Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive43

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Urthogie reported by User:Mackan79 (Result:24 hours)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Allegations of Israeli apartheid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Urthogie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Prior version: 14:02, 2 April 2007 2nd Paragraph: "Most journalists..."

Comment Urthogie has been blocked for 3RR before, and was asked several days ago to stop extensive reverting on this page.[1] After discussion, I let it go, but Urthogie has refused to stop, and several editors are fed up.[2] I asked Urthogie to revert himself here[3] (and last time) but he has refused.[4] A good contributor at times, but needs to follow 3RR. --Mackan79 18:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

We are actually starting to make progress on the page, and the revert wars have stopped.--Urthogie 02:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Urthogie still doesn't seem to understand that he needs to wait for the discussion on the talk page to happen on these contentious articles before (re)making his many edits, nor that other editors are not comfortable negotiating with him through back-and-forth reversions. Progress or not, that remains the problem here, which is why I filed the report. Mackan79 03:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Hamsacharya dan reported by User:Watchtower Sentinel (Result:article deleted)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hamsacharya dan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):


Comments

Hamsacharya dan is a confirmed COI editor being an ordained preacher and the sole contact person in charge of media relations in the subject's organization (please see COI Archive 4 Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath). He has been blocked twice in the past for 3RR because of reverting the same article to his POV version block log. - Sentinel 09:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The reported user repeatedly removed the Afd notice from the article. — Athænara 20:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

In re strikeout: Sorry, lost track. The 03:28 edit removed the Afd notice with "interesting reaction … I wonder what you would do if I do this?" edit summary. — Æ. 22:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Though my edit summary was enigmatic, it was aimed at the fact that I was reverting the libelous claims of Watchtower Sentinel. Removal of the AfD tag was an accidental effect of reverting to a page without the AfD tag without carrying the tag over - a hasty error on my part. Why would I willingly remove a tag for an AfD that I voted to delete on? I wouldn't - it was a mistake! But I wont tolerate libel on wikipedia, and will go to whatever lengths necessary to prosecute such behavior. --Hamsacharya dan 04:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hamsacharya dan is a confirmed COI editor on the Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath article. A consensus has already been reached with regards to the present state of the article and anyone can read it at Talk:Yogiraj_Gurunath_Siddhanath. Hamsacharya dan, an ordained preacher and the sole contact person in charge of media relations in the subject's organization (proof of these facts can also be found at the discussion page of the article in question), has used every trick in the book to maintain this article, which was one hundred percent promotional before we managed to prune it to its present near NPOV version.
Hamsacharya dan has been blocked twice for 3RR and has a history of using at least two proxy servers as sockpuppets (User:128.195.163.203 and User:128.195.111.122) to push his personal agenda. His most recent "contributions" are 1. a revert of the article Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath to his preferred version, and 2. an entry at User:Athaenara's talk page threatening to prosecute. His edit summaries, that he cleverly described as "enigmatic", were actually meant to trick editors who are unfamiliar with the situation. Here are the edit summaries, you decide whether they are "enigmatic", as asserted by the confirmed COI editor, or just plain tricky:
  • "don't mind me, just testing something out...when is this thing slated for deletion?" - 20:56, 2 April 2007 Hamsacharya dan, then reverted the article to his preferred version
  • "interesting reaction W.S., I wonder what you would do if I do this?" - 03:28, 3 April 2007 Hamsacharya dan, then reverted the article to his preferred version
  • "sorry Athanaea and sorry W.S., you're both absolutely right. That was careless editing, not meant as vandalism...shoot...definitely didn't mean to do that!" - 06:14, 3 April 2007 Hamsacharya dan, then reverted the article AGAIN to his preferred version
This editor is taking us for fools.
There is actually an unresolved and meticulously-detailed RFC filed aginst this user in as far back as April 30, 2006 (Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Hamsacharya_dan), and though it involves 3 confirmed sockpuppets (taken as one person) it still has the endorsement of 3 other users in good standing namely User:Computerjoe, User:Priyanath, and myself) making the total number of endorsers 4. I respectfully submit this report to the concerned Administrator and/or System Operator with trust and optimism. Thank you in advance for looking into this matter. - Sentinel 09:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, it appears the article has been deleted because of an AfD discussion. Makes it hard for me to check diffs, though I could if necessary. Note, though, that there are only three reverts here; there need to be more than three for a 3RR vio. Also, I think it's fair to say the edit war has stopped, since the article itself is deleted now; therefore a block could hardly be considered preventative. Heimstern Läufer 15:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

User:The Behnam reported by User:Agha Nader (Result:24 hours)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on 300 (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The Behnam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments
A clear violation of WP:3RR, all the reverts are content-related and have been visibly marked as "rv" or revert. The user has been previously blocked for 3RR as well. --Agha Nader 22:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Response - I'd like to mention that the last one was a user called "John Dias" external linking to an article by "John Dias." I believe that should qualify as 'spam' and hence be a 'simple or blatant' vandalism that I was reverting. The Behnam 23:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

That users edit may have been bona fide. Furthermore the link was to an article about the film 300. They may just have the same name. Would it be fair to remove your edits if they linked to an article by someone named Behnam? We cannot be sure it was spam, and definitely not sure it was vandalism. Agha Nader 23:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
I don't feel like arguing with you again Nader. Much of your presence on WP, including your entry into WP, seems dedicated to opposing me on various fronts, and I don't feel like playing these games with you. I'll let the admin decide whether or not Johndias (talk · contribs) adding an external link to an article by "John Dias" seems like self-promotional spam. I don't give much credence to your far-fetched scenario (a different guy by the same name promoting that article) as I believe that based on the information available my edit is justified anyway. Cheers. The Behnam 23:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Please assume good faith, as you should have done with John Dias. Agha Nader 23:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
I have my reasons, but this isn't an RFC about you so I'll not elaborate here. Anyway, I don't know whether you have fought spam much on WP but self-promotion is a regular problem and often comes from users named after themselves or their companies. I believe my reversion was completely reasonable counter-spam and doesn't qualify for 3RR. I think any further elaboration will be repetitive and unnecessary, as I trust the admin's judgment on this one. The Behnam 00:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Please do not make ill-considered accusations, I am referring to your statement "Much of your presence on WP, including your entry into WP, seems dedicated to opposing me on various fronts".
Please read WP:SELFPUB. Self-published sources are not classified as spam. Further they are not totally banned, there are exceptions. This may be an exception since it is from a well known website. It is not from a "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs". Agha Nader 00:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
If you think it helps the article, you can try to re-add it. I'll try to be clearer. I removed it simply because it seemed like blatant spam, in that John Dias was promoting his own article and employer's website on WP. Hence, an anti-spam revert, not a content dispute. I'm not sure if it is worthwhile to argue further, so how about we just step back and let the admin decide? Cheers. The Behnam 00:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please look at User:The Behnam's edits? Not only he's been stalking me, making 3 reverts on pages I have edited to gain an advantage, he's clearly gaming 3RR as if he's entitled to 3 reverts on every page he edits. If you look at his history, you see reverts after reverts on every page he touches but stopping right at 3 reverts to avoid getting blocked. Is this acceptable behavior? ArmenianJoe 07:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I explained on my page, but you keep vandalizing my page to remove my response. Simply ridiculous. The Behnam 07:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
User ArmenianJoe, whose otherwise dormant account has suddenly become active today after two months inactivity [5], and who despite his short lifespan and less than 60 edits, already has been blocked twice [6], is very disruptive. Indeed, he is at the very least a meatpuppet, however, I do not doubt for a second that he is a sock puppet of one of the well-known sock puppeteers. adil 07:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Zachorious reported by User:FateClub (Result:No violation)[edit]

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

Comments
The article divides countries in regions with one being Eurasia, why do we include Europe if there will never be an European country in this list, so I changed id to "Asia", Zachorious reverted me with the argument of geologically being one region. I difer with the opinion so I changed it again with my response, then I was reverted. I was ready to give it up, and I wrote him a message, but then I realize that an anonymous user had made the same change (59.95.54.134) on March 31. Another user had made the same change weeks before or so (72.224.89.150). Other users have made similar changes (user:Avyfain) with same results... a revert. Please assist. --FateClub 02:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The reverts have to all be within a 24 hour period. These edits span a 2 month period. I don't even see 3 reverts in any 24 hour period. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Folken de Fanel reported by User:Sandpiper (Result:48 hours)[edit]

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

*6th revert:01:34 4 April 2007 (as 4th, reverted to version of 00:42) No, take that one back, it was reverting a vandal. Thought I had one too many Sandpiper)


Comments
That took a surprisingly long time to post. User has been warned previously about 3RR.
In fact, he was just blocked for it less than 2 weeks ago on the same article. I blocked him for 48H. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Mel Etitis reported by User:BozMo (Result:no action)[edit]

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

Comments
User:Mel Etitis & User:BozMo are both sysops. The first three reverts were identical, the fourth is not identical but includes reverts of the same material. I don't think the article is a particular issue but 4RR is aggressive editing.

I was reverting the unexplained removal (by the subject of the article) of material and the addition of unsourced claims and an advertisement for the subject's book-selling Website. I was under the impression that our policy was to provide sources, and not to allow people to place adverts on articles about themselves. Moreover, I explained the situation and the relevant policies at the Talk page; despite some extremely polarised messages there, and User:BozMo's deleting of another editor's comments on the dubious grounds that it was "slander", no-one gave cogent reasons for allowing this edit. I hadn't noticed that I'd reverted more than three times (they were separated for me by a great many other edits elsewhere), and would have refrained from reverting the final edit (which at least left out the peacockery and the advert) if I'd known. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The 1st and 4th reverts listed are only partial reverts. Not only that but changes to bios have to be sourced under the BLP guidelines. All I would ask, Mel, is that next time you site BLP when you do your reverts so it's clear that that's the reason. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell you only get an exemption from 3RR for BLP if you are "Reverting unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons". I read that as requiring it to be BOTH "unsourced or poorly sourced" AND "controversial". As pointed out in the edit summary and talk page the material Mel 4RRed was not contraversial. It may have been peacock or advertising but that doesn't give you an exemption. Also several phrases were identically reverted in amongst the larger revert. So I think still think it is a clear rule violation (but I am happy with the implied apology). --BozMo talk 10:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Well if you are happy with the apology, then I think any other discussion on this is moot. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
no action as apology seems to be accepted. Sysops should know better too-;)Rlevse 22:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

User:ArmenianJoe reported by User:Grandmaster (Result:24 hours)[edit]

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


Comments
This user has previously been blocked for 3RR. Grandmaster 07:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Just checked again, User:ArmenianJoe reverted himself [12], so not sure if it is still 3RR violation. Grandmaster 07:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Zagozagozago reported by User:CloudNine (Result:14h)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Red Hot Chili Peppers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zagozagozago (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments
  • This user has previously been blocked for 3RR on Stadium Arcadium. CloudNine 17:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Blocked for 14 hours. MiTfan3 also violated 3RR; as he/she had not been warned, I have chosen to give a warning rather than block. Heimstern Läufer 23:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Otto4711 reported by User:Scorpion0422 (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Matt Groening (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Otto4711 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments
User has previously been blocked for 3RR violations. -- Scorpion 17:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • A deviation from consensus is not in itself vandalism and, generally, is not exempt from 3RR. 24 hours. El_C 00:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:67.101.243.74 reported by User:Awiseman (Result:No action)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on User talk:67.101.243.74. 67.101.243.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments
  • 67.101.243.74 is a shared IP address. Initial reversions were part of an edit war in which this IP account (albeit with a different physical human being behind it than myself) requested mediation from two administrators based upon warnings from the edit war. It was established that both editors considered the warnings bogus and the administrators observed the rights of the editors to remove the warnings in their comments (see User talk:Robotman1974. Awiseman has added this IP to this list after disregarding comments and the aforementioned discussion by restoring those comments to the talk page (in a dispute in which he took no part), baiting this user at this IP to revert following previous reverts by other physical users. It should also be noted that a review of both Awiseman's and IP's contribution logs demonstrate and aggressive tendency on the part of Awiseman to moderate IP's edits. 67.101.243.74 18:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    I saw the comments, this is the last comment on Robotman1974's page:

Thus, there was some vandalism, and the anon (though maybe not this person who responded) made 4 reverts to the warnings, so I reported them. --AW 18:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Here is a more complete rendering of the discussion with emphasis added:
Please take the time to explain why you a reverting/edit warring with the IP over their contributions. Simply throwing wiki-jargon like "OR" at them isn't helpful (neither is edit warring). You too are close to violating the three-revert rule, so try something constructive and communicate with them. John Reaves (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
My response is here. Robotman1974 03:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm just pointing out that the other user has a right to remove warnings too and that communication is much better than warring. Sometimes a boilerplate template message doesn't have the same effect as a personal note. John Reaves (talk) 03:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course unsourced material can be removed, I'm just encouraging more communication. John Reaves (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
John makes some good points. Invalid warnings can be removed. Removal of valid warnings, well there's some disagreement there, but the written policy is that it's "frowned" upon and to me removal thereof looks suspicious. Anyway, some of the anon's edits were okay, but some were IMHO vandalism, certainly non proper encyclopedic terminology (like "ass", "balls", etc) and those could be removed without questions. If you get into an edit war, you also could be blocked. Try to use the talk page and if the other party violates 3RR (ie, a 4th revert), report to WP:ANI/3RR. Rlevse 09:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Awiseman has now added further warnings to the IP talk page and threatened blocking the IP - something a review of his aggressive editing of the IPs contributions will suggest he is interested in (dating to a conflict over the article for Georgetown University - a principal rival school of George Washington University which Awiseman's user page indicated he attends; and which he has continued removing content contributed by multiple other editors to the Georgetown article, minimizing Georgetown as much as possible). He has also now vandalized this IP's talk page by editing this editors own edits regarding the edit war with Robotman. I will refrain from further action there until this conflict may be resolved. I request that the reviewing admin note on my talk page how to seek a prohibitive action disallowing Awiseman from continuing to edit the talk page of the IP and/or the Georgetown article; an action for which I know a process is available, but I do not know how to begin it. 67.101.243.74 18:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I warned the user because they were removing warnings, using the tpv templates, and that's not vandalism. I do not attend George Washington University, and that has no bearing on this discussion. Here are the edits the IP user made which was why they were warned originally: [16], [17], [18]. To me, that's clear vandalism and warnings were valid. You can argue all you want, but the IP user made vandalistic edits, was warned, removed the warnings, and then I warned them for that. --AW 19:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I will let this be my last contribution to this discussion. I apologize if I was hasty in suggesting the user attended George Washington U.; in fact, his userpage indicates he is a "fan of George Washington University" sports teams and lives in Washington, DC, where the rivalry between the schools is pertinent. The fact remains that Awiseman has pursued repeated aggressive actions against edits contributed towards the promotion of Georgetown University. The warnings were for unsourced material and O.R., not vandalism, thus, the immediately previous argument is incorrect possibly with the intention to mislead the reviewing admin. The further fact remains that Awiseman baited this user at the IP into reverting a third time an issue that was seemingly resolved by two admins in which he was uninvolved and now vandalizing the IP's talk page by obscuring and editing within the edits of this user. It appears, IMHO, that Awiseman used the opportunity of the disagreement with Robotman1974 to pursue his desire to warn and/or block the IP. I ask again that the reviewing admin leave notice on my talk page of how I can request the prohibition(s) mentioned in my previous reply. 67.101.243.74 19:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The issue was not resolved by other users - the IP made edits like "Booty shorts are similar except shape the ass around so that a girl can attract her man to her ass better. These are especially popular in the hiphop community and other high societies." - that's not just unsourced, it's a joke. This wasn't resolved by other users, you just bolded the comments that helped your side. The other users also said that "some were IMHO vandalism, certainly non proper encyclopedic terminology (like "ass", "balls", etc) and those could be removed without questions." I'm tired of having to debate about this and looking forward to hearing from an admin. --AW 19:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Robotman here. Here's how I responded to the IP user's complaints:

The reverts in question are here, here and here. Each time I removed content that was entirely unsourced and to my view constituted original research. As far as I understand the policies at WP:ATT, WP:CITE and WP:OR, I was right to remove this content. As for the claims of edit warring, I hardly think these three reverts on this article can be called that. I need to ask John, do you really think my actions on this article amount to an edit war? If you don't, then please remove or strike out the statement you left on my talk page saying that I am edit warring. On to the issue of discussion with the user. The claim that I "will not respond to discussion page" is false. For the first revert, I left no message. For the second, I left the standard level 1 unsourced message. The user at 67.101.243.74 then left a level 1 deletion message on my talk page. I removed this warning as bogus because it is. To remove unsourced material and original research from an article is not a violation of policy, and is not a mistake or an action taken in bad faith. If you believe I shouldn't have removed this warning John, you're welcome to restore it to my talk page. The second message I left the IP user can be seen here, along with a restoration of the previous warning and a message not to remove legitimate warnings from talk pages. That was after I had removed the unsourced information (which now contained less text) for the third time. I don't believe any of this can be seriously called edit warring or refusal to communicate. If you think otherwise John, please let me know. I would also very much like to know if I have made any violations of Wikipedia policy in my actions. If so, and upon your request I can restore the bogus warning to my talk page, restore the unsourced material to the article or remove the warnings I left at User talk:67.101.243.74. Please let me know. Thanks. Robotman1974 03:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi John, thanks for the quick reply. Point taken on that. What about the other questions I asked though? Was I wrong to remove that content? I ask because I frequently remove unsourced statements and original research from articles while I go through my watchlist. Is this the wrong thing to do? Should I stop? Robotman1974 03:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI. The outcome of this is meaningless to me, as I've stopped trying to help stop Wikipedia's inevitable descent into irretrievable chaos. Best of luck with your project, and happy editing. 66.222.227.42 20:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm pleased Robotman1974 has added to this discussion. As before, the edit war was about unsourced and O.R. issues, not that they might also have been viewed as vandalism (although the admin who suggested that was careful to conclude that the language may have been "non proper encyclopedic terminology" rather than vandalism) and Awiseman baited users at this IP with the intention of starting this 3RR process. Awiseman was also completely disingenuous when he indicated he was not a George Washington University student (he states that he is an alum here:[19] and edits like [20] suggest, if he is actually an alum, he was a student as recently as the last academic year) seeking to better the image of G.W.U. at the expense of Georgetown (consider [21] and [22] in light of [23] and, completely unsourced, [24]), which, I contend, Awiseman's seeking punition against this IP -because Georgetown students edit from it- is really all about (Awiseman has previously sought conflict of interest mediation against editors based on that they made "edits, all of which relate to Georgetown University ... in a positive nature" see [25]; never availing himself of the same kind of conflict when countless times editing G.W.U. articles in a so-called "positive nature." 67.101.243.74 00:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Reverts cited involve removal of warnings, which while for ips may be seen as borderline, I'm inclined not to take action (unless new issues arise; if they do, please let me know). El_C 00:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok, thanks. And just in response to the IP's continued insinuations, the Georgetown case went to COI and was considered "likely," and I've actually taken more out of GWU than I've added, advertising for groups and such, and brought that to COI as well. But hopefully this matter is closed. --AW 17:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Miketm reported by User:evrik (Result:24 hours)[edit]

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


A diff of 3RR warning before this report was filed here.

Comments
  • 24 hours. El_C 00:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:BassxForte reported by User:Nique1287 (Result: 31 hours)[edit]

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

  • Previous version reverted to: [26]
  • 1st revert: [27]
  • 2nd revert: [28]
  • 3rd revert: [29]
  • 4th revert: [30]
Comments
Has been disruptive in the past on this issue (see Talk:Organization XIII#The Fight Against Roxas) and is currently being disruptive on the issue again (see User_talk:BassxForte#Organization_XIII.E2.80.8E and User_talk:Nique1287#Re:_Orginization_XIII for the discussion currently going on) Also, seems to think that writing the same thing instead of using the Edit or Undo feature quantifies not reverting.
  • 31 hours. El_C 00:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:192.147.67.12 reported by User:Khoikhoi (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Tabriz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 192.147.67.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments
  • 24 hours. El_C 23:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

User:John Smith's reported by User:Giovanni33 (Result: no action)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Mao: The Unknown Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). John Smith's (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • 1st revert: [31] 12:43, 4 April 2007
  • 2nd revert: [32] 18:12, 4 April 2007
  • 3rd revert: [33] 18:46, 4 April 2007
  • 4th revert: [34] 21:02, 4 April 2007
Comments

Probable Sockpuppety would make this 7 reverts total:

First User:John Smith's reverted three times, taking out a particular section that was added earlier by another editor[35]:

Then he declared he'll engage in a revert war[39]. And then an anon IP-editor appeared, taking out the same section that John Smith's kept taking out[40]. This anon IP has no other history. Even though a user check has been requested, here [41], my undestanding is that in cases were its very clear we one need not rely upon a user check to assume the obvious. In anycase, after the three confrimed reverts above (and 6 total reverts if we include the anon IP), he made a 4th revert while logged in.

When asked if he was the anon IP user he responded this way here: [42]

He is aware of the 3RR rule, warned repeatedly in the past, and has been blocked multiple times for this.

First of all the anon-user is in Hungary - how the hell am I supposed to use a sockpuppet that far away? So those three edits have nothing to do with me. Giovanni is making up stories to get me in trouble - he has made false reports about me in the past.
Second I have not reverted four times. I have reverted three times - the first revert is nothing of the sort - note that Giovanni has not indicated what it was I reverted to the first time. This is because he knows the first "revert" was nothing of the sort and is just trying to trick you. I made a series of edits to improve the page that had not been made before, so it cannot be a revert. John Smith's 23:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
No action. Page protected. --Deskana (ya rly) 23:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • 24 72 hours (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th; removes "highly"). Increasing block duration on account of hitherto 3RR breaches. El_C 23:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I've unblocked User:John Smith's, as I'd protected the page. Otherwise the block would be simply punitive, which is not what blocking is for. Of course El C didn't block as a punishment, but that's all it'd be if the page was also protected. --Deskana (ya rly) 00:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
      • In light of the user's past violations, I would have approached this differently, but I didn't notice this was alreayd being attended to, so I leave the case to Deskana's discretion. El_C 00:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree with protecting this page again, esp. when it has been protected and its just one user. Moreover, this one user has violated 3RR, and shows no signs of not stopping. So he should be blocked to prevent the edit waring. Protecting the page is not the right thing to do in this situation.

I just left this message to Deskana to ask him to reconsider, and to unprotect this page because what we have now is not in the best interests of this article. I don't think Deskana has followed the talk page discussions, and thus is making a mistake in protecting the page again, as well as unblocking the one person who is violating 3RR, again, causing this. As I wrote to Deskana:

"...protecting the page again is unnecessary. There is only one editor who is edit waring with everyone else, and he has been blocked. During the last page protection we discussed the issue at lenght, and there is not much more to discuss. We are only repeating ourselves. He simply thinks that edit waring is an acceptable way to get what he wants, and has pleged to continue. Everone else on both sides of the fence have agreed to include this passage and only John Smith persists in edit waring over it--one person.

I think the correct method is for him to be told he must abide by consensus, or seek a Rfc, etc--not to edit war. Its not fair to keep the whole article hostage with a protection just because of one user, getting his way by breaking the 3RR rule. So, in light of his block, there will be no more edit warring now--and if he comes back and continues he can be warned and blocked again. Edit waring is not allowed. I understand protecting a when there are two groups of people and there needs to be discussion taking place, but this is not one of those situations. The discussion has taken place over and over and its just this one user."

Thanks.Giovanni33 00:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, you should just drop this witch-hunt against me. We can actually discuss matters, rather than you insisting on having your way. As I have explained to El C in any case I did not break 3RR - the reverts he mentioned do not qualify. John Smith's 09:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I would urge for more moderate language, John Smith. Also, I've not been privy to any such expalantion, to the best of my recollection. El_C 09:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
El C, as I explained on your talk page I e-mailed you - I'm hoping to hear from you at your convenience. John Smith's 19:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick reported by User:Gibnews(Result:No action)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Gibraltar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [43]
  • 1st revert: [44]
  • 2nd revert: [45]
  • 3rd revert: [46]
Comments

I've invited him to discuss this but its unproductive, and he has removed the references to the UK FCO website which supports the original version.

It appears that we have apparently filed 3RR reports on each other simultaneously (see below). For the record the first edit I made was not a "revert", because I was changing something for the first time. I very conciously stopped after my 3rd revert, knowing that I had reached my 24 hour limit, although Gibnews proceeded to make 4. I'm also shocked to see the claim that I was "invited to discuss", because I posted on his talk page, and did not get a response until he'd reverted twice already. He then reverted again even after I had opened discussion on the matter on the talk page: he is still yet to contribute to the discussion there. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 23:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • 3RR must involve more than 3 reverts; no action. El_C 00:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Rarelibra reported by User:Pmanderson (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

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

  • Previous version reverted to: 14;32 April 4
  • 1st revert: 18:10
  • 2nd revert: 18:40
  • 3rd revert: 18:57
  • 4th revert: 21:52 (incomplete; did not revert link to Italian article, but completely reverted text at issue.)
  • 5th revert: 23:15
  • 6th revert: 23:32

Comment: I do think that this comment shows he needs to cool down. I've only edited the page three times myself (once intended to be an entirely novel solution), amd I think Ev should be cut some slack in dealing with this Revert Warrior. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • This is a confusing report, but I can see at least four more obvious reverts. 24 hours. El_C 00:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Gibnews reported by User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (Result:24 hours)[edit]

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

Comments
User refused to engage on his talk page when I posted there, and on the article talk page. Simply reverted it each time.
  • 24 hours. El_C 00:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Cs reported by KazakhPol (Result:24 hours No action)[edit]

3RR on East Turkestan Liberation Organization immediately following the end of a 3RR block on that page. KazakhPol 23:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [47]
  • 1st revert: [48]
  • 2nd revert: [49]
  • 3rd revert: [50]
  • 4th revert: [51]

Removes mention of "designated as a terrorist organization" in all four reversions. Also repeatedly changes militant to secessionist. I was blocked four a week for three reversions. I would expect some sort of administrative action on his four reverts. KazakhPol 23:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • 24 hours. El_C 00:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Unblocked with apologies. KazakhPol is reminded to date his diffs and that this must be recent. El_C 13:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:AKMask reported by User:Nssdfdsfds (Result:No action)[edit]

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

The article makes a number of claims that the software Kazaa contains damaging malware. Such claims are clearly highly contentious and should be well-supported. I removed these claims, asking for them to be well-cited. The claims have been disputed in the talk page of the article since April 2006, by someone called Unchained, who appears to represent Kazaa. My change was reverted three times with no sourcess less than 3 years old (there is no doubt Kazaa had *spyware* in the past, and currently is *advertising* supported, but the precise nature of the current nasties should be carefully referenced, not just tossed in).

AKMask reverted a fourth time in breach of 3RR. The source this time was slightly newer, based on this [52] report of March 2006, but clearly the article is not being maintained with due attention to sourcing, as the 2006 source lists 7 programs, but the article lists 9 (such as new.net).

Clearly my action in removing the highly contentious and legally dubious content was correct. The four reverts made are unhelpful and damaging. The content should be removed and rewritten more carefully (e.g., "a March 2006 review of Kazaa 3.0 showed that it contained the following programs that could be classed as spyware or adware: ...."). But we shouldn't leave content that is inaccurate and clearly damaging to Kazaa up in the mean time. Nssdfdsfds 00:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Response: 3RR does not apply when reverting vandalism. The user unilaterally removed an entire section despite it having sources. When these were deemed 'too old' by the user above, I then reverted to the previous version, adding a source for 2006. That Kazaa has spyware is not a radical claim, in deed it is one commonly accepted by computer users everywhere, and I was sourceing it. -Mask? 00:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to agree. HijackThis is a reliable source, as far as I'm concerened (and they do great work), so it seems questionable that section is removed and a {{fact}} tag is added. No action (unless very persuasive arguments are brought forth), but please, everyone, stop the edit warring. El_C 01:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Jiffypopmetaltop reported by User:IronDuke (Result: 12 hours)[edit]

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


  • 12 hours for first offence. El_C 01:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Comments
User has removed some or all of the Crown Heights section on four occasions, and from the Freddy's Fashion Mart section on one occasion, against two other users. Not a a new user, but has been warned on talk page [53]. IronDuke 01:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


User:Wedginator reported by User:Ronz (Result: 24hrs)[edit]

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

Comments
3RR on Mini-Z as well, but not warned yet.
  • Blocked for 24 hours. Crum375 04:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Alex Kov reported by User:128.227.51.157 (Result:8h)[edit]

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


Comments

This user is insisting that medieval refers to that timeframe all over the world rather than being confined to the what happened on the European content at the time (which is the consensus of Wikipedia, Websters, Brittanica, and Encarta). I made this known to the user and he claimed that all of these sources and Wikipedia are euro-centric. I also advised the user to discuss it on the Middle Ages page but the user insists on broadcasting their views on the main page. The editor has a history of edit warring and is likely not to let this go. 128.227.51.157 08:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Edits above are not reverts. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
How is it not reversion? The user kept on changing the article title unilaterally with consensus against him as can be seen on the talk page. 128.227.143.184 15:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Just a random passerby here: The edits above are reverts; very simple one- or two-change edits which all reinserted the same section title change. I can't see how they can be called anything other than reverts. Woohookitty must have been looking at the wrong links or something. RedSpruce 16:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, definitely reverts. The 3RR warninn came only after the fourth revert; however, the user had been warned not to edit war in the past. 8 hours. Heimstern Läufer 22:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:81.216.216.222 reported by User:RedSpruce (Result:no violation)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Alger Hiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 81.216.216.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Was warned on the Talk page with a link to WP:3RR and with quoted text from WP:3RR. Ignoring consensus of 4 other editors.

User:TDC reported by User:Hashaw (Result:self-reverted)[edit]

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

Ignoring consensus of other editors.

Ummm, thats not a 3RR pal. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note that as far as I have been able to determine TDC is under a one-revert-a-day-per-article probation - which appears to still be in effect? Any idea how many violations you've committed since then, and whether the block time should indeed be a year per article? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Listen, I honestly though my parole ended this month, it has been several month since I have reviewed the decision and mistakenly thought it was over as of the first of April. I will correct the Rv. After reviewing the decision again, I noticed that while both James and I are mentioned in the "Proposed remedies" only James' is listed under the "Proposed Enforcement". I realize that you have some "thing" for me, but this is really petty of you Ryan. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
No, edit warring is petty. I urge you to look at your elapsing probation not as license to engage in renewed edit warring and revert warring, but as a guideline for how to continue to conduct yourself (more 1RR than 3RR, more 'talk' page resolution). It's not petty and it's not personal to bring the community's attention to an existing ArbCom probation against your edit warring when you've been reported for 3RR. I'd also humbly suggest it's a lot more petty to wikilawyer around the dates and specific formatting of your probation, and leave it at that. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
TDC has self-reverted; no block unless edit warring continues. Heimstern Läufer 22:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Zachorious reported by User:FateClub (Result:no vio)[edit]

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

  • Previous version reverted to: [56]
  • 1st revert: [57] April 2
  • 2nd revert: [58] April 3
  • 3rd revert: [59] April 3
  • 4th revert: [60] April 4

User:Rebyid reported by User:Italiavivi (Result:18h)[edit]

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

Comments
This user is also referring to everyone else as "fascists" and "Obama staffers" on the article's Talk page. Italiavivi 00:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the page you will see that Italiavivi is the one who violated the rule. I put in a line that was cited from a valid source. And as you will see I even attempted to alter it to the satisfaction of others. But it was deleted 3 times by Italiavivi for no good reason. If you look at Italiavivi's edits on the Obama page you will see relentless censorship of anything that might reflect poorly on this candidate. I

I am actually glad this complaint was made. Hopefully you will take a look at the history of the Obama page and see how dissent has been utterly silenced to the point of even displacing or deleting controversial topics on the talk page(!). I used to the wikipedia was a place where differing voices could work together. But I see now that if enough people want to they can get together and silence a particular position.

If you don't beleive me just look at the Obama article. See how many things in that article might reflect poorly on him. Then look at how many proposals there were that were rejected by the same 3 or 4 users working together to keep that page "clean".

Dean1970 reported by William M. Connolley 10:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC) (Result: No violation)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on John Christy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dean1970 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • Previously warned but gave ambiguous reply: [61]

Can't see a 3RR offense here. The first item is the user's first edit on the page, apparently introducing new material, and William failed to provide the "previous version reverted to" link to show how it is a revert (quick browse through article history shows no indication it is one). Then there are two reverts, and a third edit that re-introduces similar but not identical material; thus we have something like two and a half reverts, not four. Fut.Perf. 10:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right. My apologies. Still I'm new here and can't be expected to know all the rules William M. Connolley 10:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
If you say that again, I'll send somebody to bite you. Fut.Perf. 11:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Um. Yeah. Nice try. :) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Beh-nam reported by User:Ruud Koot (Result: 24 h)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Muhammad_ibn_Mūsā_al-Khwārizmī (edit | talk | history |