Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive31

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:HunTheGoaT reported by User:Tankred (Result: 3h)[edit]

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

Time report made: 19:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

No history & no warning: 3h William M. Connolley 20:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

User:William Mauco reported by User:MariusM (Result:Article is protected)[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):

  • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here. Not a new user

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

Time report made: 01:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User:William Mauco is a [(personal attack removed)] who is pushing [(personal attack removed)] in all Transnistria related articles in Wikipedia. He is a [(personal attack removed)]. He has actually other two 3RR reports pending (this is the third!), where admins didn't yet took a decision: old 3RR violation on article "Transnistria", 3RR violation on article "Sherif (company)"--MariusM 01:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This is Mauco. I don't like the personal attacks, and don't think that any decision should be based on who can yell the loudest or sling the most accusations. In this case, I was (again) not warned, but I don't see how the listed diffs can support the argument that there were four reverts. The first edit, of 03:24, will show that in particular, but please study not just that, but all four DIFFs and the whole page history of Transnistria for 3 Nov and 4 Nov. - Mauco 01:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
You are not a new user, you don't need to be warn. Why you consider personal attack the accurate fact that you wrote for "Tiraspol Times See end of article--MariusM 02:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Greier reported by User:Jmabel (Result: 2 weeks)[edit]

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

Time report made: 03:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Note also that he was reverting four different editors.

  • Greier's ninth time being blocked for 3RR, 2 weeks this time Stifle (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Sfacets reported by User:NovaSTL (Result: 24h)[edit]

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

  • Previous version reverted to: (multiple, with the intent of removing negative sources)

Time report made: 05:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Sfacets (talk · contribs), who has demonstrated a clear conflict of interest in regards the Sahaja Yoga articles by continually removing any source which contains negative information about the subject, is engaging in multiple bad faith reverts at the Sahaja Yoga and International Sahaja Public School articles, and using misleading edit summaries, such as deleting an entire hour's worth of changes with a complaint that the word "Hindu" was incorrect [5] The user has been engaging in this steady pattern of reverts for months. See Talk:Sahaja Yoga#Removed links and critical material. We've tried every other way of dealing with this user, but have no choice at this point but to request administrator intervention. --NovaSTL 05:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 09:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Ulritz reported by User:Rex (Result: No block, dead issue)[edit]

This IP-adress, already a suspected sockpuppet, clearly is Ulritz (talk · contribs), here he reacts to this his punishment which he thinks is unfair. He was blocked for breaking the 1Revert temporary injunction given by the Arbcom. (See here) and this clearly constitutes contious evading of the block. Rex 09:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It was already acted upon it appears. —Centrxtalk • 20:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Really? On what do you base this?Rex 20:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it would make things too easy if you told us *which* IP address and *which* article? William M. Connolley 21:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh of course, I'm sorry, I thought you'd see that in the link but here they are:
Rex 08:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The anon only has 1 effective edit to that page - how can this be breaking 1R? William M. Connolley 11:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

User:DAde reported by User:BhaiSaab (Result: 24h)[edit]

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

Time report made: 16:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This user's 4 reverts in 24 hours and 1 minute demonstrates an intention to game WP:3RR. All in all, he has made nearly 30 reverts to the same article since October 17th, ignoring the consensus of several other editors. BhaiSaab talk 16:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 17:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Kalymna reported by User:Khoikhoi (Result: 31h)[edit]

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

Time report made: 19:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

'2006-11-04T19:36:07 Aldux (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Kalymna (contribs)" with an expiry time of 31 hours (violation of the 3RR at Kalymnos) William M. Connolley 21:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Marky48 reported by User:Marmoulak (Result:)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Iran Iraq War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Marky48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Time report made: 03:38, 5 November 2006.

Comments:

  • He has been removing several referenced paragraphs for sometime now. He doesn't respect compromises and remove paragraphs without any regard for presented sources. I have put up with his personal insults and accusations (1, 2, 3) and trying to have a rational discussion with him and reach a compromise but it seems that he doesn't have respect for anything that is against his POV. - Marmoulak 03:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Jkp1187 reported by User:Heligoland (Result: 3h)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on United States bombing of Libya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jkp1187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Time report made: 06:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User has continually reverted page without concensus being reached on take page, unwilling to allow a few days for a concensus to be reached and unwilling to talk to other users. Heligoland 06:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No warning, newbie, 3h William M. Connolley 17:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Jaakko Sivonen reported by User:Khoikhoi (Result: 48h)[edit]

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

Time report made: 19:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
Was just blocked two days ago for edit warring. Khoikhoi 19:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

48h William M. Connolley 20:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Ward3001 reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: 24h)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Ann Coulter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ward3001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Time report made: 20:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User was asked to cease edit warring on his or her talk page and in the edit summaries of the at least two of the four edits reverting his or her edits. --ElKevbo 20:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 20:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


User:66.211.32.50 reported by User:Isarig (Result: No block, issue dead)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on 2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 66.211.32.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here: 16:27, 30 October 2006 (not a diff, but the actual edit, as this 3RR warning was the first edit on the talk page)

Time report made: 01:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This user has multiple other similar reverts on that same page, and appears to be trying to game 3RR (but failed in this case). In addition it is a single-purpose account, created for this page only, so it is a suspected sockpuppet as well. And on tp of that, the edit summaries for most of the reverts have been violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.

User:Fys reported by User:BrownHairedGirl (Result: 24h)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Westminster St George's (UK Parliament constituency) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Fys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Time report made: 03:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This is not a simple reversion. It is part of a wider content dispute, in which Fys has been seeking to split the article Westminster St George's (UK Parliament constituency). This split has been contested at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Parliament_constituencies#St_George.27s_Hanover_Square, and repeated requests have been made to User:Fys to stop making a unilateral split, and instead to discuss the issue. Instead, he said that "There is no further discussion possible: I have provided the conclusive, final, ultimate, clinching, and decisive evidence and argument." (see diff). No other editor supports Fys's view.
Some of the later edits introduce new information, but all of them revert the article to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Westminster_St_George%27s_%28UK_Parliament_constituency%29&oldid=84600126 insofar as it relates to the disputed issue, the constituency's name and date of creation.
See also warnings posted at User talk:Fys#Vandalsim_warning, the exchange at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Stop_removing_information. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

User:84.64.180.51 reported by User:Nil Einne (Result: 8h)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Trial_of_Saddam_Hussein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 84.64.180.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Time report made: 03:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This user has defended his/her actions arguing on the talk that it was unsubstatiated. While some of it indeed was, not all of it was. In any case, since clearly the removal of the content was contentious and it was not libellious material, my understanding is he/she should not have reverted regardless of whether it was justified... Nil Einne 03:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


8h William M. Connolley 09:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

User:T00h00 reported by SlimVirgin (Result: 8h)[edit]

3RR on Harvard referencing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by T00h00 (talk · contribs)

Reported by SlimVirgin (talk) 07:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

T00h00 arrived at Harvard referencing on October 18 and kept reverting to his version whenever elements from before the rewrite were re-introduced, with very long posts on talk that are hard to understand. User:Slrubenstein, who is knowledgable in this area, cleaned up the rewrite on November 4, but T00h00 continues to revert.

In particular, he keeps restoring: (a) "The Harvard referencing system consists of citations (in the text) and references (alphabetized in a References section)"; and (b) that the citation should be written as "(Deane 2001, 449–51)" — which is in fact just one way of writing citations.

Both elements were reverted to in the four reverts listed above, and in the previous version linked to. He was warned about 3RR on October 30. [19] SlimVirgin (talk) 07:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

8h William M. Connolley 09:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Simonapro reported by User:Chondrite (Result: 24h)[edit]

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

3RR warning: 09:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Time report made: 09:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User insists on including non-WP:RS in article, talk at Talk:Cannabis#Greg Green.

24h William M. Connolley 21:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Elk Salmon reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Withdrawn; no block, issue dead)[edit]

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

Time report made: 16:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Additional reverts (with explanation of why they're considered reverts)


Comments: Edit comment was usually "rvv" (probably short for "reverting vandalism"). There is no plausible assertion of vandalism here. He was previously warned more than once on this article for 3RR and for false accusations of vandalsim. The changes may not be exactly complete reverts, but the changes made are

  1. Removal of {{balance}} tag.
  2. change of sublist from 1. / 2. / 3. to 1. / no index / 2. (which I believe to have orginally been a correction of a typo)
  3. change of non-specific picture list (the order of pictures must match the order in the text) to his original contribution that the pictures must be the alpha / beta cities in a specified order from GaWC 1999. Some of the text (points by alphabetical) was already removed by a limited concensus.
Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Withdraw now, if allowable. I think I've figured out what he calls "vandalism", and it's arguable. I'm afraid we've both violated 3RR again since then, but perhaps (except for the tag) we've achieved concensus. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
More problems; 1-4 (as originally reported), 5-8 and 6-9 are all within 24 hours. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

User:70.230.215.18 reported by User:MidgleyDJ (Result: 24h)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Cichlid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.230.215.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Time report made: 20:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This user has been making this change in an apparently vandalic fashion for sometime. No edit summaries are used, the change is not discussed, and the user does not acknowledge or reply to messages on their talk page. The user previously was making the same change under a different IP address. ie: User_talk:71.134.211.156.

Probably reportable as vandalism (though you need to know your species for that) but blocked anyway William M. Connolley 21:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Doc_Tropics reported by User:Fix Bayonets! (Result: 24 hours and 8 hours)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on George Allen_(U.S. politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Doc_Tropics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):


  • 1st revert: [21]
  • 2nd revert: [22]
  • 3rd revert: [23]
  • PER TALK PAGE, I THEN STARTED AN RFC, AND REQUESTED NO MORE RVs: [24]
  • 4th revert: [25]

Time report made: 21:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I also request that my edit be re-inserted, so that the RFC I requested will function as designed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fix Bayonets! (talkcontribs) .

  • I would note that Fix Bayonets! has also violated 3RR in the article (and actually did so before Doc Tropics made a 4th revert). I have reported Fix Bayonets for this, edit warring, and POV-pushing at AN/I, but wanted to note the 3RR violation here, as well. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


24 and 8 h William M. Connolley 09:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Mazito reported by User:Fighting for Justice (Result: No block, issue dead)[edit]

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

Time report made: Fighting for Justice 22:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Aminz reported by User:A.J.A. (Result: 24h)[edit]

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

  • Previous version reverted to: [30]
  • 1st revert: [31]
  • 2nd revert: [32]
  • 3rd revert: [33] (partial)
  • 4th revert: [34] (partial)
  • 5th revert: [35]
  • 6th revert: [36] (partial)

Not a new user, but has been warned about the 3RR in reference to some other situation: [37]

Time report made: 05:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The user's only interest in the Christianity article is the brief reference to Muslim persecution of Christians, which he apparently feels should be expanded to include his reasons for believing Christians were better off ruled by Muslims. (I personally feel that using a mention of persecution as an occasion for praising the persecutors is indecent in addition to being poor content.) The first time around he removed Christianity from the Good Article list out of process, which the people associated with the Good Article project generally considered an abuse. A.J.A. 05:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


24h William M. Connolley 12:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Huaiwei reported by User:Yuje (Result: 24h)[edit]

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

  • Previous version reverted to: [38]
  • 1st revert: [39]
  • 2nd revert: [40]
  • 3rd revert: [41]
  • 4th revert: [42]

Time report made: 12:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

24h William M. Connolley 19:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

User:JBKramer reported by User:T Gholson (Result: No violation)[edit]

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

Time report made: 16:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

T Gholson (talk · contribs) is 81.117.200.37 (talk · contribs), "blocked 20:04, 6 November 2006 by Atlant with an expiry time of 31 hours." "Editors who have been banned from editing particular pages, or banned or blocked from Wikipedia in general, and who continue to edit anyway, either directly or through a sock-puppet, may be reverted without the reverts counting towards the limit established by this policy." JBKramer 16:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not. I'm more than willing to submit to a Checkuser. Please get your evidence in order before throwing accusations out there. Also, seeing as that you reverted more that just the "Sock Puppets" you're supposedly fighting, you are 3rring. T Gholson 16:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Four different accounts perpetuating the same edit war on the same articles with the same editor, and it's all a coincidence, right? Checkuser is not required to prove sockpuppetry when the contribution evidence is overwhelming. This may be the first time you've tried to do something like this, but the hundredth or thousandth time we have seen it. Thatcher131 18:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Metropolitan reported by User:Netscott (Result: 24h)[edit]

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

Warning diff: 17:22, 7 November 2006

Time report made: 18:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Although this user has not made more than four reverts in a 24 hour period This user has been engaging in edit warring that is consisting of blanket/blind reverting that includes canceling out edits geared towards avoiding redirects as well as other beneficial edits. I tried to discuss the matter with the user to no avail. As things stand now this user has reverted across User:Évangéline, Myself, and User:ThePromenader. A gentle but firm admin warning could be helpful here. This editor has now made 4 5 reverts in 24 hours. (Netscott) 19:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This diff is pretty indicative that this user has no intention of abiding by the 3RR. (Netscott) 19:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 20:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Waikiki2006 reported by User:ZimZalaBim (Result: 12 hours)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on The_Disappearance_of_the_Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Waikiki2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Time report made: 19:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User persists to include unsourced, original research on refutation of criticism. Has not responded to any requests for discussion. I would block myself, but am involved in the article. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Also request someone to review (and revert) their latest edit, so I don't violate 3RR myself. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, please hurry with this one. He's incorrigible and (not surprisingly) ignoring all warnings. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs)

Blocked for 12 hours. JoshuaZ 07:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Cjk91 reported by User:Kafziel (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Absinthe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Cjk91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Time report made: 19:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Single purpose account for changing articles to British English spelling. He's been at it for months, always just managing to get around 3RR. Most recently, he's created an obvious sockpuppet to do so for his fourth revert of the day. Kafziel Talk 19:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

User:217.235.250.66 reported by User:UKPhoenix79 (Result: Invalid report)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on V for Vendetta (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 217.235.250.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Time report made: 00:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
Conversations can be found on

Here is the conversation I had with this user

Please dont revert a 6th time. I REALLY do not want to report you breaking 3RR. But if you do revert again I will have to. Please use talk page instead I beg you! There will be no more warnings on this issue :-( -- UKPhoenix79 23:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Here is the discussion I started and in which I participate:
Talk:V_for_Vendetta_(film)#Differences_between_the_film_and_graphic_novel_and_The_letter_V_and_the_number_5_.28aka_list_vs._text.29
(And, full disclosure, which I recently renamed.)
Also, make sure that you get all possible IP addresses. This is the largest ISP in Europe.
I'm stopping this now. While I'm convinced that my changes would have improved the article, I'm also convinced that anonymous users stand hardly a chance at contributing. You (collectively, this is not the first experience of this kind) do not accept changes to Wikipedia except from those that follow your social ideas. Whether or not my change would have ultimately proved the better solution, you two made my life here as miserable as you could manage in the short time. You should just stop the pretense and forbid anonymous edits altogether.
Anyway, good luck for the future. --217.235.249.52
Report does not include diffs and cannot be verified. Stifle (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

User:AndyCanada reported by User:Ginkgo100 (Result: 24h)[edit]

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

Time report made: 00:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This concerns the sentence "Many N-studies since then have confirmed the fact that the digestibility and biological value of soy protein for humans is comparable in nutritional value and quality to animal proteins" and its reference. Other editors including myself have tried to reword it and move it around to address his concerns, but he continues to revert. I am not blocking him myself because I am involved (I don't even remember how it happened because I have no actual interest in this subject), and will respect the decision of whichever admin reviews this report. This user is suspected of using socks in the past to avoid 3RR; he has not done that recently, however. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 00:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment:

The policy:

  1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
  2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
  3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

The sentence in the article was fantasy (vandalism) information propagated by an anon IP who is now blocked for vandalizing the soy protein article. In my defense I was merely complying with the policy of Wikipedia. I should be commended for spotting bogus information added in the article. The sentence has been ammended. I was correct it was false info. Ginkgo100 tried to reword the sentence that was false. However, Gingko100 admitted he did not read the book cited as the reference. He tried to reword something without understanding the facts. Now the sentence is talking about rats. Rats is totally different. The sentence reads differently now thanks to me. Regards. AndyCanada 03:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I was a third party in this dicussion. As was pointed out by Ginkgo100 during this discussion, removing text that is part of a content dispute is not vandalism. Ginkgo100 was patient through the edit war, even avoiding giving warnings when discussion became potentially uncivil. [43] AndyCanada was baiting other editors through edit summaries (including the "anon" IP mentioned above) while reverting, (ex: "bring it on!)[44] which I placed a warning about on the users talk page, along with a 3RR warning. This user has a history of sockpuppet use to dodge 3RR warnings. See [45]. Thanks. Yankees76 04:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but saying that you're reverting vandalism does not make it so. Glen_S has got to this one already with a 24h block.
  • Observations: No old version was included, and the first was a self-revert. Stifle (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Kingjeff reported by User:Panarjedde (Result: 24 hours each)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Australia national football (soccer) team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kingjeff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

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

Time report made: 02:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Panarjedde is into bad faith editing and reverting his bad faith edits. Is bad faith not vandalism? Kingjeff 02:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Firstly, no. Secondly, only simple vandalism reversions are exempt from the 3RR. Do read WP:VAND, and in the meantime Centrx has blocked both of you for 24 hours for edit warring. Stifle (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you, very kind.--Panarjedde 01:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Sosomk reported by User:Khoikhoi (Result: 72 hrs)[edit]

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

Time report made: 02:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
User has previous 3RR violation. Khoikhoi 02:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just reverting vandalism and WGee also has the similat vilation, as well as Khoikhoi has the history of 3R blocks. SosoMK
Thi is not a true accusation. He hates me, bacuse I voted against him, because I knew that he would attack Georgia related articles SosoMK 03:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Please see the talk page too, this not right, I should not be banned and if I will get banned, this is not gonna be any help. SosoMK 03:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked - 72 hrs. Not vandalism Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Pete K reported by User:Hgilbert (Result:24h)[edit]

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


reinsertion of "advert" template:

  • 1st revert: [47]
  • 2nd revert: [48]
  • 3rd revert: [49]
  • 4th revert: [50]
  • additional revert of other material: [51]

Time report made: 07:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 18:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Jaakko Sivonen reported by User:JdeJ (Result: No violation)[edit]

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

reinsertion of "advert" template:

The user was given a 24h block on Friday [56] and another one for 48h on Sunday [57] for breaking the 3RR. He has also made personal attacks against people who disagree with him, including this attack [58]

Time report made: JdeJ 17:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Rm 2 non-4R reports. Remaining report has no prev-version. Don't like the PA though William M. Connolley 18:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not the most technical of users and not familiar with the term prev-version. Could I ask what was wrong with the other two reverts? [User:Jaakko Sivonen has in the last 24 hours made three or more reverts to Porvoo, Treaty of Fredrikshamn and Treaty of Nöteborg. JdeJ 18:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added the prev-version. Khoi