Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive56

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Alans1977 reported by User:Hornplease (Result: Warning)[edit]

Socialist Alternative (Australia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Alans1977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


Not a new user, apparently. Unwilling to use the talkpage, although I have indicated, including in edit summaries, that I await discussion. Hornplease 21:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well he's not a new user, but he's never been warned for 3 revert rule. I'm not going to act on this one, but I just wanted to point that out. We can't assume that people know about the 3RR. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
He has not been warned about the 3RR; I have warned the editor accordingly. -- tariqabjotu 17:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Vonones reported by User:Caligvla (Result: No violation )[edit]

Very nice try but that was only 3 reverts I asked you to use the talk but you ignored it. --Vonones 23:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
As he said, only 3 reverts. --Haemo 01:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Egyegy reported by User:Tiamut (Result: 5 days (Eg), 5 days (Ti))[edit]

Arab diaspora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Egyegy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

After deleting the word "Egyptian" twice: [5] [6], Egyegy proceeded to enter the same sentence four times:

Egyegy has never edited this article before today. His first edit there came half an hour after I made an unrelated edit adding an external link. Over the past couple of days, we have been having a bit of personal dispute over comments he made at the Arab talk page and comments I made at his talk page.

  • Diffs of 3RR warning: [7]

[8]

  • Egyegy's response:

[9]

Tiamut went on an edit warring campaign today to basically revert any and all of my edits [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. Notice that I didn't revert Tiamut when she added something [16] and didn't restore the footnote I added to the other page when she deleted it [17], but she has done nothing but revert me. My first edit on that page was a revert of an anonymous [18]. My fourth edit in the link she says is a revert was me trying to rewrite the sentence because of her repeated edit warring. Tiamat was let off the hook from a week block for edit warring/3rr, but obviously that meant nothing. And we most surely have NOT been having a "personal" dispute, I couldn't care less what Tiamut does with her time on Wikipedia. However, she's been harassing me on my talk page for the last 2 days which only escalated with her editwarring/revert campaign today. I'm sure this is meant to get me blocked on purpose. I warned her about gaming the system. Egyegy 02:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Examination of the diffs Egyegy has provided will show that I tried to accommodate some of what he inserted, despite my belief that it is WP:UNDUE and unrelated to the article at hand. Egyegy seems to have wikistalked me to Arab diaspora. Note that his first edit there ever follows my own edit at the Arab article by one minute. Egyegy's attitude above is combative, as have been his general comments towards me which can be seen on my talk page or his. I asked him to leave me alone only yesterday, only to have him follow me around today (Check his contribs - besides one other article, all he did today was edit at two pages I edited at, and my own and his talk pages). My own most recent block for 3RR was filed by Isarig (talk · contribs), who has recently been topic-banned for edit-warring for 6 months. The block against me was lifted by the admin who placed it after one day (see archive 2 on my talk page for more on that). I don't believe this to be relevant here at all, but since Egyegy raised the subject I thought it deserved a response. Tiamut 02:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
It's relevant because of the unbelievable amount of edit warring that you instigate on Wikipedia. If anything I think you should be topic-banned yourself. And your wikistalking charge is just as frivolous as your report. It's comical that you asked me to leave you alone when you posted harassing messages on my talk page to start. I never even responded to anything you said on the Arab page, which I've been editing for centuries. I can see that might be tough on the ego, and the fact that I couldn't care less about the Palestinian topic either, but if you weren't so obsessive in pushing your nationalist pov toward Egyptians in the last couple of days, and let's not forget this time [19], I wouldn't know you even exist. Egyegy 02:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry Egyegy, but your comment is internally contradictory. On the one hand, you claim that I "instigate" an "unbelievable amount of edit warring" and that I should be "topic-banned", while on the other hand, you claim that your interaction with me is extremely limited. Further, the animosity in your comments, presented with little in the way of evidence that supports the claims made, belies your earlier claim that we have no personal dispute. We most obviously do. Anyone can see that from our talk pages. So please, let's try to stick to the issue here. I warned you about 3RR before the fourth revert [20] and after you made the fourth revert anyway, I asked you to self-revert to avoid having to make a formal 3RR report [21]. You scoffed at my request [22]. And now we are here. I realize that you might be upset because of our interactions yesterday, but that doesn't excuse continuing violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF (which I have also reminded you of on your talk page more than once). Tiamut 02:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
No, it just means I don't need to be a psychic to notice something clear as day. The comments on your talk page when I responded to your attack are obviously more than enough. By the way, when you're off the soapbox, I hope you actually realize that continuing to game the system like you're doing now is not actually helping you. Egyegy 02:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
What evidence do have that I'm "gaming the system"? (ie. Where is your evidence that I am making anything close to just under 3 reverts in 24 hours?) I just checked your block log and you have been blocked for 3RR four times in the last six months. This will be your fifth violation, an average of almost one 3RR violation per month, and you feel comfortable throwing accusations at me, based on some comments on my talk page? Could this be an attempt at deflection? Tiamut 03:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Uhuh, three times in row by the same admin who I reported [23] (I didn't violate 3rr in those). I love the the irony when all of these things come together, same things involved every time. Also your life might revolve around this 24/7 [24], but it doesn't mine. Have a nice time wasting someone else's time. Egyegy 03:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I blocked both editors for five days; they were both edit warring on this article and they both have been blocked for 3RR multiple times before. -- tariqabjotu 18:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Prester John reported by User:Lester2 (Result: no 3RR violation, no block, warning to Lester, Brendan and Prester )[edit]

John Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Prester John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

  • This is not a technical 3RR. It's about edit wars with various other editors over the same piece of information. There have been a total of 3 reverts in the past 24 hours. However, there is a history of reverting this same information from the same article.

User:Prester John's edit summaries always say "consensus" when none has been found. User:Prester John was previously blocked on 13 August (see Block Log) for edit warring on this same John Howard article, however since being unblocked he continues to edit war over the same information .

The information that User:Prester John continually reverts is about acquiring plantations in New Guinea.

Previous reverts of the same information

My most recent warning to User:Prester John:

Other annoyed users have also since warned him:

While not technically 3RR, this history of disruptive reverting (after being unblocked the previous time) is annoying many other editors. I feel a block is the only way to stop the edit waring.

  • Comment. I support the request. This user barely participates in the talkpage discussion, instead preferring revert-baiting and wikilawyering. When he does make comment (on talkpage or Edit summaries), they are often snide, irrelevant and/or false. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 07:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I haven't looked through all of your diffs, but if it really isn't a 3RR violation, it shouldn't be brought up on this page. Next time around, please report this sort of disruptive editing to WP:AN/I, the administrator's noticeboard for 'incidents' in genera. You Can't Review Me!!! 07:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment; Yes please look through the nominators history on this article and his block log record. This nomination is in such bad faith it should be grounds for User:Lester2's indefinite blocking from wikipedia. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 07:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC). Also I must say the amazing hypocrisy shown by User:Brendan.lloyd in his comment is quite astounding given he has made three reverts in even LESS time and his contributions to the talkpage include gems such as this Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 07:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: This warning is just an example of Lester2 engaging in a bit of gaming. I applied level 1 "friendly" warnings to all the above (ie/ Lester, Brenden, Skyring and Prester John) to help them remind them to disengage a little bit. I note that Brendan.lloyd rather than taking it on board has chosen to start ramping up the personal attack quota a bit on the talkpage of John Howard. Examining their block logs show that there is a lot of WP:POT going on. Shot info 07:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Shot info ought not accuse people of "ramping up the personal attack quota" when he/she makes insinuations on the same talkpage about other editors' motivations. Prester's history is similar and he has been doing it for a very long time. His userpage seems to indicate he is proud of it. WP:POT indeed. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 07:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment User:Prester John established the 2RR precedent some time ago. He's made numerous requests for others to be blocked for 2RR, and sometimes he's been successful in getting other people blocked for 2RR on this board. The latest attempt is still at the top of this page, where he argues for someone else to be blocked for 2RR. Three reasons why User:Prester John should receive a penalty are because of repeated reverts over a period of time on the same line of text, his previous bans for edit waring on the same page, and his success in having others blocked for 2RR (because they are edit waring) on this board. His success in banning others for the same 2RR offense should be applied equally to all parties. Thanks, --Lester2 10:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Actually, here Prester John tried to have me blocked for 3RR. The adjudicator not only found his claims about me mistaken, but identified that Prester John himself was in breach of 3RR. Despite this, the adjudicator protected the article instead of blocking Prester John. Yet in a later 3RR report by Prester John against me, despite the same circumstances (ie. Prester John performing a non-consensual revert, initiating an edit war, and misrepresenting my original edit as a revert), he succeeded in having me blocked for 24hrs. This wilful negative behaviour, contrary to the best interests of encyclopedia building, ought not be overlooked. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 14:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • This is not a 3RR and I'm not going to block anyone, but I am going to tell you lot (Prester, Lester and Brendan) that if you keep this up, I'm going to block the lot of you for your disruption. I concur with User:Shot info, Lester, that you're trying to game the system, and if Prester is blocked, then you have to be blocked as well because your editing of the article is equally disruptive, if not more so because you are trying to force information that you have failed to gain consensus to include. You lot all need to stop playing games, stop trying to manipulate administrators and stop edit warring. This is the last warning you're going to get, if you continue in this vein, you'll all (Lester, Brendan and Prester) be blocked for your disruption. Sarah 15:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I need clarification as to what I did to "force information", as I have no idea. I need clarification as to what I am doing to "game the system". I'm not asking for a second berating, but I really don't understand these criticisms. Lester2 07:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
You and Brendan are trying to force information by doing things like this and this when you know full well there is no consensus for that material to be in the article. You and Brendan are playing games by edit warring with Prester and then coming here to ask for him to be blocked when you're both just as guilty, but you both forgot to explain that bit in your complaints, didn't you? Seriously, there are lots of administrators watching these articles now and any one of them will step in and block the lot of you if you keep this up. Sarah 09:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Sarah, that was a single revert I performed. I don't believe I made any others in that time frame. The reason I posted this 2RR notice against Prester was because you blocked me a month ago for 2RR after Prester's complaint on this same board. The precedent was set back then. I wouldn't have normally posted any 2RR complaint, but for Prester having others blocked for that offense, while continuing himself. I'm staying out of this edit war, Prester continues, and I get the brunt of the warnings. All I want is for all sides to be treated the same way.Lester2 12:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
First of all, Prester didn't report you for 2RR; he reported you for 3RR. All sides are treated fairly. Last time I blocked all parties who were editing warring, including the complainant, and I'm warning now that the same thing will happen again. Is that really what you want? You might be right that that was your only revert that day (I haven't examined each individual edit), but you and Brendan have been tag-teaming Prester when you know full well that there is no consensus for the material you want to include. Instead of continuing in this vein, I recommend that the three of you go back to the talk page and not re-add that material until you've reached a consensus with the other editors. Sarah 01:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Sarah, can you please clarify how you formed the view that consensus was absent? Between the two sections on the Howard talkpage about the copra plantation fact, a greater number of editors expressed support for at least minimal inclusion of that fact. What should consensus minimally look like, in your view or according to policy, before the inclusion of a fact can be justified? Please also keep in mind the perceptions of non-neutrality and conflict of interest that arise when you, as an admin user, adjudicate on a matter relating to contentious edits, about the content of which you have taken a particular side in the talkpage discussion, as an editor. Lastly, if you're going to allege tag-teaming, please be even-handed and look at the coincident activities of Prester and Skyring, lest the aforementioned undesirable perceptions be exacerbated. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 12:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Jtummolo reported by User:Leuko (Result: 24 hours )[edit]

List of social networking websites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jtummolo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Diff of 3RR warning: 12:58
24 hours. --Haemo 20:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Bolekpolivka reported by User:Darwinek (Result: 24 hours )[edit]

{{Jeseník District}}. Bolekpolivka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

24 hours. --Haemo 20:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


User:Opinoso reported by User:Dalillama (Result: 72 hours)[edit]

Brazil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Opinoso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:34, 7 September 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.

Notes

  • This user was reverted by two separate editors, and was warned before breaking the rule.
  • User has also labeled legitimate content dispute reverts as "rvv" and "Vandal user erased it", violating WP:AGF.
  • Opinoso launched WP:SKILL personal attacks against one of the other reverting editors (here).
  • Has been blocked before for violation of the 3RR and stopped short of breaking again after being warned several times in the recent past: here, here and here.

Note: This is a plan to make me be bloked. This user does not have good faith. Just read this page, please: [25]Opinoso 04:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Opinoso 04:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - There has been a heavy edit war going on in this article involving both Opinoso above and João Felipe C.S, Opinoso did break the 3RR just now but to be fair João Felipe C.S broke the 3RR hours ago when he edit warred with another user over an image, [26][27][28][29] perhaps the best solution here is to protect the page temporaly. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I've been told, traditionally one doesn't protect the page if there are several editors (in addition to the warring editors) working on the page, which is the case. I'd rather see individual users blocked than a whole page protected because of two editors. We've been here before, with the same users, on the same page, over the same issue of pictures. I guess I should take the fact that it's a different picture this time as some form of progress.--Dali-Llama 05:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • 72 hours Spartaz Humbug! 18:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • 31 hours for Joao Felipe C.S for their own 3rr violation. Spartaz Humbug! 18:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

User:75.127.65.218 (User Talk:75.127.65.218) reported by User:SomeHuman (Result: Page protected )[edit]

International Organization for Standardization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 75.127.65.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: undid contribution:

The original contribution I, SomeHuman, had added today, to my knowledge, was not some revert to anything that had existed before; the object of the following reverts had been a part of a series of my edits mainly to provide references because the article itself and several statements in it had been tagged. I don't think I had ever edited that article before, it had only incidentally come to my attention, and while looking for references I also had found what appeared a most appropriate and useful External link.

Please note that the 3rd revert's edit comment ended with "And please debate on the talk page rather than creating edit war." but that there was nothing on the article's talk page to respond to.
Thus I (SomeHuman) reverted the 3rd revert with edit comment "undid 3th x revert by 75.127.65.218 of original contribution. Nope. No national "shop": look for DIN and get pages with DIN & buy in English at German NGO http://www.din.de/cmd?lang=en&level=tpl-home".
I then found a message on my talk page, to which I immediately started to respond but long before I could close the reply [with only one or two lines written at the time], found out that there already had been a 4th revert (thus further writing my reply much more comprehensively than originally intended as quick reply):
  • Diff of 3RR warning: apart from already 3RR warning in edit comment on the history page (see above), because I could not possibly be quick enough, after the 4th revert: 2007-09-07T12:56:09

Comment: Though I think there should be an easier way to report 4RR without spending all the time to report someone who does not take a such time to cause problems, the IP contributor might be unexperienced, in which case – provided he/she had never a 3RR warning before – one might consider to have an admin giving only a further, final, warning (and once again asking to sign/date talk page comments) instead of a temporary block. Please notice that I am going to reinsert a link to the same site, though this time one that has the advantage of allowing to checkmark only the ISO/IEC specifications, which makes it all the more appropriate for this ISO article. See also the talk page of the article (in case there would appear more than when I just checked, a copy from the relevant section on my talk page) — SomeHuman 07 Sep2007 13:50 (UTC)
Aftermath (?): Meanwhile I provided an even more appropriate "advanced search" link, which was replaced by the IP-contributor with one that does about the same but only for ISO standards (not necessarily an improvement, because readers might prefer a search engine that looks for all international standards as the ANSI link could do as well as looking only for ISO/IEC) though incorrectly calling it "ISO advanced search", which in turn I replaced by the actual ISO advanced search page. For me it is not worth a further 'fight' though I would prefer having both the ISO and the more general ANSI links there, for the practical reason I just stated. See current history (edits of 2007-09-07 14:13, 14:24 and 15:30). — SomeHuman 07 Sep2007 15:46 (UTC)

I'm inclined to just protect the page, rather than blocking both the editors involed. --Haemo 19:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I've done so, and encourage you all to discuss on the talk page. --Haemo 00:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Proving you're not following much, really. The last series of edits that I showed here above in the history link, and that latest comment itself, made clear that everything had already been settled for now as we both had edited by linking to the same (by 75.127.65.218 newly found and introduced) search site; two formerly "edit-warring" contributors continuing to edit alternately does not necessarily mean that their disagreement would still continue. A short further talk went on at the talk page without anyone having noticed the page protection (at least I do not think any of the two editors envolved had noticed such, and I just verified it by checking the article's history from the link provided in this very section). Whether also the link to the ANSI search site should go into the article again depends on possible reactions (by other contributors, I would hope) on the talk page. — SomeHuman 08 Sep2007 14:37 (UTC)

User:EliasAlucard reported by User:Akhilleus (Result: 72 hours /unblocked)[edit]

Assyrian people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). EliasAlucard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


  • The dispute is about whether the article's infobox should contain the information that the ancient Assyrians spoke Akkadian (Assyro-Babylonian), and that their religion was Assyro-Babylonian religion. EliasAlucard's reverts all restore information about the ancient language/religion. User has been blocked for 3RR before. (P.S.: I'm involved in the dispute.) --Akhilleus (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Blocked for 3 days. --Haemo 19:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
{ec}Akhilleus, your report fails to mention that the last revert did not revert your content. Your recording of the diffs was defective and in manually reviewing the history of the article I ended up miscounting the number of reverts and blocked. I have not allowed the block to stand for two reasons, firstly it takes 2 to revert war and secondly the user was attempting to discuss the issue on the talk page albeit their commonts were borderline uncivil. Spartaz Humbug! 19:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Note, our resolution of this report has crossed, I left a note for Haemo. Spartaz Humbug! 19:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Haemo unblocked. Spartaz Humbug! 22:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Persian Poet Gal reported by User:Not this time (Result: Reporter blocked indef )[edit]

Mackensen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Persian Poet Gal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
    • Not necessary, he's an admin.

Not this time 19:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I support Persian Poet Gal's actions; we don't link editor's names in disambig pages (unless something has changed regarding that). OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Silly troll wasting our time. Blocked. Moreschi Talk 19:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Agree with the block. --Haemo 19:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Folken de Fanel reported by User:Erik (Result: no violation )[edit]

Dragon Ball Z (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Folken de Fanel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:02, 7 September 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.

WP:3RR: "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." It does not matter if the material is different. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 23:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I have reviewed this. Its resolved. Spartaz Humbug! 23:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Erik is actually trying to game an AfD process, by transfering content from and article that is currently being discussed for deletion (here's the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Ball Z (film)|AfD).
Seeing the majority of the AfD comments are supporting the deletion of the content for unverifiability, Erik seems to have decided to have it his own way, by reintegrating the disputed (and most likely deleted) content in another article, without taking into account the opinions of the people who've deemed it unsuitable for Wikipedia.
Erik has been revert-warring in order to reinsert disputed and unverifiable content, while refusing to just discuss about it. Instead, he just went on with his ideas, without even waiting the closure of the AfD. Erik's behavior is close to vandalism. Folken de Fanel 23:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
No its not. Vandalism gets bandied around far too freely. The 3RR report is closed. Spartaz Humbug! 23:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR reported by User:151.33.88.130 (Result: no violation)[edit]

Istrian exodus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DIREKTOR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: -20:43, 6 September 2007 151.33.93.231 (Talk) (15,196 bytes) (read discussion)-


  • 1st revert: -11:16, 7 September 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (12,399 bytes)-
  • 2nd revert: -13:43, 7 September 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (12,434 bytes) (See discussion.)-
  • 3rd revert: -18:14, 7 September 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (12,461 bytes) (See discussion, this time)-
No violation here, by my count. --Haemo 00:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Poiuytrewq4 reported by User:Hornplease (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Michael R. Gordon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Poiuytrewq4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)



SPA repeatedly warned for blanking. Refuses discussion. Hornplease 07:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I just realised I was on this board for the first time in a long while a week or so ago, and have been back twice since. Is it because it's September? (Just the old Usenetter in me worrying, I suppose.)Hornplease 07:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

User:219.90.146.98 reported by User:Cyrus XIII (Result:semi-protected)[edit]

Visual kei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 219.90.146.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: Judging from field of interest, behavior and data provided by WHOIS, this editor appears to be the same who recently engaged in similarly disruptive editing on Skin (Japanese band), which means that this person already has a track record of personal attacks and 3RR blocks. [30] [31] [32] [33] I'd like to inquire whether in that light, something more permanent could be done about the 3RR offender or if the currently disrupted article could at least receive semi-protection for a while. - Cyrus XIII 13:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see the point blocking an ip when I think this is the second time this article has been on AN3 recently. I have semiprotected for 3 weeks. Spartaz Humbug! 14:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • You did just remove a bunch of sourced information from the page - his edits were confirmed by reliable sources, as I posted to the talk page before your reverted. We'll get it worked out. This user has a lot of knowlege to contribute, and is slowly learning "wiki ways" - lets work nicely with them to help them learn how to edit here. Yes their behavior is not correct, but they have been treated with a lot of hostility. Denaar 16:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

User:P.W.Lutherson reported by User:Will Beback (Result: Page Protected )[edit]

Miscegenation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). P.W.Lutherson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:34, 8 September 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:The way, the truth, and the light reported by William M. Connolley (Result: one week )[edit]

Climate of Mars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The way, the truth, and the light (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

2-4 are marked as rv's. #1 rv's this (notice from the edit summaries that the use of "local" in the section header is a large part of the dispute). Or, if you prefer a larger block of text, #1 also reverts this (...has been argued that...)

  • Note that The way is a serial offender whose most recent block log is: 2007-06-19T21:58:55 Tariqabjotu (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "The way, the truth, and the light (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours ‎ (Three-revert rule violation: at Thermal energy and Heat (fourth block in two months, has been participating in overall edit-warring recently, like at Anal sex))
The first of those edits was not a revert but an original edit. The first of Connolley's citations clearly shows that my edits were not the same as TMLutas's (which I had not seen anyway) and the second is totally different. In any case the article is at his preferred version now. Also, he is guilty of edit-warring more than I, as I tried to justify my edits on the talk page, while he did not and simply continued to revert. The way, the truth, and the light 21:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
One week. If I see this editor edit warring again I will consider an indef block. Spartaz Humbug! 06:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:71.227.236.102 reported by 62.64.201.37 (Result: blocked both accounts for 24 hours)[edit]

Catherine Deneuve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). NAME_OF_USER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:22, 8 September 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.

Now reverting as User:Smartissexy An obvious SOCKPUPPET

Originally I blocked the IP for 24 hours and Smartissexy indefinitely, but I think actually I will change the block to 24 hours for each. Either way they have both been blocked. ugen64 00:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:O reported by User:Geni (Result: Page protected, a note left on talk page.)[edit]

U.S. Route 50 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). O (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: 21:27


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

User has over 1000 edits.

The edits look close enough to vandalism that I don't think O should be blocked. Look at Mm555's contributions - all of them are to highway-related articles and about 70% of them are editing the highway infobox in a manner that is clearly against consensus. He was warned multiple times about this. ugen64 00:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I've admitted and apologised about this issue in these two mailing list posts. For some reason I am having a bad day editing and collaborating. Back to the original subject, Talk:U.S. Route 50 has said that the same editor under his username and an IP has edit-warred the infobox before this (check history). I only got involved in this one, since I was just going to my watchlist and something weird from the US 50 article popped up. —O () 00:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Ugen64 which would fall under exactly which section of WP:VAND?Geni 01:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Protected. Navou banter 01:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Now that I was going to suggest —O () 01:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Thrillmecd/User:72.65.8.54 reported by User:MusicMaker5376 (Result: 24 hous)[edit]

Thrill Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Thrillmecd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)/72.65.8.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's obvious that the two users are one editor. Claims to be the author of the subject of the article, constituting a violation of WP:COI. His actions are in violation of WP:OWN.

  • 24 hours. Please learn how to make diffs so your reports will be acted upon much quicker that way. Spartaz Humbug! 07:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
My apologies. I looked at the way they were done in the report before mine and that's how they were. I should have known better. Thank you for the block, though. —  MusicMaker5376 19:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Anoshirawan reported by User:sarabseth (Result: 72 hours )[edit]

Amir Khusro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Anoshirawan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


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

User has more than 800 edits

This user has reverted this article 20 times since August 27, making the same change each time. Refused to yield to the consensus of other editors 16:48, 30 August 2007 . Refused to enter into a discussion on the talk page (beyond dismissing the concerns raised)12:28, 5 September 2007 .

Second block plus refusal to discuss. 72 hours for this one. Future blocks will escalate further quickly. Spartaz Humbug! 07:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:BIG Daddy M reported by User:J Greb (Result: 24 hours )[edit]

Superboy-Prime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BIG Daddy M (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


Previous series resulting in the Sept 1 warning:

  • 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 1 day. --Haemo 06:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Skatewalk reported by User:Zerida (Result: no violation )[edit]

Arab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Skatewalk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion:

  • First diff of 3RR warning for a previous violation on the same article that I did not report: August 26.
  • Second diff of warning for the last violation 00:05, 8 September 2007.

Comment: You might be wondering about my comment in the 2nd warning. User:Skatewalk's conduct has been excessively disruptive of late on this article, consisting primarily, not of any actual substantive contributions, but of the tendentious reverts for which I am reporting him (adding the word "Christian" and deleting a reference) as well as of canvassing of other users who share his POV to join him in "fixing" the Egyptians article [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39], using article talk pages as a forum to air out views meant to flame other editors, including posting openly racist remarks [40], all of which have contributed to a general hostile atmosphere. — Zerida 07:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Revert #1 is not the same and more then 24 from #4. No violation. Spartaz Humbug! 07:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


User:84.221.71.33 reported by User:Iain99 (Result: 48 hours )[edit]

Prince Henry of Wales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 84.221.71.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [41]


  • 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: 11:28

User is repeatedly inserting a clause into the lead giving what most editors reagrd as undue prominence to occasional tabloid speculation about Prince Harry's paternity: may be WP:BLP issues as well. Iain99 11:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  • blicked 48 hours. Try requests for page protection if this comes back. Spartaz Humbug! 11:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Towerblocktom reported by User:81.76.40.119 (Result: 8 hours )[edit]

Peterborough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Towerblocktom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  • 8 hours and a prize for the the world's lamest ever edit war. Spartaz Humbug! 12:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:WOverstreet reported by User:ElKevbo (Result:indef blocked )[edit]

University of Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). WOverstreet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note that two of the reversions were performed by 161.253.37.233, an obvious sockpuppet (maybe a meatpuppet - but unlikely) of WOverstreet. The editing pattern and history make that relationship clear. There also appear to be ownership and civility issues with this editor. --ElKevbo 16:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

And also note that Spartaz has indefinitely blocked WOverstreet. THis 3RR report may thus be moot. --ElKevbo 17:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Correct. I actually blocked as a result of this report and a cursory glance at their contribs. They can apply to be unblocked when they learn to behave. Spartaz