go about his business with a commendation, and 80... blocked for a week for disruption. Blackcap (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
There's no consensus (probably not even a supermajority) behind the warning message. Raphael1 08:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Poll Results. 202 keep, 26 delete. That's about as close a thing to consensus as you get around here. Snoutwood (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
That poll decided, whether a warning template should be placed above the image. There has been no poll about a block warning in the comment above.Raphael1 23:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
What did you expect the warning to do? Disruption is a blockable offense. It is clearly disruption to revert community consensus repeatedly, which was to have the images, and was decided by the above poll. So as to avoid the constant reversion of the images, the block warning was placed. This has happened on a number of high-profile pages. If you have a problem with the warning, take it up on the talk page, not here. This isn't the place for that. Snoutwood (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Isn't it a contradiction to have consensus on a contentious issue? Raphael1 09:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I meant that it's an issue with very strong opinions on all sides (thus contentious) that has been resolved by a poll which achieved consensus (see above post). Snoutwood (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Repeatedly changing an article against consensus does indeed constitute vandalism. Also, I would consider this as an instance of blanking vandalism. As a totally neutral and disinterested party, shouldn't you have reported both offenders? After all, User:80.76.67.97 has exactly the same number of reverts. Except, of course, that it is an anonymous IP user with no previous contributions at all, while User:Pegasus1138 has over 2500 good edits. --Stephan Schulz 08:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
WP:VAND explicitly says that repeated reversions against consensus isn't vandalism (see here, bullying and stubbornness). I, like you, disagree, but that is what it says. Blackcap (talk) 08:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
In this case, I cite WP:IAR. This is not the case of someone who does participate, but cannot agree. It's a hit-and-run IP vandal.--Stephan Schulz 08:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Stephan - Pegasus was reverting vandalism, and why did no-one report the anon? Anyway: 2006-04-21 08:59:41 Bogdangiusca blocked "80.76.67.97 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (vandalism) so it *was* vandalism... William M. Connolley 08:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no point in reporting User:80.76.67.97, because he already got blocked by Bogdangiusca (wrongly for vandalism). Raphael1 08:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but that was *after* your report, so it doesn't explain why you didn't report both, does it? William M. Connolley 14:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
No, I reported on 07:49, 22 April 2006 and User:80.76.67.97 has been blocked on 2006-04-21 08:59:41, which is almost a day earlier. Raphael1 14:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Oops, misread the time stamp. Sorry William M. Connolley 20:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pegasus1138 2

Three revert rule violation on Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Pegasus1138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Reported by: Raphael1 21:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

See the discussion above. As far as I can see, nothing has changed.--Stephan Schulz 22:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean, that in content disputes administrators can choose whether WP:3RR or WP:IAR applies? Raphael1 22:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Of course. And I hope they choose wiseley. Also, I don't buy your characterisation of this as a simple "content dispute". --Stephan Schulz 22:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
What else do you think this is? As User:Blackcap already told you above, it is not vandalism. Raphael1 22:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I happen to not share this opinion. Repeatedly removing these pictures against a nearly 10-1 supermajority and with clear knowledge of the situation does constitute vandalism. Go build consensus if you want the images removed. Live with it if the majority is against you.--Stephan Schulz 23:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Um, I think it's vandalism, which I hoped was clear in my above posts. It's just not vandalism as defined in WP:VAND. It is, however, certainly disruption, and thus again Pegasus should be commended for his behavior. (Oh, and in case this post is confusing, I am Blackcap. I've just gone through a name change.) Snoutwood (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Raphael is attempting to use various clauses of different guidelines and policies to his advantage to gain an upper hand in removing what he considers a disrespectful representation of a religious figure. For example, he has cited WP:NBD as grounds to over ride a poll regarding inclusion of the image that judged in favor of retaining the image my a margin of 8-1. He has been repeatedly warned and blocked on this issue. He continues his efforts to have others blocked in his attempts at having the image removed from the article. His dedication is admirable, though I respectfully disagree with his efforts as he is most definitely acting against community consensus. --Durin 22:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I respect your views, but this is not the place to discuss about me. We are here to discuss User:Pegasus1138 WP:3RR violation. Raphael1 22:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Which isn't a violation, something I thought we made clear the first time you listed him here. The removals of the picture were disruptive, as they disrupted the normal functioning of Wikipedia by overriding consensus repeatedly, even despite a massive warning to the effect that the images shouldn't be reverted. Snoutwood (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The link you provided clearly states, that "inserting material that may be defamatory" such as the defamatory cartoon images is disruptive, not removing them. Raphael1 00:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Except that those images have been clearly consensed as being acceptable in the article in the poll. Look, the images' presence has been consensed upon. Nothing's going to remove them except consensus, and you don't have that. Your reverts are disruptive because you're violating consensus repeatedly by making them. Pegasus's and the other vandalfighters' are not, because they're supporting consensus. Snoutwood (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. There have been over 30 reverts in just a couple of days and you are talking about "consensus" because of poll results from February? Please read WP:NBD. Do you think, that you can simply ignore all policies, because you don't like my opinion on the content of that article? Raphael1 00:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
WP:NBD doesn't overturn old consensus if there's new controversy. That the George W. Bush article is vandalised many, many, times doesn't in any way suggest that we should rethink our consensed upon vandalism policy. Like I've said many times to you, if you want things to change, get consensus on the talk page, something which despite all of your protests you still don't have. That goes for everybody. That only some of the edits are yours is irrelevant. The point is that just because there's repeated reversions doesn't mean that they overturn consensus. Snoutwood (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Repeated reversions are a clear sign, that the consensus - if there still is one at all - is very weak. Because Polls are evil especially on minority matters, I'd prefer the WP:3RR is applied to both sides of this content dispute. Raphael1 01:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The essay "Polls are evil" is not policy and is thus a poor argument. Many editors, including myself, disagree with that page in part or in entirety. Once you achieve consensus on that page to keep those images off the page, I'll start treating the addition of them as disruption. Until then, those images will stay on the page and removal of them will continue to be disruption. Snoutwood (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
This sounds like "Wikipedia is a democracy and everybody, who edits against majority decision, will be blocked for disruption." Please change WP:NOT and add "edits against previous poll results" to the disruption examples of the WP:BP. Raphael1 01:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to even respond to these baseless accusations but just for the record I just wanted to state that had I not been checking this noticeboard for another listing I would not have seen this as nobody bothered to notify me of this. Which is very bad etiquette. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 23:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Netscott

Three revert rule violation on Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Netscott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Raphael1 22:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

See above. --Stephan Schulz 22:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Anjoe

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

Reported by: Raphael1 22:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Well, Rafael, I'm expecting you report yourself with how many 10 revert the same day? -- tasc talkdeeds 22:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've already been blocked for 48 hours. Raphael1 22:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
so you want more? -- tasc talkdeeds 22:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I want more justice. WP:3RR applies to all sides of a content dispute. Raphael1 22:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Not if you're the vandal. What do you think created WP:VAND? Consensus. What do you think created the decision that the images should be in the article? Consensus. Why do you uphold one more than the other? It's the same kettle of fish, mate, and I reckon that you'd best get used to it. If you don't want those images in, no matter what anyone else says, than I suggest forking and creating your own encyclopedia, because Wikipedia isn't the place for you. If you do care what other people think, then read that poll page one more time and if you still don't see the 10-1 supermajority then try and take it up on the talk page. Good luck, but I reckon that people are fairly sick of arguing about those images again, and again, and again. Snoutwood (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
If you think, that WP:NBD is wrong, go ahead and change it. Raphael1 00:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
WP:NBD isn't wrong. I'm not arguing for permanent decisions. But you're not overturning a consensus with the only thing that can overturn a consensus: namely, another consensus. You're just reverting against what's already been agreed upon, which is disruptive, and you'll wind up being blocked if you keep doing it. If you want to change something on WP, get consensus. Until you have that on that page, you have no right to continue to remove those images. Snoutwood (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Please look at the reverts. Only 4 of the 21 reverts I listed have been against my edit. Raphael1 00:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. This happened over 48 hours before it was reported, and 3rr is not punishment. Please take the arguing elsewhere, this page is not the proper place for it. --Heah? 06:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
First you blame me, that I'm responsible for two thirds of the reverts and then you say it doesn't matter? How could I have reported the 3RR violation earlier since I've been blocked 48 hours? Raphael1 11:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Irgendwer

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

Reported by: Rhobite 23:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Has been notified about 3RR already [175], although he removes all warnings from his talk page. Rhobite 23:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
24 hrs for 3RR and behavior on his talk page. --Heah? 23:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:HOTR

3RR violation at New anti-Semitism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I need a second opinion as to whether the following reversion by me is a 3RR. I don't think it is as both the edit I am changing from and the edit I am changing too are different from earlier edits in that the quotation in question is much more succint and in a different form (the criticism being made is of the length of the quotation, the last edit in question addresses this concern. If uninolved admins view this as a 3RR I will revert myself. Homey 00:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No, the first doesn't seem to be a revert to a previous version, making this one edit and three reverts. I might be wrong- if anybody can demonstrate this, feel free to do so- but remember, WP:3RR is not a license to revert, and one more revert will certainly be 3RR. Please use talk rather than engaging in edit warring. --Heah? 00:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The first edit restores the phrase "of its regular and consistent brutality against the Palestinians" into the introduction, which had just been removed. It's clearly a revert, he's restored it to a previous version, as this diff shows: [176]. All four reverts restored the phrase to the intro, so it's a pretty clear case. Jayjg (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It's clearly a 3RR violation, roughly Homey's third on this article in the last week or 10 days. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I looked over the article history and these diffs. It's clearly a violation of 3RR even though the underlying quote got changed in the last revert (irrelevant, since the portion Homey kept restoring is precisely the same). 24 hour block. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 00:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing this. I couldn't find the previous version. --Heah? 06:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Executor-usa and User:24.215.205.163

Three revert rule violation on OITC fraud (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Executor-usa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and 24.215.205.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

etc.

Reported by: Alf melmac 00:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Neither had been warned before - hence 11 hours blocks and notes to both users. A content dispute over whether the article subject is a hoax or not.

[edit] User:Corax

Three revert rule violation on North American Man/Boy Love Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Corax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Will Beback 00:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Editor has been blocked once before for a 3RR violation. -Will Beback 00:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Pay close attention to the second link on the list. I moved a disputed tag about one section of the article to that section, then reverted it when it was reinstated at the top of the article, leaving two disputed tags on the page. Continually reverting misplaced dispute tags is not in violation of 3RR, just as reverting vandalism repeatedly is not in violation of 3RR. Corax 16:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:CommonJoe

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

Reported by: OhNoitsJamieTalk 02:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Keeps putting a "hoax" tag on Evolution and Global Warming (at least 9 times within the last hour on Evolution). OhNoitsJamieTalk 02:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for vandalism, but it covers this as well I guess. Vsmith 03:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Artifex99

Three revert rule violation on Regular Grand Lodge of England (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Artifex99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Vidkun 03:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments Keeps reverting requests for citations, and verifiable information on organisation (namely its own split).--Vidkun 03:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The above is somewhat borderline based on time signature, so to avoid any possible leniency when it is not called for, here is a slightly different and more closely spaced 3RR set:
I have corrected my citations on this one . . . --Vidkun 03:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Balcer

Three revert rule violation on Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Balcer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Ghirla -трёп- 08:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The guy is so much given to revert warring that I decided that the community should check him this time around. This self-professed moderator deletes rather harmless comments from Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus. He knows about 3RR too well, as he eloquently defended User:Molobo (when he was blocked for repeated 3RR violations) on WP:ANI and elsewhere. If you think he may be reformed without blocking action, go ahead. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, while technically a violation, this case is not punishable IMO. Balcer was simply removing the inflammatory entry from the talk page, the entry unrelated to the article to begin with. I've worked with Balcer in the past and think he is a major asset of Wikipedia, where Polish-Russian-Ukrainian-German issues are frequently under an attack by POV pushers. Balcer is one of the most reasonable Polish editors (if not the most) and it would be disaster if he is aggravated and reduces his presence. But the main point is that his edits were simply removing of the harmful trollish entries at the talk page. --Irpen 08:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
If he was removing trollish comment then how is it "technically a violation"?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I always welcome the judgement of the community. If my actions were incorrect, I will be happy to change my behaviour. However, in this case I believe I have done nothing wrong. Indeed, I think removing trollish comments by anonymous IPs is a service, not a violation. Note that User:Kusma also agreed with me in this matter, and reverted the anon twice. Even the anon himself eventually admitted on my talk page that his actions were incorrect (diff)! It is also interesting how the anon himself inserted his trollish comment 6 times, and yet Ghirlandajo has not bothered to list him for a 3RR violation as well.
I think it is worth considering that Ghirlandajo is not acting in good faith here, and has not revealed all of his motives. I refer everyone interested to our exchanges on Talk:Russophobia. On that talk page, after a long, contentious discussion, I was able to prove to Ghirlandajo that a prominent quote he inserted into the text and kept it there by numerous reverts was fabricated. I guess he is still miffed about that. Balcer 12:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
If you've violated 3RR, Ghirla should be free to list you, and his motives are irrelevant; in this case, his motives are the guesswork of the person trying to get out of a potential block. I don't think you've got any chance of getting blocked for this though. Personally, I don't think anyone should get blocked for reverting edits of anons. I've seen so many revert warriors get away with it, this is nowhere near a blockable offense in the greater context. I will say though, that since this was a talk page, you should have just scored his comments out if you believed them to be inflammatory. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 12:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
When talking about motives, I was not referring to the 3RR listing itself (of course anyone is entitled to do that), but rather to the unfair and unnecessary comment by Ghirlandajo given as a justification for it ("The guy is so much given to revert warring ..." etc). I should have made that clear. Balcer 13:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Ghirla's motives are the same as they have ever been. The current attempt to smear your name for simple cleaning of graffiti fromt talk pages fits the pattern shown in his RfC perfectly. He should receive a warning for libel agaisnt you and for taking community's time with such pointless accusation.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I will seek admins' warning to Piotrus on this issue. For the umpteenth time, he covers up a quite blatant (5 reverts in two hours!) 3RR violation by one of his comrades in arms by attempting to shift the phocus to "Ghirla's motives". I'm not going to tolerate this. Anon's comments were rather harmless and should have stayed on the talk page. It is not vandalism to be exempt from 3RR. As Piotr's comments show, he has been encouraging revert warring and downplaying the importance of 3RR whenever he posted on this page (see above), yet I do not presume to discuss *his* motives here, although this would really make an interesting reading. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I will seek admins' warning to Piotrus on this issue. Yes, Ghirla, do that. Perpahs finally you'll succeed in attracting enough attention to your petty behaviour that others will take some action, I and others - like Balcer - are really tired of your personal attacks.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Corax

Three revert rule violation on North American Man/Boy Love Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Corax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Davodd 10:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Pay close attention to the second link on the list. I moved a disputed tag about one section of the article to that section, then reverted it when it was reinstated at the top of the article, leaving two disputed tags on the page. Continually reverting misplaced dispute tags is not in violation of 3RR, just as reverting vandalism repeatedly is not in violation of 3RR. The user who reported this remark is losing an argument, and is trying to compensate by using Wikipedia's rules as a weapon. Corax 16:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal/moving of dispute links is not excluded from this rule. This is a black and white issue - you are reverting edits by more than one user; edits that do not qualify as exclusions to the 3RR. Your other argument is a red herring that is irrelevant to your violation of 3RR. - Davodd 21:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pnatt

Three revert rule violation on Australian Football League (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Pnatt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Remy B 10:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

2006-04-26 10:48:17 ScottDavis blocked "Pnatt (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Vandalism to Australian Rules Football etc) William M. Connolley 10:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Giovanni33

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

Hard to give an exact previous version, as Giovanni began to edit war by changing the introduction to "centred on stories" and "a character" on 12 April, and the article has, of course, changed since then. See this diff from 12 April. (Later, he edit warred with "accounts".)

  • Insertion of "self-defined" (not a revert, but given to show that the next one is) 02:55 26 April 2006


Reported by: AnnH ♫ 10:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Repeat offender. Was given numerous chances and warnings before 1st report. See here, and here. Has used sock-and/or-meat-puppets in the past, for voting and extra reverts, as established by checkuser in the case of BelindaGong (talk · contribs) and by an accidental signing of a post[178] while logged on as Freethinker99 (talk · contribs). Is suspected of using others. Kecik (talk · contribs), for example, has 29 edits to articles. 27 of them are reverts to Giovanni's version, and the other two are just minor copyedits straight after reverting. As there's no IP match, there's nothing we can do, but it doesn't seem right that an account can exist for the sole purpose of helping out another user in votes and reverts. It's very difficult to get a proper consensus with this going on, and the average reverts of many editors with a history of working well with others has gone up since this started. AnnH ♫ 10:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

That took some working through, but yes you're right. 24h William M. Connolley 15:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The last one cannot count as a revert. He only readded a comment saying that the factual accuracy is under question. Such a tag should have never been removed without his agreement. Some of the other edits are certainly biased, and some argument can be made that WP:NPOV outranks WP:3RR and removing According to Acts while making it say according to Budge at the beginning of every sentence in the Osiris controversy is biased. But you have 5 reverts if not, and that should be clearly put.

KV 19:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Response: I wasn't going to reply here, as this page is not for discussion, so I replied directly to KV's talk page yesterday. However, Giovanni is now also arguing that the placing of a POV accuracy tage should not have been counted as a revert, when he had just placed it there instead of edit warring, and is talking about double standards. First of all, if we discount that edit, it still leaves him with five reverts. Secondly, the edit in which he reinserted the tag also reinserted the sentence about mystery religions, which had been taken out by two different editors, and which Giovanni had already reinserted once. In fact, the edit summary says that he's reverting and putting in the tag. King Vegita missed it, perhaps because he didn't scroll down far enough. A real or perceived violation of NPOV does not excuse editors from respecting 3RR. We're not always the best judges of what edits are POV, and if something really needs to be changed, someone else will do it. Removal or insertion of POV tags is part of a content dispute, and so cannot count as "simple vandalism", and may not be reverted by an editor who has already made three reverts. AnnH ♫ 17:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:87.116.171.209 (yet again)

Three revert rule violation on List of legendary kings of Britain (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 87.116.171.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 11:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: : User was blocked a few days ago for the same limitless and pointless reverting. Is doing the same thing on List of rulers of Montenegro and Rulers and heads of state of Ethiopia. Is not discussing it, and probably has no wish to. Looks like a vandal trying to take up the time of wikipedians. Would like his edits labelled vandalism by admins so I can revert him without violating 3RR. Also operates under IP addresses 87.116.178.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and 87.116.165.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), all traceable to Serbia & Montenegro. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 11:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

24h (sorry, did it earlier, forgot to say so...) William M. Connolley 18:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)