Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive30

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Uknewthat reported by User:Justin (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

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

  • Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
  • 1st revert: [1] 12:46, October 21, 2006
  • 2nd revert: [2] 21:36, October 21, 2006
  • 3rd revert: [3] 00:26, October 22, 2006
  • 4th revert: [4] 02:54, October 22, 2006

Time report made: 03:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC) User:Uknewthat has been previously blocked for WP:3RR on two occasions and blocked once for disruption. His entire edit history consists of adding POV and OR material to the Global Positioning System and Hafele-Keating experiment and his edits are the reason why these articles are currently semi-protected. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Uknewthat for additional information on this user.

I blocked him for 24 hours, not for the 3RR as such, but for continuing to add the OR. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Gstar4 reported by User:Hkelkar (Result: 8 hours)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gstar4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here:04:21, 20 October 2006


Time report made: 18:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User has also removed sprotected tag placed there by admins. He has been edit-warring on Khalistan in a similar manner and has not responded to my pleas for discussion.Hkelkar 18:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Those diff links are all 404s, so I can't act on this. Stifle (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Update:I have corrected the error, sorry.Hkelkar 07:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, 8h. Stifle (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Snowolfd4 reported by User:Leuko (Result: 24h)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Military use of children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Snowolfd4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to:
  • 1st revert: [5]
  • 2nd revert: [6]
  • 3rd revert: [7]
  • 4th revert: [8]
  • 5th revert: [9]
  • 6th revert: [10]

Time report made: 08:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User was already blocked for 3RR for 24 hours, now continues to edit war on the article to push POV edits. Leuko 08:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Already blocked twice for this, and another 24h is the result. Stifle (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Bbb1992 reported by User:Panarjedde (Result: 12h each)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Alexandroupoli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bbb1992 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. [11]

Time report made: 14:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • The user has been already blocked for 3RR violation
  • The comment of his 4th and last edit was (rv) this is my third and last reversion, for today
  • The revert is quite trivial
  • Yep, that's a violation and 12 hour block. Unfortunately for Panarjedde, he/she has also reverted 4 times in there and gets 12h as well. Stifle (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    • That's a second violation (the first was a 24h block) and deserves a 12h block. Unfortunately for Panarjedde, he reverted 4 times in 48h, so he deserves a 12h block too. Thanks.--Panarjedde 12:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I make no comment on the first one, but Panarjedde, sarcastic as he may be, is completely right, I goofed and apologise. Stifle (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

User:68.41.31.120 reported by User:Thor Malmjursson (Result: Sprotected)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Bachmann_Thomas_and_Friends. User:68.41.31.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Time report made: 16:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Discospinster and I have repeatedly warned this IP for the continued and persistent addition of information which is in direct contravention of Wikipiedia is not a crystal ball. The IP has repeatedly added information about upcoming products in this range of toys which they have been unable to give sources for, and have continuously ignored both Discospinster's and my own warnings.

Seems to be a job for Mr. Semi-Protection. Stifle (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Zarbon reported by User:KojiDude (Result:Zarbon, 1 month; KojiDude:warned)[edit]

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

Time report made: 22:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User has received numerous 3RR blocks before. He has an extremley bad WP:OWN issue as well. My suggestion would be a 2 week block, seeing as how this is the 4th offense, and after the 3rd he had created sock puppets to evade his block.--KojiDude (Contributions) 22:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Zarbon for one month. I warned User:KojiDude to avoid edit-warring. Tom Harrison Talk 23:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Capsource1 reported by User:Gdo01 (Result:24h)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Mike_Malloy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Capsource1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Time report made: 23:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Started off as an IP user 71.194.175.20 claiming that an e-mail from the user led to the firing of Mike Malloy but offered no other explanation or citation. In addition the user added Rush Limbaugh links to the page. The user registered a user account and went on again to put Rush Limbaugh links on the page in addition to the revert. After that the user reverted multiple times as above and added a rant as of the 4th revert. I wrote on his talk page that the commentary belonged on the talk page. The user then proceeded to revert on the article page and add the same edit to the talk page. The user has shown no intent on cooperating and thinks that the rant is sufficient reason and rationale for the edits. Gdo01 23:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition the article currently needs a revert since I am also on the verge of violating 3RR. Gdo01 00:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The user has reverted again with the rationalle that the edit has to remain until there is a decision. As above, a revert is again needed. Gdo01 00:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I have also participated in reversion of this article, and have removed Capsource's edits now 3 times today, and am against my own 3R cap. I have also started and explained patiently on his talk page about the guidelines that make his edits improper. I hope someone can help here. Debivort 01:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 3rr, but arguably vandalism because of the style William M. Connolley 09:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

User:NBGPWS reported by User:Tbeatty and User:GabrielF (Result: 24h)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on User:GabrielF/911TMCruft (edit | [[Talk:User:GabrielF/911TMCruft|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). NBGPWS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Time report made: 04:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Procedural note - two reports on this matter were submitted nearly simultaneously by me and Tbeatty, they are consolidated here. GabrielF 05:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

  • This is a dispute over a user page, and an extremely controversial one at that. It co-ordinates editors with a particular outlook for AFD snowballs, which I can't differentiate from vote-stacking. The whole situation is really ironic, since the usual snowball swarm has now turned into a revert swarm of someone posting an article that you'd think they'd want to AFD. Anyway's I'm not even sure 3RR applies outside of article space, much less on a subpage of user talk page. At the least, Tbeatty's call for a LONG ban is inappropriate, unless he is referring to himself, in which case I fully endorse it. This is really a matter to be settled at RFC or at the Village Pump. Derex 05:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • User:Derex has decided to inject himself by repeating the reverts and not not signing them. Violating WP:POINT and disruption by trying to continue a revert war. --Tbeatty 06:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Special:Contributions/Derex is quite an interesting read. It should be noted that Derex has somehow been previously involved. Tuxide 06:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
      • What's interesting about it? I hadn't ever made an edit to that page at the time of this report. I do have strong feelings about the page, which I would think is pretty clear from my comments. So, what's your implication? If you've got something to say, I'd prefer you'd be clear. Derex 09:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I'd tend to agree -- doesn't seem entirely pertinent to the matter at hand. I've been wrong before, but I don't think Derex is going to break 3RR anytime soon. Luna Santin 09:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
          • My implication was not whether Derex will violate 3RR (I have no reason to believe he ever did) but to question the validity of Derex's above comment. It is obvious that there are two parties here that just don't seem to like getting along with each other. In my opinion, the only clear, well-defined rule concerning behaving on Wikipedia is obviously WP:DICK, with policies like WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL, etc. that are just there to help people interpret it. I believe there's more to this than just a simple 3RR incident and what is being discussed here; therefore it is with much consideration that I believe this should've been brought up on WP:WQA instead of WP:AN/3RR. Tuxide 00:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Sure, I think that's along the lines of what I was thinking, too -- there's obviously more going on here than a little 3RR. an RfC might be healthy, possibly MfD -- or hey, even the Mediation Cabal works. Things seem to have calmed down a bit, which I think is good for all parties; ideally, this little incident prompts discussion and eventually leads to a resolution of some sort to stop the bickering. There've been some interesting points and concerns raised by a few parties, here, so finding a good forum to explore them doesn't seem like a horrible idea. Luna Santin 00:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Tuxide, thank you for clarifying. I think from my comment it was entirely clear that I had issues with the reverted page, and your diff points to a heated response to baiting over the same matter. Note that the diff also explicitly credits the complainant here, GabrielF, with good faith about the page in question. At any rate, yes the issue is broader than this, and NBGPWS was clearly reverting to make a POINT. I thank you being explicit, as a dismissive wave towards my general edit history seemed to imply that I'm a troll to be ignored, instead of an editor for over two years with over ten-thousand edits on hundreds of pages on dozens of topics. Derex 01:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User is disrupting a page in my userspace to make a point. GabrielF 04:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Note GabrielF brought this up on IRC before going to WP:AN/3RR. Although we weren't able to reach consensus over if 3RR applied to user subpages, within good faith I believe (if I'm interpreting WP:3RR#Reverting pages in your user space correctly) that 3RR indeed applies to user subpages that are not "yours" (project-related-wise). Nevertheless, apart from 3RR, NBGPWS was being flat-out uncivil in this incident. Tuxide 06:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

NBGPWS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has a long history of disruption and reverts. His last block was for 1 week. This is a form of disruption and not just reverts of content. A LONG ban is called for.--Tbeatty 04:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

On the one hand, this is a 3RR violation, and probably a WP:POINT problem. When I suggested a more productive means of resolving the dispute -- namely, MfD -- I was ignored in favor of continued disruption. On the other hand, it's out of article space. I'm not opposed if anyone cares to review this, but for the time being I've given NBGPWS a 24 hour block for continued disruption and edit warring. Luna Santin 07:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Vr6 reported by User:M100 (Result: indef)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Jim_Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Vr6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Time report made: 11:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User:Vr6 also previously reported at [31] as suspected sockpuppet of User:Pflanzgarten

indef blocked as sock of User:Pflanzgarten William M. Connolley 19:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Panarjedde reported by User:Dppowell (Result: 24h)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Julian the Apostate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Panarjedde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Time report made: 13:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I'm primarily concerned with his edits to this article, but a review of his talk page and recent block log will show that this is part of a larger pattern of behavior for this user. Dppowell 17:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 19:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Supreme_Cmdr reported by User:Ehheh (Result: 1 week)[edit]

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

Time report made: 14:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User has been blocked for 3RR on this article multiple times, most recently for 72 hours on October 17. A few self-labeled reverts along with repeated removals of a SA link. Ehheh 14:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As seen from talk, what you and your friends are doing is making unwarranted edits to the article. Then when myself or another editor come in and revert, you folks punch back in the questionable edit, thereby trapping us in a 3RR rule. This mornings 3RR violation by WarHawk was caused by you. Even a notable editor JBKramer was almost caught by it until he reverted himself for an attrocious edit of yours that he removed. So, in this case, the 3RR were required and warranted Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 16:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, how are we going to allow you to decide what is warranted? You are not trapped into 3RR by a yone but yourself. I've made this 1 week since last time was 72h; others feel free to review if thats felt a bit high William M. Connolley 17:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

  • It was a bit low by my feeling, but I think if Supreme_Cmdr doesn't lay off the Derek Smart article he's going to find himself before ArbCom in quick order. Stifle (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

User:William Mauco reported by User:MariusM (Result:)[edit]

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

20 oct 18:38

  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here. Not a new user. However, I warned him: [38]

Time report made: 20:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User:William Mauco is a supporter of Transnistrian separatist government and he is pushing his POV through entire Wikipedia in Transnistria-related articles, where he want to have "veto" rights. In this particular case, he wanted to deny or to hide the fact, proven even by official Transnistrian site, that the majority of the leaders of separatist government are not native transnistrians (deleting also a refference to official EU site that he claims is not reliable), and to add a link at an online newspaper (Tiraspol Times) where himself is a collaborator see the end of article. 1st, 2nd and 4th reverts were about the problem of nativeness of transnistrian leadership, 3rd revert was about adding the link to "Tiraspol Times" with the misleading comment that consensus was reach 4 against 1. In fact, there were 4 editors (Me, User:EvilAlex, User:Bogdangiusca and User:Illythr) who express doubts against Tiraspol Times link and from those who support that link there are 2 with conflict of interest: User:MarkStreet (self declared editor of Tiraspol Times, as his user page) and User:William Mauco (writer for Tiraspol Times [39]). For 3rd revert, as previous version will qualify this: 20 oct 18:38--MariusM 20:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Misleading. Apart from the slurs and personal attacks, I wrote one (1) single, unpaid guest column on an OpEd page for an online newspaper. What that has to do with this particular 3RR, I don't know. I certainly wasn't pushing "my" column and the edits listed are not about the newspaper, so I don't see a conflict of interest. As for the reverts in question, one was just cleaning up after a vandal. And why are there two (2) previous versions here? One on 20 October and another on 22 October? - 07:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Later adition: edit warrior User:William Mauco is continuing the edit war with his 5th revert: 23 oct 21:36--MariusM 22:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Not in the same 24H period. Besides, in the end, the correct phrasing got agreed upon in Talk, and the issue is now behind us. At the current time, we have consensus on the proper sentence for the article. - Mauco 07:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Technically, both sides should get a block for this. Both sides have violated the spirit of 3RR (although there may be some technical loopholes), and the edit wars seem to be ongoing, even if they are temporarily solved. The solution should be mediation, since I really don't believe blocking the users, or page protection, will solve this. Due to this, I'm not applying a block on anyone at the moment. 3RR and admin action is always open to you, but I really do recommend that you try solving it in a non-punitive way, since this won't solve the root of the dispute. Thanks, Flag of Europe.svgFlag of Romania.svg Ronline 09:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Excellent point, Ronline: "The solution should be mediation". I tried twice this solution with Mauco, but he disagreed [40], [41]. What can be done when facing such a disruptive behaviour, unwilling to compromise?--MariusM 11:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
If the user is unwilling to compromise, then mediation should be tried again. As a mediator, I will gladly take on this case, and ensure that Mauco complies with the spirit of dispute resolution at Wikipedia. But for that to happen, all personal attacks and a general spirit of division and bickering needs to stop. Flag of Europe.svgFlag of Romania.svg Ronline 12:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I am absolutely certain that this is not a problem, Ronline. You know me: I didn't want to make this back-and-forth more polemic than it is already is, so I try to not to respond to some of the things said about me here. However, it should be noted that my objection to mediation in the cases mentioned (which involves the same user, but different pages) is not an objection to mediation in general, but to a very specific and narrow case where he didn't bother to follow any of the recommendations in WP:DR first. If anything, I am hoping that I can teach this colleague how to be a better wikipedian and maybe pay a bit more attention to the policies and the guidelines first. That would be good for all of us, myself included. - Mauco 18:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Antarcticwik reported by User:Asterion (Result:)[edit]

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


  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. User warned here

Time report made: 22:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Some edits made without previously login in. It seems to be some sort of vengeance campaign againts User:Al-Andalus who has been reverting User:Antarcticwik's controversial edits. The latter seems to believe that the former is Andalusian. Therefore, I presume this to be a revenge attack, which follows on a very strong racist personal attack here (in Spanish). Asteriontalk 22:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

User:NisarKand reported by User:Tājik (Result:)[edit]

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

Time report made: 23:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User:JonMoseley reported by User:Luna Santin (Result: 12 hours)[edit]

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

Time report made: 05:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • While I regret reporting such a new user, their behavior is patently disruptive, adding blatant POV into an article; two editors have calmly tried to talk them out of this, but all edit summaries and talk messages have been completely ignored. I don't think we can work with this person if they refuse to acknowledge other editors and ignore any and all attempts at communication. Luna Santin 05:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reviewed. 12 hours, with consideration of longer if this persists -- Samir धर्म 05:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User:DaffyDuck619 reported by User:DXRAW (Result: 48h)[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: 06:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User has had a Mediation Case: 2006-06-22 John Cena about the same edit before

48h William M. Connolley 07:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


User:MariusM reported by User:Mauco (Result:)[edit]

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

Time report made: 08:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This is the first time that I ever report anyone for 3RR, although I have had plenty of opportunities to do so in the past. We currently have some serious differences of opinion (content disputes) on Transnistria. The page is controversial, and fortunately some editors (like User:MarkStreet) deliberately limit themselves to only edit in Talk, in order to seek consensus and let others handle mainspace edits. However, representing the opposite view, there are a couple of users[47][48] who have teamed up to collaborate in active and deliberate edit-warring in mainspace. When one of them comes close to breaching 3RR, the other takes over.[49] This is a daily pattern now. This has been going on for a while. One of them has even admitted to loving edit wars,[50] and engaging in them out of boredom.[51] The other has enlisted him to participate in circumventing 3RR[52] and has then covered up the evidence of that afterwards.[53] For these types of activities, they communicate in a foreign language which they share[54], and for other things - which is not disruptive - they communicate in English[55]. In addition to using a foreign language to coordinate their 3RR circumventions, they also use private email, in order to make it harder for admins to determine what is going on.[56][57] When done, they remove the evidence of this coordination, too.[58] - Mauco 08:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Please note: In the above report, I am only reporting one of the two users, who alone has four reverts within a 24 hour period. If I had added also the reverts of the other member of the edit-warring team, then the number of violations would of course increase. - Mauco 08:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
No previous warning. Mauco is a well known edit-warrior, he started his activities at Wikipedia engaging edit wars with veteran users, in order to push propaganda for Russian chauvinistic Transnistrian government. I reported him 4 times for 3RR rule (he is the only one against whom I made such reports), but administrators were lenient with him in 3 cases [59], [60], [61] and 1 case is still pending [62]. In this particular case I was trying to remove plain fallacies from Wikipedia: it was claimed, by Mauco's edits, that Ethnic Moldovans are well represented in the leadership of Transnistria and that the majority of Transnistrian leaders are native born, while the refference given (the official biographies of the members of transnistrian parliament) prove exact the contrary (The majority is not native). Removing such plain fallacies is something that others editors have done as well, there is no place for conspiration theories here. Great minds think alike :-). I never before broke 3RR, he drove me to do this as he broke the rule himself and my previous attempts to enforce that rule on him were not taken in account by administrators, that gave me the feeling that this rule don't exist, the mood of administrators is more important than the rule. As I didn't received a previous warning, it will not qualify for a block.--MariusM 08:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
First of all, could you please stop reporting each other? This is an edit war that involves both sides. Since the edit war seems to be ongoing, the convention is that both sides should be warned or blocked. I personally don't believe in 3RR blocking, so I'm not going to block anyone. But I don't see how tit-for-tat 3RR reporting helps anyone. The point is that an edit war is going on that needs to be solved. Blocking for technical 3RR offences isn't going to help solve that, it's simply going to defer the problem. I do, however, issue a strong warning to User:EvilAlex and User:MariusM for what appears to be a form of collusion and "meatpuppeting". In particular, stealthy messages in Romanian calling on each other to revert really hinders the dispute resolution process, since it removes trust and also creates a situation where a complex content dispute is transformed into a clearly-deliniated and rather aggressive dispute between two discrete sides. My recommendation, particularly to MariusM and EvilAlex, is that you stop seeing the other side as "hostile and evil" (not quoting here) and hence necessary to outdo them at all costs. Try to understand, rather than to attack. Flag of Europe.svgFlag of Romania.svg Ronline 09:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I mention also that I had problems with the plantiff in other Transnistria-related articles, I tried mediation but he refused [63], [64]. As he refused mediation I consider him a vandal and what I have done is only a anti-vandalism work.--MariusM 19:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Anti-vandalism work can be done anytime. If he refused mediation his edits can be reverted. --Wissahickon Creek talk 20:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Ahem, this is highly ... Misleading. For every edit in mainspace on this matter there are 8 or 9 edits in Talk, in an attempt to seek consensus. This is hardly "vandal" behavior, as the edit log and edit summaries can show. Moreover, no mediation was sought in this matter. The user is misleadingly referring to two DIFFERENT articles, both of them old, where mediation was declined by me for the simple reason that the other, prior attempts at dispute resolution had NOT been followed first. Instead of following WP:DR, he went straight to formal mediation, something which I 'and WP:DR have a problem with because there are a series of methods which can and should be tried first. In summary: Neither of us are vandals or trolls. I am not, and he is not. There is a heated edit conflict and it seems that someone takes it personal at times, that is all. - Mauco 22:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I refrained myself in editing Wikipedia for 24 hours (in fact, it was around for around 40 hours - from 25 Oct 16:59 to 27 October 09:36) and I hope Mauco will do the same, either voluntarily or through an enforcement of 3RR rule imposed by administrators (I wonder why they are not doing their job, a 3RR report was filed against Mauco in 23 October and no decision was yet made).--MariusM 09:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Quizimodo reported by User:Endroit (Result: 24h)[edit]

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

Time report made: 16:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: 3RR was violated on the bolding of the words East Sea, against consensus.--Endroit 16:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, its the SOJ again :-(. 24h William M. Connolley 16:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User:205.188.116.11 reported by User:SteveLamacq43 (Result:)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Triple_H (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 205.188.116.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Time report made: 17:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Clear and persitant vandalism. SteveLamacq43 17:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

2006-10-24T17:29:13 No Guru (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "205.188.116.11 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 hour (repeated vanfalsim) William M. Connolley 19:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Mattisse reported by User:Ekajati (yakity-yak) (Result: 24h)[edit]

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

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


[65]

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

24h William M. Connolley 19:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The dynamic IP range 81.117.200.* reported by User:JBKramer (Result: 24h)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Deflation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 81.117.200.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) aka 81.117.200.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):


Time report made: 19:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Previously blocked for exact same violation, also blocked for disruption and trolling regarding this same POV edit. JBKramer 19:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflicts... anyway: blocked .27 and .37; maybe this will do? William M. Connolley 20:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Joegoodfriend reported by User:Aaron (Result:24h)[edit]

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

Time report made: 20:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I was about to post this incident myself when I noticed that MONGO already blocked the user. But there's something funny with the timestamps. He seems to have done another revert after he was supposedly blocked... Crockspot 20:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    Already blocked by MONGO as you say. The timestamps look ok to me. Last revert was 2 minutes before block. - Aksi_great (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User:DJ_Clayworth reported by User:Humus sapiens (Result: no block)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Jews for Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DJ_Clayworth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Time report made: 20:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

My apologies, it turns out Humus is right. I miscounted the number of edits. I will voluntarily refrain from editing from 24hrs as of now. If you wish to make it an actual ban that would be fair. DJ Clayworth 20:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I will forgive you; hopefully others too. Probably just leaving J4J alone will do William M. Connolley 21:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


User:Nixer reported by User:Lysy (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

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

Time report made: 21:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Notorious 3RR violator. Last block only 3 days ago. --Lysytalk 21:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Has been warned 22:11, 24 October 2006 upon hist 4th revert, yet persisted. --Lysytalk 21:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Sarner reported by User:RalphLendertalk (Result:No violation)[edit]

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

[69] placed on article [70] given to Sarner Time report made: 21:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This report is not of a true violation of 3RR (no 4th revert in 24 hours). RalphLender has been waging a revert war against me. He is under current investigation [71] for being a sock-puppet with others who are also engaged in (and winning) this revert war. I believe this is the first time in this revert war that I have even reached 3 edits (and never four), despite considerable provocation (removal of legitimate editing tags) by the other side. If my editing conduct warrants, I would appreciate comment and guidance from an administrator. If not guilty of a 3RR, I would appreciate having Lender's entry on my talk page removed. Larry Sarner 22:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The accusation against me was considered by the Mediator to be provocative and unfounded. It has been reported as a violation of good faith and other Wikipedia policies and can be considered vandalsim. diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMediation_Cabal%2FCases%2F2006-10-07_Advocates_for_Children_in_Therapy&diff=83472380&oldid=83464450

"That was COMPLETELY unjustified. I think this shows that you will do almost anything to keep the article from the majority of editors. Nwwaew(My talk page) 11:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC) " RalphLendertalk 23:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The above comment are an example of the extremely odd goings on by the group of editors of which "Ralph Lender" is a part, and of which the mediator may also have been a part, and I suspect, this 3RR report is a part. (The mediation, as one can see from the citation made above, was not about the Bowlby page, I was not a party, and the mediator was pushing to merge it with non-existent mediations.) I only mentioned the sock-puppetry above because it bears on the revert war being waged against me, and it may warrant investigation. Larry Sarner 08:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Mikedk9109 reported by User:DavyJonesLocker (Result: 24h)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Triple H (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mikedk9109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Time report made: 00:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Once again, the user refuses to listen to anybody elses opinion. He's been blocked for this twice in October already. DavyJonesLocker 00:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 08:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Isarig reported by User:Tiamut (Result: no block)[edit]

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

  • For more complex reverts, please include information

about which previous versions are being reverted to. -->


Time report made: 00:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Isarig's behaviour in this regard has been very disruptive. I was happily editing the article in toto (badly in need of major revisions) before he came along and repeatedly reverted my well-sourced additions to an interpretation (his) unsupported by the citations I had placed there after he requested that I find sources for my statements. This edit war has hindered any further progress in the development of that article. On a closing note, please forgive any errors in the filling out of this report. It is the first time I read about 3RR and file a report. Thank you for your time and your services to the community. Tiamut 00:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Bogus report, which I don't know if we should attribute to the fact that this is a newbie user who does not understand 3RR, or if this is a personal attack by an editor who can't make a case for his edits on Talk, and has instead decided to try to use 3RR to silence me. In any case: [1] is not a revert. [2] is not a revert, but a 2nd consecutive edit by me, to my own version. The stretch is over a period of 6 days, during which I had not made a single edit in 3 of the 6 dyas, while Tiamut has made as many, if not more reverts to the same article. There is not a single instance there of 3 reverts in 24 hours, let alone 4.Isarig 02:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Additional information: Isarig often games with 3RR rules. He often make his 4th revert after 24 hours 5 minutes Nielswik(talk) 07:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Not in 24h, or even close William M. Connolley 08:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

User:69.249.253.211 reported by User:John Broughton[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Randy Kuhl (edit |