Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive34

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

Noticeboard archives


Contents

User:81.129.255.112 reported by User:ZS (Result:)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on List_of_gangs_in_Grand_Theft Auto_series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 81.129.255.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments: 81.129.255.112 is likely the same individual as 86.137.134.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (from the same ISP), who made similar edits in the article earlier. The editor (as 86.137.134.254) has been provided with the necessary notices on editing and edit summaries, but fails to provide any justification for complete reversions, which, among others, reintroduces counter-Manual of Style headings, omissions and questionable writing. The first 3RR warning has been issued to the user, as 81.129.255.112, yesterday (21:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)). ╫ 25 ◀RingADing▶ 20:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC) ╫

Update: The editor had been blocked for 24 hours on December 17 after another string of 3RR violations on the same article. No further action is necessary for now. ╫ 25 ◀RingADing▶ 09:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC) ╫

User:Pco reported by User:Jayjg (Result:24hOverturned)[edit]

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


Comments:

  • Is engaged in series of complex reverts, including insisting on adding a BBC link/reference to this article/Haim Druckman, even though lengthy Talk: discussion has explain that this link and reference, as well as the other POV edits, are not appropriate for the article. Has been warned of WP:3RR many times, e.g. [1] [2] [3] and has been reverted by a remarkably large number of editors. Seems impervious to understanding any Wikipedia policy, including 3RR. Jayjg (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    Blocked for 24 hours. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    Forgive me for being a bit dim, but I cannot see reverts there, merely contentious edits. I certainly agree that are grounds for concern — there appears to be an issue with rapid alterations of the article without using the talk page — but, well, who amongst us is able to state that they make no edits to which others object?
    James F. (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    As was brought down above in the report, each of the 4 edits which were reverting the editors who disagreed with him were including a reference to the segregation proposed by Haim Drukman. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    The only thing in common with each of them is the reference to Haim Drukman, is this correct? This may not be a 3RR situation, it appears to me that the editor has instead made 4 seperate attempts to rewrite the contentious edit in a manner that won't be reverted. I'm tending to think this may be an editorial dispute more than a strict procedural violation. - CHAIRBOY () 17:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    Agreed, that seems more appropriate. I'm certainly not saying that Pco is whiter than white. :-)
    James F. (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    I second this assessment and have unblocked Pco. WP:3RR: "Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part.". Evidence has not been provided to demonstrate that this had taken place more than 3 times in 24 hours. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    I also agree with this assessment.--CSTAR 17:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    Pco continues to violate 3RR. See below. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:72.193.96.82 reported by User:ZimZalaBim (talk) (Result:)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Redzee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 72.193.96.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments: POV-Pushing, received third opinion, continues reverting. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Enriquecardova reported by User:StoptheDatabaseState (Result:)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Controversy over racial characteristics of ancient Egyptians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Enriquecardova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • 3RR Warning: [4]

Comments: Continued edit warring from yesterday following expiry of block imposed here (1.83). Also removed 3RR4 warning from talk page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by StoptheDatabaseState (talkcontribs)

The report I filed yesterday is still up. He actually reverted more than 4 times today. He blanked his talk page of the warnings again [5] and is posting messages to himself, to hide the blanking it seems [6]. He's also editing under this IP [7]. Seems totally impervious to any Wikipedia policies about community consensus and 3-revert rule. Nebkaneil 02:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
He's still blanket reverting the page [8] and he does it in steps [9] [10] [11] Nebkaneil 05:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Still reverting, have filed an additional report below. MER-C 09:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:68.155.70.148 reported by User:LILVOKA (Result:)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Aftermath Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.155.70.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

This is the second nomination for the user. The user places this in the article. This is unsourced information and also inappropriate to the rest of the article. The user claims this is vandalism. It's not vandalism. Joell Ortiz - Brooklyn-based rapper who recently signed to Aftermath Entertainment. Appeared in Source Magazine's Unsigned Hype section and Chairman's Choice in XXL Magazine while releasing several mixtapes, he sold cocaine during his mother's addiction to the drug in order to support his family. History of reverts. This user is placing inappropriate information to something that should be generally short and simple.

Originally it was: He has been featured in magazines and is working on his debut album.

User:Pco reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: 24 hrs)[edit]

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

  • Previous version reverted to: 07:38 December 17, includes the paragraph "In March of 2006, the PCO organized a protest which was entitled "Storm the White House". While the event was planned as a peaceful merger of anti-war groups, the media began requesting interviews; some commentators called the event a plan for a violent coup d’état."
  • 1st revert 21:51 December 17, restored "In March of 2006, the PCO organized a protest which was entitled "Storm the White House". While the event was planned as a peaceful merger of anti-war groups, the media and particularly the right wing media, began requesting interviews and calling the event a plan for a violent coup d’État."
  • 2nd revert 00:30 December 18, restored "In March of 2006, the PCO organized a protest which was entitled "Storm the White House". While the event was planned as a peaceful merger of anti-war groups, the media and particularly the right wing media, began requesting interviews and calling the event a plan for a violent coup d’État."
  • 3rd revert 00:54 December 18, restored "In March of 2006, the PCO organized a protest which was entitled "Storm the White House". While the event was planned as a peaceful merger of anti-war groups, the media and particularly the right wing media, began requesting interviews and calling the event a plan for a violent coup d’État."
  • 4th revert 01:30 December 18, restored "In March of 2006, the PCO organized a protest which was entitled "Storm the White House". While the event was planned as a peaceful merger of anti-war groups, the media and particularly the right wing media, began requesting interviews and calling the event a plan for a violent coup d’État."

Comment

Pco is editing very disruptively around a number of articles. She has created Political Cooperative as a vanity article and is editing it in violation of WP:COI; is adding OR to various articles; reverting against multiple editors; making personal attacks (she has called Jpgordon a liar and sockpuppet [12]; Jayjg a liar [13]; and me "some kind of freak" [14]); and keeps removing other people's posts from article talk pages e.g. [15] Now she says it's a computer hacker, not her, who is making the attacks. [16] She has been warned several times about 3RR e.g. [17] SlimVirgin (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


She has also violated 3RR at Zionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as Pco (talk · contribs) and 71.135.34.207 (talk · contribs)

Comment One of the sentences being restored is (written slightly differently each time):

  • "In 2002, a Zionist named Haim Druckman gained the support of 17 Israeli Parliament officials in an effort to pass a law that would deny Arabs the right to live on State land," also written as
  • "Zionists such as Haim Druckman proposed legislation that would deny rights to non-jews within the State," or as
  • "Rabbi Haim Druckman, a founder of and leading activist within Gush Emunim returned to the National Religious Party from Morasha [18] and in 2002, Druckman managed to gain the support of 17 Israeli Parliament officials in an effort to pass a law that would deny Arabs the right to live on State land." SlimVirgin (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Jossi. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Given the disruptive nature of this user interactions, I should have blocked for longer, but lets remember that it is a newbie. If the user persists in these type of disruptions and personal attacks, next block should be for much longer. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:69.123.136.59 reported by User:bdve (Result: no block)[edit]

User adds the same unreferenced and bogus sounding text to the Vince Russo article every time it's removed. Requests for cite in edit history go ignored.«»bd(talk stalk) 03:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No block because the RVs were not within 24 hour period. If you would've used the proper format for this request (with timestamps), that would be seen clearly. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Ivasyk reported by User:Alex Bakharev (Result:12h)[edit]

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

Dif of warning: [19]

Warning was blanked twice

Comments: Also 3RR on Olga of Kiev by the same user

Seems to be already blocked by User:Malo for 12 hrs. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:R9tgokunks reported by User:71.198.59.81 (8h)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Austrians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). R9tgokunks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

This is a new account, under three months old. User has ignored several prior messages on his talk page. In need of 3RR instruction and warning. It's either a newbie or a sock -- given his stubborn reverts. Thanks 71.198.59.81 07:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments: 8h William M. Connolley 09:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Truthspreader reported by User:Beit Or (Result:24 hours)[edit]

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

Comments: Having barely emerged from a 31h block, this user has resumed edit warring over the same issue in the same article. All reverts were full or partial removals of references to the standard texts on the Jewish law. Beit Or 09:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Not at all obvious these are 4R; [20] certainly doesn't removals of references William M. Connolley 09:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I did not explain myself well. This edit by Truthspreader removed phrases "as it existed at the time (and as it is still understood today)" added in this edit by Briangotts and the phrase "with no citation to or support from any source, contemporaneous or modern" added in this edit by Briangotts. Thus, Truthspreader's edit was a revert, which is defined as undoing the work of another editor. Beit Or 09:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Braingotts edit was generalization of interpretation of Jewish law for all times and all places, which is definitely original research, as the cited source is only an example of a famous interpretation but not stating what it is implied. TruthSpreaderTalk 12:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure looks WP:POINTy to me, but I will leave this for another admin's discretion. Users who already have a long block-log should be extra-cautious while reverting other user's edits because it appears like they were gaming the system. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 10:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have nothing else to say but WP:3RR#Reverting_without_edit_warring. I would also ask the closing admin to see the history first. There was no edit warring happening. I would like to know that where I am doing wrong!!! --TruthSpreaderTalk 12:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a 3RR violation, as follows:

  • Version reverted to: 05:25 December 15: Striver removes, inter alia (important words in bold): "No contemporaneous source alleges that Sa'd based his judgment on the Torah; moreover, Jewish law has always understood the verses cited to apply only to the situation of the conquest of Canaan under Joshua, and not to any other period of history.[1]"
  • 1st revert 14:02, 17 December: removes (important words in bold): "No contemporaneous source alleges that Sa'd based his judgment on the Torah; moreover, Jewish law has always understood the verses cited to apply only to the situation of the conquest of Canaan under Joshua, and not to any other period of history.[2]"
  • 2nd revert, 14:33, 17 December: removes (important words in bold): "moreover, Jewish law has always understood the verses cited to apply only to the situation of the conquest of Canaan under Joshua, and not to any other period of history.[3]"
  • 3rd revert, 02:47, 18 December: removes (words removed in bold): "[moreover, Jewish law] as it existed at the time (and as it is still understood today) [applies the verses cited to the situation of the conquest ...]"
  • 4th revert 06:20, 18 December: removes (words removed in bold): "[moreover, Jewish law] as it existed at the time (and as it is still understood today) [applies the verses cited to the situation of the conquest...]"

The words signifying that Jewish law has "always understood" X to be the case, or that X was understood to be the case according to how Jewish law "existed at the time, and as it is still understood today" were removed four times in less than 24 hours; the same words had been previously removed on December 15 by Striver, making Truthspreader's first removal a revert. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

    • People coming off 3RR blocks shouldn't be trying to game it on the same article. Normally this would be a 48 hour block, but because it's not quite as obvious as most, I'll only give him 24 hours. Jayjg (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

User:198.172.203.203 reported by User:MER-C (Result:24h)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Controversy_over_racial_characteristics_of_ancient_Egyptians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 198.172.203.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Warning here: [21]

Comments: Continuation of an edit war on that article. The other party, User:Enriquecardova should also be investigated and has been blocked for edit warring before. MER-C 09:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

24h both. User:Enriquecardova had been blocked only recently for a 3RR breach and has continued his disruptive behaviour. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 10:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Smeelgova reported by User:DaveApter (Result: 24h)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: # 16:15, 15 December


Comments: This is a continuation of a pattern extending over several days. There has been discussion on the talk page on the issues. I would also welcome comment from an impartial observer on the merits of the arguments on each side regarding the suitability of the disputed content.

  • In good faith I honestly did not realize that I had put the section back that many times, and I apologize. On the other hand, some of these edits are not necessarily reversions, but I have added more citations and clarified them on the talk page in discussions with other editors throughout this process. If you feel you must block me, I suppose that's alright, but know that I am sorry and will not revert again on this matter. I do wish that the editor who had reported me would have gone to dispute resolution instead - as this is a highly sourced section. RFC would seem to be much more appropriate for an issue that other editors are concerned about, than 3RR. Please note my attempts to discuss this issue with the other editor on the talk page. Though we have had differing viewpoints, I had thought that we were having a relatively amiable discussion (more polite than in the past) and it is a shame to have it come to this. Please note that the other editor in question has reverted this section at least as many times as I have in the recent past as well - however, I will not file a counter-3RR, because up until this point it did honestly seem like we were having a good faith discussion of the issues on the talk page. Smeelgova 11:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC).
The edits cited in the diffs (as they regard the Austrian government classification) appear to be straight reverts, starting with "In Austria..." for each of the four reverts. This is also not the first time that Smeelgova has been blocked for edit warring on the Landmark Education article. Sm1969 11:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I have just added a fifth diff to the above four. DaveApter 11:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Clarification - The inital revert and some of the others related to both the 'Austrian cult classification' section and the 'Loaded Language' section, both of which have been subject to edit wars for several days. The fifth revert relates just to the latter. DaveApter 12:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A better sign of good faith would have been a self-revert. Failing that, I've blocked you. As to the "I did not realise...": in future, please mark your reverts as such, then it will be easier for you (as well as us) to find out which are reverts William M. Connolley 13:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Briangotts reported by User:Itaqallah (Result: 8h)[edit]

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

User has engaged in a series of partial/complex reverts as follows

Comments: would also advise the page be protected as it has unfortunately been a site of aggressive edit warring. ITAQALLAH 17:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

At least the first "revert" looks like an addition of one sentence. The other three appear too complex for me to comprehend. Beit Or 18:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
1st one is a revertion of the removal of " moreover, Jewish law has always understood the verses cited to apply only to the situation of the conquest...". I find it strange that you do not comprehend them. Maybe it can be a result of you editing the same article that he has violated 3rr in? --Striver 18:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I suppose the report is fraudulent. The edits are not the same. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Based on [22], [23], [24], [25] and [26] (in some order...) this is 4R. 8h William M. Connolley 20:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

William, I don't see a clear violation here. The fourth link you gave above (currently #154) to the 17:40 edit shows him tweaking the writing. He didn't add "contemporaneous" or "modern" or any of the other words that were being disputed. Does that link really count as a revert? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I came here when reviewing the unblock request. It does seem that the user was adjusting his point, but was still holding firm to his base assertion. I have decided not to review this unblock I agree with the block, but can also understand why the user would think it unfair. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
High, could you take a look at this report? This was someone reverting on the same article who wasn't blocked for 3RR, and yet it looks to me like a pretty clear violation. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
the link currently #154 is not particularly a revert. the first four diffs provided in the original report, contrary to what User:Ghirlandajo suggests, are either partial or full reverts. ITAQALLAH 01:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
as blocks are not punitive, and much of the block time would have already expired by now, there seems no reason to pursue this case further. ITAQALLAH 01:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Um. This is a fairly close call, but I think I'll unblock William M. Connolley 22:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reconsidering, William. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

  • Previous version reverted to: [27]
  • 1st revert: [28]
  • 2nd revert: [29]
  • 3rd revert: [30]
  • 4th revert: [31]


Comments: This user has been repetedly reverting cited passages from this article, even after invited to discuss his concerns in the Talk page. There is an ongoing discussion regarding this. However this user has refused to contribute to the discussion. Instead he reverts not only my contributions, but also other relevant contributions by other editors. Please see the history. Parthi talk/contribs 19:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

An easier one. 24h William M. Connolley 20:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:71.219.158.181 reported by User:ChrisB (Result:Warning)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Kurt Cobain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.219.158.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [32]

Comments: User has attempted to include this content in the article repeatedly over the span of the past week, using several 71.219.* IP's and the username RasputinJSvengali. -- ChrisB 22:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The forth revert was a revert of vandalism as well, will warn Jaranda wat's sup 23:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:209.112.13.81 reported by User:CJCurrie (Result:24h)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Dalton McGuinty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 209.112.13.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments: I could probably just revert this as simple vandalism, but I'd prefer to err on the side of caution. The anon has added extra spaces to some of his edits, but they're otherwise identical. CJCurrie 23:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

24 hours

User:Moogy reported by User:Chardish (Result:48h)[edit]

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


Comments: Based on edit summaries like "lol 3rr" and "3rr fails", it seems like he's engaging in edit warring and troublemaking rather than having a legitimate reason to revert. Furthermore, his reverts keep blanking the page.

48h. 24h for 3RR and 24h for lol ing 3RR. Have a nice day. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 10:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Mustafa Akalp reported by User:Eli Falk (Result:48)[edit]

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

Comment Looking at the history, those first two reverts might be considered reverts of vandalism, and I'm inclined to give him a pass here. (On the flip side, there's a 3RR discussion on his talk page, so he's aware of the rule.) | Mr. Darcy talk 16:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
He has been blocked for 48 hours. The correct links are – [33], [34], [35], [36]. Note to User:Eli Falk, please leave the diffs appropriately so that the administrators can act quickly. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 16:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

User:217.134.119.138 reported by Elaragirl and Emir Arven (Result: 24h)[edit]

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

Comments: Edit war in the offing, between an anon and a registered editor with a pretty extensive block log. Not a sign of discussion except comments on rv's. I tried to get a cessation of reverting. User:Emir Arven did so. Even after a warning, the anon did not. Emir Arven created a report, I have replaced it since there was a fifth revert and a warning given before that fifth revert. ElaragirlTalk|Count 19:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 22:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


User:ViriiK reported by User:Alan.ca (Result: No block yet)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on File:OfficialPhoto.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). ViriiK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

2006-12-19T21:45:50

Comments: The reverts relate to a copyright dispute. I had noticed the dispute and tagged the image for deletion based on a conflict of copyright. Subsequently another user noticed the image existed on commons and included that deletion template as well. User Viriik continues to revert this tagging despite efforts to discuss the matter on talk pages. It would be helpful if someone would review the deletion of this image and mitigate any risk of future dispute. Alan.ca 02:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I claim exemption under the fact that the Office of the Prime Minister does hold the copyright according to the Library and Records Canada which is found here. He wants to keep pushing that only Herman Chung holds the copyright. ViriiK 06:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

  • That does not exempt you from 3RR. Sort it out on Talk, and stop edit warring. It's ludicrous. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Alan.ca reported by User:ViriiK (Result: 3h)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on File:OfficialPhoto.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Alan.ca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments: This image has been found to be officially copyrighted by the Office of the Prime Minister. The Office of the Prime Minister did indeed email back and give authorization to use this image on wikipedia. However Alan.ca refusing to accept the copyright holder giving permission to use this on wikipedia. He's being extremely ignorant about this despite the fact the Library and Archive Canada clearly gives the information of the copyright holder and that is Office of the Prime Minister.

Stephen Joseph Harper
© Office of the Prime Minister.
Reproduced with the permission of the Office of the Prime Minister.
Source: Privy Council Office
[37]

ViriiK 03:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


Comments: I claim exemption under WP:3R#Reverting_copyright_violations Alan.ca 05:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

But you weren't removing a proven violation. You were only tagging one. And it seems there is some question about the permission anyway William M. Connolley 11:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was tagging a violation which I believe is a proven violation. I contacted the webmaster of the site on the 14 of December and have yet to receive a reply. I cannot see how refusing to let another editor remove a copyright dispute tag qualifies my account for a 3h ban. Alan.ca 22:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

User:67.150.255.246 reported by User:FeloniousMonk (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on David Berlinski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.150.255.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

3RR warning: 11:58, 20 December

Comments:

A clear violation and he was warned, so 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


Why is #2 a revert? William M. Connolley 20:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a repeat of this edit. Guettarda 20:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

2006-12-20T20:15:29 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "67.150.255.246 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR on David Berlinski) or I would have William M. Connolley 20:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Mackan79 reported by SlimVirgin (Result:24 hrs)[edit]

3RR on Folke Bernadotte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Mackan79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

See Comments section for clarification.

  • Version reverted to 14:48 Dec 19 adds reception section, and removes para about Nazi allegation
  • 1st revert 22:46 Dec 19 restores reception section, and removes paragraph about Nazi allegation
  • Anon revert at 23:15 Dec 19 by 207.195.254.167, restores reception section, and removes paragraph about Nazi allegation
  • 2nd revert (3rd if Mackan is the anon) 23:28 Dec 19 restores reception section, and removes paragraph about Nazi allegation
  • Anon revert at 23:46 Dec 19 by 207.195.254.167, restores reception section, and removes paragraph about Nazi allegation
  • 3rd revert (5th if Mackan is the anon) 15:21 Dec 20 restores reception section, adds "despite these efforts" to the para about Nazi allegation
  • 4th revert (6th if Mackan is the anon) 18:29 Dec 20 restores "despite these efforts" to the para about Nazi allegation
Comment

He was warned about 3RR at 08:47 Dec 17.

Mackan79 is making complex, partial reverts. Any admin looking at this should focus on two points to see the reverts. (1) He keeps adding a "reception" section and moving material from elsewhere into it, and (2) he either removes a paragraph about allegations that Folke Bernadotte had Nazi sympathies, or else adds his own editorializing comment that the allegations persisted "despite these efforts" (referring to Bernadotte's efforts to help Jews).

An anon, 207.195.254.167, conveniently turned up twice to revert to his version, though Mackan says it's not him. There was anon reverting on another article yesterday that Mackan was reverting on too. Mackan says on his user page that he's based in Washington D.C. and the anon IPs — 207.195.254.167 (talk · contribs), 66.82.9.91 (talk · contribs), and 69.19.14.38 (talk · contribs) — resolve to Maryland or Delaware, which are close by. I've included the anon reverts in the report above, but Mackan has violated 3RR even without them. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

PRELIMINARY NOTE FROM MACKAN79: SlimVirgin has now changed her report, so that my responses do not match up. I will have to review it now and clarify. Mackan79 23:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC) [OK, after review, it is now the alleged 3rd revert that I did not consider to be a revert as explained below. It appears she edited the report between me opening the page and then posting.] Mackan79 23:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm actually glad SlimVirgin reported me, because her behavior against me over the last three days has been excedingly eggregious on multiple pages. I'm frankly floored that this kind of behavior is tolerated by an admin, especially as she appears to have angered many people in the past, who have written me to say so.
1. Neither the Maryland nor Delaware IP's are me or anyone I know. I have been in a fairly involved confrontation with SlimVirgin over the last few days, and several people have written me in support, so I don't think it's surprising that someone would come to assist me. [Edited to add: other named users have also agreed with and assisted me] I also looked at their pages (the anon users), and they appear to have been created well before I even started editing contentious articles. I believe SlimVirgin's accusation is knowingly baseless and vindictive.
2. I do not believe the listed third/fourth reverts were reverts. In that "revert," following a 16 hour pause, I moved material from one section to another, and made a new addition elsewhere, after involvement by multiple other users. I did not delete material. Moreover, while the material had been moved previously, SlimVirgin had not made any explanation, nor opposed moving it back, despite my asking her directly. In her earlier changes, she had also reverted several other of my edits on accident, for instance removing sources I had previously included, and re-adding falsely sourced material (both things I had explained in talk), only to realize this later and come back and revert it herself. As I'll note below, she did this clearly because she only came to the page in the first place to escalate a fight with me, and started reverting before even reading the material. In any case, I do not believe my addition there was a revert. [Edited to add: I now remember, SV had actually said in Talk re the section that "I think we should say more about it, not remove it, in order to place it in context, and to give an idea of the extent of it," which is exactly what I did, even adding a sentence about the accusations' prominence in the Israeli press, exactly as SV said she wanted.]
The final revert, incidentally, (the 3rd then, not the 4th/5th as SlimVirgin misleadingly states) was not related to SlimVirgin, but a new user, Isarig, who showed up to revert my new addition without comment. I readded it with explanation in talk. I was then reverted again, and I responded in talk without reverting in kind. Isarig then proceded to begin edit warring with another user, in a way that I believe is reportable by itself.
3. According to her reading, I believe SlimVirgin herself violated the 3RR rule last night in blatant editwarring on the same page. (Isn't it also a violation for her to report an alleged 3RR that she was involved in?) I am relatively new here, and it would take me great time to lay it out in detail, but I believe it can clearly be seen from 21:53, 19 December 2006, to 22:47, to 23:22, to many smaller edits following. SlimVirgin refused to explain herself on the vast majority of them, particularly at first, although she did add comment well later after I could no longer edit the page due to the 3RR (and not responding despite my very well laid out explanations for each edit that I made).
4. Really, I can't lay out SlimVirgin's harassment over the last few days on this page, but I think it is something that should be known. If someone feels like looking into it, they can track it on the talk page at Zionism, and then on the Folke Bernadotte page. My general feeling: I came in very polite and defferential, only to be ignored, and so when receiving no response, I made my edit, each time trying to incorporate their complaints, only to have it summarily reverted with virtually no explanation, no response to my comments, and no attempt to incorporate my suggestions. This was not simply with SlimVirgin, but also with Jayjg and the minor involvement of others. The most belligerent I became was to say that I thought they were pretending to be idiots by their refusal to acknowledge my point, while still clarifying that I did not think they were actually idiots. In any case, I think her general demeanor there was very much in violation of Wikipedia standards, but whatever, that's no big deal.
After pointedly ceasing to respond, however (and I say pointedly because I wrote her on her talk page, and she responded merely by reposting it on the Zionsim talk page), but then continuing to revert my new changes (which I had continued to try to make more defferential to their position and which two other editors expressed agreement with), SlimVirgin then showed up on the Folke Bernadotte page, which was the last thing I had been substantially involved in. She then started reverting everything I had done, while continuing to refuse to explain herself. As far as that goes, again, it's easier to see the Folke Bernadotte talk page, but I remain amazed that this kind of thing would be carried on by an admin, particular in the presence and with the assistance of her allies.
Throughout this ordeal, I have continued making repeated defferential overtures to SlimVirgin and others on the Zionism page to simly address the matter in the talk page, to no avail. If I was uncivil at any point, which I really don't think I was, that would have to be seen on the talk pages. In any case, this behavior on Zionism and Folke Bernadotte (where SlimVirgin's apparent friends and fellow admins also quickly followed her to assist in her revert war, while claiming that they didn't have time to discuss their edits) strikes me as a complete break-down of Wikipedia's policies. I imagine these complaints are common, though, so again, whatever. This accusation from SlimVirgin, though, combined with her previous harassment of me over the last couple of days, is truly out of bounds. Mackan79 22:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin has continued to revert war on the Folke Bernadotte page, while continuing to refuse to explain herself, and further flasely insinuating that an anonymous user is me. Is it not possible for an admin to check an IP address? If so, they can probably very easily see that I was editing at the same time as that address from a different place. Even if not, there is absolutely no basis for comparison, other than that this person showed up to defend me. Mackan79 23:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
One more thing: SlimVirgin now apparently realized that she herself broke the 3RR rule on the Folke Bernadotte page and reverted herself, but then continued editing on the page. Mackan79 00:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Can you give any diffs to support these allegations? Claiming an administrator is out of line usually doesn't work unless you can provide some evidence. -Patstuarttalk|edits 00:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Mackan's been posting these very long posts to talk pages too, which is why he gets few responses. It's worth noting that the reverts above are not isolated. He's reverted around 23 times on two articles since December 11, and has made only 48 edits to articles in that period, so the revert percentage is high. That's not counting the anon IPs who turn up to revert to his versions. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I can try, but I'm relatively new and not good with the technical language. The 3RR violation on the Bernadotte page is very clear in the history; her reverts are in short succession and well documented. I clearly documented her failure to explain in talk. [I see her post here now; while my posts started long, they were entirely brief on Bernadotte where she continued to harass me] Again, I think someone would basically need to look at the talk page on both, but I'll try. I assure you, though: I'm not a partisan, not making this up, and not even exagerating, although of course it's possible I was being more contentious than I intended (though I really ceased this nearly entirely very shortly into the discussion). I think her behavior is very serious. As a starting point, I'd ask somebody to simply glance at my diff page to see the thoughtfulness of the edits I've made. SV's statement that I merely revert is also false; I wrote the entire article on the Living Constitution. I have been reverted lately because I have been trying to remove POV material from certain bios and now one sentence on the Zionism page. Mackan79 00:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

(Edited to add: Below is material re: SV 3RR violation and blatant edit warring on Folke Bernadotte Page, plus being heavily involved in what she's reporting against me. For previous dispute on Zionism, I think you have to glance at the talk page, but spillover hostility should be readily apparent at Folke Bernadotte. So maybe SV can explain if she thinks there's a good reason for her hostility. Now reviewing for she first started explaining herself)

  • 1st SV revert (21:53, 19 Dec 2006 SV) [38] enters page, does simple revert of my last edit. No explanation in talk.
  • My 1st revert (22:46, 19 Dec 2006) ( [39] Reinstated material, explaining that there had been an involved discussion in talk, explained this again in talk,
  • 2nd SV revert (22:47, 19 Dec 2006) [40] Simple revert again, no explanation.
  • Anon revert (23:15, 19 Dec 2006) [41] Restored by anonymous user (to my previous version)
  • 3rd SV revert (23:22, 19 Dec 2006) [42] Third simple revert, no explanation.
  • My 2nd revert (23:28, 19 Dec 2006) [43] Reinstating material with explanation.
  • Humus Sapiens enters (23:38 19 Dec 2006)[44] Humus enters, also having been involved in dispute on Zionism page on SV's side. Does simple reversion, no explanation in talk. I wrote him and asked him very defferentially for comment, and he responded saying he wasn't mad at me at all, but didn't have time to read through the comments to respond. He said he agreed with SV though.
  • Anon user revert 2 (23:46 19 Dec 2006) [45] After SV makes four more additional edits, another anonymous user comes and reinstates to my version.
  • Jayjg enters (23:53 19 Dec 2006) [46] Jayjg enters (also from Zionism dispute) to protect page from anonymous users. In three edits with Humus, also reverts to SV version. No explanation.
  • SV back at it (00:27 20 Dec 2006) [47] SV, back, makes 7 more edits to page, including summary "removed the bit about him perhaps being reluctant to include Jews as the source doesn't say that" (material she had just reverted me to add).
  • My 3rd edit (not revert) (15:08 20 Dec 2006) [48] After about 16 hours and many changes by SV and others, I do not revert, but revise paragraph regarding Nazi allegations, including adding a sentence in accordance with SV's request. I also move another paragraph, after asking SV if she intended to move it or whether there was a reason, and she didn't respond.
  • SV's at least 4th revert (21:24 20 Dec 2006)[49] Following a revert of my edit by Isarig and my revert of that (my 3rd revert, with explanation in talk), and a subsequent revert war between Isarig and Abu Ali, SV reenters and reverts my latest chagnges, without explanation.
  • SV reverts self (21:25 20 Dec 2006) [50] SV seems to realize she overdid it and reverts herself, thoughs he doesn't say why.
  • SV continues (21:32 20 Dec 2006) [51] SV makes several more edits to the article.

I'll save this now and see what happens. Mackan79 01:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC) [Continuing to revise, I apologize]

Reverts 1 and 2, and carbon-copy reverts to the original. The third is subtle, recreating the "reception" section" which was previously removed, but anybody looking at the original or 1 and 2, can see that the section title was previously inserted by Mackan and removed by others. The 4th one also a revert, over the words "despite these efforts" by Isarig although it was not identical, because the word "some" was introduced. There are still 4 reverts however. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't see how the edit 15:21 Dec 20 is a revert. Even if the preceding edit is included, the net effect was to move a paragraph to a different place and add substantial extra text to it. I don't think that text was there before (did I miss something?) The reporter summarised this as "added 'Despite these efforts'" but that is not a fair summary as there are several new phrases, an entire new sentence, and extra material quoted from the source. So I think there were only 3 reverts. --Zerotalk 14:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a revert because he restored the reception section, which he'd done several times before. Even if you add extra material each time, if you're also restoring other material, it's still a revert; if that didn't count as reverting, someone could simply tweak their text each time they wanted to restore a disputed section, and that could continue endlessly. See WP:3RR. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here. 20 Dec 13:33

Comments: Mario, can you provide details about what was reverted when, because a lot of these edits are different? That doesn't mean it's not 3RR, but it would be helpful if you could spell it out. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, many things were reverted, it can be qualified also as vandalism. Pushing the description "country" for this region, which was not agreed by other editors, is part of reverts 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th. Taking out paragraph with criticism regarding elections is part of reverts 4th and 7th. Changing or deleting completely the paragraph about violent (alegedly terorist) incidents is part of reverts 1st, 5th, 7th. Deleting paragraph about smugling and weapons trade is part of reverts 5th and 7th. In revert 7th he also deleted a paragraph about travel warnings and in revert 1st a paragraph about traficking women and re-added a sentence about jamming radio and TV station (I believe he readded this sentence by mistake, as he usually want to hide problems in that region). I should add my impression that Truli is a sockpuppet of User:Mark us street (known also as User:MarkStreet and blocked already 3 times for 3RR), who anounced he will quit Wikipedia, I suspect he just changed his name to avoid scrutiny from other editors. Others had the same impression: JonathanPops, William Mauco, TSO1D, with some doubts. I don't know if I have enough reasons to ask a RCU.--MariusM 15:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Paul Raj reported by User:BostonMA (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

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


Comments:

Sir, See the reverts carefully. No one (users) discussed before their reverts, while in each of my reverts I ask them to discuss before the reverting. See the scroll down to the edit summaries and see here

Before I answered to all discussions and waited for more than 48 hours for opinions. see here No one replied and so i reverted. see here And even there in the edit summary I ask them to discuss befor reverting. No one replied but all of them went on reverting.

Also see the first three reverts as Ayyavazhi seperately and the fourth is not a revert but a different edit in which I accept their view and add Ayyavazhi as per the citations from university papers. - Paul 00:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

He's been blocked before so he knows about 3RR; therefore, 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

User:KazakhPol reported by SlimVirgin (Result:24H)[edit]

3RR on Hizb ut-Tahrir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by KazakhPol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

  • Version reverted to 20:45 Dec 18, the lead says that Hizb ut-Tahrir is an "Islamic terrorist organization" and "Hizb ut-Tahrir declared a state of holy war with the United States in June 2001."
  • 1st revert 04:56 Dec 20, restored that Hizb ut-Tahrir is an "Islamic terrorist organization."
  • 2nd revert 18:40 Dec 20, restored that Hizb ut-Tahrir is an "Islamic terrorist organization"; and "Hizb ut-Tahrir declared a state of holy war with the United States in June 2001."
  • 3rd revert 03:12 Dec 21, restored that Hizb ut-Tahrir is an "Islamic terrorist organization"; and "Hizb ut-Tahrir declared a state of holy war with the United States in June 2001."
  • 4th revert 03:16 Dec 21, restored that Hizb ut-Tahrir is an "Islamic terrorist organization"; and "Hizb ut-Tahrir declared a state of holy war with the United States in June 2001."
  • 5th revert 03:32 Dec 21, restored that Hizb ut-Tahrir is an "Islamic terrorist organization"; and "Hizb ut-Tahrir declared a state of holy war with the United States in June 2001."
Comments

KazakhPol is well aware of 3RR, as his revert here indicates, where his edit summary calls it his 3rd revert. But he miscounted. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, sadly, does not understand the WP:3RR policy. She believes that three reverts in 24 hours constitutes a violation of the policy when the editor in question disagrees with her. KazakhPol 05:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
He has been told that he's violated 3RR [53] but hasn't reverted himself. SlimVirgin