Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive35

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Radiant! reported by User:John254 (Result: Warning)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Radiant! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: complex partial reversions

Comments: The fourth edit by Netscott is not a reversion. John254 15:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

John, there has been a technical violation here, but I'm not keen on blocking an established editor with no prior blocks over a tag dispute on a project page. Also, the first revert is arguably an edit. I'd prefer just to leave a note for him asking him to watch the reverting in future. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
He's an administrator and should know better. If he's keen on reversing things under discussion (I have seen him do this before) that is inappropriate. If he is in violation, he should be treated as any other editor would be and get a block. He should not be given special treatment and held to lesser standards of behavior because he's an administrator. -THB 12:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
It's for a number of reasons, THB. First, the report is ambiguous, because it's not clear that the first revert is a revert, and anyway if you look at the edits, you'll see they're inching toward a resolution; it's not just a pointless back and forth. Secondly, this is an established editor (admin has nothing to do with it) with no blocks to his name, despite being here since Feb 2005. Third, it was a dispute over a tag on a project page. For those three reasons jointly, I believe a note on his page is appropriate here. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 13:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Good call by User:SlimVirgin. I agree that technically it was a vio... but SlimVirgin's reasoning is essentially sound with the slight caveat that User:Radiant!'s page/activity sat rather dormant for months. (Netscott) 15:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Mamin27 reported by User:Khoikhoi (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Han_Chinese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mamin27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments: Please check his block log. Khoikhoi 05:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

1ne blocked him for 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Chuck0 reported by User:Your honor (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Chuck Munson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chuck0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

3RR warning just a short while ago previously by an administrator on his talk page: [2]


Comments:

This doesn't appear to be a 3RR violation, as the first revert above appears to have been the first edit. It's a moot point anyway because Will Beback has protected the page. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Hillock65 reported by User:Humus sapiens (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on History of the Jews in Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hillock65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Warning: 01:08, 26 December 2006

He's also been blocked before for 3RR, so 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Rajsingam reported by User:Lahiru_k (Result: 3h)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Anton Balasingham (edit | [[Talk:Anton Balasingham |talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rajsingam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):


Comments: He is three month older wikipedian who holds 589 total edit count and can be seen on some Sri Lanka related controversial topics. So I don't think that he does need any 3RR warning prior to the report.[3] --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 15:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Note - He was reverting unreliably sourced info in the correct manner. I dont see why he couldnt use rediff though.Bakaman 16:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
comment the user Rajsingam is actually running a mock at the Anton Balasigham article..He had reverted other peoples edits, without making any comments in the talk page.Making comments at the talk page,before reverting is a general rule in wikipedia and I don't think we should allow this user to break this fundamental principal.Further,he reverted my edits 3 times,within last hour, thus making the total number of violations over 7.

--Iwazaki 17:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

comment I strongly urge the admins to take action against this individual to prevent needless revert wars. He has been persistently removing cited commentrary from a reliable source critical of the famous terrorist advisor Anton Balasingham. He has been warned several time to desist, but he has not.Kerr avon 13:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems to have gone quiet now. 3h block as a token William M. Connolley 20:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

User:61.68.119.205 reported by User:Coelacan (Result: no block)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 61.68.119.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments: This user has multiple IPs, at the least User:61.68.119.205 User:61.68.191.123 and User:61.68.177.89. Was warned at this talk page. Doesn't wait for consensus, insists that because a message has been left on the talk page (which was disputed by other editors), this is license to add anything at whim. Was asked to slow down and wait for consensus, but won't. The four reverts occur over 25 hours and 19 minutes, but WP:3RR says "Users may be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day" and in light of the warning and disputatious nature of talk page edits (user also had to be warned twice for NPA), I think this is a special case. — coelacan talk — 15:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

User has moved on to new IP at User:210.10.150.170. — coelacan talk — 17:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that this was not within 24h, and is now fairly stale, and its multiple IPs, I can't see any point in a block. Bring it back if it recurrs William M. Connolley 20:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Hipocrite reported by User:Netscott (Result: no block)[edit]

Time reported: 17:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The first three are just straight reverts across three separate editors (the third is where I tried to restore a previously stable version of the page) but the last shows that this user undid most of my last edit. According to my understanding of WP:3RR this is a revert as well. I brought this to the attention of this editor and he disagreed that it was a revert. User:Hipocrite is a user in good standing and if I am correct about these reverts then I would not want him to be blocked (just warned much like User:Radiant! above) but I would appreciate if those with a bit more authority could clarify this. Thanks. (Netscott) 17:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

My fourth edit, fixing your horribly broken english, is not remotely a revert. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Additionly, my second edit is not a direct revert, as it adds the word "Many users," which seems to have satisfied you, at the very least. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
You might like to abide by CIV as well there Hipocrite... if I'm right I don't expect that your lack of civility is going to help you any. (Netscott) 17:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry that I called your edit "horribly broken english." I should have written instead that it was "obviously improper grammar." For this I apologize. Now, could you stop wasting everyones time trying to get useless warnings and cautions placed on users pages and refer to the talk page in question? Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

3R; I can't see why the 4th is a rv William M. Connolley 20:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Venom-smasher reported by User:TKD (Result:24 hour block)[edit]

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

Warned previously.

Comments: This user and The Filmaker (talk · contribs) have been going back and forth on a few of the Star Wars movie pages for a couple of days. I tried article protection on the Episode I page to calm things down, and warned that resumption of edit warring would result in blocks. However, I think that, having since joined relevant discussion, I should defer to someone else to block for the continuing revert war. Times are UTC -5. — TKD::Talk 19:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Both users blocked for 24 hours. If they continue, I'll protect the page. --Robdurbar 22:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

User:The_Filmaker reported by User:TKD (Result:24 hours)[edit]

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


Comments: Times are UTC -5. See above for the other half of this revert war (Venom-smasher (talk · contribs)). I warned about 3RR when I unprotected the Episode I article, but have since entered discussion myself, so I don't feel comfortable applying blocks in this dispute. I was hoping that there would be a better solution to this, but, as the diffs show, it's gotten pretty ugly. — TKD::Talk 19:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

As above. --Robdurbar 22:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

User:12.170.101.194 reported by User:Baristarim (Result: 12 hours)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Baklava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 12.170.101.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

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


3RR warning on a different article was made this morning [9].

Comments: This is an IP that has been edit warring in a number of hot ethnic disputes. Even though he is an anon, he seems to know Wiki policies well. I had warned him of the 3RR before in another disputed article [10]. User targets mainly articles concerning one ethnicity and has been making numerous extremely POV edits like the one here [11] Baristarim 21:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I have blocked the user for 12 hours per WP:3RR. alphachimp. 23:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

User:ramdrake reported by User:Benio76 (Result:No Block 24h)[edit]

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


Comments: The user ramdrake reverted my contribution to a scientifical description of foie gras (as an effect of steatosis pathology) pretending that it "imparts a strong negative bias". But my contribution was a description of a fact, which he recognizes, and there were not any subjective valuations. Telling facts does not impart negative bias, just like telling that Saddam Hussein killed people is not a negative bias but just "letting the facts speak for themselves", as recommanded in WP:NPOV.

  • These are different reverts in different areas of the article. If Benio76 wants to call these a 3RR on Ramdrake, he himself has got 6RR on everybody else. Multiple users are reverting Benio76 on multiple sections of this article. Benio76 is a single purpose account to push an agenda at that article SchmuckyTheCat 22:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The policy says "The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia page within a 24 hour period." Ramdrake did four reversions in less than two hours. Benio76 23:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
These strictly speaking aren't reverts. The diffs between versions are sufficiently different that I don't consider them reverts. If another admin has a different opinion, by all means, issue a block.--CSTAR 20:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

These four edits by Ramdrake clearly are reverts. They are the plainest reverts you can get!

  • Edit 1, 18:18, December 26, 2006: Ramdrake deleted the phrase "and a number of countries and local jurisdictions" from the intro paragraph. I had just put that phrase in. To see that just go back to the preceeding edit.
  • Edit 2, 18:39, December 26, 2006: Same thing again, concerning the same phrase, except that Ramdrake also botched up the sentence by removing an additional piece. To see that it is a revert just go back to the two preceeding edits [12] and [13].
  • Edit 3, 20:01, December 26, 2006: Ramdrake deleted the sentence "Its name refers to the pathology called fatty liver or steatosis, which induces an abnormal growth of the liver." and an additional two words that had just been put in by user benio76. To see that it is a revert just go back to the two preceeding edits [14] and [15].

If these are not reverts, both in the strict sense of the term and in the spirit of the 3RR guidelines, I really do not know what might qualify as a revert!

Ramdrake, along with other users, is counting on the strict enforcement of the 3RR rule against those who disagree with them, while being able to do exactly what they want to the foie gras page. Do the rules not apply to them? Is it NPOV for one party to be able to do what it wants, while the other sits paralyzed?

David Olivier 23:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The revised report specifies that this is a complex revert (reversion to previous, but not identical states.) 24h.--CSTAR 01:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Aminz reported by User:Beit Or (Result: No Block)[edit]

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

  • 1st revert: 12:03, 26 December 2006 removal of NPOV tag, added by another user at 11:04, 26 December 2006
  • 2nd revert: 22:40, 26 December 2006 restoration of the passage "Jews were involved in a war during 66-70 AD against Rome under the lead of Bar Cochba, whom they had accepted as Messiah. This war caused a cleavage among Christians and Jews. Christians, opposing militarism, didn't help Jews in the war. They found zealot militarism contradictory with the teachings of Jesus. The murderous slaughters by Jews in Cyprus and Cyrenaica only increased the cleavage. Bar Cochba and his followers regarded the war as a national war and heavily penalized Christians for not helping their Jewish brethens. Christians's rejection of the militarism was also due to the fact that acceptance of Bar Cochba as Messiah, left no place for Jesus to be the Messiah." removed by another user at 21:58, 26 December 2006
  • 3rd revert: 08:02, 27 December 2006 restoration of the sentence "In addition, according to the book of Esther (8:14), a large number of Persians converted to Judaism out of fear of Jews during the events of Purim." removed by another user at 00:31, 27 December 2006
  • 4th revert: 09:25, 27 December 2006 restoration of the words "tend to regard toleration as a sign of weakness or even wickedness towards whatever diety they worship. Among the religous, toleration is demanded by the persecuted who need it if they are ever to become triumphant, when, all too often, they start to persecute in their turn." removed by another user at 08:17, 27 December 2006

Comments:

  • This does not appear to be a 3RR violation at all. Just additions of content.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, reverts 2, 3, and 4 were re-additions of content previously removed by other users. Waiting for an admin to deal with this report. Beit Or 10:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment. This doesn't qualify as a 3RR vio, then. There have to be more than 3 reverts.--CSTAR 20:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
What about the first revert, then? Beit Or 20:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't look like a revert to me. Consider the diffs between the versions of the first two: [16]: These versions substantially different--CSTAR 20:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Reverts need not be to the same version. The second revert that you've linked above seems clear: edit summary restore the war issue... restoring the passage beginning with the words "Jews were involved in a war." Chabuk removed this passage[17], then Aminz restored it[18]. It's clearly a revert. Beit Or 20:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think so. According to the definition WP:Revert
However in the context of the English Wikipedia three revert rule, a revert is defined far more broadly as any change to an article that partially or completely goes back to any older version of an article.
The action taken on the second edit by Arminz does not take it back to the same version as the first edit. Please note also, that in filing a 3RR report, it is desirable that a "reverted to version" also be provided. In any case I don't see these as being reversions, but if you disagree, ask another admin to review my interpretation.--CSTAR 20:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
One further comment: I tried looking at the diffs suggested by your comparisons of additions and removals. The diffs of these versions don't appear to me to be the same. But again as I said, please feel free to ask someone else.--CSTAR 21:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

My only purpose was to add content to the article. The first edit for example is not a revert. As one can see from the talk page User: Charlie added the tag because he thought the title of the article is inherently POV. However I argued that we have articles on Historical Persecution by Christians and Historical persecution by Muslims and removed the tag. Later he added the tag again commenting that: "I overreacted, perhaps. But I still think that much of the content is very POV..." As soon as he pointed out the content dispute, I didn't remove the tag. I didn't mean the removal of the tag to be a revert. There is a story behind each other edits. I was about to add more content to the new section I've created which specifically ties the section to Judaism but couldn't do that because I was afraid it would be considered a revert. My feeling of the situation is that Beit Or is only removing whatever I add. --Aminz 11:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

'Warning. Whether or not there is a story behind a revert is irrelevant. The point of the 3RR linit is to avoid edit warring; in this instance I didn't see a 3RR vio, it is pretty clear that you have engaged in edit warring. Next time, if there is evidence of edit warring, I will block you regardless of whether it's technically a 3RR vio or not.--CSTAR 21:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

User:89.172.195.192 reported by User: User:Dahn (Result:24h)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Krashovani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 89.172.195.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):


User:Beit Or reported by User:Hillock65 (Result: rejected)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Beit Or (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):


Comments:

User:jd2718 reported by User:jd2718 (Result:No Block)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Allegations_of_Israeli_Apartheid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). jd2718 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: different versions, but 3 of the 4 were removal of the same paragraph

No evidence of warning, but user:jd2718 has been a wikipedian for over half a year and has nearly 1000 edits.

Comments: There were no other edits between the 1st and 2nd revert, so perhaps they make up a single revert, in two pieces. But insofar as user:jayjg warned me I thought I should bring this here to be enforced or dropped.

  • No block. --CSTAR 15:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

User:TheFarix reported by User:68.1.78.129 (Result: No violation)[edit]

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

  • Previous version reverted to: removal of listed convention
Comments
  • There's an ongoing discussion of this on the talk page, and there has to be four reverts for one to be blocked for this. I only see three.--Vercalos 07:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Not to mention the second edit was a reversion to the correct link for that particular convention.--Vercalos 07:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This doesn't look like a violation. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Attempts have been made to reason with the anon editor regarding the listing criteria, however s/he still insists that his/her convention should be included regardless of the criteria (using logic such as western Florida is not part of the same state as the rest of Florida because it is in different time zones). A localized RfC with WP:Anime has been called to help settle the matter.[24] --TheFarix (Talk) 01:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Fighting_for_Justice reported by User:196.15.168.40 (Result: Page protected)[edit]

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

  • Previous version reverted to: Starting point [25], “Fighting for Justice” first deleted the last two links in the article, then reverted not only all attempts to reinstate them, but also all other additions to the article, while making just one small addition himself.
  • “Fighting for Justice” is very familiar with the 3RR, having both warned and been warned (and recently, too).

Comments:

This is part of a long-standing dispute. For simplicity, I have given only his last four reverts.

This is a frivolous addition. User:196.15.168.40 is doing this as revenge because I got an administrator to protect a page in which, we've had an edit war going on. In addition one of the above links isn't a revert. I removed useless links. Before you consider banning me for 24 hours, look into the history of the David Westerfield article. Fighting for Justice 08:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
So you admit you DID violate the 3RR. The INITIAL removal of the links is NOT included in the above four reverts.196.15.168.40 04:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Must you vandalize every board you come across to? Do you not see that an administrator closed the matter? But, no, you gotta throw in your two-cents as usual. Fighting for Justice 04:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
196.15.168.40 it doesn't matter if he violated 3RR, since the page is now protected. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. --Wildnox(talk) 04:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
196, you need to provide diffs showing four reverts, not links to the entire article. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
It's protected anyway. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not protected any more. Here are the 4 diffs:

Further Comments I'd suggest dropping the issue. Your edits were badly done(Making a line break in the middle of a sentence, removing key information from the article) etc. You keep re-instating a bad edit, and I'm not sure if that's protected under the 3RR rule. And you're at least as guilty as he is, it seems.--Vercalos 09:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Line break in the middle of a sentence? That’s COMMON: for example, EVERY sentence in your comment overflows a line. Removing key information? That’s what “Fighting for Justice” does, not me. You’ve got it the wrong way round. So it was GOOD edits I was reinstating. Which IS protected under the 3RR.196.15.168.40 04:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Vercalos save yourself a big headache and simply ignore 196.15.168.40. He is nothing but trouble. He has no regard for wikipedia's policies or rules. He's been around disrupting wikipedia since March. His favorite article is the David Westerfield article. A child-killer no less. He doesn't even understand the 3RR Rule. It protects against vandalism. Reverting information you disagree with someone is not. Regardless if you are reinstating good edits made by you or someone else. You are so clueless about the rules around here. Your edits are not even good, because they violate WP:OR. Fighting for Justice 04:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Noah30 reported by User:Laughing Man (Result: 24h)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Kosovo Protection Corps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Noah30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

3RR warning (since removed from users talk page) 21:10, December 27, 2006

Comments: lots of warring on this article, all parties should be blocked for 3RR.

2006-12-28T20:47:05 Robdurbar (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Noah30 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3rr violation) and 2006-12-28T20:47:10 Robdurbar (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "KosMetfan (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3rr violation) William M. Connolley 20:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you move too quickly for me Will. Edit conflicted with - :Both User:Noah30 and User:KosMetfan blocked for 24 hours. I've protected the pag too as one or two other users have been invovled. --Robdurbar 20:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
By the way, there is an arbitration ruling applicable to any Kosovo related articles (on probation): Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo. Please log any blocks at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Regards, Asteriontalk 22:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Ymous reported by User:Orangemarlin (Result:No violation)[edit]

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


Comments:

  • There must be four reverts to create a violation. Stifle (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, no warning was given. I've given him one myself though.--Wildnox(talk) 22:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I didn't know either point, but when I reread the "rules" I understood more clearly. I'm afraid that this user would have accused me of being a demon if I made the warning, so I'm glad someone else did. Thanks for your help. Orangemarlin 03:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Bryndza‎ reported by User:Bucketsofg (Result prot:)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bryndza‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments: Second revert is by an IP 65.94.19.47, which is "likely" him: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Bryndza. He has subsequently admitted the edit is his (diff) Bucketsofg 22:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Follow up:

The last revert is reverting recently banned [35] open proxy vandal User:Redstone357. Citing 3RR policy on this matter:
  • Reverting edits from banned or blocked users

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.

Therefore this revert does not conform 3RR requirement. Plus it was provoked by the admin Bucketsofg himself as I applied his justification to the revert. Please see (1) in [36].
Also I would like to cite another paragraph from 3RR policy:
  • Intent of the policy

The three-revert rule is intended to stop edit wars. For your information, article Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II have been blocked from editing and revert war stopped. Please also consider that in my 1+ year of editing experience at WP I was never involved in editing wars and have no intent to be drawn into them anymore. --Bryndza 05:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

2006-12-28T15:14:00 Bucketsofg (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II: protect to end edit warring [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) William M. Connolley 11:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

User:SchmuckyTheCat reported by User:Olivierd (Result: warning)[edit]

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

Comments:

The first four reverts were done by SchmuckyTheCat in less than 24 hours, on the same item: he repeatedly put back the "good article" template on the talk page of the foie gras article. Each time, he also relisted the article on the GA page. He also at least once (such as in this diff) deleted the TotallyDisputed template from the main foie gras page. Strictly speaking, he has thus done a lot more than 4 reverts in those 24 hours.

Those reverts are on an issue that in itself shouldn't be disputed, which is the fact that the foie gras page is disputed. SchmuckyTheCat appears unable to recognize even the existence of disagreeing voices.

SchmuckyTheCat was warned by me after the fourth revert (see here on the talk page) but he only sneered, and went on to perform two other reverts that same evening, on other issues.

I do not think the controversy on the foie gras page is to be resolved by revert counting; however, there are rules, and the liberties that SchmuckyTheCat and others repeatedly take with those rules gives them an unfair advantage, allowing them to go on editing the page in a totally POV manner while remaining completely oblivious of all attempts to discussion. This is why I now ask measures to be taken against SchmuckyTheCat.

David Olivier 00:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I encouraged David Olivier to file this complaint [37]. David is on the losing side of a POV war on Foie gras. David attempted to use the Good Article status of the article as a battle. The GA process has a review process to remove articles. When David didn't follow the process, I restored the GA template to the talk page. I then followed what David should have done and filed the GA review for him Wikipedia:Good_articles/Review#Foie_gras. Removing the tag in a POV war is underhanded vandalism. Restoring the tag, and listing the article for review when you don't think it should be reviewed, is good faith editing.
Note on the article itself I'm not being strict about counting, but I'm trying generally to follow 1RR per issue. David's 5th and 6th revert have nothing to do with each other. SchmuckyTheCat 00:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
To whoever is reviewing this report - please be advised that there is an ongoing edit war revolving around two users (Oliverd, Benio76) engaged in a radical POV pushing (PETA activism). The issue has been discussed in length on article's Talk page and the user who's changes were reverted repeatedly ignored other editor's arguments. Alex Pankratov 00:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

As per WP:GA/R, the GA tag is to be removed when a user sees that the article does not satisfy the criteria. The review process is for relisting the article. That there is an ongoing edit war is uncontroversial, and it is particularly absurd to try to dispute the fact that the article is disputed. To call vandalism an edit by someone who disagrees with you is just rhetoric. David Olivier 01:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a huge conflict about the neutrality of foie gras. A small group of editors are regularly boycotting other editors' improvements, in order to preserve a positive bias pushing commercialization of foie gras. These people ignore arguments, sources and quotation of WP guidelines furnished by other editors, and they have gone as far as accusing me of having created a sock puppet, which is false. Since the article does not satisfy the GA criteria, the reverts made by SchmuckyTheCat are unjustified, Benio76 01:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not very happy with all this, but... firstly, reverts to article and talk pages are (AFAIK) counted separately (this could be a Good Question). Secondly STC should not have rv'd 4 times to restore the GA tag, but its semi-stale now; and I don't think the GA tag should simply be removed. So STC gets a warning William M. Connolley 11:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverting a talk page seems like disruptive behavior and should be handled separately. Though in some cases reversion in a talk page is justified (to remove obscenities, defamation, vile personal attacks etc) why should it be tolerated there in other cases at all? --CSTAR 17:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Certainly. But what I meant was, the talk and article pages count separately towards the count of 4... at least I think they do. I'll put it onto talk William M. Connolley 18:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Starwars1955 reported by User:Aviper2k7 (Result: 72h)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Brett_Favre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Starwars1955 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments: User has been blocked two or three times before, at least once for violating 3RR. here's the first time he was blocked. He's reverting to a version with no citations, which violates WP:CITE and then says that listing citations twice is against the rules. See Brett Favre history and our discussion on the talk page which he seems to ignore.++aviper2k7++ 00:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Also, note that that this editor has been brought up at ANI. Heimstern Läufer 02:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

72h given previous record William M. Connolley 11:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

User:R9tgokunks reported by User:LUCPOL (Result: 24h)[edit]

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

Comments: User:R9tgokunks (Hrödberäht) vandalise (edit war, 3RR) arcicles: Metropolis, Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union, Ostrava, List of famous German Americans, Father of the Nation etc, etc. He's always revert. See history in arcicles (all edit war R9tgokunks vs all users in all arcicles): [38], [39], [40], [41], [42] etc. Please help. Please blocked this user on month (or more). LUCPOL 00:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC) PS: He manipulates, it lets old links (see highly - links discussion from... september etc). LUCPOL 00:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

First, please use the template provided. Second, you also violated 3RR in at least one of the articles. You're both violating 3RR, and if either of you get blocked, you both get blocked. --Wildnox(talk) 01:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I will repeat. He leads many edit wars and 3RR! Not one or two - many. Please help (except Wildnox). LUCPOL 01:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

PS. This is data (links) with end of December 2006 (actually), I did not look for older. LUCPOL 02:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

How can the vandal get blocked, and the contributor who reverted the vandalism also get blocked? Surely this doesn't happen elsewhere on Wikipedia, does it?-- Hrödberäht 02:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 11:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

User:LUCPOL reported by User:R9tgokunks (Result: 24h)[edit]

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

Comments: Background on the situation(although it might be irrelevant to the actual report):[43],[44] [45],[46],[47] -- Hrödberäht 03:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It is lie!: 1st revert - 27 December, 3rd and 5th revert is not revert. This is actualization. This is previous version [48], letter is reverts from R9tgokunks (Hrödberäht). I did not make 3RR: see: [49], [50] - My 3 corner edition and 3 reverts from R9tgokunks (Hrödberäht) - in draught 24h, 28 december 2006. I did not make 3 reverts, this is 3 corner edition. LUCPOL 03:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, just above the actual report is this further discussion-- Hrödberäht 03:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me condense what I said above.(I Removed it) BOTH users appear to have violated 3RR on the article in question. --Wildnox(talk) 03:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me also add the suggestion that possibly instead of either or both of the users being blocked, that this and the other pages involved(listed by LUCPOL in the report above) be protected. This would allow the users to discuss their issue with eachother and hopefully come to a compromise. --Wildnox(talk) 04:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 11:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Mithril_Cloud reported by User:Pmgomez (Result: no block)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on De_La_Salle-Santiago_Zobel_School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links &