Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive76

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User: Fragments of Jade reported by User:Thaddius (Result: 48 hour block )[edit]

Time reported: 14:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [1]


  • 1st revert: [2]
  • 2nd revert: [3]
  • 3rd revert: [4]
  • 4th revert: [5]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [6]
  • Result - I have blocked Fragments of Jade for 48 hours. ScarianCall me Pat! 14:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

User: Thaddius reported by User Fragments of Jade (Result: Declined/Malformed )[edit]

Time reported: July 6th, 10:33

  • Previous version reverted to: [7]


  • Result - I will take no action on this; the report is malformed with your own reverts and, plus, Thaddius has made just 2 reverts (at most) today. ScarianCall me Pat! 14:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Stuthomas4 reported by CyberGhostface (talk) (Result: 24 & 48 blocks )[edit]

Criticism of atheism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Stuthomas4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

  1. 19:00, 6 July 2008 (edit summary: "/* Atheism and totalitarian regimes */")
  2. 20:47, 6 July 2008 (edit summary: "rv unexplained rem")
  3. 20:55, 6 July 2008 (edit summary: "actually its a rebuttal and appropriate for a NPOV")
  4. 21:00, 6 July 2008 (edit summary: "then feel free to make additions for balance - leave my edit alone")
  5. 21:08, 6 July 2008 (edit summary: "It is indeed a rebuttal of the above material. Please don't not change it again.")

CyberGhostface (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Result - I have blocked Thomas for 24 hours and Ghost for 48. ScarianCall me Pat! 00:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Zredsox reported by User:Latish redone (Result: 2x 24 hour blocks )[edit]

Time reported: 23:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


  • Result - I have blocked both editors for 24 hours each. ScarianCall me Pat! 00:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Latish redone reported by User:Zredsox (Result: See above )[edit]

Time reported: 23:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


User:ZippyGoogle reported by User:CastAStone (Result: 24 hour block )[edit]

Time reported: 00:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [12]


  • Diffs of recent warnings:

The second is for copyvio problems that he's having, copying full sections of the Walmart website. These reverts are illegal additionally because they copy text others wrote from Sam's Club and Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market in violation of the GDFL.

--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 00:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


User:Tinguat reported by User:IronDuke (Result: 24 hour block )[edit]

Time reported: 02:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


A couple things to note. Though this editor has just begun, he has almost certainly been here before. He must have seen my warning, as he rolled back a bot edit on his talk page 23:13, 6 July 2008 after I warned him. I believe he is well aware of policy, and may actually be an SPA or harassment account (Of the four articles he has edited, I am active on three.) If he were a true newbie, I’d say warn him, but I think it’s pretty clear what’s going on here. IronDuke 02:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Erik Baas reported by User:Guido den Broeder (Result: Stale )[edit]

Time reported: 07:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Above mandatory 'previous version reverted to' doesn't tell the whole story. User has been doing the same thing for days on end now, with other edits on the page in between. These last four diffs below are not within 24 hours, but user is gaming the system. This editwar over IP's signature should not be allowed to go on. User is doing the same thing on User_talk:Sue_Gardner, see [18]. He has already been blocked on de:Wikipedia for the same thing.[19] Basically, he is stalking and harassing the IP.

User:121.72.133.194 reported by User:lausianne (Result: Stale/Malformed report )[edit]

Probably the same user, different names and IPs: 121.72.143.183, 121dot72dot149dot211, 121.72.145.82

(see history of Getting_Things_Done)

Time reported: 09:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Result - 16 hours since a revert; stale. Report is also malformed. ScarianCall me Pat! 13:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:86.148.111.13 reported by User:Kariteh (Result: 72 hours)[edit]

Time reported: 11:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The user reported before at [20] has reverted again under a new IP at [21] after his block. Kariteh (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Logitech95 reported by User:Caspian blue (Result: 24 hour block and page prot. )[edit]

Time reported: 12:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

  • The editor in question began to editing Korea under Japanese rule in a biased view without consensus/discussion as well as s/he did on several articles. Logitech9 initially seemed to use sock IP, {{User|128.120.161.137} in order to avoid 3RR sanction. However, as thins got heated, the editor clearly violated 3RR with his/her sole account. The editor also produced disruptive edits; original research, distorting death toll unlike already attached citation. S/he also violated a rule Liancourt Rocks under Arb Committee ruling for Liancourt Rocks. He/she received warnings from 3 administrators for his edit warring, wiki-staking, breaking the arbcom rule. The guy inserted original research to Mike Honda and even blindly reverted unrelated articles of him, such as Yaksik, Kimera (singer) which I edited yesterday. The editor is fully warned, so a block is in order, I believe. --Caspian blue (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Result - I have blocked the account for 24 hours and also prot'd the article for 24 hours in order to prevent his other IP's returning. ScarianCall me Pat! 13:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Otterathome reported by — Arthur Rubin (talk) (Result: 24 & 48 hour blocks )[edit]

Talk:David Icke (edit | [[Talk:Talk:David Icke|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Otterathome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

  1. 14:04, 7 July 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 223829829 by Arthur Rubin (talk)")
  2. 14:16, 7 July 2008 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Arthur Rubin (talk) to last version by Otterathome")
  3. 14:30, 7 July 2008 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Arthur Rubin (talk) to last version by Otterathome")
    14:36, 7 July 2008 (edit summary: "rm badlink only") (changed to partial revert, in consecutive edit)
  4. 15:00, 7 July 2008 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Arthur Rubin (talk) to last version by Otterathome")
  • Result - I have blocked Arthur for 48 hours and Otter for 24. ScarianCall me Pat! 16:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Otterathome reported by — Arthur Rubin (talk) (Result: See above )[edit]

Talk:John Reid (politician)‎ (edit | [[Talk:Talk:John Reid (politician)‎ |talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Otterathome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

7 July 2008] (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Arthur Rubin (talk) to last version by Otterathome")

  1. 14:15, 7 July 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 224138350 by Arthur Rubin (talk) did you read WP:TALK?")
  2. 14:30, 7 July 2008 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Arthur Rubin (talk) to last version by Otterathome")
  3. 15:00, 7 July 2008 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Arthur Rubin (talk) to last version by Otterathome")

User:Otterathome reported by — Arthur Rubin (talk) (Result: See above. )[edit]

Talk:Paul Barry‎ (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Paul Barry‎ |talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Otterathome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

  1. 14:03, 7 July 2008 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Arthur Rubin (talk) to last version by Otterathome")
  2. 14:15, 7 July 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 224138312 by Arthur Rubin (talk) did you read WP:TALK?")
  3. 14:30, 7 July 2008 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Arthur Rubin (talk) to last version by Otterathome")
  4. 15:00, 7 July 2008 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Arthur Rubin (talk) to last version by Otterathome")

User:WN1971 reported by User:ViperNerd (Result: 24 hour block )[edit]

Time reported: 20:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


The editor in question began editing Clemson University football recruiting scandal by blanking the entire article and posting links to two shorter articles they authored without consensus/discussion. The original article was restored and the editor was notified that discussion about such a drastic edit should be held on the original article's talk page so that consensus could be reached. Editor then decided rather than discuss the merits of the proposal for splitting the article, to fill up the "discussion" with old comments from my user talk page copypasted out of context, and of course drama then ensued, none of which was relevant to improving the article or furthering discussion on the stated topic at hand. Editor was notified that this was in violation of WP:TPG guidelines, and I deleted all comments from the article talk page that were irrelevant to discussion about improving the article (per WP:TPG guidelines. Editor reverted the talk page numerous times making the statement that they would continue to do so "all the way to ArbCom." This editor has been contentious ever since his original edit of this article was questioned. Furthermore, the editor appears to be a single-purpose account, other than a few minor edits made back in April when the account was created, all activity has been constrained to this article and talk pages of users associated with the dispute. I might also suggest that a checkuser be performed on the IP this editor is using, as numerous sockpuppets have cropped up around this article and others related to it over the past several months.

  • Result - I have blocked WN for 24 hours for violating 3RR. ScarianCall me Pat! 20:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:ViperNerd reported by User:Colfer2 (Result: 72 hour block )[edit]

Time reported: 21:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


  • Diff of 3RR warning: 20:29, 7 July 2008 (this is the editors acknowledgment of my mention of 3RR on the Talk page in question. I came there as the result of a WP:Third Opinion request, which I deleted due to more than 2 editors. But I stayed on to revert ViperNerd's deletion of large parts of the discussion. We then discussed that, he or she had two possible reasons. In any case, ViperNerd then reported the original disputant for 3RR, so is aware of the policy.)

I would rather not report this editor, as I came to the page in question as a WP:Third Opinion editor, but:

  1. the case is strong
  2. the third opinion was canceled (by me)
  3. the Talk reverts in question, though related, are not the Article edits the 3rd opinion request concerned.

User:Para reported by User:Crum375 (Result: 24 hour block )[edit]

Time reported: 23:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


  • This editor persistently removes a Wikimapia link from Brown Dog affair, a featured article, and has reverted two editors 4 times in less than six hours to remove the link he doesn't like and replace it with another. We have proposed a compromise solution that includes both links, but this editor keeps removing one of them. He removed my 3RR warning and encouragement to revert himself with an uncivil attack in his edit summary. Crum375 (talk) 23:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Please internalise WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Para (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not involved, but I noticed the 3RR warning is after the last edit. -Colfer2 (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
3RR warnings are only needed for novice editors, and this one is an experienced one. He also declined the encouragement to self-revert by reverting it with an insulting edit summary. Crum375 (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User:208.104.222.85 reported by User:Loodog (Result:Fully protected)[edit]

Time reported: 03:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Has been reverting the exact same section of text 208.104.238.191 and 24.74.61.75 have been. Is likely same user. Request extended block.


User:Publiusohio reported by User:Ave Caesar (Result: Stale.)[edit]

Time reported: 06:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


  • Diff of 3RR warning: -Blocked multiple times for 3rr violations. --Ave Caesar (talk) 06:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Dbachmann reported by User:Sindhian (Result: mistaken block, later rescinded)[edit]

User Dbachmann is involved in edit war on article Hinduism. He has protected his talk page so we cannot leave any warning. He is also indulging in name calling and is abusive to other editors. Please block the user following are the diffs.

Sorry about this. I made a mistake because this was my first time reporting a 3 RR voi;lation. I have been a user for less than a month as you can see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindhian (talkcontribs) 22:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Andycjp reported by User:Vinh1313 (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Time reported: 02:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Godraegpot reported by User:Looneyman (Result: 24 hour block )[edit]

|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Godraegpot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 14:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


User:Dp76764 reported by User:DoctorFrench (Result: no vio)[edit]

  • I would like to draw attention to the fact that the indicated 4th revert was made yesterday, about 27.5 hours before the oldest of the other three reverts indicated. - Vianello (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
That is a typo, all 4 of them were today, the 9th July 2008. DoctorFrench (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Wrong! The 4th's 'typo' was intentionally falsified to be today. Dp76764 (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
A simple mistake, the 3RR rule has still been broken. DoctorFrench (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Have you read the 3RR? Reverting vandalism, such as what you were doing, is an exception to the ruls. Looneyman (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Have you read the explantions behind my reverts? I am reverting vandalism from you. You have been reverting factually correct articles back to non factually correct articles. DoctorFrench (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting x.svg No violation CIreland (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User:DoctorFrench reported by User:Dp76764 (Result: Blocked 24h)[edit]

Another sockpuppet of User:godraegpot

Dp76764 (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  • I would like to affirm and second this. For evidence on the sockpuppet allegation, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Davesmith33. It seems to be simple block evasion for this user to continue pursuing their obsession. Sorry if "seconding" claims isn't part of WP:3RR process. - Vianello (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked for 24 hours. CIreland (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog reported by User:Stor stark7 (Result: 24 h)[edit]

Time reported: 20:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


  • Diff of 3RR warning: 12:09, July 9, 2008 (Warning given to both, but I think Nick jumped the gun, I think he misread the date of my earlier edit.)--Stor stark7 Speak 20:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I just realized, his talk page is full of 3rr warnings, he cant be a newbie to the concept ergo the above 3RR warning diff is unnecessary.--Stor stark7 Speak 21:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 24 h.  Sandstein  22:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Pwnage8 and User:Landon1980 reported by User:Shake 3000 (Result: no action)[edit]

Time reported: 21:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I don't think I did this fully correct but it is very confusing so I did my best. The 2 users I reported to do allow me to edit any pages. I never read too much about htis rule thinking it would never apply to me however after they told me I violated it, I read it more and understand it better. I also realize that they were just it violation as I was. I read they were going to report me so I figure I do the same. I think in there case it is worse because they are regular wiki users violated a rule very badly that makes them look like a newbie, I'm and still learning while I violated the rule without realizing it, it appears to me that they think they own the page, which again is against rules. Although regular users, they don't seem to understand this is an open edting site where other people make edits. They revert any improvement or information I add or change. It is very frustrating to have all my improvements removed. From what I read this is an aexample of wiki users that are not wanted on this site. Overall I'd say I'm new and a little confused, violating a rule without knowledge and they are regular users violating rules to extreme measures with all intensions of it. Hopefully this is the right place to report this and hopfully you understand and see what I'm saying and reporting. Shake 3000 (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Note to admins: Please read over this before taking any action. Cheers, Landon1980 (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Note to admins: Please ignore Landon1980's note due to they are trying to make themselves look better and lie to you acusing me to be some other user that I'm not. Shake 3000 (talk)

No action. Shake 3000 is now blocked by another admin as a sock of a banned user. The report is not in an actionable format, at any rate, and looks unlikely to warrant further review.  Sandstein  22:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Kalamrir reported by User: A Man In Black (Result: 31 h)[edit]

Time reported: 21:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [22]

His talk page is studded with 3RR warnings, so I didn't bother. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 31 h.  Sandstein  22:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


User:Hubschrauber729 reported by [[User:# Come on the Mothers]] (Result: Article protected)[edit]

Time reported: 22:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [index.php?title=Michael_Ballack&oldid=224673848 22:28]
Article protected for 3 days - too many other edit warriors to block them all and no reverts since ChrisO gave out some 3rr warnings. CIreland (talk)

User:Whitenoise123 reported by User:BanRay (Result: No action)[edit]

Time reported: 23:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

On User talk:Whitenoise123

  • Previous version reverted to: none, page blanking

On Talk:Maria Sharapova

I do not know if I am allowed to comment here, but I will do it and hope for the best. Firstly, in regards to my reverts on my own talkpage; firstly, I was unaware that 3RR even applied on my own, and secondly, I would like to point out that I only carried out so many reverts because Tennis expert and BanRay were incorrectly saying that I had to keep their comments on, which led me to revert. The edit history proves this: I politely requested they found me where it says in the rules I had to keep what they were trying to put on, and they did not find it, so I think I was entitled to be angry. In addition, I tried to seek a resolution with BanRay on his talkpage (perhaps slightly aggressively, but I still requested relatively politely that he find me where I had to keep his comments, and that I would keep them if he did), but he removed my comments without a proper reason: 1.
The second one: I completely did not realise I violated 3RR there, I completely lost count so I am sorry for that. Nevertheless, that is my first offence on Wikipedia, and I would also like to point out that Tennis expert had been reverting my legitimate edit without giving a reason, which was what resulted in my reverting. However, I still realise I violated the rule in this instance, so I will be more careful in future. The first "offence" listed, however, I think is completely not my fault. Whitenoise123 (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined Reverting your own user talk page is exempt from 3RR, and the other report is stale. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User:PigeonPiece reported by User:Academic38 (Result: no violation)[edit]

Oxford Round Table (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). PigeonPiece (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

  1. 00:01, 8 July 2008 (edit summary: "Make needed changes. Removed superfluous external links. Added updated information and re-added information that was relevant to the Oxford Round Table.")
  2. 06:10, 9 July 2008 (edit summary: "These changes are reflected on other web sources.")
  3. 20:35, 9 July 2008 (edit summary: "Please stop removing cited information.")
  4. 00:12, 10 July 2008 (edit summary: "Edits reflect no Wikipedia links.")

Among other things, this editor insists on deleting material against the decision of an RfC.

Academic38 (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Whitenoise123 reported by User:BanRay (Result:warning)[edit]

Time reported: 14:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

On User talk:Whitenoise123

Your report of me performing those first 4 edits has already been rejected as "stale", and I have made just two since, meaning I have not violated 3RR. In any case, the only reason I have been doing these reverts is because you have been reverting my perfectly legitimate edits without reason. How about, in this content dispute, you start actually calmly debating the proper issues instead of trying to cause trouble with things like this? Whitenoise123 (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The article has been reviewed by three established editors and all of them think it's a C-class article, what other reasons do you want? BanRay 14:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
What reasons do I want? I want you to actually SAY your problems with it. If you think the tone is wrong, you need to give examples of a poor tone and explicitly say why it is poor. If you think the structure is poor, you need to say exactly why it is poor. I find it peculiar how, whenever I ask you to explicitly describe your problems with the content, you mysteriously disappear from the conversation.
In any case, considering I have not violated 3RR (your earlier complaint of the first 4 reverts were rejected, and I have only made 2 since), it baffles me why you have brought this content dispute over to here. Whitenoise123 (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The 3RR vio is stale. I'm not going to block for the two recent reverts, but I am going to give this solid warning: Cut it the heck out. Start discussing what "class" the article should be in instead of playing this fort-da game, and by that I mean all of you. Heimstern Läufer