Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive38

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:KimboSlice reported by User:ju66l3r (Result:24h)

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

Comments
This account may be a sockpuppet as they seem well versed in Wikipedia. ju66l3r 20:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:A.J.A. reported by User:Ai.kefu (Result:No violation)

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

  • 1st revert: [1]
  • 2nd revert: [2]
  • 3rd revert: [3]


That's only three revert, and in fact the only three edits to that page by A.J.A. during the last two weeks. To break the rule one has to revert four times. Henning Makholm 21:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Also please note that there are WP:BLP issues. A.J.A. 21:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There was no violation, please see the BLP noticeboard for BLP issues. Cbrown1023 talk 22:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Wafulz reported by User:oxxiox (Result:No action)

Three-revert rule violation on Something Awful (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Wafulz (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]
Well first off, the reverts aren't all the same. Second off, I'm not the only user disputing the claim. Third, I wasn't even aware I had made that many. Next time point this out to me before listing me for a block? Also, for the reviewing admin, please see Talk:Something Awful to get an idea of the dispute and the lack of reliable sources being presented. Anyway, I'll stick to the talk page now to stay out of trouble for the moment. --Wafulz 22:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No action. The report has become a little stale, and Wafulz' response appears constructive, but please remember the rule next time. Newyorkbrad 13:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Leuko reported by User:Steinizethat (Result:No action)

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

  • Previous version reverted to: [9]


Comments
This user continues to claim that my edit to the page, although completely true, is not valid because it display an opinion of sorts. Even though I am a current student of Shenendehowa and have witnessed everything I explained in my edit first hand and have real cold, hard evidence to back it up, Reuko continues to revert back to the previous edit and warn me that he will block me if I don't stop defending my right to free speech. Steinize that! 23:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Reply: While possibly not in my self-interest, I have corrected my username so that the correct editor gets reported. However, I believe this to be a rather frivolous report, so what's the harm. Perhaps User:Steinizethat is unaware that by reporting on this noticeboard, he is also potentially sanctionable for his 3RR violation. I am not denying I reverted more than 3 times, however, I do not believe I am in violation of 3RR, since I was reverting repetitive vandalism. By my understanding, negative information or any unreferenced information can/should be immediately removed and repetitively re-entering this information is vandalism (precedents: WP:BLP, {{uw-unsourced3}}. User:Steinizethat repetitively posted up his own negative opinion on a new program at his high school, citing conversations with friends and websites that did not share any of his opinions. The repeated posting of this information which violates WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP is by WP policies and precendents vandalism, and it is this that I reverted. And by reverting vandalism, I have not violated 3RR. Thanks. Leuko 23:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No action taken. No diffs were provided of the alleged violation, and the report has become stale. Leuko is correct that in general unreferenced negative information should be removed, although a school program is not a person for WP:LIVING (but the teacher running it is). Hopefully this can be resolved without more edit-warring. Newyorkbrad 13:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:TJ Spyke reported by User:RobJ1981 (Result:48h)

Three-revert rule violation on WrestleMania 23 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). TJ Spyke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Comments
48h. Continued revert-warring with unhelpful edit summaries like rv vandalism. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:74.195.3.199 reported by User:DanielEng (Result:Already blocked)

Three-revert rule violation on Kids Incorporated (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 74.195.3.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
  • 1st revert: [14] 14:30, february 15
  • 2nd revert: [15] 16:39, February 15
  • 3rd revert: [16] 21:12, February 15
  • 4th revert: [17] 23:54 February 15


Comments
User has a long history of destructive edits, incivility and personal attacks toward other users. Has been blocked before and has been warned by many editors. Refuses to justify edits; instead just keeps returning the page to his versions. Also edits under other IPs, which have been similarly blocked. [18], [19] DanielEng 03:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Animefan50 reported by User:Wassupwestcoast (Result:12h)

Three-revert rule violation on Bridge to Terabithia (2007 film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Animefan50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments
For some reason user Animefan50 is engaging in a delete / revert war without discussion or edit summary comment. Just silently deleting. Wassupwestcoast 04:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
12h. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Three-revert rule violation on Battle of Al Qaim (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Looper5920 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
  • 1st revert: [20]12:00, 15 February 2007
  • 2nd revert: [21]20:09, 15 February 2007
  • 3rd revert: [22]05:17, 16 February 2007
  • 4th revert: [23]05:34, 16 February 2007
  • 5th revert: [24]05:44, 16 February 2007
  • 6th revert: [25]05:53, 16 February 2007
  • 7th revert: [26]06:07, 16 February 2007
  • 8th revert: [27]06:30, 16 February 2007

[edit] User:Aminz reported by User:Arrow740 (Result:No block)

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

He also forked an old version of the material to Mukatabat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) 6:16 Feb 16 which was effectively a revert of User:Proabivouac's edits in the mukatabat section: [28] that is, it is a revert back to this version: 06:06 Feb 16.

Comments

4 times he reverted back that mukatabat is a “right.” He is an experienced user who has been blocked before. Arrow740 07:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The first three are reverts (retrieving huge chunks of text) but the last one is not a revert. In fact, from a technical perspective, I have partially self-reverted. Because I moved the material (which were removed without any reason) to a main article. From the perspective of User:Proabivouac, I wasn't reverting him because of this diff [29]. His reasoning was convincing so I moved that part to the main article. That would be technically be a partial self-revert of myself and a confirmation of User:Proabivouac's view. --Aminz 07:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I suggest an admin take a look at Arrow and KittyHawker's wholesale removal of sourced material.[30] --Aminz 07:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed it is a revert. 3 other editors objected to calling mukatabat a "right" and you reverted 3 of us a total of 4 times at that paragraph. Arrow740 07:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
What exactly are you talking about? Here I have moved Ghamidi's detailed discussion to the main article [31] per another editors suggestion(rather than wholesale removal of it per KittyHawker's argument that it is funny etc etc). Technically, it can be considered a self-revert.--Aminz 07:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
You forked it with your old version. Arrow740 08:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The phrase "right given to slaves" was restored four times. Beit Or 07:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
That's hardly the point of the edit. Arrow's edit [32] after filing this report is the point. --Aminz 07:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
You wanted to insert "right" so badly you forked it into another article, you basically made 5 reverts. Arrow740 08:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
OK guys, cool it. It's not clear anyway. I am not going to block, just politely requesting Aminz to keep away from the article for a period of 12 hours. You can use the talk page. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dc-ijc reported by User:MPerel (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Ger toshav (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Dc-ijc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments
editor has been trying to add same text, and reverting, since December 10 w/o providing requested source and relevancy. Continued reverting after 2 warnings. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 07:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
24h. yandman 12:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:MichaelSavage reported by User:NotJackhorkheimer (Result: 8 hours)

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


Comments
User keeps reinserting unsubstantiated, unsourced claim, saying that "he's the source", despite being told what policy is. --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 17:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

8h William M. Connolley 17:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Wjhonson reported by User:jpgordon (Result:48h)

Three-revert rule violation on Institute for Historical Review (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Wjhonson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments
This is an experienced editor who knows what he is doing; note that the fourth revision is carefully exactly after the 24 hours. A gentle warning from an uninvolved admin might be helpful. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
48h. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:BabyDweezil reported by User:Antaeus Feldspar (Result:No block, page protected)

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


Comments

BabyDweezil claims to believe that the material he is insistent upon removing violates WP:BLP and thus exempts him from obeying 3RR. I believe that examination of his reverts shows this claim to be fully specious. He has no justification, for example, for removing the sentence segment "when shown a photo of Rathbun provided by the Church, she said it was a different man from the one she was married to". To give you an idea whether this is well-sourced information, here is what was printed in the Salt Lake City Tribune (the citation follows immediately after this sentence, so BabyDweezil cannot claim he did not know the citation applied):

When Schwarz is shown a recent photo of Rathbun from the church, she maintains it is not the same man she has asked the federal government to help her locate.

This is not only information that is well-sourced (and thus in no way violates WP:BLP) but ironically may be regarded as important to include to avoid violations of WP:BLP. Less than two months ago an editor who shows particular interest in this article put forth the argument that if the article lists Mark Rathbun's spouse of record as Anne Rathbun, and also notes Schwarz's claims that Mark Rathbun is her husband, then it is equivalent (so goes this argument) to calling Mark Rathbun a bigamist.[33] Ironically, that editor, who showed such concern that people might think Mr. Rathbun was a bigamist, seems to now support BabyDweezil who keeps removing the sourced information that debunks these theoretical claims of bigamy.[34][35]

BabyDweezil is rather clearly using WP:BLP as an excuse to dispose of material he wants to be rid of. This seems to be his modus operandi; see for instance his edit here, where he removes a sentence from the middle of a paragraph, along with its citation to the Centers for Disease Control, which I should hope we can take as an RS. Here is the sentence:

This was in contradiction with police reports that had discovered at Aum's main compound in March, of a sophisticated chemical weapons laboratory that was capable of producing thousands of kilograms a year of the poison. CDC website, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Aum Shinrikyo: Once and Future Threat?, Kyle B. Olson, Research Planning, Inc., Arlington, Virginia

And what was BabyDweezil's reported justification for such a deletion? Simply because of the word "contradiction". He purported to find it "original research" to note a contradiction between the police reports and other publicly given opinions that had been mentioned previously[36] -- but rather than suggest some phrasing that would eliminate the word contradiction, he chose to remove the entire sentence and thus cover up the fact of the contradiction. -- Antaeus Feldspar 08:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments: Looks like genuine concerns. Please resolve your disputes on the talk page of the article and request un-protection. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If it looks like genuine concerns then I'm quite sorry that you didn't look hard enough. -- Antaeus Feldspar 08:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Has this been discussed before? If no, please try to form consensus on the talk page of the article, I will immediately unprotect it. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see below. Below 3RR is a separate violation, on a different article. Smee 08:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] User:BabyDweezil reported by Smee (Result:24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on List of groups referred to as cults (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). BabyDweezil (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.

Comments: Discussion above. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

  • NOTE: - Please note that this is a separate instance of 3RR violation on a different article. Please also note comments by editors and Administrators regarding this users conduct, at: [37] - Smee 08:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
Noted. 24 block. Glen 09:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Astrotrain reported by User:Vintagekits (Result:already blocked)

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


Comments
Astrotrain, has been making similar revert to a number of pages told and has put a number of articles up for deletion for non notability via AfD none of which have been successful. Also see here for his block for 3RR breach in 2005 andhere for his block for breaking WP:3RR in September 2006 and since then he has been skirting around the 3RR by waiting 24hr and a number of minutes before he beings reverting again.--Vintagekits 13:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest that you provide some diffs to support the "skirting around" claim. It is not a strict requirement that the fourth revert be no more than exactly 24 hours after the first, or even that there is a fourth revert. Chris cheese whine 13:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Chris, he has done it on a number of articles, most notably -

If you see the edit history of this article here on the 10th, 11th and 12th of January he made another SIX reverts. Including here where he made four reverts withiin 24.5hrs in order to avoid the 24hr rule.


  • Clearly none of these are reverts to the previous version listed (especially the 4th one!!). I don't know what AFD has to do with the 3RR process though. In anycase, I was trying to improve the article. The 4th edit listed above removes the whole issue in any case. Regards Astrotrain 13:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • As someone who was already blocked TWICE already for breaching WP:3RR you seem to have a poor grasp of the policy. Reverts do not have to be exactly the same.--Vintagekits 13:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Also note that this user reported me before for 3RR when he disagreed with my edits. As in this case, there was no breach and it was rejected. Astrotrain 13:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It was rejected because the fourth revert was after 24hr and some minutes. I'll find the link so you can see.--Vintagekits 13:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Here is the link to the time I reported him before. If admin take actrion this time it will be the third time he has been blocked for breach of WP:3RR--Vintagekits 14:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Please note that this editor is currently now on a banned of 48hr for breach of another wiki policy. See his talk page for details. --Vintagekits 13:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

As the editor is already blocked, action on this report seems unnecessary. Return if there are further problems following the editor's return from the block. Newyorkbrad 20:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ybgursey reported by User:Papa Carlo (Result: page prot)

Three-revert rule violation on List of sovereign states (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Ybgursey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

21:16, 16 February 2007]

Comments
Ybgursey has repeatedely reverted the compromised version without any discussion, despite multuple requests to stop disruptive reverts.

04:05, 18 February 2007 Coredesat (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected List of sovereign states: reprotecting w/o expiry - edit warring resumed as soon as protection was lifted [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) Khoikhoi 04:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Nirelan reported by User:Betsythedevine (Result: 1 month)

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

See the report above on User:Nirelan2, one of several sock-puppets that Nirelan was using to dodge the 3RR and vandalism warnings on his own userpage and that of 2 IPs he was also using. Nirelan has just returned from being blocked and has gone right back to making the same changes to the Dave Winer article that were reverted before. Please block Nirelan again.

Blocked 1 month for edit-warring by Ryulong. yandman 16:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Tbeatty reported by FAAFA 00:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC) (Result:No action)

Three-revert rule violation on Image_talk:Ejacxto.jpg


4th revert 21:31, 17 February 2007
3rd revert15:54, 17 February 2007
2nd revert 07:48, 17 February 2007
1st revert 05:01, 17 February 2007

Comments
Tbeatty has been warned not to refactor my comments, and does this (IMHO) intentionally to harass me. He has even edited/vandalized my user page twice, once actually creating a SPA sockpuppet account to do so. (see>) User:Fairness_and_Accuracy_for_Aquaman Please ask him to quite harassing me too. Thanks - FAAFA 00:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
These parties are involved in an ongoing arbitration case. I find Tbeatty's reverts involving the unnecessary insertion of his username in discussion of this particular image to be understandable and acceptable. The remaining comments here are irrelevant to 3RR and should be addressed in the context of the arbitration case. Newyorkbrad 00:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Brooklyn5 and User:FarmSanctuary reported by User:SchmuckyTheCat (Result:24h, indef)

Three-revert rule violation on Farm Sanctuary (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Brooklyn5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)FarmSanctuary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
  • 1st revert: [38] user:FarmSanctuary
  • 2nd revert: [39] user:FarmSanctuary
  • 3rd revert: [40] user:Brooklyn5
  • 4th revert: [41] user:Brooklyn5
  • [42] user:FarmSanctuary
  • [43] user:IP Address, same as FarmSanctuary
  • [44] user:Brooklyn5
  • [45] user:Brooklyn5, reverting and vandalizing by putting the protected tag up.


Comments

FarmSanctuary and Brooklyn5 are aware of 3rr. They are both employees/volunteers of Farm Sanctuary and should be considered sock/meat puppets of each other. FarmSanctuary used an IP to do one of the reverts, and Brooklyn5 reverted while faking a protected template. These people need to know what WP:COI means. They do not own the article about their organization and can't remove information (sourced to the US Dept of Justice no less) that they don't like. SchmuckyTheCat 01:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"just because someone has not violated the 3RR does not mean that they will not be blocked". 24h for Brooklyn5, as these guys are clearly gaming the system for their own benefit. FarmSanctuary is a username violation, so indef. yandman 16:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] User:ta bu shi da yu and User:Worldtraveller reported by Ta bu shi da yu (Result:No action)

Three-revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Ta bu shi da yu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments

Please note that this is a little more complex than at first revision. What has happened here was that the essay was modified quite extensively, then it was reverted by WorldTraveller, who seems to be taking ownership of the essay. It was then modified quite extensively, but then moved to a user page of Worldtravellers, then reverted to a version before the extensive revisions. Then an admin thought better of the move, and moved it back. I then reverted to the previous version. It is now in an edit war. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please fix your links, Ta bu. Not working. Bishonen | talk 11:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC).
Let me get this straight.. you are accusing yourself of violating 3RR? Wouldn't it have been easier not to have violated 3RR?--CSTAR 18:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"That essay" again. Discussion is taking place on the talkpage. No action at this time. Newyorkbrad 20:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Bi reported by User:Bridge & Tunnel (Result:No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on List of University of Iowa people (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Bi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

]


Comments
He keeps trying to remove a person because he says he's not notable. But sources say his book is "seminal." He's written a ton of books and he has his own Wikipedia article. He's made 4 reverts on this article as well: See the history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_R._Wallace&action=history
  • First revert listed was over 24 hours before the second. No 3RR violation. Heimstern Läufer 22:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:JackSparrow_Ninja reported by User:TSA (Result:No violation)

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


Comments
User adspamming a link that is 1) unreliable and 2) provides no source of their information. The citation being placed in the article can't be verified and the site's nature is unreliable so they should not be placing this link. The user has already been warned by Wiki staff for placing links from the site they keep using. User also is violating the 3RR rule on another article, see below. Request user be banned for neglecting previous 3RR blocks and Wiki staff warnings - this user will just come back after the ban and continue to perform his edits.
Comment: Edits reported as 1st and 2nd are just one edit. There are just three edits. No 3RR here.
  • Only three reverts within 24 hours. No violation. Heimstern Läufer 22:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:JackSparrow_Ninja reported by User:TSA (Result:No violation)

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


Comments
User adspamming a link that is 1) unreliable and 2) was plagiarized information from another site. The citation being placed in the article was stolen from IGN's article on their E3 2006 hands-on impressions and the site's nature is unreliable so they should not be placing this link. The user has already been warned by Wiki staff for placing links from the site they keep using. User also is violating the 3RR rule on another article, see below. Request user be banned for neglecting previous 3RR blocks and Wiki staff warnings - this user will just come back after the ban and continue to perform his edits.
Comment: First edit outside 24 hour periode (48 hours). There are just three edits. No 3RR here.

[edit] User:Lilyfan87 reported by User:C2r (Result:1 week)

Three-revert rule violation on Rose Pipette (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Lilyfan87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments

Hope I got this right - this user has been reverting and adding NPOV and unverified data (as well as childish rubbish to user pages (e.g User_talk:Regan123)). On her own talk page there are links detailing reasons why her edits have been reverted (on practically every page she has contibuted to), but she is ignoring these and continuing to revert.

She's already been blocked 48h twice for vandalism and personal attacks. Using summaries such as "reverted vandalism" whilst edit warring and ignoring talk page warnings is unacceptable. 1 week. yandman 14:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:71.99.92.66 reported by User:Zanatic (Result:User already blocked 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Czech Republic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 71.99.92.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments
He also keeps on adding a nonsensical line to the article Waldemar Matuška, makes personal attacks in Czech (it means something like "Don't you want to learn English more, before you vomit here" and keeps on replacing "African American" with "Black" without any reason. Zanatic 12:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Already blocked 24h by Cryptic for 3RR on Waldemar. If he continues after the block, drop a message on my talk page and he'll get more. yandman 15:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:82.22.187.20 reported by User:Beetstra (Result:2 weeks)

Three-revert rule violation on Television licence (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 82.22.187.20 (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.


Comments
82.22.187.20 is also active on Television licensing in the United Kingdom. Same link addition.
24h. Ooooh, looking at his block log, 2 weeks. yandman 18:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Deeceevoice reported by User:SecurID (Result: 24h)

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

24h. If there is an opposing 3RR by Iseebias it isn't obvious William M. Connolley 21:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:81.155.34.127 reported by User:Mais oui! (Result:No action at this time)

Three-revert rule violation on John D. Mackay (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 81.155.34.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments: You have violated WP:3RR as well. Have you filed for checkuser to confirm that it is a sock of the user you are alleging it to be? Should we block you as well? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I have not: please supply the diffs.
This User was banned last night, yet again for making personal attacks on me. They have used over 80 IP sockpuppet accounts to date. We did do a CheckUser several months ago, which confirmed that it was him, and the pattern of behaviour has continued, indeed degenerated, since then. Please review the actions of those IP addresses. CheckUser specifically says that we must use our common sense in establishing who is using multiple IP addresses. --Mais oui! 11:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
[56], [57], [58], [59]. The first edit explictly says that it was a revert. Three revert-ruled breached. You should not revert-war even when you are reverting sockpuppets. I cannot take any action against the other user even if he is a sockpuppet, unless you provide evidence and are ready to get blocked yourself. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
No, that is not a 3RR: please note that the first diff is at 08:12 on the 16th February, not the 17th. They are not within a 24 hour period.
I have provided the evidence that the IP adress did a revert to "in pawn to" 4 times in a 24 hour period: a crystal clear breach of WP:3RR. --Mais oui! 11:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
A difference of two hours? This can be equated with gaming the system. WP:3RR does not give you the right to keep reverting without trying to initiate discussion. Get other involved users to comment here. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
If anyone is "gaming the system" it is User:Mallimak.
But OK, I will make a request that Admin User:Wangi (who, you will note, has also repeatedly reverted Mallimak's sockpuppet IPs) comments at this 3RR, and the Admin who blocked him last night. Anyone else you would like to get a comment from? Many, many Admins have had to deal with Mallimak's multitude of IP addresses. I am not going to waste my Saturday any further by spamming them all. --Mais oui! 11:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and on your point of "trying to initiate a discussion": we have tried on literally hundreds of occasions to reason with Mallimak. But you just look through his contributions and IP contributions: does that look like someone who is open to discussion to you? --Mais oui! 11:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I am responding both because MO posted a link to this discussion on my talk page, and in light of "Get other involved users to comment here" posted by Nick - given I was one of the reverters (on MO's talk page attacks made by the user) and someone who has followed this sitation from the start, it is probably useful I give my view. I have to say this one has gone on too long. A user who was attempting to push some sort of Orkney separatist view and running socks to do it. The user was found out, and has since, over numerous months, attempted to troll, goad and make personal attacks. To counter the "MO was gaming the system" type chatter doesn't sit with the facts - he is attempting to deal with someone who has a new IP address every day - has no interest in discussion and is now only interested in a personal attack and vendetta campaign. Hiding behind dynamically assigned IP addresses the person runs around making a fool out of the rules/policies/guidelines which all the rest of us follow. Frankly I don't know why this is allowed - I would say it is getting into the "contact his ISP" territory. The person isn't interested in discussion - if they were they would stick to their original account rather than hiding behind dynamic IP's. I can't say MO has handled the situation perfectly either, some of his actions have probably exacerbated rather than calmed the situation - that being said it doesn't excuse the blatant breaches of rules which Mallimak has consistently shown on countless occasions. Something has to be done. SFC9394 12:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This was going to go on Mais oui!'s talk page, but it's going here instead. MO suggested on his talk page an indefinite ban of Mallimak. Here's the problem with such a proposal as I see it:
  1. Bans are not imposed likely. More evidence than supposedly coincidental editing patterns (a CheckUser, for a start) is needed, especially since there is the potential for a lot of collateral damage. It is somewhat unfair to block out most of wherever they might be editing from just to tackle one user.
  2. Practicality. The ban would provide for no further punishment than can already be meted out for vandalism.
  3. The principle of clean hands. MO's own behaviour is not exactly stellar, such as seemingly reverting any edit they disagree with on sight, or labelling other users as "abusive" without actually presenting any evidence (don't need to look far through the history to see accusations levelled at another user - get a RFCU done before throwing that around). There's even evidence of revert warring where the edit summaries are to the effect of "stop revert warring". It's a bit like telling someone to stop shooting at you while you unload an Uzi into their shin.
  4. (*puts on devil's advocate hat*) At some point, someone is going to ask why it always seems to be MO on the receiving end of the "personal attacks" (given most of our long-term vandals don't discriminate), and if perhaps it's actually MO that has a problem. (*removes hat*)
Given this has gone on for 4 months, it's probably safe to say MO is fairly deeply embroiled in it, so much so that some might consider reverting such edits to be a potential conflict of interest. If the edits really are that bad, I would suggest MO flag it up and let someone else deal with it. Vandalism cannot be condoned, but there are some serious WP:OWN issues here. Chris cheese whine 13:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I admit that I am a sock puppet, but a sock puppet out of necessity, because Mais oui! got me blocked by repeatedly accusing me of being a sock puppet of Mallimak, and the admins believed him. I am in fact Orkadian. I just cannot stand by and watch Mais oui! be given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to continue with his behaviour. Here is a pertinent quote from my user page

I would agree that Mais_oui does indulge in edit warring, and attacking the contributions of other users. After I had nominated a Scottish template for deletion in favour of the British one- he responded by reverting all my recent edits with the comments- "rv English Nationalist" (see for example- [60]). Also any attempts to engage with the user and avoid edit wars is usually met with personal abuse- eg [61]. Astrotrain 13:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is littered with such comments about Mais oui! from independent users who are not sock puppets of some grand anti-Mais oui! sock puppet master. 81.158.167.80 15:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It would be nice if I, Orkadian,could be unblocked and allowed to edit under my own name, but then again, on past experience, Mais oui! would simply track me and revert my every edit. Here is another relevant quotation:

I don't wish to be drawn into the specific complaint raised by Mallimak. However, Mais oui! has also falsely accused me of sockpuppetry and now routinely reverts my edits simply because they are my edits, without any discussion or attempt to reach consensus. He is the only user against whom I have encountered these problems....Normalmouth 06:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I do wish the "Mais oui! problem" would be resolved. 81.158.167.80 15:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be a shame to have a prolific and well informed editor such as Mais oui! driven away or "disciplined" when simply trying to protect himself and the Wikipedia project as a whole from the constant vandalism and sustained attacks of one particular person, the attacks against him appear to have reached the ridiculous stage, the attacker appears to behave as if they are suffering from some form of OCD. Fraslet 17:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Fraslet, I believe you are confusing victim and perpetrator here. Mais oui! is far from being a well-informed editor, he is an ardent POV pusher who does not hesitate to attack any contributors who gainsay him. For example, Mallimak (whom Mais oui! has constantly accused me of being a sock puppet of, until the admins blocked me) initiated many well-informed Orkney-related articles, and was all set to add many more to Wikipedia (all to the encyclopaedia's benefit) until he fell foul of Mais oui!'s attacks, abuse and destructive editing. I am acquainted with "Mallimak" in true life, and I met him a few weeks ago in the Orkney Archive researching for one of his local newspaper articles. He told me that he has totally given up on Wikipedia, and since his experiences here advises everyone to be wary of the accuracy of its articles. This is all down to Mais oui!, I am afraid. 81.156.60.8 22:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC) (actually Orkadian)
I am not keen on being quoted in this matter- I have never called for him to be banned or blocked. In anycase, these matters are not relevant to 3RR and should be continued elsewhere. Astrotrain 17:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no time at all for "users" which show contempt for our policies, guidelines and procedures and continually come back from a multitude of IPs to continue making the same edits. If they want to be taken seriously then they should seek to discuss, not constantly repeat edits and aggravate. Thanks/wangi 10:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Wangi, You say "If they want to be taken seriously then they should seek to discuss, not constantly repeat edits and aggravate." Please tell this to Mais oui!. I have been forced to contribute via IPs as Mais oui! constantly accused me of being a sock puppet and the administrators (you, maybe) blocked me. 81.156.63.168 12:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC) (actually Orkadian)

Please note that the above series of redlinked IP addresses admits to being a sockpuppet of Orkadian. Please note that Orkadian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is blocked for being an abusive sockpuppet of Mallimak (talk · contribs): CheckUser - Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mallimak. See also Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mallimak. --Mais oui! 08:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This report has become both too stale and too complicated for action on 3RR. File a new report if there are any further violations or bring to ANI or dispute resolution if other problems continue. Newyorkbrad 19:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:NYScholar reported by User:Armon (Result:Withdrawn)

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

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [62]
Comments
NYScholar has made some minor changes to the version he reverts to which appears to be gaming. How minor they are becomes hard to tell because he marks all of his edits, including his reverts, this way. He been asked to stop that here and on the article talk page here.
The user is taking advantage of the current backlog in 3RR report enforcement, and reverting yet again, while continuing to deceptively label his edits as "minor". Isarig 22:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Withdraw Report I think it's too late to action this now, plus I inserted a terrible factual error here. This was not pointed out at the time, but I withdraw the request. <<-armon->> 02:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Report noted as withdrawn. Thank you. Newyorkbrad 19:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Nssdfdsfds reported by User:Catchpole (Result:No action in light of RfC)

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

First time I've done this so bear with me.

The first revert is not the same as 2,3 and 4.
"1st revert": I removed content that referred to an attack blog created against Anne Milton, asking Catchpole to "direct me to this consensus with a URL link? thanks". He left a message for me with the link at 21:46 [65], and added back the content. Having read this, I made no further edits to the page, while continuing to edit other articles that evening.
The next day user Fys added to Catchpole's edit a link to that attack blog: [66]
In reverts 2, 3, and 4 left the content in that was removed in revert 1, but removed the URL that had been added by Fys.
So there are two completely separate issues here. Issue 1, in revert 1 was mentioning the blog. Issue 2 in revert 2, 3 and 4 was including the URL of the blog. There's nothing whatsoever in common between 'revert 1' and reverts 2-4. This can easily be verified - the edit before revert 1 had no URL in it, and the edits before reverts 2-4 did. Revert 2-4 did not remove anything that was removed in revert 1, so they are not the same at all. Note that Catchpole was happy on 15/2/07 with mentioning the attack blog, but not linking to it, but following Fys' addition of the URL has decided more recently that the URL *should* go in there. These are separate issues, and responding with false allegations of breaking 3RR isn't helpful.
Catchpole left me a warning on my talk page claiming I'd broken the 3RR. I responded pointing out that this was wrong, as although I'd made four sets of edits within 23 hours and 48 minutes, the first was different from the other three, so there was no breach. After getting my response explaining this, he has for some reason still decided to waste my time by adding this report here that I've now had to respond to. Nssdfdsfds 18:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This report from several days ago has become stale. There is a pending RfC which hopefully resolve the underlying dispute without further edit-warring. Return if problems continue and reference this report. Newyorkbrad 19:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Deeceevoice reported by User:strothra (Result:Already blocked 24h)

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

Comments

[edit] User:Skyring reported by User:BenAveling (Result:24h)

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

  • Previous version reverted to: [67] For eg. I can't say that there is a single version being reverted to. We've been trying to add some information for days, in different ways, and they all get reverted. This has been going on for days. Just FYI, [68] is the source that Skyring thinks is unacceptable. And yes, he has been warned about 3RR on the talk page of the article in question. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • 1st revert: [69] Revision as of 17:43, 18 February 2007 (edit) (undo) Skyring (Talk | contribs) (→Current Events - Remove poorly sourced and untrue rubbish again. As for the other, see Talk)
  • 2nd revert: [70] Revision as of 12:50, 18 February 2007 (edit) (undo) Skyring (Talk | contribs) m (Remove poorly-sourced, untrue material under WP:BLP. If you want to reinsert challenged material, gain a consensus first, please.)
  • 3rd revert: [71] Revision as of 12:05, 18 February 2007 (edit) (undo) Skyring (Talk | contribs) (→Attempted return to politics - She didn't attribute it to rape and pillage. This is quite untrue.)
  • 4th revert: [72] Revision as of 10:00, 18 February 2007 (edit) (undo) Skyring (Talk | contribs) (This doesn't address the problems identified with the source, and the "attributed to" construction
  • 5th revert: [73] Revision as of 09:24, 18 February 2007 (edit) (undo) Skyring (Talk | contribs) (→Quotations - remove rubbish. It's not notable, it's poorly sourced, and the quote is misleading.)
  • 6th revert: [74] Revision as of 15:17, 17 February 2007 (edit) (undo) Skyring (Talk | contribs) (→Quotations - Rewording of DNA stunt quote doesn't overcome the problems. See talk.)

[edit] User:Somethingoranother reported by User:Gsd2000 (Result:48 hrs)

Three-revert rule violation on United Kingdom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs):

Warning about reverting re England (user is simultaneously reverting UK and England): [79]

This user has already been blocked several times for 3RR violations.

Gsd2000 00:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This user is now using a sockpuppet to make the same edit [80] Gsd2000 04:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Has been indefinitely blocked now. Proto ► 23:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Three-revert rule violation on Race and intelligence (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Kevin Murray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments

First 5 reverts are not identical, but all involve restoring the long table at the end of the article seen in the first revert. Four of the reverts are simple reverts: [81][82][83][84]Ultramarine 05:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly edit warring against the consensus: 24h. yandman 11:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:MoeLarryAndJesus reported by User:Athaenara (Result:24 hour block)

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

Comments
This article and its talk page are the only pages the user has edited since registering the ID 18:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC). The user has generated incalculable disruption, incivility, POV-warring in less than 48 hours. Wikipedia:Third opinion was to no avail. Problem posted on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#19 February 2007; user misrepresented situation there 04:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC) (though that noticeboard guideline specifically asks that discussion remain where it began).   Athaenara 05:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The warning was given an hour after the last reversion. As this is a new editor, maybe he was unaware of 3RR. Have we got anything showing he was made aware of it before the last reversion? yandman 11:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
8th, 9th and 10th reverts followed 3RR warning. Athaenara 20:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, My name is Seth Swirsky. Someone made an article of me which is quite extensive now (and of course, very flattering). Although I write songs and am an author, I also write political articles that "MoeLarryJesus" isn't a fan of (his vitriolic personal emails to me attest to this). Someone alerted me to his description of me as a "self-described conservative", which I am not. Nowhere on the internet do I describe myself this way. Actually, I am a self-described "Democrat in the Henry "Scoop" jackson tradition". There are two cites that I offer for this in the now long "talk section" regarding this dispute. I changed back, probably clumsily, as I don't really "know" wikipedia, the original description of myself, which is the correct one. He has reverted to what he claims I said I am, at least 7 times. Another editor has reprimanded him for this -- and Yandman suggested MoeLarryJesus needed to be made more aware that his constant reversions were not right. But, of course, today he has already reverted it back. I even offered a compromise to all of this just to stop wasting everyone's time, but he will have no part of it which leads me to suspect that he is obsessed with me personally --I'm the only page he reverts in the last 3 or 4 days. Scary (coupled with the emails). Can someone please read the talk pages and please (hopefully) ban him --it's really getting a bit distressing. Thank you for reading this. -- Seth Swirsky 18:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It is completely false that I have sent "SethSwirsky" any e-mails, and I consider that accusation to be libelous.
Yes, I am a new user, and I am reverting the edits both because an editor ruled[*] in my favor - see the history - and because MY EDIT is being reverted continually. Why does this "no revert" rule apply to me but not to this "Swirsky"? Is it simply because his ally Athaenara is more familiar with the system and complained first? His/her bias and unfairness is obvious, beginning with the fact that he/she is allowing "Swirsky" to post this unsupported allegation of "harrassing e-mails" on his/her talk page while deleting my responses denying same. MoeLarryAndJesus 22:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
→ There have been no rulings.[*] This was explained. The user's replies: first; second. — Æ. ✉ 03:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Athaenara writes: [Problem posted on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#19 February 2007; user misrepresented situation there 04:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC) (though that noticeboard guideline specifically asks that discussion remain where it began). Athaenara 05:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)] And yet Athaenara has no qualms whatsoever about carrying on a conversation with "SethSwirsky" on Athaenara's own talk page about the same discussion, while deleting my own attempts to respond there. The hypocrisy is positively mind-boggling! MoeLarryAndJesus 22:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like reversions from this user have continued onto the 20th. Sancho McCann 16:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, reversions have continued. User SethSwirsky has been busy doing reversions, also, and so have Sanchom and Athaenara. Again, why do only my edits seem to be an issue here? I have provided voluminous evidence and arguments for the accuracy of my edits. Isn't accuracy the end result Wikipedia desires? MoeLarryAndJesus 17:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to warn rather than block first-time 3RR violators but this is a truly extreme number of reverts and continued after multiple warnings. Blocked for 24 hours. Please resolve disputes on the talkpage without edit-warring. Newyorkbrad 20:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Tedblack reported by User:Nareklm (Result:No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on Great Fire of Smyrna (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Tedblack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • 1st revert: [85]
  • 2nd revert: [86]
  • 3rd revert: [87]
  • 4th revert: [88] Nareklm 11:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm seeing reverts by other users, not the reported one. Heimstern Läufer 04:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Nomenclator reported by User:Skinwalker (Result:31 hrs)

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

Comments
User is making controversial edits that are opposed by all other editors on talk page. He was blocked last week for 3RR as well. Thanks! Skinwalker 14:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Wrestlinglover420 reported by User:SaliereTheFish (Result:2x24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Ultimate Spider-Man (story arcs) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). SaliereTheFish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments
User repeatedly deletes verified information, not because he thinks this information is unverified but as a vendetta against me for removing information he put in the article that was unverified. I have challenged him frequently for his irresponsible vandalism, and he merely hurls abuse at me. The member has been banned from editing this article before, and has a history of abuse towards others. He claims that he joined Wiki 'beacuse i refuse to back down'. I would suggest banning him from Wiki outright. SaliereTheFish 16:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is clearly a content dispute, so 24h each. yandman 18:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kurt Leyman reported by User:Potaaatos (Result:No action)

Three-revert rule violation on Battle of Stalingrad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Kurt Leyman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [89]
  • 1st revert: [90] 15:51, 18 February 2007]
  • 2nd revert: [91] 23:16, 18 February 2007
  • 3rd revert: [92] 11:12, 19 February 2007
  • 4th revert: [93] 16:41, 19 February 2007


Comments

The user has been blocked several times before for violating the 3rr rule. All of the users edits in the past several weeks have been reverted by many people in many articles. And the user is locked in an edit war in those as well. The user shows no understanding for wikipedia rules or policies. The user inserts material without a reliable reference, in this specific case "a movie that he saw". The user has made several personal attacks including calling me "ignorant". The user fully knows about the 3rr rule because he has been blocked several times for breaking it yet he continues to do so again and again Potaaatos 17:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm too involved to rule on this one but I will point out that there is more than 24 hours before the first and last revert. And really, both users are at fault here. There's about 2 days between Potaaatos' 1st and 4th revert but he's also been edit warring on that article. [94], [95], [96], [97]. Honestly, I think both should be blocked. Kurt is labeling legit edits as vandalism and Potaaatos keeps citing policy and not always correctly. it's a typical edit war. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 23:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
If I may point out that I have never violated the 3rr rule and thus should not be blocked at all, and I have never been warned for anything ever. The main difference here is that he has several times violated the 3rr rule where as I have not. The policy which I have linked shows that all information that is added without a source may be removed. The User Kurt has been blocked several times, he is right now involved in several edit wars, and has been involved several times on this specific page and gotten reverted every single time in the past, like most of his edits do. Lets not get carried away by other things. Kurt has violated the 3rr rule several times and keeps on doing it over and over again. I myself have not violated it or been warned about it and my edits unlike Kurts were not within 24 hours but several days apart. And it is not a typical edit war at all. He, a user who has been blocked several times and has been reverted on every article he has edited in the last 2 weeks, has added unsourced and unverifiable information which I have removed. And am allowed to do so by wp:verPotaaatos 00:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually blocked him indefinitely as a sock of User:SuperDeng. This edit made it obvious. The "Woohookitty is evil!" and "Woohookitty is chummy with Kurt" stuff is pure Deng. It's like well if I am so chummy with Kurt, why did I just recommend his blocking above? Sigh. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 01:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Kurt Leyman is up to 6 reverts now. He does not appear to have any intention to stop nor to add a ref to the disputed addition. Disruptive. El_C 15:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Seems to have stopped. If user persists, please file a new request, citing a diff of this request, so it can be swiftly acted upon. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:81.227.105.32 reported by User:Montco (Result:1 week)

Three-revert rule violation on Geoff Hurst (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and George Best (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs).

and

Comment User is adding links to sites that sell products related to the players in question. Neither site is affiliated with the players. Have attempted reverting the links, but failed. Finally left a warning and brought this here. I plead guilty to have violated it myself in dealing with this individual. My bad. I throw myself on the mercy of the court.Montco 17:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The user wasn't warned for 3RR. Why?--Wildnox(talk) 18:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I reverted 2 of his edits, as they do appear to be linkspam.--Wildnox(talk) 18:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Fugghedaboutit, he's clearly a linkspammer. 1 week as I'm not sure how static his IP is. If he crops up again, tell me. yandman 18:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:194.144.111.210 reported by User:Wildnox (Result:4 months)

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


Comments
User has been blocked for 3RR four times and two times for vandalism. He has never entered a user or article talk page save for his own talk page to remove warnings and block notices. I don't think he has any intention to anything other than edit war on wikipedia. --Wildnox(talk) 17:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Waste of everyone's time. 4 months. yandman 18:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:88.110.12.67 reported by User:Gsd2000 (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on United Kingdom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 88.110.12.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

User:Somethingoranother was already blocked for 48 hours for 3RR violations, and is currently blocked [106]. They then proceeded to use their anon IP to make the same reverts:

Comments

[edit] User:83.19.173.202 reported by User:HongQiGong (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on People's Republic of China (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 83.19.173.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Three-revert rule violation on Republic of China (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 83.19.173.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments
  • I guess this is supposed to be a personal attack, but I've been called a "communist" in one of his edit summaries. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Someone blocked him for 24h. yandman 13:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:FunkyFly reported by User:MatriX (Result: No block. Parties are warned)

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

  • Diff of 3RR warning: He/she has been warned of 3RR violations many times before:[107], [108],[109] etc.
Comments

User FunkyFly has made 5 reverts on this page in the period between 16 and 19 February. Although he/she was careful not to make fourth revert, it is an obvious case of edit warring. He/she is not a new user and is aware that the 3RR is not an entitlement to three 'free' reverts per day. Edit warring is his/her style and that can be seen in the following articles history: [110], [111], [112] etc. MatriX 19:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No actual 3RR. Absolutely analogous edit pattern of MatriX.   /FunkyFly.talk_  19:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Clearly a pottle-ket issue here. But boy, are they both black. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I am caucasian.   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Per Fut.Perf.'s observation, the choices here are to block neither or both. I'll invoke the rule of lenity and block neither, but both parties are warned and reminded to avoid edit-warring. Newyorkbrad 02:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ideogram reported by User:Badagnani (Result:Warning, temporary article editing ban)

  • Ideogram (talk · contribs) - 4RR at Dizi (removing valid Wikilinks despite requests to stop) (diffs: 1 2 34); repeatedly insulting other editor with "idiot" (1, 2, etc. Badagnani 20:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
First diff is not a revert. Sorry for calling you an idiot. --Ideogram 21:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment: It's the same edit (i.e. removal of valid wikilink) four times. Badagnani 21:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
No, that's not the way things work here. And it wasn't a valid wikilink, it was a double-redirect. --Ideogram 21:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
You made the same edit four times within one hour. That is 4RR. It was not a double redirect but a simple wikilink to List of traditional Chinese musical instruments. In fact, it's not a redirect of any sort. Badagnani 21:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixing a double redirect multiple times would be housekeeping and would not violate 3RR in my opinion, but I don't see how this was actually a double redirect, so there is a violation. Still, it's not quite the same thing as edit-warring over content, and I would let it go with a warning but for the incivility. In lieu of a full block, Ideogram is requested to refrain from editing List of traditional Chinese musical instruments for 24 hours. Newyorkbrad 02:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience Newyorkbrad. As you know, I am short-tempered, but I have apologized to Badagnani. I doubt that I will edit List of traditional Chinese musical instruments again, and Badagnani and I will be able to mostly stay out of each others' way. --Ideogram 03:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Martinphi reported by User:Milo H Minderbinder (Result:No action)

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


Comments
Reversions to different versions, but reversions nonetheless. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The changes are sufficiently different that I am not convinced there is a 3RR violation. There is useful discussion going on on the talkpage. No action at this time, but please avoid edit warring. Return if problems continue. Newyorkbrad 02:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Piotrus reported by User:M.K (Result:No action)

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

Comments
Contributor user:Piotrus was active in reverting campaign for several days, removing various information, despite was asked not to [113],[114] Contributor already have block for 3RR violation [115] ; and he is admin so he perfectly know the rules. And the first block did not changed situation as we see. M.K. 00:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No 3 edits above share a common content change - they are concerned with several different content disputes. They are also spaced over 24h and not all are reverts - particulary nr 1 and 4 are primarily rewriting of content in an ongoing article expansion rather than any reverts (please note that I created the article recently), and nr 5 is a simply a minor copyedit - reverting vandalism or more likely a mistake per WP:LEAD manual of style - restoring referenced information that was mentioned in the lead and body and was removed from the main body without any explanation (lead is supposed to be a summary of information from the text, after all). I believe this is a bad faith report, particulary as it is bringing back a year-old block that was highly controversial (in the aftermath editors agreed it was made by a disruptive single-purpose sock), to further muddy the waters. PS. Nonetheless in order to cool down the tempers and reduce the threat of revert warring in this article, I have reverted my last edit to the article - although I do believe enforcing manual of style is outside the scope of 3RR in any case.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a clear violation anyway, but in view of the self-revert and the user's promise (see here) to stay off this article for 24 hours, no further action needed. Newyorkbrad 02:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad, I do not want to challenge your authority but nutshell clearly states:Editors who revert a page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours also An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted.. Presented evidence clearly match these definitions. Contributor user:Piotrus above stated that edit no 1 is primarily rewriting of content lets see that particular editor did in this so called primarily rewriting of content he removed highly contested material - facts that killing squad consisted from various people (please see articles talk and you will notice this contributor's desire to avoid this infoamtion), in this edit" he removed and this fact - by Germans called Sondekommando as well as category links which were placed in the same day; and please explain why this particular contributor during so called primarily rewriting of content in the edit summary placed these words - rv POV pushing, rm see also (since the Holocaust template is here) as far as I know rv means revert not primarily rewriting of content. Lets analyze revert 4, which particular contributor claims also as primarily rewriting of content, before his revert this information was added: <tl|ref name=McQueen> MacQueen, Michael (2004). Lithuanian Collaboration in the “Final Solution”: Motivations and Case Studies (pdf) (English quote=When questioned by Polish authorities about what had motivated him to spend more than two months as a killer assigned to the execution squad at Paneriai, Borkowski said that he had no reason to mourn the Jews since antisemitism had been “beaten into his head” when he served in the Polish border guards before the war and he believed that the Jews were “parasites.”). Lithuania and the Jews The Holocaust Chapter 55. UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM. Retrieved on 2007-02-19. served in it too.<tl|ref name=Bubnys2>Bubnys, Arūnas (2004). Vokiečių ir lietuvių saugumo policija (1941–1944) (Lithuanian). Retrieved on 2007-02-18. “Daugumą būrio narių sudarė lietuviai, tačiau buvo keletas rusų ir lenkų.”</ref> after so called primarily rewriting of content this information was removed a long side with the main information that killers were mix nationalities [116] there were also removed and various other information placed in the same day; and such reverts perfectly fits to the presented definitions of WP:3RR Editors who revert a page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours, except in certain special circumstances, are likely to be blocked from editing. also An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted.. And we came to another revert (no5) which contributor identifies as s a simply a minor copyedit - reverting vandalism or more likely a mistake per WP:LEAD manual of style - restoring referenced information that was mentioned in the lead and body and was removed from the main body without any explanation first of all contributor who removed this information left reasonable explanation Removed more weaseling, of which the statement has already been mentioned earlier in the article. Why the repitition? and definitely can not be classified as vandalism (Piotrus likes to accuse contributors of vandalism [117]), second provided source, which Piotrus claims restoring referenced information that was mentioned does not reference the formulation which was removed by Dr. Dan. And of course this is pure revert, and not exception as he trying to portray. But the most outrages of all his action was then he started to threaten to face block various contributors and accusations of disruptive actions and even now accusing me of bad faith. Newyorkbrad, you claimed that this is first night on 3RR board [118], could you ask more experienced contributors on 3RR to check this case. Because clearly particular contributor trying to avoid responsibility and threats from him makes assume good faith to be placed to minimum. M.K. 10:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. Not a clear violation. - Darwinek 09:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Darwinek, you are not neutral in this case, because you also participated in revert campaign [119] and your close cooperation with user:Piotrus is well know to community to [120]. M.K. 10:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
LOL. Learn Polish btw. YOU are that guy who ain't neutral. Your POV pushing and edit warring with other users is well-known throughout the community. - Darwinek 15:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the 3RR is to avoid edit-warring. By the time I saw this report, Piotrus realized that he could be perceived as having gone over the line, even though he believed he had not quite done so. Therefore, he voluntarily reverted his last change and said he would not edit the disputed article for at least a day. That means the edit war problem on that article ended before I was here and I concluded that a block would not serve to end an edit war on this article, it would just prevent editing on other articles. The policy that you quote also says that if an editor inadvertently makes too many reverts, he or she should acknowledge it and self-revert. I concluded that a block here would just be punitive, which is not why we have 3RR or this board. Piotrus has had the benefit of the doubt this time and he will not have it if he edits similarly again anytime soon. I will add that if you want to ask another administrator how he or she would have handled this report, that is fine. It would not be appropriate to impose a block so many hours later but if appropriate a further warning can be given and I would be glad to have another admin's analysis for my future reference. Newyorkbrad 11:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I admire your assumption of good faith. But let me remain me that particular contributor did not acknowledge his misconducts, even more accused here contributors of vandalism, accused me of bad faith; if you look at your talk he even accused involved parties both with reverts and with Holocaust revisionism-type claims in it. If contributor really wanted to solve the problem, he first of all should acknowledge that he breached 3RR rule, instead of continue to accuse others. He did not do this, this why he should be officially informed that he violated the rule and that other contributors could familiarize with it. The article itself deteriorating even now, just look at its talk page.M.K. 12:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The article deteriorating if that is what is happening is a separate matter. Please post to ANI if you would like another administrator to look at it and see if there has been bad user conduct there. Obviously certain types of comments are inappropriate quite apart from the matter of 3RR. (If you wish to respond further please come to my talkpage as we are filling up this board.) Newyorkbrad 12:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] User:125.203.207.252 reported by User:Etimesoy (Result:No vio)

Three-revert rule violation on Korea under Japanese rule (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 125.203.207.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [121]

earlier ones:

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [134]


Comments
He's pretty good at warning other people about reverting: [135] [136] [137] He is now using the IP User:125.204.39.85 [138] [139], and continuing to revert [140]
User was not warned until after 4th revert. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I am the user Etimesoy is talking about here. I want to document what is going on here as I fully expect it to arise again.
Over the last few days, I have started to work on the Korea under Japanese rule topic added a considerable number of references and removing uncited POV [141]. Users Etimesoy, OpieNn, Melonbarmonster, Oncamera, SuperFixerUpper and others appear to operating as fairly vigorous Pro-Korea propagandists to the point of extreme anti-Japanese racism, e.g. [142], [143], [144]. I would not necessarily go as far to state that they are meatpuppets but they share the same intention. I raise the issue of their pattern of revisions on a number of topics relating to Japanese-Korean issues and other editors. I am neither Japanese nor Korean.
I do not have at this moment the time to fully defend this accusation, nor sustain my suspicion of a meatpuppet team, but I think the pattern of my edits, and their revisions, is enough to establish this is a further attempt to block a broader discussion of the issues at hand. I also flag up a slightly dishonest use of the edit summary function to cover up the Pro-Korean lobby and anti-Japanese revisions and the possible creation of sockpuppet accounts performing the same functions [145].
I appreciate that any Korean-related issues are senstive but that does not mean that they are not covered with depth, detail and maturity. Thank you. 125.204.39.85

[edit] User:WJBscribe reported by User:88.110.12.67 (Result:No violation)

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


Comments
This user has reverted 6 times now on the United Kingdom article and has received a warning
Comment. I have reverted edits that appear to be vandalism, which is of course an exception to the 3RR rule. The IP editor in question is repeatedly deleting a section of referenced content and despite my requests has given no explanation for this. I have suggested the use of edit summaries but they continue not to be used. Similarly, there has been no explanation provided either on the article talkpage, my talkpage, or the IP editor's talkpage. It should also be noted that the IP editor has been labelled by a third party as a suspected sockpuppet of a user blocked for revert warring on the United Kingdom article (Somethingoranother). WjBscribe 02:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Completely spurious accusation. The reverts are also not even parallel; two of them are concerning completely different content than the other three. And here is no content dispute here, since the IP has never posted to Talk:United Kingdom or used any edit summary to explain the content removals. There's no reason to think that this is anything but cleaning up vandalism. — coelacan talk — 03:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Seconded. The accuser is causing major problems on United Kingdom, and they are already listed further up this article [146]. Someone please block then. Gsd2000 03:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
IP was blocked for 8 hours. — coelacan talk — 03:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
User is operating from another IP now: [[147]] - can the range be blocked? Gsd2000 03:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Per the comments above, no violation. Newyorkbrad 03:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Thucydides411 reported by User:Merzbow (Result:24hr)

Three-revert rule violation on Juan_Cole (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Thucydides411 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments
This user continues revert-warring on this article after being warned just a few days ago by an admin after having been reported on this board for gaming 3RR. Reverts 1 and 2 both revert back to this edit he did today; you can see how all three edits remove the same large chunk of sourced material. Reverts 3 and 4 both revert back to this edit also performed today; you can see how all three replace "wikipedia articles" with "this wikipedia article". The 5th revert simply undid a change I just performed. - Merzbow 02:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Blocked for 24 hours: Clearly edit warring despite warning from Nearly Headless Nick. Heimstern Läufer 05:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] User:Rameses reported by William M. Connolley (Result:Warning)

Three-revert rule violation on Martian global warming (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Rameses (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

This report has become too stale for a block, but I find that a violation occurred (unsurprising that the report was accurate given who the reporting party was, though that was not a factor in my decision). Please read and be sure to follow the three revert rule to avoid being blocked in the future. Newyorkbrad 19:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: 8h)

Three-revert rule violation on Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

[edit] Comment by subject of complaint

I made an addition. After some intermediate disagreement, someone else rewrites it. This is the consensus that wiki is all about. Then a series of newbies with IP addresses either being actually different people or the same person using different computers, removes the rewritten material by the other editor without explanation, initially. I put it back. They do it again and again, and I put it back, each time clearly explaining why it belongs that any unbiased person would at least consider. Then ElKevbo says I violated a revert rule. I cannot believe reverting vandalism or whatever you want to call these out-of-policy cuts by newbie?/newbies? of someone else's work could violate any wiki policies. Jimbo Wales himself could not possibly look and say, well, the vandals cut someone's work repeatedly and this other person kept putting it back, so let's stop this other person from righting the wrongs done by the vandals, or whatever they are. With the series of edits by similar but different IP addresses, all with few edits under their/his/her belt(s), I did not know what to do besides restore the other person's material they kept taking down. Yes, I initially added some of the material, but it was completely redone, except an actual quotation, by a third party. This team of people or single person kept taking it down under the circumstances described. Please advise how to handle that kind of situation. Even now the material excised needs to be restored until policy is followed, but this ElKevbo action prevents that. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 19:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

8h William M. Connolley 20:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:WD RIK NEW reported by User:Ultramarine (Result: 8h)

Three-revert rule violation on Race and intelligence (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). WD RIK NEW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments

Revert 1,2, and 4 are simple reverts: [149][150][151] Revert 3 is somewhat more complex but reverts this edit completely: [152]. Experienced editor who has been promoting his version of this article for a long time, edits against consensus.Ultramarine 19:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

8h William M. Connolley 20:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Captain scarlet reported by User:Joeldl (Result:No vio)

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


Comments

Although some of these reverts are complex, they are all done in large part with the intention of giving lesser priority to Canadian usage ("expressway", "while") and greater priority to British ("motorway", "whilst") and/or U.S. ("freeway") usage. The user argues that priority should not be given to Canadian usage.

I think it's too complex to be considered reversions, per se. No violation. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Attasarana reported by User:goethean (Result:24h)

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

Comments
User is consistently, habitually, and long-termedly disruptive on this article. Has exhausted the patience of User:Nat Krause. — goethean ॐ 03:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I see 3 reverts. I do not see what's listed as the 1st revert is reverting to. It's not the "previous version reverted to" link. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. — goethean ॐ 18:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Attasarana continues to edit war on this article. Blocked for 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer 05:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Gen. von Klinkerhoffen reported by User:LizardWizard (Result:indef block)

Three-revert rule violation on Ejaculation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Gen. von Klinkerhoffen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Diff of 3RR warning: 22:20
Comments
He hasn't reverted again since being warned, but that may be because I only just changed the article away from his preferred version.
Blocked indef by Ryulong. yandman 13:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] User:86.35.121.75 reported by User:JuJube (Result:1 month)

Three-revert rule violation on University of California, Riverside (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 86.35.121.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments
Constantly reverts to the (poorly-written) version done by Harvardme (talk · contribs), who is himself a suspected sockpuppet of SummerThunder (talk · contribs). They are most likely all the same person. User also refuses to discuss issues on the talk page and leaves mocking "I know you are, but what am I"-style edit summaries. JuJube 08:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Blocked the IP for one month. Definitely a sockpuppet. And a static IP to boot. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Skinmeister reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result:1 week)

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

All reverts have the comment "rvv", and are reverts to approximately the same addition of unsourced pranks.


Comments
I've reverted 4 times in 24 hours 4 minutes, but the version reverted to is itself a fifth revert at 24 hours 32 minutes, although I can't easily find the previous version. Still, there seems to be concensus among long-term Wikipedians that unsourced pranks should be immediately removed, although I don't want to claim an exemption from 3RR for reverting obvious vandalism. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
This isn't the first time he's been blocked for edit-warring, so 1 week. The insertions were clearly unsourced original research, so I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it... yandman 17:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Chaldean reported by User:KALMANI (Result: 24 hours for both)

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

Comments
User:Chaldean keeps reverting to the same page he has written because he only wants his biased opinion. I've had wanted to contribute to the page in which I did but & including at least 3 sources but User:Chaldean keeps on deleting my contibutions & reverted three times to his biased material that is written by him. He has been vandalizing my talk page & telling me that I have been doing wron where in all reality he has been trying moderate the wiki with his biased beliefs & using intimadation/assault/negativity to anyone who helps. Please help because he has stirred away a lot of users from that subject & making them believe in whats not true. Thank You!--KALMANI 17:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Your links are not even working and I did not break the 3RV rule. I simply added a 3rd source. Your edits are plane vandelism and make no sense. I have tried to explain to you that the page is a Wikipedia:Disambiguation, but you refuse to comprehend this. I have further explain myself in the talk page, when you fasly accuse me of using baised sources. Also please note insluting me with comments such as so why dont crawl from underneath that rock & educate your little mind & explore the truth [153] wont get you nowhere. Refrain from doing this in the future. Chaldean 17:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, the first link works & it takes you directly to the source which is a pdf. Second of all, you insulted me by vandalizing the page with your biased resources & comments & erasing/deleting my contributions with verifiable sources. I've been very mature in trying to resolve this issue with you but you have been single-minded & one-way in your thinking. Remember again this wiki community is a collaboration of many not one. You have undoubtedly not researched the subject your commenting on & believing that what people have told you. You are here to help out other people in learning the facts not biased material from sources getting biased information. I did include my sources so you can research this material. By the way there is a library, internet, & books where you can find valuable information about the sources I have included & many more. You can contact the sources directly by emailing them or calling them directly through my first source. Please refrain from intimidating, criticizing, & threatening others who try to contribute to the wiki. One example of this towards me is I advice you to leave your Sterling Heights home and explore outside of Michigan.[154]. Second example where you try to intimidate & criticize others is this No offense, but who are you, a 15 year old in Austtralia, to tell the people in the homeland what is their identity [155]. Third example is Your edits are pure vandelism and dont make any sense or redundunt of whats already their. [156] where you misrepresent others who are trying to contribute & saying that they are vandalizing the page & the harassing them. This is not a mafia or a cult that you are trying to control. You can't just believe that by harassing, threatening, intimidating, criticizing & then vandalizing the contributing user. You will be blocked. Please refrain from doing this because all it does is cause more animosity between the parties. Don't think this is a tyranny. Don't harass me in not letting me or others in trying to contribute by telling us that we are vandalizing & telling lies & then telling us that you reported us to the mods or admins. This is not a kids game. Doesn't matter who you know or what you do, when somebody reads this & finds out what you are doing you will be banned & blocked. This will not get you no where. Believe me you don't scare me or don't think this will stop me from contributing to the community with facts. The wiki should be free from bias & tell nothing but the truth & not some theories that you believe in. As far the part about the Wikipedia:Disambiguation, you told me about that only once & then I entered that back in with my contributions as you can see here [157] & that you were right & I apologize about that. I had rectified that situation but you keep on telling lies about vandalism. You will respect others & in there contributions. The wiki has stated that good-faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia but you keep on reverting back to your biased info & not letting others contribute as you can see in the history of that article which is here [158]. By the way, you did break the WP:3RR, you at least reverted back to you biased info & deleted my contributing efforts at least four times. I warned you about it in your page plus I told not to vandalize my page but you kept on doing it & harassing me. I hope the Wikipedia admin resolve this & hand out your consequence accordingly. Thank You! --KALMANI 23:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It's a clear violation, so 24 hours. Kalmani, the diff you gave for the previous version wasn't correct, but I did find a previous version. Also, I had to fix your links, so please check your diffs and links carefully in future, as it saves admin time. Cheers. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Kalmani seems to have violated 3RR on the same page, so I'm blocking him for 24 hours too. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dariush4444 reported by User:Atabek (Result: 24 hours)

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


Comments
Can someone also explain to this user that he needs to follow the Talk page, where discussion is going on the content. Thanks. Atabek 19:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
User Dariush is obviously new and was not aware of the 3rr rule. Atabek also failed to warn him of the 3rr rule as he is required.Azerbaijani 19:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)+
I agree. It should also be noted that Atabek himself broke the 3RR on the very same page. Tājik 21:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Dariush is not a new user and doesn't need to be warned. He has been blocked by Majorly. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:64.229.158.254 reported by User:Bobanny (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Marc Lépine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 64.229.158.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments
This user keeps changing the heading "Women killed" to "Murder victims" on both École Polytechnique massacre and Marc Lépine. It was an explicitly gender-motivated massacre.
24h. yandman 20:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:A.J.A. reported by User:RockMFR (Result: 24 hours)

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

Clear violation; 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Serafin/User:Snieg reported by User:Sciurinæ (Result:one month/indefinite)

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

  • A link that he is aware of the 3RR is shown in the CheckUser case
Comments
CheckUser confirmed that Snieg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Serafin are one and the same. The CheckUser case also provides more details about the background of the case and includes another 3RR violation, too. Because no blocking has happened as a result of the CheckUser as of yet and because Serafin has continued to revert on this page as you can see above, a report at 3RR seems necessary, especially because all of Jadger's previous previous reports at AN/I were largely ignored for no apparent reason (first report, second report, third, current report) and the same cannot be said of 3RR reports. Still I've posted another comment at AN/I explaining why Serafin should be blocked indefinitely or just for another month. But that's just a suggestion. It's entirely up to you. Sciurinæ 23:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Heimstern has blocked Snieg indefinitely and Serafin for one month, although I'm minded to undo the latter and block both indefinitely; the sockpuppetry is rampant and Serafin isn't an established editor. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Comments

This user has already been reported for 3RR earlier this week on this same page[164], and was lucky that a backlog on the page enabled him to escape a block. He also engages in the deceptive practice of labeling virtually every edit, large or small as "minor" (and has been called on this by other editors - [165], as well as using false and misleading edit summaries - such as labeling his 4th revert above as "clarification" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isarig (talk • contribs)

Those listed are all reversions of my previous edits. Isarig is engaged in an editing war and he is continually reverting my work (as I have already documented earlier) in previous 3RR violations reports. He is disingenuously acting as if I am reverting his changes. See the talk page of Middle East Quarterly. He has a habit of accusing others of behavior in which he himself repeately engages: violations of Wikipedia:Etiquette, WP:NPA, W:3RR, and so on. He needs to be warned and blocked. --NYScholar 23:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
NYScholar also has a habit of writing "edit conflict" in his edit summaries when he violates 3RR, so that admins give him the benefit of the doubt. He is highly disruptive; posts very long, unreadable text to talk pages then complains that no one reads or responds to them; edits against consensus; changes citation information to his own idiosyncratic style then revert wars to retain them; makes frequent personal attacks; and in general almost always causes deterioration of article quality and talk page sanity. He's an editor in need of a break. I'd block him myself but I was recently in a content dispute with him. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Registering very strong objections to unethical nature of the posts above. Slim Virgin is involved in an editing dipute in Daniel Pipes and has been involved in earlier editing disputes involving these users. She is not an impartial observer here. Not only could she not be allowed to block me (NYScholar) under these circumstances, she should not be engaging in commenting on this user or suggest that others should "block" me in her place (in other words, enlist help from others to meet her own involved goals). Armon, Isarig, and she have been reverting my work without prior discussion on talk pages now for several days. (She has a history of reverting and opposing my edits in other articles as well over a period of over six months.) She is an interested party in these editing disputes.
For the record: if I refer to having encountered an "editing conflict" in an editing history explanation, it is because that has occurred (editing box message), and I have attempted to post something but someone else's post intervened; such edits are taking place simultaneously. I object to Slim Virgin's dishonest and misleading characterizations of my work and me. As an administrator, such a user should know better than to get involved in this report; she is not impartial and should be making no value judgments about me and my work publicly in this way. As for insinuating or implying that others should "block" me; there is no justification for doing so. I edit only in good faith. --NYScholar 00:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I gave the user 24h for the clear violations of the 3RR rule. The user was already blocked for the 3RR violation, so I guess he is aware of the rule Alex Bakharev 03:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User: 72.155.112.205 reported by User:HJensen (Result:sprotected)

Three-revert rule violation on Roger Federer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 72.155.112.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comment: This anonymous user is doing the same disruptive edits as User talk:72.155.122.103 - probably same person. Among other articles hit by this behaviour are Andre Agassi, Lleyton Hewitt, Pete Sampras and Rafael Nadal.

I've sprotected as there are multiple anons needing to be reverted. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! We will see whether it becomes necessary to report other, similar pages. --HJ 07:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User: Lear 21 reported by User:Keizuko (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Berlin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Lear 21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comment: This user from Berlin is trying to present Berlin as the second most populated city in the EU, and reverts edits showing that Berlin is only the 7th most populated urban area in the EU. I see he was already blocked for 3RR in the Berlin article last August. This German user seems to have a very confrontational way to edit Wikipedia, see in particular Talk:France#France economy and Airbus industry. Keizuko 01:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I blocked User:Lear 21 for 24 hrs. Crum375 03:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:ElKevbo reported by User:John254 (Result:1wk)

Three-revert rule violation on Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). ElKevbo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments
A request for checkuser with respect to this incident has been completed -- see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ElKevbo. The results were "inconclusive" as to whether ElKevbo has been using IP addresses as sockpuppets to violate the three-revert rule. However, checkuser results only indicate the extent to which two users' IP addresses are related, and do not reflect the totality of the evidence as to whether a user has been engaging in abusive sockpuppetry. This limitation of checkuser results has been described by Jpgordon here. In this case, the fact that 66.158.92.4 was sufficiently related to the IPs used by ElKevbo to warrant an "inconclusive" checkuser finding, coupled with the chronology and tenor of the edits by ElKevbo and 66.158.92.4, provide excellent evidence that ElKevbo has engaged in abusive sockpuppetry to violate the three-revert rule. On 16:05, 20 February 2007, ElKevbo made this edit. He then made no other edits with his own account until 17:52, 20 February 2007, when he made this edit. Entirely during this period of time in which ElKevbo wasn't editing with his account, 66.158.92.4 made a series of edits related to Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006, the first such edit being effectuated on 16:21, 20 February 2007, and the last such edit being made on 17:37, 20 February 2007, as detailed in Special:Contributions/66.158.92.4. Note that 66.158.92.4 had not been used to edit Wikipedia for five days prior to these edits, and, as of the time of this report, hasn't been used since. The edits by 66.158.92.4 to the article itself ( [166] [167] ) were both pure reversions which removed a paragraph of text added by LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. Shortly thereafter, when 66.158.92.4 had stopped editing, ElKevbo repeated the exact same reversion twice ( [168] [169] ). Due to the egregious nature of ElKevbo's offense, violating the three-revert rule through abusive sockpuppetry, I would suggest that a block of an adequate length is warranted, notwithstanding the fact that the article is currently protected. Note also that LegitimateAndEvenCompelling was blocked for violating the three-revert rule on this article, primarily as a result of his reversions of edits by IPs that were apparently used by ElKevbo as abusive sockpuppets. As described in the three-revert rule, "In the cases where multiple editors violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally." Engaging in abusive sockpuppetry to violate the three-revert rule, however, is a far more serious matter than an ordinary three-revert rule violation. John254 01:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked User:ElKevbo for one week for 3RR violation using sockpuppets. Crum375 03:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
After discussion with all involved, I decided to give ElKevbo the benefit of the doubt and unblock. Crum375 11:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jamesaxler reported by User:Tenebrae (result: 24hrs)

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

Comment: A non-disinterested party, who identifies himself as this comic book's writer, Mark Ellis, continues to revert this entry to reinstall uncited opinion, self-aggrandizing hype, copyrighted images, and formatting contrary to editorial guidelines and the examplar of Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics. (Note: He says he is giving Wikipedia permission to run his copyrighted images, yet each bears a copyright mark, year, etc.)

A completely different editor, User:CovenantD, undid his fourth revert with the accurate edit summary "the previous version failed too many guidelines to list here." And with two editors now trying to correct this entry, User:Jamesaxler simply reverts a 5th time: 01:43, 22 February 2007 --Tenebrae 01:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lovelight reported by Aude (Result:1 week)

Three-revert rule violation on Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Lovelight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments
User was blocked last week for 3RR. Continues to edit war in a disruptive manner. --Aude (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Not everything listed above is a revert, but I still counted 5. Block will be for a week. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
For the record, fixed the diffs (copied some links incorrectly). --Aude (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:DPeterson reported by User:Mihai cartoaje (Result: 8h)

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


Comments
The 4th reversion contains some new text, but a lot of old text from the version reverted to. I gave up after the 4th reversion and left my talk page like that until writing this. --Mihai cartoaje 09:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
What I see is a user recreating a blanked user talk page. Don't think that is a 3RR vio. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
My understanding of the exemption for user pages is that a user is allowed to revert their own user space as many times as they see fit. I didn't think the privilege extended to the user and talk pages of other users. Perhaps I've got it wrong, since I don't have to act upon it on a regular basis. Chris cheese whine 11:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The background for this is that I am in a neutrality disagreement over whether there should be violence statistics in the schizophrenia article with special-purpose accounts, who have been calling my edits "vandalism", even though my edits were in good faith. I guess I shall have to mention the background next time to avoid misunderstandings. Chriscf, thanks for your support. --Mihai cartoaje 12:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fifth reversion in 24 hours: 13:27, 22 February 2007 --Mihai cartoaje 14:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't see why this isn't 3RR, and have blocked for 8h for it. Blanking a page is unappealing but permissible; DP has already been warned against repeated reverts on this page William M. Connolley 19:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:TJ Spyke reported by User:Chriscf (Result: 48h)

Three-revert rule violation on TNA Impact! (video game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). TJ Spyke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments
User already aware of 3RR (has been warned and blocked for it before). Moved the page against our naming conventions and MoS, move was reverted. Moved the page again, and then created an artificial edit history. Page move is reversible per ArbCom ruling. Chris cheese whine 10:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

48h William M. Connolley 11:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Permission to undo said 4th revert? Chris cheese whine 11:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The previous used moved the page despite the fact that a move request he supported failed. TJ Spyke 11:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Smeelgova reported by User:BabyDweezil (Result: No violation3 hour block)

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

Comments
User engaging in persistent edit warring here and on other articles (Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture). BabyDweezil 16:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Edits are not the same. Please come back if warring continues. Glen 17:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
As was explained to me in a similar case, ""Reversions do not need to be identical in order to be considered reverts for purposes of 3RR" but "substantially the same." this was in reference to a block I believe you yourself imposed. Please explain the different reasoning at work in the current instance, which involved multiple reversions that are substantially the same. BabyDweezil 17:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Glen, there were (4) clear reverts. I can fix the diffs. If you pull the result I can do it here. Otherwise I can make a new report, your choice. Thanks. --Justanother 17:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

To any admin: Is it appropriate for me to remove the result and fix the diffs so that this can get a fair hearing by an admin? Smee 4RR'ed not one, not two, but three two different editors here! If I should not would one of you please do it then? Thanks. --Justanother 18:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The edits are sufficiently different that I agree with Glen S that action is not required. All editors are admonished to avoid edit-warring. Do not resubmit on these same diffs; return if problems continue. Newyorkbrad 18:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Brad. I added the correct diffs below that show 4RR and nothing else. This is repeated, habitual, and abusive behavior on the part of this editor. --Justanother 18:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are the corrected diffs showing Smee's edit-warring and clear reverts. I put him up previously for 5RR but he skated there and said that he wanted other editors should keep track of his 3RR vios for him. --Justanother 18:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The above diffs are a very sneaky confusing (apologies) way trying to show that he has been making the same reversions (leaving out intermediate diffs) however the only relevant edits are these: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. 1 and 3 are the same (the addition of an EL), 2, 4 and 5 are ammendments to that external link (not the readdition of it again). If he had added the same EL 4 or more times then a violation would have occured. This is not even close. Two admins have agreed on this, how many opinions would you like? Glen 18:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sneaky? What are you talking about??!! I am showing that he REVERTED by showing that he restored an earlier version in each case. Is that not what "revert" means? And did he not revert (4) times? Why are you trying to make this about me. He reverted 4 times! I did it this way in apparent response to your letting a case of 4RR off the hook for whatever reasons I can only guess at. And given your stand on Scientology and the fact that you maintain a wildly anti-Scientology website, don't you think that you might have wanted to pass on this one as a conflict of interest? --Justanother 19:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Sure. Every action of mine is open for any editor to review at any time. However you've now had three administrators state there is no violation here. The reason for this is somewhat simple - there was no violation. What I do offwiki has no bearing on my actions here, and I resent the implication that it does. I think (given your statement above) that you lack a fundamental understanding of the 3R rule. Reread my comment with the numbered diffs. It explains the rationale. Glen 19:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I just found it odd that all of a sudden it was about me and I was "very sneaky". I resented that. And I think I had more grounds to resent it than you have resenting my suggestion that you recluse yourself from deciding for or against sanctions for edit-warriors in the Scn articles. But I tell you what. I will read up again on 3RR and what consitutes a "revert" and if I am wrong I will come back and say so and if I am right then I will post the 3RR on Smee either here or on AN/I. This will be later as I have a big job to finish in RL and I want to do this right. Does that sound fair? --Justanother 19:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
For some odd reason, the portion indicating the specific changes is not coming up for me on these diffs. Newyorkbrad 18:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The links are to the diffs between the users own edits, showing no change because he's reverting to exactly the same version he posted before. However, this does not appear to be a 3RR violation. The user has made 6 edits today, only 2 of which are reverts. --Tango 19:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Please take another look, Tango. If User A makes a change then User C puts it back the way it was before then that is a revert and doing it repeatedly is editing warring and doing it (4) times is 3RR violation. In each case User A or User B made a change and User C (Smee) undid it. That is what a revert is, no? --Justanother 19:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I gotta tell ya: I gotta tell ya guys. That, at a quick look, my "confusing" way of showing diffs sure does seem to clarify that there are reverts happening. From Help:Reverting:

To revert is to undo all changes made to an article page after a specific time in the past. The result will be that the page becomes identical in content to the page saved at that time.

That sure looks like what my diffs show: that the edits made by Smee are reverts. Smee edits; page is now identical in content to an earlier time. Meets the strictest definition of revert. By strictest I mean most difficult to meet; most clearly a revert; most anything you please. I mean, I do not think that it should be necessary to jump through a hoop but "light it up, I'm ready!" That is all for now. Though I really wish someone would just give him the 24-hours he deserves and be done with it rather than continue enabling him. --Justanother 20:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. At least now I understand what your diffs were trying to prove. I would like to see other editors comment on the addition or deletion of that link rather than any more unilateral decision-making by anybody. Newyorkbrad 20:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Well good, I am glad that I made myself clear (smile). Now are you saying that you are interested in the nature of the content dispute that Smee 4RR'ed over? Seems a bit off-topic, no? --Justanother 20:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to go through each of Smeelgova's edits to the article again, more slowly, this time:

  1. [170] Reverting removal of the link (1 revert)
  2. [171] Added description of line, not a revert
  3. [172] Reverted removal of link and description (2 reverts)
  4. [173] Added alternative description after original was removed, not a revert
  5. [174] Reverted removal of some punctuation, very minor, but technically a revert (3 reverts)
  6. [175] Reverted removal of 2nd description (4 reverts)

In my initial count I missed the 1st and 3rd reverts - sorry. I'd say one of the reverts was trivial, but it was technically a revert, so this is a 3RR violation, and I'm going to issue a 3 hour block (it doesn't deserve the full 24 hours by a long way). --Tango 21:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for taking the time to work through it. Have a nice day! --Justanother 21:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Getaway reported by User:Eleemosynary (Result:24h)

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

This user is engaging in persistent edit warring on many articles, attempting to insert extreme political POV into articles, screaming "censorship" at every turn, and using personal attacks in edit summaries. Eleemosynary 19:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jayjg reported by User:Mackan79 (Result: no violation)

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

First, note that Jay's last 4 reverts are within 24 hours, thus violating 3RR. Revert 5 restored the antisemitism category which had been removed two hours previously [187].
Second, note that Jay also reverted 6 times in less than 29 hours. Thus, even if Revert 5 does not count Jay's "Revert 4" and "Revert 6" narrowly escape 4 in 24 hours by three and one hours respectively.
Third, please note that Jay has at the same time added the same material to the WP:SS guideline four times in less than 24 hours despite my objections, under the pretense of "consensus," even though no other editor agreed with his change. [188]
In sum, I do not want to see Jayjg blocked, but am simply having a great deal of frustration in working with him across multiple pages. On WP:SS, it appears Jay intends to force the change unless I'm able to attract other editors who are willing to revert war with him. I find this troubling, and am not sure how to respond, other than to ask that a neutral admin evaluate the situation. Mackan79 20:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
"reverts" 4&5 are one edit (as you obviously recognized), 3RR is about 3 reverts in 24 hours, not 4 reverts in 29 hours. As for WP:SS, one unique edit and 3 reverts does not count as 4 reverts. You know this. Jayjg (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
This is not a 3RR violation. Mackan, please read the policy before reporting people. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I was just about to say that. Khoikhoi 20:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Four and Five were done separately, and reverted different material. As I said, even if they're not counted, though, Jayjg reverted 6 [Edited: 5 if they're combined] times in less than 29 hours. If there is any doubt, my request is again simply that the conduct be evaluated, which is my request in any case. If my report is incorrect, I apologize, but I don't see why. Mackan79 20:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned that SlimVirgin seems to have immediately called this no violation without an appropriate reason why. Khoikhoi, could you explain why this isn't a violation? Mackan79 20:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It was explained to you. There aren't four reverts in 24 hours; two of the diffs you put up (4 and 5) were back to back, making them one edit. This is just an attempt to cause trouble. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:3RR states "that consecutive reverts by one editor are often treated as one revert for the purposes of this rule." I can think of many cases where that might be appropriate, but one involving blatant edit warring on multiple pages and at least 5 reverts in 29 hours either way does not strike me as such a case. Jay made several large complex reverts among those listed; I see no reason to give him more.
In any case, I think the main problem here is that of gaming at least 5 reverts over less than 29 hours. I would hope some neutral admin would have something to say about this. I would also appreciate not being accused of causing trouble for reporting a very obvious case. Mackan79 21:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The incoherency of both this policy and interpretations of this policy are reaching epic proportions. A person can't revert more than three times in 24 hours, unless the reverts are consecutive, then some people "often" can revert more than three times? And SlmVirgin claims to know both the reading habits and motivations of Mackan -- both are things she cannot possibly know without Mackan's input. In presuming to know Mackan's personal bibliography and mental processes, Slim betrays a value essential to factual composition. To claim that intuition, hunches and a person's preferred spin are perfectly fine for use as administrative tools encourages some -- at least those with whom she will likely agree on ideological matters related to the articles she controls -- to apply those same standards in article space with her putative approval and protection. This is why ppl claim there are kbls here. Kant Klown 18:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of whether there were 3 reverts in 24 hours of 5 in 29 hours, Arbcom members should avoid edit warring. ابو علي 20:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Image:WikiCabal MTG Card.png There is no cabal. Justin Eiler 18:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:202.12.233.21 reported by User:Seraphim_Whipp (Result: no action)

Three-revert rule violation on System_of_a_Down (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 202.12.233.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

These reverts are all about genre.

Seems that anon has stopped. If the resumes reverting, we shall block. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Chriscf and User:Alansohn reported by User:Northenglish (Result: 8h each)

Three-revert rule violation on Springfield Park Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Chriscf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

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

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

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

What the hell? I'm being reported for 3RR on my own talk page for warnings that were totally bogus? Not to mention that most of the diffs you provide don't even match up to the "previous versions". Chris cheese whine 21:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Reverts don't need to be 100% identical to fall under 3RR, and don't need to all revert back to the same previous version. Where possible, I noted the differences between the reverts, but with so many in such a short period, it simply wasn't possible. I apologize on fourth one that you pointed out; I was confusing the Extracurricular list with the Administrators list. The fifth revert is a revert though, as you reverted to the version you created with the fourth revert, et cetera.
I strongly disagree with the "talk page bit being bogus" as William said. Users are not supposed to blank warning messages, especially since in this case the 3RR warning was clearly valid.
That being said, I reported this solely as a neutral third party (hence reporting both users), and hopefully an eight-hour block will be more than enough to cool heads. -- NORTH talk 22:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

8h each: there are at least 4 reverts each on the school page; the talk page bit is bogus though William M. Connolley 22:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to Northenglish, established users (both of these editors qualify) are not required to keep warnings, or anything else, on their talkpages; it is not best form to revert rather than archive a warning, but it's not blockable either, and edit-warring on another editor's userpage is hardly the way to calm down a dispute. And personally I would have probably both warned both of these users off this article and encouraged them to contribute elsewhere for awhile rather than blocking them outright, but that's probably just because thus far I seem to be the dove of the 3RR board. Newyorkbrad 22:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
My apologies; thanks for clarifying the talk page policy. I was including the talk page here not (solely) to scold them for violating 3RR there as well, but to indicate the seriousness of the situation to get the head cooling it needed. -- NORTH talk 23:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:RJASE1 reported by User:Von Klinker / User:Gen. von Klinkerhoffen (Result:Protected page)

Three-revert rule violation on Ejaculation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). RJASE1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

He has also made some reverts on 19th and 20th Feb., but I will not put details here - check history by yourself.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: 05:23, 21 February 2007 (it is not on his talk page, but I am sure he read it - he states on his talk page: "If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there; I'll watch your page and reply when able.")

[edit] User:Halaqah reported by User:IronDuke (Result: No violation)

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


Comments: Halaqah has been blocked three times in the last two months or so for 3RR violations. See here.

He has made three more reverts since the above:

  • There is an edit war going on in that article, but I do not see same reverts repeated to warrant a block. All involved editors need to stop editwarring. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that reversions of different material still count, it doesn't have to be the same content reverted each time. Nonetheless, I appreciate your protecting the page. IronDuke 16:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dannyg3332 reported by User:156.34.212.171 (Result: 8h)

Three-revert rule violation on Michael Stipe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Dannyg3332 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


  • Note: User:Dannyg3332 has been given a 3RR warning previously(among other warnings) but has been continually blanking any messages including warnings from his talk page. Has breached 3RR on several pages over the past few days. 156.34.212.171 04:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

8h William M. Connolley 10:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Proabivouac reported by User:ALM_scientist (Result:page protected, probably no violation)

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


Comments
All the edits are related to a very single picture in Muhammad article. First two are about the reverting back the caption of disputed picture and all other are related to restoring picture deleted by multiple editors. There are many other revert beside this 24 hours period mentioned above. Please see the history of the article. He is very old user and well aware of the rules (I even had warned him in the past but do not think to mention it here) --- ALM 11:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is the warning but once again he is old editor here.

First and second "reverts" are not reverts at all: first is removal of an unsourced, untopical, inaccurate and unencyclopedic caveat as established and undisputed (including by ALM) on talk; the second is the correction of an attribution which was similarly uncontested, and which gives ample witness to the cynicism underlying this report - the incorrect attribution of the image to the renowned scholar Al-Biruni, which I'd unwittingly promoted, and which if true would have made the case for inclusion that much stronger, I'd removed after this inaccuracy had been pointed out by anti-image editors in mediation. It's quite perverse that he'd now have this held against me. No one protested this good-faith correction at the time, and no one's thought to protest it since. Perhaps he'd like me to self-revert this false (and strongly pro-inclusion) information?
ALM is unable to gain consensus for image removal in mediation, while I and several others have only maintained the status quo against aniconistic edit-warriors and single-issue sockpuppets such as User:Funnypop12 in lieu of a resolution (ideally one which is in agreement of core policy in mediation, and I've not violated 3RR in doing so. Additionally, I was informed by admin User:HighInBC, who wrote the follwing on Talk:Muhammad:[192]Proabivouac 11:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Revert and removing material is same. First two were removing material and changing caption. All other are restoring picture which many people are removing. I think this is very fair case. If it has not been I never filed it and will take it back if it is not fair. --- ALM 11:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Just removing something from a page is not a revert unless it's part of an edit war. WP:3RR is meant to stop edit warring rather than to punish editors with whom you're engaged in a content dispute. The glee at the possibility of Proabivouac being blocked that you displayed on Talk:Muhammad#Edit_warring is simply disgusting. Beit Or 11:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
anti-image editors in mediation? Next think I will file is personal attacks case. Read WP:NPA now and consider it an official warning. --- ALM 11:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
A request for protection has been filed for this page earlier today. Without addressing the merits of this particular report, I fully support re-protecting this page as this is only way to stop the edit warring, which resumed as soon as full protection was lifted. Beit Or 11:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem is exactly that the article is being constantly attacked by editors who care nothing for Wikipedia policy, or for obtaining consensus in ongoing mediation. A look at the edit history shows both that I am not the only one to have reverted these changes, and that User:ALM scientist has been more aggressive in this regard than anyone else. Despite his unsupported personally-delivered "warning" of several days agao, he was warned by an admin who knows the policy today,[193] and continued edit-warring regardless of this and of the administrator's warning on the talk page.Proabivouac 11:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
ALM has been edit warring on Muhammad for several months to remove the images of Muhammad from the page. Beit Or 11:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I have never violated WP:3RR at all. You are welcome to file case. I am going to start working and will try not to check back. bye. --- ALM 11:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I intend to refrain from editting this article on behalf of "either side" for the next 24 hrs at least.Proabivouac 12:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, ALM, you're careful not to revert more than 3 times in 24 hours. Instead, you do the same reverts once or twice a day or once in several days over many months. Such persistent edit warring is still a violation of Wikipedia policies. Not to mention that your stance on the images is not based on any Wikipedia policy whatsoever. Beit Or 12:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, ALM, you're careful not to revert more than 3 times in 24 hours. Instead, you do the same reverts once or twice a day or once in several days over many months. Such persistent edit warring is still a violation of Wikipedia policies. Not to mention that your stance on the images is not based on any Wikipedia policy whatsoever. Beit Or 12:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC) I am not alone against the images. See the Talk:Muhammad/Mediation please --- ALM 12:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

See this recent disruptive WP:POINT edit by ALM scientist.[194]Proabivouac 12:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Update Self-reverted first two changes referenced above, to versions which are known to be false (for starters, Al-Biruni did not create this image, as I'd once thought before I was corrected in mediation, and no one is any longer saying that he did.) I'm not at all happy to do this, but neither do I wish to be blocked based on a misunderstanding (a very deliberate one on ALM's part.)Proabivouac 13:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Update - withdrawn[195] and refiled[196] bad faith report, see User talk:Proabivouac#3RR where ALM concedes that he (along with pretty much everyone else) agreea with the first two listed edits, yet here he in bad faith would hold them against me (note again that they have been self-reverted according to this report.)Proabivouac 14:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Update The page has been protected. Beit Or 18:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


Admin comment — First of all, Proabivouac, I am guessing that you added comments to the report, for example, in the report of the "First revert", the words "- a good-faith, non-revert edit which was self-reverted in response to this thread" have been added. I admit I'm being lazy, and haven't checked the history to see who added that, but I hardly think it was ALM scientist, as part of his report. So, if you didn't do it, I apologize, but I think it would be better to put your comments or "defence" in a separate place from the accusation, just to make it clearer for people who are reading it.

If we take Reverts 3, 4, and 5, then there's no violation. So the question has to be whether 1 and 2 count as reverts. Since you self reverted, and since the page has been protected, I would strongly recommend against a block, even if they were found to be reverts.

The fact that 1 and 2 were not connected to the same material or dispute as 3, 4, and 5 is irrelevant when making a judgment about whether or not the rule was violated. However, it is by no means clear that removal of something always means a revert. If User:X adds a sentence to an article at 16:05, and User:Y removes it at 16:08, User:Y has certainly reverted. And if User:Y reverts three more times in the same 24 hours, even if they relate to a different passage, then he has violated the rule. However, if User:Y comes along to an article, finds a sentence that has been there for months, thinks it's misleading or unnecessary, and removes it, I would call that an edit, and not a revert, even though, technically, he is undoing what somebody added in August 2006! We occasionally see a user making three reverts, being reverted by others, and then, having "run out of reverts", adding a POV tag. If the page has existed for a few years, the POV tag has almost certainly been on it before, but we don't consider the addition to be a revert. However, if User:Y removes the tag, and User:Y immediately restores it, then User:Y has reverted. Whether or not User:X has would really depend on how long it had been there. If it had been there for weeks, and removed as a rusult of discussion at the talk page, in which most people agreed that there were no outstanding POV issues, the removal would not be a revert. If it had been added that day by someone with whom one was in an edit dispute, then the removal would be a revert.

So, it seems very likely that Reverts 1 and 2 are not reverts. If they are, then ALM scientist would have to have provided diffs for their recent additions, in the report, and not just diffs of Proabivouac removing material. Few admins are going to do all the research themselves; it's up to the reporter to make it easy to see the violations. My guess is that Proabivouac did not violate the rule. In any case, he self-reverted, and the page has been protected, so I receommend no further action. Musical Linguist 18:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dreadlocke reported by User:Milo H Minderbinder (Result: 3h)

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


Comments
Reversions are over two issues, removal of a tag and addition of an image. User was warned on talk page but removed as "false accusation" and "bogus warning". --Milo H Minderbinder 17:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
There is no 3RR violation here. Please read the explainations below for each edit:
Response by User:Dreadlocke
  • First one is not a “revert” it is an edit removing NPOV section tag per mediation results [197].
  • Second is the first revert of the NPOV tag re-addition, and it the first restoration of an image that was removed.
  • Third entry is the second reversion of the NPOV section tag after it was put back against mediation results:
  • Fourth entry is the second revert of the image removal, and it’s even identified as a “partial revert” which is not a revert.

This is a false accusation, as I indicated to my accuser. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of an addition (and this was an addition made three edits earlier) is a revert, that first edit listed took the page exactly to an earlier version:[198]. And for the second revert, the POV tag was also removed - the first three are all reverts of the addition of the tag. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I fixed the one erroneous entry. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

3h William M. Connolley 19:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Daynnew reported by User:Seraphim_Whipp (Result: 3h vand)

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

Comments

Someone warned this user not to vandalise and they continued to do so.

This is vandalism not 3rr; 3h William M. Connolley 18:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yar but these changes are still reverts--Seraphim Whipp 22:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Three-hour block commenced 18:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC); expired by now. 04:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Apocalypze reported by User:Bignole (Result:warned)

Three-revert rule violation on Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Apocalypze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [199] - added unsourced claims to article. Told to provide a source.
  • 1st revert: [200]
  • 2nd revert: [201]
  • 3rd revert: [202]
  • 4th revert: [203]
  • 5th revert: [204]
  • 6th revert [205]
  • 7th revert [206]
Comments

User:Apocalypze has also replaced the entire article at one point hurling abuse. He has also risked me breaking the rule in his refusal to listen to my pleas of reading of WP:V and WP:CITE. WikiNew 21:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This revision as of 21:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC) looks like a 3RR warning.
In addition, this edit of Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors suggests user Apocalypze is intentionally inviting a ban. — Athænara ✉ 04:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    • User was warned after last revert: has evidently stopped. I have warned the user not to continue revert warring, nor to make personal attack or vandalize. Heimstern Läufer 06:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


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

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):

This is a complex set of reverts of different paragraphs; I'm not sure if this is a technical violation but it sure seems to be -- at least it is certainly gaming the rule. Armon appears to be step-by-step reverting different parts of the page so they don't seem like reverts. He has been called on this by Jgui on the page as well as myself, since he does not seem to think it is necessary to discuss these things in talk. He simply reverts and provides cryptic (and sometimes misleading) explanations, assuming that everyone understands exactly what he means, and often accusing his interlocutors of bad faith. An administrator has started an informal mediation on this page, but Armon has so far declined to participate in that mediation and simply continues reverting with cryptic explanations on the actual page. csloat 00:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Complex, yes, but I count 4R's of the funding para William M. Connolley 14:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Errm, only if I get the days wrong though. Oops. Unblocked William M. Connolley 22:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Danuel Chiswick (sockpuppet), User:Daniel_Chiswick (user account), User:76.211.254.144 (IP of user) reported by User:Gdo01 (Result:48H)

Three-revert rule violation on European Union (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 76.211.254.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments

The user continues to revert to a version of the article that places "if ranked" after rankings for European Union. The editor says this is wrong because the EU is not one nation. This has been addressed by putting a footnote after the rankings that explains that the rankings are based on the assumption that you think of the EU as one entity. Apparently, that is not good enough for this editor who has reverted multiple times all the way back since February 19.

While writing on the discussion page the IP has declared themselves to actually be User:Daniel_Chiswick [207]. I gave the IP a 3rr4 warning on the IP talk page and the user decided to use a sockpuppet (User:Danuel Chiswick) to circumvent the 4th revert.

  • As of 02:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC): blocked. 04:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Bastin8 reported by User:Sam Blacketer (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Kingdom of Great Britain (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Bastin8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments
I am not involved in this dispute but the reverting seems to have gone too far. Bastin8 went on to file an RFC after his last revert listed above. I have also reported ArmchairVexillologistDon who has also broken the rule. Sam Blacketer 15:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 16:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:ArmchairVexillologistDon reported by User:Sam Blacketer (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Kingdom of Great Britain (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments
Was in a revert war with Bastin8 (see above). Sam Blacketer 15:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 16:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:M12592 reported by User:Imdanumber1 (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on R68 (New York City Subway car) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). M12592 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments

Suspected to be a sockpuppet of User:DCarltonsm@msn.com. Originally reported to WP:AIV by Imdanumber1 at 16:07, February 24, 2007 (UTC). 2007-02-24T16:44:39 Netsnipe (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "M12592 (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite) William M. Connolley 16:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:72.155.113.55 reported by User:Tennis expert (Result: 31 hrs)

Three-revert rule violation on Rafael Nadal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 72.155.113.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Three-revert rule violation on Pete Sampras (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 72.155.113.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

HIGHLY disruptive user. We need help. Thank you. Tennis expert 19:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

  • User was blocked already for vandalism. Extended block to 31 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Gravitor reported by User:Lunokhod (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Gravitor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments
This is at least the third time in the past month that he has violated 3RR. Furthermore, he is becoming increasingly incivil, is making personal attacks, and does not assume good faith.

Lunokhod 20:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Gravitor for 24hr for 3RR violation. Crum375 20:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
It appears that User:Numskll has also violated 3RR. I have blocked him for 24, as well. I enourage all parties also to cease referring to others' edits as vandalism. This is a content dispute, not vandalism. Heimstern Läufer 20:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mastersman reported by User:216.21.150.44 (Result:24h)

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

Comment Persistent edit warring to restore possible copyvio content taken from an external fansite. 216.21.150.44 21:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Blocked 24 hours by User:Crum375. Heimstern Läufer 22:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I also s-protected the entry, as it appears that the anon-IPs are edit warring with User:Mastersman. Crum375 22:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:159.33.10.92 reported by User:TheRingess (Result:blocked for vandalism)

Three-revert rule violation on {{Article|11:11 (numerology)}. 159.33.10.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [212]
  • This was vandalism. User has been blocked by Messedrocker for this reason. Heimstern Läufer 22:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User: 208.113.160.21 reported by User:johnmc (Result:1 week)

Three-revert rule violation on Railpage_Australia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 208.113.160.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

22nd February 2007

24th February 2007

Comments

User also placed vandalism warnings on the talk pages of User_talk:Latrodectus, User_talk:Ttrans, User_talk:Evan_C, User_talk:Philip_J._Rayment, after they removed disputed content from the Railpage Australia article. Refer also to Talk:Railpage_Australia#Discuss_nicely.3BThe_Controversy, which discusses 208.113.160.21's additions to the article. The user requested a protection block on the article Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Railpage_Australia_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 with the reason given as "Currently being vandalised a lot. Coordinated attempts to remove factual content", and has a request to unprotect this article, with the stated intention of listing the article for Speedy Delete.Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Railpage_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 Johnmc 23:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:GeorgeBP reported by User:RJASE1 (Result:24 hours)

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

  • Previous version reverted to: [213]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [214]
Evidence:

Kyaa the Catlord 04:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Blocked for 24 hours. Note to others involved: please discuss and, where necessary, make reports here rather than edit warring. Three reverts is also too many, even if it doesn't technically violate the rule. It looks to me also like rollback was used on these edits, which isn't what rollback is for. Heimstern Läufer 05:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:MrinaliniB reported by User:Ghostexorcist (Result:)

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

  • Previous version reverted to: [215] – Please note that the info box has been deleted.

Comments:

I am not sure whether this is a simple case. There was a discussion that both Ghost Exorcist and Mrinalini refused to countenance. The debate pertained to a picture that several felt was not authentic nor did justice to the subject matter. My sense is that both had violated the 3RR rule.--Dharman Dharmaratnam 11:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I participated in the discussion and commented several times that the picture could be switched out with another one. However, my comments were over looked many many many times. If you go to MrinaliniB's talk page you will see that I pleaded with them to stop deleting the picture until the discussions had been concluded. But they have continued to delete the photo. There is nothing wrong with the old header photo. The image was trying to be whitewashed from the page because the user felt it was put on the page to "malign" Kali, which is not the case. These articles are supposed to be balanced. I can't say how many times I repeated myself on this fact. (Ghostexorcist 22:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] User:Chifumbe reported by User:Jd2718 (Result: no block)

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


  • 3RR warning: (apologies, I am having trouble creating the diff) User_talk:Chifumbe#Population_estimates_on_Black_people (this is an informal warning from a few days ago that he was close to violating in 3RR. He returned to the article 24 hours later, and made the same revert.)
Comments
Not a technical 3RR violation. Chifumbe has been re-adding the same population table, against consensus, once or twice each day, often with no edit summary. The table has been removed by three different editors: user:Christmasgirl, user:Jd2718, and user:Yom.
Note, semi-protection was recently lifted on this article. As all involved are established users, and most of the reverts happened with semi-protection in place, this has no bearing on this report. Jd2718 15:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Too far outside 24h to count. If persists, against consensus, maybe blockable for edit warring William M. Connolley 17:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Corticopia reported by User:SomeHuman (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Perhaps technically not violating 3RR, but running along articles Finland, Sweden, Norway, Malta and possibly others (see contribs) to at each article repeatedly replace a location map by another style. Several users (at least three at Malta try to revert but we can't go on to keep up with this. Note: there is NO 3RR warning given, as so far the user did not actually violate that on a separate article, hence an appropriate warning is not available to my knowledge.

This is part of a larger issue being discussed at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. The reporter asserts that a consensus has arisen regarding the current locator maps (unnecessarily detailed SVG maps which highlight the European Union), even though a number of users challenge this viewpoint and against the long-standing/original PNG maps which prevailed for at least months before the current morass. This 'consensus' is supposedly predicated on the results of an initial poll which neither indicates plurality for discrete options, nor a supermajority (per consensus) for maps. The reporter then instigates an overcomplicated, controversial poll with even less participation than the first, but reframes the results to support the current situation. At least one editor has indicated reluctance/withdrawal to discuss this issue with the reporter given demonstrated grandiloquence and POV-pushing, others are likely, and there is NO clear consensus from either the initial poll conducted or the later one which the reporter instigated and has reframed.
This situation requires a third-party review by an uninvolved administrator; a thorough read of that page is required before making any decisions. Thanks. Corticopia 20:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Poorly formatted, but 4 clear R on Malta. 24h William M. Connolley 20:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] User:24.184.177.78 reported by User:SERSeanCrane (Result:Retracted)

Three-revert rule violation on Adam Bostick (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs).

Comments
This user continues to revert back to a copyrighted image of a baseball card by the Bowman/Topps company, the image should be removed and this user should be banned for copyright infringement. 24.184.177.78 21:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The image is currently protected under fairuse, if the image is deleted it may be removed. Until then, actions by User:24.184.177.78 should be considered vandalism. SERSeanCrane 21:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
This image is not protected under fairuse in any way. According to the Wikipedia fair use page, Wikipedia states under examples of uses that would almost certainly not be fair use under Wikipedia's policy: Some people find it easier to understand the concept of fair use from what is not fair use. Here are a few examples of uses that would almost certainly not be fair use under Wikipedia's policy: An image of a Barry Bonds baseball card, to illustrate the article on Barry Bonds. A sports card image is a legitimate fair use if it is used only to illustrate the article (or an article section) whose topic is the card itself; see the Billy Ripken article. This article is not about the card itself and therefore is NOT fairuse. This image should be deleted ASAP. 24.184.177.78 21:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Somethingoranother reported by User:RJASE1 (Result:indef)

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

  • Previous version reverted to: [216]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [217]

-->

Comments
Previous violator.

[edit] User:Ebtunc2006 reported by User:Duke53 (Result:Both warned)

Three-revert rule violation on Roy Williams (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Ebtunc2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

This editor made four edits at Roy Williams in less than 24 hours.

    • User not warned before report. Both warned not to edit war. Heimstern Läufer 04:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:68.105.69.167 reported by User:SMcCandlish (Result:24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on List of redundant expressions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 68.105.69.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Possibly an unwarned new user, but the personal attack clinched it. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Comments
First three reverts are word-for-word. Fourth revert is not an exact revert, but instead an attempt to inject the same counterfactual idea (a WP:POINT and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX violation too, I might add) into the article with more and different verbiage after another editor tried to satisfy both the 3RR violator and everyone else. So it is certainly an in-spirt WP:3RR transgression. In point of fact the material that the violator insists on adding to the article one way or another is patent nonsense (see my 20:13, February 25, 2007 edit summary at article, and previous ones, for details). I expect a fifth violation any moment now, since I recently removed the nonsense (my 2nd revert of it over two days). The third party did two reverts and then made the aforementioned attempt at compromise which simply led violator to insist on the nonsense version more strongly and longwindedly. The violator appears to be a one-purpose account with no activity other than editwarring the same nonsense into this article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Toajaller3146 reported by User:Apostrophe (Result: 48 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on Kingdom Hearts II (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Toajaller3146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments
Frequent violator of 3RR. Also has problem with sourcing images and communicating with other editors. ' 05:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Bbarnett and socks reported by User:Netscott (Result: 1wk)

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

  • Previous verions reverted to: [222]

Sockpuppeting as User:70.81.253.163, User:206.248.172.29, and User:64.26.160.28 to avoid 3RR.

Coments: This user has essentially vowed to maintain his version of this artilce regardless of 3RR. Now he's employing self-admitted sockpuppet IPs to do so. Given this editor's two prior 3RR blocks on this same article and utilization of sockpuppets to game the system I would recommend a 1 month block on his account as well as his sockpuppet IPs. (→Netscott) 05:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Though I agree completely with Bbarnett that Wikipedia must not be subject to religiously-motivated censorship, his behavior here has been very disruptive. The last time he broke 3RR, I attempted to impress upon him the virtue of adherence to the rules, to no avail. It appears he, like the aniconists, views this as a matter of principle more important than the smooth functioning of this enterprise. A month seems unduly harsh, but one may not avoid the conclusion that a significant block is in order. Perhaps the answer is a lengthy block that is to be shortened upon his commitment (if offered) to abide by the rules.Proabivouac 07:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I have blocked User:Bbarnett for 1 week for 3RR violation with sockpuppets, edit warring, and being a repeat offender. Crum375 21:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pgurlygirl reported by User:Satori Son (Result: 24 hours)

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

[edit] User:ALM scientist reported by User:Proabivouac (Result: No violation)

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

  • Previous version reverted to:
First revert to:08:01, 26 February 2007 -
Second, third and fourth revert to:10:46, 23 February 2007, 19:02, 25 February 2007 -
Fifth revert(s) to 10:46, 23 February 2007 -
Comments
After months of edit-warring to blank depictions of Muhammad, ALM scientist has cynically used the recent transclusion of one of the images to violate WP:3RR. He has received numerous warnings in recent days about a wide range of misconduct problems from editors who were not particularly poorly disposed towards him prior to this. See this for one particularly disruptive example (among many); where he adds the infamous cartoons to Muhammad to prove a WP:POINT. His responses to entreaties and complaints alike have been uniformly hostile, accompanied by defiant refusals to address the disputed behaviors. One of many examples: "I cannot be fair, kind and rule followers any more when other side is stubborn. I am going to be a real mad if things do not change. It is too much. I am ready to be blocked FOREVER for this. FOREVER."[223]
Warnings about 3RR:[224], [225],[226],[227],[228]
Warnings about personal attacks:[229], [230], [231], [232], [233], [234], [235], [236], [237], [238], [239], [240]
ALM scientist's behaviour is wildly out of control and must be brought into some semblance of compliance.Proabivouac 13:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, these are two different pages involved here. Hence those all revert are not on one page. Hence no WP:3RR violation. Secondly, He has lied three times when he write blank lead image. It was not blanking but replacing it with another much more better image. Thirdly, it is a revenge because two day ago User:Proabivouac was reported by me Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Proabivouac_reported_by_User:ALM_scientist_.28Result:page_protected.2C_probably_no_violation.29. Fourthly, I remove his friends harassments from my talk page. It is because since I have reported him they are trying to hit me back with false report. --- ALM 18:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC) However, I have also self reverted [241] if that will help. --- ALM 18:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This appeared to be a legitimate report until I noticed ALM's protest that it involves two pages, which it does indeed. Proabivouac, please don't waste people's time with false reports. If he has violated 3RR on one page, please resubmit, showing clearly above each revert diff what the version reverted to is. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I made this clear when I wrote "ALM scientist has cynically used the recent transclusion of one of the images to violate 3RR" and showed the transclusion being done. It was intended as a way to limit edit-warring to one page, not enable more then three combined. He saw a way to exploit it and instantly did, hence I called it cynical. He's also been warned about edit-warring generally, but continues to use what he evidently considers his "daily maximum allotment," which I now suppose has been raised to six? If you think there's nothing wrong with that, fine, but iit should be clear to you from my comments re transclusion above that I didn't intend to post a "false report."Proabivouac 21:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The rule applies per page, which I think is pretty clear. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course that's correct, but this is a very unique situation. It is actually a subpage of the article, and the material there displays in the article (and nowhere else.) It'd be like saying the reverts aren't cumulative because they were made in different sections of the same article.Proabivouac 00:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I have not reverted any image six times. Even the lead image. I have not reverted a single thing even four time. --- ALM 21:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
ALM, the 3RR rule is not meant to be used repeatedly as an electric fence. If you keep on reverting three times, then stopping, then coming back to do the same thing 24 hours later, you can still be blocked for disruption, so please try to find some compromise. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Believe me I am trying very hard and have wasted most of my today’s day in trying to convince them and reach on some consensus --- ALM 03:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Tiamut reported by User:Tewfik (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on Arab citizens of Israel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Tiamut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Note that the reported versions are different to the version supposedly revered to. Most of the edits were not reversions. The editor was attempting to reach a reasonable consensus here. Not a 3RR violation. ابو علي 20:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


Note that there were no reversions after the warning. ابو علي 20:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Comments
The 3rr comes with a sometimes incivil attitude, reflected in edit summaries accusing others of lying and Talk violating AGF. [242][243][244][245]
What exactly is incivil about these comments? That an Arab editor, and an Arab Woman at that ,has the audacity to answer back when faced with outrageous reverts. That she does not treat her "betters" with the deference required of her? Is this why you are trying to teach her a lesson? ابو علي 20:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example of the most recent personal attack directed against myself.[246] Beit Or 18:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or, you are refering to your own edit here. ابو علي 20:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
A few important points. User:Tiamut has been working hard to improve a number of Palestinian related articles. Her hard work has been reverted by a number of pro Israeli POV pushers in a multi-sided edit war. Beit Or is been particularly uncivil and has wikistalked User:Tiamut, reverting her edits across a number of articles without any attempt justification beyond name calling. If you look at User:Tiamut's edits on this page and the talk page, you will find that rather than reverting she has worked hard to find a consensus, but has been exasperated by the aggressive edit warring of a number of POV pushers who are effectively preventing any kind of meaningful improvement being made to these pages. ابو علي 20:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that she stopped reverting after your warning, though she also didn't self-revert her last revert. However as I also said, she isn't a new user, and 5 reverts of others' work in 24 hours are not okay, even if she uses the word 'compromise' in the edit-summary, especially when accompanied by incivility (no matter how frustrated she may be). TewfikTalk 20:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of the edis were not reverts, but were attempts to reach a mutally acceptable way of including the fact that Palestinians are idiginous to Palestine. It is amazing that there is any argument about this, but typical of the way Arabs get treated when editing this page. There are around 25 edits of the page over the last day. Most of them are reverts, including two by you Tewfiq. The usual edit warrers are were out in force. Tiamut was in fact the only editor who attempted to make any constructive additions to this page. You have admitted that Tiamut made no more reverts to the page after I drew her attention to the 3RR. So why do are you trying to get her blocked. It is a blatent attempt to abuse and humilliate an arab editor who is trying hard to make constructive contribution to Wikipedia. ابو علي 20:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Abu Ali, and thanks for bringing this 3RR report to my attention. I do not believe that I actually violated 3RR here. There are intervening edits by a number of editors, both for and against, and there is an extensive discussion at the talk page that provides evidence as to how I came up with compromise formulations that incorporated ideas from the "opposing" side. To a degree, I view the constant revision of my work by Tewfik both here an elsewhere as vandalism. I have tried to solicit help to address my grievances with him, which are many - but have not figured out how to do so or where to go. I recently posted a message at his talk page warning him that I would report him for his constant revision of my work. Tewfik did not warn me that I was approaching a 3RR violation. As I said, I was informed by Abu Ali. (Finally, please give me a couple of hours to locate links that illustrate these points. I have never had to respond to a complaint like this before and have only made such a complaint once before - rather unsuccessfully - never figured out the diffs. Thanks.) Tiamut 20:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a violation. 13:31 Feb 25 was the first version reverted to; and the reverts were 22:20 Feb 25, 11:01 Feb 26, and 12:50 Feb 26, "reverting to "they define themselves"; the next version reverted to was 15:18 Feb 26, and the revert was 16:57 Feb 26, reverting to the addition of "indigenous." That's four reverts in under 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I must admit that I expected SlimVirgin to be the one to block Tiamut well before other reports in the backlog. Is there a conflict of interrests here? ابو علي 21:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
No, but there might be one when I block you for repetitive, predictable personal attacks. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
There will indeed. ابو علي 11:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Tstrobaugh reported by User:evrik (Result: 24 hrs)

Three-revert rule violation on West Philadelphia Catholic High School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Tstrobaugh (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.

Comments
I'm not sure if User:Tstrobaugh understands both Wikipedia:Classification and Wikipedia:Categorization, and how articles should not be in two categories in the same tree, but this afternoon, that editor has decided to make a point of it. I posted a note here to talk about it, Category talk:High schools in Pennsylvania, and I asked for people to comment, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pennsylvania#Category:High_schools_in_Pennsylvania. If you look at User:Tstrobaugh's edit history for this afternoon it has all been reversions - trying to force an edit war. --evrik (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I have blocked User:Tstrobaugh for 24 hours for WP:3RR violation. I have also fixed the first revert diff above. Crum375 00:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] User:Atomaton reported by User:John254 (Result:)

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

Comments
As an aggravating circumstance, one of the reversions was made using popups, and two of the reversions [247] [248] removed a navigation template and reversed other edits unrelated to the image without any explanation whatsoever. John254 22:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Although this report was moved to the section containing other unprocessed reports which were filed much later, this report was filed in a timely manner. John254 01:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Beak99 reported by User:Badgerpatrol (Result:No block)

Three-revert rule violation on Eton College (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Beak99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):


Comments
  • Ongoing revert war on Eton College. Beak99 claims to be enforcing an arranged consensus as per Eton College talk page- if such an agreement exists, it is not obvious, to me at least. Badgerpatrol 23:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • User was never told about the 3RR. No block. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Gingiya reported by User:ArglebargleIV (Result:all blocked)

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

Comments
user:Jingiya started by placing a derogatory comment on User talk:Niohe. I removed it. Apparently, the same user used a different account, user:Gingiya to revert to that edit 4 times (the fourth time with an additional derogatory comment). The user has self-identified both accounts as sockpuppets of banned User:Highshines, and is attacking an editor whom Highshines has attacked before.

Two other accounts, User:SMcChildlish, and User:Kiosk are also joining in, I suspect two more sockpuppets. -- ArglebargleIV 00:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked all indefinitely. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jonawiki reported by User:G2bambino (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on Upper Canada College (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Jonawiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Coments
User:Jonawiki is pushing a grudge against UCC by reverting edits that move what he deems to be too much information about scandals and racism to a main UCC history article. Negotiation on the talk page is fruitless. --G2bambino 00:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I only see 3 reverts. Please use the prescribed format or point out the 4 reversions. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Astrotrain reported by User:Vintagekits (Result:no block)

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

Comments: Astrotrain, has been blocked on a number of occasions, see here for his block for 3RR breach in 2005 andhere for his block for breaking WP:3RR and last week he was going to be blocked but was first blocked for another breach of WP:CIVIL--Vintagekits 00:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Can only rule on the current situation. I do not see a 3RR vio. No block. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 12:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Maurice27 reported by User:Joanot (Result:48H)

Three-revert rule violation on Valencia (autonomous community) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Maurice27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Comments

This user is very hostile against Catalan-speaker users. In this case it's about the correct flag of Valencian Country. He also repeteadly has uncivil attitude against me: see personal attack on Talk:Catalonia and his own user page. This user was also warned by Physchim62 because of uncivil attitude: see User_talk:Maurice27. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 01:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user for very bad personal attacks. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 12:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Corticopia and User:AlexCovarrubias reported by User:Pyrospirit (Result:warned)

Three-revert rule violation on Mesoamerica (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Corticopia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and AlexCovarrubias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

AlexCovarrubias's first 4 reverts:

Corticopia's first 4 reverts:

Comments
I warned both users on their talk pages and provided a section on the article talk page for them to resolve the dispute. They discussed for several minutes before going back to edit warring. They've reverted the page back and forth about a dozen times each now (see article history); I have provided the first four reverts for each. Also, AlexCovarrubias has accused Corticopia of sockpuppetry and trolling (on my talk page). Pyrospirit Flames Fire 01:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

All I have to say is yes, I'm afraid I commited 3RR violation. However, Corticopia's behaviour is very vandalic. I stoped editing to look for sources. Then I provided sources for my claims and he deliberately deleted them and ignore them. Thanks, I will accept any punishment. However I must add that my reverts where to preserve Wikipedia's accuracy. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 01:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring is regrettable, but has been precipitated by this editor. Actually, AlexCovarrubias is the one who has removed information -- both in Mesoamerica and elsewhere (e.g., Talk:North_America#Usage_of_.27North_America.27 -- to push a particular viewpoint, particularly after claiming to have checked. That's vandalism, if not just outright deception/lunacy.

Anyhow, I have commented at Mesoamerica about the need for NPOV and details regarding this point. For now, I will refrain for now and defer to other editors there to equilibrate the content in the article, but reserve the right to add content later to conform to Wp policies and procedures. Corticopia 14:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Activity from both parties seem to have subsided since the last warnings were issued (although possibly this is only because they've reached the end of their 'editing day'). I've elected to temporarily protected the article under dispute until such time as a consensus can be established on the talk pg. --cjllw | TALK 03:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)