Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive8

User:FluteyFlakes88

In Template:Anarchism sidebar, FluteyFlakes88 has violated the 3RR:

19:42, 20 December 2005 FluteyFlakes88
20:33, 20 December 2005 FluteyFlakes88
21:32, 20 December 2005 FluteyFlakes88
21:46, 20 December 2005 FluteyFlakes88

User:152.91.9.124

Three revert rule violation on Pseudoscience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 152.91.9.124 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: --Prosfilaes 06:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User:Chadbryant and User:RSPW Coaster

KTVX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - dig that edit history. Protected, added to WP:LAME and 24 hours each for really stupid 3RR violation - David Gerard 08:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There's apparently been some sockpuppetry going on. I haven't time to look right now, but it might be severe enough to warrant investigation - David Gerard 08:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:EaZyZ99 and sock User:69.245.221.209

Three revert rule violation on Vulva. EaZyZ99 (talk · contribs) and 69.245.221.209 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Nandesuka 04:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • User:EaZyZ99 seems to be obsessed with inserting an alleged self-picture of his or her shaved vulva into the Vulva article. S/he has edited under the IP address User:69.245.221.209 in an attempt to avoid 3RR enforcement. I'd block them myself, but since I have been involved in this recent series of reverts, I decided it was more conservative to simply report them here and let other admins make the call. Nandesuka 04:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked user and IP sock for 24 hr. Vsmith 14:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ~20 reverts of same item in the period December 7-16. More before that. Apparently aware of the rules, but insistant on breaking them. Previous 24h block ineffective at changing behavior. Revets on different days don't count 3RR. What is the next step in dealing with this problem? ike9898 20:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ghirlandajo

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

Reported by: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • As I can be considered a party to this dispute, I don't want to block him myself. Besides, I am not an expert in judging how serious a 3RR violation is. I'd recommend a short block (about 3h, perhaps) meant to cool him down and realize that further breaking of 3RR is not wise.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nonsense. The first edit was not a revert but contribution of new stuff which never appeared in the article before. The fourth edit was completely out of line with the previous ones and was intended to fend off a dubious comment by a stray editor. So it makes two reverts instead of four. Even if someone thinks that techinically it is a 3RR violation, it was not intended to spawn edit wars and I have no intention to edit the page any more either today or in the nearest future. --Ghirlandajo 14:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There were no 3RR violation here. Please do not waste other people's time to report the 3RR that were not. That said, I take no position at the article's content dispute. --Irpen 15:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I rechecked and I stand by my statement that there was no 3RR violation here. --Irpen 21:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I apologise. It was the first 3RR I have ever reported and I guess I was somewhat unclear on reverts versus edit. Ghirlandajo insterted specific information four times, but I see now that the first insertion does not count as a revert. Still this doesn't change the fact that it would be beneficial if some neutral party would warn him that his actions (revets) are not the best choice he could have made.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Halibutt

Three revert rule violation on Battle of Wołodarka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Halibutt (talk · contribs):

  • 1st revert: [1]
  • 2nd revert: [2]
  • 3rd revert: [3]
  • 4th revert: [4]

If Piotrus resorts to such dirty tricks as above to further his recent anti-Ghirlandajo quest, I may point out that his friend Halibutt violated 3RR more than once in my experience of conversing with him. Every time he went unpunished. It's time to put an end to such an impunity. --Ghirlandajo 14:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please report current violations, not two month old histories. Vsmith 14:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While Ghirlandajo's late reporting seems a bit close to proving a point, he is right to point out that quite often a double standard is being applied about 3RR violations. --Thorsten1 15:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not every 3RR violation is reported and of these reported not every is "punished". This is left to administrator's discretion. It's not a question of double standards. --Lysy (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This old 3RR violation was unpunished because I chose not to report it at that time as a courtesy to the editor, that's all. Unfortunately, it had little effect on the future editing of this article but that statute of limitations on that one is probably indeed expired. --Irpen 21:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:193.170.48.178

Three revert rule violation on September 11, 2001 attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 193.170.48.178 (talk · contribs):



Reported by: User:Chaosfeary

Comments:

User:Anna2005

Three revert rule violation on Freemasonry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Anna2005 (talk · contribs):

  • Previous version reverted to: Not sure. Looks like he cut-and-pasted his preferred sections in, rather than doing a wholesale revert as such.
  • 1st revert: 08:22
  • 2nd revert: 10:50
  • 3rd revert: 11:31
  • 4th revert: 11:41
  • 5th revert: 11:59

Reported by: SarekOfVulcan 20:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Suspected sockpuppet of User:Lightbringer, who is indefinitely banned from editing Freemasonry-related topics.

User:71.243.235.8

Three revert rule violation on Debra Lafave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.243.235.8 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Locke Cole 02:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User:82.13.187.127

3RR violation on Racism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User's entire edit history today [5] (but one) consists of five reverts of the same sentence in this article.

Reported by Mwanner | Talk 20:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are other instances of the same edit from a similar anon IP (User:82.13.187.155) going back to Dec 6.

User:165.247.214.230

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

Reported by: TDC 22:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User:80.126.178.93, User:80.126.178.94, and User:Cb3rob

3RR] violations on CyberBunker. zetawoof (talk · contribs):

  • Previous version: [7]
  • First blanking as *.94: [8]
  • Second blanking and page move as Cb3rob: [9]
  • Third blanking as *.93: [10]
  • Fourth blanking as *.93: [11]
  • Fifth blanking as *.94: [12]
  • Sixth blanking as Cb3rob: [13]

Comments: *.93, *.94, and Cb3rob are almost certainly all the same user.

User:Luxiake

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

Reported by: AlistairMcMillan 12:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User:Csssclll

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

  • Previous version reverted to: [14]
  • 1st revert: [15]
  • 2nd revert: [16]
  • 3rd revert: [17]
  • 4th revert: [18]


Reported by --Astriolok 14:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


User:Andries

Three revert rule violation on Criticism of Prem Rawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Andries (talk · contribs):

  • Previous version reverted to: [19]
  • 1st revert to material deleted in October: [20]
  • 2nd revert: [21]
  • 3rd revert: [22]
  • 4th revert: [23]

Reported by: ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 17:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC) Comments:[reply]

  • The first two are not reverts within 24 hours, but restoring information that was deleted long ago. I made exactly the same number of reverts as user:Jossifresco (that is three) who by the way is a follower of Prem Rawat. I also like the other admins to take a look at the content that user:Jossifresco insists on deleting. The contents is attributed referenced from notable sources. Andries 17:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My allegiance to Prem Rawat is openly stated on my user page. In the spirit of disclosure, please also note that Andries is a vocal critic of Prem Rawat, colludes with a small group of critics to push their POV in Wikipedia articles. Andries is an ex-follower of Satya Sai Baba and a self-declared POV pusher [24], and avdocate against gurus . ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 17:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that the last and only time that I was blocked from Wikipedia was on the same subject i.e. Prem Rawat in a dispute with the same person, User:Jossifresco. And the person who blocked me, user:Geni, started editing the article as proposed by me and disputed by user:Jossifresco on the talk page. (moving stuff to Wikiquote). I would love to be blocked again in such a way. Andries 19:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article in question has now been blocked due to ongoing revert wars by opposing factions, but not by me anymore. The problem is that there is nothing to discuss anymore. Everything has been discussed ad nauseam and factions continue to disagree. Dispute resolutions have not helped either. Andries 22:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an isolated incident among many in a heated content dispute. Blocking doesn't seem necessary or useful here. --Ryan Delaney talk 05:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:DrBat

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

Reported by: SoM 18:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Dr Bat blocked for 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:65.98.21.69

Three revert rule violation on Zatanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 65.98.21.69 (talk · contribs):

Reported by:

Comments:

Blocked for 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:24.147.103.146

Three revert rule violation on Jimmy Flynn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.147.103.146 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Mwanner | Talk 19:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • User is trying to get rid of a PD image that he imagines he holds copyright to 'cause it's on his website (among others)
    • He didn't strictly revert the page four times, and Since the warnings he received at 19:10 he has not persisted in his behavior. I will watch him for further violations, and to see if he persues his copyright claim through the appropriate channels he has been advised of, but don't recommend further action now. -- SCZenz 19:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
SCZenz, I've just blocked him for 24 hours. If you disagree, I'll be fine if you undo it. I blocked before I saw your message. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize this was a judgement call and appreciate your willingness to accept an unblock, which I will in fact do now. My logic (as above) is that he didn't continue to edit Jimmy Flinn after his recent round of warnings. However, I'll leave another message on his talk page and warn that the next blanking, image removal, or copyright info removal he does outside of process will result in a block. -- SCZenz 19:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fair. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked him 48 hours for continued page blanking after clear warnings. -- SCZenz 22:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zero0000

Three revert rule violation on Riots in Palestine of 1929.

Initial state of the article : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Riots_in_Palestine_of_1929&oldid=29897058

An editor user:Zeq added the words "Ethnic Cleansing" in [25]

Zero has repeadly delted those words:

1st: [26] 10:20 on Dec 10

2nd: [27]

3rd: [28]

4th: [29] 05:19 On Dec 11


Comments:

This is user:Zero0000 2nd violation in short time in editing aricles abou the history Of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. He was able to talk his way out of the first one (not sure as it was an obvious violation with 5 times) : [30]

The discussion about these edit was on a diffrenet page Talk:Hebron_massacre as this page is a disambiguation page refering those who search for Hebron massacre to: Riots in Palestine of 1929 Reported by Zeq 07:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:

Zeq has still not learned what a revert is. The first edit was not a revert but a rephrasing of new text in a form that had not existed before. That is, it was a perfectly normal edit. --Zero 08:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, but it would probably be wiser to discuss your edits instead of reverting even just three times, or attempt a compromise. Edit wars are lame, okay?--Sean|Black 08:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the "reply:" Again Zero tries to talk his way out of a 3RR revert. The deletion of the word "ethnic cleansing" is a clear revert: The word was not there, it was inserted by another editor (me) and Zero Deleted it 4 times. The diff s are very clear. This is his 2nd violaion in short time. Zeq 08:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. A revert is an edit that goes back to a previous version of the article. Zero has not done that over three times.--Sean|Black 08:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No. This is not what Revert is (but you are making a common misconception) Here is quote: "This (rule) states that if we revert to a previous version of a page (in whole or in part, which can mean as little as one word in some circumstances), we may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours. See Wikipedia:Three revert rule for more details. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC) " Zeq 09:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, if a revert combined with an edit is not a revert, it would mean that the 3RR may be easily circumvented by combining reverts with edits. Can anyone clear this matter out please? --Heptor 20:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I don't think Zero should actually be blocked for 24 hours, as WP:3RR#Enforcement may suggest, it would be too far-fetched, but it should be made clear that such behavior is not permitted on Wikipedia. --Heptor 20:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not blocking him (he stopped), but my point was that the first "revert" was Zero refactoring new text, which is not a revert. He then reverted to that version three times.--Sean|Black 00:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the first edit in question again, I am no longer sure if it may be counted as a revert myself... Certainly a borderline case, but not a clear revert. --Heptor 02:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ian Pitchford

Three revert rule violation on 1948 Arab-Israeli War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ian Pitchford (talk · contribs):

Reported by: --Heptor 17:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

There is an ongoing dispute over the content of that article. Ian Pitchford threatened to submit the matter to the Arb Com for a while now (but didn't [31]), and even asked Jimbo Wales to intervene.

There was an offer for a compromise (after Ian trying to force his way) he never answered that offer. On the other hand all his requestes from others to provide souce were answered. After doing his 4th revert he requestd page protection (and got it) so now the page is exactly how he wanted it. Zeq 19:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:KDRGibby

Repeatedly trying to insert a section in article Communism disputed by others (see Talk:Communism): [32], [33], [34], [35], then violating WP:POINT when upset in order to try to prove a point to include his section: [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], . -- Natalinasmpf 19:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anything going to be done about this? -- Natalinasmpf 00:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:DrBat again

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

Reported by: --Red-skinned femme-fatale black-latex-clad b-tch from Hell 02:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Note that there is a message on his talk page saying he is blocked, but this is from his previous 3RR breaking and not from this one he is happily ignoring 3RR at the moment

Please can you revert his revert that's breaking 3RR as I cannot because I am abiding by 3RR? Otherwise he just wins and so has profited from ignoring 3RR and will just do it again...

"more coming soon" - Will anything be done about this? also see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#DrBat ban evading as 200.162.245.104 and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:_DrBat_--_continuing_breaches_of_previous_ArbCom_ruling

What is your problem???
Those edits were made because you kept on reverting my edits and accusing me of being another IP address. You've been registered for two days, and almost all your edits are you out to get me.
I'll just repaste my previous comment to you concerning the 'dodging ban bit' from the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents of the same topic:
The mentioned user (who you think I am) once changed the cover of Catwoman #1 (which I uploaded) to #46 (a hughes picture which I didn't want, and reverted). You can also check out the Catwoman article and talk page to see how I was adamant in not having Hughes images, and having the first issue of the new volume. Then why would I make an edit removing the #1 image and replace it with one of the Hughes images? Do I suffer from multiple personality disorder or something? And why would I even try evading the ban in the first place if it was for only 24 hours? That's like a guy being in jail for a week, escaping, and being put back for a year. Common sense. [44] --DrBat 03:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zen-master

Three revert rule violation on Conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zen-master (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Jayjg (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User:Adraeus

I've violated the 3RR attempting to protect Template:Infobox Company from incompetent and vandalistic editing that negatively affects a widely used template. The editor, User:Netoholic, claims to be attempting to "fix" the structure of the template per policy; however, his edits are destroying the template's formatting. I request administrative action. Thank you. Signing off. Adraeus 07:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert rule violation on Template:Infobox Company (edit | [[Talk:Template:Infobox Company|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Template talk:Infobox Company). Adraeus (talk · contribs):

Comments
  • Well, to make it official, I added the links above. These are four straight-up reversions - very angry reversions at that. To say I was committing vandalism is laughable. It seems that the fuss was all about some exceedingly minor formatting, which I offered to fix if he had just calmly described it. -- Netoholic @ 07:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    My talk page demonstrates that you are aware of the problems you've caused by "fixing" the structure of the template. Have you remedied these problems? No. You've simply persisted to commit the same changes without preserving the template's formatting. You are knowingly negatively editing a popular template. You are committing vandalism. Adraeus 07:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    My edits were to correct the poor formatting I saw (bad wikitable mark-up, excessive whitespace, and failure to adhere to WP:AUM). The template worked perfectly and looked better after each of my edits. Too bad you broke 3RR before you even told me what you thought was wrong with my version, which turns out to be a difference of inconsequential formatting. -- Netoholic @ 07:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter why you edit warred. We have ways of dealing with that. Take it to WP:DR. Your incivility here and in the edit summaries is also unacceptable, and this seems to be a pattern. Just don't. Blocked for 24 hours. Dmcdevit·t 07:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note, I've blocked Netoholic for 24 hours for violating his Template namespace ban and revert restrictions. Ral315 (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:200.162.245.104

Three revert rule violation on Zatanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 200.162.245.104 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: SoM 18:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User:Red-skinned femme-fatale black-latex-clad b-tch from Hell

Three revert rule violation on Zatanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Red-skinned femme-fatale black-latex-clad b-tch from Hell (talk · contribs):

Reported by: SoM 18:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:


User:Leifern

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

Reported by: Skinwalker (talk · contribs)

Comments:

  • User has a lot of general incivility on this article, keeps trying to delete material critical of the subject.

Absolutely false allegation. I took great care not to do such reverts. This is abusive. --Leifern 00:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


User:Flying fox

Three revert rule violation on 2005 Sydney Race Riots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Flying fox (talk · contribs):

Reported by: --Elliskev 03:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User was blocked indefinitenly by User:Merovingian.Geni 00:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Freestylefrappe

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

Reported by:karmafist 03:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Freestylefrappe (talk · contribs) seems to be reverting back to an earlier version of Kumanovo with some fairly nasty edit summaries, and also blocked one of the people he was having issues with regarding the article earlier[50].

User:69.245.221.209 (sockpuppet of User:EaZyZ99)

Three revert rule violation on Vulva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.245.221.209 (talk · contribs) and EaZyZ99 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: —Locke Cole 04:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User:Absent

(troll) Three revert rule violation on Beslan school hostage crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Absent (talk · contribs):

  • Previous version reverted to: [Beslan_school_hostage_crisis&oldid=30923162 here]
  • 1st revert: [Beslan_school_hostage_crisis&diff=30923162&oldid=30579805 07:21, December 11] (not part of the 3RR, due to time)
  • 2nd revert: [Beslan_school_hostage_crisis&diff=31046000&oldid=30926378 08:28, December 12]
  • 3rd revert: [Beslan_school_hostage_crisis&diff=31083675&oldid=31065748 14:23, December 12]
  • 4th revert: [Beslan_school_hostage_crisis&diff=31099351&oldid=31087777 16:21, December 12]
  • 5th revert: [Beslan_school_hostage_crisis&diff=31180004&oldid=31108003 06:45, December 13]

Reported by: Sherurcij

Comments:

  • Is ignoring talk page, saying that Muslims do not deserve NPOV, and arguing that all Chechens are Jihadists User:Absent is a highly biased userpage, and he clearly states in each of his WP contributions that he hates Islam, and is trying to advance his agenda. Wouldn't mind seeing him blocked, since he hasn't yet contributed a single word that hasn't been reverted as vandalism.
    • Although 3RR was linked to in the edit summary, I don't think this new user was sufficiently warned about the policy. I'm warning him in his talk page explicitly now, with any luck that might settle it. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 22:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please note that he has now reverted Anders_Fogh_Rasmussen 6 times in the past 24 hours, now claiming that "all Muslim countries" called for the death of the Danish leader, and imposed sanctions on the country.[51] (patently untrue, several ambassadors sent a note requesting an apology). Can we get a ban now? Thanks Sherurcij (talk) (bounties)

User:DocOck

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

Reported by: --Yamla 17:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Informed user about 3RR. User read the comments and then went and performed 5th revert. --Yamla 17:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the informing happen? Jkelly 17:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where the problem is. For whatever reason user Stanley Ipkiss reverted my changes (and he also broke the 3 revert rule though it seems he goes unpunished). He finally saw my source for the changes and agreed to leave the article in my version. Yamla reverted it on principal despite the fact that there is no longer a conflict. I informed her of this and reverted it back to my (the agreed and verified) version. That's the story. DocOck 17:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have left messages at User talk:DocOck and User talk:Stanley Ipkiss. If the situation isn't resolved, let us know. Jkelly 17:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:67.186.196.85

Three revert rule violation on 1.800.Vending (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.186.196.85 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: SarekOfVulcan 17:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

blocked for 24 hours under the 3 revert rule.Geni 00:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Moveapage

Three revert rule violation on Republic of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Moveapage (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Jiang 19:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • User:Moveapage, who despite having few edits, is well aware of the 3RR and has engaged in wholesale reverts of my edits there, without answering to my reasons at Talk:Republic_of_China#Lead_section_edits for making such edits. Specifically, Moveapage has reverted 4 times every single change I made to the lead section here except for the removal of "on both sides of the Taiwan Strait", linking of warlordism, and shortening of "Republic of China (ROC)" to ROC.--Jiang 19:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC) The 5th revert reverted everything except the removal of "and one of the original five Security Council members" and made some modifications to the second and third sentences --Jiang 19:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 5th and 6th reverts are identical. --Jiang 20:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
These aren't just reverts and one should also note Jiang reverted me first before I removed his controversial insertions. Those exceptions that Jiang talks about is me compromising where it made sense, but leaving out what is too controversial to just leave in there without Jiang obtaining consensus first. Several of Jiang's insertions were brought up on the talk page but since consensus has not been obtained, I do not see why he should be able to just go ahead an insert. I enourage those concerned to take a look at subtance of the talk and the evolution of the edits. There is no knee-jerk reverting going on here, except by Blueshirts, who by his own user page appears to be quite partisan.Moveapage 20:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


3 outright reverts and two near reverts (a couple of words changed). Blocked for 24 hours.Geni 00:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Powo

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

Powo (talk · contribs):

Reported by: — Dzonatas 21:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • has violated the three revert rule even when there is somewhat of a consensus on one version: 21:13, 11 December 2005
  • has declared edits as vandalism, as if "gaming," that were clearly not vandalism, like deleted an entire section about careers: (and has been warned about WP:3RR)
  • has shown attempts of character assasination in talk pages.
  • has avoided questions in discussion and sequently reverted, instead. Powo suggests he doesn't need to explain.
  • has been warned about WP:NOR for unsourced edits. — Dzonatas 21:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Previous version reverted to appears to be the same edit as what you are claiming is the first revert. I can only find 2 reverts.Geni 00:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:8bitJake

Three revert rule violation on Morgan_Spurlock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 8bitjake (talk · contribs):

User has shown hostility toward discussing in talk or reaching a consensus, instead chooses to force POV pushes in edit wars. --badlydrawnjeff 03:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

blocked for 24 hours.Geni 12:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:badlydrawnjeff

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

  • 1st revert: [56]
  • 2nd revert: [57]
  • 3rd revert: [58]
  • 4th revert: [59] User insists that biased links remain in place without note and stubbornly demands that only his edits stay.

--8bitJake 04:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A careful inspection of the history would show that I've been a) trying to reach consensus via talk at the same time, and b) trying to reach some sort of middle ground with my edits. I was careful to not revert 3 times, and this is a misstatement of the edit history. Other issues brought up can be seen elsewhere in the article's talk page as to whether they have merit. --badlydrawnjeff 04:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree. This user is hell bent on a edit war and will not accept any other contributions or edits to the article. He has behaved like he owns it. --8bitJake 04:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3 outright and a couple of near reverts. Blocked for 12 hours.Geni 12:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:SpinyNorman

Three revert rule violation on Hillary Rodham Clinton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SpinyNorman (talk · contribs):

Reported by: —BorgHunter (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • There is also a long discussion about this on the article's talk page. User has participated in discussion, but continues to revert changes.

User:Madchester

Three revert rule violation on The Amazing Race 9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Madchester (talk · contribs):

Reported by: User:Netoholic

Comments:

User:Tcsh

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

Reported by: LeFlyman 20:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • User was cautioned on his Talk page to desist in reverting link to Wiki-quote. Claimed not to be aware of the 3RR and will desist from reverting. Thus, this notice is informational, unless further warning is needed.

User:65.2.69.229

Three revert rule violation on Fidel Castro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 65.2.69.229 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 20:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • This user has already been blocked for 3RR violations, and this notification is being made simply for the record. User also used abusive edit summaries, e.g. Fidel Castro is a dictator. (See 'List of dictators') This is not the place to debate this nonsense with ignorant stupid fucks and enough reverting you troll. It is likely that the user will be back under a different IP address forthwith, however. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 20:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Brazil4Linux

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

He has hid behind sockpuppets, using IP addresses 200.147.97.92 and 200.151.100.114, among others, and using Quackshot sockpuppet. Hiding behind these, he's violated the 3 revert rule. Daniel Davis 00:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)(Doom127)[reply]

User:Doom127 (Daniel Davis)

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

POV Pusshing, Personal Attacks, Provocations, Legal Threats and.. Reverts.--Quackshot 00:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil4Linux, first off, I have never threatened you, never made any legal threats whatsoever. You, on the other hand, are hiding behind sockpuppets. By the way, the three revert rule regards EXCEEDING three reverts in the course of a day, not MAKING three reverts during the course of that day. I'm letting the other users on this page know that all you're doing here is trying to attack all the users from the Ken Kutaragi page who've exposed your sockpuppeting and multiple IP address reverts. Daniel Davis 01:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)[reply]

User:Aolanonawanabe

Eight revert rule violation on Fetal pain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Aolanonawanabe (talk · contribs):

Other nonsense:

Reported by: Cyde Weys talkcontribs 08:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • This user is repeatedly editing the article away from the NPOV standpoint and he is absolutely refusing to engage in any of the discussions on the Talk:Fetal pain page. He just keeps on reverting and reverting, first putting the mergeto on there, then putting the silly wording in there .... ugh. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 11:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment making 8 entierly different edits is not a violation of anything, and I'm sorry for adding silly comments to your perfectly NPOV article about the 'debate' over whether or not one needs a central nervous system in order to feel pain--Aolanonawanabe 18:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:ShenandoahShilohs

Three revert rule violation on Shiloh Shepherd Dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by ShenandoahShilohs (talk · contribs)

  1. 19:38, 15 December 2005
  2. 16:16, 15 December 2005
  3. 18:32, 14 December 2005
  4. 18:29, 14 December 2005
  5. 18:25, 14 December 2005
  6. 18:16, 14 December 2005
  7. 16:32, 14 December 2005

User:ShenandoahShilohs seems to be doing reverts the "right" way so tracking them is easy.

There are reverts by the other main edit warriors: Tina M. Barber (talk · contribs) and 206.53.197.12 (talk · contribs).

These users seem to be putting the article back to the old viewpoint via cut and paste or retyping into specific sections - basically reverting the article the hard way.

I'm hesitant to suggest that the admins block a user on one side of an argument without blocking the other, but the diffs are not clear cut for the other side of the dispute. It is just not as clear for them.

Reported by: Trysha (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned both of the main users in the dispute and left a message on the article talk page -- I'll keep an eye on it and see if we can't get some cooperation instead of just the warring. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 02:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User: Statio Radion

Three revert rule violation on Japanese media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Statio Radion (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Calton | Talk 01:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • User (and his IP number) keep changing the text "*[[Lists of radio stations in Asia]]" to "*[[Lists of statio radion in Asia]]", accompanied by frankly bizarre edit summaries such as the above or weird talk-page messages (THANKS A LOT OLORIN28. WITH YOUR ASIAN RADIO STATIONS YOU JUST DESTROYED MY LIFE. BECAUSE OF YOU I AM GOIN TO COMMIT SUICIDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. ARE YOU HAPPY NOW? GO AND LISTEN T YOUR STATIO RADION!! [60].
I'd normally give him a warning because he's new, but this looks like vandalism, so I'll give him a block. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Theodore7

Three revert rule violation on Astrology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Theodore7 (talk · contribs):

Reported by:BorgQueen 04:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

He's made another revert Tom Harrison (talk) 02:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response:

User:24.168.61.123

Three revert rule violation on Supergirl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.168.61.123 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: PurplePlatypus

Comments:

  • User keeps adding material to Supergirl regarding said character's powers (a total of seven times now I beleive, five of them documented above) which, besides now being a 3RR violation, is not even vaguely NPOV, also violates WP:NOR, and directly contradicts facts clearly stated in recent issues of her comic series. (They're also rather poorly written, for whatever that's worth). Four different editors including myself have reverted these changes at least once, and not one has said anything in support of them. User has ignored two warnings on his talk page (note - these concerned the other policies he was violating, since it was not obvious at the time that he would violate 3RR, though the second one does hint at 3RR as well). User has not made the slightest attempt to seek consensus or compromise. PurplePlatypus 05:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User has continued all of the above behaviour unabated, with no attempt at discussion. Will post further links soon if it continues with no action taken. I will say the user has greatly improved the wording of the addition he keeps making, but there were many problems with it and that was almost the least of them. The fact remains that it violates all three of the key policies (neutrality, NOR and verifiability), 3RR (twice over now, I think), and the user is making little or no attempt to find consensus. PurplePlatypus 23:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response:

  • Editor appears fairly new, trying a warning first. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 20:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since reverts continued unabated, with several other warnings on the talk page about the behavior, user has been blocked for 24 hours.

User:Quackshot

Three revert rule violation on Nintendo Virtual Boy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Quackshot (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Jedi6 17:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • The User seems to have a vendetta for User:Doom127. The User reverted edits made to a version over a month old. The User's reasoning was that it was Doom127 vandalism. But the edits were not done by Doom127 and were not vandalism. Then the user's reasoning was that the info. violated NPOV which it did not. THe User kept talking about Doom127's conspiracy section but that was not part of the reverts, which makes me suspect that the User didn't read what he/she was reverting. The User then reverted four times. Each time I would respond on the User's talk page or the article's talk page that the User's reasoning(vandalism by Doom127) was wrong. But the User kept reverting. Jedi6 17:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admin response:

User:84.32.111.225

Three revert rule violation on Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 84.32.111.225 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, three hours. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 20:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User:8bitJake

Three revert rule violation on Debbie Schlussel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 8bitJake (talk · contribs):

  • 1st revert: [67] <---this reverts the removal of links in a rewrite.
  • 2nd revert: [68]
  • 3rd revert: [69]
  • 4th revert: [70]

Reported by: badlydrawnjeff 20:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: User continues to attempt POV edits, using deceptive edit summaries, and is hostile to consensus building in talk instead of trying to avoid edit wars. Second violation this week. I have requested page protection in the meantime. --badlydrawnjeff 20:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a blatant bogus claim. I followed every rule of the Wikipedia. This is hypocritical considering he has constantly reverted my additions and has made no attempt to include. Page protection and this 3RR is not needed.[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff] is being petulant and vindictive. I backed everything up with documentation and kept NPOV. badlydrawnjeff should be banned from filing 3RR claims.

Response: Blocked for 24 hours. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 20:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Badlydrawnjeff

Three revert rule violation on Debbie Schlussel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 8bitJake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [71]
  • 1st revert: [72]
  • 2nd revert: [73]
  • 3rd revert: [74]

Reported by:

Comments: Ironically this user violated 3RR before making a false 3RR claim against me. He has made 10 edits removing my additions over the last 24 hours.

--8bitJake 20:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again. Rewrite, One revert, two reverts, one attempt at a consenus link move. This is a bad faith nomination specifically in retaliation for my reporting him, and is getting increasingly frustrating. I have attempted to request page protection at WP:RfPP, and have requested mediation to deal with this continuing saga already. --badlydrawnjeff 20:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This user clearly can't handle working with other users. --8bitJake 20:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response:

User:62.194.8.235

Three revert rule violation on Ukrainian language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 62.194.8.235 (talk · contribs):

  • Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
  • 1st revert: [75] 13:36, December 16, 2005
  • 2nd revert: [76] 15:24, December 16, 2005
  • 3rd revert: [77] 16:47, December 16, 2005
  • 4th revert: [78] 20:08, December 16, 2005
  • 5th revert: [79] 20:27, December 16, 2005


Reported by: Irpen 21:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Anon user pushes his ideas into the article against consensus. 5 reverts in 7 hours.

Response:

User:R. fiend

I'm not sure what format to follow, since I'm not reporting a 3RR violation. I'm reporting a block for a 3RR violation, which I think was made in error. User:Essjay left Wikipedia recently, after people (including myself) voted to delete the Catholic Church of Wikipedia (which he had put a lot of work into). He announced that he would not be back. His user page is on my watchlist, so I have just seen this, where he says that he is not coming back, but in case anyone has seen the block log, he wants to explain that he had been reading an article and had "noticed a 3RR that hadn't been acted on". I looked at the block log, and found that it was User:R. fiend that he had blocked, for "3RR @ John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy". I looked at the history of that page, and found three reverts from R. fiend, not four. (Unless I'm missing something.) It doesn't seem to have been reported here, with diffs, and no message was left on R. fiend's talk page. (Well, I've just left one.) I'm a fairly new admin, and don't want to jump in and unblock someone that another admin has blocked, so I'd appreciate advice from someone more experienced. Thanks. AnnH (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not "more experienced", as I almost never use blocks, but I personally think you'd be ok to unblock. As a general rule, if there's no clear explanation for the block, I'd say it can be undone. Obviously, asking the blocking admin would be nice, but he's gone. At any rate, a block without a notification to the blocked user is certainly wrong. Friday (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a 3RR violation. I can see how confusion could have arisen, but I cannot construe that set of edits as a revert. I am unblocking. [[Sam Korn]] 22:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't think the block was made in error, and I definitely think the renewed 3RR should stand. The block itself was done with due diligence, and I know if I had performed the block with someone undoing it, I would have appreciated a little note on my talk page saying so - this is just common courtesy. The fact that Essjay performed the block after leaving Wikipedia has nothing to do with whether it is a valid or invalid block. In fact, I don't think the interpreted context behind his departure should have been brought up here. It simply isn't relevant. If anything, here is Essjay's justification for his actions, which is thorough and more than adequate. When it was absent, why didn't anyone here ask Essjay directly about it first? Yes, he had announced that he left Wikipedia, but even so, it is not an excuse - it only makes sense to have followed up with him directly, instead of posting here first. Wouldn't we think automatically that an administrator would be responsible enough to follow through with his blocking in an appropriate manner? Granted, the concerns were valid, but not addressed properly. Anyway, I am going back to my holiday shopping. --HappyCamper 05:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
HappyCamper, you say that the fact that he performed the block after leaving Wikipedia has nothing to do with whether it's valid or invalid. That's true, and an examination of the diffs shows that it was invalid, since he was counting the first edit as a revert. However, the fact that he has left Wikipedia has a lot to do with the fact that he was not notified at the time. I have now notified him, but it took a long time to write my message, and he may never read it. It's the first time that I have ever undone another administrator's action, and I would certainly normally leave a message. But after blocking R. fiend, he put a message on his talk page saying, I am not back, and I will not be coming back (emphasis his). [80] AnnH (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You'd think he'd be responsible enough to follow thru. Sadly, this did not happen until after it was posted here. Nobody has any right to complain about follow-thru, in my opinion. A user who's announced their leaving has no right to expect further communication. Friday (talk) 06:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. It is hoped that one aims for the extra effort, always. And I would expect you to be a bit more 'responsible' with the manner in which you nuance your tone. This understated aggression is most peculiar (no, not on my part). El_C 10:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I unblocked almost simultaneously with Sam. (Thanks, Sam and Friday, for responding so quickly.) Essjay has now renewed the block; in fact, he has increased it to 36 hours because of the use of rollback.[81] He also left a note on my page, on Sam's and on R. fiend's, plus a statements on his own pages about how a minor admin act of his had brought "heavy criticism" [82] and [83]. I'm very happy to discuss this with Essjay, and would not have unblocked without informing him if it had not been for his announcement that he would not be back. I'm still not happy with this block, but am leaving for work in the next few minutes, so would appreciate someone looking at this again, please. Essjay has not given proper diffs; the first (from his message to R. fiend [84]) is a version, not a diff, and the other three are diffs between his first version and his subsequent versions, to show that they are the same, but not showing what the actual changes were. I quote:

For those who can't count:

My understanding is that what he calls "Strike one" is not a revert. Can anyone help?

Thanks. Off to work now (and will discuss this later with Essjay, if necessary). AnnH (talk) 07:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am (unusually) logging on from the staffroom computer at work, as a student didn't turn up. I have gone ahead and unblocked a second time. I regret being part of a block war, but it seems obvious that the first one was not a revert. Also, the twelve-hour extension for the use of rollback seems questionable, though I'd bow to the opinion of someone more experienced. Essjay, in his message linked to an RfAr page where an admin was chastised for using admin powers in a dispute, but that related to unblocking himself, and editing a protected page to conform to his version, not to use of rollback (which may not be appropriate, but hardly seems a blockable offence). Will look in again this afternoon. AnnH (talk) 10:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The item listed as "Strike one" is manifestly not a revert. User:R. fiend has only edited John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy a total of five times. The edit listed as "Strike one" was R. fiend's 2nd edit, total, of the page, and was simply a minor formatting change from the previous edit. (And the previous edit happened to be his 1st edit of the page, where he simply added Brian Chase's age.)
The edit listed as "Strike two" was the first actual reversion, in which a diff of two consecutive edits from R. fiend show no differences between them. The edit listed as "Strike three" was the second actual reversion, and the edit listed as "You're out" was the third actual reversion.
WP:3RR makes it fairly plain that there must be more than three reverts in a 24 hour period for a 3RR violation to have taken place. And they must be actual reversions, not mere edits. R. fiend did indeed perform three actual reversions within a 24 hour period, but he very clearly did not perform more than three reversions.
→ Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 13:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I'm not going to spend any more time on this issue. Not worth the effort or stress. This is another prime example of being bogged down by policy. I'll let whatever stand, and be no part of it. --HappyCamper 15:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have now posted a message to R. fiend [85] and another one to Essjay, [86] neither of which I had time to do from work this morning. I am quite satisfied that the original block and the renewed block were made in error, and hope the whole thing will die down now. AnnH (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My message to Essjay [87] seems to have led to more ill feeling, as he deleted his user page with the log summary "Taking the hint". AnnH (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chooserr

Three revert rule violation on Xenophon (talk · history · watch). Chooserr (talk • contribs)

  • 1st revert: [88] 23:46, 15 December 2005
  • 2nd revert: [89] 01:32, 16 December 2005
  • 3rd revert: [90] 04:51, 16 December 2005
  • 4th revert: [91] 22:02, 16 December 2005
  • 5th revert: [92] 23:35, 16 December 2005

Reported by: FCYTravis 23:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I don't believe all of these were within a twenty four hour period and if so it was to revert vandalism. Each time I gave an explanation, and I was truthfully unaware I had done so. Thanks, Chooserr 23:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Five were within a 24-hour-period - 23:46 GMT 12/15 to 23:35 GMT 12/16 - and engaging in an edit war over BC/BCE is hardly reverting vandalism. FCYTravis 23:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't an edit war to me. I originally made it consistent under BC/AD (before it was 2 BC, and 2 BCE) and the other editors' the changes were against wiki policy, and if I'm blocked so should the others. Chooserr 00:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The others (including myself) were careful not to violate WP:3RR. I stopped at three. You should have too. FCYTravis 00:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, it was a dirty trick and a ruse (wheel war?) to get me suspended from wikipedia. I believed the first 2 were in the 24 hour period and so were the latter 2. Chooserr 00:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, so it was a Wheel War which I've been told by certain admins is against wikipedia policy. I would like to therefore nominate you for temporary expulsion from wikipedia. Chooserr 00:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WP:3RR is a firewall that's supposed to get people to step back and examine things instead of endlessly reverting. I stepped back from the issue when I hit my limit. You didn't. You have been reverted by multiple users, and are the only person continuing this edit war. You had a choice - step back from the edit war to discuss the issue, or keep reverting. You chose to keep reverting. That violates policy. FCYTravis 00:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what the 3rvt rule if for, and while not agreeing with it wasn't intent on violating it I believed that it was 2 on each day that I had made, and if someone had changed it once more I would have alerted someone else to the problem so as not to violate my third rvt which I still thought I possessed. As for the stepping back, no ones POV would be changed and I was just told by an admin who I'll add in a second that once it's consistent don't war at all. You initiated this and if anyone deserves blocking it's you. Chooserr 00:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ignorantia juris non excusat. I hardly see how you can argue "I initiated it" given that you tried the same thing three times last week [93] [94] [95] and were reverted by two different people. The fact that I was the one to catch it this time hardly makes me the initiator. FCYTravis 00:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:85.168.200.129

Three revert rule violation on Dassault Rafale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 85.168.200.129 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: novacatz 14:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Keeps on nuking a section about problems on the rafale. Did 4 reverts in less than 10 minutes!

User:Samiam95124

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

Samiam95124 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Mirror Vax 19:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User:Doom127

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

Doom127 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: User:Quackshot 03:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

    • You'll notice, I've only made two revisions to the VB article today. In any case, with regards to the article, Quackshot is reverting things that the group had already agreed upon (edits I had nothing to do with in the first place) while labeling it "Doom127 vandalism". He's already been politely asked to stop (and to discuss it with the group before he goes forward and slashes out pieces of the article that other people wrote). Instead, he doesn't consult, he just sits there and hacks away at it repeatedly. Daniel Davis 03:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)[reply]
    • I should mention that Quackshot isn't actually making any actual contributions that might have been reverted, he's just tearing out large chunks from the article, ones that other editors (it would be assumed) worked quite hard on. Daniel Davis 03:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)[reply]

User:Ruy Lopez

Three revert rule violation on Khmer Rouge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ruy Lopez (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Calton | Talk 04:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Classic Gaming the System, in an attempt to insert text an delete a link -- with no discussion. Not a straight-up violation, in that four reverts do not take place within 24 hours, but:
    • Time between 1st and 4th reverts: 24 hours, 38 minutes
    • Time between 2nd and 5th reverts: 26 hours, 47 minutes
    • Time between 3rd and 6th reverts: 24 hours, 6 minutes
    • Time between 4th and 7th reverts: 24 hours, 6 minutes

I agree that he is simply gaming the system. I have imposed a 24 hour block. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 04:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wisesabre

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

Reported by:Wisesabre 11:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I reverted to the Dbachmann in order to protect article from editors who are editing article without citing source. I mistakenly reverted for the fourth time not knowing that i had already reverted 3 times.In order to neutralize the effect I also reverted back to other user. Wisesabre 11:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes but you reverted yourself which is good so I don't see how a block would do any good here, in the future please try to discuss changes which may be controversial before implementing them. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Quackshot

Three revert rule violation on Nintendo Virtual Boy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Quackshot (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Jedi6 21:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • The User seems to have a vendetta for User:Doom127. The user violated their present ban for violating the 3RR rule by using IP addresses User:201.29.23.83 and User:201.29.35.148 to revert. These Ip's are known to be Quakeshot because all they did was to revert to Quakeshot's version and they only reverted pages Quakeshot was on. Also the Ip addresses seem to orginate from Brazil along with Quakeshot. The IP addresses engaged in an edit war with User:Doom127 and reverted Doom127's changes. Each IP address stoped right before reverting over 3 times and then changed to quakeshot after his ban was over. Quakeshot not only violated his ban but reverted five times.

User:Caligulavator

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

Note that I warned him about the 3RR at 02:47 and in more detail at 02:54 -- SCZenz

User:Christopher_Sundita

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


Note that I warned him about the 3RR: [101] . He made also in 17th December 3 edits and in 16 more edits (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Christopher+Sundita).

I hope he will be blocked since he was just reverting to a page that didn't reached the consensus of the majority of users. Bonaparte talk 18:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • In my defense, I was reverting against vandalism which was done by anon users via, from my impression, sockpuppetry. The vandalism included the deletion of sections, sources, examples, interwiki links and the infobox. The article that I reverted from contained nonsense such as "washed their brains to create a new person" as well as various grammatical errors and mispellings. If this is not vandalism, then I stand corrected and will be more careful in the future. But I acted on the assumption that it was. I'll comply with whatever action you all may give me. Thanks for your understanding. --Chris S. 22:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to say that a look at the two versions supports the idea that Christopher was acting in good faith. While the article he was reverting from may not have represented vandalism under Wikipedia's strict definition, it contains such gems as "The term "Moldovan" is also a soviet invention (see Department of State & CIA). ", so I don't doubt that he was acting in good faith by trying to keep the article on a better version. Ahh, and what do we have here on the talk page? "Agree. This Moldovan language is a soviet invention. This is also related to the new american military bases from Romania.-- Bonaparte talk 10:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)" Well, no wonder Bonaparte is hoping for Christopher to be blocked. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This is simply a ploy to get the upperhand in a content dispute. --Gareth Hughes 00:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The chaos is because Admins like you don't follow the rules. I was blocked once because I was labelled as "koncenii" (like other 2 users) - (that's a russian slang) and that person was never blocked for this kind of approach. Now, again Chris is just making revert war there.-- Bonaparte talk 08:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bonaparte, why is it like this with you? You think the admins are going to come save you, and when they don't, you whine about being treated unfairly. Admins decide what they decide. If you think they're wrong, go ask other admins.
If you will not block even after he violated the 3RR rule, I will go to the Jimbo and present to him. You don't respect your own rules. Bonaparte talk 15:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Commonsenses

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

Reported by:Jiang 19:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reported by:Jiang 05:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Response:

User:Paulcardan

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

Reported by: Jbamb 00:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Trying to insist his own unpublished paper gets included in the article. His only contributions this month are on this page, and seem to be revolved around this paper.

User:69.141.6.171

Three revert rule violation on User_talk:Waka (edit | [[Talk:User_talk:Waka|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.141.6.171 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: waka 01:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • User persists in erasing his message from talk page, despite repeated requests to stop on his own talk page.
    • In the future, can you please provide diffs between the new reverts and the "previous version", rather than simply old page versions? I had to go through and look at the history myself to verifiy. Anyway, I'll block him for a few hours and give him a warning. -- SCZenz 03:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Theodore7 2

Three revert rule violation on Nostradamus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Theodore7 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: DreamGuy

Comments:

  • Insists on removing the NPOV tag despite numerous people putting it there, with associated other changes back to his version over various edits. I chose these to show the NPOV tage removals as they were easiest to track. Some self-professed astrologer who thinks ol' Nostry was the real deal. (Not sure if the times I have show up match yours, but they are all still within some period of 24 hours regardless of time zone you are in.)DreamGuy 15:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. After I filed this report, I noticed he is listed above for a previous 3RR recently... Might be worth noting to whomever investigates this one. DreamGuy

User:Theodore7 3

Three revert rule violation on Astrology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Theodore7 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: User:BorgQueen

Comments:

** Blocked 24 hrs. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive8