Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive33

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

Noticeboard archives


Contents

User:65.96.234.178 reported by User:Strothra (Result: 24h)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Aryan_Race (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 65.96.234.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [1]


Time report made: 20:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


Comments: Anon editor repeatedly adds the same irrelevant mass to the article and does not discuss for weeks. Warning --Strothra 20:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 21:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Nexm0d reported by User:Fossa (Result:8hour block)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Seka Aleksić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nexm0d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):


Time report made: 00:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


Comments:

This is a natinalist dispute. The current user would like Bosnian-born of Bosniak/Serb parentage to be a Serb. He changes her birthplace in from Zvornik to Srpska Varos (really "Novy Varos" in official terms) despite the source from her own official website stating the she was born in Zvornik ("Rođena je 23. aprila 1981. godine, ( na izmaku prvog sata toga dana), u Zvorniku, u Bosni i Hercegovini") Fossa 00:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

An 8 hour block for first violation and because the user has a reasonable long term record on Wikipedia. --Robdurbar 10:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

User:WarHawkSP reported by User:Beaker342 (Result:12h)[edit]

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


Time report made: 01:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


Comments: Persistent edit warring despite warnings, unwillingness to work to consensus, and use of misleading edit summaries, etc. Beaker342 01:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Fighting for Justice reported by User:Netscott (Result: no block)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Eric Robert Rudolph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Fighting for Justice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

This user has filed a 3RR report before and is familiar with what 3RR is never-the-less he was warned at 07:26, 7 December 2006.

Time report made: 07:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Very clear cut case of simple 3RR. User:Fighting for Justice has been reverting across two separate editors. (Netscott) 07:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

self-rv William M. Connolley 09:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

User:BhaiSaab reported by User:Hkelkar (Result: No block)[edit]

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


Time report made: 09:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


Comments:

User has a history of 3RR violations BhaiSaab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Hkelkar 09:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 10:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Later unblocked by Samir as it was discovered that 2 reverts were due to BhaiSaab reverting vandalism. See this - Aksi_great (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Tajik reported by User:Baristarim (Result:No violation)[edit]

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

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


Time report made: 11:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


Comments: User has a history of 3RR violations. This article was unprotected only yesterday after this user asked for its unprotection [7]. Insists on removing the Turkish name present in the intro. Just for WP:POINT he also included the Italian [8] and Polish [9] names, which was immediately reverted by an administrator per WP:Point [10]. User has just come out of a 48h block for incivility, and there was a discussion at the ANI about this. I don't what could be done to stop this, the user has been warned many times... Baristarim 11:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it, later reports have been taken care by admininstrators, but why hasn't anyone touched this? It is a clear-cut case. I had warned this user that he was breaking 3RR and asked him to revert himself [11], about 24 hours ago.. Not only he disregarded that post, he continued editing in other articles and the very same article [12], again, 24 hours after. I have still not reverted him since I do not wish to start an edit-war, and would prefer that this issue be taken care in a more mature way. I hadn't reverted his fourth edit in the first place since I would have also broken 3RR. Heck, maybe I should have, considering that it has become ok to break 3RR lately for some reason :)) Baristarim 01:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a 3RR vio. The reverts are here, here and here. What you have listed as the "first revert" isn't a revert. --Woohookitty(meow) 07:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
A revert is defined as an edit, not the simple act of taking out something. Are you joking? :)) There were four edits where the same exact deletion is done in the space of 6 hours, since when has the definition of edit and revert changed? As soon as the article gets unprotected, and he removes the name in question four times in the space of six hours, that is a 3RR vio. Baristarim 10:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
From the WP:3RR: "A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word (or punctuation mark)." Can someone else please take a look at this? This user has already broken 3RR in another related article couple of hours ago. Baristarim 16:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not a violation. While what the policy says is true, a revert is essentially an act of "undoing" someone else's edit (whether that's adding or removing something) and restoring a previous version of something (it need not be the whole article, it could be a punctuation mark). The first cited edit is not a revert.--Euthymios 17:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I just scanned Tajik's contribs for the last two days, and I see no evidence of any 3RR violations anywhere. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Because... the version reverted to still has the disputed "turkish" in it William M. Connolley 17:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Have I been living in a different logical dimensions? The first edit done was also a revert since it was the deletion of the contribution of another editor. Who do you think put the deleted info there in the first place? Aliens?? Of course it was the contribution of another editor. The first edit was a revert, the article was just coming off protection. That's the reason why there was such a long wait between the revert of that info. Because the article was protected. The user asked for its unprotection, there were two WP:POINT edits that were reverted by an admin + 4 reverts. Have the rules of logic and common sense completely changed?? :) What concerns me is no longer the merits of this 3RR vio, it is simply the logical inconsistency. From [[WP:3RR]: A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word (or punctuation mark).
If the concerned administrator had said that he didn't see the need for a block even though there was 3RR vio, that would have been perfectly fine and understandable. However, what is baffling is the fact that it has been closed as "no vio".. Weird, that's all.. Baristarim 18:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Davkal reported by User:InShaneee (Result: 3 days)[edit]

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

Time report made: 16:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • As diffs show, user was warned more than once.
  • Note also that this user has a history of 3rr violations as well as incivility.


Blocked for 3 days. JoshuaZ 17:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


User:Paul Raj reported by User:Venu62 (Result: 24h)[edit]

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

  • Previous version reverted to: 11:14

User:Paul Raj, aka User:Vaikunda Raja uses his real userid as well as a number of ips in the range 61.1.210.xxx has been inserting links to Ayyavazhi in numerous articles despite the community's concerns about its notability and the appropriateness for inclusion in a summary article. This user has created dozens of articles on thie 'religion' and inserted numerous links from unrelated articles. He will not listen to reason as numerous discussions have taken place in other related articles: [18], [19]. Parthi talk/contribs 19:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 21:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

User:RunedChozo reported by User:Itaqallah (Result: 3d)[edit]

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


Time report made: 21:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments: he has also been making aggressive personal attacks for which he has been reprimanded in the past, describing my latest edit as an "islamist coverup", and has also been acting in an uncivil manner on Talk:Beit_Hanoun_November_2006_incident. he was in fact banned very recently for behaving in exactly the same way. ITAQALLAH 21:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


3d William M. Connolley 21:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Spylab reported by User:NovaNova (Result: No block)[edit]

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

  • Previous version reverted to: [20]

Comments: He also made a baseless by no means supported accusations about sock-pupperty - as it cn be seen here [24]. Also, he made two other 3RR rule violations on November 24, and November 25 on the same article [25].


Time report made: 00:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that sockpuppetry allegation looks valid to me, as both User:Nova Nova and User:71.252.81.35 are reverting to the same version. Anyway, there's no 3RR violation here, as there are three diffs above, not four. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Deathrocker reported by User:Xndr (Result: 24h)[edit]

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

Time report made: 14:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments: These are only the last 3 reverts in 24 hours. Deathrocker's focus on this article seems to be limited to my and another user's edits. User does not contribute to talk page regarding the relevant subject matter [26]. User has a history of 3RR violations, blocks, and uncivil behaviour. [27] He has been reverting the same edits for over a month:

No block. Deathrocker has only reverted three times in the last 24 hours; it takes four to violate WP:3RR. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Deathrocker is on revert parole. Violations are typically reported here. Dmcdevit·t 08:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
24 hours. Sorry for stepping on anybody's toes. Luna Santin 21:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Jobjörn reported by User:Itake[edit]

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


Itake 19:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Itake 19:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


User:Srkris, [User:59.92.50.88], User:59.92.59.162 reported by User:Venu62 (Result:)[edit]

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

  • Previous version reverted to: [28]


Time report made: 20:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


Comments: User:Srkris is under a one week block for various violations including WP:AGF, WP:COPY, WP:V, etc. He has now returned before the block finishes and has been editing anonymously . He has been deleting text from the Carnatic music article and blanking out his user page. He has also been leaving fake warnings in my Talk page. - Parthi talk/contribs 20:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Vernyhora reported by User:Kuban kazak (Result: 8h)[edit]

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


Time report made: 22:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


Comments: User is new on wikipedia, but for his contributions seem to be focused on one artilce only. Over the last month the article has survived repeated attacks of different users and anons who keep on wrongly categorising the article, even though the lengthy discussion on talk pages and the consensus that was driven out of that indicates the opposite. Examples of this is User:LuisMatosRibeiro, who despite numerous warnings continued to add the controversial category. Hence I have reasons to believe there is sockpuppetry involved, reasons include careful timing of the fifth revert and knowledge of wiki terms and edit summaries. Has been warned of repeated vandalism and Personal attacks, and of 3RR. --Kuban Cossack 22:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

8h William M. Connolley 10:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Kiske reported by User:C33 (Result:)[edit]

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


Time report made: 23:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


Comments: User has engaged in an edit war to remove the word "dictator" from the article. He has made the identical edit 4 times in the last 24 hours.

But you've forgotten the "prev version", which is in the template for a good reason. Can you work out what that reason is? 09:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC) William M. Connolley 17:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

User:BryanFromPalatine reported by BenBurch (Result: 24h)[edit]

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


Comments: User has been making the same edits, more-or-less over and over in spite of several other editors asking him not to. --BenBurch 17:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 17:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Crculver reported by User:129.12.200.49 19:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC) (Result: 24h)[edit]

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


User:Privacy reported by Aldux[edit]

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


Comments: Had been previously warned of the 3RR [33], has been constantly attempting to impose his pov on all the other editors.--Aldux 20:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

24h. Claims "rvv2 but I can't see the V William M. Connolley 20:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Lucano reported by User:Pudeo (Result: 3h)[edit]

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

  • Previous version reverted to: [34]


Comments: Quite obvious as first revert was without saying anything, and after it was rather "attacking" Finnish users who disagree and have provided points. His comments "And as I repeat, only you Finns have this obsession", "If you Finns think SU didn't win, all the rest of the World think it did, so it's your problem.". These kind of comments can easily heat up people. However no points provided.. --Pudeo (Talk) 21:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

First offence and no warning (before reverts) so 3h. Also "sock" blocked William M. Connolley 21:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


User:Rjensen reported by User:ProhibitOnions (Result: 31h)[edit]

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



Comments: This user seems to have an issue with the sourced fact that Nelson Rockefeller died in the presence of his aide Megan Marshak. User has removed text from the talk page on this subject and changed rationale for revert several times. May have personal ties to the case. As I have edited this article recently, I can take no action. ProhibitOnions (T) 23:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

31 hours. Khoikhoi 10:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

User:68.5.242.136 reported by User:Captain Spyro (Result:)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Evernham Motorsports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.5.242.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):



Comments: This is my first time doing the 3RR report. Now, the problem lies in a revert war. This has been going on the past few days. The member refuses to listen to the other editors and continues to revert. He has accused us of whitewashing and conspiring to hide the truth. Constant POV pushing. He has been banned twice before for vandalism and has done this during the summer as well. The 3RR was violated yesterday, but he reverted it recently again today and as I said, this has been going on for the past few days.

Where was the 3RR violated? Please provide diffs. Khoikhoi 10:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I have provided 12 reverts. To be honest, they are all the same, but they are proof of an 'edit war,' if you will. It started days ago when I attempted to write a statement in a neutral way as it felt way too one-sided and he reverted it back and it continued from there.Captain Spyro 03:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User:RedMC reported by User:Amoruso (Result: 8h)[edit]

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

  • Although not necessary user was warned before final revert.
    just out of curiosity: do you care to put a diff or the warning?--RedMC 05:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
See 4th revert. Amoruso 06:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • the first revert was actually my first edit. I was not aware someone, in the past had made changes similar to mine.--RedMC 05:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
you were perfectly aware as obvious from the talk page. It's not similar changes, it's an exact revert in a known dispute. Amoruso 05:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
this is a mis-representation of truth. i was aware there was a discussion on the matter, but i was not aware someone else already changed the page (note that there are some inconsistencies between the "Previous version reverted to" and the reverts.--RedMC 05:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
It does not matter if you were aware of the previous edit or not - you made repeated (4) changes to other editors' work, and as WP:3RR clearly states: " a revert, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word (or punctuation mark). Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting." Isarig 05:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The first edit was my contribution, it was not an undoing.--RedMC 06:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Nonsense. You undid the previous wording ("captured"), and replaced it with your own. That you incidentally re-created a version that was already there 5 days earlier is beside the point. Isarig 06:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Uhm... but if the fact that my edit re-created a previous version is "beside the point", why it is presented as a proof against me?--RedMC 06:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

8h William M. Connolley 11:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Richardmalter reported by User:Crum375 (Result: 24h)[edit]

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


Comments:

24h William M. Connolley 11:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Amoruso reported by User:RedMC (Result:48 hours)[edit]

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


Comments:

  • Actually 4 reverts in 24h and 4'...--RedMC 06:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Not only you miswrote this report, you also don't know how to count 24Hrs. Also, please stop your vandalising to that page incidentally. Amoruso 06:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
48 hours for second violation. 4 minutes from 24 hours is not an appropriate reason, and reeks of gaming. Also, characterization of others' edits as vandalism when they are clearly not (see WP:VAND) is uncivil. Dmcdevit·t 11:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
User unblocked by User:Crzrussian after 12h, with the following reason: "No response from Dmcdevit. 24 hours and four minutes is not 24 hours - and 3RR is a precise tool - so time served is enough IMO. Accusation of incivility is "pulled up by the ears", as we say in Russian."--RedMC 00:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
It is a bit suprising to see that this editor who was clearly gaming the system has since been unblocked by User:Crzrussian. (Netscott) 09:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I and dmcdevit have both already placed a barb or two on his talk page. Maybe someone should also point outu this discussion here. -Patstuarttalk|edits 09:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I am here. I don't think 3RR should be used in this fashion - to be extended to not-quite-3RR situations in order to justify other concerns. If you want to block an editor, find a reason (gaming the system is a fine one) and start a discussion on ANI. - crz crztalk 13:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's safe to assume that long time admin User:Dmcdevit's judgement in making the blocking call was fine here, there is no need to clog up ANI for clear cut cases like this. Bear in mind that the other editor involved here himself was just blocked for 3RR on a report filed by User:Amoruso. (Netscott) 13:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
For an appropriately non-punitive 8h, which is about what Amoruso served. - crz crztalk 15:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Arjuna808 and User:UtherSRG reported by User:Ucucha (Result:Warning)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Tarsier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Arjuna808 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and UtherSRG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments: This is only the most severe part of a long revert war; there have been 15 reverts (if I've counted correctly) since 28 November. It was originally about an external link added by Arjnuna808 and considered inappropriate by UtherSRG, but later on they also reverted other things. Note that UtherSRG is an admin. Ucucha 06:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Why have you waited three days to file the report? Please provide diffs for each user separately. El_C 07:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Those reverts go even further back, and there has been no activity since Dec. 10. That said, definitely let us know if the insertion of the link continues. Thanks. El_C 23:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Owl2hagrid reported by User:Celithemis (Result: 24h)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Absinthe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Owl2hagrid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):


Comments: Inserted the same link 5 times in 24 hours, the fifth time after a 3RR warning.

Note that a previous 3RR warning concerning the insertion of this same link was given by Kafziel in March (diff) but removed by Owl2hagrid when he returned to editing on November 22 (diff). All of Owl2hagrid's contributions relate to this link. —Celithemis 11:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 12:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

User:70.112.120.146 reported by User:Hanuman Das (Result: 24 hrs)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Tantra_massage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.112.120.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments:

I found the Tantra massage article on 3 December. It's tone was unencyclopedic and it was tagged as being unreferenced. I completely rewrote the article from good internet sources and fully cited it. The anon editor keeps reverting to the previous, uncited and unencyclopdic version. I have invited the editor to add further cited material from whatever sources they have been using. In response, they have accused me of being a member of some specific group of massage practitioners. I am not. —Hanuman Das 15:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • 24 hours. El_C 07:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Seraphimblade reported by User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (Result:24 hrs No breach)[edit]

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

  • Previous version reverted to: [35]


Comments: This user was warned multiple time about breaking the 3RR, [36] [37], [38], but chose to feign ignorance and claim he somehow did not violate the 3RR. Also please note the first revert was very similar to past edits, [39] of the article and thus also counts as a revert.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Object to first edit being characterized as a "revert"-Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg cites an edit from two and a half months ago, which was not my own and made well before I became involved with the article. My edit was in response to the RfC filed on the article. Have repeatedly requested Moshe and Jayjg to provide rationale for reverts and to work on a compromise wording ([40]), thus far to no avail and with no discussion forthcoming. (I do not object to 2, 3, and 5's characterization as reverts, and 4 already has been struck. However, that's 3.) I also object to Jayjg's edit summary ("per talk. Seraphimblade, you've already violated 3RR, please do not revert again or I will have to report it.") ([41]), both on the grounds that it was untrue and on the grounds that despite not reverting again I was reported anyway. Seraphimblade 03:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
To add-4, a minor formatting edit, was struck at the time of the previous comment. As of now it links to the first time I moved the section-unless this too is similar to a months-old edit, perhaps? To revert to something it must have been previously done! Seraphimblade 03:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
First of all, Seraphim knows perfectly well that it doesn't matter that previous versions were first reverted by different editors, he also knows perfectly well that his first revert relates to an argument that has been going on for a long time, and thus clearly constitues a revert. I consider his current claims that he has tried to compromise with me to be extremely dishonest, as he has repeatedly claimed that we should not be allowed to revert him because there is now a "consensus that he is correct" which is completely untrue since if anything the majority of editors on the article are against him. I also am rather confused about his argument of why revert-4 was not valid, I accidently wrote the wrong edit originally but quickly corrected it. Also, the only reason Jayjg did not report him when he originally broke the 3RR was because he was not aware that Seraphim had already been warned twice before. Even then I still probably would not have reported him if Seraphim admitted he was indeed in violation of the policy, instead he chose to engage in the worst kind of gratuitous wikilawyering, and then had the gall to warn me for edit-warring. This user's actions have become increasingly difficult and byzantine.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, the "warning for edit warring" was not given by me (though I understand the confusion and I don't believe Moshe intends to mislead, I believe he was himself misled. The comment was placed so that it appeared to be part of mine.) [42]. Secondly, I object to the expression of disagreement as "wikilawyering". Finally, I disagree that trying a new solution to a problem (especially given new input), or that trying yet another after the first one has been reverted, is "reverting"-it is editing. Seraphimblade 03:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that trying new solutions to old problems does not necessarily constitute a reversion, however, in this case Seraphim's edit was so similar in tone to the reversions that occur day after day that it hardly constitutes a novel attempt at solving the problem. It should have been obvious that his edit would provoke the same kind of of response that he recieved.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • 24 hours. El_C 07:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, I was wrong, the third reversion ends up counting as a self-revert. User unblocked. El_C 08:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User:66.211.32.50 reported by User:Isarig (Result: 24hrs)[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):

3RR Warning: [43]


Comments:

  • 24 hours. El_C 06:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Nanty reported by User:Truthspreader (Result: 12hn each)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on List of Muslim converts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nanty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user ·