Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive6

< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

User:72.235.86.15

edit

Three revert rule violation on Sea of Japan naming dispute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

72.235.86.15 (talk · contribs):

...

Reported by: Appleby 23:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Action Taken

edit

72.235.86.15 violated the three-revert rule on this article and has been blocked from editing for 24 hours as a result. I am evaluating the page's history to see whether Appleby is also in violation of that policy. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 02:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That also, is the case; Appleby is therefore also blocked for 24 hours. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 02:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:TDC

edit

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

TDC (talk · contribs):

...

Reported by: Travb 03:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: User has 12 previous boots, 10 for 3RR and revert violations:

  • 09:59, 15 September 2005 Tony Sidaway blocked "User:TDC" with an expiry time of 48 hours (Must learn to let other people revert if it's necessary at all)
  • 15:09, 12 September 2005 Tony Sidaway blocked "User:TDC" with an expiry time of 48 hours (Egregious disruption. Revert warring on multiple articles, 3RR, personal attacks)
  • 20:02, 24 August 2005 Flcelloguy blocked "User:TDC" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation)
  • 20:02, 24 August 2005 Geni blocked "User:TDC" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3 rever rule WP:3RR)
  • 16:03, 10 July 2005 Rama blocked "User:TDC" with an expiry time of 4 days (provocative and disruptive reverts, abundently warned-)
  • 07:52, 8 July 2005 Rama blocked "User:TDC" with an expiry time of 48 hours (disruption, deliberate provocations, WP:POINT. Duely and repeatedly warned.)
  • 08:48, 18 May 2005 SlimVirgin blocked "User:TDC" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation at Fidel Castro)
  • 18:59, 25 April 2005 Gamaliel blocked "User:TDC" with an expiry time of 48 hours (violation of 3RR on Pablo Nerdua, blocked multiple times for 3RR before)
  • 22:15, 18 April 2005 Geni blocked "User:TDC" with an expiry time of 24 hours ( 3 revert rule violation)
  • 02:47, 3 April 2005 Carbonite blocked "User:TDC" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Violation of 3RR on Anti-globalization)
  • 12:15, 22 March 2005 Tony Sidaway blocked "User:TDC" with an expiry time of 12 hours (Refdoc's block adjusted to within that permitted by WP:3RR)
  • 19:28, 30 January 2005 Neutrality blocked "User:TDC" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation on Iraq Liberation Act; personal attacks in edit summaries)

TDC (talk · contribs) started this current revert war which I am reporting today 4 days after starting another revert war on the same page Winter Soldier Investigation.

This happened after my request for mediation, and after my intervention to stop the first revert war between himself and 165.247.208.115, who TDC also reported here for 3RR's despite starting the revert war. This was also after a copyright violation war, also started by TDC (talk · contribs).

The page is now protected by Sasquatch (talk · contribs) because of the revert wars. This was requested by TDC (talk · contribs).

Historically on the Winter Soldier Investigation page, TDC (talk · contribs) actions, along with his friends, prompted another protection in October of 2004, August 8, 2005, and again on 25 August 2005.

TDC (talk · contribs) proudly proclaims on his user page that he has been "banned from too many chat rooms to mention" and seems intent on being booted permanently from wikipedia.


For the love of God ........... could you please give up this crusade of yours. And FYI, you did not even cite the policy correctly. You simply posted every edit I made in a 24 hour period, not the number of RV's, which if you were counting was 2. Please read before inserting foot in mouth. TDC 03:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:24.20.181.127

edit

Talk page vandalism on Talk:WDMA (edit | [[Talk:Talk:WDMA|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by 24.20.181.127 (talk · contribs)

24.20.181.127 (talk · contribs):

  • 1st revert: [1]
  • 2nd revert: [2]
  • 3rd revert: [3]
  • 4th revert: [4]
  • 5th revert: [5]

Reported by User:Hippolami 23:55, 25 October 2005 (EST)

Comments:

  • This page is being repeatedly censored by IP users. Told user to stop. Reported by User:Hippolami 23:55, 25 October 2005 (EST)


Action Taken

edit

Technically speaking, the user didn't violate the 3RR; however he did blank the page multiple times, interfered with the editing and consensus gathering processes and made a considerable nuisance of himself around this issue, thus I feel he violated the spirit of the policy. Blocked for 24 hours. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 15:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow-up, I checked the contributions of both users apparently involved in this. Hippolami does not appear to have violated the three-revert rule. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 15:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:HeadleyDown

edit

Three revert rule violation on Neuro-linguistic Programming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). HeadleyDown (talk · contribs):

Reported by: --Comaze 15:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • The discussion page is currently being mediated, so the reversions / edits may slow down soon.

--Comaze 23:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:R. fiend

edit

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

R. fiend (talk · contribs):

I don't see an end to this without intervention. First, User:R. fiend redirected the article title to Flemington, New Jersey in keeping with some of the comments in the AfD discussion, where the information was duplicated. Flemington Circle was reverted back to a whole article after the AfD was completed with "no consensus" and the data removed from Flemington, New Jersey. User:R. fiend reverted Flemington Circle to a redirect twice more without merging the information back into Flemington, New Jersey, effectively deleting the article again. (These two are bad-faith reversions.) Each time, he was reverted. Days later, he redirected again, this time merging the information into Flemington, New Jersey with the edit summary "merge in crap". User:R. fiend stubbornly refuses to accept the "no consensus" close to the AfD and has been edit warring to press his POV ever since.
I suggest viewing this incident with the following pages open in tabs, to more easily see the timeline:
  1. [6]
  2. [7]
Why haven't I reported User:SPUI for edit warring as well? Because he has been editing the content of the article itself, in what appears to be ongoing good faith attempts to improve it, and his initial reverts were reversions of bad-faith redirects by User:R. fiend where no merging of information had actually taken place. These bad-faith redirects are the second and third on the list above.

Reported by: Unfocused 17:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • I do think the reversion are excessive, but I don't believe that this page is the venue to discuss it. Six reverts over 16 days really can't be considered a 3RR violation, especially since the reverts have died down recently. If the dispute can't be settled on the talk page, an article RfC might be appropriate. Carbonite | Talk 17:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm glad you commented. I posted this not to get someone punished, but to stop User:R. fiend from continuing his edit war. I do, however, view "6 over 16 days" as a violation of the spirit of 3RR that warrants a warning, given that two of the reverts were bad faith reversions with the intent of performing deletion contrary to the AfD closure. That's why I brought this here. As we know, 3RR isn't about counting within a time period, it's a tool to stop edit wars. Even now I still don't object to a merge of the data, but I don't believe User:R. fiend is acting in good faith here. If this is a place for punishments and enforcement only, rather than a suitable place for discussion of excessive reversion, then I apologize for bringing this here. I thought this would be a better forum than RfC because this has been a simple revert war. Unfocused 17:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is ridiculous. The page was up for AfD, the results were 10 for deletion, 4 were happy with a merge, and only 2 voted outright to keep, without mentioning a merge. The info was merged, and I did a redirect. SPUI, who thinks "delete" means "merge" and "no conensus" means "keep as is! do not merge!" decided to undo it. So there's been reversions back and forth, in spite of the fact that just about everyone except Unfocused and SPUI (and even they claimed they were happy with merging, I guess their votes weren't terribly sincere) think the material is best in the Flemington article or in the garbage. Besides, a merge/redirect can be done by any user at any time, without an AfD, and the results of an AfD, even if there were a consensus to keep, do not prohibit it from being done. SPUI had the further audacity to remove the information of the stupid traffic circle from the Flemington article, then complain that it wasn't included there anymore. He's trolling again. -R. fiend 18:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Had your second and third redirects been accompanied by an actual merge of the information into the target article rather than de-facto deletion of an article per your preference without consensus, I wouldn't complain. But they did not. You redirected the article title, but didn't keep the content. You weren't actually merging, you were deleting. When you finally did get around to merging much later accompanying another later revert, you posted "merge in crap" as your edit summary, which led me to conclude that you weren't acting in good faith this whole time. I'll assume good faith again from this point forward, but please don't act in ways that clearly betray that good faith. Unfocused 19:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • It was SPUI who removed the info from Flemington (and then complained that it wasn't there). I didn't even notice. He was perfectly free to put it back. And a redirect without a merge is ipso facto not deletion; at no time did I use the administrator deletion powers, which is the definition of deletion, so to accuse me of deleting anything is incorrect. As for my comment, now if I had included in the edit summary "merge in lovely information generously supplied by that lovely contributor SPUI, who works day in and day out to make Wikipedia a better place for all", the resulting article would have been 100% the same. To call one vandalism and the other not in pretty lame. Now I'm at least glad you haven't reverted the article; I assume you're happy with the situation as it stands, as you indictaed at the AfD? As nothing is deleted, I see no reason why either you or SPUI should not be, and I hope this is settled. -R. fiend 19:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you are changing an article to a redirect under the reasoning of a merge, the minimum you must do is actually merge the information or check that it's already there. Otherwise, you're just imposing your preference to delete upon the article unilaterally. Regarding the content now, I don't intent to revert it myself, but since there are several traffic circles in that municipality, I expect that if they're all merged back into the municipal article, it will probably get large enough to split off some content into separate articles... and we may be back where we started. Unfocused 19:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:VMORO

edit

I would like to report the breaking of the 3RR from User:VMORO on the page of Macedonians (ethnic group): [|1], [| 2], [| 3].

He was already been reverted by several users, but he always comes back and leaves unproved facts on the talk page, which he latter claims that should be answered before he gets reverted.

This is not the first time the user keeps pushing a denial politics towards the people belonding to the modern Macedonian nation. Also, the user constantly uses a sources taken from a pro-Bulgarian web site whose only purpose is to deny the existance of separate modern Macedonian ethnicity/nation, claiming that in fact they are Bulgarians (a claim that is completely refused by the people belonding to the Macedonian ethnicity). Also, the web site he always uses as a source is hosted on a free hosting service provider (www.150m.com), a server where anyone can host any matherial he wants.

Also, he constantly refuses the article about the Macedonians (ethnic group) to include more information about the poor treatment of the Macedonian minority in Greece and Bulgaria, while that treatment is constantly criticised by every major human rights organizations present in the Balkans. Actually, the poor treatment is also confirmed in several final decisions of the European Court for Human rights. Macedonian 02:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While his actions may or may not be in bad faith, this is not a violation of the 3RR. The 4th revert is where we take action. Ral315 (talk) 04:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:154.20.140.178

edit

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

154.20.140.178 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 04:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Wiki-Facts (talk · contribs):

edit

Reported by: Davidpdx 04:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • User will not listen to the consensus of the other editors. Constantly reverts, uses multiple sockpuppets to revert and is now threatening to ban us if we revert. This is getting down right crazy!!!!! Davidpdx 04:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin has protected the article in question. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Katefan, that is not the point. This person is using the same sockpuppet to trash other articles too. If the person violated the 3RR they should get banned. Why are they getting a free pass just because the article in question is protected? I'm sorry that doesn't make sense! Davidpdx 01:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your frustration. It may help you to know that blocks here are not really meant to be punitive. They're meant to enforce a "cooling off" period to discourage bad behavior. As far as I can tell, WikiFacts' recent reverting has only been done at Dominion of Melchizedek. Since it's protected, there is no more edit warring. That means the immediate problem has been solved for now. A block wouldn't do anything more to help achieve a consensus on that page; in fact, it could harm achieving a consensus since it would prevent WikiFacts from editing the talk page. As far as banning someone permanently, administrators don't have that power -- that's a matter for the arbcom. · Katefan0(scribble) 01:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Monicasdude

edit

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

Monicasdude (talk · contribs):

and...

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

Monicasdude (talk · contribs):

and...

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

Monicasdude (talk · contribs):


Reported by: BGC 17:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Monicasdude has proven himself to be a hostile and obstinate editor over his last few months here and refuses to collaborate in a civilized manner. His RfC page: [12] will bear witness to this. He has lately been maliciously reverting any page he comes across that features the "album infobox 2" template simply because he disagrees with it. It was voted for deletion some weeks ago but it never went through, and there is still no consensus on it yet, therefore it is still open to use by any user. As can plainly be seen here - especially if you research Monicasdude's contributions, he has been targeting me, my work and all these infoboxes in a stalking fashion, and often locks horns with most editors due to his difficult working habits. Further still, Monicasdude disregards any extra work that has been added onto the articles and reverts it all. Here's proof from back when I was under my old name back in July: [13]. And it's only continued since. Indeed, he has a long history of doing so and of upsetting the progress that well-intentioned editors - like myself - are attempting. I do hope someone can take action here. It is most needed. BGC 17:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies; the violations were inadvertent. I did not keep track of time properly, and the final, objectionable edits were only a few minutes before the cutoff point. I would note that user:BGC also violated 3RR on these articles, apparently deliberately, missing the cutoff points by several hours rather than by several minutes.
User:BGC's comments about malice and stalking are false, and deliberately so. The use of albumbox 2 is controversial, and the clear majority of comments on the album project discussion page oppose its use. Whether the use of cover images under that template can qualify as "fair use" is substantially disputed, and there should be no question that the use of the template violates Wikipedia's existing "fair use" policy/guidelines, which declare images claimed as fair use "must not serve a purely decorative purpose" when used in Wikipedia articles. The use also violates the consensus standards set out in the album cover template. And, as one Jimbo Wales has pointed out recently, the unnecessary use of "fair use" images is undesireable, and should be eliminated; what might be fair use here might well also prevent GFDL-licensing of articles from being valid.
This incident is part of a long-running edit conflict that began several months ago when user:BGC, then editing as User:PetSounds, was involved in disputes over his 3RR violations, use of deliberately deceptive edit summaries, attacking newbies, and deliberate refusal to follow NPOV policy. (Not incidentally, another editor involved in those disputes was Mel Etitis, against whom user:BGC has made repeated personal attacks comparable to the comments he makes about me.) User:BGC personalizes those disputes, continues edit warring incessantly, and attempts to provoke policy violations and uncivil behavior by that edit warring. In this case, after months of trying, he has succeeding in provoking me into a marginal 3RR violation (the first time I have done so), and for that I apologize.
I would also note that user:BGC's comment that I "disregard any extra work that has been added onto the articles and revert it all" is simply false; that he provides no example of it, and that it simply demonstrates his malice. [Please note that after I posted this response, user:BGC altered, without notice, his original comment to include a supposed example of the behavior he complained of. I encourage anyone foolhardy enough to be interested in this discussion to view that example and review the article's history, since it shows user:BGC/PetSounds' determined defiance of Wikipedia's NPOV policies.] I do not simply revert the articles, in general, but cut-and-paste the undisputed infobox in place. I may have inadvertently missed minor changes in infobox information, but I do my best to preserve all changes. In contrast, user:BGC simply reverts, often if not generally removing all other changes I have made to articles, even though he does not dispute them. He has stated his personal animosity towards me (and others) on various occasions, and encouraged others to simply remove my edits as a means of "punishing" me for antagonizing him. It is also worth noting that when other editors have made the same infobox changes on the same articles where he has disputed my edits, as here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_Days, user:BGC leaves those changes in place, showing that his concern is not really with the substance of the edit but with the identity of the editor -- a clear indication of bad faith action.
Edit warring is not good for Wikipedia, and some editors believe, reasonably and in good faith, that it is never appropriate. I would not go quite so far. As one editor who was recently subjected to an RfC recently noted, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and a community second. Users who intentionally deprecate the encyclopedic function damage the project as a whole. Unnecessary changes which have the potential to limit the distribution of Wikipedia in various forms, and expose it to potential legal liability, however unlikely some may view the prospect, are inappropriate and should be resisted. When they contradict clear guidelines and policies, as the disputed template does, they may fairly, I think, be viewed as vandalous, and should simply be removed whenever they occur.
As other users have noted in the (unjustified) RfC on Mel Etitis, the condition of Wikipedia's pop culture articles, particularly those on popular music, is degenerating sharply, mostly due to editors who ignore (or, worse, defy) important guidelines. I have been on the receiving end of a great deal of unpleasant action because I try to keep articles in compliance. It is, as other editors have noted, difficult to avoid responding inappropriately to repeated provocations. It will be increasingly more difficult to apply and enforce Wikipedia's standards if those who do not respect those standards are encouraged in their disruptive actions. Monicasdude 19:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Monicasdude has a interesting way of distorting the truth. I was forced to change my username because of his incessant staking of my work, and as a newbie, I was treated horribly by him (as have others). I've been most accomodating to most other editors here. Secondly - for a little perspective - when I was blocked as PetSounds it was as a newbie who didn't know the rules. I was also blocked in error by an admin some weeks ago, and he quickly corrected the blunder. Anyone who views Monicasdude's contributions page will note that his vandalous reverts were indeed done without regard for the rules - or acceptance of others' points of view. This new album template hasn't been vetoed at all and it is not his place to take action when no consensus has been agreed upon. It is free to use. And it will become clear that it is HE who has reverted my work over and over, solely because it's mine. Any reverts I've ever made of his so-called "work" have been unjustified and malicious reverts of mine. I don't have to encourage anyone to "antangonize" Monicasdude when an RfC - which I never started - already exists and has been endorsed by several editors. That should say something. In this particular case, his recent 3RR violations were committed on three separate articles and in all three cases, almost an hour before the cut-off point - not "a few minutes". I will note that if I am considered to have broken the 3RR, it TRULY was unintentional on my part and was only to undo the needless vandalism by Monicasdude and to preserve other people's hard work, including my own. The fact that I'm now willing to knowingly shoot myself in the foot over this situation should let any admin know how seriously I - and many other users - feel about Monicasdude's complete lack of civility in this forum. Also, the mere existence of an RfC page on Monicasdude speaks volumes over any perceived wrongdoing I may have done. User: Mel Etitis also has an RfC page on him as well [14], which should give a clear indication of where the antangonization is coming from. Basically Monicadude's been caught and is doing whatever he can to avoid getting his due by playing the victim and re-working Wiki-rules to suit his agenda. Facts are facts: he broke the 3RR on THREE articles. I hope to see some action on this issue. His behaviour can't go undealt with. BGC 18:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will back User:BGC on this one. While I have not specifically looked over the 3RRs in question, I have also had revert issues with Monicasdude as of late. A few facts:

1. Monicasdude continues to state that the template Album infobox 2 is in violation of fair use. Yes, it was suggested for deletion on these grounds, but the vote was tied and many other comments simply not sure (we're not lawyers after all). An ADMINISTRATOR removed the RfD tag on the template because there was no consensus. Monicasdude continues to disregard this and is unilaterally reverting articles using these templates all the while encountering resistance by a number of editors. I have attempted to discuss this with him numerous times yet he continues to distort facts regarding the RfD which failed. I have simply stated that, until the template is actually determined to be in violation by a clear consensus, it is not his place to go around systematically reverting these.

2. As BGC pointed out, there is an RfC in progress for Monicasdude, illustrating the frustration of many editors towards his contributions and posessiveness over the Bob Dylan and related articles. While I have not specifically looked into these articles, it is important to know that many users support this RfC and have expressed frustration over this user's behavior in the past and present, including some administrators (though no action has been taken to date).

3. Monicasdude is not open to criticism and has continued to delete and censor comments by other users on his talk page which express frustration with his edits.

4. Since the RfC has not gone anywhere, and this whole template issue seems to be something new, a mediation will soon be started regarding this user. Extensive discussions with Monicasdude have done nothing to solve any of these issues.

5. The amount of time between these edits is also somewhat irrelevant because I believe Monicasdude would have continued to revert the articles in question no matter what.

I ask that you take these factors into account and look at this 3RR violation as a piece of a larger puzzle concerning what I view to be Monicasdude's bad faith edits. While obviously BGC also broke the rules, he did so in order to protect what I would consider as persistant vandalism on the part of Monicasdude. Somebody has to address this issue as it's getting out of hand and frustrating numerous editors. --Comics 02:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since user:Comics acknowledges that my edits are motivated by "fair use" concerns, it's inappropriate to describe them as "bad faith" or "vandalism." It's not disputed that the infobox2 template is not consistent with existing Wikipedia guidelines concerning "fair use" in general and album cover use in particular. Users who prefer it should not unilaterally introduce it into articles while it violates the guidelines. And it is somewhere between inconsistent and downright hypocritical to claim that users who prefer the disputed infobox2 should be allowed to change the (undisputed) infobox1 to infobox2 as they choose, but users who prefer infobox1 should be barred from restoring it. This series of editing disputes would not have happened if proponents of the disputed template had not embarked on a project of replacing the existing, consensus-approved template without notice or comment. Even the proponents of the disputed template admit that there's no consensus for superseding the existing template; if they wish to use the template in creating new articles, that may be appropriate, but a small handful of users systematically replacing the existing, consensus-accepted template in what will amount to more than six thousand articles is plainly inappropriate. And, for whatever it's worth, an "ADMINISTRATOR" asked user:BGC to stop edit warring over infoboxes (with multiple editors, not just with me) when there was clearly no consensus for his preferred version; BGC has refused, and deleted the request from his talk page. Monicasdude 03:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not your motivation behind it that I have a problem with, it's that it is solely a personal one. It is vandalism because you have unilaterally decided this, as I have stated, without proper consensus. I have noted that I personally prefer the look of infobox 2, but if it were deemed by consensus to violate fair use principles (which it has not), then I would gladly help revert all existing articles to the regular album infobox template. I have kindly asked you time and time again to stop reverting the infoboxes simply because the template is free to be used at the moment and the RfD on it failed. Therefore your grounds that it goes against fair use is a grey area. Until this issue is properly debated by people with actual detailed knowledge of fair use laws, you are acting in bad faith. -Comics 15:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No one disputes that infobox 2 violates the applicable Wikipedia guidelines. You seem to have the strange idea that implementing the guidelines is bad faith. There's a consensus that infobox 1 is OK to use. There's no consensus that infobox 2 is OK to use, and substantial, well-informed opinion against it. You don't make Wikipedia policy by yourself, and you shouldn't demand that other users refrain from making changes -- no less repeatedly post personally abusive comments about them -- simply because you disagree with them. That's certainly not good faith. Monicasdude 20:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hickster

edit

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

Hickster (talk · contribs):

Reported by: David | Talk 23:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User:Reddi AKA User: 204.56.7.1 (See involved page's histories for confirmation of identity)

edit

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

Reddi (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Mr. Tibbs 01:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Basically whats going on is Reddi is trying is to do a page move of Iraq War to Iraq war without using the page move function. This has not been voted on or discussed and messes up the page histories. He's doing the same thing to the talk pages as well. - Mr. Tibbs 01:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Timewarp and sock puppets

edit

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

Timewarp (talk · contribs):

Reported by: --TimLambert 01:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • He has used two sock puppets to avoid the 3RR, but still has five reverts under Timewarp.
  • Violated 3RR on John Lott page a couple of days ago.
  • Timewarp appears to be a sockpuppet operated by John Lott to remove all criticism of Lott from the article about John Lott. --TimLambert 01:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Confirming TL's report. Even ignoring sockpuppets, the 3RR has been broken. There is an edit war on this page, its true (well how else would 3RR come up?) but Timewarp is definitely breaking the rules. William M. Connolley 11:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]
After being blocked, he has used his sock Alt37 (talk · contribs) to revert it again.

User:Smaines

edit

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

Smaines (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Nohat 09:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Can't find more than three outright reverts.Geni 11:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The rule is "....an editor must not perform more than three reversions on a single Wikipedia article within 24 hours of their first reversion....." (from Wikipedia:Three-revert rule). This rule should be enforced on everyone, especially those who violate the rule despite a warning. In his last reversion, of my edit, he said in the summary "bring it". He now claims that was aimed at someone else, but anyone would revert my edit and aim his challenge at someone else is a mystery. This was clearly a deliberate, defiant violation, and had I not have been so close to the action I would have blocked him from editing. Note too that nowhere in Smaines" reply below does he mention 3RR, or try to justify his reverts, which is surely why we are here. Also, you can see below that Smaines thinks this is a petty matter. I don't think it is. Also I am deleting my entry (previously below) re this same incident. Moriori 01:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a careful reading would have allowed you to avoid embarrassment, His actions have been so uncivil, trollish and awkward as to constitute vandalism, and I have treated them as such. Vandalism is an exception to the rule. I note also that you, Moriori, have also taken the liberty of deleting my reply to your action. -SM 01:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I need to address your red herring first. You need to actually comprehend the 3RR rules. If you thought Nohat was vandalising the article, under the rules you needed to list him on vandalism in progress. Any exception to the rules (quote) does not apply to reversions of well-established users just because you consider their edits to be "vandalism". Simple vandalism is indisputable; don't confuse it with edits which you simply disagree with. (end quote). That's what you did when you reverted five edits. Two of them were mine, not Nohat's, and none of them was vandalism anyway. Nohat may have been uncivil, but so were you. I guess as you think this 3RR listing is petty you don't need to let reality play a part in it. Moriori 02:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Reply from smaines

edit

This is a continuation of a petty dispute, which Nohat has consistently escalated. My comment re butchery was specifically to Nohat, who has hacked up the same paragraph over a dozen times, ignoring more glaring problems in the article elsewhere. His actions have been so uncivil, trollish and awkward as to constitute vandalism, and I have treated them as such.

Contrary to the above statement, I did respond on the discussion page, but as Nohat was busy inciting others to support him in this dubious cause, my response was delayed by a few minutes by an edit conflict.

Please read,

  • Discussion on Moriori's user page
  • General edit history for tea (his edits constitute repetative reversions, even if varied slightly)
  • General uncivility of Nohat's edit remarks
    • 2005-10-27 22:44:31 Nohat (one idea per sentence-- this is writing 101. these two ideashave nothing to do with each and have no business sharing a sentence)
    • 2005-10-26 00:28:52 Nohat (revert reintroduction of muddled and needlessly complex introduction; plus describing them as less precise is not NPOV)
    • 2005-10-14 12:27:49 Nohat (that was a really crappily-written intro. this is better)
  • Previous [comments] from Nohat

Finally, the paragraph which has driven Nohat to such lengths,

The term herbal tea usually refers to infusions of fruit or herbs containing no actual tea, such as rosehip tea or chamomile tea. Alternative terms for this are tisane or herbal infusion, both bearing an implied contrast with tea. This article is concerned exclusively with preparations and uses of the tea plant, Camellia sinensis, the Minnan word for which is the etymological origin of the English word tea.


It is the last sentence which he characterises as, "complex syntactic acrobatics". It is this last sentence he has tried eight times to chop up, apparently unable to see why it is the integral conclusion to this paragraph.

I am sorry to find myself defending so petty a matter here, and taking your time to do so. This is literally hours I could have spent doing more needed work elsewhere on Wikipedia. Perhaps it would have been better to simply let him have his way, however his uncivility and tenacity have given me cause to think that this would continue elsewhere even if I did so. It is not the fate of the Tea article that is worrying (at the end of the day, it doesn't matter much to me), it is the poor standard Wohat would enforce on decent writing.

If you would like to lock me out of Wikipedia, do so. The real question is who you actually want running around loose here.

edit

Three revert rule violation on Iraqi insurgency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This appears to be a repeat offender who reverts until blocked, then creates a new account and repeats ad nauseam. Does not use the talk page; does not respond to comments on user talk pages. (I have no opinion on whether this user's version is "better" or not.)

As Eoritwiethm (talk · contribs):

You get the picture. He was eventually blocked, but then the next morning a new account, Erhdfh (talk · contribs), started making the same reversions. What are the odds? (This was the account's first edit.)

I, as an admin, blocked this user. But then a new account (pre-existing, actually, but had only edited by reverting this article before) got into the fray. Hesketh Fortescue (talk · contribs) has already violated the 3RR, but since I've been involved in reverting, it would be inappropriate for me to block him. Could any of you fine souls keep an eye on the article?

Reported by: – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • On User talk:Hesketh Fortescue, Hesketh Fortescue has now admitted to using sockpuppets to continue reverting. He has now reverted 10 times in the past 24 hours. Won't somebody please think of the children? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 15:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I blocked Hesketh and all socks indefinitely, blocked Quadell and Reddi for a period of time (blocks removed later by myself), and protected the page. When unprotected, I would urge other administrators to treat all sockpuppets on that page with indefinite blocks, and treat all reversions by other users as simple vandalism fixes. Doing this change without consensus and then using sockpuppets to bait other users into 3RR while "avoiding" it yourself is gaming the system and about 5 other policy violations. Ral315 (talk) 06:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's still at it. This is a major problem. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 22:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bomac

edit

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

Bomac (talk · contribs):

Reported by: --Theathenae 14:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User:ThompsJohn

edit

Three revert rule violation on Prussian Blue (American duo) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Reported by: User:Hipocrite 14:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Jakes18

edit

Three revert rule violation on List of terrorist organisations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Jakes18 (talk · contribs):

  • Previous version reverted to: [18]
  1. 20:39, 2005 October 26 [19]
  2. 16:38, 2005 October 27 [20]
  3. 19:50, 2005 October 27 [21]
  4. 04:08, 2005 October 28 [22]
  5. 13:55, 2005 October 28 [23]
  6. 15:56, 2005 October 28 [24]
  7. 16:54, 2005 October 29 [25]
  8. 11:24, 2005 October 30 [26]
  9. 18:01, 2005 October 30 [27]
  10. 01:19, 2005 October 31 [28]
  11. 15:44, 2005 October 31 [29]
  12. 21:01, 2005 October 31 [30]

Reported by: Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Jakes18, for apparently politically motivated reasons, wishes to exclude Operation Rescue from the List of terrorist organisations, despite its longstanding inclusion. In response to initial removal, I added explanatory text and numerous external citations for support. However, Jakes18 simply doesn't want it listed, regardless of citation, because of a POV he wishes to push. FWIW, the only edits Jakes18 has ever made to this article (except one other removal in August) are this identical reversion. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I apologize for breaking the 3RR code (wasn't aware of it, but now am!), I believe that in order to attain NPOV, Lulu must make clear that OR is classifiable as a terrorist group, which he has failed to do (see the discussion page).

Lulu's statement about the edits I have made is patently false. At 18:03 today (10/28/2005) I made a minor correction, removing an apostrophe mark (which apparently was re-inserted). I also removed, on 08/03/2005 07:58 another POV inclusion of the Minuteman group, which was adopted onto the page. --Jakes18 20:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)Jakes18, 15:13 CDT 20:13 UTC 28 Ocotber 2005[reply]

William Connolley's parole - enforcement

edit
  • User William M. Connolley is violating the parole [31].
  • See e.g. the page on "Skeptical Environmentalist" Bjorn Lomborg [32] where he reverted the page without explaining his reasons on the talk page, although he is specifically forbidden to do so. Together with MichaelSirks, we are looking for tools to enforce the parole. Could you please help us? Thanks, --Lumidek 15:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least one violation of the 1 rv in 24 hours restriction took place.
    • 10:24, 28 October 2005 (hist) (diff) Peat (→Peat fires - Change pic to one also showing increase. Leave text.) (top) [33]
    • 09:54, 28 October 2005 (hist) (diff) Peat (rv to WMC. Its perfectly clear from the graph that there was no such boost to explain) [34]

— (SEWilco 17:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I may have missed some and only looked at the recent 500. — (SEWilco 17:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)) I didn't know where to report a parole violation.--MichaelSirks 19:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is (a) nonsense and (b) a duplicate of this from the RFA page. I've answered there. Note that MS appears to have cut-and-pasted from there: SEW did not edit this page. Note that SEWs claim of a violation of the 1RR is false, as a check on the edit will show: its not a revert. William M. Connolley 19:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

User:Theathenae

edit

Violation of the 3RR on Macedonians (ethnic group):

Comment: I would also like someone to have a word with him. All he does is revert, if you check, there are no messages from him on the talk page. Nothing at all. I don't know who he thinks he is, reverting at will without an explanation.

Reported by GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) on 19:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by David Gerard earlier. Dmcdevit·t 03:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gibraltarian

edit

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

Gibraltarian (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Svest 23:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • User doesn't use the talk page. I had asked the 2 parties involved in the edit warring to use the talk page but only one part explained his/her reasons. This user kept reverting. Instead he used personal attacks like Go away, X on the edit summary [90]. He was blocked before for the same reason. Svest 23:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user does seem to have violated 3RR, but hasn't been sufficiently warned. I've pasted a warning on the talk page of Gibraltarian (talk · contribs). If this user reverts again within the time period, they may be blocked. --Gareth Hughes 23:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hesketh Fortescue

edit

also his sockpupeets User:Priscilla Molesworth and User:Erhdfh and User:Gwyneth Molesworth

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

Hesketh Fortescue (talk · contribs):

...

Reported by: abakharev 03:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Both users appear to be a sockpupeets of User:Erhdfh previously banned for the violation of the 3RR on the same edit of the same article

REX and Theathenae on FYROM Denar

edit

Not article content, but repeated page-moves. I've protected it from moves and given both 24 hours off. The 3RR doesn't mention page moves explicity, but I submit that claiming the history of this page is not a gross violation of the spirit of 3RR would itself constitute gaming the system. We're here to build one of those "encyclopedia" things - David Gerard 13:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zen-master

edit

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

Zen-master (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Carbonite | Talk 17:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Zen-master has reverted changes made by several users. As they do not all revert to the same version, I have only included the diffs that Zen-master describes as being reverts in his edit summaries. There are probably additional reverts that I have not included. Carbonite | Talk 17:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
About half of the "reverts" were restoring a header that is still an acceptable thing to have at the top of an article if an in good faith dispute exists. A TfD does not set any precdent outside of a template being deleted (not to mention the fact that this TfD hasn't closed yet). zen master T 17:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason why this would make you exempt from the 3RR? Carbonite | Talk 17:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your removal of headers that are pefectly acceptable to be there is a form of simple vandalism, in my interpretation. zen master T 17:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Edit-warring is not acceptable. Per Zen-master's probation, I am banning him from this article for the time being. No block should be necessary. I recommend you read Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not as well. Dmcdevit·t 17:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my interpretation that removing notices can be simple vandalism however I won't edit that article. One question, may I engage in talk page discussons on that article's talk page? zen master T 17:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I've alerted you on your talk page. Read over Wikipedia:Probation for the full description. Dmcdevit·t 18:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Zen master definitely reverted the article four times, even if you ignore the twoversions header. But I think enforcing the probation is the correct move. Rhobite 21:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe

edit

At Scooter Libby article.

1st Revert 04:16, 30 October 2005 Zoe (reverting SQast's "uninentional" misreading of the quote)

2nd Revert 04:25, 30 October 2005 Zoe m (Reverted edits by SQuast to last version by Zoe)

3rd Revert 04:52, 30 October 2005 Zoe (→Plame affair - That's three, SQuast)


Although Zoe incorrectly claims on my user talk page I have reverted three times, all my editing involves real additions, changes, adding links etc. Zoe's changes have been clear unthinking reverts.

That's only three. And be warned that you are indeed vey close to 3RR vio yourself, if not already there. 3RR is not an entitlement to edit war, please don't act like it is. Try our dispute resolution rather than warring. Dmcdevit·t 20:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:SQuast

edit

I warned SQuast that he was close to the 3RR rule and he decided to preempt my listing him here by listing me. Funny behavior for someone who has no prior edit history on Wikipedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]



User:Gibraltarian

edit

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

Gibraltarian (talk · contribs):

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

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

Reported by: --Ecemaml 16:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC). I'm afraid that I'm always breaking the rule, but I'm trying to point out that a consensus on NPOV should be reached in the talk page without any result (but personal attacks).[reply]

Comments:

  • Gibraltarian is IMHO trying to impose his own POV in controversial aspects related with Gibraltar. I'm not trying to deny his POV, but only showing also the Spanish POV (as it's how I understand the NPOV). However, Gibraltar insists on removing the position of Spain and showing Gibraltar's POV view as it were the truth (alway IMHO)--Ecemaml 16:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cherryrain

edit

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

Cherryrain (talk · contribs):

Reported by: --Kurt Shaped Box 21:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User:Timewarp and sock puppet

edit

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

Timewarp (talk · contribs):

Reported by: --TimLambert 11:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User:Andrew Alexander

edit

Three revert rule violation on St Volodymyr's Cathedral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).


Andrew Alexander (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Irpen 02:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Fridgemagnet (talk · contribs)

edit

Three revert rule violation on Talk:Urban75:

Fridgemagnet (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Ernestolynch 13:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just seems to be removing intimidating trash like this: Would the poster above, who posted from an IP address in Sydney, Australia, please reveal which anonymous username they post under on Urban75.

Please stop abusing Wikipedia as a noticeboard for Urban75-related affairs. Crap like that will be treated as vandalism and may be removed on sight. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that as permission to revert & edit war anything at will just by calling it vandalism then. This should be a laugh. Ernestolynch 17:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Irishpunktom

edit

Three revert rule violation on 2005 Paris riots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Irishpunktom (talk · contribs):

Reported by: User:Karl Meier 14:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Irishpunktom has insisted on adding tags regarding the article being disputed regarding factual accuracy and neutrality, and has reverted the article 4 times within 24 hours to do that. The original edit by Irishpunktom was: [92] -- Karl Meier 15:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Check it, there is no 3RR breach --Irishpunktom\talk 15:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course it's a 3rr violation. It doesn't matter that you use complex reverts. You should know that because you have been blocked for complex reverts before. -- Karl Meier 15:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is not a 3RR breach, nor is it a complex revert, it is the addition of two new tgs in place of three older ones. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, why are you trying to have me blocked rather than trying to help improve the piece? The only edits you have made to the article have been to revert me. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you don't want to be blocked for 3rr, I suggest that you stop violating that rule. Also, to me it seems like you are only interested in that article because you don't like Zeno and you want to attack him and his contributions. I suggest that you leave him alone instead of chasing him around the whole Wiki & that you stop violating 3rr. -- Karl Meier 16:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Zeno reverted all the edits I made which led me to place the Tags, had he not done so there would have been no need. it seems to me that you are trying to make a point here, and you should not. The article is poorly written, right from the opening paragraph. The Summary of articles is biased and factually inaccurate. The sources used should not be used. This should have been disucussed on the talk page, not here!!--Irishpunktom\talk 16:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Settle down, both of you. It's inevitable with a current event that there will be problems of balance and factual accuracy, so you shouldn't squabble over tags like this. Just put them in and edit around them--using the "current" tag is an excellent idea so that readers will be tipped off that it isn't to be read as a finished article. I don't think Irishpunktom's decision to insert dispute tags was out of line, and the fast-mmoving nature of the editing on that article at present convinces me that no harm has been done by this little squabble, but still both of you I expect a higher standard of behavior from two experienced and capable editors. Go forth and sin no more. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I am afraid that did not happend. Irishpunktom just made his 5th revert on that article: My edit --> Irishpunktoms edit a few minutes after -- Karl Meier 18:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about now? Thats removing two irrlevent pieces from the article. Surely you can help with the article rather than trying to get me blocked? --Irishpunktom\talk 19:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noone can help you with the article when you make those aggressive reverts. You where warned about this but you just continue, and only minutes after, you make your 5th revert. -- Karl Meier 19:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They were not aggressive reverts, and they were discussed and agreed upon with User:Dbachmann. If you have a problem with the article, discuss it on the Talk page, stop trying to have people blocked. --Irishpunktom\talk 19:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dbachmann haven't been editing that article or it's talkpage for a many hours, and he surely haven't agreed to your reverts, so don't make stuff up. Also, fact is that you have reverted the article 5 times within 24 hrs. despite being warned about it by different people. And again, if you don't want to be blocked, stop violating 3rr. With all the violations and blocks that you have been through you should know it now. -- Karl Meier 19:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
he agreed that they were not "at all relevant, since no synagogues appear involved in the present riots" - But thats beside the point. If you want to discuss this bring it to the talk page, and stp trying to get people blocked. Its a really horrible and ugly thing to do.--Irishpunktom\talk 19:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you find that reporting a 3rr (or in this case a 5rr!) is a horrible/ugly thing to do, I suggest that you make a proposal that the rule should no longer be enforced. However this is not the place to do it. Also, about the talkpage, I have been discussing all the time, while you have been reverting the article 5 times. -- Karl Meier 20:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You hadn't made a single addition to that talk page till after you decided of your own accord to try and have me blocked. You since have. You should continue discussing on the talk page, it is more productive. --Irishpunktom\talk 20:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Findings

edit

Note that reverts do not have to be the same to violate 3RR, or even be in the same part of the article.

Irishpunktom:

  • 10:44/10:49 edits added the Cleanup tag.
  • 11:15 edit was constructive.
  • 11:26 edit added the Disputed tag.
  • 13:04 edits added the Disputed, NPOV, and Cleanup tags, as well as making some minor changes.
  • 14:19 edit added Disputed, NPOV, and Cleanup tags.
  • 14:45/14:46 edits added Totally Disputed tag.
  • 15:11 edit added Totally Disputed, and changed Cleanup to Cleanup-Rewrite.
  • 16:53 edit was constructive.
  • 17:23-17:28 edits were mostly constructive, removed 'electrocuted'.
  • 17:46 edit removed a paragraph.
  • 18:43 edits removed two paragraphs, including the same one in the 17:46 edit.
  • 20:18 edit removed 'electrocuted'.
  • 22:12-22:16 edits added POV tag, changed some wording, removed 'electrocuted', and moved the paragraph deleted in 17:46 and 18:43.
  • 23:20 edit moved paragraph deleted in 17:46 and 18:43
  • Irishpunktom made 6 edits (5 reverts) that added template tags. 5 of these were reversions.
  • Irishpunktom also deleted the Molotov cocktail paragraph twice, and moved it twice. 3 were reversions.
  • Irishpunktom removed 'electrocuted' three times. Two were reversions.
  • Altogether, I count at least 10 reverts; 5 relating to tags, and 5 content reverts. User blocked for 24 hours.

Karl Meier

  • 14:26 edit removed Disputed, NPOV, and Cleanup tags.
  • 14:50 edit removed Totally Disputed tag.
  • 16:56 edit fixed a typo.
  • 17:01 edit removed a line break.
  • 18:04/18:19 edits added two paragraphs back, and made some grammatical changes.
  • 23:06 edit removed a line break.
  • 23:36 edit removed a paragraph.
  • Karl Meier made 2 reverts removing template tags.
  • Karl Meier made 1 revert adding two paragraphs back removed by Irishpunktom.
  • Karl Meier made 1 revert removing a paragraph removed by Irishpunktom.
  • Altogether, I count 4 reverts; 2 of which were tag-related, the other 2 were content reverts. This violates 3RR. User blocked for 24 hours.

I'm not locking the page, since it's a current event, and many users outside of Karl and Irishpunktom are editing it. Ral315 (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Erwin_Walsh

edit

Three revert violation on Encyclopedia Dramatica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

Erwin_Walsh (talk · contribs):

One.

Two.

Three.

Four.

Reported by: badlydrawnjeff 21:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did so unintentionally and I will not edit the article again for another 24 hours. Erwin
Erwin, you can save yourself by doing a "Self-Revert"--Irishpunktom\talk 21:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:81.205.119.207

edit

Please see [93] for the seven edits on 1 November. There appear to be two or three frank reverts. Joaquin Murietta 00:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Malachias111 and User:Used2BAnonymous

edit

(Malachias111 has less than 200 edits [94] he is used to circumvent 3RR under Used2Banonymous.)

Three revert rule violation on Traditional Catholic.

User:Malachias111 and User:Used2BAnonymous:

Reported by: Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 00:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More- no admin response

switch to other account

Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 14:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC) Comments:[reply]

  • Long time edit war on talk, called other editors vandals.
  • Left harassimg message on my talk page [96]
  • Has admitted astroturfing other editors and is telling them to help him revert when reverts are needed. Since Malachias111 has less than 200 edits [97] mostly on this page, and only comes out when edits start, he is used to circumvent 3RR.
  • Arguments on talk have been obstructionist in nature, and other editors have endured endless insults and taunts.
  • I know this is longer than 24 hours, from when I made the first report no action has been taken. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 14:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taunting and inappropriate edit comments : "14:11, 3 November 2005 Used2BAnonymous (Exactly. So off with the "militant traditionalist" crap.)" "14:03, 4 November 2005 Used2BAnonymous (More, Dominick! More!)"
  • By being obstructionist an article can be crippled and longtime wikipedians can't edit. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 14:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still a problem, I am trying to avoid an edit war. I need support. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 13:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aabaas

edit

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

Aabaas (talk · contribs):

Also, 4 reverts on West Bank (all helpfully labelled as such, and in this case, byte-for-byte).

Reported by: Alai 04:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now five, on the latter. Alai 20:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:65.40.238.81

edit

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

65.40.238.81 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Colin Kimbrell 04:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, shouldn't those be diffs, not versions? --Calton | Talk 05:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shivraj Singh

edit

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

Shivraj Singh (talk · contribs) (AKA 203.101.50.29 (talk · contribs), 203.101.49.206 (talk · contribs), etc.):

Reported by: — goethean ॐ 15:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Administrator Response

edit

The four reverts are, in fact:

Blocked for 24 hours. I'll review the actions of the other editors to determine what else needs doing. Rob Church Talk 17:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. — goethean ॐ 16:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Using an anonymous IP address, he's reverted five more times now. [98] — goethean ॐ 15:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Could an admin please do something about this? He evaded his block, and is now vandalizing the article and the talk page every few minutes. His IP range needs to be blocked. — goethean ॐ 17:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jasper Fetherston

edit

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

Jasper Fetherston (talk · contribs):

Reported by: abakharev 22:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: The editor appears to be a sockpupeet of a banned User:Hesketh Fortescue. Check User talk:Hesketh Fortescue abakharev 22:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:FuelWagon

edit

Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FuelWagon 2 (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FuelWagon 2|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

FuelWagon (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Jayjg (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Continually removing a comment on the page under various pretexts. At first he claimed he was removing it because it was "threaded", but left his own comments and those of many others. Then he removed it along with various other comments, still leaving his own and others. Then he converted his comment into an "endorsement", and removed comment he didn't like, though leaving others (including "threaded" comments), even though it was no longer "threaded". Has been warned several times, and asked to revert himself, [99] [100] [101], not that he requires a warning, since he is a longtime editor who has been blocked for 3RR in the past. Jayjg (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above comments are distorting reality:
      • FuelWagon didn't use "various pretexts", just one reasoning: no threaded comments.
      • He removed the comment because it is against RfC policy.
      • You re-inserted the threaded comment in spite of your awareness of the policy, perhaps if you enforced this consistently. until then please leave it alone.
      • He never changed his comment into an "endorsement", this is flat out deceitful. This is his endorsement: "... Anyway, we had the same confusion before. I endorse your statement otherwise.", and it's "comment" was the part he did not endorse. That was the first response to my outside views by Vizcarra thread. How can he "change it into an endorsement" when it was the first response to it?
      • He wasn't "warned", but reverted several times by you and SlimVirgin, although he was complying with RfC policy and you were aware of it.
It takes two parties for a revert-war: 1:FuelWagon and 2:SlimVirgin/Jayjg. Remember Jayjg that you have been warned yourself, you have been reminded several times "that edit-warring is harmful to Wikipedia's mission" and advised to "use Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedure in preference to attempting to control content through the use of reverts". Here it is the reminder for reference Proposed_decision#Jayjg. --Vizcarra 19:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like a pretty clear 3RR to me. I know of no such policy about RFC's, and if there is one, one should not try to enforce it alone nor break other policies in order to do so. We have got to get something figured out here at Wikipedia: people are constantly reverting someone with whom they are in disagreement, under the pretense that the other person is "vandalizing" or otherwise breaking policy and thus that it is okay to edit war with them. I have been guilty of this myself. When we do this, we are wrong. Even the insertion of material which violates NPOV policy is not reason enough to violate 3RR! This is why 3RR specifically excepts groups: if you are truly in the right, others will agree with you and also revert. Whether you are in the right or not, it provides an electric fence to stop you from going over the edge and enforces a cooling off period. You can always let it be for a day and come back tomorrow. This is something we all need to learn how to do.
  • When one believes one's opponents to be in violation of some Wikipedia policy the correct thing to do is to ask for assistance: from other editors, from admins, from authorities such as mediators or arbitrators. The correct thing to do is not to violate 3RR. Reverting more than three times is only acceptable in the cases of vandalism, and that refers to clear cut vandalism. If you don't believe me, read the policy, which specifies "simple vandalism". If somebody inserted, "qwertyuiopasflkjgjkl;asfdsnortfarts" into Fuelwagon's RFC, he or anyone else would be quite justified reverting it no matter how many times it occurred. But the comment that was removed so many times is clearly not vandalism.
  • Asking for assistance goes for everybody. I should think that between them Jayjg and Slimvirgin could keep this at bay without violating 3RR, assuming everyone else plays by the rules.
  • Let me note that there is also a policy against removing the comments of others. Thus Fuelwagon has violated at least two policies here.
  • I can't for the life of me see why this comment bothered FuelWagon so much; I guess I just don't know the context yet. Assuming he was really so bothered by the alleged violation of RFC protocol I hasten to point out that relatively speaking 3RR is a much more important policy and cherished tradition here and violating it should have bothered him far more. Remember where we are supposed to be flexible and where we are not. SlimVirgin's apparently innocuous (to me) comment could easily fall under WP:IAR; revert warring and violating 3RR certainly does not!
  • Finally, I actually don't know anything about this RFC (yet; I intend to go read up on it next), but it's extraordinarily bad faith to go edit warring when one is already on the line for alleged bad behavior. When an RFC is underway, it's the time to do the best you can to show everybody that you are committed to the rules, to the process, and to the norms of the community, not the time to WP:POINT. (That makes three policies being violated here.) If you're not getting a fair shake, ask for an advocate. Ask for help. Don't go off on a crusade making things worse. We tend to look more highly upon those who behave with principles even when it is not in their personal favor and more negatively upon those who cloak their personal desires in pretenses of "following policy."
  • I think a 12 hour or so "cooling off time" block would be completely appropriate here.
  • Now, can we get back to edit warring on articles about religion and politics, where it really matters? Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 03:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User has been blocked for 24 hoursGeni 03:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The block log shows that he was blocked for 24 hours on 4 November at 00:42, at 02:39, and at 02:59. Geni was the only one who reported the block here. That's three times for the same crime. Just wondering how the system is set up to work when an admin blocks without knowing that another admin has already done it. Does the expiry time of the second block override that of the first? Is it going to expire automatically on 5 November at 00:42, or at 02:59. If the last block has overridden the first two, I would strongly suggest that an admin unblock him manually at 0042, partly out of fairness, of course, but also because he's quite capable of filing RfCs against the whole lot of you, and of spending the next month making long (and I do mean long) posts to Jimbo's talk page and the arbcom's talk page about corrupt administrators blocking him unfairly. Ann Heneghan (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The soonest block to expire always applies. [[Sam Korn]] 18:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, this is how it goes down. RfC procedures state that threaded comments are to be moved to talk. Bishonen starts enforcing this procedure. I follow suit, moving some other threaded comments that were particularly combative to talk. Jayjg and SlimVirgin directly violate this procedure by reverting my moves. SLimVirgin complains that "I have no business touching" other people's comments. But SlimVirgin interestingly enough never gave Bishonen the same admonisment for doing exactly the same thing, i.e. bringing the RfC to follow procedures. Jayjg gets involved and reinserts threaded comments twice. He also deletes one comment, mine. So while he's inserting other comments, he is deleting mine. The comment of mine that he deleted was actually an endorsement/vote for an outside comment by Vizcarra. Messing with endorsements and votes qualifies as vandalism. Jayjg then reports me for violating 3RR because he and SlimVirgin have broken RfC procedures so many times that I do too many reverts in a 24 hour period. It's interesting that Jayjg does this because three weeks earlier, Mel Etitis states on the RfC against him Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mel Etitis that "because my view that persistent reverting of edits that brought an article in line with MoS, naming policies, etc., is vandalism, I didn't deliberately or knowingly break 3RR" Mel Etitis had violated 3RR trying to keep an article within policy. Another editor reverted his attempts, and Mel Etitis says that he considered those reverts to be vandalism, therefore he didn't think 3RR applied. Jayjg 03:36, 9 October 2005 endorsed Mel Etitis's response. And yet when I tell SlimVirgin that their reverts which violate RfC procedures should qualify as vandalism, and therefore 3RR should not apply, Jayjg reports me for 3RR. Apparently, Jayjg supports the idea of violating 3RR to enforce policy in some cases but not in others. I can only assume that the difference between the two cases is that one was Mel Etitis, and the other was me, which makes all the difference in the world. Three admins jump in with joy and block me for 3RR. None of them look at any of my complaints of Jayjg or SLimVirgin violating RfC procedures or committing vandalism by messing with my endorsement/vote. None. And of course, I'm supposed to believe that, no really, the procedures and policies at wikipedia are enforced neutrally, fairly, and evenly among all editors regardless of whether they're a newbie or an old-timer. Yeah, right. You gotta love this place. FuelWagon 04:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked everyone from anons to arbcom members under the 3RR.I don't recall the Mel Etitis case offhand.Geni 04:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've reported Jayjg's violation of RfC procedures and deleting my endorsement as vandalism. [102]. FuelWagon 04:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joachimp

edit

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

Joachimp (talk · contribs):

Reported by: --Calton | Talk 01:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

blocked for 24 hours.Geni 02:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

deeceevoice

edit

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

{{deeceevoice}}

Reported by: CoYep 15:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC) Comments:[reply]

Administrator Response

edit

Confirmed violation of 3RR by both users; both blocked for 24 hours. Rob Church Talk 16:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, CoYep didn't revert in all instances. No other users appear to have violated the policy. Rob Church Talk 16:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

deeceevoice

edit

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

{{deeceevoice}}

Reported by: CoYep 14:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

    • Incorrect. The third "revert" was not a wholesale deletion of the image, but a replacement of the image with an earlier one. Please see the edit comments and the discusson page. Indeed, CoYep is the contributor who insists upon automatic reverts with little or no constructive explanation in the edit remarks and no contributions to the discussion. I've tried to reason with him/her, but to no avail. This is a completely bad-faith action. deeceevoice 15:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since posting here, I did inadvertently delete an unsubstatiated passage for a third time -- which I immediately reverted (within less than a minute), with an appropriate note. Again, please see the discussion page. deeceevoice 15:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rex071404

edit

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

Rex071404 (talk · contribs):

Comment

  • Note that Rex has considerable experience with the 3RR, and that he lists all of these himself as reverts: last 3 reverts in edit summaries, 1st revert in Talk. So Rex was well aware of the violation.

Reported by: Derex @ 20:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it does seem as though Rex has violated the 3RR rule. However, I have been involved in the discussion on this article and I believe it should also be pointed out in his defense that (1) some of his reverts are reverting reverts of his edits (2) he is trying to have a dialog on the talk page (3) some of the people reverting him are not actively engaging in the conversation on the talk page. While not excusing him completely from wrongdoing, I think these should be considered as mitigating factors. I recommend a warning as opposed to a block. Johntex\talk 22:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting reverts is sort of the definition of edit-warring isn't it? I don't see how that's mitigating. As to Rex's "dialogue" see Jtdirl's mercury analogy below. Seems to me that we either have a rule or we don't. At the moment, it looks like we don't. Derex @ 03:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am being extremely careful with my reverts. If the 11.03.05 counts as a revert, then I did mess up - however, if you look at what is going on at Talk:John Kerry, I and several other editors, after lengthy talk on 11.03.05, had landed on a new consensus for that section. As evidenced by the 11.04.05 edits, I am doing my best to see to it that certain non-dialoging reverters join the talk page dialog which is underway regarding this section, rather than just come in and toss all the new progess out the window. That said, based on only the 4 links above, it does appear that I missed the 11.03.05 edit when I was carefully tallying my reverts on 11.04.05. If I messed up, I am sorry. Please see my copious dialog at Talk:John Kerry. I am trying me best to do things right there and I will re-double my efforts to avoid 3rr issues. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 23:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why some of those on that page aren't "dialogging" (sic) with Rex is because trying to deal with his complaints is like trying to pick up mercury with a fork! He imagines POV problems that don't exist; reads POV meaning into NPOV words and demands that NPOV words have POV qualifiers to "NPOV" them (eg, to say that a wounded person got a "wound" is POV, unless you call it a "minor wound", which is NPOV!!!) It took 100K of arguments, and endless going around in circle, not to mention reversions by a lot of fed up users, to get him to agree to 1 paragraph. Rex's version of dialogue involves accusing everyone else of being POV (over and over again) if they won't allow him POV things. The whole thing is insane. [[User:Jtdirl|<span style="background-color: orange"><font ="center" color="#006666"><b>Fear<i>ÉIREANN</i></b></font></font>]][[Image:Ireland-Capitals.PNG|15px]]\<sup><font color=blue>[[user_talk:Jtdirl|(caint)</sup></font> color=black>]]</font> 03:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Duncharris

edit

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

Dunc is an admin and has apparently used "rollback" powers to revert 4 changes in less than 3 hours:

  1. (cur) (last) 18:09, 4 November 2005 Duncharris m (Reverted edits by Ed Poor to last version by Purplefeltangel)
  2. (cur) (last) 20:25, 4 November 2005 Duncharris m (Reverted edits by Ed Poor to last version by Duncharris)
  3. (cur) (last) 20:48, 4 November 2005 Duncharris m (Reverted edits by Ed Poor to last version by Duncharris)
  4. (cur) (last) 21:15, 4 November 2005 Duncharris m (Reverted edits by Ed Poor to last version by Duncharris)

Reported by: Uncle Ed 21:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:203.101.49.28

edit

203.101.49.28 (talk · contribs)

Violation of three-revert rule on Rajput (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

Reported by Rob Church Talk 01:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Administrator Response

edit

Blocked for 24 hours. Rob Church Talk 01:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zeno of Elea

edit

Three revert rule violation on 2005 Paris suburb riots.

{{User|Zeno of Elea}:

Reported by: BrandonYusufToropov 22:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC) Comments:[reply]

  • Notice that 4th revert, which does in fact revert vandalism, as the edit summary states, also reverts the text under dispute. It would be quite impossible to do this by accident, because that text did not appear in the pre-vandalism version of the article. I suspect the anonymous vandalism was calculated for precisely this purpose, but that's a question for another filing. When informed that I was filing this complaint, Zeno's response was "Good for you, Yusuf."

Administrator Response

edit

Confirmed violation of 3RR. User:Zeno of Elea blocked for 24 hours. Rob Church Talk 01:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Leyasu and User:Danteferno

edit

Reverts: A bunch of edits over November 3 and 4. Look at the gothic metal history page too see. Looks like an edit war to me.

Reported by --Arm 04:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely an edit war. I warned both of them on their talk pages yesterday. Both Leyasu and Danteferno have reverted that page 22 times in about the last three hours. Please block both of them! --Idont Havaname 17:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Here is the evidence in the form of the "Report new violation" section below. The revert war started several cycles before this, but here are the most recent ones from the last several hours.
Leyasu (talk · contribs)
Comments: In each case, Leyasu and Danteferno were reverting each other. (I've only included Leyasu's for brevity, just because there are so many reverts; I'm not biased against either one of them in particular.) Leyasu's edit summary on his 7th revert reads, "This is getting old and tired. Stop reverting before we are both banned." Leyasu overwrote his talk page with his version of the page, and on Talk:Gothic metal he is using sockpuppets with no edits outside that page.
Reported by: User:Arm and User:Idont havaname --Idont Havaname 17:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reporting myself for 3RR violations. I understand that this will probably result in a suspension of my account - If/when my monniker is reactivated, I am now aware of this page and plan to use it should a similar situation happen again. --Danteferno 19:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Goethean

edit

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

Goethean (talk · contribs):


Reported by: Shivraj Singh 18:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC) Comments:[reply]

  • User is clueless about Rajput history and insists on editing.

Shivraj Singh 18:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • These are no diffs, and they point to Talk:Rajput, not Rajput. Please provide diffs to Rajput, or change the target article (and still, procvide diffs)

User:CyclePat

edit

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

  • 1st revert: [104]
  • 2nd revert: [105]
  • 3rd revert: [106]
  • 4th revert: [107], which was a revert back to an earlier version by him here. He just simply didn't label it as a revert and thought he could get around 3RR.

Reported by: --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


05:38 "revert" does not appear to be a revert.Geni 01:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ted Wilkes

edit

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

15:48, 5 November 2005 Ted Wilkes

00:57, 5 November 2005 Ted Wilkes 

00:41, 5 November 2005 Ted Wilkes

00:12, 5 November 2005 Ted Wilkes


blocked for 24 hours.Geni 01:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheDoctor10

edit

TheDoctor10 (talk · contribs)

Three revert rule violation on The End of the World (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Three revert rule violation on List of minor Doctor Who villains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Although not 4 reverts within 24 hours, looking back at the history we see this is not the first time. Please see also attempts to mediate at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature unfortunately TheDoctor10 did not participate. --TimPope 11:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Was asked to give a look at this: user seemed to stop after he was warned by khaosworks that he'd be blocked for continuing this behavior, or maybe he was just counting reverts and the warning had no effect. I think this is a pretty clear case of gaming the system and we shouldn't wait for him to run into the electric fence before blocking for edit-warring if he comes back to revert tomorrow as well. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As a random admin wandering by, the history of that article does indeed look rather nasty. If TheDoctor10 is assuming that three reverts is a daily entitlement, he should be disabused of that notion. Warn him that he will be blocked if he tries to game the system in the future. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To clarify TimPope's reference, the RfC was filed for List of minor Doctor Who villains, where TheDoctor10 has waged a similar edit war. He appears to have backed off on that article for the time being. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I actually have several points to make. These are:
  • Everything I want in the articles is a statement of the truth. It had been speculated... it was possible. If Wikipedia members are opposed to statments of the truth, then it's a bad time for us all.
  • Three reverts is a daily entitlement, as an anthropoid above put it. The rule says that I may revert something up to 3 times within 24hrs. It does also say that I don't have a right to (it was, no doubt, written by an admin, who love oxymorons, it taking one to know one), so I'll have to take the clause highest up in the page.
  • I have laid off the list of villains because I have been provided with evidence that it is wrong now. Since no such evidence for TEoTW has come up, I will continue my fight for factual information to be included in encyclopedic articles (no doubt this is an alien concept to most admins). Yours with the greatest disrespect,--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 06:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't an entitlement, and any further attempts to game this rule will be met with a block for edit-warring, as the rule is written to stop edit wars. The rule says that you may be blocked for breaking it; it does not say that you may not be blocked for not breaking the letter of it. I don't see a single other editor in the history of that page who agrees with your preferred version; reverting will do you no good here. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is an entitlement. It matters not if the rule doesn't say that I can't be blocked for not breaking the letter of it. It says I can only revert up to 3 times in 24hrs. I have only reverted up to 3 times in 24hrs. It matters not what it was written for - all that matters is what it says. It should be clearer if you want it to be. Yours with, frankly, no respect whatsoever,--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 16:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Intent of the policy:
The three-revert rule is not an entitlement [emphasis mine], but an "electric fence"; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others. --Calton | Talk 03:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've reverted again. Blocked for 24 hours for gaming 3RR. Please find alternative methods of resolving article disputes; you cannot keep simply reverting and expecting this to be allowed to continue. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I fully support this block. violet/riga (t) 18:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As do I. Edit-warring is not good, and those who believe it to be a right need clonking round the head. [[Sam Korn]] 18:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support it. It's an entitlement. If it's not, then the policy needs to be rewritten. I obeyed policy totally.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 10:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


User:BoroughPeter

edit

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

Many revert violations:

  1. cur) (last) 03:34, 8 November 2005 Goodoldpolonius2 m (Rv vandalism, plus small grammer and clarifications to Holocaust section)
    • (cur) (last) 03:32, 8 November 2005 BoroughPeter (rv vandal)
  2. (cur) (last) 03:32, 8 November 2005 Jpgordon m (Reverted edits by BoroughPeter to last version by Goodoldpolonius2)
    • (cur) (last) 03:30, 8 November 2005 BoroughPeter (rv vandal)
  3. (cur) (last) 03:20, 8 November 2005 Gidonb (→Third Reich (1933–1945) - restoration of the genocide chapter from the article's history)
    • (cur) (last) 03:16, 8 November 2005 BoroughPeter m (rv vandal)
  4. (cur) (last) 03:15, 8 November 2005 Space Cadet (rvv)
    • (cur) (last) 03:13, 8 November 2005 BoroughPeter m (rm vandalism)
  5. (cur) (last) 16:16, 7 November 2005 Goodoldpolonius2 m (-rv. BoroughPeter, it is unacceptable to remove all mentions of the Holocaust from the article. I am not sure why you mention this as "racist POV." Please do not break 3RR, and take this to Talk.)
    • (cur) (last) 15:50, 7 November 2005 BoroughPeter (rv racist POV pushing. No mention of genocides in United Kingdom, United States or Israel)
  6. (cur) (last) 15:47, 7 November 2005 Goodoldpolonius2 (partial rv.BoroughPeter -Discussing WWII and not mentioning the Holocaust is not acceptable. Contrary to your statement, articles in the main articles on Hungary, Romania, Latvia, etc all mention it.)
    • (cur) (last) 15:24, 7 November 2005 BoroughPeter m (rv hateful POV pushing. No other countries have such paragraphs in their main articles. This article shall outline the history of GERMANY as a state and nothing else.)
  7. (cur) (last) 13:21, 7 November 2005 Nightbeast (→Third Reich (1933–1945) - rv deletion of -genocide- paragraph. I, too, think it sounds reproachful but that's no reason for completely deleting it none the less)
    • (cur) (last) 06:18, 7 November 2005 68.159.114.218 (→Restoration and revolution (1814–1871))

User:FeloniousMonk

edit

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

FeloniousMonk has made four reversions on this page in the last 24 hours.

  1. 07:26, 8 November 2005 FeloniousMonk m (Reverted edits by MichaelGodwin to last version by FeloniousMonk)
  2. (cur) (last) 06:18, 8 November 2005 FeloniousMonk m (Reverted edits by MichaelZeleny to last version by FeloniousMonk)
  3. (cur) (last) 05:52, 8 November 2005 FeloniousMonk m (Reverted edits by 205.188.116.204 to last version by FeloniousMonk)
  4. (cur) (last) 05:44, 8 November 2005 FeloniousMonk m (Reverted edits by 205.188.116.204 to last version by Larvatus)
It's not simple vandalism.Geni 10:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
on balance I think the dealing with vandalism clause covers this.Geni 13:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is a legit content disspute though. Tricky.Geni 14:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As Geni already knew having visited my user talk page, my actions at Mike Godwin were in response to a request to deal with a vandal. FeloniousMonk 15:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I know this. I refuse to make any assumptions based on this. I'm not going to block though.Geni 15:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Goethean

edit

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

Goethean (talk · contribs):

Reported by Shivraj Singh 18:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This was left on my talk page; moving here. Rob Church Talk 10:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit

User is clueless about Rajput history and insists on editing. Shivraj Singh 18:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Response

edit

The page in question is a talk page, and Goethean appears to be removing some comments from the page. Whilst I do not feel the comments were particularly relevant to the editing of the article, I also don't find it appropriate to continuously erase them, either. These users have previously engaged in an edit war, and at least one of them has been blocked for a 3RR violation beforehand. Therefore, I am warning Goethean and, should the behaviour continue, will consider a short-to-medium-length block. Rob Church Talk 10:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:BB69

edit

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

BB69 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: DS1953 talk 17:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User:209.208.77.224

edit

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

209.208.77.224 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Tom Harrison (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Administrator Response

User:68.182.172.95 and User:71.116.133.10

edit

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

Reported by: AdelaMae 20:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • User listed as 65.182.172.95 posts from a number of IPs, all starting with 65.182.172. Edit war has been escalating for months. NPOV template repeatedly being removed from article. AdelaMae 20:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Without checkuser permission we can't verify that these are the same user and thus can't block for 3RR on two different accounts and even then it's iffy since thousands of users could be editing from the same ISP and in the way that ISP's shuffle IP's. Below are the two different sets seperated by IP to make them more clear Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't trying to say that 65.182.172.95 and 71.116.133.10 were the same user, if that's what you mean... it wouldn't make much sense for one person to be reverting his/her own edits! - AdelaMae 05:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


71.116.133.10


68.182.172.95

User:Kastrioti

edit

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

Kastrioti (talk · contribs):

Reported by: --Theathenae 03:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Administrator response

edit

User was not adequately warned about the 3RR; therefore, I'm not going to take any actions. I have warned the user on his/her talk page not to continue these revert wars. Ral315 (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bomac II

edit

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

Bomac (talk · contribs):

Reported by: --Theathenae 18:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User:Eleemosynary

edit

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

Eleemosynary (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Kevin 20:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Already 20 revert by this User on this article - just today.

Administrator response

edit

It's pretty obvious here...blocked for 24 hours. Ral315 (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They've been discussing on the talk page, so I'll let it slide. I told both users that any more edits to the "sexuality" section of the article will result in a 24 hour block. Ral315 (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Giles22

edit

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

Giles22 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Kevin 20:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Already 18 reverts by this User on this article - just today.

Administrator response

edit

It's pretty obvious here...blocked for 24 hours. Ral315 (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They've been discussing on the talk page, so I'll let it slide. I told both users that any more edits to the "sexuality" section of the article will result in a 24 hour block. Ral315 (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ShivRaj

edit

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

This user has reverted this article five times today and continously pushes for a biased and hatred oriented version that has been rejected by other editors.

Reported by: خرم Khurram 18:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Response

edit

Blocked for 24 hours. FireFox -CVU- 18:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Brucewayne1

edit

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

Brucewayne1 (talk · contribs):


Reported by: Edwardian 19:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User:Rex071404

edit

Three revert rule violation on John Kerry

Rex071404 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Mr. Tibbs 22:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Rex's recent previous violation of the 3RR: [122].
  • Previous Arbitration Committee ruling: "7) In the event Rex071404 reverts any edit for any reason any administrator may impose a short ban (a hour to a day for first offenses and up to a week for repeat offenses)." [123]
Mr. Tibbs does not participate in the dialog at John Kerry. Also, he is intentionally distorting and trying to misapply a sanction which was part of a now expired ArbComm case. and, he gave me no notice of this complaint, perhaps so he could have the only word? As for my edits which he is calling reverts, I am pretty sure they are edits, not reverts. I have not being trying to re-jam in the same old edit, which what a serial reverter does. Rather, when another editor modifies this particular section and cites a reason, my next edit (if there is a next, some changes I do not modify) tries to take that editor's reason into account and accomodate the point raised. What is going ot at John Kerry is that one or two entrenched editors there are 100% opposed to any modifications of any kind to this section of text. Regardless of what edit you offer, one or more of them reverts you. If you review the talk page there, you will see that I have invested literally tens of hours dialogging towards consensus on the entire section. So far, even though they have not proved the word "wound" as opposed to "injury", I was outvoted on that and have abided by the group. No edit I have done since "wound" was settled on, has omitted that word. Currently, we are stuck on "bandage" vs. "gauze". I've provided many citations and answered each point raised to me However, if you read the talk page, you'll see that when I support my point with proof, no acknowledgement is given, only a new argument raised. I have been keeping careful track of my edits and it simply is not true than I am rushing in with reverts (or even reverting). By my count I have 3 in the last 24 hours there. Two against vandals and one against another editor. The others are edits, not reverts and they are not disguised reverts either. I am meeting my burden at John Kerry in that I am providing a citation for every disputed edit. This is the ongoing requirement and I am meeting it. It simply is not true as Tibbs suggests, that I have been perma-banned from reverting. As it stands now, the problem at that article is user JamesMLane. He is the defacto leader of the watchdog editors there and come what may, he is going to force "bandage" on us regardless of the fact that the best evidence suggests gauze, not bandage. While this does not seem like much, it's symptomatic of how James is hell bent on maintaining textual stasis against any and all changes, regardless of how supported by fact and NPOV they are. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 00:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Examining the diffs--even after plowing through the long-winded rationalization for them--it's easy to spot the reverts; that is, the POV that Rex is constantly trying to re-insert. In particular, note the 2nd ("minor wound"), 4th ("Kerry's wound was not serious"), 6th ("The injury was not serious), and 7th ("Kerry's injury was not serious") edits. --Calton | Talk 01:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question Neither of the two recent, confirmed, revert reports on Rex has generated any action here. Why? Could some administrator explain why, in this case, the rule is not being enforced? Why do you, the admin reading this, personally think the rule should not be applied in this case? I'm not chastising you; I'm genuinely curious what the de facto standards are. Respectfully, thanks. Derex @ 15:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


User:Zogu

edit

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

Zogu (talk · contribs):

Reported by: --Theathenae 12:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Update

edit

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

Zogu (talk · contribs):

and...

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

Zogu (talk · contribs):

and...

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

Zogu (talk · contribs):

Reported by: --Theathenae 14:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User:dbiv and User:87.74.12.83

edit

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

dbiv (talk · contribs) and see below for the diffs on 87.74.12.83 (talk · contribs)

Reported by: User:87.74.12.83 14:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I added a substantial amount to the section on criticism of Tony Blair. All the items were backed up by references to statutes an Acts of Parliament, links to the BBC, quotes from judges in the House of Lords, which is the supreme court in Britain, quotes from civil rights groups, etc. Nothing was unsourced. As the section is supposed to detail opposition to Tony Blair, it is only correct that it should be critical. |Dbiv is a Labour party councillor, and is therefore clearly highly partial, and in no way can be considered to hold a neutral point of view.
  • Dbiv reverted the content in its entirety four times, claiming that it is factually inaccurate, and POV. He has not made any attempt to address or identify any alleged factual inaccuracies in the article. Dbiv's reverts are a blatant violation of Wp:3rr. Furthermore, the content reverted is well-written, and not vandalism or inaccurate. He has previously reverted other content not favourable to Mr. Blair [134].
  • Accordingly I suggest action be taken against him, as there is no justification for his actions
  • I further suggest my content be restored as the basis for further edits (I don't want to violate the 3RR myself :-))
I came here to report both of them, as both Dbiv and 87.74.12.83 have both reverted at least 4 times. 87.74.12.83 was told the other day about the 3RR rule here, and clearly is equally in contravention of it, SqueakBox 01:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't violate it. At 23:16 I edited the section Spin, which was reverted by dbiv at 23:29. At 00:03 I added a lot of content to authoritarianism, and added an edited version of my previous spin section. I then reworded the poorly written section 'Criticisim of the left' at 00:12. Dbiv reverted both edits at 00:14 (revert 1). I then reverted at 00:16 (revert 1 by me), which dbiv reverted at 00:18 (revert 2 by him). I reverted this at 00:19 (revert 2 by me). He reverted at 00:20 (revert 3). I reverted this at 00:21 (revert 3 by me). Finally, he reverted again at 00:24 (revert 4). There is no 4th revert by me; otoh, Dbiv has directly reverted content with no attempt at rewriting.
I was indeed told of the 3RR rule (which I was already aware of), but I have not broken it. 87.74.12.83 01:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

87.74.12.83 (talk · contribs) definitely did violate 3RR. Concentrating for the sake of clarity on his deletion of one section about Blair's presentation techniques (though there were other reverted passages too), he deleted this passage on November 11, then reverted to his deletion four times within 18 minutes on November 12: " ... an approach he and his advisors largely learnt from Bill Clinton's successful 1992 election."

I won't block him myself because I'm involved in a dispute with him at two other articles he's reverting a lot. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly please stop your annoying habit of characterising my edits as deletions, something you have falsely done on multiple occasions elsewhere.
I firstly edited the section 'spin'. This was reverted by dbiv. I edited the content I had added slightly and added about 200 words to another section. If you look at what you call '1st revert', it clearly is not a revert. After this edit I reverted three times dbiv's deletion of my additions.
Incidentally, I think it's interesting to point out that SlimVirgin is only here because he is busy pursuing his vendetta against me on every page he can find, even ones he is not actually involved with himself. 87.74.12.83 18:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:87.74.12.83

edit

Regarding the above report on User:Dbiv, I want to add here that 87.74.12.83 (talk · contribs) is causing a problem elsewhere with reverting. He also edits as 147.114.226.175 (talk · contribs), which resolves to the Nat West bank in London. He's been either deleting the intro or deleting the photograph from Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, accompanied by various insults on the talk page, leading to page protection. Tony Sidaway unlocked it tonight and the anon deleted the image again three hours later. He won't discuss a compromise either for the wording of the intro or regarding an alternative image. He's started doing the same thing at Center for Consumer Freedom, again not prepared to discuss a compromise, but determined that the words he doesn't like should be removed entirely. I noticed User:Arwel Parry posted to the anon's talk page a few days ago that, should he get blocked for 3RR at Tony Blair, Arwel would unblock him for some reason. [135] I'm therefore leaving this information here so that admins know in future that this appears to be a problem user. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin has been pursuing a vendetta against me, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Center_for_Consumer_Freedom#Biased_edits, here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Arwel_Parry#User:87.74.12.83, and other places. He is the sole defender of an objectionable photograph and POV viewpoint on the SHAC page, in the face of several users opposing the photo and viewpoint, but still claims that it is I who am not compromising. He has an obsession with what IP addresses I have used, bringing the issue up on at least half a dozen occasions, despite my request that he kindly desist from doing so. He has pursued me to every possible page, trying to defame me. I suggest you read about SlimVirgin's POV agenda here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Geni#SlimVirgin, and also take a look at his POV edits to Huntingdon Life Sciences, as well as Campaign for Consumer Freedom, the aformentioned SHAC, and their respective talk pages to see what he is really about. 87.74.12.83 13:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have no "vendetta" against you. You revert a great deal and won't compromise. You've been warned about 3RR, yet you violated it at Tony Blair, and having done so, reported dbiv for his violation, expecting not to be blocked yourself. Anyway, I won't take admin action against you over Tony Blair because I'm in a content dispute with you elsewhere, and I won't argue the case further here. The diffs are above if anyone wants to act on them. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zora

edit

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

Zora (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Shivraj Singh 05:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC) Comments:[reply]

  • (removed personal attack).

Shivraj Singh 05:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed this complaint, and it is without merit. User:Zora did indeed revert four times, but over a one-week period, not a 24-hour period. I also removed a personal attaack from this complaint. Nandesuka 16:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:SPUI

edit

Was blocked for 3RR on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interchanges on Ontario provincial highway 401 but only reverted three times. The last edit (00:20) was a "vote" unrelated to the earlier closures. This will probably be the only edit I (SPUI) will make in this account for now. --Sockenpuppe 01:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that the last edit was a vote, but there were four attempts to close it out of process and causing disruption (three of these being reverts). While the block is probably justified, the last edit as a real vote indicates your willingness to stop. If that is true, I'll unblock. Dmcdevit·t 01:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I believed (and still do) that the closure was in process. But yeah, I have no plans to continue trying to close it. --Sockenpuppe 01:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


User:FCYTravis

edit

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

FCYTravis (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Ted Wilkes 19:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • That is not four reverts. That is one major re-edit of the page (my first-ever to the page) and three reverts after three unexplained removals of sourced information. Ted Wilkes is pushing an ArbCom decision far beyond what it was ever intended to cover. The decision does *not* ban onefortyone from editing any page, only requires that his inclusions be policed. As one of his assigned mentors, I reviewed his edits and determined that they were properly sourced, verifiable and should be included in an encyclopedic biography. Wilkes is apparently attempting to censor any biographical discussion of the sexuality of James Dean and Nick Adams. The ArbCom ruling does *not* allow him to do this. Adams refuses to discuss his reversions or edit parts which he finds objectionable so that a compromise version can be reached - he simply blanket-reverts. FCYTravis 19:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry User:FCYTravis. but you in fact reverted the work of User Wyss as noted above and reinstated the information previously inserted by User:Onefortyone. - Ted Wilkes 19:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted this matter at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature for neutral input. FCYTravis 20:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a clear 3RR violation. I have blocked FCYTravis for 24 hours. 3RR is not about determining who is right and who is wrong, but is about preventing revert wars. All of us, even those with the magic buttons, should be careful to avoid engaging in revert wars of this kind. Nandesuka 23:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is NOT a 3RR violation. He used the rollback button (abused it even) twice, which is a full revert, and [136] is a full revert, but [137] is NOT a revert. He reverted three times, and I abhor calling it a clear 3RR violation. To violate 3RR, you must revert four times, and although it may be blockable for disruption, Ted Wilkes reverted just as many times. Thus, I'm unblocking FCYTravis, and giving him a warning to not use rollback in such instance. If you would like to redo the block on him, then block Ted Wilkes as well. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is a clear 3RR violation, and I have reinstated the block. As the policy pages make clear, a "revert" is not some magic formula that one can dodge by simply including other edits. At issue, it seems to me, is the paragraph beginning "In 1972 gay actor Sal Mineo..." This is the largest single change in this revert war, and it makes up 90% of the content of all of the reverts by both users. Rightly or wrongly, this was removed by Wyss here, at 11:45 12 Nov 2005. FCYTravis and Wyss then pissed back and forth over it over the next day. FCYTravis reverted that addition at 9:38 13 Nov, 18:14 13 Nov, 18:35 13 Nov, and 18:47 13 Nov, making 4 reverts. Wyss also had four reverts, but only three of them were within a 24 hour period. Some other admin is free to block both of them for revert warring or disruption, but I am at the moment only enforcing the 3RR rule, which in this case FCYTravis violated and Wyss did not. Nandesuka 15:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:201.17.103.84

edit

Three revert rule violation on 2005 civil unrest in France (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

  • 201.17.103.84 introduces a link which will be seen as unappropriate by several editors [138]
  • 1st revert [139]
  • 2nd revert: [140]
  • 3rd revert [141]
  • 4th revert [142]
  • 5th revert [143]

Reported by: Rama 00:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User:67.86.8.154

edit

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

67.86.8.154 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: LeFlyman 04:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Anon IP has also vandalised pages, including repeated blanking: [145] and [146]; insertion of profanity [147]; and removing content from (my) user page [148]. User was warned on 02:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC) for vandalism by MC MasterChef and again on 22:36, 13 November 2005 for repeated reverts. LeFlyman 04:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:87.74.12.83 (2)

edit

WP:3RR violation on Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

87.74.12.83 (talk · contribs) also editing as 147.114.226.175 (talk · contribs)

Reported by SlimVirgin (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Keeps deleting the image and/or the intro; page was protected because of the reverting, during which time he wouldn't discuss a compromise, but started reverting again three hours after protection was lifted.
First IP blocked 24 hours for 3RR. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see he's said on the talk page that both IP's are his. Let me know if he tries to edit with the other one before the 24 hour block is expired. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Katefan, will do. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Molobo

edit

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

Molobo (talk · contribs):

Reported by: NightBeAsT 19:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Although this may look like a borderline case because Molobo feels personally attacked (which I would disagree about), it may be noted that his continous revert wars are only disrupting Wikipedia and a pedagogical punishment should be taken into consideration, as well as a mediation of his disputes. NightBeAsT 19:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I may point out that I removed personal attacks(accusationsons that i am worst then communist propaganda etc).User Nightbeast is hardly a source of pedagogicical knowledge-he removes all information on persecution of ethnic minorites by German Reich, as well as Nazi atrocites[149] .Calls to explain such delations(as seen here[150])have remained unanswered.--Molobo 22:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In a similar case I once told you to refactor and in this Talk:Zygmunt Bauman dispute my first revert pointed out that despite your deletion of Thorsten1's comment, you didn't delete this one. It's a bit hypocritical in my opinion to just delete personal attacks on the part of others towards you. You also defined this a personal attack. Anyway, I don't even think Thomsen1's comment was a real personal attack and that you only wanted to delete his comment. Thorsten1 talked to you on your talk page and you deleted this as well. So he had to use the talk page of the article again. You also had reverted with the stated reason being that personal issues shouldn't be in the article, but why did you delete it from your talk page then? And knowing that Thomsen1's first comment was a direct answer to your questions, why didn't you also delete your off-topic comment, too? I don't know what you're defining as personal attack but your previous reply "User Nightbeast is hardly a source of pedagogicical knowledge-he removes all information on persecution of ethnic minorites by German Reich, as well as Nazi atrocites" is off-topic slander, and might be called a personal attack. Though it's an entirely different issue I've replied to my edit on "Germanisation" on talk:Germanisation. Obviously we've now lost the thread, so let me sum up: Removing a personal attack is abitrary but deleting an entire direct answer to your questions without the answer containing clear-cut personal attack is a normal revert under the 3RR in my opinion. Having reverted five times (without approval by anyone) means a violation of the 3RR. NightBeAsT 19:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Molobo has been given a 24 hour block to consider Wikipedia policy on 3RR.--Wiglaf 23:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Piotr, who is always supportive of this user, arbitrarily ublocked him. Since it was my mistake not to notify Molobo on his talkpage, because I knew he was full aware of the situation, I will make the block 12 hours from now on. This time, Molobo has received a formal notification.--Wiglaf 07:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Space Cadet

edit

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

Space Cadet (talk · contribs):

Comment: Again its not one of those straightforward cases, sorry. But I do think they can be counted as a violation. It's all so weird because my version before it actually enjoyed support on the talk page. Please invest the case and if you should disagree with it being a 3RR violation, please consider other kinds of mediation. I've got to go. Thank you for your help in advance. NightBeAsT 19:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the talk page.User NB has ignored all scholary sources given to him.No concencus was reached on talk page, while NB decided to ignore all examples contradicting his POV.

--Molobo 22:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again clever, really! You're argueing that the end(fair version) justfies the means(violation of the 3RR). In turn, you're claiming that your version was fair and I just "ignored all scholary sources". So if I don't protest against your claims quickly, others might assume you're right since the talk page is so full of information that it is hard to check on it. On the other hand, you're tempting me to refer to the bottom of the talk page to demonstrate conensus-like conditions until you continued the revert war. That, however, would change the only relevant subject here (namely the 3RR-case), to which you didn't reply at all. So my answer to your accusations is "If you think so, fine. I don't. If anyone else is interested and might like to worthy challenge to one's skills of mediation, please consider the Kulturkampf dispute." But no more distractions and return to the 3RR. Any admin here? NightBeAsT 19:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User Space Cadet has been blocked from editing for 24 hours for violation of 3RR. This page in not intended to file complaints on which version of any article is correct, but on preventing disruption of WP, which is the case here. Shauri 23:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:66.41.212.231

edit

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

66.41.212.231 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Catamorphism 02:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User:AustinKnight

edit

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

AustinKnight (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Willmcw 04:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User:Elerner

edit

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

Elerner (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Joke137 10:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • User will not attempt to work with other uses, stating "I give up. I'll just change the first paragraph back every time I think of it." and ignoring a warning (on talk and on his personal page) that he is in violation of the 3RR. Joke137 10:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive6&oldid=1079069792"