Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive12
User:Master Of RSPW
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)
- 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)
- 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)
User:TruthCrusader
- [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)
There are only 3. The last revision is dated March 8th. Nice try. TruthCrusader 08:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Blocked for 3RR, considering extending for real name outing, accurate or not. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- Yes, that's correct. You performed admirably, considering the coffee thing. :P —BorgHunter
ubx(talk) 16:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)- Thanks much. (Both for the math-check and the caffiene deprived performance pat on the back.) KillerChihuahua?!? 16:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, that's correct. You performed admirably, considering the coffee thing. :P —BorgHunter
User:JohnBWatt
- Previous version reverted to: 01:54, March 7, 2006
- 1st revert: 04:14, March 7, 2006
- 2nd revert: 00:44, March 8, 2006
- 3rd revert: 00:57, March 8, 2006
- 4th revert: 01:09, March 8, 2006
Reported by: MikeWazowski 06:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
Venom (Marvel Comics character)
User:T-1000
- Previous version reverted to: 22:45, 5 March 2006
- 1st revert: 22:37, 6 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 23:36, 6 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 13:35, 7 March 2006
- 4th revert: 17:17, 7 March 2006
- 5th revert: 22:13, 7 March 2006
Reported by: MikeJ9919 08:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
User:24.228.52.76
- Previous version reverted to: 11:30, 5 March 2006
- 1st revert: 22:16, 6 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 23:16, 6 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 02:15, 7 March 2006
- 4th revert: 16:15, 7 March 2006
- 5th revert: 20:15, 7 March 2006
Reported by: MikeJ9919 08:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
Ive blocked both for 12 hours William M. Connolley 13:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Copperchair
- Previous version reverted to: 03:44, 18 June 2005 - yes, you are reading that correctly, this version is nearly nine months old.
- 1st revert: 19:25, 7 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 19:26, 7 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 19:26, 7 March 2006, making three reverts within a minute!
- 4th revert: 01:01, 8 March 2006
Reported by: PurplePlatypus 10:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
User:Master Of RSPW
- Previous version reverted to: [17]
- 1st revert: [18]
- 2nd revert: [19]
- 3rd revert: [20]
- 4th revert: [21]
- 5th revert: [22]
- 6th revert: [23]
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
Irishpunktom
- Previous version reverted to: 15:28, 8 March 2006
- 1st revert: 15:57, 8 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 16:06, 8 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 16:09, 8 March 2006
- 4th revert: 16:22, 8 March 2006 - note this incorporated some additional changes but was a complex revert to continue to refer to a statement purportedly made by Peter Tatchell concerning the Sydney riots of December 2005. The nature of the revert is made clearer by comparing it with the immediately preceding version of the article.
- You will find the 4th edit is a unique edit, replacing the request for citation with a cited statement, and replacing the original research with the NPOV term "alleged" (which I believe to be irrelevent)
Reported by: David | Talk 16:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
- 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 | Talk16:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- The edit clarrified that the statements were allegations, without using Original research.--Irishpunktom\talk17:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- The edit clarrified that the statements were allegations, without using
- From
- 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)
Bit of a mess at the end, but definitely 4RR at least. Blocked 24h William M. Connolley 17:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- The user has now been warned per 18:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
User:136.215.251.179
- Previous version reverted to: 08:43, 8 March 2006
- 1st revert: 12:57, 8 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 16:18, 8 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 17:09, 8 March 2006 (edit summary: "adding template while being discussed" Was rv +NPOV tag)
- 4th revert: 17:25, 8 March 2006 identical to above
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)
Reported by: KillerChihuahua?!? 17:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- The user has now been blocked for 36 hours per 17:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
User:SPUI and User:JohnnyBGood
User:SPUI
- Previous version reverted to: 12:49, 8 March 2006
- 1st revert: 18:55, 8 March 2006 Note:most of the reverts center around the infobox.
- 2nd revert: 19:08, 8 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 19:57, 8 March 2006
- 4th revert: 20:10, 8 March 2006 Note:This revert was not related to the infobox as were the previous ones but it was a continuation of his edit war with JohnnyBGood.Gateman1997 20:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Reported by: Gateman1997 20:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
- Not quit a 3RR violation, his last two edits where not a revert. There where only 3 reverts. 06:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- Given his arbcom conditions, 12h for "not quite a 3RR vio" is a bargain, IMO. Alai 06:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- Not quit a 3RR violation, his last two edits where not a revert. There where only 3 reverts. 06:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
User:JohnnyBGood
- Previous version reverted to: 20:45, 7 March 2006
- 1st revert: 18:17, 8 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 19:05, 8 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 19:12, 8 March 2006
- 4th revert: 20:00, 8 March 2006
Reported by: Gateman1997 20:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
Blocked 12h each William M. Connolley 00:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
- Um.... more proof that JohnnyBGood is not a sock of Gateman1997. See ) 21:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
User:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)
):- Previous version reverted to: 13:01, 8 March 2006
- 1st revert: 20:05, 8 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 22:14, 8 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 22:59, 8 March 2006
- 4th revert: 23:07, 8 March 2006
- 5th revert: 00:40, 9 March 2006
Reported by: Markyour words 09:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Blocked 15 hours. )
- 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)
- In my view, he knew what he was doing when he did it. There's been a report at )
User:68.1.74.140
- Previous version reverted to: 23:34, March 7, 2006
- 1st revert: 01:38, March 8, 2006
- 2nd revert: 09:30, March 8, 2006
- 3rd revert: 15:56, March 8, 2006
- 4th revert: 20:39, March 8, 2006
- 5th revert: 02:05, March 9, 2006
Reported by: Kafziel 13:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- The user has now been blocked for 24 hours per 15:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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). 16:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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). 16:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
User:Imacomp
- Previous version reverted to: 15:01, 8 March 2006
- 1st revert: 15:27, 8 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 15:41, 8 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 23:25, 8 March 2006
- 4th revert: 07:06, 9 March 2006
Reported by:
Comments:
- The user has now been warned per 16:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
User:69.205.1.109
- Previous version reverted to: 03:16, 8 March 2006
- 1st revert: 20:15, 8 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 01:02, 9 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 11:30, 9 March 2006
- 4th revert: 19:30, 9 March 2006
Reported by: Antaeus Feldspar 19:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
- Blocked for 24 hours, probably deserves a longer block. —Ruud20:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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. 20:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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.—Ruud20:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)- 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)
- 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)
- 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. 22:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- That said... the anon looks like an incommunicable troll to me. —Ruud21:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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. 21:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. 22:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. 21:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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.—
- Blocked for 24 hours, probably deserves a longer block. —
User:Young_Zaphod, User:67.165.85.111, User:68.162.128.9
- Online creation
- Previous version reverted to: 20:26, 7 March
- 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Online_creation&diff=42856479&oldid=42741889 15:26, 8 March 2006 by 67.165.85.111
- 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Online_creation&diff=42901086&oldid=42864870 20:44, 8 March 2006 by 68.162.128.9
- 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Online_creation&diff=42909299&oldid=42903183 21:45, 8 March 2006 by Young Zaphod
- 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Online_creation&diff=42999776&oldid=42910233 13:16, 9 March 2006 by 67.165.85.111
- NiMUD
- Previous version reverted to: 10:27, 27 February
- 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NiMUD&curid=461465&diff=42796601&oldid=42796542 06:51, 8 March 2006 by 68.162.128.9
- 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NiMUD&curid=461465&diff=42856615&oldid=42800901 15:26, 8 March 2006 by 67.165.85.111
- 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NiMUD&curid=461465&diff=42900966&oldid=42863931 20:43, 8 March 2006 by 68.162.128.9
- 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NiMUD&curid=461465&diff=42909356&oldid=42902642 21:46, 8 March 2006 by Young Zaphod
- Another revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NiMUD&curid=461465&diff=42999653&oldid=42910341 13:15, 9 March 2006 by 67.165.85.111 (while edits 1 and 5 are not within 24 hours, 1-4 and 2-5 are, which is why I felt I should include all five)
Reported by: Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 20:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
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:
On the assumption that 68.162.128.9 is probably YZ, I shall block William M. Connolley 20:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)- 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)
I've blocked this user for 12h; see his talk page William M. Connolley 18:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
User:VrrayMan
- Previous version reverted to: 18:43, March 9, 2006
- 1st revert: 18:40, March 9, 2006
- 2nd revert: 18:37, March 9, 2006
- 3rd revert: 18:33, March 9, 2006
- 4th revert: 18:30, March 9, 2006
Reported by: Zpb52 23:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User is continually reverting to vandalized version without regard, and is now threatening to report me for 3RR for reverting his vandalism.
- The user has now been banned per 00:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
User:64.131.23.140/USFamily.net user
Reported by: Gyrofrog (talk) 06:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- Not a 3RR violation. Only a fourth revert would be a violation. Stifle 03:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Overacker
- Previous version reverted to:
- 1th revert: 05:04, 10 March 2006
- 2st revert: 05:08, 10 March 2006
- 3nd revert: 05:21, 10 March 2006
- 4rd revert: 05:22, 10 March 2006
Reported by: ---J.Smith 06:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments: This guy has been reverting to this version for weeks now. *shrug*
User:Rydel
- Previous version reverted to: 23:09, 21 December 2005
- 1st revert: 15:51, 9 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 00:38, 10 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 09:32, 10 March 2006
- 4th revert: 11:37, 10 March 2006
Reported by:
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. --
- 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)
- 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)
- How about this version then: 00:34, 25 February 2006? --Kuban Cossack14:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- How about this version then: 00:34, 25 February 2006? --
- 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)
OK, thats 4 then. 12 hours I think William M. Connolley 17:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Dbiv
- 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)
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)
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)
- The users have now been warned per 23:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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. 00:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
User:129.186.232.42
- 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)
- 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)
User:70.85.195.138
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
User:AdamJacobMuller
- Previous version reverted to: [14:22]
- 1st revert: 19:04
- 2nd revert: 19:06
- 3rd revert: 19:07
- 4th revert: 19:11
- 5th revert: 19:24
- 6th revert: 19:27
- 7th revert: 19:28
Reported by: 192.168.225.195 21:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
User:125.247.105.242 and User:MB on al-Khwarizmi
User:125.247.105.242
- Previous version reverted to: 21:09, 10 March 2006
- 1st revert: 21:23, 10 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 21:47, 10 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 21:59, 10 March 2006
- 4th revert: 22:03, 10 March 2006
Reported by: MB 22:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments
- The user has now been warned per 23:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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). 23:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
User:MB
- Previous version reverted to: 22:01, 10 March 2006
- 1st revert: [55]
- 2nd revert: [56]
- 3rd revert: [57]
- 4th revert: [58]
Comments:
- 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)
User:80.19.30.10
- Previous version reverted to: 23:34, 10 March 2006
- 1st revert: [60]
- 2nd revert: [61]
- 3rd revert: [62]
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)
- Not a 3RR violation. Only a fourth revert is a breach. Stifle 02:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
User:70.22.222.244
- 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)
- 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)
User:Aucaman
- Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parsi_%28ethnic_group%29&oldid=43253768
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.Zmmz23:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Your #4 is not a revert. He has made three reverts, but not a fourth. Stifle 02:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- I have blocked the user for 24 hours per 06:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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.Zmmz08:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Jidan
- Previous version reverted to: 22:23, 10 March 2006
- 1st revert: [67]
- 2nd revert: [68]
- 3rd revert: [69]
- 4th revert: [70]
- 5th revert: [71]
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)
- Look at revert no.2 through 5 please.Zmmz 05:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
User:Master Of RSPW and User:FARVA
- Previous version reverted to: 03:59, March 9, 2006
- 1st revert: 08:17, March 10, 2006
- 2nd revert: 13:41, March 10, 2006
- 3rd revert: 23:17, March 10, 2006
- 4th revert: 23:26, March 10, 2006
- Previous version reverted to: 08:46, March 9, 2006
- 1st revert: 09:17, March 10, 2006
- 2nd revert: 19:27, March 10, 2006
- 3rd revert: 23:22, March 10, 2006
- 4th revert: 23:28, March 10, 2006
Reported by: tv316 04:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
Continued reverts by Master of RSPW have led to a 12-hour block. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
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])
- Previous version reverted to: 00:06, 10 March 2006
- 1st revert (removal of a section that was added prior to his edit: 10:20, 10 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 11:57, 10 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 13:34, 10 March 2006
- 4th revert: 00:22, 11 March 2006
- 5th revert: 06:16, 11 March 2006
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:
Reported by: Zeq 08:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- I have blocked the user for 12 hours per 08:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
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
- Previous version reverted to: [76]
- 1st revert: [77]
- 2nd revert: [78]
- 3rd revert: [79]
- 4th revert: [80]
- 5th revert: [81]
Reported by:
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. --2006BC13:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. --2006BC13:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
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)
- Comment I've temporarily protected CVU16:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
User:Blueboar
- Previous version reverted to: 00:05, March 11, 2006
- 1st revert: 09:29, March 11, 2006
- 2nd revert: 10:04, March 11, 2006
- 3rd revert: 10:10, March 11, 2006
- 4th revert: 11:02, March 11, 2006
Reported by: Seraphim 17:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- Content changing is never a vandalism revert, you made that very clear to me. Seraphim 21:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- I've blocked him for 24 hours. His fourth revert doesn't look like reverting obvious vandalism to me. —Ruud18:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Healthy eating
- 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)
Comments:
I've blocked HE indefinitely as a presumed sockpuppet of Keystrokes William M. Connolley 19:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Swedenman
- Previous version reverted to: [87]
- 1st revert: [88]
- 2nd revert: [89]
- 3rd revert: [90]
- 4th revert: [91]
- 5th revert: [92]
- 6th revert: [93]
Reported by: Probert 20:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
User:Daphne A & User:Adam78
- Daphne A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Adam78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to: 20:09, 10 March 2006
- 9st revert: 21:18, 11 March 2006 Daphne ARemoved section
- 8th revert: 21:12, 11 March 2006 Adam78 Replaced Section
- 7th revert: 21:09, 11 March 2006 Daphne ARemoved section
- 6th revert: 20:56, 11 March 2006 Adam78 Replaced Section
- 5th revert: 20:37, 11 March 2006 Daphne ARemoved section
- 4th revert: 15:14, 11 March 2006 Adam78 Replaced Section
- 3rd revert: 13:53, 11 March 2006 Daphne ARemoved section
- 2nt revert: 11:41, 11 March 2006 Adam78 Replaced Section
- 1st revert: 20:18, 10 March 2006 Daphne A Removed section
Reported by: ---J.Smith 22:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
- Blocked both for 12 hours. —Ruud22:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Xtra
- Previous version reverted to: [14:28, 10 March 2006]
- 1st revert: 14:48, 10 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 21:17, 10 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 23:34, 11 March 2006
Reported by: PSYCH 02:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
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. —Ruud03:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
User:70.191.209.48 & multiple other IP names
- Previous version reverted to: 15:54, 10 March 2006
- 1st revert: 10:22, 11 March 2006 as [70.191.209.48]
- 2nd revert: 12:14, 11 March 2006 as [70.188.244.144]
- 3rd revert: 15:07, 11 March 2006 as [70.191.209.48]
- 4th revert: 20:13, 11 March 2006 as [70.188.244.144]
- 5th revert: 20:37, 11 March 2006 as [70.191.209.48]
Reported by: Mhking 02:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
- Blocked the two IPs for 24 hours. —Ruud03:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
- 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. —Ruud12:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Steth
- 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)
Comments:User is obsessed with chiropractic POV pushing via article section blanking and reverts.--Deglr6328 03:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud03:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Northmeister
- Previous version reverted to: 18:54, 11 March 2006
- 1st revert: 02:07, 12 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 04:46, 12 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 04:57, 12 March 2006
- 4th revert: 05:08, 12 March 2006
Reported by: Jersey Devil 05:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Blocked 24h. I see no harassment, only a reasonable concern of vote stacking William M. Connolley 11:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
User:201.252.133.159
- Previous version reverted to: 04:09, 7 March 2006
- 1st revert: 04:11, 12 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 04:29, 12 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 05:25, 12 March 2006
- 4th revert: 06:02, 12 March 2006
Reported by: AucamanTalk 14:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Already warned. AucamanTalk 14:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked for 24h. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- 200.118.111.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has reverted to the same version as the one preferred by the blocked IP. (5 times between 09:38 and 11:08.) --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 16:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- OK, blocked for 48hrs. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Kolriv
- Previous version reverted to: 13:21, 12 March 2006
- 1st revert: 10:23, 12 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 12:06, 12 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 12:54, 12 March 2006
- 4th revert: 13:21, 12 March 2006
Reported by: E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Rationalising exclusion of alternate rendition of encyclopædia in introduction (with ligature); has also reverted (2nd) another user supporting this. Has been warned. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- He's doing the same thing at Encyclopedia of Anthropology. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for 12h as first offence William M. Connolley 19:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- And now User:Kroliv has been created. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Dardanv
- Previous version reverted to: 11 March 2006
- 1st revert: 17:34, 11 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 18:42, 11 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 08:22, 12 March 2006
- 4th revert: 17:15, 12 March 2006
Reported by: Asterion 17:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
User:Tenka Muteki
- Previous version reverted to: [99]
- 1st revert: [100]
- 2nd revert: [101]
- 3rd revert: [102]
- 4th revert: [103]
- 5th revert: [104]
- 6th revert [105]
Reported by: Zzzzz 19:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
Blocked. And so are you, sorry. I'll make it short and symmetrical... William M. Connolley 20:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
User:68.169.221.230
- Previous version reverted to: 13:55, 11 March 2006
- 1st revert: 17:14, 11 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 13:44, 12 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 14:21, 12 March 2006
- 4th revert: 14:32, 12 March 2006
- 5th revert: 14:44, 12 March 2006
Reported by: Prosfilaes 19:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
User:200.82.18.5
- Previous version reverted to: 19:09, 12 March 2006
- 1st revert: 22:34, 12 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 23:00, 12 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 23:11, 12 March 2006
- 4th revert: 23:16, 12 March 2006
- 5th revert: 23:26, 12 March 2006
Reported by: Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
- Blocked for 12 hours. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Zmmz
- Previous version reverted to: 20:17, 12 March 2006
- 1st revert: 21:23, 12 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 21:51, 12 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 22:11, 12 March 2006
- 4th revert: 22:16, 12 March 2006
Reported by: AucamanTalk 06:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Already warned him here and just before his last revert here. AucamanTalk 06:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked 48 hours as a repeat 3RR violator. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- I just wanted to point that ManiF18:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- This is clearly unfair. The user was defending the article from vandalism. --Kash 18:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Realek
- Previous version reverted to: 01:11, 13 March 2006
- 1st revert: 02:27, 13 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 03:28, 13 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 03:37, 13 March 2006
- 4th revert: 04:19, 13 March 2006
Reported by: Latinus 08:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User knew of the 3RR because I had told him about it two days ago. --Latinus 08:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked ofr 24 hours. —Ruud09:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked ofr 24 hours. —
User:Swedenman
- Previous version reverted to: [107]
- 1st revert: [108]
- 2nd revert: [109]
- 3rd revert: [110]
- 4th revert: [111]
Reported by: Probert 13:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Behold this edit summary: [112]. Probert 13:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- User has been blocked by Fred chessplayer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). (ESkog)(Talk) 16:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
User:IAS FAN
- 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)
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)
User:Aucaman
- Previous version reverted to:
- 1st revert: [117]
- 2nd revert: [118]
- 3rd revert: [119]
- 4th revert: [120]
- 5th revert: [121]
- 6th revert: [122]
Reported by:
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. --
- Each of these edits is different. The 3RR rule is not the 3-edit rule. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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. 16:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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. ManiF17:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Erfter
- Previous version reverted to: 14:02, 12 March 2006
- 1st revert: 21:46, 12 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 10:17, 13 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 12:38, 13 March 2006
- 4th revert: 13:11, 13 March 2006
Reported by: E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Rationalising exclusion of alternate rendition of encyclopædia in introduction (with reported yesterday for similar behaviour — smacks of more than just coincidence. E Pluribus Anthony | talk| 17:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Similarly, User:Kroliv has just been created and in circumvention of the above two blocked user names. When will it stop? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely, as is Korliv, as presumed socks of Kolriv evading block William M. Connolley 20:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Ahwaz
- Previous version reverted to: [125]
- 1st revert: [126]
- 2nd revert: [127]
- 3rd revert: [128]
- 5th revert: [129]
- 6th revert: [130]
- 7th revert: [131]
- 8th revert: [132]
- 9th revert: [133]
Reported by:
Comments:
This page has seen so much reverting that I've protected it instead of blocking William M. Connolley 20:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
User:195.93.21.33
- Previous version reverted to: [135]
- 1st revert: [136]
- 2nd revert: [137]
- 3rd revert: [138]
- 4th revert: [139]
- 5th revert: [140]
- 6th revert: [141]
- 7th revert: [142]
- etc...
Reported by:
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.
Following tradtion for this IP, blocked for 24h. Also Jw6aa for 3h as first offence William M. Connolley 20:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Socrunchy
- Previous version reverted to: [143]
- 1st revert: [144]
- 2nd revert: [145]
- 3rd revert: [146]
- 4th revert: [147]
Reported by: Socrunchy 19:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
User:NicholasTurnbull
):
- Previous version reverted to: 11:18, February 25, 2006
- 1st revert: 16:48, March 12, 2006
- 2nd revert: 19:11, March 12, 2006
- 3rd revert: 19:18, March 12, 2006
- 4th revert: 19:31, March 12, 2006
- 5th revert: 19:56, March 12, 2006
Reported by: Seraphim 20:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
- See Ruud20:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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. Seraphim21:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- I've protected the page. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
User:83.221.83.4
- 83.221.83.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
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.
- 1st: 14:24, March 13, 2006
- 2nd: 18:13, March 13, 2006
- 3rd: 18:31, March 13, 2006
- 4th: 18:42, March 13, 2006
- 5th: 19:01, March 13, 2006
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.
- 1st: 14:23, March 13, 2006
- 2nd: 14:43, March 13, 2006 - Changes .com domain to .de domain which he apparently has registered.
- 3rd: 18:12, March 13, 2006
- 4th: 18:31, March 13, 2006
- 5th: 18:43, March 13, 2006
- 6th: 19:00, March 13, 2006
Reported by: Ziggur 00:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Based on this remark[153], I have s-protected the page. Tom Harrison Talk 00:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
User:200.82.218.60 (probably the person as User:Metb82) on Adana
- Previous version reverted to: 00:07, 14 March 2006
- 1st revert: 01:00, 14 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 01:07, 14 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 01:24, 14 March 2006
- 4th revert: 01:26, 14 March 2006
Reported by: Khoikhoi 01:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments
- User knows about the 3RR because I told him/her about it here. --Khoikhoi 01:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Khoikhoi on Adana
- Previous version reverted to: 23:04, 12 March 2006
- 1st revert: 00:38, 14 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 00:43, 14 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 01:02, 14 March 2006
- 4th revert: 02:18, 14 March 2006
- 5th revert: 02:36, 14 March 2006
- 6th revert: 02:39, 14 March 2006
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)
- Ok, I promise. I'll leave a note on the talk page. --Khoikhoi 03:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
User:Ati3414
- Previous version reverted to: 01:32, 13 March 2006
- 1st revert: 16:04, 13 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 19:07, 13 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 01:16, 14 March 2006
- 4th revert: 05:41, 14 March 2006
Reported by: Gregory9 08:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
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.
- Blocked by Bogdangiusca. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
User:72.232.81.130
- 1st: 19:51, March 13, 2006
- 2nd: 19:57, March 13, 2006
- 3rd: 20:14, March 13, 2006
- 4th: 01:55, March 14, 2006
- 5th: 07:40, March 14, 2006
- 6th: 07:58, March 14, 2006
- 7th: 08:07, March 14, 2006
Reported by: Ziggur 12:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
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. Ziggur12:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked for 48 hours. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Bomac
- Previous version reverted to: 21:01, 11 March 2006
- 1st revert: 18:40, 13 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 20:10, 13 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 20:42, 13 March 2006
- 4th revert: 15:09, 14 March 2006
- 5th revert: 17:42, 14 March 2006
Reported by: Latinus 15:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User is removing sourced information for POV reasons - see also the talk page. --Latinus 15:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. --Latinus15:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- He reverted again! --Latinus 17:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
User:201.215.232.5
- Previous version reverted to: 13 Mar, 21:22
- 1st revert: 14 Mar, 01:00 200.82.218.60 (talk · contribs)
- 2nd revert: 14 Mar, 01:07
- 3rd revert: 14 Mar, 01:24
- 4th revert: 14 Mar, 02:20 211.48.24.219 (talk · contribs)
- 5th revert: 14 Mar, 02:42
- 6th revert: 14 Mar, 03:09
- 7th revert: 14 Mar, 15:26 201.215.232.5 (talk · contribs)
- 8th revert: 14 Mar, 16:05
Reported by: Lukas (T.|@) 16:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Do not scan on my quick scan to be open proxies, trying a full nmap -- Tawker 23:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Netscott
- Previous version reverted to: 12:11, March 14, 2006
- 1st revert: 12:20, March 14, 2006
- 2nd revert: 14:22, March 14, 2006
- 3rd revert: 15:08, March 14, 2006
- 4th revert: 17:39, March 14, 2006
Reported by: Irishpunktom\talk 18:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
18:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)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)
- Ok now you need to block IrishPunkTom too. Seraphim 18:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Please note the following:
Irishpunktom's first 'counter' edit:
after research I reverted
- no original research
- Irishpunktom deleted Bamiyan reference no editorial explanation
- I revert inclusion to Bamiyan ref
- Irishpunktom deleted ref again again no editorial explanation
- I again revert Bamiyan ref
- Irishpunktom deleted ref again now with a comment
- Irishpunktom reverted by User:Varga_Mila to include Bamiyan ref
- Irishpunktom edits in long irrelevant diatribe and Reverts User:MX44 last entry
- I revert to remove long irrelevant diatribe
- Irishpunktom reverts back to long diatribe
- User:Ashenai reverts out long diatribe
- Irishpunktom reverts back to long diatribe
- I revert diatribe back out
- Irishpunktom edits in new irrelevant text
- I revert new irrelevant text out
Please do note Irishpunktom's block history and my own block history.
Netscott 18:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
User:Floyddoorz and 24.57.68.108
- 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)
Comments:
Impressive reverting - demands some kind of prize. 12h apiece methinks William M. Connolley 22:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
User:SweHomer
- 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)
User:Irishpunktom
- Previous version reverted to: [12:13, 14 March 2006]
- 1st revert: 07:13, March 14, 2006
- 2nd revert: 07:42, March 14, 2006
- 3rd revert: 07:57, March 14, 2006
- 4th revert: 09:46, March 14, 2006
- 5th revert: 09:56, March 14, 2006
Reported by: 208.201.242.19 20:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
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
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- hey, can somebody stop this circus. irishpunktom just brought hanafi in as the taliban belief ??? MX44 23:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Whats wrong with that? --Irishpunktom\talk 23:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Most open to modern ideas, 45% of the Muslims ... :D MX44 00:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- And case --MX4400:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
:* 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)
- 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)
- And
- 6th revert: 23:37, 14 March 2006 User:Irishpunktom has just made a 6th revert... and included further irrelevant information. CA-Bill 208.201.242.19 23:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Just block me then, if the people are baying for blood, give it to them. --Irishpunktom\talk 23:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- We're not required to obey the desires of a lynch-mob. Mackensen (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
User:Michael Snow
- Previous version reverted to: [15:58, 14 March 2006]??? (I don't really know what to put in this field)
- 1st revert: 15:58, 14 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 15:26, 14 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 14:28, 14 March 2006
- 4th revert: 13:41, 14 March 2006
Reported by: ElKevbo 21:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
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. Connolley23:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. --216.161.72.9602:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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
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)
- I respectfully disagree. --ElKevbo 00:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Jidan
- Previous version reverted to: 19:24, 13 March 2006
- 1st revert: [159]
- 2nd revert: [160]
- 3rd revert: [161]
- 4th revert: [162]
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)
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)
- 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)
User:Codex Sinaiticus
):- 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)
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)
- Sorry - I've changed my mind. See t:Codex. Unblocked. William M. Connolley 22:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Waya_sahoni
- 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)
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
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
User:Another POV
- 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)
Comments:
- User:200.69.24.9 made the original claimed POV edit with reversions by User:68.72.56.131 and User:192.5.36.23. At least one of these is most likely the IP address of User:Another POV. Garglebutt / (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Similar POV reversion war at Francophobia. Garglebutt / (talk)03:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
User:Lou franklin
- Previous version reverted to: 03:47, 14 March 2006
- 1st revert: 02:32, 15 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 02:56, 15 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 04:49, 15 March 2006
- 4th revert: 09:11, 15 March 2006
Reported by: Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
Blocked again, sigh William M. Connolley 09:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
User:69.235.238.56
- Previous version reverted to: 11:23, 15 March 2006
- 1st revert: 11:52, 15 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 12:23, 15 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 12:33, 15 March 2006
- 4th revert: 12:51, 15 March 2006
- 5th revert: 13:11, 15 March 2006
Reported by: Grandmaster 10:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
- The same person made at least 4 reverts this morning in the same article. Grandmaster 05:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Waya_sahoni
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
User:Alienus
):- Previous version reverted to: 04:45, 15 March 2006 (The text beginning "There is a particular risk...")
- 1st revert: 16:42, 15 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 16:50, 15 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 17:28, 15 March 2006
- 4th revert: 18:12, 15 March 2006
Reported by: Nandesuka 19:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
Blocked 48h as multiple offender and particularly blatant well-over-3RR this time William M. Connolley 19:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
User:Rolandaslondon
- Previous version reverted to: 13:30, 15 March 2006
- 1st revert: 21:31, 15 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 21:47, 15 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 22:36, 15 March 2006
- 4th revert: 23:30, 15 March 2006
Reported by: KillerChihuahua?!? 23:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
User:Jidan
- Previous version reverted to: 00:01, 16 March 2006
- 1st revert: [183]
- 2nd revert: [184]
- 3rd revert: [185]
- 4th revert: [186]
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
- I have blocked the user for 36 hours per 01:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Kilgore Sprout
- 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)
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)
- The user has now been warned per 01:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
User:200.118.111.122
- Previous version reverted to: 01:40, 16 March 2006
- 1st revert: 02:44, 16 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 02:50, 16 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 03:03, 16 March 2006
- 4th revert: 03:10, 16 March 2006
Reported by: —
Comments: Was previously blocked for 48 hours for a 3rr vio. —
- Better late than never, he's blocked for a further 48 hours for 3RR. Stifle 17:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Khoikhoi
- Previous version reverted to: 02:30, 15 March 2006
- 1st revert: 07:28, 15 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 16:29, 15 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 17:37, 15 March 2006
- 4th revert: 17:47, 15 March 2006
Reported by: AucamanTalk 02:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Has not been warned about this particular case, but he seems pretty familiar with Wikipedia. AucamanTalk 02:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- In fact, I believe I only made 2 reverts here. --Khoikhoi 02:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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? 03:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- In fact, I believe I only made 2 reverts here. --Khoikhoi 02:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Raphael1
- Previous version reverted to: [192]
- 1st revert: 04:11, 15 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 15:56, 15 March 2006
- 3th revert: 00:51, 16 March 2006
- 4th revert: 03:09, 16 March 2006
- 5th revert: 03:29, 16 March 2006
- 6th revert: 04:15, 16 March 2006
Reported by: Bibigon 04:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
User:69.235.223.117
- Previous version reverted to: 05:40, 16 March 2006
- 1st revert: 07:18, 16 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 07:25, 16 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 07:50, 16 March 2006
- 4th revert: 08:18, 16 March 2006
Reported by: Grandmaster 06:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
- The page has been semi-protected by Nlu, so the issue is now moot. Stifle 12:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
User:MB
- Previous version reverted to: [193]
- 1st revert: 14:10, 15 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 22:21, 15 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 09:38, 16 March 2006
- 4th revert: 10:20, 16 March 2006
Reported by:
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. --
- 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)
User:CltFn
- Previous version reverted to: [194]
- 1st revert: 20:25, 15 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 21:25, 15 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 07:19, 16 March 2006
- 4th revert: 08:17, 16 March 2006
Reported by:
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)
User:Molobo (and it goes on and on)
- Previous version reverted to: [195]
- 1st revert: 02:48, 16 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 03:37, 16 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 03:41, 16 March 2006
- 4th revert: 14:32, 16 March 2006
Reported by: Sciurinæ 14:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments
- revert war about two categories
- recurring violations, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive11#User:Molobo_.28.2Asigh.2A.2C_yes.2C_again.29 for context
- latest block was a 3-day one, some days ago Sciurinæ 14:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
User:Realek
- Previous version reverted to: 14:20, 15 March 2006
- 1st revert: 23:35, 15 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 01:38, 16 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 10:05, 16 March 2006
- 4th revert: 17:03, 16 March 2006
Reported by: Latinus 19:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
- Blocked for 36 hours. Nandesuka 21:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
User:Bitola
):
- Previous version reverted to:
- 1st revert: 18:24, 16 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 18:34, 16 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 22:06, 16 March 2006
- 4th revert: 00:19, 17 March 2006
Reported by:--Hectorian 01:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
- Before making a decision, please read the Bitola01:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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. ---- 02:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, only User:Bitola violated the 3RR. --Latinus 08:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours. —
User:Rgulerdem
- This user has violated 3RR on 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)
- Both ---- 02:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
User
- reverting
- moving around User:Pegasus1138 comments and replacing them with his own
- starting a second poll and posting it above someone elses
- adding new headings to confuse the polls even more
- This isn't even including his uncivil comments which are available on other diffs. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 08:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
- 09:02, 17 March 2006 and another revert
- Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud12:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked for 24 hours. —
- 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. —Ruud13:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Semi-protected the talk page. —
- 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:
- 23:26, 17 March 2006 manipulating a poll, against express admin warning.
- 23:51, 17 March 2006
Keep in mind the anon user directly admits he is Rgulerdem returned to change the poll again
- 00:19, 18 March 2006 posting a notice of invalid poll date
- 00:27, 18 March 2006 inserting comments above the existing section and branding the original as "further comments"
- 00:30, 18 March 2006 suggesting voters must have previously voted to be eligible
- 00:45, 18 March 2006 duplicating a false WP:OWNviolating notice about the poll
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.
- 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)
Appears to be shamelessly evading the block, so I've blocked that IP. William M. Connolley 09:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
WegianWarrior
- 1st revert: 05:11, 17 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 05:16, 17 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 05:21, 17 March 2006
- 4th revert: 06:02, 17 March 2006
- 5th revert: 06:33, 17 March 2006
[reported by] 40 Days of Lent 07:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
User:40 Days of Lent and User:WegianWarrior
User:40 Days of Lent
- Previous version reverted to: 00:16, March 17, 2006 (They aren't complete reverts but you can see a large chunk being re-inserted)
- 1st revert: 00:49, March 17, 2006
- 2nd revert: 01:07, March 17, 2006
- 3rd revert: 01:16, March 17, 2006
- 4th revert: 01:38, March 17, 2006
Reported by: Seraphim 06:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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. Seraphim07:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I never violated 3rr YOU and THEY did!40 Days of Lent 08:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- "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
- 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)
- 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)
Comments: Probable sockpuppet of
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
User:WegianWarrior
- Previous version reverted to: 19:30, March 16, 2006
- 1st revert: 00:11, March 17, 2006
- 2nd revert: 00:16, March 17, 2006
- 3rd revert: 00:21, March 17, 2006
- 4th revert: 01:02, March 17, 2006
- 5th revert: 01:33, March 17, 2006
Reported by: Seraphim 06:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Pretty clear 4rr violation. User should have stepped back and let the other editors revert. Seraphim 06:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
User:Hamsacharya dan
- Previous version reverted to: 21:45, 16 March 2006
- 1st revert: 22:14, 16 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 22:47, 16 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 23:03, 16 March 2006
- 4th revert: 23:59, 16 March 2006
- 5th revert: 01:43, 17 March 2006
Reported by: Baba Louis 19:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
User:Swedenman
- Previous version reverted to: [200]
- 1st revert: [201]
- 2nd revert: [202]
- 3rd revert: [203]
- 4th revert: [204]
- 5th revert: [205]
Reported by: Probert 21:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for 1 week based on 3d or 4th violation. Pretty clear cut. Very unfortunate.Gator (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Durova
- Previous version reverted to: 17:17, 16 March 2006
- 1st revert: 01:08, 17 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 07:08, 17 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 14:29, 17 March 2006
- 4th revert: 20:23, 17 March 2006
- 5th revert: 21:09, 17 March 2006
Reported by: — Dzonatas 21:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
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 Nothing to see here, move along now... Just zis Guy you know?22:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- Yes, you are right, I find Durova to be a good and impartial editor. Just zis Guy you know? 23:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- I only applaud the effort to not block. I disagreed with the "vandal" part. — Dzonatas 17:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
User:88.106.232.89 User:Parkinsons User:Japanese_historian
- 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:
- 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)
- 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. KarlBunker12:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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) KarlBunker20:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Note the identical comment and content of reverts #1 and #4 (#4 under the sockpuppet Emperor Hirohito)
- 8th revert: [217] as EricR00:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- 8th revert: [217] as
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)
- On reflection, KB has broken 3RR too, so gets blocked too William M. Connolley 20:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Pm_shef
- Previous version reverted to: 06:24, 21:24, 14 February 2006
- 1st revert: 01:24, 2 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 01:48, 2 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 01:48, 2 March 2006
- 4th revert: 02:42, 2 March 2006
- 5th revert: 05:37, 2 March 2006
- 6th revert: 05:38, 2 March 2006
Reported by: HarsA 21:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Where are the reverts? 21:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
- 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)
User:Vulturell
- 1st revert 23:31 March 18
- 2nd revert 01:01 March 19
- 3rd revert 01:05 March 19
- 4th revert 01:15 March 19
- 5th revert 01:48 March 19
Reported by: SlimVirgin (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- We're enforcing 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)
- 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)
- We're enforcing
- 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)
- Blocked for 24 hrs. El_C 02:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
[I've ventured to remove the rather lengthy discussion here - should have been on talk. This page gets long enough as it is - William M. Connolley 10:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)]
User:TruthInAdvertising
- 1st revert: [223] 08:39, 18 Mar
- 2nd revert: [224] 15:36, 18 Mar
- 3rd revert: [225] 20:14, 18 Mar
- 4th revert: [226] 22:51, 18 Mar
(All timestamps are PST.)
Reported by: Zetawoof 07:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
- 24 hour block. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
User:RichFarmer
Five revisions to this version of
- Blocked 8h for a first offence William M. Connolley 22:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Rjensen
- Previous version reverted to: 13:43, 19 March 2006
- 1st revert: 15:52, 19 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 16:51, March 19, 2006
- 3rd revert: 19:01, March 19, 2006
- 4th revert: 19:49, March 19, 2006
Reported by: Skinwalker 03:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Rjensen is insisting on whitewashing unfavorable facts about Richard J. Daley from the article. He has been warned in the past for 3RR violations, and continues to unilaterally reject any edit that presents information that contradicts his view of the former mayor. I am considering filing an RFC for the article.
- Not a 3RR violation. Different edits each time. Use an RFC if there's a dispute about the content. Stifle 14:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Duffer1
- Previous version reverted to: 10:20, 19 March 2006
- 1st revert: 13:39, 19 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 15:05, 19 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 09:53, 20 March 2006
- 4th revert: 12:13, 20 March 2006
Reported by: 82.88.103.38 12:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Has more reverts than just the 4 shown. Others make different edits, but he reverts everything back to the same version.
- Blocked for ten hours. Stifle 14:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
User:DJac75
- 1st revert: [227] [Revision as of 05:47, 20 March 2006]
- 2nd revert: [228] [Revision as of 06:07, 20 March 2006]
- 3rd revert: [229] [Revision as of 14:47, 20 March 2006]
- 4th revert: [230] [Revision as of 17:19, 20 March 2006]
Reported by: TheDookieMan 17:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)TheDookieMan
Comments: This user has been vandalizing the Joseph Sobran and other articles. He has also made callous comments to other editors
Not obvious that the first revert is a revert - to what? William M. Connolley 21:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Str1977 and User:TrumpetPower!
He's still at it. See [231]. This is exactly the sort of vandalism I've been trying to protect. I'll let somebody else deal with it this time. TrumpetPower! 23:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The article's history can be found here. Once a decision has been made, I would ask the deciding admin to post the repsonse on Mr. Steadman's talk page too so that he can see what happens here. Thanks.Gator (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- It is a shame that Gator, just like Musical Linguist who only warned Str1977 about 3RR when he broke it on the 15th March, has not taken action - this is almost certainly because they are "editing pals". This is a misuse of admin positions by both of these admins - not blocking someone for clear violation, twice within a week, because they are their mate. Appaling. Robsteadman 21:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- As I've explained to Rob, I am conflcited out of this one. I've heavily edited with Str on a related page. When in doubt, do nothing. A neutral uninvolved admin needs to handle this. Nothing "APPALING" about it. Enough of the paranoid cabal talk, Rob, it's getting very old.Gator (talk)
- Gator is not acting against an editing pal - just the same way that Musical Linguist only warned Str1977 about 3RR when he broke the same rule on the 15th. This is misuse of admin poweers by both of them. Clear evidence of the cabal for which there is much evidence - I agree it is tired, so why not start doing genuine ediuting and not the POV pushing and misuse of admin powers that you're doing? Robsteadman 22:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
It seems that both Str1977 and User:TrumpetPower! reverted plenty of times; the administrators might want to consider blocking both if action is deemed necessary (it looks as if both have stopped at this point). But, let me point this out...
- 1st revert by TrumpetPower!: 20:33, 20 March 2006 TrumpetPower!
- 1st revert by Str1977: 20:37, 20 March 2006 Str1977
- 2nd revert by TrumpetPower!: 20 March 2006 TrumpetPower! 20:57
- 2nd revert by Str1977: 21:09, 20 March 2006 Str1977
- 3rd revert by TrumpetPower!: 21:21, 20 March 2006 TrumpetPower!
- 4th revert by TrumpetPower!: 21:30, 20 March 2006 TrumpetPower!
Both editors (and others) made edits during this period, but, as I count it, TrumpetPower! exceeded the limit. Both may have violated earlier in the day, but fair is fair. KHM03 (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above is not accurate - Str1977 has done many more reverts in the 24 holur pewriod - KHM03 is yet another cabal member out to protect his pal. Please look at the evidence. Str1977 broke 3RR and Gator (as well as well as Musical Linguist) took no action. Robsteadman 22:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I make the Str1977 tally of reverts to be 6 in 12 hours. Possibly slightly more. Robsteadman 22:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- When conflicted or in doubt, bring in a third party; don't let your friend have a free pass. If admins are allowing Str1977 to get away with 3RR violations, then I don't see how they can turn on someone like TrumpetPower! who's simply defending the article against this edit warrior. Str1977 should have gotten banned a while back, and he should get banned now, but there's too much of an appearance of partisanship to justify banning TrumpetPower! over this. Alienus 22:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, TP was trying to proetct the page against the POV pushing, vandalism and reverts of Str1977 - it is ONLY Str1977 who should be banned - along with the TWO admins who have not taken action against one of their "edit pals". Robsteadman 22:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- If I have indeed exceeded the limits, I am sorry about that and will accept any chastizing for that.
- However, I have to point out that quite in contrast to what Rob has written, it was I who made valid edits (even if they were deletions) according to the evidence provided by Trumpet, which he repeatedly reverted based on consistently misunderstanding both my point and his evidence (whether intentionally or not I cannot tell), including misrepresenting of my posts in his edit summaries.
- Str1977 (smile back) 23:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Whichever Admin is going to deal with this issue, please check the article's history carefully, as the "reverts" may not necessarily be reverts. There was quite a bit of actual editing taking place, so an extra word of warning on this one. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 22:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- I've been away from the computer for the last hour or so, so have just got back and seen this. I haven't yet looked at the alleged violations, but I would like to point out that my "warning" to Str1977 a few days ago was a joke, as Str1977 had not violated the rule. (I did count on that occasion.) I even had a wink in the section heading. Str1977 reverted vandalism four times that day: two said something like "Christians are smelly", one said "God is a cooter", and one said something like "Christ comes from Athletes rubbing in oil. Do not change this." Someone fairly new, who didn't realize that vandalism didn't count under 3RR reported Str1977 to me, thinking that I would block him, and I posted a joke (possibly in bad taste) to his talk page saying that if he put "Christians are smelly" back into the article, I would overlook his disgraceful behaviour on that occasion! Maybe I shouldn't have made that joke, but I honestly didn't think anyone would take it seriously.
- I would also point out that Str1977 has been opposed by editors (Giovanni33, Robsteadman, etc.) who were grossly violating 3RR (meaning that they would make six or seven reverts, rather than an accidental slip into a fourth one), and his policy has generally been to point out the violation and say that he wasn't going to report it. His generosity is probably not a reason not to block him if he has violated the rule, but it's certainly something that should be noted. Anyway, that's all for the moment from someone who has just come back online. AnnH ♫ 22:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- But Str1977 still broke the 3RR on March 15th - excluding any vandalism correction. And nothing was done..... Robsteadman 22:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- According to the count back then, I did in fact not break 3RR on 15 March. Str1977 (smile back) 23:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- But Str1977 still broke the 3RR on March 15th - excluding any vandalism correction. And nothing was done..... Robsteadman 22:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
If I may put in a word or two of self-defence, most, though not all, of my reverts included additional exposition or attempts at re-wording. I don't recall Str1997 from doing anything but simply delete content. TrumpetPower! 22:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- As I understand the revert rule, it doesn't apply to content disputes, which is what we have here. If both of these users violated 22:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, for what it's worth, I just spent a couple of minutes looking through the history, and it doesn't really look like this is a 3RR violation... it looks to be more of a content dispute where Str1977 changes something and TrumpetPower changes it back (and a few others jump in here or there). It never really stays in one area of the article like a traditional 3RR. Perhaps a page protection and some talk page usage would be in order here, as this is more of a content dispute than a revert war? --LV (Dark Mark) 22:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- STr1977 began reverting at 9 a.m. - he has clearly brokewn 3RR. Robsteadman 22:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- This is NOT content dispute - it is simple POV vandalism - deleting chunks for no good reason, with no discussion. Robsteadman 22:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- It is a content dispute and I have, AFAIK, explained my edits every time. If not it was an oversight.
- I have to contradict KHM - content dispute is indeed subject to the 3RR rule (only vandalism isn't), and if I have broken rules in heat of this all I am sorry. But it wasn't me who provided the heat.
- Finally, Rob, it wasn't vandalism at all - it was valid edits on content, explained every time. Str1977 (smile back) 23:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The time that he began reverting is irrelevant. It's the nature of the reverts that count.
"No discussion?" Wow! Str1977 has posted to the Jesus Myth talk page six times today.
I presume Robsteadman is referring to me when he calls for the banning of the two admins who haven't taken action against on of their "edit pals". First of all, Rob should try to allow for the fact that I wasn't around when it was reported. Secondly, I have already said elsewhere that I don't like blocking for 3RR. The only time I have ever done so was with Robsteadman himself. I had had no prior encounter with him, and I had never edited the article on which he had violated it. I prefer not to block unless someone puts in an edit summary "Johnny, that was your seventh revert", and Johhny goes right ahead and reverts an eighth time. AnnH ♫ 23:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- In that case, now's your chance. Str1997 has committed the exact same revert just recently, even after posting here about his violations of 3RR. TrumpetPower! 23:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- I have not made any revert or content change pages subject to this complaint since I posted here. In fact, I did consciously desist from doing that and instead flagged a section because of its content. That's not a revert. Goodday, Str1977 (smile back) 23:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC) ... Now that I have checked again, I see that the software bug has struck again. I reinstated what I accidently removed, though I still think it utterly inaccurate and think that it should go. Str1977 (smile back) 00:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Then what, pray tell, is this? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus-Myth&oldid=44727134 TrumpetPower! 00:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- I see you've since reverted your own deletion of the reference to the Doecetics, introducing a typo into the article, but you didn't revert your deletion of the sub-section of Justus, which is what I believe got you reported for 3RR in the first place. TrumpetPower! 00:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- My deletion of the subsection o Justus? When did I delete the subsection on Justus after this complaint was made? I agree that it should be deleted and I have clearly given the reasons why. But right now, I have only flagged it. Your misrepresenting facts will fall back on you, TP. Str1977 (smile back) 00:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I have only ever reported 3RR three times, although I have seen many more violations. I prefer to ask people to stop, rather than catch them out. I reported only when people had been given many "second chances" and were just abusing my reluctance to report. I even told TrumpetPower on 16 March that I wasn't going to report him. I have also in the past told Alienus that he had violated the rule but that I wasn't going to report him. As far as I know, Str1977 has never reported either, although I can vouch for the fact that he has seen his opponents violating the rule.
I very much doubt if any admin will want to ban me for not blocking Str1977, as urged by Robsteadman. He has now said on his own talk page that it would make sense for me not to block an opponent, but to leave it to a neutral admin, but that I should be suspended as an admin for not blocking my friend. I have said here that I reserve the right to treat my friends with the same amount of leniency as I treat my opponents. If I have on numerous occasions told fellow editors from the opposing POV that they had violated the rule but that I'd prefer not to report them, I am certainly not going to block a friend who edits the same articles as I do. As I see it, an administrator MAY block for a 3RR violation, but is under no obligation to do so, especially if it can be resolved in a different way. I know that other admins enforce the rule more strictly. They are certainly entitled to do so. Since I have never blocked an opponent, I object strongly to any implication that I am obliged to block a friend — that is, if he has indeed broken the rule, which has yet to be established.
On the day on which Str1977 was reported to me, I checked carefully, and I can categorically say that when you remove the vandalism reverts, he was not in violation. And by "vandalism", I mean pure vandalism which matches the definition. Robsteadman's accusation of vandalism against Str1977 does not match the definition. If it did, he could report it at
I have not looked at TrumpetPower's reverts either, but based on his comments above, I would point out that it is the act of reverting or partially reverting (i.e. edit warring) that counts. It makes no difference whether or not the reverts are all to an identical version. I asked TrumpetPower to review
This is a complicated situation, made more complicated by utterly inaccurate accusations of vandalism, a misunderstanding of a silly (on my part) joke from a few days ago, and a completely unreasonable expectation that an admin who has never blocked the 3RR massive violaters who were opposing her should block her own friends for either a non-violation or a much milder one. AnnH ♫ 23:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Jkelly (below), although I may be one of the naughty ones clogging up the noticeboard. A few brief points before I go to bed, as I have now looked through the history of the article.
- This "violation", if it was one, was not reported properly. Robsteadman had plenty of time to post long accusations of vandalism and admins protecting their pals, but did not take the time to provide diffs. Admins are busy and should not have to do the extra work to see whether or not a violation really has taken place. There is a format to follow, with links for diffs, and times of reverts.
- KHM03 provided some help, in giving times, but his links were page versions rather than diffs.
- Robsteadman's accusations of "vandalism" are utterly untrue. That word should not be used for edits that oppose one's own POV. He weakens his own case in making such accusations.
- Robsteadman says that Str1977 started reverting at 9:00. I can see no evidence that the early edits were reverts. In some cases Str1977 made two edits one after the other (nobody having edited in between). I don't think they can both count as reverts, as it could be done as a full-page edit. It's complicated counting the reverts, but there were certainly not six.
- There were some less than civil edit summaries.
- If Str1977 violated 3RR, then TrumpetPower certainly did so as well.
- It was unfortunate that Str1977 seemed to make another revert after he had been reported here. However, that was not intended as a revert. He made an edit, adding a tag, and the software bug undid the edit of the previous contributor when he pressed "save". In his edit summary, he made it clear that he intended to flag it, not to revert. I have seen that software bug acting like that on numerous occasions. He undid his "revert" when he realized what had happened.
- Str1977 did not violate the rule last week, once you remove the vandalism reverts from the count. I counted carefully at the time; the reverts and non-reverts were more clear cut than today. The silly joke I made "warning" him was intended for simply for him.
- AnnH ♫ 02:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Much of the above is untrue and is an admin misusing theior position to prtect an edit pal. Shameful. STr1977 DID violate on the 15th MArch, take a look not just the joke but the actual breach of 3RR, and also violated yesterday - at least 6 reverts. Action should be takjen against Str1977 and the 2 admins who have acted in a manner to protect and not block their mate. Shameful. Str1977 is a POV ppusher and a regular vandal who is supported by a small cabal of "christian" editors - including the tw admins who are trying to prevent him being banned. Robsteadman 07:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Please see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Str1977#That_silly_joke_I_made - "Your friend who won't block you or her enemies" - rather not carrying out admin duties then! Robsteadman 07:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Rob there is no "admin duty" to block people who are heavily involved in editing pages that the admin edits (which is generally how one makes "friends" and "enemies" here at Wikipedia). Such decisions should be taken by uninvolved admins. There is also no "admin duty" to block anyone for 3RR. Some admins do a lot of vandalism rollback; others do a lot of closing of AfD votes. I carry admin duties that has nothing to do with 3RR blocks. You made accusations but omitted the diffs (quite a wise decision, since any admin looking at the diffs would have started off by saying, "that's not a revert, this one is reverting vandalism, this isn't a clear revert," etc). In other words, you didn't follow the proper procedure for reporting, and then you call for admins to be blocked or suspended because they don't go hunting for the evidence that you didn't provide. In future, if you find a real violation, please report it using the proper format, with times given, and with links to the diffs. Then, calmly wait for an admin to decide whether the violation really took place, and if so whether or not it should be dealt with by a block.
- Please be aware, also, Rob, that if you keep removing User:TrumpetPower! from this improperly-formatted report, you will be in violation of 3RR, and could be blocked, though not by me, as I don't block people who edit the articles I edit.
- I note, anyway, that Mongo decided last night to protect the 10:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Use of this noticeboard
Hi. I would like to encourage those editors involved in this article to reconsider using this noticeboard as a forum for discussing their differences. If there has been a
User:tasc
- Previous version reverted to: [[232]]
- 1st revert: [March 20, 2006]
- 2nd revert: [March 20, 2006]
- 3rd revert: [March 20, 2006]
- 4th revert: [March 20, 2006]
- 5th revert: [March 20, 2006]
Reported by: OrbitOne 21:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments: tasc has been reverting this page to protect a single image three (four counting me) would rather have removed. Has failed to give clear reasons to this. Yes, I am involved, but I am pulling my hat out of the ring to avoid edit wars or personal conflicts. By all accounts, five reverts is rather excessive. *Note* Hasn't made any perfect reverts to my knowledge, but always changes back the same picture.
- it's just ludicrous. You've tried to make a point by replacing image to totally strange picture. There was a discussion on talk page and you were aware of it. You haven't provided any reasons for your replacement, neither on talk page nor in edit summary. --tasc 21:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- You miss the point: don't settle content disputes with revert wars William M. Connolley 22:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Blocked 8h as first offence William M. Connolley 22:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
User:151.138.254.21
- Previous version reverted to: 12:33, 14 March 2006
- 1st revert: 11:07, 20 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 14:08, 20 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 16:29, 20 March 2006
- 4th revert: 16:44, 20 March 2006
Reported by: NEMT 21:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- For weeks this anonymous user has been reverting this page, and ignoring the discussion and ongoing search for sources and commentary on the talk page. Recently an agreement had been made about the wording of the final paragraph which was suitable to all involved in the discussion, however, it is still reverted by this user - without any comments on the talk page or explanation. He/She has been repeatedly warned with appropriate templates on his/her talk page, to no avail. The first three edits in this sequence all revert back to the same version, though the fourth revert also removes the "references" section as well. --NEMT 21:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
You've both broken 3RR, so you can have 12h each William M. Connolley 22:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, that's fair. My reverts of this anon's vandalism and information removal are clearly a violation of Wiki policy, right? --NEMT 15:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
User: Metta Bubble
1. 3RR Violations:
reverting to an earlier version per POV without discussion and consensus
reverting to an earlier version per POV without discussion and consensus
reverting to an earlier version per POV without discussion and consensus
reverting to an earlier version per POV without discussion and consensus
reverting to an earlier version per POV without discussion and consensus
reverting to an earlier version per POV without discussion and consensus
reverting to an earlier version per POV without discussion and consensus
reverting to an earlier version per POV without discussion and consensus
reverting to an earlier version per POV without discussion and consensus
In the links above Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverting the page according to POV.
2. Vandalism:
deleting another editors comments
deleting another editors comments
In the links above Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is vandalizing another editors comments or just deleting some of them.
3. Vandalizing another editors comments:
destructing another editors comments
destructing another editors comments
In the links above Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making changes on comments of another editor to change the course of discussion or change the intension of the editor.
Reported by: Resid Gulerdem 23:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Vandal Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalized, destructed and reverted continuously the discussion page Wikipedia:Wikiethics according to POV. Uncivil comments can be found in the history page. I want an action be taken although this note is about some of the vandals earlier actions. I was not able to post for last two days.
- This is an attempt of Resid's (yet another attempt by Resid) to deal with people he disagrees with in a dispute on Wikipedia:Wikiethics. Please disregard lest we all be subject to blocking for disagreeing with editors who know how to make a 3RR/vandalism complaint. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 00:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- The claims are clear and linked above. There is no room for conspricy theories. Resid Gulerdem 01:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Here is another revert without discussion. Can anyone take care of this. Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started to destroy other editors edits again. Resid Gulerdem 03:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
An immediate action is required, please. Here is the vandal's anotherrevert. Resid Gulerdem 04:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone help me with this please. Vandal started again to reverting.
I was wondering when someone will take the issue: Here is another revert without discussion:
vandal reverting without discussion
And here is last action taken by vandal:
reverting without discussion, uncivilic comments, insult!
I am so surprised and saddened that although there is such a list of vandalisms and reverts, no action is taken by yet. Resid Gulerdem 13:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Further Comments:
- This appears to be another revenge action by Rgulerdem ()
ॐ Metta Bubble puff 09:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Am I doing these vandalisms and reverts for a revenge? These are clearly refers to your actions... Resid Gulerdem 13:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- This false 3RR notice is one of several that is reported in full here. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 05:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
You cannot hide your violation by blaming on me. The list above is your violations as documented. Everybody is responsible for his own mistakes. That is a rule of thumb... Resid Gulerdem 18:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Imacomp
- Previous version reverted to: 19:42, March 20, 2006
- 1st revert: 20:18, March 20, 2006
- 2nd revert: 20:25, March 20, 2006
- 3rd revert: 20:39, March 20, 2006
- 4th revert: 21:07, March 20, 2006
Reported by: Seraphim 02:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User keeps re-inserting a paragraph about hitler. He was warned both in the article edit history and on his talk page. User used misleading edit summaries for the 3rd and 4th reverts, where he edited a completly unrelated section of the article, commented on that change, but still re-inserted the paragraph without mentioning it. Third rv comment was "John Coustos" and fourth was "Nice edit blueboar. We will keep it I think. Plus this edit about Knights of Pythias" Seraphim 02:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Blocked 24h: 3RR, plenty of warnings, aggraveted by incivility [233] William M. Connolley 08:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Dr31
- Previous version reverted to: 22:51 19 March 2006
- 1st revert: 23:14 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- 2nd revert: 13:12 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- 3rd revert: 13:31 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- 4th revert: 16:05 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Reported by: Metros232 02:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments: These users have been engaged in an edit war concerning discussion found
User:SeraphimXI
- Previous version reverted to: [238]
- 1st revert: [239]
- 2nd revert: [240]
- 3rd revert: [241]
- 4th revert: [242]
Reported by: Ardenn 03:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User won't discuss edits. Ardenn 04:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- User won't discuss edits? Did you try looking at the article's talk page? Seraphim 04:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Please whatever admin deals with this, actually look at the content being presented, the reporter did not provide correct links and times because they would make it clear it's a junk report, the "previous version" he has listed is a version of the page an hr after what he has listed as "first revert". This is an invalid 3rr report, where the reporter was unable to present a previous version reverted to since he had to list it as 1st revert to get 4. I've edited the page 4 times today. In the first I made a change to a section that has been in the article for over a month (which is incorrectly labled as "first revert", there was nothing being reverted). I then reverted back to that version 3 times and stopped to prevent a 3rr from being filed. The reporting user (Ardenn) obviously knew there were only 3 reverts, since he filled in the "Previous version reverted to:" field with a completly unrelated diff. The actual report should show what is listed as "First Revert" as the previous version reverted to. Then 2nd 3rd and 4th reverts are actually revert 1,2, and 3. 3 reverts is not a 3rr vio. Seraphim 04:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- What the report should look like
- Previous version reverted to: 19:12, March 20, 2006
- 1st revert: 19:21, March 20, 2006
- 2nd revert: 20:36, March 20, 2006
- 3rd revert: 20:59, March 20, 2006
- 4th revert: Doesn't exist. Seraphim 04:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
You've broken 3RR, this is clear enough. Blocked 24h William M. Connolley 08:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh no she hasn't - sorry. Block removed William M. Connolley 08:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Rgulerdem
- Previous version reverted to: [08:31, 21 March 2006]
- Revert 1 08:42, 21 March 2006
- Revert 2 08:45, 21 March 2006
- Revert 3 08:53, 21 March 2006
- Revert 4 10:09, 21 March 2006
- Revert 5 10:28, 21 March 2006
- Revert 6 10:37, 21 March 2006
- Revert 7 11:03, 21 March 2006
After 1 Hour block expiration:
- Revert 8 12:17, 21 March 2006
- Revert 9 13:17, 21 March 2006
- Revert 10 14:00, 21 March 2006
- Revert 11 14:27, 21 March 2006
Reported by: Netscott 10:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Simple clear cut case of 3RR, despite having been warned User:Rgulerdem made reverts against 3 seperate editors. Netscott 10:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- 2 additional reverts against a 4th editor. Netscott 10:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Additional revert. Netscott 11:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked 1 hour to let him cool down, I'm not blocking 24 (another admin may if they see fit) as he'd then go running off yelling 'oppression'. )
- I would recommend at least a 24 hour block as it appears that in one hour's time an edit war will re-commence. Additionally User_talk:Rgulerdem has shown a lack of civility by referring to my edits as "vandalism" and has called me a "vandal". Netscott 11:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sure enough, just like clock-work User:Rgulerdem has made an eighth revert... after 1 hour block expiration. Netscott 12:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours. Guettarda 14:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your adminstration Guettarda. Netscott 15:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Gleng
- Previous version reverted to: 17:39, 20 March 2006
- 1st revert: 19:28, 20 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 19:40, 20 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 11:49, 21 March 2006
- 4th revert: 12:02, 21 March 2006
Reported by: Geni 12:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- 5th revert:12:23, 21 March 2006 after being informed about the 3RR on the article talk page.Geni 12:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Reverts incorporated constructive elements and all fully explained on Talk page. This began when Geni removed an element of text that had previously been placed on the Talk page in advance of being introduced, and was revised after comments from other editors. It did not seem reasonable to bypass this discussion, so as far as I was concerned these were reverts of vandalismGleng 13:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Nothing I did was vandalism as defined by Wikipedia:Vandalism.Geni 13:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I accept this, not accusing Geni of lack of good faith, merely breaching etiquette in a case where text had been inserted only after discussion and review; felt that removal should equally have been discussed firstGleng 14:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Gleng blocked for 3 hours for first vio/block, but Geni may have violated 3 RR too. I'll let another more experienced admin handle that decision.Gator (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- No. version created 11:21, 20 March 2006 followed by three reverts. The regualar revert of Aegeis was more than 24 hours before my third revert.Geni 17:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Netscott
Here is the reverts by Netscott. Vandal is trying to kill the proposal and manipulating the sections accordingly. Here are the reverts he had recently:
reverting again without discussion
reverting again without discussion
he started reverting again his POV
another similar revert done by 72.21.33.130. I am highly suspicious that this anonim user User:72.21.33.130 is Netscott. I am not sure how to check it. Can anybody help me with that? Thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgulerdem (talk • contribs)
Reported by: Resid Gulerdem 13:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
He is trying to kill a proposal. It requires immediate attention. Resid Gulerdem 13:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- You have only listed 3 reverts.Geni 13:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Actually only 2... the first 'revert' he cites is an initial change. Netscott 13:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- He is continuously vandalizing the page. I did not report the earlier ones. These are the last three. Resid Gulerdem 13:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Apparently Resid has me confused with someone else for I've not done any vandalizing of WikiPedia, ever! Netscott 13:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- He is continuously vandalizing the page. I did not report the earlier ones. These are the last three. Resid Gulerdem 13:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- This is essentially a Bad faith 'revenge' report on the part of User:Rgulerdem. Netscott 13:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not seeing a 3RR violation here by Net or Resid. Another opinion would be appreciated.Gator (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Gator, thanks... It is nice to hear natural voices here... Resid Gulerdem 18:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like about 5RR by Resid (the original report was that page; its the talk page where the reverts were). Blocked 24h... oh, hold on, I've been scooped: Guettarda blocked "Rgulerdem (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (11RR vio) William M. Connolley 16:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hold on Connolley, aren't you the person left this message on the discussion page. Hold on and slow down. You are an admin remember... Resid Gulerdem 18:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Why the people wit hviolations here repeating my name like a baby calling her dad. The documented lists above is not my violations... Resid Gulerdem 18:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Mostssa
- Previous version reverted to: [08:00, 20 March 2006]
- 1st revert: 03:01, 21 March 2006
- 03:05, 21 March 2006
- 03:15, 21 March 2006 revert completed
- 2nd revert: 16:30, 21 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 16:50, 21 March 2006
- 4th revert: 17:10, 21 March 2006 in progress
Reported by: EurowikiJ 18:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User:Mostssa who also broke a 3RR on March 18 has been inserting the article with hateful, unsubstantiated and POV remarks for almost a month. Sometimes he makes several successive changes to the article in order to arrive at his version. He dismisses as POV and erases any reference that is not to his liking. Also, any attempt by other contributors to reason with him is met with accusations of a cover-up and aggressive Croatian propaganda. He pours insults on those who try to stop him and labels them as fascists, anti-Serbs and vandals. He dismissed the warning not to transgress the 3RR left on the discussion page as not applicable to him. EurowikiJ 18:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud19:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Mccready
- Previous version reverted to: 09:05, 20 March 2006
- 1st revert: 02:05, 21 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 05:17, 21 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 10:29, 21 March 2006
- 4th revert: 19:30, 21 March 2006
Reported by: —
Comments: Already blocked for 24 hours, but feel free to review. —
User:DJac75
- (cur) (last) 04:57, 22 March 2006 DJac75 (I am quite willing to test the 3 RR rule in this instance. An edit war over a NPOV/disputed context warning seems to settle the instant
- (cur) (last) 00:38, 22 March 2006 DJac75
- (cur) (last) 21:50, 21 March 2006 DJac75
- (cur) (last) 08:25, 21 March 2006 DJac75 m
- (cur) (last) 08:24, 21 March 2006 DJac75 m
- (cur) (last) 08:24, 21 March 2006 DJac75 m
- (cur) (last) 08:23, 21 March 2006 DJac75
- (cur) (last) 08:21, 21 March 2006 DJac75 m
- (cur) (last) 08:21, 21 March 2006 DJac75
- (cur) (last) 07:24, 21 March 2006 DJac75 (rv)
- (cur) (last) 07:17, 21 March 2006 DJac75 (rv. POV vandalism)
- (cur) (last) 06:29, 21 March 2006 DJac75 (rv. "What this country is suffering from is not
- (cur) (last) 05:51, 21 March 2006 DJac75 (new para)
- (cur) (last) 17:19, 20 March 2006 DJac75 (rv. Which wiki rules would those be?)
- (cur) (last) 14:47, 20 March 2006 DJac75 (rv vandalism)
... trimmed [WMC]
Reported by: Rogerman 06:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Rogerman
Comments:
I'm not sure why this hasn't been dealt with yet. This user has violated the 3RR rule numerous times in the past few weeks.
Blocked 24h William M. Connolley 09:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
No dispute on the 3RR enforcement, but the reason that it had likely not been enforced thus far was the involvement (in that dispute) of several new user accounts that all seem to know the ropes, and seem to only edit 1 or 2 articles. Also, numerous
- FYI, I've just protected the page in question. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 15:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
User:TuzsuzDeliBekir
- Previous version reverted to: [243]
- 1st revert: 16:37, 22 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 17:04, 22 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 17:40, 22 March 2006
- 4th revert: 18:43, 22 March 2006
Reported by: Khoikhoi 19:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Previous version reverted to: 01:37, 22 March 2006
- 1st revert: 03:09, 22 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 14:19, 22 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 18:38, 22 March 2006
- 4th revert: 19:12, 22 March 2006
Reported by: Aquilina 19:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments: The IP mentioned second is the same user - he signs as such on the Talk page here
The user is removing references to the
Editor was warned about
User:Croatian historian
- Previous version reverted to: 12:31, 22 March 2006
- 1st revert: 17:14, 22 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 18:29, 22 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 19:41, 22 March 2006
- 4th revert: 19:48, 22 March 2006
- 5th revert: 23:39, 22 March 2006
Reported by: Latinus (without prejudice - on behalf of User:PANONIAN) 00:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Fixed - what would you do without me? ;-) --Latinus 00:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
[removed some personal attacks] Please fill out the report correctly, else I will not block. —
He reverted this page 6 times between 12:31, 22 March 2006 and 23:39, 22 March 2006. Enough data now? PANONIAN (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- No, but Latinus did fill out the report correctly, so blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud00:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Pegasus1138
forth revert. Immediate attention is required, please...
Reported by: Resid Gulerdem 23:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
This user is used to revert and vandalize the discussion page Wikipedia:Wikiethics. He already reverted twice already in 10 minutes. I would appreciate if anybody could look at it. Resid Gulerdem 23:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- First link is not a revert, the diff before my first edit was moving Resid's poll down in placement on the page which I did not have any part in at all. the latter 3 difflinks are me archiving the poll and thus are the reverts so I have not broken the 3RR rule any more than Resid, nor are my edits vandalism as Resid keeps claiming because he does not agree with them. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 23:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
That are only three reverts. —
User:69.205.1.109
- Previous version reverted to: 17:06, 21 March 2006
- 1st revert: 04:38, 22 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 04:54, 22 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 16:38, 22 March 2006
- 4th revert: 20:55, 22 March 2006
Reported by: Antaeus Feldspar 23:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- This is not the first time this user has violated 3RR on this article; the user [User talk:69.205.1.109|has been asked]] to discuss on the talk page but refuses. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Blocked. —
User:Metb82
- Previous version reverted to: 17:06, 19 March 2006
- 1st revert: 16:57, 22 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 19:24, 22 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 20:05, 22 March 2006
- 4th revert: 23:47, 22 March 2006
Reported by: Latinus 23:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User keeps adding an image of uncertain copyright status. --Latinus 23:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for 31 hours. —
User:CltFn
- Previous version reverted to: 14:15, 21 March 2006
- 1st revert: 16:39, 22 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 00:37, 23 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 01:08, 23 March 2006
- 4th revert: 01:37, 23 March 2006
Reported by: —
Comments: Please check his block log. —
About time to go up to 48h William M. Connolley 13:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
User:DickClarkMises
- (cur) (last) 23:51, 22 March 2006 DickClarkMises (look, the replaced content isn't accurate; make your argument on the talk page, and please abide by community concensus)
- (cur) (last) 23:46, 22 March 2006 DickClarkMises (let's provide the pertinent information)
- (cur) (last) 22:58, 22 March 2006 DickClarkMises (wikify; return collaboration on Sam Francis controversy to place under Criticism heading)
- (cur) (last) 22:39, 22 March 2006 DickClarkMises (I'm attempting to defend WP:NPOV, not Lew. And I'm not a secretary, thank you very much <g>)
- (cur) (last) 22:21, 22 March 2006 DickClarkMises (rv POV-pushing by User:CaliforniaDreamlings; use the talk page please!)
- (cur) (last) 15:19, 22 March 2006 DickClarkMises (→Criticism - return answer by LRC columnist to charges by Palmer)
- (cur) (last) 22:13, 21 March 2006 DickClarkMises (rv POV deletion of pertinent material; please do not accuse me of vandalism—this is a content
- (cur) (last) 17:44, 21 March 2006 DickClarkMises (rv deletion, as per my argument on the talk page)
- (cur) (last) 20:42, 20 March 2006 DickClarkMises (rv - it doesn't matter what you've "found" it matters what a notable person has said in a verifiable source; please use the talk page to make arguments for your controversial edits)
- (cur) (last) 19:43, 20 March 2006 DickClarkMises (cite Kinsella's affiliation with LRC; this is a relevant response by an individual associated with the dispute.)
- (cur) (last) 17:43, 20 March 2006 DickClarkMises (rv - you are refusing to look at the vote that was already taken on this issue. While Voting is Evil, this should be seen as some indication of consensus on this issue; refer to talk page)
- (cur) (last) 17:21, 20 March 2006 DickClarkMises (you are incorrect; the community has spoken on Kinsella's notability; please find reference at this article's talk page)
- (cur) (last) 16:19, 20 March 2006 DickClarkMises (rv - the source cites a notable individual pertinent to this issue who claims that the criticisms are inaccurate; that's worth having here)
Reported by: Rogerman 05:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Rogerman
Comments:
As can be seen above, this user has clearly violated 3RR and in fact done so on numerous occassions. Thanks, Rog
- I would respond by noting that the reporting user is involved with me and others in a content dispute at the noted article (LewRockwell.com). I have done my best to abide by the 3RR, and I believe that my edits, if examined, will be seen to not only include reverts, but serious attempts to come to better wording, etc. The other users involved in the dispute are highly suspicious to me in that they all seem to know basic policies of Wikipedia, and yet have very few, and very concentrated edits. They have consistently refused to discuss edits on the basis of Wikipedia policies and guidelines on the article's talk page, and they seem unwilling to compromise on wording as per talk page discussions. Regards, Dick Clark07:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- I would also note this 3RR false alarm by User:Rogerman. Dick Clark 07:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Blocked 24h. William M. Connolley 13:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record, I never did a false alarm with regards to 3RR.
Can you please place the offending "diffs" at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR? I'd rather not block people on an article that I'm involved in. Thanks, -Will Beback 23:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Will Beback stated the reason he didn't want to do the block himself was that he deals with articles that Dick Clark also deals with. I don't buy that reason as legitamite but that's what it is, not because I was making a false alarm.
Rogerman 20:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Rogerman
User:80.90.39.149
- Previous version reverted to: 14:10, 20 March 2006
- 1st revert: 08:30, 23 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 08:43, 23 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 10:43, 23 March 2006
- 4th revert: 11:08, 23 March 2006
Reported by: Latinus 12:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- As the user behind this dynamic IP is known to change his IP when blocked (happens all the time - check the revision history) - would it be possible to get semi-protection for the article. I know that it's strictly for vandalism, but I do think that this may be a WP:IAR situation. Just because he's smart and chooses to log out, whereas we dumb users stay logged in, I don't think that this kind of thing should be encouraged. --Latinus12:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked the IP, let me know if s/he returns. —Ruud13:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
User:64.18.16.251
- Previous version reverted to: [02:56, 22 March 2006]
- 1st revert: 13:51, 22 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 18:01, 22 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 18:06, 22 March 2006
- 4th revert: 18:31, 22 March 2006
- 5th revert: 19:43, 22 March 2006
- 6th revert: 20:01, 22 March 2006
- 7th revert: 20:15, 22 March 2006
- 8th revert: 22:29, 22 March 2006
- 9th revert: 23:51, 22 March 2006
- 10th revert: 00:06, 23 March 2006
- 11th revert: 13:07, 23 March 2006
Reported by: EurowikiJ 13:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments: This anonymous is adamant about inserting his POV views allegedly based on a neutral work. Although resisted by other contributors he is adamant and blatently disregards 3RR. EurowikiJ 13:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
8 hours; first offence and no warning, but lots of reverts... William M. Connolley 13:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Regulus_marzo4103
- Previous version reverted to: 2006-03-18 06:47:47
- 1st revert: 2006-03-18 19:26:02
- 2nd revert: 2006-03-19 04:21:25
- 3rd revert: 2006-03-20 23:16:06
- 4th revert: 2006-03-22 04:53:15
Reported by: JACooks 14:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments: This user has been warned by me and other users because the changes being made to this article (and others) are inaccurate. User continues to revert.
- You have misunderstood the rule: its 4R in *24h*. You want WP:DR if the problem is a slow revert war William M. Connolley15:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note, I was directed to post on this page from requests for investigation, but I appreciate the clarification.
User:Nightwing99
- Previous version reverted to: 2006-03-23 11:56:21
- 1st revert: 2006-03-23 08:19:49
- 2nd revert: 2006-03-23 08:57:16
- 3rd revert: 2006-03-23 10:51:53
- 4th revert: 2006-03-23 14:25:25
Reported by: Ipstenu 20:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Nightwing99 is not reading the discussion page, nor does the poster seem to read their own discussion page, or the edit summaries OR the comments put in by D1Puck1T to not edit and please talk. I don't think Nightwing99 is a troll, but a very determined poster.
- The previous version reverted do doesn't seem right. I see only three reverts. —Ruud22:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- The first one is a (I grant) a questionable revert (from a day or two before), but as someone else pointed out on the talk page, he's got well over 100 edits for the page in March alone, all for this ONE section, and all have been reverted back. This may just need a ban req, but this is my first time trying to sort any of this out. -- Ipstenu 03:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Pro-Lick
- Previous version reverted to: 18:42, 22 March 2006
- 1st revert: 18:54, 22 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 01:14, 23 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 08:46, 23 March 2006
- 4th revert: 13:30, 23 March 2006
Reported by: RoyBoy 800 20:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments: I have warned Pro-Lick today that further reversions will result in a block. Pro-Lick was warned by me and
20:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)- Blocked for 24 hours. Please be careful that you report the correct diffs next time, the 2nd one wasn't right. —Ruud22:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- If the 2nd was not right, why did I get blocked? As a note to any future 3rr complaints, keep in mind there are lots of different parts on that page. Also keep in mind that RoyBoy has a view contrary to mind and may not be the most reputable and reliable source of information regarding my edits.--Pro-Lick 23:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Williamo1
- Previous version reverted to: 03:41, March 23, 2006
- 1st revert: 12:06, March 23, 2006
- 2nd revert: 18:07, March 23, 2006
- 3rd revert: 19:11, March 23, 2006
- 4th revert: 03:07, March 24, 2006
Reported by: Rob 03:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Note, the reverts aren't always going back to the exact same version. He occasional throws in an arguement (directed at editors, not readers), as to why we should leave the information in (e.g. if you love children, you'll let him keep the info). See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Williamo1 and particularly this talk page section for background. --Rob 03:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked. —Ruud03:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Netscott
- Previous version reverted to: 02:24, March 24, 2006
- 1st revert: 02:58, March 24, 2006
- 2nd revert: 12:12, March 24, 2006
- 3rd revert: 12:32, March 24, 2006
- 4th revert: 12:52, March 24, 2006
Reported by: Irishpunktom\talk 13:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments: User keeps removed a Wikilink that has been included longer than he has been editing, not that that matters, and has reverted four times within 24 hours without discussing his proposal at all on the talk page. Fairly straight forward--Irishpunktom\talk 13:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- User was warned in advice of his fourth revert. --Irishpunktom\talk 13:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- To the admin who pursues this report, regarding the wikilink to The 100 please pay particularly close attention to the first "revert" cited by Irishpunktom... I don't dispute the last three. But the first citation is not a revert as the article's history page shows. Netscott 13:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Please see this section of User:Joturner's talk page as well. Also, although not directly related to this report, for a perspective on the interaction between Irishpunktom and myself over the last 24 hours please see the history of User:Crad0010's User Page. And the ensuing debate with Crad0010's corresponding response. Netscott 14:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
First revert was done by
- Thank you Ruud for properly researching this report. :-) Netscott 14:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Err, no, the previous version reverted to was Joturner, all four reverts were by Netscott --Irishpunktom\talk 14:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Please check the history carefully, while Netscott did remove the link, this was only done after he reinserted it himself. Self-reverts don't count towards a 3RR. So you're both at three reverts. —Ruud14:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Please check the history carefully, while Netscott did remove the link, this was only done after he reinserted it himself. Self-reverts don't count towards a 3RR. So you're both at three reverts. —
- I would recommend that the two instances of Netscott (please see another list above) reverting should be combined into one. It seems to be that he used to revert without discussions. It is a bad habit... Resid Gulerdem 18:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
User:68.71.99.45
- Previous version reverted to: 06:06, 23 March 2006
- 1st revert: 17:41, 23 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 06:10, 24 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 12:05, 24 March 2006
- 4th revert: 15:38, 24 March 2006
Reported by: Khoikhoi 16:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- User knows about the 3RR – I warned him/her twice here and [246]. Despite this, they continued to revert without explanation.
- This user has also rv Ramona Amirimore then 3 times within 24hours.
- 12:07, 24 March 2006
- 06:38, 24 March 2006
- 06:08, 24 March 2006
- 17:40, 23 March 2006
Blocked 12h. Chaldean escapes by a whisker William M. Connolley 18:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
User:81.105.207.57
- Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
- 1st revert: [247]
- 2nd revert: [248]
- 3rd revert: [249]
- 4th revert: [250]
There are far more than 4 reverts, view [251] for full list.
Reported by:
Comments: User continually is doubling up sections of the page: i.e. The page has all it's information, then he's reposted it all again at the bottom, and now he's attacking anyone who reverts it in edit sums.
- I don't think this is quite 3RR (well it may be, but not obviously). But its clearly NPA, and the repeated doubling amounts to vandalism, so I shall award a short block to gie the anon time to think William M. Connolley 18:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
User:85.0.89.21
- Previous version reverted to: [252]
- 1st revert: [253]
- 2nd revert: [254]
- 3rd revert: [255]
- 4th revert: [256]
- 5th revert: [257]
Reported by: Aldux 22:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments Even if talk is ongoing on the talk page and a first compromise solution had already been proposed, and accepted by many on poth sides of the dispute, the editor has continued to revert mindlessly, sending abusive comments to other editors in the edit summaries: for example he called an editor a "Turk hater", and when told he had violated the 3RR he awnsered reverting once again. He had been informed of the 3RR before breaking it through a notice left on his talk page --Aldux 22:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Clearly warned, clearly no intention of stopping. Blocked for 24 hours. Jkelly 22:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Humus sapiens
Reported by: Lokiloki 00:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Not sure I'd call this a clear violation, Lokiloki. You were both going back and forth trying to edit the cutline in a different way each time, then he commented out the map and cutline until you both resolve the issue on talk. Perhaps you could try to find a compromise text on the talk page before editing it again. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- I've left a note to that effect on the article talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Okay. As some background: the issue has been debated extensively on the talk pages already -- he has rejected several compromises out of hand. He continually reverts any addition that includes the phrase "the viability of a Palestinian state" or, barring removing just that particular phrase, he deletes the entire map. I believe these reversions constitute a 3-revert rule violation. At the very least, I request that editing of this page be blocked to prevent further edit warring. Lokiloki 01:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- I can't see on the talk page whether your version has any support. I'll take another look, but there doesn't seem much point in protecting now you've both stopped. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- For the record: although this dispute has been temporarily put on hold, I'm concerned about Lokiloki's 3RR report. First of all, Humus does not appear to have violated the 3RR; at the most I count two actual reverts. The problem is that Lokiloki has violated the 3RR twice in the last 48 hours, the second time after being warned. Between 10:57, 23 March 2006 and 12:42, 23 March 2006, Lokiloki reverted Caption edit war). At 13:37, 23 March, I left a friendly and polite warning on Lokiloki's talk page explaining the consequences of the 3RR. At 20:17, 23 March, Lokiloki acknowledged the 3RR policy violation, but unfortunately, Lokiloki proceeded to violate the 3RR again, starting at 19:37, 24 March 2006 with four reverts: [267], [268], [269], [270]. I would like some kind of action to be taken. —Viriditas | Talk10:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- For the record: although this dispute has been temporarily put on hold, I'm concerned about Lokiloki's 3RR report. First of all, Humus does not appear to have violated the 3RR; at the most I count two actual reverts. The problem is that Lokiloki has violated the 3RR twice in the last 48 hours, the second time after being warned. Between 10:57, 23 March 2006 and 12:42, 23 March 2006, Lokiloki reverted
- I believe that Viriditas' claim that my 2nd set of edits were reverts is inaccurate. In the first edit, [271], I added content after the 24 hour period from my first accidental 3RR (as I was unaware of the specifics of the policy). As such, this initial addition of content presumably doesn't qualify as a "revert". This new content was deleted by Humus.
- In the second edit, I added the same content with a citation to validate its inclusion as per Viriditas' earlier request for cites (and assuming that Humus would stop reverting something that was cited) [272]. Humus deleted again. I then re-added the content after Humus deleted it twice more: after his final deletion, I did not re-add the content as I assumed that this would have been my 4th revert (but even on that point, I am unclear, as I was adding new content, namely citations, to buttress the presence of that content). At that time, and given Humus' bellicosity, I reported his 4 reverts here. (I do not quite see how Viriditas only counts 2 reverts for Humus, yet 4 for me, especially given that it was a back and forth edit war with only he and I.)
- -/- Lokiloki 11:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- You broke 3RR after your fourth revert in 24 hours. —Viriditas | Talk 11:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- I did not revert 4 times in the last 24 hours, as per my explanation above. There is presumably little need for us to debate this further here, as the facts are laid out, the histories are there, and hopefully an Administrator can address your accusations, and mine. Despite what I believe is an inaccuracy in your accusation, I do appreciate your even-handedness generally in dealing with this article: you have been a helpful and neutral complement in an otherwise divisive article. -/-Lokiloki 11:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Your "first edit" of your second round of reverts, starting with 19:37, 24 March 2006, was to revert to the 12:42, 23 March 2006 version, in part or in whole, even though your first and second series of reverts relied on multiple primary previous versions. In other words, a revert is still a revert... —Viriditas | Talk 12:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I still disagree with your characterization, not least because I provided additional content in the 2nd edit in the form of a citation (which you yourself had earlier requested), and not least because it is unclear to me how adding additional content is an actual "revert". Thanks, Lokiloki 12:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Your "2nd edit" of your second round of reverts, at 20:08, 24 March 2006 was a partial/complex revert ("and the viability of a Palestinian state") to your "first edit" 19:37, 24 March 2006 plus the addition of a cite. In other words, you reverted. —Viriditas | Talk 12:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. But if you follow this vaguer approach, how was it that you only found 2 reverts for Humus? Lokiloki 20:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't comprehend your disagreement. Either a revert is not a revert or it is. From here, it appears you reverted nine times in 48 hours, four times after being warned and acknowledging the warning after your fourth revert. As for Humus, you need to demonstrate that he reverted four times, as I only see two. —Viriditas | Talk 21:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- The addition of content with a new citation does not appear to be a revert, as there is significant new material, in the form of a citation, added [273]... Thanks, Lokiloki 22:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- I will repeat myself for your benefit: your "addition of content with a new citation" 20:08, 24 March 2006 was a partial/complex revert ("and the viability of a Palestinian state") to your "first edit" 19:37, 24 March 2006 plus the addition of a cite. You reverted to a previous version and added content. That's still a revert. —Viriditas | Talk 22:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. The content in question was deleted presumably because the other editor questioned its veracity; the re-addition of that content with a citation is a significant difference, and should not therefore constitute a revert. If such additions of content, with new citations, are considered reverts, this would result in perpetual stalemate. Lokiloki 22:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Just so I'm clear, are you saying that it's ok to revert and violate the 3RR as long as one adds new content? Is that correct? —Viriditas | Talk 06:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Please see Three-revert rule for more information on the specifics of the rule. Lokiloki 06:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Just so I'm clear, are you saying that it's ok to revert and violate the 3RR as long as one adds new content? Is that correct? —Viriditas | Talk 06:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. The content in question was deleted presumably because the other editor questioned its veracity; the re-addition of that content with a citation is a significant difference, and should not therefore constitute a revert. If such additions of content, with new citations, are considered reverts, this would result in perpetual stalemate. Lokiloki 22:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- I will repeat myself for your benefit: your "addition of content with a new citation" 20:08, 24 March 2006 was a partial/complex revert ("and the viability of a Palestinian state") to your "first edit" 19:37, 24 March 2006 plus the addition of a cite. You reverted to a previous version and added content. That's still a revert. —Viriditas | Talk 22:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- The addition of content with a new citation does not appear to be a revert, as there is significant new material, in the form of a citation, added [273]... Thanks, Lokiloki 22:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't comprehend your disagreement. Either a revert is not a revert or it is. From here, it appears you reverted nine times in 48 hours, four times after being warned and acknowledging the warning after your fourth revert. As for Humus, you need to demonstrate that he reverted four times, as I only see two. —Viriditas | Talk 21:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. But if you follow this vaguer approach, how was it that you only found 2 reverts for Humus? Lokiloki 20:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Your "2nd edit" of your second round of reverts, at 20:08, 24 March 2006 was a partial/complex revert ("and the viability of a Palestinian state") to your "first edit" 19:37, 24 March 2006 plus the addition of a cite. In other words, you reverted. —Viriditas | Talk 12:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I still disagree with your characterization, not least because I provided additional content in the 2nd edit in the form of a citation (which you yourself had earlier requested), and not least because it is unclear to me how adding additional content is an actual "revert". Thanks, Lokiloki 12:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Your "first edit" of your second round of reverts, starting with 19:37, 24 March 2006, was to revert to the 12:42, 23 March 2006 version, in part or in whole, even though your first and second series of reverts relied on multiple primary previous versions. In other words, a revert is still a revert... —Viriditas | Talk 12:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- I did not revert 4 times in the last 24 hours, as per my explanation above. There is presumably little need for us to debate this further here, as the facts are laid out, the histories are there, and hopefully an Administrator can address your accusations, and mine. Despite what I believe is an inaccuracy in your accusation, I do appreciate your even-handedness generally in dealing with this article: you have been a helpful and neutral complement in an otherwise divisive article. -/-Lokiloki 11:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- You broke 3RR after your fourth revert in 24 hours. —Viriditas | Talk 11:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- -/- Lokiloki 11:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'd like to point out I find loki's entire complaint quite ludicrous. Lokiloki has beligerantly edited every article he has come in contact with to match his personal POV, he has constantly attempted to get Humus banned even though there is literally no justification other than disagreeing with loki. I also would like to point out that Loki has committed at least one wiolation of the 3RR himself although instead of running to admins he was warned on the talk page. Additionally he has probably rejected every compromise that he hasn't personally proposed.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- I have not "constantly" tried to get Humus banned: this was my first report of his 3RR. As I have stated in all of the talk pages on the articles that I edit (and to which both Moshe and Humus diligently follow and often re-edit), I fully cite all additions that I make. Both Humus and Moshe often dispute my citations, questioning the neutrality of the BBC and other sources generally considered to be neutral -- perhaps for these reasons my additions are considered "belligerent".
- Further, I am not trying to edit articles to "my" POV, but provide neutrally-sourced, accurate, and verifiable counterpoints to articles which currently lack them. As for my so-called inability to compromise, that's an interesting accusation, not least because in this specific dispute, Moshe himself states "Yea I'm fine with your compromise" User_talk:Lokiloki#Arab-Israeli compromise. I have proposed multiple compromises in this instance quite simply because no one else has, as far as I can remember -- so to claim I don't accept any compromises that I haven't personally proposed... well, who else offered one? Indeed, it is Humus who has not accepted any other alternative nor even a budge on his steadfastness for his POV caption: it is such bellicosity which is counter-productive, which has presumably resulted in significant POV deeply engrained in the discussed article and related orbiting articles, and which makes Wikipedia a generally unwelcome place for new editors such as myself.
- -/- Lokiloki 11:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Fyodor Dos
Reported by: 84.61.5.97 04:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
User was blocked before and has nothing learned. This is an
MSJapan 05:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- The 1st example you gave is an edit, not a rv. The other 2 3rr rulings made against me were just plain wrong. The 1st time the Admin combined edits I made to different sections on the page, I never rv's the same editor, obviously that Admin doesn't know 3rr. The 2nd time was even more baffling, I had corrected an edit problem I had had twice caused by the page not loading fully which I corrected and noted the reason. It would seem that Admin didn't even bother to look at the history to see what I had edited either. Later after the block had ended I responded on my talk page. There really needs to be some type of training on this subject, it would seem all some admins do is see if you have made more than 3 edits on a page after a complaint and if you have they ban you. There should be a little more investigation done.Fyodor Dos 04:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Fyodor_Dos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). 3RR block is now no longer necessary. MSJapan15:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Fyodor_Dos (
User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg
- Previous version: (added after William's comment below) [274] 10:38, 25 March 2006 (this shows his first revert back to the earlier version)
- 1st revert: [275]10:43, 25 March 2006
- 2nd revert: [276] 10:46, 25 March 2006
- 3rd revert: [277] 12:43, 25 March 2006 (this comparison [278] more clearly shows his removal of all work by intermediary editor)
- 4th revert: [279] 13:03, 25 March 2006 (this comparison [280] more clearly shows his removal of all work by intermediary editor)
Reported by: Lokiloki 20:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Not obvious the first is a revert William M. Connolley 21:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, #1 is a revert, #3 is labelled rv so is; and #4 is the same. Why is #2 a revert? William M. Connolley 21:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hi William, here is the comparison of the preceeding version and the 2nd revert [282]. You will notice that the content is exactly the same... except for the addition of a paragraph break. In the edit that I made and which he reverted [283], I added a phrase and a paragraph break (unfortunately, Wikipedia seems to treat the entire content as new when using diff, rather than simply showing the break) -- when he reverted, he deleted all of the text content that I added, and kept only the paragraph break. I assume that this still constitutes an undoing, in whole or in part, of another editor's work, despite his having kept only the paragraph break. Lokiloki 21:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I'm a little concerned at the double standard here. Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg was given a 3RR warning at 13:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC), after which no further reverts were made, but he was blocked for 24 hours at 20:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC). Lokiloki was given a 3RR warning at 13:37, 23 March, acknowledged the warning, and continued to revert four more times. He has not been blocked. See
21:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)- I can't see a 3RR violation here. Moshe has made four edits in the last 24 hours. At 10:43, he deleted a section added (I believe) by Lokiloki (an edit, not a revert); at 10:46, he deleted a different unsourced passage (an edit, not a revert); at 12:43, he reverted a bunch of edits made by an anon IP; and at 13:03 reverted the same edits by the same anon. So I count two reverts there. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Huh? So simply "editing" a page and returning it to a prior version (as he did on the 1st and 2nd reverts) is not an actual revert, even if it returns to an exact prior version? That's interesting to know... that means people can simply "edit" other users' contributions and in the process delete them, and that won't be counted as a revert... even if it is returned to an exact same state? ..."he deleted a section added (I believe) by Lokiloki (an edit, not a revert)"... Wow. So deleting new added content is not considered a revert? That surely seems an inaccurate reading of the revert rule. Lokiloki 22:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- The thing is that deleting something always involves by definition a revert to a version that didn't contain that material, but people do have to be allowed to delete, so whether it's a technically a revert within the terms of 3RR depends on context. I'll take another look. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, so there is some subjectivity to the 3RR? Some deletions will be considered reverts, but some won't? I haven't seen that interpretation in reading through other 3RR disputes above. As for the "unsourced passage" that was deleted, you can see that I simply added the phrase "a pro-Israeli media watchdog", which, despite being the exact same wording on the Wiki page for that group, is pretty well accepted. Instead of deleting, he could have used [citation needed] or some other request for sources (notice the multiple citation requests already in this article), rather than outright deletion. Similarly, the "inflammatory" passage that he removed IS part of the discussed report. Lokiloki 22:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- The thing is that deleting something always involves by definition a revert to a version that didn't contain that material, but people do have to be allowed to delete, so whether it's a technically a revert within the terms of 3RR depends on context. I'll take another look. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Huh? So simply "editing" a page and returning it to a prior version (as he did on the 1st and 2nd reverts) is not an actual revert, even if it returns to an exact prior version? That's interesting to know... that means people can simply "edit" other users' contributions and in the process delete them, and that won't be counted as a revert... even if it is returned to an exact same state? ..."he deleted a section added (I believe) by Lokiloki (an edit, not a revert)"... Wow. So deleting new added content is not considered a revert? That surely seems an inaccurate reading of the revert rule. Lokiloki 22:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes, what we are missing is 2006-03-25 21:53:50 Sceptre blocked "Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3rr). Hmmm. I'm still not convinced this is 4R William M. Connolley 22:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC).
- I also was not aware that had happened. In any case, I continue to maintain that there were 4 reverts: his initial entire deletion of the passage that I added reverted to an exact same prior version; his second deletion of the entire text content that I added reverted to an exact same prior version, save for a paragraph break; his third and fourth deletions of another editor's additions which he labeled as "reverts". I also note that in his talk section he was warned about such reverts. Lokiloki 22:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, there's a degree of subjectivity in complex, partial 3RR assessments. I've taken a closer look, and very strictly speaking, Moshe violated 3RR in that at 10:43 [284] he deleted an edit you had made at 10:41 [285] ("the report itself states ..."), thereby reverting to a previous version, and at 10:46 [286] deleted another of your 10:41 edits [287] ("a pro-Israeli media watchdog," which he could have deleted too at 10:43, but for some reason overlooked or chose not to); then at 12:38 and 13:02 he reverted unrelated substantial edits made by an anon IP that resolves to Rogers in Toronto (was that you, by the way?).
- As I see it, his mistake was to delete your 10:41 edits in two stages: one at 10:43 and one at 10:46. My guess is that he didn't see these as two reverts, because nothing relevant happened in between them (you did make an edit in between, but it wasn't related, and he may not even have realized you were continuing to edit). So yes, technically he did make four reverts, which is a violation, but I don't think he intended to, and as he hasn't been blocked before for 3RR, and made no edits after being warned that he might have violated it, I personally would not have blocked him.
- Also, Loki, you've made at least 45 edits in the last day or so to this page reporting people for 3RR. [288] I'm wondering whether you might be too focused on finding technical violations rather than trying to find compromises with people. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, as you can tell by looking at my edit history, I make many changes to my edits so as to correct spelling, etc. I have tried with great effort to compromise with this user, but, given his distrust of the BBC and other sources and given his frequent deletions of anything that I add that is not completely cited, I am growing increasingly dissillusioned. I will most assuredly try to compromise in the future. // No, the other IP editor is not me. Lokiloki 02:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
User:172.170.78.19 and User:172.153.29.96 (both addresses belong to the AOL pool)
Goce Delchev
- Previous version reverted to: 23:55, 24 March 2006
- 1st revert: 19:52
- 2nd revert: 20:14
- 3rd revert: 20:56
- 4th revert: 20:59
Dame Gruev
- Previous version reverted to: 24 March 2006 20:17
- 1st revert: 19:36
- 2nd revert: 21:14
- 3rd revert: 20:10
- 4th revert: 21:05
Reported by: FunkyFly 21:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- The anonymous user has been warned yesterday. FunkyFly 21:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Also, the user has persistently pushed POV in the pages Jane Sandanski.
I've blocked ...19, but I only seem to be allowed to do so for 15 mins since they are AOL :-( William M. Connolley 21:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- At least you can force him to disconnect his modem and redial. FunkyFly 22:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Check recent contribs William M. Connolley 22:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Lou franklin
- Previous version reverted to: 13:26, 23 March 2006
- 1st revert: 01:14, 25 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 03:10, 25 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 16:19, 25 March 2006
- 4th revert: 21:47, 25 March 2006
- 5th revert: 23:47, 25 March 2006
Reported by: Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Lou has been blocked for 3RR on this same article 5 times now. Last block was for 48 hours. I'm too involved to block him myself. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
48h again William M. Connolley 10:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Adkagansu
- Previous version reverted to: [289]
- 1st revert: [290]
- 2nd revert: [291]
- 3rd revert: [292]
- 4th revert: [293]
- 5th revert: [294]
Reported by: --Aldux 01:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments: I have taken no part in this dispute. The editor was clearly aware of the 3RR, as he himself confessed on the talk page of a user, saying "I am aware of the 3RR, I could have asked one of the Turkish users to change it for me but I didn't. Why? Because I am tired, I am going to bed and I did what was right to do." [295]. The editor has often been abusive and agressive to other editors, as when he said: "The only difference between a chauvinist Greek and a race obsessed SS is nobody takes the first seriously; that's why people consider your Aryan obsession cute and let you get away with it. But I won't" [296]--Aldux 01:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Defense (I guess)
I always spoke the truth on Wikipedia in the couple of months I was here; some users may not liked what I was saying and regard some of what I said as insults but my words were never vulgar or distasteful, I prefer sharp humor usually. Anyway, you are reporting me for the 3RR. Here is my victim:
“ Despite its extremely multi-ethnic character, the Ottoman state was commonly known in its days as the Turkish Empire”
Miskin’s addition in bold letters. This is one of the introduction sentences to the Ottoman Empire page therefore it is important. For hours I explained why it was redundant to add that into the sentence, as if all empires aren’t multi-ethnic (And yes legaly recognised Imperial Japan is multi-ethnic as well) and this makes it sound like Turkish Empire was an exception. This article will probably be featured in a couple of weeks, I don’t want it to look it was written by elementary school kids. I made these points, waited for the Greek users to revert it back and show their good faith, they didn’t. Then I did and then Miskin reverted it back, makes you wonder what his/her intentions are. And I could have very well asked another user to revert it back for me, like they always do here on Wikipedia but I didn’t. Why? Because I was doing what was right and I assumed good faith from others. I guess I was wrong.
What’s ironic is it is neither Miskin, Latinus or Nikos reporting, with whom I had the discussion, but you, with whom I had no exchange. Just know that silencing me won’t do Wikipedia any good. You are putting down a voice that was fighting POV pushers and contributing to articles to have NPOV, even when some Turkish –I am Turk as well- users didn’t like what I was adding and deleting to keep the article NPOV like in the Turkish Cypriots page.
So I am condemned for comparing chauvinist Greeks to Nazis and for reverting a repeated mistake 5 times. Waiting for the verdict.--Kagan the Barbarian 08:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- The verdict is: you have broken 3RR and so will be blocked for it. I make no judgement of the content William M. Connolley 10:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- I knew 3R was not allowed, saw people mentioning it but didn't know its penalty was blocking. I never read the article about it and nobody sent it to me; Latinus did after I broke the 3RR [297] . I guess I shouldn't have said "I know what it is" but then again if I knew what it is, that its penalty was blocking, I wouldn't say "I know what it is", would I? I can assure it won't happen again and it is the best excuse I can give really. Too much talk, your decision.--Kagan the Barbarian 11:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- If it helps, I'd like to request Connolley to show some lenience. Please note that I am one of the parties opposed in the discussion with Adkagansu (but in the wrong place: Hellenic Empire was once "extremely multiethnic" too. NikoSilver (T)@(C)20:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- If it helps, I'd like to request Connolley to show some lenience. Please note that I am one of the parties opposed in the discussion with Adkagansu (but in the wrong place:
User:Perry8331
- Previous version reverted to: [298]
- 1st revert: [299]
- 2nd revert: [300]
- 3rd revert: [301]
- 4th revert: [302]
- 5th revert: [303]
- 6th revert: [304]
- 7th revert: [305]
- 8th revert: [306]
Reported by: --Eenu (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments: I am not involved with this, and I don't know if both of the involved parties are to blame, or just one.
User:217.76.144.121
- Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 00:13, 25 March 2006
- 1st revert: Revision as of 03:44, 25 March 2006
- 2nd revert: Revision as of 14:07, 25 March 2006
- 3rd revert: Revision as of 14:20, 25 March 2006
- 4th revert: Revision as of 14:34, 25 March 2006
- 5th revert: Revision as of 14:48, 25 March 2006
- 6th revert: Revision as of 00:03, 26 March 2006
- 7th revert: Revision as of 17:03, 26 March 2006
Reported by: Duffer 02:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Vandal who's been harrassing Jehovah's Witness related articles this past week. Duffer 02:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
-What's the hold up? Duffer 05:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
User:SikimTurki/User:Haramov
- Previous version reverted to: 02:13, 26 March 2006
- 1st revert: 02:45, 26 March 2006 (as SikimTurki)
- 2nd revert: 03:01, 26 March 2006 (as SikimTurki)
- 3rd revert: 03:19, 26 March 2006 (as SikimTurki)
- 4th revert: 03:30, 26 March 2006 (as Haramov, obvious sock)
Reported by: Khoikhoi 03:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
User:MSJapan and Blueboar
- 1st revert: Revision as of 05:47, 26 March 2006
- 2nd revert: Revision as of 05:36, 26 March 2006
- 3rd revert: Revision as of 05:23, 26 March 2006
- 4th revert: Revision as of 05:10, 26 March 2006
Combining their deletions to circumvent
- Additional indication the two editors are working together to combine their edits and circumvent Three revert rule:
"He just got 3RR blocked, so feel free to rv completely back to the proper version. MSJapan 15:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Blueboar#Fyodor_Dos
Fyodor Dos 06:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Additionally User:MSJapan has made four complaints against me in as many days. He made a check user request against me accusing me of being a sock that was denied, he made a vandalism complaint against me [307], and he has just made an abusively worded arbitration complaint against me here, and he has now made another check user request against me here!Fyodor Dos 07:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- This is just a revenge because this user was blocked two times because of 3RR. It readds its speculative POV again and again without being able to proof something at all. These "references" are just part of some diversion tactics, e.g. [308] the cabala has nothing to do with Freemasonry, so the user tries to claim that Freemasonry has Rosicrucianism origin concurrently (which is wrong), to "proof" its discreditation. Special:Contributions/Fyodor_Dos shows that this account has no other function and that this is an internet troll. 84.61.7.55 06:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- The 2nd 3rr was was caused by two of the edits being corrections of page loading problems, which I noted, and were corrected. They were not reverts. The first wasn't 3rr either, the admin didn't investigate my edits enough, if he had he would have seen that they were for different sections on the same page. But once you are hit with this you can't defend yourself and then you get tagged with a 3rr label. I am trying to be very careful about 3rr, but it is extremely difficult when there is a group of editors working together to rv all my edits, and making multiple allegations on every Wiki complaint page, such as is occuring. This group doesn't like my edits to the pages they feel they 'own', as they have done to others previously. It really is a cabal of sorts at work here.Fyodor Dos 05:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Just for the record, User:Lightbringer. MSJapan15:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
User:24.54.90.231
- This IP address is at like, 10RR on this page just today and this is recurring vandalism. Just take a look at the contribs. Please block 4-evah, you'll be loved.
Reported by: SchmuckyTheCat 06:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:I didn't bother showing 4 diffs, the IP contribs are only on that and one other article and clearly show a fixation with vandalizing (removing sourced information) from the page.
- Blocked 8h William M. Connolley 10:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
User:128.120.179.41
- Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
- 1st revert: [309]
- 2nd revert: [310]
- 3rd revert: [311]
- 4th revert: [312]
Reported by:
3RR violation by myself and anon who continuously violates agreed upon guidelines on
- Blocked for 24 hours.--MONGO 10:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Swatjester
- Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
- 1st revert: 12:10, 26 March 2006
- 2nd revert: 12:11, 26 March 2006
- 3rd revert: 12:16, 26 March 2006
- 4th revert: 12:24, 26 March 2006
Reported by: Germen (Talk | Contribs 
) 12:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments: Even there wasn't an attempt of a discussion. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 12:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Uh, except for the fact that I HAVEN'T violated 3RR: the 2nd revert was a reversion of myself because the first one went back farther than I wanted.
Except for, you know, the part of 3RR that says you're allowed to revert yourself. Try reading policy before making claims.
See, from
- self-reverts"Fire!12:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Great, now motivate why you are reverting other users. I added well-sourced information and made several sections more NPOV, which substantially improve the quality of the article. Besides that, reversions are not the recommended course of action when you think a page needs improvement. As an administrator you are expected to be well aware of this. --Germen (Talk | Contribs
) 12:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Except uh....I'm not an administrator. And your claims were highly pov, unsourced, and unreferenced. That's why I reverted, as claimed in WP:V where un-sourced claims may be deleted. If you'll note, my second revert reinserted all your claims: I was just removing the one that says "Christians believe Christ is their personal lord and savior" as it's a blanket statement that is unsourced and unreferenced. Fire!12:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I got the source of the misunderstanding. My apologies. To be a little less concise while explaining your reverts would help next time, though. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 12:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Except uh....I'm not an administrator. And your claims were highly pov, unsourced, and unreferenced. That's why I reverted, as claimed in WP:V where un-sourced claims may be deleted. If you'll note, my second revert reinserted all your claims: I was just removing the one that says "Christians believe Christ is their personal lord and savior" as it's a blanket statement that is unsourced and unreferenced.
- Great, now motivate why you are reverting other users. I added well-sourced information and made several sections more NPOV, which substantially improve the quality of the article. Besides that, reversions are not the recommended course of action when you think a page needs improvement. As an administrator you are expected to be well aware of this. --Germen (Talk | Contribs
I count 3 reverts; the two together count as one, obviously William M. Connolley 12:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)