Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive18

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Zer0faults reported by User:Mr. Tibbs (result: stale)[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 21:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Not sure if reverting to different prior versions all count towards one 3RR or not. -- Mr. Tibbs 21:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Not all of these are reverts if you view them you will see that sometimes only the 2nd paragraph was changed. Mr. Tibbs has constantly reverted my work wholesale. He did this again today after me and Anoranza came to a concensus on what should be in the overview. He then removed the work me and that user did and the concensus we came to. He also didn't even post anything on talk and just reverted again without stating a why. He calls it "cleaning up the intro" when he removes all mention of anything but WMD's from the Iraq War intro. He even goes onto use this for a summary "Revert to last version by Mr. Tibbs. Its not a consensus just because Zero says it is. See poll." The poll in question is one User:CBDunkerson informed him was not addressing the concerns of those opposing his edits. He asked for User:CBDunkerson view after the mediation cabal I requested went against his view here The person who took no the mediation went on to comment on the page that Mr. Tibbs should not exclude any reason but WMD's. He asked CBDunkerson and he said the same. He went on to ask User:Nescio to comment he also supported the same. Some of those edits are me and Anoranza trying to find a middleground and Mr. Tibbs is attempting to use them against me, however Anoranza did not complain cause in the end the version we agreed on was pleasing to both of us. Mr. Tibbs has stated on numerous times he has ceased assuming good faith, has told me I attempting a filibuster when told his survey did not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Straw Polls. If you see the talk page he has refused any middleground I have offered almost as if he has sole domain of the article. You can even view 3 offers on the mediation page alone that were all refused wholesale. Mr. Tibbs indiscriminate reverts of my work and Anoranza's and User:Wombdpsw is horrible. I ask this article receive admin attention as User:CBDunkerson has stepped back as its a heated topic. I simply want more then WMD's mentioned in the overview as permitted by NPOV:Undue Weight, and I feel someone should look at Mr. Tibbs reverts as he doesn't even offer explanations, when asked. He has left snide remarks on summaries including "No one needs to pander to a filibuster.", on the Template: War on Terrorism page here He has even gone on to advocate other revert my work instead of just editing such as here User_talk:Añoranza#About_Iraq_War. This is obviously a bad faith notice as he has tried before and we both got blocked. --Zer0faults 22:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Some of these aren't even reverts, they are me editing me, as in the case of "Revert #6" and "Revert #5" as the user being shown in #5 did not make the edits its showing I changed, I previously made them. #4 is the original expansion of the 2nd paragraph from Anoranza's which was lacking in facts. Even revert #1 is wrong as its me removing a paragraph that is entirely mentioned below in its exact contents in section "War Rationale" This is obviously a bad faith effort as Mr. Tibbs has not even attempted to review the evidence he brings, simply tagged all my edits as reverts and hoped the High number 7RR would be sufficient enough. I once again ask for an admins assistance in the Iraq War article as I am afraid Mr. Tibbs is attempting to insert Undue Weight. --Zer0faults 22:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - noone got to this in time; its now stale; no decision William M. Connolley 08:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Miskin[edit]

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

Nationalist revert warrior; four reverts in 17 minutes is enough. Reported by:Septentrionalis 23:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Funny - see only three reverts. This is not a revert, it's a first time edit. You also have three reverts, so you're just as bad as him. I'd also like to ask some admins to comment on Septentrionalis's personal attacks (the one just above) and this. --Telex 23:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Blanking of sourced material is vandalism. Septentrionalis 23:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not sourced. You're taking the original and fitting it into your WP:OR interpretation of it. --Telex 00:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not my interpretation; insofar as it is not a retelling of Herodotus, most of it comes from Sakellariou, as I stated. [1] Septentrionalis 15:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Despite what he says, there are only 2 reverts, a rewrite and some minor edits. Pmanderson on the other hand has 3 reverts and a clear personal attack [2]. I'm not going to discuss the content dispute here, it's clearly not the right place. Miskin 00:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    • If admins are going to take into account a description of vandalism as vandalism, they should also take account of Miskin's personal threats [3] and trolling [4]. Septentrionalis 15:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Guys, take it elsewhere. Sept, you're wrong about: 3RR, your PA's, and Miskin's "threats", plus your "trolling" quote is quite funny. Get yourself together and let's discuss this where appropriate. This happenning here is trolling and borders WP:POINT as well. Consider this a warning. Indeed, extreme measures can apply to such behavior, as described in WP policies and guidelines...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 15:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy reported by User:Centauri[edit]

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

Reported by: Centauri 12:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Consistently aggressive deletion of random article content by DreamGuy, without reference to talk page discussion, and accompanied by misleading edit summaries that also refer to other editors in strongly abusive terms.

I self-reverted my own last edit, so not a real 3RR violation, per the policy. I should also note that User:Centauri's claims of misleading edit summaries are false, as I explained my edits accurately. In fact, this editor is making abusive ridiculous threats against me at the moment, pulling policies out of a hat at random he claims I have violated (you know, the typical, vandalism, blah blah blah). From his edit comments and posts on my talk page, it's clear he's not really trying to give friendly warnings about policies he understands and follows, but is instead hoping to toss out accusations in an attempt to bully me. I have warned him to not post on my talk page any more, but he continues to harass me there. A block might be in order if he keeps this up. DreamGuy 13:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I have posted a comment and 3RR warning on the talk page of User:Centauri, who is probably not aware that he has himself reverted DreamGuy's talkpage 5 times in a few hours (when he adds new "warnings", he usually restores all the old ones, making these edits reverts). Now that I have explained this to him, I reckon he ought to be blocked iff he should continue his reposting pattern. Also, Centauri, instead of posting a storm of policy links to an experienced user (which is itself incivil), you had much better follow the common sense principle of walking away, when it has been clearly demonstrated that your messages on a user talk page aren't wanted there. After all, as Theresa Knott said once, DreamGuy removing the messages shows that he has read them; what more do you want? Bishonen | talk 14:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC).


User:Ed Poor reported by User:ScienceApologist[edit]

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

  • Previous version reverted to: a number of different versions he wrote over the day.
  • 1st revert: 07:52
  • 2nd revert: 07:58
  • 3rd revert: 08:52
  • 4th revert: 09:24
  • 5th revert: 09:32

Reported by: ScienceApologist 16:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User:Ed Poor seems to be back to his tendentious editting ways and is effectively reverting all editors who stand in his way. Ed is engaging in what the WP:3RR page describes as "making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting. "Complex partial reverts" refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time; this is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR." When warned about this, the user responded on his talkpage admitting to breaking 3RR.

User:71.109.235.81 reported by User:Ohnoitsjamie[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Bong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.109.235.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: OhNoitsJamieTalk 20:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: As evidenced on the talk page of this article, this particular edit has been an ongoing issue, and does not represent the consensus. I'd previously placed a 3RR warning on the article's talk page. OhNoitsJamieTalk 20:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

User:8bitJake reported by User:FRCP11 (second report) (result - 24hr block)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Henry M. Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 8bitJake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comment: User refusing to compromise on talk page, despite multiple people from RFC disagreeing with him. Insists on deleting verifiable notable text, despite its being restored by four different editors.

Reported by: FRCP11 22:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC), updated 05:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Admin reply: The edits appear to have died down so I have placed a warning on User_talk:8bitJake. Kcordina Talk 10:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The problem continues, notwithstanding the warning. -- FRCP11 16:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Admin reply: User now blocked. Kcordina Talk 19:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The problem with the same article and same reverts resumed immediately upon 8bitJake's return. See two reports below. -- FRCP11 21:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Rtvl73 reported by User:Zerida Result: 12 hours[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Egypt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rtvl73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: — [ziʔɾɪdəʰ] · t 23:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Rtvl73 keeps removing content from the article with no explanation or discussion despite being asked not to [5]. User was previously reverted by two other users [6] [7]. I made User:Rtvl73 aware of 3RR on talk page [8] but user reverted for the fourth time anyway. — [ziʔɾɪdəʰ] · t 23:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 12 hours. I would greatly appreciate if another admin could please check that I did this properly as this is my first time dealing with a 3RR from the admin noticeboard. If you've double-checked my work, please just leave a quick comment here. --Yamla 02:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, is 12 hours perhaps too much for a first 3RR block? --Yamla 02:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

User:209.135.115.121 aka User:Ndru01 aka User:Moonlight serenade reported by User:Hillman (result: 24h)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Morphic field (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 209.135.115.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

See:

  1. first revert 13:30, 30 May 2006
  2. second revert 14:57, 30 May 2006
  3. third revert 15:26, 30 May 2006 (several edits)
  4. fourth revert 16:00, 30 May 2006
  5. fifth revert 16:22, 30 May 2006 (two edits)
  6. sixth revert 17:49, 30 May 2006 (three edits)
  7. seventh revert 17:56, 30 May 2006

Reported by: CH 01:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

This is not even a complete list; several reversions by this user are not listed. See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ndru01 (2nd) ---CH 01:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I see that Ndru01 (talk · contribs) has previously been previously blocked for violating WP:3RR in Morphic field. Another suspected sock, 64.187.60.98 (talk · contribs) has also been previouslyblocked for violating WP:3RR in Gnostic infomysticism. ---CH 02:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 21:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

He is back at it again today as 209.135.115.121 (talk · contribs) and 209.135.108.75 (talk · contribs). This user seems to have a well documented history of violations of WP:SOCK, WP:3RR and generally disruptive editing. Can some kind admin please look into this and help me take appropriate action? TIA ---CH 06:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  1. 1st revert 02:47, 31 May 2006
  2. 2nd revert 17:08, 31 May 2006

User:Tenebrae[edit]

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

Reported by: Facto 06:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User keeps inflating movie article with biased and inflammatory movie reviews and also inflates the cast list with minor characters and actors. Facto 06:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I do not see the diffs you provided as clearcut RVs, at least not all of them. They look like regular edits. Please try to resolve content issues at talk page. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Giovanni33 reported by User:Timothy Usher (Result: 3hr)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Talk:God (edit | [[Talk:Talk:God|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: Timothy Usher 08:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Besides the talk page shenanigans, this user has been edit-warring on the article, after posting an RfC[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy] and having all but one responding editors disagree with the unencyclopedic links he's been appending thereto. He has also supported his own edits and comments under the username User:Kecik. User has already been blocked several times for WP:3RR violations and puppetry.Timothy Usher 08:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: First of all this is not the article mainspace. The 3RR rule does not apply here. This is a dipute about the title of a heading in the talk page. I only corrected it to reflect the issue of consensus and the fautly math that it reported. The 3RR rule does not apply for correcting formatting issues and accuracy on talk pages as far as I am aware. Also, note that one of these I self-reverted when I realized he actually wrote somthing as opposed to simply restoring the incorrect math: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGod&diff=56088897&oldid=56088816 Timothy's other comments are not true. Kecik has not been blocked many times. He is a good user and he is not my socketpuppet as a user check has already been done which confirmed no connection. So, no block "for puppetry" has ever been issued. Timothy is simply not telling the truth. Also, Timothy has persisted in being uncivil and making personal attacks against myself and this user, besides edit warring. The links I added are valid links for the external link section and topical.Giovanni33 08:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The 7:2 count was, and remains, accurate.
“...Timothy is guilty by the same logic of the 3RR violation for reverting 5 times over this issue.” - diffs?Timothy Usher 08:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I look at at it and I may be wrong on this account so I removed that claim. But everything else stands. Your math was wrong. I counted 6 vs 4 so the ratio is 3:2, not 7:2.Giovanni33 08:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Giovanni33, please stop altering prior comments, whether other editors', or your own after other editors have respondended thereto.Timothy Usher 08:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Result: Blocked for 3 hours because it is a Talk page. However, the Three revert rule says "undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part". If I may suggest, you folks could post your versions at Talk and try to convince others without altering posts by other editors. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment When Timothy says that User has already been blocked several times for 3RR and puppetry, he is presumably not referring to Kecik, but to Giovanni, who was proved by checkuser to be using the account BelindaGong for extra reverts, extra votes, and extra support for his version. His block was extended when he accidentally signed a post while forgetting that he was logged on as Freethinker99,[9] who had joined, had said he was new but agreed with Giovanni, and had then reverted to Giovanni's version while Giovanni was blocked for his BelindaGong puppetry. Through some oversight, the BelindaGong and Freethinker99 accounts were only given temporary blocks, although the standard practice is to block indefinitely in the case of established puppetry. So Timothy is telling the truth. As for Kecik, he has, from the start, behaved as a puppet whose only purpose at Wikipedia was to provide extra support and extra reverts for Giovanni. His seventh edit (one day after registering) was a vote for something Giovanni wanted, at a page he was unlikely to have found by chance.[10] He was at Wikipedia for nearly four months before he touched an article where Giovanni wasn't looking for support. He currently has 42 article edits, 37 of which are reverts to Giovanni's version. Checkuser can only establish that it's not the same IP; it can't establish that there's no connection between the users. There is extremely strong linguistic evidence linking Giovanni to eight accounts which have supported him. AnnH 11:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment As expected AnnH and Timothy tag-team with the personal attacks against me with their continued false allegations my alleged socket-puppets. I just take it as a sign of the weakness of their stance that they have to resort to bringing up this issue over and over no matter how old it gets or how irrelevant it is to a given issue. But, notice how AnnH can interpret what Timothy actually said so to conclude that he Timothy is telling the truth when he is not. He states things as a fact that are only negative bad-faith speculation, which I know is not true. Belinda, as I explained is my wife, and so that is why a user checked showed a connection. Since she is different person which I offered to prove many time (her name even is Belinda Gong), this makes her not a socketpuppet. I note that no one has taken me up on my questions about ohw to prove what Im saying is true. I think they know she is not a socketpuppet but prefer not to have this shown so the attacks can continue. This is assuming bad faith. Also, with my friend Freethinker, AnnH continues her deliberate distortion of known facts, even after I corrected her on numerous occasions, each time with a new twist. Notice her bad faith assumptions which don't make sense. She says I forgot I was using Freethiner's account and forgot to sign in with my own account while I was blocked. That is nonsense. I was at my friend's house to introduced him to Wikipedia and he was trying to resolve the dispute on the talk page of Christianity, and did NOT simply revert to my version. Like Belinda, Freethiner is a different person, and I only used his account to respond to a question on my own talk page. When I was questioned about any connection to Freethinker, I had nothing to hide and admitted it openly. Why would I do that if it was a socketpuppet? Why would I edit on my own talk page as myself if i were using his accounts after a userchecked was done showing a connection with me and my wife (only one). This is why it would make no sense to think he is my own socketpuppet, while I use his account to answering on my own page-- even if I logged-out of his account, and signed into my own. Its not logical. AnnH also leaves out some pertinent information. For example, the fact that Kecik and MikaM (and anyone else who supported my POV on the Christinaity page, including Sophia), were all user checked at the same time. The results? Only BelindaGong showed a connection to me. Ofcourse, BelindaGong is a separate person who lives with me. And while I never denied any connection to her (no one asked), it's true I did not want it to be known for various reasons, and I pretended to not know her in my interactions. However, even though I tried to hide a connection, the user checked exposed it. It did not expose MikaM or Kecik. Why? They were all checked at the same time. One would logically expect that if they were my puppets they would have also been discovered along with Belinda, who I did not want it known I was connected to in some way. Since my desire to have this connection hidden failed, then so would any others who were checked at the same time. Why would I use different methods at the same time? The edits occur both both users and myself not only at different times and at the same time that I edit, proving its not me going to different locations was argued. Lastly, with these editors, while I do agree support my POV, this is not proof they are not separate people, or have any connection to me in real life. Infact, I have discovered we do not always agree, either, and we do not edit all the same articles, nor to they come to my assistence at times you'd think I want to use them if I were the puppet master. In anycase, I have never had any socketpuppets, and for Timothy and AnnH to keep making this charge on talk pages, on noticeboard, and anywhere I post, stating their belief as it it were an established fact is both wrong and disruptive, esp. suspect given their POV conflicts with me, although I have to assume good faith. Laslty, I note that AnnH brings up the issue of a perm block for these users when they already left Wikipedia on their own accord about half a year ago, after the uncivil and insulting treatment they recieved at her hands, calling Freethinker a "meatpuppet" and blocking him without any warning. And, Belinda, I still can't convince to come back until she is able to prove herself as a real, distinct individual, who AnnH denied is even possible (despite my wiling to fax ID's. etc). I guess that some people still think that women who are married are not allowed a separate existence apart from their husband's.Giovanni33 12:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Kenaz9 reported by User:Cyberjunkie[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Prussia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kenaz9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: cj | talk 09:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User:DreamGuy reported by User:Asatruer[edit]

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

Reported by: Asatruer 13:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: 4th revert of Oblivion reference included in a batch of NPOV corrections

  • Decline. First, please use diffs and not just revisions so we can see the revert. Second, removal of link once in all that copyediting doesn't constitute reverting. If he's reverting to a previous version there, I'm not seeing it. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 13:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about the links. I corrected them to diffs. The edits are not exactly the same, but there is some consistancy in items in how they are changed and removed. For the 3RR the "reverts" do not have to be exact, do they? Asatruer 15:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, got it now, but the last edit seems to have been a while back. I'd suggest attempting some dispute resolution. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Ed_Smith reported by Reported by: 64.12.117.12[edit]

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

Reported by: 64.12.117.12 14:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Blocked for 24 hours; appears to be vandalism. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Greier reported by User:Khoikhoi[edit]

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

Reported by: —Khoikhoi 15:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Please check his block log. The last time he was blocked for 3RR was for 3 days, interestingly enough, it expired only half a day ago. —Khoikhoi 15:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Blocked. Since this is the 8th unique block for the same disruption, I've upped to a month. If another admin feels that's a bit much, feel free to adjust. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You should unblock him. He is innocent. --Preacher, or Princelet 15:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indef since checkuser suggests this is block evasion. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Ahwaz reported by User:Bidabadi (result: no 3RR violation, no block)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Ethnic politics of Khuzestan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ahwaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

This is another malicious attempt to get me blocked. I have not broken 3RR in this article. There is no fourth revert.--الأهواز 17:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
This user has repeatedly blanked content on this page without any discussion on the talk page: [12] and [13]. Now he has put up a POV tag on the article [14], but has not explained why on the talk page.--الأهواز 17:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment:User:Ahwaz has been previously blocked for violating 3RR. Bidabadi 18:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There is indeed no fourth revert shown here. I have decided this user should not be blocked based on this report. I am taking no stand on any alleged vandalism, however. --Yamla 19:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Ed Poor reported by User:Ashenai (result: no block)[edit]

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

Reported by: Ashenai 19:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I have not included several reverts by Ed that could be understood to be vandalism reverts or minor reverts with community approval (restoring innocuous sections lost in the edit war). Ed was warned about 3RR, but accused us of "baiting" him. He then proceeded to continue the edit war today, and is on the edge of a second 3RR violation today. Please note that it is difficult to tell exactly which of his edits are reverts, as he tends to add modifications to his reverts, and reverts to various versions, not always the same one. The reverts listed should be sufficient to establish the fact of the 3RR violation, however. --Ashenai 19:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That was a nasty edit war, with many individuals (debatably) in violation of 3RR. The article has now been protected, and as blocking is a preventitive measure rather than a punitive one, I don't see a need to block for this offense. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Butchpenton reported by User:Ladlergo (result: 12h)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on American Civil Liberties Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Butchpenton (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Ladlergo 21:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Originally posted the following: 00:04 31 May 2006, but changed slightly. However, it was shortly after modified to the version that has been reverted to since then. Ladlergo 21:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • User has knowlingly violated 3RR, even after receiving a warning. Ladlergo 21:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Clear enough. 12h as first offence William M. Connolley 21:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

User:195.93.21.5 reported by User:Jhamez84 (result: no 3RR violation)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Michelle Marsh (model) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 195.93.21.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: Jhamez84 21:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: A stubborn and unregistered user keeps making a minor edit so that this article says that the town of Royton is within the seperate and neighbouring town of Oldham - it is not, Royton is in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham (see the respective articles for verification). The motive of this kind of edit is unclear, but it just isn't factual and encyclopedic! I've tried to make this aware to them and also warned this user about the 3RR here. I believe a temporary block is appropriate here along with some kind of warning which should hopefully in turn halt this.... vandalism! Thank you, Jhamez84 21:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Not a 3RR violation. You only list three reverts (and that's all that has been done), not the four required for a violation. Additionally, the three reverts span 44 hours, thus are not confined within the 24 hours for a 3RR violation. --Yamla 21:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
My apologies, I misread the dates - I suspect however I will be providing a follow up here about this user(inclusive of a fourth revert within 24 hours) shortly... Thanks for the swift response however, Jhamez84 21:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


User:Ec5618 reported by User:PinchasC (result: 24h)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Apartheid (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ec5618 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):


Reported by: PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I am posting this to notify the community that I am blocking this user for 48 hours for this 3rr violation. This is this users 3rd 3rr violation. PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked reduced to 24 hours as this user's 2cd 3rr violation block appears to have been a mistake. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 10:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

User seem to "own" this page to fit his political POV. there are actually more violations of 3RR not listed above. Is anyone blocking him cause he is not blocked despite the notice on his talk page Zeq 04:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks blocked to me William M. Connolley 08:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Pantherarosa reported by User:Paul Cyr[edit]

User:Pantherarosa

Three revert rule violation on User:Pantherarosa (edit | [[Talk:User:Pantherarosa|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Pantherarosa (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Paul Cyr 00:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User keeps removing sock puppeteer tag. Paul Cyr 00:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm a little confused here as there are no accounts in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pantherarosa. I agree that he reverted in excess of three times, but I question if placing the tag on his userpage was perhaps, as he claims, baseless. At the same time, those tags should only be removed if they are in bad-faith. Let me go scan WP:ANI, as you said there was relevant discussion there, and see if I can get to the bottom of it. AmiDaniel (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Ah, sorry for the confusion. The categories were recently renamed due to some consensus at some vote thing, the page is here: [16]. The blocked puppet was here: User:Abdulrahman Jaffer Al Zadjali. Although the blocking admin did not have enough evidence to publically accuse Pantherarosa, it is self evident. Basically, both accounts were created in the midst of my dispute with Pantherarosa which began attacking me, with Abdulrahman Jaffer Al Zadjali posting supportive messages on Pantherarosa's talk page. At the very least, there is enough evidence for Pantherarosa to be suspected of being a puppeteer. As for the discussion on AN/I, it was more a sub-discussion of a larger issue: [17]. Right now I've been trying to get some admin involvement given Pantherarosa's actions, but it wound up on AN/I because of conduct by the admin on WP:PAIN which I feel was inappropriate. In the mean time, Pantherarosa has been reverting the tags even after I refered him/her to the discussion on AN/I. Paul Cyr 02:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
        • User:Abdulrahman Jaffer Al Zadjali has been blocked as a sockpuppet, but the blocking admin stated he would not speculate to whom the sockpuppet belonged. Contact the admin who blocked the puppet and ask him to add the tags to User:Pantherarosa, or you can request a CheckUser; but until an admin or a CheckUser confirms him as a sockpuppet master, I'd say it best not to tag his account. Making a couple of edits as an IP does not really count as sockpuppetry, at least not in my mind. I'm not going to administer any blocks or place blame anywhere--please just leave his userpage alone for now until you have sufficient evidence to support your claim. If you'd like to continue this discussion, please do so on my talk page, so as not to clog up the 3RR noticeboard. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
          • I understand your point, however, you said At the same time, those tags should only be removed if they are in bad-faith., since you are not blocking Pantherarosa for violating 3RR, do you feel that me placing the tag was in bad faith? Paul Cyr 02:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
            • I don't believe they were placed in bad-faith (otherwise I would be blocking you), but rather that there was a severe lack of communication. You believed it correct to tag his account as a puppet master believing you had sufficient proof, and he disagreed with your reasoning and reverted, believing your actions to be in bad-faith. In either case neither of you was attempting to be disruptive in my opinion. I'm also not saying that I disagree with your reasoning for believing him to be guilty of sockpuppetry, just saying there isn't conclusive proof either way as of yet, and blocking on these grounds would just add more fuel to the fire. If you would like for me to file a CheckUser for you, I'd be glad to, and if that turns up positive, then there will be no problem tagging his userpage and blocking him if he reverts the change. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
              • If you could that would be great. Hopefully (s)he doesn't know about proxies ;) Paul Cyr 03:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Vlatkoto reported by User:FunkyFly (result: 24h)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Jane Sandanski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Vlatkoto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), 194.141.39.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) :

Reported by:   /FunkyFly.talk_   05:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • The user persistently inserts claims that ther person is Macedonian, without citing sources. He self-admittedly edits from 194.141.39.2., has been blocked 3 times already for violating 3RR and has been warned about the current case.   /FunkyFly.talk_   05:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 08:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

User:212.138.64.176 etc. reported by User:Timothy Usher (result: 24hr range block)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Battle of Mu'tah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 212.138.64.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) etc.

Reported by: Timothy Usher 08:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This suspected sockpuppet of User:Flashmorbid has been adding unsourced, highly POV material to the article, and refuses to engage on the talk page despite requests. In addition to the sockpuppet template, nearly all his addresses...

...have warnings of one sort or another. Most recently, he has been warned again about WP:3RR [18]. I think it’s time to block the range.Timothy Usher 08:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Blocking the range 212.138.64.172/29 (212.138.64.172 - 212.138.64.179) for 24 hours as a first violation. If further anons nearby that range pop up and continue reverting, let me know. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
This user has returned as User:Falso to revert again.[19]Timothy Usher 18:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Appleby reported by User:Commonsenses (result: 48h, unblocked for rvv)[edit]

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

Reported by:Commonsenses 15:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Oh no, not again... 48h William M. Connolley 15:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a little bit of a mess. Appleby says he was rvv, and since Liancourt rocks redirects to Dokdo I'm accepting that William M. Connolley 20:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

User:For great justice.[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Apollo moon landing hoax accusations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). For great justice. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: Tom Harrison Talk 16:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Your report is peculiar. The first revert is at 8:10 to a version created at 8:28? I'll look into this anyway, but the report is somewhat malformed. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 17:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I did, indeed make these reverts - but only of Tom's reverts. I repeatedly asked him to explain his reverting, leaving messages in the comments and on his talk page. Immediately that he stopped his unexplained reverting, the situation resolved. For great justice. 17:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Not at all; your fourth revert was to my version, undoing the work of User:Algr. Tom Harrison Talk 17:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • That was not a revert of the material you were edit warring about, that was the removal of Algr's POV mongering. For great justice. 17:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
      • "Previous version reverted to" is irrelevant in some cases, as 3RR doesn't require you to have reverted to the same version, just reverted four times. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 17:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Which makes the <!-- ALWAYS FILL IN THIS FIELD! --> instruction rather pointless. AnnH 17:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
          • And people wonder why users create malformed 3RR reports. The instructions are confusing and muddling for less experienced users. Perhaps we should fix this... anyway, back to the case. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 17:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 17:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled — there seems to be an indefinitely-blocked user For_great_justice (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) (no sign of contributions, but they may have been deleted), and now there's this one For_great_justice. (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) note the full stop (or don't Americans say "period"?) at the end. I was thinking of increasing the block of For great justice. (just to 48 hours) because of his abusive comments on his talk page, but I'm wondering now is he a reincarnation of a banned user. AnnH 18:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I normally just ignore personal attacks directed at me, especially by blocked users: taking action normally just fuels the attacks, and if I ignore them when they can only edit their talk page, it normally frustrates them more! Perhaps checkuser to establish the link between For_Great_Justice and For_Great_Justice. ? --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 19:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think a checkuser would be any good, as For great justice has no visible contributions. Also, s/he was blocked nearly four months ago, so there might not be any technical evidence available. AnnH 22:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

User:AlexPU reported by User:Kuban Cossack Flag of the Russian Empire (black-yellow-white).svg[edit]

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

Reported by: Kuban Cossack Flag of the Russian Empire (black-yellow-white).svg 20:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Comments: Basically the editor continues to insert his heavily POV-laid version repeatedely (each time changing a few words to avoid 3RR. Including some extremely offensive edit summaries including:

  1. You just make such propaganda changes fucking again
  2. fuck propaganda and stylistic censorship!

And on the talkpage including an explanation for his articles [Talk:Soviet Partisans#No more this shit!|No more this shit]] and describing a whole community as I mean Russians rampage Ukraine-related articles on a daily basis but don't care a fuck about their own country articles. Weird, pervert shauvenistic priorities

Previously has been blocked for uncivility and has been reported (though not blocked) a second time here. If not block for 3rr can someone please teach this teenager a thing or two about civilised behaivour.--Kuban Cossack Flag of the Russian Empire (black-yellow-white).svg 20:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Alex has had more than enough warnings by now. Dmcdevit·t 20:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

User:8bitJake reported by User:FRCP11 (two violations) (result: 48h)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Henry M. Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 8bitJake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):