Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive17

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:RichardMalter[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Bi-Digital O-Ring Test (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RichardMalter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: Philosophus T 08:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As an update to this we now have:

  • 5th revert: [2]

For the category reversion, I also did not notice this one:

  • 0th revert: [3]

--Philosophus T 16:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Comments:

I unfortunately was not able to warn this user in time, but as he kept telling me to read Wikipedia's policies, I thought he had read them. The user keeps removing any pseudoscience/quackery category, and also the assertion that the "diagnostic" has not been published in any reputable peer-reviewed journal. All other editors on the talk page seem to be in agreement with the rationale behind these additions. --Philosophus T 08:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Philosophus, we need to see the diffs showing his four reverts. If you put them up, I'll take a look. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Oops, I copied the wrong links! I've fixed that now. --Philosophus T 09:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Philosophus. I'm going to warn him because I see he didn't revert again after your warning, and there's no indication he was made aware of the 3RR rule. We tend to give new users one warning before blocking. I see this is the only article he's edited, so I'll keep an eye on him in case he starts again, and he'll be blocked next time. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This user has now reverted again, and has responded to the warnings on his talk page. I also notice that I forgot one of the earlier reversions from the last 24 hours. --Philosophus T 16:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Ptmccain 3[edit]

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

Reported by SlimVirgin (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Ptmccain has been revert warring over the intro for a couple of weeks, trying to delete, move, rewrite, or bury two sentences about the Nazi's use of Luther's writings about Jews. He has violated 3RR several times at this article, and has been blocked for it twice. [4] The six reverts above are not to the same version of the intro, but he is reverting any changes that other editors make (even when correcting his errors, like repeating sentences twice), and will only allow his own version(s) to stand. The reverting is accompanied by personal attacks, calling other editors "duplicitous," [5] "shameful and dishonest," [6] "obnoxious," [7] accusing someone of vandalism, [8] and demanding that editors "state [their] qualifications." [9] [10] [11] SlimVirgin (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Has been blocked twice before in the last eight days. With six reverts, there's no possibility of an accident. 48 hours. AnnH 12:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Ann. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Saladin1970 also editing as User:62.129.121.63[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Zionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Saladin1970 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) aka 62.129.121.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Version reverted to: 06:41 May 18

Reported by SlimVirgin (talk) 11:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Four straightforward reverts within 90 minutes to the same version. I have no evidence that Saladin1970 is 62.129.121.63 but it seems highly likely, and that IP has turned up before on this page to revert to Saladin1970's versions. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

He's just reverted for a fifth time, so I've added that diff above. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked both for twenty-four hours. Tom Harrison Talk 12:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Tom. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I was hesitating, but I think Tom is right. I've seen this happen before at Christianity where IPs would suddenly turn up to help out a registered user who had run out of reverts. AnnH 13:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Saladin1970 emailed me saying he didn't do it. I invite anyone to review and act as they think best. Tom Harrison Talk 13:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
How about unblocking Saladin, and leaving the IP blocked? If Saladin is not that IP, he'll be able to edit again, and if he is, he won't. AnnH 13:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Good idea, Ann. In the meantime, I'll request a check user, because the same IP has turned up there before, so we may as well get it sorted out for the future. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, good idea. I've unblocked Saladin pending checkuser. Tom Harrison Talk 13:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • CheckUser confirms that this is the same editor. He's been playing a fair bit of pretending to be different people by logging in and then not logging in, and I see no useful edits whatsoever; it's all unsourced POV, copyright violations, and only partly comprehensible attacks on the Talk: pages. I'm blocking permanently. Jayjg (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for checking it out, Jay. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

just for the record. this is my first ban ever and here are the response to the allegations 1) unsourced pov. There has only been one possible unsourced POV (non reliable source), everything else has been sourced. Granted with two references, i used another wiki page, and a home page as a source. I was never warned that these are inadmissible. Is this justification for a permenant ban

2) copyright violations. This turns out to be a false charge. There has only be one citation by jaygy for copyright violations and this turns out to fufil every criteria listed on wikipedia for fair use.

3)attacks on the talk pages. There has only been only one possible example of personal attacks. This was when i stated that jayg was following me around and this is what you expect from a zionist. Hardly ranks in the hall of fame of personal attacks, and one has to question if this remotely comes near justification for an indefinate ban, or ban at all.

4) sock puppet. As i explained earlier, shared computer , same ip, same session on the internet explorer. But that aside there was only one single instance of this alledgedly being used to violate wikipedia rules. Where on one occasion . Note one occasion only in the entire history of my wikipedia usage a page was reverted more than 3 times.

given any fair, and clear policy by wikipedia, an inpartial adminstrator would question a ban at all, let alone an indefinate ban.

Also I would like to question the predjudice of many of the administrators who have commented on this case (see the wiki email section). I post under the name of saladin. My email is abuhamza1970@hotmail.com. During the last 5 days I have been accused of being an al qaida sympathiser, of not sharing the views of civilised society, sympathise with 911, and am a general threat to wikipedia, all because my email is abu hamza, and i have made contributions to the 'zionist' page and reverted changes to the harold shipman page, amongst many other contributions. All of which fall within the remit of wikipedia rules and NPOV (see major, minor view, proportinality etc).

My experience over the last 3 days has been a real eye opener, and i have been exposed to the most horrendous predjudice, accusations ranging from al qaida operative to 911 sympathiser to anti semetic, etc, etc. And these are from the administrators (slim virgin jaygy, philip welch). This hardly gives me or my community a fuzzy warm feeling that Wikipedia is an open community based project that seeks to include others outside of the anglo american community. If my experience is anything to go by, then it does not bode well for my community or other non anglo american, judaic communities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.129.121.62 (talkcontribs) 11:50, 22 May 2006

User:Wangoed and User:Zagozagozago Result: 4h each[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Stadium Arcadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wangoed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Zagozagozago (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: Jtrost (T | C | #) 16:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Reverts were made to the first paragraph under Chart Performance. Both authors made other, minor changes throughout the article, but the cause of conflict is this first paragraph. Jtrost (T | C | #) 16:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I left messages for this other fellow telling him to keep it to the discussion page (where I started a sub-heading for the point in question) and on his user page, linked all sources, etc. This worked & the editing from both sides stopped, but thanks for your vigilance where the rules are concerned. Wangoed 16:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Both blocked for 4 hours, first offense. Stifle (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

User:24.145.184.199[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Spanish Inquisition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.145.184.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: Stbalbach 17:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Reddi[edit]

Violation of arbcomm 1/7RR parole [12] on Nikola_Tesla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Reddi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Note: all 3 are labelled, correctly, as reverts. Reddi is limited to 1R per week, and is aware of this - see his talk page William M. Connolley 19:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

That's strange, normally WMC is enforcing this page, not reporting, and he didn't even format it correctly! (24h) Stifle (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, & thanks :-) William M. Connolley 21:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Avraham, TheActuary[edit]

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

Comments:Might as well delete the article. The owners of the site are trying to use wikipedia as free advertising rather than an accurate historical account of what has happened there. Rather than allow balance and different points of views on events they delete any point of view different than their own. No team work. No balance. No tolerance for differences of opinion.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blisterino (talkcontribs)

  • Um... any chance of a few diffs so we can check it? Stifle (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I looked. B wins the prize for the worst formatted 3RR report I've ever seen. Avraham is in the clear. TA has 3 definite reverts but the first identical edit isn't a rv as far as I can see. But I'll warn him William M. Connolley 20:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Hello. User:Blisterino is also most probably User:Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA, User:Kentucky Janitor, and User:Just the facts maam as well as the two IP edits. Further I suspect him of registering the User:Tom Troceen ID, and he is by no means Tom Troceen, rather, he has a personal vendetta against Mr. Troceen, Mr. Penland, and Mr. Cooke for their, belated I may say, responses to his gross insenstivity, flame-baiting, race-baiting, and other POV issues on the board under discussion. The last I checked Wiki policy, vandalism reversion is not considered a violation of the 3RR. I would request that any admin please look at the history, the talk page of the article, and the talk pages of Smythe, Blisterino, and the IPs. Further, I think that registering Tom Troceen, someone elses real name, is a clear vioaltion of wiki principles and should be sanctioned. He is engaging in sock puppetry to smear his POV over a heretofore respectible article, and measures should be taken to prevent that. -- Avi 20:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no user Tom Troceen [16]. Stifle (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
It was a typo. Check the edit history: he meant User:Tom troceen William M. Connolley 22:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I have started the sock puppetry issue here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA -- Avi 21:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

User:MetaStar[edit]

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

Reported by: Exvicious 21:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Can't verify this because firstly the original version was not filled in, and secondly, you have provided oldids and not diffs. Please read carefully the correct format and try again. Stifle (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Commodore Sloat (result:24h)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Juan Cole/sandbox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Commodore_Sloat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The editing is going on in Juan Cole/sandbox because Juan Cole is protected. The corresponding talk is Talk:Juan Cole. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  • He's been blocked before for 3RR earlier this month, so 24h. Stifle (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Hganesan and suspected socks User:169.229.65.29 User:169.229.65.30 User:169.229.65.35 (resolved elsewhere)[edit]

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

I'm not sure how to fill this out correctly but there has been a lot of reverting going on from this user on that article and others, and after he was banned, from some IPs that are defending his edits. All three IPs so far have been banned for varying periods...

See

Reported by: ++Lar: t/c 23:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I may have been too hasty in handing out some of these blocks, I dunno (I see User:Sam Blanning gave some out too. I wasn't intending to get involved, I was just marvelling at how well written this was and wanted to see what the fuss was about and next thing you know I'd reverted one article 3 times myself trying to get it to hold still. Oops. Sorry if this is the wrong place or format. ++Lar: t/c 23:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a dup.. see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Hganesan_.28result:_8h.29 above. Sorry. Feel free to delete if you want. I was told on IRC that a range block has been put in place to slow things down a bit. ++Lar: t/c 00:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • May as well leave it here for reference. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Zer0faults[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Iraq War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zer0faults (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: Mr. Tibbs 02:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Also a mediation request related to this here: [17]. Went through this entire arguement a long time ago too: [18]. -- Mr. Tibbs 02:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

  • It's a first offense and he hadn't prevously been warned, but it seems that he knows edit warring is bad, even if the exact 3RR isn't known to him. 8h. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • On reflection, Mr. Tibbs broke the 3RR too by a whisker, and gets 8h as well. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User:67.159.26.65[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Roger Needham. 67.159.26.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: Rosicrucian 04:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Repeated and intentional vandalism of article, stated intention to continue vandalism on talkpage.

Thats only 3, but I've blocked the IP for incivility/vandalism anyway William M. Connolley 12:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User:72.57.230.179[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:WikiProject Azeri (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:WikiProject Azeri|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 72.57.230.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: Telex 12:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Anon keeps adding a trollish inflammatory userbox to the project page. People have tried to reason with him on his talk page, but he won't listen; he calls it censorship. He has been blocked for violating the 3RR before, and has also been blocked for trolling. --Telex 12:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I've just warned him. I will look through the diffs now... - FrancisTyers 12:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours. - FrancisTyers 12:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Deucalionite (result: 8h)[edit]

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

Previous version: 5 May, 17:10

Reported by: Fut.Perf. 14:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User insists on inserting a longish section, half based on some fringy racialist study by Carleton S. Coon, half OR, trying to push the POV of a racial connection between ancient Illyrians and Greeks. Was warned about 3RR on his talk page. Fut.Perf. 14:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

8h for a first offence William M. Connolley 15:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User:192.197.82.153[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Rachel_Marsden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 192.197.82.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: Bucketsofg 17:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This is this users second time violating 3RR for this page; he's been blocked three times before for vandalizing this page.

2006-05-19 17:50:38 Kungfuadam blocked "192.197.82.153 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 31 hours (vandalism) William M. Connolley 19:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User:203.144.143.9 (result: 8h)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Thaksin Shinawatra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 203.144.143.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: Paul C 17:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

8h as a first offence William M. Connolley 19:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Xed (result: 48h)[edit]

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

  • Previous version reverted to: 18:27, 14 May 2006 [19]
  • 1st revert:10:01, 19 May 2006 [20]
  • 2nd revert: 13:07, 19 May 2006 [21]
  • 3rd revert: 13:27, 19 May 2006 [22]
  • 4th revert: 13:40, 19 May 2006 [23]

Reported by: Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User had been warned both on his personal talk page as well as the article's talk page. As you can see on his last edit summary he indicated that he was aware of the 3RR and that he was in violation of it, but chose to disregard it. He has been blocked several times before.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

48h: repeat offender, deliberate breaking of 3RR William M. Connolley 11:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

User:12.134.204.214[edit]

Previously reported and blocked as User:Hganesan (see entry on this page from a day or two ago) and numerous IPs. Almost certainly a sockpuppet, judging by writing style, pages edited and actual content of edits. Requesting a substantial block here (more than just a few hours).

Reported by: Simishag 03:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Madchester blocked "12.134.204.214 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (npov violation, despite warnings) William M. Connolley 10:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

User:72.130.21.164 (result: 3h)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Wii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 72.130.21.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to:23:11, May 19, 2006 [24]
  • 1st revert: [18:04, May 19, 2006 72.130.21.164]
  • 2nd revert: [22:38, May 19, 2006 72.130.21.164]
  • 3rd revert: [0:06, May 20, 2006 72.130.21.164]
  • 4th revert: [00:14, May 20, 2006 72.130.21.164]

Reported by: DivineShadow218 05:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:User keeps rverting to delet an external link is a site with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in the article. discluding these reverts, this user has less then 10 edits, I have also warned him/her/it about it.

Poorly formatted but I'll let you off. 3h. No comment on appropriateness of content William M. Connolley 10:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Checking, I realise that DivineShadow218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has of course broken 3RR too: 3h by symmetry William M. Connolley 10:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)... oh dear, make that 24h by virtue of having previous blocks William M. Connolley 10:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

User:AutumnLeaves[edit]

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

Reported by: --24.196.175.110 10:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User continues to delete a useful and relevant link. It appears that the account has been created solely to address this page. Warning given.

It would seem that you too have broken 3RR. I shall let you both off with a warning William M. Connolley 10:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention. While I understand the spirit of the rule, I have conformed to "the 3RR applies to reverts after the third within a 24 hour period". --24.196.175.110 11:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Netscott[edit]

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

Netscott (talk · contribs):

  • Previous version reverted to: [26] 07:12, 20 May 2006
  • 1st revert: [27] 07:21, 20 May 2006
  • 2nd revert: [28] 07:52, 20 May 2006
  • 3rd revert: [29] 08:19, 20 May 2006
  • 4th revert: [30] 08:54, 20 May 2006

Reported by: Deizio talk 13:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Following up revert scuffle reported on AIV at Fethullah Gülen, users warned on that talk page, page now protected. Deizio talk 13:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This is an unmerited report as both myself and Azate were essentially combatting new user vandalism. My primary editing in this regard was to replace a repeatedly removed {{NPOV}} tag. The admin who blocked User:Mokotok and initially User:Azate agreed in as much as he/she said, unblocking. was essentially reverting what amounted to vandalism by a new user at the time he/she unblocked him. A pity that Deizio talk appears to not have researched this prior to making these reports. Netscott 16:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You're right, I should have noticed that Woohookitty (talk · contribs) blocked, as well as protected the page. Due to "real life" commitments there was a lag between my investigating the report on AIV and making these reports. Rest assured I don't enjoy making more work for myself and will be careful to double check this kind of thing in future. However, the edit summaries and reversions the three parties indulged in hinted at a little more than "combatting new user vandalism", rather differences over POV in a quickfire 17-revert content dispute, and there is no harm in bringing such potential flare-ups to the attention of the community, or in confirming that action was taken. Of course, Kitty has taken the necessary steps and I trust the matter is closed. Deizio talk 17:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
User:Netscott is a true reverter. He is not only reverting Fethullah Gulen article, he is doing that in many others (e.g. Hirsi Ali). I am surprised that nobody is taking an action against him. The reverts are documented and are clear above. User:Netscott is insisting on an irrelevant tag while the work on the aricle is in progress.
I am trying to put the article into a neutral form. User:Azate is hiding some facts and blanking necessary infromation from the article and categorizing the article under irrelevant categories with POV, doing original research. All these are documented on Fethullah Gulen talk page. Mokotok 21:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It is important to note that Mokotok is now indefinitely banned as a sockpuppet of the indefinitely banned user Rgulerdem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). --Cyde↔Weys 17:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Mokotok[edit]

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

Reported by: Deizio talk 13:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Following up revert scuffle at Fethullah Gülen, users notified and warned on that talk page. Deizio talk 13:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Unless you're posting this report as a review, I would recommend doing full proper research to help others and yourself save time prior to actually making a report as this user is already blocked for the 3RR violation. Netscott 16:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to put the article into a neutral form. User:Azate is hiding some facts and blanking necessary infromation from the article and categorizing the article under irrelevant categories with POV, doing original research. All these are documented on Fethullah Gulen talk page. User:Netscott is a professional reverter, is insisting on an irrelevant tag while the work on the aricle is in progress. Mokotok 21:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Azate[edit]

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

Reported by: Deizio talk 13:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Following up revert scuffle at Fethullah Gülen, users notified and warned on that talk page. Page protected.Deizio talk 13:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

  • In the interests of saving others some time on this report User:Azate was blocked but subsequently unblocked with the reasoning: unblocking. was essentially reverting what amounted to vandalism by a new user (as I've just added in Deiz's report of my own supposed violation). Netscott 16:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to put the article into a neutral form. User:Azate is hiding some facts and blanking necessary infromation from the article and categorizing the article under irrelevant categories with POV, doing original research. All these are documented on Fethullah Gulen talk page. Mokotok 21:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

user:Jeff3000[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jeff3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Reported by mav 14:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments I have not done a fourth revert, so I have not passed a 3RR. Secondly Mav never warned me. -- Jeff3000 14:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Consider this a warning. I guess I have one more revert. --mav 15:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Mel Etitis (result: 24h each)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Chinese classic texts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mel Etitis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) [& Eiorgiomugini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)]

I had told him that it was a tidied up job, but he seems not to believe or understand this and I don't sees any problems with my version, unless he could point it out, unfortunately he refused. Some of the edits are really just a minor changes, which is why it doesn't required any reasons on edit summaries.

Reported by: Eiorgiomugini 18:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

As the above indicates, this user's English isn't terribly good, and it may be that the problem lies there. However, he has been insisting on removing much-needed {{copyedit}} templates from articles, adding material without citaion or source, and making a general mess. He refuses to accept that he might be mistaken, refuses to discuss the issue (aside from the repetition of the obscure "it's a tidied up job"). I'm currently asking for advice on dealing with him at WP:AN. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I repeat, I said it was a tidied up job, but he seem not to believe or understand this, I don't sees any problems with my version, unless he could point it out, unfortunately he had refused to do so. Again he has been adding material of his claims, and making a general mess into Chinese classic texts. Eiorgiomugini 18:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the second cases onwards. Its perfectly clear that you've both broken 3RR. Sigh. 24h each William M. Connolley 19:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Petrejo (result: 24h)[edit]

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

Reported by: Non-vandal 04:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Comments:

  • There's plenty more of those from this guy. There's a lot of talk in the articles talk page under "Petrejo's changese" and "Please do not..." but this bloke doesn't discuss his changes, and is simply a vandal as dull as they come. Petrejo is also 66.143.165.1: [44]. Looking at both user titles' contributions reveals the extent of their dirty work. I'd recommend a block of both users from the article entirely, but we'll see how it's handled. Thanks.
  • He's still at it. Non-vandal 05:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats 5R, but not in 24h or close. An awful lot of new users there... socks? On both sides? William M. Connolley 09:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there are socks on both sides - there's a number, at least 4, of editors reverting Petrejo's edits, but I'm pretty sure he is using sockpuppets - I noticed a new user earlier today who'd edited Petrejo's talk page and no other pages, and that account may have subsequently been used on Friedrich Nietzsche. I'm sure the faction, including myself, who've been reverting Petrejo aren't without blame, but could we get this guy blocked already, seriously? mgekelly 10:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
BTW, I count 5R in the last 8 hours from Petrejo's own account. mgekelly 10:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The bloke's at it again. We may need a permanent block of this blockhead.Non-vandal 04:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Petrejo has reverted this article four times in the last four hours. mgekelly 17:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I've resurrected this from the archive since the violator is still very active. We need some serious action undertaken. Thanks.Non-vandal 20:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: 2006-05-17 23:49:20 Shanel blocked "Petrejo (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (using IP to evade 3RR on Friedrich Nietzsche) William M. Connolley 20:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Blocked now for 24h William M. Connolley 20:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Ilir pz (result: 24h)[edit]

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

Reported by: Krytan 21:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Ilir keeps pushing his Albanian propaganda by removing a map of Kosovo as a part of Serbia and Montenegro. As you know, the current status of the province is being discussed at Vienna, but for now, according to the UN resolution 1244, Kosovo remains a part of FRY, which has changed its name to Serbia and Montenegro in February 2003. This is clearly stated in the article (or was, maybe he removed it again). Something must be done about this. --Krytan 21:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The time difference is over 24h. Asterion talk to me 21:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Not on the clock style I'm using. 24h William M. Connolley 21:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I must be totally stupid (I read 18th). I need some rest. Asterion talk to me 21:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Pansophia[edit]

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


Reported by: Rhobite 21:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • The page was semi-protected, and lo, Pansophia has suddenly reappeared, and has taken up revertin