Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive55

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Beh-nam reported by User:Khampalak (Result:no action)[edit]

Mohammed_Zahir_Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Beh-nam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [1]
  • 1st revert: [2]
  • 2nd revert: [3]
  • 3rd revert: [4]
  • 4th revert: [5]
  • 5th revert: [6]

Several editors have tried engaging User:Beh-nam with regards to controversial edits that the user continues to make. Our edits have been reverted time and time again, despite efforts to engage the user. The user's activities go far beyond this article and are becoming extremely problematic for the vast majority of editors working on this and related articles.

Article Discussion Page: [7] User:Beh-nam Talk Page: [8]

Entering another piece for my argument. This is a comment left on my talk page by the user in question. It should help paint a picture of the motivations behind what I and others see as inappropriate behavior if not vandalism.

My Talk: [9]


This user was repeatedly removing sourced material and I told him several times to stop removing sourced material. Removing sourced material is strictly considered vandalism and vandalism may be removed without the 3RR violation. So this 3RR violation is not valid since it was removing repeated vandalism. --Behnam 19:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, user:Khampalak has been removing this source repeadtly. Take a look at these 4 reverts from him. If a user is removing sourced info it is vandalism and leaves others no choice but to rv it again until they understand that sourced info cannot be removed. Here are his reverts of sourced material:

--Behnam 20:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

  • no action - its historical now. Spartaz Humbug! 19:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

-- Lexie Kaye From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Revision history

  • User continues to delete majority of article and provide incorrect information and web sites listed! It's vandalism and bad common sense. Here is the page compared [14]

User has been addressed several times about this page and other pages and ignores the comments by other editors. Chuck Sirloin continues to edit and delete and provide incorrect information.

  • 1st revert:(cur) (last) 00:37, 16 August 2007 Chuck Sirloin (Talk | contribs) (1,351 bytes) (major re-write to keep in line with WP:BLP, see talk page, added refs) (undo)
  • 2nd revert:(cur) (last) 00:38, 16 August 2007 Chuck Sirloin (Talk | contribs) m (1,347 bytes) (fix ref) (undo)
  • 3rd revert(cur) (last) 00:41, 16 August 2007 Chuck Sirloin (Talk | contribs) (1,554 bytes) (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lexie Kaye. using TW) (undo)
  • 4th revert(cur) (last) 15:06, 17 August 2007 Chuck Sirloin (Talk | contribs) (1,554 bytes) (rm unsource info, see WP:BLP if you are confused about biographies of living people rules) (undo)
  • 5ht revert(cur) (last) 15:46, 17 August 2007 Chuck Sirloin (Talk | contribs) (1,839 bytes) (again, removed unsourced information, added new line with source. See talk page.) (undo)
  • 6th revert(cur) (last) 15:55, 17 August 2007 Chuck Sirloin (Talk | contribs) (1,839 bytes) (rv unsourced info) (undo)

User:Brickoceanmonth reported by User:Rjecina (Result: Indefinite - sockpuppet)[edit]

Demographic history of Bačka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Brickoceanmonth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverts:

4 times today he has deleted statement in article which is confirmed with internet source without any known reasons. In all his reverts he has deleted statement: "In 1948, after Yugoslav/Serbian ethnic cleansing [3] Yugoslav Bačka had a population of 807,122, including". This user is without question somebody sockpuppet because he has become "new" member of wiki only today and in this 13 hours he has started 3 revert wars. During this short time he has broken 3RR rule in another article (Vlach language in Central Serbia)

User:Brickoceanmonth reported by User:TodorBozhinov (Result:blocked sock)[edit]

Template:Ethnic groups in Bulgaria (edit | [[Talk:Template:Ethnic groups in Bulgaria|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Brickoceanmonth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait WP:RCU and stop with your accusations please.--Brickoceanmonth 20:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

User:218.133.184.93 reported by User:Arthur_Rubin (Result:48 hours)[edit]

Copeland–Erdős constant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 218.133.184.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

  • (I can't find the exact version; but all of these are to the same version; even if the first one isn't a revert, the rest are)
  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Comment
There have been at least 4 more reverts. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • blocked 48 hours by luna santin Spartaz Humbug! 19:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Str1977 reported by User:MichaelCPrice (Result:No Violation)[edit]

Ebionites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Str1977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Reverts:

User insists on using misleading modern descriptions, and deletes others passages in entirety, despite talk page dialogue. Removes all references to Ebionite schism with "Pauline Christianity", which defined Ebionite movement, rendering article meaningless.

  • Comment It should be noted that the History section of the Ebionites article is being reworked by several editors in an attempt to make it more concise and remove some editorial commentary. Several of these supposed reverts were done in the normal course of editing for clarity, rather than the tit-for-tat dispute that is being implied. The complainer has a history of trying to provoke other editors into 3RR, and he is trying to get payback for a recent 3RR block on another article. Ovadyah 03:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment:Let me weigh in on the reverts reported. I can see only three actual reverts:
    • the 1st, 4th and 6th revert who all refer to the same passage revolving around the appropriateness of the terms "Pauline Christianity" and "Catholic Church".
    • However the 5th does not refer to that passage (as implied by the reporting editor) but to another passage that also include the word "Pauline Christianity". It is no revert at all but a content edit independent of any previous edits by another.
    • the 2nd and the 3rd are content edits too and as far as they concern totally different passages to the above should not be counted separately
    • Regarding the 2nd one should also take into account that it was partially self-reverted a few moments later by this edit
    • Finally, I am a bit confused about the times given above. My Wikipedia gives different dates for all these edits. Can anyone explain? Str1977 (talk) 09:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I did not imply the 5th revert was from the same passage as the 1st, 4th and 6th -- quite the reverse since only the 1st, 4th and 6th were identified as the same. But the 3RR applies to all changes to an article, so this is irrelevant, hence the inclusion of the 2nd and 3rd as well. I agree the 2nd revert was partially reverted - but only partially. As for the times, they look fine to me, but my PC is on UK summer time, not GMT -- are the display times off by an hour? If so it should only be a relative shift and not affect any 3RR claim. --Michael C. Price talk 09:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, one hour. I did not say that they affect the issue, just that I was confused about this. You should adjust your settings.
IMHO my edits are not reverts but pretty standard (though heated) edits in a conflicted article (I will not count the "reverts" on Michael's parts) - true, reverts are not restricted to one part of the article but if one revert and another concern unrelated passages they are usually considered one revert. Str1977 (talk) 10:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing any kind of revert war here - no violation Spartaz Humbug! 19:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User:RookZERO reported by User:Exactends (Result:page protected / 48-hour block)[edit]

Eurabia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RookZERO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactends 00:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I protected the page for 3 days - please use the article talk page to resolve the issue of the links. Spartaz Humbug! 19:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I blocked that editor earlier for edit warring on three other articles - Alison 04:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • comment, I must say this is a gross miscarriage of justice. While not officially proven just yet, Rook, like a lot us today, spent a great deal of time fighting rolling ip socks of permabanned User:His excellency. Given that you are allowed to infinitely revert banned users and their ip socks, I advocate for Rooks release from exile until The ip's are identified. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 04:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Rook was blocked for 4RR and WP:NPA on a completely different subject today. Got on him for reporting Exactends though. Misou 07:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User:BIGCANDICEFAN reported by User:Bastun (Result:Final Warning)[edit]

Dave_Finlay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BIGCANDICEFAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: 22:59
  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: 00:03 (BIGCANDICEFAN then removed it).

User continually removing Dave Finlay's ring nicknmaes - claims they don't exist. I gave him a link to google searches demonstrating how common they were. Another user also restored and inserted references to their use. These were also reverted. Yet another user also stated they were common knowledge. BIGCANDICEFAN denies this. He then stated "No those links are as useless as those nicknames and those nicknames are not on WWE.COM I practicly live there so no it's not on there." on the talk page. I gave him a direct link on the talk page to their use on WWE - he reverted again. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 00:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Given how new this user is, I have settled for a final warning. Next time will be a block. Spartaz Humbug! 19:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User:W. Frank reported by User:Domer48 (Result:12 hours)[edit]

Gerry Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). W. Frank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)



  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

User:220.253.45.202 reported by User:LuckyLouie (Result: Not handled)[edit]

Ghost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 220.253.45.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [19]
  • 1st revert: [20]
  • 2nd revert: [21]
  • 3rd revert (possible sockpuppet): [22]
  • 4th revert: [23]
  • 5th revert: [24]

Notice of possible 3RR: [25]

User:Misou reported by User:Foobaz and User:AndroidCat[26] (Result: Not handled)[edit]

Scientology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Misou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Hi. The so-called reverts up there are - no surprise to me though, knowing the two guys reporting me - fake, as they do not cover the same area, same topic nor same content. BTW, on this earlier story it was me reporting RookZERO for 4RR and WP:NPA violations (got blocked 48hrs), see here.
Anyway, see talk page. We went in "negotiations" of the controversial changes and left the revert game. The sockpuppet lie is regularly used to get unbriefed Admins to shoot me. If you really want to dive into this subject, check this here. Misou 07:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
"…no surprise to me though, knowing the two guys reporting me"?! Way to violate WP:AGF and WP:NPA in one fell swoop. I'm reporting you because you went far beyond your allowed 3 reverts and are preventing attempts to improve the article, not because i have some personal vendetta. I have stuck up for you before, and look forward to doing the same in the future. The catch is, you have to make edits that i and your other peers can work with. Foobaz·o< 20:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Listen, if I am making edits and someone comes along and reverts them without comment, refusing to use the talk page and then calling my edits "cult" edits, I am not ok with this. You have not shown any impartiality in the last months - to the contrary - and I have not seen you taking a stand against WP:NPAs against Scientologists. So I don't really care what you have to say to justify your behavior. The reverts you listed are a) not on the same subject, b) not on the same part of the article and c) reverts of pure POV pushing. That is what you support. I am not out for "fight" or some nonsense like this. I want neutral and correct encyclopedic articles. Show me that we are on the same page and we can stop wasting time here. Misou 01:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." In many edit wars, including this one, both sides are convinced that their version is the right version. You don't get a free pass to violate WP:3RR because you disagree with the content of people's edits. None of the other editors involved broke three reverts. Foobaz·o< 01:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Cool, you are trying to apply Wikipedia policy. Keep it that way, this is great! Misou 05:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
PS, RookZERO was blocked for 48hrs, keep looking. Misou 05:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

User:212.182.158.110 reported by User:Dynaflow (Result: Not handled)[edit]

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 212.182.158.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: 14:34, 12 August 2007 (1st revert was a scaled down version of the change added with the last edit here, which was reverted by another user per the discussion on the Talk page. After the first revert, I could AGF, but the rest of the reversions blew that away. If necessary, consider the first revert as the initial version. This is not a strict 24h 3RR, but should be blockable as a disruption from a user who has shown a willingness to edit war.)
  • 1st revert: [27]
  • 2nd revert: [28]
  • 3rd revert: [29]
  • 4th revert: [30] (poss. meat- or sockpuppet)
  • 5th revert: [31]
  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [32]


Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) reported by User:Tbeatty (Result:2 weeks)[edit]

Now normally this wouldn't be a technical violation yet here User:Giovanni33 acknowledges he understands 3RR policy, that he is edit warring, and that he was recruiting for more editors to continue his edit warring reversions so that he is not in technical violation. [33][34]. This is blatant Gaming the System violation of 3RR. --Tbeatty 03:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


Also, he's gamed the system before according to his extensive block log [35]. Most recently, gaming it on June 28, 2007 with a 24 hour, 30 minute revert. --Tbeatty 03:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Giovanni has a long history of edit warring and has been told many times to stop. I'm blocking for two weeks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Flavius Belisarius reported by User:Vonones (Result: Blocked 24h)[edit]

Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Flavius Belisarius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The personal attacks are to be noted too. --Vonones 03:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Blocked 24 hours. --Golbez 08:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User:DigiFilmMaker reported by User:Girolamo Savonarola (Result: Not handled)[edit]

Red Digital Cinema Camera Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DigiFilmMaker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

    • Several {{spam}} warnings were placed on the user page and blanked by the user. (See user talk page history.)
  • Diff of 3RR warning: made by an anonymous editor

Also suspected sock-puppet account: James8445 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Account behavior between two accounts is very contemporaneous, edits are nearly identical, as are edit summaries. No other substantial edits by either account. Girolamo Savonarola 22:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • No diffs, Please rectify if you want anyone to review this. Spartaz Humbug! 10:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Addressed above. Girolamo Savonarola 22:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User:VitasV reported by User:Dr.Who (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Doctor Who story chronology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). VitasV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Even though other users have repeatedly told User:VitasV that he is making an incorrect change to the title of the Doctor Who movie, he just keeps changing it to the wrong name.

  • Not a brand new user. This user has been getting warnings since March about civility, edit warring, and blanking content, particularly with regard to that same webpage, but deletes warnings from talk page. [40]

Immediately after a specific 3RR warning, User:VitasV reverted again:

Reported by Dr.Who.

User:Dilip rajeev reported by User:PCPP (Result: Not handled)[edit]

Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dilip rajeev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Dilip has repeatedly reverted Ohconfucius's and my edits on Falun Gong and Persecution of Falun Gong, reverting entire pages and notices over a few disputed words within two days. He also called me a vandal, and a sock of User:Samuel Luo and threatened me with a user check [49]. He has previously violated 3RR a little over a year ago [50]--PCPP 08:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User:AquariusBoy01 reported by User:Art_281 (Result: appears to have been resolved)[edit]

This user made created the following article Milena Roucka in which his version of the article had run-on sentences, fragments and no references. So I edited with more detailed stuff and with references but he keeps on reverting it saying that he "OWNS THE ARTICLE". I told him that I just added more detailed stuff with references and the article looks better with references and detailed parts, but he keeps on reverting it. I do not know what to do, I am doing what I am supposed to do and please warn him or something. Thanks!

Milena Roucka (model) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). AquariusBoy01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

  • We worked it out.

User:BigDunc reported by User:Conypiece (Result:Page protected)[edit]

Birmingham pub bombings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BigDunc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment BigDunc is not a new user. He seems to be well aware of Wiki guidelines. However he has become too attached to the article in question. He has edited/reverted 3 individual editors contributions to the article in the last 12 hours. He has previously been warned from edit warring. [55]

  • page protected to be even-handed given W Frank's on going disruptive editing of Irish Republican articles. Spartaz Humbug! 22:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


User:Cz mike reported by User:Isarig (Result:24 hours)[edit]

Coastal Road massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Cz mike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [56]

User is involved in a additional edit wars and additional 3RR violations at Dalal Mughrabi and at Baruch Goldstein.

I was just about to report this user myself. They are edit-warring over a number of related entries, and while they are a new user, a warning was issued. TewfikTalk 23:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Please note the user continues to revert, the last 2 reverts (5 & 6) coming after the 3RR was filed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isarig (talkcontribs)
Also coming to alert that the disruption is ongoing, and so any action should be taken sooner rather than later. TewfikTalk 23:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User:209.171.84.178 reported by User:TerriersFan (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

TAXI (advertising agency) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 209.171.84.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Blocked for 24 hours. If other IP's become a problem, let me know or go to WP:RFPP for semi-protection. MastCell Talk 22:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Burgas00 reported by User:Isarig (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Battle of Jenin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Burgas00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported:

  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: 20:16, 15 August 2007 not a new user, but warned nonetheless, and responded by denying he violated 3RR, and removing the warning.
Comment The user in question had this as a response to a uw-test warning I gave him after the second revert [57] Kyaa the Catlord 22:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Blocked for 48 hours, given 3RR violation, prior history documented in block log and personal attacks. MastCell Talk 22:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Funkynusayri reported by User:Egyegy (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Middle East (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Funkynusayri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: 21:41
  • Not the first time that this user breaks 3rr or the first time he has been warned by an admin [58] and other users about this particular deletion. Also keeps calling other editors names, even though they've never insulted him. Egyegy 22:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Nospam3333 reported by User:Oli Filth (Result: Blocked 24 Hours)[edit]

Clyde N. Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nospam3333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Art 281 reported by User:AquariusBoy01 (Result:No action)[edit]

He keeps reverting that Torrie Wilson's moves section taking away ":*Running tornado DDT (2003-04)

I am not reverting it, I haven't revert it, I have been to the "Edit this page" I have never revert it, see the history. Art 281 00:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

User:AquariusBoy01 reported by User:Art_281 (Result: No action)[edit]

He keeps on putting on her article "Tornado DDT" and that move hasn't been used since 3 years ago, and even though it has the time in it, it's too old to put the move.

Torrie Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). AquariusBoy01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Neither of these requests were handled properly, going to see if they can work it out before they both get blocked CitiCat 06:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Jmfangio reported by User:Ksy92003 (Result: No Action)[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Chrisjnelson (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Chrisjnelson|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jmfangio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

  • This user has previously violated WP:3RR and been blocked for WP:3RR twice in the past week (Friday and Tuesday)
  • Same issue we had then too - You have adjusted comments. I had removed a comment within seconds of posting it. You then reinserted it so you could reply. As you should be well versed on WP:TPG from our previous "interactions", and as this is a talk page and not an article - i'm going to continue to remove my comments that you reinsert to continue a discussion i don't want to have any more. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  09:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Does not appear that the relevant edit was even included - here it is. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  09:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
You need to realize, Jmfangio, that I typed my comment in response to your comment. Whether you removed it or not, my comment was still in response to yours. The value of my comment was lessened due to the removal of yours. Because I posted my comment, it needs to be visible what the reason for me leaving that comment was. By removing your comment, my comment doesn't make as much sense. I even came up with a compromise, striking out your comment, perfectly acceptable per WP:TPG, and that didn't satisfy you either. The comment that I was replying to needs to be visible so people reading that discussion can see why I said it.
And I seem to remember last night, Chrisjnelson left a comment here, but then deleted it because he wanted to. You restored it, and do you remember what your edit summary was? "This needs to be seen." Whether you said something and retracted it or not, you still said it, and I still responded to it. I did the same thing to your comment that you did to Chrisjnelson's comment, which was perfectly acceptable by your standards. Now, when it's done to one of your comments, it's illegal? Ksy92003(talk) 09:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • No action. Seriously guys does it really matter? Just leave the page at whatever state it is in now and go and find something useful to do. Spartaz Humbug! 09:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Would love to Spartaz, I've been clamoring for this editor (and another editor) to stop engaging me on all talk pages except Template talk:Infobox NFLactive. No luck. I was blocked last night because I was protecting similar situations. Thanks for your understanding, As this has been responded to, I'm going to unwatch the page. LMK if you need any more information Spartaz and i will provide it to you. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  09:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
So being blocked depends on whether it per