Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive38

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

Noticeboard archives


Contents

User:KimboSlice reported by User:ju66l3r (Result:24h)[edit]

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

Comments
This account may be a sockpuppet as they seem well versed in Wikipedia. ju66l3r 20:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

User:A.J.A. reported by User:Ai.kefu (Result:No violation)[edit]

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

  • 1st revert: [1]
  • 2nd revert: [2]
  • 3rd revert: [3]


That's only three revert, and in fact the only three edits to that page by A.J.A. during the last two weeks. To break the rule one has to revert four times. Henning Makholm 21:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Also please note that there are WP:BLP issues. A.J.A. 21:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There was no violation, please see the BLP noticeboard for BLP issues. Cbrown1023 talk 22:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Wafulz reported by User:oxxiox (Result:No action)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Something Awful (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wafulz (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]
Well first off, the reverts aren't all the same. Second off, I'm not the only user disputing the claim. Third, I wasn't even aware I had made that many. Next time point this out to me before listing me for a block? Also, for the reviewing admin, please see Talk:Something Awful to get an idea of the dispute and the lack of reliable sources being presented. Anyway, I'll stick to the talk page now to stay out of trouble for the moment. --Wafulz 22:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No action. The report has become a little stale, and Wafulz' response appears constructive, but please remember the rule next time. Newyorkbrad 13:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Leuko reported by User:Steinizethat (Result:No action)[edit]

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

  • Previous version reverted to: [9]


Comments
This user continues to claim that my edit to the page, although completely true, is not valid because it display an opinion of sorts. Even though I am a current student of Shenendehowa and have witnessed everything I explained in my edit first hand and have real cold, hard evidence to back it up, Reuko continues to revert back to the previous edit and warn me that he will block me if I don't stop defending my right to free speech. Steinize that! 23:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Reply: While possibly not in my self-interest, I have corrected my username so that the correct editor gets reported. However, I believe this to be a rather frivolous report, so what's the harm. Perhaps User:Steinizethat is unaware that by reporting on this noticeboard, he is also potentially sanctionable for his 3RR violation. I am not denying I reverted more than 3 times, however, I do not believe I am in violation of 3RR, since I was reverting repetitive vandalism. By my understanding, negative information or any unreferenced information can/should be immediately removed and repetitively re-entering this information is vandalism (precedents: WP:BLP, {{uw-unsourced3}}. User:Steinizethat repetitively posted up his own negative opinion on a new program at his high school, citing conversations with friends and websites that did not share any of his opinions. The repeated posting of this information which violates WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP is by WP policies and precendents vandalism, and it is this that I reverted. And by reverting vandalism, I have not violated 3RR. Thanks. Leuko 23:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No action taken. No diffs were provided of the alleged violation, and the report has become stale. Leuko is correct that in general unreferenced negative information should be removed, although a school program is not a person for WP:LIVING (but the teacher running it is). Hopefully this can be resolved without more edit-warring. Newyorkbrad 13:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

User:TJ Spyke reported by User:RobJ1981 (Result:48h)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on WrestleMania 23 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TJ Spyke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Comments
48h. Continued revert-warring with unhelpful edit summaries like rv vandalism. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

User:74.195.3.199 reported by User:DanielEng (Result:Already blocked)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Kids Incorporated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 74.195.3.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
  • 1st revert: [14] 14:30, february 15
  • 2nd revert: [15] 16:39, February 15
  • 3rd revert: [16] 21:12, February 15
  • 4th revert: [17] 23:54 February 15


Comments
User has a long history of destructive edits, incivility and personal attacks toward other users. Has been blocked before and has been warned by many editors. Refuses to justify edits; instead just keeps returning the page to his versions. Also edits under other IPs, which have been similarly blocked. [18], [19] DanielEng 03:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Animefan50 reported by User:Wassupwestcoast (Result:12h)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Bridge to Terabithia (2007 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Animefan50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):


Comments
For some reason user Animefan50 is engaging in a delete / revert war without discussion or edit summary comment. Just silently deleting. Wassupwestcoast 04:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
12h. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Three-revert rule violation on Battle of Al Qaim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Looper5920 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
  • 1st revert: [20]12:00, 15 February 2007
  • 2nd revert: [21]20:09, 15 February 2007
  • 3rd revert: [22]05:17, 16 February 2007
  • 4th revert: [23]05:34, 16 February 2007
  • 5th revert: [24]05:44, 16 February 2007
  • 6th revert: [25]05:53, 16 February 2007
  • 7th revert: [26]06:07, 16 February 2007
  • 8th revert: [27]06:30, 16 February 2007

User:Aminz reported by User:Arrow740 (Result:No block)[edit]

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

He also forked an old version of the material to Mukatabat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 6:16 Feb 16 which was effectively a revert of User:Proabivouac's edits in the mukatabat section: [28] that is, it is a revert back to this version: 06:06 Feb 16.

Comments

4 times he reverted back that mukatabat is a “right.” He is an experienced user who has been blocked before. Arrow740 07:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The first three are reverts (retrieving huge chunks of text) but the last one is not a revert. In fact, from a technical perspective, I have partially self-reverted. Because I moved the material (which were removed without any reason) to a main article. From the perspective of User:Proabivouac, I wasn't reverting him because of this diff [29]. His reasoning was convincing so I moved that part to the main article. That would be technically be a partial self-revert of myself and a confirmation of User:Proabivouac's view. --Aminz 07:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I suggest an admin take a look at Arrow and KittyHawker's wholesale removal of sourced material.[30] --Aminz 07:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed it is a revert. 3 other editors objected to calling mukatabat a "right" and you reverted 3 of us a total of 4 times at that paragraph. Arrow740 07:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
What exactly are you talking about? Here I have moved Ghamidi's detailed discussion to the main article [31] per another editors suggestion(rather than wholesale removal of it per KittyHawker's argument that it is funny etc etc). Technically, it can be considered a self-revert.--Aminz 07:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
You forked it with your old version. Arrow740 08:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The phrase "right given to slaves" was restored four times. Beit Or 07:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
That's hardly the point of the edit. Arrow's edit [32] after filing this report is the point. --Aminz 07:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
You wanted to insert "right" so badly you forked it into another article, you basically made 5 reverts. Arrow740 08:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
OK guys, cool it. It's not clear anyway. I am not going to block, just politely requesting Aminz to keep away from the article for a period of 12 hours. You can use the talk page. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Dc-ijc reported by User:MPerel (Result:24h)[edit]

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

Comments
editor has been trying to add same text, and reverting, since December 10 w/o providing requested source and relevancy. Continued reverting after 2 warnings. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 07:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
24h. yandman 12:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

User:MichaelSavage reported by User:NotJackhorkheimer (Result: 8 hours)[edit]

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


Comments
User keeps reinserting unsubstantiated, unsourced claim, saying that "he's the source", despite being told what policy is. --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 17:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

8h William M. Connolley 17:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Wjhonson reported by User:jpgordon (Result:48h)[edit]

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


Comments
This is an experienced editor who knows what he is doing; note that the fourth revision is carefully exactly after the 24 hours. A gentle warning from an uninvolved admin might be helpful. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
48h. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

User:BabyDweezil reported by User:Antaeus Feldspar (Result:No block, page protected)[edit]

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


Comments

BabyDweezil claims to believe that the material he is insistent upon removing violates WP:BLP and thus exempts him from obeying 3RR. I believe that examination of his reverts shows this claim to be fully specious. He has no justification, for example, for removing the sentence segment "when shown a photo of Rathbun provided by the Church, she said it was a different man from the one she was married to". To give you an idea whether this is well-sourced information, here is what was printed in the Salt Lake City Tribune (the citation follows immediately after this sentence, so BabyDweezil cannot claim he did not know the citation applied):

When Schwarz is shown a recent photo of Rathbun from the church, she maintains it is not the same man she has asked the federal government to help her locate.

This is not only information that is well-sourced (and thus in no way violates WP:BLP) but ironically may be regarded as important to include to avoid violations of WP:BLP. Less than two months ago an editor who shows particular interest in this article put forth the argument that if the article lists Mark Rathbun's spouse of record as Anne Rathbun, and also notes Schwarz's claims that Mark Rathbun is her husband, then it is equivalent (so goes this argument) to calling Mark Rathbun a bigamist.[33] Ironically, that editor, who showed such concern that people might think Mr. Rathbun was a bigamist, seems to now support BabyDweezil who keeps removing the sourced information that debunks these theoretical claims of bigamy.[34][35]

BabyDweezil is rather clearly using WP:BLP as an excuse to dispose of material he wants to be rid of. This seems to be his modus operandi; see for instance his edit here, where he removes a sentence from the middle of a paragraph, along with its citation to the Centers for Disease Control, which I should hope we can take as an RS. Here is the sentence:

This was in contradiction with police reports that had discovered at Aum's main compound in March, of a sophisticated chemical weapons laboratory that was capable of producing thousands of kilograms a year of the poison. CDC website, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Aum Shinrikyo: Once and Future Threat?, Kyle B. Olson, Research Planning, Inc., Arlington, Virginia

And what was BabyDweezil's reported justification for such a deletion? Simply because of the word "contradiction". He purported to find it "original research" to note a contradiction between the police reports and other publicly given opinions that had been mentioned previously[36] -- but rather than suggest some phrasing that would eliminate the word contradiction, he chose to remove the entire sentence and thus cover up the fact of the contradiction. -- Antaeus Feldspar 08:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments: Looks like genuine concerns. Please resolve your disputes on the talk page of the article and request un-protection. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If it looks like genuine concerns then I'm quite sorry that you didn't look hard enough. -- Antaeus Feldspar 08:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Has this been discussed before? If no, please try to form consensus on the talk page of the article, I will immediately unprotect it. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see below. Below 3RR is a separate violation, on a different article. Smee 08:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

User:BabyDweezil reported by Smee (Result:24 hours)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on List of groups referred to as cults (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BabyDweezil (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: Discussion above. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

  • NOTE: - Please note that this is a separate instance of 3RR violation on a different article. Please also note comments by editors and Administrators regarding this users conduct, at: [37] - Smee 08:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
Noted. 24 block. Glen 09:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Astrotrain reported by User:Vintagekits (Result:already blocked)[edit]

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


Comments
Astrotrain, has been making similar revert to a number of pages told and has put a number of articles up for deletion for non notability via AfD none of which have been successful. Also see here for his block for 3RR breach in 2005 andhere for his block for breaking WP:3RR in September 2006 and since then he has been skirting around the 3RR by waiting 24hr and a number of minutes before he beings reverting again.--Vintagekits 13:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest that you provide some diffs to support the "skirting around" claim. It is not a strict requirement that the fourth revert be no more than exactly 24 hours after the first, or even that there is a fourth revert. Chris cheese whine 13:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Chris, he has done it on a number of articles, most notably -

If you see the edit history of this article here on the 10th, 11th and 12th of January he made another SIX reverts. Including here where he made four reverts withiin 24.5hrs in order to avoid the 24hr rule.


  • Clearly none of these are reverts to the previous version listed (especially the 4th one!!). I don't know what AFD has to do with the 3RR process though. In anycase, I was trying to improve the article. The 4th edit listed above removes the whole issue in any case. Regards Astrotrain 13:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • As someone who was already blocked TWICE already for breaching WP:3RR you seem to have a poor grasp of the policy. Reverts do not have to be exactly the same.--Vintagekits 13:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Also note that this user reported me before for 3RR when he disagreed with my edits. As in this case, there was no breach and it was rejected. Astrotrain 13:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It was rejected because the fourth revert was after 24hr and some minutes. I'll find the link so you can see.--Vintagekits 13:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Here is the link to the time I reported him before. If admin take actrion this time it will be the third time he has been blocked for breach of WP:3RR--Vintagekits 14:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Please note that this editor is currently now on a banned of 48hr for breach of another wiki policy. See his talk page for details. --Vintagekits 13:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

As the editor is already blocked, action on this report seems unnecessary. Return if there are further problems following the editor's return from the block. Newyorkbrad 20:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Ybgursey reported by User:Papa Carlo (Result: page prot)[edit]

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

21:16, 16 February 2007]

Comments
Ybgursey has repeatedely reverted the compromised version without any discussion, despite multuple requests to stop disruptive reverts.

04:05, 18 February 2007 Coredesat (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected List of sovereign states: reprotecting w/o expiry - edit warring resumed as soon as protection was lifted [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) Khoikhoi 04:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Nirelan reported by User:Betsythedevine (Result: 1 month)[edit]

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

See the report above on User:Nirelan2, one of several sock-puppets that Nirelan was using to dodge the 3RR and vandalism warnings on his own userpage and that of 2 IPs he was also using. Nirelan has just returned from being blocked and has gone right back to making the same changes to the Dave Winer article that were reverted before. Please block Nirelan again.

Blocked 1 month for edit-warring by Ryulong. yandman 16:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Tbeatty reported by FAAFA 00:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC) (Result:No action)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Image_talk:Ejacxto.jpg


4th revert 21:31, 17 February 2007
3rd revert15:54, 17 February 2007
2nd revert 07:48, 17 February 2007
1st revert 05:01, 17 February 2007

Comments
Tbeatty has been warned not to refactor my comments, and does this (IMHO) intentionally to harass me. He has even edited/vandalized my user page twice, once actually creating a SPA sockpuppet account to do so. (see>) User:Fairness_and_Accuracy_for_Aquaman Please ask him to quite harassing me too. Thanks - FAAFA 00:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
These parties are involved in an ongoing arbitration case. I find Tbeatty's reverts involving the unnecessary insertion of his username in discussion of this particular image to be understandable and acceptable. The remaining comments here are irrelevant to 3RR and should be addressed in the context of the arbitration case. Newyorkbrad 00:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Brooklyn5 and User:FarmSanctuary reported by User:SchmuckyTheCat (Result:24h, indef)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Farm Sanctuary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Brooklyn5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)FarmSanctuary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
  • 1st revert: [38] user:FarmSanctuary
  • 2nd revert: [39] user:FarmSanctuary
  • 3rd revert: [40] user:Brooklyn5
  • 4th revert: [41] user:Brooklyn5
  • [42] user:FarmSanctuary
  • [43] user:IP Address, same as FarmSanctuary
  • [44] user:Brooklyn5
  • [45] user:Brooklyn5, reverting and vandalizing by putting the protected tag up.


Comments

FarmSanctuary and Brooklyn5 are aware of 3rr. They are both employees/volunteers of Farm Sanctuary and should be considered sock/meat puppets of each other. FarmSanctuary used an IP to do one of the reverts, and Brooklyn5 reverted while faking a protected template. These people need to know what WP:COI means. They do not own the article about their organization and can't remove information (sourced to the US Dept of Justice no less) that they don't like. SchmuckyTheCat 01:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"just because someone has not violated the 3RR does not mean that they will not be blocked". 24h for Brooklyn5, as these guys are clearly gaming the system for their own benefit. FarmSanctuary is a username violation, so indef. yandman 16:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


User:ta bu shi da yu and User:Worldtraveller reported by Ta bu shi da yu (Result:No action)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ta bu shi da yu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):


Comments

Please note that this is a little more complex than at first revision. What has happened here was that the essay was modified quite extensively, then it was reverted by WorldTraveller, who seems to be taking ownership of the essay. It was then modified quite extensively, but then moved to a user page of Worldtravellers, then reverted to a version before the extensive revisions. Then an admin thought better of the move, and moved it back. I then reverted to the previous version. It is now in an edit war. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please fix your links, Ta bu. Not working. Bishonen | talk 11:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC).
Let me get this straight.. you are accusing yourself of violating 3RR? Wouldn't it have been easier not to have violated 3RR?--CSTAR 18:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"That essay" again. Discussion is taking place on the talkpage. No action at this time. Newyorkbrad 20:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Bi reported by User:Bridge & Tunnel (Result:No violation)[edit]

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

]


Comments
He keeps trying to remove a person because he says he's not notable. But sources say his book is "seminal." He's written a ton of books and he has his own Wikipedia article. He's made 4 reverts on this article as well: See the history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_R._Wallace&action=history
  • First revert listed was over 24 hours before the second. No 3RR violation. Heimstern Läufer 22:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

User:JackSparrow_Ninja reported by User:TSA (Result:No violation)[edit]

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


Comments
User adspamming a link that is 1) unreliable and 2) provides no source of their information. The citation being placed in the article can't be verified and the site's nature is unreliable so they should not be placing this link. The user has already been warned by Wiki staff for placing links from the site they keep using. User also is violating the 3RR rule on another article, see below. Request user be banned for neglecting previous 3RR blocks and Wiki staff warnings - this user will just come back after the ban and continue to perform his edits.
Comment: Edits reported as 1st and 2nd are just one edit. There are just three edits. No 3RR here.
  • Only three reverts within 24 hours. No violation. Heimstern Läufer 22:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

User:JackSparrow_Ninja reported by User:TSA (Result:No violation)[edit]

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


Comments
User adspamming a link that is 1) unreliable and 2) was plagiarized information from another site. The citation being placed in the article was stolen from IGN's article on their E3 2006 hands-on impressions and the site's nature is unreliable so they should not be placing this link. The user has already been warned by Wiki staff for placing links from the site they keep using. User also is violating the 3RR rule on another article, see below. Request user be banned for neglecting previous 3RR blocks and Wiki staff warnings - this user will just come back after the ban and continue to perform his edits.
Comment: First edit outside 24 hour periode (48 hours). There are just three edits. No 3RR here.

User:Lilyfan87 reported by User:C2r (Result:1 week)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Rose Pipette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lilyfan87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):


Comments

Hope I got this right - this user has been reverting and adding NPOV and unverified data (as well as childish rubbish to user pages (e.g User_talk:Regan123)). On her own talk page there are links detailing reasons why her edits have been reverted (on practically every page she has contibuted to), but she is ignoring these and continuing to revert.

She's already been blocked 48h twice for vandalism and personal attacks. Using summaries such as "reverted vandalism" whilst edit warring and ignoring talk page warnings is unacceptable. 1 week. yandman 14:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

User:71.99.92.66 reported by User:Zanatic (Result:User already blocked 24h)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Czech Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.99.92.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments
He also keeps on adding a nonsensical line to the article Waldemar Matuška, makes personal attacks in Czech (it means something like "Don't you want to learn English more, before you vomit here" and keeps on replacing "African American" with "Black" without any reason. Zanatic 12:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Already blocked 24h by Cryptic for 3RR on Waldemar. If he continues after the block, drop a message on my talk page and he'll get more. yandman 15:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

User:82.22.187.20 reported by User:Beetstra (Result:2 weeks)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Television licence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 82.22.187.20 (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
82.22.187.20 is also active on Television licensing in the United Kingdom. Same link addition.
24h. Ooooh, looking at his block log, 2 weeks. yandman 18:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Deeceevoice reported by User:SecurID (Result: 24h)[edit]

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

24h. If there is an opposing 3RR by Iseebias it isn't obvious William M. Connolley 21:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

User:81.155.34.127 reported by User:Mais oui! (Result:No action at this time)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on John D. Mackay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 81.155.34.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments: You have violated WP:3RR as well. Have you filed for checkuser to confirm that it is a sock of the user you are alleging it to be? Should we block you as well? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I have not: please supply the diffs.
This User was banned last night, yet again for making personal attacks on me. They have used over 80 IP sockpuppet accounts to date. We did do a CheckUser several months ago, which confirmed that it was him, and the pattern of behaviour has continued, indeed degenerated, since then. Please review the actions of those IP addresses. CheckUser specifically says that we must use our common sense in establishing who is using multiple IP addresses. --Mais oui! 11:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
[56], [57], [58], [59]. The first edit explictly says that it was a revert. Three revert-ruled breached. You should not revert-war even when you are reverting sockpuppets. I cannot take any action against the other user even if he is a sockpuppet, unless you provide evidence and are ready to get blocked yourself. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
No, that is not a 3RR: please note that the first diff is at 08:12 on the 16th February, not the 17th. They are not within a 24 hour period.
I have provided the evidence that the IP adress did a revert to "in pawn to" 4 times in a 24 hour period: a crystal clear breach of WP:3RR. --Mais oui! 11:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
A difference of two hours? This can be equated with gaming the system. WP:3RR does not give you the right to keep reverting without trying to initiate discussion. Get other involved users to comment here. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
If anyone is "gaming the system" it is User:Mallimak.
But OK, I will make a request that Admin User:Wangi (who, you will note, has also repeatedly reverted Mallimak's sockpuppet IPs) comments at this 3RR, and the Admin who blocked him last night. Anyone else you would like to get a comment from? Many, many Admins have had to deal with Mallimak's multitude of IP addresses. I am not going to waste my Saturday any further by spamming them all. --Mais oui! 11:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and on your point of "trying to initiate a discussion": we have tried on literally hundreds of occasions to reason with Mallimak. But you just look through his contributions and IP contributions: does that look like someone who is open to discussion to you? --Mais oui! 11:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I am responding both because MO posted a link to this discussion on my talk page, and in light of "Get other involved users to comment here" posted by Nick - given I was one of the reverters (on MO's talk page attacks made by the user) and someone who has followed this sitation from the start, it is probably useful I give my view. I have to say this one has gone on too long. A user who was attempting to push some sort of Orkney separatist view and running socks to do it. The user was found out, and has since, over numerous months, attempted to troll, goad and make personal attacks. To counter the "MO was gaming the system" type chatter doesn't sit with the facts - he is attempting to deal with someone who has a new IP address every day - has no interest in discussion and is now only interested in a personal attack and vendetta campaign. Hiding behind dynamically assigned IP addresses the person runs around making a fool out of the rules/policies/guidelines which all the rest of us follow. Frankly I don't know why this is allowed - I would say it is getting into the "contact his ISP" territory. The person isn't interested in discussion - if they were they would stick to their original account rather than hiding behind dynamic IP's. I can't say MO has handled the situation perfectly either, some of his actions have probably exacerbated rather than calmed the situation - that being said it doesn't excuse the blatant breaches of rules which Mallimak has consistently shown on countless occasions. Something has to be done. SFC9394 12:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This was going to go on Mais oui!'s talk page, but it's going here instead. MO suggested on his talk page an indefinite ban of Mallimak. Here's the problem with such a proposal as I see it:
  1. Bans are not imposed likely. More evidence than supposedly coincidental editing patterns (a CheckUser, for a start) is needed, especially since there is the potential for a lot of collateral damage. It is somewhat unfair to block out most of wherever they might be editing from just to tackle one user.
  2. Practicality. The ban would provide for no further punishment than can already be meted out for vandalism.
  3. The principle of clean hands. MO's own behaviour is not exactly stellar, such as seemingly reverting any edit they disagree with on sight, or labelling other users as "abusive" without actually presenting any evidence (don't need to look far through the history to see accusations levelled at another user - get a RFCU done before throwing that around). There's even evidence of revert warring where the edit summaries are to the effect of "stop revert warring". It's a bit like telling someone to stop shooting at you while you unload an Uzi into their shin.
  4. (*puts on devil's advocate hat*) At some point, someone is going to ask why it always seems to be MO on the receiving end of the "personal attacks" (given most of our long-term vandals don't discriminate), and if perhaps it's actually MO that has a problem. (*removes hat*)
Given this has gone on for 4 months, it's probably safe to say MO is fairly deeply embroiled in it, so much so that some might consider reverting such edits to be a potential conflict of interest. If the edits really are that bad, I would suggest MO flag it up and let someone else deal with it. Vandalism cannot be condoned, but there are some serious WP:OWN issues here. Chris cheese whine 13:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I admit that I am a sock puppet, but a sock puppet out of necessity, because Mais oui! got me blocked by repeatedly accusing me of being a sock puppet of Mallimak, and the admins believed him. I am in fact Orkadian. I just cannot stand by and watch Mais oui! be given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to continue with his behaviour. Here is a pertinent quote from my user page

I would agree that Mais_oui does indulge in edit warring, and attacking the contributions of other users. After I had nominated a Scottish template for deletion in favour of the British one- he responded by reverting all my recent edits with the comments- "rv English Nationalist" (see for example- [60]). Also any attempts to engage with the user and avoid edit wars is usually met with personal abuse- eg [61]