Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive28

User:Larry Dunn reported by User:JCScaliger (Result:24h)

violation on

Knight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Larry_Dunn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 21:19, 20 September 2006

• 1st revert: 17:39 21 September 2006
• 2nd revert: 19:34
• 3rd revert: 22:02
• 4th revert: 13:07 22 September

• • Please note that these are exact reverts of different versions of well-sourced material, including one which omits the controversial material altogether; these were indicated as changes, as an effort at compromise. If Larry Dunn were willing to make counter-compromises, that would be fine; but he appears to have ownership problems. Choess has commented on his unwillingness to discuss on his talk page.

• Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here 22:29 21 September and again 20:18 22 September (necessary only for new users)

Time report made: 20:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Restored after anon deletion: 21:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Extension request for evasion: 16:47 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• 24 hours.
  Talk
  ) 06:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Extension request:Larry Dunn has reverted again, as anon User:69.118.244.33: 13:42 23 September, evading 24-hour block of 06:17 23 September Identity of user established by this compound edit of Talk:Knight, which is making the same argument from the same source as this post by Dunn to his talk page. JCScaliger 16:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

User:80.176.2.49 reported by User:JediLofty (Result:)

violation on 80.176.2.49

Kaddy_Lee-Preston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 80.176.2.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Time report made: 09:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This guy obviously has something against Kaddy Lee-Preston.

User:Hookerj reported by User:Extraordinary Machine (Result:48 hours)

):

• Previous version reverted to: 19:54, 19 September 2006
• 1st revert: 13:12, 21 September 2006
• 2nd revert: 19:52, 21 September 2006
• 3rd revert: 21:22, 21 September 2006
• 4th revert: 12:29 to 12:30, 22 September 2006

• Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users): 21:27, 21 September 2006 (though he was blocked for violating the 3RR very recently; see above)

Time report made: 21:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: It's not just edits with which this user disagrees that (s)he's reverting; (s)he's undoing every change, including basic formatting and MoS fixes, that move the article away from his/her preferred version. Hookerj is reverting without an edit summary, which I've already told him about. (S)he was blocked just three days ago for violating the 3RR on another article (see above). Extraordinary Machine 21:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

48 hours

00:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Ibrahimfaisal reported by User:Opiner

(Result:)

):

• 1st revert: 23:38, 21 September 2006
• 2nd revert: 23:59, 21 September 2006
• 3rd revert: 02:27, 22 September 2006
• 4th revert: 13:28, 22 September 2006
• 5th revert: 19:07, 22 September 2006
• 6th revert: 23:38, 22 September 2006
• Was warned: [1]

Time report made: 00:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: He made at least six reverts in exactly 24 hours probably more. They were, removing mentioning Muhammad founding the Caliphate, removing the words said and claimed so to make the article say again that Muhamamad DID have revelations from God instead of that he said he did, and removing pictures of Muhammad like he has been doing every day for awhile now. I tried to warn him[2] before doing this report but instead of saying thanks he wrote, I moved a picture, do not revert it. Anyway you can report whenever you like.[3]Opiner 00:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

They are not revert but contributions and different from each other.

ابراهيم

00:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The contributions are all reversing things other people just wrote and things he's been making making edit wars over for the past couple days like the pictures. And so are reverts. 3RR policy, I read it already and it says they don't have to be related.Opiner 00:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Many of the contributions I have done had no edit war. Many times no one change what I have done. Revert and improving mistake (and improving the text) are different things. ---

ابراهيم

00:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Here are JUST his removing the pictures and this is only the last couple days. He said something on the discussion page that he was doing this for a long time and will keep doing it until theyre gone.12:35, 21 September 2006, 12:35, 21 September 2006, 23:08, 20 September 2006, 22:03, 20 September 2006, 22:02, 20 September 2006, 21:07, 19 September 2006, 20:53, 19 September 2006. All the other changes were things other people had just written and he keeps undoing them.Opiner 01:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: There are serious disagreement over the introduction of the Muhammad article and also on the pictures (but fortunately not on the rest of the article). The article was blocked for a long time but despite tons of discussions on the talk page no consensus was achieved. Now that the article is unblocked, as we expect lots of changes are happening in the intro and the images. I think this is inevitable and hopefully this would settle down soon. If the article reaches a state where people stop discussion on the talk page, then 3RR blocks maybe a good momentary solution. The good news is that it seems to me that we have had some progress. I tried to reduce the tension by making a tag and adding it to the article. I personally don't think applying any block on any involved editor could be useful at the moment. --Aminz 01:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I never even revert same image more that 3 times a day. May be twice (there are more than one image in the article). The above images are different and I also "moved" image from one place to another (not sure if that move is counted above as deletion). They are welcome to ban me but I am sure that I have not violate 3RR. ----

ابراهيم

01:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I never use such words that I will continue reverting util those images are gone. Please stop making false claims. ---

ابراهيم

01:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's another example from today of what Ibrahimfaisal is calling here 'contributions' and 'improving mistakes.' He put up a picture which said 'The mountain of Hira, where Muhammad had his first revelations.' That is saying that this actually happened but we're not supposed to take a position on that! It's not neutral. So I added that he claimed it [4] and then Ibrahimfaisal went through the whole article to make it say that this really happened [5]. Was that a 'contribution' or the 'improving of a mistake?' It looks like a revert to me.Opiner 01:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Opiner there is active

ابراهيم

01:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

What about these [6], [7]? Three different editors just collaborated to write this and right away you started revert warring because you didnt want to mention the Caliphate. Were those 'contributions' or 'improving of a mistake?'Opiner 01:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Not obviously all reverts: most are different. If you want them to be reverst, you need to provide reverted-to for each William M. Connolley 10:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The pictures hardly need a reverted to, obviously they were there and as you see above he's been edit warring to remove them for a while now. Two others are the same [8],[9] sp at very least the first is the 'reverted to' of the second. Then her my edit [10] was undone [11]. Even without more evidence that is four and if you look through evidence youll see asa I said its six. But right here you can see four.Opiner 10:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay as the pictures have been dealt with pretty extensively here is a previous version for diffs two, three and four. 22:30, 21 September 2006. He removed things added after this by Aiden me and JimWae. So now you have a previous version for all six diffs, the two picture removals, the three introduction reverts and the revert of 'said' and 'claimed' as shown above. Six proven reverts in 24 hours.Opiner 10:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

some of the diffs are clearly not reverts, and many of the edits are unrelated. there doesn't seem to be any breach of

11:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

ALL of them were reverts. Read the policy

WP:3RR

its very clear that it doesn't matter if the reverts are related to each other.

Since no one stopped him after his six revertings in 24 hours,

User:Ibrahimfaisal keeps blankin g pictures from the Muhammad article.20:05, 23 September 2006, 20:06, 23 September 2006. Please someone put a check on all these reverts and vandalism.Opiner

00:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

In this user's last edit summary for this edit he gives the reason for his deletion for this as "Useless imaginary picture. There are much more historically correct pictures than this one." Through my university collection I have confirmed the authenticity of this picture that he repeatedly deletes, through the various books on Rashid al-Din. I have added this bibliographic data to the picture. This picture comes from an historically important manuscript, described here as it comes from an early Islamic artist. So the statement that it is "useless" as it does depict an actual event in the article subject's life is false. The statement that it is "imaginary" is also false, as it's authenticity has been verified. The statement that "There are more historically correct pictures than this one." is also false, as it accurately depicts this event in Muhummad's life.

In Ibrahimfaisal's edit summary for this edit states that it is "useless imaginary picture with no prove relationship with Muhammad." This image that he also repeatedly deletes resides in a Paris museum, and is a common theme with Islamic artists. So this edit summary is also false.

Ibrahimfaisal logs-in day -after day- -after day- -after day- to delete pictures, and I'm grateful that Opiner has been counting, because I have also been trying to keep track with what little time I have. It's hard to count all the times he deleted pictures because he doesn't always say that he's deleting a picture in his edit summary like here and here It's more than

in the British Museum because as his edit summary says "I do not think that the picture represents Homer correctly and hence should not exist." Not only is he fostering edit wars (when more than one editor wants to contribute images), he is unravelling the hard work others have put in, keeping this (and other) important articles at a very substandard (C-) level by keeping pictures out. In fact, this behavior puts into question the integrity of all articles he edits.

Really, the block on this user needs to sting to prevent further Wikipedia censorship (let's call it what it is) or we're back here again wasting everyone's time in the future Nodekeeper 02:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all nothing is 3RR. To answer above allegations, I have added at least three New pictures in Muhammad article too. ONE, TWO, and THREE. What about them???

There was a reason being deleting Humor picture (just once) and The reason I had deleted Homer picture is because of this discussion. Adding some picture showing Muhammad (imaginary) face is highly disputed and have messively divided wikipedia into two groups. There are many (around dozen may be) dicussion about that For example few in the near part are One (a long one) and Second (in very near past). One can easily list poeple that are against adding some specific pictures in Muhammad article. I believe those people are more than those (above) who want to add pictures. I think a voting could easily reveal that fact. Once again I have not done 3RR and delete pictures "based on dicussions" just once in whole day. ---

ابراهيم

02:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Quote from

WP:3RR. Note: There is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count. You're saying you're allowed to make exactly three reverts of pictures every day PLUS three reverts of text as shown in report?Opiner

02:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The editors complaining about Ibrahimfaisal have been keeping the Muhammad article in a continuous uproar due to their insistence on pictures and phrases that are offensive to Muslims. While I would be the first to insist on NO CENSORSHIP (if anyone remembers the debate over a woman's right to bare arms while looking at a Qur'an), I don't see the point of insisting on various matters just to PROVE that we don't care about Muslim sensibilities. I've been staying out of the fray because I can't trust myself to keep my temper, but I must say that I don't like what's going on. Zora 03:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The 'pictures that are offensive to Muslims' are ANY depictions of the prophet Muhammad. Real question here, do pictures give Ibrahimfaisal the right to make SIX reverts every 24 hours???Opiner 04:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Nodekeeper is asking for other people help to support their goal]. Should I also do that? I am sure more people will stand with me? ---

ابراهيم

03:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem with you Ibrahimfaisal. You see everything as a fight. I did post to the Hungry_Hun's page because he is the one who is responsible for the pictures and he has been the one sticking them back in after countless deletions. If you noticed, I haven't being participating that much with them, only the last couple of days to verify and clarify the sources to show the strawman arguments that you use in your edit summaries as a basis to delete them.

Also, to respond to your earlier comment please review Wikpedia is not a democracy policy. Because, yes, then could get a bunch of your muslim fundamentalist brothers together and you could vote out all the pictures on wikipedia. The pictures have deleted and been disappearing so many times a day that I think you are "tag-teaming" with your pals to delete the pictures. This time you skated over the line and Opiner, bless his heart, caught you. BTW reverting edits can apply to any edit, not just pictures. But this raises the other question. Sure, you manage (barely) to keep the rules, but it's keeping the spirit of the rules which is also very important and considered by admins, and by any account you fail miserably with that. And so much as some and I do mean small minority some disagree with pictures, anyway you cut it it's still religious censorship. If that's allowed, then half of wikipedia (with things like evolution) would disappear. When we have to start getting the ok to post something from a muslim cleric, Wikipedia ceases to be "the free encyclopedia" in every sense of the word. When the day is done, wikipedia is a secular encylopedia, and not intended as religious text. I disagree with a lot of stuff on wikipedia, but I don't go around deleting it wholesale, and respect other's intellectual pursuits and freedoms.

Opiner, myself, and the other editors have tried very hard to be respectful of people's beliefs. But there is a point when that's taken advantage of by not collaberating or developing consensus, insisting above all else that it's your way or the highway. You barely just added a couple of pictures now after a month of no compromise whatsoever. Oh, I think you did add that fuzzy letter pic because you decided that it was your consensus. If you note, the pictures you have deleted came from Arabic sources painted by Islamic artists (one of them painted near Mecca). So you want us to respect you and your culture, but yet you want us to throw away our culture of 'freedom of expression and thought' and live by your culture of 'censorship' and 'oppression'. It's oppressing when we have to fight. over. every. single. word. and. picture.

I hate to say it, but blocking you for a half a year to end your 'picture jihad' would be too short in my opinion Nodekeeper 04:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Independent of what is going on here, User:Nodekeeper is conspiracy theorising and accusing editors of maliciously tag-teaming or trying to "supress" information. [12], [13],[14],[15],[16] --Aminz 04:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

That's right, it's off topic here (for now). I did defend bluerain's version because it was the most fair and complete introduction I have seen to date. She swept in and organized the article wonderfully one night and left. I see one version of the page at night (done by other editors like bluerain), and I wake up the next day to see your version again over and over. Now we're back to a complete mess with the introduction. So where was I wrong with that comment? Anything that changes at night, your version shows up again the next morning. It's like groundhog day wikipedia-style. Just like Ibrahimfaisal, you skate around the 3RR rule day in and day out to change the article to your version, no matter what anyone else thinks. So yes, I'm saying

the emperor has no clothes here.Nodekeeper

05:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ibrahimfaisal at nine reverts in two days plus anti-Semitic insinuatings

08:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly if you removed/change source matterial then I have to change it back. Secondly, that is 3 days not 2 days. Lastly, all of them are not reverts. ---

ابراهيم

08:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh sorry, nine reverts in fifty eight hours. Thats one every six hours! and SIX in 24 HOURS in above report all POV pushing and youre still going. If you are using sources that say Muhammad definitely DID have revelations from God than you are using wrong/non-scholarly sources! And whats with the Jewish question on my user talk page?Opiner 08:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I used THERE books to write that section of "truce of Hudaybiyya" and spend hours. You just use your one brush-stoke and start changing it. If I change it back makes me a POV pushing then I am one? I give remarks on your userpage after you removed Moses twice. Let the remarks on your page read by anyone neutral person and it was not anti-Jewish. ---

ابراهيم

09:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

User:68.90.226.209 reported by User:Khoikhoi (Result: 24h)

):

• Previous version reverted to: 22:06, 31 August 2006
• 1st revert: 05:54, 22 September 2006
• 2nd revert: 20:52, 22 September 2006
• 3rd revert: 00:59, 23 September 2006
• 4th revert: 01:51, 23 September 2006
• 5th revert: 02:21, 23 September 2006
• 6th revert: 05:36, 23 September 2006

• Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users): [22]

Time report made: 02:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

24h

User:Demosfoni reported by User:--Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) (Result: 24h)

violation on

9/11 conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Demosfoni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: [23]

Demosfoni added text to the intro 20:56, 22 September 2006, which was reverted.

• 1st revert (reinserted text): 21:16, 22 September 2006
• 2nd revert: 21:21, 22 September 2006
• 3rd revert: 21:29, 22 September 2006
• 4th revert: 21:41, 22 September 2006

• Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)

User has been warned about 3RR before, has been blocked for 3RR violation before, and warning was mentioned in edit summary this time. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 02:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Time report made: 02:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The first edit (inserting the text) was done by an IP, which Demosfoni admitted to being on the Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories page. User has history of POV pushing, and ignoring rules such as 3RR. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 02:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

24h (nb: no need for initial text insert to be same editor) William M. Connolley 10:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Tigeroo reported by User:Opiner (Result: no block)

):

• Previous version reverted to: 18:46, 21 September 2006

• 1st revert: 10:52, 22 September 2006
• 2nd revert: 22:04, 22 September 2006
• 3rd revert: 13:39, 22 September 2006
• 4th revert: 08:15, 23 September 2006
• Warned: [24]

Time report made: 09:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Tigeroo has reverted the introduction of this article four time in 22 hours. Although here and there the language is rearranged and there are several previous versions besides he one mentioned above which are being used here, the heart of the reverts is seen in the language 'Muslims regard Muhammad/Muslims view Muhammad/Muhammad is regarded' and what follows this.Opiner 09:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The version reported as being reverted to is wrong reference. The first diff is the first edit I made, and the next three are the partial Reverts to it. Another would have been a violation of 3RR, though marginally and a case for exception could have been for possible vandalism, in the continual removal of notable, cited material and corrections to OR. I beleive I have kept the spirit by keeping the discussion moving on the talk pages, and leaving in changes reflecting some accomodations made at that point by discussion.--Tigeroo 09:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Other editors have also kept the discussion moving on the discussion page but without violating the three revert rule. The policy page says it doesnt have to be the exact same material. Each edit undid another editors work which according to the policy counts as revert. 'Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part.' That its all minor variations on a single reverted text just makes it easier to see.Opiner 09:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Quote from revert: "To revert is to undo all changes made after a certain time in the past. The result will be that the page becomes identical to how it used to be at some previous time. A partial revert undoes only some of those changes." Note to count as a revert it must become identical to a previous version, that only occurred thrice.--Tigeroo 09:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't find the prev-version convincing, so not at all sure that first edit is a revert William M. Connolley 10:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a revert because its undoing other editors work. THat what the policy says anyway I guess I cant make you follow it.Opiner 10:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

User:MONGO reported by User: User:XP (Result: 12 hours for both XP and Mongo)

violation on

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MONGO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• 1st revert: [25]
• 2nd revert: [26]
• 3rd revert: With admin tool on top of that
• 4th revert: [27]

• Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)

As stated, "necessary only for new users". This user has many edits, so I did not do this, as stated in these instructions.

Time report made: 13:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: XP (talk · contribs) has been edit warring in regards to readding a comment that I made that I deleted myself[28], [29] and continues to add a link to a previous Afd debate on this same article and I see no reason that a previous debate has in terms of this new debate. This editor has violated 3RR[30], [31], [32], [33] and referred to my edits as vandalism [34] and threatened further escalation[35].--MONGO 14:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Other AfD in question, which was for both articles, including the one up now one week later (again). Also, Afd policy states to not remove additions by others; this user has no authorization from me to remove my comments. Finally, I did not refactor in his comments--I quoted them and linked to them, which is allowed per policy. If a single user does not like having old or removed comments linked/quoted to, that is irrelevant under existing policy unfortunately, and the comments were very on topic for the AfD which I quoted. My revision of this user was to undo his vandalism against-policy removal of my OWN comments on AfD. You simply CANNOT remove/refactor our others's statements on AfD (especially with the admin tool of all things). · XP · 14:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  I had removed my comments, and you replaced them...twice, in a sole effort to harass. The previous afd discussion has nothing to do with the last one and I have left a note on the current afd stating as such. Every edit I made was merely an attempt to keep the current afd focused on the current nomination. The previous article was up for deletion partly because it was a split from the 9/11 conspiracy theories article and done so without consensus. Lastly, this editor not once notified me on my talkpage about this report and I see every action he has taken on this matter to be purely retalitory for my nominating said article for deletion.--MONGO 14:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  There was no harassment and your stating of such appears to be an attempt to deflect criticism of yourself with some sort of ad hominem defense/attack on myself and can be safely disregarded as vapor. I will leave it to the neutral deciding admin to decide, but the above comments were nonsensical. There was nothing in retaliation; there was a 3rr vio. No one is above the law, not even administrators. Reviewing admin: your decision if my RVs were allowed under policy; however, I will point out that MONGOs were emphatically *not*. If I need to be blocked as well as him, I will not protest if that is your decision. NOTE: MONGO was blocked for 3rr before.· XP · 14:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  XP (talk · contribs) is now edit warring on the Steven E. Jones article and has made has one initial edit[36] and three reverts dealing with several editors there.[37][38][39]. That 3RR block on me was from June 2005...ah, like 20,000 edits ago for me. No doubt this editors sole purpose currently is disruption.--MONGO 15:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  Quick note on that one: the cited initial edit was from 72+ hours ago. was not a rr/revision, but a correction to misstatement/policy vio (it was altering an unsourced statement) so I believe it is exempt anyway. Also, it wasn't a revision · XP · 15:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• No edit warring at all on that article, working on talk pages to discussion/concensus. Please view my full contribs--do not take this disruptive person at their word please. Also, please review this. This explains why my edits on that article are allowed per policy, and also note I have not violated 3rr on that Jones article: 1rr, 2rr, 3rr. However, this MONGO user appears to be here for disruption based on edits related to this mess of 9/11 issues, expressing advocacy of points counter to neutrality and NPOV (which is against our policies). Anyway, I recommend that MONGO violated, and again I will not protest if the admin deems I did as well (although I will disagree quietly silently and politely). · XP · 15:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  Well, all you've done lately is edit war, and the changes you made to the Steven E. Jones article were not supported by the cited reference that was there, so you've now been reverted by a third person. 3rr rules don't permit gaming the rule...you're not "entitled" to 3 reverts a day. Besides, as I menetioned, you twice replace comments I have made earlier that I myself had removed, solely for harassment. You then repeatedly link to the old afd discussion which has no bearing on the current one, unless your deliberately trying to push a POV...which it definitely looks like to me.--MONGO 15:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  Reviewing your edit history it appears you generate significant conflict in your wake, whilst all I do is edit and fix articles--I think your veracity of protest might be equated with guilt? Anyway, READ the other afd which clearly except to the blind is about the same article. Further, I quoted your comments. Are you telling me I can't cite/quote comments now, removed or otherwise? If they are in the legal edit history, I shall quote them if I choose--such is allowed. Further, I'm not gaming anything, and I'm attempting to discuss the policy NPOV violation on that talk page. · XP · 15:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  I guess I'm blind then.--MONGO 15:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked both of you for 12 hours for violating 3RR. JoshuaZ 03:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Cochese8 reported by User:Wmahan. (Result: 8 hours)

violation on

Logo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Cochese8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 2006-09-22T19:10:15
• 1st revert: 2006-09-22T23:46:10
• 2nd revert: 2006-09-23T14:32:17
• 3rd revert: 2006-09-23T15:01:05
• 4th revert: 2006-09-23T15:22:58
• 5th revert: 2006-09-23T15:37:42

• Formal warning: 2006-09-23T15:31:39

Time report made: 16:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This is the result of almost a month of discussion about one external link, which Cochese8 insists on re-adding to the article despite a clear consensus against it and attempts by numerous editors to reason with him. See Talk:Logo. I was one of the ones reverting his edits but I believe that there is a clear consensus for my position. -- Wmahan. 16:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• I have blocked the user for 8 hours per
  WP:3RR. alphaChimp^(talk)
  16:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

User:CltFn reported by User:BhaiSaab ^talk (Result: blocked)

violation on

Craig_Winn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). CltFn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• 1st revert: 14:33, 23 September 2006
• 2nd revert: 15:56, 23 September 2006
• 3rd revert: 16:00, 23 September 2006
• 4th revert: 16:05, 23 September 2006

Time report made: 20:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The first rv is a partial rv. I and another editor have continued to revert this edit, because he is "self-published" and the use of the word "self-published" hardly falls under

20:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Not true , the first alleged revert is an edit , all the others are reverts of user:bahai's unsubstantiated OR , POV motivated attempt to discredit author and living BIO--CltFn 20:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually the first edit is indeed a revert of an edit made by User:Uucp on 09:20, 22 September 2006. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Its tagges as living bio. the 3 RR rule does not apply is a problem William M. Connolley 08:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

2006-09-24T04:26:24 Netsnipe (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "CltFn (contribs)" with an expiry time of 329 hours (Reinstating block pending further consultation with other admins) William M. Connolley 08:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

·

(Result: 24h)

violation on

):

• Previous version reverted to: 23:21, 17 September 2006
• 1st revert: 01:07, 23 September 2006
• 2nd revert: 01:50, 23 September 2006
• 3rd revert: 17:15, 23 September 2006
• 4th revert: 20:18, 23 September 2006

• Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)

Time report made: 21:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

The nature of the revert is to move a textual note explaining the alternative referent to the

21:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Also see discussion below on my report.   /FunkyFly.talk_  00:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 08:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Wmahan reported by User:Joe (Result:Page Protected)

violation on

Logo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wmahan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 15:23_23_September_2006
• 1st revert: 01:30_23_September_2006
• 2nd revert: 14:36_23_September_2006
• 3rd revert: 17:07_23_September 2006

Comments: This irks me to do, but rules are rules and though Wmahan is a prolific editor, it doesn't make him above the rules.

Not 4 reverts in 24 hours but there is lots of revert warning in the article the last few days, settle it in talk page, page protected.

21:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

User:FrancisTyers reported by User:  /FunkyFly.talk_ 

(Result: 24h)

):

• Previous version reverted to: 14:46, 15 September 2006
• 1st revert: 21:04, 22 September 2006
• 2nd revert: 21:19, 22 September 2006
• 3rd revert: 07:16, 23 September 2006
• 4th revert: 14:22, 23 September 2006

• Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)

FrancisTyers has been moving the name under which the Republic of Macedonia is to be accepted by the Europen Union to a somewhat obscure place under the pretext that it looks better.

Time report made: 21:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Nonsense, I had no idea that version existed. -

·

22:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah well, of course you're going to claim you did not know it existed. The previous edit you point on on your report is only two days before mine. You shouldve checked the history.   /FunkyFly.talk_  23:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You mean I should have checked the history of the article after agreeing to make a change with other users on the talk page? That's absurd. -

·

23:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you need to watch your reverts. As I said, I did not agree to your changes.   /FunkyFly.talk_  23:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you observe the talk page

·

22:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not agree to that.   /FunkyFly.talk_  23:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

My first edit to the page was on the 23rd September, so I find it hard to believe you want to pin me with something done almost 10 days before. -

·

23:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact your 4 reverts took less time than mine. Also is not almost 10, but 7 exactly. Your "pinning" is 6 days.   /FunkyFly.talk_  23:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You mean my three reverts. The first was an original edit. -

·

23:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

So you claim. You actually revert the structure of the template and you know it. It was myself who made the original simplification to the template, and you reverted it later.   /FunkyFly.talk_  23:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. I made a suggestion on the talk page and followed it through with my first edit to the page. -

·

00:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

For the 3rd time, I did not agree to it. Plus just because you mention something on the talk page doesnt excuse you from reverting the article. And just because you are not aware of old versions you're not excused for reverting as well, so 4 reverts you have. Obviously you claim I was aware of a 6 day old version when you reported me, but you claim you yourself were not aware of a 7 day old version? What does that mean?   /FunkyFly.talk_  00:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Your name is in the edit summary. You agreed to that version. You knew it was there. My name wasn't in the edit summary. I had no idea it was there. I didn't agree to that version.

I guess you've run out of arguments. Of course you did not agree, why would you revert then? I did not agreee as well. It was the edit of a 3rd party's summary that had my name, so what? I cant keep track of what all people editing the template write in their user summaries.   /FunkyFly.talk_  00:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You didn't make any attempt to discuss on the talk page. I was reverting to a version that was agreed upon by myself and Niko. -

·

00:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

With all respect to Niko, I dont think he's the one to excuse your reverts. Plus do you call "I think something will be better" a discussion? You did not present any valid (to me) reasons for your chages. All other dialogue is in the edit summaries.   /FunkyFly.talk_  00:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You should have read the talk page and made your discussion there. You did not use the talk page once, whereas I explained my rationale on there clearly. Now, avast! and goodnight. -

·

01:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You explained it and rushed into reverts? Very clearly? Again, you should've kept track of the your reverts.   /FunkyFly.talk_  01:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like 3RR to me. William M. Connolley 08:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Since I was implicated in the discussion, let me confirm that although I'd have no problem with Francis' version, evidently I would prefer that of FunkyFly. That was the reason I did not take part in the reverts. On the issue of 3RR, I am not an expert, and since I consider both users my wiki-friends, I am in a very difficult position. Guys, I really hate it that you had to bring this here. :-( The only thing I would like to request is equal treatment and justice. •NikoSilver• 09:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

User:William Mauco reported by User:MariusM (Result: user warned)

violation on

Transnistria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). William Mauco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
• 1st revert: 23 September 02:42
• 2nd revert: 23 September 03:55
• 3rd revert: 23 September 04:31
• 4th revert: 23 September 17:00
• 5th revert: 23 September 19:55
• 6th revert: 23 September 20:13

• Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) Not a new user

Time report made: 22:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User:William_Mauco want to impose his POV in all Transnistria related articles, this is why he can not abtain reverting the work of others.

• The user has now been warned per
  3RR not to let this happen again. alphaChimp^(talk)
  00:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest a block for him. Nevermind he will engage in a revert war as soon as possible. --168.167.253.97 15:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Machocarioca reported by User:SiobhanHansa

(Result: 16 hours)

):

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime - No single version.
• 1st revert: [40]
• 2nd revert: [41]
• 3rd revert: [42]
• 4th revert: [43]

• Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users): Not new.

Time report made: 23:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:User was blocked briefly for the same behavior on the same artice on 2006-09-20 and the page protected (see #User:Machocarioca_reported_by_User:alidoostzadeh_.28Result:_protected.29). The changes he is making are strongly contested on the talk page and The image he is trying to insert is the same as one that has been deleted by admins on several occassions as a copyright violation.

• I have blocked the user for 16 hours per
  WP:3RR. alphaChimp^(talk)
  23:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Michaelbluejay reported by User:Atom (Result: user warned)

violation on

):

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
• 1st revert: [44]
• 2nd revert: [45]
• 3rd revert: [46]
• 4th revert: [47]

• Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)

Time report made: 01:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: 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. 'This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day.

User:Michaelbluejay has reverted a number of times in the past few days. I make a number of changes, and he reverts, making no changes. He considers the article to be his. I have asked politely a number of times for him to stop. I have asked for Wikipedia:Requests for comment and gotten no response. I warned him on his talk page and on the talk page of the article.

The user has never been told about the 3RR on his talk, so I warned him about it. -- Where 02:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Ikonoblast reported by User:Hkelkar (Result: 24h)

violation on

Votebank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ikonoblast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: [48]
• 1st revert: [49]
• 2nd revert: [50]
• 3rd revert: [51]
• 4th revert: [52]

Time report made: 11:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:The user has edit-warred on this and other articles before and has been warned by admins to desist but he does not listen.Hkelkar 11:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment:Also, he is not a new user. He has changed his name from

11:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

24h

Admin should have checked gaming part committed by Hkelkar,and also that vandalism rvereted does not count in 3RR.Take care it is 3rd bogus reporting by Hakelkar.Carry on.user:ikonoblast Ikon |no-blast 11:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

User:MagicKirin reported by User:David Schaich (Result: 20 hours)

violation on

A.N.S.W.E.R. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MagicKirin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 01:48, 22 September 2006
• 1st revert: 11:26, 22 September 2006
• 2nd revert: 14:49, 22 September 2006
• 3rd revert: 15:09, 22 September 2006
• 4th revert: 21:16, 22 September 2006
• 5th revert: 13:26, 23 September 2006
• 6th revert: 19:27, 23 September 2006
• 7th revert: 21:11, 23 September 2006
• 8th revert: 23:43, 23 September 2006
• 9th revert: 09:40, 24 September 2006
• 10th revert: 15:56, 24 September 2006
• 11th revert: 16:36, 24 September 2006

• Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here

Time report made: 17:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I have listed all reversions over the past couple of days; it is easy to note many that fall within various 24-hour periods. The substance of the reverts was to add unsourced accusations of support for terrorism against Israel and the United States to the article. This is not quite simple vandalism, so I'm reporting the issue here. This new user, who has contributed little beyond these edits and never yet used an edit summary, has been warned several times by multiple Wikipedians. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 17:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

MagicKirin made a 12th revert at 17:41, 24 September 2006. I have already removed these accusations three times today, so I'll leave it for one of the other five users who have also taken care of them. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 19:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Given the particularly egregious nature of the violations and the obvious POV pushing, I have blocked the user for 20 hours per
  WP:3RR. alphaChimp^(talk)
  19:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

User:User:Editingoprah reported by User:Zaphnathpaaneah (Result:Nothing)

):

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
• 1st revert: [53]
• 2nd revert: [54]
• 3rd revert: [55]
• 4th revert: [56]
• 5th revert: [57]
• 6th revert: [58]

Time report made: 07:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

, etc (namely groups whose name translates specifically as black person in their language, or whose features resemble strongly black Africans and African Americans.). He is trying to avoid the 3RR rule by slightly modifying his edits, (which retain essentially the same kind of content). At this very moment, he is simply jumping around trying to weasel word the article. Please block him. We have been through his interference quite a few times, and honestly, he has taken very little constructive criticism, and has offered very little constructive contributions to the article. In fact, during the last foray, the article had to be locked twice, and should not be locked again for his sake.

For example, the sixth edit [[59]] was a deliberate misuse of the service. He removed the reference that was there .<ref>[[http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/filipinos.html]]</ref> , then added in the ((fact)) wiki-code in it's place, blatently violating the use of the service.

I and others have routinely discussed the matter civilly with him, but he has escalated frequently this issue towards an unprovoked edit war, or through ignorant comparisions, as the current example indicates. Even though I retained his contributions regarding Black Irish/Dutch (which I totally disagree with), he still does not stop. No one will mistake a Black-Irish for a black African, but because the word "black" is used in "black-irish" he thinks that they should figure prominently in the article. His goal is to exclude all people (except black Africans and black African Americans) from being identified as black in the article. His method is to show the most unlikely analogies so that undisciplined readers will throw the baby out with the bathwater. For example in one of the edit/reverts he says "I can consider the Irish more Black than they (the Asians/Australians) are." But no one else does, not even the subjects in question he uses. I can find no reference anywhere where a "black-irish" regards himself as black in the same sense or moreso than a Dalit, Aboriginie, or Aeta!

--Zaphnathpaaneah 07:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Zaph it's your own fault for making the article so POV. By not providing any clear referenced definition of Black and including anyone you want, you're inviting others to do the same. The fact of the matter is that Black Irish is an extremely common and well documented term, so if the article is about how the term is used, then Black Irish have more of a right to be there than South Asians. Being a compound word means nothing. That's just to distinguish the Black Irish from the Irish people who aren't swarthy. So please provide a referenced definition of Black that is broad enough to include South Asians, but narrow enough to exclude the Black Irish Editingoprah 08:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

And btw, I was the one who provided the reference I removed, and I provided it to be used in the context of South Asians being mistaken for members of the African disaporas. You kept the reference but removed the context, when I was challenging you to provide a coherent definition of a Black person, not an example of South Asian being called Black by an extremist theorist. Editingoprah 08:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, please stop edit warring. Secondly, only one of the edits listed is actually a revert. Zaphnathpaaneah, a

revert is when someone takes a page back to a previous version. It does NOT mean when someone removes material. Just to demonstrate the difference, this is a revert. This is not a revert. And if you ever report a 3RR again, please post diffs not versions of pages. A diff is a comparison between 2 versions. Just pasting in the version of the page as it appeared on such-and-such a date doesn't help us much. Thanks. --Woohookitty^(meow)

07:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

User:MarkThomas reported by User:Irishpunktom\^talk (Result: 8h)

violation on

George Galloway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MarkThomas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 16:51, September 24, 2006
• 1st revert: 17:33, September 24, 2006
  Using Pop-ups
• 2nd revert: 11:56, September 25, 2006
• 3rd revert: 13:58, September 25, 2006
• 4th revert: 14:25, September 25, 2006
• 5th revert: 14:29, September 25, 2006
  Using Pop-ups

• Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here Not a new user, but warning given anyway (necessary only for new users)

Time report made: 13:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Reverts to intro paragraph. His edits presented one POV and were removed by at least three different editors, before user reverted them back in. Two of the five reverts were made using

13:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom was ignoring mediation attempts on the heavily disputed Galloway page that I was attempting to maintain by editing out his change that had been done without reference to the discussion. I also note the very many heavily POVist edits carried out by this user elsewhere. MarkThomas 15:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Additional comment: ascan be seen from the talk page, this user does not respect

14:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Both of the above comments are deliberate distortions by politically charged-up defenders of pro-Galloway POV on this very political article. The facts are that I made a perfectly reasonable edit (which they present as a revert) and then reverted it 3 times. One of the others in their list is a change to an entirely different section. I will be monitoring the activities of both editors to ensure they toe the line absolutely and will report any deviations from rules here. Thanks. MarkThomas 14:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I also quote from another user on the main Galloway talk page:

Cripes! It's all kicking off! I'm keeping my head down personally. To be honest I am not 100% sure what MarkThomas did really should count as 3RR. After all, at the end there he was reverting to MY wording, and I am one of the people who disagrees with him, and one of the folks he is having a dispute with! He added something provocative which I don't think belonged in the intro. I deleted it. He reverted my deletion. I edited it to adopt a compromise position, which he said on the talk page he was willing to go along with. Someone deleted the whole thing again. He reverted to my compromise proposal. That's how I see it. --SandyDancer 14:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC) MarkThomas 15:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I am wrong, but the user appears to be threatening to stalk other users. Here he says "I will be monitoring the activities of both editors to ensure they toe the line absolutely" and on my own talk page he says "Your edits are absolutely saturated with POV. You hardly deserve to be left on Wikipedia - your activities are going to be monitored". This is thoroughly uncivil. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Just pointing out directly that you are a very POVist editor - and that I intend to review your future contributions and see if they are accurate. If not, I will report them, as you have. Of course, the monitoring allegation you make of stalking is absurd, but not untypical of your editing behavious, as anyone who reviews your past contributions will see for themselves. MarkThomas 15:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You, in my opinion, just defined wikistalking. --Wildnox 15:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if that's true (and it isn't - I only wish to make it clear that Irishpunktom is a problem user) then others got there before me; Irishpunktom has been banned from editing a bunch of pages and is clearly determined to spread POV wherever he goes - people like me who try to stand up to him end up with accusations against them. His deletion of my cited, appropriate and factual edit on George Galloway without reading the discussion and against mediation attempts was arrogant, high-handed and his comments against the edit were full of distortion. In my opinion I did the right thing reverting him and can only hope that other users take note of his many highly POVist Islamist edits and take appropriate steps to keep WP truthful and not a basket of lies controlled by Osama Bin Ladin. MarkThomas 17:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

In all honesty you were making a reasonable point there, before going off on one in your last sentence and looking a bit loony. --SandyDancer 17:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Am I

Osama Bin Laden? Or is Bin Laden controlling me as a proxy ? I am curious, so please do tell.--Irishpunktom\^talk

17:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether you did the right thing in reverting him once, I don't know. But breaking 3RR is definitely not on; 8h as a first offence William M. Connolley 19:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Nottingham reported by User:Emcee (Result:24h for NPA)

violation on

):

• 1st revert: 17:29, 24 September 2006 reverted to 14:32, 24 September 2006
• 2nd revert: 22:24, 24 September 2006 reverted to 18:10, 24 September 2006
• 3rd revert: 03:51, 25 September 2006 reverted to 02:12, 25 September 2006
• 4th revert: 04:42, 25 September 2006 reverted to 03:51, 25 September 2006

Time report made: 20:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Nottingham made the four reverts above. He is a new user and I have warned him on his talk page; barring further reversions, I'm not requesting a user block. However, since the article has now been put up for AfD I'm asking that it be reverted to the immediately previous version: 04:34, 25 September 2006 and also protected, for the purposes of the AfD discussion so that those who are visiting for the first time will see a reasonably complete article. I admit to being one of the participants in this edit war, although I respected the 3RR, and had been trying to seek mediation prior to the AfD request. I think this comparison [60] shows that the nature of Nottingham's deletions/additions in the reverted edition he was persisting with are not balanced.

Added 04:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC): It appears that Nottingham has now gotten himself blocked for 24 hours by personal attacks against User:Rebecca and User:Snottygobble, a sysop and admin, respectively. Rebecca was advising him on his edits/reverts, and Snottygobble was advising him on his personal attacks against Rebecca and other users. He also acussed User:Sdedeo of being my sock puppet for his contributions to the AfD page on Hong Tran. Nottingham has shown no signs of remorse or improvement for his actions and actually seems to be getting worse as things progress. I would ask that the admin(s) who review this request keep an eye on his actions with respect to this article and the AfD request, in the coming days, as I suspect that even stricter action might become necessary.Emcee

User:Burneville reported by User:After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ (Result:12h)

violation on

Jim Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Burneville (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 00:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 23:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• 2nd revert: 00:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• 3rd revert: 01:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• 4th revert: 02:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) 00:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC) and 02:08, 26 September 2006) (UTC)

Time report made: 02:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: These are reverts to the same version for which Pflanzgarten was blocked here [61]

User:164.107.252.198 reported by User:Hbdragon88 (Result:Not violation)

):

• Previous version reverted to: 07:30, 24 September 2006
• 1st revert: 04:54, 25 September 2006
• 2nd revert: 23:36, 25 September 2006
• 3rd revert: 04:14, 26 September 2006
• 4th revert:

• Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)

Time report made: 04:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: They aren't wholesale reverts, but the anon user keeps adding the same link in there despite the fact that antoher user agreed [62] and also removed the same link. Hbdragon88 04:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that this isn't an entirely new user: uses "rv" and knows how to fully revert, as well as using {{cite web}} and talk pages. Hbdragon88 08:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Only three reverts are presented, and 3RR violation occurs only when the 4th revert occurs. --WinHunter ^(talk) 14:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Machocarioca reported by User:SiobhanHansa

(Result: 48 hours)

):

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime - No single version.
• 1st revert: [63]
• 2nd revert: [64]
• 3rd revert: [65]
• 4th revert: [66]

• Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users): Previously blocked for 3RR on 2006-09-23.

Time report made: 09:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User was blocked earlier for 3RR or the same article -

. Since that block expired s/he as continued to revert changes s/he disagrees with. But has not posted any discussion to the talk page or taken other steps to engage with editors on the article.

Blocked for 48 hours. User clearly knew what he was doing. --Yamla 14:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

User:FordPrefect42 reported by User:Catholic from Berlin (Result: No block, users cautioned)

violation on

Lea Rosh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). FordPrefect42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
• 1st revert: [67]
• 2nd revert: [68]
• 3rd revert: [69]
• 4th revert: [70]

• Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)

Time report made: Catholic from Berlin 14:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Was warned before making his fourth revert, and in reply stated he would disregard the 3RR policy. Catholic from Berlin 14:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by FordPrefect42: Clearly an edit-war. All reverts clearly marked as reverting vandalism. User:Catholic from Berlin has repeatedly vandalised the article by stating "facts" with no sources, while the sources cited on Talk:Lea Rosh clearly prove that the opposite is correct. --FordPrefect42 14:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Clearly an edit-war, and you are not above Wikipedia policy. This is not the place for discussing the facts, which I am willing to do elsewhere, but for discussing your 3RR violation. Some of the content you were reverting was translation from German Wikipedia, and well referenced facts. You claim her birth name is Rosh, while other sources, including several German newspapers, disagree. She lost her case against those reporting her name change. Catholic from Berlin 14:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I never claimed to be above Wikipedia policy, and you are neither. You have broken the 3RR yourself by now, and it was by mere chance that your vandalism forced me to be the first on this. You are willing to discuss facts? Fine, so please start it! All I have read by you so far is polemics, and you were not able to prove one single of your alleged "facts". --FordPrefect42 14:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• The content being reverted is a violation of
  Talk
  ) 16:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Kosmopolis reported by User:Tewfik (Result: 48h)

violation on

):

• Previous version reverted to: 19:01:59
• 1st revert: 20:35:55
• 2nd revert: 22:00:38
• 3rd revert: 00:39:20
• 4th revert: 12:53:39

• User was already blocked three times for edit-warring: original block, blocked as IP range 80.135.*** & 48h for block evasion with IP

Time report made: 15:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The user has violated 3RR three times in the past (used IP to get around original block, the IP was blocked for 3RR, and when it became clear they were one and the same, the user was again blocked for bypassing the 1st block with the IP).

48h William M. Connolley 16:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Mrdthree reported by User:Duke53 | ^Talk (Result: 8h)

violation on

Anti-Americanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User-multi error: "Mrdthree" is not a valid project or language code (help).:

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
• 1st revert: [http://]
• 2nd revert: [http://]
• 3rd revert: [http://]
• 4th revert: [http://]

• Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)

Time report made: 17:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Yet another poorly formatted report. However the violation exists... 8h William M. Connolley 17:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Peroxisome reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: 8h)

):

• Previous version reverted to: [71]
• 1st revert: 2006-09-26T09:23:31
• 2nd revert: 2006-09-26T17:34:14
• 3rd revert: 2006-09-26T20:20:14
• 4th revert: 2006-09-27T06:18:07

• Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) [72]

Time report made: 08:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

User blocked for 8 h. Syrthiss 14:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Justif reported by User:David | Talk (Result: 24h)

):

• Previous version reverted to: 12:42, 26 September 2006
• 1st revert: 17:57, 26 September 2006
• 2nd revert: 14:30, 27 September 2006
• 3rd revert: 14:32, 27 September 2006
• 4th revert: 14:57, 27 September 2006

• Warned about previous 3RR violation, and informed about the rule here.

Time report made: 15:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User claims deletion justified under

15:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

User

SPA and I would really appreciate an admin strolling on over to help out. --Irishpunktom\^talk

18:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

24h for both William M. Connolley 19:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to chime in here; Justif is obviously somebody's sockpuppet or a role account and is disrupting the article. I would suggest unblocking Dbiv. Mackensen (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Dbiv can be unblocked in the same way as anyone else: to promise to stick to 3R in future. At the moment, he is still (vociferously; see his talk page) claiming to have not even broken 3RR (which I think is absurd). As far as I know, there is no exception in 3RR for "I was reverting a sock puppet", and there probably shouldn't be, otherwsie we'd be swamped by such claims William M. Connolley 19:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

A role account blindly reverting simply cannot be treated in the same fashion as a good faith article editor; it's clear from the talk page that Justif is a minority of one. I thank you for responding; I'm unblocking Dbiv. Mackensen (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

User:ParadoxTom reported by Humus sapiens (Result: 1 week)

violation on

Jews for Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ParadoxTom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
• 1st revert: 12:09, 27 September 2006
• 2nd revert: 12:17, 27 September 2006
• 3rd revert: 12:49, 27 September 2006
• 4th revert: 13:46, 27 September 2006
• 5th revert: 14:12, 27 September 2006
• 6th revert: 14:27, 27 September 2006

• Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users)

Time report made: 22:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Keeps reverting in spite of having been warned (after his third RV). Has a history of RV-warring. Claims "consensus" even while being reverted by a number of other editors. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at the edits, IMHO this is the biggest tempest in a teapot in WP history. Best Wishes. Will314159 22:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for a week... I think if he does it again he should probably be indef blocked. This is, indeed, very silly William M. Connolley 08:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Zorkfan reported by User:PinchasC (Result: 24 hours)

violation on Alternative Judaism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zorkfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 20:56, 26 September 2006

• 1st revert: 16:45, 27 September 2006
• 2nd revert: 19:22, 27 September 2006
• 3rd revert: 19:53, 27 September 2006
• 4th revert: 20:05, 27 September 2006
• 5th revert: 20:16, 27 September 2006
• 6th revert: 20:23, 27 September 2006

Also continuting at Synagogue:

• 1st revert: 00:02 28 Sep 2006
• 2nd revert: 00:12 28 Sep 2006
• 3rd revert: 00:25 28 Sep 2006
• 4th revert: 00:33 28 Sep 2006
• 5th revert: 00:48 28 Sep 2006

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

He is the same person as the ip see [73] and the changes that were made, and this ip was blocked previously [74]

User was also warned about 3rr here and here. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Time report made: 00:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• also please note string of personal attacks in conjunction with these reverts: [75][76][77][78] --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

As he's been warned, 24 hours. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Zandvoort reported by User:Ian Dalziel (Result: 48 hours)

violation on Jim_Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zandvoort (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• 1st revert: [79]
• 2nd revert: [80]

Time report made: 00:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

These are identical reverts apparently by yet another sockpuppet of User:Pflanzgarten, who has already been banned, and User:Burneville who is currently banned for the same thing.

This doesnt appear to be a 3RR violation, but a violation of

WP:SOCK. It also appears on first glance that you yourself have violated 3RR. --Wildnox

00:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ignore the stricken comment, I was mistaken. --Wildnox 00:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Duly ignored.  :)

As for the first comment, isn't it a violation of

WP:3RR to use a sockpuppet to repeat a revert whilst banned? User:Burneville is currently under a 48hr ban for the identical revert. -- Ian Dalziel

00:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that is covered under WP:SOCK, I'm not sure though. Either way, it's better to have a report here than nowhere. --Wildnox 01:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment - while not realizing that you were posting this here, I was posting a block evasion notice at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive829#Possible block evasion --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• 48 hours for 3RR; I suggest WP:RFCU to collate the suspected sockpuppets -- Samir धर्म 02:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Perrymason reported by User:Gamaliel (Result: 3h)

violation on

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Perrymason (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

):

• Previous version reverted to: 13:02, 26 September 2006

• 1st revert: 06:38, 28 September 2006 - no edit summary and marked as a minor edit
• 2nd revert: 10:40, 28 September 2006
• 3rd revert: 12:47, 28 September 2006
• 4th revert: 15:33, 28 September 2006

Time report made: 20:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

No warning or form; 3h William M. Connolley 20:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

User:67.170.33.237 reported by User:EncMstr (Result: 8h)

violation on Alpental (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.170.33.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: (sorry, I don't understand what this means)

• 1st revert: 2006-09-28T21:16:19
• 2nd revert: 2006-09-28T19:47:01
• 3rd revert: 2006-09-28T14:38:24
• 4th revert: 2006-09-28T14:31:19
• 2006-09-27T23:42:51
• 2006-09-27T23:00:32
• 2006-09-27T00:48:41
• 2006-09-26T14:13:35

• Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
• 1st 3RR
• 2nd 3RR2

Time report made: 05:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This user has not responded to messages on his/her talk page, so I didn't attempt using the article's talk page and they rarely enter a "summary", let alone one justifying the edits. Fortunately, they haven't figured out how to use the "revert" operation of the article history, so it takes them several edits to subvert the page each time.

It seems to me they are violating the spirit of 3RR. Certainly they have frustrated several of us who are trying to keep the article useful. Maybe blocking the user isn't the perfect answer, but I'm challenged to think of a better solution. — EncMstr 05:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This is quite a mess.... you need to date you diffs; you also need to dcide if you're reporting 65. or 67. William M. Connolley 07:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the mess. The edits are frequently bewildering and that kept me uninvolved for some time after this was going on. The user/IP is now changed to the proper source, and the diffs have the timestamp of the edit. — EncMstr 07:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

8h William M. Connolley 08:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Astrotrain reported by User:Mariano(t/c) (Result: 24h)

violation on ARA San Luis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Astrotrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• 1st revert: 01:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC+2)
• 2nd revert: 11:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC+2)
• 3rd revert: 16:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC+2)
• 4th revert: 17:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC+2)

Time report made: 06:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• The user (with already more than 5'000 edits) has a history of erasing appearences to the widely referenced Spanish name of the Falkland Islands, this time in an Argentine ship's article where it should be available for further (re)search of a reader. Note that his first revert didn't even have an edit summary, for the second didn't even create a subject at the talk page. He has been already blocked twice. Mariano(t/c) 06:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Not within 24h. NExt time, please add dates as requested William M. Connolley 07:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to add the timestaps. But the 4 edits were done within 24 hours, even within the same calendar day (at least in my time zone) Mariano(t/c) 08:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair point: 24h

tjstrf

(Result: indeef)

violation on Lolicon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jreem22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 02:05, September 28, 2006

• 1st revert: [81]
• 2nd revert: [82]
• 3rd revert: [83]
• 4th revert: [84]

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

Time report made: 07:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Konstable (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Jreem22 (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (nothing but disruption and bad faith edits) William M. Connolley 07:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC) This guy's sole purpose in life seems to be adding links to imageboards to the Lolicon page. He was blocked for it once, started right up again. --

07:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Itaqallah

(Result: 48 hours)

violation on

):

• Previous version reverted to: 05:21, 25 September 2006
• 1st revert: [85]
• 2nd revert: [86]
• 3rd revert: [87]
• 4th revert: [88] (almost identical to the above but includes minor relocation of a source/link)

Time report made: 23:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: the only difference between the version reverted to and the presented diffs is the ref-tagging of a passage already present in the article. the actual prose within the article is constant in the original version and the subsequent reverts to it. this user has been blocked in the past for 3RR violations, and on this occasion constantly reverted to a very charged narrative.

23:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• The has already been blocked for 48 hours per
  WP:3RR. alphaChimp^(talk)
  18:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Sweet Pinkette reported by 152.3.65.159 07:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC) (Result: no violation)

):

• Previous version reverted to: [89]

• 1st revert: [90]
• 2st revert: [91]
• 3nd revert: [92]
• 4rd revert: [93]

Time report made: 07:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment- This user was recently accused of being a suspected sockpuppet of Cute 1 4 U. She repeated delete warnings on her talk page as well. Her IP address, as she claims, is 66.55.225.212.

People don't get blocked for 3RR on their talk pages. OTOH you may be if you persist there William M. Connolley 08:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

In my defense the reason I deleted his/her comments is because this user continued to post snide "warnings" Anonymously on my talk page, despite asking him not to and the despite the initial warning that all unsigned comments (aside OFFICIAL warnings and notices from WP staff and Admins) would be deleted. This user continued to post the same message (I counted about 6 times). He/She was just trying to start drama on my talk page. And apparently is trying to move the drama to this notice board.

And FYI I was CLEARED of the said charges of being a sockpuppet of Cute 1 4 U and even User:Aeon1006 apoligised to me about the matter on my talk page. Thanks for your time over this ludicrous matter. Sweet Pinkette 14:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Not 3RR per above. alphaChimp^(talk) 18:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[[User:]] reported by User:

Charlesknight

(Result: no violation)

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

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

• 1st revert: [94]
• 2nd revert: [95]
• 3rd revert: [96]
• 4th revert: [http://]

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

Time report made: 16:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Tango edit keeps reverting to a version with an unsourced claim and will not commmunicate about it's inclusion

• Improperly formatted report. Please fix it. alphaChimp^(talk) 23:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• No proper report, no revert 4, no violation. alphaChimp^(talk) 03:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

User:84.12.22.129 reported by User:I already forgot (Result: 24h)

violation on

Andrew Murray (tennis player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 84.12.22.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

):

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

• 1st revert: 19:02, September 28, 2006
• 2nd revert: 18:36, September 28, 2006
• 3rd revert: 18:11, September 28, 2006
• 4th revert: 16:18, September 28, 2006

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

Time report made: 02:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

2006-09-29T05:33:13 Wangi (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "84.12.22.129 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (violation of 3RR on Andrew Murray (tennis player)) William M. Connolley 07:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

User:MagicKirin reported by User:Axlq (Result: 24h)

violation on A.N.S.W.E.R. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MagicKirin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: [97]

• 1st revert: [98]
• 2nd revert: [99]
• 3rd revert: [100]
• 4th revert: [101]

• 3RR warning on user's talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MagicKirin&diff=78569126&oldid=78568316

Time report made: 04:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: 7 reverts made on 2006-09-29. User persists in adding blatantly POV statement to article. User made 4 of the 7 reverts on 2006-09-29 (shown above); other reverts back to original version were made by different users. My last revert on (first revert of 2006-09-30) restores to original version without POV statement.

24h William M. Connolley 18:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

User:MagicKirin and sockpuppet User:MagicKirin1 created to circumvent above ban. Reported by User:Axlq (Result: indef)

violation on A.N.S.W.E.R. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MagicKirin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (reverted as sockpuppet MagicKirin1):

• Previous version reverted to: [102] (my reversion to original form)

• 1st revert: [103] (User MagicKirin)
• 2nd revert: [104] (User MagicKirin)
• 3rd revert: [105] (User MagicKirin)
• 4th revert: [106] (Sockpuppet MagicKirin1)

Time report made: 15:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

to circumvent the ban, and promptly made another reversion (last reversion shown above). Appropriate sockpuppet/sockpuppeteer tags have been added to both user pages.

I've blocked MK1 indefinitely William M. Connolley 18:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

User:69.255.0.91 reported by User:antiuser (Result:)

violation on Gol_Transportes_Aéreos_Flight_1907 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.255.0.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 13:15, 30 September 2006

• 1st revert: [107]
• 2nd revert: [108]
• 3rd revert: [109]
• 4th revert: [110]

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

Time report made: 21:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User insists on adding a section to the article which is of little or no importance and relevance. What little pertinent information there was in his addition was added to another section of the same article, but user keeps on re-adding the same section. - antiuser 21:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Please use diffs and proper format for the report. -- Avi 05:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Ramdrake reported by Ernham (Result:)

violation on {{Race and intelligence}}. Ramdrake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: [111]

• 1st revert: [112]
• 2nd revert: [113]
• 3rd revert: [114]
• 4th revert: [115]

-->

Time report made: 23:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Warned previoulsy in his talk page and I recently warned him as well of him violating 3RRV, yet he refused to comply or discuss logically in the discussion page. I started writing this up, but then he finally said he would revert the info back to what was there, and i was satsified with that. I looked at the page and saw that the top of the edit history showed he had in fact reverted back to what i had there prviously, but then when i looked at the current article again, it was back to what it was when he reverted my edition wholy or in part previously. So then i looked back at the edit page and magically the last edit he had on the edit page, the edit that supposedly reverted the material back, had somehow vanished. I can only guess he also edited the edit history of the page as well. So it looks like he not only went over the 3 revert limit, he also wentand altered the history of the page somehow. That's purely speculation however, and I assume you guys have some way of checking that. I've never filled one of these out before so hopefully I did it resonably correctly.

Explanation from Ramdrake:

While I have gone to 3 reverts on this occasion, the 4th revert attributed to me is in fact an edit. I have tried to be reasonable with this editor (please see the edit summary of Intelligence quotient along with the talk page: Talk:Intelligence_quotient, but he has shown to be totally illogical (as per the talk page of Intelligence Quotient), verbally abusive (to the point I had to leave a warning on his user talk page) on Talk:Intelligence_quotient and launched into a revert war. My only error was to let myself get dragged into said revert war. Should I be found guilty of 3RR violation, I would only ask that consideration be given that this user also engaged in the revert war, and that penalties be meted out on both sides, as the reviewing admin sees fit for both behaviors. Thanks for hearing me out.--Ramdrake 23:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, for the record, the user has now reinstated twice an uncivil comment and personal attack removed from a talk here as per

WP:NPA

Here is my initial removal:[116]

And here are the two instances he reinstated them. Please also notice the edit summaries accompanying these reverts:[117][118]--Ramdrake 23:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

User Ernham has just reverted the removal of his uncivil comments once more: [119]. Could an admin please look into it and issue the proper warnings or actions? This user seems totally out of control.--Ramdrake 23:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Now he has continually reverted my comments in the discussion, breaking the 3RR -- again. He feels that my opinion of some of the studies he cites as being "trash" science because they are written like op-eds in a newspaper is somehow a personal attack. I'm not even reading any of the stuff he wrote above. I've had enough of him and his control-freakish behaviorErnham 03:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Here are user Ernham's comments in question:

Bunch of trash that reads like op-ed pieces in the New York times. Pfft. You got a PhD in BS, I figure, sure, uhuh. Ernham 22:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC) ([120])

He has been warned there and on his talk page that this constitutes a personal attack and uncivil language. Nevertheless, he has continued with a fourth revert to this foul language (ref just above). I haven't reverted any other comments of his. I would dare say his constant reintroduction of this injurious material constitutes vandalism, and the appropriate warning has been placed on his user talk page, in addition with the previous warning about NPA. I rest my case.--Ramdrake 03:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Now he continues to (he has been all night) bothering me in various ways on my talk page, usually a variety of veiled threats. Mr. Ramdrake claims to have a PhD in BS,yet he continually cites athropological and psychology studies. This lead me to the sarcastic response of "Yeah, sure, you have PhD in BS." I doubt he does. In any event, he made it clear on his first response of supposed personal attack(either in my own talk page or the discussion page he just violated anothher 3RR on, i forget which) that it was not anything rleated to my sarcastic responce of PhD of BS(biological science), but instead of calling the cites/studies he supplied as "trash". Now he's changed those comments and wants to pretend he had issue with the PhD comment I made and immediately clarified its meaning. i actually work with half a dozen PhDs of BS, and i have this funny feeling he isn't one. Heh. But that's neither here nor there. I'm not responding to him or this matter again until this matter has touched upon by an admin Ernham 03:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Diffs not versions please. I've blocked Ernham for 3h for incivility William M. Connolley 07:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

As Ernham's talk page will attest, the "veiled threats" are simply two standard warnings: one for incivility (already dealt with), the second because the multiple reversal of the removal of his comments on the talk page of Intelligence quotient (removal as per WP:NPA and WP:RPA) can and was interpreted as vandalism and treated as repeated addition of nonsense (under WP:VANDAL). All the other interactions that took place on his page are merely explanations related to one or the two points in this paragraph. For authentic veiled threats, please refer to the comments user Ernham left on my talk page: [121]. And again, sorry if this situation mixes up a 3RR situation with one of misbehavior from the part of a user.--Ramdrake 11:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to add this again as an afterthought, but for the record I have no admin rights whatsoever, so I couldn't have done what Ernham is suspecting me of doing (altering an article's history page).

Also, when I pointed out my qualifications I mentioned my Ph.D. was in neurobiology. He then retorted by calling it a Ph.D. in BS which under the circumstances I view as a direct insult.--Ramdrake 14:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This is disgrace that you would dare block me for incivility after someone is reported for violating the 3RR TWICE within hours of each other! Outrageous adminstrator bias. If you would have bothered to take the time to actually read the history of edits on here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligence_quotient&action=history

You would have seen that, when making those comments about PhD in BS that he did not have issue with them. Nope. He had issue with me calling some cites trash. If that is the grounds by which you ban people for hours or even SECONDS, almost the entire wikipedia community would be banned the majority of their liftetimes. This is disgusting and smacks of biased moderation. Ernham 19:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

And you better go look up what sarcasm is. What i said was no different from saying "why is it that someone that PhD in a biological science when you only supply cites from psychology and ahtropology sources when you are trying to disprove something related to biological science". needless to say it's much shorter. Do you "get it"? I'm going to be reporting this behavior to any other mods that listen. Totally bogus treatment. Ernham 19:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

And finally, the second 3RRV and supposed "uncivility" issue did not have anytign to do with the previous violation of the 3RR, the one that is fully reported above. So you took the time to punish me for some trumped up "uncivility" claim, yet you did not bother to process the above complaint. Would you care to explain yourself and your behavior before I write you off as being a completely biased admin??Ernham 19:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering how long this is supposed to stay up, with no additional input from the plaintiff? Thank you for your attention.--Ramdrake 10:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Zhang Qiang reported by User:Niohe

I want to report

on the following pages:

• First violation
• Second violation

Hope you can deal with this promptly.--Niohe 21:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You should use the proper format when reporting, please. -- Avi 05:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. Here is my report in what I hope is proper format. User:Zhang Qiang has repeatedly deleted verifiable information in the heading of Dalian and Shenyang, and refused to engage in any serious discussion on the topic on Talk:Dalian#Dalny and Talk:Shenyang#Mukden.

Dalian

• First revert
• Second revert
• Third revert

Shenyang

• First edit
• Second edit
• First revert
• Second revert
• Third revert

Hope you can deal with this.--Niohe 15:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Antman reported by User:Rex (Result: prot)

violation on German language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Antman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: (originally) 00:18, 29 September 2006 but the user made various other (but very related) reverts.

• 1st revert: 00:23, 30 September 2006
• 2nd revert: 16:07, 30 September 2006
• 3rd revert: 16:25, 30 September 2006
• 4th revert: 20:42, 30 September 2006
• 5th revert: 23:10, 30 September 2006
• Warning 3RR

Time report made: 22:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Antman is insultive, refuses to accept consensus and refuses to provide references for his highly controversive edits/text.

User has been warned by another user prior to this was posted (warned for 4 reverts, see his talk page) Rex 22:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

If one cares to actually look at my so-called reverts, one would see that only 2, possibly 3 are actually reverts, the others are edits. Ameise -- chat 22:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Request seconded by User:LucVerhelst

[122] Another revert, with edit summary : "Yes, I just violated the 3RR, but so did you." --LucVerhelst 01:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I just violated the 3RR, but I do not believe that I did when this claim was made. Ameise -- chat 01:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

2006-10-01T01:53:25 Grandmasterka (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected German language: Cool down a raging edit war [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) William M. Connolley 09:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Rex Germanus reported by User:Antman (Result:No violation)

violation on German language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rex_Germanus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: (originally) 16:38, September 28, 2006, but the user has also made various other (and signifigantly related) reverts.

• 1st revert: 05:08, September 29, 2006
• 2nd revert: 03:47, September 30, 2006
• 3rd revert: 10:16, September 30, 2006
• 4th revert: 17:03, September 30, 2006

I did not give this user a warning.

Time report made: 22:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Rex Germanus is abusive and makes repeated comments against me, calling me ignorant. He follows my edits and often reverts them with little or no description besides things such as utter bollocks. He often demands that others give him references, while never giving citations nor references himself. User has not been warned. Ameise 22:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No warning, these are not reversions of the same edit, and they span signficantly more than 24 hours. Please read the

3RR policy before making reports. Thank you. -- Avi

05:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

In that case, my reverts are all of different edits and don't apply either. Ameise -- chat 05:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me but why were a number of comments deleted? Rex 09:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Zorkfan reported by User:PinchasC (Result: 48 hours)

violation on Alternative Judaism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zorkfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 19:30, 29 September 2006

• 1st revert: 20:23, 29 September 2006
• 2nd revert: 21:10, 29 September 2006
• 3rd revert: 20:13, 30 September 2006
• 4th revert: 20:18, 30 September 2006

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

User was blocked previously for 3rr. [123]

Time report made: 00:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Coming off a 24hr block for 3rr user has done nothing but edit war. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Also note that User:Zorkfan vandalised this page after this report was filed. See this diff. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Also note that every SINGLE WAKING ONE OF ZORKFAN'S ARTICLES ARE BEING REMOVED BY A HATEFUL LEGALIST WITHOUT SUFFICIENT EXPLANATION.—The preceding

) 20:43, September 30, 2006 (UTC)

I am not a participant in this, but I read some of Zorkfan's edits, and it does appear as though PinchasC is simply reverting [User:Zorkfan|Zorkfan]]'s edits for the sake of reversion, and not for content; this is not the place to debate that, though. Ameise -- chat 00:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

His edits have been reverted by multiple editors and it was explained on the talk page adn on his talk pages when he was editing as an ip and edit summaries why he was reverted. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. Content dispute is not an excuse for 3RR. -- Avi 00:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Haksve reported by User:AndersL (Result: no vio)

violation on

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Haksve (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

):

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

• 1st revert: [124] 16:32, 29 September 2006
• 2nd revert: [125] 20:53, 30 September 2006
• 3rd revert: [126] 23:37, 30 September 2006
• 4th revert: [127] 00:54, 1 October 2006
• 5th revert: [128] 01:13, 1 October 2006

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

Time report made: 02:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:Warned several times not to remove content from the Gripen article. Encouraged to use the talk page, several times without complying until his 5th revert. Haksve is suspected for the same behaviour on the Nynorsk wikipedia aswell. --AndersL 02:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Not with 24h William M. Connolley 09:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Wearegoingtowin reported by User:Atrian (Result:No violation)

violation on

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wearegoingtowin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

):

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

• 1st revert: [129]
• 2nd revert: [130]
• 3rd revert: [131]

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

Time report made: 03:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: There is a clear warning about placing these types of edits on the article talk page but this user is insistent.

Please read the policy, 3RR requires FOUR reverts in a 24 hour period. -- Avi 05:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a fourth (made after this was reported, but before the admin's judgement):

• 4th revert: [132]

I had placed a friendly warning to stop on User_talk:Wearegoingtowin before the fourth revert was made. It looks like this game will continue until an admin does something. Wolfchild 05:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

User:WLU reported by User:Mystar 05:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC) (Result: 12h each)

violation on Terry Goodkind.