Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive9

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

Violations

User:Zivinbudas/ User:85.206.193.250

He was already warned by User:BrokenSegue.

• Confederation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6

• Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7

• Vilnius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6

Also on Lithuania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

--Witkacy 15:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

This has continued. I've reverted him twice myself, so as I understand it, I can't be the one to block. He is way over 4 reverts in 24 hours, and he is accusing those who revert him of vandalism, and making mildly abusive remarks on the talk page. Witkacy also did (exactly) four reverts in under 24 hours. Frankly, if it were me, I could not bring myself to block Witkacy who, as far as I can tell is, like me, trying to fend off an uncooperative and borderline vandalistic editor whose edits show no regard for truth. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:49, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

• The reverts continued, I blocked Zivinbudas for 24 hours--nixie 06:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Is also reverting from user:85.206.195.170--nixie 06:57, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm about to call it a night, but since this person clearly has no intent of respcting even a block, and will continue his (or her? naah, not likely) minority-of-one edit war from an IP address, I would suggest that we might consider protecting the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:06, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • They seem to have stopped, but I'll protect the target articles anyway--nixie 07:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Zvinbudas, acting most of the time as an anon, have been vandalising the above articles (and several others) for over a month. Vilnus has been protected once already - it made him go away for two weeks (see relevant pages history and/or talk). Now he is back. Perhaps a range block can be used to stop him? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Zvinbudas vandalising Partitions of Poland (anon IP - 9 reverts)--Witkacy 12:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
    • If someone can work out the IP in binary for me should cover 85.206.193.X to 85.206.196.0 I will gladly do it.--nixie 02:02, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

User:198.208.160.27

Three revert rule violation on Clay Aiken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 198.208.160.27 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: [1] 11:39 May 3
• 2nd revert: [2] 16:16 May 3
• 3rd revert: [3] 6:06 May 4
• 4th revert: [4] 9:02 May 4
• 5th revert: [5] 10:19 May 4
• 6th revert: [6] 10:53 May 4

Reported by: · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:36, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

• There were also earlier reverts beyond this 24 hour window and have been more since I originally reported this. Now another anon user from a different IP has apparently begun doing the same thing. (Katefan0 21:10, 4 May 2005)
  • (Update: there have been more reverts since I originally posted this, and now a new anon has started removing the same information.) · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:32, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:User 198.2808.160.27, clearly a Clay Aiken fan, has been repeatedly removing information in the article referencing speculation that Clay Aiken might be gay, despite a consensus to include that information on the article's talk page (which has been listed on RfC, that's how I got involved). I haven't seen any indication that this person has visited the talk page though -- they certainly haven't participated; I suspect they may be somewhat new given the last revert, where they added "Line removed by scanning utility". (?) Between the most recent two reverts, I left two messages on the person's talk page asking them to come to the article's discussion page to try to come to some consensus instead of just continually reverting information. My second message included a warning that they could end up having their editing privileges temporarily revoked. No response except to delete the information and again replace it with the "scanning utility" line. I am not sure that a temp block would do much good, given that it's a dynamic IP, but I thought this step should be taken before requesting the page be protected.

Blocked. Re-report if it continues or if a new IP is used. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:39, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

66.82.9.49 has now deleted the same info once: ([7]) and added nonsense a second time ([8]). · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:52, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, the first IP is registered to General Motors... this one is a Direcway IP. Anyone think we should just block this one too? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:09, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Six reverts and he's blocked for four hours? In any case, he's back and reverting again (12:14, 5 May 2005 - current edit), so he's immediately in violation of the 3RR. --Calton | Talk 12:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I figured it was a dynamic IP and a once-off vandal, so I erred on the side of caution. He's gone for 48 hours this time. I'll also leave a mention on the talk page of the IP. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:36, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

New anons have joined the fracas. One revert so far by 24.190.195.114 ([9]) and two by 64.136.26.227 ([10], [11]). And, as Calton noted above, the original blocked anon editor has now begun reverting again. Hermione1980 has requested the page be protected at WP:RFPP. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:01, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

User:Jguk

Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

• 1st revert: 08:23, 2005 May 4
• 2nd revert: 14:44, 2005 May 4
• 3rd revert: 16:33, 2005 May 4

Reported by: Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:05, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

Comments: Jguk has been selectively modifying Wikipedia pages to try to influence an ongoing vote on use of style prefixes. (sorry, I'm not sure how to locate the diff links other than the datetime in the history)

Hardly. I've been reverting inappropriate modifications by Whig that have attempted the effect Lulu describes. Anyway - as Lulu reports, I have reverted three times, not more than three times. Kind regards, jguk 21:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Tagteam213 and User:Spastika

Three revert rule violation on List of national flags (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tagteam213 (talk · contribs) and Spastika (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 21:05 May 3, by Spastika
• 2nd revert: 15:34 May 4, by Spastika
• 3rd revert: 15:46 May 4, by Spastika
• 4th revert: 15:51 May 4, by Tagteam213
• 5th revert:15:57 May 4, by Tagteam213
• 6th revert: 16:17 May 4, by Tagteam213

Reported by: Carnildo 23:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments: Tagteam213 and Spastika are clearly the same user attempting to avoid the 3RR, as both are making the same edits, and the timing is so close. Note especially the edit summary on the sixth revert: "rv tagteam gang". Both are inserting Palestine into the list, against consensus on the talk page. --Carnildo 23:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked Spastika for 24 hours as s/he was the first to appear, and Tagteam213 indefinitely for being a sockpuppet created to violate policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:26, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I've permanently blocked Spastika for writing that he/she plans on continuing to post his/her own POV and doesn't care about anybody else's. An inappropriate ID anyway. RickK 23:49, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

User:68.105.80.162

Three revert rule violation on Alt.usenet.kooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.105.80.162 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 16:11, 2005 May 4 (UTC)
• 2nd revert: 17:58, 2005 May 4 (UTC)
• 3rd revert: 18:20, 2005 May 4 (UTC)
• 4th revert: 23:06, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

Reported by: JRM · Talk 00:21, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

Comments:

• Has been removing the name "Edmond Heinz Wollmann" as recipient of the "Kook of the Millennium" award. While unfortunate for mr. Wollmann, it also happens to be factually accurate, and referenced. Has gone and reverted a fourth time despite being warned not to. JRM · Talk 00:21, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 24 hours--nixie 01:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

User:67.86.77.225

Three revert rule violation on Personal water craft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.86.77.225 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 05:57, May 4, 2005
• 2nd revert: 17:02, May 4, 2005
• 3rd revert: 17:06, May 4, 2005
• 4th revert: 17:10, May 4, 2005
• 5th revert: 17:20, May 4, 2005

Not blocking him myself since I've been involved in the issue, but someone should. —Morven 00:30, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

blocked for 24. BrokenSegue 01:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Mel Etitis

"Admin" user Mel Etitis has been part of concerted vandalism campaign to erase the Islamofascism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) topic following a failed attempt to Vote-For-Deletion.

"Admin" user Mel Etitis has also banned ElKabong (talk · contribs) under Three_revert_rule for FIXING this vandalism, despite vandalism falling out of the restrictions of said rule.

Abuse of Admin authority and Vandalism by an admin confirmed.

Reported by: 129.7.35.207 16:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC) ElKabong {wrongly banned by Admin who was himself involved in "discussion" and vandalism}

Comments:

• Looks legit to me. Thanks for letting us know about the dispute, --SqueakBox 16:50, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is the first day of this user (ElKabong) on Wikipedia. The article has been protected (not by me). Noel (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

User:129.7.35.205

• 1st
• 2nd
• 3rd
• 4th

--SqueakBox 17:27, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

For those who are a unable to figure out what's going on from this incredibly abbreviated listing, the violation is on Islamofascism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), by 129.7.35.205 (talk · contribs). The article has now been protected; I suggest we ignore this entry, and also the previous one. Noel (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Appears to be a sockpuppet of blocked ElKabong (talk · contribs), using a new IP to get round his block and continue edit warring Islamofascism so that it had to be protected. If so this is unacceptable even for a very new user, --SqueakBox 18:55, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

User:Mike Garcia

Three-revert rule violation on Skin Yard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mike Garcia (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 23:47, 6 May 2005
• 2nd revert: 00:05, 7 May 2005
• 3rd revert: 16:26, 7 May 2005
• 4th revert: 18:43, 7 May 2005
• 5th revert: 18:53, 7 May 2005

Reported by: Chameleon 17:10, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• User keeps on reverting, and refuses to enter into discussion on the matter. Chameleon 17:10, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

• user blocked for 24 hoursGeni 23:03, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Cantus

Cantus, who is limited to one revert per 24 hours [12], reverted 3 times on Template:Europe.

• 1st revert: 09:22, May 7, 2005
• 2nd revert: 02:29, May 8, 2005
• 3rd revert: 03:12, May 8, 2005

Reported by: NoPuzzleStranger 01:37, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

user blocked for 24 hoursGeni 01:48, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

User:209.191.207.147

Three revert rule violation on Wal-Mart. User:209.191.207.147:

• 1st revert: 08:06, 8 May 2005
• 2nd revert: 08:30, 8 May 2005
• 3rd revert: 08:36, 8 May 2005
• 4th revert: 08:51, 8 May 2005

Reported by: bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 09:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• He also removed other people's comments from the discussion page and re-inserted copyrighted text (Sam's rules, from "Made in America" book by Sam Walton) into article. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 09:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• He was warned abou the three revert rule, his reply was:

  3 Reverts comment(this is not policy, it is hotly disputed practice, keep it off the policy page)GET WITH IT!!

• and he then made another violation on the Criticism of Wal-Mart article.

User:Leifern

Three revert rule violation on Vaccine controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Leifern (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 14:39, 8 May 2005
• 2nd revert: 14:07, 8 May 2005
• 3rd revert: 13:15, 8 May 2005
• 4th revert: 12:23, 8 May 2005

Reported by: Geni 16:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• straightforward 3RR violationGeni 16:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Geni, I've warned him on his talk page as I feel people should be warned before being blocked. I then went to the page to revert his 4th revert, but since then someone has put forward a compromise version, so I left it. If he reverts again, I'll block him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:33, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

This block is an abuse of the policy: the reverts in question are of images (graphs), which can not be reworded (duh). Geni knows this full well, and is trying to silence me because he disagrees with my contributions. Jtdirl has an axe to grind, because he and I have disagreed on unrelated matters. IMHO, Geni and Jtdirl should lose admin privileges, but I'll settle for an immediate unblocking. --Leifern 01:52, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

For some reason, User:Jtdirl blocked Leifern even though he'd made no further edits since the warning. I have therefore unblocked him. Leifern, please, no more reverting. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:54, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but how do you deal with deletions of images? As I said, it's not as if I can reword them? --Leifern 01:57, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

User:KEITH and associated IPs

Three revert rule violation on Nicaragua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). KEITH (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 20:37, 7 May 2005
• 2nd revert: 00:47, 8 May 2005
• 3rd revert: 01:54, 8 May 2005
• 4th revert: 13:41, 8 May 2005
• 5th revert: 17:23, 8 May 2005

Reported by: Worldtraveller 17:03, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• User:SqueakBox and I both warned him about the 3RR on his talk page, but he and various IPs which are clearly him not logged in have repeatedly re-inserted their badly written biased material. Worldtraveller 17:03, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• He is claiming to be 2 people, one from Canada, one from California, though is obviously a native Spanish speaker. My IP locator locates all anon IP's in Mexico City. I may have inadvertently crossed the 3RR myself by getting muddled up timewise yesterday, and have not touched the page after realising this (if I have I can only apologise), though I believe KEITH has reverted many more times as he has been up against me and worldtraveller. besides the spamming and almost certainly untrue statements combined with the terrible English makes his repeatedly putting in what he does arguably on the verge of vandalism,--SqueakBox 17:12, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

I've warned him on his talk page. I'm not sure there's any point in blocking him right now, as the edits have stopped and he seems to have access to several IP addresses anyway; and Squeakbox, if you also violated it, I'd have to block you too. I can protect it if you like, so let me know if that would help. If he does it again, he'll be blocked. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:52, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

User:Mir Harven

Three revert rule violation on Greater Serbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mir Harven (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 08:51, 8 May 2005
• 2nd revert: 12:02, 8 May 2005
• 3rd revert: 13:41, 8 May 2005
• 4th revert: 18:03, 8 May 2005

Reported by: Dejvid 19:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

Background: This is part of a long running edit war in which we have been on completely different wavelengths. A 3rd opinion has been requested.Dejvid 19:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Dejvid, judging by a glance at the history, you've violated 3RR too. I think protection would make more sense in this case so you can sort it out on talk. I've put a warning on Mir Harven's talk page, and I'll shortly be doing the same on yours. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:10, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

User:Slrubenstein

Three revert rule violation on Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Slrubenstein (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 17:00, 8 May 2005
• 2nd revert: 17:18, 8 May 2005
• 3rd revert: 19:07, 8 May 2005
• 4th revert: 20:00, 8 May 2005

Reported by: Arcturus 20:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

See edit comments and Talk:Jesus

• In view of Slrubenstein's previous block for 3RR on this page, I have blocked him for 24 hours. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:52, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't Slrubenstein's first edit simply count as an edit, and the next three as reverts? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:06, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I see now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:10, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see. That last diff makes no sense. El_C 22:27, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I think he just gave the wrong diff. Here's the final one. [13] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:31, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein's talk page shows he wasn't warned, which he probably should have been. Would anyone mind if, in light of this, I reduced the length of the block? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:36, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Fine by me, FWIW. James F. (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. El_C 23:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

If this was a first offense, I'd agree with reducing the length of the block. Since this is Slrubenstein's 3rd block for violating the 3RR [14], I'm not sure a warning is necessary. Carbonite | Talk 22:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm guessing he didn't realize he'd violated it. If he'd been warned, he'd have had a chance to revert himself and avoid the block. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:38, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Well perhaps he will learn to be more careful in future past experiance suggests he wont but that isn't my problemGeni 23:41, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm concerned that this is yet another bad-faith 3RR report that was not properly investigated. After reading the talk page, it appears that Slrubenstein was reverting based on talk-page consensus, while Arcturus, who reported this "violation," kept inserting the unsupported version. The dispute is, in fact, currently listed on WP:RFC. Given that, I think it's a terribly bad idea for any of the participants to be blocked. There can't be discussion if Slrubenstein is sitting out a 3RR block. Mackensen (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm inclined to significantly reduce the block. Does anyone explicitly object to this? El_C 23:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, though strictly speaking admins are not supposed to look at content issues regarding 3RR, but I think a warning on SLR's talk page would have helped, particularly as he was upholding the consensus. Brief page proection would have made more sense in this instance. I'm going to unblock him early unless anyone explicitly objects, but I'll leave it a few more hours, as I take on board the points made above that he's been blocked before. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:57, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein's block must last for the full 24 hours. If any of his little friends unblocks him before that time, I shall complain about that abuse of admin powers. Chameleon 00:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I've reduced the block to three hours from now, which means he'll have been blocked for six. This is twice the length of the last block he got from Geni. I'm doing this on the grounds that he's a good editor who was upholding the consensus of the talk page; he probably didn't realize he'd made a fourth revert, and because he wasn't warned, he wasn't given a chance to revert himself. If anyone strongly disagrees with me, feel free to reblock. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:15, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Very childish of you to reduce the block because you were told not to. Chameleon 00:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

could someone sort out all the other requests on this page? Normaly I would but I'm a bit busy and one of them I can't do anyway.Geni 00:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

This is silly. I'm going to remove the block, because it is evidently being used to punish actions rather than to prevent them re-occurring, which is vastly against the spirit of the 3RR policy, and it is obvious that prevention of further problems are best furthered at this point by encouraging the participants to discuss things.

Chameleon: Please, complain away, do. If I'm one of SLR's "little friends", I'd hate to meet one of his less favourable aquaintances. If my actions turn out to have been "abuse", I'm more than happy to apologise for and change them, but let's see, rather than just have idle threats poised above our heads, Sword of Damocles-like? James F. (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

This is exactly why we need an effective de-adminning process. There was nothing idle about my firm warning. Chameleon 00:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Mackensen's point, and I support James F.'s unblocking of SlR. I see no point in (and I actually find it counter-productive to) always follow the letter of that rule; I maintain that James F.'s actions followed its spirit. El_C 01:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello all - I was participating in the talk page with this user and his reversions WERE a problem. I made a polite but firm suggestion to him on the talk page that he was violating the 3RR rule. I found his behavior unnecessarily combative and generally dismissive of any opinions that did not coincide with his own. Rangerdude 00:35, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Rangerdude. Can you please point me to your "a polite but firm suggestion to him on the talk page that he was violating the 3RR rule" ? Thanks. El_C 02:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Could someone please point to the part of the policy that suggests it's okay to revert-war if you are "upholding consensus"? Slrubinstein has a history of revert-warring. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but suggesting he doesn't know what he's doing is a bit silly, frankly. And the point, El C, is that admins are evenhanded. They shouldn't give a pass to their friends. Doing so encourages some editors to feel they are "protected" and can revert to their heart's content. Surely you don't want to encourage that notion? Grace Note 03:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, Slrubenstein has a history of revert-warring against POV-pushers. This isn't necessarily a good thing, but I for one look favorably on users who try to uphold consensus and who push for academic integrity (in this, I refer to the long struggle against CheeseDreams). Wikipedia isn't just an exercise in democracy, anarchy, or even (sadly) aristocracy, but an attempt to make an encyclopedia. If we fetishize policy we risk losing sight that policy was made to protect the encyclopedia, not the other way round. Mackensen (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

User:KaintheScion

Three revert rule violation on Saudi Arabia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). KaintheScion (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: [15]
• 2nd revert: [16]
• 3rd revert: [17]
• 4th revert: [18]

Reported by: Yuber^(talk) 02:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Has reverted 4 times, he is also the new username of banned user El Kabong [19] BULLSHIT. I am not ElKabong. Stop lying, whoever introduced that edit.

---Ah. jpgordon, the Power-Abusing Admin. Go figure.

YUBER has reverted the article four times as well, was already reported on Vandalism reports for trying to introduce nonfactual information into the article repeatedly.User:KaintheScion

These two have been at it for three to four days according to the edit history of the article. Most of the edits during that time period are by either Yuber or Kain, responding to edits by the other to the article. I may not have been around as long as Yuber has, but I believe this is why they have the arbitration process. As stated above, the most recent development has been a vandalism report by Kain... a clear sign that things are getting out of hand IMHO. --Chanting Fox 02:25, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

• Chanting Fox, I specifically warned Yuber that I would report him as well as noting in my edits when I was removing his vandalism from the page. Introducing false and inaccurate information into Wikipedia IS vandalism, and Yuber is guilty, REPEATELY both in his re-edits and in his Reversions. KaintheScion

• Please provide proof of my four reverts, thanksYuber^(talk) 02:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• 1st revert [20]
• 2nd revert [21]
• 3rd revert [22]
• 4th Revert [23]

• THERE YOU GO, YUBER. KaintheScion

Yuber, the links you provided don't show the exact diffs of the reverts. However, looking at the history, it seems there's been reverting on both sides. I've warned KaintheScion, and if he reverts again, he'll be blocked. In the meantime, please thrash out the issues on the talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:27, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

I've actually taken steps to compromise and have included almost all of his information. He has just reverted plain and simple, not to mention engaging in many personal attacks.Yuber^(talk) 02:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked KaintheScion for 24 hours and protected the page. I have also referred the dispute to RfC.--nixie 02:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Peta, can I ask why you blocked KaintheScion? He made no further edits after the warning, you protected the page so he can't revert it again now anyway, and Yuber also looks as though he violated 3RR. Shouldn't we either protect or block? I don't see the point in both, as blocking for 3RR is meant to prevent revert wars and not be a punishment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:38, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Given the abusive nature of KaintheScions contributions on talk pages and via email, I thought it woulld be better block him for 24 hours in addition to protecting the page so that he could cool off and come back and act like a civil editor tomorrow. --nixie 02:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

But I see you have unblocked him, have fun --nixie 02:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't disagree about the abuse. I blocked him myself yesterday and was on the receiving end of it. I'm hoping that showing some good faith might get some back. Watch this space. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:11, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

This is the second time in the same day that SlimVirgin has unblocked someone blocked by a fellow admin for a 3RR. Perhaps SlimVirgin should better try to respect the opinions of his fellow admins. Just a thought.Yuber^(talk) 03:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

It's good practice to warn editors before blocking them for 3RR, especially if they're relatively new. If he does it again, he'll be blocked, don't worry. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:11, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

He knows his way around a little too well for me to believe that he is a new editor--nixie 03:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)