Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive16

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:UtherSRG

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

Reported by: — Benzert 17:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Administrator abusing privileges. — Benzert 17:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Please give diff links rather than version edits. I will check this, but please format reports properly. This will enable us to block faster if a violation has happened and is easier for us. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 18:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Reversion of "simple vandalism" is not covered by the 3RR. I can't say with certainty that this is reversion of simple vandalism without expert knowledge about Echidnas, but considering that your edit here is your only edit, I believe you are a sockpuppet account of the users editing that page that got reverted. Sorry, but I'm not convinced by your argument. No block from me. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 18:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The platypus is commonly refered to as the "duck-billed platypus."--Benzert 18:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, and that is mentioned in the Platypus article.
  • See WP:MAM#Names and titles for the reasoning for the capitalization. Note the edit histories of both echidna and Platypus. User:Duck-billed platypus, and their original anon IP, was told in various different ways that their edits were vandalism of echidna and Platypus. I subsequently blocked the user, and they proceeded to create another username to circumvent block. I reverted that edit as well. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The obvious sockpuppetry between you, User:4.19.93.2, User:Duck-billed platypus, User:Somethin', and User:Echidnas doesn't make this request exactly trustworthy. Femto 18:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)



[edit] User:Macedonia 2

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

Reported by: Telex 22:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User keeps removing the sourced information that the Vergina Sun is copyrighted by WIPO as a Greek emblem. The registrations are right here [1] [2] [3] . He's been blocked numerous times for violating the 3RR, always pushing the POV of the Republic of Macedonia (hence his username). Telex 22:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • This user's not violated the 3RR yet. The first version you gave is clearly not the same as the one the user is reverting to see this, a comparison of the last revert done by the user and the version you said they're reverting to. Next time the user reverts then 3RR will have been violated, but not yet. Not willing to block. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 22:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't see a 3RR either, nor any removal of information. I just see him/her inserting the text "however, exclusive rights to Greece were never granted." and replacing it three times. Gamaliel 22:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, regardless, next time the user adds the text in they will have violated 3RR. "Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word". --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 22:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
My point is, he partially reverted (partial reverts count according to WP:3RR) to the version which didn't have that information. Telex 22:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
That's very thin ice to stand on, especially when concerning addition of information. I'm not willing to block the user on the grounds of that "partial revert" but I will block if the user reverts again. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 22:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
How about the fact that he's waging the same revert war at Portal:Republic of Macedonia/Did you know? Telex 22:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Then list a 3RR report if the user has violated 3RR. 3RR does not apply cross-article. Or list a report on WP:ANI. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 22:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Corrected the "previous version reverted to" link and time above. Ice is solid. The user added FOUR (not three) times in one hour the same phrase and NOT partially reverted. User has been blocked 4 times in the past for 3RR and was just unblocked 2-3 days ago, since the last block was for 36 hours.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense either. S/he isn't reverting to the May 6 version, s/he added that sentence to the May 6 version. There are no edits by anyone between the May 6 version and the first May 9 revert. Gamaliel 22:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
You're right, we're confused. We'll revert the article back to the sourced version (I got mixed up, he was deleting the info on another page and adding unsourced info on this one - nowhere does it say the request was denied; it was accepted, the registrations prove that). Telex 22:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The user added (like the word I bolded above) the same sentence to the same previous version FOUR times. This is 3RR by all books.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with that. The previous version reverted to was 21:02 9 May 2006, since that is the first time that the text has entered the version. Regardless, the user still violated the 3RR since s/he's reverted six times. 4 day block, for the 5th offense. I may start blocking for even longer soon. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 07:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks and sorry for the debate. (I still haven't understood despite further explanations -since the text did not just miraculously enter the version; it was inserted by him- but nevermind...) Someone should explain me this so that I don't make the same mistake(?) in future. Again, sorry.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 08:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This page is only for discussion 3RR violations. This discussion can continue on User talk:Deskana. :-) --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 10:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Amibidhrohi

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

Reported by: Jayjg (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • These are straightforward reverts to identical previous versions. The editor has been blocked for 3RR before [4], and was asked to revert himself: [5]. Jayjg (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • 72 hour block. I was tempted to block for a week, given that this is this user's fourth time being blocked for 3rr. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 15:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
merged duplicate report

3RR violation at Hamas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) by Amibidhrohi (talk · contribs)

And if it's needed, another revert adding the phrase "over 90 per cent of its work is charitable" to the intro

Reported by SlimVirgin (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment

Amibidrohi has been making complex partial reverts in order to add "illegally occupying" or "illegally occupied," inserting them in different places in the intro in an effort to game the system. He has also started reverting over the claim, also in the intro, that over 90 per cent of Hamas's work is charitable. He's been blocked four times before, twice for 3RR. [6] He and User: Tazmaniacs (see report above) have both violated 3RR on this page today. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

He's still reverting:

Blocked for 48 hours by SushiGeek. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 02:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Deepujoseph

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

Reported by: Anwar saadat 23:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This user does not speak Tamil language, nor is he aware of this actor. Yet he reverts to his POV randomly here blanking lines, paragraphs, sections and even links. Anwar saadat 23:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply - True, I don't speak Tamil fluently, but I can understand it fairly well. And I don't know how you even came to a conclusion that I don't know Ajith - that, I believe, is strictly something I am allowed to decide for myself. Also, from when on, did removing commercial links become vandalism as you stated here . I request the administrators to please take a look at Talk:Ajith and Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics#User:Anwar saadat edit summaries. - translation? to get a better grasp of the situation. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK 05:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply - Thank you, Blnguyen. Anyhow, correction of vandalism does not figure under the WP:3RR rule.- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK 05:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Joetkeck

Three revert rule violation on September 11, 2001 attacks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Joetkeck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 23:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User violated 3RR yesterday and was warned on his talk page. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 23:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 25 hours by SushiGeek, obvious 3rr Jaranda wat's sup 23:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] update

User is evading block through IP [7], does not appear to comprehend 3RR. The IP editor is signing as Joetkeck and making identical reversions. --Mmx1 19:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Erdogan Cevher 2

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

Reported by:  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 09:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • The user immediately re-reverted after being unblocked by the previous violation in the same article. He didn't even wait to complete the 24h interval from his previous reverts for which he had been blocked for 12h. In the middle of the process he used the re-arrange technique in order to conceal his revert.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 09:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 09:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 09:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:207.200.116.13

Three revert rule violation on Criss Angel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 207.200.116.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User is repeatedly violating 3RR. Has been warned on user talk page and article talk page. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • User also has a history of vandalism on other articles, and continues to repeat the same act of vandalism, even when warned and informed. - Izzy Galvez 21:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is an AOL proxy, so there is not a lot to be done; we're not really allowed to block for long. All I can do is give you carte blanche to revert them as often as you like, and maybe (semi-)protect the page if needed William M. Connolley 22:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Luka_Jačov and User:Ante_Perkovic

Note that here we have removal/restoring of reference, so it could be a case of vandalism and reverting of vandalism. Dunno, I'm all but NPOV on this thing so somebody else please decide what to do.

[edit] User:Luka_Jačov

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

Reported by: Dijxtra 16:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Blocked for 24 hours. --Cyde Weys 16:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ante_Perkovic

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

Reported by: Dijxtra 16:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Blocked for 24 hours. --Cyde Weys 16:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Rydel (result: 24h)

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

Reported by: Kuban Cossack 17:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User repeatedly inserts POV material has stalked all of my edits today, has been blocked previously on Belarusian language where he managed to continued an edit war for about four months resulting in that article being locked TWICE.--Kuban Cossack 17:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 18:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ptmccain

3RR at Martin Luther (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) by Ptmccain (talk · contribs)

Reported by SlimVirgin (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

The above are straightforward reverts where Ptmccain removes the same second paragraph from the intro each time, the 14th time he has done so without discussion, reverting against at least five editors. He has violated 3RR before on a related article, but was offered the chance to revert himself [8] and was given a 3RR warning by an uninvolved admin. [9] He has also engaged in page blanking and was warned about that too. [10] [11] [12] He removes all warnings from his talk page and continues with the same behavior. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 22:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, William. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:222.1.45.125

Three revert rule violation on Japanese history textbook controversies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 222.1.45.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Deiaemeth 09:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thats 4R, by both of you. 12h apiece. William M. Connolley 20:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:70.125.129.203 (result: warning)

Three revert rule violation on Realms_of_Kaos (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 70.125.129.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Sarysa

Comments: Violation of 3RR rule on the said article. This person deletes a selection they disagree with over and over again. He/She thinks that something with extremely close ties with the main article does not deserve a section. Has been writing over other peoples' edits with his/her version since and has not been paying heed to his/her own errors.

Was there some reason that you didn't warn the anon? Sigh. I'll do it. No block unless more reverts William M. Connolley 20:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jjzeidner

Three revert rule violation on Web 2.0 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Jjzeidner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Dhartung | Talk 19:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Whether the information belongs there or not, the user has failed to engage in Talk and simply reverts. Newbie probably unaware of 3RR. Correction: User registered name in 2004, but rarely edited before. --Dhartung | Talk 19:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

User was not warned, I have warned them now. Above are not diffs, user has several sequential edits and as I see it has reverted three times thus far. Just zis Guy you know? 20:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I think that's appropriate -- this was my first time (I think) using a 3RR notice. --Dhartung | Talk 21:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Hughgr

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

Reported by: — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Hughgr, Steth, and AED seem to agree on this version, while I, Jefffire, and others, have tried to get an NPOV version of the fact that Chiropractic has little scientific support into the lead. "5th revert" is not quite identical, but it is a reversion by adding qualifiers. (Note also that User:Steth been blocked for 3RR before.)

In all honesty, I have violated 3RR also if either 0th is is considered a reversion, or my revert/self-revert is included as a reversion:

The last revert was not actually a revert, it was a slight rewording. Also the user was not warned (since you know about 3RR I ghuess I could block you, but that would be churlish). I suggest you all have a nice cup of tea and stop the war. Just zis Guy you know? 20:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I think maybe we've got a resolution. We'll see if it lasts. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:24.5.80.41 (result: 12h)

Three revert rule violation on The Marin School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 24.5.80.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [14]
  • 1st revert: [15]
  • 2nd revert: [16]
  • 3rd revert: [17]
  • 4th revert: [18]

Reported by: Bill 21:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The version the user is reverting to is copied directly from the site: [19]

Ah, as a copyvio it doesn't need to be listed here. But where? Not sure. By golly, there has been a lot of reverting, you should have come sooner. Anyway, 12h William M. Connolley 22:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:KAS

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

Reported by:  Denelson83  22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

2006-05-11 22:11:55 Denelson83 blocked "KAS (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation on article Sailor Moon) William M. Connolley 22:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:UberCryxic

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


Reported by: Duckdid 23:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

He's reverted that article about 20 times today, but luckily for him, the Wikipedia process for reporting someone is so bureaucratic and time-consuming that I'm not going to properly fill out the report. Duckdid 23:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

He was warned in his talk page, but keep on reverting, I was the 172 IP that warned him, too many reverts to be listed. Thanks JAbeach 23:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

But most aren't look closer, he reverted about 40 times, some of them were vandalism but look at the early difs, easy 3rr violation JAbeach 01:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Military_history_of_France&offset=20060511071712&action=history

Amazingly, it looks like he's going to survive having reverted a page about 20 times in one day (very few of them for vandalism). Duckdid 23:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ackoz

I violated the 3RR rule on Abortion. ackoz 23:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No one else has reported you for it, so it should be okay. Just make sure you stop reverting now. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Michael D. Wolok

Three revert rule violation on Many-worlds interpretation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Michael_D._Wolok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: -lethe talk + 00:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I have already blocked this user for 24 hours. -lethe talk + 00:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jahat

Three revert rule violation on Di-dehydroepiandrosterone (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Jahat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Rockpocket (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Editor Jahat and User:67.101.144.52 are the same person [20]. He was warned that further reverting to his OR would result in a 3RR block [21]. Rockpocket (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

As he reverted again after you'd warned him, I'm going to block for 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Shez_15

Three revert rule violation on Rani Mukerji (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Shez_15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [22] 23:11, 10 May 2006
  • 1st revert: [23] 23:19, 11 May 2006
  • 2nd revert: [24] 23:45, 11 May 2006
  • 3rd revert: [25] 00:09, 12 May 2006
  • 4th revert: [26] 00:14, 12 May 2006

Reported by: Zora 01:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: One of those reverts is by Shez 15, not logged in -- that's the static IP associated with his account.

We have been having problems with Shez for months. He is obsessed with Rani Mukerji. He feels he "owns" her article; he modifies articles on films like Veer-Zaara to give Rani top billing, even when she's a supporting actress; he attacks other actress articles; for a while, he was modifying the disambiguation page for Rani page so that the Rani (Bollywood actress) entry read #1 Bollywood actress. See discussions on talk pages, talk page for WP:INCINE, the Indian cinema project. We are discussing mediation.

[edit] User:Frankman (result: 8h each)

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

Reported by: serbiana - talk 01:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User is reverting the Greater Croatia page even though we reached an agreement about the way the page should look on the talk page. He is constantly asking for sources, even though they are given at the External links part of the page. I have nothing else to say, he has been warned about the 3RR, he's not cooperating, just reverting. --serbiana - talk 01:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  • A small comment: the reporter himself seems to have broken 3RR too and apparently used misleading edit summary in his last revert here. --Elephantus 05:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I was going to correct you on that... Bormalagurski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has also broken 3RR. But it seems its one of those odd-sig things... William M. Connolley 07:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


Oh, I don't know... 8h each William M. Connolley 07:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Deepblue06/User:152.2.10.46/User:24.211.192.250

Three revert rule violation on Human rights in Turkey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Deepblue06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)/152.2.10.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)/24.211.192.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Reported by: ManiF 03:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Recent CheckUser evidence has confirmed that all these users are the same person, so 152.2.10.46, Deepblue06, and 24.211.192.250 should all be blocked, I believe. Also, they know about the 3RR from here and here. ManiF 03:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I have blocked User:Deepblue06 which should autoblock the IP he is using. As for the other IP, I can't say it's the same person... (and neither can checkuser, all Essjay did was confirm Deepblue06 was one of the above). Sasquatch t|c 06:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Togrol (result: 24h)

Three revert rule violation on Cyrus the Great (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Togrol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: ManiF 13:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Four reverts in less than two hours. The user has been warned and knows the 3RR rule. --ManiF 13:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 16:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Erdogan Cevher 3

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

Reported by:  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 14:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User's third violation immediately after previous block expiry, in the same article. Also, highly POV edits, WP:POINT violation and repeated irrelevant responses. Kindly check article and talk.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 14:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Is there something wrong with this report? Can I have a feedback please? NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 15:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

2006-05-12 14:53:47 Lightdarkness blocked "Erdogan Cevher (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3rr on List of unrecognized countries) William M. Connolley 15:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to both and sorry for not checking block log. NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 15:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I appoligize, while adding a note here that I had blocked, I got the loss of session error, and had to move on to my next class at school, and forgot to repost. --lightdarkness (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sosomk/User:192.240.93.52

Three revert rule violation on Bagrationi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Sosomk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)/192.240.93.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: —Khoikhoi 18:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • 24h Will (E@) T 18:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Merecat

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

Reported by: User:RyanFreisling @ 19:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User was found by Checkuser ([28], [29], [30]) to be a 'likely sockpuppet of Rex071404 and Anon Texan', and has violated 3RR deleting the sockpuppet warning from his user page. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note this user is now blocked and this 3RR request can be considered 'dormant', as the only practical recourse to the report (blocking) is already in effect. Thank you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ptmccain 2 (result: 24h)

3RR on Martin Luther (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) by Ptmccain (talk · contribs)

Reported by SlimVirgin (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment

For the past 10 days or so, practically the only edits to Wikipedia Ptmccain has made have been to delete the phrase: "Luther is also known for his writings about the Jews where he proposed that Jews' homes be destroyed, their synagogues and schools burned, their money confiscated, and their rights and liberties curtailed" from the intro of Martin Luther, either by deleting it, moving it, or rewriting it to remove any reference to what Luther actually said about Jews from the intro. He has reverted it 18 times so far. He was warned about 3RR, then was blocked for it on May 10, [31] but the first article edits he made after returning from the block were to violate 3RR again over the same issue. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I also meant to add that his fourth revert has in the edit summary "revert to my last edit. There has been major vandalism to this site." This was a deceptive edit summary. There had been vandalism, but it had already been reverted, and the only thing his edit changed was the same phrase as before. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ever so slightly marginal, but OK: 24h William M. Connolley 21:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, William. I don't quite see how it's marginal. He's determined to get rid of that one sentence from the intro, and spends most of his time on Wikipedia either deleting it entirely, moving it elsewhere in the intro, or rewriting it. This violation involved, from memory, two reverts that deleted and two that rewrote it. Perhaps he hoped that by mixing and matching reverts, he'd get round 3RR. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Drogo Underburrow

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

Reported by: Timothy Usher 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The following text, and its variants, appears to be the main point of the edits:

  • Previous: "He never renounced his belonging to the Catholic church."
  • 1st revert: "He never renounced his belonging to the Catholic church."
  • 2nd revert: "Hitler however, like many other Catholics, felt that he was still a Catholic even if he did not attend church. He maintained to the end of his life that he was a Catholic in good standing with the Church, and the Church never issued a statement contradicting him."
  • 3rd revert: "Hitler always considered himself a Catholic, despite his lack of church attendence. He stated that he was and would always be a Catholic."
  • 4th revert: "He never renounced his belonging to the Catholic church."Timothy Usher 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment — This charge of violating 3-RR is most unexpected. I don't see where I reverted anything four times, but if it makes Timothy happy, I have self-reverted "He never renounced his belonging to the Catholic church." from the last edit. I'm not going to make any edits now for awhile. Had Timothy simply asked me on my talk page to not put in that sentence, I would have been happy not to. I think this is a completely frivolous claim of violating 3-rr. Drogo Underburrow 05:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

A review of the diffs shows that this is not the only sentence you've added which makes this point. I kept it brief for the readers of this page.Timothy Usher 05:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment — User's first offence, and he seems to have been unaware about partial reverts and different reverts counting. He has already partially (but not fully) reverted himself after being told of the violation. I suggest he reviews WP:3RR, reverts himself fully, and maybe stays away from the article for the next few hours. AnnH ♫ 07:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment — The second "revert" is not a revert. The second edit is adding new material, which is not the same as in the first edit, to an entirely different version of the article. The third "revert" is also not a revert. It says something new, different than the second edit, and different from the first and fourth edits, again to a different base version of the article, in an effort to find a compromise that is acceptable. The fourth "revert" was the same material as in the first, and I self-reverted it. Drogo Underburrow 07:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

By this logic, your next edit can add "Some say Hitler wasn't a Catholic, but he was faithful to the Church his whole life", the next can be, "The Führer remained loyal to the Vatican for all his days ", the next, "The faith with which Adolf was raised never left his heart," etc., and the number of reverts you're allowed is limited only by your creativity. I think not.Timothy Usher 07:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Timothy Usher

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

Reported by: Drogo Underburrow 09:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: - Timothy Usher is trying to game the system by making his fourth and fifth reverts just past 24 hours

I'd reverted from a version that was itself the result of Drogo's violation of 3RR, as discussed above. Despite AnnH's attempt to broker an amicable and penalty-free resolution, Drogo refused to self-revert his edits in their entirety, so after waiting a bit, I did it for him. Since reverted again by Giovanni33, without contest (even though G33 has been violating 3RR himself through transparent puppetry, as per AnnH's recent post on WP:ANI).Timothy Usher 09:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jiang

Three revert rule violation on List of countries by GDP (PPP), 2006 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Jiang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Edit history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29%2C_2006&action=history

  • 1st revert: [09:46, 13 May 2006]
  • 2nd revert: [09:48, 13 May 2006]
  • 3rd revert: [09:51, 13 May 2006]
  • 4th revert: [09:54, 13 May 2006]

Reported by: Alan 10:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This user, who is also an administrator, violates the neutral point of view policy. The Chinese naming convention of Wikipedia has clearly stated that official names should be used. I have told him that the Republic of China (ROC), instead of Taiwan, is the official name of the state, and that the ROC actually controls other islands such as Kinmen and Matsu in addition to Taiwan. I have invited him to discuss in the discussion page, but he continues to revert. He has revert four times already. He has done that to some other related articles too* This user, who is also an administrator, violates the neutral point of view policy. The Chinese naming convention of Wikipedia has clearly stated that official names should be used. I have told him that the Republic of China (ROC), instead of Taiwan, is the official name of the state, and that the ROC actually controls other islands such as Kinmen and Matsu in addition to Taiwan. However, he didn't pay attention, continued to push his POV, and put "Taiwan" in the places where the "official name" should be put. I have invited him to discuss in the discussion page, but he continues to revert. He has revert four times already. He has done that to some other related articles too, such as:
  • List of countries by GDP (nominal)
  • List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita
May some OTHER administrators please take action to stop him from messing around with the articles? Thanks.  - Alan 10:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Please state what is specifically being reverted (including a link to the "Previous version reverted to") and provide diffs . --Jiang 10:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Revert 1 is not a revert, it is formatting. Jiang has not broken 3RR. No action taken against Jiang Will (E@) T 10:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nikitchenko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Article Office of Special Affairs Reversions:

  1. 09:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC) Nikitchenko
  2. 09:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC) Nikitchenko
  3. 10:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC) Nikitchenko
  4. 10:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC) Nikitchenko

After his third I warned him both on the article talk page and his talk page. Despite this he continued and article is in the state he left it in. If you look at the article history you'll see no less than 5 editors (including sysops) constantly reverting his edits. Please take action accordingly. - Glen TC (Stollery) 10:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

2006-05-13 11:04:33 Samuel Blanning blocked "Nikitchenko (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR on Office of Special Affairs) William M. Connolley 21:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Richb1111 (result: 24h)

Three revert rule violation on American Airlines Flight 77 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Richb1111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Tom Harrison Talk 18:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: He intends to persist unless blocked. Tom Harrison Talk 18:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


24h William M. Connolley 21:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:64.187.60.98

Three revert rule violation on Gnosticism in modern times (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 64.187.60.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Cedderstk 20:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Same article also suffered the same change from User:Ndru01 who was blocked for 24 hrs, and evaded block using sockpuppets. --Cedderstk 20:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Purger/User:4.249.72.58/User:4.249.3.179 (result: 24h)

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

Reported by: Elephantus 22:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User was blocked for 3RR on this article before. Now apparently he's trying to avoid 3RR by logging-out every second revert or so. --Elephantus 22:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact he wasn't blocked before as Purger, but was as Purqer. It seems very likely the anon is Purger, so this looks like 4r to me. 24h William M. Connolley 08:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Striver (result: 48h)

Three revert rule violation on People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Striver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Jersey Devil 02:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The reintroduction of the "former skeptics" section is common on all of the reverts.--Jersey Devil 02:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

48h, since he has form William M. Connolley 08:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Col._Hauler

Three revert rule on Wii (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Col._Hauler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Multiple editors have repeatedly asked him politely to stop his behavior; his responses to them have either been ignoring and reverting, or accusing them of sockpuppetry. All attempts to discuss the matter with this user on his talk page have been ignored. He repeatedly tries to claim "vandalism", when in reality any changes to the Wii page have been discussed prior on its talk section.

Previous version reverted to: [32]


Daniel Davis 12:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

HOLY 9RR, BATMAN! Blocked for a week for excessive reverting Will (E@) T 13:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ryz05

Three revert rule violation on United States (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Ryz05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Marielleh 12:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User repeatedly reverts to his version of "science and technology" and other sections stalking other editors' edits. Doesn't comment his edits or try to seek consensus in discussion page. Has been noted numerous times about problems of his edits and ignoring.--Marielleh 12:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24h Will (E@) T 13:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Deepblue06 (result: 48h)

Three revert rule violation on Armenian Genocide (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Deepblue06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: —Khoikhoi 16:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User has been blocked for 3RR before. —Khoikhoi 16:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
48h this time, so soon after last block William M. Connolley 19:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ferick

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

Reported by: —Asterion talk to me 19:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User insists on removing verifiable links. I have tried to discuss the matter and compromised over the language used but he or she insists on deleting content instead of having a verifiable article reflecting all points of view.

Possible 3RR violation on my side and another user (check history) too, if we count my original edit, where I expanded the article considerably but also added a previously removed link by another user which I considered necessary to reflect oppossing POVs. I have good intentions but it seems I touched somebody else's POV spot, I am afraid. Regards, Asterion talk to me 19:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: It has been three days since the events and things have cooled down. It is my intention to ask for a Request for Comments on the article. Therefore, I would suggest no punitive action is taken. Regards, Asterion talk to me 06:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Petrinja

Three revert rule violation on Minefields in Croatia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Petrinja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Ante Perkovic 20:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

There need to be more than 3 edits to be a violation. Otherwise, many Croatian users have made 3 edits as well in numerous articles they are reverting. Petrinja 20:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:CltFn

Three revert rule violation on Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). CltFn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: —Ruud 03:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Please see his block log. —Ruud 03:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pansophia

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

(Note* times above are +4 hours UTC)

Reported by: Rhobite 03:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Removing accuracy and POV tags without addressing complaints is particularly detrimental to the article. Rhobite 03:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Up to 7 reverts now. Rhobite 04:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Now 8 reverts. --Calton | Talk 04:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
There was a previous negotiation to remove the tags in the name of reducing in-fighting and working things out on the talk page. The edit situation tonight involves a user who has been harassing me for helping another user when he spoofed her user name and tried to make her look like a troll. Tonight he set me up for 3RR and then ran over to Calton and Rhobite to take advantage. I've asked them both to look at what Midgley is doing: helping someone with harassment against someone who tried to help his victim sets a very poor example for other Wikipedians, geared toward discouraging others from "sticking their neck out" to help people who being bullied. --Pansophia 04:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:KDRGibby

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

Reported by: LotLE×talk 03:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Repeated insertion of POV material.

[edit] User:Myciconia

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

Reported by: Drogo Underburrow 05:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User edit-wars, reverting attempts of other editors to change the article.

Note that there are three separate issues addressed by Myciconia in the above diffs. There is no 3RR to the same version, or of the same paragraph. 141.154.185.188 05:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Three revert rule violation on Cuba (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Drogo Underburrow 05:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User edit-wars, reverting attempts of other editors to change the article. Doesn't always revert to exactly the same version, but does partial reverts that undo the point of the editor whose work he is undoing.

  • 1st revert: deletes material on Human Rights Watch inserted by previous editor.
  • 2nd revert: restores section previous editor User:Ultramarine deleted on Cuba supposedly having the highest rates of education
  • 3rd revert: deletes Cuban American National Foundation claim
  • 4th revert: deletes Cuban American National Foundation claim
  • 5th revert: deletes Cuban American National Foundation claim

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has undid the actions of another editor five times in less the 24 hours. - Drogo Underburrow 08:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that that there are three separate issues addressed in the above diffs. Also of note is that blocking admin User:Cyde has a history of conflict with User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, including Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cyde.

[edit] User:Ruzgar

Three revert rule violation on Nationalist Movement Party (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Ruzgar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

also recently:

Reported by: Moby 11:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Seel also comments on Talk:Nationalist Movement Party. User:Ruzgar' other recent contribs also need review. May be User:85.107.81.200 - see: 09:40, 12 May 2006 --Moby 11:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

See also: more deletion --Moby 11:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ruzgar (again) (result: 3h)

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

Reported by: Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: And see above report re Nationalist_Movement_Party and I can't be bothered to check the user's edits to Kurdistan_Workers_Party.

This is 4R but I don't understand the "again" [Oh sorry, I read from the bottom... (fnarr)]. I see nothing in the block log and no warnings on his talk page. 3h first offence, unless you can supply the missing info William M. Connolley 12:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Philwelch

Three revert rule violation on NSA call database (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Philwelch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Travb 12:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User began to edit section when I put an {{inuse}} tag in the section, when I brought this to his attention on his talk page, he told me it was my fault, not his, and then began reverting my graph, despite {{inuse}} tag, stating: "no edits in past hour so apparently not in use"[39] which is clearly not true because of the edit 1 minute before.Travb 12:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe my preferences are off due to daylight savings time, since my page history showed no edits for over an hour. In any case, at least one of the reversions was actually an edit conflict and not a conscious reversion. Furthermore, the conflict is pretty much resolved, since I've moved Travb's work-in-process to a talk subpage so he can work on it without further edit conflicts. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 12:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Alright. I've done all I can with regard to resolving the actual dispute between myself and Travb. He refuses to believe I'm working in good faith here, so I will just be the first to apologize for my part in the mess and block myself for 24 hours for (technically) violating the 3RR. See you on the other side. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 13:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
It has not been resolved. User:Philwelch ignored my {{inuse}} tag and began reverting edits, in clear violation of the 3RR policy, and Wikipedia:Civility rules. I do not want a revert prolonged revert war, because this is against wikipedia policy, so I will wait for him to be booted for his 3RR violation before I continue to edit the page, without someone ignoring my {{inuse}} tag and starting a revert war.Travb 13:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
You already have my apology, and my effort to prevent further conflicts. What else do you want from me? You're being remarkably ungracious here. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 13:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
You don't break the rules then decide on a whim to ban then tow minutes later unban yourself. I accepted your apology and gave you my own. Your actions obviously speak louder than your words. I believe you simply are attempting to avoid being booted for 24 hours, as you clearly stated above you "(technically) violating the 3RR." Remember you started the revert war, you ignored the {{inuse}} tag, you also would not stop reverting when I asked you to stop. You began this process. Travb 13:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I never actually blocked myself, as I was wrapping up a few things (including this matter) first. I thought we'd settled this, but if you need me blocked first, fine—it'll accomplish nothing, but have it your way. I'll block myself as soon as you respond to me on the article talk page. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 13:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
OK. I'm just going to block myself. See you in 24, and hope to have a constructive discussion with you about the section we disagreed about earlier. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 13:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked you; feel free to take a 10 minute time out if you must, corner's thataway. 3RR blocks are not punative, they stop edit warring. This is clearly not the case and Travb even got an apology. Drop it and go back to making meaningful contribs. .:. Jareth.:. babelfish 14:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That was gracious of you. Thanks. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 14:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What are my options now?

  1. At 13:16, 15 May 2006 User:Philwelch admitted he was guilty of a 3RR violation, stated he was going to voluntarily boot himself, (...I also apologize for repeatedly reverting you. As per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Philwelch, I shall block myself for 24 hours, which is the standard remedy. See you in 24.)
  2. At 13:22, 15 May 2006 User:Philwelch six minutes later unbooted himself stating he "changed his mind", making me assume, mistakenly based on his own statments, that he had first booted himself, then unbooted himself, without checking the block log. [40]
  3. 13:55, 15 May 2006 User:Philwelch blocked himself.
  4. 14:00, 15 May 2006 Jareth then unblocked him.

I would like Phil Welch blocked for 3RR, as per policy. He started the revert war.

Blocking is not done as punishment; the issue in your 3RR report is obviously over so a block would not serve to end a disruption.

I don't agree with User:Jareth justification, I was the one who stopped the edit war, not Phil Welch. By User:Jareth rationalization, the 3RR report would only have been succesful if I continued the revert war. This obviously is against wikipedia policy: to encourage people to continue revert wars. Instead of continuing the revert war, I came here, and reported it, assuming that it would be taken care of, and the revert war would stop. I do not agree with Phil Welch solution, which is moving my edits to another page, in the middle of a revert war, and after he ignored my inuse tag four times.

Signed:Travb 23:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Try reading the blocking policy or alternately, moving on and doing something productive. Content disputes (i.e. where your graph is) cannot be handled here and you have been advised multiple times of your options with the dispute resolution process. Perhaps you'd like to see if there's a mediator with a bit of time? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 01:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:DenisDiderot

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

Reported by: Dr Zak 15:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The dispute is if a reference to a book by Siegwart-Horst Günther should be included

  • Revert war has stopped in favor of discussion. A block would be unduly harsh. Dr Zak 19:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Paradoxic

Three revert rule violation on Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Paradoxic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) reported by User:Kashk.

Comments: Dispute was discussed in the talk page, user could not provide a reliable source as needed for biographies. User was warned earlier in his talk page here -- - K a s h Talk | email 16:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Blocked for 24 hours. --InShaneee 16:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:UberCryxic

Three revert rule violation on Military of France (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). UberCryxic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Three revert rule violation on Views of the French military (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). UberCryxic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: violet/riga (t) 17:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further violation (16 May) (result: 12h)

Three revert rule violation on Military history of France (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). UberCryxic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: violet/riga (t) 21:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Involved in an edit war with me, and I admit to having reverted too many times (but not violating 3RR). This user is being ignorant of other peoples' opinions and is unwilling to accept anything that he doesn't agree with. Clearly a user trying to have ownership of an article. violet/riga (t) 17:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I note also that he came close to a violation on a similar article already (see above). violet/riga (t) 17:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • User is also very close to a 3RR violation at Views of the French military where he keeps removing (though not always through revert) the category Cat:Military of France. Circeus 18:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • He has now violated there too - added above. violet/riga (t) 18:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

UberCryxic has undone his own revert. I'm not sure why he's apparently backed down, but I think a block would now be harsh. violet/riga (t) 18:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, would probably only have got a warning for first offence anyway. But has that now. BTW, you have 4R too - are you claiming one of them to be rv of patent vandalism? William M. Connolley 20:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe the one you're referring to is undoing an anon change of spelling, which is unrelated to the other reverts and is inconsequential. violet/riga (t) 21:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The "unrelated" bit is irrelevant William M. Connolley 21:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

A further edit war and another 3RR violation on another related article. violet/riga (t) 21:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, 12h William M. Connolley 22:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:72.232.102.130

Three revert rule violation on Preved (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 72.232.102.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Reported by: Thatcher131 18:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: One of several IPs vandalizing Preved with unrelated linkspam; this is the only one to violate 3RR so far.

Since this is linkspam, it doesn't need to get to 4R for a block. I've blocked this IP and one other William M. Connolley 20:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:24.93.101.70 (result: 8h)

Three revert rule violation on Carnot heat engine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 24.93.101.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments This IP has added links to many articles on thermodynamics and related subjects. All point to the same paper, but often use different titles. See User_talk:24.93.101.70. User is responding to removal of these links by repeated reversion. 3RR is also violated at Entropy. Nonsuch 21:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

8h as a newbie for 3RR and linkspam (why is tonight linkspam night?); hopefully that will be enough to make them talk William M. Connolley 21:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Hardouin

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

[edit] 2nd case

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

[edit] 3rd case

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

[edit] 4th case

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

[edit] 5th case

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

  • Previous version reverted to: 2006-05-12 11:33:10
  • 1st revert: [ 2006-05-16 00:59:26]
  • 2nd revert: [h 2006-05-15 23:49:20]
  • 3rd revert: [ 2006-05-15 21:47:38]
  • 4th revert: [ 2006-05-15 21:35:38]

[edit] 6th case

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

[edit] 7th case

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

[edit] 8th case

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

[edit] 9th case

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


User:Hardouin has just made his/her fourth consecutive revert to the Paris page, and is in the process of reverting around nine other articles for a fourth time. Before posting here I left a notice here, but he is well past the WP:3RR line now. Thanks in advance for putting an end to this user's long history of unjustified, abusive and wholesale reverts.

Reported by: THEPROMENADER 23:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

User ThePromenader is trying to replace the infoboxes in several large French cities articles (Paris, Lille, Lyon, Marseille, Nice, Toulouse, Bordeaux, Nantes, and Strasbourg) with a new infobox template he recently created. This new template is disputed and is currently undergoing mediation. I have asked ThePromenader not to replace the current infoboxes with his new template until the dispute is solved and mediation completed. Hardouin 23:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
We spent weeks building consensus, and I did update replace the template because consensus was reached. You alone 'dispute,' and you along revert. Go figure. THEPROMENADER 23:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
As evidenced at Talk:Paris, there was consensus to reduce the length of the current infobox template, but there was no consensus at all to create a brand new template, let alone a brand new template designed only by ThePromenader and with questionable content. I have already explained the case a bit more in detail at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Hardouin where ThePromenader filed a complaint against me a few minutes ago. Please have a look. Also have a look at Talk:Paris for the lengthy discussion there. Hardouin 23:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
"Update/Replace"? What difference? The most difficult thing with this user is his insinuations - it takes time to verify and see that they all amount to nothing. Yet we are here on a page for reporting breaking the WP:3RR rule. But I'll tell you the difference: We were in the midst of discussing what should go into an infobox, and User:Hardouin chose to bypass this and make one himself and install it without telling anyone. We finsished our discussion, and found that 'updating' the already embedded template was impossible. Go figure. And in what way does this justify reverting nine pages four times? THEPROMENADER 00:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I think I missed one, but you get the idea. I've had enough of this. THEPROMENADER 00:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The current infobox template that ThePromenader intends to replace with his own template has been in existence for more than a year now. I am aghast at reading the lies contained in ThePromenader's latest message (supposedly I sort of created the template recently to "bypass" a discussion going on?). Anyway, it is not very wise to lie on Wikipedia, because everything can be checked. So let's check: the current infobox template was created in February 2005 (one year and 3 months ago) in individualised forms (such as Template:Toulouse infobox and Template:Bordeaux infobox) and was merged into a single template in March 2006 (Template:Large French Cities). For more than a year this template has received absolutely no criticism, except from ThePromenader starting a few months ago. ThePromenader has now proceeded to create his own template (Template:Major French Cities) and upload it into nine large French cities articles after removing the currently existing Template:Large French Cities from these articles. I have asked him not to do so until the dispute concerning his new template is solved and mediation completed. Hardouin 00:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, why don't you stop, Hardouin. You have no justifiable excuse for behaving as you do - shouting and stomping and screaming 'leave my article alone!" would amount to the same thing. There was no excuse for your revert spree, end of story. Lies? What are you insinuating again? Look at the talk page discussion dates, and look at when you installed your template. Go figure. 'Mediation'? New discussion? You invented these as tags while you were reverting - discussion was over and the infoboxes activated and no-one had a negative word to say about it -but you. And now you're even reverting talk pages, in addition to removing every message I leave on your own - that you insinuate are something they are not. Insinuate - I'm beginning to dislike that word. THEPROMENADER 01:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Can someone please explain why this case was skipped completely? This is very discouraging. THEPROMENADER 07:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
If it was because the links were versions and not 'diffs', I've just remedied that - apologies. THEPROMENADER 07:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Hganesan (result: 8h)

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

User continually places a copyright violation image into the article which is essentially vandalism. There are also a significant number of text related reverts in the same period. User was warned the last time he violated the 3RR a few days ago on his/her talk page. There may be other 3RR by other editors on the page, I haven't checked yet. I am requesting a 24 hour minimum block and I'll work on sorting out the content disputes later.

Reported by: PS2pcGAMER (talk) 02:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

8h William M. Connolley 18:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

    • Follow-up: User is posting from multiple IP addresses in the range 169.229.65.x (x in 29,30,35,40 so far). 29 was blocked and user simply moved on to new addresses. Seems like an obvious sockpuppet. User continues to refuse to participate in discussion pages for relevant articles, appears to be on a mission to promote Kobe Bryant and put down Steve Nash. I'm a Lakers fan but this is getting ridiculous. Simishag 23:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Another IP: 12.134.204.214. Simishag 06:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians

I would put up diffs and users, but it's just 2 Users reverting back and forth, perhaps over 20 times now. Someone please lock the page for now: Controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians.

Yom 02:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The two contributors who are fighting over this article are Cquest & Dennv. Both have are relatively new Wikipedians (less than a couple months each), have made less than 100 edits each, & most of their edits are on this article; their edit histories on this article are too entangled to extract clear proof of 3RR, but each is coming uncomfortably close to violating the spirit if not the letter of the rule. At the moment both have paused either to catch their breaths or because it's past their bedtime, so I'm not protecting the article or banning either editor -- but both the article & these two would benfit from further monitoring. :-/ -- llywrch 03:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
PS -- abakharev has already left warnings on both of their pages, but I added a (hopefully tactful) suggestion to each that they devote their energies elsewhere on Wikipedia. -- llywrch 03:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
They've come back as their IPs and are warring once again. the {{sprotected}} tag did nothing to prevent them from editing, apparently.
Yom 04:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I've made this article {{sprotected}} for the time being (one needs to do more than add a tag), due to this anon edit war. This will stop them warring in secret, & hopefully force them to come forth & explain why they can't discuss this on the article's talk page. -- llywrch 05:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll be off on vacation for the rest of the month starting tomorrow (not a Wikivacation, a real one, involving a warm climate, lots of sun, sand, good food & beverages, & an amusement park or two), & I'm not planning on getting online until next month. If an admin decides to unprotect this article entirely before then (the edit war does appear to have ended), go for it. -- llywrch 22:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Cquest and User:Dennv

Too many to count http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Controversy_over_race_of_Ancient_Egyptians&limit=250&action=history (above unsigned comment was made by Justforasecond at 15:22, 16 May 2006. Moved here from bottom for relevance)

I gave Cquest enough rope, & he tripped himself with it.Now I gave him a 24 hour block so he doesn't hang himself with it too. I don't block many people (I'd rather not block anyone at all) so I'm unclear about how to make this act letter-perfect, but here are 5 of his many edits that are clear reversions:
  1. [46]
  2. [47]
  3. [48]
  4. [49]
  5. [50]
Let's see if he gets the hint. -- llywrch 23:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:203.173.131.97

Three revert rule violation on Wushu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 203.173.131.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Llort 03:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Appears to be non-encyclopedic content. User himself claims it is just an "in-joke"

hi there, thats me, and yes i did make that addition to the wushu page, i see no reason for lort to keep on altering it, whilst it is an in joke, so is many other entries such as the "Liz Shaw" entry. My entry concerned a member from our forum who became rather famous for his behaviour. Therefore i felt this warranted noting in wikipedia so that when new members ask about him, we can point them in a positive direction to the entry located here.

User blocked for vandalism. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 03:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Additional reverting at wushu by the following user name and IP addresses: User:Subwaynz, User:130.216.191.184 and User:203.173.154.11. Judging from Talk:wushu all edits from these users seem to come from the same person, who insists on reverting even though it's apparant that consensus has not been reached at the talk page. Wintran 15:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Relucio83@yahoo.com

Three revert rule violation on Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Relucio83@yahoo.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: --Howard the Duck | talk, 04:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Keeps on reinserting copyrighted material.

Jondel has protected the page, so I guess no further action is required? William M. Connolley 07:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Thanks. --Howard the Duck | talk, 08:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
He uploaded an unauthorized image without propoper documentation implying blatant disregard of copyright conduct. I blocked him for a month.The image was tagged as a copyright vio.--Jondel 00:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kitteneatkitten (result: 8h)

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

Reported by: RJII 05:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The editor keeps putting in original research and won't discuss the issues. I even requested a mediation with this editor to resolve the issue but he refused to participate: [51] He tried to make it an arbitration case against me by requesting a case but it was declined. He doesn't seem to want to go through any normal dispute resolution process but just wants to revert. RJII 05:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

8h William M. Connolley 07:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Erdogan_Cevher 4 (result: 48h)

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

Previous version: 13:45, 12 May

Reported by: Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Was already blocked 3 times within 4 days for 3RR on same article (9 May, 10 May, 12 May). Continues to revert, 5 fresh reverts of identical material in the last 24 hours, since last block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

48h, sigh William M. Connolley 07:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This user is still editing (and still reverting) as of 09:20 16 May 2006 (UTC). --Robdurbar 09:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
and does not appear to have been blocked in the block log --Robdurbar 09:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, two further reverts, one of them with a deceptive edit summary:
I think more than 48 hours might be called for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I have _Really_ blocked for 48 hours. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 09:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Oops my apologies (embarassed). Thanks for fixing it! William M. Connolley 10:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:72.57.230.179

Three revert rule violation on Azerbaijani people (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 72.57.230.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: Telex 12:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Anon was warned of the 3RR before the fourth revert. These are not "pure" reverts, but I'd like to emphasise the "are also called Azaris", which he keeps changing to "call themselves Azaris" or "refer to themselves as Azaris". This anon has been trolling this page for some time, and has been blocked three times for it. --Telex 12:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
2006-05-16 12:04:59 FrancisTyers blocked "72.57.230.179 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3rr on Azerbaijani people) William M. Connolley 14:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Heh, sorry, I didn't see that Telex had reported it. :) - FrancisTyers 14:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ante_Perkovic (result: warning)

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

  • Comment: The user was banned before for breaking 3RR on Serbs on Croatia article once before for 24 h. AsianCrucky 12:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The page in question has received much "attention" from the following new users: User:AsianCrucky, User:Respos, User:SrbIzLike, User:Petrinja and anonymous IP User:82.114.69.131 etc. who all share predilection for the same pages on Wikipedia. They all keep reverting to the same version of the page, in all likelyhood to avoid breaking 3RR. Please, consider protecting the page instead of blocking a valid contributor. EurowikiJ 12:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The reporter here, User:AsianCrucky displays a great amount of knowledge about procedures for someone who opened an account yesterday. --Elephantus 12:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
O, I see, sorry for misunderstading :(. I forgot I did some edits yesterday evening (GMT +2h). I just reverted my last edit. --Ante Perkovic 12:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
By the way, AsianCrucky and other I-discovered-wiki-yesterday-and-I-know-all-the-rulles and anty-croatian-only-contributions are ignoring the discussion I started on Talk:Minefields in Croatia. I believe this page should be protected, at least until they provide some valid arguments. --Ante Perkovic 12:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Against my better judgment I'm leaving him off this time, because he self-reverted the last one. Stifle (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Hardouin bis (result: 24h)

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

Comment: I would like to call your attention to the above - this user has single-handedly, without any prior comment or discussion, reverted a consensus-approved template improvement over nine pages - four times straight. This is not a minor misdemeanor, as the work reverted is a result of a several-week discussion and approval by many contributors. This user is unable to supply any valid argument to justify his action, yet will continue to revert until all grow tired of this and his/her vacuous talk-page 'justifications' based neither on reason nor fact, and will even continue to revert after each and every claim has been disproven even with referenced fact. This user has a long history of similar behaviour. Please attend to this as soon as you can: You can see consensus and approval for the reverted work here, and the catalogued revert-spree - already posted above, but unanswered - here --> #User:Hardouin. I would also like that someone reinstate the consensus-approved template to the pages for which it stayed - approved and unhindered for almost a week - until the venue of a single disgruntled reverter. Thank you for your attention. THEPROMENADER 15:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked H for 24h. If your version has consensus, someone will revert to it no doubt William M. Connolley 18:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. The pages in question are rather low-traffic, but I've (more or less) asked someone to do it - not sure how to proceed. I will wait for my 24hrs to be up, and then do it myself if noone else does first. Not sure the correct thing to do in circumstances such as these but that's about all I can do for now. Thanks again. THEPROMENADER 19:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 216.254.25.10 (result: 12h)

Three revert rule violation on Bruce_L._Gordon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 216.254.25.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: FeloniousMonk 19:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Stoated for 12h William M. Connolley 20:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Considering his persistence, 12 hrs strikes me a bit light, especially compared to other recent blocks here. FeloniousMonk 20:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
It was a first offence William M. Connolley 20:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ndru01

Three revert rule violation on Gnosticism in modern times (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Ndru01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: LambiamTalk 22:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This involves inserting a link to deleted material, most of the time to some copy in user space, but sometimes to a recreated copy in main space, which then gets speedied. This has been going on for several days, also using anons. User has been blocked three times before for 3RR in the last month, and has also used sockpuppet User:Infoandru01.

Blocked for a week, repeat offender, will watch page for socks. Sasquatch t|c 03:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Emperador Lord Fenix

Three revert rule violation on Megadeth (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Emperador Lord Fenix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Reported by: -- nae'blis (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • There's more, but it's sort of filtered in with the rest. Most of the recent ones have the bot-like edit summary "Check." Other users on the page seem to make reference to this person having been a problem before, maybe under another name. -- nae'blis (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 24 hours. Sasquatch t|c 03:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Petrejo

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

  • Previous version reverted to: [52]
  • 1st revert: [53]
  • 2nd revert: [54]
  • 3rd revert: [55]
  • 4th revert: [56]
  • 5th revert: [57]

Reported by: Non-vandal 04:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • There's plenty more of those from this guy. There's a lot of talk in the articles talk page under "Petrejo's changese" and "Please do not..." but this bloke doesn't discuss his changes, and is simply a vandal as dull as they come. Petrejo is also 66.143.165.1: [58]. Looking at both user titles' contributions reveals the extent of their dirty work. I'd recommend a block of both users from the article entirely, but we'll see how it's handled. Thanks.
  • He's still at it. Non-vandal 05:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats 5R, but not in 24h or close. An awful lot of new users there... socks? On both sides? William M. Connolley 09:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there are socks on both sides - there's a number, at least 4, of editors reverting Petrejo's edits, but I'm pretty sure he is using sockpuppets - I noticed a new user earlier today who'd edited Petrejo's talk page and no other pages, and that account may have subsequently been used on Friedrich Nietzsche. I'm sure the faction, including myself, who've been reverting Petrejo aren't without blame, but could we get this guy blocked already, seriously? mgekelly 10:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
BTW, I count 5R in the last 8 hours from Petrejo's own account. mgekelly 10:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The bloke's at it again. We may need a permanent block of this blockhead.Non-vandal 04:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Petrejo has reverted this article four times in the last four hours. mgekelly 17:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:137.224.252.10

Three revert rule violation on Ayaan Hirsi Ali (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 137.224.252.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  1. 10:53, 17 May 2006
  2. 10:54, 17 May 2006
  3. 10:55, 17 May 2006
  4. 10:59, 17 May 2006

Reported by: Netscott 11:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User:137.224.252.10 was warned prior to 3RR violation and subsequently advised to self revert after violation but did not. Netscott 11:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
User:137.224.252.10 has been notified of this report. Netscott 11:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Your point? Warned prior by a seperate independent editor, then reverted after warning then advised to self revert after violation and didn't but now not blocked? o.....k Netscott 11:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
My point, that there were no further reverts after the warning. There have now been, and I have blocked the IP. I have also told them to take it to Talk, which nobody had bothered to do previously. It seems obvious to us, but how are newbies supposed to guess? Just zis Guy you know? 10:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Joetkeck

Three revert rule violation on September 11, 2001 attacks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Joetkeck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Updates:

Reported by: --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 15:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User has already been blocked twice for 3RR on this article. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 15:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

2006-05-17 15:11:58 Kmf164 blocked "Joetkeck (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (3RR violation) William M. Connolley 15:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:For great justice

Three revert rule violation on Apollo moon landing hoax accusations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). For great justice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  1. 08:20, 17 May 2006
  2. 08:25, 17 May 2006
  3. 08:32, 17 May 2006
  4. 08:53, 17 May 2006

Reported by: ScienceApologist 16:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Erm? Guilty as charged, except... so are you! It seems we're over the worst of it, and are working it out on the talk page. For great justice. 16:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not guilty at all of this. I reverted only three times to combat what I viewed as POV-pushing without any discussion on the talkpage. As soon as I got a response out of you, I began to try to work towards compromise. You simply reverted four times -- a violation of policy I did not do. --ScienceApologist 16:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Greier

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

Reported by: —Khoikhoi 19:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User has been blocked for 3RR four times before. —Khoikhoi 19:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Admins, I reverted the article because they vandalised it, by compltely removing large parts of it, without explication. Please take a look at the history page. They are three. I am one. I followed the necesarry steps when dealing with vandalism, labeling them with the necesarry warning labels. I added the "diputed" label to the article. Indeed, I did broke the 3RR, but please consider the circumstances. Thank you. greier 19:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Believe it or not, I agree with Greier. While he shouldn't have violated the 3RR, it's not as if everyone else handled themselves appropriately. Just rolling back everything he did based on just a small element of bias in his writing. I did indeed revert against Greier, but please consider ignoring this complaint. --Telex 20:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. I explained my reasons in the edit summary, and instead of Grier first disucssing it, he decided to break the 3RR. He also made several personal attacks such as "hienas" and giving vandal warning templates on my talk page. —Khoikhoi 20:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm with Khoikhoi here, especially because, as usual, Greier has indulged in personal attacks. Let me quote a summary edit he just made in Aromanians: working in a pacK? hienas![59]--Aldux 21:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
This isn't simple vandalism, and there is simply no excuse for revert wars. Blocked for 48 hours (since he's a repeat offender). --InShaneee 04:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Omniplex (Result:8h)

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

Reported by: Francis Schonken 19:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

[edit] User:SuperDeng (result: 24h)

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

Reported by: Ultramarine 21:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Or differently:

[60]
[61]
[62]
[63]

In addition, violation of Wikipedia:Civility [64]

You confuse me with yourself I have not deleted source info it is you who deletes sourced info I have explain about the military let me ctrl c ctrl v it yet again
This is the bigest problem with POW pushers like you even when qouteing your own sources you fail to see the details now let us see what you say :"The purging of the army, meanwhile, saw about 35,000 military officers shot or imprisoned." You do not see the word imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned So there is no way in hell that you can uderstand that when the war broke out that all except 8 thousand were back and you still do not see the big picture which was that the army grew from 1.8 million to 5.4 million between 1939 and 1941 but the officer corp did not grow in the same rate this is what you and your POW pushing mind do not see and can not see.

Also, violation of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks [65]:

"(rv, who said anything was removed the only way you would know that is if you would have read my talk page so you must be a suck puppet)"

Has been blocked previously for similar behavior. Ultramarine 22:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

And what has Ultramarine been blocked for before. Also he did not post the complete story. (Unsigned comment added by SuperDeng. Ultramarine 22:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)) It was signed UNTILL ULTRAMARINE altered the text I made one big post as can been seen here and signed ithttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=53758378&oldid=53757908 But then Ultramarine went into my post and started altering it. This is a perfect example of how Ultramarine tries to twist and alter information to give an incorrect view of it all. I signed the part but then Ultramarine goes in and alters parts and then he goes back and posts that I have not signed a part which I did but with the alterations made by Ultramarine one might not see that he has altered so much that It can be believed that I did not sign when In fact I did sign but Ultramarine split up the text and twisted the information (Deng 22:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

(Note, the section below, including my signatures, is material copied and added by SuperDeng. I have not signed anything on this page below the line.Ultramarine 22:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

Hello. Why are you reverting obvious factual errors? Ultramarine 20:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You remove sourced numbers becuase you dont like what they say (Deng 20:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC))
But for example the figure of 6 million from the census is contradicted by its own source. When discussed on the talk page, outside editor agreed that the paragraph should be removed.Ultramarine 20:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
No it is not the only thing contradicting is you and you removed the demographics of the Soviet Union because they do not fit with your POW pushing (Deng 20:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC))
But its own source states 14 million? [66] Ultramarine 20:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
If you want to discuss anything do it on the Stalin talk page and stop useing internet refrences to push your POW. Anyone can make an internet page like that (Deng 20:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC))
But that is you own source for the census! Ultramarine 20:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Stop posting on my page and stop saying mine, an internet page can be made by anyone and you can write what ever you want on it (Deng 20:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC))
But this is your own source for the text you reverted to! Ultramarine 20:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Stop posting on my page and stop saying mine. (Deng 20:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

But again, the text you reverted to had this as a source. Are saying that this information is incorrect? Then the whole paragraph should be removed.Ultramarine 20:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


Everything has been explained by many others. You only push your own POW like you are trying to push now for example one only needs to scroll up and one will see the discussion about the military and now again you are trying to push your misinformation (Deng 21:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

SuperDeng, please explain why you have deleted sourced material: [67] Ultramarine 21:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


You confuse me with yourself I have not deleted source info it is you who deletes sourced info I have explain about the military let me ctrl c ctrl v it yet again

This is the bigest problem with POW pushers like you even when qouteing your own sources you fail to see the details now let us see what you say :"The purging of the army, meanwhile, saw about 35,000 military officers shot or imprisoned." You do not see the word imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned imprisoned So there is no way in hell that you can uderstand that when the war broke out that all except 8 thousand were back and you still do not see the big picture which was that the army grew from 1.8 million to 5.4 million between 1939 and 1941 but the officer corp did not grow in the same rate this is what you and your POW pushing mind do not see and can not see. (Deng 21:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

Please respect Wikipedia:Civility and act in good fatih. Please do not repeat words many times, please try to find factual arguments instead. Please give sources for you claims. Again, please explain why you have deleted sourced material: [68] and inserted material contradicted by its own references.Ultramarine 21:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I would not need to repeat it if you would have gotten it the first couple of times but since you fail to understand it the first couple of times then repetition is the only way. You use internet sources and This question was answered to you atleast 3 times was it not? So now how big of a chans is it that you will understand it the 4th time. It was pointed out on your own talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AUltramarine&diff=53018963&oldid=52096954 then I pointed it out to you here WITH A SOURCE http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJosef_Stalin&diff=53070377&oldid=53068625 AND IT WAS POINTED OUT HERE AS WELL http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJosef_Stalin&diff=53053961&oldid=53052670 So it is clear that you are POW pushing you remove sourced material that do not fit your POW and you ignore it as well. And then you use home made internet references to back your own POW pushing agenda. (Deng 21:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

And even more can be seen on the Stalin Discussion page (Deng 22:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

Anyone who reads the complete discussion page will see that Ultramarine has tried to push his unsourced POW before but failed, and now that I have given real and verifiable sources to every last one of his unsourced claims he tries to have me blocked for something that he himself does but in a less obvoius way. (Deng 22:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

And more importantly I added the refrences on the industrial capacity but could not figure them out so I need to read about references. I added the references, the process went wrong so I made them less flashy then after I hade read about makeing references I changed it back to a more correct version. It most be pointed out that Ultramarine removed the Part about industrial capacity, I then referenced the part but with some complications.(Deng 22:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

I've blocked SuperDeng for 24 hours for disruption. Stifle (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pecher

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

Reported by: Faisal 22:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This is his second 3RR violation in last two days. The reason I am reporting this is not of only 3RR violation but he wants to make the article of Dhimmi one sided view. If anyone tries to make it more neutral then he revert that change. The reason he give are usually original-research, see-the-discussion etc but if you see the differences then that is not the case. For example See this a author tries to add things written even in this same article in the introduction so that the article introduction could be more neutral but [User:Pecher] revert that change saying original research (which is ridiculous).

These are clearly differerent versions each time and thus do not qualify as a violation of the 3RR.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk
Yes, it does. 3RR means no more than 3 reverts per page per day, period. Blocked for 24 hours. --InShaneee 00:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm seconding InShaneee here. 3RR means any three reverts on a single page; it has nothing to do with whether it's the same section or not. --Cyde Weys 00:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:65.95.91.176 (result: 3h)

Three revert rule violation on Battle of Plataea. User:65.95.91.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [70]
  • 1st revert: [71]
  • 2nd revert: [72]
  • 3rd revert: [73]
  • 4th revert: [74]
  • 5th revert: [75]

Comment: User been edit-warring under variable IP addresses on several articles; does not respect academic nor editor consensus; has provocatively delivered personal attacks of ethnic content despite warning not to do so. Reported by: Miskin 01:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 hours; blocking IPs is rarely useful though. Stifle (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:24.163.205.147 (result: 8h)

Three revert rule violation on Brit Hume (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 24.163.205.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Reported by: Lawyer2b 04:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This 3RR violation is part of an ungoing issue whereby User:24.163.205.147 is inserting unsourced, POV, and non-notable material regarding supposed interaction between Brit Hume and someone named Todd Ouellette while refusing to respond to communications left both on the article's [76] and his user talk page[77] regarding the material. The material he inserts in the article has also included an unsupported (and false, I might add) accusation against me specifically [78] and other "wikipedia members" who he claims "have repeatedly censored this entry in an effort to protect Brit Hume's reputation"[79]. I believe his actions are in violation of WP:AGF and possibly other policies. I don't feel I have any other recourse other than to request he be banned from editing this article for a time. Lawyer2b 04:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped after warning? Should be blocked if reverting continues William M. Connolley 15:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
First, let me thank you for looking into this matter. Unfortunately, after I posted a warning to him at 22:54, May 17, 2006, he made another revert as noted below. I think the only reason he didn't revert further is that I and another user didn't want to violate the rule ourselves and let his edits stand. I don't see him stopping anytime soon; he has essentially hijacked the article. He has now created another article Todd Ouellette where I anticipate his actions will be the same: adding POV, unsupported, and non-notable material with no discussion or regard for consensus. Lawyer2b 19:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe this user has also created another username User:Powmadeak47 which I fully expect to engage in the same behavior and/or be used to circumvent the 3RR. I supposed depending on whether or not he continues to use the anonymous User:24.163.205.147, it may or may not be classified as a sockpuppet. Lawyer2b 20:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, OK, if reverting after warning, can have an 8h block (appears to need at least 8h to read up on how to format pages) William M. Connolley 20:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)