Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive20

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:MarshallBagramyan reported by User:Kültigin (talk)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MarshallBagramyan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Time report made: 19:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Removes cited content from the article. Note that the article is about an Armenian terrorist organization and the user is Armenian, in complete lack of good-faith and NPOV.

User:TPIRFanSteve reported by User:Buckner 1986 (no violation)[edit]

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

Time report made: 23:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Acts like he "owns" the article, removed information that mentions the source. He also left me some angry messages on my user talk page. This user's action has already driven one user off of Wikipedia - Cheesehead 1980 and seems to be a problem user. Buckner 1986 23:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I do not understand how this is even still an issue. I provided links to summaries of five differrent episodes where Pathfinder was played perfectly on said article's talk page, and Mr. Buckner's response was basically, "I'm right and you're wrong." I honestly have no idea how to deal with this. -TPIRFanSteve 23:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
This user is very abusive and seems to have made veiled threats. Please deal with him accordingly. Buckner 1986 00:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Would you care to tell me where I've done this? 'Cause to be perfectly honest, you've completely lost me at this point. (And if your Talk page is any indication, you've also pretty much flat-out said that you're never going to admit that you're wrong no matter how much evidence I give you short of actually showing you clips of the episodes in question -- which I obviously can't do.) -TPIRFanSteve 00:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
No violation, the reverts must be in 24hr span.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Ferick reported by User:TSO1D[edit]

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

Time report made: 19:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This user has continuously removed the Serbian topics template from the article, in my view not because it is not relevant there but because of ideological reasons. TSO1D 19:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

User:TPIRFanSteve reported by User:CobaltBlueTony[edit]

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

Time report made: 02:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User:Cheesehead 1980 seems to be refraining, based on his comments to me here. Should also look at [[1]]. - CobaltBlueTony 02:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you count to 4? William M. Connolley 08:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Tramsvik reported by User:Attilios[edit]

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

  • Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [2]
  • 1st revert: [3]
  • 2nd revert: [4]
  • 3rd revert: [5]
  • 4th revert: [6]

Comments: in his different incarnations, user:Tramsvik, user:81.62.140.67 and User:137.138.30.181, this guy edits only Cannalonga. He insists to revert to a version which is clearly bad styled and adopting a non-standard infobox (see almost ALL other articles on Italian communes for comparison) written by him.

User:Pecher reported by User:Netscott (Result: no block)[edit]

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

Time report made: 12:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: While it's true the original four reverts weren't all across the same content, this report is being filed due to an ongoing edit war primarily between User:Pecher and User:Ibrahimfaisal. Additionally, although revert #3 seems to be primarily done in good faith to remove SAW honorifics from the article, User:Pecher also blanket reverted out content changes surrounding ages. Of late I've noticed User:Pecher in revert wars across a number of articles with Muhammad being the primary example. Also please note I am an uninvolved editor in this edit war on Muhammad and while I don't believe User:Ibrahimfaisal is himself in violation of 3RR a warning for him is probably merited particularly in light of some of his editorial commentary. Netscott 12:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Pecher has been notified of this report. Netscott 12:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
As admitted above, revert #3 was actually a revert of simple vandalism because insertion of SAW honorifics obviously qualifies as such, and I have restored the good faith (and correct) change of 10 to 8 years. Please also note that the other reverts were also restorations of sourced material. However, if an admin finds that I have violated the 3RR, I will promise not to edit the article in question for the next 24 hours. The glaring inaccuracy in the above report is the claim that the edit war on Muhammad is primarily between myself and User:Ibrahimfaisal. In fact, these are users Ibrahimfaisal and Mystic who are attempting to remove sourced material that they dislike, their edits being reverted by User:Tom harrison, User:Aiden, User:Tickle me, and myself. Singling me out here as an edit warrior "to strengthen the case" is plainly inappropriate. Pecher Talk 12:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The "fifth revert" reported by Netscott was actually a self-revert linked above. Pecher Talk 12:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

As the 3rd edit was a reversion of vandalism and the 5th edit was a self revert of any other changes made in the 3rd there is no block. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

  • The recent editing history there is complicated by some possibly well-intended honorifics that were added by an anonymous editor. As I understand it, these are inconsistent with the style guide, and were removed by Luna Santin and Irishpunktom, as well as by Pecher. Other than the removal of these added honorifics, and possibly a correction changing "10" to "8", there has been no change to the article since Irishpunktom's version of 05:24, 21 June 2006. There was a brief disagreement on content yesterday, that did not quite become an edit war, and is (I hope) mostly resolved. Tom Harrison Talk 12:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The accuracy in your commentary is appreciated User:Tom harrison. User:Pecher's 3rd revert doesn't count as a revert against vandalism... but style guide does apply. If the 3rd revert hadn't been a blanket one there'd be no report here. Netscott 13:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Had you taken a closer look at the diffs before posting them, there'd be no report here.Timothy Usher 08:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Jefffire reported by User:Aquirata (Result: No block)[edit]

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

Time report made: 12:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User:Jefffire has been regularly violating various WP policies, including WP:3RR, WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:EP, WP:HAR, WP:NPA, WP:OWN, WP:VAND, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOT, just to mention a few. This doesn't just concern the Astrology page, but that's where I make most of my edits and so that's where I notice them. He is constantly harrassing other editors by uncivil edits, typically without discussing them first on the Talk page. He has absolutely no knowledge of the subject topic (by his own admission) yet is one of the most frequent editors of the page. He doesn't listen to reason, cannot cooperate, and overrules every other editor by his militaristic attitudes.

It is my view that User:Jefffire needs to be blocked from editing the Astrology page (among others). Aquirata 12:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I must protest. I've made 3 reverts, plus a number of other changes which I don't believe classify as reverts. The first "revert" listed is a helpful deletion which has been uncontested and not a "reversion". By way of honesty, lasy month I did unintentionally violate the 3rr on Objective Validity of Astrology due to an error on my part because I had not read the policy properly. I believe my interpratation is correct, but I have reverted myself none the less as a peace making move. However, I must also point out that User:Aquirata has been engaging in a persistant campainge of personal attacks against me, and has been the subject of an RfC for their behaviour, and has made past false accusations of 3rr violations against me. Jefffire 13:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I must also point out that many of the other accussations made against me are compeltely false. I discuss points thourally on talk pages, I try to be civil at all times, despite Aquirata making numerous personally attacks against me about my "ignorance", "lack of knowledge" and repeatedly pointing out spelling mistakes in my talk page edits. I have never vandalised EVER, and adhere very strongly to WP:V. I find these false accussation to be very distressing. Jefffire 13:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The first revert cited is not identical to the other 3, and they are part of different edit conflicts. Hence no block. Sam Vimes 13:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sam, I don't understand your reasoning. WP:3RR explicitly states that "an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period."; and "there is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count." Please explain. Aquirata 15:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:KraMuc reported by User:Philosophus T[edit]

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

  • Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [7]
  • 1st revert: [8]
  • 2nd revert: [9]
  • 3rd revert: [10]
  • 4th revert: [11]
  • 5th revert: [12]

Time report made: 14:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

There is considerable evidence supporting the claim that KraMuc is also 82.52.19.192. The IP is in the same block as an IP KraMuc used a few days ago to edit, as seen with whois, editing times are the same, and at least one edit comment is the same. KraMuc has been warned and blocked about 3RR before, if I recall, regarding a previous incarnation of the article at Anti-relativity. After being admonished this time, he has started to randomly blank portions of the article and its talk page.--Philosophus T 14:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

User:SCZenz seems to be handling this already. --Philosophus T 14:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Yungmike513 reported by User:Zerida[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Egypt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yungmike513 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Time report made: 19:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Yungmike513 keeps deleting a picture from Egypt and replacing it with an older picture. I asked him not to keep removing the image and warned him of 3RR [13] after he also vandaized my talk page [14] and my user page [15]. He's back today for what seems to be like another round [16][zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · t 19:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a note to say that edit warring has been an ongoing problem with this article, with User:Zerida also being a prominent offender. There has been a concerted effort by certain parties to obliterate any reference to a black, African presence (which is considerable) in Egypt. Indeed, it was a struggle to get Zerida to acknowledge that the Egyptian people are not homogeneous. Zerida and, most notably, a contributor Egyegy repeatedly have removed an image of a Fellah girl, substituting one of a less black-looking male, engaging in what looks like tag-team edit warring. I have reinserted the image, hoping to achieve some balance. Anyone interested can read the talk page. I've appealed to the parties involved (including Yungmike) to accommodate this one image of a dark-skinned Fellah, along with other images of lighter-skinned Egyptians. We'll see how it goes. The page bears watching. deeceevoice 21:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Isarig reported by User:Will314159[edit]

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

Time report made: 19:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: .Isarig is a very incosniderate and aggresive reverter. He's stated in the talk pages that he's going to keep on reverting certain stuff regardless. He has been blocked before. I have warned him "Isarig. the 3R rule reflects a policy to avoid endless edit wars. It is not a license to revert three in one day, then punishment on the fourth. (It is the fourth edit supposedly that gets you in trouble). Even one edit a day if done w/ your intent is sufficient from my reading." (I have removed this (and will keep removing it) ...." Take Care! --Will 07:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Take Care! --Will(talk) 19:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The following is a summary of the reverts by Isarig in case I goofed up the report form " 4th. (cur) (last) 18:23, 21 June 2006 Isarig (→Expertise and professionalism - this is ther "criticism" section, so critics come first) In the fourth, Isarig reversed the order of the opponent and propnent of juan cole's qualifications.(cur) (last) 18:21, 21 June 2006 Isarig (→Expertise and professionalism - Joyner is not currently a professor.) In the third, Isarig unprofessored, Professor Joyner. (cur) (last) 21:33, 20 June 2006 Isarig (your source is not WP:RS thiswas explained in th edit summary and on Talk. Please do not re-add it before reaching consensus on Talk) In the second, Isarig removed Professor Joyner's opinion (cur) (last) 20:19, 20 June 2006 Isarig (blogs are not WP:ES In the first Isarig removed Professor James Joyner's opinion. Will314159 19:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not a 3RR violation, as the logs show. The 4th "revert" is not a revert at all, but addition of material. The 3rd "revert" is again not a revert, but a re-ordering of exiting material. The first two "reverts" are instances where I removed a quote from a non WP:RS source (a blog) which Will added despite this being pointed out to him Isarig 20:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't see a violation here. Everyone would do well to just let it cool off for a day or two. Tom Harrison Talk 20:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, I pulled the wrong refs. It's kind hard to do this stuff. I"ll pull them better next time b/c he reverts every day. Take Care! Will314159 00:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat reported by User:Ned Scott[edit]

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

Time report made: 19:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ned Scott 19:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If he is edit warring, so are you. I've locked the article. Please work out your differences on the talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 20:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Negiative time stamp is not within 24 hours. --Cat out 22:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Mywayyy reported by User:Khoikhoi[edit]

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

Comments:

User:McKhan reported by User:BhaiSaab[edit]

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

Time report made: 00:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


Comments:

The 1st revert was a partial revert which, I believe, still counts as a revert. BhaiSaab talk 00:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

When BhaiSaab does that, it constitues to editing and when McKhan or someone else does that, it tantmounts to 3RR violation. I was simply providing the Contexual Archiving to the Talk:Page. However, BhaiSaab wants ONLY his Archving version to be posted. He is pushing his Shia agenda on most of Wikipedia Islam-related pages. He has record of going after most of the edits of the Wikipedia editors / contributors once challenged. He is in the violation of 3RR and continue to use Wikipedia "Original Search" and "Wikipedia: Verifiable" to pursue his agenda. McKhan

*Oh come on - 3RR on a talk page? Over what? whether to archive or not? Someone be gracious about it. Tom Harrison Talk 01:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I have blocked McKhan for twenty-four hours. Tom Harrison Talk 01:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR Violation[edit]

User:Doright Has reverted three times in less than 24 hours at Martin Luther. He continues to insist on adding a category to the Martin Luther category list that has been discussed and removed many times. This is a regular pattern of behavior. Invitations to discuss, and other such remedies have not proven successful. Many of the editors on the Martin Luther page are tired of the fact that Doright apparently is allowed, with impunity, to launch personal attacks and revert like this with impunity. Efforts to have admins deal with this have not produced positive change. A ban is in order.Ptmccain 02:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:FunkyFly reported by User:cigor[edit]

- Three revert rule violation on Macedonism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). FunkyFly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Event though he has been asked repeatedly about the format [26], [27], [28], for which he answer he doesn't care, or "lets not get ridiculous", no explanation has been provided --Cigor 02:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • First of all, Cigor, read the 3RR policy. Its about 4 reverts for 24 hours that are in violaion, not just 3. Second, you have not provided any diffs.   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
As I previosly stated FF, did not bother to explain his edits, even after several explicit questions--Cigor 02:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I have attempted to establish dialog several times with FF about this issue, but he consistently refused, or don't care. --Cigor 03:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Cigor reported by User:FunkyFly[edit]

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

Time report made: 02:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I have blocked Cigor for 48h as it is his second violation abakharev 05:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Rastishka (working as a registered user and as an IP User:82.33.32.160) reported by User:abakharev[edit]

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

Time report made: 05:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User was warned on the talk page abakharev 05:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Liftarn reported by User:Pecher Talk[edit]

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

Time report made: 12:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Complex, partial reverts, all relating to the sentence: "In October 2005 Ahmadinejad gave a speech that contained antagonistic statements about the State of Israel." The first revert was marked as such. The last three reverts were all removals of the word "state" (revert #2) or the words "State of Israel" (reverts #3 and 4) inserted by other editors. Liftarn has already reported several editors for 3RR violation, so he apparently knows about the 3RR. Pecher Talk 12:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Re knowledge of rules: he has previously been blocked for 3RR. User is continuing his disruptive POV edits on that article, most recently making a sentence unintelligible.--Mantanmoreland 21:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:DaffyDuck619 reported by User:Lid[edit]

Three revert rule violation on John_Cena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DaffyDuck619 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Time report made: 13:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Continous adding of a single detail that has been ruled inconsequential elsewhere results in him reverting several parts of the article to add in his single detail. The first revert reverted from this, although there was a significant ammount of edits inbetwee, while the second reverted from this. The third reverted from this. Reverts four through six all reverted this Edit: forgot to sign Edit 2: the reason the revert dates don't match my signed date is because I live in Australia so all the times are +10 hours Lid 14:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Added urls to compare to show that he keeps adding back in the same two paragraphs about cartoons. --- Lid 19:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

And now he's upto seven

with the comment I'M NOT GOING TO STOP ADDING THIS! YOU BETTER STOP DELETING THIS! --- Lid 23:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


    • I have blocked him for 24 h abakharev 01:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Perpetual motion machine reported by User:Philosophus T[edit]

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

  • Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [29]
  • 1st revert: [30]
  • 2nd revert: [31]
  • 3rd revert: [32]
  • 4th revert: [33]

Time report made: 14:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

PPM comes on every few days and makes the same reversions. He has become more persistent about the template however, and reverted it for a fourth time in the last 20 minutes after I warned him about 3RR. Whenever I try to discuss the changes with him, he changes the section title to "Philosophus POV" and says something about his changes being non-negotiable due to WP:NPOV, so it may be that he believes the edits are exempt from 3RR. He probably just needs a warning, but that warning is going to have to come from someone other than me to be taken seriously. --Philosophus T 14:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Look at the edits. This is a lie. WP:NPOV is non-negotiable. I'm @ 3RR. Perpetual motion machine 14:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... after discussing this on IRC, this might not be a 3RR violation technically, since the first reversion apparently doesn't count, though PPM seems to be gaming the system here to make the same reversions over and over again every few days, more recently on this template, but also on Cox's timepiece --Philosophus T 14:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

IRC? Great, there are hidden forces at work; What about keeping the discussion @ wikipedia?. Perpetual motion machine

  • Blocked for 24h abakharev 01:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Imacomp reported by User:Seraphim[edit]

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

Time report made: 14:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The reverts are the Line 317 change from "perished at the hands of" to "were murdered under". User is using misleading edit summaries, and marking major changes as minor edits to attempt to hide his reverts. The fact is that in all 4 of the above edits, he reverted "perished at the hands of" to "were murdered under". It's a clear 3rr violation. Seraphim 14:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

+2 more reverts, he knows he's going to be banned for 24 hrs, so he keeps reverting attempting to bait someone into reverting him for a 4th time in 24 hrs. Can someone please deal with this quickly before there's a casualty? Seraphim 15:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he's already had 3 24h blocks so I suspect a longer block is in order. -999 (Talk) 15:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
That would be fine with me :P, he's breaking down worse then Skulls 'n' Femurs did. Seraphim 15:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Too bad I'm not an admin. I'd give him 72h. ;-) -999 (Talk) 15:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Wiki-star reported by User:3bulletproof16 (result: 72h)[edit]

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

Comments: Wiki-star has once again claimed ownership of the article as he reverts to his previous versions, ignoring the comments left by other users and the consensus already formed. Voice of Treason, Isopropyl, Daishokaioshin, Onikage725, Zarbon, Darkwarriorblake, Papacha, Orion Minor, and I have all once again made attempts to discuss this issue with him but to no avail.-3bulletproof16 16:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: There's not much to say that hasn't been said already. He refuses to talk things over with others and lords over the articles he chooses like a would-be admin. Onikage725 17:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I beg your pardon!?! William M. Connolley 19:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I meant no disrespect to admins. I said "would-be," to illustrate that he has delusions of authority. I don't mean to imply that admins behave in this manner. Onikage725 22:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment While Wiki-star is reverting again this probably falls more into WP:ANI, due to willful baiting, calling to be banned, and taking pride in causing conflicts. It's nothing new, but it's getting worse now. Voice of Treason 18:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMajin_Buu&diff=59940184&oldid=59939830
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Majin_Buu&diff=prev&oldid=59940646
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMajin_Buu&diff=60007491&oldid=60003026
  4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMajin_Buu&diff=60018837&oldid=60016720

72h this time might slow him down a bit William M. Connolley 19:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment:

  • I have had enough history with Wiki-Star to know that he's trouble. He takes command of the articles and adds an enormous amount of images (approximately 50) to each page. I previously cleaned up the Buu, Piccolo, Gotenks, Vegito, and Vegeta pages on a continuous basis, only to see him come back and revert, and promise to continue doing it with no other basis or consensus in mind except for the fact that he likes the characters. Considering the fact that even more important characters aren't even getting 7 or 8 pictures, it's only obvious that neither of the mentioned deserve 40 odd images on the page to illustrate their history. I am going to agree with everyone else who is on the lookout to find a way of stopping this Wiki-Star fellow. As for the ban amount, I don't think it's going to make a difference. He has promised to continue what he's doing and he has sworn not to care about anyone else's consensus reached. How many times has he already been banned? Approximately 4...or more? It's obvious he won't stop. I also know that he acts as a major sockpuppeteer, but that's besides the point. It's just more reasons to prove that he doesn't really have a tendency of learning from his mistakes. - Zarbon
  • Wiki-star: Oh so now you're gonna act all nice and mushy mushy. Ha, the hypocracy is what drives me! Listen to yourself, you're even resenting to a lie to remove a good contributor like myself. I only turn my attention on the Buu article, because that Dragon Ball character is who i am most familiar, and knowledgeable on. The other Articles you have mention, i haven't touch in over 1 month now! Hahahahahaaaaaa.... man! This is funny. Oh well, i'll be in a better place when and if i'm banned! Take care folks Wiki-star 02:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Wladimir reported by User:Joy [shallot] (result: 3h)[edit]

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

Left this comment telling me doesn't "have time arguing with you" on 19:39, 20 June 2006. Then he proceeded to revert:

Time report made: 17:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

I'm not banning him myself because I've undone most of his damage. He also made further damage prior to that comment, see the article history and talk page. --Joy [shallot] 17:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

3h first offence no warning William M. Connolley 19:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


User:HOTR reported by User:Zeq[edit]

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


1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boycott_of_Israel&diff=59995552&oldid=59995060 13:48, 22 June 2006 (removing info was a revert while he also added new info in the same edit. Edit summary only say: added info)

2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boycott_of_Israel&diff=59991291&oldid=59943879 13:14, 22 June 2006 (revert is by commenting-out a section, some words were added as part of the same edit)

3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boycott_of_Israel&diff=60004644&oldid=60001827 14:57, 22 June 2006 (revert is by commenting-out a section)

4th revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boycott_of_Israel&diff=60028583&oldid=60025540 17:39, 22 June 2006 (revert is by commenting-out a section)

comments: Complex reverts since some of them include an addition and not just the revert but a look at the history page will show a very simple pattern: HOTR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) started the article. Every (different) edit I made to the article he reverted (with a small exception of a quote by A Palestinian that he kept and qualified) User is well aware of 3RR on all the little details of the rule so he should 'know better' this is not his 1st or 2nd violation of the rule in similar circumstances let's see how he explain it this time. I am sure he has an explanation. Zeq 19:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

  • It is important to note that previous articles that started this way ended up being protected for weeks (still are) . Zeq 20:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    • This is a bad faith complaint by Zeq. My edits were an attempt to make Zeq's contributions intelligible as they were submitted replete with spelling, grammatical and logical errors. In some cases I made an effort to bring his contributions up to standard, in others I commented them out with a request that he fix them and properly source them. If editing Zeq for his poor spelling and grammar or for not providing proper citations is now to be counted as a 3RR violation then no one who edits any of the articles he contributes to is safe as he seems unable or unwilling to spell and grammar check. The complaint is frivolous. Homey 21:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of a revert war - it's a matter of trying to bring substandard edits up to standard. I submit the text of various of Zeq's edits and my responses:

This was Zeq's first contribution:

The ban was resinded few days later, after arguments where made that the vote was by a small group which was able to get a majority when the number of voters was not high. Similar events led to the ban being reinstated in June 2006 and resinded again only four days later

The above was unsourced so I commented it out and asked for a source[35] - I also corrected the spelling of "resinded" (sic).

Zeq's second attempt was little better:

despite Palestinian university president who argued against it[http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/727899.html], [http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3264160,00.html]. The ban was rescinded few days later, after arguments where made that the vote was by a small group which was able to get a majority when the number of voters was not high. Similar events led to the ban being reinstated in June 2006 and rescinded again only four days later [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/725533.html],[http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1148482061684&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull],[http://www.divestmentwatch.com/NewsStories/abi-20060521.htm],[http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000112.html]

I attempted to develop the first part by rewriting it as[37]: A prominent Palestinian academic, Sari Nusseibeh, president of Al Quds University has argued against the boycott telling Associated Press "If we are to look at Israeli society, it is within the academic community that we've had the most progressive pro-peace views and views that have come out in favor of seeing us as equals... If you want to punish any sector, this is the last one to approach."[38], [39].

As for the second, I commented out the following: <!-- this makes no sesne this the ban was only implemented a few weeks ago -- Similar events led to the ban being reinstated in June 2006 and rescinded again only four days later--> ie The sentence made no sense - I asked Zeq to rewrite it.

Zeq tried to rewrite it as such:
a similar ban was overturned a year later after claimes were made that initial vote was at a very narrow margin (96:92) [40],[41],[42],[43],[44],[45] </nmowiki>[46]
The problem is he added something that had to do with a compeltely different item and it didn't really make any sense.

I commented this out and added the following suggestion (emphasis added to my comments)[47]: <!-- you're talking about something completely different here - please don't confuse things by putting it in the same paragraph and please actually explain what this refers to (ie the name of the union, what the resolution actually was, when it was passed etc) - you are being too vague, I don't want to have to keep rewriting your additions for clarity, please do it yourself -- a similar ban was overturned a year later after claims were made that initial vote was at a very narrow margin (96:92)[48],[49],[50],[51],[52],[53]

He has yet to fix the above.

He then added something completely new:

On June 21, 2006 the International Red Cross (IRC) decided at it's conference is being held in Geneva Switzerland to end a ban that lasted 55 years and decided to include the Magen David Adom organization (MDA) as an official member of the IRC. The inclusion of the MDA had been blocked for years because its red Star of David emblem is not recognized by the IRC. Mostly Arab and Muslim states voted reject the decision which was approved with a large majority of 80% of the member states of the IRC. [55]

However, the source he gives says nothing about the IRC issue being related to the Israeli boycott and so I commented it out with the edit comment "source does not assert IRC was part of boycott"[56] In the commented out part I also referred to Zeq's poor writing.

Again, this isn't a "revert war" and has nothing to do with 3RR, it's a matter of trying to improve the largely unintelligible, grammatically incorrect contributions of an editor who can't be bothered to spell or grammar check. Homey 22:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... What part of ""Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word. Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting." don't you understand? Blocked for 3RR and once again trying to game the 3RR system and being a chronic 3RR offender. FeloniousMonk 23:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Elfguy reported by User:Mmx1[edit]

Three revert rule violation on September_11,_2001 attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Elfguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

In addition, the user continued to revert, making it 6 times of this particular revert in 25 hours:

Also, the user made the following reversion in the initial 24 hour span: To version 12:58, 21 June 2006. Reversion #1:11:46, 22 June 2006

User was warned after the third revert: 12:58, 21 June 2006, and responded that he was well familiar with the 3rr policy [57]. This revert is not as clear, but it's a reinsertion of the words presumed, removed by editor User:Morton devonshire at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11%2C_2001_attacks&oldid=59868101

The timing of the reverts appears to be a failed attempt to game the 3rr rule - 6 reverts in 2 days, separated by just under 24 hours.

Time report made: 19:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Blocked for 24 hours.--MONGO 03:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Winknnudge reported by User:William M. Connolley[edit]

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

Time report made: 19:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:


User keeps re-inserting inappropriate link with implausible claims of vandalism against page consensus. Previously warned William M. Connolley 19:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Second Vienna Award[edit]

User:Zsakos reported by User:Tēlex[edit]

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

Time report made: 19:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Probably the is the same person as the anon below - he keeps deleting a quote. Was warned. --Tēlex 19:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:84.2.138.222 reported by User:Tēlex (result: 24h)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Second Vienna Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 84.2.138.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Time report made: 19:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Probably the is the same person as the user above - he keeps deleting a quote. Was warned. --Tēlex 19:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 21:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:204.56.7.1 reported by User:William M. Connolley[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Template:Perpetual motion machine (edit | [[Talk:Template:Perpetual motion machine|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 204.56.7.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user ·