Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Blu Aardvark (talk | contribs)
2,008 edits
Line 2,099: Line 2,099:
:::::This page is about 3RR violation; when someone is violating 3RR, it's quite obvious that other editors have been reverting him. Obvious, and irrelevant. Vulturell violated 3RR; in fact, he reverted at least 5 times, and was ''still'' offered the opportunity of reverting himeself, yet refused to do so; that's more than fair. As for El C, what "on-going conflict" are you referring to? Finally, I don't know a lot about WR, but based on the evidence that has been presented to me, it appears that both of its incarnations are little more than venues for cranks and anti-Semites to insult Wikipedia editors. And the fact that you have [[User:Jayjg/Disruptive Apartheid editor|Disruptive Apartheid editor]] posting there as CDRome only encourages that view. Frankly, I'm tired of these smearing accusations ("alleged affiliations" etc.) against alleged "Wikipedia Jews" that turn out to be based on the claims of editors like the neo-Nazi Amalekite and the anti-semitic Jew-obsessed Disruptive Apartheid editor; here's an example of the latter's recent "contributions" to Wikipedia (note in particular the edit summary) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AJayjg&diff=44337057&oldid=44255479]. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 07:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::This page is about 3RR violation; when someone is violating 3RR, it's quite obvious that other editors have been reverting him. Obvious, and irrelevant. Vulturell violated 3RR; in fact, he reverted at least 5 times, and was ''still'' offered the opportunity of reverting himeself, yet refused to do so; that's more than fair. As for El C, what "on-going conflict" are you referring to? Finally, I don't know a lot about WR, but based on the evidence that has been presented to me, it appears that both of its incarnations are little more than venues for cranks and anti-Semites to insult Wikipedia editors. And the fact that you have [[User:Jayjg/Disruptive Apartheid editor|Disruptive Apartheid editor]] posting there as CDRome only encourages that view. Frankly, I'm tired of these smearing accusations ("alleged affiliations" etc.) against alleged "Wikipedia Jews" that turn out to be based on the claims of editors like the neo-Nazi Amalekite and the anti-semitic Jew-obsessed Disruptive Apartheid editor; here's an example of the latter's recent "contributions" to Wikipedia (note in particular the edit summary) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AJayjg&diff=44337057&oldid=44255479]. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 07:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::El C has expressed no view on the content issue, and I have no idea what you mean by the "larger-scale conflict," unless you're referring to the website you're a moderator of, which has posted requests for information about Wikipedia editors' personal identities. That's the same website on which you posted that the neo-Nazi [[User:Amalekite|Amalekite]] made an "excellent point" when he posted the list of perceived Jewish editors to the Stormfront site, and that although he "did use the term 'kike' ... he later explained that was because he simply wanted to excercise [sic] the right to use the word ..." [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 07:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::El C has expressed no view on the content issue, and I have no idea what you mean by the "larger-scale conflict," unless you're referring to the website you're a moderator of, which has posted requests for information about Wikipedia editors' personal identities. That's the same website on which you posted that the neo-Nazi [[User:Amalekite|Amalekite]] made an "excellent point" when he posted the list of perceived Jewish editors to the Stormfront site, and that although he "did use the term 'kike' ... he later explained that was because he simply wanted to excercise [sic] the right to use the word ..." [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 07:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::::He has not? Perhaps I simply read his vitriol-laden statements on the article talk page the wrong way, then - it is indeed possible that he wasn't interested in the content, but rather simply has a personal grudge against Vulturell, possibly because of his involvement in the forum, but possibly for other reasons. I also am rather amused at your not-so-clever trolling and your blatant misquote of my statement. I stated that I felt that Amalekite (whose ban was not justifed by Wikipedia policy, BTW) made a good point - once you cut through the anti-semitism and the spaztic knee-jerk reactions that certain people have when encountering such extreme viewpoints. I do not endorse his polical beliefs, but I do endorse his right to have those political beliefs. I am not anti-semitic myself, and, to be frank, I'm rather sick of you and your fellow trolls El C and Grace Note insinuating that I am. Oh, and as for the alleged "statement" made by donkey that appeared to be challenging Qwerty, shortly after which Qwerty blocked - new evidence has come to light that it might not have been your little troll buddy who posted it. Seems that the account "donkey" was created as a communal account, and the login info posted to bugmenot.com (and yes, it works - except for the fact that the account is permanently banned). Oh, and the fact that your little "Dr Zen" posted to his blog admitting that his intent was to "heavily troll" (yes, we know these things now). And yes, Igor has posted a request for information about the identity of several obnoxious trolls who have attempted to damage, defame, and undermine the board - your little pet Freddy included (actually, him being the prime target). What does that matter? --[[User:Blu Aardvark|Blu Aardvark]] | <sup>[[User_talk:Blu Aardvark|(talk)]] | [[special:contributions/Blu Aardvark|(contribs)]]</sup> 08:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


===[[User:TruthInAdvertising]]===
===[[User:TruthInAdvertising]]===

Revision as of 08:38, 19 March 2006

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    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:Master Of RSPW

    Three revert rule violation on User:Eat At Joes (edit | [[Talk:User:Eat At Joes|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Master Of RSPW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    This user is harassing User:Eat At Joes with frequent changes to his user page, and is most likely User:Chadbryant. --166.102.104.55 05:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This user has now violated 3RR on SteveInPrague:


    He has been warned, and once again it is highly likely that he is a sock of User:Chadbryant, who has recently served a 24-hour suspension for violating 3RR. --166.102.104.55 05:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Above complaint is anonymous because there is a 99.999999999% chance that it is from the infamous "DickWitham" troll, currently blocked from both of his active accounts (User:Eat At Joes & User:SteveInPrague for 3RR, harassment, and uncivil behaviour. User:ESkog has seen fit to block this "anonymous" user for evading a block. - Chadbryant 05:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TruthCrusader

    Three revert rule violation on Rec.sport.pro-wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TruthCrusader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (all times MST):

    • [9] (22:33, 7 March 2006)
    • [10] (13:05, 7 March 2006)
    • [11] (12:54, 7 March 2006)
    • [12] (00:49, 7 March 2006)

    - Chadbryant 05:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There are only 3. The last revision is dated March 8th. Nice try. TruthCrusader 08:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You violated 3RR by reverting an article more than three times in a 24-hour period. The calendar date is immaterial. Nice try. Master Of RSPW 08:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    This user has also violated 3RR on my userpage.
    Three revert rule violation on User:Master Of RSPW (edit | [[Talk:User:Master Of RSPW|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TruthCrusader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
    This user is becoming very abusive in his actions on Wikipedia. Master Of RSPW 05:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Chad, that last revision is also dated March 8th. Remember we are in totally different time zones. Nice try though. TruthCrusader 08:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, you violated 3RR by reverting an article more than three times in a 24-hour period. The calendar date is immaterial. Once again, nice try. And you can stop insinuating the my real name is "Chad", as that is a violation of the harassment policy here at Wikipedia, since I choose not to reveal my real name here, as you also claim. Master Of RSPW 08:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for 3RR, considering extending for real name outing, accurate or not. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone check my math here, please - I believe I may have made an error. First reversion was 2:49:25 AM Mar 7, last was 12:23:42 AM March 8. Is that 22:39:27 total? I freely admit that 60 seconds per hour thing is giving me fits, I am still on my first cup of coffee. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's correct. You performed admirably, considering the coffee thing. :P —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks much. (Both for the math-check and the caffiene deprived performance pat on the back.) KillerChihuahua?!? 16:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JohnBWatt

    Three revert rule violation on Mucky Pup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JohnBWatt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: MikeWazowski 06:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • JohnBWatt demands that his version of the article be the only valid one, will not allow other editors control. Consistently removes valid information that doesn't gel with his viewpoint. User was warned about 3RR, continues to revert. Previously reported last month for similar actions, but no action taken.
    Blocked for 24 hours. I am especially not impressed with the edit summary "Report away" on the last reversion. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:T-1000 & User:24.228.52.76 on Venom (comics)

    User:T-1000

    Three revert rule violation on Venom (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). T-1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: MikeJ9919 08:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • This report is linked with the report below. Both are insistent on imposing their version. Discussion is ongoing on the Talk page. I'm doing my best to mediate, and I've invited other Comics editors to weigh in. The anonymous user below has shown limited knowledge on WP policy and procedure, so he may not even know about 3RR. However, blocking only one would send a poor message. Perhaps a stern warning would be best? --MikeJ9919 08:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:24.228.52.76

    Three revert rule violation on Venom (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.228.52.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: MikeJ9919 08:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • This report is linked with the report above. Both are insistent on imposing their version. Discussion is ongoing on the Talk page. I'm doing my best to mediate, and I've invited other Comics editors to weigh in. This anonymous user has shown limited knowledge on WP policy and procedure, so he may not even know about 3RR. However, blocking only one would send a poor message. Perhaps a stern warning would be best? --MikeJ9919 08:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ive blocked both for 12 hours William M. Connolley 13:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Copperchair

    Three revert rule violation by Copperchair (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This one is very unusual since it is on the user's own Talk page, which I realize is not normally subject to the 3RR. However, I believe this to be something of a special case, for reasons discussed in the Comments section below.

    Reported by: PurplePlatypus 10:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • This user (who has persisted in this highly obnoxious behaviour for a VERY long time and despite numerous editors and admins telling him to stop) appears to be blanking his Talk page for the purpose of removing legitimate warnings, including the official notice of an ArbCom decision against him. It is clear to me, at least, that this is not what the usual exemption for one's own userspace is meant to allow, and is not a valid use of reversion. It would be fine if he were merely archiving this material, but he is not depsite having promised to do so.
    • There have been a few attempts to reach a compromise with him over this and well over a dozen editors reverting him and/or telling him to knock it off, but it's like talking to a wall. In the past he has tried to appear reasonable, including empty promises such as the one linked to above, but has never actually changed his behaviour significantly; lately he doesn't even pretend to be open to discussion. 3RR is the least of the problems with this user, who is clearly a net negative to Wikipedia, but it's the one I currently feel it may be possible to do something about. PurplePlatypus 10:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You cannot be blocked for 3RR on your own talk page except for very exceptional circumstances. And anyway its pointless because blocked users can edit their own talk pages. And I don't think there is any real requirement to leave the notice there. Stop reverting his talk page, put a not on the RFA talk page and see if any of the arbitrators have an opinion William M. Connolley 12:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think there is any real requirement to leave the notice there. Wrong. Straight from WP:VAND:
    Removing warnings
    Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism.
    PurplePlatypus 21:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you like; but I consider that dubious. Must sort it out some time; in the meantime, there is no way I (personally) will block anyone for it. Others, of course, will have their own views William M. Connolley 00:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Master Of RSPW

    Three revert rule violation on User_talk:TruthCrusader (edit | [[Talk:User_talk:TruthCrusader|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Master Of RSPW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    I also wish to point out that Master Of Rspw (suspected Chad Bryant sockpuppet) is also posting in the edit comments the following uncivil and slightly racist statement: (your talk page is to be maintained, boy)

    I also wish to point out that this user is constantly removing a legitimate sockpuppet template from his user page, while putting sockpuppet templates on other users pages and then reverting them and reporting them for vandalism when they remove them, yet is guilty of doing the same thing himself. It is highly suspected by several users that Master Of RSPW is a sockpuppet of User:Chadbryant


    Reported by: TruthCrusader 11:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • The reverts were 3RR warnings, which TruthCrusader was reverting. Please note that removing 3RR warnings and other policy warnings from your talk page is vandalism. Hence, the reversions were reversions of vandalism, not subject to the 3RR rule. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I would say that you are allowed to remove these things if you really want to, and would have blocked MoRSPW for 3RR and perhaps for the edit comment too William M. Connolley 12:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Which summary, "this page is to be maintained" one? This was not a cut-and-dry case for me, I would not have differed had someone else blocked. They've been edit warring for a bit, it seems, and things have gotten out of hand. Removing warnings is indeed vandalism per WP:VAND. Edit warring over warnings is asinine, though. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Irishpunktom

    Three revert rule violation on Peter Tatchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Irishpunktom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: David | Talk 16:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • As stated above this refers to an edit Irishpunktom has insisted on making which relates to a dispute between the human rights activist Peter Tatchell and Desi Xpress columnist Adam Yosef. Irishpunktom has persisted in deleting the statement that Adam Yosef apologised for a column stating that Tatchell "needed a good slap" (the words "I would like to take this opportunity to apologise for any distress the above remarks may have caused" appear in Yosef's statement [24]), and that one remark of Yosef's concerned statements made by Tatchell concerning the Sydney riots of 2005. I have made an extensive search and found no such statements, and at my invitation Irishpunktom has been unable to identify them, but he asserts that it is irrelevant to say that there were none because it is Adam Yosef's belief that there were which is important. I did warn Irishpunktom that he was in danger of crossing the 3RR before he did so.
      • Recommend that the Admin check properly, there is no 3RR breach. Further, the statement made by Yousef is cited as being a statement made by him. If its accuracy is doubted, find a source doubting it and add it. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • From WP:3RR: "Reverting, in this context, applies to undoing the actions of another editor in whole or part, not necessarily taking a previous version from history and editing that". In the fourth revert, Irishpunktom undid for the fourth time an edit which pointed out that Peter Tatchell had said nothing whatsoever about the Sydney riots. David | Talk 16:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Bit of a mess at the end, but definitely 4RR at least. Blocked 24h William M. Connolley 17:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've had a re-think on this, and decided to unblock (the other option was to block both equally; both are edit warring). I still think this was 4RR, but looking through the diffs I realised after a bit that I couldn't tell the two sides apart or work out who was putting in the fact tags and who was removing them... If anyone else wants to have a shot at this, feel free William M. Connolley 18:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:136.215.251.179

    Three revert rule violation on Abortion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 136.215.251.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    This user also edits as User:Goodandevil. There are minor differences between diffs, user tends to make changes over several edits back to back, and I tried to pick diffs which most clearly showed the reversion. None of the diffs include edits by any other editor. These edits are a substantial change to the Definitions section, against consensus. See article history for details. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Reported by: KillerChihuahua?!? 17:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    User:SPUI and User:JohnnyBGood

    User:SPUI

    Three revert rule violation on Interstate 80 Business (Sacramento, California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SPUI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Gateman1997 20:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • This is part of a long edit war between this user and the JohnnyBGood. However this user is making many changes despite ongoing consensus building conversations and acting unilaterally and per evidence here he intends to continue prosecuting his edit war.Gateman1997 20:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not quit a 3RR violation, his last two edits where not a revert. There where only 3 reverts.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 06:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Given his arbcom conditions, 12h for "not quite a 3RR vio" is a bargain, IMO. Alai 06:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JohnnyBGood

    Three revert rule violation on Interstate 80 Business (Sacramento, California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JohnnyBGood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Gateman1997 20:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • While I agree with his position on the subject, he is edit warring with SPUI and violating the 3RR rather then waiting out consensus discussions.Gateman1997 20:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 12h each William M. Connolley 00:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: there was more to this than appeared: 2006-03-09 03:06:50 David Gerard blocked "JohnnyBGood (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (sockpuppetry (JohnnyBGood and Gateman1997; email me with which is "real", the other is gone)) William M. Connolley 19:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Um.... more proof that JohnnyBGood is not a sock of Gateman1997. See WP:AN/I. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)

    Three revert rule violation on Erwin Rommel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Markyour words 09:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • When the block was placed, and when the request was made, R.D.H. hadn't made an edit for over eight hours. Shouldn't the blocks be preventative, not punitive? Leithp 10:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my view, he knew what he was doing when he did it. There's been a report at WP:AN/3RR, and I blocked as I don't see how he should be allowed to violate policy. No one should (and yes, I include Jimbo in this). You may unblock or lessen the block as you see fit, go ahead. NSLE (T+C) at 10:04 UTC (2006-03-09)
    • Okay, I left it 1/2 an hour to see if anyone else wanted to add their input. I'll now unblock. Hopefully this will mean that there can be a conversation about this on the relevant talk page, rather than seeing further reverts. Leithp 10:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:68.1.74.140

    Three revert rule violation on Madea's Family Reunion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.1.74.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Kafziel 13:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • The user has now been blocked for 24 hours per 3RR. Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 15:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just for future reference, it would be better to include actual diff links rather than links to specific revisons. android79 16:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, having to find and open all of the diffs was anoying, but it has to be done, as people will slip in non-revert edit just to get people blocked (or they just don't really get 3RR).Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 16:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Got it. Thanks for your help! Sorry it had to come to that, and hopefully he will be willing to discuss the situation after the block expires. Kafziel 16:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The user renewed his IP address and is making the same reverts as 68.1.71.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [25] Kafziel 22:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Imacomp

    Three revert rule violation on Freemasonry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Imacomp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Vidkun 14:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    User:69.205.1.109

    Three revert rule violation on Tom Swift (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.205.1.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Antaeus Feldspar 19:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • This is the second time this user has violated 3RR on this article in less than six days; see previous report. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Blocked for 24 hours, probably deserves a longer block. —Ruud 20:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no vandalism, so aren't you violating 3RR? I am blocking you too for 24 hours unless a good reason comes that explains this. Many of the reverts barely miss 3rr when considering the 24 hour factor. However, both of you have been revert warring for so long that a block is warranted anyway.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 20:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see him breaking 3RR but this is quite silly, indeed. On the other hand, blocking the anon should have stopped the editwar.—Ruud 20:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • In response to the idea that I am violating 3RR because "there is no vandalism", please explain to me how that can possibly be reconciled with what the three-revert rule is? Even if you meant that I was misapplying 3RR instead of "violating" 3RR, what you wrote above still implies that no one is ever violating 3RR, no matter how many reverts they make, unless those reverts are also vandalism. As for "revert warring for so long", will you please tell me what should be done when an editor such as User:69.205.1.109 refuses to abide by the consensus of other editors and keeps making changes supported by no other editor? Please, I would love a better solution, and I know the other editors who have asked 69.205.1.109 (talk · contribs)/69.205.7.46 (talk · contribs)/Solo1 (talk · contribs)/Swiftfan (talk · contribs)//RMedford (talk · contribs) to stop and to respect consensus would appreciate it as well. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you are saying that edit warring beyond the bounds of the 3RR is what you should do then you're simply wrong. You should just stop reverting, and find other editors who agree with you. There should be no need to do it all yourself. You don't get to revert freely because you want to. I don't understand your slightly outlandish claim that noone is ever violating the 3RR. Very plainly, VOA is saying that, if you revert more than 3 times in 24 hours and you are not reverting vandalism in doing so, then you break the 3RR. It's not misapplication, it's violation, pure and simple. VoA's would-be block is entirely justified. However, since you've not reverted the IP's last revert, I'm not going to block you myself, unless you revert again inside 24 hours. -Splashtalk 21:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Very plainly, VOA is saying that, if you revert more than 3 times in 24 hours and you are not reverting vandalism in doing so, then you break the 3RR. Right, and someone who did that would be violating the 3RR. But where do you think I reverted more than 3 times in 24 hours? My "outlandish claim" was simply me trying to figure out why VOA was apparently claiming that reporting User:69.205.1.109's edits was violation of the 3RR -- that was the only interpretation that made sense to me, since I knew that I had not broken the 3RR by exceeding three reverts in twenty-four hours. As for "there should be no need to do it all yourself," yes, I entirely agree with you, I shouldn't have to be the only one actually taking action about a rogue editor, and I guess I won't be, if what it gets me is false accusations and threats of blocking. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I apologise. I did not properly examine the timing of the history as I was more interested in whether or not the kind of violation was possible. Not that this is a particularly good excuse, but it is why. I've withdrawn those parts of my comment. -Splashtalk 22:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Looks like this stems from my initial hasty wording, so I apologize as well, for not wording what I was saying in a clear way the first time. Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 22:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • That said... the anon looks like an incommunicable troll to me. —Ruud 21:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • If he fails to talk, get other editors down there. Since the edit is question are not vandalism or obvious POV or against concurrent consensus, we can't just can't start selectively blocking or idetentifying people as trolls yet (and there is a time for that). So it is therefore just another edit war with two 3rr violators to us. I am not going to block for the same reason as Splash in addition to you being warned now. In the future, you now know what to do.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 21:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • If he fails to talk, get other editors down there. I'd like to point out that I was the other editor. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Either way, you could have waited for other editors to come down, as I saw no sense of urgency judging from the IP's edits. If he was adding clear POV nonsense, then passing 3RR would likely not get you in trouble (or as much), but you reverted anyway. All I am saying, is that this was just a typical edit war, the IP does not appear to be a troll, so you should have got a quick agreement by several editors against the IP's version; beinf contacted by one person is not enough, you should wait and let a third person revert if needed (to not break 3RR). In other words: don't break 3RR unless there is profound urgency (like vandalism). Just try to get another editors to reviews the edits if no other is present (like the user who contacted you). If you can get several people to revert him, he should give up (or get 3rr blocked). Remember that you can POV tag an article instead of reverting again past 3RR, if you are worried about the state of the article.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 22:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Young_Zaphod, User:67.165.85.111, User:68.162.128.9

    Three revert rule violation on Online_creation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and NiMUD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Young_Zaphod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), User:67.165.85.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), User:68.162.128.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 20:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • The IPs all seem to belong to Young Zaphod, and CheckUser has shown that Young Zaphod is 67.165.85.111 [26]. While Young Zaphod has not been definitively checked against 68.162.128.9, that IP is on the same network as one which he HAS been proven to be, 68.162.148.34 (checkuser: [27], IP1: [28], IP2: [29]). 68.162.148.34 and Eggster (possibly others, I don't remember) both got temp blocked for 3rr in the past.
    • The Online creation reverts center around the public release of his software NiMUD which he co-wrote; it has been established as being in mid-'94, and he changes it to 1993 without an explanation.
    • The NiMUD reverts center around that, plus a big group of changes that are discussed on the talk page.
    • I placed warnings, and he's made reverts after the warnings were given:
      • [30] Young Zaphod, 07:44, 9 March
      • [31] 68.162.128.9, 20:59, 8 March

    On the assumption that 68.162.128.9 is probably YZ, I shall block William M. Connolley 20:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    A new user with no other contributions, JanKees (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been posting things on behalf of [32] Young Zaphod, claiming to be a meat puppet [33] rather than a sock. Like him, this new user is making the same reverts without any explanation, using insulting edit summaries for most of his reverts, and giving random unexplained warnings [34] to people. I don't know if it's actually a real person or not. His other puppets were all civil until he realized that the persona was discovered, so this new person is following his pattern. There has also been a new IP (69.90.211.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)). Seriously, does one week really seem too long? Anyway, [35] seems to suggest that they are "treated similarly", so I'm not sure if this counts as a violation of his block or not. All the other editors I assume have his talk page on their watch list, as I've seen other people unblanking his talk page, so I think it's reasonable that he could just stick to his talk page for this week at least. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 12:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I am very hesitant to add this complaint, as it could be someone else trying to make it look like they are YZ in order to make him look bad and thus extend his block. I noticed his RfC got linked to from a forum some time last week, so any random enemy he's made could be trying to defame him or something like that. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 13:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked some more at his contribs, and found [36] which matches his pattern more than the other edits, so I don't think so much that it could be somebody else anymore. JanKees in that edit reverted to re-add (very blatant) vandalism that was caught by an RC patroller. If that IP and JanKees are really a new person, they're doing the same things as YZ did. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 14:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked this user for 12h; see his talk page William M. Connolley 18:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:VrrayMan

    Three revert rule violation on FX Networks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). VrrayMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Zpb52 23:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • User is continually reverting to vandalized version without regard, and is now threatening to report me for 3RR for reverting his vandalism.

    User:64.131.23.140/USFamily.net user

    Three revert rule violation on Leelkase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 64.131.23.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [37]
    • 1st revert: [38]
    • 2nd revert: [39]
    • 3rd revert: [40]

    Reported by: Gyrofrog (talk) 06:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • The user is posting from USFamily.net and the IP address changes with each succession of edits (so I suspect it's either a dial-up connection, or works like AOL). (I've kept track of this here.) I've left warnings at each IP, so I don't know if the user is not seeing them or simply ignoring them. Similarly, since the IP changes every time I'm not sure a block would help anyway. This isn't four reverts in 24 hours, but it's been going on since Feb. 19th: consider this a request for help or advice, if nothing else. I've been cleaning up after this user, now I am afraid I could violate 3RR myself, because I'm not positive the user's edits amount to vandalism. The user is actually trying to add some info to the article so it's likely the person just doesn't know what he is doing (if that sounds like a personal attack I'm not sure how else to say it, take a look at his/her formatting...). Thanks. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 06:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If no one objects (nor thinks that I am in danger of 3RR myself), I will continue to revert this user's edits on the basis that they are disruptive (if not intentionally so). I am trying to be mindful of the rule that admins not enforce 3RR for articles they've been editing. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a 3RR violation. Only a fourth revert would be a violation. Stifle 03:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Overacker

    Three revert rule violation on John_Doolittle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Overacker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to:

    18:48, 5 March 2006

    Reported by: ---J.Smith 06:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: This guy has been reverting to this version for weeks now. *shrug*

    Blocked 8 hours as a first offense. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rydel

    Three revert rule violation on Belarusian language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rydel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Kuban Cossack 12:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: User also is most unwilling to discuss, this article was locked twice because of this and has been reported to vandalism it was reverted over at least 30 times back and forth. --Kuban Cossack 12:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This user is an experienced POV-pusher who normally edits be.wiki but sometimes resorts to English Wiki in order to push his POV by revert warring. Only a block may prevent the article history from being destroyed by his reverts. Please stop the carnage. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The "previous version reverted to" doesn't in any way match the current reverts. So the "score", if you will, is Ghirla 3 reverts, Rydel 3 reverts, in the past 24 hours. Drop a note on my talk (or reply here) if either party reverts an additional time. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How about this version then: 00:34, 25 February 2006? --Kuban Cossack 14:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, thats 4 then. 12 hours I think William M. Connolley 17:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Dbiv

    Three revert rule violation on Ken Livingstone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dbiv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
    • 1st revert: [41]
    • 2nd revert: [42]
    • 3rd revert: [43]
    • 4th revert: [44]
      • The fourth is slightly complex, but, it is a revert in that it reverts almost all the information he wants in at the expense of other info.

    Reported by: Irishpunktom\talk 18:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • Straight forward case of a 3RR breach. User is well aware of the 3RR rules, having attempted to block me yesterday. --Irishpunktom\talk 18:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • a) First revert is an edit not a revert. b) 4th revert is nothing of the sort: it incorporates a comment made by Irishpunktom on talk. c) User did not give any notification of this report. d) Manifest tit for tat report following user's previous block. David | Talk 18:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't be bothered to hack through this one, sorry. Someone else might. But I will say that unless you both settle down you'll both get blocked by *someone*, since you're clearly edit warring. William M. Connolley 23:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        • The users have now been warned per 3RR. I don't see a clear violation by the user in question, though it is borderline. To the both of you: please stop reverting and discuss. Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 23:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's very difficult to discuss things with a POV revert warrior who dislikes using talk pages. I've tried, honestly I have. If he does this sort of blank revert war again it will have to be a user RFC. David | Talk 00:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • You can get other editors to discuss (and revert), when three editors revert one editor that refuses to talk, the three tend to win. If this fails...then yes...RfC.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 00:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, but that assumes there are editors around who (a) know the issues involved (b) have the time to get stuck in themselves. I do not honestly think it preferable to wait around with a factually incorrect article for someone else to revert. I also hate badly spelled articles (and Irishpunktom is, I am afraid, an appalling speller). In my view the 3RR is something to be applied with an eye to content and not a mechanistic approach. You have to look at the quality of the edits not merely whether they are reverts (and some enforcers don't even do that). David | Talk 00:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:129.186.232.42

    Three revert rule violation on The Hindu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 129.186.232.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: 02:26, 10 March 2006
    • 1st revert: [45] 02:52, 10 March 2006
    • 2nd revert: [46] 18:22, 10 March 2006
    • 3rd revert: [47] 18:32, 10 March 2006
    • 4th revert: [48] 18:39, 10 March 2006

    Reported by: User:BostonMA 19:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you not warn her? The talk page is still red. I'll give a token 1h block & lengthen it if she reverts again William M. Connolley 19:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:70.85.195.138

    Three revert rule violation on Movement to impeach George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.85.195.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [09:22 ]
    • 1st revert: [49] 14:05
    • 2nd revert: [50] 14:07
    • 3rd revert: [51] 14:09
    • 4th revert: [52] 14:15

    Reported by: Stbalbach 19:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • This IP is used by someone informally named the "The Anon Texan" and keeping track of various IP's and usernames being used User:Stbalbach/anontexan, there is also a Category set up to track his ID's. -- Stbalbach 19:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The user is now using additional anon IP's to get around the 3RR rule including User:66.98.130.204 and User:67.15.76.188 -- see edit history of article above. -- Stbalbach 19:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    With so many IPs its not clear how blocking will help. You could try checkuser, possibly. I've semi-protected the article for now William M. Connolley 20:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AdamJacobMuller

    Three revert rule violation on Movement to impeach George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). AdamJacobMuller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: 192.168.225.195 21:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually posted by user:70.85.195.225 and signed with a fake IP number.[53] This IP is associated with Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Socks_of_Shran/CantStandYa. -Will Beback 03:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • This editor AdamJacobMuller, works in close tandem with Stbalbach to completly hijack this article. The article is rife with POV and OR violations, but any edits made to correct any of that is attacked by this team. Also, I see that the anons editing there are using explicit edit summaries to justify each edit, but these reverters simply revert and refuse to dialog on talk. This page is begging for a more neutral tone.

    There is a problem here. I have sprotected the article and warned AJM about over-enthusiasm (as I see it). But I doubt the good faith if this anon William M. Connolley 21:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    In fact there are so many anons floating around this article that I didn't realise that I've just blocked this same one [54] for removing sock tags... William M. Connolley 21:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    there are so many anons floating around this article - it's mostly the same user, please see User:Stbalbach/anontexan. -- Stbalbach 23:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:125.247.105.242 and User:MB on al-Khwarizmi

    User:125.247.105.242

    Three revert rule violation on Al-Khwarizmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 125.247.105.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: MB 22:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • The user has now been warned per 3RR. 1st "revert" not actually a revert. Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 23:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case, do you want to do anything about: 2006-03-10 23:42:34 InShaneee blocked "125.247.105.242 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation)?
    • Actually you probably shouldn't, because there are at least 4 self-marked reverts by the anon (including the rvv's) William M. Connolley 23:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah...nevermind. I see the older ones for today...just having some time offset issues (fortunetely my UTC clock in the corner matches up, not that that helps much here).Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 23:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MB

    Three revert rule violation on Al-Khwarizmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments:

    • This editor User:MB is a chronic 3rr violaror. Zmmz 22:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't be that chronic, has no 3RR form [59]
    • OTOH, MB has clearly broken 3RR here, so I shall block; same length as anon, it only seems fair (what was MB thinking of, to report this?) William M. Connolley 23:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:80.19.30.10

    Three revert rule violation on Al-Khwarizmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 80.19.30.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments:

    • This editor with IP address 80.19.30.10 use a weasel word in his last edit, but it shows the article was reverted. It is possible it may be user MB, who is using a sockpuppet.Zmmz 23:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a 3RR violation. Only a fourth revert is a breach. Stifle 02:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:70.22.222.244

    Three revert rule violation on Johann Fux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). In fact his entire user contributions log is a sequence of reverts on this page. Also he appears to be a Sock Puppet or dynamically assigned IP with User:71.243.27.2 who multiply-reverted the same page immediately before 70.22.222.244 started. Aggressive and confrontational Edit Summery comments. I have stopped reverting his reverts to avoid 3RRing myself, but have left explanatory notes on the Johann Fux Discussion page. Gwernol 00:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oops, just noticed that I violated 3RR in this case too. My apologies, an over-enthusiastic attempt to keep the page in order. Must learn to count... Gwernol 00:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked his two most recent IPs- somewhat unorthodox, but I thought that short blocks to combat multiple IPs were a reasonable application of IAR. It would be nice if someone could revert to the pre-3RR-vio version, and do anything else that might seem necessary. Markyour words 01:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Aucaman

    Three revert rule violation on Parsi (ethnic group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Aucaman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    05:36, 11 March 2006]


    Comments:

    • The user Aucaman is a chronic violator of the 3rr, he had done so many times in the Persian people article, and was warned many times.Zmmz 23:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your #4 is not a revert. He has made three reverts, but not a fourth. Stifle 02:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And also, he has not been previously blocked for 3RR violations, and has only had two warnings before. I've added a friendly reminder. Stifle 02:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The user just broke revert #4, before the 24 hour period was over. So the links are now updated.Zmmz 05:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • With all due repsect this why was he quickly unblocked? The user Aucaman has been warned already three times since Feb., yet, since he had broke the 3rr many times, and not blocked for it. He has also reverted on the Persian people article, please check the history of that page, and he starts many edit wars simultanously. His activities are off-the-chart. Why is [so] much exception being given to this user, while other users are blocked promptly? Please look into it, and reconsider your decision.Zmmz 08:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jidan

    Three revert rule violation on Al Khwarizmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jidan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments:

    • The user was warned a couple of times of the 3rr in good faith, in one of the discussion pages prior to this violation.Zmmz 02:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see reverts here. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look at revert no.2 through 5 please.Zmmz 05:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Each of these edits are substantially different. Editing a page frequently is not necessarily reverting it. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Revert no.2 through 5 show the user simply copied and pasted his version everytime someone else changed it, so I`m not sure how they are substantially different?Zmmz 06:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are entirely new sections in different versions. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am considering blocking stocking repeat false 3RR reporters...this is just getting ridiculous.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 01:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Master Of RSPW and User:FARVA

    Three revert rule violation on Rec.sport.pro-wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Master_Of_RSPW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule violation on Rec.sport.pro-wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). FARVA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: tv316 04:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • These two are also waging a war amongst each other on their user pages, reverting sockpuppet tags that BOTH have equal rights of being there. Master Of RSPW likes to put sockpuppet tags everywhere, but removes the tags when he gets accused of being a sockpuppet, despite there being valid reasons as to why he is suspected. Either both tags go, or they both stay. It should be that simple. tv316 04:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although both are likely sockpuppets, neither has been warned of 3RR. In the spirit of not biting the newbies, I have warned both, but will have a very low tolerance for further reversions to the same page. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued reverts by Master of RSPW have led to a 12-hour block. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Zero0000

    user Zero has been enaging in massive Talk:Machsom_Watch#Reverets_by_Zero (5 times in the last 24 hours according to a count by SlimVirgin [72])

    Three revert rule violation on Machsom Watch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zero0000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    This folows a whole set of reverts in which Zero restored the 1st paragrph of the article to it's own version against consenus and ignoring a request for mediation on the issue: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Machsom_Watch

    [73] [74] [75] and more

    Reported by: Zeq 08:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have blocked the user for 12 hours per 3RR. His edits seem like a pretty obvious format choice, so I am hesitant to block for long. Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 08:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Garglebutt

    User Garglebutt has been enaging in repeated reverts (5 times in the last 24 hours). He has previously reverted another article a few days ago 7 times within 24 hours.

    While blocking might not normally apply on Talk pages, the material Garglebutt placed on his Talk page constituted a personal attack in that it was material that referred to fellow editors personally. He was asked to remove it, he refused to do so then repeatedly reinstated the material. Realising that he was in breach of 3RR he then asserted he was dealing with vandalism when no such vandalism was occurring, except arguably by Garglebutt

    Three revert rule violation on User_talk:Garglebutt (edit | [[Talk:User_talk:Garglebutt|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Garglebutt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: 2006BC 13:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • User Garglebutt appears to regard the 3RR as mandatory for others but optional for himself. I believe the circumstances warrant a blocking for a period of time. --2006BC 13:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been trying to avoid this POV pusher and have discontinued editing an article he has POV warred on that is critical of his real life persona. Now he is carrying his POV to my talk page where I am formulating ideas for an article on corrupt student politicians. Garglebutt / (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Garglebutt has engaged in systematic personal attacks and even brings them here. Garglebutt has aggressively pushed POV on several articles, with scant regard for facts. But that is not the point in this complaint. He has actually reverted the same material now six times and shows little hope of ceasing. He should be blocked. --2006BC 13:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am in the unfortunate situation of having two editors colluding to avoid 3RR so my revert count is high, however I will continue to remove POV attacks on my talk page. I'm not going to add more junk to this page and will let our respective edit histories speak for themselves. Garglebutt / (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please don't report people for 3RR'ing their own talk page, as it won't do any good. If the material is so grossly offensive as to need removal, then you probably need AN/I not 3RR William M. Connolley 17:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Keystrokes

    Keystrokes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    • Obvious 3RR Violation on Freemasonry, but user is methodically making multiple edits to intentionally obfuscate, and I can't sort the diffs properly. MSJapan 15:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've temporarily protected Freemasonry to stop this edit war. -- xaosflux Talk/CVU 16:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like 4RR to me (or 5 or so... there are 3 labeled rv, and several "restores" that are rv's). Will block, as this is clearly an experienced editor hiding under pseudonym. Will remove prot William M. Connolley 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Blueboar

    Three revert rule violation on Freemasonry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Blueboar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Seraphim 17:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • It takes 2 to edit war. A content dispute ended up in an edit war, page was protected but only one of the editors was blocked for a 3rr vio, when 2 should have been. Seraphim 17:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edit 4 is marked as a vandalism revert, and just this once I think it actually was William M. Connolley 18:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Content changing is never a vandalism revert, you made that very clear to me. Seraphim 21:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've blocked him for 24 hours. His fourth revert doesn't look like reverting obvious vandalism to me. —Ruud 18:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Healthy eating

    Three revert rule violation on Freemasonry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Healthy eating (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [82]
    • 1st revert: [83]
    • 2nd revert: [84]
    • 3rd revert: [85]
    • 4th revert: [86]

    Reported by: Ardenn 19:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    I've blocked HE indefinitely as a presumed sockpuppet of Keystrokes William M. Connolley 19:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Swedenman

    Three revert rule violation on Muqtada al-Sadr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Swedenman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Reported by: Probert 20:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • 2006-03-11 21:18:29 Fred chessplayer blocked "Swedenman (contribs)" with an expiry time of 30 minutes (WP:3RR on article Muqtada al-Sadr) William M. Connolley 23:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another three reverts (one of which is mentioned by Probert - No. 4) of the same nature have occurred within 24 hours - after the 30 minute block. Messages left on User page, Article's Talk page and a request for article protection made. This appears to be becoming a habit for this user. --Aegwyn 08:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Daphne A & User:Adam78

    Three revert rule violation on Solar eclipse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).


    Reported by: ---J.Smith 22:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: Wow this system is a pain in the rear...err.. anyway. These who have been reverting eachother back and forth. ---J.Smith 22:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked both for 12 hours. —Ruud 22:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Xtra

    Three revert rule violation on User:Lefty on campus. Xtra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [14:28, 10 March 2006]

    Reported by: PSYCH 02:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: User insists on reverting the page, 3 times now, and will not listen to reason.

    • This happened more than a day ago and the dispute seems settled, so I see no reason to start blocking for it now. —Ruud 03:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was removing a personal attack against myself and I got blocked already for it anyway whic is rediculous, so I don't see what the point of this is other than to harass me. Xtra 10:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:70.191.209.48 & multiple other IP names

    Three revert rule violation on Madea's Family Reunion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). USERNAME (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Mhking 02:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: Completely ignoring concensus of other users, places both text and HTML, and everyone else be damned. In the past this person has also used the name MarcyU. She refuses to sign her posts, and arrogantly insists her way is the only way. She refuses to compromise or to work with anyone else on a compromise. Mhking 02:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked the two IPs for 24 hours. —Ruud 03:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Other users are reverting to my edition - I am not the only person who has issues with this article. Assumptions are being made without proof. The prime example being, I am not a "she", but a "he". If this user cannot get my gender correct, why is it assumed that s/he is correct about this one? Policeman of the Control Freak Wikipedia Editors 08:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • MarcyU had already confirmed by email that s/he was 70.188.244.144 and an IPWHOIS makes clears that s/he is 70.191.209.48 so blocked for 48 houers for evading hir block. —Ruud 12:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Steth

    Three revert rule violation on Pseudoscience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Steth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [04:05, 11 March 2006]
    • 1st revert: [94]
    • 2nd revert: [95]
    • 3rd revert: [96]
    • 4th revert: [97]
    • 5th revert: [98]

    Reported by: --Deglr6328 03:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:User is obsessed with chiropractic POV pushing via article section blanking and reverts.--Deglr6328 03:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud 03:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Northmeister

    Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatekeeper (politics) (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatekeeper (politics)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Northmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Jersey Devil 05:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: The User Northmeister is trying to delete my comments on an afd by reverting to a version of the article without my comments. The comment itself that I added regarded the creator of the original article going to people's talk pages who would naturally vote keep for the original article because they tend to vote keep in these types of articles. The article itself relates to a term called "gatekeeper" used by Larouchites, he (Northmiester) in the past has been accused of being a POV Larouchite editor by other Wikipedians as well.--Jersey Devil 05:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: The User Jersey Devil added a comment that the creator of the article in question was 'vote stacking' and then provided links as a indication of surveillance of that individual users postings. Though it is not illegal to survey, it is against wikipedia policy and standards to 'disrupt to make a point', to lodge 'personal attacks', and to 'harass' others. I deleted the material in that light. I then explained the reason for my delete. Had the user not resorted to personal attack and assumption without evidence of the motivations of the user in question then there would be no need to delete. That said user has every right to notify others of a vote and the very fact the Jersey Devil above decided to survey him and then post a comment after he already voted and that was not related to the said article or its merits is to be considered not 'assuming good faith' by Jersey Devil towards the creator of the Article. These have been blanket violations of the spirit and standards of wikipedia. I submit that I deleted his material to protect the integrity of the vote, to removed personal attacks and harassment from occuring, to try to stop an editing war that was likely to be engaged if the comments were read, and to restore honor to the system. the said User Jersey Devil reverted in violation of 3RR as well by continuing to place within the article personal attacks in violation of 'harassment' standards and others listed above. I ask he be blocked for his conduct. --Northmeister 06:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 24h. I see no harassment, only a reasonable concern of vote stacking William M. Connolley 11:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:201.252.133.159

    Three revert rule violation on Arabs of Khuzestan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 201.252.133.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: AucamanTalk 14:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    User:Kolriv

    Three revert rule violation on Encyclopedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kolriv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Blocked for 12h as first offence William M. Connolley 19:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dardanv

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

    Reported by: Asterion 17:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: Already warned in his talk page. Quite possibly using sockpuppet unsigned IP from the London School of Economics: 158.143.135.31, 158.143.162.251, 158.143.134.129

    • You need to add diffs, not the state of the page after each edit. I can, in any case, only see three reverts. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tenka Muteki

    Three revert rule violation on Prank flash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tenka_Muteki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Zzzzz 19:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: has made 6 reverts in 28 mins to Prank flash ignoring consensus as well as discussion on article talk page and user talk page. can he/she be blocked? Zzzzz 19:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. And so are you, sorry. I'll make it short and symmetrical... William M. Connolley 20:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah... bad news for you: 2006-03-12 20:56:22 DragonflySixtyseven blocked "Tenka Muteki (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Previous block was too long) - I'll go and have a word with Df67 and see if they feel like shortening William M. Connolley 20:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:68.169.221.230

    Three revert rule violation on Esperanto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.169.221.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Prosfilaes 19:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: The user has been readding this link for the last few days; [User:Rfontaine]'s revert to this version on 14:12, 11 March 2006 [106] may or may not be from the same user. User was warned on IP talk page.

    Blocked 8h as first offence William M. Connolley 20:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:200.82.18.5

    Three revert rule violation on Ronald Richter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 200.82.18.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • Please note that despite the contribution history, this is not a new editor. This is a continuous POV warrior who refuses to engage in any form of dispute resolution or register an account, instead using dynamic IPs to subvert any form of prevention except semi-protection. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for 12 hours. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Zmmz

    Three revert rule violation on Persian people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zmmz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: AucamanTalk 06:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: Already warned him here and just before his last revert here. AucamanTalk 06:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Realek

    Three revert rule violation on Macedonians (ethnic group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Realek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Latinus 08:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • User knew of the 3RR because I had told him about it two days ago. --Latinus 08:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Blocked ofr 24 hours. —Ruud 09:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Swedenman

    Three revert rule violation on Muqtada al-Sadr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Swedenman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Probert 13:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Behold this edit summary: [112]. Probert 13:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:IAS FAN

    Three revert rule violation on This is not spartacus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). IAS FAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
    • 1st revert: [113]
    • 2nd revert: [114]
    • 3rd revert: [115]
    • 4th revert: [116]

    Reported by: Beerathon 13:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Doesn't appear to want to offer a dialogue on why the article should be kept. Just keeps reverting deletion request tags

    Beerathon 13:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Aucaman

    Three revert rule violation on Persian_people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Aucaman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: ManiF 16:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: The user Aucaman is a chronic 3RR violator, he was blocked only two days ago and then warned by an admin [123] to stick to 1RR, but he continues to break the 3RR rule. --ManiF 16:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Each of these edits is different. The 3RR rule is not the 3-edit rule. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adding a tag and making other edits is not a revert. He is not violating 3RR, and the 1RR was for one certain article. You and Zmmz should stop spamming WP:AN and my talk with block request. I can see a few mistakes, but this is just disruptive. I am sick of having to look through all these diffs, which already lag, only to find that there is no violation.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 16:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is what I meant when I said user Aucaman gets away with so much. As far as I can see there are at least 4 reverts there, adding new stuff while undoing someone else's edit is still a revert. User:ESkog just blocked User:Zmmz for doing the exact same thing on the exact same page. And may I ask why some of the admins such as user:Voice_of_All chat with user:Aucaman on messenger [124] regarding his actions on Wikipedia. Shouldn't such matters be discussed openly on Wikipedia? --ManiF 17:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Erfter

    Three revert rule violation on Encyclopedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Erfter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Blocked indefinitely, as is Korliv, as presumed socks of Kolriv evading block William M. Connolley 20:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ahwaz

    Three revert rule violation on Arabs of Khuzestan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ahwaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: ManiF 17:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: user:Ahwaz was in involved in a revert with an anon user, the anon user appearers to have been blocked but user:Ahwaz has not. He has been warned before but vows to continue the revert war. [134] --ManiF 17:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This page has seen so much reverting that I've protected it instead of blocking William M. Connolley 20:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:195.93.21.33

    Three revert rule violation on Quizzing.co.uk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 195.93.21.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Petros471 19:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: Sorry if the diffs provided above aren't the best, however just looking at the article history should be enough... The IP has an AOL template on it, however looking at its contributions shows that it is pretty static. Please take this and previous blocks into account. Thanks. Petros471 19:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Following tradtion for this IP, blocked for 24h. Also Jw6aa for 3h as first offence William M. Connolley 20:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Socrunchy

    Three revert rule violation on List of Romanian-Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ati3414 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Reported by: Socrunchy 19:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: user:Ati3414 and sock-puppet user:67.170.224.36 have repeatedly made this revision before: [148], [149], [150], [151]

    Did you meqan to report yourself? But anyway, I'm afraid you only have 3 reverts, so I can't block you William M. Connolley 20:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:NicholasTurnbull

    Three revert rule violation on Cryptome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). NicholasTurnbull (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Seraphim 20:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: This was already posted here by 199.184.218.248 twice, but was immediatly removed without a reason being given by NSLE and Mackensen. It is a valid 3rr violation, and actually is an example of a sysop abusing his abilities which I will now explain. After his 3rd revert (all of the posted reverts were done using rollback so are clearly labled as reverts) even though NicholasTurnbull was involved on the page, he reverted the article back to his version (the 4th) and then semi-protected his version of the article so the anon user could no longer add the content. There was no discussion on the talk page, or reasons given for his reverts of a content dispute. After NicholasTurnbull protected the article Tomyumgoong re-added the anon's content with the comment "(seeming 3RR violation. Inclusion of this link is not vandalism.)" which is what resulted in Nicholas's 5th revert. It wasn't even addressed on the talk page of the article untill today (the 13th). This is a clear 4rr violation and should be dealt with. Seraphim 20:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    See WP:OFFICE. The addition of the link is clearly ment to avoid actions taken by Jimbo. —Ruud 20:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OFFICE does not apply here. The page is not listed on WP:OFFICE nor is NicholasTurnbull Danny. Unless you can show where Jimbo/Arbcom ruled that linking to the Cryptome page is considered simple vandalism this is a 3rr. Also nowhere on the Cryptome page's talk page, or edit history is the reason for the reverts given as WP:OFFICE or is a WP:Office decision brought to the attention of the other edits in the wheel war. NT even approved of a version of the link ""Yes, better. Add "Wikipedia" to show context" (diff) where-as if he was reverting due to WP:OFFICE he would simply have removed the link yet again. Seraphim 21:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've protected the page. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:83.221.83.4

    3+RR violations on Beastie Boys and Talk:Beastie Boys. Uses same subnet as 83.221.83.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who was blocked very recently for a 3RR violation on the same article. User has been repeatedly warned and he remains defiant, stating he will simply get a new IP after being banned [152]. Personally I think his whole subnet needs to be blocked.

    Revert rule violations:

    Talk:Beastie Boys (5 reverts within 5 hours) - Limited to blanking and removing a section discussing the link he keeps deleting. An attempt to whitewash his own argument for why he's deleting.

    Beastie Boys (6 reverts within 5 hours) - Deletes/changes a specific link to a content-rich site about the article's subject to a content-void .de website presumably created by himself.


    Reported by: Ziggur 00:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    User:200.82.218.60 (probably the person as User:Metb82) on Adana

    Three revert rule violation on Adana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 200.82.218.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Khoikhoi 01:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • User knows about the 3RR because I told him/her about it here. --Khoikhoi 01:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked 8 hours. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Khoikhoi on Adana

    Three revert rule violation on Adana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Khoikhoi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: 211.48.24.219 Comments

    • User reverted the page in a 4 hours,knows about the 3RR and its not the first time the user does that,always trying to add pov's to articles.
      • Only 3 of these are actual reverts. You formatted it incorrecly to make it seem like I reverted all these times. I ask an admin to please check the history of the page. --Khoikhoi 03:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The only ones that are actual reverts by me are the ones at 00:38, 01:02, and 02:18. The others are minor edits. --Khoikhoi 03:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Even if it is not a WP:3RR violation, it is edit-warring. Try to work towards consensus on Talk pages, please. Jkelly 03:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok, I promise. I'll leave a note on the talk page. --Khoikhoi 03:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This user,Khoikhoi is especially dangerous because he got banned several times,and when he is banned,he asks "friends" to revert pov'd pages for him.He is completely destroying the encyclopedic unity of wikipedia,with forexample adding uncited massacres to pages of cities,giving historic(mostly greek) and irrelevant names to pages connected with turks.completely sided user,please check his history.
    • Think whatever you want to think, but there's nothing wrong with having the former name in the opening paragraph. And here's a source for the Adana massacre. --Khoikhoi 03:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ati3414

    Three revert rule violation on List of Romanian-Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ati3414 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Gregory9 08:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: user:Ati3414 is trying to add himself to the list of notable Romanian-Americans. He has been told repeatedly that this is not allowed and he (as well as his sock-puppet user:67.170.224.36) keeps adding his name back on the list.

    User:72.232.81.130

    Three revert rule violation on Talk:Beastie Boys (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Beastie Boys|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 72.232.81.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Ziggur 12:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • Undoubtably the same anonymous user as User:83.221.83.4 (blocked for 3RR) and 83.221.83.61 (also blocked for 3RR). This user would probably also continue disruptive reverts/edit wars on Beastie Boys were it not s-protected. Ziggur 12:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for 48 hours. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bomac

    Three revert rule violation on Macedonian language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bomac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Latinus 15:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • User is removing sourced information for POV reasons - see also the talk page. --Latinus 15:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not removing sourced information. The version I maintain is a result of longtime talks between Greek users and Macedonian users. I really don't know why Latinus "urges" to put smt. like "Slov-Makedonski" which is a gramatically incorect term and also is not in use in Macedonia. The language is simply called Macedonian. And BTW - this is not a 3RR violation. Cheers, Bomac 15:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes it is - you removed the "non-Slavic" in the dab note how many times? Does WP:3RR not provide for partial reverts? The current term is gramatically correct as it appears as such in reliable sources which emerge from a google search (my earlier one was accidentally misspelt - my memory fails). You did violate the 3RR - you did not have to revert the dab note 4 times. --Latinus 15:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • He reverted again! --Latinus 17:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I vastly prefer to see reverts presented as reverts: [154], [155], [156], [157]. Anyway, he's blocked for 24 hours. -Splashtalk 17:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:201.215.232.5

    Three revert rule violation on Adana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 201.215.232.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (and changing IPs):

    Reported by: Lukas (T.|@) 16:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • User was repeatedly pointed to Wikipedia guidelines showing that the things he was reverting (mentioning historical names in introduction of place-name article) was legitimate. User seems to be systematically getting new IPs every three reverts. Lukas (T.|@) 16:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of these, 200.82.218.60 (talk · contribs), already was blocked by ESkog this morning for 8 hours (14 Mar, 04:23) [158] Lukas (T.|@) 17:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    These may be open proxies, they show up in google searches as open proxies. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Do not scan on my quick scan to be open proxies, trying a full nmap -- Tawker 23:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Netscott

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

    Reported by: Irishpunktom\talk 18:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy isn't without it's passionate editors, but Netscott has reverted from three seperate alternatives in favour of his mono-opinioned piece, a breach of WP:NPOV, and, now, also of WP:3RR. User is Aware of policy. --Irishpunktom\talk 18:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, blocked 12h. For cases like that, diffs from his versions are the easiest to verify, for future reference. Not sure about the below. William M. Connolley 18:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok now you need to block IrishPunkTom too. Seraphim 18:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocking admin needs to block Irishpunktom also. He's reverted 5 times ( 07:13, March 14, 2006 07:42, March 14, 2006 07:57, March 14, 2006

    09:46, March 14, 2006 09:56, March 14, 2006 if the diffs are unclear just look at the page's history) Seraphim 18:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I was asked to comment on this, so I will. It is debatable whether Irishpunktom has breached the letter of 3RR (his last two reverts were different than the first three). I can say without hesitation, though, that he has breached it in spirit. Blocking Netscott for 3RR and not Irishpunktom would be very unfair.
    Please note that I am not a fan of the 3RR rule, as it stands. But if we have that rule, then it should be enforced, and enforced fairly. Both Netscott and Irishpunktom have violated the rule.
    Incidentally, if there is anyone with some extra time and energy, we badly need more editors looking at the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article. Currently, tensions are high, and there are too few interested editors for what is still a high-profile article. The Talk pages are a mess, and the article isn't what it could be. --Ashenai 23:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note the following:

    Irishpunktom's first 'counter' edit:

    original research

    after research I reverted

    Please do note Irishpunktom's block history and my own block history.

    Netscott 18:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not going to matter, if it's not spam it's not considered simple vandalism. Users can blank entire sections of articles and if they list as a reason for doing it "rm irrelevant section" it's considered a content dispute not simple vandalism. The only 3rr exemption is simple vandalism. Seraphim 18:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Irishpunktom seems to be blatantly pushing a POV in the Muhammad cartoons article. He makes significant changes without consulting co-editors, or simply makes changes for which there is no consensus or which are still in discussion. In the light of this, User:Netscott simply reverted changes tantamount to vandalism. Varga Mila 23:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sadly according to the common enforcement of the 3rr by the admins who patrol this page, if someone presents a reason for their edits it is considered a content dispute and not simple vandalism. Irish could have been removing the paragraph on "Prohibition on Insulting Muhammad" with a edit comment of "irrelevant" and it would still be considered a content dispute not simple vandalism. Seraphim 23:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If Irishpunktum is constantly giving (verifiable) false information to push the Talibans as The Good Guys, would that still be OK? It's a joke in my book MX44 00:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Floyddoorz and 24.57.68.108

    Three revert rule violation on The Best Page in the Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Floyddoorz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 24.57.68.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [08:22, 13 March 2006]
    • 1st revert: [16:34, 13 March 2006]
    • 2nd revert: [19:36, 13 March 2006]
    • 3rd revert: [21:34, 13 March 2006]
    • 4th revert: [21:59, 13 March 2006]

    Reported by: RickoniX (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Impressive reverting - demands some kind of prize. 12h apiece methinks William M. Connolley 22:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SweHomer

    Three revert rule violation on Sweden Democrats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SweHomer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [16:53, 13 March 2006]
    • 1st revert: [13:01, 14 March 2006]
    • 2nd revert: [15:54, 14 March 2006]
    • 3rd revert: [17:01, 14 March 2006]
    • 4th revert: [20:11, 14 March 2006]

    Reported by: Liftarn 20:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC) & Reported by: WGee 20:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Irishpunktom

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

    Reported by: 208.201.242.19 20:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    As a witness to their edit wars I notice that Netscott has been blocked while Irishpunktom has not.. they both are equally in violation of 3RR as Seraphim so correctly pointed out. CA-Bill 208.201.242.19 20:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to add that the admin who blocked Netscott was notified that Irish had also violated 3rr, but he violated Blocking Policy and only blocked the person who was reported instead of treating both sides equally by looking at the whole situation. Anyone who looks at the page history can clearly see that Irish also violated 3rr, so now another admin needs to look at the page again since the first admin who looked at the case only read the report and didn't actually look at the whole situation. Seraphim 22:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Those aren't 5 obvious reverts. The first 3 are alike; the second 2 as well. How about presenting them as diffs from one version? William M. Connolley 23:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Look at the page history, it's blatantly obvious if you do alittle work.
    No, *you* do a little work, if you care so much. Im going to bed and leaving this to someone else to sort out, or not William M. Connolley 23:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The diffs have been posted, the 3rr template only has a slot for one previous version. It's up to the blocking admin to investigate the situation. Since you blocked Netscott it's obvious that you already investigated the revert war, and therefore you have already noticed that irish was also violating the 3rr. I cannot understand why you are refusing to block irish. Seraphim 23:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Plus just counting, the first 3 are reverts, then the 5th one is obviously a revert back to the content of the 4th one, 3 + 1 = 4! And you don't even have to look at the article. If any user were to look at the history of that page the revert war is apparent, 3rr reports aren't to be taken as fact, the admin is suppossed to investigate, if you investigate this (which you already have since you have blocked Netscott) you have already seen that irish also violated the 3rr. This report is redundant since you should have blocked him when you first investigated netscott. Seraphim 23:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • irishpunktom constantly insisted on bringing irrelevant information in, hoping that we would drop the reference to the taliban destruction of the buddhas ... give him a rest as well >;->
    • more evidence in talk: Taliban Buddha, and what not
    MX44 23:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Netscott tried numerous times and worked hard and in good faith to work with Irishpunktom in the talk page of this article. Following the 3RR langauge on the policy page he hardly merits a block. CA-Bill 208.201.242.19 23:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As per CA-Bill. Irishpunktom seems to be blatantly pushing a POV in the Muhammad cartoons article, making significant changes without consulting co-editors, or simply changes for which there is no consensus or which are still in discussion (or, as per this very moment, changes which other editors have argued deftly against). Netscott simply reverted Irishpunktom's rash and undiscussed changes, and invited him to discuss the matters further. Varga Mila 23:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem your assertion here is that the changes i've made are rather minor. I added a relevent Wikilink, despite constant reverts from Netscott, I changed the format of the Muslim traditions so that it has two Subheadings instead of being as one, and I added the example of the taliban, because their eample I thought was pertinent. I didn't want the Buddhas added, as their is more than one explanation as to why they were destroyed, and then when it was added I removed them, they were reverted back and then I tried explaining why this was so, using quotes from the source, this was reverted back by Netscott, and then I tried to sumerise it to a half sentance, and this was reverted back by Netscott. On the talk page I tried to add the more ongoing and relevent campaign of destruction by the Sauds in Mecca and Medina, and Netscott said this was a "red herring" for some reason, and it was reverted when added to the actual page too. Someone further thinks it inappropriate to add that the taliban were hanaffi, though have no problem mentioning that CAIR are wahabbi (which I didn't actually know, but anyway), and that the House of Saud are Salafi. All in all, these are fairly minor in the scheme of things, not the "significant changes" you suggest. --Irishpunktom\talk 00:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • hey, can somebody stop this circus. irishpunktom just brought hanafi in as the taliban belief ??? MX44 23:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most open to modern ideas, 45% of the Muslims ... :D MX44 00:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • that doesn't cease to be the case because the taliban were of that Maddhab.. They were! Even if they were Deobandi (which is debatable) that would still make them hanafi!--Irishpunktom\talk 00:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are you talking about? From the article we know that the House of saud are Salafi, and CAIR are Wahabbi.. but.. there is a problem with also informing that the taliban are hanafi? - Why ?--Irishpunktom\talk 00:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      :* Gentlemen, sorry but this isn't the talk area for the article mentioned in this 3RR violation report. CA-Bill 208.201.242.19 00:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just block me then, if the people are baying for blood, give it to them. --Irishpunktom\talk 23:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're not required to obey the desires of a lynch-mob. Mackensen (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked Irishpunktom for violating the 3rr, even if it wasn't an exact 3rr. I would also like 208.201.242.19 to stop editing if he is an IP of the other editor who was blocked. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 01:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you anonym, you can call me Bill. Please know that I have been a lurker following this article (I've actually been very hesitant to participate due to the nature of the topic) but I saw Netscott being wronged and knew I could do something about it... he didn't merit a block here. CA-Bill 208.201.242.19 01:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes Netscott merited the block and I blocked Irishpunktom to be fair. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 01:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Michael Snow

    Three revert rule violation on Jack Thompson (attorney) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Michael Snow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Reported by: ElKevbo 21:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: Michael Snow has repeatedly removed the "Controversy" section on the Jack Thompson article. The section certainly needs some work and improvement, particulalry in its integration (or lack thereof) with the rest of the article. Michael, however, has repeatedly made allegations that the sources are unacceptable and reverted the article to previous versions lacking the section. His continual reversions of edits with which he disagrees foster an atmosphere of frustration and undermine the good-natured attempts of the community to bring this article up to the high standards to which it should live. Further, as documented above, he is in clear violation of the Three-Reversion Rule.

    I *think* this is covered by WP:OFFICE but it does need clarification William M. Connolley 23:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is, then it is completely unclear. I would hope that any user affiliated with Wikipedia or enaged in actions "blessed by" or on behalf of Wikipedia would be clearly identified. If he is and I have missed it, then I'll happily offer my apologies and withdraw my accusation. --ElKevbo 23:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely agree. While I agree with Michael Snow's objective, from the appearance of things he is simply an editor who wrote up a set of guidlines to follow for the article (which again are a good idea, but have themselves garnered much controversy on the talk page) and simply reverts any edits which do not fit into the guidelines which he wrote. If these guidelines are somehow sanctioned by the WP:OFFICE then I think we editors should be informed. If not, editors should not arbitrarily write up editing guidelines and expect others to follow them. --216.161.72.96 02:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The article is linked from several high-profile gaming forums, and it is overrun by anonymous users who don't care about Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Let's not punish Michael Snow for the actions of these users. This is a special case. Rhobite 23:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I respectfully disagree. --ElKevbo 00:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jidan

    Three revert rule violation on Al-Khwarizmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jidan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Reported by: Zmmz 22:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Comments: Jidan was warned about this before in the discussion page a couple of times.Zmmz 22:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The "previous version reverted to" is identical to the "1st revert" - in combing through the history I find only 3 reverts within that, or any other, 24-hour period. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don`t understand, I was blocked for similar reverts, and in this case there are 4 clear reverts...but, that`s your decision I guess.Zmmz 20:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Codex Sinaiticus

    Three revert rule violation on Adam and Eve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Codex_Sinaiticus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [06:33, 14 March 2006]
    • 1st revert: [163]
    • 2nd revert: [164]
    • 3rd revert: [165]
    • 4th revert: [166]

    Reported by: Jim62sch 00:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    User has been provided with a source, and explanations on the discussion page. He refuses to realistically discuss the issue and continues to revert. User has a history of similar behaviour.

    Yes, thats 4RR (at least). Blocked 12h William M. Connolley 19:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry - I've changed my mind. See t:Codex. Unblocked. William M. Connolley 22:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Waya_sahoni

    Three revert rule violation on Talk:Joe Byrd (Cherokee Chief) (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Joe Byrd (Cherokee Chief)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Waya_sahoni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [00:39, 15 March 2006]
    • 1st revert: [167]
    • 2nd revert: [168]
    • 3rd revert: [169]
    • 4th revert: [170]

    Reported by: Vigilant 01:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    User has refused to provide any cites for material an insists that only his edits are appropriate because he is in possession of non WP:RS materials and other editors are not native americans so their opinions are not valid.

    This appears to be a fight over the source of an image that has since been removed as copyvio. Its also not 4RR, as reported, because the 1st "revert" is the same as version-reverted-to and so is just an edit. William M. Connolley 16:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The source of the potential copyvio is the root of the matter. Waya_sahoni was challenged about the use of the photos re:potential copyvio problems and to avoid the issue, he changed the sourcing attibutions in both the text of the article and the captions of the photos, I believe, to try to muddy the waters. Please recheck the history on that page and kindly take into account that I am a new user and may have screwed up the links to the edits. Vigilant 17:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This user Vigilant (talk · contribs) is a stalker and has been following me around the site merely to revert any and all of my contributions. Most of my reverts were to correct this users vandalism. I would like the user indefinitely blocked for stalking and harassment. And making false sockpuppet allegations and attempting to expose another users identity is a violation of WP:NPA. Waya sahoni 20:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a pretty bold statement there Waya. You certainly wouldn't mind providing some cites for that WP:NPA would you? Vigilant 00:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As there is no "previous version reverted to", there are only really 3 reverts here, and thus not grounds for a block. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Another POV

    Three revert rule violation on Freedom fries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Another_POV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [171] Wed 15 Mar 2006 13:43:36 EST
    • 1st revert: [172]
    • 2nd revert: [173]
    • 3rd revert: [174]
    • 4th revert: [175]
    • 5th revert: [176]

    Reported by: Garglebutt / (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    2006-03-15 03:45:31 JDoorjam blocked "Another POV (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Blatant troll with a trollish name.) William M. Connolley 10:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lou franklin

    Three revert rule violation on (guess what?) Societal attitudes towards homosexuality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lou_franklin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • Lou franklin has been blocked four times for 3RR on this article. These diffs incorporate edits that he has been previously blocked for edit warring over. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked again, sigh William M. Connolley 09:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:69.235.238.56

    Three revert rule violation on Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.235.238.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Grandmaster 10:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: This user has been warned [177], but keeps reverting anyway.

    Blocked 8h as a first offence William M. Connolley 16:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The same person made at least 4 reverts this morning in the same article. Grandmaster 05:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Waya_sahoni

    Three revert rule violation on User:67.166.115.135 (edit | [[Talk:User:67.166.115.135|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Waya_sahoni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [17:23, 15 March 2006]
    • 1st revert: [178]
    • 2nd revert: [179]
    • 3rd revert: [180]
    • 4th revert: [181]


    Comments: Waya_sahoni continues to remove comments and sockpuppetry allegations from multiple users. Extremely disruptive user.

    Reported by: Vigilant 17:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This user Vigilant (talk · contribs) is a stalker and has been following me around the site merely to revert any and all of my contributions. Most of my reverts were to correct this users vandalism. I would like the user indefinitely blocked for stalking and harassment. And making false sockpuppet allegations and attempting to expose another users identity is a violation of WP:NPA. Waya sahoni 20:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a pretty bold statement there Waya. You certainly wouldn't mind providing some cites for that WP:NPA would you? Vigilant 00:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As above, only 3 reverts here as of yet. I'll warn the user to make sure we don't have any more... (ESkog)(Talk) 18:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How about now? [[182]] Vigilant 00:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Alienus

    Three revert rule violation on Medical analysis of circumcision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Alienus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Nandesuka 19:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • If experience demonstrates anything, it's that you can never be too rich, too thin, or have too many emotionally-charged revert wars over articles relating to circumcision. Nandesuka 19:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 48h as multiple offender and particularly blatant well-over-3RR this time William M. Connolley 19:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Just for the record, in no way did I go "well over" 3RR. Will's claim is simply false. In the most negative interpretation, I made a fourth revision. In an honest interpretation, I made two. In neither case is this "well over", so the excuse for a 48 block is just that; an excuse. I'm writing this here for the record, since I was never given a chance to address these charges when they were first made.

    Also, please note that all of my "reverts" were with explanation and included messages in Talk, while there were 8 reverts against my assorted attempts to meet the constantly-shifting requirements of these editors, and many of them were without ANY explanation. In short, something is very wrong here, and it involves Jakew, Jayjg and Nandesuka.

    For the record, I reject any claim that I earned this ban. Alienus 10:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rolandaslondon

    Three revert rule violation on Iain Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rolandaslondon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: KillerChihuahua?!? 23:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: I would have blocked him myself but I reverted his last revert (he is adding unsourced speculation about subject of article.) KillerChihuahua?!? 23:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Expanding to add, this is not a content dispute. I have never edited this article before today, I learned from a post elsewhere that someone was claiming an email met WP:RS and using that to add a rumor that Ian Lee is engaged. I removed the content and posted information about sourcing on Rolandaslondon's talk page prior to noticing the 4 reverts. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned on his talk page. Seems to have stopped editing. Edit comments make this look like an experienced user. Maybe just a throw-away account now thrown away? William M. Connolley 15:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    thanks much! This account was first used to attempt to back up an attempt by Brucethebiggaybear to insert allegation, or confession, that Ian Lee is gay. Dropped, then brought back for the purpose of inserting allegation, or announcement, that Ian Lee is engaged, which was in turn supported by Brucethebiggaybear. I expect to see future activity, perhaps inserting allegation, or revelation, that Ian Lee is female, or an alien, or somesuch. There are several accounts making such edits, which indicates possible sockpuppetry, but to be honest I haven't had the time or the inclination to do the due diligence required to determine whether adding yet another item to the RFCU backlog is worthwhile. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jidan

    Three revert rule violation on Ibn Khaldun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jidan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Reported by: Zmmz 22:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Comments: Jidan was warned about this before in the discussion page a couple of times, but he did it [again] (sighs). This time he reverted by erasing an entire section that comes with authoritative references like that of Richard Nelson Frye from Harvard University.Zmmz 00:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kilgore Sprout

    Three revert rule violation on Radiocarbon dating (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kilgore Sprout (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [23:32, 14 March 2006]
    • 1st revert: [187]
    • 2nd revert: [188]
    • 3rd revert: [189]
    • 4th revert: [190]

    Reported by: Vsmith 00:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: The user oddly replaced the reverted content between #3 and #4 and then removed it again after I warned him of 3rr violations on his talk page [191]. Vsmith 00:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:200.118.111.122

    Three revert rule violation on Al-Khwarizmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 200.118.111.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: —Ruud 02:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: Was previously blocked for 48 hours for a 3rr vio. —Ruud 02:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Better late than never, he's blocked for a further 48 hours for 3RR. Stifle 17:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Khoikhoi

    Three revert rule violation on Persian people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Khoikhoi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: AucamanTalk 02:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: Has not been warned about this particular case, but he seems pretty familiar with Wikipedia. AucamanTalk 02:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Aucaman, I did not violate the 3RR. Those four versions are very different. I was trying to work out a compromise between you and ManiF. It would only be a 3RRvio if they were the same. --Khoikhoi 02:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, I believe I only made 2 reverts here. --Khoikhoi 02:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed., why is this even on 3RR...does anyone here even know what that means? We have been getting a rash of bad rfpp request too...what is going on these days?Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 03:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See my response here. AucamanTalk 03:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Raphael1

    Three revert rule violation on Islamophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Raphael1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Bibigon 04:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: 6 reverts to "Presumable" within 24 hours. This user has had issues with this before in the past. Additionally, there is possible sock puppetry going on here, as a anon user showed up to do this revert himself. It was the IP's first edit, it was done with any comment or explanation, and Raphael1 has to date been the only user interested in this particular change.

    You have provided links, not diffs. Please provide diffs in future (click History, and the radio buttons corresponding to the revert and the page immediately before it). Checking in progress. Stifle 12:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked User:Raphael1 for 8 hours for first violation of 3RR. User:Nysin has made three reverts, but not a fourth, so I'm dropping him a line too. Stifle 12:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:69.235.223.117

    Three revert rule violation on Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.235.223.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Grandmaster 06:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: Then this user changed IP to 69.235.202.50 and continued to vandalise this page. Apparently it is the same user I reported yesterday, who was vandalising this article and making the same changes. Yesterday he was blocked for 8 hrs. Urgent attention is required. Grandmaster 06:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The page has been semi-protected by Nlu, so the issue is now moot. Stifle 12:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to comment too that with IP hoppers, 3RR vios are very hard to enforce. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MB

    Three revert rule violation on Geber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: ManiF 10:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: The user been blocked before for violation of 3RR, he insists on replacing "Shia" with "Arab" despite another user's well-documented argument on the ambiguity of Geber's ethnicity on the discussion page. --ManiF 10:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 36 hours. It's longer than 24 because he was just blocked for 3RR less than a week ago. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CltFn

    Three revert rule violation on Ruhollah Khomeini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). CltFn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 14:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: Keeps reverting to an edit that may be considered slanderous. Has also called me a vandal for reverting unsourced, POV material.

    Blocked 24h William M. Connolley 15:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Molobo (and it goes on and on)

    Three revert rule violation on Potulice concentration camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Molobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Sciurinæ 14:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    1. revert war about two categories
    2. recurring violations, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive11#User:Molobo_.28.2Asigh.2A.2C_yes.2C_again.29 for context
    3. latest block was a 3-day one, some days ago Sciurinæ 14:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    After almost 30,000 edits here, I've never met such a rabid revert warrior. Molobo seems to have made incessant revert warring the only purpose of his wikiediting. Reverting his silly and pointless, nationalist-motivated edits distracts dozens editors from doing something more useful. It's hard to say the histories of how many articles he turned into a mess. Merits a severe punishment. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Following the Splash incremental principle, I've blocked for 4 days. He also moved the page; I've moved it back William M. Connolley 15:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Realek

    Three revert rule violation on Macedonians (ethnic group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Realek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Latinus 19:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • User keeps removing the reference "Macedonian Greeks" and replacing it with other things. He didn't revert to exactly the same version, but he did remove the reference four times. He has been blocked for violating the 3RR on this article before. --Latinus 19:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah. We've sort-of crossed over on this. I protected the page: it seems to have seen little but reverts all day. Ermm... (ps: I was going to wig you about Alienus's talk page but I see you're ahead of me) William M. Connolley 21:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bitola

    Three revert rule violation on Bitola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bitola (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to:

    13:20 16 March 2006

    Reported by:--Hectorian 01:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • The user keeps reverting the section about the name of the city,in a version which is not well sourced and creates arguments among users.--Hectorian 01:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before making a decision, please read the discussion page of the affected article and see the history page in order to see the reason for edit war. ThanksBitola 01:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks like a pretty messy edit war. I'd suggest warnings all around for this since blocking a whole mess of editors won't help make the article any better and would just be detrimental, if they continue after a warning then blocks all around would probably be appropriate. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 02:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, only User:Bitola violated the 3RR. --Latinus 08:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud 12:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rgulerdem

    Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Wikiethics (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Wikiethics|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rgulerdem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    This user has violated 3RR on Wikipedia:Wikiethics in an attempt to quash a poll to determine whether there is a consensus to approve the proposal listed above or not. He has also repeatedly violated WP:OWN on the article and the talk page itself however that is an entirely seperate issue. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]



    User User:Rgulerdem has continued to violate WP:3RR and WP:OWN;

    User Rgulerdem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continued to move editors comments around:

    I have been undoing his vandalism but feel apprehensive about continuing. Please help. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 09:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud 12:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User is back as 216.248.124.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), even though he's meant to be blocked.
    Semi-protected the talk page. —Ruud 13:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Page was un-semied by User:Superm401 and sockpuppet vandal of Rgulerdem 128.255.45.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) returned:

    Keep in mind the anon user directly admits he is Rgulerdem returned to change the poll again

    I have blocked the IP (128.255.45.117) until Ruglerdem's block expires. If he finds a new IP, I'll extend the block. Superm401 - Talk 01:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Next IP is 216.248.123.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I suggest also semipriotect on Wikipedia talk:Wikiethics talk page to stop this nonsence. KimvdLinde 06:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Appears to be shamelessly evading the block, so I've blocked that IP. William M. Connolley 09:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    WegianWarrior

    [reported by] 40 Days of Lent 07:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've trimmed the talk on this - the page is long enough as it is. Since Gator has blocked WW (below) this report is now redundant William M. Connolley 16:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:40 Days of Lent and User:WegianWarrior

    User:40 Days of Lent

    Three revert rule violation on Anti-Masonry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 40 Days of Lent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Reported by: Seraphim 06:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There are NOT 4 reverts listed here, this is a false complaint. The 4th and the 3rd are for completely seperate sections I moved to talk page for further discussion. This is why I do not want to be associated with this editor, she is playing games!40 Days of Lent 07:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In every single linked revert you re-add the content you added in the first revert which was you reverting to the version where you had added the content. If you scroll down the links you can see it plainly, the big green section on the right side. Seraphim 07:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    3rr is not about making more than three reversions on a given page it is about making more than three reversions on a specific section. Non-Masonic editors on the Freemasonry subject pages are continually Falsely accused of 3rr and many a time Admins on this page take the complainants at their word without going through the reference links provided to see if they meet 3rr violation requiements. This is part of the 'gaming' of Wikpedia Admins by Editors belonging to this Group.40 Days of Lent 07:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period." from WP:3rr. The 3rr is more then 3 reverts on an article not on a section of an article. Also you reverted the removal of content 4 times, the same exact content. That even fits your defination of 3rr. Seraphim 07:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It Says: "Reverting, in this context, applies to undoing the actions of another editor in whole or part".
    I never violated 3rr YOU and THEY did!40 Days of Lent 08:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're correct, we were reverting you, however the only one of us that reverted more then 3 times is Wegian and that's why he's reported also. By re-adding the content after it was removed you were undoing the actions of the editor that removed the content. That is why your first revert is actually the 2nd time you added the content (because you were re-adding the content after another editor removed it)Seraphim 08:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It was always for different sections I never reverted the edits of another editor 4 times, which is the 3rr rule. The rule is not about reverting in a section, it is about reverting the work of another editor in a section. Now perhaps you would care to site back to me the ruleS you broke when you blank edited my edit, did an rv with no summary, and accused me of being a sock? 40 Days of Lent 08:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    First off who are you trying to kid? Your lightbringer. A new user doesn't immediatly go after every single freemasonry page, put up old disputed edits, and know the history of all the editors on the page. Secondly since your banned from editing freemasonry related articles we don't need a reason to blank your edits. And thirdly, you re-added your sections (The masonic secrets expose sections) 4 times each time following the removal of the sections by another editor. That is a 3rr violation. And the diffs make it super apparently so whenever an admin gets around to it they can block ya. There's really no point in continuing any form of discussion with you since the diffs speak for themselves. So goodnight :) Seraphim 08:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Research, Study, Contemplation. How is it YOU are so knowledgeable about these pages, and make so little in the way of editorial contributions, other than deleting all material critical of Freemasonry and 'gaming' editors who make such edits? You can make all the accusations you like "dear" but as far as I am concerned you are a Mason taking on the identity of a young woman. I don't buy it, your "editorial" record screams otherwise.40 Days of Lent 08:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: Probable sockpuppet of User:Lightbringer a user who is banned from editing freemasonry related articles by arbcom, and continues to create sockpuppet armies to continue to re-add the same information it seems like twice a week. Seraphim 06:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What proof do you have to justify this allegation? What right do you have to blank delete my work with what amounts to a personal attack by accusing me of this in the edit summary? Who is to say that you are not a "sock" of one of the Masonic Editors given the contradictory nature of your advocacy?40 Days of Lent 07:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your editing style, your outrageous attitude towards the masonic editors, your knowledge of the system, the information your attempting to re-insert, and the fact that your a user with a christian related theme, all match up with Lightbringer's Modus Operandi, also the fact that you happened to pop up right after lightbringers last sock was perma banned shows you just made a new account. Once the checkuser admin gets around to looking you up (it's been posted for 4 days) you will be gone yet again. Oh and i've been cleared of being a sock of anyone who edits the freemasonry pages by David Gerard (admin with checkuser). My "contradictory nature" comes from the fact that I want neutral versions of the articles, so pov pushing from both sides's i'm against. Seraphim 07:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But "dear" every one who posts material that the Masonic Editors dislike gets accused of being this 'sock'. It is only natural to fight the accusation. Anyone who seeks to post information critical of Freemasonry is sure to familiarize themselves with the situation at this website. Your actions here today and prior are anything but your claim to be against "pov pushing by both sides". Your pattern is clear - try and take a "neutral" position but side with the Masons in the end. Your editorial contributions to the page are non-existant, you simply take part in the 'gaming' of non-masonic editors and Wikipedia admins and rules. Where is the rewrite of the Signs, Oaths, and Symbols you promised as you repeatedly deleted the material? It never happened. You previously claimed "to know nothing of Freemasonry" yet participated in the repeated deletion of material critical to Masonry. If you "know nothing of Masonry" then why are you deleting the material? So here we have an editor (you) who says she knows nothing of Freemasonry, has no interest whatsoever in Freemasonry, yet spends all her time deleting all the criticism of Freemasonry from Wikipedia and making and filing complaints against those who do. Now what were you saying that David Gerard 'proved' about you again?40 Days of Lent 08:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WegianWarrior

    Three revert rule violation on Anti-Masonry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). WegianWarrior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Reported by: Seraphim 06:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: Pretty clear 4rr violation. User should have stepped back and let the other editors revert. Seraphim 06:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    And yeah, I got carried away. Mea culpa. I guess I have to find something else to do for 24 hours. WegianWarrior 07:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for 24 hours.Gator (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hamsacharya dan

    Three revert rule violation on Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hamsacharya_dan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Baba Louis 19:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • User:Hamsacharya dan keeps removing a conflicting views section with which he does not agree. He is a true believer in the subject of the article and is guarding it against what he considers disrepect for his teacher. I believe the section is valid and can be supported, but he won't leave it in long enough for myself and others to work on it.

    Blocked 24h: first offence but deliberately deceptive edit comments annoy me William M. Connolley 19:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Swedenman

    Three revert rule violation on Muqtada al-Sadr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Swedenman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Probert 21:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 1 week based on 3d or 4th violation. Pretty clear cut. Very unfortunate.Gator (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Durova

    Three revert rule violation on Joan of Arc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Durova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: — Dzonatas 21:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • User has been warned in the past. Page was previously protected. However, Durova is the only one out of all the editors that has reverted more than once a day on this article in the last two days.
    • Looks like vandal-fighting, reverting to consensus version. Perhaps this should be directed to WP:RFPP. Nothing to see here, move along now... Just zis Guy you know? 22:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • JzG is impartial to certain editors to make a determination on this. There is further consensus (archived on talk page) about particular edits. — Dzonatas 22:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gee, I just chanced across this accusation. Thanks for the vote of confidence. Dzonatas, I could have reported you here but I didn't. Please just provide a regular citation to a reputable source. Durova 02:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I only applaud the effort to not block. I disagreed with the "vandal" part. — Dzonatas 17:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:88.106.232.89 User:Parkinsons User:Japanese_historian

    Three revert rule violation on Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Japanese_historian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
    • 1st revert: [206]
    • 2nd revert: [207]
    • 3rd revert: [208]
    • 4th revert: [209]

    Comments The 3 users listed above are one person. This user is waging a many-against-one edit war on this article. He has been arguing for weeks about an addition he wants to make, and at least 7 editors have either removed his edit or argued against it on the talk page. He is adamant and does not respond in a meaningful way to the criticisms of his edit. Lately he has started logging in under a new user name as well as his usual (varying) IP address in an attempt to circumvent the 3RR rule. Not all of his edits are "pure" reverts, as other changes have sometimes been made to the article in the interim. But he has a single section that he repeatedly insists on adding. Sometimes he does this by reverting, other times by pasting in his edit. Reported by: KarlBunker 18:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked the anon for 8h as first offence - clearly over the limit. JH has amde identical reverts, but only twice I could see - what evidence is there that these are the same people? William M. Connolley 22:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He's made no attempt to disguise that JH is the same person. He makes the same edit, with the same sort of comment, and he's continued an ongoing discussion in the Talk page under this name--he even signed his entry in the Talk page with the same joking name "Daffy Duck", I believe. Also note that when he comes in under an IP, the address varies: it's 88.106.232.xx. KarlBunker 12:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He's back again today, now using the sockpuppet user:Emperor Hirohito
    Note the identical comment and content of reverts #1 and #4 (#4 under the sockpuppet Emperor Hirohito) KarlBunker 20:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked JJU754, JH and several anons. Not sure if that will help, but we can but try. Maybe sprotect William M. Connolley 17:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    On reflection, KB has broken 3RR too, so gets blocked too William M. Connolley 20:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pm_shef

    Three revert rule violation on Talk:Alan_Shefman (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Alan_Shefman|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hars_Alden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: HarsA 21:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Where are the reverts?Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 21:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Something weird here. This is HarsA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) HarsA's only edit. So HarsA is someones sock; presumably, Hars_Alden's. Errm... but why? William M. Connolley 22:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh hold on... this is the same report I removed a day ago [218] since its weeks stale (I have a special interest in that kind of thing, you know :-). William M. Connolley 22:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This report is trolling. It's the same report from before by User talk:Hars Alden who can't understand what 3RR is. I checked it out before and Pm shef is adding comments not reverting. Ignore it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Vulturell

    Three revert rule violation on List of British Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Reported by: SlimVirgin (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    A group of eight editors recently voted to get List of British Jews in order, [219] because many of the names on the list are poorly sourced, and are neither Jewish nor British. Vulturell was the only person to oppose this and keeps reverting our efforts. He was blocked for 3RR on this page on March 02 [220] and has reverted four five times within two hours today (complex, partial reverts). Because he's reverting as I'm removing names, but I don't know he's reverted, I end up removing names from a version he has already put all the names back into, which means I'm completely wasting my time. I've asked him to at least wait until I signal that I've finished editing, but he refuses to do even that, which suggests to me that he's being deliberately disruptive. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    not 3rr by any defnition. Different material every time - first edit - Ben Kingsley and Sellers. Second edit - Kingsley and Sid James (that makes it twice for Kingsley). Third edit - Sohpe Okonedo. 4th edit - Okonedo, Kingsley and James (and a few unrelated others). That makes it Kingsley 3 times - at the most - and not 3rr. Vulturell 01:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Read the policy. It makes no difference whether they're different names you're restoring (and anyway, they're not): the point is that you keep reverting another editor's work, and you've now reverted even after being reported here, which makes five reverts in just over two hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As SlimVirgin points out, they don't have to be the exact same revert. Complex reverts, partial reverts, multiple reverts of different material, they all count. Please re-read the policy, and revert yourself, before you end up getting blocked, which would be a shame. Jayjg (talk) 02:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To SlimVirgin The reverts I did just now are past 24 hours from my revert yesterday, actually. And don't say "anyway, they're not" when I've just shown you they are different names. That's a flat-out falsehood. A "revert" is either a taking out, inserting, or changing specific material. It doesn't mean I can't edit the page in a different way that has nothing to do with the other edits. And furthermore, the exact same group of editors - SlimVirgin, JayJG and GraceNote - have been enforcing a definition of "Original Research" that is up for a lot of debate, have enforced a "Policy" that was voted on by 10 people - including the three of them, and have been agreeing with each other on the exact same issues without bothering to discuss - sometimes one of them reverts my edits without even saying anything, either to their own version or one of the others', and have been refusing sources that fulfill exactly what their "policy" demands. Also acting in bad faith - removing names and not A. placing them on discussion B. or examining the new sources provided and reverting anyway. How am I supposed to handle that? Even I have to admit that I am clearly outnumbered, as most editors who've worked on the page before - like User:Newport, User:Arniep, and User:RachelBrown have been scared off the page by these tactics. Vulturell 02:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We're enforcing WP:V and WP:NOR, which you are flouting on this list and several others. But even if you were 100 per cent correct, you still can't violate 3RR, which is independent of the quality of the edits. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither User:RachelBrown nor User:Newport have been "scared off the page"; since they're the same person, and have edited it recently (e.g. [221] [222]). More to the point, discussions of Wikipedia policy are all fine for policy discussion pages, but you have unambiguously broken the 3RR policy here. I wish you had taken the chance to revert yourself when it was offered, but it is now obvious you have contempt for the 3RR policy, and only blocking will convince you that it is serious; this is an unfortunate turn of events. Jayjg (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked for 24 hrs. El_C 02:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, El C. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. Must be really hard to find a nuetral admin to perform a 3RR block. Of the over 800 admins, the one to "review" the case has to be an admin who has frequented the page, shows clear bias towards SlimVirgin and against Vulturell (in part, granted, due to his alleged "affiliations"), has engaged in editting disputes on the page in question and discussed them at length on the talk page... seriously, when acting corrupt, at least try not to make it blindingly obvious. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 06:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Blu Aardvark, do you dispute that Vulturell violated 3RR? If not, I recommend you withdraw your rather breathtaking violation of WP:CIV ("shows clear bias", "acting corrupt"). El C last edited the page, other than to revert after the violation, on March 3 to delete a white space, and has otherwise not edited it. Looking at the Talk: page, I can't see any comments El C has made about content. Please recall that this is Wikipedia, where personal attacks are discouraged, and not Wikipedia Review, which only exists for that purpose. Jayjg (talk) 06:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it likely that Vulterell did violate 3RR, but he is not the only party to be edit-warring. I do not think it appropriate that El C was the admin to perform the block, because he has been involved, to some extent, in the conflict (not this particular conflict, mind you, but on the greater scale - this conflict has been ongoing for quite some time). "Clear bias", is, to be frank, quite clear - El C has been involved in the larger-scale conflict, and has invariably sided with SlimVirgin in each case. "Acting corrupt" - OK, I agree, that might not have been an appropriate comment. Such actions are run-of-the-mill at Wikipedia, and to be expected. Deviancy from the norm would be considered "corruption". Also, you might check your biases on WR. It exists to provide an open platform for criticism of Wikipedia, on small and large scales. WR allows personal attacks, but it doesn't exist solely for them - that's what your IRC channel is for (granted, that's an unreasonable exaggeration, but a very similar level of personal attacks and lack of civility are just as common there, if not more so) --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 07:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This page is about 3RR violation; when someone is violating 3RR, it's quite obvious that other editors have been reverting him. Obvious, and irrelevant. Vulturell violated 3RR; in fact, he reverted at least 5 times, and was still offered the opportunity of reverting himeself, yet refused to do so; that's more than fair. As for El C, what "on-going conflict" are you referring to? Finally, I don't know a lot about WR, but based on the evidence that has been presented to me, it appears that both of its incarnations are little more than venues for cranks and anti-Semites to insult Wikipedia editors. And the fact that you have Disruptive Apartheid editor posting there as CDRome only encourages that view. Frankly, I'm tired of these smearing accusations ("alleged affiliations" etc.) against alleged "Wikipedia Jews" that turn out to be based on the claims of editors like the neo-Nazi Amalekite and the anti-semitic Jew-obsessed Disruptive Apartheid editor; here's an example of the latter's recent "contributions" to Wikipedia (note in particular the edit summary) [223]. Jayjg (talk) 07:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    El C has expressed no view on the content issue, and I have no idea what you mean by the "larger-scale conflict," unless you're referring to the website you're a moderator of, which has posted requests for information about Wikipedia editors' personal identities. That's the same website on which you posted that the neo-Nazi Amalekite made an "excellent point" when he posted the list of perceived Jewish editors to the Stormfront site, and that although he "did use the term 'kike' ... he later explained that was because he simply wanted to excercise [sic] the right to use the word ..." SlimVirgin (talk) 07:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He has not? Perhaps I simply read his vitriol-laden statements on the article talk page the wrong way, then - it is indeed possible that he wasn't interested in the content, but rather simply has a personal grudge against Vulturell, possibly because of his involvement in the forum, but possibly for other reasons. I also am rather amused at your not-so-clever trolling and your blatant misquote of my statement. I stated that I felt that Amalekite (whose ban was not justifed by Wikipedia policy, BTW) made a good point - once you cut through the anti-semitism and the spaztic knee-jerk reactions that certain people have when encountering such extreme viewpoints. I do not endorse his polical beliefs, but I do endorse his right to have those political beliefs. I am not anti-semitic myself, and, to be frank, I'm rather sick of you and your fellow trolls El C and Grace Note insinuating that I am. Oh, and as for the alleged "statement" made by donkey that appeared to be challenging Qwerty, shortly after which Qwerty blocked - new evidence has come to light that it might not have been your little troll buddy who posted it. Seems that the account "donkey" was created as a communal account, and the login info posted to bugmenot.com (and yes, it works - except for the fact that the account is permanently banned). Oh, and the fact that your little "Dr Zen" posted to his blog admitting that his intent was to "heavily troll" (yes, we know these things now). And yes, Igor has posted a request for information about the identity of several obnoxious trolls who have attempted to damage, defame, and undermine the board - your little pet Freddy included (actually, him being the prime target). What does that matter? --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 08:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TruthInAdvertising

    Three revert rule violation on REALbasic by User:TruthInAdvertising.

    • 1st revert: [224] 08:39, 18 Mar
    • 2nd revert: [225] 15:36, 18 Mar
    • 3rd revert: [226] 20:14, 18 Mar
    • 4th revert: [227] 22:51, 18 Mar

    (All timestamps are PST.)

    Reported by: Zetawoof 07:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    User has been pushing POV on this article for five days or more now, and has attempted to place the article on AfD. Zetawoof 07:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    24 hour block. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rschen7754

    On Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads - see the history. (This is SPUI, using an obvious sockpuppet as I've been blocked for supposed vandalism.) --Sockenpuppe 07:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Report new violation

    Place new reports ABOVE this header, using the template below. Do not edit the template itself. See the example at the top of the page for full details. Take the time to do the job right to get the quickest responses. From the article's History page, use diffs (links labelled "last"), not versions, and the "compare versions" button to clearly highlight the changes between versions of the article and show what has been reverted. 


    ===[[User:USERNAME]]===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|ARTICLENAME}}. {{3RRV|USERNAME}}:

* Previous version reverted to: [Link Time] <!-- ALWAYS FILL IN THIS FIELD! -->
* 1st revert: [DiffLink Time]
* 2nd revert: [DiffLink Time]
* 3rd revert: [DiffLink Time]
* 4th revert: [DiffLink Time]

Reported by: ~~~~

'''Comments:'''



<!-- This is an *example*! Do not leave your report here - place it ABOVE the header"!!-->
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=44479358"