Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive37

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Contents

User:Atabek reported by User:Nareklm (Result:protected page)[edit]

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

  • 1st revert: [1]
  • 2nd revert: [2]
  • 3rd revert: [3]
  • 4th revert: [4]
  • 5th revert: [5]
  • 6th revert: [6]
  • 7th revert: [7]
  • Warning: [8]

Nareklm 03:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I warned this user repeatedly about 3RR, but he kept arguing that he was somehow entitled to more reverts because he was taking part in the talk page discussion and kept reverting the article. --Mardavich 03:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: There are several people engaged in constant reverts in related pages, and I warned one such user, Mardavich, of his potential 3RR violation on the Nezami page. It seems like some just like to revert pages, and with them all the fully-sources facts. This could fall under the definition of vandalism, and requires rv. by responsible editors who actively use the Talk page and supply scholarly facts and references, as opposed to provocations and fights. --AdilBaguirov 06:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: There's no reason to bring this here, leave it there, it does not fall in the category of vandalism, anyone can "revert" edits vandalism is different. Nareklm 07:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Edits were made to each revision upon RV, review the site and the talk page. The dispute is currently being resolved in Talk:Safavid_Dynasty page, after the page is blocked. Thanks, but this seems more like attempt to block the voice rather than attempt to report 3RR. Mardavich and Nareklm are involved in RVing my edits, and removing scholarly references. Thanks. Atabek 07:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Like i said don't bring this here if you ever want to negotiate. Nareklm 07:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I don't feel I need to negotiate anything with you. There is a talk page for that. The fact is Mardavich and yourself are engaged in edit warring without any discussion, and then putting users into 3RR warnings. This should be noted by admins. Thanks. Atabek 07:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Edit warring? you Grandmaster, adil, all have been edit warring all the time, and have been adding POV erasing any existence of Armenian nearby just because you have references doesn't make your work magic. Nareklm 07:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Exactly, because you edit and witch hunt after every single one of our references, keep RVing. So this needs to stop. Also all links that you put up there as "evidence" diffs clearly show edits in REF of a various texts. No interest to discuss the topic here, prefer to leave the judgement to admins. Thanks. Atabek 07:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: There all reversions end of story. Nareklm 07:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Nareklm, you and the other user mentioned here have been reverting pages that were: 1) not only updated with fully-sourced reputable and verifiable scholarly quotes, but 2) have been wikified and otherwise improved (e.g., fixing spelling mistakes, fixing dates from 2006 to 2007, etc) and 3) have been discussed and compromised upon months ago (last summer, in fact) and 4) in case of the population table in NK page re-affirmed and agreed to by such admins as Golbez. Sorry, but this does look like vandalism or at least recklessness. One cannot blame others for restoring normal scholarly presentation of articles. --AdilBaguirov 08:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: This user (Atabek) also has had a confirmed sock which has now been blocked and continually makes personal attacks.Azerbaijani 23:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

2007-01-31T19:59:11 Gnangarra (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Safavid dynasty: edit war [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) William M. Connolley 10:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User:213.170.207.96 reported by User:Rosenkreuz (Result: 24h)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Level of support for evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (talk page). 213.170.207.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: Repeatedly placing this irrelevant POV rant on the talk page, despite having it explained to them why it is not welcome there.
  • 1st revert: [9]
  • 2nd revert: [10]
  • 3rd revert: [11]
  • 4th revert: [12]
  • 5th revert: [13]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [14]; to which they responded with this


Comments: They've been indulging in a goodly stream of vulgarity on their talk page as well.

24h William M. Connolley 13:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User:No problem 1254 reported by User:AnonMoos (Result: 24h)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Rafida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). No problem 1254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments: Latest tentacle of "Iraqi dinar" vandal (see Talk:Rafida), also vandalized my user page. AnonMoos 12:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • He violated 4RR, he's a sockpuppet of a known vandal, and he's made yet another revert on the article since what I reported above, so why isn't he being banned?? AnonMoos 19:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 19:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Timeshift9 reported by User:Joestella (Result: peace agreed)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on New South Wales legislative election, 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Timeshift9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments: User, having sought 3O and disagreed, now believes that they "will ensure the MPL table stays". Joestella 15:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I would advise no action on this complaint at this time, other than a sternly-worded warning to both parties – who, for record's sake, have both behaved poorly. The edit war has ceased and the parties are currently engaged in discussion on multiple pages.--cj | talk 17:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Joestella 17:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see peace William M. Connolley 19:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User:ALR reported by 204.122.16.13 (Result: 3h)[edit]

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

I suppose it's open to interpretation, I've been making quite a lot of intermediate changes to the article so I might have lost track.ALR 18:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


Comments:

3h first offence William M. Connolley 19:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Lovelight reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result:)[edit]

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

Warned above at: #Lovelight_reported_by_User:Wildnox_.28Result:page_protected.29] on 26 January 2007

Comments:

User:Aardman Animations reported by User:Static Universe (Result:blocked indefinitely)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Universal Cartoon Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Aardman Animations (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):


Comments: User keeps removing the Afd message despite warnings, along with previous removal of merge proposals on the same page. Static Universe talk|edits 23:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely for usernamevio. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Migye reported by User:Kjoonlee (Result:)[edit]

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

Comments: Refuses to acknowledge other people's opinions, does not assume good faith, makes personal attacks

Comments: User:Kjoonlee, you wrote these sentences in the Korean Language articel introdcution yourself, then you deleted it 3 times. I only restored your deletion twice and have never attacked you in any way. You're so ridiculous. Migye 16:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Not true. Diffs:
As for attacks, you're doing it again! --Kjoonlee 16:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
And I've only deleted that bit twice. --Kjoonlee 16:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you should say I restored your deletion 3 times. "Ridiculous" is not an offensive word, not to mention personal attack. Migye 16:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Factually false. If you want to discuss this further, please use my talk page. --Kjoonlee 16:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, to be honest, I have reverted content more than 3 times in 24 hours. If you block Migye, block me too, please. --Kjoonlee 17:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Boris Stomakhin (Result:Action done)[edit]

I do not really want to report anyone, but someone may take a look at Boris Stomakhin article and make a judgment. One of the RR warring participants (me) struggle to enforce LP policy, while another, User:Vlad fedorov, claims that LP policy has not been violated. This case was reported by me to LP notice board and it was also reported previously here by User:Vlad fedorov, and I was commended. Biophys 19:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC) See: Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Violations_of_LP_policyBiophys 19:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC) I just would like to note that User:Vlad fedorov evaded your block previously. Biophys 20:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is:

  • Biophys disputes the phrases not contained in the article on Boris Stomakhin, and namely the phrases about Shahids and about stinky Russia.
  • Biophys disputes these phrases by comparing them to the source he claims to be unreliable (RKO website).
  • one disputed phrase (about Shahids) is contained also at RKO website and match perfectly to that cited by Journalist.
  • Some words from the second disputed phrase (stinky Russia) are contained in both the Official court sentence and conviction.
  • Biophys disputes here only RKO website, which is not relevant to the dispute right now, because we discuss only Izvestia article.
  • Biophys disputes these phrases based on the logic that 'they were probably taken by Maksim Sokolov' from RKO website. But he couldn't know actually.
  • Biophys logic is that all Stomakhin citations should be contained on the RKO website, although we know that there are newspaper 'Radikalnaya Politika' edited by Boris Stomakhin and there are publications of other radicals which could have published citation of Stomakhin in question. I don't understand why Biophys think that all Stomakhin citations should be contained only at RKO website.
  • Biophys failed to show that there are contradictory phrases. Out of three citation by Maksim Sokolov, two are found at the RKO website1 citation at RKO website2 citation at RKO website and they perfectly match those of the Journalist and one (about 'Stinky Russia') is not found, because Journalist haven't provided sources. The impossibility to found right now missing citation is not contradiction to Izvestia article. The fact that this citation couldn't be found does not mean contradiction.
  • The phrase 'worse than blog' is absolutely incorrect in regard of RKO website, since Biophys doesn't have evidence that this site has no any review, Biophys has no information on who runs the website.
  • Journalists have the privilege not to disclose their sources, in order to provide the freedom of speech.

And now the basic question: where is the controversy? If Biophys claims RKO website is unreliable, then how he uses this website in order to validate Journalist citations? Vlad fedorov 03:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I never used it. Biophys 21:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
It was established in discussion that Biophys claims about contradictions in the sources are false. And there are no contradictions between citations of Izvestia journalist Maksim Sokolov and articles written by Stomakhin at http://rko.marsho.net/articl/mashadov.htm and http://rko.marsho.net/articl/tushino.htm. They match perfectly to those which are cited by journalist Maksim Sokolov. Anyone interested may look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Points_to_answer_for_Biophys and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#quote_.22Death_to_Russia.22Vlad fedorov 07:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like to notice that currently Biophys claims that these sources: 1) Unreliable; 2) not neutral; 3) Non-encyclopedic style. Given the history of Biophys contributions and namely insertion of Putin into 'Phallus' article and creation of the deleted latter article on blog "La Russophobe" I suggest anyone to think one more time about User:Biophys good faith. He contributes only to biophysics and anti-Russian materials. He failed to prove the contradiction - which was the main point of his argumentation. He lied intentionally about contradictions. And he deleted the material which he called "contradictory". Biophys believes that there is a plot (conspiracy) by Russian government against extremist Stomakhin sentenced for extremism]. And Biophys tries to delete from the article on Stomakhin all information that could doubt this thought. My citations prove that Stomakhin actually wasn't dissident since he called for violence, called terrorist attacks legitimate and called Chechen terrorists heroes. He wants now to delete these supported by sources phrases from the article on Stomakhin by claiming they are unreliable. But these phrases are supported not only by the official court sentence.Vlad fedorov 07:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to notice that Biophys now deletes texts which were not disputed by him and which are taken from the most respectable and prominent Russian newspapers having their articles in English Wikipedia. Namely, articles from Izvestia, Komsomolskaya Pravda and Rossiyskaya Gazeta.Vlad fedorov 20:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

User Biophys systematically discriminates me. He deletes my supported texts claimg that he is 'fixing sources' and claiming that he is doing neutral version.Vlad fedorov 20:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I also would like to notice that administrator Alex Bakharev has found no violations in my edits. See here his explanation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:William_M._Connolley#Block_of_User:Vlad_fedorov_.28discussion_.2Aclosed.2A.29 Vlad fedorov 20:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: the article has been protected; I hope this will let this little edit/flame war die down without administrative intervention and turn into something productive. —xyzzyn 23:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You have protected version of Biophys. And it is discrimination of me. Biophys was deleteing and reverting versions done not only by me, but by administrators Mikkalai, Alex Bakharev. So it just simply protection of Biophys version. I oppose that kind of thing. I would like to ask Alex Bakharev or Mikkalai to revert the article back to their version.Vlad fedorov 04:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Dahn reported by User:Icar (Result:No action)[edit]

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

Comments: The first 5 reverts took place in less than 24 hours; same for reverts 4 to 7. User Dahn disrupts every attempt of other editors to modify the article. He was banned 2 days ago [15] for misbehaving about another article. There is growing sense of discontent among editors of this article at Dahn's attitude. Typically he reverts everything, saying simply that it was "vandalism", which is false. The other editors try to edit this article in good faith. Dahn does not, so he should be banned. Thanks (83.137.240.214 20:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC))

This is part of a bad, long standing edit war. Monitoring it for now. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Anonimu reported by User:FunkyFly (Result:User warned)[edit]

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

Comments: This repeat 3RR offender has committed 5 reverts in 28 hours and is being incivil. He was warned on his page for 3RR violation.   /FunkyFly.talk_  23:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is just beyond 24 hours. However, I will warn the user. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

User:67.121.144.14 (also known as User:Dharmaburning) reported by User:SagePose (Result:page protected)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on The Freecycle Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.121.144.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: 18 Jan 2007
  • 1st revert: [16] 2-Feb
  • 2nd revert: [17] -Feb
  • 3rd revert: [18] 2-Feb
  • 4th revert: [19] 2-Feb
  • 5th revert: [20] 2-Feb
  • 6th revert:

[21] 1-Feb

Comments: User has repeatedly blanked out large sections of an article. Other editors have reverted changes back to the last stable version, with a request to discuss this first before progressing. User repeatedly reverts this back to his newly shortened article, insisting that discussion starts from this new base rather than the original article.

Since original post, user has adoped a wiki name User:Dharmaburning, continued to make mass blankings without discussion, and further posted a 3RR block warning to my page without justification.

Further reverts on 3rd February:

1st reversion: [22] 2nd reversion: [23] 3rd reversion: [24]

I protected the page. Really hot edit war going on. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 12:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
These reversions are made for content defending of User:SagePose's insistence that all edits to said page, including grammatical, typographical and formatting, be discussed and approved by him before execution. A 3RR complaint has be filed. Dharmaburning 12:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This is simply not true. There have been no arguments over grammar, typos or formatting, Dharmaburning has been unable to display any such reversions, and the charge seems an entirely unwarranted allegation. The sole arguments have been over Dharmaburning's mass blanking of long-standing content. At least two other editors have been involved in repeatedly undoing the damage and requesting that big and controversial changes are discussed. SagePose 14:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Nkras reported by User:Coelacan (Result: User warned)[edit]

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

Comments: Not every revert is exactly the same, but the intended effect is to remove any mention of same-sex marriage from the article, especially the lead. User has been warned of 3RR before, as above diff shows. This is an established user who was blocked before over behavior in this dispute. This diff may also be of interest: "let's just team up our quota of reverts".[25] — coelacan talk — 03:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but the reverts are simply to different from each other to justify a block on the basis of 3rr. I will however warn the user on his talk page against edit warring. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 07:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Rbj reported by User:Coelacan (Result: 48hrs)[edit]

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

  • Diff of 3RR warning: block log -- Rbj has been blocked for 3RR multiple times before, including specifically on Marriage

Comments: Also an established user who has been blocked for behavior on articles related to this particular subject. Not all reverts are precisely the same, but in contrast to Nkras, above, Rbj's preference is to revert to an OED dictionary definition of: "A marriage is a socially, religiously, or legally recognized union of a man and woman as husband and wife." The interesting diff provided above, "let's just team up our quota of reverts",[26] was said by Rbj to Nkras. — coelacan talk — 04:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

48hrs as habitual 3rr breaker and per the fact that user committed 8 reverts.--Jersey Devil 06:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Pernambuco reported by User:MariusM (Result: warning)[edit]

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

  • Diff of 3RR warning: Not a new user

Comments: Pernambuco is trying to keep the so-called "compromise version of Vecrumba" for the introduction of the article, despite the fact that such compromise version didn't exist. There were 2 users that had a disscussion regarding the introduction, however the rest of the editors of that article didn't accept the result of their disscussion, mainly the presence of word "officially" regarding the name Pridnestrovie for Transnistria. We had a poll on this subject on the talk page [27] and the result of the poll was to remove the word officially, but Pernambuco don't want to accept this result. Even Vecrumba, whos name is used by Pernambuco to justify his reverts told in the poll that is preferable to remove the word "official".--MariusM 10:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why this is a revert William M. Connolley 19:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Is a revert of this edit of Bufadreen. I was not the only one reverted.--MariusM 19:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Having taken advice, P gets a warning. Others may feel free to review William M. Connolley 20:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

User:SagePose) reported by User:Dharmaburning (Result:page protected)[edit]

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

  • Previous version reverted to: []

Comments: User has repeatedly summarily reverted the entire article and all changes. Other editors have reverted changes back with a pleading to rationally discuss edits. User refuses to discuss merits of content, personally attacks other editors and demands that everyone submit to his terms or he will continue to summarily revert edits, insisting that even things such as grammar and typos must be first discussed and is prone to other harassing behavior such as filing a 3RR complaint for editors having to reverse his summary reversions, which the User characterizes it as vandalism - another complaint filed, where will it end? This has also been filed with Member Advocates.

Response Above report is disingenuous. User Dharmaburning, under that and IP address, has made mass blankings. Other editors have reverted back to last stable edit. Dharmaburning insists on reinstating his contrversial edits, characterizing these as reverts. The statement on grammar disputes is misleading, as is evident from the page history and discussion page. The 3RR was filed after multiple reversions on the same day. This is one person with a strong PoV acting against all the other editors.SagePose 13:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Katrasay reported by User:Colin Keigher (Result:24h)[edit]

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

Comments:

  • Appears to be a single purpose account. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 15:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
24h. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


User:Goethean reported by User:75.44.39.2 (Result: No action)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Goethean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

This is not a 3rr violation. You were told on that page that if you disagreed with the article existing to take it up for articles for deletion. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia by these actions you will be blocked. No action.--Jersey Devil 21:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering if why I'm disruptive, when the other party can do what he wants and to disagrees is to be disruptive??? why so one sided??? Are policies enforced unequally. But asking such questions is "Disruptive". Now I will be banned for asking a "disruptive" question as to why this guy can be a bully and a known edit thug and no action is taken?.75.44.39.2 23:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Nationalist/User:Taiwanlove reported by User:Jerrypp772000 (Result:)[edit]

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

Comments: It has been confirmed that Taiwanlove (talk · contribs) is Nationalist (talk · contribs)'s sock puppet, so it is clear that He/She used Taiwanlove to evade violating the 3RR. He/She also reported me for violating 3RR on this article before I knew that Taiwanlove was his sock puppet.--Jerrypp772000 00:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Diffs not versions William M. Connolley 10:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I just changed it, please review it again, thanks.--Jerrypp772000 18:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

ALready blocked on the 30th for 3RR, so this is out of date William M. Connolley 19:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

User:BuyAMountain reported by User:3bulletproof16 (Result:)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on ECW One Night Stand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BuyAMountain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):


Comments: Not much to add, but BAM has been told that what he keeps adding is not-notable to a results page and is the kind of detail that belongs on a wrestling news site (or a wrestling wiki). TJ Spyke 00:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, Nice to see admins upholding 3RR policy... Its been almost a week since... -- bulletproof 3:16 05:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Nobleeagle reported by MinaretDk (Result:no violation)[edit]

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


Comments:

MinaretDk was vandalizing the page and nobleeagle was adding sourced content. The 3RR board is not a soapbox for religious fundamentalists to try and get rid of good standing users.Bakaman 02:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Not 3RR violation - 3rd revert is not a "revert." Rama's arrow 02:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I've made it clear before my understanding that you abuse your admin powers to silence people who oppose your POV. According to WP:3RR, a revert includes reversions in full or in part. There are many more reverts listed on the page by him, which an unbiased admin would be welcome to check. MinaretDk 02:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
What BhaiSaab thinks is irrelevant.Bakaman 02:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

User:MinaretDk reported by User:Bakasuprman (Result:Page protected)[edit]

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

2007-02-03T19:38:54

2007-02-03T20:05:46

User not following WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Misleading edit summaries and canvassing for reverts happened here. There is reasonable suspicion that this user is a sock of BhaiSaab (talk · contribs) given his incoherent babble about "socks of Hkelkar" flying around everywhere. (kind of like unicorns).Bakaman 02:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Also user misrepresents WP:VAND accusing editors not sympathetic to his fringe POV of vandalism in a content dispute.Bakaman 03:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:Vandalism, blanking of cited text without reason is vandalism. WP:3RR makes it clear it doesn't apply to vandalism. Another editor undid the blanking of text just as I did, and also used the "rvv" edit summary. For the first few times I undid Baka's and User:Rumplestiltskin223's edits, no excuse was given to justify blanking well-supported content. They were works of vandalism, uncontested. Add to that, the edits I undid by the anon-IP was found to be the banned Rumplestiltskin223.

The new excuse is that the content that was blanked violates NPOV on undue weight and fringe. This is a new pretext to disguise vandalism as a content dispute. The content in question includes United Nations demands that the religiously sanctioned Devadsi prostitution practice be banned by India. This is a recent event, covered by many NGOs including Human Rights Watch. The UN and HRW are not fringe organizations, and their demands of India dealing with the problem of persecution of dalit women via Devadasa isn't a fringe position. This pretext is hollow if one uses even a bit of intelligence to decipher what's going on. MinaretDk 03:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Its because I'm the son of a donkey isnt it? Bakaman 03:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


Comments: I want Minaret Banned. it's because of him so many pages are protected write now. the user is not constructive at all.--D-Boy 09:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No block for now. Page has been protected by another administrator. Please use dispute resolution and request for checkuser. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Drake Clawfang reported by Thisisbossi (Result: 8h)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on D-Generation X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Drake Clawfang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments: He's removing perfectly fine content based on personal opinion and preferences, which is both vandalism and OR. I've never been blocked and don't want to be either. So yes, I'll talk about this, fine. Drake Clawfang 06:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

8h William M. Connolley 10:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Three-revert rule violation on D-Generation X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TJ Spyke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments: I have tried to reason with him on his talk page, but he won't listen (I even told him when he got to 3 reverts that he was on the verge of breaking the rules). I have started a discussion on the DX talk page to see if he will at least talk there. That should take care of this issue, since I don't want to get blocked over crap like this. TJ Spyke 06:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

48h William M. Connolley 10:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Prosfilaes reported by 81.107.203.67 15:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC) (Result:)[edit]

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


- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here. Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: 1407 4 Feb 2007 (removed 3 times subsequently by violator)


Comments: This is the second time the user has violated 3RR on this page. The user also repeatedly removes any warnings placed on his talkpage regarding the matter.

User:81.107.203.67 reported by User:Prosfilaes (Result: 24h)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Unwinnable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 81.107.203.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):


Comments: User has been blocked before on this article [28] and violated the block [29].

Mistaken: "1st revert" is implementation of WP:3O (official dispute resolution system of wikipedia) and not a revert. Furthermore, no diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

3O is no defence. But its not obvious why the first revert is one - certainly not to the "prev version". OTOH P *has* broken 3rr so gets 24h William M. Connolley 17:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Damastakilla reported by User:Lakes (Result:)[edit]

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


Comments: He continues to alter/revert various professional wrestler articles to his views. Another example is Nelson Erazo.

Not more wrestling nonsense! You're both reverting without proper edit summaries or any sign of talk. Stoppit or you'll both get blocked William M. Connolley 20:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Damastakilla has ignored edit summaries and added html comments, to which some have responded by adding comments for him to stop. I've tried to reason with him in his talk page, but he has not responded. I've stopped adding edit summary to my reverts because they don't seem to effect him. ↪Lakes (Talk) 17:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Laertes d reported by User:NikoSilver (Result: 24h)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Greek War of Independence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Laertes d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments: User repeatedly replacing a legitimate source with a {{fact}} tag (among other pov edits). NikoSilver 19:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24h and cautioned about reinserting changes without gaining consensus on the talk page. Syrthiss 20:29,