Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive24

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:62.163.161.226 reported by User:Guy Montag[edit]

Comment User ignoring discussion to insert irrelevant possibly erreneous information.

Guy Montag 00:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

User:ContiE reported by User:81.178.123.169 (Result: Warning)[edit]

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

  • Previous version reverted to: [5]
  • 1st revert: [6]
  • 2nd revert: [7]
  • 3rd revert: [8]
  • 4th revert: [9]

Time report made: 01:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's customary to give a user a warning before reporting them. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

User:MSTCrow reported by User:Ideogram (Result: 24 hrs)[edit]

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

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

Time report made: 01:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • 24 hours. El_C 02:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Kara Umi and User:82.101.143.154 reported by User:AnnH (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Christianity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kara Umi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and 82.101.143.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):



Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


Time report made: 07:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I requested a usercheck here, with examples of identical spelling mistakes from registered user and IP. It was declined as the case seemed to be "fairly obvious 3RR evasion and [could] be treated as such." AnnH 07:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

24 hours. 13:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Qwasty reported by User:Deon Steyn (Result: No violation)[edit]

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

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


Time report made: 07:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User has made in excess of 200 edits between 21 and 23 July 2006
  • Many other reverts are subtle in nature not exactly using earlier text
  • User might be using Wikipedia for hidden agenda (soapbox/propaganda)
  • User ignores consensus on Talk page or pretends to agree or fails to respond
  • User has been referred to Wikipedia:Etiquette
  • User sometimes edits without being signed in (as 67.166.121.148)
  1. 1 is not a revert. #2 is. #3 and #4 are edits without any change in between by another user, and so count as the same revert. #5 is not by the same user, and even if it was, it would only be the third. No violation. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Roy Brumback reported by User:Semioli (Result:12h block)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Mark 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Roy_Brumback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Time report made: 10:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Ahrarara has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet but I blocked Roy Brumback for 12 hours. Sasquatch t|c 23:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Tewfik reported by User:FightCancer (Result: Warning)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tewfik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Time report made: 11:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • The user performed 2 full reverts plus 4 identical edits to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict in just over 5 hours.
  • User is a regular violator of the 3RR rule and is openly warning other users not to violate it.
  • FightCancer is currently engaged in mediation with me, where I pointed out that two of the edits are rvv, and one was the removal of an empty header and move of the link contained to "See also" after others had reverted the text, bringing the total rvs to 3. TewfikTalk 03:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Mediation was filed against you for harassment against another user by another user--not me. Regardless, how do the two reversions marked (full Wikipedia:Revert) above qualify as "vandalism"? The first full revert resulted in adding one single word, "extremist", to describe Hezbollah. The second full revert resulted in changing the topmost picture from Haifa to Beirut. How were you preventing vandalism with those reverts?
  • While I admit policy is grey on this, I was reverting disconnected, unconstructive IP edits back to the consensus page. The picture had been moved by dozens of unrelated IPs over the course of the day, and were always reverted per talk by numerous other users. The POV description was also reverted from random, disconnected IP edits countless times, by many users. I may add that these two edits were of a different POV than my reversions of your insertions, and were not part of any edit-war. TewfikTalk 04:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It's customary to warn people first, and only to report them here when they continue to revert. Tewfik: consider yourself warned. Stifle (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

User:SndrAndrss reported by User:Oldelpaso (Result: 24h and a WP:LAME listing)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on 1994 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SndrAndrss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

Time report made: 19:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: We've asked for communication on his talk page and on the article's talk page, and even via our edit summaries in the article's edit history, but he hasn't responded to anyone. There are now four users trying to sort this with no success so far, User:DeLarge, User:StuartBrady, User:Oldelpaso and User:BlueValour.

The user does not use the 'Edit preview' option, so makes changes over many edits, however, he has been attempting to apply his version to this page since at least as far back as 20:37, June 25, 2006

  • Not trying to get personal here, but this is an amazingly trivial edit war. I'm listing this on WP:LAME. Oh and 24h. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Anomicene reported by User:IronDuke (Result:)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Mike Hawash. Anomicene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [17]
  • 1st revert: [18]
  • 2nd revert: [19]
  • 3rd revert: [20]
  • 4th revert: [21]

A couple of things to note: the third revert was done, obviously, by an IP. Here is where Anomicene adds a signature to that IP on talk: [22]

Also, these reverts are small. Ordinarily, I would just let it go or issue them an invitation to self-revert. However, this user is more interested in harassing me and trolling for a reaction than he is in actually working on the article. Here is a diff indicating where this user has employed a sockpuppet to harass me a few months ago: [23]. He was asked here to stay away from me, and not only has ignored this, but followed me to other pages as well. He's just been warned again [24].

Time report made: 19:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The alleged Second revert[25] isn't a revert at all, but an attempt at compromise. The compainer let it stand, and even modified it. Regarding the other charges, please see WP:AN here.-- Anomicene 20:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
It is a revert. You (again) removed the words "himself and." IronDuke 20:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The Anomicene account has just been blocked as a sock. I don't know what the policy on 3RR is then, whether it gets dropped, but I thought I'd let you know. IronDuke 19:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Ghirlandajo reported by User:Circeus (Result:mistaken)[edit]

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

See also Relevant post at AN/I. Circeus 20:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I corrected/added GMT timestamps to all diffs for clarity as the complaint, initially did not include any time stamps (making a report invalid) and his later added time stamps still included errors and one ommission.
Now, first of all, note the lack of the time stamps in the original "report" above. If the complaining party cared to include them, one would see that the first revert is from three days ago. While, any number of reverts over any period of time is ideally too many, care is need as each case is different
Besides, Circeus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)' summary is not complete and one-sided. Circeus forgets to give a full context as their other edit conflict (not flawless by both parties) was "won" by Circeus in the end of the day by simply Circeus' blocking his opponent. The nearest to the detailed description of that conflict could be found in the archives of WP:AN at the following links:
In the first of the discussions linked above, the lack of time-stamps in 3RR reports is given as an example of things that make any report look suspicious. Such reports should be carefully looked at before taking action. I assume that in this case we have an honest error of the complaining party rather than a second attempt to achieve a "victory" in the edit conflict by having an opponent blocked, just through other means.
Since this is not 3RR, the rest of the discussion belongs to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Circeus and Ghirlandajo, again -Irpen 20:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I've rechecked the date and freely admit a ridiculous mistake in my reading of the first date, prompted by the fact most of the edit war occured today, and hereby withdraw this report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Circeus (talkcontribs)

User:69.6.167.240 reported by User:Ehheh (Result:No action)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Dark and Shattered Lands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.6.167.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

Time report made: 20:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Warned user on talk page. Revert is repeated removal of the Controversy section. Ehheh 20:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hasn't edited the page since the warning. Sasquatch t|c 23:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
From my perspective it looked as if he had, but I see now that the warning and the 4th revert were made nearly simultaneously. Ehheh 00:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

User:68.69.100.243 reported by Shaunvader (Result:Warned some more)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Maryse Ouellet. 68.69.100.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [26]
  • 1st revert: [27]
  • 2nd revert: [28]
  • 3rd revert: [29]
  • 4th revert: [30]

Time report made: 22:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Keeps adding rumor (that I can't find any link of whatsoever) that Maryse Ouellet is dating Mike Mizanin, the Mizanin page also has the same info put on it as well. Will not provide any link to verify.

Hasn't edited that page since the warning but I will warn again about unsourced info. And please sign all posts with four tildes (like this: ~~~~). Thanks. Sasquatch t|c 23:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

User:IP Address reported by Mad Jack 23:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC) (Result:48hr block)[edit]

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

  • Previous version reverted to: [31]
  • 1st revert: [32]
  • 2nd revert: [33]
  • 3rd revert: [34]
  • 4th revert: [35]

Time report made: 23:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Aside from the previous 3RR, another, identical violation on Dave Mustaine. User is uncivil, as can be seen from comments on [36] (including blanking of discussion), [37], [38] and [39]. Has been warned about 3RR and continues to revert to the same version, even though he has been told by me and User:ElKevbo that he needs a reliable source for it, which he has continually not produced. Mad Jack 23:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

All I can say is that Mad Jack is a hypocrite in most regards he attacks me, who love edit wars and marking his territory:

Please note:

  • If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.

IP Address 23:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours pending user history. Sasquatch t|c 23:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

User:WikiWoo reported by User:JChap (talkcontribs) (Result:)[edit]

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


Time report made: 06:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Problemmed editor making multiple reverts with no changes; many editors have become frustrated trying to explain to him proper sourcing, NPOV, etc.; User mostly interested in POV-pushing with respect to government of Region of Peel, Ontario.

  • Reply Comment We have a group of editors working together to persecute my work whatever it may be. They have been monitoring my every edits making mountains out of mole hills on every opportunity. They are working collectively to frustrate me by deleting work over and over again rather than making constructive edits of interesting factual content, concertrating on my form rather than my substance. I make every effort to modify the wording when I fix the vandalism they do to try to reach consesus, but I am infaliable after having to fix their vandalism dozens of times. There was no revert three times one after the other. I did not bother to review carefully the instancesa just noted, but I do not recall making pure reverts more than once or twice. They construe my contributions in an area of my expertise as me having an agenda with Peel Region. The reason I am stuck on still edditing only Peel Region and have not yet gotten to editing the other Regions of Ontario is that they are making it difficult to get one area done so I can move on to the other Regions and related areas of my expertise.WikiWoo 13:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Reverts again After being informed that this 3RR violation had been reported and responding above, he again reverted (for a fifth time) within 24 hours [47] at 13:27, 25 July.
  • And again -- his fifth reversion of the page within 24 hours [48], after participating in this discussion and after being blocked for 48 hours two weeks ago for 3RR violations as User:WikiRoo. [49]
  • Yet again at 20;27. For those keeping score at home, this is six revisions in 24 hours. [50]
  • Another revert at 23:37, July 25. [51] 6 reverts in the last 24 hours
Comment This comlaint is a gross exagetation and not in the spirit of Wiki. If reviewed carefully they are not reverts. A review of the history of edits over the last few days will find that there is editing going on and not vandalism. Other than the vandalism by the dark side pushing their POV by censoring information and facts. We are making some progress with the Susan Fennell page and I urge everyone to review the entirety of the evolution of that article so that everyone can see how Wiki Works! to generate a balanced article with interesting and important information on subjects. I am proud of our work together thus far. Too bad some people have to take it personal when they can't get their way. WikiWoo 23:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
My way? I couldn't give a fig about Susan Fennell. I just don't want unsourced POV nonsense being inserted into WP. JChap (talkcontribs) 00:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • 7th revert in the last 24 hours at 23:56, July 25[52]

User:24.151.41.250 reported by User:SynergeticMaggot (Result:Invalid 3RR report, but blocked 24 hrs for vandalism)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Djehuty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.151.41.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [53]
  • 1st revert: [54]
  • 2nd revert: [55]
  • 3rd revert: [56]
  • 4th revert: [57]

Time report made: 07:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Anon was warned, and didn't listen. SynergeticMaggot 07:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Those edits were not reverts. User has been blocked for vandalism. Report should have been made at WP:AIV. If you are making a 3RR report, you must give the times of the reverts as well as the links to the diffs. Also, if you have warned the user, don't forget to give a diff for the warning. AnnH 07:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll remember that next time. I guess I posted here too quickly. But thanks again. SynergeticMaggot 07:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Qwasty reported by User:Deon Steyn (Result:)[edit]

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

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

Time report made: 08:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

This person was doing mass-delete vandalism to the article. I reverted all of the deletions. Since this person posted here, I suspect the vandalism was an attempt at luring me into the realm of a 3-revert violation so he could get some leverage from administrators on his personal issues with me. Qwasty 09:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

False claim by accused, these were good faith edits and anything but vandalism. Deon Steyn 10:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Is this what good-faith edits look like?:
  • Deleted 4 paragraphs, and rewrote one diff
  • Deleted 3 paragraphs - the whole section, and replaced it with a run-on sentence diff
The edit notes from this vandalism session make heavy use of the word remove. Bolded below for easy reading:
  • 07:41, 25 July 2006 Deon Steyn (Talk | contribs) (→Capabilities - Clean up irrelevent info)
  • 07:38, 25 July 2006 Deon Steyn (Talk | contribs) (→Range vs. accuracy - clean up irrelevant information in attempt to trim bloated article exceeding size guidelines)
  • 07:32, 25 July 2006 Deon Steyn (Talk | contribs) (→Accuracy - remove advertising)
  • 07:15, 25 July 2006 Deon Steyn (Talk | contribs) (→Capabilities - remove unreliabel source (conversation cant' be used, please see Wikipedia:Citing sources))
  • 07:11, 25 July 2006 Deon Steyn (Talk | contribs) (→Action - factual errors, spelling, grammar)
  • 07:08, 25 July 2006 Deon Steyn (Talk | contribs) (→Action - remove factual error ("original research"))
  • 07:07, 25 July 2006 Deon Steyn (Talk | contribs) (→Action - remove irrelevant info (belongs on sniper page))
  • 07:06, 25 July 2006 Deon Steyn (Talk | contribs) (→Distinguishing characteristics - unrevert)
  • 07:05, 25 July 2006 Deon Steyn (Talk | contribs) (→Classification - remove invented "anti-personnel rifle" category)
  • 07:02, 25 July 2006 Deon Steyn (Talk | contribs) (→Classification - remove "sniper" information (see discussion))
Enough said - Qwasty 05:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that the "Three revert rule warning diff" above is the same one as used in another 3RR complaint against me by this same person[58]. That complaint has already been resolved in my favor, so I contest the validity of this complaint not only on the grounds that the reverts were done in response to vandalism, but also because of the fact that the evidence cited has already been evaluated in another instance that has already been decided. Qwasty 19:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The second complaint was made before the first one had been resolved. The new complanied contained clearer evidence and refers to new reverts, only the "warning" is the same (and does not have to change, it just documents that the user has been warned). Deon Steyn 05:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Grant65 reported by User:John Smith's (Result: stale)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Japanese war crimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Grant65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Time report made: 09:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

I had discussed the changes on the talk page, but Grant refused to accept I had a valid point so kept reverting. Even after he made 4 reverts, I didn't report him as I assumed good faith and asked him to self-revert, as can be seen if you look on his talk page. I did give him a formal warning as well. But he rejected my offer to start reverting again at a later period. So I have reported him for the original violation. John Smith's 09:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I should point out that he didn't even respond to my offer of a self-revert rather than me report him, which is one reason why I was more inclined to report him. If he had said something I still might have let it pass. John Smith's 09:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR, as I understand it, is not designed to protect users who make unilateral changes to longstanding material...and then time their own reversions to evade a 3RR complaint! Which is exactly what John Smith's has done. Thanks, Grant65 | Talk 12:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Just because something has been in an article for a time doesn't mean "everyone" agrees upon it. It also doesn't justify you to keep reinserting material. My edits had stood for a while until you came along - no one else kept throwing them back in.
Plus if you're accusing me of timing my reversions to make a complaint, you're extremely petty given that I didn't report you until you'd rejected my offer of a self-revert by reverting again. You have only yourself to blame for the 3RR vio. John Smith's 10:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Tasc reported by User:ArmanJan (Result: stale)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tasc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Time report made: 13:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This user has been reverting over and again for days since the start of this article. He reverts everything which is not to his liking. User has been banned 2 times before for revert wars: see links, ban 1 and ban 2. Furthermore, his talk page is filled with warnings about his constant reverts on many pages. ArmanJan 13:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not technically 3RR, but I have had issues with this user deleting entire sections without any prior or subsequent discussion of it on the relevant Talk page. If you read his Talk page, you will see I am not alone. It is more of an extreme WP:AGF violation than a 3RR violation, but I'm not sure where else to report it. He at least needs a talking to. --Jaysweet 14:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

User:ArmanJan reported by User:Denis Diderot (Result: stale)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on 2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ArmanJan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Time report made: 15:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The user changed the existing version and inserted that it was "according to Israel", he also later added another version of events labeled "according to Lebanon". This was rejected by other editors, but he kept reverting (with several insignificant variations). He continues to revert [13:01, 25 July 2006].

He almost always marks his edits as minor even when they're not, and edit summaries are often misleading. He clearly knows about [[[WP:3RR]].[59]User_talk:ArmanJan#WP:3RR_and_Lebanon-Israel_beginning_of_conflict

I don't know if I am allowed to reply to this, but in my defence I would like to add that I did the reverts to prevent vandalism, and knowing the rule that I am exempted from the three revert rule to prevent vandalism. Wikipedia:Three_revert_rule#Reverting_vandalism. The following link shows that I have done my best to help bring forth a consensus to stop the edit wars: Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict/POV#Reaching_consensus_on_.22Beginning_of_conflict.22_section ArmanJan 17:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Akolsrud reported by User:—Ashley Y (Result: stale)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Akolsrud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

My apology for the past mistakes. I am a newbie but have now read and understood the Wikipedia policy and rules. I am hoping to contribute quite a bit of positive and neutral contents throughout the Wikipedia - ranging from cars to physics to electronics. Sincerely Akolsrud 03:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

User:69.142.211.106 reported by User:Francis Schonken (Result:)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A-E (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.142.211.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

  • 19:47, 25 July 2006 (this was the 3rd warning, given between the 6th and 7th revert; previous warnings had been given between 4th and 5th; and between 2nd and 3rd)

Time report made: 20:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Saintjust reported by User:Appleby (Result:)[edit]

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

  • Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [61]
  • 1st revert: [62]
  • 2nd revert: [63]
  • 3rd revert: [64]
  • 4th revert: [65]

Time report made: 21:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments
  • The reporter Appleby himself was engaged in the rv wars and is also a chronic violator of 3RR rule. [66] --222.3.72.176 10:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Nicoletta8383 reported by User:User:Beowulf314159 (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Multiple reversions, re-editing, and repeated blanking, on Berber people here.

No so much simple reversion as simply cut-and-pasting old information in as new edits.

- Beowulf314159 02:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
First of all I am a new user of Wikipedia and had no idea that users had to abide by rules. I thought it was a 'free' encyclopedia that anyone could edit. I did not realize that users had such spare time on their hands *Beowulf* actually the original used brute force, you're simply using brute ignorance to perpetuate factitious information that you or whoever it is keeps posting on the Berbers page and other relevant pages. I looked up the word and was shocked to find such misleading, inaccurate and fictitious information posted and links of the most absurd kind! One link, the first among many, was of a madman's website in which numerous black americans claim that the berbers are black and that they are somehow inheriots of a history that has shunned them and has absolutely nothing to do with them! they go so far as to post a picture of blacks, who are undoubtedly servants/slaves (sad but true) and label them berbers though clearly to anyone in the region they are black. The posting of sources matters little if the source if not a dependable one. As I am from the region and have done quite a bit of research in the area, I tried to edit by removing misleading information that is really mindboggling to say the least but someone, I suppose this beowulf of bathcat, keeps reverting it to the original, factitious, fraudulent nonsense. If this is the sort of project that encourages mad men and women to write history as they see fit, then fine so be it. But I think to write a history that never was and is not, and my comments are verifiable, is really absurd and the greatest form of transgression. I have contacted the admins and I simply ask that they do some proper research before allowing such nonsense to be permanently posted, thanks to the persistent ignoramuses who keep reposting it. It should also be noted that history is written by individuals with an agenda and in the case of 'Berbers' though the term itself is inaccurate as it refers to practially hundreds of different ethnic groups in an immense region! (largest continent) and thusly enmeshes them incorrectly, at the cost of accuracy and truth. You can keep posting nonsense but truth shall prevail! And whoever keeps insisting that these people have any relation to sub-saharan,black africans is only doing a disservice to sub-saharan blacks as they are making fictitious claims when in truth blacks in North Africa are not accepted and are mostly thought of as slaves and used as servants. The subjects that were used in one of the sources were from the southern most regions of Morocco, from the periphery, near Mauritania..and not Arab regions and only about 44 were used..and these people are meant to represent the pure and Germanic Amazigh peoples of Algeria for instance or Tunisia? Some of whom even bear BRITISH NAMES! A clear indication of their heritage though not enough research has been done but will hopefully some day soon! This is sheer nonsense and this sort of ignorance and the breeding of lies should not be tolerated. Beowulf also sent me a message in which he basically threatened me by insinuating that my naivety, as I am new will prevent any reasonable editing from taking place is really unacceptable. Nothing should stand in the way of truth, Mr.Beowulf..especially not childish games of the sort that you are playing with me or trying to. People like you will only turn this project into a laughingstock. I hope the admins can do something about this, they owe it to humanity! THis beowulf is also lying..I am not pasting anything I simply kept removing the FALSE information that is SHEER NONSENSE and writing instead a short and accurate description, namely by dismissing the nonsense by removing it. Batcat also sent me a threat of sorts, accusing me of damaging people's "hard work" laughable indeed LOOL as none of it was actually written by users but rather copy and pasted from inaccurate sources. Sources are like A-holes, everyone has them and if they do not, in OUR world today, they can make up their own! So..don't give me that nonsense. Unless it is truly a verifiable source, say a study carried out by Ivy League universities, Museums etc.. then no, it does not count. And also, one must look at the subjects. For people familiar with the region, MEEEEEEE, inaccuracy is hastily discerned. I have seen the different ethnic people that inhabit the region, and I can assure all that is posted on them here is FALSE. I would appreciate some advice on how I could properly edit the site and not childish threats or accusations as I am only after the TRUTH..and if the truth bothers some people with an incentive to lie, then ...Wikipedia has a responsibility to exclude such ignorant users. Another thing, Beowulf sends me messages but I cannot reply as he does not accept messages. I wonder what you're afraid of?! Nicoletta
Nicoletta assertions are demonstativly inaccurate - not withstanding that thier information and artilcle contributions may be defensible, even if their behavior is not.
  • This is not a place to defend the edits, only the behaviors of the users in question.
  • The user was informed that their behavior was unacceptable in a message left on their talk page here. This is, to the best of my knowledge, a standard warning in Wikipedia. Despite it's standard phrasing, this is the "threat" that Nicoletta claims was made on their page.
  • Reference was made to the 3RR rule in an edit summary, here, although it may not be clear to a newbie. It is also clear from the edit summary that blanking and reversion is considered a violation of wiki ettiquite. The user distregarded both notices 11 times after the first notice, three times specifically after being told explictily that their acts could be considered vandalism, see here.
  • To the best of my knowledge, my own talk page is open - and has had messages left on it today. See the edit log here. I have even gone so far as to log out, and post a message to my own talk page as an anonymous guest - showing that the talk page is open to anyone. I suspect Nicoletta's "failure" to do so is a result of ignorance, errors in using a talk page, or an attempt at outright deciet.
  • Nicoletta is correct that my statement about their adding information is inaccurate. It was my impression that they were cut-and-pasting an old version of the page - but they are essentially correct: they are not cut-and-pasting information, they have been unilaterally expunging information without discussion, or presentation of counter balancing sources. I fail to see how this is fundementally better - but at least this is a more accurate representation of their acts.
  • Despite claiming to have verifiable references, they have not attempted to present any of these in talk. In fact, they have gone so far as to expunge and edit parts of other people's comments in the talk page that they find "objectionable": see here. Their 'tactic' seems to be "shout loud, shout repeatably, erase anything without explanation or support that you find objectionable".
  • Nicoletta claims "I have contacted the admins and I simply ask that they do some proper research before allowing such nonsense to be permanently posted". Such a "contact" is lacking in their contribution log to be found here.
  • Given the general style of argument, personal abuse, rhetoric, and command of English, it may be advisable to do a "network analysis" of the IP addresses used by "Nicoletta" and "Kara Umi", who it should be noted has recently been banned for violation of the 3RR.
Given that Nicoletta may be a new user (although they may also simply be a new sockpuppet), leniancy for acts leading up to this complaint might be in order, at the discretion of the admins.
However, now that proper Wiki ettiquite has been explained, I would urge that future blankings be treated according to wiki policy on 3RR and vandalism, as they would be for any experienced user. Beowulf314159 07:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

User:SG reported by User:Spahbod (Result:)[edit]

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

  • Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [67]
  • 1st revert: [68]
  • 2nd revert: [69]
  • 3rd revert: [70]
  • 4th revert: [71]

Time report made: 05:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: User:SG even sent a 3RR warning "stating" we both had reverted 3 times after his 4th revert: [72]. All 4 reverts include the replacing of an image from the introduction to headline!

User SG violated the 3RR once again on his own talk page: [73] by reverting my valid warning 4 times. My warnings was a response to his once again engaged revert war and his own warnings.

User:Al-Andalus reported by User:Yukirat (Result: 24h block for both users)[edit]

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

Please review. Thanks.Yukirat 07:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - both users have already been blocked for edit warring on the noted article. The whole history page is filled with their battles over the last five hours. I suggest that whoever deals with this cleans up the page history. MER-C 08:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I welcome any admin to come and see what is happening. If I am to be blocked, I'm sure it will be done with the article's best interest in mind. One thing I would ask is for the admin who intervenes in this, that s/he read the relevant talk and all the personal attacks directed not only to my person, all the complaints against the user, and also actually review the changes, deletions, unverifiable sources, POV, and personal reinterpretation of otherwise verifiable sources (deeming them useless) being introduced by the user into the article, then to proceed handing out reprimands to one and all, in whichever way it is seen appropriate. Al-Andalus 08:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I welcome it also, but mostly a review of the actual article text which Al-Andalus continually reverts without making contributions to or justifying his edits. I have posted WP:NPA many times to stop nonsense. The article text is most important to discuss, but by all means read the Discussion too.Yukirat 08:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Al-Andalus that the page has problems, even so breaking 3RR is not permissible. Yukirat has been at least as guilty, and has been rather offensive as well. I recommend that both users be blocked for some period of time. -Will Beback 09:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I have blocked both Al-Andalus & Yukirat for 24 hours for violation of 3RR. I have also protected the White (people) article due to the excessive reverting. I recommend the involved users resolve the dispute & reach a compromise on the article's talk page and later request unprotection. Thanks --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 10:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

reported by Richardjames444 17:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC) WP:3RR[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Clinton Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 206.165.97.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Time report made: 17:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The unregistered user appears to be a sockpuppet for User:Clinton Foundation who reverts to the same original article and has reverted from rereverts twice in the last hour.

User:Litclass reported by User:αChimp laudare (Result: Final and stern warning)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Staying Fat For Sarah Byrnes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Litclass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

Time report made: 18:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This professor has been posting on this article's AfD that we do not have the right to revert the article. She has already been blocked once for removing my speedy tag 4 times in a row. αChimp laudare 18:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Gave user a warning, as reverts have stopped for the time being. However, I made it quite clear to Litclass that any more misbehavior will engender a block in short order. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 23:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

User:71.247.125.25 reported by User:Gimmetrow (Result: 3 Hour Block)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on R40A (New York City Subway car) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.247.125.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Time report made: 18:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

User:TheTruth2 reported by User:3bulletproof16 (Result:12 hour block)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on WrestleMania X8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TheTruth2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):


Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


Time report made: 20:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • TheTruth2 has a serious WP:OWN problem with the article. He has ignored previous warnings from other users that have tried to explain the situation to him.--3bulletproof16 20:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


Please talk to Malo. I have been cival to Bullet after discussing it with him. I have not been warned by others. I have only spoken to TJ Spyke. He seems to be OK. Bullet seems to have some issues. Bullet is the one that appears to have a serious WP:OWN problem with the article. I have been updated Malo about the situation and have follewed his suggestions.--TheTruth2 20:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not OK. I don't know why you kept reverting it TheTruth2, even after I pointed out why you shouldn't keep reverting it. I even requested arbitration because you wouldn't stop reverting it and we couldn't aree. TJ Spyke 21:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I was warned at 20:23 I did not revert it at all after the fact. He just warned me and I did nothing and then he reports me?

These "wrestling guidelines" followed. Also Bullet does not own the article. He is the one who has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OWN issues I was just improving the article. As I stated If there are no summaries of the match at that particular event then they WILL GO TO OTHER SITES. Their goal is go get noticed and if you include summaries of the matches then more people will come and see that article. --TheTruth2 21:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  • This isn't about getting more people to visit a website this about writing an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox And this time really read it instead of claiming you did just to shut the people referring you to the guideline up. --3bulletproof16 21:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC
Both blocked per below. Edit warring is wrong. Period. Sasquatch t|c 00:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

3Bulletproof16 reported by User:TheTruth2 (Result: Both blocked for 12 hours)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on {{}http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WrestleMania_X8}. 3Bulletproof16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Time report made: \04:00

Comments: I have warned him in regards to the 3RR rule. It seems that he has “ownership” issues over the article. I have been in contact with Malo in regards to Bullet and I have been talking with TJ Spyke about it as well. --TheTruth2 21:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Read the Guidelines... A 3RR report can only be filed if the reversions occurred more than 4 times within a 24 hour period. The last reversion I did was 4 minutes After the 24 hour period. TheTruth has been pointed towards the