Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive39

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:GeorgeBP reported by User:KyaatheCatlord (Result:24 hrs)[edit]

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

This is a rather complicated case.


Comments

This user is using sockpuppets to hide his 3rr, trolling and POV pushing. See [1] for CheckUser results. Kyaa the Catlord 02:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Note continuing reverts even following a previous 3RR block only days before, just pick any 24 hour window there is at least 4 reverts wherever you look. Attempted to circumvent 3RR by using anon IP sock puppets until the article was semi-protected. --Dual Freq 00:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 24 hrs. Other editors in that article are also edit warring. I am placing a warning there as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment This report sat here for 22 hours. A checkuser was done to show that there were socks involved, yet the puppeteer continued to roam free. BLP states "Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply.", the other editors in this case are clear. If an admin had stepped in and blocked this puppeteer yesterday when this report was posted, this would not have been as much of an issue. Kyaa the Catlord 01:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Userofwiki reported by User:Gsd2000 (Result:indef block)[edit]

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

Sockpuppet of User:Somethingoranother, who was permanently blocked for various rule breaks. Used this sockpuppet to continue 3RR violations on this article:

I have only tried to contribute important fully referenced information to the great power article. The information was not included before and has reliable references. There's no reason why it shouldn't be included. Userofwiki 03:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Blocked as a sock. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Comments

User:71.112.7.212 reported by User:futurebird (Result:)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Cool (aesthetic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.112.7.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Warning(s):

Problems from (related?) IP: 69.223.65.19

  • 17:27, February 27, 2007 ←Replaced page with 'Cool = Infected Hair on an Elephants Butt. ---- COOL also is a Constipated, Overweighted, Out of style, Loser. ---- You see that. I am an author fool. I am publis...')
  • February 27, 2007 ←Replaced page with 'COOL = Infected Hair on an elephants but
Comments
Also a possible sockpuppet Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rbaish futurebird 05:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Bramlet Abercrombie reported by User:Derex (Result: 24 hrs)[edit]

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

  • Note: He's technically clear by 5 minutes of 4 in 24 hours.
  • Blocked for 24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Tmac68 reported by User:Jeffpw[edit]

please see ani discussion of the incident, including diffs here. Jeffpw 13:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Lman1987 and User:66.4.209.194 reported by User:Tennis expert (Result:indefblock/24 hrs)[edit]

User:Lman1987 said that he posted certain comments in the Rafael Nadal discussion page[3]. Those comments were in fact posted by User: 66.4.209.194.[4] Many of us have suspected that User:66.4.209.194 is a sock puppet of User:Lman1987. This has now been comfirmed.

Combined, User:Lman1987 and User:66.4.209.194 have violated the three-revert rule today as follows:

Three-revert rule violation on Pete Sampras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lman1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and 66.4.209.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Three-revert rule violation on Andre Agassi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lman1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and 66.4.209.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

This user also has violated 3RR today in the Roger Federer article.

This is a highly disruptive user. We need your help. Thank you. Tennis expert 18:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

User:A Man In Black reported by User:Armando12 (Result:24 hrs)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Template:Resident Evil series (edit | [[Talk:Template:Resident Evil series|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A Man In Black (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reverts on February 27, 2007

Reverts on February 23, 2007

Comments

This user is an administrator, bu he don't act like one. Everyday he makes revert in the same template and many others. He's been already warned (here, his talk page) that there's a discussion about the templates, here. This user has been alredy blocked twice because of the same reason. Block log of A Man In Black.

Blocked User:A Man In Black for 24 hrs for WP:3RR violation. Crum375 01:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


User:Aminz reported by User:Beit_Or (Result: No action for now)[edit]

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

Comments
The 4th revert is an insertion of a POV tag into the section "Antisemitism and the Muslim world". The user has already inserted the POV tag into this very section of this article many times in the past,[5][6][7] so this is a revert. Aminz has already been blocked for edit warring on Antisemitism. Beit Or 09:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
That's an invalid report. The 4th one is a POV tag meanwhile the dispute is active (please see the RFC at the talk page). Beit Or has searched the past history and has found some diffs from month ago to prove that the fourth edit is a revert (please see the dates). In fact, if you look closely user:Humus sapiens was edit warring without providing any reasoning on the talk page (please check the timings) --Aminz 09:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
It is indeed an invalid report, though I encourage you, Aminz, to please discuss rather than reverting. Three reverts is not a right, and you are strongly encouraged to use the talk page to solve disputes, rather than blind reverting, once it is clear that your edit may be disputed by another editor. Ral315 » 09:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I have filed an RfC on this and have discussed this a lot. If you could check the timings of posts on the talk page, User:Humus sapiens was removing a well-sourced quote without providing any valid reasoning on the talk page for that. --Aminz 09:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Ra315, I have asked a couple of new editors to join in the discussion and have filed an RfC. Of course edit-warring is not the way to go. --Aminz 09:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why this report is invalid: the first 3 are reverts; and so is the 4th William M. Connolley 09:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The 4th is adding POV tag. It wasn't a revert. The 3 diffs Beit Or has provided of adding tags date back to two month ago for a different issue. Please see the RfC section on the talk page for the reasonings and the comments made there. --Aminz 10:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. The POV tag had been there before, as you're perfectly aware, because you put it there yourself William M. Connolley 10:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but I found a new quote expressing the view of majority of scholars on Islam and Antisemitism. And I added that. But it was removed so I added POV tag meanwhile we are discussing the issue. --Aminz 10:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Mr. William M. Connolley, I never ever inteneded that to be a revert, just to show the dispute. Please read a few lines of the section and check it with the quote which was added. It can be seen that they contradict each other. --Aminz 10:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Amin, I think you have been toeing the line on three reverts long enough. Please consider this as a strong warning. Further attempts might be interpreted as gaming the system. Please be careful. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, I swear I am editing in good faith. The section is really POV and I am trying my best to make it neutral. Please see [8] and compare the quote at the lead, and the following material. It was a good faith and I never thought it was a revert. --Aminz 10:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Paulcicero reported by User:58.165.90.202 (Result: 36hr; Tar-Elenion: 27hr)[edit]

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

Taking into account his main account, and his IP address (here), PaulCicero has violated 3RR on Daniel_Majstorovic. It is his IP as all edits, edit summaries are exactly teh same, and often happen right after the other.

Also notice his edits on List of Serbs are getting close to breaching 3RR.

Apart from regular edit warring on Daniel Majstorovic and List of Serbs, he also engages in heavy edit warring on articles such as Roger Joseph Boscovich and Slavica Ecclestone - and after Slavica Ecclestone was page protected, he brought his edit warring to Bernie Ecclestone's article. Also, please note the incivility of the user, personal attacks used, blind reverts, edit warring, editing of talk page comments/titles made by other editors - he also blanks his own talk page, which is not allowed (to the best of my knowledge). In my opinion, a block of at least one week is justified, but a longer one is within reason. 58.165.90.202 11:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

My reverts on these articles are done because of User:Tar-Elenion edits on several serbian peoples articles, he is using sockpuppets like 58.165.90.202 to make me brake the 3RR rule. So instead of banning me you should semi-protect all articles that User:Tar-Elenion has edited. Paulcicero 16:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

To other admins considering blocking, please let me handle this. I have encounter these two before and I want to follow up on this myself. I will take care of this in a moment. -- tariqabjotu 20:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked Paulcicero (talk · contribs) for thirty-six hours, due to this and the fact that there was a recent 3RR violation by him. Additionally, I have blocked Tar-Elenion (talk · contribs) for revert-warring for twenty-seven hours, pending confirmation of the sockpuppetry through the request for checkuser. The latter user has been assisting with multiple edit wars recently anyway, so I'm not sure if a negative checkuser result would really mean much. -- tariqabjotu 21:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Nomenclator reported by User:Skinwalker (Result:48H)[edit]

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


Comments
User has been blocked twice previously for 3RR violations on this article.

User:65.6.32.12 reported by User:Tennis expert (Result:1 month)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Andre Agassi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 65.6.32.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

This user also has violated 3RR today in the Pete Sampras, Andy Roddick, Rafael Nadal, and John McEnroe articles and appears to be a sock puppet of the indefinitely blocked User:Lman1987. He or she is HIGHLY disruptive. We need help. Thank you. Tennis expert 18:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support this report! The user has for days and days wasted hours of careful checking by conscious editors. The user is obsessed with an alternative score format, for which there is no community consensus. PLEASE help!--HJ 20:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment. User has been blocked for a period of one month due to being a sockpuppet of Lman1987. Nishkid64 00:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Melonbarmonster reported by User:Endroit (Result: 24 hrs)[edit]

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

Comments
Melonbarmonster insists on using the word "forced".--Endroit 18:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:KazakhPol (Result: 24hr)[edit]

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

Comment

These are four simple reverts in 23 minutes. The background is that KazakhPol tags articles whenever he doesn't like something, then reverts against multiple editors to maintain the tag, even after several weeks or months of the original tagging, often referring to editors who oppose him as vandals, stalkers, or harassers. He has been blocked four times for 3RR in less than two months, the last time for 48 hours, and is currently the subject of an RfC for the same behavior. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/KazakhPol. He also often adds "2nd revert," "3rd revert" to his third and fourth, perhaps in an effort to confuse, as he did above. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This is very aggravating. SlimVirgin is lying, as it will be very apparent to anyone who looks at the history of the page. My earlier edits were not reverts therefore they do not count towards WP:3RR. This is the third or fourth time she has tried this crap. Last time I was unblocked when someone double checked. She regularly does that to harass me. Look at this for a sample of what I have to listen to: [16]. Nevermind that I have not done any of what she alleges. KazakhPol 19:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
KazakhPol (talk · contribs) has been blocked for twenty-four hours per the 3RR violation. Please be careful not to violate it yourself, SlimVirgin... -- tariqabjotu 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Tariq. I posted the clarification below before I saw your post. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
KazakhPol self-reverted at 19:36 Feb 28 when he saw he'd been reported for 3RR, removing the totally disputed tag, but then added the NPOV tag instead at 19:47 Feb 28, so the 3RR violation stands. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Dahn reported by User:Dpotop (Result:24 hrs overturned without notice page protected)[edit]

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

Comments
  • User is not new, and has been blocked before (about two weeks ago, I presume) for 3RR violations.
Blocked for 24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Nice to see that the block only lasted for about 2 hours, thanks to helpful admins willing to overlook official policy for special editors. While this user is good, the frequency of his revert wars (several simulataneously at about any time, without any attempt to negotiate) does recommend him for some time off. But no, policy is not applied, and the user can only think he's somehow superior. Dpotop 20:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
If he is superior indeed, then do introduce a new user type Hyperion, or something, and don't let us poor mortals fight them without knowing we don't stand a chance. Dpotop 20:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
FYI: this is not the first time a 3RR ruling is overturned in 2 hours. Dpotop 20:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
You fail to mention the page was locked both times when he was unblocked.Rlevse 22:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Lucy-marie reported by User:One Night In Hackney (Result:No block)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on G8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lucy-marie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • I have looked into this. Lucy marie made a mistake in the heat of things. I ahve talked to her and I have her assurance there will be no more reversions until the issue gets disputed. I think a punitive block in this situation would be innapropriate. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Tennis Genius reported by User:HJensen (Result: 24 hour)[edit]

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

Comment: The user is a sock puppet for somone (one or more) who is obsessed by introducing a new scoring format for tennis bios. The format has reached no consensus in community, and the behavior by this user and other user names and IPs has been VERY disruptive for sveral days now. Note that the user here boasts that he/she will deliberately continue this editing war, stating:

Think about it. but your pale tennis expert must know we will never back down. Me and my buddies are capable of haveing thousands of IP accounts. Any ways we are not vandalizers. we are doing this for the good. You could start changeing score formats to the correct ones on other tennis pages. (we expect to change EVERY pro tennis players score format soon. not just these few.) This edit war is pointless unless you want to have every Tennis players Article FULLY protected. (and I dont think the administrators could be depended upon to update tennis articles by themselves.) SEMI protecting is nothing. This war will never end, unless Tennis Expert and his pals agree with us

This is, as I understand it, not compatible with Wikipedia behavior in any way. Something must be done quickly, so please help up. Thanks!!! --HJ 21:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked at this User:Tennis Genius is clearly in an edit war and has put the same material in at least 9 times today, 24hr block.Rlevse
Blocked indefintely as a sockpuppet of Lman1987. Editing styles are an exact copy of Lman. Nishkid64 00:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Lenzar reported by User:G-Man (Result:12H)[edit]

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

Technically was not a 3RR vio (though darn close), but I blocked for edit warring despite a strong consensus. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


User:Mael-Num reported by User:Jossi (Result:No block)[edit]

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

Comments
  • Mael-Num (talk · contribs) has editwarred in the recent past about the same edit. See diff. He was then blocked and unblocked on the basis of his claim that he was removing vandalism, which it was not the case as this new round of reverts attests. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, considering those are different edits with different information and they are more than 24 hours apart, Jossi is apparently grasping at straws to keep me from editing the article. Please note that during this time period, Jossi himself reverted other editors' work no less than 3 times in a 24 hour period. I have been careful, allowing time for other editors to give input, and as can be plainly seen in the edits above, I added information to Jossi's edit, and removed nothing.
Jossi, conversely, repeatedly deletes information he deems undesirable, rather than append or edit it. Please also note the content of the edits in question. My position is that, per WP:LS, I am summarizing cited criticism that appears elsewhere in the article, providing citations even within the summary. Deleting cited, verifiable content, instead of working with and/or editing it, is in itself against Wikipedia policy.
I'd also like to add that this is the second time that Jossi has falsely accused me of 3rr. The last time the decision was overturned, as the reviewing editor construed the edits to be reverts of vandalism, based on the reverted editor's being banned for vandalism. Mael-Num 03:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The "vandalism" that you claimed, was not so. And my edit history shows that I have not editwarred. I don't do that. The 3RR rule is designed to ding people like you, that prefer to editwar rather than discuss. This noticeboard isnot designed to discuss content disputes, but to discuss disruption by continuously reverting or adding the same content. See WP:3RR that cleary states that "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an 'electric fence'.[1] Editors may still be blocked even if they haven't made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behaviour is clearly disruptive." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
My behavior has been no more "disruptive" than yours. Necessarily less so, in fact, because I am adding cited, sourced summaries of material to the lead that are notable and reliable, as evidenced by their inclusion elsewhere. You are blanking said cited, sourced, reliable, and notable material. I regularly discuss my edits in the talk pages, calling for discussion more frequently than you have regarding this information. I enjoin you to participate in these discussions, rather than try to "ding" me for adding information that you do not personally agree with. Mael-Num 03:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Finally, I would like to ask the reviewer of this case to carefully look at the "Previous Version Reverted to" diff, listed above. The information I am supposedly, maliciously adding does not appear in that version. So, to be clear, the first "revert" is actually the "original" I am reverting to. The next two edits occur at intervals of 12 hours, the third considerably after that. That edit is dissimilar from the other two, and is clearly a good-faith improvement to Jossi's own work. Even if this were not the case, these three edits occur over the course of 36 hours. I feel I am careful to be constructive, and work with my fellow editors to produce good work. I will continue to be careful, and mindful of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and my fellow editors' views. Mael-Num 04:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Reverting every 12 hours, is still disruptive behavior, Mael. Nevertheless, if you are serious about desisting in not using reverts and as way to assert your opinion about the lead, and interested in constructively arrive to consensus with fellow editors, that is great, but the proof will be in the pudding. Day after day, you restore your edit about which there is no consensus under claims that consensus cannot trump policy, while forgetting WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Following the dispute resolution process is the way to proceed when there is no common ground. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not going to block. But. Mael. Please try to do a better job of working this out with others rather than reverting. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Apostrophe reported by User:InvaderSora (Result: No block)[edit]

3RR on Kingdom Hearts II, and large amount of harassment. I was blocked for the same for 48 hours, so i expect he will have the same punishment. 00:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are not punishment. Whereas you have been warned repeatedly and made personal attacks and were repeatedly edit warring, there have been no such problems with User:Apostrophe. —Centrxtalk • 02:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
In fact, User:Apostrophe did not even make more than three reverts in 24 hours. —Centrxtalk • 02:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

WTH? Blocks not punisment? Personal atatcks? Whatever you considered apersonal attack, i am constantly harassed by APostrophe.. and i see 3 reverts in the same day on KH2. Also, he is "wikistalking" me.InvaderSora 03:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, blocks are to be instructive. It doesn't always work out that way but that's the goal. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, See my talk page for a lovely comment he made. :) InvaderSora 04:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Article deleted already, no reason to block.Rlevse 23:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. And regardess, he harasses and wikistalks me. InvaderSora 00:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Opps, yep, but Apostrophe has edited Kingdom of Hearts since Feb 26, so again, no reason to block now. Also, if someone is harassing you, see WP:ANI page. Rlevse 03:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

User:kellen reported by User:nomenclator (Result: 8/48h)[edit]

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

Appallingly formatted; but both sides have 4R. N gets 48h for multiple 3RR on this page; K 8h for a first offence William M. Connolley 09:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Pep65497 reported by User:Kralizec! (Result: 24h)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Pensacola Christian College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pep65497 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [35]
Comments

Pep65497 (talk · contribs · count · logs) appears to be a single purpose account only interested in censoring the Pensacola Christian College (PCC) article. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Given the user's edit summary here, it appears that the editor is also the anon 146.129.133.77 who made identical edits before hand. JoshuaZ 20:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 22:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

User:HouseOfScandal reported by User:Urthogie (Result:No block)[edit]

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

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [39]
3RR violations require a 4TH revert in 24 hours to violate the rule. I don't see the 4th revert.Rlevse 23:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought it's 3RR, not 4RR?--Urthogie 01:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Please read from the top of this page: "Please remember that the 3RR applies to reverts after the third within a 24 hour period...the 3RR is not an entitlement to three 'free' reverts per day....The 3RR is intended as a means to stop sterile edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every twenty-four hours...."Rlevse 03:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Olir reported by User:Cyrus XIII (Result:24 hours)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Blink-182 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Olir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [40] (in parts)
  • 1st revert: [41]
  • 2nd revert: [42]
  • 3rd revert: [43]
  • 4th revert: [44]
  • 5th revert: [45]
Comments

User as also violated WP:NPA by referring to editors who apply common style guidelines as "self-important" and "grammar nazis". [46] Appears to be in violation of WP:OWN regarding Blink-182 related articles [47]. User has been around for a year, hence no 3RR warning was issued. - Cyrus XIII 20:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

blocked by User:William M. Connolley, but he forgot to notate here.Rlevse 23:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Farzinf reported by User:Azerbaijani (Result: 24h)[edit]

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


Comments

He clearly received the 3rr warning on his talk page and my offer that he would not be reported if he reverted himself. Here is his response on my talk page: [48]. Since he refused to revert himself, even after knowing what 3rr is and the consequences of breaking 3rr, I am reporting him.Azerbaijani 22:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 22:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Rbaish reported by User:futurebird (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on White_Christian_male (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rbaish (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.

  • confirmed, blocked 24 hrs. Rlevse 03:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Comments

User:Dbachmann reported by User:Rayfield (Result:)[edit]

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

Comments
The editor is an adminstrator, but doesn't act like one on this article (He disregards WP:3RR, the Protection policy and the Blocking policy).
He has blocked an editor for WP:3RR on the same page, which proves that he is aware of the WP:3RR rule. But rather than blocking an editor he is involved with himself he should have come to WP:ANI first to request help from uninvolved administrators per Blocking policy. The edits by the other involved user were not vandalism. He also didn't give evidence that the other involved editor made WP:3RR but only blocked him. (Maybe User:Sbhushan should be blocked for the same period as Dbachmann, unless User:Sbhushan can show that he didn't commit WP:3RR.) The two IP edits in the same article were very probably not by Sbhushan, because their edit history and edit summaries are very different.
He has protected three pages in the last hours which he has himself edited in the last hours and days (Indigenous Aryan Theory, N.S. Rajaram and Haplogroup R1a1 (Y-DNA) ), instead of asking an uninvolved admin to do it per Protection policy. --RF 12:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

context: WP:AN/I#Sbhushan. the 'protected' should read semiprotected, these articles are subject to much anon trolling. "reverts" 4 & 5 are rollbacks of such anon (that is, logged-out) trolling. dab (𒁳) 13:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

On WP:AN/I#Sbhushan the editor who has looked in detail at the issue says that Sbhushan's edits were not patent nonsense, vandalism, or simple disruption, which IMO is evident. Sbushan is trying to improve the article in good faith. Maybe his approach is "wrong", but his edits are not vandalism, and your dispute must then be discussed with him on the talkpage or with Dispute Resolution.
The two IP edits in the same article were very probably not by Sbhushan, because their edit history, editing time and edit summaries are very different. But if you can give the diff's about his WP:3RR, I will report Sbhushah also.
This kind of edit-warring and disputes have been ongoing in this article since the article was created. --RF 13:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
yes -- which is why I have semi-protected the article. I don't semiprotect stuff because I like the look of the template, and I cannot be expected to write an article while a swarm of IP addresses keep pulling it from under by arse. I don't think I need to establish that conscious trolling is involved here on the part of editors who log out and redial to keep the anonymous merry-go-round going. dab (𒁳) 14:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
If you check my edit history, you will find that I am never on WP during those times. I am in bed fast asleep. Also, as my edit history will show, I am not shy about speaking my mind. If I have something to say to someone, I say it on their face. I also rarely use rv button, since I like to edit specific items. If I can improve the original edit, I try to do that. My request to unblock was to an independent admin, I specifically did not ask Dab. Dab tried to get around independent review by unblocking me. As such I did not make any committement to Dab, but I am still honuring it as you can see from the note I left at his talk page.[[49]]. As both of you know I have opened a RfC as suggested by Dab, because I have spent enough time on discussion. WP:ATT is a core policy, an admin should be enforcing this policy; not making joke of it.Sbhushan 17:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Killerman2 reported by User:Apostrophe (Result: 24h)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Tragic villain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Killerman2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

24h William M. Connolley 14:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Itb3d reported by User:MONGO (Result: 24h)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Jane Standley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Itb3d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):


Comments
Newly created account, but familiarity with editing indicates this is not a new editor. Was also cautioned about not calling other editors "idiot"here,