Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive40

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:192.223.140.62 reported by User:KarlBunker (Result:Incomplete)[edit]

192.223.140.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Deliberately disruptive editor, repeatedly making the same edit against consensus and refusing to discuss. Has been blocked for this twice before. The story is in the history

If you can't be bothered to properly submit a report, then no one is going to take any action. John Reaves (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
You mean like this "no one"? Technically speaking, this is a call for intervention against a disruptive editor rather than a true 3RR case, but I looked for a long time and couldn't find the place for that. If someone could point me to a better place to report this sort of thing, I'll use that the next time this editor does his thing. KarlBunker 10:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

User:76.17.121.71 reported by User:Ancjr (Result: 48 Hours)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Squidbillies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 76.17.121.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):


Comments
Seems to be the same user, or a sock puppet of 64.16.152.145 which was reported yesterday WP:AN3#User:64.16.152.145_reported_by_User:Ancjr_.28Result:no_vio.29.
  • 48 hour ban, multiple violations, including profanity in articles.Rlevse 02:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

User:R9tgokunks reported by User:Tulkolahten (Result:4 days)[edit]

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

Comments
This user continuously edit wars. See this:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] And many others, what to do please ? Also he was blocked previously three times [8]. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 23:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 4 days for continuous edit warring and for doing so after just coming off another block for the same thing. John Reaves (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Both editors have participated extensively in edit warring. Tulkolahten has searched for articles containing "Brünn" and removed it. He did that almost with the speed and indifference of a bot (in one minute he managed four different articles at one point). R9tgokunks has followed this track of deletions and reverted these edits. It would be of no use to start a conversation on the talk pages of about 30 articles and Tulkolahten should have started a discussion first. In addition to that, in his name-deleting, Tulkolahten wrongly marked many such edits as "minor", accused R9tgokunks of renaming Czech cities in his AN/I report (when in reality it was him who changed the naming), labelling R9tgokunks's reverts of them as vandalism.
Granted, R9tgokunks continued to revert after his block and that shouldn't be supported, but of his edits in the past 24 hours, there are many normal edits among them (if I counted correctly, his reverts are in the slight majority), whereas every edit in the article space of Tulkohlaten in the past 24h is a revert (34 succeeding reverts). Regarding edit warring, Tulkohlaten was just as guilty as him. Regarding this 3RR, both have reverted for three times in the article concerned. But Tulkohlaten, who started to revert, misleadingly reported Rotgokunks' first edit as revert, so it was no 3RR violation. I personally think 24h for each user would be suitable. Sciurinæ 02:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Parishan reported by User:Artaxiad (Result: no vio)[edit]

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

  • clear arbcom violation, 24 hour block per ruling. Rlevse 02:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Removed block upon receiving more details on case. No arbcom vio, user was in middle of making his talk entry.Rlevse 10:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Trorov reported by User:Snickerdo (Result:48 hrs)[edit]

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

  • Previous versions reverted to:

[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] etc etc

Comments
I posted a notification to his :talk page as outlined here, and he immidiately went an re-posted it to my page (yes, I may have violated the 3RR rule by one edit, it's difficult to keep track, though I have not been involved in the previous edit wars). Other users have reverted his work and he reverts them back. Also invited him to discuss the issue on the :talk page but he continues to revert, and he doesn't provide any factual information to back his claims. Overall, a real mess that I no longer want to be involved in. Please forgive me if my template is not correct, I have not been involved in this before.
  • block 48hrs on Trorov, continual edit warring.Rlevse 02:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Grandia01 reported by User:Proabivouac (Result: Warning)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Grandia01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments
User:Grandia01 has been repeating this tendentious edit since at least 6 October 2006,[22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[34],[35],[36],[37], has been warned on a number of occasions,[38], [39], [40], and has generally refused to engage in discusson. Additionally, he has been blanking depictions of Muhammad from the transclusion page, against consensus, where consensus has held this to constitute disruption.[41], [42]Proabivouac 06:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Checking his talk page history, however, shows he never had a warning. -- Avi 07:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Given warning. If he reverts again… -- Avi 07:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Did you actually read what I wrote above? "...has been warned on a number of occasions"[43], [44], [45]. In fact, I warned him immediately before the fourth revert shown above. He's been doing this since October 2006.
I can't believe I spent half an hour getting these diffs together. What a waste of time.Proabivouac 07:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but those are not 3RR warnings, but regular vandalism warnings. That's why part of the template says

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.

-- Avi 07:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

this is a warning and this is not a new user. Arrow740 07:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
That diff, which was presented in the origingal report, plainly shows that the responding admin had not read the evidence when he wrote, "...he never had a warning."Proabivouac 07:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


User:Davkal reported by User:Milo H Minderbinder (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

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

Comments

--Milo H Minderbinder 13:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
A followup on this, a checkuser shows that Davkal used a sockpuppet to evade this block and make an additional revert. Checkuser: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Davkal Sixth revert by sockpuppet: 20:48, 14 March 2007 --Minderbinder 15:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't a sock-puppet it was a friend.Davkal 15:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
So it may be potential meatpuppetry instead of sockpuppetry. Either way, an admin should take a look. --Minderbinder 15:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A meat puppet is someone who does your bidding. Baaderthanmeinhof does his own bidding. Davkal 15:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Billy Ego reported by User:MarkThomas (Result: No violation)[edit]

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


Comments
User is ignoring efforts to discuss on a range of Nazi and Socialist related subjects and repeatedly reverts and edit wars. MarkThomas 19:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Please look carefully. This was not straight out reverts but me adding more detailed information on the source cited. MarkThomas was claiming that the Sunday Express didn't exist in 1938. But the Sunday Express was launched on Dec 19 1918. So he was deleting the quote from Hitler in that newspaper. This was not a case of me simply reverting back information, but responding to MarkThomas's disruptive removal of information that was cited, by adding more information so he would stop. I had to make it clear that the Sunday Express did indeed exist when Hitler was quoted from it. Billy Ego 19:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The Sunday Express issue was just a passing remark, the basic fact is that Billy Ego did 4 continuous reverts within 24 hours. MarkThomas 19:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a "passing remark." It was your whole reason for removing the information, as you said so in your summary [46] So now that I've proved that the Sunday Express did indeed exist at that time and you realize now that you were wrong, you wtill want to try to penalize me? That's real ethical on your part. Are you more interested in making sure information is correct or winning a battle? Billy Ego 19:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Billy Ego is misrepresenting. His edits were attempted to be reverted by myself and one other editor on the grounds that (a) they are out of context with the introduction (b) they appear to be uncheckable and (c) they are not supported by other sources of information. MarkThomas 19:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
No violation, I see only one initial edit, and three reverts to it. However, all parties are cautioned to discuss rather than engage in an edit war. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
On this basis, if other editors revert him, would he be free to continue to put his edit back multiple times without sanction? MarkThomas 19:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course not, it is unacceptable to revert more than three times except under some very limited circumstances, and this is not one of those exceptions. However, the case here is: The first "revert" on the list is actually just an edit the user made (unless the edit was made at some point in the past, but if that did happen, whoever made the report didn't bother to say so.) An edit is not a revert. The user then reverted to that same edit three times, but stopped at three. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

User:TharkunColl reported by User:Lurker (Result: Page protected)[edit]

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



Comments

No, I haven't. The first two on that list could have been made with a single edit, and in any case are nothing to do with the second two on the list which refer to a totally different part of the article. TharkunColl 19:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never reported 3RR before, so may be wrong. But I believe that reverts do not need to be conected, you just need to remove others' content 4 times in 24 hrs. Lurker oi! 19:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on past experience with him, I wouldn't over-react by assuming you are wrong when considering TharkunColl's editing behaviour, he frequently deliberately varies each edit slightly to try to game the system and avoid 3RR disciplining, something he sadly has gotten away with previously, although he is now up to 31 hours on his last block. MarkThomas 19:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you have a look at them then? The second two are totally unconnected with the first two. And the first two are successive edits I made without reverting anybody. If you want proof, go and look at the edit history of the page. There were no edits at all between my edit of 16:00 and my edit of 16:19. It was not a reversion of any sort. TharkunColl 19:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
In his defense, TharkunColl's edits in the first two diffs are not reverts. They are simply edits. The rule doesn't say "you can't make more than 3 edits to an article in one day." He still may have violated the 3RR with other edits to the article, however. Just look at the article's history or TharkunColl's edit history just to make sure. ~ UBeR 19:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
No specific violation here, the first two were done without anyone else's edits intervening and are the same as a single edit. However, after a look at the page's history, I've protected it due to ongoing edit wars. Please work out the disputes and come to some type of agreement. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
However the edit war is going, I think I misunderstood the rules and was wrong to report a 3RR violation. I've sent TUC an apology, and would like to apologise for wasting the time of whatever admin(s) had to check this out. In the future, I'll make sure i understand the rules fully before posting violations. Lurker oi! 14:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

User:AnonMoos reported by User:Halaqah (Result: Only 3 diffs listed - no violation at current)[edit]

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



Comments

This disruptive editor adds original research and material not given in the citations provided, this has been going on for months, the article however was left with a dispute tag, which was removed by a editor. because the tag "not in citation" given was said to be enought. I made some edits to removed the reason why the tag was placed there, and the disruptive editor returned and reverted it back to the problem version. I then put it back to the original state with the dispute tag, he reverted again. i replaced the dispute notice, he reverted again. Removing a dispute tag is vandalism, because it is clear there is a dispute yet he is vandalising the tag. The only reason the other editor removed the tag was because the version they had was balanced and have "not in citation" given. But he has removed all tags and restored it to the fully disputed version.notice how the 3 ref do not say what he claims they say and he has provided NO reference for any of the content added.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 23:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Halaqah, you need FOUR reverts in 24 hours to violate, not three. As of now, there is no violation, unless you can bring a fourth. -- Avi 00:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I didnt know that, if you revert three times. My God Avi is that you? small world. C u around.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 00:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
wa `Alaykum As-Salām, Halaqah. Yes, it's me. Smile.gif. -- Avi 00:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Halaqah for some reason is very insistent that the Arabic word Zanj زنج doesn't mean what all Arabic dictionaries say that it means, and he resorts to extreme bizarre contortions (such as trying to discredit Hans Wehr as an agent of colonialist imperialism, and telling people that a dictionary doesn't in fact say what they're reading when they holding the relevant entry directly in front of their eyes). User:Halaqah has added a dispute tag twice before to article Zanj, and both times I did nothing about the tag and let events play out and fully take their slow course -- which was that both times the dispute tag was removed by someone else (not me) who saw no merit in User:Halaqah's arguments (in fact, no one who has come along on the article page Zanj or the talk page Talk:Zanj has ever seen any merit in User:Halaqah's arguments on this matter). I don't intend to violate Wikipedia's reversion policies, but adding a dispute template a third time around solely because User:Halaqah insists that the Arabic word Zanj زنج doesn't mean what all Arabic dictionaries say that it means is not a productive way to improve the article, and I'm not going to let it happen. Of course, now User:Halaqah has taken to stalking me (reverting my edits on Bilad al-Sham to intimidate and harass me), and that doesn't excessively impress me either. AnonMoos 01:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It sounds like you gentlemen need WP:DR, not WP:3RR. -- Avi 02:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

User:RichardBennett reported by User:Wolfkeeper (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

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


Comments

24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Michael Glass reported by User:Nandesuka (Result: 8 hours)[edit]

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


Comments
Experienced editor is repeatedly to wedge soapbox material into the Circumcision article. Nandesuka 22:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Please provide diffs, not oldids. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry (only the first was an oldid). Fixed now. Nandesuka 03:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

User's first violation, 8 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Ed g2s reported by User:Armando12 (Result:No violation)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Evanescence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ed g2s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):


Comments
This user has been deleting the album cover images from the article. This is very disruptive. The use of album covers on articles don't violate any policy, and we can prove it with featured articles like Nirvana (band) and Nightwish, that also use album cover images. Armando.OtalkEv 00:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Our Fair Use policy is frequencly violated - that you've found two other pages proves nothing. Two wrongs don't make a right. Rather than try to justify the use of the images (which is required before using them) the user labelled my edits as vandalism. This is not a content dispute. ed g2stalk 00:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Also only the last two diffs are acutal reverts - the first two diffs are just the original edit. ed g2stalk 00:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
This is indeed the case; no edit was made between the first two edits listed above. Also, please don't edit-war unfree images back into articles; if there are concerns about copyright, the burden to establish consensus that we should republish the work are on the editors wanting to include it. Note also that removing potential copyright infringement is an exemption to the 3RR. Jkelly 00:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
If the use of fair-use images would be a "potential copyright infringement", Wikipedia would be a potential copyright infringement. Almost all the article (with images) use fair-use images. Examples, anime, music, movies, science, technology, art (and a lot or more topics) article use fair-use images, because free-use image don't exist for most of the article from this topics. Anime...does it exist a free-use image of a cover of an OVA? Music...Does it exist a free-image of a copyrighted logo or album cover? Tech...Does it exist a free-use image of de Microsoft logo, or a Windows XP screenshoot, no! Armando.OtalkEv 01:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Please see m:Avoid Copyright Paranoia -Mysekurity 02:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

User:License2Kill and User:MJukmix reported by User:Mysekurity (Result: No violation)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Tupac Shakur discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). License2Kill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) MJukmix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

By License2Kill:

By MJukmix:

Comments
I am not personally involved with this particular 3RR, but I am involved in an RfC on Tupac Shakur with L2K. To avoid a conflict of interest, I am seeking assistance here. -Mysekurity 02:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Please provide diffs, not oldids. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Whups! my fault! -Mysekurity 03:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverts were not made within a 24-hour period. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but it's still edit warring. From WP:3RR: "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." This behavior is clearly disruptive, and though I could block them myself for edit warring (and logging out to bypass 3RR), I decided to take it here. The talk page has not been utilized to discuss the change being made, and it seems L2K has shown this type of behavior in the past. -Mysekurity 05:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
This is true, or they may not be. In this case, the edit war doesn't look severe enough to block as yet. If they keep the edit war up without going over 3RR, request the page be protected or report it to WP:AN/I. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Praveen pillay reported by User:Sarvagnya (Result:No action)[edit]

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




Comments:

  • In the first revert, which is a partial revert he retains one external link (the tamilnation.org link). It is a partial revert so I have given the diff.
  • In the second and third reverts, he continues to fight for the same external link(the tamilnation.org one) which had been removed.
  • In the fourth revert, he reverts the {{OR}} and {{disputed}} tags that had been placed on the article and also {{verify}} tags placed on few references. Sarvagnya 08:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
This happened almost two days ago and the page is now protected due to your edit warring so there is no need for a block. John Reaves (talk) 04:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there a time limit within which we have to report? And I had reported this almost 36 hrs ago anyway. In any case, you agree that there was a violation. Right? Sarvagnya 01:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Bov / User:67.180.110.244 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result:10 days)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Template:911ct (edit | [[Talk:Template:911ct|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 67.180.110.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) :

All reverts are to the same version, which is intermediate between the two versions reverted to above, so they all qualify as partial reversions of my edit above.


Comments
See this diff from User:Bov for an admission that he frequently fails to log in, and check the history of this IP to see that it frequently makes the same edits as User:Bov. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
10 days each. John Reaves (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Kentkent reported by User:Nate1481 (Result:No action)[edit]

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

Comments

  • Last two are not strict reverts but continue the patten of disruptive editing
  • May also be a sockpuppet of the banned user:DrParkes
New user who wasn't warned until after/at the same time of the fifth revert. No action taken. John Reaves (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem is he was waned & banned as DrParkes & now has 2 more sockpuppets

User:IAF reported by User:Vassyana (Result: 24 hrs)[edit]

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

Comments


User:Jonawiki reported by User:Roguegeek (Result:no vio)[edit]

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

Comments
The problem with this user goes beyond the constant reverting that reintroduces unverified information, but enforcement of the 3RR is probably the most immediate way of dealing with this. Simply looking at the talk and article history of the SWG article will confirm the lake of civility from the user. Due to the person being a new user, myself and numerous other editors have taken a fair amount of time trying to explain several policies, but we still get constant reverts. We will probably need to get an admin involved to resolve these issues, but for now, we'll just report the reverting. Roguegeek (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The four reverts are not within 24 hours, so no vio. Heimstern Läufer 04:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Sukecchi reported by User:Funpika (Result: Warning)[edit]

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

Comments

User:Sukecchi has edited Wikipedia for a long time (Earliest contribution 1/1/06) and should know about WP:3RR by now. Funpika 22:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Page is protected, no need for a block right now, user warned. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Magonaritus reported by User:Roguegeek (Result:24h)[edit]

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

Comments
New editor seems upset we are removing invalid rumors with no source information. Have worked with trying to explain policies, but it has not helped. Editor has also been warned several times on being uncivil also. Roguegeek (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Roguegeek reported by User:Magonaritus (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

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


Comments

Block quote

Still an edit war over content, still violated 3RR, 24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

207.127.241.2 reported by User:Blaxthos (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Ted Kennedy Chappaquiddick incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 207.127.241.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):


Comments

From User talk:207.127.241.2:

This IP has been repeatedly blocked from editing Wikipedia in response to abuse of editing privileges. Further abuse from this IP may result in an immediate block without further warning.

24 hours for violating not only WP:3RR but also WP:BLP. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

User:The Behnam reported by User:Agha Nader (Result: No action)[edit]

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


Comments: Although the reverts are not all about one piece of material, they still are a breach of the 3RR. [WP:3RR]] says "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." Also user Mehrshad123 may also have broken the rule on that page.

Response - The first "revert" was not a revert, but rather the first time I introduced the wording. Hence, I did not 'undo' the actions of another editor. The Behnam 00:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the second "revert" also is not an 'undoing' either, but a novel edit. The Behnam 00:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The first edit undid the actions of another editor. And is thus a revert. "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor" Agha Nader 00:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
I didn't 'undo' anything, I simply changed the page. The wording was completely new; if I had undone an edit, I would have been restoring what was there before. The Behnam 00:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
In the first edit you removed this material: "Reza Shah's ambitious campaigns for modernizing Iran's educational, industrial and transportation infrastructure are attributed for the emergence of social, political and economic reform in Iran after a long period of decline during the final years of the Qajar dynasty" Agha Nader 00:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
And I was undoing an edit by removing this? Technically it was added to the page at some point in time, but I didn't do an actual 'undo'. This is the 'three-revert rule', not the 'three-change rule'. The Behnam 01:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
You undid the the actions of the editor that added the material. You didn't revert the whole page, but you removed that material (which is a revert); "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor"Agha Nader 01:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
You may consider the second revert a "novel edit", but you did in fact remove material: "This was a smart move on the part of Nazis since from that point, Iranians were constantly reminded that their country shared a common bond with the Nazi regime". You admit to it when you say "removed POV projection" in the edit summary. Agha Nader 01:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
Agha, simply editing the page isn't a revert. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to edit the page more than thrice a day unless we were simply adding information. I am pretty sure you're misunderstanding what 3RR is about on this point. The Behnam 01:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The, removing material another person added is a revert. Agha Nader 01:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
"A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors". These aren't 'undo's, they're just changes to the article as it was long before the 24hr period. The change involves the removal of some information, but not the 'undoing' of the edits. Basically what you are advocating it is a 'three-change rule' except for content additions. I don't think that is what 3RR is about, or else it would be incredibly difficult to improve neglected and poorly written articles. The Behnam 01:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Did you not undue, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors? You say "Technically it was added to the page at some point in time". Thus removing it is undoing the actions of another editor. Not allowing edit wars does not make it incredibly difficult to improve neglected and poorly written articles. Agha Nader 01:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
After all you did say "The change involves the removal of some information, but not the 'undoing' of the information". What is the difference? Agha Nader 01:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
Hmm. I'm pretty sure that you aren't seeing this correctly, and I'm not sure how to further explain it to you. Whether I am right or you are right, I'll just let the admin who comes to this decide whether the edits really comprise a 3RR violation. Maybe s/he will be able to explain this to you better. Considering that two of them aren't reverts I don't think that there is a problem here. Agha, you might want to take a look at some of the other cases on this page to get a better idea on what 'undo' means. The Behnam 01:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, about your remark on the neglected articles, you might note that the changes also weren't 'edit warring', since the 'edit wars' usually refer to a chain of reverts over a contested passage. Again, this is not the 'three-change rule', but the 'three-revert rule. The Behnam 01:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Page has been protected due to the edit war, so no action will be taken. However, both are cautioned to avoid edit warring and to discuss controversial changes. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Now I can actually start my wikibreak. The Behnam 02:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Mehrshad123 reported by User:The Behnam (Result: No action)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Reza Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mehrshad123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Same as above. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Billy Ego reported by User:Cberlet (Result: 8 hours)[edit]

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

Complex reverts

3rd is not a revert but the addition of research to the article. Now that there is a source to back up the reversions, why are you doing this now that you see you were wrong? Billy Ego 03:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Added a few more for context.--Cberlet 03:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Pray tell me, how is the addition of new material to an article constitute a "revert"? Billy Ego 03:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I see 2 full reverts and alot of partials. I'll let another admin handle it. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

3 is not a revert, but "previous version", 1, 2, and 4 all are. First offense, 8 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Captain scarlet reported by User:MRSC (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Wath-upon-Dearne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Captain scarlet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments
[50] - says here is happy to break 3RR
More than 24 hours means less than 3 edits per 24 hours MRSC. You are putting me in a bit of a corner. I may have accidently edited these article four times, but you have little friends doing the same. You and your acolytes are victms of breaking the 3RR also, simply not each and everyone of you. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Saturdayseven reported by User:Ultramarine (Result:no action)[edit]

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

Comments

4 (now 5) simple reverts: [51][52][53][54][55]

Most of my reverts were to remove libelous assertion backed by nothing more than a self-published random web page. User:Ultramarine is going around wikipedia adding libelous slurs against J. Phillippe Rushton using poor sources. If one reads wikipedia living person policy, it clearly states that removing poorly sourced libelous claims is an exception to the 3 revert rule.WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material Saturdayseven 14:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Everything is sourced using different sources. The Southern Poverty Law Center, Searchlight Magazine, or academic sources are not "a random webpage" or "self-published". If a person claims and tries to spread negative views against whole group(s) of people, in the words of a critic, "Blacks as small-brained, oversexed criminals who multiply at a fast rate and are afflicted with mental disease"[56], then he should also expect criticisms. Wikipedia should not be the place for presenting and spreading only Rushton's views unopposed.Ultramarine 14:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
You repeatedly added this to the article: Rushton is accused by critics of advocating a new eugenics movement,[1] and is openly praised by proponents of eugenics.[2] You are painting a living person as a eugenics poster boy using one source that doesn't work and another source which is a self-published web page that doesn't meet wikipedia standards. And your oversimplification of Rushton's theory is also not fair. First of all Rushton believes that racial differences are small and that virtually the full range of human traits exist in all races. He's simply arguing that each race tends to have its own strengths and weaknesses. If you don't want Rushton's ideas expressed on wikipedia the solution is to nominate him for deletion, not to violate wikipedia's libel rules Saturdayseven 15:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of if Rushton advocates or speaks about eugenics or not, or if eugenicists cite him or not, you reverted much more than this without explanation. We should not delete Rushton since his and similar works sponsored by the Pioneer Fund are a prominent view widely used by hate groups. "In publication after publication, hate groups are using this "science" to legitimize racial hatred."[57] But Wikipedia should certainly mention the criticisms.Ultramarine 15:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
These are just the facts about how Rushton has been criticized. futurebird 16:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not my responsibility to differentiate your quality sources from your unreliable sources.~In the time it takes to do that the libelous assertions get more and more exposure. All I know is that some of the sources you added were unreliable and used to justify libelous assertions, hence I reverted all your edits in which these source were added and I am well within wikipedia policy to do so. Saturdayseven 15:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Using your argument, you could blank a whole article if you personally think there is an error somewhere. Not allowed. Again, while the arguments used by hate groups have a place in Wikipedia, so should the counter-arguments.Ultramarine 15:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I do not care how valid you think your other sources are, I don't care how passionate you are politically, and I don't care how important you feel your contributions to wikipedia are, if you continue to add self-published fringe web pages to support libelous smears against living people you will be reverted. PERIOD. You do not have the right to jeopardize wikipedia and damage repuations in the process. Do that on a blog using your own name. Don't use wikipedia's good name to do it Saturdayseven 15:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, your are not allowed to delete large amounts of well-sourced material if you personally think there may be an error in one sentence. Nor are you allowed to violate 3RR.
I'm afraid you still do not understand: You are not allowed to smear living persons using self-published fringe web pages and links that don't work. I don't care if you added a hundred other valid sources mixed in with the poorly sourced libel and smears. I informed you on your talk page that your source was not up to wikipedia standards yet you continued to add this libelous smear to wikipedia. I may need to talk to someone else as you apparently have no understanding of wikipedia living person policy or how serious it is Saturdayseven 15:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I dispute this, the given link clearly shows that at least some eugenicists cite Rusthon prominently. Do you deny this? Regardless, you are not allowed to blank other parts of the article if you disagree with one part. Regardless, while the arguments used by hate groups in order to create racial hatred may have a place in Wikipedia, so should the counter-arguments.Ultramarine 15:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, why are you continuing to revert material having no relevance to eugenic material: [58]. Your own personal opinion that the sourced material is false in uninteresting.Ultramarine 16:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't blank anything, I simply reverted an editor that is unable or unwilling to differentiate quality sources from unreliable sources and was using the latter to smear and libel a living person in direct violation of wikipedia's single most important policy. "Some eugenicists" is a weasel term and demonstrates even more failure to grasp wikipedia policy. If a view point is notable enough for inclusion in wikipedia it must be backed by a reliable source, not self-published fringe web pages like this one [59]. I shouldn't have to keep explaining this very basic point to someone who has been editing wikipedia as long as you have Saturdayseven 16:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
You blanked large parts of sourced material with no explanation. Regarding the sentence you have disputed, do you deny that the eugenic source quotes Rusthon? Regardless, you are not allowed to blank other parts of the article if you disagree with one part. Also, why are you right now continuing to revert other material, based on your own unsourced claim regarding what Rushton stated? [60] Wikipedia is not built on personal opinions. While the arguments used by hate groups in order to create