Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive42

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

209.218.163.2 reported by Yakuman (Result: Incomplete)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Richard Bandler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 209.218.163.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

User was 3RR blocked earlier this week on Paul McKenna.

Please provide diffs, not oldids. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

209.218.163.2 reported by Yakuman (Result:48 hours )[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Richard Bandler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 209.218.163.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [2]

Second try:

User was 3RR blocked earlier this week on Paul McKenna. IP address seems to be a hotel.

48 hours. John Reaves (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Baristarim reported by User:Mardavich (Result:No vio)[edit]

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

Comments

Not a new user, see block log. --Mardavich 05:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I only see three reverts, the last looks to be a correction of the third edit. John Reaves (talk) 05:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
In the last edit he undid the edit made by AtilimGunesBaydin, which was the 67.5 figure. From Help:Reverting: "To revert is to undo all changes made to an article page after a specific time in the past." Also WP:3RR states, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." --Mardavich 05:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User:AncientEyes reported by User:Gerry Ashton (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

User:AncientEyes appears to have violated of the 3RR rule at the Common Era article.

  1. 19:50, 27 March 2007 Reintroduce identical version of passage that probably contains original research [3]
  2. 22:31, 27 March 2007 Reintroduce the passage again [4]
  3. 03:15, 28 March 2007 Third reintroduction [5]
  4. 05:11, 28 March 2007 Fourth reintroduction [6]

A warning [7] was applied to the user's talk page at 01:56, 28 March 2007 by User:Humus sapiens. --Gerry Ashton 05:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User:58.187.131.24 reported by User:Badagnani (Result: Incomplete)[edit]

3RR for multiple (5 in one 24-hour period) reverts, blanking text at Northern and southern Vietnam. Possibly requires warning as s/he may be a new user, but s/he is unwilling to use discussion before engaging in blanking, though s/he has been asked several times in edit summaries. Badagnani 10:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of the reverts. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


User:75.3.41.234 reported by User:QuizzicalBee (Result:No action)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on [[:

Category:Abortion]] (edit | [[Talk::Category:Abortion|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?pages=
Category:Abortion&project=en.wikipedia.org views]). 75.3.41.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):
This is now more than a week old, and the edit warring stopped with the last item here. as blocks are suposed to be preventative, not punitive, ther is now no reason to block. Also, not all these edits were strictly reverts, some were simialr but not identical changes. DES (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


Comments

User:Giovanni Giove reported by User:AjdemiPopushi (Result:48 hours)[edit]

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

Comments
User is revert-warring. If you look at his contributions [13] you will see that he is currently revert-warring on several other articles and if you take an even closer look you will see that this user has been rever-warring for most of his time on Wikipedia and most of his contributions are malicious bad faith dirupstions. --AjdemiPopushi 14:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
48 hour block.Rlevse 01:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Bwallace07 reported by User:Hrafn42 (Result:page protection)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on David Barton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bwallace07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):


Comments
User has been warned for reverting before (notice on user-talk page). User is revert warring and has explicitly refused to discuss differences: user's last revert has edit-summary: "(POV - talking with profoundly prejudiced individuals is rarely productive)" and user has not made a single post to the article's talk page. Hrafn42 17:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Checking back further through the article-history, Bwallace07's 'contributions' seem to entirely consist of reverting the article back to a form that is nearly identical to the one he is currently reverting to (Attenuator show a similar pattern, but less frequently). Hrafn42 18:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC) [EDIT: replaced 'oldids' with 'difs'] Hrafn42 18:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
page protection, both seem to reverting the other.Rlevse 01:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Crculver reported by User:FunkyFly (Result:Blocked 1 week)[edit]

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

Comments
  • The user has persistently removed the relevant transliteration in Bulgarian. He has been blocked four times before for 3RR, the last time for 48 hours.   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Billy Ego reported by El_C (Result: 24h)[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):

Warning: [14], and dismissal of warning. [15].

Comments
  • No comment. El_C 19:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Blocked for twenty-four hours. Jkelly 20:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Darwinek reported by User:mt7 (Result: Warnings and page-bans)[edit]

at page Tamas Priskin

  • 6st revert [21] --Mt7 20:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

all revert from me exception Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, no actuall and appropriate sources rv is always possible --Mt7 20:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This is unacceptable behavior from both of you, particularly in light of the pending arbitration case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Darwinek. The BLP exception to 3RR does not apply because the information cannot reasonably be considered controversial, negative, or defamatory, but is purely a categorization issue. I do not want to block either of you because your participation may be needed in the arbitration case, but Darwinek and Mt7 are banned from Tamas Priskin for 48 hours. Newyorkbrad 20:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad reported by Atabek (Result: use a different page)[edit]

User:Artaxiad violated the temporary revert parole issued in the ArbCom case [22], which says:

  • each content revert must be accompanied by a justification on the relevant talk page.

User:Artaxiad has reverted the article Karabakh only leaving the word "rv" in explanation of edit, and no justification provided on the talk page.Atabek 20:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments
  • Don't use this page, please. Use WP:ANI instead. Infact, there might even be a special page for this, but I don't know it. --Deskana (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Already brought to ANI, where I advised Artaxiad not to proceed in this fashion. Will be dealt with elsewhere; no action needed here. Newyorkbrad 21:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Laertes d reported by User:Domitius (Result: 3 days)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Greek War of Independence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Laertes d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments
  • User knows about the 3RR and has been blocked for violating it before on this same article. There may have been more reverts but as you can see, the article is highly edited at the moment so it's hard to work out. That's why I have only listed the reverts where he actually admits to reverting in the edit summary.--Domitius 22:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Blocked for 3 days for repeated violation of the 3RR. --Deskana (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley reported by User:UBeR (Result:No action)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on History of the Yosemite area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments

Given the disruptiveness of his vandalism at History of the Yosemite area, and that he obviously hasn't breached the 3 revers in 24 hour rule, I suggest the following rule be applied: "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'. 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." It clears he's not willing to quit either. His edit summaries of "stupid tag" is quite evident that he's not doing so on the basis of any policy. Last I checked, "stupid tag" was not a valid reason to remove them. Despite having discussed this on the talk page and warning him on his talk page, he thinks it prudent to continue this edit war. I reckon not necessarily making more than 3 reverts per day is still grounds for a block to allow a cool off for 24 hours. I suggest that. ~ UBeR 22:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It will be for an admin to decide, but if the strict application of the 24 hour period is waived, then the history of the article shows that UBeR has similarly made the same number of reverts over roughly the same period as William M. Connolley. The rule for three revert rule enforcement is to be fair to both sides if they have behaved the same way, as I paraphrase it from the top of this page. Sam Blacketer 23:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. --Deskana (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I was reverting William's vandalism of removing the template on the basis of "stupid." I did not begin by reverting any edit. I was simply reverting back the vandalism to the last good faith edit. His breach of policy is clear. Also note Deskana is trying to engage in this edit war. ~ UBeR 23:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
No. Vandalism != disagrees with you. --Deskana (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Nice straw man. Removing bona fide and applicable templates repeatedly = vandalism. ~ UBeR 23:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Not if the person doesn't think they're applicable. You're the only person sofar who thinks they're applicable: me and WMC both think theyd don't belong there, and El_C thinks readding it is borderline vandalism. Give up, please. I don't want to edit war with you. --Deskana (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
You might have some POV-pushers on your side. But in my corner, my partner trumps any administrator: WP:ATT policy. ~ 22:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I've had enough of you. No further responses. --Deskana (ya rly) 22:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to view the insertion of that tag as borderline vandalism. This is a borderline case. No action. El_C 23:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Read WP:ATT is you haven't already. ~ UBeR 23:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
      • You're talking to a guy that's been an admin for nearly two years. Considered that you might be wrong, yet UBeR? --Deskana (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I do not deny people look at status before looking at edits. Surely, I will admit to being wrong if you admit WP:ATT is wrong too. ~ UBeR 23:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
To give some context: The article is a featured article, and a historical overview largely based on a number of similar overviews cited in the references section. While the number of inline references is limited, the article seems adequately referenced. UBeR now seems to apply a standard that requires an individual inline reference for every statement made. He repeatedly applied a {{unreferenced|article|date=March 2007}} tag that William removed. The back-story is a conflict about the degree of referencing necessary in the global warming and related articles. In a related discussion, William used the article in question as an example for the standard of referencing applies in other featured articled. UBeR promptly went there and added the tag in what to me very much looks like a classical WP:POINT maneuver. --Stephan Schulz 23:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
You're backwards. It's nice to state it like I'm readding a removed template than it is to state it correctly: William is removing a bona fide template. The problem isn't about a section of citations. Every article should have one. The problem is attributing them. Just look at the policy: "Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the [citation needed] template, or tag the article by adding {{not verified}} or {{unsourced}}. Leave a note on the talk page or edit summary explaining what you have done.[1]" Instead of removing referenced statements, or making a mess with {{fact}}, I'm adding a template at the top so as to alert readers and editors alike--the more sensible thing to do. This isn't about points (he was suggesting that I would tag up the entire article with {{fact}} tags anyway), but rather policy that even administrators are failing to abide by. ~ UBeR 23:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinion. Continue to argue a lost cause against overwhelming consensus, and I will consider blocking you for disruption to give you time to read up a bit on policies, and for good measure, to read WP:TE, which may be of some help to you. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
My opinion is POV? I thought that was the definition of opinion. It's a nice essay nonetheless. I'm sad to see you're willing to block anyone who disagrees with you (despite clear arguing in favor of Wikipedia policies). ~ UBeR 22:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
To whom are you speaking? KillerChihuahua?!? 23:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
UBeR, I have no connection to this article or any of the other people here. After looking at the record, I think you are being unreasonable and disruptive. Please take a deep breath and try to find ways to work with other editors, before you get yourself blocked. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 14:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:SamEV reported by User:Jersey Devil (Result:48 hrs)[edit]

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

Comments
The user has already been blocked once on for edit warring on the same article as recently as March 19. [23] so he is aware of the 3rr policy.--Jersey Devil 03:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It's undoubtedly a 3RR violation by him and him alone, and given the recent 3RR block, he should certainly know better. However, in this terse edit summary, it looks to me like he's agreed to stop edit warring. Since blocks should be preventative rather than punitive, let's wait and see. If he continues to be disruptive after finally agreeing to calm down, it will then be grounds for a lengthier block. — Rebelguys2 talk 04:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • 48 hrs per previous block. ViridaeTalk 07:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Aivazovsky reported by User:AdilBaguirov (Result:)[edit]

user:Aivazovsky is part of the ArbCom [24] but despite the 1RR injunction that mandates leaving Talk page comments for all reverts and changes, has modified the Qazakh page (History of the page [25]) without leaving proper edit summary and more importantly, any comments on the Talk pages. The appropriate diff is:

Comment: admin Thatcher asked to place these violations reports here for faster response as opposed to ArbCom page. --adil 05:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you show what this was a revert to? I can't see it. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
aren't parties to Arbcom supposed to discuss all major changes on Talk page, not just partial or full reverts? He archived the Talk page of the Qazakh article, thus cleaning it completely, and then added one of the proposed wordings to the article, without explaining it in the Talk page. Since that wording (or compromise version, as he says) was not authored by him, but another user whilst the page was locked, isn't this considered a partial revert? --adil 07:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The ArbCom injunction only requires discussion of reverts. If you'd like to change that, you'll have to talk to ArbCom. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Dr Lisboa reported by User:TheologyJohn (Result: 24h)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Jesus. User: Dr Lisboa:

The three above don't come with the 3RR. They were two days ago

The recent edits don't come with the 3RR because they added new refernces in response to the consensus of the discussion.

(A.J.A. 21:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC) ed to add:)


Diff of 3rr warning on user talk: [28]

Dr Lisboa has stated that this edit does not constitute 3RR because she believes, in spite of unanimity on the talk page from all editors apart from her that this section should be removed, that those who are removing it are vandals.

User:TheologyJohn has been breaching the very same rules that she is complaining about. She is also making false claims about the 3RR rule being breached. There have only been three reverts. The other instance was adding a paragraph that had been removed many edits before. She is also : attempting meat puppetry by trying to bring in known allies to support her, failing to support her contentions with references, failing to assume good faith whilst at the same time hypocritically claiming to others that they should, and she has been attempting to impose bias on an article. All of these are inbreach of Wikipedia guidelines. She is using this allegation as yet another means of suppressing opposing views and imposing religious bias. --Dr Lisboa 13:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, and rather insignificantly, Dr Lisboa has made an inaccurate guess about my gender. I am male.

Secondly, there have been four reverts - [29], [30], [31], and [32]. The first revert (ie number 4) was a revert of an edit made a while ago, but it was still a revert, as Dr Lisboa acknowledged in her fourth edit (number 1).

I have not failed to assume good faith, I have not once "brought in known allies to support" me (unless commenting on the talk page of the Jesus page about this 3RR report qualifies as this, which I suppose it could be, since all the editors aside from Dr Lisboa are on my side about the inclusion of the paragraph. I also commented about this on Dr Lisboa's own talk page. I did both as a way of alerting interested readers about this being discussed, so they could agree or disagree. The fact that everyone bar Dr Lisboa was likely to agree with me was not relevant to this, although it was relevant to my decision to report.) My contribs list will show this.

I don't know if I really need to respond to her string of personal attacks, since they are irrelevant to the 3RR. I would, however, like to defend my reputation by stating that I have not been making any such attacks myself (although she has been directing such attacks against a number of editors). TJ 13:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The first alteration doe not come with the 3RR because it did not revert all before it. It merely added a paragraph that was there many edits before. There is no 3RR breach. Also, rather insignificantly, TJ has made an inaccurate guess about my gender. I am male. All the other allegations concerning TJ are plainly true as can be seen by referring to the Jesus talk page. --Dr Lisboa 14:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for my wrong guess about your gender. Your revert was a revert of this edit, as you well know. this was an edit made only a day before. The fact that a few other edits had been made in the mean time does not have any bearing on this, as you made four reverts on one day. As you admitted in the last of those.

I have no interest in responding to any further of your personal attacks. Any interested parties can go to Talk:Jesus or my contribs list and see that they are untrue.TJ 14:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone that goes there will see precisely how true they are. Serious bias is being attempted by TJ by all possible means. Trying to impose his extreme Christian views using tactics like this is clearly in breach of WP guidelines. --Dr Lisboa 15:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have properly formatted this nomination, and added the latest revert, and 3 reverts from 2 days ago. This shows a pattern of edit warring. There is NO need to edit an article during a content dispute. You can't force your edits on wikipedia. We work by mutual consensus and compromise. During a content dispute, don't edit the article until there is consensus for the changes on talk. On top of that, it is notable that at least 2 redlinked users have been doing the EXACT SAME revert as Dr Lisboa, so a checkuser may be in place to see if sockpuppets are being used in an attempt to avoid 3rr. -Andrew c 20:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The above user himself reverted without discussion or explanation, which makes hypocritical of others reverting who did so after prior discussion. --Dr Lisboa 21:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
There are some people reverting to keep an established. Ther are some reverting to delete it. They are not the exact same as is very obvious when viewing the reverts. --Dr Lisboa 21:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
There has been a HUGE amount of discussion on the talk page concerning Dr. Lisboa's proposals and edits. As far as I can tell, it is mostly Dr. Lisboa repeating herself, and various people raising valid questions, issues, and challenges. As far as I can tell, all historically active editors (which includes non-Christians) are opposed to Dr. Lisboa's edit because it is unsourced and repeats material already in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Slrubenstein has been resorting to a series of personal attacks on the Jesus article. She is already in breach of a large number of WP rules. She had added nothing useful and so instead she is trying to abuse her intolerant views on everybody. An agreed and well worded version of a section was added but she keeps trying to override that by deleting it without any justifed reason. She is now trying to abuse 3RR as another attempt at imposing her intolerant and her extremist views. She should be reprimanded for her miscoduct. --Dr Lisboa 11:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Frome the top of this very page: Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.
Can some admin please process this report? Thanks! --Stephan Schulz 11:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 12:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I know this is closed, but I am adding that Dr Lisboa violated 3RR twice, once

prompting the initial 3RR report, and once while the report was open. Also, there may be possible sockpuppetry, so I have filed Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dr Lisboa. Finally, the editor in question, edited this 3RR report to insert commentary into the diff section (and I also want to note that AJA's listed reverts are redundent with the 8th and 9th ones).-Andrew c 13:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Atulsnischal reported by User:Ragib (Result:31 hours)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Natural History of South Asia mailing list (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Atulsnischal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):


Comments
  • Atulsnischal (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly inserting fake references (for example, trying to masquerade an anonymous server from India as American Museum of Natural History) into the article. The article is on AFD now, and many people have voted for deletion. However, Atul has posted personal attacks against other users via rants in a lot of different talk pages, and keeps reverting the article back to the fake reference version. He knows of WP:3RR as he has been previously blocked for violating 3RR. --Ragib 17:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
31 hours. John Reaves (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

User:AJ-India reported by User:Gsd2000 (Result:24 hours)[edit]

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

Comments
Note that this user has refused to discuss on his User talk:AJ-India despite several attempts by me to ask him to revert his 4RR'th change and instead attacked both me and another editor for our trouble. MarkThomas 17:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

234 hours. ViridaeTalk 01:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

5RR by User:Yahya01 reported by User:Ragib (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Lahore Resolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yahya01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments
  • The user has repeatedly pasted lengthy and potentially copyvio text into the article. He has been blocker for 3RR before. --Ragib 19:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

24 hours for edit-warring in the face of copyright concerns. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


Yahya01 is evading the block via anonymous ip socks and also making personal attacks. This shows 3 more reverts by the blocked user. --Ragib 21:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


User:66.28.139.24 reported by User:They call me Mr. Pibb (Result: 24 hours indef block on two open proxies)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Southern Comfort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 66.28.139.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):


Comments
  • User is vandalizing page including removing text from the article without explaining why, Also changed Image from a thumbnail to a large picture, Also resorts to cursing abeit in Spanish

24 hours for disruption and attacks, left a message in Spanish. Hopefully that'll get the point across. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  • It appears the 24 hour edit ban of this user was not initated because they have returned before the expiry using the same IP address to vandalize the Southern Comfort article again. I think more drastic measures need to be taken. They call me Mr. Pibb 02:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Lifebonzza reported by User:Kerr avon (Result: Incomplete)[edit]

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


Comments

User:Lifebonzza who's contributions [33] indicate a possible SPA, has been edit warring regarding the inclusion of controversial material from a self published source [34] by MIA's own promoter (Stephen Loveridge is the co-producer of MIA's website) containing serious allegations against third parties ("The army regularly shot Tamils seeking to move across border areas"). It violates WP:RS, and WP:BLP too. Attempts at resolving the edit via the talk page have been disregarded by the said user resulting in User:Lifebonzza violating 3RRR.

Please provide diffs, not oldids. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I am new to this process, hence the error, here are the diff's,

Kerr avon 07:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My edits were to restore information cited with sources that were blanked by User:Kerr avon before discussion, as well as restoring edits made that were lost after his revert. Also removing pov on the article [35]. Lifebonzza 08:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
This edit was not a revert. 20:24, 29 March 2007 Lifebonzza 08:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Lifebonzza had continued to edit war regarding the article in a disruptive fashion/Kerr avon 07:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
What? You removed from an article cited information without discussion, which constitutes WP:Vandalism, and added material that was false and pov on the article. [36] This edit by myself (done on 17:34) was made before your first post on the discussion page (17:45) [37]. Even before consensus was reached on the discussion, you proceeded to revert. You engaged in a Personal attack against me, also violating WP:Assume good faith on the M.I.A. talk page [38] and ignored requests to discuss fully before blanking information. Lifebonzza 08:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Clalling you a WP:SPA is not a personal attack, its a fact as your edits prove [39]. It is you who have continued to engage in a revert war with me and others regarding disputed and uncited content or content from sources which violate WP:RS. I never removed properly cited information, but information which was cited but was not from a reliable source, MIA's own promoter is a self published source.Kerr avon 08:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
This edit clearly demonstrates you removed information cited from the BBC before discussion[40], which proves completely wrong your above assertion that you "never removed properly cited information, but information which was cited but was not from a reliable source, MIA's own promoter is a self published source." AND you added pov and blatantly false information on the article [41].Lifebonzza 09:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The cited information regarding BBC's claims of abductions can be moved to the Sri lankan Army page if needed rather than trying to push your own POV. Also your edit which stated that " The army regularly shot Tamils seeking to move across border areas and bombed roads and escape routes" is completely uncited, POV and violates wikpiedia's guidlines. About me stating that Arulpragasam (MIA's father) was a terrorist, just see [42] which described EROS which was founded by MIA's father as "the group was responsible for a string of bombings in Sri Lanka in the mid-1980s as well as for the kidnapping of British journalist Penelope Willis" , and [43] which states "Daughter of Tamil Tiger terrorist whose father trained with PLO in Lebanon extols terrorism on albums".Kerr avon 09:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
It is perfectly clear from your own contributions that it is you pushing your POV and agenda on these articles. [44] You now admit blanking cited information that survived at least two reviews, without discussion, as well as adding POV and blatantly false information including that she moved to the "Phillipines in the far north of the arctic???!!!???.[45] The souces you list here do not fulfil WP:RS and your claims and edits that are heavily disputed and do not fulfil NPOV are in violation of WP:BLP. You also contradict yourself in which group her father belonged to, but regardless, your edits violated WP:NPOV and were completely false and were thus removed. Lifebonzza 09:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
This is not the place for this. Take it one of your own talk pages. Thank you. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 09:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

User:PaddyM reported by User:Miaers (Result: 24 hours/2 weeks)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on 2007 Big Ten Conference Men's Basketball Tournament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). PaddyM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):


Comments

Both editors broke 3RR. 24 hours for PaddyM, 2 weeks for Miaers as he just came off a 1-week block for the same edit war. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:A_Man_In_Black reported by User:72.67.45.115 (Result: No action)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Template:Grand_Theft_Auto_games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). A_Man_In_Black (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):


Comments
82.26.*.* is an anon that has been reverting my edits wholesale, and when I realized how many anons were inserting a link against an established discussion, I just anon-protected. I am kind of curious about an anon who has come directly to AN3 with no history, however. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Third revert was by an anon whose only edits have been following AMIB around to harass by undoing his edits. No action. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Orangemonster2k1 reported by User:Calton (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Stoopid Monkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Orangemonster2k1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments
Also, continuous reverts by three anonymous IPs originating from the same area/ISP in the UK. May or may not be related. --Calton | Talk 06:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Ideogram reported by User:Badagnani (Result:)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ideogram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [53]
  • 1st revert: [54]
  • 2nd revert: [55]
  • 3rd revert: [56]
  • 4th revert:
Badagnani has never understood 3RR. The first edit is not a revert. --Ideogram 06:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please provide diffs, not oldids. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the diffs. There is no fourth revert, but see my comment below. Kafziel Talk 13:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I recommend blocking both of them. I'm not going to do it myself because I've had discussions with them in the past, but Badagnani has broken 3RR in spirit with this comment, inciting another editor to continue the edit war for him. These two are constantly edit warring in one place or another, both have been blocked for 3RR before, and I think we're beyond waiting for the full 4 reverts every time. Kafziel Talk 13:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Teabing-Leigh reported by User:Kjartan8 (Result: No action)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Direct Action Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Teabing-Leigh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) as himself and anonymous ip 202.163.67.241 and an obvious sock puppet (contribs)

- * 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.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [59]


Comments
If you look at the contributions of the user Teabing-Leigh and the anonymous ip and YLH [60] it is clearly the same person (YLH suddenly appears as T-Leigh and has ben editing the same article and revert-wars on Direct Action Day). User has created numerous disruptions, violating WP:POINT. He has created articles that have been tagged for deleting, such as Gandhi's Racism and Gandhi's views on Race and numerous forks of Direct Action Day that have been speedily deleted.His edits are filled with original research and unverified claims which he revert-wars to keep.Kjartan8 07:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
New development - He has since attacked me with incivility [61] and assumed bad faith [62] Kjartan8 07:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Suspected sock puppets is to your left, Checkuser requests to the right. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
And is already on SSP anyway, it'll be examined there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes I saw and did that. Even despite YLH there is still 3rr violation question (anonymous and T-Leigh are self-admittedly the same person as established by their posts on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gandhi's_views_on_race ). Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Teabing-Leigh for further corroboration.Kjartan8 08:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm in the process of clearing up the SSP backlog. It will be gotten to. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Mardavich reported by User:The Behnam (Result:Withdrawn)[edit]

Violation of ArbCom 1RR revert parole [63] at: 300 (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mardavich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments
That wording had just been restored but Mardavich reverted it twice. The Behnam 09:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a descriptive report, the user is not providing a "Previous version reverted to" since my first edit is not a revert, it's a completely new wording proposed by me. --Mardavich 09:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn - I realize that I misjudged that set of edits. The Behnam 09:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:UBeR reported by William M. Connolley (Result:8h)[edit]

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

User is fully aware of the 3RR rule, and has been warned against edit-warring in the past. 24h. yandman 13:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
You were blocked 8h by Seraphim whilst I was replying. Lucky you. yandman 13:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


User:Teabing-Leigh reported by User:Kjartan8 (Result: no action)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Direct Action Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Teabing-Leigh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • Previous versions reverted to:

There are three versions to which reverts take place

  1. 04:11, 28 March 2007
  2. Partially to 10:07, 30 March 2007 through the removal of tags placed by me
  3. Partially to 10:39, 30 March 2007 through the reinsertion of tags removed by User:The Kinslayer

- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: User was made aware of 3rr rule on WP:SSP before his last two reverts.[66]


Comments
This is independent of a similar complaint placed by me earlier [67] against the same user. That complaint was rejected because Teabing-Leigh was using sock puppets and thus 3rr could not be simply proven. A sock puppet query is under way on WP:SSP. Since that time, this user has continued to revert tags that I placed in the article (vandalism) without providing adequate explanation (other than insults and incivil comments). The reverts shown now are those ones which ar uncontroversially his and not that of his sock puppets, and so is not directly related to the previous case. Kjartan8 11:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Following an outbreak of peace on the articles talk page, I propose no action unless this fails William M. Connolley 12:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

But the regulations were stil violated by him. I was under the impression that no exceptions exist to 3RR. Kjartan8 13:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Radiant! reported by User:Netscott (Result: No action)[edit]

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

Report time: 12:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: This editor when faced with violating 3RR decided to game the system by altering his edit slightly. The fact remains that he undid the work of fellow editors 4 times. In every edit he has redirected the WP:VOTE shortcut away from Wikipedia:Straw polls to some other page. If I am not mistaken some preventative measures should be employed here. (Netscott) 12:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Objection. The first edit is not a revert, but a new suggestion to point WP:VOTE to the recently-created disambiguation page Wikipedia:Voting. Also, WP:KETTLE in that both Netscott and I have made three reverts. Note that I've already asked third opinion on the matter. >Radiant< 12:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Looking over the history of that redirect, note that there was an edit war over where to point it (1) between Netscott and Raphael, in June; (2) Netscott and Supadawg vs. Centrx in September; (3) Netscott vs Freakofnurture and Charlottewebb in September; (4) Netscott and me in February; and (5) Netscott and me in March. The common factor is Netscott, who seems to have WP:OWNership issues. >Radiant< 12:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If the first edit is an rv, what to? William M. Connolley 12:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

He's undone the work of redirecting WP:VOTE to Wikipedia:Straw polls. (Netscott) 12:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)