Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive35

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:Radiant! reported by User:John254 (Result: Warning)

Three-revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Radiant! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: complex partial reversions

Comments: The fourth edit by Netscott is not a reversion. John254 15:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

John, there has been a technical violation here, but I'm not keen on blocking an established editor with no prior blocks over a tag dispute on a project page. Also, the first revert is arguably an edit. I'd prefer just to leave a note for him asking him to watch the reverting in future. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
He's an administrator and should know better. If he's keen on reversing things under discussion (I have seen him do this before) that is inappropriate. If he is in violation, he should be treated as any other editor would be and get a block. He should not be given special treatment and held to lesser standards of behavior because he's an administrator. -THB 12:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
It's for a number of reasons, THB. First, the report is ambiguous, because it's not clear that the first revert is a revert, and anyway if you look at the edits, you'll see they're inching toward a resolution; it's not just a pointless back and forth. Secondly, this is an established editor (admin has nothing to do with it) with no blocks to his name, despite being here since Feb 2005. Third, it was a dispute over a tag on a project page. For those three reasons jointly, I believe a note on his page is appropriate here. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 13:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Good call by User:SlimVirgin. I agree that technically it was a vio... but SlimVirgin's reasoning is essentially sound with the slight caveat that User:Radiant!'s page/activity sat rather dormant for months. (→Netscott) 15:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mamin27 reported by User:Khoikhoi (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on Han_Chinese (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Mamin27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments: Please check his block log. Khoikhoi 05:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

1ne blocked him for 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Chuck0 reported by User:Your honor (Result: Page protected)

Three-revert rule violation on Chuck Munson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Chuck0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

3RR warning just a short while ago previously by an administrator on his talk page: [2]


Comments:

This doesn't appear to be a 3RR violation, as the first revert above appears to have been the first edit. It's a moot point anyway because Will Beback has protected the page. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Hillock65 reported by User:Humus sapiens (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on History of the Jews in Ukraine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Hillock65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Warning: 01:08, 26 December 2006

He's also been blocked before for 3RR, so 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rajsingam reported by User:Lahiru_k (Result: 3h)

Three-revert rule violation on Anton Balasingham (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Rajsingam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments: He is three month older wikipedian who holds 589 total edit count and can be seen on some Sri Lanka related controversial topics. So I don't think that he does need any 3RR warning prior to the report.[3] --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 15:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Note - He was reverting unreliably sourced info in the correct manner. I dont see why he couldnt use rediff though.Bakaman 16:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
comment the user Rajsingam is actually running a mock at the Anton Balasigham article..He had reverted other peoples edits, without making any comments in the talk page.Making comments at the talk page,before reverting is a general rule in wikipedia and I don't think we should allow this user to break this fundamental principal.Further,he reverted my edits 3 times,within last hour, thus making the total number of violations over 7.

--Iwazaki 17:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

comment I strongly urge the admins to take action against this individual to prevent needless revert wars. He has been persistently removing cited commentrary from a reliable source critical of the famous terrorist advisor Anton Balasingham. He has been warned several time to desist, but he has not.Kerr avon 13:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems to have gone quiet now. 3h block as a token William M. Connolley 20:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:61.68.119.205 reported by User:Coelacan (Result: no block)

Three-revert rule violation on What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!? (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 61.68.119.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments: This user has multiple IPs, at the least User:61.68.119.205 User:61.68.191.123 and User:61.68.177.89. Was warned at this talk page. Doesn't wait for consensus, insists that because a message has been left on the talk page (which was disputed by other editors), this is license to add anything at whim. Was asked to slow down and wait for consensus, but won't. The four reverts occur over 25 hours and 19 minutes, but WP:3RR says "Users may be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day" and in light of the warning and disputatious nature of talk page edits (user also had to be warned twice for NPA), I think this is a special case. — coelacan talk — 15:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

User has moved on to new IP at User:210.10.150.170. — coelacan talk — 17:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that this was not within 24h, and is now fairly stale, and its multiple IPs, I can't see any point in a block. Bring it back if it recurrs William M. Connolley 20:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Hipocrite reported by User:Netscott (Result: no block)

Time reported: 17:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The first three are just straight reverts across three separate editors (the third is where I tried to restore a previously stable version of the page) but the last shows that this user undid most of my last edit. According to my understanding of WP:3RR this is a revert as well. I brought this to the attention of this editor and he disagreed that it was a revert. User:Hipocrite is a user in good standing and if I am correct about these reverts then I would not want him to be blocked (just warned much like User:Radiant! above) but I would appreciate if those with a bit more authority could clarify this. Thanks. (→Netscott) 17:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

My fourth edit, fixing your horribly broken english, is not remotely a revert. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Additionly, my second edit is not a direct revert, as it adds the word "Many users," which seems to have satisfied you, at the very least. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
You might like to abide by CIV as well there Hipocrite... if I'm right I don't expect that your lack of civility is going to help you any. (→Netscott) 17:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry that I called your edit "horribly broken english." I should have written instead that it was "obviously improper grammar." For this I apologize. Now, could you stop wasting everyones time trying to get useless warnings and cautions placed on users pages and refer to the talk page in question? Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

3R; I can't see why the 4th is a rv William M. Connolley 20:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Venom-smasher reported by User:TKD (Result:24 hour block)

Three-revert rule violation on Star_Wars_Episode_II:_Attack_of_the_Clones (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Venom-smasher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Warned previously.

Comments: This user and The Filmaker (talk · contribs) have been going back and forth on a few of the Star Wars movie pages for a couple of days. I tried article protection on the Episode I page to calm things down, and warned that resumption of edit warring would result in blocks. However, I think that, having since joined relevant discussion, I should defer to someone else to block for the continuing revert war. Times are UTC -5. — TKD::Talk 19:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Both users blocked for 24 hours. If they continue, I'll protect the page. --Robdurbar 22:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:The_Filmaker reported by User:TKD (Result:24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on Star_Wars_Episode_II:_Attack_of_the_Clones (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). The_Filmaker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments: Times are UTC -5. See above for the other half of this revert war (Venom-smasher (talk · contribs)). I warned about 3RR when I unprotected the Episode I article, but have since entered discussion myself, so I don't feel comfortable applying blocks in this dispute. I was hoping that there would be a better solution to this, but, as the diffs show, it's gotten pretty ugly. — TKD::Talk 19:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

As above. --Robdurbar 22:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:12.170.101.194 reported by User:Baristarim (Result: 12 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on Baklava (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 12.170.101.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

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


3RR warning on a different article was made this morning [9].

Comments: This is an IP that has been edit warring in a number of hot ethnic disputes. Even though he is an anon, he seems to know Wiki policies well. I had warned him of the 3RR before in another disputed article [10]. User targets mainly articles concerning one ethnicity and has been making numerous extremely POV edits like the one here [11] Baristarim 21:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I have blocked the user for 12 hours per WP:3RR. alphachimp. 23:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:ramdrake reported by User:Benio76 (Result:No Block 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Foie gras (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). ramdrake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments: The user ramdrake reverted my contribution to a scientifical description of foie gras (as an effect of steatosis pathology) pretending that it "imparts a strong negative bias". But my contribution was a description of a fact, which he recognizes, and there were not any subjective valuations. Telling facts does not impart negative bias, just like telling that Saddam Hussein killed people is not a negative bias but just "letting the facts speak for themselves", as recommanded in WP:NPOV.

  • These are different reverts in different areas of the article. If Benio76 wants to call these a 3RR on Ramdrake, he himself has got 6RR on everybody else. Multiple users are reverting Benio76 on multiple sections of this article. Benio76 is a single purpose account to push an agenda at that article SchmuckyTheCat 22:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The policy says "The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia page within a 24 hour period." Ramdrake did four reversions in less than two hours. Benio76 23:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
These strictly speaking aren't reverts. The diffs between versions are sufficiently different that I don't consider them reverts. If another admin has a different opinion, by all means, issue a block.--CSTAR 20:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

These four edits by Ramdrake clearly are reverts. They are the plainest reverts you can get!

  • Edit 1, 18:18, December 26, 2006: Ramdrake deleted the phrase "and a number of countries and local jurisdictions" from the intro paragraph. I had just put that phrase in. To see that just go back to the preceeding edit.
  • Edit 2, 18:39, December 26, 2006: Same thing again, concerning the same phrase, except that Ramdrake also botched up the sentence by removing an additional piece. To see that it is a revert just go back to the two preceeding edits [12] and [13].
  • Edit 3, 20:01, December 26, 2006: Ramdrake deleted the sentence "Its name refers to the pathology called fatty liver or steatosis, which induces an abnormal growth of the liver." and an additional two words that had just been put in by user benio76. To see that it is a revert just go back to the two preceeding edits [14] and [15].

If these are not reverts, both in the strict sense of the term and in the spirit of the 3RR guidelines, I really do not know what might qualify as a revert!

Ramdrake, along with other users, is counting on the strict enforcement of the 3RR rule against those who disagree with them, while being able to do exactly what they want to the foie gras page. Do the rules not apply to them? Is it NPOV for one party to be able to do what it wants, while the other sits paralyzed?

David Olivier 23:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The revised report specifies that this is a complex revert (reversion to previous, but not identical states.) 24h.--CSTAR 01:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Aminz reported by User:Beit Or (Result: No Block)

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

  • 1st revert: 12:03, 26 December 2006 removal of NPOV tag, added by another user at 11:04, 26 December 2006
  • 2nd revert: 22:40, 26 December 2006 restoration of the passage "Jews were involved in a war during 66-70 AD against Rome under the lead of Bar Cochba, whom they had accepted as Messiah. This war caused a cleavage among Christians and Jews. Christians, opposing militarism, didn't help Jews in the war. They found zealot militarism contradictory with the teachings of Jesus. The murderous slaughters by Jews in Cyprus and Cyrenaica only increased the cleavage. Bar Cochba and his followers regarded the war as a national war and heavily penalized Christians for not helping their Jewish brethens. Christians's rejection of the militarism was also due to the fact that acceptance of Bar Cochba as Messiah, left no place for Jesus to be the Messiah." removed by another user at 21:58, 26 December 2006
  • 3rd revert: 08:02, 27 December 2006 restoration of the sentence "In addition, according to the book of Esther (8:14), a large number of Persians converted to Judaism out of fear of Jews during the events of Purim." removed by another user at 00:31, 27 December 2006
  • 4th revert: 09:25, 27 December 2006 restoration of the words "tend to regard toleration as a sign of weakness or even wickedness towards whatever diety they worship. Among the religous, toleration is demanded by the persecuted who need it if they are ever to become triumphant, when, all too often, they start to persecute in their turn." removed by another user at 08:17, 27 December 2006

Comments:

  • This does not appear to be a 3RR violation at all. Just additions of content.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, reverts 2, 3, and 4 were re-additions of content previously removed by other users. Waiting for an admin to deal with this report. Beit Or 10:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment. This doesn't qualify as a 3RR vio, then. There have to be more than 3 reverts.--CSTAR 20:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
What about the first revert, then? Beit Or 20:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't look like a revert to me. Consider the diffs between the versions of the first two: [16]: These versions substantially different--CSTAR 20:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Reverts need not be to the same version. The second revert that you've linked above seems clear: edit summary restore the war issue... restoring the passage beginning with the words "Jews were involved in a war." Chabuk removed this passage[17], then Aminz restored it[18]. It's clearly a revert. Beit Or 20:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think so. According to the definition WP:Revert
However in the context of the English Wikipedia three revert rule, a revert is defined far more broadly as any change to an article that partially or completely goes back to any older version of an article.
The action taken on the second edit by Arminz does not take it back to the same version as the first edit. Please note also, that in filing a 3RR report, it is desirable that a "reverted to version" also be provided. In any case I don't see these as being reversions, but if you disagree, ask another admin to review my interpretation.--CSTAR 20:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
One further comment: I tried looking at the diffs suggested by your comparisons of additions and removals. The diffs of these versions don't appear to me to be the same. But again as I said, please feel free to ask someone else.--CSTAR 21:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

My only purpose was to add content to the article. The first edit for example is not a revert. As one can see from the talk page User: Charlie added the tag because he thought the title of the article is inherently POV. However I argued that we have articles on Historical Persecution by Christians and Historical persecution by Muslims and removed the tag. Later he added the tag again commenting that: "I overreacted, perhaps. But I still think that much of the content is very POV..." As soon as he pointed out the content dispute, I didn't remove the tag. I didn't mean the removal of the tag to be a revert. There is a story behind each other edits. I was about to add more content to the new section I've created which specifically ties the section to Judaism but couldn't do that because I was afraid it would be considered a revert. My feeling of the situation is that Beit Or is only removing whatever I add. --Aminz 11:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

'Warning. Whether or not there is a story behind a revert is irrelevant. The point of the 3RR linit is to avoid edit warring; in this instance I didn't see a 3RR vio, it is pretty clear that you have engaged in edit warring. Next time, if there is evidence of edit warring, I will block you regardless of whether it's technically a 3RR vio or not.--CSTAR 21:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:89.172.195.192 reported by User: User:Dahn (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Krashovani (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 89.172.195.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


[edit] User:Beit Or reported by User:Hillock65 (Result: rejected)

Three-revert rule violation on Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Beit Or (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments:

[edit] User:jd2718 reported by User:jd2718 (Result:No Block)

Three-revert rule violation on Allegations_of_Israeli_Apartheid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). jd2718 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: different versions, but 3 of the 4 were removal of the same paragraph

No evidence of warning, but user:jd2718 has been a wikipedian for over half a year and has nearly 1000 edits.

Comments: There were no other edits between the 1st and 2nd revert, so perhaps they make up a single revert, in two pieces. But insofar as user:jayjg warned me I thought I should bring this here to be enforced or dropped.

  • No block. --CSTAR 15:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:TheFarix reported by User:68.1.78.129 (Result: No violation)

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

  • Previous version reverted to: removal of listed convention
Comments
  • There's an ongoing discussion of this on the talk page, and there has to be four reverts for one to be blocked for this. I only see three.--Vercalos 07:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Not to mention the second edit was a reversion to the correct link for that particular convention.--Vercalos 07:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This doesn't look like a violation. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Attempts have been made to reason with the anon editor regarding the listing criteria, however s/he still insists that his/her convention should be included regardless of the criteria (using logic such as western Florida is not part of the same state as the rest of Florida because it is in different time zones). A localized RfC with WP:Anime has been called to help settle the matter.[24] --TheFarix (Talk) 01:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Fighting_for_Justice reported by User:196.15.168.40 (Result: Page protected)

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

  • Previous version reverted to: Starting point [25], “Fighting for Justice” first deleted the last two links in the article, then reverted not only all attempts to reinstate them, but also all other additions to the article, while making just one small addition himself.
  • “Fighting for Justice” is very familiar with the 3RR, having both warned and been warned (and recently, too).

Comments:

This is part of a long-standing dispute. For simplicity, I have given only his last four reverts.

This is a frivolous addition. User:196.15.168.40 is doing this as revenge because I got an administrator to protect a page in which, we've had an edit war going on. In addition one of the above links isn't a revert. I removed useless links. Before you consider banning me for 24 hours, look into the history of the David Westerfield article. Fighting for Justice 08:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
So you admit you DID violate the 3RR. The INITIAL removal of the links is NOT included in the above four reverts.196.15.168.40 04:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Must you vandalize every board you come across to? Do you not see that an administrator closed the matter? But, no, you gotta throw in your two-cents as usual. Fighting for Justice 04:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
196.15.168.40 it doesn't matter if he violated 3RR, since the page is now protected. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. --Wildnox(talk) 04:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
196, you need to provide diffs showing four reverts, not links to the entire article. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
It's protected anyway. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not protected any more. Here are the 4 diffs:

  • 4th revert: [33]196.15.168.40 08:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Further Comments I'd suggest dropping the issue. Your edits were badly done(Making a line break in the middle of a sentence, removing key information from the article) etc. You keep re-instating a bad edit, and I'm not sure if that's protected under the 3RR rule. And you're at least as guilty as he is, it seems.--Vercalos 09:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Line break in the middle of a sentence? That’s COMMON: for example, EVERY sentence in your comment overflows a line. Removing key information? That’s what “Fighting for Justice” does, not me. You’ve got it the wrong way round. So it was GOOD edits I was reinstating. Which IS protected under the 3RR.196.15.168.40 04:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Vercalos save yourself a big headache and simply ignore 196.15.168.40. He is nothing but trouble. He has no regard for wikipedia's policies or rules. He's been around disrupting wikipedia since March. His favorite article is the David Westerfield article. A child-killer no less. He doesn't even understand the 3RR Rule. It protects against vandalism. Reverting information you disagree with someone is not. Regardless if you are reinstating good edits made by you or someone else. You are so clueless about the rules around here. Your edits are not even good, because they violate WP:OR. Fighting for Justice 04:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Noah30 reported by User:Laughing Man (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Kosovo Protection Corps (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Noah30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

3RR warning (since removed from users talk page) 21:10, December 27, 2006

Comments: lots of warring on this article, all parties should be blocked for 3RR.

2006-12-28T20:47:05 Robdurbar (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Noah30 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3rr violation) and 2006-12-28T20:47:10 Robdurbar (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "KosMetfan (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3rr violation) William M. Connolley 20:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you move too quickly for me Will. Edit conflicted with - :Both User:Noah30 and User:KosMetfan blocked for 24 hours. I've protected the pag too as one or two other users have been invovled. --Robdurbar 20:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
By the way, there is an arbitration ruling applicable to any Kosovo related articles (on probation): Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo. Please log any blocks at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Regards, Asteriontalk 22:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ymous reported by User:Orangemarlin (Result:No violation)

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


Comments:

  • There must be four reverts to create a violation. Stifle (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, no warning was given. I've given him one myself though.--Wildnox(talk) 22:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I didn't know either point, but when I reread the "rules" I understood more clearly. I'm afraid that this user would have accused me of being a demon if I made the warning, so I'm glad someone else did. Thanks for your help. Orangemarlin 03:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Bryndza‎ reported by User:Bucketsofg (Result prot:)

Three-revert rule violation on Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Bryndza‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments: Second revert is by an IP 65.94.19.47, which is "likely" him: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Bryndza. He has subsequently admitted the edit is his (diff) Bucketsofg 22:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Follow up:

The last revert is reverting recently banned [35] open proxy vandal User:Redstone357. Citing 3RR policy on this matter:
  • Reverting edits from banned or blocked users

Editors who have been banned from editing particular pages, or banned or blocked from Wikipedia in general, and who continue to edit anyway, either directly or through a sock-puppet, may be reverted without the reverts counting towards the limit established by this policy.

Therefore this revert does not conform 3RR requirement. Plus it was provoked by the admin Bucketsofg himself as I applied his justification to the revert. Please see (1) in [36].
Also I would like to cite another paragraph from 3RR policy:
  • Intent of the policy

The three-revert rule is intended to stop edit wars. For your information, article Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II have been blocked from editing and revert war stopped. Please also consider that in my 1+ year of editing experience at WP I was never involved in editing wars and have no intent to be drawn into them anymore. --Bryndza 05:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

2006-12-28T15:14:00 Bucketsofg (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II: protect to end edit warring [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) William M. Connolley 11:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:SchmuckyTheCat reported by User:Olivierd (Result: warning)

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

Comments:

The first four reverts were done by SchmuckyTheCat in less than 24 hours, on the same item: he repeatedly put back the "good article" template on the talk page of the foie gras article. Each time, he also relisted the article on the GA page. He also at least once (such as in this diff) deleted the TotallyDisputed template from the main foie gras page. Strictly speaking, he has thus done a lot more than 4 reverts in those 24 hours.

Those reverts are on an issue that in itself shouldn't be disputed, which is the fact that the foie gras page is disputed. SchmuckyTheCat appears unable to recognize even the existence of disagreeing voices.

SchmuckyTheCat was warned by me after the fourth revert (see here on the talk page) but he only sneered, and went on to perform two other reverts that same evening, on other issues.

I do not think the controversy on the foie gras page is to be resolved by revert counting; however, there are rules, and the liberties that SchmuckyTheCat and others repeatedly take with those rules gives them an unfair advantage, allowing them to go on editing the page in a totally POV manner while remaining completely oblivious of all attempts to discussion. This is why I now ask measures to be taken against SchmuckyTheCat.

David Olivier 00:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I encouraged David Olivier to file this complaint [37]. David is on the losing side of a POV war on Foie gras. David attempted to use the Good Article status of the article as a battle. The GA process has a review process to remove articles. When David didn't follow the process, I restored the GA template to the talk page. I then followed what David should have done and filed the GA review for him Wikipedia:Good_articles/Review#Foie_gras. Removing the tag in a POV war is underhanded vandalism. Restoring the tag, and listing the article for review when you don't think it should be reviewed, is good faith editing.
Note on the article itself I'm not being strict about counting, but I'm trying generally to follow 1RR per issue. David's 5th and 6th revert have nothing to do with each other. SchmuckyTheCat 00:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
To whoever is reviewing this report - please be advised that there is an ongoing edit war revolving around two users (Oliverd, Benio76) engaged in a radical POV pushing (PETA activism). The issue has been discussed in length on article's Talk page and the user who's changes were reverted repeatedly ignored other editor's arguments. Alex Pankratov 00:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

As per WP:GA/R, the GA tag is to be removed when a user sees that the article does not satisfy the criteria. The review process is for relisting the article. That there is an ongoing edit war is uncontroversial, and it is particularly absurd to try to dispute the fact that the article is disputed. To call vandalism an edit by someone who disagrees with you is just rhetoric. David Olivier 01:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a huge conflict about the neutrality of foie gras. A small group of editors are regularly boycotting other editors' improvements, in order to preserve a positive bias pushing commercialization of foie gras. These people ignore arguments, sources and quotation of WP guidelines furnished by other editors, and they have gone as far as accusing me of having created a sock puppet, which is false. Since the article does not satisfy the GA criteria, the reverts made by SchmuckyTheCat are unjustified, Benio76 01:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not very happy with all this, but... firstly, reverts to article and talk pages are (AFAIK) counted separately (this could be a Good Question). Secondly STC should not have rv'd 4 times to restore the GA tag, but its semi-stale now; and I don't think the GA tag should simply be removed. So STC gets a warning William M. Connolley 11:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverting a talk page seems like disruptive behavior and should be handled separately. Though in some cases reversion in a talk page is justified (to remove obscenities, defamation, vile personal attacks etc) why should it be tolerated there in other cases at all? --CSTAR 17:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Certainly. But what I meant was, the talk and article pages count separately towards the count of 4... at least I think they do. I'll put it onto talk William M. Connolley 18:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Starwars1955 reported by User:Aviper2k7 (Result: 72h)

Three-revert rule violation on Brett_Favre (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Starwars1955 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments: User has been blocked two or three times before, at least once for violating 3RR. here's the first time he was blocked. He's reverting to a version with no citations, which violates WP:CITE and then says that listing citations twice is against the rules. See Brett Favre history and our discussion on the talk page which he seems to ignore.++aviper2k7++ 00:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Also, note that that this editor has been brought up at ANI. Heimstern Läufer 02:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

72h given previous record William M. Connolley 11:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:R9tgokunks reported by User:LUCPOL (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Metropolis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). R9tgokunks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Comments: User:R9tgokunks (Hrödberäht) vandalise (edit war, 3RR) arcicles: Metropolis, Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union, Ostrava, List of famous German Americans, Father of the Nation etc, etc. He's always revert. See history in arcicles (all edit war R9tgokunks vs all users in all arcicles): [38], [39], [40], [41], [42] etc. Please help. Please blocked this user on month (or more). LUCPOL 00:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC) PS: He manipulates, it lets old links (see highly - links discussion from... september etc). LUCPOL 00:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

First, please use the template provided. Second, you also violated 3RR in at least one of the articles. You're both violating 3RR, and if either of you get blocked, you both get blocked. --Wildnox(talk) 01:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I will repeat. He leads many edit wars and 3RR! Not one or two - many. Please help (except Wildnox). LUCPOL 01:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

PS. This is data (links) with end of December 2006 (actually), I did not look for older. LUCPOL 02:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

How can the vandal get blocked, and the contributor who reverted the vandalism also get blocked? Surely this doesn't happen elsewhere on Wikipedia, does it?-- Hrödberäht 02:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 11:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:LUCPOL reported by User:R9tgokunks (Result: 24h)

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

Comments: Background on the situation(although it might be irrelevant to the actual report):[43],[44] [45],[46],[47] -- Hrödberäht 03:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It is lie!: 1st revert - 27 December, 3rd and 5th revert is not revert. This is actualization. This is previous version [48], letter is reverts from R9tgokunks (Hrödberäht). I did not make 3RR: see: [49], [50] - My 3 corner edition and 3 reverts from R9tgokunks (Hrödberäht) - in draught 24h, 28 december 2006. I did not make 3 reverts, this is 3 corner edition. LUCPOL 03:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, just above the actual report is this further discussion-- Hrödberäht 03:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me condense what I said above.(I Removed it) BOTH users appear to have violated 3RR on the article in question. --Wildnox(talk) 03:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me also add the suggestion that possibly instead of either or both of the users being blocked, that this and the other pages involved(listed by LUCPOL in the report above) be protected. This would allow the users to discuss their issue with eachother and hopefully come to a compromise. --Wildnox(talk) 04:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 11:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mithril_Cloud reported by User:Pmgomez (Result: no block)

Three-revert rule violation on De_La_Salle-Santiago_Zobel_School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Mithril_Cloud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments: User insists the use of Infobox Secondary school template even if article is clearly that of a K-12 institution.

Invalid statement. Reporting user obviously did not understood 3RR fully. Interestingly enough, the 2nd revert: 06:16, 29 December 2006 was actually an edit of the reporting user, making his report invalid. --Mithril Cloud 09:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Valid statement. Revert pertains to the article, not to specific users. { PMGOMEZ } 09:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

  • And have I reverted more than three times on the article? No. So it's invalid. --Mithril Cloud 09:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Again, does not pertain to you reverting the article but the article being reverted. { PMGOMEZ } 09:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I am the one being reported here and you say that the report does not pertain to my edits? Care to elaborate? --Mithril Cloud 10:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I shall not waste any more time here. I shall leave this to the admins for them to referee. If they deem that my report is valid, then it is. If not, then it's not. End of discussion. :) { PMGOMEZ } 10:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No block. Next time use diffs not versions. The one closest to a block here is Gomez William M. Connolley 11:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Mithril Cloud 12:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Three-revert rule violation on Paul Thompson (researcher) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). NuclearUmpf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Warning link: [51]
  • Self revert oppourtunity: [52]
  • Self revert rejected: [53]


Comments: User incorrectly believes he can revert as many times as he wants on the article as long as he reverts different kinds of changes. This is not accurate. Unwilling to engage in discussion on talk page beyond brinkmanship. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

User is vandalizing an article by removing sourced content that he claims does not exist for instance. For instance in revert 4 I was readding a quote he removed without cause, stating source doesnt support statement. However the sources first line states: He never studied, trained, or even had any intention to become an authority on terrorism. The source clearly states he is an authority on terrorism, so why is this removed? It seems Hipocrit has decided to vandalize the article after TheronJ explained my creation of it was within guidelines.[54] TheronJ's statement shows my reversions was preventing blanking of the page. --NuclearZer0 18:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
In that same edit the user changed the fact that he was invited to a congressional briefing with the following wording "In 2005, Thompson was asked to speak at an informal briefing organized by Congresswoman [[Cynthia McKinney]", he even argues on the talk page that it was not a Congressional Briefing, yet the title of the source and the source itself states otherwise. Source is ^ July 22nd Congressional Briefing: The 9/11 Commission Report One Year Later: A Citizens' Response - Did They Get It Right?. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (July 22, 2005). --NuclearZer0 18:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Back room deals and black mail attempts: [55] [56] stating he will drop report if I agree to do what he says, this is surely not in the spirit of WP:3RR. --NuclearZer0 19:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

H kindly offered you the opportunity to self-rv. You foolishly didn't take it. 24h William M. Connolley 19:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Three-revert rule violation on Paul_Thompson_(researcher) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Hipocrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments: Part of massive edit war. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Please use UT for the times; otherwise it makes it more difficult for the decideing admin to compare the diffs. The fourth is close enough to be a revert.
Blocked 24h.--CSTAR 20:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pernambuco reported by User:MariusM (Result: 8h)

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

  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here. Not a new user, however I warned him 29 Dec 17:57

Comments: Reverts are mainly about: Removing Border issues section, expanding referendum section, removing US Department of State position and opinion of Yakovlev, removing travel warnings. Some reverts are combined with some edits, like adding an infobox in reverts 2 and 3 (you need to scroll to see the reverts). I consider those reverts as vandalism also, and I and other editors as well had discussions with Pernambuco in his talk page [57] without convincing him to change his behaviour. In revert 5 he even claim that he has my agreement for the revert, which is totally untrue - I agreed with him in a small issue (using Dniester instead of Nistru) but clearly told him not to remove the paragraphs [58]. See also disscussion in talk page aboutparagraph with Yakovlev opinions (where he even denied he deleted) border issues, US Department of State position. In Talk he agreed that the person who delete a paragraph should explain why 29 Dec 17:25, however he kept deleting without explaining why.--MariusM 21:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

8h William M. Connolley 23:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked him because Diana Teodorescu (talk · contribs) was a sockpuppet of the banned user Bonaparte. Khoikhoi 00:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:69.123.136.59 reported by User:Bdve (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Vince Russo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 69.123.136.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

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

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. [66]

Comments: Continually adding a section that is by no means notable, at least not to this degree. Despite claims that "theres like 12 of us doing this" all of the changes are coming from the same IP.

Further comment, I'm almost positive, though I have no proof, that this is coming from a specific wrestling message board. The same people who continually vandalized the Lex Luger article

24h William M. Connolley 23:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ravenfire reported by User:NickBurns (Result: 24hr)

Dusty Springfield (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Sorry if I am not doing this right....There are many reverts (many more than 3RR today alone).....Please go to the user's contribution page. Other than edits to blank user's talk page (another no-no), user has only edited this article. Appears to be in a content dispute with User:Barleywater over external links. NickBurns 00:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Politis reported by User:Jd2718 (Result:16h)

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


Comments:

  • Each revert removes the link to Slavic languages of Macedonia (Greece).
  • Politis is not a new user (approx 2000 edits since December 2005).
  • When I pointed out on his talk page that he had violated 3RR dif here and suggested that he revert himself, instead he responded with this, indicating that deleting the link repeatedly does not meet his definition of 'revert.' Even were this true (I don't know) this sounds like gaming the spirit of 3RR and a likely intention to continue doing so.
  • Please be aware that the edit summaries and his note on my talk page do not necessarily reflect either the changes or the discussion on the talk page.
16h.--CSTAR 08:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:MelForbes reported by User:Bastun (Result: 8h)

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

Comments: Reverts are to the wording of the first sentence in the article. User:MelForbes is pushing PoV that the term in question, "British Isles" is only used sometimes. This issue had already been thrashed out a month ago (30th November, section 14 of Talk:British Isles. While the term is certainly rejected by some in Ireland, it is still the term for the group of islands, is used by some in Ireland, and by a majority in the UK. Not to mention the rest of the world.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bastun (talk • contribs)

User:Bastun, has shadowed me before on WP. I haven't reverted 3 times, and I am trying to edit to a NPOV situation. I totally reject User:Bastun, and i believe that he should be ignored on this occasion. MelForbes 02:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me?! You showed up on my talk page (with an insult) on 18th August 06. I've only ever been to yours in response to some questions from you put on mine. As for "shadowing" you - I'm Irish, you're Irish, we both edit articles of Irish interest. Bastun 02:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
You have been deeply offensive to me a couple of months ago on the British Isles talk page. I just don't have the time to find those edits now. But if i have to, I will. MelForbes 02:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
This is the second or third time you've alleged this, again without backing it up with any evidence. See here [67] where I ask you to point them out, and you fail to respond? Please do show me where I've attacked you. Bastun 15:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You obviously have reverted 4 times; 8h for a first offence William M. Connolley 10:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I have edited, not reverted. MY edit has now bee accepted. MelForbes 18:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC) I want to make an objection against William M. Connolley's decision, how is that done please. This sort of nonsense is doing big damage to the WP project. MelForbes 19:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You could report report it at WP:AN/I, but I don't think that will do any good. From what it looks like to me, the block was justified. You made 4 reverts and were blocked. Those "edits" you speak of count as reverts under WP:3RR. --Wildnox(talk) 19:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, firstly, I reverted what I believe to be a sock editor. I won't say whom at the moment. Then Bastun started reverting back to the "sock" edits. MelForbes 19:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I see no evidence of sockpuppetry, nor do I see any users on that page who even edit from the same country as the IP. Do you have any actual evidence, you really can't make that claim on a hunch. --Wildnox(talk) 19:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
That's not fully correct. WP allows a "sock revert" for suspected sockpuppet, and it's not counted as a revert. I cannot state who the sock is a the moment, as I would have to go to checkuser first, and it seemed hardly worth it at the time. And checkuser is not always conclusive. It could be classed as a minor sock. MelForbes 19:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually it is fully true, you need at least SOME proof of sockpuppetry, you can't just throw the claim out there with no actual proof. There appears to be none, as no other users on that article were even from the same country as the IP and it is not a known proxy. --Wildnox(talk) 19:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
See, that is a prob with WP. An editor cannot do something in good faith?, I didn't want to write sock in the edit because of the proof issue. Then WP urges its editors to be bold. It's a no-win situation. Stick ones neck out, and chop chop. MelForbes 20:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you're assuming bad faith when you seem to have assumed that the user was a sock. Even if you had noted that in your summary, without proof, you would have still been blocked. Like I said before, you can always report this at WP:AN/I if you think there has been wrongdoing. --Wildnox(talk) 20:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
As I said, it's a no-win situation, the chicken and the egg conundrum. An editor makes a very simple rv to an anonymous user and suspected sock, then another editor with a axe to grind makes a report. Wikipedia has lost some very excellent editors in the past over silly little things that go out of hand. I may not bother much more with it, I'll think about it. MelForbes 20:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Users 203.220.171.80 and 203.220.171.90 are sockpuppets of one another. Whether malign or benign is debatable, but the broad principle is correct. Some users use dynamic IP addresses to avoid traceability and to incur vandalism and pov into articles. Details; IP Address  : 203.220.171.80 (80.171.220.203.dial.dynamic.acc01-aitk-gis.comindico.com.au ) ISP  : COMindico Australia Organization : COMindico Australia Location  : AU, Australia City  : Melbourne, 07 - Latitude  : 37°81'67" South Longitude  : 144°96'67" East IP Address  : 203.220.171.90 (90.171.220.203.dial.dynamic.acc01-aitk-gis.comindico.com.au ) ISP  : COMindico Australia Organization : COMindico Australia Location  : AU, Australia City  : Melbourne, 07 - Latitude  : 37°81'67" South Longitude  : 144°96'67" East MelForbes 12:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

And your point is? 203.220.171.80 made (from all I can see, good-faith) edits to the previous version, explained in his/her edit summary. You reverted four times, despite me bringing it up on the talk page. I reported you here. 203.220.171.90 (almost definitely the same editor as 203.220.171.80) later reverted you. The point is, you still broke the 3RR.
If you're assuming the 203.220.171.x users are also me, I can assure you you're incorrect, and have no problem with a checkuser being done to verify that all my edits originated from my home IP address, which will be shown to be Esat/BT (or whatever they're calling themselves today). Bastun 13:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
No Baston, I do not assume that it is you. It has been established in other cases of WP that IP addresses can be sockpuppets too. This case is no different. Technically speaking 203.220.171.80 is a different personality from 203.220.171.90, as different as chalk and cheese, but I bet that they are the one and same user. MelForbes 13:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I won't take the bet because I agree with you. Point is - you reverted four times after 203.220.171.80's edits. 203.220.171.90 didn't show up till after I'd reported you and so is irrelevant to this report. Bastun 13:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
They are still sockpuppets, my hunch was correct, and very able Wikipedians at that. The user is no newcomer. MelForbes 13:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:A Man In Black reported by User:Peregrinefisher (Result: 3h)

Three-revert rule violation on Ultimate_Spider-Man_(story_arcs) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). A_Man_In_Black (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments: He didn't like the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Spider-Man (story arcs). He's been trying to do this for a while; see here. - Peregrinefisher 08:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

3h William M. Connolley 20:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:SummerThunder reported by User:tjstrf (Result:moot)

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

Note that some of these also mess around with unrelated sections of the article or reformat it, but they all add the Moderators subsection.

Warned by User:Hoary for both 3RR and civility violations.

Comments: All of the above edits are part of an ongoing campaign by this user to discredit the zh.wiki administration as "government spies" for banning him. He's also either in 3RR violation or close to it (didn't check) on other pages such as Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China, and has made numerous vitriolic comments on the Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) such as [69] this attack rant. He has been removed from both zh.wiki and meta for similar POV pushing and NPA violation, and warned by several administrators in his time here that his behaviour is unacceptable, so a more serious penalty than the standard 24hr slap on the wrist may be preferable. --tjstrf talk 08:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, I don't see any reverts per se. None of the edits listed match up with other edits this user made. Also, please please do not change the times when you report someone for 3RR. It makes it very hard for us admins to match up the edits you are citing. Thanks. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I see the violation, but this is also almost 2 weeks ago now, so I'm calling the report moot. Mangojuicetalk 16:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kendrick7 reported by User:Beit Or (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Alphonso_de_Spina (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Kendrick7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

24h William M. Connolley 10:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:DanRusso reported by User:Bdve (Result: 8h)

Three-revert rule violation on Vince Russo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). DanRusso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments: Pretty sure this is coming from the same place as before, but have no proof. Article may need to be semi-protected down the line.

8h William M. Connolley 20:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Curtis Bledsoe reported by User:Jance

[edit] User:Jance reported by User:Curtis Bledsoe (Result:Warning)

Three-revert rule violation on Breast Implant (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Jance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Curtis has clearly had a warning (just below). Every other editor who has edited this agreed that a summary be added, instead of extremely lengthy & possibly copyright violation text. There have been numerous complaints by Ronz, me, l'cast, Hughgr, Wildnox on the talk page. He has continued to be insulting, and aggressive in reverting - after ALL OF THIS. He obviously has no problem flaunting WIkipedia. I do not see a warning on his page, but I ask anyone to look at all t he discussion here, all the complaints, the consensus on his edits, and tell me if he is complying with WIkipedia. I can't believe anyone would do this.Jance 19:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Three-revert rule violation on Breast Implant (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Jance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments:

The User:Jance has persistently reverted necessary changes to this article and violated the 3RR. --Curtis Bledsoe 00:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

First, the user was never warned and therefore is very unlikely to be blocked. Second, it appears you have violated 3RR on the article in question. --Wildnox(talk) 01:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, WIldnox. I have opened an AN/I on Curtis, because of a barrage of insults, ridicule, and general abuse, as well as 3RR, and editing an article after someone (not I) added a copyright tag because of his edits. Most recently, he libeled an editor in another article. He has also followed me to yet another article for the sole purpose of harassment. This is already an article that has been contentious. He changed portions, without discussion, that had been discussed and debated at great length for months.Jance 02:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the double-standard. Whether or not I have violated 3RR is irrelevant - I haven't violated 3RR, but if you have evidence that I have, then you're welcome to block me as well. But that doens't change the fact that Jance has demonstrably violated 3RR and should be blocked. --Curtis Bledsoe 03:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Please remember to (when applicable, and in this case, it is) add a "diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here. El_C 04:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Sorry, this was my first. I normally wouldn't have reported it, but the actions of the user in question were pretty OTT. What does it mean "diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here"? --Curtis Bledsoe 04:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
It means you have to show a diff of a warning, unless you can prove he/she knew of 3RR prior to the 4th revert. --Wildnox(talk) 04:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Both Jance and Curtis Bledsoe have contributed to 9 reverts over a variety of edits (no single point more than twice I agree) - see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Breast_implant.2C_again - do these really consitute 3RR or AN/I consideration ? David Ruben Talk 05:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea if this is closed or not. But I welcome anyone to see NCAHF and Curtis' edits there. Jance 17:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:SteveWolfer reported by User:Buridan (Result: no block)

Three-revert rule violation on Template:Philosophy_navigation. SteveWolfer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Diffs not versions please. This isn't in 24h or even very close. But it is a stupid edit war, and you both risk being blocked if you don't try to work it out on talk William M. Connolley 11:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Nadirali reported by User:Ganeshk (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Indus Valley Civilization (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Nadirali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments:

24h William M. Connolley 11:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:HongQiGong reported by User:Endroit (Result: 24h)

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


Comments:

  • HongQiGong appologised after the 1st incident here (20:37, 29 December 2006). But he broke 3RR in the 2nd incident.--Endroit 19:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment on the second "incident" - Notice the time stamp between the 1st and the 4th edits, there is more than a 24-hour gap. And my 5th edit was not a revert, but a new edit. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      • HongQiGong kept adding 2 sentences which were not new. Those were unilateral additions.--Endroit 20:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        • The edit between my fifth edit and other edits are different, and offered as a compromise. Also, I'd like to point out, that Endroit never warned me of 3RR or notified me of his 3RR report here. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
          • We're requesting 3rd opinion from any admin. HongQiGong is a repeat violator of 3RR, as he has been blocked before.--Endroit 20:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
          • (Edit conflict with above response)But you have been given warnings in the past for other 3RR incidents, you don't need to be warned every time, just the first time. There is no requirement to notify users of the report either. --Wildnox(talk) 20:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
            • Don't get me wrong, if an admin feels I should be blocked, then I won't argue with that. My edits are in good faith and Endroit here is basically trying to use 3RR to prevent an edit that he disagrees with, notice the revert-warring on the article. And I do maintain that my latest edit, which prompted this report, is a different edit offered as a compromise. Finally, I'm only citing what I read on the top of this page, which, to be honest, makes Endroit's motives questionable, if he has neither warned me nor notified me of this report:
            • Administrators are unlikely to block a user who has never been warned. If you report a 3RR violation here it is good form to inform the person you are reporting of this on their talk page and provide a link to this page WP:AN/3RR. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
              • The thing is you have been warned in the past, there is no requirement to do so for every new violation, as you can see in the template below it's only needed for new users. Also good form does not mean requirement, though I admit good form is always preferred. --Wildnox(talk) 20:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
              • HongQiGong, I'd like to see you in the talk pages AND GAIN CONSENSUS first before making those edits. And yes, your addition about "weaving cloth", etc. (2000 years ago) was repeated 4 times in 24 hours.--Endroit 20:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 22:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:67.175.216.90 reported by User:Commodore Sloat (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Qur'an_desecration_controversy_of_2005 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 67.175.216.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments: User is adding an irrelevant link to the article; he tried to do so months ago and was warned to stop. He participated in discussion only briefly, to accuse those reverting him of being abusive and bullying, and never responded to the arguments against his addition to the article. He came back today making the same edits without discussing them. csloat 00:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

since csloat is telling essentially the same fibs he told [here[79], i'll quote from what i've written in response already.
i am in technical violation of 3RR (i've only reverted twice "today"), but i began seeking mediation prior to my first revert. in contrast, csloat has one revert left before violation. he has so far not returned to the talk page to explain his behavior. he has refused to communicate directly with me, but has shadowed me from page to page reverting my edits and telling fibs like the one above about the matter. ...when csloat testifies that my addition of a single, relevant cross-link is "disruptive," that is a chracterization, albeit one that fails the standard of reasonability. ... but when he asserts that i "refused to explain" my "actions in talk", it is - i really don't want to use harsh language - but it is a lie, and one which can be exposed by simply reviewing the talk page.
i hope this can be of help in administrating the issue. it is my understanding that deliberately reverting only three times per day, but in a nonetheless persistent and aggressive manner is called "gaming" 3RR and is considered a violation of its own sort. 67.175.216.90 04:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I see no evidence of mediation, nor is it relevant to the 3RR. The evidence above shows four reverts in 24 hours. csloat 05:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Clear cut case, it seems to me. 24h.--CSTAR

[edit] User:Shamir1 reported by User:Mostlyharmless (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Palestine:Peace_Not_Aparthied (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Shamir1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments: User has been warned by others over 3RR, and continued after 4RR.

If one actually looks, not all of the edits contained the same worded material. The last two in specific, have the information re-worded as per the discussion, which User:Mostlyharmless failed to mention. Reasons for inclusion of the short and sourced material (as per the inclusion of parallel/similar and longer material added and kept by others) can be found on Talk:Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid#The recent edit war. --Shamir1 00:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

  • 24h.--CSTAR 07:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Raspor reported by User:Orangemarlin (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Intelligent design (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Raspor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments:

This user has been warned in the past about the 3RR rule, and continues to violate it.

In addition, I edited[ [User:hump]] original complaint, since it was not done in the manner required for this report. It's time to block Raspor. Please.

Now 7. Humps 22:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 23:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:TrueBahai reported by User:Jeff3000 (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Bahá'í Faith (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). TrueBahai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments:

24h, on the presumption that the anon is him William M. Connolley 09:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Emokid200618 reported by User:Apostrophe (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Organization_XIII (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Emokid200618 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments: User has been banned for 3RR before, thus understands the rule. His edits were against the consensus of the editors of this article. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 06:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 09:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Armon reported by User:64.230.123.128 (Result: 24h)

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

Comments: There is discussion of proper references and accusations of OR but many of the things Armon is repeatedly removing are properly referenced, see the last two diffs here specifically for a clear case of edit summaries containing untrue accusations of OR or POV: [94], [95]. The paragraph in those two reports has been removed 4 times by Armon, thus while there is complex partial reverts some paragraphs have been consistently targeted by Armon. Thus the link given as the previous version is not really clearly the version Armon is reverting to. --64.230.123.128 16:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: The user is well aware of the 3RR rule and has been blocked on 2 prior occasions, see block log. --64.230.123.128 16:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

24h (even though your prev-version is wrong...) William M. Connolley 16:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] User:Fox33 reported by User:Merzbow (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Joseph_Stalin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Fox33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Diff of 3RR warning: Almost certainly a sock puppet of Jacob Peters (talk · contribs), who loves nothing more than to remove 'dictator' from the intro of this article, obviously somebody's sock puppet given the contribution history.

Comments: This user is probably Jacob Peters (talk · contribs) socking for (hopefully) the last time. I'm filing this in hopes for a quicker block while the sock report is processed. See the RFCU here for the gory history. - Merzbow 22:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 22:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:BrianSmithson and User:Mwhs reported by User:Shirahadasha (Result:No Block)

Three-revert rule violation on Mami Wata (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). BrianSmithson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Mwhs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [96]


Comments: Both User:BrianSmithson and User:Mwhs appear to be involved in an edit war on the Mami Wata article

Appears to be no 3RR violation. Maybe take this to WP:AN/I? --Wildnox(talk) 01:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Correction, User:BrianSmithson has violated 3RR. User:Mwhs has not. --Wildnox(talk) 01:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Not saying heavy-handed enforcement is required, but thinking might be good for a neutral admin (someone not involved in the article) to weigh in, explain that constant reverts are bad for Wikipedia, give a warning, ask for a cooling-off, etc. Best --Shirahadasha 01:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
* No Diffs. Upon inspection, not even close to 3RR. No Block. However, the plaintiff is correct. Constant reverts are bad for Wikipedia, You are hereby warned, please cool off.--CSTAR 03:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see, I thought they were all the same day. --Wildnox(talk) 03:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Gschadow reported by User:Rumpelstiltskin223 (Result:Warning)

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

  • Previous version reverted to: Multiple cases of half-reverts, but this is basically the version he reverts to 19:08, 1 January 2007


Comments: :A user User:Gschadow makes controversial unsubstantiated edits [97]. When I made correction he challenged me in the talk page and expressed an intent to revert-war, violating WP:POINT [98]and reverted [99], saying that he has deliberately instigated edit-war (see summary). I asked him to stop [100] but he ignored[101]Rumpelstiltskin223 05:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Relatively new user (less than 50 edits); also though clearly 3 are reverts, the remaining edits need to be checked to see if they are technically reverts. In this instance, I'm inclined to just issue a warning.--CSTAR 06:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment This user's short activity has displayed less than desirable collegiality. I will be less inclined next time around to look so finely at the technical details of the reverts.--CSTAR 06:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I plead with you, CSTAR, to look at the matter in detail and in context. The user who accuses me is playing the system very well. Please be so kind and follow through, and look at the RfC case I have opened on this subject. Gschadow 06:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Please take note that the accusing user is misrepresenting the case. He accuses me of "controversial unsubstantiated edits", when the entire article is known to be controversial for many months now. Then he says "when I made corrections", but please go to the history of the article and see for yourself that the so called "correction" was a point blank revert. Please also note the comments made during the accusing users part in the edit-war and you will see personal attack. Now I trust your good judgement that you will determine any actions wisely. I have also asked you for personal advice. Thank you for lending and ear. Gschadow 06:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] User:Mel Etitis reported by User:Grcampbell (Result: 8h)

Three-revert rule violation on Olinde Rodrigues (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Mel Etitis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments:

This admin constantly violates the 3RR rule and is implementing a POV which has been discussed to not apply to this person.

Don't see why #1 is a revert - you haven't filled in the prev version (sigh) William M. Connolley 11:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No idea what that means. Maybe it wikipedia procedure was written in English it would help... User is reverting the deletion of a category that should not be on this article. He has reinserted it four times. --Bob 16:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have inserted the prior version for the reporter. The relevent change is the addition of the Category:Occitan personnalities. As we all know, blocking valuable contributors over trivial crossings of bright-line rules is the most effective way of distancing contributors from the project. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems a fair cop then, with warning. I've given 8h on the grounds of him being a sensible person in general William M. Connolley 16:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: ME has contested this via email to me; I'd be grateful if someone else would review it William M. Connolley 22:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm torn. While he is indeed in technical violation of 3rr, and should have used more descriptive edit summaries than 'rv' or vandalism rollbacks...if Grcampbell was indeed depopulating a category while it was up for CFR then he should have left it. I think Mel tried to convey this to Grcampbell, but failed to get an agreement and continued with less than helpful edit summaries. If Grcampbell was just removing the Occitan personalities cat from an article or two per reasoning that it doesn't belong on them then he should have been allowed to do so. If they were really Occitan (whatever that is ;) ) then once the cat was renamed or deleted or whatever someone would have re-added them. I would have personally handled the reversion situation differently, but I think if Mel agrees to not revert it again I'd be happy with an unblock. I find no fault with the application of 3rr; it was a tricky situation at best, which of several conflicting processes takes precedence. Syrthiss 22:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It was very clearly four reverts and we should not give a free pass. The other editor tried to refer this to discussion, but the rollbacks continued. Oppose unblock. Jonathunder 22:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Though the editor in question is a highly respected editor, I think this kind of free pass is a bad idea. I'm all in favor of leniency, but a 24h block is a painless reprimand. --CSTAR 20:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Himalayanashoka reported by User:Accurizer (Result: 48h)

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

Comments:

Fairly new but already seems to have notched up a fair tally of blocks. 48h William M. Connolley 20:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] User:Sir_Edgar reported by User:Endroit (Result:)

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

Comments: Repetitive revert warring, on the section that begins with the words "The Yayoi period," .... We had just come up with a new consensus for this wording, and Sir Edgar starts revert-warring again, against consensus. Other excessive unilateral changes in the Japan article in the last 24 hours, resulting in more revert-warring there.--Endroit 00:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits are all different in quality, so your claim is not valid. :)--Sir Edgar 05:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Any edit to the aforementioned "Yayoi" section should be based on the ongoing discussions in Talk:Japan. Sir Edgar, your 4 edits in this sections are all unilateral edits against such consensus. The fact that you are changing a few words here and there only show that you're trying to be evasive, but they're all reversions.--Endroit 06:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Endroit. You cannot skirt 3RR by hiding the same revert among several other changes and claim that they are substantively different. The exact same sentence was reverted by you more than 3 times, period.-Jefu 16:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is too subtle for me. What is the "exact same sentence" that is being reverted? William M. Connolley 18:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Check the second paragraph of "early history". The relevant extract is as follows.
"The Yayoi period, starting around the 3rd century BC, marked the influx of new practices such as wet-rice farming, iron and bronze-making, and a new style of pottery, brought by migrants from the Chinese mainland and the Korean peninsula."
What Sir Edgar was doing was making different sorts of edits, but the general theme was to change and/or invalidate the above extract I mentioned, which was a consensus agreement. The first three times he did it with "migrants from the Korean Peninsula", the fourth with "migrants from China and Korea". The intent was the same, to change the focus of that part of the article. I agree with Jefu - he should not be allowed to avoid 3RR by making these changes by throwing in other edits. John Smith's 20:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I was on that sentence. But I couldn't see 4R. You may be pushing the envelope of the defn of revert here - changing the focus of a part isn't necessarily a revert William M. Connolley 20:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Surely it is if you would force the other party to break 3RR to restore the previous version, especially if it's consensus. People on wikipedia get bitten by the rules by making what they thought was a fair fourth edit, without even intending to annoy people - why should Sir Edgar get away with this when it's clear by his attitude (check his talk page and those of the article) he doesn't care what anyone else thinks? John Smith's 20:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I know this is not a concensus-based decision, but let me just offer this - if the purpose of a block on him is to stop him from revert-warring, then the block would be quite pointless right now. He has already stopped revert-warring on his own. Plus, a block on him would prevent him from participating in discussion (correct me if I'm wrong), regardless of how stubborn some of us may think he is. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Hong, I don't think having Sir Edgar around is actually helpful to the discussion. He has repeatedly indicated he only cares what he thinks is right - he doesn't think your opinion or my opinion (or that of any of the other editors) counts for anything. He needs to be blocked, else he will start this merry little dance all over again in 24 hours time. John Smith's 20:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I agree he is stubborn, but that's not enough a justification for a block. At least, not that I'm aware of. I'm sure that, as always, the admins will judge how they see fit, whether or not we agree with the decision. All I'm saying is that he has not kept up with his reverts after this report, so I'm not sure what the point of a block would be. I agree that his participation in discussion is hardly going to be helpful, if he keeps up his attitude. But we can't really block on what we think people will do in the future, IMHO. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me make a few things clear. I was not trying to skirt the 3RR rule. In fact, I am not even aware if I did indeed revert 3,4 times. After I was warned by our friend Endroit here that I might be in violation of this rule, I did not edit the supposed sentence in question again. So, my intention to not violate the rule is without doubt. I was merely giving the article an overall edit. Obviously, you did not assume good faith. This is despite the fact that I recall offering alternative edits.

Regardless, it is up to the administrators to decide how to administer this site. Not you. Frankly, I don't give a damn whether I am blocked or not because I'll just come back and edit what I believe is the truth. My aim is to write and edit good articles that are based on the facts, not the consensus of a bunch of idiots. These people decided that they'd make a compromise between themselves and didn't even quote the articles that were sourced. I wanted to fix this.

The fact of the matter is, I am simply outnumbered here. In the past, I tried to maintain the highest standard of civility based on reason and thought. Instead, I was repeatedly attacked by a bunch of anonymous accounts and users that are now banned. That is what they are referring to and you can see this on my Talk page. But that does not matter. My intention is not to achieve popularity.

Now, I don't care about the opinion of people who are obviously biased and twisting the truth for their own satisfaction. I want to continue to contribute to making Wikipedia articles more accurate. Whether I have to fight this fight alone does not matter to me. I know that several people are ganging up on me using this rule or that rule to avoid getting into trouble while trying to get me into trouble (i.e. 3RR). See the History page of this article.

In other words: Consensus is less important to me than the facts. It is not my opinion or your opinion that matters. Just the facts.

By the way, do not equate my perception of Jefu's or Hong's opinion with yours. I do not value them on the same level.--Sir Edgar 00:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I know this is now out of context of the 3RR report - but what do you mean by your last sentence and who were you addressing? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Someone who constantly tries to edit a single paragraph isn't interested in the "truth" - it's called being obsessed with having things as they want them. Maybe you should book a session with a psychiatrist.... John Smith's 19:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Is this a personal attack? You are suggesting that I am insane... and not as a joke. By the way, I don't like you either. You come off as a nasty person.--Sir Edgar 23:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Isuse33 reported by User:Guettarda (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Michael_Behe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Isuse33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments:

Blocked per report below William M. Connolley 09:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sqrjn reported by User:Trödel (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Mountain Meadows massacre (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Sqrjn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments I would have just let this go but the editor continues to be disruptive to the collaboration process:

See also the talk page.

24h William M. Connolley 09:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Guardian sickness reported by User:Strothra (Result: no block)

Three-revert rule violation on Kriss Donald (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Guardian sickness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments: Editor is engaging in an edit war by removing a substantial portion of cited material from notable sources by claiming that it is against concensus to add it yet the dispute is between himself and another editor. While these reverts are not within the same 24hr period, they are the same edits made over consecutive days. The edit war needs to end. The entire edit history of this editor is nothing but a history of this edit war. --Strothra 04:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - not even close to 3RR. You need to find some other venue for this problem William M. Connolley 09:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree - He has been trying to discuss what has been happening and it is not even close to 3RR. --Darkest Hour Ж Ж Ж Ж Ж 21:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] User:Isuse33 reported by User:Justin Eiler (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Michael Behe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Isuse33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments: Poster has repeatedly made the same edit--anon has also made the same edit. There have been several more identical and similar reversions by the same user. THe material being removed is accurate and sourced--Isuse insists (despite repeated explanations of the WP:NPOV policy) that the material is "bias." (sic) Justin Eiler 05:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 09:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:219.83.24.4 reported by User:RB30DE (Result:No block)

Three-revert rule violation on B'z (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 219.83.24.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments: More than 24 hours. It's actually 48. And only 3 of the edits are actual reverts. No block. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 12:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

First four are all within 24 hours, and all are reverts. (It is possible to revert without actually leaving the word "revert" expicitly in the edit history.) However I accept the outcome, and will say no more. RB30DE 19:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jackanapes reported by User:Bogdangiusca (Result:24h)

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


Comments: He is a new user, but he was aware of the 3RR policy: he was warned about this policy on another occasion by another user and I also warned him on his talk page. However he posted my warning on Talk:Dobruja saying that it was a "threat". bogdan 13:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours according to the above. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 14:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Apache- reported by User:The Kinslayer (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Trainer (games). Apache- (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments: User has committed himself to reverting back a link to a website he admits to be his own. The account is single purpose with no edits outside of the article and other harassing messages left on user pages. Despite more than one person who disagrees with him, he by himself has reverted numerous peoples edit back to the same version.

  • OK. I have blocked for 24 hours. No warning was given (Kinslayer, please warn in future, it makes everyone's lives easier including your own), but it is clear that the user is aware that revert-warring over links to his own site is problematic, per the discussions on Talk:Trainer (games). WP:3RR + WP:SPAM + WP:COI is unquestionably a problem. Guy (Help!) 16:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:68.166.71.100 reported by User:Philosophus (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know? (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 68.166.71.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • 3RR warning: See the IP's talk page. I didn't see a warning, but rory096 seemed to think that the notices there (or perhaps on the article talk page?) were sufficient.

Comments: The IP user is blanking parts of the article in a somewhat rolling fashion that makes it difficult to quantify reversions, and is also ranting on the talk page about having to stop us and not "let you [the rest of the editors] run free on this site." It appears that the user has been warring and ranting for some time, probably with many different IP addresses. --Philosophus T 19:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Examination of article history shows clearly disruptive activity.24h.--CSTAR 20:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Leonardo55 reported by User:Caper13 (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Saddam Hussein (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Leonardo55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments: User keeps reinserting link to video into article. Refuses to discuss. Multiple users have removed link. He Simply reinserts it without comment or talk despite discussion on talk page. The only edits this user has made have been inserting this video into multiple articles. Caper13 20:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Clear cut case. Aside from this insertion of link to video is clearly questionable. 24h.--CSTAR 20:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] User:UBeR reported by User:Sfacets (Result: protected)

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

note - User has been maintaining Ownership over the article, as is evident by his/her numerous reverts, contribution history, and user comments.

Comment: has been edit warring with Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (Administrators' noticeboard) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! over video and execution time. Will (talk to me) 22:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There is far too much reverting on that article: I have protected it William M. Connolley 23:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Germanium reported by User:CMummert (Result:31h)

Three-revert rule violation on Gödel's incompleteness theorems (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Germanium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • 1st revert: [107]2007-01-04T16:51:32
  • 2nd revert: [108] 2007-01-04T17:10:09
  • 3rd revert: [109] 2007-01-04T17:35:04
  • 4th revert: [110] 2007-01-04T17:48:25 68.114.185.27
  • 5th revert: [111] 2007-01-04T17:55:45
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [112] 2007-01-04T17:39:15

Comments: I believe that Geranium is the same as 68.114.185.27 based on the edit history, but someone with the rights will have to verify this. Please block both the user and the IP. three of the above reverts are for the user, one (and the original addition) by the IP.


2007-01-04T23:01:16 Steel359 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Germanium (contribs)" with an expiry time of 31 hours (Edit warring to insert blatant OR into Gödel's incompleteness theorems). I've blocked the IP William M. Connolley 23:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:PBurns3711 reported by User:MikeHobday (Result: 3h)

Three-revert rule violation on Working terrier (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). PBurns3711 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • 1st revert: [113] 2007-01-03T22:34
  • 2nd revert: [114] 2007-01-04T14:13
  • 3rd revert: [115] 2007-01-04T16:04
  • 4th revert: [116] 2007-01-04T21:19

No Diff of 3RR warning: not a new user

Comments: reversion despite my attempts to discuss at [117], [118], [119], and attempt to compromise at [120]. Instead, I am met with abuse at [121] and [122]. Final edit suggests use claims ownership over the article

3h William M. Connolley 10:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rumpelstiltskin223 reported by User:Siddiqui (Result:24h block)

Three-revert rule violation on Christianity in India (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). :

Siddiqui 06:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

07:41, 5 January 2007 Srikeit (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Rumpelstiltskin223 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Edit-warring on Christianity in India and History of India) --Robdurbar 20:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Siddiqui & User:HamzaOmar reported by User:Rumpelstiltskin223 (Result: prot)

Three-revert rule violation on History of Pakistan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and Pakistani nationalism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Siddiqui (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) & HamzaOmar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Note:Please see comments to see why both users effectively count as one

For History of Pakistan

For Pakistani nationalism


Comments: In both cases, the first two reverts are done by User:Siddiqui and the last two by User:HamzaOmar, a "new user". The two users should be treated as one and the same because of this case in WP:ANI [123]

User:Siddiqui has persistently gone against consensus in several articles relating to Pakistan, most notably Pakistani nationalism and History of Pakistan, where he has been repeatedly adding unreliable sources (random unverifiable geocities links) and steering the tone in favor of fringe sectarian views. His edit-warring, as evidenced here [124][125] and [126][127][128], [129], do not involve discussions or debates but simply persistent reverts over long periods of time. This user has expressed such disruptive behaviour before, advancing narrow, nationalistic and politically inflammatory minority views (see this). Then, when it was clear that reasonable people fixed his edits, he decided to recruit tag-team meatpuppets. He started to post to a certain group of ideologically biased users, such as User:Nadirali, User:szhaider (who considers India a threat to world peace - look at his userpage) and User:Unre4L(who is on a mission to "reclaim Pakistan's stolen heritage")[130][131][132][133] [134]to try to revert-war there, which they did[135][136][137]. In addition, he solicited a meatpuppet from off wiki, a user named User:AliHussain. This is evident from the fact that this user, a new user, immediately posted to Siddiqui's page upon logging in for the first time [138] about "seeing what he can do" and proceeded to revert-war again [139][140]. The users Nadirali and Unre4L were involved in some ridiculous debate over the nonexistent concept of "Ancient Pakistan" (based not on scholarly sources but Pakistani historical revisionism) in Talk:History of India Talk:History of Pakistan and Talk:Panini.They have been resoundedly refuted by several knowledgeable users like User:Dbachmann, User:DaGizza, User:Deeptrivia and User:Fowler&fowler but they continue to prowl the pages. There have been RfC posts by other users concerning their narrow fringe views[141]. in turn they tried to create a bogus article about an underground Islamic Fundamentalist/Pakistani nationalist website started by this group of singleminded editors that which got speedily deleted [142]. This problem is becoming increasingly difficult to contain and these users are rapidly getting disruptive.Bakaman 01:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

More instances of such behaviour:[143][144][145]Rumpelstiltskin223 01:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Thus, it is very likely that User:HamzaOmar, also a new user, is a meatpuppet of User:Siddiqui recruited from some forum somewhere and brought over to this article to engage in revert-warrings. It is also possible that they are one and the same person. Administrator may decide what action to take if the evidence presented is sufficient or not. Thaa. Rumpelstiltskin223 02:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

2007-01-05T03:48:50 Khoikhoi (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected History of Pakistan: edit war [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) William M. Connolley 10:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Szhaider reported by User:Rumpelstiltskin223 (Result: 24h)

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


Three-revert rule violation on Muhammad Iqbal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Szhaider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments: See above post regarding more points about Szhaider, who is part of the tag-team meat puppet mentioned. Rumpelstiltskin223 04:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

2007-01-05T04:01:02 Shanel (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Szhaider (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR) William M. Connolley 10:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rumpelstiltskin223 reported by User:SebastianHelm

WP:3RR violation on Christianity_in_India (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Rumpelstiltskin223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). :


Comments:
The 4th revert seems to be only partial. I am not familiar with the article and I have not researched if the reverts were legitimate.

The reason why I became aware of Rumpelstiltskin223 was that I am currently a mediator for Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-26 Decline of Buddhism in India, and Rumpelstiltskin223 repeatedly blanked text in Decline of Buddhism in India, which disrupts the mediation and adds fuel to the emotions of the parties. (Rumpelstiltskin223 is not party to the mediation.) Usually, Rumpelstiltskin223 writes no edit summary, so I wrote {{summary2}} on User talk:Rumpelstiltskin223. When I wanted to add diffs to the template, I noticed the 3RR incident. I have not written a notice on the talk page for that.

This is the first time I'm reporting a 3RR incident, and I apologize if I have made any mistakes. I'm particularly concerned about if I entered the right time stamps, since I'm getting tired now. I am a bit surprised about the insistence on the number 3. I came here after reading WP:3RR, which says "This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. Users may be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day."

2007-01-05T07:40:56 Srikeit (Talk | contribs | block) protected Christianity in India (Edit-warring [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) William M. Connolley 10:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Venki123 reported by User:Mudaliar (Result:24 h both)

Three-revert rule violation on Sengunthar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Venki123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments:

User: Venki123 has been constantly reverting articles. See also Mudaliar. He was blocked for reverting Mudaliar article and his ip address:65.34.150.19 was also blocked. Now he is using socket puppettry from ip address: 65.244.148.222 Please see contributions of (65.244.148.222) at Mudaliar talk page, dated 17:10, 5 January 2007. He forgets to sign in before posting and then signs in subsequently and sign the previous post as Venki. Please block both ip addresses for > 24h as he is a repeat offender. Thanks.

Sigh. User:Mudaliar has been using sockpuppets to avoid 3RR. I've indeffed two socks already, and I know there's a bunch more. If you block one, block them both. Or I'll do it (again, I blocked User:Venki123 the first time). Dina 02:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Both for 24h.--CSTAR 22:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:BryanFromPalatine reported by User:BenBurch (Result:2 weeks)

Three-revert rule violation on Free Republic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). BryanFromPalatine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments: Editor is fresh off a one-week block for sockpuppeting, and now is edit warring on the same article the sock puppeting was over.

Additional Comment User:BryanFromPalatine, a confirmed sock puppeteer, also admits to one revert from an anon IP at 17:57, 05 Jan IP EDIT Please see this editors reply in the sockuppet charges against user User:ArlingtonTX, one of his suspected socks, and TWO sock puppet filings aginst him which haven't been dealt with by admins yet. ( what a back log) Thanks - Fairness And Accuracy For All 01:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Based on this user's history (i.e. not just this 3RR vio, so it is > 24hrs) , I have decided to block for a full 2 weeks. Any admin should feel free to change the duration as they see fit. Prodego talk 02:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:NisarKand reported by User:Tajik (Result:3 day block)

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

Comment:

  • User had been previously blocked for 3RR, so he knows the rules.
  • User has a long list of banns, including a 1-week-ban because of racism, personal attacks, and sockpuppets.
  • Right now, user is being watched by admins because of new personal attacks, including personal attacks against an admin, claiming that "he is drunk".
  • User is ignoring the warnings on his talk-page.
Comment: This many reverts are almost impossible to happen without the other side having violated 3RR too. Of the counter-reverts, two were made by Beh-nam (talk · contribs) and three by 65.94.216.72 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS), who is most likely the same person (same interests, same style, same geographical provenance, made edits in Beh-nam's userspace as if he was the owner). Therefore: Blocking both parties. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
No evidence that anyone else has broken the three revert rule, though both sides show a deperessingly high amount of incivilty and bad faith. 07:11, 6 January 2007 Future Perfect at Sunrise (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "NisarKand (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 days (3RR on Afghanistan, personal attacks) --Robdurbar 11:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Okkar reported by User:Kintetsubuffalo (Result:Violation, no block)

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


Comments: I have warned Okkar about removal of material from this article that existed before he got here today, he continues to unilaterally do so without consensus. He told Metros232 that I was vandalizing the page (as facilitator of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Burma/Myanmar, it is not very likely that I am), at which point Metros232 rightfully put warnings on both our talk pages. Okkar has since reverted the article and ignored Metros232 warnings. Chris 23:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Only three of those diffs involve Okkar, but all four of them involve you re-adding the image. So well done! You reported yourself for breaking the rule succesfully.
Given this, it suggests to me that there's some confusion over some of the policies on your part. So I'll presume that any block would be puniative and thus a warning and explanation on talk page is more approriate. Robdurbar 11:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Emokid200618 reported by User:Axem Titanium (Result:3 day block)

Three-revert rule violation on Organization XIII (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Emokid200618 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments: This user has been blocked before for violating 3RR (including once for this page) so he's definitely familiar with the policy. Anyway, although he didn't have a 4th revert this time, I felt like I should report it because of this message he left on a user's talk page, saying that he intentionally didn't make a 4th revert just to game the system while avoiding a block. Axem Titanium 01:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As a violation of both WP:POINT and WP:3RR - teaches the user that gaming the system isn't the right way to look at this. Robdurbar 12:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kintetsubuffalo reported by User:Okkar (Result:Violation, no block)

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


Comments: I have warned Chris with regards to adding facts that are against WP:NPOV and also out of scope and goals of [WikiProject Military history]. Wikipedia should not be use as a ground to settle political scores and no other "Military of the Country" articles contain informations such as the villa of a general and how much money he is earning. These are purely tabloid gossips which clearly does not belong in Wikipedia articles and also against WP:NPOV. His addition of so-called "facts" are politically motivated and please see the discussion page for further information on his threatening and bullying behaviour. I have additionally requested POVCHECK and noncomplaint on the article. I await your fair decision on this matter. Okkar 01:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Comments:

See response above. I've warned Chris about his conduct but given him a severe warning at this point - see explanation above! --Robdurbar 11:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Robdurbar for you fair decision and accessment. I look forward to contributing more to Wikipedia. Okkar 13:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islampedia reported by User:Simesa (Result:24H)

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


Comments: Revert war where Islampedia insists on using POV words "only" or "few" for 21 victims (of 426). I and User:Scientizzle have battled with Islampedia continuously over the last three days over NPOV issues. Islampedia was warned 19:35 on 4 Januaryt in [146] Simesa 04:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • It's actually only 4 reverts, but that's still a violation. Blocked the user for 24 hours. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:User:Igor_"the_Otter" reported by User:Richwales (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Holocaust denial (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). User:Igor_"the_Otter" (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments: User repeatedly added back a POV comment about the Nizkor project even after being warned about edit-warring and the 3RR.

24h William M. Connolley 14:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:74.64.60.148 reported by User:Timeshifter (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on Iraq_Body_Count_project (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 74.64.60.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments: Anonymous user has been warned on his user talk page, the article talk page, and in edit summaries. On 2 different pages. He is up to 3 reversions on the other page: Lancet surveys of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq --Timeshifter 09:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

He is now up to 4 reversions of the same sourced material on that other page too. I have to make a report. --Timeshifter 09:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Not clear why all these are reverts; and prev-version is by you. Or are you suggesting that he is reverting to you? William M. Connolley 13:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I misunderstood the instructions. I think I have now put in the correct revision for "Previous version reverted to". --Timeshifter 16:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC) I think.
William, Timeshifter has constructed these whole sections of these pages basically by himself. He is the single most prolific editor, *by far*, of all these pages dealing with casualties in Iraq. They are effectively "his" babies, and reflect a particular POV narrative based on his own opinions, with material cherry picked and cited (or not cited and just made up) accordingly. I think this is beginning to border on invalidating all these pages as partisan opinion editorials rather than encyclopedic entries. I've now gotten in the way of his prolific editorializing with a couple small edits. Since I've gotten in the way of his carefully crafted 'narrative', he's now decided to 'tell on me', invoking this 3RR rule. I've described my reasons for removing some (a tiny fraction) of his voluminous edits in the talk pages. In the first case, on the Lancet study page, he is making up various claims about a "baseline rate" in an ILCS study and writing up theories of his own based on this. I've deleted these theories of his, which were masquerading as facts. He didn't like that. The other case is him putting a claim on the IraqBodyCount page that another party "disputes" a fact I cited, but he links to a recently POV-tagged section of the Lancet article (which, again Timeshifter wrote himself) which does not address the fact in question, but disputes something else.74.64.60.148 07:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Timeshifter is clearly a partisan for a particular POV centered exclusively around this Lancet mortality study, and all of his massive edits on all these Iraq casualty pages - and he seems to have hit all of them - are designed and constructed to proselytize that particular POV, mostly involving filling them all up with quotes and arguments from the authors of that study, or others who share the same POV, or various references that are cherry picked where they can support some aspect of that POV. His edits are all a very thinly veiled (and sometimes not at all veiled) exercise in proselytizing. Really, all of his edits should be reverted for POV violation, but then almost none of these pages would exist, since he is their main author by now. There'd be almost nothing left.74.64.60.148 07:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I suspect he will "win" all of these little "edit wars" because I have neither the time, energy nor interest to keep up with that level of zealotry. It's simply a shame that this kind of thing should make wikipedia an unreliable source on any matters that are at all controversial. When one partisan on one side of an issue can construct virtually the whole pages to match that partisan POV, and then tries to get anyone banned who gets in the way of even a small part of that project, these pages become pretty useless.74.64.60.148 07:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
As usual you do not read wikipedia instructions. You are not supposed to argue here. You might get some more respect if you got a user name. This is your 3rd IP address in the last few months of vandalizing these pages. --Timeshifter 07:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, most of what this anonymous editor has said here is untrue, but I can't reply in detail here due to the rules here. --Timeshifter 09:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The instructions here say to explain the reversions in a few sentences if necessary. User:74.64.60.148 has been deleting sourced material now for months under several different IP addresses. I finally got fed up and decided to figure out 3RR incident reporting. The bottom line in this specific case is that he is deleting the same relevant sourced material, and putting out a fog of misinformation to cover it up. The diffs show the deletions clearly. I have been thanked several times by several editors of various Iraq War casualty pages. Only this anonymous editor seems to have a problem with my edits. --Timeshifter 09:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the diffs. He has 5 reverts. 4 of which occurred in the last 24 hours. --Timeshifter 07:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:74.64.60.148 reported by User:Timeshifter (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Lancet_surveys_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 74.64.60.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments: This is for a second page. He has been warned everywhere. User talk page, article talk page, edit summaries. --Timeshifter 10:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"prev version" is by you... so this is 3R but not clear the first is William M. Connolley 13:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I misunderstood the instructions. I just put in the correct revision for "Previous version reverted to". I think. --Timeshifter 16:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The prev version has to be *previous*: you've just put in the first revert again, judging by the timestamp William M. Connolley 19:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
That is the revision that he keeps reverting to. So I guess that first deletion difference to get to that revision does not count as a revert. And so I guess he is only up to 3 reverts. To me that first deletion is a revert in my mind. He is reverting the page back to a point when it did not have that material. The instructions are very unclear. I can help rewrite the hidden notes if you wish. --Timeshifter 20:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
If the first deletion is a revert, then its a revert *to* something. Thats the version you need to fill in as the "prev version" William M. Connolley 21:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
That is the version there now. I will need to delete the first diff, and renumber the rest. I am going to wait though, to see if he reverts again. I am kind of busy right now. --Timeshifter 22:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This 2nd incident report fixed. User:74.64.60.148 is now up to 6 reverts of this 2nd article. 4 in the last 24 hours. --Timeshifter 08:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Success at last... 24h William M. Connolley 10:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Three-revert rule violation on Gilad Atzmon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Ednas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

These are somewhat complex reverts. To best see a clear case of the same sentence being removed 4 times, scroll down to the "politics" section, and see that the short paragraph that begins with "His performance at the subsequent SWP summerschool 'Marxism 2005' in July 2005.." was removed in all 4 reverts.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: 16:37, 6 January 2007 Since this is a new user, I warned him both on his Talk page, as well as on the Talk page of the article [147]. the user acknowledged reading the warning here, but as can be seen, rather than undoing his revert, chose to accuse me of stalking him (which is interesting in itself, as his first edit ever on WP was a revert of one of my edits on the same article, which I had been editing for months)


Comments: This is a new user, that chose to start his editing career on WP by alleging that users who have been opposed to his changes on this article are part of an 'undercover netwok[sic] of operatives working to further the Zionist agenda. "[148] (one of those editors happens to be a self-described and well known anti-Zionist activist). he was cautioned that this statement is a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, and asked to strike out those comments, but brazenly responded with "I stand by my postings and will strike out nothing I have written", followed by threats against those editors. Isarig 17:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Seems pretty clear. 24h. --CSTAR 18:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pete_K reported by User:Professor marginalia (Result: 24h)

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


  • User has been temporarily banned for past edit warring [149] and is currently continuing the edit warring pattern in articles including this one that went to arbitration to resolve [150].


Comments:

24h William M. Connolley 10:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:207.151.38.178 reported by User:Ultramarine (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Vladimir Lenin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 207.151.38.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments: Or differently: [153] [154] [155] [156]. 4 simple reverts.Ultramarine 01:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Clear violation under the most rudimentary definition. 24h.CSTAR 01:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: already 24h blocked by another admin.--CSTAR 01:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:ArmenianJoe reported by User:OttomanReference (Result: 24h each)

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


Comments: He/she is also adding spaces between paragraphs. I tried to informed the user.

24h each William M. Connolley 10:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Woodstock2010 reported by User:Jakew (Result:31h)

Three-revert rule violation on Foreskin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Woodstock2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments: User:24.28.143.218 made initial edits. Similar behaviour on circumcision (see history). Jakew 18:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Blocked 31h. --CSTAR 18:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Szhaider reported by User:Bakasuprman (Result:)

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


Comments: User blocked for 3RR before. Constant removal of Hindi script and accusations of "Hindu imperialism" against a Christian Indian editor and a European Christian editor.Bakaman 23:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

2007-01-08T00:42:30 Rama's Arrow (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Szhaider (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (making personal attacks, persistent incivility, provocative use of edit summaries, revert-warring on Iqbal) William M. Connolley 12:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rumpelstiltskin223 reported by User:Falcon2020 (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on 2002 Gujarat violence (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Rumpelstiltskin223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments: User in question is also deleting large amounts of text containing facts supported by reliable sources. His deletions cause the article to violate WP:NPOV, and a couple of other WP rules and policies.

Wrong. The first edit was a correction to a biased edit made by this user. He is deliberately gaming the system to promulgate ignorant edits. I tried to explain them but he did not listen and just kept reverting, based on partisan sources when the article sourced neutral sources. See this attempt to canvass mass-reverters [163] and my attempt to explain the situation to him[164]. This edit summary is blatantly non-neutral and shows racist biases on his part [165], as well as the intent to game the system against neutrality.Rumpelstiltskin223 03:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
In fact, my first edit was not a revert, since I let his concerns about citations needed remain as they are legitimate. It is his extreme bias that I was attempting to correct. Furthermore, he did not discuss the issues I raised in my edit summaries and continued to revert, disrupting the editing process to make his point, violating WP:POINT (as evidenced by his biased edit summary). Other editors have also addressed his biases in the article on subsequent edits. Thus, there was no 3RR as first edit was not a revert.However, this user Falcon2020 clearly was edit-warring with no intention to discuss, tried to canvass support for revert-warring and refused to discuss his changes and tendentious edits.Rumpelstiltskin223 04:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Let me explain further. Falcon2020's first edit was this [166], a series of small edits made in quick succession which is essentially one major edit. The problem was that it reworded some section titles in a redundant way and tried to poison the reader to a particular point of view, particularly when the supersection had the issue well-described in the title. He also put some fact tags to sentences that are unsourced, which is perfectly acceptable. My subsequent edit [167] corrected his redundancies but left the fact tags as is on the grounds described above. So it is not a full revert, and I did not delete his changes just to edit-war but for the purposes of improving the article, which is the correct attitude for a wikipedia editor. In contrast, his attitude is the wrong attitude for a wikipedia editor. Not neutral, biased and extremely ill-informed about the situation.Rumpelstiltskin223 04:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The version presented by Falcon is biased and non-neutral compared to the earlier presented one by Rumpel. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 04:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, that is not a justification to violate 3RR. Secondly, my edits bring in data and facts collected from notable sources like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. The article in its previous condition began with apologetics justifying the killing of 2000 Muslims, as well as the rape of several hundred. The government has been accused by other governments and NGOs alike of participating directly in instigating and supporting the massacre. The editors here feel that the same government which COMMITTED the atrocity should be the soul source of information regarding the event. Falcon2020 04:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
These are expressions of partisan extremist groups that have an agenda to spread disinformation against certain ethnic groups of people. That much is eminently clear. however, their views are included in the article already,but it says thatthey are views, not corroborated facts. The corroborated facts scome from neutral sources, which is the OPPOSITION government, NOT the government that is accused of the rioting. This is what he either fails to understand, or understands and does not care becuase he is spreading misinformation on wikipedia.Rumpelstiltskin223 04:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[trim - William M. Connolley 13:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)]

24h. Please learn to avoid 4R even under provocation. Your assertion that the first edit is not a revert are wrong. F warned re edit warring and civility William M. Connolley 13:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Elnurso reported by User:Mardavich (Result: 24h)

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

Comments: Please note that 70.244.144.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is obviously Elnurso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). --Mardavich 06:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

24h, assuming the anon is Elnurso William M. Connolley 12:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Aicp reported by User:McKhan (Result: no block)

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

You seem to have confused "edit" with "revert". Anyway, contiguous edits count as one William M. Connolley 10:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Signaleer reported by User:BillCJ (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on CH-53 Sea Stallion‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Signaleer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

01:51, January 8, 2007 01:51, January 8, 2007 01:57, January 8, 2007


Comments: The user's first three edits occured at one time; the fourth was done in four parts, without using the word "revert", as he had before. In addtion, similar reversions were committed on the C-47 Skytrain‎ and C-54 Skymaster articles in the same time period. I did attemp to discuss the matter with the user, but he continues to assert that he will revert my changes. I did not warn thei user about 3RR, as I have seen him do multiple reverts in the past while disregarding 3RR notices. The fast that he did separate edits for his fouth revert seems to indicate he is aware of the rule.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have also reverted at lest 4 times on each of the 3 pages mentioned, but also did not receive a 3RR warning. I will accept any penalty deemed necessary for this. - BillCJ 07:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

24h for both; I do so wish people wouldn't edit war over picture sizes William M. Connolley 10:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Astrotrain reported by User:Vintagekits (Result:No Block)

Three-revert rule violation on Template:Precedence (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Astrotrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments:

  • It has to be more than 3 reverts within 24 hours- not just 3 in itself. I did try telling you that. Astrotrain 13:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Reverts are not within 24h period.--CSTAR 15:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Strothra reported by User:Guardian sickness (Result:48H)

Three-revert rule violation on Criticism of Islam (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Strothra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments: This user seems to have used the IP address 68.50.74.95 to circumvent the 3RR policy with sock puppetry. I noticed him using this IP address on the Kriss Donald page, which he had previously reverted under his log in name, but then reverted with the above IP to avoid discussion. When I clicked on the IP address I found the same user also seemed to be circumventing the 3RR policy to edit the article “Criticism of Islam”. --Guardian sickness 14:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. These are 4 correctly reported simple reverts; however, I have no way of knowing if this IP is a sockpuppet of User:Strothra. I don't think there is enough evidence of this claim as yet to impose a block, although I suspect you may be right. If further evidence confirms this, then 48h block at least should be imposed.--CSTAR 15:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
OK I looked at the other page you mentioned. I am satisfied that this is indeed the same user. 48H as per previous comment.--CSTAR 16:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:PBurns3711 reported by User:Headphonos (Result: No Block)

Three-revert rule violation on English White Terrier.

  • 1st revert:

Revision as of 14:43, 6 January 2007 Removes the alternate name "Old English Terrier".

  • 2nd revert:

Revision as of 21:52, 7 January 2007 Removes the alternate name "Old English Terrier".

  • 3rd revert:

Revision as of 00:06, 8 January 2007 Removes the alternate name "Old English Terrier" with supporting citations.

  • 4th revert:

Revision as of 14:43, 8 January 2007 Removes the alternate name "Old English Terrier" with supporting citations.

  • 5th revert:

Revision as of 22:17, 8 January 2007 Removes the alternate name "Old English Terrier" with supporting citations.

  • 6th revert:

Revision as of 12:21, 9 January 2007 Removed the citations and states "Old English Terrier" is not correct.

Comments

The editor believes that "Old English Terrier" is not an alternative name for the English White Terrier, I provided him with citations and there are plenty more available using google. This user's talk page reflects he was recently blocked for a previous 3RR violation. I would suggest the full 24 hour block this time. In addition, would you please revert the English White Terrier article back one so he realizes it should stay . Thank you Headphonos 15:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Reverts not within 24 h period. No block. Also please use reporting form below.--CSTAR 15:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - As you can see they are within a reasonable close time proximity, involving the identical reverted item, would you please reconsider, thank you Headphonos 16:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Two days? --CSTAR 22:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
First of all I note that you are not an Administrator, so why are you chiming in at all ? Second of all 24 or 48 hrs what is the difference, if a person reverts once every 24 hrs to circumvent the 3RR rule, is that okay with Wikipedia ? Use some common sense here ! Headphonos 22:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
You bet I'm an admin. Cool it.--CSTAR 22:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Non-admins are allowed to do all the "chiming" they(we) want, it is not uncommon for non admins to comment on admin noticeboards. For your case, the user has reverted again, and now has 4 reverts in 25, that is what is considered an attempt to circumvent the rule. --Wildnox(talk) 22:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Our friend just reverted your revert :) Headphonos 22:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: No block.--CSTAR 22:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
An admin does something ! Headphonos 23:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop listing extra reverts here that are clearly *not* violations of 3RR. Repeated reverting is undesirable but not listable here - you need WP:DR William M. Connolley 13:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Monkeybreath reported by User:Penwhale (Result: 24h)

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


Comments: Edit warring between an IP anon(s?) and Monkeybreath; was reported to WP:RFP (with the result of no protection), however it is still a violation of 3RR. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 08:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

24h, and for 67.150.14.50 William M. Connolley 09:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] User:Michaelsanders reported by User:Milo H Minderbinder (Result: 24 hrs)

Three-revert rule violation on Harry Potter (character) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). {{3RRV|Michaelsanders}:


Comments: Five reverts within an hour. The situation escalated into a revert war because this editor was uncivil and made insulting edit summaries that didn't give a reason for the revert - a simple explanation would have stopped the reverting on both sides. Editor also fails to AGF by calling the edits he was reverting "vandalism" [168] when it was simply a content dispute. Even after 3RR was pointed out, the editor still defends his edit warring on the grounds that he was "right". --Milo H Minderbinder 16:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply: this user does not appear to grasp what was happening. Originally reverted to remove do-nothing edit and misspelling of 'defence' as 'defense'; this was reverted by another user. I corrected the spelling of 'defense' to 'defence' itself within the article, summarising it with a rude comment to the original reverter; he then reverted it again. I reverted it again, giving a clear explanation: "DEFENCE IS SPELLED WITH A 'C', NOT AN 'S'". This was then deliberately reverted several times by "Amos Han", despite another warning by myself of 'no Americanisms'. I interpreted this flouting of the British English convention in British articles as deliberate vandalism: 3RR rule says, "This policy does not apply to self-reverts, correcting simple vandalism, reverting the edits of a banned or blocked user, or other specific scenarios listed in the Exceptions section below." It later transpired that the offending user did not know defence was spelling with a 'c' in Britain, but that did not change how it could be interpreted at the time. Nor is it an edit war if it is the removal of vandalism: either that, or 'Deathly Hallows' has been in a constant edit war for weeks. Meanwhile, 'Milobinder' is deliberately obscuring facts or lying: I did give a clear explanation of why I was correcting the spelling. He claims that 3RR applies to reversion of incorrect data - I see no indication of that, and find it very hard to believe (there are repeated vandalistic actions to 'Sirius Black' article, for example, how are those meant to be dealt with if we are in danger of being blamed?). Furthermore, the first example of my reversions 'Milobinder' gives is not even the same as the others: the first, I understand some might object to, but the others were an attempt to maintain the integrity of the article. Milobinder, however, does not appear to care: he is more concerned with misleading/lying and threatening me with blocking than he is with working out what happened. The second thing he takes me to task for, rudeness, I have already apologised for to the relevant parties. This user has not apologised for his lies and threats. I sincerely hope that my explanation - which I have repeatedly given - will be understood. Thank you. Michaelsanders 16:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The above response is a perfect example of how Michaelsanders has been handling this whole situation. Accusations of "lies and threats", trying to justify a clear 3RR violation with "but my version was right", demonstrating lack of AGF by characterizing a one-letter spelling change in one word as vandalism, trying to dismiss criticism with "this user does not appear to grasp what was happening". The diffs above speak for themselves, five reverts. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
My reverts were right: Harry Potter is a British subject, so we do not use American spelling. You have been untruthful, by deliberately not looking at the matter in the context it happened i.e. I was reverting obviously false data. You threatened me with blocking or being taken here when I disputed your claim that reversions of vandalism are not allowed; lied, because the 3RR says that reversions of vandalism do not count, despite your claims to the contrary. As for vandalism: I know now that it wasn't vandalism - the user has explained himself. But at the time, when that user ignored several clear warnings that American spellings were not permitted, and persistently reverted to the American spelling, what was I supposed to think? And you clearly do not understand what was going on there if, despite my detailed explanation, you still do not grasp who was in the right and who in the wrong. Michaelsanders 17:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: User:Michaelsanders edited my comments above to remove a diff, I have restored it. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
And I have removed it again. As you would know if you bothered to look, it shows a comparison which is entirely irrelevant: your removal of a vandal's accusation of you using a sockpuppet, which has absolutely no bearing on this matter. I am going to assume that the comparison link was relevant when you first put it in there, but it certainly isn't now: all it does is give the impression that I vandalised your talk page; and that you are, yet again, willing to mislead or distort facts in order to make others look bad. Correct the link, or leave it out. Michaelsanders 20:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Your opinion of whether a diff is relevant isn't grounds for editing other people's comments (now repeatedly). Whether it is relevant is up to the admin to decide. Do not edit my comments again, that is grounds for blocking as well. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My opinion? That comparison shows that you removed the comment, left by an IP address, of "Why are you talking to yourself, sockpuppet?" Are you saying that that is at all relevant? Are you accusing me of leaving that comment? If you are, say it directly. If you aren't, use the right link, or leave it altogether. You seem to have a very strange attitude towards the truth. You also seem determined to wind me up. Why is this? Why do you have the gall to tell me off, when your attitude of deception and outright malice is far more damaging to wikipedia? I have repaired your link, since you seem unable to do it. If you revert it, I will assume that you are accusing me of that vandalistic sockpuppetry slander. Michaelsanders 20:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm simply asking you not to edit my comments, which you have done three times now. Doing so is unacceptable per WP:TALK. Is that so hard to understand? --Milo H Minderbinder 20:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Is it so hard to understand that the link you were attempting to maintain is wrong? Clearly you have issues with accuracy, but even so...As for why I first removed it, and then - when you were evidently too lazy to bother to find the proper one - fixed it: it did neither of us any good as it was: it made me look like a vandal, and you look like a liar. Is that so hard to grasp? Michaelsanders 20:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
If you have an issue with another users comments or evidence, you should point that issue out, not edit their comments. Did you read WP:TALK#Behavior that is unacceptable? --Milo H Minderbinder 20:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • admin comment. This is a clear violation of 3RR; vandalism is not at issue here. Bucketsofg 21:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:PBurns3711 reported by User:MikeHobday (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on League Against Cruel Sports (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). PBurns3711 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


  • 1st revert: [169] 080107T2213
  • 2nd revert: [170] 090107T0202
  • 3rd revert: [171] 090107T1150
  • 4th revert: [172] 090107T1257
  • 5th revert: [173] 090107T1442
  • 6th revert: [174] 090107T1458


Comments: User already blocked once for edit warring, note reversion of edits by user:GWP. Suggest revert to seemingly consensual version of December at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=League_Against_Cruel_Sports&oldid=93610481] and protect?

24h William M. Connolley 20:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rumpelstiltskin223 reported by User:Falcon2020 (Result:48h of Falcon2020)

Three-revert rule violation on 2002_Gujarat_violence (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Rumpelstiltskin223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments: User in question has already returned from a 24 hr block due to 3RR. He is well-familiar with WP policy on this matter.

Above is a lie. I have only made 3 reverts. The third edit is not a revert but copyedits. Please don't buy into this tactic to get me blocked so that he may put his biases into the article (see Talk:2002 Gujarat violence for racist commentary from him). Rumpelstiltskin223 19:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, the user Falcon2020 has persistently engaged in edit-warring in the article twice. Here are his reverts
  • These are the other way around. 48h block of Falcon2020 for abuse and edit warring.--CSTAR 20:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I removed the block on Falcon2020, based on this being a first reported offense and the newness of this editor.--CSTAR 00:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:MidEastSpecialist reported by SlimVirgin (Result:24h)

3RR on If Americans Knew (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) by MidEastSpecialist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

  • 1st edit 05:32 Jan 9
  • 1st revert 05:53 Jan 9, simple revert, and added one sentence to the lead.
  • 2nd revert 08:23 Jan 9, simple revert, and moved the newly added sentence in the lead
  • 3rd revert 08:40 Jan 9, simple revert, and deleted one sentence
  • 4th revert 19:19 Jan 9, fourth revert of first paragraph, fourth revert of external links

Continuing to revert:

Comments

Was warned about 3RR at 08:37 Jan 9. [179] SlimVirgin (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Blocked 24H.--CSTAR 19:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Suemcp reported by User:Dina (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on École Polytechnique massacre (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Suemcp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments: This is part of an ongoing problem with a disruptive editor, better described at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Suemcp. However, this is a pretty straightforward violation I believe. I can't do the block as I am somewhat involved in the dispute. I have warned her repeatedly, but for some reason she believes that 3RR is a rule I "invented". Dina 20:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

*Pretty clear. 24h.--CSTAR 20:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Woodstock2010 reported by User:Jakew (Result:4 days)

Three-revert rule violation on Foreskin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Woodstock2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments: Woodstock2010 was blocked for 31h on 18:36, January 7, 2007 for same behaviour. ShitakiMan was created on 01:16, January 9, 2007. ShitakiMan's first edit was an autoblock unblock request because the IP (24.28.143.218) was the same as that of Woodstock2010. In all three cases, the editing behaviour is identical (see page history). Similar behaviour at circumcision, brit milah, etc. Jakew 20:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

4 day block for both.--CSTAR 20:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:A Link to the Past reported by User:InShaneee (Result: 3 days)

WP:3RR violation on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. A Link to the Past (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments Link brought up on the RfC Talk Page his belief that the RfC against me was closed prematurely and innapropriately. During our discussion, he suddenly re-added a link to the RfC while claiming in the edit summary that not wanting the link there means I have something to hide. I reverted, and told him that he needs to wait until the discussion concludes before taking action. He persisted in readding it, all while continuing to insult me on the talk page. I still do not believe the link belongs there, but will await independent review before taking further action. --InShaneee 01:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

3 days. Khoikhoi 01:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
The first edit there is not a revert. --tjstrf talk 01:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Asian2duracell reported by User:Venu62 (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Tamil people (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Asian2duracell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


24h William M. Connolley 10:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lakes reported by User:Hbdragon88 (Result: warning)

Three-revert rule violation on DDT_(professional_wrestling) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Lakes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments: A content dispute, not "vandalism" as Lakes called it. At the very least it's not obvious, simple vandalism, which is excused under WP:3RR. Probably not helpful that 129.7.35.* to call Lakes a "dumbfuck" while reverting him back, but nevertheless it should have been taken to the talk page, or taken to WP:AIV. Continued reverting still constitutes a 3RR, IMO.

2007-01-09T20:57:57 Viridae (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "129.7.35.194 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 month (Abusive edit summaries). Warning to Lakes William M. Connolley 10:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Leonardo55 reported by User:Caper13 (Result:48h)

Three-revert rule violation on Saddam Hussein (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Leonardo55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments: User was blocked for 3RR violations for the same edit on January 4. After the block expired, their FIRST EDIT since returning was to readd the exact same links they were blocked for previously. Additional warnings left on users talk page as well as requests to discuss their edits. All messages ignored and editor refuses to engage in discussion. Caper13 02:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Repeat offense. 48h.--CSTAR 03:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ahwaz reported by User:Behaafarid (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Ethnic minorities in Iran (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Ahwaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments: This user a POV pusher and has been blocked dozens of times for breaking 3RR Behaafarid 13:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"Dozens of times" is an exaggeration, but the community ban may well be considered. Beit Or 13:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I was reverting vandalism. Those reverting my edits had done so after I voiced an opinion they objected to in Talk:Persian Gulf. They simply went to those articles and reverted everything, without even looking at the fact that what they deleted included updated wikilinks, fact tags and NPOV clean-ups. It is a case of blatant stalking and vandalism. Take a look for yourself.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 14:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahwaz accumulated quite a long block list including at least 4 3RR blocks. On the other hand his edits appear to be in a good faith (I actually like his version better than the other) and he might mistakenly believe that restoring tags does not count towards 3RR. Thus, the block is relatively mild Alex Bakharev 16:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Martin181 reported by User:Halbared (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Brock Lesnar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Martin181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments: Poss sockpuppet ignores sourced info and always reverts to personal preferences

  • Clear. 24h.--CSTAR 18:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:WeniWidiWiki reported by User:Jefferson Anderson (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on Plastic Paddy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). WeniWidiWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments:

I hope I did this right. I assumed the diffs are supposed to be the single edit by the user, not a diff back to the "previous version reverted to". If I'm wrong about this, please let me know and I can fix it. Jefferson Anderson 18:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Look at the history of the entry. Most of those reverts were vandalism or restoring wholesale removal of large blocks of text. - WeniWidiWiki 18:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That's funny, on two of the reverts you called the other editor's edit "POV". Only on the last revert did you call it vandalism. There's discussion on the talk page, and it looks like a content dispute to me. Jefferson Anderson 18:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment:: I agree he has broken WP:3RR. I made a couple of those edits that he reverted - I explained the edit and took them out because I considered them POV (which is also the consensus). Another anon editor also reverted them and then User:WeniWidiWiki accused it of being a sockpuppet of mine.--Vintagekits 19:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment This isn't a revert of vandalism, it is a revert of terrible editing, which we do treat as "punishable". Personally, I would warn and discuss instead of blocking, but I leave it to another admin's discretion to make a final call if WeniWidiWiki refuses to revert themselves. Jkelly 19:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment It should be noted that the repeated removal of sourced material is considered vandalism. Also see this post on the Admin noticeboard/incidents showing that this editor "admits to using IP edits for disruption". --Pigmantalk • contribs 02:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Comment It also looked to me as if the IP editor was violating WP:POINT. --Pigmantalk • contribs 03:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Phippi46 reported by User:Mastiboy (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Phippi46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments, User warned couple of times but is continously deleting sections from the article. --Mastiboy 18:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Clear. Substantative deletions. 24h. --CSTAR 21:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Three-revert rule violation on Josif Runjanin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Estavisti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • A very experienced user. Filed 3RR reports himself quite a number of times
  • Very small change: 3RR nonetheless. 24h.--CSTAR 21:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:A2raya07 reported by User:Baristarim (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Nochiya Tribe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). A2raya07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Filed a 3RR warning here [193] right before his last revert.
  • User insisting on removing the POV-check and OR tags from an article that he wrote himself. Many notes have been left on his talk page and that of the article, and user is insisting on ignoring them and making accusations of being childish unfortunately. Baristarim 23:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 24h.--CSTAR 03:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jfrascencio reported by User:Caper13 (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Saddam hussein (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Jfrascencio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments: User keeps effectively reverting my edit by adding comment marks around the addition I made to the article because he feels the New York Times is not a valid third party source due to it being an American Publication. The version being reverted to is, effectively, the state of the article just before I made the edit he keeps 'hiding' by commenting it out. (though other unrelated parts of the article have been changed by other editors in the meantime) Caper13 01:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Clear 3RR violation. However, may I suggest you find a non-american source which makes the same claim (that I'm sure is extremely easy in many languages).--CSTAR 01:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Certified.Gangsta reported by User:HongQiGong (Result:No Block)

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

Comments: After Certified.Gangsta made three reverts on List of Chinese Americans[194][195][196] (in a revert war that I was not involved in), I put a 3RR warning on his Talk page[197]. He has repeatedly blanked out the 3RR warning despite my attempt to keep it there, reverting more than three times. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The only person that violated 3RR is himself. 3RR doesn't cover my own personal talkpage. This is hilarious. You're lucky I didn't report you.--Certified.Gangsta 03:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No Block. From WP:3RR
The 3RR is generally not enforced against editors reverting changes to user page space accorded them (this includes associated talk pages and subpages), on the principle that although you do not own it, your user space is "yours" (for project-related purposes).
Could you please take this spat somewhere else?--CSTAR 03:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Nationalist reported by User:Bonafide.hustla (Result:24h)

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

Comments:24h. --CSTAR 06:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:HongQiGong reported by User:Bonafide.hustla (Result:Warning)

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

Comments:4 edits in the last 24 hrs on my talkpage. (not his) This not only violated 3RR but also an example of userspace harassment.--Certified.Gangsta 05:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No block. Pages are for communication between users, particularly concerning reverts. There was no obvious harrassment about the message complaining party deleted. Complaining affected party (Certified.Gangsta) is advised not to delete 3RR warnings. Warning issued to other party. --CSTAR 06:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:172 reported by User:Ultramarine (Result:No block, warning)

Three-revert rule violation on Origins of the Cold War (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments: First 3 reverts are simple reverts, the last revert is more complex but as previously deletes the same large parts of the article.Ultramarine 06:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This report is misleading. I made four edits to the article today. [206] [207] [208] [209] The first was not a reversion but a major new edit, removing and/or cleaning up problem sections. My subsequent two edits were reversions of Ultramarine, who came along and undid my work, which he/she often does whenever I edit an article on his/her watchlist. My fourth edit was an attempt to reach a compromise with Ultramarine, restoring some savagable parts of content I had removed while removing two sections that did not fit into the structure of the article, and not a simple reversion. Ultramarine should be encourged to discuss his/her reversion of my clean-up, rather than gaming the system here. 172 | Talk 06:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: although I only made two clear reverts, which may entitle me to make another one without skirting 3RR, I will refrain from editing the article for at least 48 hours, giving me more time to understand Ultramarine's (unclear) objections to my clean-up and figure out how to draft a new version. 172 | Talk 06:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Your first revert was a simple revert to your 27 March version, undoing many months of work. The next 2 reverts were also simple reverts to this old version. The last revert is more complex but again deletes the same large parts of the article.Ultramarine 06:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The page had been stable for months. There is no real revert if there is no one in particular I am reverting. You reverted my clean up; so in all practical effect, you made the first revert of the day on the page, not me... Perhaps you may classify my first edit as a revert on the basis of a silly technicality. But since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a system of law, the spirt of policies like 3RR, not the legalisms, is what matters. I will be quite disappointed-- and I will appeal the decision-- if an admin decides to reward such a blatant attempt to game the system, rather than encouraging you to work toward compromise and positive change of the article. 172 | Talk 07:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I am assuming good faith with 172 here (who has been a sysop earlier), on his assurance that he would keep away from the article for 48 hours. Ultramarine is requested to stop revert-warring, as four reverts are not an entitlement to any user, and they can be blocked for violating WP:POINT. 172, you have been warned — Nearly Headless Nick 07:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I have not reverted 4 times since I only have made 3 edits. 172 and I have reached an agreement per my talk page and I withdraw my report.Ultramarine 07:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rumpelstiltskin223 reported by User:Falcon2020 (Result:no block)

Three-revert rule violation on Talk:2002 Gujarat violence (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Rumpelstiltskin223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments:He has been blocked for 3RR before. As you can see, the page in question is a talk page. WP:Living is being used as an excuse to censor my comments repeatedly, just as other rhetorical arguements have been used to shut out reliable sources from the actual article.. Nothing I say is without support from at least 3 credible and verifiable reliable sporces, and "Indian Government" isn't covered by WP:Living anyway. I understand deleting the talk page entries is generally unacceptable. He is also harassing me on my own talk page by repeatedly placing a warning template. I have also filed an ANI report for personal attack and disregard for WP:RS & WP:NPOV. This editor's history shows he's made a sport out of being disruptive across pages and with different users. Falcon2020 06:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No block, issue is being discussed on WP:ANI. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Falcon2020 is a confirmed sockpuppet by checkuser of banned user BhaiSaab. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:NYkid0709 reported by User:Nuggetboy (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Xbox 360 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). NYkid0709 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments: The warning was after the first 3RR violation (without a report): [210][211][212][213] - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 14:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 14:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Arrow740 reported by User:Itaqallah (Result:Warning)

Three-revert rule violation on Islam (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Arrow740 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

much of the diffs are constant and almost immediate undoings of changes incorporated by other editor:

This is not a revert, it is removal. Is all removal reversion? I believe that was my first edit of the article in months. I don't know what was added when. Arrow740 06:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
This is revert, the first one. Arrow740 06:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Again, not a revert. A diplomat was being cited as an Islamic studies scholar and I removed it after this became apparent. I did not know when this material was first inserted.Arrow740 06:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a revert. Itaqallah's edit summary made no sense. He has been engaged in revert warring on Muhammad's slaves (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Arrow740 06:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Diff of 3RR warning: unnecessary, user has been warned and blocked previously.
We have two reverts, on separate sections of an extremely long article. Arrow740 06:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments: furthermore, User:Arrow740 has been revert warring on Muhammad's slaves (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), and often treats 3 reverts as an entitlement. also, the disruption is compounded by User:Arrow740 engaging in recent inappropriate trolling [214][215] [216][217][218][219] (whilst admitting such) and indulging in personal attacks[220]. ITAQALLAH 15:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The trolling was inappropriate and after itaqallah pointed it out to me I kept my remarks topical. The "personal attack" is no such thing, User:Aminz has nominated articles about best-selling books for deletion. In any case an admin posted to my talk page about this already. I am in no way engaged in edit-warring on Islam (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) as you can see. Arrow740 06:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
see WP:3RR, "Reverting, in this context, means undoing, in whole or part, the actions of another editor or other editors.", which is what you did in all four instances above, almost immediately after they were instated. i request you take your comments out of the report and place them here (where "comments" belong), as it obfuscates the report. by the way, for the last revert: you didn't read my edit summary closely enough. i'm warring on Muhammad's slaves? two reversions on 9th Jan isn't much to go by.. ITAQALLAH 06:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Admin, make up your own mind about Itaqallah's edit and summary before my last edit. I have not edited Islam in some time. I did not know what was added when. I went through parts of the article looking for problems. I did the same thing with Muhammad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) yesterday as a glance at the history will show. The latter article was in worse shape, probably because Islam was nominated for GA status recently and a lot of work was done on it. Arrow740 07:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Aminz inserted a sentence and ref straight after you performed a reversion (13:52), and you removed it promptly thereafter (14:07). that seems to be a conscious removal, especially as you know the passage wasn't in the sect beforehand for your other reverts. drawing attention to unrelated matters such as your edits on Muhammad or the GA nom for Islam is a red herring. i repeat my request: please take your comments out of the report and put them in the comments section. ITAQALLAH 07:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Can you try to be more clear? They are not red herrings. If I am required by WP rules to move my responses to your accusations to the comments section then I will do so. We would all have been spared this trouble if you had given me a 3RR warning. I was not edit-warring. Arrow740 07:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
look at the other reports on the page, the responses are given in the comments section. interjecting your comments in the initial report makes the report itself rather unclear. you are in no need of another 3rr warning, as you are fully aware of the policy and have been blocked for it before. ITAQALLAH 07:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
It is quite clear! What is unclear about it? I guess it's not against the rules to respond as I did. I am aware of the rule, but was actually under the impression that the reverts must all be to the same version, which now know is not true. My point was that if you thought I had performed three reverts on that page you should have told me. Then I would have been clear on the rule and would not have performed any more reverts. But perhaps you wanted to get me blocked instead of insuring proper witiquette? Arrow740 07:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
There would be no block as this happened more than 24 hours ago. I request both parties to assume good faith with each other. I will warn the defaulting user. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Michaelsanders reported by User:Milo H Minderbinder (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on Half-Blood Prince (character) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Michaelsanders (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments: Note that the third revert above came twenty minutes after a 3RR block was lifted (lifted early because the editor promised not to do it again). [221] --Milo H Minderbinder 15:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Two separate reversion issues. Have not exceeded 3RR on either. It is a content dispute, which I have several times asked the participants to discuss. Michaelsanders 15:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I should note that some of these are partial reverts, and they are not all the same revert. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
It may be a content dispute but I suggest a short block. Don't edit war. --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 16:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, I asked the users several times to discuss the issue on the talk page; they refused, and almost always reverted (except the final incidence by pnwraven, which kept a few of my changes, but which changed everything of substance back to the version he liked). I didn't intentionally edit war, I simply removed their changes, which I felt were damaging, on the understanding that they were controversial enough to require explaining (at the same time explaining my own motivation - that the information was relevant). I also did not exceed the 3RR rule - I have made five reverts to the article in 24 hrs, it is true, but the first two were to the original text (prior to the changes); the next three were to the changes I instituted, which were a substantial rewrite which I hoped would satisfy both myself and the others. Secondly, another editor has now solved the issue in the short-term by intervening (some of my changes were retained, others were removed). Furthermore, the first revert in this round that I made (back to my rewrite) was because the editors had claimed their changes were 'minor': they were not, the editors knew that their changes would be controversial, and I therefore reverted, pointing out that such edits are not supposed to be claimed as 'minor'. I am now trying to discuss further changes, since at least one other relevant editor has expressed interest in doing so. Thirdly, I repeat, I have not violated the 3RR rule. I know that 3RR does not give me an automatic right to 3 reverts a day, but since I took care to explain myself, requested that the others discuss the issue (which was ignored), and since it now seems to be partially solved, I do not think blocking appropriate. Michaelsanders 16:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:217.134.118.7 reported by User:Samuel Blanning (Result: 8h)

Three-revert rule violation on Mike Mendoza (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 217.134.118.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments:

  • Warned on Talk:Mike Mendoza, continues to revert. There are more reverts than these which fall within 24 hours - four of the most recent provided for simplicity. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Blocked the ip for 8 hours. Syrthiss 15:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Three-revert rule violation on List of gangs in Grand Theft Auto series (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Butterrum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments: Has been warned twice, as of now; POV of edits also supports that of one, and only one, user. In turn, said user is a suspected sock puppet, as well.

Only 3 reverts, no violation, user warned by reporter, no block. Mangojuicetalk 16:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The strange thing, you reported a user for 3RR vio, when he didn't violate the policy, but you did. --Wildnox(talk) 23:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I realize that. The thing is is that the user "Butterrum" is a sockpuppet of another user; this so called "new" user is constantly making edits in the POV of the sock puppeteer. The page in question has experience a lot of warring in the past, and I did a great deal to resolve the issues that were warred over, but, because the sockpuppeteer doesn't agree with what is going on, he constantly changes it; I would have said something in the talk page, but that's just it: I already cleared this up. Because you somewhat warned me, I'll stop reverting, but I beg someone to do something about this issue. BishopTutu 23:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:66.191.222.111 reported by User:Sadena (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on National Socialist Movement (United States) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 66.191.222.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Prev-version is wrong; 1st rv listed links to history William M. Connolley 18:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC) - My bad, fixed link Sadena 20:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments: Warned, no impact. Edits are contrary to fact, and deleting sourced statements.



[edit] User:86.42.64.69 reported by User:CBFan (Result: 2h each)

Three-revert rule violation on Dingodile (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 86.42.64.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Comments: Constantly posting incorrect information, has been warned before about 3RR'ing, but still continues. This topic isn't the only one to be 3RR'ed.

Gross edit warring by both of you; and a malformed report. 12h for both of you William M. Connolley 19:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jor70 reported by User:SqueakBox (REsult:Warning)

Previous version reverted to *18.00 11 Jan

User added /Malvinas to falklands is the revrt. he was amply warned on his user page and the 4th revert was deliberate, SqueakBox 00:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Cant you do something about this obvious sock--Vintagekits 01:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC) on the same page?

Err wrong page, Vintagem, if you think the anon is someone's sock get a user check and make the allegation in the right place, this isnt it, SqueakBox 01:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No, he has just made 4 reverts within an hour--Vintagekits 01:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Well report that though as they are a new user and only got warned after the alleged 4th revert it is right they shouldn't be reported unl;ess they do it again as warning newbies is vital, SqueakBox 01:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Previous version reverted to: [223]
  • It's clear that the report is accurate. But before I block Jpr70 24h, it seems pretty clear complaining party has also violated 3RR; Am I miistaken? I also note that report does not follow suggested format.--CSTAR 01:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I reverted 3 times and then stopped, at which time I warned Jor, so given that I stopped I dont feel I have violated even the spirit. The anaon is not me, its a London ip, and I have warned him too, SqueakBox 01:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] NYScholar reported by User:Morton_devonshire (Result:warning)

Three-revert rule violation on User_talk:Morton_devonshire (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). NYScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comment: Please check his block log. Comments. This seems like gratuitous blanking of complaing party's talk page. If other party finds content objectionable as per WP:NPA, post request for deletion. Repeat offense 31h.--CSTAR 06:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Clear personal attacks on talk page. Unblock. Reduced to warning.--CSTAR 06:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Surena reported by Khoikhoi (Result:48h)

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

Comments: Not a new user—she's been here since 2005. Khoikhoi 06:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

48h. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Xviper2k reported by User:Billywhack (Result:Warning)

Three-revert rule violation on Stacy Keibler (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Xviper2k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments: I suggested to user that they use the talk page and user removed all comments from their talk page. Also, ignored suggestion in edits to discuss on talk page before reverting. --Billywhack 10:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Diffs not versions please. Prev-version should *precede* first revert... William M. Connolley 10:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Billywhack 12:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any breach and you have not warned the user either. No block. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I actually did warn him but he blanked his talk page. Whatever, if you just want our edit wars to continue, that's fine. Billywhack 13:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Reverted again this morning. User treats page as own personal site and commonly reverts others posts. User also responds immaturely to requests for discussion. User refuses repeated attempts at opening a dialog and will not consider obvious facts. --Billywhack 12:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Billywhack warned. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Why was I warned? According to you, it is impossible to list when somebody has an uncredited role unless it's a major media event. Unfortunately, a lot of uncredited roles go to actors on the way up, and are thus overlooked by the media. I'm not the only person to have noted this. All of my friends who watch South Park agree. Because they aren't into editing Wikipedia, I'm being persecuted? So to win this argument, all I need to do is to get them to make accounts and write that they agree with me? That seems awful shady. Xviper2k has posted a video he says wins his argument. The link takes me to Youtube to what appears to be the episode. I can't watch this video, but if it is the actual show, then my point is obviously reinforced. What is the recommendation of the admins on how to pursue this? Xviper2k acts like a child and responds to attempts to open a dialog by erasing my comments or just claiming he's right and reverting edits. It looks like whenever he doesn't agree with something somebody posts on the Stacy Keibler page, he just reverts. If he won't be reasonable, how are we supposed to settle this? --Billywhack 07:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I got the video to work and watched it up to the part in question. It is horrible quality. Nothing could possibly be ascertained from watching that. --Billywhack 09:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:86.42.111.246 reported by User:CBFan (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Dingodile (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 86.42.111.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments: This is actually the exact same user I told you about the other day (the one where both of us got blocked). This user simply got a new ID number and STILL continues to 3RR, despite the warnings.

Yet another malformed report but since this is blatant edit warring by both of you, you both get 24h. Please see WP:DR William M. Connolley 13:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Tajik reported by User:Baristarim (Result:)

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

  • * Previous version reverted to: [225]

Comments: User insisting on adding an accuracy tag to a section. He is aware of the WP:3RR since he has been blocked numerous times already. He is already on WP:1RR by administrator decision by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise because of edit-warring with another user in many Turco-Persian articles. Baristarim 14:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You appear to have violated 3RR also. --Wildnox(talk) 20:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Where? I could only count these [230], [231], [232]. Baristarim 08:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
These [233], [234], [235], [236](partial reverts are still reverts). You also had a 5th, but you self reverted that one. --Wildnox(talk) 15:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok :) Baristarim 15:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User: Ararat arev reported by User:Eupator (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Armenian language (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Ararat arev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • * Previous version reverted to: [237]

Comments: He now also violated 3rr on Proto-Armenian language. Note that this user recently reverted six times within 24 hours on Armenia, see [238], but wa snot reported. He has been warned numerous times. He also has the habit of spamming user talk pages, making dubious, long and controversial edits and marking them as minor edits and constant incivillity and pesonal attacks that are even present in his edit summaries. I think a harsh block is long overdue.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 15:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Would have been 24h, but 2006-12-13T09:16:32 Netsnipe (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Ararat arev (contribs)" with an expiry time of 31 hours (Vandalism of another user's talk pages) William M. Connolley 16:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What does that have to do with this? Are you assuming this is his first 3RR offense ergo no block? Look at this warning from User:Baristarim for Arev's 6 reverts in 24 hours for example: [239].-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 16:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
That was in december. He is currently unblocked and has made reverts since your decision. --Wildnox(talk) 21:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Please see Haik he broke the 3RR there also. Nareklm 21:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours for violating 3RR on Proto-Armenian language. Khoikhoi 22:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:SimonBillenness reported by User:Okkar (Result:no block)

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


Comments: This user has been readding again and again political infalmatory contents which are in clear contradiction with Wikipedia unbias policy.

The user has not reverted since he was warned. Please ensure users have been warned before you make a report. --Wildnox(talk) 20:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Parties have stopped edit warring after I warned both, no block issued. Anyway, both parties should be blocked if a block is issued. Kusma (討論) 08:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] S129162 reported by User:Professor_marginalia (Result: )

Three-revert rule violation on Talk:Yamashita's gold.

  • * Previous version reverted to: [240], improved restore here with further repairs first restore missed [241]


[User:S129162] was warned to stop blanking at least 3 times in Talk page (not easy to show with diffs because the warnings were added with full text restores of page). This diff to full page restore will show reminders/warnings given in the page. His comments aren't easily cipherable because he believes other editors there, including me, are involved in some weird intrigue or conspiracy involving the subject, "Yamashita's Treasure". But I believe he thinks this page belongs to him and is an extension or project related to his private mining company business - see bottom of his edit [242]. He views the other editors and me as internet vandals fiddling with his company's website. Professor marginalia 17:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The user has already been blocked for vandalism. --Wildnox(talk) 20:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:81.151.71.146 reported by User:Sześćsetsześćdziesiątsześć (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on Continuity Irish Republican Army (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 81.151.71.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Was warned on user talk page, didn't take it seriously. Sześćsetsześćdziesiątsześć 22:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kathanar reported by User:Rumpelstiltskin223 (Result:31H)

Three-revert rule violation on Hate group (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Kathanar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments: User is a tendentious editor and also has created bogus categories to push an agenda Category:Religious supremacists Rumpelstiltskin223 22:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Similar pattern of revert-warring here: Hindutva [251] [252] [253]

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh [254] [255] [256] Rumpelstiltskin223 22:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Also note that this edit of mine [257] is not a counter-revert because I was removing vandalism put there by an anonymous user (the statement "kkk like black people").Rumpelstiltskin223 23:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Similar revert-warring in: Sangh Parivar [258][259][260]Rumpelstiltskin223 04:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Blocked user for 31 hours for edit warring on the 2 articles. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 12:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:81.151.71.146 reported by User:Amatulic (Result:24h block)

Three-revert rule violation on Continuity Irish Republican Army (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 81.151.71.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments: half a dozen major POV reversions in 1 hour. I reverted user 3 times and added a 3RR warning to user's talk page, after which the user promptly reverted again. Only then I realized the user had more than 4 reverts going in the space of an hour. Another user also put an informal warning at that time on the user's talk page before me. -Amatulic 22:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The IP has also violated the 3RR at Óglaigh na hÉireann.--Rudjek 23:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Also working toward a 3RR violation on Irish Government. -Amatulic 23:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The IP has now made a personal attack Sześćsetsześćdziesiątsześć 23:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

24h. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
If this anon user resumes edit warring after the 24h are up, then what? Post a new entry, or update this one? -Axlq 19:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest a new entry. --Wildnox(talk) 07:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Guess so. User is now doing the same thing (identical edit patterns) from IP address 81.156.27.118. =Axlq 03:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ramananpi reported by User:Tametiger (Result: no block)

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

Comments: Despite the issue being raised to the India board by another user .The user has revert the page and the page is now protected due to actions of this user.He also deletes content even if well cited.He also used his sockpuppet Ramananrv123 to redirect the page. Tametiger 06:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This is stale, and (as you point out) the page is protected. No block William M. Connolley 11:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Martin181 reported by User:Halbared (Result:72H)

Three-revert rule violation on Brock Lesnar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Martin181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments: Poss sockpuppet is back after last 24hr banning and has not entered into any discussions and continues with form to again ignore sourced info and revert back to personal preferences

Ahem. Was there anything about These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is that you didn't understand? William M. Connolley 11:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, thank you. Sorry.Halbared 11:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I blocked the user for 72 hours. I didn't do just 48 due to the fact that the user had just been blocked for this same offense on the same article. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 13:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] User:John Reaves reported by User:Michaelsanders (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on Caractacus Burke (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). John Reaves (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments: Editor reverted four times, despite opposition from two editors in the summaries and on his talk page; several summaries were rude/offensive, and showed awareness of 3RR; he then proceeded to lurch into rudeness and personal accusations here [271] and here [272].

Blocked by J.smith (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) Bucketsofg 21:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:86.42.80.244 reported by User:CBFan (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on Crash Bandicoot: The Wrath of Cortex (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 86.42.80.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments: EXACTLY the same guy who continually vandalised the Dingodile pages, this time reverting relevant and true information. As you can see, he's been doing it for a long time now, despite the countless warnings, and blaming them entirely on me, when all I've been doing is trying to revert them back, and have only been partially involved as such. CBFan 16:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)CBFan

  • No Action - can't do anything with out diff-links. See WP:DIFF for instructions. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I thought they were DIFF-links. Anyway, we're trying to resolve this. CBFan 20:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)CBFan.

[edit] User:Ramananpi reported by User:125.22.132.241 (Result:No Action)

Three-revert rule violation on Vaikom Satyagraha (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Ramananpi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments: Reverts and deletions of the several articles have been done by this user.125.22.132.241 17:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

  • No action - I don't see 4 reverts to a single article here. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kamenaua reported by User:Anonimu (Result: 31h)

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

Comments: Reversion of a version of a disputed event that acquired community consensus. He probably used socks to evade 3RR.. see these diffs: 13:50, 13 January 2007 by user Miclovan (created today) and 18:35, 13 January 2007 (only contribution of IP 213.36.0.197). Anonimu 18:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Blocked or 31 hours. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:24.17.42.210 reported by User:SqueakBox

Version reverted to

This user has also made false vandalism claims in spite of being warned that it isnt vandalism, has refused to discuss the issue on the talk page in spite of being asked and has been warned about 3RR before the 4th revert, which he removed from his talk page, SqueakBox 20:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Both users appear to have violated 3RR on Offshoring. --Wildnox(talk) 03:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
If you want to accuse me of violating 3RR please provide the diffs, as I did not, SqueakBox 16:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
1, 2, 3, and 4--Wildnox(talk) 17:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops, looks like I did. My apologies, I had not realised. We appear to have come to a compromise and user 24.17.42.210 has gone offline sionce then, yesterday afternoon and the situation has calmed down, SqueakBox 18:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:DCincarnate reported by User:GentlemanGhost (Result:24hr block)

Three-revert rule violation on Celestial (comics) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). DCincarnate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments: This user is not a new user, having been around since July 2006. However, it appears that this user has never received a 3RR warning before. I put one on the user's talk page after the fact. Note: this user made other changes to the article on top of the reverts, so the diffs don't match completely. However, the substance of the changes, stemming from an edit war with another user, is essentially the same.

  • Blocked for 24 hours. Hiding Talk 17:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Asgardian reported by User:GentlemanGhost (Result:31hr block)

Three-revert rule violation on Celestial (comics) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Asgardian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments: This user has been blocked for violating the 3RR before. This instance is part of an edit war with User:DCincarnate, whom I reported above. I put a new 3RR warning on this user's talk page after the fact.

  • Blocked for 31 hours. Hiding Talk 17:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Loremaster reported by User:MichaelCPrice (Result: 24h)

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

Comments: Not a new user (according to user's talk page, one of Wikipedia's most proflic editors). User insists on inserting own original research (dubious inferences based on primary sources) into article, whilst deleting statements from secondary sources. Repeated attempts to explain WP:OR and WP:NPOV on article's talk page are rebuffed with accusations that others have an agenda, are wikilawyering, bullying etc. Attempts to undo damage to article are simply reverted, as above. 3RR warning posted to user's talk page [274] and 4th reversion occured within 6 minutes of warning.

Comments by Loremaster: I've repeatedly provided explanations for my revert edits in light of User:MichaelCPrice's repeated acts of vandalism. I have already explained why the Lead of the Ebionites article does not need to mention his inserts which are already mentioned elsewhere in the article. It is ridiculous of him to describe the deletion of these inserts as inserting original research. I've discussed all these issues on the Talk:Ebionites page and my views and actions are supported by user:Ovadyah. There is no consensus possible since Micheal is a master of wikilawyering who is trying to impose his own POV into the article which I am trying to remove to preserve a neutral point of view. Period --Loremaster 03:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Both of you appear to have violated 3RR. I suggest you both stop, drop this report, and settle this on talk pages. --Wildnox(talk) 03:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Loremaster does not seek talk page resolution, instead he continues to assume bad faith and uses this to avoid debate: [275] --Michael C. Price talk 03:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't mean you should violate 3RR, there are many ways to handle this without reverts. You could have tried all the steps in dispute resolution beyond discussion or requested page protection. --Wildnox(talk) 03:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for being the voice of reason, Wildnox. --Loremaster 04:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverting continued. 24h each William M. Connolley 11:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Scorpyiajansidanananananananana reported by User:MKoltnow (Result: 24h)

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



Comments: This user is edit warring a topic which is specifically commented to be discussed on the talk page. User's edit history shows a number of similar edits to other articles--contentious and undiscussed.

24h William M. Connolley 11:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Alansohn reported by User:ExplorerCDT (Result:Protected)

Three-revert rule violation on Joyce Kilmer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [277]
  • 1st revert: [278] 00:12, 14 January 2007 by Alansohn
  • 2nd revert: [279] 23:43, 13 January 2007 by Alansohn
  • 3rd revert: [280] 23:32, 13 January 2007 by Alansohn
  • 4th revert: [281] 23:02 13 January 2007 by Alansohn
  • 1st revert since reporting: [282] 01:02 14 January 2007 by Alansohn

Comments:

  • User:Alansohn (also another user) has been a persistent pest over the past few weeks, trying to insert irrelevant genealogical information into the Joyce Kilmer article. This caused a rather acrimonious debate on the article's talk page. Despite justifying the removal and continued omission of such information under wikipedia's policies (WP:NOT, WP:WINAD), he's continued to do this. Tonight, he decided to attempt to re-insert the genealogical information claiming there was a consensus (there is not), and when I removed it per those policies he wised up a bit and decided to insert information that is improperly cited by an unreliable source (find-a-grave.com) and which I removed, justified, by WP:RS and WP:V. The last edit, he has placed a reference to source, a book review by Kilmer, which, has nothing to do with the fact, and is a deliberate attempt to decieve people into thinking there is a connection and that the previous, unreliably cited, dubious statement was true. It's a false reference. I have tried to talk to him about this on the talk page, but he ignores it. Instead, he's devolved to trading insults and anything in an attempt to smear (attempting to paint me as a hypocrite with non-analogous situations).

I have been guilty, slightly of WP:CIVIL and to a lesser extent an occasional violation of WP:NPA, but I am so unable to keep my cool with this user.

Right now, he's sacrificing accuracy just to feed his ego, and right now, the timbre of his edits is "win at all cost" with a campaign that is so antithetical to Wikipedia, he has to be punished for this, and severely. —ExplorerCDT 04:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I protected the page. The edits you present are not really reverts. But on the other hand, there is a bad war going on and I think things need to be worked out through dispute resolution. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kendrick7 reported by SlimVirgin (Result: 24h by Tawker)

5RR on Anti-Judaism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) by Kendrick7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Comment

The above are simple reverts — five in under an hour. Kendrick is trying to create Anti-Judaism as a fork of Religious antisemitism. He keeps removing the redirect and pasting in his preferred version of Religious antisemitism. He's been warned about 3RR several times and was blocked for it on December 30. [283]

Absurd; I am reverting vandalism which does not fall under this rule. Anti-Judaism was moved in the first place to Religious anti-Semitism without any consensus or even a move tag, so I agreed to split the topics, and have expanded Anti-Judaism from reliable sources considerably since then. All attempts at dialogue and requests for this to go thru normal channels (such as tags and waiting periods) have been ignored. -- Kendrick7talk 07:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
You're compounding the disruption by calling other people's edits "vandalism." SlimVirgin (talk) 07:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it was vandalism, and I think this report is innacurate. I don't believe Kendrick7 is trying to create a fork, but trying to preserve an article which is repeatedly being deleted without explanation. SlimVirgin appears to be angry, as she is currently on a spree of reverting my edits as well, along with personally attacking me in edit histories ([284][285][286][287]) following a disagreement with Kendrick and me on the religious antisemitism page, in which she was also reverting without explanation. Truly, if anyone is blocked here, I think it should be SlimVirgin, and indeed I think this spree of hers does warrant a block, from the three above listed reverts on Folke Bernadotte without any explanation (and admittedly without even looking closely at the first two) and complete with baseless personal attacks.Mackan79 07:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
If anything POV forks are "vandalism", and please don't try to unilaterally re-write policy to punish people with whom you have been in considerable conflict, while excusing people with whom you have allied. Jayjg (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
As an outside observer I would strongly caution the blocking administrator to look into this supposed violation for himself before enforcing the 24h block as I would question the validity of any WP:3RR report filed by SV. KazakhPol 07:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
You're hardly an "outside observer", you're an editor who has been in constant conflict with SlimVirgin. Jayjg (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This was a standard block for violating WP:3RR. SlimVirgin originally moved the article to a better name, and Kendrick7 continued to undo the move to reinstate his version, which has just continued with Mackan79 reinstating the version. And KazakhPol has recently been blocked due to edit warring with Slim Virgin as well. Kendrick7 can come back in 24 hours and edit constructively, which does not mean reverting the article, again.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, he talks! Ryulong, incidentally, was the source of the series of unexplained deletions of the anti-Judaism page, for what it's worth, and should be blocked for his disruption as well. ([288] [289][290])Mackan79 08:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I see three reverts by SlimVirgin – [291], [292], [293], which is completely inappropriate. I am not involved in the discussion, however I do not support an administrator reverting three times in a single day. Completely inappropriate behaviour by Ryulong, as well – [294], [295], [296], using scripts to revert other users. Use the anti-vandalism tool only for the job they are authorised for. Your actions potray that you were trying to induce the other users into breaching WP:3RR and getting blocked. I disapprove the block and request that it be lifted; as it is unilateral. Use dispute resolution as a means instead of making multiple reverts on a single day. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Please don't try to unilaterally re-write policy. If you want the rule to be the "2RR" rule, then get consensus for that change. Jayjg (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I am not unilaterally trying to re-write policy. As an arbitrator, you should have a good understanding of what constitutes "gaming the system". Also, per your comment below this, don't try to bring content-dispute into this conversation. This is about the five reverts Kendrick made, three + three reverts that SlimVirgin made on two articles and three reverts that Ryulong made using Javascript. Please do not assume that people around are ignorant beings. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I do have a good understanding of what constitutes "gaming the system". 4 revert in 24 hours and 2 minutes is "gaming the system"; two editors reverting someone who is trying to create a POV-fork, and who reverts 5 times to do so, is not "gaming the system". Nor, for that matter, are blocks of obvious 3RR violators in any way "unilateral", nor should you undo the blocks of other admins unless a very obvious error has been made, which, of course, wasn't the case. I don't assume people around are "ignorant beings", but I must say that you do not seem to be very familiar with WP:3RR. Jayjg (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I too disapprove of the block: if anything, the page should have just been fully protected. SlimVirgin and Ryulong both made three reverts, with Ryulong not even doing it manually, and it only appears to look like they were gaming the system. I don't want to unblock myself, but I believe Kendrick7 shouldn't have been the only one, if any at all to have been blocked. --Majorly 13:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Please don't compare consensus with "gaming the system". Jayjg (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
[297], [298], [299] (diffs from Anti-Judaism). The page has been protected now, and I am going to lift the block. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
This is completely out of order. Kendrick7 is a serious troublemaker, and has been since he arrived at Wikipedia. He has created a fork of an article, in an area he clearly has no knowledge of, and continues to revert other editors' attempts to restore the redirect template, calling their edits "vandalism," which compounds the 3RR violation. He has elsewhere teamed up with other editors, including one long-term banned antisemite, to disrupt pages related to Judaism, Jews, and Israel. Nick, you had no call to unblock and to accuse others of editing disruptively. I request that the remainder of Kendrick7's block be restored. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
We don't need to escalate this to a wheel war, but I support the restoring of the block. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin's reading of this situation doesn't strike me as entirely accurate. It might be more appropriate to say that Kendrick7 is a frequent opponent of SlimVirgin in content disputes, and has been for several months. What SlimVirgin describes as "disruption" may be more accurately characterized as "disagreement". Moreover, the long-term banned antisemite edited the Allegations of Israeli Apartheid for several weeks under a sockpuppet pseudonym ("Kiyosaki"), and didn't make his bigotry known until the end of the period, at which point he was recognized and promptly banned. Kendrick7 should obviously not held be held responsible for that user's actions.
I'm not going to comment on the specifics of this 3RR request, but I suspect this may be a content dispute miscast as a policy violation. CJCurrie 02:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
A content dispute miscast as a policy violation? Are you saying that it's not a policy violation? Do you mean that he didn't revert five times, or do you mean that policy allows you to revert five times as long as it's a content dispute? I'm puzzled. Musical Linguist 21:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Not so about Kiyosaki, as you've been told before. He was long known to be a bigot, but it took us a few weeks to work out which banned editor he was, and he was blocked as soon as we found the evidence — not when he, as you say, "made the bigotry known," which was several weeks before the block. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
As long as we're discussing this point, I've asked you several times to provide evidence that Kiyosaki's bigotry was always manifest, and you haven't done so. I'm still waiting. CJCurrie 02:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
SV's description of events appears perfectly accurate to me. Whether Kendrick7 is a frequent opponent of SV is beside the point; Kendrick7 violated 3RR, pure and simple. That being the case, I'm reinstating the block. The reporting party's motives are a non sequitur here. FeloniousMonk 02:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. 3RR is about 3RR, which Kendick7 knowingly and willingly violated. The fact that he used the pretext that re-directing his POV fork article to the main article was "vandalism" is neither here nor there. Nor, for that matter, is the piling on of various other editors with a grudge, discussing unrelated matters. 5RR violators should be blocked, and those blocks should not be undone, period. Jayjg (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a fairly clear violation of the 3RR. That said, the other users involved hardly behaved admirably. There is no 2RR, but that can't be read to mean that editors are entitled to revert three times per day. Respected admins especially should know that all revert warring is inappropriate, and that some attempt should have been made to discuss the issue. - SimonP 05:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Simon, please inform yourself fully about Kendrick's behavior before commenting. He's been editing disruptively for a long time around anything to do with Jews, Judaism, or Israel. CJCurrie supports him because CJC never misses a chance to get a dig in, and I'm very surprised at you responding to his call for help, as you did with Homey when he was causing trouble. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Response: (i) SlimVirgin may be interested to know that I haven't actively supported Kendrick7 in this matter (I'm not going to comment on the specifics of this 3RR request, but I suspect this may be a content dispute miscast as a policy violation.), and that I've made absolutely no comment whatsoever on the specific dispute at hand, (ii) I'm neither impressed nor amused by SlimVirgin's less-than-subtle insinuation that I'm compulsively driven to "disrupt" certain pages, (iii) I'm equally unimpressed with Slim's blanket condemnation of disagreement (here and elsewhere) as "editing disruptively" and "causing trouble", (iv) I find it odd that SlimVirgin hasn't acknowledged any criticism of her own behaviour. CJCurrie 16:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm also not impressed with this comment on my talk page. I've been witness to several disputes concerning SlimVirgin and Kendrick7, and I only intervened because I disagreed with SlimVirgin's summarization of a dispute that I was peripherally involved in. CJCurrie 16:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, Slim. This is not looking good in anyway. The block was unilateral, and so I unblocked. Another uninvolved administrator agreed with me, in that context. Tawker did not raise any objections. If Simon is somebody's friend, so is Jayjg, and he cannot be called an uninvolved party. In no way the block would have helped. I protected the article before unblocking. How can you think a block would have helped? You were revert-warring on two articles on a single day, and left off at three edits each. That falls within the purview of gaming the system. I am not going to take this to WP:ANI, but if there is something I have learnt from my past, blocks don't help solve problems, especially when they look unilateral, just like this one. I suppose this is ripe time for going to WP:ANI? I have replied to your comments on my talk page. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 11:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Since there are disagreements over the block & the article is now protected, it is reasonable to lift the block. --Aminz 11:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
As another uninvolved admin, I was asked by Nicholas for my input on IRC, so I thought I'd chip in here as well. I really disagree with the controversy over this block. It was a very straightforward violation of the three-revert rule, and should have been left to stand. There is no such thing as a "unilateral" 3RR block - while there is, as with any other decision on Wikipedia, leeway, there is absolutely no need to sit down and gain consensus for a 3RR block, nor I have ever seen this argued anywhere else. I also strongly object to Nicholas' characterisation of SlimVirgin's reverts as gaming. These fairly standard reverts were warranted, and were rightfully backed up by other editors; "gaming", on the other hand, is the sort of behaviour where one waits until 24 hours and 10 minutes have passed and begins the behaviour again. As I said to Nicholas privately, it is ridiculous to be preaching about how one should handle disputes when you've never actually edited controversial articles yourself. Rebecca 11:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Slim says of Kendrick that "He has elsewhere teamed up with other editors, including one long-term banned antisemite, to disrupt pages related to Judaism, Jews, and Israel." CJ rightly points out that "Kiyosaki"'s bigotry became known after the period in which he and Kendrick concurred on several edits. Bad-faith innuendos about antisemitism, as well as spurious guilt-by-association smears, unfortunately typify SlimVirgin's handling of content disputes with other editors.--G-Dett 18:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a blatant personal attack. I'd reconsider your method here were I you. FeloniousMonk 19:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Felonious, would you consider this to be a personal attack: "CJCurrie supports him because CJC never misses a chance to get a dig in,"? CJCurrie 19:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Felonious, I'd reconsider your reasoning. Unwarranted innuendos about antisemitism (and even other, less noxious speculations about the inner lives of other editors) constitute personal attacks. Guilt-by-association ruses of the sort SlimVirgin trades in [300][301][302][303]combine personal attack with logical fallacy. Identifying persistent abuses/sophistries of this sort, on the other hand, does not constitute a personal attack. The identification may be accurate, inaccurate, debatable, specious, etc., but it isn't a personal attack. If you think what I've pointed to is debatable, please debate it. As for reconsidering my method, I know of no way of dealing with ad hominem sophistries such as these other than identifying and confronting them; but I am, as always, open to suggestions.--G-Dett 20:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I feel that this should really be archived to prevent clogging up of this page with any more pointless squabbling, I want to say that I fully endorse Rebecca's remarks. I don't often block for 3RR, but I do follow this page a lot (and have done from before I was an admin), and this is a perfectly routine block. I'm not sure if Nick's use of "unilateral" refers to the fact that Tawker decided all by himself to implement the block, or that only the person who reverted five times in an hour got blocked, while those who reverted three times or under in 24 hours did not. If the former, it's a bizarre interpretation. The 3RR policy exists through community consensus. Individual applications of it in very straightforward cases do not need consensus. If Nick is referring to the fact that only Kendrick was affected by the block, then I'd point out that only he made that blatant violation, not only making five reverts in less than an hour but also calling edits he disagreed with "vandalism". And he had been blocked before, so he knew the rule. I can't understand why this thread has turned into a forum for criticizing those who did revert, but who neither blatantly violated the rules nor "gamed the system" by waiting one minute after the 24 hours. If the rule says, don't revert four times, you don't unblock someone who knowingly reverted five times on the grounds that someone else reverted three times! Musical Linguist 21:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mitsos reported by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise (Result: 2w)

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

  • Warning: not necessary, experienced user and repeat offender; edit summary of third revert shows he was aware of 3RR.

Comments: Repeatedly re-inserting inappropriate external links to nationalist lobby website. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Result: 2 weeks. User has a history of this. -- Steel 13:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] User:Azerbaijani reported by User:Elsanaturk

Administrators, I want to update a poor article about Mammed Amin Rasulzade but user Azerbaijani every time returns back the old version which is very poor. I am putting my version to the talk page, please consider go and look at it and then judge. becuse that article is very bad quality and I want to improve it. Elsanaturk 18:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no 3RR violation on Mammed Amin Rasulzade, both you and Azerbaijani are 1 away from violation though. --Wildnox(talk) 18:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Elsanaturk reported me for a 3rr violation which I did not commit, and I thank you for noticing that. As far as that article goes, he was removing sourced information which he did not like, and he made it very clear that he didnt like the information, and thus violated Wikipedia's policy of NPOV (he has also done this on other articles as well). I told him about the rule but he continued. Also, I updated the Mahmud Rasulzadeh article for him, becuase he was removing sourced information and added other information in an effort to cover it up. So anyway, I added his contributions while leaving the sourced information in there, hopefully he will stop his POV push and that this is a good enough compromise. My last edit is not a revert, its an attempt at a compromise.Azerbaijani 18:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I was reporting not because of 3rr but becuase he or she hindered new article from page and after that he took my page and distorted it and deleted many facts that I have added and he or she calls it updating! look at original version of ine and look at his "Elsanaturk 18:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)update"
Then why, pray tell, did you report on the 3RR noticeboard? This board is for reporting 3RR violations, not just every content dispute. --Wildnox(talk) 18:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
From the looks of it, you have just violated 3RR Elsanturk. Isn't this a bit ironic? --Wildnox(talk) 18:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:194.144.111.210 reported by User:Wildnox (Result: 48h)

Three-revert rule violation on Reroute to Remain (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 194.144.111.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments: User has also violated 3RR on Nu metal and List of thrash metal bands(actually it appears to me that he has just barely avoided 3RR there. --Wildnox(talk) 18:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments: The user in question has been blocked at least two other times for 3rr, I (s)he should be blocked for more than 24 hours. Inhumer 21:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot of ugly reverting going on there. Please take care. 48h William M. Connolley 22:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Max_rspct reported by User:Vision_Thing (Result: 24h)

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

Comments: I suspect that Max rspct is the same user as 86.7.21.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). If that is true, he broke a 3RR. In the past, Max rspct and 86.7.21.180 made some very similar edits. For example, they both edited articles: Mikhail Bakunin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) on 24 November 2006, and Detroit, Michigan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) "Performing Arts" section on 7 December 2006. Taking into consideration small number of edits by 86.7.21.180, I find that coincidence suspicious. Also, Max rspct was already blocked once for using a sockpuppet. -- Vision Thing -- 18:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

24h, assuming that 86. is Mxr William M. Connolley 22:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Elsanaturk reported by User:Azerbaijani (Result:24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on Mammed Amin Rasulzade (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Elsanaturk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments: Elsanaturk has made a lot of POV comments and edits on several articles. I told him about Wikipedia NPOV and Wikipedia 3rr but he did not listen to either warning and continue his disruptive edits. He makes claims like "this guy is spoiling my article! adminstators!" and he does not seem to understand that he does not own anything on Wikipedia and that there are rules and guidelines that he has to follow. Due to comments he has made, it is very evident that he is baised and removes information that he does not like. I believe that the IP address is his, and regarding, he has broken 3rr anyway, due to reverting and also making edits afterwards. Please asses the situation and take the necessary steps. You can check his contributions and and the history of the article in question.Azerbaijani 20:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Well most of what would be need to be said has been said. I think these diffs are a little better though: 1, 2, 3, and 4. --Wildnox(talk) 20:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope the administrators can take care of this problem soon and the article can go back to the way it was meant to be, without all the POV.Azerbaijani 21:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours. However, you seem to have made 3 reverts in 24 hours, Azerbaijani, and are involved in edit wars elsewhere at the same time (e.g.: Ottoman architecture). Consider this a warning that you will be blocked after any more edit warring as well. Dmcdevit·t 16:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:88.105.115.223 reported by User:strothra (Result: warned)

Three-revert rule violation on Christianity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 88.105.115.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [304]

Comments:

  • The first revert is by User:88.105.57.122, the second by User:88.105.127.80, and the third and fourth by User:88.105.115.223. Presumably these are the same individual, but let me think about the best way to handle this. Bucketsofg 00:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I decided that the best thing to do is to warn him. Bucketsofg 00:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] User:65.7.63.86 reported by User:Sarranduin (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Toad (Nintendo) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 65.7.63.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments: Person apparently uploaded and added Image:Toad999.PNG to the article. I removed it due to low quality and lack of copyright tags in the image's summary, plus the fact that the current image works well enough. Anon user promptly added it back in, and then chaos broke loose. User has reverted to same thing at least 8 times. Resulting discussion can be found here. I warned user on their talk page, and asked them to stop to no avail. -- Sarrandúin [ Talk + Contribs ] 04:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this anonymous user might be the same as User:Roguephantom and/or User:LoneCrusader. The original image that was being added has been deleted, but they have now added one uploaded a day or so ago, Image:Toad.PNG, which is exactly the same, and which also has no tags. -- Sarrandúin [ Talk + Contribs ] 06:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Blocked anon and RP for 24h. Semi'd the article. William M. Connolley 09:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:88.113.137.249 reported by User:SmithBlue (Result: 24)

Three-revert rule violation on Taj El-Din Hilaly (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 88.113.137.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

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


Comments:

24f for incivility; probably 3RR too William M. Connolley 19:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

User has history of vandalism as well, although this is not a pure vandal-only account; there have been a fair number of constructive edits. John Broughton | ♫ 20:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:SaliereTheFish reported by User:Exvicious (Result: no block)

Three-revert rule violation on Civil War (comic book) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). SaliereTheFish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments:

Contiguous edits count as one; there may be 3 in total. Mind you his edit comments are distinctly unhelpful William M. Connolley 19:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Amoruso reported by User:jd2718 (Result: Warned)

Three-revert rule violation on Folke Bernadotte (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Amoruso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&action=edit

Comments: User:Amoruso has over 10,000 edits and has experience on this board. No warning was necessary. Worse, while he has not technically violated 3RR, he is taking 3 reverts every 24 hours, clearly in violation of the spirit of WP:3RR. Amoruso has also been editing the talk page, but generally puts up comments that indicate he has a personal strongly held belief [306] [307] or simply that everyone else is wrong and he intends to revert [308]. I would argue that intentional gaming by an experienced user is far more serious than the clumsy mistake of a newbie.

Further, there is adequate opportunity to talk. After her 3rd revert in an hour and a half (!) (I won't put in the diffs since they are part of a long argument above) user:SlimVirgin realized that the edit-warring was a problem and tried to cool things down. She intitiated a focused discussion [309] which several editors have participated in. Unfortunately, Amoruso's sole contribution has been limited to an accusation of slander and an indication that he was reverting yet again (which he did) [310]. Jd2718 15:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a muli-side edit war to me. More likely to end up protected... William M. Connolley 16:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you are correct. But with one side discussing, and one side not? Jd2718 16:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
One side is not discussing - you have been "guilty" of many reverts on this page [311] [312][313] [314] [315]. I find your behaviour strange. It does not look well on you. You seem not to have acted in good faith here and you may deserve a ban or at least a warning for this report IMO - that's for an administrator to decide but I'm bothered that a user reports false reports to fool the system. As for myself, I was clearly using the talk page to explain and it was in fact Jd2718 and another user who were reverting without any discussion. While I was being both polite and contributing to the page, Jd2718 is only a recent "contributor" to the page who is only reverting and not involved in genuine discussion despite his claims which are clearly not based on reality. I didn't break any 3RR nor game the system, the report is faulty. It's especially disturbing to see false allegations like "reverting 3 times every 24 Hours" as if I've been reverting for the past week, much like he did. His own examples refute his false allegations. Cheers, Amoruso 16:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The article was just unprotected. And everyone seems to have made three reverts in 24 hours, which is not constructive. I'll warn all around and block if anyone continues, 3RR or not. Dmcdevit·t 17:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ckoicedelire reported by User:ThePromenader (Result: 24h)

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


Comments:

Such attachment to a former version seems a bit odd in the light of the user's history - may be a sockpuppet of User:Hardouin.

Practically certain: see comment of last revert by always deleting the informations about La defense for exemple - "always" ? Anyhow, not true, as La Défense is very prominent throughout the article. THEPROMENADER 22:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
At present, certain that this is a sockpuppet of Hardouin. Typical two-step revert typical of someone copying from an "original" text - quite typical of aforementioned user. Repeat offender: will revert until "his" version is back in place. THEPROMENADER 00:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Six reverts by the user within eight hours. Are there any Admins watching this page at all? --Bob 07:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 09:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ararat arev reported by User:Nareklm (Result:User blocked previously)

Three-revert rule violation on Haik (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Ararat arev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments:

  • User was already blocked for these edits. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Macedonia reported by User:NikoSilver (Result: 4d)

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


Comments: User warned twice (because he blanked the page) by admin Future Perfect at Sunrise. He/She persistently re-adds those pictures in his/her userpage. User experienced, and with a record of 3rr abuse. A WP:RfC regarding username being used to impersonate an article would probably be quite pertinent, but I don't know which of the two supercedes the other in this case: WP:3RR#Reverting copyright violations in combination with WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:POINT, and WP:USERNAME -or- WP:3RR#Reverting pages in your user space? NikoSilver 01:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


FunkyFly and NikoSilver were vandalizing my userpage by removing images, and adding false licenses to my self made images that I have uploaded here to Wikipedia. Macedonia 02:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You were warned by an administrator to remove the images, and you removed the warning. The administrator then himself removed the images in question. The image licence which you gave are untrue.   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


FunkyFly also violated the rule while adding false copyright licencses to my images:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Macedonia (talk • contribs)

Not true. The first edit is not a revert. It is only User:Macedonia who has broken 3RR on that page.   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Blocked for 4d as repeat 3RR offender, for uploading the image with a false pd-self claim and edit-warring over it. Niko and Funky, I would have preferred it if this could have been done without the added drama of revert-warring over his userpage, you could have just left it to me and not escalate it like this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rjensen reported by User:Cielomobile (Result: 24h each)

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


Comments: Rjensen has made several other edits to the article which were partial revisions, but instead of responding to my comment on the talk page, he continued to revert. He has also engaged in an edit war over Conservatism in the United States, see User_talk:Rjensen#Conservatism_in_the_United_States. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 01:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No I don't think so. I have been adding new material not changing the edits of other editors. Note that the original article was moved, with a new title that called for new material. The rules clearly say that the 3R rule is not additive across articles. I discussed this naming problem at length on the talk page --the new name requires a deep rewrite--but Cielomobile ignored all that, There was also a fraudulent move of the American conservatism article without any poll or discussion, which I reported and complained about and asked for help in the matter. Rjensen 02:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Note that alleged revert #4 was not a revert at all--i added new material and did not revert any editor. Note that #3 and #4 are from DIFFERENT ARTICLES from #1 and #2, and the 3R rule is explictly not additive across articles. Rjensen 02:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

??? 3&4 *are* from the same article. Based on "classical liberal" you've both broken 3RR so both get 24h William M. Connolley 09:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:84.135.255.238 reported by User:Angusmclellan (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Malcolm III of Scotland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 84.135.255.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments:

24h. Still, I am Special WikiConstable 84.135.255.238 enforcing... was funny William M. Connolley 18:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I presume that 89.50.12.11 (talk • contribs • count) 6th revert: 20:33, 16 January 2007 is the same editor. Same country, same edits. I am Special WikiConstable 89.50.12.11 (replacing 84.135.255.238 MIA) enforcing ... also seems familiar. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] User:Ararat arev reported by User:Nareklm (Result: 48 hour block)

Three-revert rule violation on Mitanni (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Ararat arev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Comment Ararat arev also broke it on Urartu. Nareklm 21:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Three-revert rule violation on Urartu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Ararat arev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Comment I have blocked the user for 48 hours for violating 3RR on two articles, after coming off a 3RR block just four days ago. Nishkid64 22:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Avocadop reported by User:Kaisershatner (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Tony Martin (professor) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Avocadop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [328] Revision as of 21:59, 16 January 2007
  • 1st revert: [329] Revision as of 12:25, 16 January 2007
  • 2nd revert: [330] Revision as of 13:40, 16 January 2007
  • 3rd revert: [331] 21:59, 16 January 2007
  • 4th revert:[332] Revision as of 20:38, 16 January 2007

Comments: Ignored two warnings and an offer to discuss edit concerns at talk, with no reply (see below).Kaisershatner 22:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Benisek (talk • contribs)

Hi, it looks like you disagreed with my edits to Tony Martin. Rather than reverting edits with references, and attempts to make the article more neutral in tone, you might consider discussion on the talk page of the article. However, wholesale reversions such as the ones you have made are unlikely to stand without some justification. Thanks, Kaisershatner 16:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

24h. Dubious about B too. William M. Connolley 23:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)