Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Witkacy (talk | contribs) at 01:11, 31 August 2005 (→[[User:Nightbeast|Nightbeast]]2). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Click here to create a new report


    Violations

    User:71.101.38.205

    Three revert rule violation on George Washington.

    User:71.101.38.205 has no Talk page

    User contributions

    Reported by: --JimWae 07:41, 2005 August 22 (UTC) Comments:

    • User does not respond to points made on talk page nor in edit summaries
    • User uses article talk page only to make accusations of personal agenda & to demand proof
    • When given sources, user discounts them as "atheist"
    • user does not use edit summaries


    User:203.173.156.2

    Three revert rule violation on Jedi census phemonenon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 203.173.156.2 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: — Phil Welch 08:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:



    User:Sleepnomore

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

    Reported by: --Silverback 09:30, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • There were probably several other reverts of largely the same material to different versions before this. Sleepnomore claims she was deleting personal attacks, yet continued the reversions after it was pointed out that she was also deleting material that was not personal attacks. I usually don't report 3RR rules except by admins, but this user's continued disingenuous use of a deceptive excuse, rose to the level of vandalism and complete lack of good faith.--Silverback 09:22, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • Discussions related to Sleepnomore's recent behavior can be found at these pages: [6] [7] [8] --Silverback 11:07, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
    Sleepnomore is correct that there have been too many personal attacks on this talk page. There have been multiple user conduct RfCs and one RfAr filed as a result of these personal attacks and revert wars. Apparently Sleepnomore thinks that blanking much of this history will restore peace. Trying to do this twice or even three times in a 24-hour period was a reasonable attempt. However, at this point, violating 3RR was not useful. Robert McClenon 16:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
    She reverted a lot of stuff that wasn't personal attacks, so hers was only a pseudo attempt to help, not a good faith effort. She thought she had found a revert out jail free card. Based on her sudden appearance on July 22nd in a edit war elsewhere involve an opponent with sleepy as a componenent of the name, she is suspected of being a sock puppet anyway.--Silverback 18:10, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

    User:4.227.175.237 , User: Homoneutralis, User:4.228.216.125, User:4.228.216.149

    and others

    Three revert rule violation on Cindy Sheehan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kyle Andrew Brown (talk · contribs):

    To quote: You damn fool, I'm not the anon poster he was talking about. LOL!! I think I will notify the sysops of you obtuse stupidity. Homoneutralis 01:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
    To quote: I shudder to think how many ignorant souls like you there are on Wikipedia. Homoneutralis 02:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
    To quote: Seriously, are you still in High School? POV destroyer 22:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
    To quote: Seriously, how old are you? Homoneutralis 02:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
    To quote: You just desperate to find something un-neutral about me aren't you? It's so unbecoming. Homoneutralis 02:22, 22 August 2005
    To quote: You know exactly how you want this story portrayed, and you will call anything that runs counter to your idealogy, "POV". Please be forewarned, that I was not born yesterday, POV destroyer 17:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
    To quote: Uh-oh, now you've done it. Eleemosynary will soon be all over you calling you a biased, POV-inserting charlatan who should be blocked immediately...oh, wait, no sorry, that's only if you add anything that doesn't come from George Soros or Michael Moore. Homoneutralis 18:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC
    To quote: You'll find intellectual honesty is not a ubiquitous asset around these parts. Good luck. Homoneutralis 19:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
    To quote: Let me stop you before you make a complete fool of yourself. The fact that you don't see the POV in using terms like "Progressives" and "Patriots" should prove to the reader that you have no business trying to be a neutral point of view editor. I shudder to think how many ignorant souls like you there are on Wikipedia. Homoneutralis 02:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
    To quote: My experience with this one shows me that most of the more enthusiastic editors, that spend hours with an article are those that could be characterized as Liberal, Progressive, Leftist, whatever your favorite phrase is. Moderates and conservatives seem to have not found Wikipedia or avoid it. Homoneutralis 00:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

    Also from Homoneutralis as AKA POV Destroyer:

    To quote: I have not seen a good argument for exluding the "Fuhrer" comment. I will restore it. POV destroyer 17:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    To quote: you have selective reading skills. I think the person being personally attacked is me. POV destroyer 02:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
    To quote: The facts are making you upset Gorgon? Seriously, are you still in High School? POV destroyer 22:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
    To quote: Everytime you come on here accusing me of inserting POV you go running away with your tail between your legs when confronted by the facts. So keep it up, I'll let truth be my shield. POV destroyer 02:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

    It's a Revert Warriers Den. Contributors are asking what to do. Reported by: Kyle Andrew Brown 15:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

    The "Denver reverter" is back, this time with a new IP (sockpuppet) -- 4.228.216.149. Same M.O., same fake "first edit," same revert in the first paragraph of the Cindy Sheehan page. S/he must have found a new computer in the lab. Admins, please watch. S/he's been the biggest troublemaker I have ever seen on WP. Thanks. Badagnani 08:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

    User:68.77.89.152

    Three revert rule violation on DirecTV.

    He keeps adding his link to his illegal business to the article and destroying legitimate ones. See: [9]

    Reported by: michael180 16:59, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:84.68.242.172 or User:84.68.242.172 or User:MONGO

    Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 84.68.242.172 (talk · contribs)/User:84.68.242.172:

    • Previous version reverted to: [10]
    • 1st revert: [11]
    • 2nd revert: [12]
    • 3rd revert: [13]
    • 4th revert: [14]
    • 5th revert: [15]
    • 6th revers:

    [16]

    Reported by: Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:43, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • MONGO or one of a couple sockpuppets wish to prevent editors/members whom she disagrees with from making any improvements to a project page. S/he is both removing the list of all the "disapproved" editors, and reverting the project page to a version that excludes all contributions by these editors.

    The anon editor is the same dynamic IP subscriber: 

     $ nslookup 84.68.242.172
 Name:    user-4780.lns2-c11.dsl.pol.co.uk
 Address:  84.68.242.172

     & nslookup  81.79.117.98
 Name:    user-5474.l4.c3.dsl.pol.co.uk
 Address:  81.79.117.98

    I don't know how to check MONGO's IP address to make sure it's really the same though.

    Hey...I always log in and edit as MONGO...without exception. This is baseless. Just to let you know...[17] type in either IP you list and you'll see they are both from London, UK. I am in Omaha, Ne. USA.--MONGO 11:02, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    If MONGO has sockpuppets, then I must have been living in another world these last 18 years. Seriously, I highly doubt that MONGO has sockpuppets, that just seems ridiculous.Voice of All(MTG) 05:43, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Gbambino

    Reported by Astrotrain 21:17, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

    User:67.182.157.6, AKA Donald Alford

    Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DotSix/Evidence (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DotSix/Evidence|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.182.157.6 (talk · contribs):

    (User 67.182.157.6 (talk · contribs) recently edited AKA Donald Alford above to <lie deleted>, that change has been reverted and this note has been added --Mysidia (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC))

    • Previous version reverted to: [18]
    • 1st revert: [19]
    • 2nd revert: [20]
    • 3rd revert: [21]
    • 4th revert: [22]

    Reported by: Nate Ladd 00:14, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • This is this users 8th 3RR violation in the last 14 days.
    • The page he is reverting is the evidence page for the Arbcomm proceeding against him.
    • The version he is reverting to is one in which he edited another user's section of the Evidence page, in violation of the instructions of at the top of the page.
    • Because of his past bad behavior, this user's own talk page has been protected from him. I know that sounds weird but it is true. I won't try to relate the craziness that led up to that page being protected, but the point is that I can't give him a warning. But he has been blocked 7 times in the last two weeks alone mainly for 3RR so it is hardly possible that he needs a warning and certainly not possible that he deserves one.

    User:Jayjg

    Three revert rule violation on terrorism. Jayjg: Jayjg is an administrator who has broken the three revert rule. He knows the rule, because he uses it against other editors. His reverts, in this case, are to two older definitions of the article, but they are always reverts away from the same definition that editors have spent over a month and hundreds of hours coming to a consensus on in the discussion page.

    Two other characters appeared immediately after Jayjg first started reverting and reverted the same article instead of discussing it in Talk, the way the rest of us had done. When we asked Jayjg and SlimVirgin to produce a single example of their claims against the article, they refused and just kept reverting the article. We tried to work with their concerns, but they refused to be specific about their allegations.

    The definition of "terrorism" is highly volatile. Those of us who have been exhaustively working on the introduction for months have agreed to propose changes to the introduction for editing in the talk page before they are submitted to the main article. Even though we have vastly different views, we have stuck to that and it has worked well. Now Jayjg and his buddies appear, after having nothing to do with the comprehensive editing process of the article, make vague accusations, and revert it out of hand. People from all over the world have written me, thanking me for finally objectively defining the term. I tell them that, if they think it is good and true, they should say so. Even though many of them aren't editors, I have seen more support for this article, from IPs all over the globe, than I have seen for any other edit. Many of the supporters have even chastised Jayjg while fixing the article. Yet Jayjg and his two buddies keep reverting the edits. I hope you will look at the other two people in the edit history and see if they could also be Jayjg. I also ask that you put an end to this hostile-editing by blocking User:Jayjg. Without him, we have a proven equitable and effective way of editing this article without it jumping back and forth. Thank you for your consideration.

    Comments:

    • Please take a hard look at User:Jayjg's personal edit history. By in large, Jayjg doesn't create. He simply destroys. He purports himself to be an editing authority via his administrative powers, but I've never seen him help fix something that he says is broken. He simply deletes it and blocks those who fail to recognize his authority. In doing so, Jayjg has exceeded his authority as an administrator, and he has done so on dozens of occasions. I ask that his administrative powers be revoked. Thank you. --Zephram Stark 00:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I haven't looked at the diffs yet, but Zephram has spent the day revert-warring at Terrorism using sockpuppets and what looks like open proxies. The only reason he hasn't been reported for 3RR is we can't conclusively prove it's him. Furthermore, there is no consensus at all for his version, which consists entirely of original research and POV personal essays. He's being opposed on the talk page by Jayjg, Commodore Sloat, and myself, and no-one is supporting him. It's also nonsense that we've produced no arguments on talk or that Jay is using sockpuppets. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:01, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • The diffs don't show a 3RR violation. Jay deleted neologisms and original research at 16:44 Aug 22 (an edit, not a revert), then he reverted a sockpuppet at 19:39, reverted a suspected open proxy at 22:46, and reverted another open proxy at 23:14 — three reverts, not four. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:13, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Seeing as how SlimVirgin was one of the other users war-editing the definition—-reverting it back to an old definition as a sick form of punishment—-and breaking the 3RR rule herself in doing so, I think it's safe to discount everything she says. When we consider that her accused "sockpuppets" come from IPs all over the world, it's pretty easy to verify his lack of integrity in supporting Jayjg. --Zephram Stark 02:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • That's right. Anon IP addresses from all over the world just happened to converge today on Terrorism and all reverted to your preferred version. Neither Jayjg nor I violated 3RR and, FYI, I'm a she. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:13, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, jayjg, jpgordon and SlimVirgin hapen to "converge" a little too often, in the same articles and happen to coincide on POVs. It happened to me once and since they kept reverting my edits I rearned about 3RR the hard way since SlimVirgin blocked me. Others have noted that type of behavior (see/SlimVirginJayjgJpgordon). They often backup each other in their claims so in reality is a losing battle trying to get SlimVirgin to mediate in this issue, I would try to get a different admin not associated with any of the above mentioned. --Vizcarra 01:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you, I appreciate that. No need to apologize though: you couldn't have known. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:59, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
    As a group they are extremely effective in pushing pro Israeli POV - they often rope in Guy Montag to act as a stooge. My advice is -> get together with your pals and do likewise. They are admins - so learn from them - ape their behaviour. You will soon see your POV being pushed just as effectively. But it's pointless whineing because they act as an effective team and the people pushing your POV cant co-operate. They play within the rules - you need to work out how to do the same. 62.252.0.6 11:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

    User:64.109.248.118

    Three revert rule violation on List of ethnic groups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 64.109.248.118 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Mark1 04:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    blocked for 24 hours

    User:Irishpunktom

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

    Reported by: Jayjg (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Keep re-adding the phrase "noted for its tolerance, was a refuge for people fleeing oppression, such as Jews escaping etc.". Refused to engage in discussion on the Talk: page, or even use edit summaries for his reverts. Has been asked numerous times to revert himself [23] [24] [25]. Now, when faced with the prospect of 3RR blocking, has begun making small changes to the wording in order to "game" the 3RR rules, and has also suddenly decided that he wants to discuss the article content (though he still refuses to revert himself). Jayjg (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
      • The source of the conflict, as I understood it, was my inclusion of the Sufis, unsourced, which I have removed. Now Jayjg is changing his argument. It's hard to understand his problem when it changes. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:31, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
        • No, the source of the conflict was that you kept claiming that the country was was noted for its tolerance, and that is was a refuge for many groups, but only cited one. This has been explained several times. The problem now is that you have violated 3RR and insist on arguing article content, rather than simply reverting yourself. Jayjg (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

    141.154.249.110

    141.154.249.110 (talk · contribs)

    Reported by: Atlant 15:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

    blocked for 24 hoursGeni 00:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

    User:Gavin the Chosen 5

    Three revert rule violation on Therianthropy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gavin the Chosen (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Hipocrite 04:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    I've dealt with this and have reverted to the pre-3RR version at Therianthropy. I'll do the same at the other one. I haven't blocked him for it this time, but if it continues, I will. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:59, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, but how exactly is giving a warning to someone who had two 3RR violations here, not to mention all the ones aove, not to mention all the previous ones before that, at all a valid response? You promised to the 30 people on his RfC that you would be personally watching over him and block him if he got out of line at all (you had claimed even if he engaged in any personal insults, which he does constantly all the time with no repercussions), and what really has happened is that you've been far more lenient to him than you would be to a brand new editor off the street, let alone someone with such a notorious history here. If you aren't going to hold up your promises and take real action you should probably step aside and let other admins take over. DreamGuy 09:45, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    This is the reason [26] I didn't block him, and I'd made that decision before I saw this report. As for personal attacks, in future, post the diffs on my talk page. I do keep an eye on him, but I don't check every single edit he makes. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:06, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    I do not understand at all how you wanting to congratulate him on getting a job is a rationale for shirking your admin duties and going against your promises to block him immediately for any further offenses in the future as discussed on his RfC. I find it difficult to believe that you don't see his personal attacks considering that he made several of them on a revenge RfAr he filed against me under false pretenses, which you are supporting him on. It's quite clear that you've taken sides and that you are not fairly disciplining Gabriel when he violates rules like you promised. Another admin needs to step in and take over. DreamGuy 13:15, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    Be a mensch, DreamGuy. And please stop attacking everyone who doesn't agree with you as being biased against you. Aggressive responses are the reason Gavin has filed an RfAr and also the reason I've posted a third-party comment. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:28, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    I am not assuming everyone is biased against me, I am assuming that an admin who makes uncivil comments towards me, has threatened to block me for the same behavior she herself regularly does (removing comments added to own's one talk page) and did actually falsely block me for a 3RR violation that wasn't a violation in her zeal to get at me is biased. Your every action shows clear bias. As I suggested a month back already, when you have a personal conflict with an editor you need to step back and let other admins deal with it. Instead you have purposefully inserted yourself into any conflict anyone has with me to take their side. There's assuming good faith and then there's seeing clear evidence of bias that simply cannot be ignored. And if you think making highly uncivil remarks is going to prove that you don't have a bias, you have another thing coming.DreamGuy 13:39, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    You see? Here you go again. You were blocked for a clear 3RR violation, and the only reason I unblocked you was that one of the reverts was against what turned out to be a sockpuppet of a banned user. I used the same judgment in your favor that I used above in Gavin's favor. I have no personal conflict with you, and I'm not taking Gavin's side against you. On the contrary, I've blocked him four times since August 11. But it's also true that you fall out with almost every editor you encounter, and so I made a comment to that effect on Gavin's RfAr, as part of what you would otherwise call not "shirking [my] admin duties." This is my last response to you, by the way. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:56, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    I was blocked improperly for what you falsely claimed wsa a 3RR violation because you refused to look at it and other admins had to step in and tell you you were incorrect. Of course one of the reverts was against a banned user, almost all of the reverts on that article at that time were reverts of a banned user, as he was using four different sockpuppets, which was pointed out to you beforehand, and you triued to use my calling them sockpuppets as proof of being uncivil. HEck, you even label my not breaking 3RR later as proof that I am a bad editor, because you were complaining about that on the false RfAr the chronic problem user filed filed with your help. How can you claim you are not taking Gabriel's side when you refused to ban him for two clear genuine 3RRs after a long, long string of them just because you thought it was nice that he ought to be rewarded for getting a new job? You aren't even trying to come up with logical rationalizations for your failure to do what you promised or what you are expected to do as admin anymore. DreamGuy 15:11, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
    Pray tell, which of SlimVirgin's edits are uncivil? She certainly seems more civil than you. ~~ N (t/c) 14:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    You don't think "Be a mensch" counts as uncivil, as that's sitting right there? How is it uncivil for me to point out her violations of her promises in the Gabrielsimon RfC and that she threatened to ban me for no reason at all twice before she then followed it up with a false 3RR block that other admins had to step in and get her to undo? And I would think that the deceptions she has posted here are extremely uncivil. But then maybe I will have to go through and document everything she's done (should have kept her emails where she insisted I apologize to her and not try to bring any other admin in or else she would find a reason to block me... which is how the false 3RR block happened). DreamGuy 15:11, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
    Without getting involved in the above dispute, I concur that Gavin should be blocked. Would another admin be willing to do this? ~~ N (t/c) 13:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    I hope that no one does, Nickptar, because Ed and I agreed to keep an eye on Gavin, and there are a number of issues we take into account in deciding what to do. It's not an easy case, and while we don't want to be too soft, we don't want to be too harsh either. I had a chat today with another admin about the need for consistency in Gavin's case, and I take that on board. I'll make it clear to Gavin that yesterday was an exception and that he can't count on it happening again. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:56, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    I do think you're being too soft, and that a zero-tolerance policy is appropriate. But what the hey, maybe it'll help him if he feels less hated. Would you mind explaining your reasoning in this case, besides just wanting to give him a break? ~~ N (t/c) 14:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    He's starting a new job today, which matters a great deal to him, and these blocks upset him a lot. I therefore didn't want to upset him the night before his first day. I agree that a zero-tolerance policy is best, and I'll pursue it from now on as a general rule, but real life matters too, and in this instance, I prioritized his real life. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:09, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    Okey-dokey. ~~ N (t/c) 14:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    I'm not going to block, but for what it's worth I agree with Nickptar here. Our primary goal is creating an encyclopaedia, not mentoring people or helping them with their issues. Of course those are all useful tools for getting more and better editors, and as long as it doesn't cause problems it's the nice thing to do, but from what I'm seen the longer Gabriel/Gavin is blocked, the less wikistress and bad blood he creates, which in the long run makes wikipedia a lot better than the few good edits that he makes. If you want to mentor users that's laudable, but not at the cost of wikipedia. --fvw* 21:46, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    It's worth noting that before the 24 hours was up from the double 3RR warning on the articles in question, he reverted both of them yet again. Obviously he didn't take the warning seriously, because he didn't take the prior blocks for 3RR violations seriously either. 15:11, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Alibadawi

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

    Reported by: Shem(talk) 06:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Pigsonthewing

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

    Reported by: Joolz 17:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:TDC

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

    Reported by: 165.247.204.42 17:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • This user was recently warned by an Admin about violating the 3RR here. Review of her talk page and edit history indicate violating the 3RR might just be a hobby of hers. Her most recent Edit Summary taunts, "go a head do another 3RR" as if to challenge other editors to violate the 3RR as well. 165.247.204.42 17:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    3RR is fine for reverting simple vandalism, like the vandalism you have been performing on my talk page [27]. Shall we also point to your 15 RV's on day in another article [28]? TDC 18:08, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    BTW, why not just revert me again, its nok like the Admins can block you anyways. Should we begin to count the number of times you have violated the 3RR on this and other articles? We could, but unfortunately it would take half the page. TDC 18:18, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    Please don't confuse me with other editors. I am not the person editing your talk page, as anyone can tell by doing a simple IP trace. If you see editors violating the 3RR, please report them -- but it is not justification to violate the 3RR yourself. 165.247.204.42 18:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    So, are you so bold as to lie to everyone and say that you are not the same individual who reverted an article 15 times in one day, and that you are not the same user who has vandalizing my page, and that you are not the same user who has continually violated the 3RR rule on this and other pages? A simple IP trace has shown all of this. Or in your own words: Fortunately for Wikipedia, there are no restrictions on how often simple vandalism like yours may be reverted. Anyone that takes a moment can see your edits for what they are -- you aren't fooling anyone. You should take your own advice. 19:03, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    but what you were reverting does not fit under the defintion of simple vandalism. Further more of the 3 ips you listed the one who made the report came from earthlink, the vadalism came from AOL and the 15 reverts from Deutsche Telekom.Geni 19:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    I also checked the trace for you. You confuse my IP with one from AOL that originates in Virginia (an ISP I refuse to use, btw). It appears your list of admirers is growing. Stop the lies, TDC. And stop the 3RR violations while you are at it. 209.86.3.213 19:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    Actually, 2 of the users on the Hue article were involved in multiple RV, one from DT, and one from EarthLink [29], same as the anon who reported this. One [30] of the many vandals to my userpage is also an EarthLink user. TDC 19:30, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    Its nice to the the anon has broken the 3RR, again. TDC 19:53, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • I have blocked TDC for 24 hours for the 3RR violation. No one is exempt from the policy, and there seems to be no clear consensus on the article talk page. 165.247.204.42, please be careful not to violate the 3RR rule; I note that you reverted the page 3 times in less than 24 hours. A fourth revert would have made you violate the policy. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    I've blocked everyone for 24 hours reverted the page to the last version by ed poor (the last edit by someone not apprently involved in the current edit war) and protected it.Geni 20:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    I've unblocked 209.86.3.213; he has not violated 3RR. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    yes he has or do you seriously think there is no reltion between him and the other earthlink guy?
    As I asked TDC, is there a way to find out if the two IPs are linked? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    they are doing the same thing on the same article and come from the same ISP.Geni 21:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

    Gamaliel

    3RR violation at Rosemary Kennedy Page by Gamaliel. My wife is a new user, she has every right to work on this page as I do. User:Susanrd. She is alive and not a sock puppet. We share the same computer here.


    User:66.36.133.229

    Repeatedly vandalized the Hypnotize (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. He/she has refused to stop removing a sentence that says "The album was supposed to be called Mezmerize before rotating" and has been fond of claiming that it's false. It's not because there have been some reports early this year saying Mezmerize would be first before switiching sides. He/she has also nearly got me breaking the 3RR. I'm not the one who started this argument.

    His/her violations:

    Comments:

    • User would not to listen to me!

    Thanks for any help you may provide. -- Mike Garcia | talk 23:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

    That's only three reverts. --fvw* 23:25, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, but I am adding it just in-case he/she does it more than 3 times. -- Mike Garcia | talk 23:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    Hang on, hasn't Mike Garcia already violated the 3RR just now?? 66.36.133.229 23:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    No, I did not violate the 3RR yet. Just feel free answer me at talk page of Hypnotize to see how it feels if you would stop editing the article. -- Mike Garcia | talk 23:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    My mistake. I've already gone to the talk page but you're not answering me. 66.36.133.229 23:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    For what? You are the one whose being in the wrong right now and a disruption. All your bullshit is nothing but a spew of vandalism. -- Mike Garcia | talk 23:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

    User:Mike Garcia

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

    Reported by: 66.36.133.229 23:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Refuses to source his information, my deleting it "vandalism". Any help you can provide appreciated. Thanks!
      • Not a 3RR violation, there aren't 4 reverts in a single 24 hour period. Not a good situation though, could you two please try mediation or an RFC? Thanks. --fvw* 00:01, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • I DO NOT care what you want me to do, 66.36.133.229. And no, it was not misinformation. You are the one whose vandalizing the page, your edits are all bad. The Hypnotize article has now been locked up for you to stop it. -- Mike Garcia | talk 15:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

    User: 164.58.253.45

    Three revert rule violation on Rosemary Kennedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 164.58.253.45 (talk · contribs):

    • Also probably Susanrd (talk · contribs), who claims to be the wife of the IP and posts using the same computer. No mention of sons, daughters, neighbors, or the family dog who just happen to post from the same computer.

    Reported by: Calton | Talk 00:25, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

    Gamaliel already got it. The reverse DNS for that IP is filter1.onenet.net, and considering how quickly the Susanrd switched to it after being warned about the 3RR, could this be an open proxy? I can't find any proof of that though. --fvw* 00:31, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Chriss P.

    Three revert rule violation on User:Imdaking (edit | [[Talk:User:Imdaking|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chriss P. (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: ∞Who?¿? 05:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Theathenae

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

    Reported by: Friejose 18:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Theathenae has a history of pushing POV through (1) immediate reverting,[31] and (2) the use of a template, which is not directly related to an article's main thrust. The template has been previously discussed at length at Talk:Macedonian denar and its POV skew dissected.[32] User refuses to compromise or otherwise engage in constructive community building. – Friejose 18:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
    • He does indeed have such a history. He pushed his POV through immediate reverting on the Arvanites page. And when asked to prove what he was saying he wouldn't (or couldn't), he was just rude about it (mostly in Greek). I also suspect that there has been another violation of the 3RR as you can see at the bottom of the history page. REX 13:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

    User:bro aka User:172.148.137.250 aka User:172.154.204.2 aka User:172.135.239.51 aka User:172.149.162.30 aka User:172.152.87.228 etc.

    Egregious, willful and ongoing Three revert rule violation on 2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 172.148.137.250 (talk · contribs) aka 172.154.204.2 (talk · contribs) aka 172.135.239.51 (talk · contribs) aka 172.149.162.30 (talk · contribs) aka 172.152.87.228 (talk · contribs) (there are dozens more)

    Reverted to 20:11, 25 August 2005

    1st revert: 21:29, 25 August 2005

    2nd revert: 21:46, 25 August 2005

    3rd revert: 21:53, 25 August 2005

    4th revert: 22:04, 25 August 2005

    5th revert: 23:07, 25 August 2005

    6th revert: 23:44, 25 August 2005 edit comment: "whos trying to get around 3rr? certainly not I, I will continue to remove the section for reasons provided"

    7th revert: 00:03, 26 August 2005 edit comment: "providing reasons does not get around 3rr, and I never claimed they did. What they do do, is make me right, especially when they stand unanswered."

    8th revert: 00:23, 26 August 2005 edit comment: "rv, well, at least now some random people flock in"

    9th revert: 00:38, 26 August 2005

    10th revert: 00:48, 26 August 2005 edit comment: "I think the most humorous aspect of this has to be that -I- gave reasons for my edit, while none of these others have...oh well"

    11th revert: 01:00 26 August 2005

    12th revert: 01:22 26 August 2005

    13th revert: 02:06, 26 August 2005

    14th revert: 02:57 26 August 2005

    Reported by: RyanFreisling @ 03:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • This user, who steadfastly refuses to create an account, uses multiple IP's per hour, and has a history of aggressive trolling of the Talk:2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities page under dozens of IP addresses has today violated the 3RR on that article's page... instead of resolving the issues, this user repeatedly blanked content he finds objectionable, in a classic example of bad faith.
    It is worth mentioning that he has until recently refused to participate as an editor on articles of a 'controversial nature':
    "If you are asking me to cite links for this or that, I tried to make it clear that I was unwilling to edit this (and other equally controversial topics) and to offer suggestions to those that -are-." -bro 172.139.207.115 6 July 2005 09:19 (UTC)
    " I've relegated myself to talk for any controversial article, thats just the reality and it will stay that way." -bro 172.150.234.103 02:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    Apparently, his policy has changed - and this 3RR violation represents his second verifiable substantive contribution to the article. An inauspicious start, to be sure. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    A bit of circumstantial evidence. Anon-AOL user 'bro' last accessed the article August 9 [33], after which there was no activity on the page until this user appeared on August 18 [34] and picked up a number of issues 'bro' was discussing (palast, commondreams, etc.) [35]. Bro has thus far not re-appeared. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    Actually, a quick readthrough of the talk page shows that this "bro" first commented on July 5th. My first comment there was August 5th. Sheesh, getting my date wrong is at least understandable, but "bro" even signs his comments with that name, and you were even in discussion with him on that. [36] 172.152.87.228 08:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

    This seems to be a good summary of what I am dealing with, I am not any user named bro, I never made the statements quoted. Misattribution, ignoring whats said seems to be this users MO. 172.161.129.54 03:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

    You are welcome to your opinion, I will let the admins decide if the content I added warranted your repeated blanking without good faith attempts to discuss. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    Yet, you are not entitled to misattribute quotes. And yes, they can do what they wish. The obvious lack of response to the reasons given in the edit summaries say more than I need to. 172.157.101.186 03:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    Since you constantly change IP's, you could as equally claim that your last two posts were by separate users... insisting you are not the same user as 'bro' (a claim I find highly dubious) is one thing - but your 3RR vio (all under the same IP) speaks for itself. Your comments in edit summaries do not constitute an attempt to discuss - you deleted the content outright before making any attempt. That's not the wiki way. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    Yet another example of this user's operating procedure. I did not dispute the reverts. And, yes, I am every anon dialup user that uses AOL and edits wikipedia, every single one. My edit summaries and your lack of response stand on their own, I need not say more. 172.149.162.30 03:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    And avoiding accountability is yours. Create an account and take responsibility for your reverts and your behavior alike. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    An account is not required, and I do not wish to make one. Pretty simple. 172.149.162.30 03:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

    My two cents: I haven't had any dealings with someone who identified themself as "bro," so I can't be sure if anon-AOL is the same person. I am pretty confident that at least the two latest versions (viz. 172.149.162.30 and 172.154.204.2) are the same person. I further suspect that the user does not create an account specifically to avoid accountability. Creating an account would certainly be a good-faith gesture that anon-AOL wants to resolve things amicably. LizardWizard 04:57, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

    Yes, those two IP's were me. 172.149.162.30 05:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    At this point, LizardWizard and I have both used our 3 reverts for the day in dealing with this ongoing, bad faith 3RR violation. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    I have violated the rule. But the bad faith is in your actions by reverting without responding to the reasons provided. 172.149.162.30 05:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    Outright deletion (especially of new, cited content) is bad faith. You should leave the content in, and discuss in talk. You do not have unilateral right to remove content eight (and counting) times, though 2 other editors at least want it in, without discussing it first on 'talk'. Your edit comments claimed the source was not noteworthy, and the piece not reflective of the section - both of which we can discuss on 'talk' before you decide in violation of the rules to continually blank those sections outright. For what it is worth, I find both those claims spurious.
    Good faith for you (once your coming block expires) would begin at creating an account to demonstrate your desire for accountability, and then working out the issues on Talk BEFORE you blank them over and over. I would welcome it, but I admit I am skeptical that you will do so. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    Outright deletion (especially of new, cited content) is bad faith. This is, of course, wrong. You do not have unilateral right to remove content This too, is of course, wrong. both of which we can discuss on talk Which you haven't done. The rest is ad hom, and par for the course.
    I'll say it clearly one last time. 10 repeated outright deletions of new, cited content, without discussing it FIRST on talk is bad faith on the part of the deleter. That's you. And there is zero ad hominem in my post. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    Ok, sure, one last time. I've given my reasons, yet you, have not. Thus, bad faith is again, in your actions. 172.149.162.30 05:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    There are no valid reasons for breaking 3RR. And I have indeed given my response. Your edit comments do not nearly suffice to justify the original deletion, nor the 10 that have followed. Enjoy your upcoming wiki vacation. -- RyanFreisling @ 06:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    Sigh, the reasons I mentioned above, are in reference to those that you continue to ignore. If they do not "suffice to justify" it, then say why, you have not. 172.152.87.228 07:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Blocked for 3RR. Except for User:bro since there is no such user. Radiant_>|< 11:29, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
    Least you did the effort...but he/she logs back in after a minute and presto, new IP. Unless, and that would be ridiculous, you block the entire range.--MONGO 11:32, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
    As the AOL anon user himself says:
    As I am sure you know, blocking those IPs is rather useless. But, carry on. 172.138.13.214 18:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC) [37]
    It remains to be seen if this user takes responsibility for this post, which in my opinion directly validates the underlying concern - that the user is intentionally hiding behind the anonymity provided by AOL dialup in order to disrupt this part of the Wikipedia. -- RyanFreisling @ 18:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    Inded, twas I. And it is a simple statement of fact, though I understand you don't much like those... 172.148.137.72 22:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

    User:68.162.183.15

    Three revert rule violation on Circumcision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.162.183.15 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Jakew 10:52, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Several earlier edits were also partial reverts. - Jakew 10:53, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Xed

    Three revert rule violation on FilePile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Xed (talk · contribs) has engaged in multiple reverts over weeks, but now hit the five-in-a-day mark during the renewed VfD for this article. Given what can only be called the circus surrounding the first VfD, and the attempt to have a calmer, more rational VfD this time around, the reverts seem particularly egregious. (And most of the edits have had justifications posted on the Talk page or in edit summaries, but are still reverted away).

    Reported by: Jason t c 16:26, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • I see only 3 reversions of the same version. Dozens of anonymous users and "new" users are defacing the article. - Xed 17:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I have been monitoring the article and discussion for several days now, and that does not appear to be the case. We have had good discussion and consensus (except for one user) that it is not appropriate to post screenshots and other information which cannot be verified. A RfC was done to insure a wider range of discussion, and that has worked well. --tranquileye 17:26:16, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
        • tranquileye is one of the many FilePile users making disingenuous edits to the article, and attempting to have it removed. See the FilePile talk page. - Xed 17:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
          • I will once more ask you to please stop making personal attacks against me and others with whom you disagree. I am attempting to behave in good faith, and would hope the same from you. --tranquileye 17:36:30, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
            • how is that a personal attack? is any of it untrue? - Xed 17:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
              • You know you cannot prove I am involved with this Web site, yet you continually make the accusation in an attempt to discredit me. And whether or not I am a member is not material to the notability or verifiability of information about the Web site. --tranquileye 17:53:18, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
                • Your response confuses me. A simple google search shows you are a member. - Xed 18:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
                  • Please, stop calling me a liar when you cannot provide proof. --tranquileye 18:08:33, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
                • This is silly. I just blocked Xed for 3RR and now I have to do it again. Understand this: it doesn't matter if you are right or not. Edit warring is always wrong and always harmful, and even if you think your own view is right (which everyone does), an edit war is not the solution. Blocked (yet again). Dmcdevit·t 18:40, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

    User:71.133.246.254

    Three revert rule violation on Cindy Sheehan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.133.246.254 (talk · contribs):

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert: 09:37, 26 August 2005 71.133.246.254
    • 2nd revert: 09:40, 26 August 2005 71.133.246.254
    • 3rd revert: 09:41, 26 August 2005 71.133.246.254
    • 4th revert: 09:43, 26 August 2005 71.133.246.254

    Reported by: Kyle Andrew Brown 17:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: Numerous ongoing vandalism.

    Please provide diffs so admins can investigate. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

    User:Khaim

    Three revert rule violation on Magic: The Gathering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Khaim (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Netoholic @ 18:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • One can see from his comments like "Two can play at this game", etc. that Khaim is determined to aggressively take over the article. He's made a couple dozen edits over the course of one day, with almost no previous history of editing the article. -- Netoholic @ 18:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

    User:68.35.229.38 (Sean Howard) (second incident)

    Three revert rule violation on Sean_Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.35.229.38 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Spinn2 20:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: Second 3RR report on this user (first in archive). In previous 3RR activity, reverted other people's edits of his text and told them they should discuss before changing it; in this activity, he's removing other people's edits without discussion. Also abusive and accusatory on the talk page over others' motivations for trying to write a good article.

    Blocked for 24 hours. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

    User:Onefortyone

    Three revert rule violation on Gavin Lambert.

    Onefortyone (talk · contribs):

    User:Onefortyone is a single topic editor who for months has been trying to insert the words homosexual and gay in Elvis Presley, Nick Adams and Natalie Wood as much as syntactically possible. Most (if not all) of his assertions have been thoroughly researched and discredited. Gavin Lambert is a source he cites. He has been consistently refusing to edit by consensus, repeating the same arguments ad nauseum and editing by revert and attrition. RfC may be the only way to a permanent solution but meanwhile he has violated 3rr as above (there are minor variations in 2 or 3 of these edits to distract anyone trying to figure it out but all six show identically reverted text).

    Reported by: Wyss 00:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    The problem is that there is an edit war going on. I have only reinstated what my opponents, User:Wyss and User:Ted Wilkes repeatedly deleted. Significantly, they are working together in removing my contributions. See [38] [39] [40]. It seems as if it is their constant aim to delete my contributions and denigrate the many independent sources which I frequently cite. See, for instance, [41] and [42]. Onefortyone 01:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

    Hmmm... working together... I think that's a part of WP policy which sometimes can even lead to consensus :) Wyss 01:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

    Did you mention that Ted Wilkes has already been warned by administrator User:Mel Etitis? See [43].Onefortyone 01:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

    I've blocked Onefortyone for twenty-four hours for the violation. I do agree, though, that User:Ted Wilkes seems to be pushing his PoV at least as avidly, and with less cvility and self-control; I've just blocked him for three hours for repeatedly removing an unobjectionable heading on Talk:Elvis Presley, despite being warned. User:Wyss is the best-behaved of the three, but has also been involved in the PoV war, and has got carried away at times.

    I wish that other editors would take a look at this mess, which sprawls over a number of articles, and involves OneFortyOne pushing his PoV on one side, and Ted Wilkes and Wyss pushing theirs on the other. Neither side is interested in consensus, except in so far as Wilkes & Wyss seem to think that the fact that they agree with each other constitutes consensus, and is grounds for deleting all OneFortyOne's edits. It's not edifying, and it isn't good for Wikipedia in general or the articles in particular. At least one article – Elvis Presley – has had to be protected, and that could extend to others if something isn't done. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

    In truth I do wholly agree with Mel's actions, however the consensus involves five editors, not two and 141's sources have been thoroughly discredited as either "made-up" or sloppily researched tabloid material. IMO 141's only objective has been to sell a book and Ted Wilkes has been needlessly confrontational and unwilling to compromise, which has extended the problem substantially. I'm considering taking all of this to RfC, but haven't made up my mind yet. Wyss 16:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

    User:Rms125a@hotmail.com

    Three revert rule violation on Cahal Cardinal Daly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Demiurge 21:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Demiurge 21:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I blocked the main user though from this history it looks like he might have smelly socks. Sasquatch讲看 18:12, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

    User:MarkSweep

    Three revert rule violation on User talk:24.94.88.236 by MarkSweep (talk · contribs):

    Evidence:

    Good one! The anon likes to remove goodies such as {{test4}} from his talk page. At least three other editors, myself included, have problems with that. I wonder why. --MarkSweep✍ 01:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

    Anons don't "own" their talk pages in the same way that registered users do. Mark was replacing warnings left to an anon user that the anon had deleted and replaced with personal attacks. This is standard procedure and not a 3RR violation. SWAdair | Talk 01:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
    Agreed, removing a removal of notices from or the blanking of an IP's talk page (or removing noticeds from a indef. banned's userpage without a good reason) falls under simple vandalism and doesn't really fall under 3RR. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 04:58, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

    mark-sweep is ALWAYS right... "I wonder why"

    User:2004-12-29T22:45Z

    Three revert rule violation on Encyclopædia Dramatica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by 2004-12-29T22:45Z (talk · contribs):

    • Previous version reverted to (this goes back much further than 24 hours, but this is within 24 hours: [46]
    • 1st revert: [47]
    • 2nd revert: [48]
    • 3rd revert: [49]
    • 4th revert: [50]
    • and on and on, it goes back even further, still within 24 hours. [51]

    Reported by: SchmuckyTheCat 17:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:SchmuckyTheCat

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

    Reported by: 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:36, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User:SchmuckyTheCat deletes information that is relevant to the article and to the context of the article and keeps reverting to the version that has that information deleted and that has a quote with an incorrect spelling. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:36, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yup, absolutely I have reverted these changes repeatedly. Users with a grudge against the website that the article is about come to Wikipedia and insert personal information such as the employer of the dude who appears on the whois. That is nothing more than vandalism. In the interest of NPOV, there is plenty of information there about what generates conflict on this site that I have left intact. Sometimes these h8ers cross the line and I will revert that mercilessly. SchmuckyTheCat 19:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Um, what's there that isn't already public info (Google search) based on info Sherrod posted to the Internet himself? --carlb 18:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I am not involved in the edit of this article, and I know nothing about the conflicts around it. My comment is entirely based on my past experience. If I recall correctly this is not the first time which user:SchmuckyTheCat risks her/himself to 3RR violation so as to report another user to this page to get her/him blocked. In my opinion she/he should have sought administrator actions after the 3rd revert. — Instantnood 19:36, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
    I've got more respect for you than that 'nood. I've never called your edits vandalism, nor have I ever gone to 3RR in my edits with you even at the most heated. This is entirely different. SchmuckyTheCat 20:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
    • First of all, I don't grudge against the Web site. Secondly, the Web site was created as a result of grudges against Wikipedia, and that should be mentioned on the article, because it's part of the Web site's story. Third, I do not "come to Wikipedia". I was here before editing on the article. Then, SchmuckyTheCat complains about my supposed vandalism when he removes information that is public and relevant to the article. Next thing, the personal information is not the personal information of "the employer of the dude" but of "the dude" himself, and "the dude" is not any "dude" but the founder of the Web site, and that is relevant to the article. Besides, SchmuckyTheCat keeps reverting to a version that has mistakes because it mentions the founder as being "aka as DeGrippo", when DeGrippo is in reality the founder's real last name, and when he has a first name too (Sherrod), not just a last name. The personal information is relevant to the article because it shows that "the dude" is not just a "dude", but a computer expert who has worked for important organizations, and that's why he knows how to create a wiki with MediaWiki by himself. And, in addition, the version SchmuckyTheCat keeps reverting to is a version that has a misquote of a comment by the founder, despite the fact that I have already mentioned the misquote before. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 20:19, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

    User:85.181.21.107

    Three revert rule violation on Thailand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 85.181.21.107 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Mark1 03:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User was warned on his talk page. I got carried away and reverted his fourth revert, for which my apologies- I've reverted back to his version. It would be nice if someone could rv to the previous pre-3RR vio version. Mark1 03:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

    User:Nixer

    Three revert rule violation on Allies of World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nixer (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: --Wojsyl (talk) 09:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User:Nixer has been warned (but not reported) after his 5th revert both on his talk page and in the edit caption but persisted with further reverts.
      • Blocked for twelve hours. Please keep WP:CIV in mind on the talk page, it's much easier not to get sucked into a revert war when everyone is being polite. --fvw* 11:56, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

    Nightbeast

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

    Reported by:--Witkacy 16:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

    Blocked for 12 hours. --Merovingian (t) (c) 17:00, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
    Careless mistake. That were NOT four reverts to a previous state if you check them. And also the rule clearly states that 3RR violations are acceptable if they follow the rule added by administrator Gabbe, Monsieur Merovingan. Ever had a look at the talk page??213.6.40.106 17:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
    I've checked the history, and you have indeed broken the rule, by re-adding {{Talk:Gdansk/Vote/Notice}} four times. --Merovingian (t) (c) 17:18, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
    So wasn't it correct? What were the stated reasons for its deletion? Who added the tag? A user or an administrator who certainly knows the rules? Who deleted it? A user who gave no reasons for its deletion or an administrator? Yes, Witkacy *happened to* gloss over some *details* when he aimed at harming me. Unexplained Avoidance vandalism and breaking of the 3RR in connection to readding a notice that clearly states the 3RR is not applied in my case and it should be enough not to ban an experienced User without warning him before that.213.6.40.106 17:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
    Unblocked. The template in question allows an exception to the 3RR for consensus-related changes, which it seems Nightbeast was trying to perform. --Merovingian (t) (c) 17:36, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
    The only exception to the 3RR is vandalism. (the information on the template is not official policy on Wikipedia)--Witkacy 17:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
    There was no vandalism. Nightbeast was adding a relevant template, and you were removing it. --Merovingian (t) (c) 18:01, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
    There was no vandalism but 3rr violation by Nightbeast. (and since the outcome of the Gdansk vote was no consensus and the only exception of the 3rr is reverting of vandalism, the template is irrelevant)--Witkacy 18:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
    The template itself stated the terms of what constituted a blockable offense, and what didn't. Whether it was relevant or not, it is an extension of the official rules. --Merovingian (t) (c) 18:31, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
    "reverts to conform with community consensus are *not* excluded from 3RR, and reverts against consensus are content dispute, not vandalism - according to the dispute resolution process" [57] (and there was not even a consensus...)--Witkacy 19:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
    According to the official policy, Nightbeast broke the 3rr rule.--Witkacy 19:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
    But not according to Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice. --Merovingian (t) (c) 19:14, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
    So the official policy is less important than the template...?--Witkacy 21:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
    Please also note Nightbeast's block evasion and that he offending other people (after he was blocked)--Witkacy 21:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

    Nightbeast2

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

    Reported by:--Witkacy 00:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    The first is not a revert but a simple removal of one category after discussion on my talk page, where I agreed on the link but not to the category. And I can't see the first violation of the rule except for avoidance vandalism of yours. And for your information, I've forwarded the dispute to Wikipedia:Third opinion as part of the dispute resolution. What did you do at that time? You forwarded the dispute to the Polish Wikipedian noticeboard.NightBeAsT 00:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
    It is a revert, you removed the category the first time on 02:05, 29 August 2005 [62]--Witkacy 00:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
    According to that interpretation of the rule, this case would be a 3RR violation: some user removed the sentence "Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content." A year later another user added in his first edit "Please don't violate Wikipedia rules" -> Revert of the partial state where the sentence included "Please". The user was not happy yet. His next edit made "don't" to "do not" -> Revert of the partial state where the sentence included "do not". Then the user wanted to be more precise and altered the sentence to "Please do not blank pages" -> "Revert of the partial state "blank"". In the end the user looked at the version history and found a much better sentence "Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content" and restored the sentence -> Revert of the partial states "replace", "Wikipedia pages with blank content. Were these 4 reverts? Anyway, I didn't get it myself and should sleep over it. Let's wait for a third opinion on the article. Good night, Witkacy, and dream of your sweet revenge and world domination of the propaganda article Anti-Polonism :þNightBeAsT 01:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
    The 3rr is clear: Don't revert any single page more than three times within a period of 24 hours - you did it twice today.--Witkacy 01:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

    Report new violation

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive9&oldid=22216273"