Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive36

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

Noticeboard archives


Contents

User:208.104.231.252 reported by User:Imjustmatthew (Result: 24h)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Charlotte, North Carolina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 208.104.231.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to every time: 19:25, January 15, 2007
  • 1st revert: 19:25, January 15, 2007
  • 2nd revert: 23:11, January 15, 2007
  • 3rd revert: 04:30, January 16, 2007
  • 4th revert: 06:35, January 16, 2007
  • 5th revert: 23:22, January 16, 2007
  • 6th revert: 05:23, January 17, 2007
  • 7th revert: 05:43, January 17, 2007

Comments: The reverts using this same fact have been spread out over slightly more than 24 hours, but I feel like the spirit of 3RRR is being violated. The user has been asked to explain themselves on their talk page and warned about 3RR. --Matthew 00:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This user is also repeatedly reverting Charlotte metropolitan area. --Matthew 07:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 10:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Improper Bostonian reported by 172 (Result: 24h)[edit]

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

  • Previous version reverted to: [1]
  • 1st revert: [2]
  • 2nd revert: [3]
  • 3rd revert: [4] (appears to be a partial reversion because Improper Bostonian changes the attribution of his edit)
  • 4th revert: [5]

Comments:

24h William M. Connolley 09:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Somethingoranother reported by User:SFC9394 (Result:48H block)[edit]

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

Comments: User informally warned on talk page - asked numerouse times by diferent editors to stop reverting and discuss the changes. User has had previous block for 3RR violation 3 weeks ago - apparently they still haven't accepted wikipedia policy. SFC9394 20:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Somethingoranother also made edits to the image itself, in effect doing exactly the same as editing the article itself — the result is identical:
Thanks/wangi 23:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Rrjanbiah reported by User:Rumpelstiltskin223 (Result:24h both)[edit]

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


Comments: User has also made personal attacks in his edit summaries [12] and is extremelt incivil. His edits are highly racialized and derogatory towards Brahmin people, largely based on the crank pseudoscience of fringe extremism (not allowed excessive prominence per WP:FRINGE), making him an extremely disruptive editor. 12:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting yourself, however you will not be awarded for your diligence. 24h both. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Tajik reported by User:Baristarim (Result:Page Protected)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Turkification (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: [13]
  • Warning: user is aware of WP:3RR, he is an experienced user and was blocked for 3RR before.

Comments: User insisting on adding an accuracy tag to a section in the article, and there were problems with civility before in the talk pages, and was warned by administrator User:Alex Bakharev just this morning [18], and he is already on WP:1RR on ten or so related articles by administrator decision for incivility [19] because of raging incivility and edit-warring with another user on those pages. Baristarim 15:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The article has now been protected; this will do for now. --Robdurbar 11:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Shamir1 reported by User:Palmiro (Result:Violation, warning)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Arab citizens of Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Shamir1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Apologies that except for the first one the diffs are only for "last version" and do not show the versions reverted to, this function is only working intermittently on my browser for some reason. It will be clear that these are all reverts, however. Palmiro | Talk 23:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a violation. Due to the fact the editing on the page has slowed down and we've responded quite late, I'll warn but not block. Robdurbar 11:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Macedonia reported by User:FunkyFly (Result:4 day block for various reasons!)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on File:Verginasun2.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Macedonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments: The image is clearly taken from here: http://makedonia.eu.org/wp-upload/vergina2.jpg. Notice the same file name. The middle part is cut off and the result is presented as "self-made", which is clearly not the case, as this is a derivative work. The user was warned on his talk page and has been blocked five times for 3RR in the past, the last time for four days.   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


This image obviously does not match the source claimed by FunkyFly, and he broke the 3RR rule while adding flase copyright liscences to my image:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Macedonia (talkcontribs)

Not true. The first edit is not a revert. It is only User:Macedonia who has broken 3RR on that page.   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
FunkyFly also removed images from my userpage that were also being used in other userpages: User:Johnbrillantes (Image:AlexandertheGreat.jpg) and User: Asteraki (Image: Vergina sun.jpg)
See above report by NikoSilver. Those images were initially removed by an administrator in response to their questionable copyright status.   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
See report immediately above. Fut.Perf. 07:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

07:01, 16 January 2007 Future Perfect at Sunrise (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Macedonia (contribs)" with an expiry time of 4 days (abuse of image licenses, revert warring about fair-use images in userspace) --Robdurbar 12:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

User:NE2 reported by User:Rob110178 (Result:No violation)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on List of bus routes in the Bronx. NE2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments: This user has been warned as indicated above for potential 3RR violations. User has been warned about past potential 3RRs as listed above. This user and another have been involved in edit warring for the past month. There has not been a reversion due to some detailed research being conducted to determine correct version to revert to.

ANot reverts. --Robdurbar 12:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

User:BWCNY reported by User:Rob110178 (Result:No violation)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on List of bus routes in the Bronx. BWCNY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments: This user has been warned as indicated above for potential 3RR violations. User has been warned about past potential 3RRs as listed above. This user and another have been involved in edit warring for the past month. There has not been a reversion due to some detailed research being conducted to determine correct version to revert to.

I do not see 3 reverts. In fact, I don't see one revert. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Nomanahmed reported by User:Mastiboy (Result:Unformatted report)[edit]

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

Reverts: See [20]

Comments: Deleting whole passages from different articles. His deletions have long history therefore contribution link is added. He has been also warned. This user is also vandalising other pages too. --Mastiboy 18:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Please format correctly William M. Connolley 20:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

User:ForrestLane42 reported by User:Goethean (Result: 24h)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Ken_Wilber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ForrestLane42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments:

24h William M. Connolley 20:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

User:136.159.32.180 reported by User:Orpheus (Result:See report below)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Sati (practice) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 136.159.32.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments: Also 3RR on Hindu and repeated edit warring on many other pages (see contribs).

User is now at 136.159.32.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - Orpheus 02:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

User:136.159.32.180 reported by User:A Ramachandran (Result:Violation, final warning)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Buddha as an Avatar of Vishnu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 136.159.32.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):


Comments:

User is now at 136.159.32.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - Orpheus 02:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


This doesn't look promising. At the User:136.159.32.180 account I've given a full and final warning. Please report here or to me any future violations, which would have to result in blocks. --Robdurbar 12:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Patchouli reported by Khoikhoi (Result: 24h)[edit]

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

Comments: Not a new user, please check his block log. Khoikhoi 19:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 22:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

User:JuJube reported by User:Macionis (Result: no block)[edit]

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


Comments: Jujube and others refuse to provide a valid explination in the discussion page while Gardez Bien has. Many other states have far more irrelevant infos that are not changed. Check Virginia and Mass. Jujube has had many complaints and contines to also edit the Montgomery, Prince George's and Fairfax Counties pages.

  • Response: I actually realized my error and reverted back to Gardez Bien's version here. By the way, this person is a suspected sockpuppet of Gardez Bien, whose other sock Simpledays (talk · contribs) recently was blocked for 3RR on Montgomery County, Maryland. JuJube 03:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Response: You violated the 3RR rule and should be blocked. By the way I would love to know why you and others reasoning for why the intro is invalid when Virginia talks about being "Mother of states", Fairfax abdout being "bigger than Balitmore" or Mass about "approving gay marriage". Why are those valid and not Maryland's intro? Wouldn't you have to change all other state and county intros too? Did you even read Gardez Bien's response in the Maryland Talk Page? It was very long and factual with LOTS of evidence why every other poster is creating a double standard with Maryland and its counties. Even your sockpuppet Thisisbossi agreed but continues to attack Macionis 04:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not the only article that this user has violated the 3RR rule on in the past 24 hours. Turkeyphant 06:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Technically, I am not in violation of 3RR at all (see above edit), but I actually only reverted Keeley Hazell three times as well. Don't make false claims. JuJube 09:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Self-rv is evidence of good faith. No block William M. Connolley 09:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

User: MichaelAusems reported by User:Raymond_arritt (Result: 12h each)[edit]

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


Comments: Tried to warn instead of reporting, since I thought going straight to a report would only inflame the situation further. I gave a warning and pointers to WP:3RR in case he was unfamiliar with the policy, both on his User:Talk page and on the talk page of the relevant article. Though he commented on the latter, he kept on reverting. (NB: this is my first attempt to report a 3RR violation, so please let me know if I've done this improperly. Thanks.)

Further comment: Gack. I just noticed I put the warning on his User page instead of his Talk page. I've moved the warning over to his Talk page. Regardless, he did see my warning at Talk:United Nations, as he responded to my comments. Raymond Arritt 05:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

12h for him and MB too William M. Connolley 10:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Shac1 reported by User:Ryulong (Result:Protected)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Capella_University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Shac1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments:

  • I protected the page because this is a long standing dispute and just blocking the users will not solve anything. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Pizzaman6233 reported by User:Ryulong (Result:Protected)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Capella_University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pizzaman6233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments:

  • I protected the page because this is a long standing dispute and just blocking the users will not solve anything. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Asian2duracell reported by User:Wiki Raja (Result:No Block)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Dravidian people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Asian2duracell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):


Comments: Also, 3RR on Tamil people page, but was already reported for that. Possible sock puppetry too.

Wiki Raja 21:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This was nine days ago. No block. And which part of These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is did you not understand? William M. Connolley 22:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I wish there was a way of enforcing that rule. It's like those who change the time stamps to match their local time. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Tommypowell reported by User:Navou (Result:24h)[edit]

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

- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here. Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.


Comments: Article consensus appears to be the non-inclusion of the DoB. Dispute resolution appears to be on talk page, however, no demonstrated indication of a willingness to stop reverting. Regards, Navou banter 13:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are not sure what the previous reverted version is, we have no business here. Perhaps you could seek dispute resolution? Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 13:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little unclear, are you saying, the report does not belong here? Navou banter 14:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at the article if you don't mind, see if the 3RR is there, and let me know if I"m wrong. Appreciate it in advance, Navou banter 14:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
There are four edits by this user within 24 hours. Can you show me how the first edit is a revert in itself, and not an independent edit? Also, review what the top of this page says and WP:3RR. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I hope I did this right, I'm familer with the policy, just not the reporting format. Navou banter 14:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
24h. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it, the 24h standard is not firm within the policy. However, after work today, I'll talk to this user directly and perhaps get him on the right track towards dispute resolution notwithstanding administrator intervention. Note: This is not a report withdrawal. Navou banter 14:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

User:74.73.39.219 reported by User:Timeshifter (Result:48 both)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Lancet surveys of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 74.73.39.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments: This is the same user who was previously given a 24-hour block for 3RR on the same article page. See this IP talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:74.64.60.148 - Please note that the user contributions for the new IP start 27 minutes after the old IP contributions stop. He is refusing to discuss further why the erroneous graph should be kept. He is the one saying that the Lancet authors now say that the graph is erroneous. So I removed it. The graph was always confusing anyway. I have asked him to quote or copy the subscription-only Lancet letters to the editor he refers to, so we can discuss the issue further. In the meantime erroneous graphs should not be on wikipedia pages. --Timeshifter 14:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

48h each. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

User:RCS reported by User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (Result:12h)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on List of very tall men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RCS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

There may have been a lot more than this that I missed



Comments: Sorry if my report was formatted incorrectly. I don't normally report people on this board. Subject was warned about 3RR policy. Although I'm not sure if he's considered "new," he clearly read my warning (and repsonded to it on my talk page), and continued reverting.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at his contriubtions, it's clear RCS is not a new user and should have been well aware of 3RR prior to my warning.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


Reply : The Fat Man Who Never Came Back popped up in the middle of a conflict and took party for the wrong side. If you look at the history of the page, you'll see that some IP's (later appearing under an username) just don't want the 6ft 4 section to be kept deleted as it was for good reason for several days already. I don't know what's on The Fat Man Who Never Came Back's mind, but he certainly ain't an honest broker. RCS 07:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I did not want to block at this juncture, but RCS continues disruption by revert-warring. The duration of the block is 12 hours. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
No, i did not continue (is this warring ?), but obviously Nick is either plain inept or plain dishonest. What a laughable administrator you are, anyway ! With people like you ruling , Musharraf or his successor will have his way. Okay, i admit this is harsh. Cheers RCS 08:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


User:Aquarelle reported by User:Grcampbell (Result: warning)[edit]

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

  • No warning was given though this is an established user that is more than aware of Wikipedia policies. (I also believe that it is a sockpuppet of User:Hardouin


Comments: Reverting to a version using French whilst discussion is taking place regarding this very issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_France#Anglicisation. Other editors have ceased editing these articles for this issue to be resolved yet this user is continuing to edit. Clear bad faith editing. --Bob 20:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

My reversions were to the previously established version which came before user:Grcampbell's controversial edits. No evidence that other editors have refrained from editing this articles : they are not often modified. I violated the 3RR by 30 minutes after confusing UTC with UTC+1 (where I live), my apologies. I am not a sockpuppet, and I resent the libelous, unmitigated accusation. --Aquarelle 20:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The fact you were waiting for 24 hours to pass does not negate the accusation of edit warring. 24-hours is a guideline, not a hard rule, trying to argue that edits fall just outside or inside a 24-hr window is wikilawyering. --Matthew 23:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Warning. I'll issued Aquarelle a warning. Let's leave it there. Bucketsofg 04:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Aquarelle reported by User:Grcampbell (Result: warning)[edit]

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

  • No warning was given though this is an established user that is more than aware of Wikipedia policies. (I also believe that it is a sockpuppet of User:Hardouin as the user reverts to French when he is upset, edits almost exclusively on France related articles and Hardouin has a history of suspected sockpuppetry, although nothing has been proved to my knowledge. Weak evidence, but that is neither here nor there for this abuse of the 3RR). User is now trolling my talk page. --Bob 20:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments: Reverting to a version using French whilst discussion is taking place regarding this very issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_France#Anglicisation. Other editors have ceased editing these articles for this issue to be resolved yet this user is continuing to edit. Clear bad faith editing. --Bob 20:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

My reversions were to the previously established version which came before user:Grcampbell's controversial edits. No evidence that other editors have refrained from editing this articles : they are not often modified. I violated the 3RR by 30 minutes after confusing UTC with UTC+1 (where I live), my apologies. I am not a sockpuppet, and I resent the libelous, unmitigated accusation. --Aquarelle 20:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I've warned Aquarelle. Bucketsofg 04:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

User:TharkunColl reported by User:MarkThomas (Result:No block, warned)[edit]

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

Comments: User is involved in an edit war on United Kingdom to do with not replacing the infobox map. He has been blocked before for 3RR and has had many similar warnings on other pages, see User talk:TharkunColl for details.

This is not true. I uploaded many different maps, and at no time reverted to the same one more than twice. However, User:MarkThomas has indeed reverted to the same map more than 3 times in a 24 hour period, and even removed the official warning I gave him on his talk page. TharkunColl 23:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It is true that in several of the cases above TharkunColl made subtle changes to the map he uploaded in a deliberate effort to avoid 3RR, but each time he was reverting the same Euro-map which is the bone of contention. If I've transgressed it was in an effort to stop this flagrant breach of Wikipedia rules, and would be happy to accept a block for it. MarkThomas 23:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No, this is a travesty of what I actually did. I made a map and uploaded it, then the following day made a very different map because people had expressed an opinion to show the EU. The only person who broke the 3RR rule is User:MarkThomas. I did not report him, because in my opinion crying to the teacher is petty. TharkunColl 00:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It's really pointless you going on like this Tharkun - the admins can see the log of diffs for themselves and will be able to decide on the evidence. MarkThomas 00:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely! I have made a number of different maps based on what was discussed. All you did was revert to the same map. TharkunColl 00:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Except it wasn't just me, you were busy changing reverts by other editors too, as you are doing tonight on United Kingdom. MarkThomas 00:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You reverted to the same map four times. I listed the times you did this on your talk page, but you deleted it (twice). I have proposed a succession of different maps based on the discussion for that day. I have not uploaded any map more that 3 times in 24 hours. You, on the other hand, uploaded the same map 4 times. TharkunColl 00:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the place where I inserted the official warning onto User:MarkThomas's talk page for breaking 3RR (it also lists the times that he broke it) [22]. He deleted my warning, and deleted it again when I put it back. User:MarkThomas appears to be under the impression that he has achieved some sort of consensus regarding the European maps issue, but this is very far from the case as a perusal of Talk:European Union will reveal. My intention was to create a better map for the United Kingdom article, and each new one I created was based on discussions held at Talk:United Kingdom over a period of three days. User:MarkThomas, however, apparently felt that he had an overriding right to continually remove my maps, based on discussions he had had on a different talk page - and in so doing breached 3RR. My own opinion is that an appropriate map always enhances Wikipedia, but a shoddy one devalues it. To see a selection of maps that I have created, including the three different ones under discussion here, please see my user page User:TharkunColl. TharkunColl 09:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Dismiss. This is not a 3RR case but a content dispute. I suggest both users take a deep breath and discuss the matter on the relevant talk pages. --Asteriontalk 09:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

(editconflict) :As I can see discussion on the talk page of the article, and you seem to have reached an agreement as to the usage of the image, no blocks will be issued at this time. However, blocks will be used as a preventive measure to deter editors from edit-warring further. Best regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 09:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Sarvagnya reported by User:RaveenS (Result: no block)[edit]

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

Comments: The above mentioned user has been blocked prior to this. Others have in the past complained about his behavior number of times . In the above mentioned article he is in edit war with others and has personally attacked other Wikipedians. He has called other editors “apologists of terror groups” and I have tried to reason with the editor to allow the wiki process to take it it cause but he refuses to let a request for comment to resolve this issue harmoniously instead keeps reverting the article. In the last 48 hours he had reverted it 4 times.RaveenS 22:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition on Saare Jahan Se Achcha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a clear desire to edit war and troll can be found in the page history. Reverts on that page span 4 reverts in 25 hours [23] [24][25][26] Bakaman 23:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

  • admin note. No block, reversions over more than 24 hours. Bucketsofg 04:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

71.139.4.32 reported by Griot (Result: no block)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Chris Daly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.139.4.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [27]
  • 1st revert: 14:56, 19 January 2007 71.139.4.32 (Talk) [28]
  • 2nd revert: 10:01, 19 January 2007 71.139.4.32 (Talk) [29]
  • 3rd revert: 01:36, 19 January 2007 71.139.4.32 (Talk) [30]
  • 4th revert: 01:34, 19 January 2007 71.139.4.32 (Talk) [31]


Comments: User has repeatedly reverted over a period of several weeks. I have placed 3 Rule warnings on his/her page, but they were ignored. Griot 22:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Admin comment. There's not much point in a 3RR block, since this user obviously is resetting his/her IP regularly. A semi-protect will stop the shenanigens for a while. Bucketsofg 04:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Three-revert rule violation on Transnistria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | <