Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Boycottthecaf

[edit]

I think this user's actions on Watership Down probably qualify as a 3RR (15RR?) violation.

Reported by: Atlant 00:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Remington and the Rattlesnakes

[edit]

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

Remington and the Rattlesnakes (talk · contribs):

Reported by: android79 19:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User:William M. Connolley

[edit]

William M. Connolley: Six-month revert parole on certain articles violation on Kyoto Protocol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

William M. Connolley (talk · contribs):

Reported by: SEWilco 20:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Duplicates - William M. Connolley 2 to 12

[edit]

I've removed these. See [1] if you must examine their content, and WP:ANI#User:William_M._Connolley_13 if you want to see the latest update. - brenneman(t)(c)

User:Pigsonthewing

[edit]

Three revert rule violation on User_talk:Pigsonthewing (edit | [[Talk:User_talk:Pigsonthewing|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Locke Cole 12:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • User seems to believe it's OK to remove talk from his user talk page. WP:UP doesn't seem to indicate one way or the other about user talk pages, but my feeling is that in this case it shouldn't be allowed. WP:3RR says it doesn't generally apply to user space violations, but states that there are exceptions. Locke Cole 12:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMO, Pigsonthewing is entitled to remove comments he may see as harrassment from his talk page, especially since they were not being re-added by the person who left them originally. android79 13:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess I don't really see the difference between a third party reverting it and the original author. Having said that, if the original author had re-added the comment, would you believe WP:3RR to be applicable? --Locke Cole 13:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No. the 3RR policy is pretty clear on this. 3RR is intended to prevent edit wars on articles. Andy's talk page isn't an article. The purpose of his talk page is for communication. Obviously, since he was upset enough by Karmafist's message to remove it, the communication was received. I don't believe he's trying to cover anything up by removing it, he just didn't want it there. Repeated re-addition borders on harassment. In addition, please don't use edit summaries like rvv when the material you are reverting is clearly not vandalism. android79 18:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, some of these were to remove thrid- party abuse, re-added by Locke Cole, after I'd asked him to desist (on his talk page). Andy Mabbett 15:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:69.253.195.228

[edit]

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

69.253.195.228 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Mgreenbe 18:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User:207.62.70.122

[edit]

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

207.62.70.122 (talk · contribs): 207.62.70.179 (talk · contribs): 207.62.70.213 (talk · contribs): 207.62.70.136 (talk · contribs): (All one person))

Has constantly participated in a revert war in Latino with no discussion in the talk page. To help amend the problem, I personally tried to add a section to the article where this user could place the information on the discrepancy between the actual meaning of the word Latino and the usage in the united states, but the user only continues a revert war.

List of reverts:

All of the abovereverts were done on November 16th.

  • Revert 8 on 12:37, November 21 [9]
  • Revert 9 on 22:46, November 22, 2005 207.62.70.28 [10]


Reported by Cowman 00:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Are there any admins in particular that have the ability to do this? At the moment the latino article is protected in part to stop the actions of this user, and we hope to have it unprotected so we can continue working on the article. We cannot do this, however, unless this user is blocked. Thanks in advance for any response. Cowman 20:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The user has come back to editing the wikipedia article and has been reverted again - we seriously need this person blocked, and as their ip range constantly changes it's impossible to communicate with them. (Woops, forgot to sign this one. It was me who wrote it - Cowman
Reverting once a day now may be annoying, but isn't really a war anymore. It appears the range is from LA Community College. I noticed there was only one note on any of the offending IPs talk pages -- might want to try catching the talk page shortly after the edit; this may be nothing more than a new user who doesn't understand what they should be doing. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 22:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've started adding notes to every one of the user's talk pages that I can find, but I highly doubt any response will come out of this - what should we do if the user still persists? CowmanTalk 00:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


User:Gibraltarian

[edit]

Take 1

[edit]

Three revert rule violation on History of Gibraltar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Gibraltarian (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Ecemaml 09:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Yes, technically, it's right. But only because I'm following with additions in a different article (History of Gibraltar/temp), since it seems that Gibraltarian is allowed to verbally abuse whatever he wants, not provide a single reference and remove sourced information just because he wants (and may). --Ecemaml 18:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take 2

[edit]

Three revert rule violation on History of Gibraltar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Removal of {{disputed}} template.

Gibraltarian (talk · contribs):

Reported by: --Ecemaml 12:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User:Bright888

[edit]

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

Bright888 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Appleby 21:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User: 165.247.213.84

[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Winter Soldier Investigation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

165.247.213.84 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: TDC 21:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Even though both anon editor as well as article is the subject of an RfArb, Anon continues to remove information from article as well as remove dispute header. TDC 21:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Less Humorous Comments: Even though TDC as well as the article are the subject of Arbitration, TDC continues to remove information from the article as well as lie about 3RR violations. Any Admin checking the above 4 Diffs will see they are not all reverts (3rd one being a simple change of tag type, for instance). Sorry that admin time had to be wasted like this. 165.247.213.84 00:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do is click on each link to see it is a revert to the 18:11, November 16, 2005 version of the article. You lie so poorly its amazing that anyone believes you. TDC 00:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Any Admin checking the above 4 Diffs will see they are not all reverts (3rd one being a simple change of tag type, for instance). 165.247.213.84 02:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


User:24.55.228.56

[edit]

Three revert rule violation on E. Fuller Torrey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

24.55.228.56 (talk · contribs):

07:20, November 17, 2005

Reported by: .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 03:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:


User:81.153.41.72

[edit]

Three revert rule violation on List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

81.153.41.72 (talk · contribs)

Reported by: → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 16:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Page is up for AfD. User thinks that the proper way to "protest" the AfD discussion is by putting comments on the article page itself, rather than in the AfD discussion. Edit summaries suggest that 81.153.41.72 (talk · contribs) is also RachelBrown (talk · contribs).

User:Dbachmann

[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Proto-Indo-European language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Dbachmann (talk · contribs):

Reported by: --Nixer 15:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

4 reverts in 24 hours is the rule to be in violation of 3RR and this is not the place to bring it up if you have an issue with his use of admin powers, the place for that would be WP:RFC. I have placed a warning on his talk page regarding 3RR. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 06:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
please do not feed the trolls :) dab (ᛏ) 11:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andrew Alexander

[edit]

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

Andrew Alexander (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Irpen 07:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

  • User has an annoying habit to find an easy way to make sure his out-of-mainstream POV gets the prominence, by spending little time on writing but making sure his writing goes into the lead paragraphs of the articles on controversial topics. This particular case is about his fight to disrupt the lead paragraph of the Holodomor article. As per the 3RR policy clause:
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
As per the clause above not only the first and the second reverts (which are 100% reverts, i.e. restorations of unaltered previous versions) but also reverts 3 and 4 count since they consist of "undoing the actions of another editor". Revert 3 restores his own version of the lead as of 05:47, November 19, 2005, and revert 4 restores his version of 03:38, November 15, 2005 while making irrelevant changes to other text. The core of the conflict is that the user insists on the term "Genocide" being used as an alternative name to the Holodomor while such an opinion is not established in the mainstream literature as pointed out to him at talk. 3rd revert consists of the moving the phrase within paragraph without change of the meaning. 4th revert again restores his original lead paragraph (thus undoing the changes of a different editor) and making an unrelated change in a totally different section. The user wants to frivolously avoid a 3RR violation while clearly breaking a 3RR spirit.
The user have been warned in the past that he should not expect to get away with violating 3RR based on technicalities and that an important part of our policies is the spirit in which they're made. At that time, Rob Church as a courtesy gave an offender a warning that while the block is justified, it will not be applied as a courtesy. The user promptly deleted that warning from his talk and today violated the 3RR in exactly same fashion. --Irpen 07:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for 24 hours. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 07:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nohat at aluminium

[edit]

Violation of Three revert rule reported by Jooler 03:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 and left a note on the user talk page. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jaybee From his Castle

[edit]

Reverted Desiree Washington 4 times in the last 24 hours. PatGallacher 23:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours and notified the user on his talk page. —Cleared as filed. 04:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


User:Eclipse McMahon

[edit]

3 revert rule violation on Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Eclipse McMahon (talk · contribs):

I am not involved in the dispute (I came across it while going through WP:RfP). So I'll do this myself. I had missed this one besides. It was actually 5 reverts in a 24 hour period. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 01:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


User:81.111.172.198

[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ombudsman (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ombudsman|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

81.111.172.198 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: User:Jfdwolff 21:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Information provided by User:Jfdwolff incorrect. User:Jfdwolff posted illegal material and it was the illegal material that was removed pending a request for a policy statement from Wikipedia regarding unlawful actions by Administrator User:Jfdwolff. Administrator Cleared as filed. should have maintained the status quo pending resolution by higher authority as Cleared as filed. admits being "in no position to pass judgment". A policy statement is still awaited. For full details please see "Regrettably Inappropriate Action from "Cleared as filed" On 05:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)" [found here [15]] .[reply]
  • It would seem inappropriate for User:Jfdwolff to seek to have a User blocked when the matter arose from correcting a very recent (and not longstanding) posting by User:Jfdwolff. User:Jfdwolff also appears ill-mannered in dealings with other Wikipedians and fails to enter into meaningful dialogue or respond properly to valid comments made by others to attempt to achieve consensus.
  • I am still waiting for an answer to the questions posed here [16] and here [17].
81.111.172.198 14:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Asked and answered on that page, your attempts at playing amateur lawyer notwithstanding: It doesn't matter if you think you're right or that your edits are serving a higher purpose — almost everyone thinks that their edits are right or noble. Whatever your grievances, you have to settle them within the rules of Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 14:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, there is no answer provided. I do not have a grievance. The law appears to be being contravened by a Wikipedia Administrator and attempt was properly made to correct that. There is a seeming contravention of the law and Wikipedia seems to be unable to self-regulate the matter.
  • With your comment you make the point. You do not seem to have any rules about Wikipedia being used by Administrators or others acting illegally or where there is a question as to the legality of their actions or those of others. Further, it would be more appropriate to adopt a civil tone. Being insulting and rude is an inappropriate way to enter into dialogue and does little to advance your arguments. At the same time as no Wikipedia policy has been forthcoming on the matter it seems there is none. If I am wrong on that, I wait to be corrected but time is passing with no answer.
  • What is the Wikipedia policy on seeming libel for example? Is there one? There must surely be one? If there is, then why is there not a Wikipedia policy on other seeming contraventions of the law? Are the Wikipedia policies to ignore seeming illegality and to act in contempt for the laws of the states in which Wikipedia operates? If there seems to be a libel, do you just leave it up or do you take it down until the matter has been resolved? So what is the position on contraventions of data protection laws or any other law for that matter? Do you continue the seeming contravention oblivious to the laws of the rest of the world or do you act to comply and resolve the matter as to whether there is or is not a contravention?
81.111.172.198 16:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Reddi

[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Timeline of the Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Reddi (talk · contribs)

Comments: I have been trying to engage Reddi on the talkpage to explain why he doesn't want this redirect. Other users on the talkpage have agreed with my edit but Reddi refuses to discuss and instead simply reverts. There is an RfC and a Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration out on him that he also refuses to respond to, apparently according to the complaint. --Joshuaschroeder 22:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Elerner

[edit]

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

BadUser (talk · contribs):

  • Previous version reverted to: [22]
  • 1st revert: [23]
  • 2nd revert: [24]
  • 3rd revert: [25]
  • 4th revert: [26]

Reported by: Joshuaschroeder 18:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: User has been warned about such behavior and has a current RfC about his editorial practices, but he has made it clear that he will continue to revert without regard for editorial processes here at Wikipedia. --Joshuaschroeder 18:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you are correct. I didn't look closely at the date stamp. --Joshuaschroeder 19:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shivraj Singh

[edit]

User:Shivraj Singh has voilated the 3RR rule on the page Sher Shah Suri.

خرم Khurram 15:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:128.174.114.5 aka User:70.225.173.111 aka User:128.174.114.6 aka User:128.174.114.3

[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Plymouth-Canton Educational Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

128.174.114.5 (talk · contribs)/70.225.173.111 (talk · contribs)/128.174.114.6 (talk · contribs)

Reported by: brenneman(t)(c) 01:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Blocked both IPs for 24 hours (as well as 67.149.77.77, who was also in violation). · Katefan0(scribble) 05:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


user:Zen-master

[edit]

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

Zen-master (talk · contribs):

  • The consensus among other editors is that the POV tag should be removed. There has been no discussion of disputes, other than the POV tag, on the talk page. This user does not appear to be working towards consensus, but rather keeps bringing up the same objections no matter how many times they've been addressed. -Willmcw 02:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He came to an agreement with Neutrality. Unblocked him. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What is the agreement? I don't see any discussion on their talk pages. -Willmcw 08:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the agreement must have been that ZM should keep revert and edit warring on the page. See the page history. Carbonite | Talk 17:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, I've only had 1 revert in the last 24 hours or so, and this incident here was more than 24 hours ago. I find it very interesting the POV pushing bot-esque gang is out in full, highly coordinated, force today. zen master T 17:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zero0000

[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Palestinian exodus .

5 times in 20 hours

  • 1st revert: 12:55, 24 November 2005 [27]
  • 2nd revert: [28]
  • 3rd revert: [29]
  • 4th revert: [30]
  • 5th revert: 08:58, 25 November 2005

[31]

Reported by: Zeq 10:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: User is an admin. Engaged in edit wars without properexplnations of his edit on talk page.

Reply: Zeq does not understand what a revert is. Of those 5 edits, only the 2nd, 3rd and 5th were reverts according to normal 3RR practice. Therefore I did not break the rule. Though it is not an argument I need here, the 5th edit was in my opinion reversion of vandalism since what I did was to undo Zeq's deletion of a long-standing major section of the article without a good reason. Zeq shouldn't think he can just make repeated massive deletions and be protected by the 3RR. --Zero 11:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to the reply: All these edits are reverts. (if I need to "prove" it let me know. I am sure looking at the history page of the article will make it clear. It is fairly easy to locate an edit that was added and then Zero's first revert (which he claim is not a revert) Describing my edits as 'vandalism" to justify his reverts is not the proper way to solve edit disputes. For that there is the talk page not the revert button. Zeq

Dbachmann (talk · contribs):

[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Proto-World language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Reported by: User:Nixer 15:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • The User used his administrative power to block me for 48 hours, arguing with 3RR violation (which he had not right to do because of the 3RR rule, wich allowes to block users only for 24h maximum), even dispite the fact I added a new staff to the article triing to achive compromise.--Nixer 15:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another user participated, User:Izehar just e-mailed me his apologies: "I have checked your edits on "Proto-World language" again, and they appear to not be vandalism - I apologise to you for reverting you and suggesting that you were vandalising the article. I shouldn't have got involved."--Nixer 15:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Emir Arven

[edit]

Four times reverted Meša Selimović:

Reported by: Nikola 14:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I have blocked the user for 24 hours. Despite warnings, he continued to revert on Meša Selimović ([32], his fifth revert in 24 hours, and also violated the 3RR on Petar Petrović Njegoš (5 reverts [33], [34], [35], [36] , and [37] between 19:46, November 24, 2005 and 17:31, November 25, 2005). -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zen-master

[edit]

WP:3RR violation on Conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zen-master (talk · contribs):

Reported by: SlimVirgin (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Zen-master has reverted the intro around 12 times since 17:50 on November 24, making complex partial reverts in an effort to game the system. However, he has slipped up a couple of times and has reverted to certain phrases four or more times. The diffs above concentrate on one of these phrases: that conspiracy theory is a "dubious narrative genre". He has also added the word "controversially" to the start of a sentence at least four times. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are not straight reverts, but cleanups defending the article from attack by a highly coordinated POV pushing bot-esque gang. They do not debate in good faith and only seem to do things with some sort of POV mission in mind. Isn't it odd that a handful of highly coordinated editors show up to an article suddenly? zen master T 18:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't it odd that one user believes that he's entitled to make a dozen complex reverts to an article in a 24 hour period? Carbonite | Talk 18:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • A reasonable response to bullying by an exponentially coordinated bad faithed gang of POV pushers. zen master T 18:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • zen-master, as if your dozen complex reverts wasn't bad enough, you have also engaged in an escalating series of personal attacks. The next time I see one I will block you for 24 hours, so please take care not to violate WP:NPA. Jayjg (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Point out one? In my interpertation it is very suspicious that you and your POV aligned buddies all show up to the same article, at the same time, with a very high degree of coordinatation. It appears to me that you and your friends are always on some sort of POV mission as neutrality and debating in good faith are not your goals. zen master T 18:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Then perhaps you should begin to assume good faith and consider that perhaps it's your goals that are out of alignment with NPOV. Carbonite | Talk 18:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • I did assume good faith at one time, then as I gathered more evidence and paid attention I learned from experience that assumptions can be misleading. If NPOV is in dispute the first thing we should do is signify that fact, right? Why then have you been working to deny the existence of controversy in the article? Anyone from your POV aligned gang can discuss specific issues with the changes I am making on the talk page, but you and they are mostly not doing that (very surprising given the number of people in your POV aligned gang). For example, I think the word "ostensibly" is a perfect neutral replacement for "commonly believed" but you and your POV aligned friends keep reverting it. zen master T 18:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • I've blocked you for 24 hours for your continued personal attacks. Another admin who is reading this might want to block for an additional 24 hours for the 3RR violations - I note you have reverted yet again. Jayjg (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear 3RR violation, "ostensibly" seems to have come and so many times it must be about dizzy, setting aside any of the other changes. I don't personally care to make it "consecutive 24h terms", though, Jayjg's block will suffice (even if it's not ideally performed by an involved party). Alai 04:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cool Cat

[edit]

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

Reported by:

Comments:

  • Please block this idiotic pov pusher. Indefinately if you really want as he is badly pissed. --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The frst three reverts are part of a dispute as to where the redirect should point. The last one is the creation of a fork. While Cool Cat technically broke the 3RR, this is closer to reverting vandalism than revert warring. While his comments here and in his edit summary there makes suggests that he needs a break, I am not in favour of a block in this instance. Guettarda 17:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:65.95.17.92

[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Supervillain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 65.95.17.92 (talk · contribs):

  • Previous version reverted to: [38]
  • 1st revert: [39]
  • 2nd revert: [40]
  • 3rd revert: [41]
  • 4th revert: [42]

Reported by: Turnstep 21:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: 

Bell Canada BELLNEXXIA-11 (NET-67-68-0-0-1)
                                 67.68.0.0 - 67.71.255.255
Bell Canada BELLNEXXIA-10 (NET-65-92-0-0-1)
                                 65.92.0.0 - 65.95.255.255

- Turnstep 03:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cedars

[edit]

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

  • Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
  • 1st revert: [43]
  • 2nd revert: [44]
  • 3rd revert: [45]
  • 4th revert: [46]

Reported by: Barberio 03:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Really doesnt want a {globalize} tag on this article. Was warned after the third revert. --Barberio 03:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was just moving it to the talk page - I have stopped reverting it now and will not edit electrical engineering and talk for 24 hours (no exceptions) - was my mistake I didn't see one of the reverts (in fairness other users were reverting too). Cedars

User:EaZyZ99

[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Penis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). EaZyZ99 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 07:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User:HolyRomanEmperor

[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Oj, svijetla majska zoro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

HolyRomanEmperor (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Chris 73 | Talk 13:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: User is in conflict with User:Emir Arven, who got blocked by me for a 3RR above. During this, I explained the 3RR to HolyRomanEmperor. HolyRomanEmperor left me a warning on my userpage not to block him [47]. There is some discussion going on on user talk pages, but it is a 3RR violation nevertheless. In particular, a Serbian language claim previously removed was added again 4 times within 24 hours. Since I have blocked his Opponent Emir Arven for 24 hours for a 3RR, i blocked HolyRomanEmperor also for 24 hours (as per sysops should treat all sides equally above). Disclaimer: I have never edited the article, have no interest in this topic, and are not involved in this conflict in any way except for enforcing the 3RR. -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Max rspct

[edit]

Three revert rule violation on September 11, 2001 attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Max rspct (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Tom Harrison (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikipediatrix

[edit]

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

Wikipediatrix (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Extraordinary Machine 17:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User:Chaosfeary

[edit]

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

Reported by:Cberlet 21:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours.--Sean|Black 21:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I blocked him as well. I'll go tell him on the page. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see you've done that as well. Well, since I'm obviously not needed here, I'll go elsewhere. :-) Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:MagnaVox

[edit]

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

Reported by: —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 09:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User:80.217.152.161

[edit]

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

80.217.152.161 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Gyrofrog (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User:Trollderella

[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Trollderella (talk · contribs):

  • Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
  1. [57] 18:50, November 29, 2005
  2. [58] 19:31, November 29, 2005
  3. [59] 22:46, November 29, 2005
  4. [60] 23:55, November 29, 2005
  5. [61] 00:23, November 30, 2005

Reported by: Radiant_>|< 23:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • There is controversy over the wording of some CSDs. That is being discussed on the talk page. In the meantime, however, reverting is not helpful to the discussion.
btw, 3rd listed violation isn't a revert, though that's still is 4 reverts in less than 24 hours. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:HunTomy

[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Treaty of Trianon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). HunTomy (talk · contribs):

  • reverted a fascist film used for extremism propaganda

(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Vienna_Award&diff=29349424&oldid=29321409)

User User:HunTomy :

  • makes controversial, nationalist edits in Second Vienna Award;
  • makes controversial, nationalist edits in First Vienna Award,
  • makes controversial, nationalist edits in Treaty of Trianon,
  • inserts unsupported figures for the number of romanians in Transylvania and refuses to cite sources;
  • makes controversial, nationalist and unverifiable edits (including fake figures) in Romania related articles (Treaty of Trianon, First Vienna Award)
  • routinely insults other contributors in edit summaries
  • harasses and insults contributors who disagree with his edits
  • routinely questions the good faith of contributors who disagree with, or even question, his edits

Reported by -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 13:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC) Reported by: --Orioane 07:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also sockpuppetry - 81.182.108.116 same topics, same views, while he was blocked
  • Harassment, insults
  • He said paranoids to other editors

Reported by -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 19:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User:Iipmstudent9

[edit]

Three revert rule violation on The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Iipmstudent9 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Ravikiran 19:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC) Comments:[reply]

  • This is part of a long revert war that has been going on. The issue is being discussed in the talk page, but Iipmstudent9 takes the view that the views of the institute in question (IIPM) deserve precedence over the views of its critics. Incidentally, don't be misled by the conciliatory tone of the edit summaries. The same person has been threatening to get people out of their jobs here[62], here [63] and here [64]. Also note that the institute in question has been in the news for sending legal notices to critics and getting people to lose their jobs for daring to criticise it ("Drnoamchomsky" is the same person as Iipmstudent9, by Iipmstudent9's own admission - see the article talk page.) --Ravikiran 19:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is one more violation here 09:40, 1 December 2005. Even if you consider only the userid edits, this is th 4th one within 24 hours, else it is the 5th one. P.S. It looks like I too ended up violating 3rr, so go ahead and block me if needed. Sorry. --Ravikiran
  • Taking a look at this, I've decided not to impose a block on any parties. Both parties are aware of the disruptiveness of their actions and should come to an understanding.--Sean|Black 06:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:68.104.145.156

[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Franklin Lashley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.104.145.156 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Lakes 23:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • As you can see from the users history [66] this has been going on for a while. The current data has references, yet he fails to give any proof on his points, instead he gives insults and derogatory comments, like visible from edit: [67]. A quote from his latest edit: "It's not Dominator. Stop vandalising. Dude, haven't you noticed that I'm not gonna stop this until you leave it to what it should be!?" ([68]).
As all these edits were quite some time ago blocking would only have to be purely punitive so I will warn and I suggest keeping an eye on him/her. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


User:WarriorScribe

[edit]

User:ScienceApologist

[edit]

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

ScienceApologist (talk · contribs):

Reported by: --Iantresman 23:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • I think that some of these "extensive edits" amount to a 'revert'.
  • User will not present any evidence for his edits, whereas I have provided much peer-reviewed evidence as indicated by the article talk page.
  • User recently changed his username from joshuashroeder [69] under which username he was recently subject to a temporary ban [70]
  • User 24.12.29.115 traces to Chicago, Illinois, ScienceApologist's home town.

User:69.253.195.228

[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Mark Ames. 69.253.195.228 (talk · contribs): After removing an image from the article.

Reported by Dsol 12:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:MagnaVox (2nd violation)

[edit]

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

Reported by: Locke Cole 03:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • 2nd time this user has violated WP:3RR on this article (see further above). This user has previously been warned about WP:3RR, but has chosen to remove the warning from their talk page. Locke Cole 03:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, I must protest the biased application of this rule because it has not been applied to Locke_Cole for his record 7 rvt's in one day on the Debra Lafave article. This shows that certain WikipNedian administrators cannot be trusted to follow written policy. That would include Sean Black and GraemeL. MagnaVox 14:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you believe that he/she had violated 3RR, then report it properly and it will be investigated. "He/she's doing it too!" is not a valid defense to an allegation of 3RR-violation. --Nlu 14:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We were both revert warring over what I deemed at the time to be vandalism. After deciding that revert warring was getting nowhere with you, I warned you of WP:3RR on your potential violation, then reverted one final time. You chose to ignore the warning and revert again, and I reported it (further above here). In my report I noted that, depending on if it was or wasn't viewed as vandalism, I might also be guilty of 3RR. Locke Cole 14:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I reviewed this more closely and I don't like what I see. There were, indeed, 7 reverts by Locke Cole on November 28th, and MagnaVox was blocked for those, and Locke Cole was not. Normally I'd just let this pass with a warning, but I am not OK with even the merest whif of people gaming 3RR to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. So I'm enforcing a 24 hour block in this case. Locke Cole, you should know better: vandalism and content disputes are two different things. There is never a good reason to violate 3RR; you can always involve another editor or an admin to help you. We are not standing alone here. Please be more careful in the future. MagnaVox, I'll be keeping an eye on this article for the next few days, so I expect you to be on your absolute best behavior, now and in the future. Nandesuka 14:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To Nandesuka: Thank you. Locke Cole has been using his friends and knowledge of the site's rules to attack my work in every way except through honest exchange. It's not just a link that I've added to that article but other information which he has seen fit to censor. For example, I added to Debra Lafave's background that she was sexually assaulted as a teenager (which I believe is highly significant to her case) and he removed it. He quotes rules that yahoo groups are not allowed as WP links yet I have seen many linked through searching. So, apparently, this is not really a hard and fast rule on WP, just something to be used when you're an editor that doesn't take criticism well.

In fact, whatever WP link rule he has brought up, I have shown that it is routinely violated on many other WP pages leading me to believe that the only real rules here are what every individual editor wants them to be as long as he has enough friends to back himself up.

He also claims (without any proof) that the link I have added is my site and then proclaims I'm guilty of self-promotion.

I would like independent arbitration by a counsel of administrators to settle this matter once and for all but am not exactly sure how to request it. It's sad to have to go to that length but, I see no other way or resolving this type of conflict because I will not back down in a fight that is really about censorship. MagnaVox 15:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dbiv

[edit]

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

Reported by: --84.68.228.215 08:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Continues to revert despite considerable opposition on the talk page. This user is and Admin and should be setting a higher example.
Already blocked for 24 hours for this 3RR violation. For what its worth he did the same thing with five reverts in 24 hours a few days ago too. When someone pointed out that he had broken the 3RR rule, his response was to point the editor to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. [71] Wonderful behaviour for an admin. AlistairMcMillan 09:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm concerned that AlistairMcMillan has blocked David and yet was one of the people reverting against him in the content dispute. We're not allowed to block people in articles we're actively engaged in editing, so it might be best if Alistair were to unblock him and allow an uninvolved admin to deal with this. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed my block. AlistairMcMillan 10:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Alistair. Perhaps someone not involved could take a look at it. I've just edited the article myself, so I can't do anything either. I'm pasting below our conversation from our talk pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alistair, sorry to bother you with this, but I just noticed you blocked Dbiv, even though you were involved in the content dispute. That's a violation of the blocking policy, so it might be best (for your own sake) if you were to unblock him and let an uninvolved admin handle it. Message for you about it at WP:AN/3RR#User:Dbiv. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I unblock Dbiv, is there any likelihood of anything being done about his breaking of the 3RR rule twice inside a week? No offence, but I'd feel a lot more confident about following your advice if you hadn't just reverted his version, which is clearly against the consensus view on the Talk page. AlistairMcMillan 10:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, I've only just started editing the article, so I don't know the issues or who is taking which side. All I know is that we're not allowed to block people we're having content disputes with, so regardless of the consequences, you should really unblock him, for your own sake as much as anything else. Another admin is likely to come along and reblock if it was a genuine violation (and I'm not saying I think it wasn't, only that I haven't looked at the diffs). SlimVirgin (talk) 10:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind telling me what "for my own sake" refers to? Just curious, because he's been using similar language all morning. AlistairMcMillan 10:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We should really have this discussion on the 3RR page, so I'm going to move the comments there. By "for your own sake," I meant that you have violated the blocking policy, which is regarded as a serious offence for an admin, particularly in the current climate, as there have been a couple of recent controversial instances of it. You'd therefore be doing yourself a favor if you were to unblock and perhaps ask an uninvolved admin to look at the situation. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alistair, at 10:37 you said you had removed the block, but I can't see that it's been removed, unless I have a cache problem. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You unblocked the autoblock but not the user account. It needs to be done separately. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:RK

[edit]

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

Reported by: --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally please revert back to version from before RK started his edits.

  • Can you please fix the above by providing diffs rather than just the changed page, as in the example at the top of this page? Also, please sign your name using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ -- SCZenz 20:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Flavius Aetius (in concert with User:Brian Brockman)

[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Talk:Ken Mehlman (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Ken Mehlman|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Flavius Aetius (talk · contribs)

Reported by: · Katefan0(scribble)/my ridiculous poll 20:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Flavius Aetius has repeatedly removed an entire thread of conversation between several editors on Talk:Ken Mehlman, citing as his reasoning that much of the thread was copied from a user's personal talk page. It was copied there because the discussions bore on a currently disputed topic on the Ken Mehlman page, Republicans reputed to be gay who dodge questions about their sexuality (the inclusion of such information is also a topic of dispute on Ken Mehlman). Flavius Aetius is aware of policies regarding 3RR, as he previously violated it on the article itself and, rather than reporting the error here, I placed a warning on his talk page [72] which he has since blanked [73]. · Katefan0(scribble)/my ridiculous poll 20:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd encourage any admin reviewing this report to look through the talk page history; it appears Brian Brockmeyer has also violated 3RR at this point. · Katefan0(scribble)/my ridiculous poll 20:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much Wikibofh, though I disagree that it wasn't vandalism. I'm not sure how you can have a content dispute over the blanking of a talk page thread (this was, after all, an issue of removing others' comments). Regardless, thanks. · Katefan0(scribble)/my ridiculous poll 21:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I view it as a content dispute, where whether or not the content should be there is disputed.  :) I think blanking is normally vandalism. But if you've reverted 4 or 5 times, you need to get admins involved, not continue to revert more. I'm going to keep myself cheerfully out an analysis of the content. I have informed User:Asbl of this as well (talk and email). If other admins believe I'm wrong, I will happily bow to consensus. Wikibofh 21:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Asbl

[edit]

Has reverted over TEN times within last 24 hours after being corrected for pasting discussions that took place on a user's talk page to the talk page on the Ken Mehlman article (as these discussions took place on a user's private talk page, they do not belong on a community talk page since not all members of the community were privy to the discussion). Has shown blatant disregard for 3RR.Brian Brockmeyer 20:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Brian Brockmeyer has been reported above, and seems to not understand that blanking is simple vandalism. The 3RR does not apply to reverting his vandalisms. --Asbl 21:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:68.112.201.90 and User:Braaad

[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Civil Air Patrol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.112.201.90 (talk · contribs) and Braaad (talk · contribs):

Reported by: McNeight 01:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User:Chooserr

[edit]

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

Reported by: Sortan 20:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Violation on Euripides (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chooserr (talk · contribs):

Reported by SlimVirgin (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Blocked for 24 hours. I note that the policy on dates is deliberately ambiguous about which version to use if there's disagreement, and that he may be confusing it with the "use original author" provision for British vs. American spellings. Nevertheless, content/policy disagreements do not excuse repeated 3RR violations. -- SCZenz 20:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have now unblocked him for 24 hours, because he agreed not to make any more changes to date systems for the next 24 hours. See User_talk:Chooserr#3RR block. I also explained the ambiguous policy situation, and explained that no policy or content dispute excuses 3RR violations. If he violates my condition of no date system changes, his 24-hour 3RR block should be reinstated. I also recommend against further leniency if there are other 3RR violations. -- SCZenz 21:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see little evidence of good faith here, SCZ. He went back to editing Euripides on his 3RR version, even though he'd been asked three times to revert himself. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I will look into it immediately. -- SCZenz 22:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          He added wikilinks to what was then the current version, even if it was the result of his 3RR violation. You switched back to the 3RR version, which caused his work to be lost but was the right thing to do. Now he can readd those wikilinks if he likes, but if he reverts the date changes I'll block him. I don't think there is any further problem at this time.
          Although the actions you cite make me suspicious that he was trying to cement his preferred version of the article, evidence of good faith is not required. He violated the 3RR and misunderstood policy on dates, but does not appear to have done these things in bad faith. I am only going to require adherence to the rules, and to the condition I gave him for repreive of his block; I can't require that he repudiate his views on policy and content.
          I will, however, continue to watch his contributions for signs of trouble. -- SCZenz 22:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I appreciate how you handled the situation, SCZ, and like that you assume good faith. However, I think that User:Chooserr's claim that he was misled is unfair to Shanes; I can see how Chooserr may have misread Shanes' comments on his user page, but as far as I can tell Shanes never deliberately mislead him, and Chooserr persisted even after Shanes and others tried to clarify matters for him. I am not asking you to block him again, I just think he shouldn't blame another user. Tom Radulovich 22:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I admit I didn't read Shanes' comment in my investigations, and certainly didn't wish to blame him for anything. I only meant to claim that Chooserr's misunderstanding of policy is a mitigating factor. -- SCZenz 22:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just to clarify, I wasn't saying SCZ shouldn't have unblocked. I also like to see it when we assume good faith and unblock early. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • (after edit conflict) I think we're all in agreement. Now Chooserr has had 3RR and date policy both explained in crystal-clear terms, so I think we should forgive (but not forget) his previous actions and take further (and less lenient) action if and only if he continues in his previous course. -- SCZenz 22:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • In the spirit of good faith, Chooserr is busy egging on other users to revert back his recent changes: [75]. Sigh. Tom Radulovich 22:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone should perhaps clarify the 3RR rule to him, as he seems to be engaged in a revert war at War on Christmas (talk · history · watch) (I don't think the anon's edits can be classified as simple vandalism, as the article has some POV problems which are perhaps being overcompensated for by the anon). I count 5+ reverts. Sortan 01:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tried to explain the relationship between 3RR, POV edits, and simple vandalism today, but I think I could have done a better job (or he's just taking advantage of me being nice above). Can I ask another admin to look into this and handle as appropriate? -- SCZenz 05:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And... he's broken 3RR again on Euripides (as well as violated his parole). Sortan 18:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thawa (a brand new account) appeared at War on Christmas, and reinserted two of Chooserr's non-NPOV elements. Thawa also used hidden article comments in lieu of the talk page, a peculiar practice in which Chooserr has engaged twice [1,2].

Thawa's first Wikipedia edit was to the Euripides article, and occurred 41 minutes after Chooserr's 24-hour block was reinstated. —Lifeisunfair 20:51/23:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thawa has resumed edit warring at War on Christmas, removing valid content and reinserting the same non-NPOV material and hidden comments that Chooserr repeatedly pushed. Thawa also is editing Euripides. Can someone please block this obvious sock puppet? —Lifeisunfair 00:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thawa showed up at Timeline of Eastern philosophers and reverted the dates from BCE/CE to Chooserr's BC/AD version. Thawa also changed BCE to BC at Zhuangzi. Can something please be done? —Lifeisunfair 09:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed Thawa's contributions. Yes, it may be suspicious, and yet I see no conclusive evidence that Thawa is a sock puppet of Chooserr. (Of course, I may simply be too new and not realizing it.) Unless someone can run their IPs and conclude that they're the same person, I feel that I cannot in good conscience block Thawa or even warn him/her. Your mileage may vary, of course. --Nlu 10:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the evidence (which also includes the fact that Thawa added links to the Scots language Wikipedia at The Light that Failed and Nestlé Smarties) is overwhelming, but I can understand why you'd be reluctant to issue a block without absolute proof.
I've been periodically checking #Wikipedia for the five ArbCom members with CheckUser rights, but I haven't found one yet.
Are you able to view the exact time at which the Thawa account was created? I only know that the first edit occurred 41 minutes after Chooserr was re-blocked. —Lifeisunfair 10:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The account was created 28 minutes after Chooserr was blocked. Still, not conclusive, in my opinion. --Nlu 10:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to contact Kelly Martin via IRC. She has confirmed that "one of IP addresses used to edit by Thawa was used 32 minutes later by Chooserr." —Lifeisunfair 22:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

seems to be at it again

[edit]

User:Bobblewik

[edit]

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

Comments:

Bobblewik has been running what is literally one man crusade to merge parts of two articles. Everyone disagrees. He has spent day running campaigns on the two articles despite appeals to stop from everyone. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I went over the 3RR. Sorry, I will try to make sure it does not happen again. I do not know where to respond in full but here is a summary.
  • I notice that the above quoted '1st revert' is different to the others. An anonymous editor had characterised their edit as reverting my removal of year links which was a different matter to the merge tag. I had removed year links in accordance with the Manual of Style so I reverted their revert.
  • The edit in question is the addition of a merge tag. I did not do any merging because I was merely seeking (and got) a debate.
  • A reasonably polite debate took place. Unfortunately the tag was removed during the debate with no comment or by false statements (e.g 'discussion has petered out' less than 2 hours after the previous debating point). I put the tag back whilst the debate continued. I asked for advice on this at RfA and Village Pump. I am not aware of the policy on tags added in good faith but removal by stealth, by misleading statements, and within only 1.5 days of the debate starting is wrong. I thought 7 days for a tag during a live debate was reasonable. Unfortunately I allowed these wrongs to wind me up and I should consider the bigger picture. I would be happy to discuss this more if wanted. Bobblewik 22:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is that a commitment to stop adding the tag and / or revert warring? Jkelly 22:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to clarify, there was a detailed debate with numerous contributors. Bobble was pretty much in a tiny minority with users queuing to disagree over and over. It is not standard to put tags on pages that are the most visited. That was pointed out to Bobble by SimonP. In addition a major debate had already happened involving a lot of users so it wasn't as if a tag was being placed in at the start of a debate. Users pointed out that the issue had already been discussed for days in exhausting detail. The template was removed because the view was that the debate had already happened and an overwhelming consensus already arrived at in a long debate. Nobody doubts Bobble's genuineness, which is why the 3RR was not reported when he breached three, but when he did it a fourth time and seemed determined to persist against the wishes of all the other participants to keep the debate going on using the template even though a clear result was there it was necessary to enforce the rule. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:JDG

[edit]

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

Reported by: Monicasdude 00:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • User:JDG regularly reverts contributions of other editors (mine in particular) to his preferred, much older (2-year-old!) text. He declared his intention to restore the old text, despite the contributions of a very large number of editors and the conspicuous lack of support for his text, some time ago (for example, in this edit summary [76] . Aside from 3RR violations, these edits involve insertion of personal aesthetic judgments in violation of NPOV/NOR policies, "biting a newbie" w/regard to his edit summary regarding editor "P crosley", citing a supposed policy regarding the editing of featured articles which he has repeatedly proposed without ever approaching consensus, and the inclusion a personal attacks in an edit summary (in this case, addressed to me). The editor effectively claims ownership of the article, and has repeatedly engaged in sterile edit warring rather than providing reliable sourcing information on disputed points or making good faith efforts to reach consensus.
  • The 3RR rule "states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions on a single Wikipedia article within 24 hours of their first reversion." It applies to "undoing the actions of another editor." It does not require that the reversions be confined to a single, discrete, textual segment . In this case, we have four reverts to the same article in just over 19 hours, intended to undo the work of editors over two years and restore a much older text (which the user has periodically reinserted). Monicasdude 00:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I find myself confused by the content changes in the reverts, and cannot find any relevent discussion on the article Talk page or that user's talk page. The above reads something like a user conduct rfc. I would like a more experienced admin to take a look at this. Jkelly 01:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • One could not ask for a clearer demonstration of user:JDG's bad faith than his claim that the edits involved (which his edit summaries explicitly describe as "restoring" previous versions) were not reverts. The first edit listed removed all of user:P crosley's changes to the article's introduction [77]; the second wiped out my corrections to the chronology of Dylan's signing with Columbia Records [78]; the third wiped out changes by me and by editor:Lulu to the article intro, again restoring user:JDG's preferred text [79]; and the fourth reversion, to an even older text, wipes out changes by anon user:149.99.134.207 [80] . (The last is harder to follow, given the intervening edits, but the ninth paragraph, beginning "At the time his voice" is the text JDG reverted to, removing the anon editor's contributions. All of the edits reverted by JDG were good faith and non-vandalous. The edits listed are paradigmatic reverts, and user:JDG's denial that they are reverts is a clear signal of the need for intervention: the user is refusing to abide by established, clearly applicable Wikipedia policies. Monicasdude 06:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User Chadbryant

[edit]

User Chadbryant has repeatedly vandalised the user pages of other Wikipedia posters by declaring them to be sockpuppets; however, he has no backing from Wikipedia administrators on this, nor does he have any justification (i.e. IP addresses, etc.). All he has is a suspicious mind and on here that is not good enough. He is also vandalising a sub page of American Dad; this can be seen in the Contributions section of his user page. He appears to have taken some sort of online grudge into Wikipedia, and as a result he will repeatedly revert edits or remove them entirely with false claims of "vandalism" or "harrassment." I would appreciate it if someone who reads this could please look into his behavior and see if any additional action against him is warranted. From looking at his histories, it appears that this may be so. Thank you in advance. Doctor Strangelove

Not the place for this, you probably want AN/I JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 05:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


User:72.140.235.202

[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Mongoloid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 72.140.235.202 (talk · contribs):

Reported by:Saikiri~ 07:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • User created a new page, Mongoloids to paste his preferred version of the Mongoloid article on. He then went about using piped links [81] [82] [83] to covertly redirect several links to Mongoloid to the Mongoloids article. (Mongoloids has since been converted to a redirect. I think he hasn't noticed.)
  • Had never been warned. I put the first 3RR tag on the talk page, and moved the unsourced addition to the article to the talk page for sourcing. Jkelly 07:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:216.249.57.79

[edit]

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

216.249.57.79 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Additionally this user has edited both User:Akamad and my user page. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User has been warned that if he vandalizes again, he will be blocked so we'll see how he/she responds to that.--MONGO 09:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ferkelparade

[edit]

Three revert rule violation on November 18 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).Oops...I just realized I broke the 3RR rule on that article. These were not clear vandalism reverts but arguably rather part of a content dispute (the 3rd revert is not part of the same dispute but also not a clear case of vandalism), so please slap me on the wrist if you think it's necessary. Ferkelparade π 20:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reported by: myself, Ferkelparade π 20:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Just revert yourself and *bang* the 3RR violation evaporates. [[Sam Korn]] 21:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A surprisingly easy solution - I just did that, might have thought of that myself :P -- Ferkelparade π 10:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive7&oldid=1148884662"