Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive12

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Master Of RSPW[edit]

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

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

This user has now violated 3RR on SteveInPrague:


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

User:TruthCrusader[edit]

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

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

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

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

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


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

User:JohnBWatt[edit]

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

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

Comments:

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

User:T-1000 & User:24.228.52.76 on Venom (Marvel Comics character)[edit]

User:T-1000[edit]

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

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

Comments:

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

User:24.228.52.76[edit]

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

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

Comments:

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

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

User:Copperchair[edit]

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

User:Master Of RSPW[edit]

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

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

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


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

Comments:

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

Irishpunktom[edit]

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

User:136.215.251.179[edit]

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

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

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

Comments:

User:SPUI and User:JohnnyBGood[edit]

User:SPUI[edit]

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

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

Comments:

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

User:JohnnyBGood[edit]

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:

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

User:68.1.74.140[edit]

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

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

Comments:

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

User:Imacomp[edit]

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

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

Comments:

User:69.205.1.109[edit]

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

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

Comments:

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

User:Young_Zaphod, User:67.165.85.111, User:68.162.128.9[edit]

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

Reported by: Atari2600tim (talkcontribs) 20:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

User:VrrayMan[edit]

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

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

Comments:

  • User is continually reverting to vandalized version without regard, and is now threatening to report me for 3RR for reverting his vandalism.
  • The user has now been banned per 3RR and for his vandalism. Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 00:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

User:64.131.23.140/USFamily.net user[edit]

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

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

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

Comments:

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

User:Overacker[edit]

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

  • Previous version reverted to:

18:48, 5 March 2006

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

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

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

User:Rydel[edit]

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

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

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

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

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


User:Dbiv[edit]

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

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

User:129.186.232.42[edit]

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

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

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

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

User:70.85.195.138[edit]

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

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

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

Comments:

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

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

User:AdamJacobMuller[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Movement to impeach George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). AdamJacobMuller