Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive9

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Violations[edit]

User:158.147.53.100[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 158.147.53.100 (talk · contribs):

  • 0th revert: [1] (2005-12-20 09:44:42)
  • 1st revert: [2] (2005-12-20 11:13:16)
  • 2nd revert: [3] (2005-12-20 10:43:23)
  • 3rd revert: [4] (2005-12-20 09:53:17)
  • 4th revert: [5] (2005-12-20 09:50:38)

Reported by: William M. Connolley 16:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC).

Comments:

  • Warned on her talk page.
    • I'm disinclined to block because the warning happened after the reverts, but if another revert happens please post it here. Also, in the future, please provide the "version being reverted to," followed by diffs between the anon's reverts and that version. And your timestamps and order should be right too. That reduces the job of the admin verifying the 3RR violation greatly. Thanks! -- SCZenz 17:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Huaiwei[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Mass_Rapid_Transit_(Singapore) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Huaiwei (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Monicasdude 16:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User:Huaiwei insists edits to the article require prior consensus and claims the right to summarily delete any changes which are not presupported rather than letting them stand for comment. Policy violation should be apparent. Underlying issue is verifiability, and User:Huaiwei asserts that toning down of an unsourced factual claim must be sourced, even though the original language remains unsourced. User:Huaiwei's reverts are not properly marked and are accompanied by inappropriate edit summaries. Monicasdude 16:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • 14:53, 20 December 2005 is quite obviously not the first reversion, for it was an edition in which I choose to selectively keep some edits while removing others. Monicasdude insists on adding and reinstating edits which were disputed in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore), where he failed to convince anyone and instead faced opposition from just about all who replied. Yet he failed to respond, and all of a sudden, chose to enforce his edits into the article without any sign of wanting to find concensus. He further made several changes in his edit without being able to show any verification for them, such as suggesting that platform screendoors are unable to prevent all cases of unauthorised intrusions by the simple change of one word which he insisted on reinstating despite objections in the FAC nomination. He did these without showing initiation to discuss, while I was the one bringing them up for debate. All my reverts were well explained, unlike his reverts which were devoid of reasoning. I would seek fair judgementin this case from the admins. Thank you!--Huaiwei 16:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Just for the record, the following text [6] I wrote in Monicasdude's talkpage was deleted without showing any ability in explaining his editorial behavior.--Huaiwei 17:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Response:

  • Warned both parties; any further reverting will result in a block. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
While I appreciate the need for evenhandedness in handling disputes, I would have thought that my responding to user:Huaiwei's violation by reporting it in accordance with guidelines, and limiting my subsequent edits to relevant talk pages, should be sufficient to demonstrate my intention to comply with the applicable policy. Given his sanctioning by arbcom barely two weeks ago for similar behavior in another area, I don't think your response is appropriate. user:Huaiwei has taken a garden-variety verifiability question and, without provocation, turned it into a full-blown, personalized dispute, and is edit warring to preserve a set of unsourced, moderately dubious claims. He has conspicuously violated applicable civility and personal attack policies and guidelines. He denies an overt, intentional 3RR violation. It is, I believe, irresponsible to tacitly encourage him to continue in such behavior, as your response has done. Monicasdude 22:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

User:DrBat[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Zatanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DrBat (talk · contribs):

Reported by: --69.49.99.25 19:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


Comments:

  • I'd like to note that this report is likely by User:Mistress Selina Kyle, who I just blocked for violating 3RR on the same article. I would have blocked DrBat also, but I wasn't sure that he knew about 3RR policies. It's clear from the earlier reports on this page that he does, so I will block him also. However, I'd note that DrBat was reverting to the consensus version of the page, while Selina was not. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 19:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Yuber[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Islamophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yuber (talk · contribs):

Reported by: --Fones 20:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

This user is likely a sockpuppet of blocked User: Mistress Selina Kyle who has just been created to revert war. And probably a sockpuppet of another banned editor too. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Response:

  • Blocked 24 hours, given that Yuber is currently on Probation, he shouldn't be engaging in edit wars, especially on topics that were a problem before.
  • Its been pointed out that the last editor Yuber reverted is most likely a sockpuppet, however, that was his fifth revert and he did have the option of reporting that editor instead of reverting again. If anyone else disagrees, feel free to unblock. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 20:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Jackohare[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Psychoactive drug (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jackohare (talk · contribs):

Reported by: --65.87.105.2 00:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • The above demonstrates a clear violation of the 3RR rule. In addition, the issue being discussed on the page is whether a specific user-created diagram violates the wiki No original research policy. I would be interested to hear some administrators weigh in on that subject, too. Thanks.--65.87.105.2 01:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Still waiting on action on this request more than 24 hours later. Admin attention is requested. The violation is clearcut. Thank you. --65.87.105.2 21:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • 65.87.105.2 (talk · contribs) is a vandal, and has reverted the article himself at least a dozen times. Reverts done by Jackohare (talk · contribs) (and others) were only to revert said vandalism. --Thoric 22:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The above is a bold faced lie from Thoric who authored the diagram in question. I have not reverted the article a dozen times, I have never committed a 3RR violation, and I have never committed an act of vandalism. If he has evidence of a 3RR violation, he should state it here. I deleted his subjective chart after discussing the issue on the talk page just as a good editor should. Thoric has been unable to cite the source for his subjective classification of various drugs in overlapping categories. I would appreciate it if a truly objective person would review the Psychoactive drug which lacks the sourcing and citation usually found in wiki articles of a scientific nature. Perhaps this is appropriate for an RFC.--65.87.105.2 23:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
      • When a single user stirs up a nest of hornets like 65.87.105.2 has, and his repeated vandalism to an article results in a few editors reverting his changes, along with a half dozen editors arguing against him on the article talk page, and he persists regardless of all kinds of source citing, then we have a problem. --Thoric 01:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, actually you did violate the 3RR rule on the exact same page -- I normally will not revert more than even one time, but you removed content without using the talk page, then reverted to your removal 4 additional times. I suppose it is wrong for me to revert more than policy dictates, but in this case it seemed like obvious vandalism I was reverting; An anonymous user was removing content without justification. --jackohare 01:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Antidote[edit]

Three revert rule violation on List of Ukrainians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Antidote (talk · contribs):

Reported by:--Pecher 08:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments: User:Antidote is engaged in a number of edit wars on different lists of Slavic people and is now subject of RfC.--Pecher 08:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Blocked for 24 hours. Izehar 13:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is evidence that the user is knowingly violating the 3RR block. Also see a related RfC which indicates that he has a history of breaking due process. Jbetak 19:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I went through the history of the list and could not find four reverts on the same day in TWO instances. I emailed the admin about this. The ban was unjustified because no one informed me of a second 3RR violation if there even was a second. I was left to assume I had been banned twice by the first. Antidote 19:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Dhimmi[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Bat Ye'or (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dhimmi (talk · contribs):


Reported by: SlimVirgin (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Dhimmi (talk · contribs) has been reverting at Bat Ye'or for weeks, particularly in order to keep in anything negative in about her. He has been blocked three times for it. The reverts above are not to the same version or over the same issues, which is indicative of what he does: he reverts any change he disapproves of, and does so for days on end without ever compromising, until he gets his way, which he usually does because everyone else gets fed up and wanders off. He oftens labels his reverts as rvv, although they are not vandalism.

It's a single issue account, and has made only 45 edits in total, 38 to the main namespace, 37 of which are to Bat Ye'or, probably all of them reverts. [15] He is almost certainly a sock puppet of another user, because he seems to know instantly when a change is made that he doesn't like. I would ask any admin looking at this to consider blocking the account indefinitely as a disruptive sock puppet or revert puppet, because his reverting means it's hard to get anything done on the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Not that it is true that I revert "in order to keep in anything negative in about her", but you know, if something is "negative" but factual then it certainly should be kept in! To remove it is vandalism. That's what CtlFn was doing. Reverting vandalism doesn't count in the 3RR. Saying that my edits are "probably all" reverts is patently untrue. My first edit was adding her real name, and I have done various copyediting since, as well as reverting vandalism, which is unfortunately frequent on that article, as some people want to remove anything "negative". Dhimmi 00:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
He has just admitted it's a sock puppet account. [16] SlimVirgin (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Can anyone explain the WP:SOCK policy to SlimVirgin? She's constantly making insinuations about my being a sock puppet, as if that's something bad per se. As I explained her, I want to separate my contributions on Bat Ye'or from my other ones because of the inevitable conflict you get into on a topic like that, i.e. no matter how right you are, you get some mud stuck on you, and I don't want that on my main account. Dhimmi 00:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Ignoring the erroneous sockpuppetry allegations since having a sock isn't against the rules (though it is discourged) unless your using it to break rules and/or go around a block which doesn't seem to be the case here, I still think a 48 hour block is warranted for repeated edit warring and for gaming the rules in regards to reverts especially considering that this is not the first time that Dhimmi has had to be blocked for this. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Dhimmi has created a sock puppet account for the purpose of violating 3RR, so that blocks for 3RR (three blocks so far, hopefully four after today) don't show up on his main account. That is a violation of WP:SOCK. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually if this account is being exclusively for edits on this article then yes it's actions are against the rules in itself but as long as the other account doesn't edit the article (or articles if that's the scope) then it's not a violation of WP:SOCK since in that case it wouldn't be a sockpuppet specifically for sidestepping the rules and even stretching the meaning of the rules quite a bit I don't see how you think that it would be otherwise, unless of course you have reason to believe that the other account(s) of his are also editing this article in an attempt to impose his POV. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Jt, under circumventing policy, WP:SOCK says: "Policies apply per person, not per account. Policies such as 3RR are for each person's edits. Similarly, using a second account for policy violations will cause any penalties to also be applied to your main account." And "Users who are banned from editing or temporarily subject to a legitimate block may not use sock puppets to circumvent this. Evading a ban in this manner causes the timer on the ban to restart."
Dhimmi has admitted that it is not his main account. He has created it in order to violate 3RR at Bat Ye'or. He does this whenever he wants to, and he knows it won't be recorded in the block log of his main account, so he doesn't care. The violation isn't causing a penalty to be applied to his main account, because we don't know what the main account is, and any reputation Dhimmi has as a disruptive editor will also not apply to the main account. It seems to me that this makes the creation of Dhimmi a violation of policy. Multiple accounts are fine so long as they're not being used disruptively, not only if they're not being used on the same article. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I find SlimVirgin's logic sensible and persuasive. Dhimmi should disclose who their main account is, so 3RR violations can be properly applied to both, or, if that isn't done, I agree with the logic that the sockpuppet account should be indefinitely blocked. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Seems like good enough logic however I think that Dhimmi should get a chance to respond to this and a chance to list his main account and some time for some more editors can get a chance to comment on this before anything is enacted. Blocking indefinitely should not be done lightly. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 02:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I completely agree. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I've reblocked permanently, as the sockpuppet was created for the purpose of policy violation (in this case, 3RR and revert-warring). I've also warned the editor that if he creates another sockpuppet for the purpose of policy violation, I'll block the main account as well. Jayjg (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Kuban kazak[edit]

Reported by: AndriyK 19:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments In the 4th revert, User:Kuban kazak made a slight changes to the article apparently to avoid 3RR. It should be considered as a revert common sence, in my opinion. Please compare two edits [21] and [22] they are almost identical.--AndriyK 19:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Mistress Selina Kyle[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Eminem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mistress Selina Kyle (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Netoholic @

Comments:

  • There may be more minor reverts hidden in the history. It's been very active, it seems. -- Netoholic @ 20:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

User:205.188.116.5[edit]

Three revert rule violation on 2005 New York City transit strike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 205.188.116.5 (talk · contribs):

  • Previous version reverted to: [20:49, 22 December 2005]
  • 1st revert: [20:39, 22 December 2005]
  • 2nd revert: [20:40, 22 December 2005]
  • 3rd revert: [20:45, 22 December 2005]
  • 4th revert: [20:47, 22 December 2005]

Multiple reverts, these are just the 4 most recent. Counted 13 reverts in less than 45 minutes.

Reported by: ERcheck 20:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This appears to be an edit battle, with the reported user using "greedy" (POV) to describe the unions. His edit comments are highly inflammatory (name calling). ERcheck 20:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I suspect that this anon IP was being used by AmeriCAN! (talk · contribs). Two additional reverts after 20:49 by AmeriCAN! with similar inflammatory edit comments. ERcheck 21:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

User:64.12.116.5[edit]

Three revert rule violation on 2005 New York City transit strike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 64.12.116.5 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: (ESkog)(Talk) 21:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Appears to be a copy of the above listing. Has been resolved through other communications with admins (the anon editor is currently blocked). (ESkog)(Talk) 21:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Robert I[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Western Goals Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). USERNAME (talk · contribs):

Reported by:

Comments:

  • Please fill in the version of the article that was reverted to, then make each revert diffs to that version. I'll try to figure it out the way this is written up, but no promises. -- SCZenz 22:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

User:85.97.17.88[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 85.97.17.88 (talk · contribs):

Reported by Macrakis 00:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I've warned the anon of the 3RR. I'll block if he/she reverts again. Deltabeignet 05:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Blocked for a week for yet more reverting.  ALKIVARRadioactive.svg 07:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
This anon and Khoikhoi have also been cross-reverting on Turkish Army, again violating 3RR. --Macrakis 20:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Thats what my 1 week block was for.  ALKIVARRadioactive.svg 12:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Khoikhoi[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Khoikhoi (talk · contribs):

Reported by Macrakis 00:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I've warned Khoikhoi of the 3RR and will block if he/she reverts again. Deltabeignet 05:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Khoikhoi and the anon have also been cross-reverting on Turkish Army, violating 3RR. --Macrakis 20:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Petral[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Promises of troop withdraw by American presidents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Petral (talk · contribs):

  • Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
  • 1st revert: [23]
  • 2nd revert: [24]
  • 3rd revert: [25]
  • 4th revert: [26]

Reported by: Travb

Comments:

  • Two hours ago I started this article. In the space of two hours, Petral has added a POV tag and a deletion tag. From the beginning (even before the deletion tag) I told Petral that this article is new, and the name may change, and asked him for suggestions[27] After Petral added the deletion tag, I attempted to work on the article some more, to make it less NPOV and more encyclopedic. I changed the name in the hopes that it would explain the article better and give it less chance for deletion, I added the new link to the Articles_for_deletion [28] which Petral deleted [29]

Petral continues to delete the redirect notice on the new article.Travb 03:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment TravB continues to blank an article on an AfD, then created 2 other content clones, including the AfD message, page blanking was stopped only with the intervention of Requests for page protection, who stopped him from blanking again--Petral 05:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I continue to REDIRECT the page to the new page, remember Petral refuses to move this article, and has deleted my comments several times, even on my own talk page.[30] Travb 06:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • notice how [User:Petral|Petral]] provides no links for this statment, that is because it is untrue. Add this one to my list of questions for [User:Petral|Petral]].Travb 06:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Notice how user Petral provides links to all these things--Petral 06:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I've blocked Petral for 24 hrs for violating 3rr. FeloniousMonk 06:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Yuber and User:CltFn[edit]

Yuber (talk · contribs) and myself CltFn (talk · contribs) have both violated the 3RR rule in page Islam in the United States. We should therefore both be blocked according to Wikipedia policy.--CltFn 06:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me. Both blocked for 24 hours. A request for page protection might be appropriate if this revert war springs up again. —BorgHunter (talk) 07:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Mistress Selina Kyle (2)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Latex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mistress Selina Kyle (talk · contribs):

  • Too many reverts to count, see history.

Reported by: Netoholic @

Comments:

  • There are no kidding about 20 reverts on this page, all over some silly photo. Please also see a separate 3RR violation a few sections above. MSK is about a 5-day-old account that shows an amazing amount of Wikipedia knowledge. I think this is a sockpuppet acting in bad faith and needs to be watched. -- Netoholic @ 08:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Concerted 3RR violation at Hare Krishna and Gouranga[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Hare Krishna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Several IPs working in concert have reverted honest attempts to improve the article four times.

IPs involved so far are 81.148.63.74 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), 81.133.8.220 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), 86.136.90.109 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), and 81.139.7.159 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). The same also happens at Gouranga. All IPs seeem to by dynamic British Telecom IPs. Don't know if we could or should block, but semi-protecting the article might help. I don't want to do it myself, since I've made an attempt to find a "middle-ground" version, which was promptly reverted in the last revert given above, and could thus be considered "involved".

The IPs' reverts have been undone by several editors so far.

Reported by: Lupo 08:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Also add GourangaUK (talk · contribs) who previously edited as 81.139.7.159 to the above list of blind reverters involved. Lupo 09:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This has been going on for longer than shown above; and keeps going on currently. Lupo 09:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    I reverted both pages and was reverted over. WP:SEMI is primarily to be used to combat vandalism on a very temporary basis. Since this seems to be a content dispute, page protection is the route to go. Can someone protect the pages as I am now a party to the content dispute due to my reverts.--MONGO 09:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User:GourangaUK[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Hare Krishna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

GourangaUK (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Lupo 10:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Sigh. See above. Uncompromising POV-pusher who thinks he owns the page. See his edit comment in the fourth revert. Lupo 10:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Was warned but continued. Blocked for 24hrs. Dan100 (Talk) 22:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User:68.161.86.144[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Crisis on Infinite Earths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.161.86.144 (talk · contribs):

Reported by:--Toffile 17:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Also Three revert rule violation on Infinite Crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.161.86.144 (talk · contribs):

Reported by:--Tverbeek 18:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • The anon is also inserting the same text into Infinite Crisis as well. He does not have the consensus to insert that paragraph after it has been removed by multiple editors. (Myself included) --Toffile 17:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Anon here: my understanding is that being anonymous has nothing at all to do with being able to edit artciles. Further, it's clear that rather than simply put down an opposing viewpoint on a piece of art, they would rather just delete mine. Seems hardly fair as noneof edits deletes any part of the existing article. I have asked for arbritration on this issue and will abide by it and have asked that the commentary (5 lines) stand until that time. (previous comment by 68.161.86.144 (talk · contribs)
  • Obvious violation of both the letter and spirit of Wikipedia policy. By the way, he hasn't actually requested Arbitration that I can tell; he did asked a random editor to help him. Very confused. Tverbeek 18:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 24hrs. Dan100 (Talk) 22:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Tverbeek 22:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Mistress Selina Kyle (3)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Latex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mistress Selina Kyle (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Themindset 19:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User keeps labeling the edits the user doesn't agree with as vandalism, when it is clearly not. Themindset 19:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • See Talk:Latex#External links and Special:Contributions/Themindset - this user has followed me from the Eminem article (then to Doggy style, then to here, Latex) and reverts me seemingly for no other reason than to annoy and harass me. He is blanking whole sections of the article (vandalism) because "they're to do with sex and therefore unencyclopedic" - He is attempting to censor Wikipedia. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 20:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Why would you put words I didn't write into quotations? - Also, I only made 2 reverts, so please refrain from Ad Hominem attacks.Themindset 20:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It was a paraphrase. See http://dictionary.com/search?q=paraphrase.
    • "I believe this kind of sex-obsessed content to be unencyclopedic."
    • ""Perhaps a sexwiki would be more appropriate for that kind of pervasively sexually-obsessed content" --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 20:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Once again, why would you put that in quotations? A paraphrase would be exactly the same thing, without quotations (which imply word-for-word cut/paste). For the last time: I am not vandalising, I am not censoring, I simply believe this info to be unencyclopedic (in its relation to the raw material), and I have repeatedly suggested the creation of a Latex clothing article in which you could not only include, but expand upon such content. Please note I only reverted twice, and I will let your fourth revert stand for now and I am no longer going to debate this here. Themindset 20:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


Blocked for 24 hours. I further suggest you consider Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the edit war continues. —BorgHunter (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User:24.11.91.3[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Rigoberto Alpizar by 24.11.91.3 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: -- nae'blis (talk)

Comments:

  • User also had previous similar edits to the same article: [32] at 2005-12-22 04:33:55 and [33] at 2005-12-21 02:06:00. They are convinced that the facts of the case support using the term 'murder' rather than 'death/killing'. More than half of user's contributions are to this article; we have gotten them to speak on the Talk page, but the article edits continue. I'm at 2 reverts myself...
  • Unlikely IP knew about the 3RR, so I've left a warning and elected not to block. Dan100 (Talk) 21:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Themindset[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Latex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Themindset (talk · contribs):

Reported by: 85.12.17.26 20:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • According to the report above by him he claims to have only reverted twice - is lying to admins deliberately against rules too?

His last revert breaking 3RR should be reverted back.

  • Um, take a look, only the last three are actual reverts, and third only after the 3RR violator was blocked. Themindset 21:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd also ask the administrators to note that this seems to be User:Mistress Selina Kyle retaliating for my reporting his/her 3RR violation. I ask you to carefully look at the reverts listed, and you will see that 1st revert and Previous version reverted to are have no relation to the 2nd to 4th reverts. Themindset 21:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • 1-This is not her, no.
    • 2-That the first revert was reverting a different edit is a moot point, you still made more than 3 reverts (4) and so broke 3RR. 85.12.17.26 21:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Anyone can see, looking at those difference links that they were in fact reverts.
      • 1 - Reverting the revert back that included the image
      • 2 - Reverting see also links and external links and other wiki links
      • 3 - Reverting see also links and external links and other wiki links
      • 4 - Reverting see also links and external links and other wiki links
    • It's sad that these things seem to be allowed to slip by unless brought attention to by an outsider. Whether the person you are arguing with also broke 3RR has nothing to do with it, you just proved yourself to be just as bad by also ignoring 3RR in the name of an edit war. 85.12.17.26 21:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Obviously.
    • I just don't like people like you that use rules for their own advantage while breaking the same rules themselves.
    • You deserve just as much to be blocked as her. 85.12.17.26 21:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Cute. So you've never contributed before, how did you stumble upon this situation? Themindset 21:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I already replied to you on the admin Dan100's user page. I'm not going to argue any further, the case being irrelevant anyway and seems to be nothing more than an attempt to change the subject and weasel out of a block - The fact remains you broke 3RR with 4 edits just like Selina whom is now blocked. 85.12.17.26 21:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • So a brand new contributor... and their very first contribution is a 3RR violation notice? Coupled with a direct plea to an administrator for help? Wouldn't that seem slightly fishey? Themindset 21:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Please let me work through this evidence and discussion. BTW, I'd like to say that the IP is unlikely to be a blocked user - there is a system called the "autoblocker" that prevents blocked users from just logging out to continue to edit. Dan100 (Talk) 21:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  • OK, there have only been three actual reverts, so the 3RR has not been broken. Dan100 (Talk) 21:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The first edit listed above IS a revert (as well as 2nd 3rd and 4th, based on several previous reverts in an edit war for keeping/removing the image:
    • So yeah, there were 4 reverts made 85.12.17.26 22:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

There needs to be four identical reverts made in one single 24 hour period for a block to be considered. Clearly, this has not happened, so there will be no block. Please move on, and consider the guidance of WP:ROWN. Dan100 (Talk) 23:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Andrew Alexander[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Holodomor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Andrew Alexander (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Irpen 20:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments: In his 3rd revert (06:48, December 23, 2005) the user combined the undoing of all of my article edits since his previous revert (19:56, December 22, 2005) with throwing in some {{fact}} templates into the text. However, it should still be counted as a complete revert as per Policy which says:

Reverting doesn't only mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. It means undoing the actions of another editor, and may include edits that mostly undo a previous edit and also add something new, page moving, admin actions such as protection, etc. Use common sense.

The other three edits in the list are 100% indentical reverts. --Irpen 20:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree. User has also been blocked for 3RR violation before, so I'm not inclined towards leniency. Blocked for 24 hours. Dan100 (Talk) 21:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Dark shadow[edit]

Three revert rule violation on TV.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dark shadow (talk · contribs):

Reported by: (ESkog)(Talk) 22:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Continues inserting POV rants about the forums on the site. Multiple users reverting him back - I stopped at 3 (and asked about it on Talk page after 1, with no response) (ESkog)(Talk) 22:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I feel new users should be warned of the 3RR before they are blocked under it. Therefore I've only warned on this occasion. Dan100 (Talk) 23:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User:195.82.106.47, User:195.82.106.69, User:212.18.228.53 etc.[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Veganism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 195.82.106.47 (talk · contribs), 195.82.106.69 (talk · contribs), 212.18.228.53 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Viriditas 02:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • See list of suspected meatpuppets by IP address at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Canaen. 195.82.106.47, 195.82.106.69, and 212.18.228.53 are all the same user from static.mailbox.co.uk (Mailbox Internet Ltd.) User has been informed about 3RR policy in the past [34] but continues to use dynamic IP's to engage in edit war on Veganism and has vowed to continue doing so during the Christmas break. --Viriditas 02:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • All 3 addresses blocked for 24 hours. I will leave a message on his/their talk page/pages. Nandesuka 04:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, the user is posting from a dynamic address, and is currently posting to the Veganism page as Mitsu, so the block has no effect. At this point, a CheckUser request would be nice. Mitsu has been linked to these IP's for quite a while. See the RFC for further info. --Viriditas 04:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I just range-blocked his /24. Let's see if that takes. Nandesuka 04:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Wisesabre[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Rajput (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wisesabre (talk · contribs):

Reported by: --DPSingh 11:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: This guys only revert wars and nothing else.

Response: Wisesabre blocked for 24 hours. FireFox 11:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

User:CltFn[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Islam in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). CltFn (talk · contribs):

  • Previous version reverted to: [35]
  • 1st revert: [36]
  • 2nd revert: [37]
  • 3rd revert: [38]
  • 4th revert: [39]

Reported by: Yuber(talk) 15:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC) Comments: Editor keeps adding back a xenophobic section entitled "Muslim disloyalty towards the United States".

  • </nowiki>
  • CltFn has done this before, marking his large reverts as minor and adding information that was cited from racist sources to cause a revert war. Has not tried compromise either.--a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • He's been blocked for 24 hours. That's the maximum block for the 3RR, but the repeat offences suggest that it should really be more. Hedley 16:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • An anon informed me that I was wrong to block CltFn. However, upon looking through the diffs, he removed "According to some estimates, up to 30 percent of the slaves brought to the U.S. may have been Muslim [40], predominantly the African slaves." four times. This, in conjuction with past blocks for 3RR and thus reluctancy to ultimately sort things out without an edit war, means he deserves the 24 hour block to think about things. Hedley 16:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Damir Mišić[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Meša Selimović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Damir Mišić (talk · contribs):

Reported by: millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • In this case user broke 3RR with reverts which broke compromise about the article content (mainly made using Bosnian and Serbian language on the talk page). This is not the first example of breaking 3RR by this user and some admin should warn this user for that. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Damir Mišić is waging a blatant revert war and has violated the 3RR. He's been here for two weeks, he should know about the 3RR by now. I have blocked him for 24 hours. Millosh, please report 3RRvios properly though. There is a template at the bottom of this page. Izehar 20:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

User:GMB[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Communism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). GMB (talk · contribs):