Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive14

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:195.92.67.75[edit]

Three revert rule violation on TalkSPORT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 195.92.67.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: Kiand 17:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Was warned about it, been at this for literally months but this is the first time theres been 4 in 24.

Has just changed to 195.92.67.74 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). Range block? --Kiand 18:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
And now 217.134.125.55 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). Appears to be the range for backup dialup on Energis, his ISP. --Kiand 18:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The ISP seems to have users who make constructive edits; we may have to resort a block eventually but for now I have just sprotected the page; afraid of collateral damage. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 18:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

User:85.64.227.133[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Mariah Carey singles discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 85.64.227.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: Extraordinary Machine 02:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: 85.64.227.133 (talk · contribs) may be an IP used by Vorash (talk · contribs): as soon as Vorash stopped repeatedly reverting to a weeks-old version of the article without any discussion or explanation, the IP address took over and started reverting to the exact same version. Note that these reverts are completely and utterly blind: they undo whatever edits were made in the meantime, reintroduce a plethora of inaccuracies into the article (which had been removed by other editors), and remove references and important material. This has gone beyond a content dispute as those reverts made by Vorash and the IP (who may very well be one and the same, though this is unconfirmed) count as vandalism. Extraordinary Machine 02:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

24 hours. --He:ah? 03:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


User:64.185.45.196[edit]

Three revert rule violation on House of Yahweh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 64.185.45.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: pm_shef 03:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User was warned with {{test-n}} templates rather than 3RR templates as I had initially reported it at WP:AIV but was told instead to report it here. pm_shef 03:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This user is blocked. Rx StrangeLove 04:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Androson[edit]

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

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

Reported by: Ned Scott 05:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the version reverted to? it's a lot of reverts, but i can't find the original version, so this just looks like one edit and three reverts from where i stand . . . (and Ned, you're one away as well.) --He:ah? 05:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I have refrained from doing any more edits because I am aware of that fact, although the issue isn't exactly clear as it says that the 3RR doesn't apply to vandalism correction. This user might not have reverted to an exact version of the page, but if you look, he's basically trying to revert to a version similar to the others, but now with a different image (since the previous image was deleted). Had the original image not been deleted this would be even more clear. Maybe a borderline issue, but it's pretty clear what he's trying to do. -- Ned Scott 05:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
nm, found the pic in question before the protect. blocked for 24 hours. --He:ah? 05:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Constantzeanu[edit]

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

Reported by: —Khoikhoi 05:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User knows about 3RR from here. —Khoikhoi 05:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Besides, user labels edits he disagrees with "Vandalism", see the edit summary of these edits. --Irpen

User:Constantzeanu (again)[edit]

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

Reported by: --Asterion 04:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: As for Khoikhoi's comments. User also warned to stop marking his reverts as minor edits here but chose to ignore it. --Asterion 04:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

User:OutRider2003[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Dalip Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). OutRider2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: ZsinjTalk 18:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Originally reported on WP:RFI by User:McPhail. McPhail has initiated conversation on talk pages, but OutRider2003 blanks his user talk page as if it never happened. Currently the copyrighted image is on the article instead of the original free image.

This is now very stale - I guess all the admins have been off on hols. OR has none of the last 100 edits, anyway William M. Connolley 19:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

User:LorenzoRims[edit]

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

Reported by: HeyNow10029 19:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The user seems dead-set on adding an external link of a blog he set up ( The Real World: Denver Blog) to the article. In the blog he posts about pictures of people who he claims are future castmembers on the next instalment of The Real World with no information to back those claims up - he just expects people to believe anything he writes and take it as fact. In the articles' discussion forum I led him to Wikipedia's policy on external links and verifiability, which the blog doesn't pass, but he continues to add the link to the article. As of now, the blog has three posts, two of which are dedicated to what he calls an edit war between him and Wikipedia. This is getting really juvenile. HeyNow10029 19:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks a bit stale now; no warning; I've warned LR; you should have William M. Connolley 19:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Stvjns[edit]

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

Reported by --BillC 22:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Multiple reverts of Crop circle, including four times within the last 24 hours as above. No edits to talk page. No response to warnings on his/her talk page. Only one edit summary (a taunt). --BillC 22:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you BillC, I had just prepared a nearly identical post. --Darkfred Talk to me 22:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

12h for first offence but no obvious good work to compensate William M. Connolley 19:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Piotrus[edit]

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

  • Previous version reverted to: [6]
  • 1st revert: [7]
  • 2nd revert: [8]
  • 3rd revert: [9]
  • 4th revert: [10]

Reported by: Number 6 02:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The user is question is an admin, who should be fully aware of 3RR and whose attitude should be quite different. Nonetheless, the user ignores all words of reason and resorts to personal attack.

Well, well, well, I was wondering if Number 6 (talk · contribs) (no talk page, all edits up till now limited to POV pushing and revert warring at Red Army) would make his first edit to other page - and he did. His knowledge of Wikipedia procedures suggest sockpuppetry or at least disruptive trolling and I'd recommend appopriate action. In any case, I have not broken 3RR as my reverts today were not to my own version but to Irpen's compromise version from earlier today.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It is funny that you should be calling me names and accusing me of POV and other nonsense. All of this is true of you, not me. Your logic is fascinating: Number 6 knows something about wikipedia, ergo an “appropriate action” is recommended. Your lies about my edits are manifest to anyone willing to check my edits. However, I do admit that you did not formally violate 3RR in that article, even though the “compromise” version you’re referring to was hardly different from your original revert. Number 6 12:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like 4R to me. 3h as a first offence William M. Connolley 18:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Now this would be funny if it wasn't so sad. On one side we have a new user with no edit history or talk page and devotion to a single page, on the other - a well-respected contributor and an admin. And now the funny thing: the latter is blocked for violating not the 3RR, but some strange 2RR. Check for yourselves: 1st revert, 2nd revert, 3rd revert, which is also the current version. No 4th revert whatsoever. Of course I'm not impartial here, but it seems to me like William Connolley overreacted. I believe Piotrus should be unblocked ASAP. If not for his past contributions with this project and not for the benefit of a doubt, then at least for the fact that he has not broken the rules. //Halibutt 00:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The block was short and I am back here, so this is not the question of unblocking but of fairness of block. To play the devil's advocate (against myself...) I'll note that there are two reverts carried by me on the previous day (for example, this one) that on a cursory glance may look like a basis for 3RR violation. However, as Number 6 pointed above himself, they are not the same, as my recent 3 reverts were to the compromise version we worked together with Irpen ([11]). And I think that those two versions are far from 'hardly different' ([12]). In any case, I have explained this in detail in am email I sent to William few hours ago, and I am no waiting for his reply.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
And not a Pole to begin with, right? Sheesz. Please stick your chauvinism where it belongs, with your lies about my "no edit history". It is a big relief that there are objective admins, so my case is not lost yet. Number 6 12:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll put my side on the talk page William M. Connolley 14:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Mark 2000[edit]

Three revert rule violation on The Daily Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mark_2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: JDoorjam Talk 03:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I did a pretty thorough scrub of The Daily Show a few days ago. Today, User:Mark 2000 accused me of repressing the facts, and threatened to engage in "a war" if I did not clear further changes with him. I reverted his edits, because they were still just as editorial and rife with weasel words as they were when I took them out days earlier. I then moved his message from my talk page to the talk page of The Daily Show and explained that I thought his insertions required sources. Rather than comment in the discussion section (which my edit summary asked him to do), he reverted my changes with no edit summary of his own. I reverted his edits a second time, asking again that he comment on the talk page. He wrote on the talk page that finding sources was not his responsibility because his assertions were common knowledge. Rather than revert him a third time, I moved the content around a bit, and altered some of the language to bring it to a neutral point of view. He apparently did not accept my attempt at compromise and reverted a fourth time. I would ask that he be blocked for the standard 24 hours, that his last edit be reverted to the compromise I attempted to broker, and that an admin or multiple administrators take a look at the content in question to determine the best course forward with regards to making the article informative and neutral. JDoorjam Talk 03:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I see some discussion on the talk page. I don't see any warnings about 3RR though. So Mark can have 3h as a warning William M. Connolley 18:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Hipi Zhdripi/User:172.183.72.117 (again)[edit]

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

  • Previous version reverted to: [13]
  • 1st revert: [14]
  • 2nd revert: [15]
  • 3rd revert: [16]

Reported by: Duja 19:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

'Comments: alghouth it's an anon user, it can be (easily?) tracked down to User:Hipi Zhdripi, (also sockpuppeting as User:Kanuni, User:Vete). No one else can write such, um, English. Duja 19:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

For the moment, I've sprotected the article. I could block the IPs, but there is precious little point William M. Connolley 20:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Alixus[edit]

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

Reported by: gidonb 19:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Comments: I suspect that this newly created user is a sockpuppet of the person who under different identities tried and for a long time and sometimes succeeded through edit wars to delete or totally diminish the holocaust from the Germany page in the past. User also started personal attack on the talk page that is totally unfounded. The very personal style of this "new" user, as if he knows me a long time (I have protected in the past the very inclusion of the holocaust on the Germany page), sort of gives him away. gidonb 19:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

3h as a first offence William M. Connolley 21:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
User also made personal racism related attacks against me on his talk page (and on the Germany talk page): The user who insists on adding material to a section which is already way too long is a Jew who is primarily engaged in Zionist POV pushing, as one can see from his contributions. Needless to say that except for being a Jew there is no truth in his remarks. I actively remove POV texts from Wikipedia, especially Zionist POV. See the award on my user page for some detail. It is the tip of the iceberg. I am disgusted by all types of racism and very active against it. I am partially of German decent myself. I thank User:Stephan Schulz for confronting user:Alixus with his misbehavior. gidonb 22:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Nrcprm2026[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Uranium trioxide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nrcprm2026 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

19:53, 17 April 2006

Reported by: Dr Zak 19:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Continues despite warning and has been blocked before for revert warring on this article. The conflict over uranium-related subject matter is part of an arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium.

Replacing several statements supported by sources from the peer-reviewed scientific and medical literature which are being removed for no other reason than to obscure them and their obvious implication is reverting vandalism, which is defined as "... deletion or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia.... Not all vandalism is blatant, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism: Careful attention needs to be given to whether the new data or information is right or whether it is vandalism." A cursory glance at the edits in question show that I've merely been replacing, and expanding in some cases, the source-supported research being deleted. --James S. 20:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, James, but you are involved in a long-standing content dispute on this page. As far as I can tell, this is just a continuation of it. 3RR is only suspended for simple vandalism. --Stephan Schulz 20:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This looks like a content war, and JS has broken 3RR. 24h. Because I have some history with JS (though not over this article) I shall list this block at WP:AN/I to allow it to be checked William M. Connolley 21:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Sgrayban[edit]

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

Reported by: 172 | Talk 20:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Continually reverting factual content that displays the Castro regime in a negative light. This user is also being disruptive on the talk page. This threat directed toward me is particularly telling: Yes I am keeping tract until you are gone from here. --Scott Grayban 19:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC) The user later made a bad faith report about my edits on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. [17] 172 | Talk 20:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Disputed. I reverted there continued vandal of them removing the {{POV}} tag. User:172 has repeated flammitory statements in Talk:Cuba that the people trying to get a NPOV are communist propagandist and fidelistas and they will do anything defeat them. The medcabal has asked User:172 and User:CJK to stop reverting and they refuse to do so. Futher more the links above are of me reverting the {{POV}} tag back into the article Cuba which they are tring to remove. Consensus has not been reached and the 2 users mentioned are enforcing there POV. --Scott Grayban 20:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Trimming discussion. Sg has clearly broken 3RR, which applies to POV tags as to everything else except blatant vandalism. 8h as a first offence William M. Connolley 20:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

User:NColemam[edit]

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

  • Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
  • 1st revert: 20:26
  • 2nd revert: 20:49
  • 3rd revert: 21:39
  • 4th revert: 22:22

Reported by: ____G_o_o_d____ 22:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

2006-04-17 23:48:52 Naconkantari blocked "NColemam (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3rr on Abortion) William M. Connolley 08:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

User:ER MD[edit]

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

Reported by: Philip Baird Shearer 00:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: At first view it may seem as if these are not all similar reverts but a comparison of the latest revert against the original which others are reverting too shows that it is a very big edit which even with some sections replaced still delets a lot of text. 20:32, 17 April 2006 ER MD against latest revert 20:33, 17 April 2006 Shanel. The Shanel version is the same version as the one before ER MD started to edit the page earlier today: 00:09, 17 April 2006 202.63.40.214 compred with 20:33, 17 April 2006 Shanel --Philip Baird Shearer 00:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This user has already been blocked for his massive deletions. Pepsidrinka 03:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Goodandevil[edit]

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


Reported by: Andrew c 00:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: G&E is edit warring over the first sentence of partial-birth abortion. While some efforts have been made to resolve this conflict on the talk page, G&E seems to jump the gun on resolution and simply change content without consensus. You can look at the talk page and see that weeks ago, G&E tried to get consensus to change the first paragraph after a string of edit wars stemming from the first paragraph, but that proposal was rejected. Ever since, a slow edit war has ensued, and today it seems the reverts have gone out of hand.--Andrew c 00:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Blocked for twenty-four hours. Repeat offender. Jkelly 01:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Skinmeister[edit]

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

Reported by: Mangojuice 02:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Blocked 48h, as per User talk:Woohookitty William M. Connolley 09:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I got the wrong end of the stick here, sorry. So... now I know what WHK really meant, 48h is too much; in fact SM and CD can share the 24h half each. William M. Connolley 11:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

User:O.P.Nuhss[edit]

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

Reported by: GTBacchus(talk) 04:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User was edit warring over the long disputed inclusion of the word "death" in the definition of abortion. User was advised to use the talk page, but user's only contribution there was uncivil. It was also the user's only edit, besides the four reverts above, and user is a probable sock puppet of NColemam, above.

2006-04-18 05:26:54 Natalinasmpf blocked "O.P.Nuhss (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (suspected sockpuppet) William M. Connolley 09:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

User:UCRGrad and User:TheRegicider[edit]

Three revert rule violation on University of California, Riverside (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). UCRGrad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), TheRegicider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

UCRGrad[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [19]
  • 1st revert: [20]

(as 71.198.58.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who manually signed as "UCRGrad" [21])

TheRegicider[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to:

[25]


Reported by: szyslak (t, c, e) 08:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User:UCRGrad is aggressively trying to add a disputed passage on hate crimes in the Inland Empire area of Southern California, in which UC Riverside is located. User:TheRegicider reverted him four times, and I reverted him once. This article was protected a little over a week ago, due to edit wars over other issues. On Talk:University of California, Riverside, there has been a lot of heated discussion between the two, with personal attacks and incivility all around, especially from UCRGrad. I think another page protection may be in order. szyslak (t, c, e) 08:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
As newbies, they can have a brief 3h block each, but I will extend it if they return to reverting William M. Connolley 11:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Please please, william, I believe the politically correct term is edit count challenged. Thank You.

User:Gamahucheur[edit]

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

Reported by: cmh 18:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Dispute purports to be about archaic spelling. The aggressiveness with which the user is pursuing the debate on the article's talk page is stopping me from making the charitable assumption of good faith on his/her part. Note that 3RR has come up on the talk page and this user is aggressively reverting despite this. I have proposed an RfC on the article. I think the article needs to be temporarily protected from the user in order to allow the RfC to proceed calmly. -- cmh 18:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverting continues. New threats of disruption of WP via "friends". -- cmh 19:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Oops! I didn't see this up here. I put it down there instead. Joey 19:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

8h for fairly persistent 1st offence William M. Connolley 20:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Bertilvidet[edit]

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

Reported by: 1652186 18:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Not obviously 4 reverts; you should provide diffs not versions William M. Connolley 20:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed; Sorry about that. 1652186 20:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

User:154.20.148.186[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Werner Herzog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 154.20.148.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: Elephantus 18:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I warned User:154.20.148.186 on his talk page, he's been reverting this page for several days without writing anything in Talk to support his claim. --Elephantus 18:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 20:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

User:212.18.236.179 and User:212.85.24.83[edit]

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

Reported by: Urthogie 19:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Although user has a different IP address in the first revert, its the same person, as is made clear by the edit summaries. User also refuses to read essential policies concerning verification such as WP:V.

Even if so, thats only 3R not 4 William M. Connolley 20:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Rogerman[edit]

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

Reported by: Dick Clark 20:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This is the result of an ongoing edit war where User:Rogerman and User:CaliforniaDreamlings have repeatedly performed simple reverts while refusing to engage in substantive discussion on the article talk page. This article was just unprotected yesterday by User:Katefan0.

As someone involved with the article currently, there is a need to come to a consensus one way or the other, and Rogerman is aware of the violation which I chose not to report with the need for consensus in mind. While he has violated, and I'm not trying to step on DCM's toes, I would personally rather see some leniency in this case and allow Rogerman to at least have an opportunity to discuss on the talk page rather than having a 24 hour lag time in between. Just my two cents. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 20:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I would defer to badlydrawnjeff if admins care to look the other way on this occasion. I am more interested in seeing the article improved than getting 24hrs of "justice" and then starting over tomorrow. Dick Clark 20:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
That's fine with me . . . i'll leave him a note to make sure he's aware that he violated 3rr.--He:ah? 20:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Brian02139[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Stubhub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Brian02139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: Ben-w 00:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I'm not sure if this qualifies exactly as vandalism or 3RR -- the user may have some axe to grind against the company in question, I don't know, but this is NPOV, original research, and I'm not too fond of the ad homininem attacks or vandalism of my user page either.

I'll warn him and if he does it again, I'll block him. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Brian02139 created a sockpuppet to continue reverting on Stubhub after being asked to stop, so he's been blocked for 24 hours for disruption, vandalism, 3RR, and sockpuppetry, and the sockpuppet account has been blocked indefinitely. I've also sprotected the page for a short period in case he comes back with more IPs. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

User: Walkerson[edit]

Three revert rule violation on American Israel Public Affairs Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Walkerson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: 21:42, 18 April 2006[31]
  • 1st revert: 22:03, 18 April 2006 [32]
  • 2nd revert: 22:41, 18 April 2006[33]
  • 3rd revert: 23:10, 18 April 2006 [34]
  • 4th revert: 23:27, 18 April 2006 [35]
  • 5th revert: 00:00, 19 April 2006 [36]


Reported by: Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:- This user was warned both on his personal talk page and on the article's talk page after the 4th revert, but chose to revert again. The only source for his additions are a propaganda website, although he claims there is corroborating sources he hasn't produced any.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

As he was warned, I'll block him for 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I've unblocked him after four hours because he says he didn't fully understand 3RR, and he's promised not to edit that article or talk page, or insert similar edits elsewhere, for 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Wikiwriter706[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Law School Rankings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wikiwriter706 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [37] 23:49, 18 April 2006
  • 1st revert: 00:12, 19 April 2006[38]
  • 2nd revert: 00:21, 19 April 2006 [39]
  • 3rd revert: 00:22, 19 April 2006 [40]
  • 4th revert: 00:26, 19 April 2006[41]

Reported by: Xoxohthblaster 00:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This user continues to reinsert references to the non-notable law school rankings concept "top fourteen" into this article. This issue has been discussed at length in the course of a deletion debate regarding an article on this very term: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T14. The consensus was to delete this article on the basis that this is a non-notable neologism. A day or two later, this Law School Rankings article showed up with extensive top 14 discussion-- seems like a sneaky way to get around the earlier consensus for deletion. Xoxohthblaster 00:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

User currently has only 3 reverts in 24 hours, as a quick glance at the history makes clear. no block. --Heah? 00:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

User: Ben-w[edit]

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

· Previous version reverted to: 08:56, 28 March 2006 · 1st revert:[42] · 2nd revert:[43] · 3rd revert: [44] · 4th revert:[45] · 5th revert:[46] · 6th revert:[47] · 7th revert:[48] · [49]

Reported by: Brian02139 00:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


Comments: 3RR . I don't know, but this is NPOV, and I'm not too fond of the ad homininem attacks or vandalism of my user page either.

Brian, I've already discussed this with Ben. He was reverting what he saw as your vandalism. I've also left a note on your talk page to that effect. Please discuss whatever your objections are on the article talk page. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Brian02139 created a sockpuppet to continue reverting on Stubhub after being asked to stop, so he's been blocked for 24 hours for disruption, vandalism, 3RR, and sockpuppetry, and the sockpuppet account indefinitely. I've also sprotected the page for a short period in case he comes back with more IPs. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Nrcprm2026 (again)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Uranium trioxide (