[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive9: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→[[User:Boothy443]]: I really don't mind if the Gdansk/Danzig people want to inflict these rules on one another, but I think we should draw the line when they claim to be exempt from 3RR.
Line 125: Line 125:


:::::Since I was blocked for violation of the same rule, eventhough the [[Talk:Gdansk/Vote]] rules were clearly applicable, I have a reason to request that this user be blocked just like I was. See below for details. [[User:Halibutt|Halibu]][[User talk:Halibutt|tt]] 05:46, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
:::::Since I was blocked for violation of the same rule, eventhough the [[Talk:Gdansk/Vote]] rules were clearly applicable, I have a reason to request that this user be blocked just like I was. See below for details. [[User:Halibutt|Halibu]][[User talk:Halibutt|tt]] 05:46, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know who closed the Gdansk enforcement vote, but it obviously has no authority to gainsay the 3RR. Only 50 out of 78 votes to support it. After 6 voters were excluded for low edit counts, the figure was only 44 out of 72. These figures wouldn't be a rough consensus even by a generous 2/3 standard. By contrast [[WP:3RR]] passed by something like 159 to 28. I really don't mind if the Gdansk/Danzig people want to inflict these rules on one another, but I think we should draw the line when they claim to be exempt from the strongly supported [[WP:3RR]] because of a mere 50 votes.

I have altered the vote conclusion and general notice to conform to a more realistic intepretation of the vote, bnut I won't get involved in it beyond that. It just isn't worth the time. However I hope we all will strongly oppose any further attempt to alter the 3RR on the basis of that flawed vote. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 16:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


=== [[User:Mirror Vax]] ===
=== [[User:Mirror Vax]] ===

Revision as of 16:56, 11 June 2005

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to create a new report


    Violations

    User:67.121.95.80 / User:67.121.93.63

    [1] [2] [3] [4]

    Reported by: Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:56, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

    Comments: Anonymous user with dynamic IP address in 67.121.* block continues to revert to discredited rambling about Nehru-Stalinism in Nehru article. (Also has made numerous personal attacks and ethnic slurs on the talk page, FWIW). Unfortunately, it's not just one IP address, and user has stated on talk page that s/he intends to just redial modem to obtain different IP address, if blocked.

    There doesn't seem to have been a previous violation, and he wasn't warned, so I've put a warning on his talk page, and I see someone else has protected the page. I'll put it on my watchlist in case it starts up again. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:17, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
    This anonymous user has been at this for a long time, using a small set of IP addresses, logging in from Cisco Systems, San Jose, during working hours:
    and during other hours from Pac Bell Internet Services, San Ramon, CA (presumably at home):
    This guy knows what he's doing, and has been blocked at least once already (01:51, 6 May 2005 Jiang blocked "User:66.127.58.169" with an expiry time of next Saturday (repeated use of personal attacks, was warned)[5]), so your caution isn't really warranted. --Calton | Talk 06:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I've been watching that page for a while, and I'd reccomend letting them argue it out. It was protected for 10 days for the same revert war and now the discussion has flared up again since I unprotected it ~2 days ago. OTOH, I need to go to bed soon so if you could keep an eye on it that'd be great. -Lommer | talk 06:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I know some pretty senior people at Cisco - if need be, I can ask them to track down who this person is. Needless to say, edit warring on Wikipedia from work will get them in pretty hot water. Noel (talk) 04:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    No disrespect, but no matter how loathsome his behavior has been so far, tattling to his employers to get him into trouble strikes me as dangerously close to violating the "No legal threats" rule. I mentioned the employer only to show the geographic and time clustering of the IPs he's using (San Jose and San Ramon/working and non-working posting times). Yes, he is (IMHO) a raving frootbat, but Wikipedia has already mechanisms in place to deal with such people when they get peristent.
    P.S.: It appears that this guy went by the moniker User:LibertarianAnarchist a couple of years ago, so his act isn't new by any means. --Calton | Talk 06:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I was under the impression that Wikipedia:No legal threats applied to disputes between editors, not (as in this case) an attempt to enforce community rules. And Wikipedia's mechanisms in place have been shown to be pretty marginal when you're dealing with someone who edits as an anon, and has lots of IP addresses to draw on (see the Zivinbudas case). I also have little sympathy for disruptive editors. Noel (talk) 17:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    User:Mikkalai

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

    • 1st revert: [6]
    • 2nd revert: [7]
    • 3rd revert: [8]
    • 4th revert: [9]

    Reported by: 67.41.186.237 03:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: He is engaging in an edit war. So far within 24 hours I have reverted a total of three times and he has a total of four on homosexuality. It is concerning the Epic of Gilgamesh and its homosexuality, something that has been accepted for months now on Wikipedia. An acclaimed scholar last year translated a previously untranslated portion of the 12 tablet containing male homosexuality. Unfortuantely Mikkalai's attitude is "since I, myself, have not read the new book, it must be a lie." Also, I just noticed I myself reverted the article Epic of Gilgamesh four times and he did five. I herby report myself as well. 67.41.186.237 03:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    The user cannot count. The fourth revert was of user:69.235.29.7. His edits are left intact. I decided to abandon the case. I even did not block this guy for his 3-RR violation. His aggression and lack of listening to common sence is outrageous, and I am sure some other editors will deal with him. I am not talking on this case anymore. mikka (t) 03:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    We have both broken the 3RR rule on Epic of Gilgamesh. And I am not 69.235.29.7. 67.41.186.237 03:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Reversions of Epic of Gilgamesh was deletion of broken link and related text. Editor must check what he is doing. mikka (t) 03:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    I certainly apologize for my 3RR violation, I was not aware of such rules. The irony is that you, Mikkalai appeared to have indeed been, you call me outrageous, I call you the same. The homosexuality has been on the article for several months, you are the first to object. 67.41.186.237 03:35, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    That's why I did not want to block you. My attention was brought to other editor's objections of your edits of Homosexuality. As I said, this is not my fight, and I am not returning to it. See Talk:Epic of Gilgamesh for some history. mikka (t) 03:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    User:193.29.205.252

    Three revert rule violation on Szczecin-Dabie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 193.29.205.252 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: --W(t) 07:33, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • More of the polish/german naming clusterfuck. There are allegations that this is User:Witkacy, it might be useful if one of the people with access to the sock checker had a look at that. --W(t) 07:33, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
    • So check my IP... [10], [11], [12] I'm not schizophrenic.. User:Boothy443 is a sockpuppet and his edit summaries: " rv/POV vandalism from Witkacy sockpuppett, who has no idea what spamming or abuse means " are highly provocative and a simple lie--Witkacy 07:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • You can't deny it is rather interesting both of you seem to be rather fond of the word "provocative"… --W(t) 08:00, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
      • And we both also use the word "you" and "and" ... etc. As i already said, check my IP - and if the anon is not my sockpuppet, i will await an apology--Witkacy 08:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    User:Boothy443

    Three revert rule violation on Szczecin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Boothy443 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: --W(t) 07:58, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Once more, Witkacy:
    Talk:Gdansk/Vote#Results_on_VOTE:_Cross-Naming_General:
    The proposal is accepted. For locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names, e.g. Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland) or Szczecin (Stettin). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises.
    Talk:Gdansk/Vote#Results_on_VOTE:_Enforcement:
    The proposal is accepted. Violations against the rule established by the outcome of this vote can be reverted exempt from the 3RR rule. In more complex edits, only the place names can be reverted exempt from the 3RR rule according to the outcome of this vote, additional changes fall again under the 3RR rule. The reverted user should receive a note or link of the vote results on this page. Persistent reverts in violation of the outcome of this vote despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism.
    Seems straightforward: it even uses as its example the very city you use in your claim of violating 3RR. Boothy443 is enforcing a vote, is NOT violating the 3RR rule, and you know this because it was explained to you less than a month ago when you made the same claim. --Calton | Talk 14:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    A group of editors can't just exempt themselves from the 3RR, even if it's just on "their own articles". This kind of policy change would have to be discussed and agreed upon wikipedia-wide. --W(t) 14:49, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
    That's a mischaracterization of the vote, in my opinion, (it WAS "Wikipedia-wide", among other things), but however you phrase it it's what they did. Mind showing me the rule or constituional clause that says they can't? Don't like the vote? Deal. --Calton | Talk 15:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, that particular vote was attended by a very large number of people; i.e. it wasn't just a small circle of editors voting. So I'd say it was pretty authoritative. Noel (talk) 17:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Its interesting that the anon User:193.29.205.252 who participated in the edit-war with User:Boothy443, and like Boothy broked the 3rr was blocked, but Boothy not...--Witkacy 20:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    There's so much dirt flying in all directions its not surprising some stuff is getting missed. I don't have time to check this out and see if a block is warranted, someone else will have to do it. Noel (talk) 21:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Since I was blocked for violation of the same rule, eventhough the Talk:Gdansk/Vote rules were clearly applicable, I have a reason to request that this user be blocked just like I was. See below for details. Halibutt 05:46, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

    I don't know who closed the Gdansk enforcement vote, but it obviously has no authority to gainsay the 3RR. Only 50 out of 78 votes to support it. After 6 voters were excluded for low edit counts, the figure was only 44 out of 72. These figures wouldn't be a rough consensus even by a generous 2/3 standard. By contrast WP:3RR passed by something like 159 to 28. I really don't mind if the Gdansk/Danzig people want to inflict these rules on one another, but I think we should draw the line when they claim to be exempt from the strongly supported WP:3RR because of a mere 50 votes.

    I have altered the vote conclusion and general notice to conform to a more realistic intepretation of the vote, bnut I won't get involved in it beyond that. It just isn't worth the time. However I hope we all will strongly oppose any further attempt to alter the 3RR on the basis of that flawed vote. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    User:Mirror Vax

    Three revert rule violation on Joe Scarborough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mirror Vax (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Rhobite 18:55, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • I disagree with Geni's characterization that Mirror Vax's last violation was OK, but this time it couldn't be more straightforward. Please block. Rhobite 18:55, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)


    blocked for 24 hours.Geni 19:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    User:80.141.x.x

    Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Requests for page protection|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 80.141.216.197 (talk · contribs), 80.141.234.76 (talk · contribs), 80.141.217.19 (talk · contribs), 80.141.190.112 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Thryduulf 19:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • This is one of serveral edit wars between this user and user:Ted Wilkes, with Ted deleteing the user's comments as vandalism. I've blocked Ted for violating the 3RR on this same page with the edit prior to the 4th revert above. I would block the anon but I don't understand how to calculate the necessary range block. Thryduulf 19:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Hmmm. Well, to really do it right, you need to convert them to binary and see how long the common strings of bits on the left-hand-side is. But let's see, the existensce of both 190 and 217 in the third byte means the range spans the 10xxxxxx to 11xxxxxx boundary (which is at 192 decimal), so you'd need a /15, i.e. block from 80.141.128.0 to 80.141.255.255. Noel (talk) 20:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Deleting comments made by other users is vandalism, in my opinion, and so any reverts to restore said comments aren't covered by the 3RR. (Other admins may disagree, but I'm certainly not imposing a block for this.) Proteus (Talk) 20:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    User:Chris_73

    Three revert rule violation on Szczecin-Grabowo.

    Reported by:--Witkacy 20:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Reversions in accordance with the vote at Talk:Gdansk/Vote, excluded from the 3RR. -- Chris 73 Talk 20:15, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
    No. The article is about the Grabowo suburb of Szczecin. And not about Gdansk. And BTW the outcome of the voting is still disputed and a consensus is until now not reached.--Witkacy 20:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Yet again, Witkacy:
    Talk:Gdansk/Vote#Results_on_VOTE:_Cross-Naming_General:
    The proposal is accepted. For locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names, e.g. Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland) or Szczecin (Stettin). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises.
    Yet again, I must point out that it uses Szczecin as its very example, so your rebuttal is, as (I think) Wolfgang Pauli put it, not even wrong. --Calton | Talk 00:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    In which case User:Halibutt's actions are not protected as well? And I hadn't heard that the outcome was still disputed. Mackensen (talk) 20:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    See Template talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice. The outcome is disputed. See also [22]--Witkacy 20:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    The vote also applies to Szczecin, and there was a consensus about the outcome. You don't have to like it, but live with it. Not sure what to do with Halibuts edits, though. I'll stand aside on his edits, and let others handle this. -- Chris 73 Talk 20:21, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
    For you the voting applies also for Erika Steinbach... But you are wrong. And the consensus was not reached, see Gdansk template talk--Witkacy 20:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Witkacy, read the full text at Talk:Gdansk/Vote, In biographies of clearly German persons, the first occurrence of the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdansk) and later Danzig exclusively. Similar applies to other place names in the region that shares a history between Poland and Germany. -- Chris 73 Talk 20:43, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
    The consensus was not reached. Halibutt, Akumiszcza and Balcer invited you to comment on the new proposal in the Gdansk issue, but you refused... [23], [24]--Witkacy 20:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Since I was blocked for violation of the same rule, eventhough the Talk:Gdansk/Vote rules were clearly applicable, I have a reason to request that Chris 73 be blocked equally. See below. Halibutt 03:08, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Halibutt

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

    Reported by: Alai 21:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Claimed to be an "exception" to the 3RR under the terms of the Gdansk stramash, rather spuriously as the Rhineland is about as Polish as I am. Alai 21:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • By the same user: 4 reverts on Aachen, 5 reverts on Dresden (all clearly labelled as such). And just getting warmed up on similar behaviour on various other articles. Alai 21:21, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • The evidenced reverts are not breaking the 3RR rule, as they are not done on the same day. And just look above for the same argument about the other party in this debate. This is taking us nowhere. Try doing something constructive, like contribute at Template talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice#Constructive_proposal instead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • See WP:3RR, which clearly states "24 hour period", not "calendar day". I suggest you try your "do something constructive" advice on Halibutt, who's simply being disruptive, and frankly bordering on being vandalistic, to make a point. Alai 22:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    This is utterly ridiculous. I'm not buying the supposed "immunity" at all, as I can't see any way that that vote could apply here. Blocked for 24 hours. Proteus (Talk) 21:42, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • Are you blind? I explained above he didn't break the rule. By the same token, you should block Chris and several other respected Wikipedians. Unblocked. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • For an admin, you certainly don't know very much about the 3RR, namely that it applies to 24 hour periods, not calendar days (which, rather blantantly obviously, differ depending on where you are in the world). And you, being involved in the dispute, are abusing your powers by interfering in administrative decisions. Proteus (Talk) 22:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I am involved in the dispute as you are, trying to cool heads here. I concede that Halibutt has done 4 reverts in 24h period, but I see his excuse - that he was empowered to this by vote - as valid one. Both sides are arguing that they can avoid 3RR (if broken) because of unclear vote results. What authority gives you the right to decide one is right? I don't think anybody here has such a right - I certainly don't presume myself to be the oracle here - thus I am encouraging fixing the policy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Actually, the other side appears to have abided by the 3RR, and spent most of the past day asking Halibutt to stop. Has anyone else broken the rule, or claimed the right to? Mackensen (talk) 22:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • a) I'm not involved in the Polish/German dispute. You are. b) If there is any doubt whatsoever as to the applicability of this "immunity" policy, it cannot be used as a basis to overrule the 3RR. I'm not going to let a disputed vote on an article talk page overrule official Wikipedia policy. Anyway, he should have been blocked for disruption even if he hadn't broken the 3RR. He's causing havoc, and that's not acceptable. Proteus (Talk) 22:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
              • Neither am I - I have yet to do a single revert on this matter. Both sides have been asking the other sides to talk, and both sides have violated the 3RR and claimed immunity based on the Vote results. Consider also that one side is represented by a well-known an administrator and one is not before you judge the support votes. I see both parties as quilty, and perhaps all users involved in the reverts should be blocked for a day to make them stop their POINT, but I strongly object to blocking only one party. Each side has arguments backing them, and they can't be discarded - it only points to our loopholes in voting policy, and this is why I am trying to make people do the constructive thing - improve the policy - instead of pointing fingers and trying to put a blame on one user. Chris has already agreed with me that policy needs fixing, Halibutt has done the same, so we should make an effort to cool tempers down, not inflame them by blocking one side, which has claimed immunity and can rightly state that if they are blocked, so should be their opponents, since both sides are claiming the very same arguments. In the end, if you want to block one of them and assign blame, I am afraid it would have to go to ArbCom - we have no authority to decide this matter. So please, can we work on improving the policy? Although all arguments on talk pages of involved parties you can make, the better, and I hope this ban threat will make Halibutt more reasonable - I am just afraid it may encourage Chris to the opposite (pray I am wrong). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe there is a policy that says that four or more reverts in a 24-hour period may result in a 24 hour block. I cannot see how Halibutt is exempt. Their arguments don't matter – the point is that Halibutt did what he did and, by policy, should be blocked. smoddy 22:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • So why wasn't Chris blocked on the same grounds (see section above)? Do different rules apply to different users? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • There is no German/Polish history here, whereas there was with Chris's. To quote from the text of Talk:Gdansk/Vote, For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland. This town is in south-west Germany. There is no shared history. There is, however, a 3RR violation. That should be acknowledged, even if the block is not reinstated (it would be silly for reinstation to happen now). smoddy 22:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Well... "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. " Witkacy 20:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Halibutt emailed me 4 hours ago, saying that he is still blocked (that is 34h after his orginal block. IIRC he bas blocked around ~2100 on 6th, and he wrote the email to me ~0700 in 8th). I was under the impression that block would last 24h - unless you decided to block him pernamently? Also, he told me that Proteus is ignoring his emails. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    It's an autoblock, because he tried to edit anonymously during his block period, as anyone could easily tell from looking at Special:Ipblocklist. And I've ignored his e-mail (singular, not plural) because all he did was accuse me of bias and say I'd broken the rules by blocking him. I'm under no obligation to reply to rude e-mails. Proteus (Talk) 13:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I checked the logs. He was blocked, as I wrote, on ~2100 on 6th. He tried to log in 7th on 2300, which 26h after his orginal block. The block was still there. It looks to me like a violation of user rights, as 3RR rule clearly states blocks can be done UP TO 24h. And note that up to does not mean exactly 24h, it can be shorter. As for his offending email, I'd like to see it. I have known Halibutt for over a year and never to my knowledge he has offended anyone, and weighting his word against yours, I am inclined to put my trust on him. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I was blocked by 23 CET and the block was lifted between 9 and 10 am CET, two days later, which made the block last more than 35 hours. I would be happy to hear any reason why took it so long and why was the WP:3RR violated by Proteus. As to my email, I did not accuse you of bias but simply stated that blocking me in violation of Talk:Gdansk/Vote, especially after I've explained my edits on the talk page, is at best a matter of Proteus' personal crusade against me. Especially that there are other users here who were not blocked for the very same reason. Who exactly made Proteus responsible for which cases are compliant with the rules of the Talk:Gdansk/Vote and which are not? As far as I know, this right is reserved for Jimbo or ArbCom, not for any of the admins, even as honourable as Proteus.
    Also, if Proteus was offended, then I'm sorry. Please be so kind as to quote the exact part of my letter that made you think that I was trying to offend anyone and I'm sure the misunderstanding could be solved. However, I have a reason to believe that the reason behind lack of your reply was not exactly my email being offensive, but rather the fact that Protheus was trying to prove some point by blocking me - or silence me in the Talk:Dresden and Talk:Mainz discussion.
    Finally, I was not trying to "edit anonymously", I simply didn't know that I'm blocked. And, by the way, if I wanted to edit anonymously, I would be able to do it since I was trying to log in from my work, and as far as I know there is a completely different IP there. Halibutt 03:03, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
    I see no more explanation that I can give that hasn't been given by either me or another admin further up this page. If you still don't understand, then I'm sorry, but I don't see how reiterating the same points over and over will help. (And the suggestion that I'm engaged in a crusade against you is absurd, as is patently obvious.) Proteus (Talk) 09:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I am waiting for responce from Proteus with interest, it has been close to 24h since I requested his reply on the same grounds above. Blocking a user for over 24h is an evident violation of 3RR rule and should be punished. Also, ignoring user emails beacuse they are 'offending' leaves room to much abuse (you block someone, he complains its not fair, you consider this 'offending'...).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I can understand Halibutt's complaints, if he genuinely doesn't understand that breaking the 3RR by using an interpretation of a "disputed" vote shared by virtually no other user as an excuse is unacceptable. But you are just being ridiculous, and demonstrating a lack of knowledge about the workings of Wikipedia that I find absolutely astonishing in an admin. Anyone can easily look at the block log and find the following:
                      • 23:25, 6 Jun 2005 Proteus blocked "User:Halibutt" with an expiry time of 23 hours (reinstate block removed in violation of policy again)
                      • 23:05, 6 Jun 2005 Proteus blocked "User:Halibutt" with an expiry time of 23 hours (restore block)
                      • 22:41, 6 Jun 2005 Proteus blocked "User:Halibutt" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violations on numerous articles)
    Do you think I've found a way to block people without it showing on the block log, or to manipulate the IP Block List by the powers of the Force? If not, just what is it you are suggesting I've done? Proteus (Talk) 09:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Then why exactly wasn't I able to edit wikipedia until 10 AM? Also, it's your interpretation of the rules set by the voting; if you can tell me what makes you the person to decide on which version is better, then I promise I won't file my complains anywhere. Also, my interpretation is apparently shared by at least User:Chris 73 and his fellow contributors (see above). Finally, I asked you to post the offensive parts of my letter here so that I could apologise and improve my style in the future. Could you be so kind? Halibutt 12:46, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
    Now, I guess there may be some confusion from time zones, but even so, my calculations do show that Halibutt was blocked for at least 33h. Now, I could understand a 2-3h difference (up to 27h), since after you blocked him, I unblocked him and RickK blocked him again at least 2h elapsed, and I'd assume his block was set for 24h, and thus it was reset by RickK reblocking. But, since you blocked him around 2100, and RickK reblocked him around 2300, the block should have expired around 2300-2400 next day (I am using my and Halibutt's timezone here). But Halibutt states he was still blocked at 0700 on the day after. That is 7h after a 24+2=26h block should have expired. How is that possible? I admit I know little about this mechanism, since I have not been involved in similar case prior to this (and I still consider this a giant waste of time of all parties involved). In any case, I think we can resolve this matter peacefully, if both sides can step forward and apologised for their mistakes: Halibutt, you should apologise for your actions. Setting aside the fact that other users act in a similar way and cite the very same vote for immunity (and yes, I think they should be punished as you were, but this is not the issue here), the fact is that your actions bordered on POINT and eventually broke the 3RR rule. Proteus, you (or whoever is responsible) should apologise to Halibutt for over-24h block (and clarify the insulting letter issue). Then we can go, fix the voting policy and have all this childish pointing fingers behind us. Sounds good? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Makes sense. I'm sorry for being a pain in the back. Halibutt 05:45, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    You want me to apologise for Wikipedia having a technical fault? Sorry, not going to happen. (As for the offensive e-mail, I consider any e-mail that challenges my integrity, threatens me with RfC for extremely spurious reasons and rudely demands that I explain myself to be "offensive".) Proteus (Talk) 12:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I have to say I am dissapointed by you, Proteus. You seem to use the logic: 1) Proteus is always right; 2) if Proteus is not right, see 1) and try to blame technology instead of take it yourself. It was you who blocked Halibutt, not Wikipedia itself, and you should accept responsibility for that - unless simple 'sorry' for you is impossible? So far, in the discussion between you and Halibutt I see you have offended him with allegiations you cannot support, not the other way around. Halibutt has every right (as specified by 3RR policy) to demand an explanation and your failure to respond to this borders on abuse of powers. This behaviour is not what I'd expect of a Wiki admin. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Proteus, I guess it's your turn for explanations. It's easy to ignore other users or state they are offensive, but at times it would be better to actually try to be more cooperative. Halibutt 21:29, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    I've explained things already. I'm not going to continue doing so. I have better things to do with my time than explain to you why you can't break the rules and explain to an admin who should know better how Wikipedia works. Proteus (Talk) 12:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Well, your attempts to turn the issue and blame me for this is not going to work. We are not discussing my alleged ingorance here (and after rereading the 3RR rules I am certain I have acted according to them), but your abuse of power (i.e. blocking a user for over 24h). Unfortunately for you, Wiki is not a dictatorship but a democracy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    User:Space Cadet

    Three revert rule violation on Amber Room (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Space Cadet (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Noel (talk) 03:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Another one of these stupid Polish/German name reverts. According to Talk:Gdansk/Vote, the name Danzig should be used "between 1308 and 1945", which this is (the Amber Room was built in the early 1700's).

    For the record, here are my three reverts:

    Technically, I guess I'm allowed to keep reverting (since my version follows policy), but out of an abundance of caution I'm going to let someone else do it. Noel (talk) 03:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)


    User:Marcperkel

    Could someone warn Marcperkel (talk · contribs) that he's violated the 3RR on Faith-based[25]? I'd do it myself but as I'm the doing most of the reverts on his self-promo I don't think it would be appropriate or effective. --W(t) 06:27, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)


    He hasn't technicaly broken the rule.Geni 20:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    User:Guy Montag

    Three revert rule violation on 1982 Invasion of Lebanon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy Montag (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Yuber(talk) 22:04, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: This is a complex revert. Basically, Jayjg's version removed the quote by putting <-- --> around it. Then Guy Montag deleted the quote no less than 4 times. So therefore he is reverting to Jayjg's version by removing the quote without trying to find consensus. As other users have been banned for complex reverts, so should Guy Montag.

    User:Noitall

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

    Reported by: Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Noitall reverted three times, then suddenly 129.7.35.1 took over, making the same edit three more times. It seems clear that Nooitall simply looged out and continued reverting aninymously. Perhaps someone could check, if proof is needed? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I encourage Wiki, if it is possible, to trace the IP addresses. I have never edited in secret or as any other IP address or name. Mel Etitis appears to be an apologist for the illegal actions and continued vandalism of Yuber, who even vandalizes User pages, see [[27]]. Many others have cited Yuber and there is an effort from many others to ban the editor from Wiki, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Mel Etitis is hanging out with a bad crowd. --Noitall 23:39, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
    Comment: The "vandalism" that Noitall is referring to seems to be the addition of a sockpuppet tag. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KaintheScion et al./Evidence and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KaintheScion et al. for the reasons for the tag.

    User: Guy Montag

    Three revert rule violation on Al Qunaytirah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy Montag (talk · contribs):


    Reported by: Calton | Talk 08:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    User:Marcperkel

    Three revert rule violation on Faith-based (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Marcperkel (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: --W(t) 08:09, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:MONGO

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

    Reported by: JamesMLane 11:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • The previous version to which MONGO keeps reverting is found here. The dispute was over the level of detail of the coverage of substance abuse issues. Several editors participated in reaching a compromise (see discussion). MONGO keeps removing this compromise text in favor of his preferred version. He has also referred to another editor's restoration of the compromise as "vandalism" (in this edit summary) and has deleted another editor's comment on the talk page. JamesMLane 11:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    This was used as a tool to silence, nothing more. I was engaged in a disagreement with JamesMLane who recommended the block and he provided the evidence simply as a weapon. After I was blocked he reverted back to what he calls a consensus which is a falsehood. His efforts to block me and to make misrepresentations here were solely to try to put icing on the cake per se. My edit in which I called another a vandal was due to that editor who edited over me and called it "Ditched MONGO's edit". I deleted another editors comment on the talk page as I thought that his comment about me not thinking before I acted needed to stop, and seeing that he is a rare contributor, took it as a personal attack. I then apologized to this editor for the mistake. JamesMLane himself performed 3 reverts in a 24 period as well on the same article...skirting dangerously close as well.--MONGO 20:03, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    User:Mel Etitis

    Guilty of 3RR violation at Islamist Terrorism. Diffs:

    • 08:51, 8 Jun 2005 diff
    • 16:01, 8 Jun 2005 diff
    • 17:01, 8 Jun 2005 diff
    • 17:22, 8 Jun 2005 diff
    Edit and report by User:129.7.35.1 -- Wikibofh 17:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Yes, he did make 4 reverts inside 24 hours, but I'd like to hear his side of the story first. I note from your talk page he has accused you of vandalism, and reverting vandalism is excempt from the Three Revert Rule. Thryduulf 17:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    He didn't accuse me of vandalism, I reverted HIS vandalism and mentioned that in my edit summary, so he sent a "look up vandalism" note. He was also kind enough to send me a note on the 3RR so I checked on his edits, and as it turns out he's in violation. Are you going to enforce the rules or are Admins exempt?

    edit by User:129.7.35.1 -- Wikibofh 18:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    He is not exempt, but I agree with Tryduulf that he should have the opportunity to put his side of the case. I don't personally see that the insertions are vandalism, just POV, but I would prefer to hear him out. I think respected users such as Mel deserve this. smoddy 18:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Ah, I see. The "electric fence" is only for non-admins, different rules apply for Admins.

    edit by User:129.7.35.1 -- Wikibofh 18:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    the rules are the same for admins and non-admins. There are occasions where any user can revert more than 3 times without breaking the 3RR (e.g. reverting vandalism) and not every case is clear-cut. As Mel is a respected editor I (and Smoddy also) feel that to be fair we should allow him to put his case, depending whether or not we agree with it he could still be blocked. Thryduulf 18:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    He can still revert himself and avoid being blocked, presuming he hasn't a good reason for his not to be blocked. smoddy 18:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I didn't phrase my previous comment brilliantly. I also don't see what he did as reverting vandalism, but if it is then that is excempt. Not all vandalism is obvious though and since I've not been involved in this article, I don't know any background to it or to Mel's claims, but I'm assuming good faith and presuming he has some reason for making them. I've put a message on his talk page asking him to reply here so, fingers crossed this will be sorted shortly. Thryduulf 18:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    User:129.7.35.1 has reverted 6 times in less than 24 hours on this article. Looks like a hotbed of fun. Wikibofh 18:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    I spotted the large amount of editing going on and was wondering whether it would benefit from a short spell of protection. Thryduulf 18:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Fine, then shall we add these to Mel Etitis' record as well? Looks like 7 to me.
    Not including the edits by Yuber, that's quite a lot.
    1. I was about to make the same point about more reverts.
    2. Yuber is not Mel's sockpuppet; stop your personal attacks. smoddy 18:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    I think it's utterly ridiculous. Mel was edit warring without any restraint and far beyond the 3RR. Blocked for 24 hours because nobody else will do it. And I'm mighty pissed about that. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    It appears to be a straight forward case. The comments on the talk page don't seem to give any reason.Geni 18:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Kudos to Tony for doing the right thing: Mel Etitis (ME) is an excellent editor and a worthy admin, but that shouldn't put him above the rules. I'm guessing that since the edits were separated in time, ME did not recall them, but the onus is on reverters to make sure. --- Charles Stewart 19:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) (corrected Charles Stewart 17:56, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC))
    another posibility is the one day/24 hours confusion.Geni 20:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    I've also had a look at the guy he was warring with, 129.7.35.1 (talk · contribs), and blocked him too. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    *sighs* How pointful. Hopefully the members of both parties will stop reverting.
    James F. (talk) 20:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Tony, I think Mel made a genuine mistake here, and wasn't (so far as I know) warned that he'd done it, plus it was a first offense. Would you consider unblocking if he apologizes, or at least reducing the length of the block? 24 hours for a first offense with no warning seems harsh. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:36, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
    Not that I like people being blocked, but as someone that does lots of blocking for 3RRs, Mel is well aware of the rules and has clearly reverted seven times within 24 hours. I don't think it can be seen as vandalism, either. 24 hours does seem somewhat harsh, true, but if we don't enforce that then we are just looking for accusations of admins being above the rules. violet/riga (t) 23:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I don't do WP:3RR normally. I make a special exception for egregious edit warring--five or more reverts in twenty-four hours is way over the top. I can believe that he didn't realise how badly he was behaving, but he shouldn't need a warning, having blocked three users for breaking WP:3RR today. Yes, it's harsh. When an administrator makes this kind of mistake he needs the lesson more than most. I've blocked both parties in the revert war, and I think the article could do with a rest from their constant to-and-fro. I considered a shorter revert but, seeing that the custom seems to be to make a 24-hour block, I decided not to send an ambiguous message by a shorter block for this particular user. Seven reverts, first offence or no, would probably get a 24-hour block here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I should add that I'm in contact with Mel Etitis by email and he has apologised. I will not shorten the period of the block but I do not engage in block wars. I only ask that anyone considering unblocking also give some consideration to the other blocked party. We're admins and he isn't, so we should examine our behavior very carefully. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Mel Etitis, without any justification except to protect vandal Yuber (who is seems is intimately connected to Mel Etitis, if not a sockpuppet), made unfounded accusations about me on this page above. Mel Etitis is not the benign Administrator that some have asserted on this page. --Noitall 01:04, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
    Tony, I don't like block wars between admins, so I won't be unblocking, but hope you might reconsider the length of the block in the morning. Noitall, I assure you that Yuber is not a sockpuppet of Mel Etitis, nor are the two closely connected. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 10:39, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

    People should not be given indulgent treatment for being admins, nice guys, friends, respected contributors, etc, etc, etc. If anything, being an admin means you must stick to the rules even more and sanctions must be enforced even more strictly. Otherwise, why should non-admins take them seriously? — Chameleon 11:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    It would seem that Mel agrees with you:
    Admins. The vast majority of admins with whom I've had contact have been helpful, considerate, and professional in their approach. They're human, though, and occasionally one will develop a blind spot with regard to some issue, or a far from disinterested approach, and act against Wikipedia rules. What seems to happen then is that either their behavior is ignored by other admins, or (especially when the clamour of ordinary users is loud) they're subjected to a mild finger-wagging. If non-admins had behaved in the same way, they'd likely have been blocked from editing for a while ? either generally or on a specific article or topic. Simple fairness demands the same treatment for the same behaviour ? but given that admins are in fact expected to behave better than ordinary editors, it would seem right that they should be treated more strictly when they fall well short.
    Now that I am an admin, I hold the same view, incidentally.
    (From his user page.) Proteus (Talk) 12:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Mel Etitis was in contact with me this morning by email about a blocking problem concerning some other users. He is taking this enforced break stoically and admirably. I do think it's in the interests of Wikipedia that all rules should be seen to apply to all editors, without preference to nice guys and admins (of both of which Mel Etitis is a prime example). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    I'd love to agree, you have no idea how much *evil grin*. But Drat! This sets a bad precedent, and I'm not going to lower my standards just because the other guy does.

    Blocking users is not a punishment, it's a method to give people a time out. Once they've caught their breath they should be able to come back again.

    I should have kept my eyes open for this one, now my comments are too late. Oh well. For the record then! :-) Kim Bruning 21:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    User:129.100.224.148

    Three revert rule violation on Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 129.100.224.148 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Kelly Martin 04:33, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Spotted on RC patrol. I reverted the 4th revert to what appears to be the consensus version. User appears to be pushing a pro-Pakistani POV. Kelly Martin 04:33, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Addendum: user does not appear to have been warned in advance on user talk page; I recommend not blocking unless further reverts are forthcoming. Kelly Martin 04:37, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
    This guy is now trying to do the same thing under different IP addrsses (mostly similar) or under the sockpuppet Napoleon12 who also has the same tendency to revert to previous or POV versions with some blatant lies. And he is doing the same to almost everything related to India pakistan war or skirmish etc. --Idleguy 05:43, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Napoleon12

    Three revert rule violation on Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Napoleon12 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: AreJay 19:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • This rule, as is obvious from the evidence, has been violated again -- not once, but 4 times. Large enough for me to start another 3RR thread on his repeated violations. If we count the number of reverse edits undertaken by this user with the inclusion of the previous 3RR violation reported by wiki administrator Kelly Martin, it adds up to 12 reverse edits within a 24 hour period.
    • Clearly the user will not listen to reason. Please block him. The integrity of the article has been jeopardized. The user has also uploaded and added images to the article that are in violation of the image use policies of Wikipedia. Please see image "65war_paatkhemkaran.jpg" (the image even contains a watermark of the possible copyright holder -- PakDef.info).
    • This user has been tormenting serious wiki authors that have spent considerable time and effort researching and writing an article on an event on which unbiased sources are few and far between. Now there is a sense of helplessness and exhaution amongst us. Please help us by blocking this user and his sockpuppets as soon as possible. Thank you. I don't know if I can make a stronger case for blocking this user.

    AreJay 19:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    More instances of vandalism

    This user has been a consistent vandal across all India pakistan military related articles. he has repeatedly reverted to the blatant POV articles and copyvio images (one article even had the partial name of the website from which it was lifted, in the paragraph) The articles are
    1. Indo-Pakistan War of 1971
    2. Indo-Pakistani War of 1947
    3. Kargil War
    4. Pakistan Navy
    5. Pakistan Air Force

    and other articles where he has started to resort to biased views in a very small way. Unless he is stopped and his sockpuppets banned we will have our time full with him without any useful contributions. --Idleguy 02:42, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

    Multiple users

    Three revert rule violation on Creation science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Ec5618 (talk · contribs), Bensaccount (talk · contribs), Wdanwatts (talk · contribs), Pollinator (talk · contribs),

    • Too many reverts to list; please see article history.

    Reported by: Ghakko 17:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Hi Ghakko, if you want admin action, you'll have to give the diffs showing four reverts in 24 hours to a previous version, plus a diff to the version reverted to, by one of these accounts, or evidence that two or more of the accounts are controlled by the same person. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 04:23, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    Hi. I'm withdrawing the report, as things seem to have settled down now. Sorry about the fuss.
    —Ghakko 14:54, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    User:67.121.92.246 / User:Economist123 / etc.

    Three revert rule violation on Jawaharlal Nehru. User:67.121.92.246 (now User:Economist123):

    Reported by: Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:47, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

    Comments: The user who posts from a dynamic IP address in the 67.121.* block continues to revert the Nehru article to include a uniformly rejected rambling about Nehru-Stalinism. The page has been locked repeatedly to prevent this, but 67.121.* resumes the same behavior (despite frequent) warning, each time the page is unlocked. This was previously reported under the IP addresses User:67.121.95.80 / User:67.121.93.63 (same IP block, obviously same human being at issue).

    Followup: The usually anonymous user from 67.121.* rarely signs talk comments, but once in a while does as "Economist" or similar. The 9th reversion listed is by the "new user" User:Economist123. I presume this user name was added in response to Mackensen's IP block. I don't know how to tell whether some IP spoofing or proxy was also created. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:38, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
    User:Economist123 has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet created for the purpose of policy violation. Jayjg (talk) 04:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The IP resolves to Pacific Bell. I'll block for 24 hours, but it probably won't do much good. Mackensen (talk) 04:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Would that be one of these?:
      • These are some of the other IPs he uses (presumably from home, with the other range being, I assume, his work IP). --Calton | Talk 08:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    User:Al-Andalus

    Three revert rule violation on Mizrahi Jew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Al-Andalus (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Jayjg (talk) 20:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Note: Keeps inserting into the 3rd paragraph the disputed phrase "except among Mizrahi minority circles promoting a revival of Arab Jewish identity" and disguising it through complex reverts/other minor changes. Jayjg (talk) 20:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Blocked for 24 hours. smoddy 20:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    User:Mateusc and User:24.125.136.245/User:Marvelvsdc)

    Three revert rule violation on Sega Dreamcast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mateusc (talk · contribs), 24.125.136.245 (talk · contribs)/Marvelvsdc (talk · contribs).

    Mateusc:

    Marvelvsdc aka 24.125.136.245

    reported by: K1Bond007 21:27, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    They've been repeatedly reverting each other for the past few weeks over an image at the top of the page. I attempted to bring a compromise to the problem, but was either quickly dismissed as having "no argument" or claimed to be "personally attacking" User:Mateusc. User:Marvelvsdc posts on the talk page routinely under User:24.125.136.245 and is obviously the same person. K1Bond007 21:27, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    You make me personal attacks and use offensive words many times in talk page and now decide to report my revert edits simply because you don't have argument and agree with the vandalism to revert to your image. Why you just reported this in past days? This is bad faith, after all, your agressions, provocative and personal attacks are registered on Talk:Sega_Dreamcast.
    Would an admin please look into this so called personal attack stuff too please. If I have done any wrong doing I'm fully prepared to take whatever punishment is handed out. Rather that than be constantly accused of this. K1Bond007 21:54, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    I will wait for this. Because you use offensive words and personal attacks to justify the use of your image, Instead to prove that it contains information instead redundance. --Mateusc 22:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    The user above is new, he has been here for a month and is accusing everyone of personal attacks. He updates images efficiently on Xbox 360 and other well-known systems but is confident in his approach to a false design. The picture he puts up is not web designer friendly and encyclopedic. It is not sixth generation, and proposes a 32-bit era, better yet a 16-bit era article definition with false justifications of console origin next to its context.--Marvelvsdc 22:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    You're talking with excessive nonsense. See my list of Contributions before say something about me and get education and know the rules first. --Mateusc 22:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I've protected the page, so please use this time to find a consensus. I'll also be putting a warning about 3RR on each of the user pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:41, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    Having read all the talk pages now, it's clear that K1Bond007 has not made any personal attacks, but in fact has been trying to seek compromise. Mateus, you've come close to making personal attacks yourself, so try to avoid that in future please; and Marvel has made a comment threatening to delete material he has uploaded if anyone annoys him, which I've asked him to clarify. There's a consensus on the page not to use the image(s) Mateus wants, so I've asked him to abide by that, and hopefully that'll be the end of the matter. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:17, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)


    User:69.233.169.62

    Three revert rule violation on Maryam_Rajavi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.233.169.62 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: RezaKia 15:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • This guy is reverting but also using abusive language in the Talk pages. His IP is 69.233.169.62 (Report by RezaKia)
      • All of those incidents are your own reverts, genius. One would have to be a moron not to see you belong to the MKO terrorists organization -- just one quick look at your history is enough to see this. You cannot hide the shameful history of your terrorist organization by injecting lies into Wikipedia articles. Crawl back to your terrorist cells in Iraq now. Buh bye mujahed.
        • Both the above users are blocked for 24 hours – RezaKia for 3RR on the page, and the anon for avoiding a block on the same page, imposed by me earlier today. smoddy 15:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    User: 67.121.92.159 / User:67.121.95.125 / User:67.124.244.78

    Three revert rule violation on User:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters (edit | [[Talk:User:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.121.* (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:48, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

    Comments: Our same friend who has frequently violated 3RR on the Nehru page has taken to vandalizing my user page (and that of several other editors also) to include his rambling "Nehru is Stalin" screed, presumably because Nehru got locked against vandalism because of him. Unfortunately, as in the other reports, our vandal has dynamic IP addreses. They initially seemed to all fall in 67.121.*, but now at least one is from 67.124.* as well.

    Report new violation

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive9&oldid=15027289"