Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 485: Line 485:


:nearly a month old. I fail to see what good a block would do.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 05:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
:nearly a month old. I fail to see what good a block would do.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 05:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
::Concur. These reports of edits from weeks ago are pointless. —[[User:Cleared as filed|Cleared as filed.]] 05:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


== Report new violation ==
== Report new violation ==

Revision as of 05:11, 22 November 2005

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Click here to create a new report


    Violations

    User:Remington and the Rattlesnakes

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

    Remington and the Rattlesnakes (talk · contribs):

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

    Comments:

    • User refuses to provide a source for his edits, despite numerous requests in edit summaries and on the talk page. I was asked to block him for 3RR on this same article yesterday; he has returned to make the same exact reverts today. Since I am now involved in editing the article, I am not blocking him myself. android79 19:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    • NB, this user was blocked by Hall Monitor for this violation. android79 02:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:William M. Connolley

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

    William M. Connolley (talk · contribs):

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

    Comments:

    User:Pigsonthewing

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

    Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs):

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

    Comments:

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

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

    User:69.253.195.228

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

    69.253.195.228 (talk · contribs):

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

    Comments:

    User:207.62.70.122

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

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

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

    List of reverts:

    All of the abovereverts were done on November 16th.

    • Revert 8 on 12:37, November 21 [8]


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

    Comments

    • Are there any admins in particular that have the ability to do this? At the moment the latino article is protected in part to stop the actions of this user, and we hope to have it unprotected so we can continue working on the article. We cannot do this, however, unless this user is blocked. Thanks in advance for any response. Cowman 20:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The user has come back to editing the wikipedia article and has been reverted again - we seriously need this person blocked, and as their ip range constantly changes it's impossible to communicate with them.

    User:William M. Connolley 2

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

    William M. Connolley (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: SEWilco 05:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User has a requirement that "Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate". Violations of this order should be treated as WP:3RR violations. (SEWilco 05:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC))
    • That was nearly THREE DAYS ago. Why bring it up now, especially since it dates from BEFORE your last report on him above? --Calton | Talk 05:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Your phrasing sounds as if you're upset that nobody noticed it eariler; is there a parole officer watching? It is after the parole began, and the report format calls for one situation per report. (SEWilco 06:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC))
        • I'm not upset, you're the one doing the petty tattletaling: your reporting, done AFTER he's already been blocked for a similiar offense, is clearly a bad-faith attempt to gain some small advantage in your continuing war with Connolly. If you were sincere, you would have brought it up at the time it happened or would have let his recent block suffice, instead of keeping it up your sleeve to pull out at your convenience. As an admin said just above about a different user, This wasn't a ban, but a temporary block for 3RR/disruption. As such it's only purpose is as an "electric fence". If we can be sure that it won't continue, a block is unnecessary...
        • If you want petty revenge, you should have the guts to do it yourself instead of relying on admins to do your dirty work. --Calton | Talk 13:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
          • A block for one violation has nothing to do with another violation. There was a ruling months ago of his behavior, does it appear that it is not continuing? Which admins have been enforcing his parole? (SEWilco 03:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC))

    This appears to be petty trolling by SEW. Please view the discussion over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Admin_enforcement_requested#William_M._Connolley.27s_parole_-_enforcement where similar tedious complaints have been rejected. William M. Connolley 13:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC).

    On the one hand, this revert by Connolley was clearly reasonable: the thing he was reverting was irredeemably POV and stupid. It was a complmetely uncontroversial revert. On the other hand, the terms of Connolley's parole are pretty clear. So William, how about next time you revert something similar you avoid the issue completely by simply dropping a note on the talk page? This would take all of 2 minutes and would make everyone's life easier. OK? Nandesuka 14:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    We seem to have a problem here. Nandesuka, after making the above comment about the letter of the law, applied a block on WMC. The problem is that #1 he didn't record that block here as would seem to be required, and #2 the block comment referred to a (Revert on Kyoto Protocol without accompanying discussion on Talk: page.) which was obviously not the case here. Thus, as Nandesuka has not followed the rules here, it would seem that his block was applied rashly and without proper consideration of the discussion here or the whole picture. I hereby request that Nandesuka unblock WMC and explain his rash behavior here. I would like comments from other admins on this case as well. Vsmith 23:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    What in the world gives you the idea that an admin blocking a user for violating his parole requires a comment here? WP:3RR indicates that this page is intended for users to bring 3RR violations to the attention of admins. It does not indicate that admins who notice 3RR violations occurring on pages they are not involved in editing may not enforce the rule. However, since you're asking, I didn't block WMC for this violation. I blocked him for a subsequent violation. That violation was for a revert on a climate-related page - Kyoto Protocol -- with no accompanying explanation on the talk page.[9] The subtle hint that this was the case would be the block comment that said "Revert on Kyoto Protocol without accompanying discussion on talk page." Next time, you could try asking on my talk page before throwing around inaccurate observations and words like "rash". One might even describe throwing around such accusations before gathering the facts as "rash." Nandesuka 13:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

    As a random passer-by, I agree with Calton that it is unecessary to take action in this case, given that this occured previous to a violation that William was already blocked for. It does seem petty. It is, however, against the letter of William's revert requirements, which, as Nandesuka notes, shouldn't take a great deal of effort to follow. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 15:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

    WMC is aware of the terms of his parole and has chosen to ignore them when he judges they are "unreasonably burdensome". [10] (SEWilco 16:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC))

    User:Gibraltarian

    Take 1

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

    Gibraltarian (talk · contribs):

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

    Comments:

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

    Take 1

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

    Gibraltarian (talk · contribs):

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

    Comments:

    User:Bright888

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

    Bright888 (talk · contribs):

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

    Comments:

    User: 165.247.213.84

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

    165.247.213.84 (talk · contribs):

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

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

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

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

    User:Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC

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

    Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC (talk · contribs):

    04:04, November 17, 2005

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

    Comments:

    User:24.55.228.56

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

    24.55.228.56 (talk · contribs):

    07:20, November 17, 2005

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

    Comments:


    User:81.153.41.72

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

    81.153.41.72 (talk · contribs)

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

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

    User:William M. Connolley 3

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

    William M. Connolley (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: SEWilco 05:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User did not supply adequate talk page comment (user last edited Talk page 10:27, 20 October 2005). New violation on same article as above a few days ago.[14] User has a requirement that "Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate". Violations of this order should be treated as WP:3RR violations. (SEWilco 05:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC))
      • In the first place, I already blocked him for this. In the second place, how about you take a break from running to this page first thing, and instead try to come to consensus with him and the other editors of the page? Thanks. Nandesuka 05:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
        • This is a new violation which took place on the same page. The issue here is the parole and not the page; for how many pages do you want examples of violations? I am talking with another editor on this article's Talk page, but WMC did not edit Talk at all and not even try to meet his parole requirements for Talk usage. (SEWilco 16:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC))
          • If you look at the Kyoto page, you'll see plenty of discussion (including from me), but rather little of it by SEW. The problem we're trying to sort out is the reference format; SEW has reverted multiple times with no attempt to talk. William M. Connolley 22:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC).
            • If you look at the Kyoto page history, you'll see the parole violations which here are reported. If you find other violations please report them. (SEWilco 03:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC))

    User:Dbachmann

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

    Dbachmann (talk · contribs):

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

    Comments:

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

    User:William M. Connolley 4

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

    William M. Connolley (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: SEWilco 04:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User did not supply adequate talk page comment. User has a requirement that "Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate". Violations of this order should be treated as WP:3RR violations. (SEWilco 04:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC))
    • In addition to the 4 violations of mandatory Talk usage, an additional parole violation took place when "2nd revert" was done less than 24 hours after "1st revert". (SEWilco 04:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC))

    This appears to be petty trolling by SEW. Please view the discussion over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Admin_enforcement_requested#William_M._Connolley.27s_parole_-_enforcement where similar tedious complaints have been rejected. Asking for enforcement of a month-old problem seems desperate even by SEW standards.

    Note that the specific edits listed above were listed over at the arbcomm enforcement page; those requests have been implicitly rejected in that none of the arbcomm considered them even worth replying to. William M. Connolley 21:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC).

    • These postings amount to double or triple jeopardy. Regardless of whether these would have amounted to violations, they occurred prior to the two blocks. The 3RR is meant to rein in behaviour, it is not meant to punish. In addition, the ArbComm decision was meant to stop the kind of behaviour that SEW is engaging in - reverting without providing adequate explanations on Talk. Very much a case of pot calling kettle black. Guettarda 22:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
      • These postings amount to reporting events where the user violated their parole. This is not a 3RR, although violations are to be treated as such. Attacking the messenger does not change that violations took place; please search yourself for violations. (SEWilco 02:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC))
        • You are wrong there. If they are to be "treated as" 3RR violations, then they are to be treated the same as 3rr violations. "Attacking the messenger" is in place when you are on a vendetta. The arbcomm refused to acknowledge your calls for action on these same things, and you keep spamming every available forum. This is totally over the line. Guettarda 16:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:Andrew Alexander

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

    Andrew Alexander (talk · contribs):

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

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

    User:William M. Connolley 5

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

    William M. Connolley (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: SEWilco 04:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User did not supply adequate talk page comment. User has a requirement that "Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate". Violations of this order should be treated as WP:3RR violations. (SEWilco 04:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC))
    Blocked 24 hours for parole violation. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 07:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


    User:William M. Connolley 6

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

    William M. Connolley (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: SEWilco 04:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User did not supply adequate talk page comment. User has a requirement that "Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate". Violations of this order should be treated as WP:3RR violations. (SEWilco 04:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC))
    Blocked 24 hours for parole violation. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 07:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

    I'm pasting in this, from my talk page (William M. Connolley 21:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)), since I think its relevant:

    I have unblocked you since I was not aware of the full facts on the issue when I implemented the block. I apologize for any difficulty this may have caused. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 21:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

    You fell for SEWilco's Jihad. WMC is a valuable and expert contributor. By far the majority of his edits are well-reasoned and give a reason either on talk or in the edit summary. He occasionally violates the exact terms of the parole by using the summary instead of talk, or by not repeating an argument ad infinitum. But there are no substantial problems with his behaviour at all. Moreover, he has in the last few days repeatedly been blocked for "violations" reported by SEWilco, who is, in my opinion, is misusing the system by digging for ancient examples and presenting them one by one, in effect leading to a near-permanent block of a valuable contributor. Please note I have asked to have the Arbcom case reopened and the parole removed. In the meantime, please consider carefully if you really think another block is necessary for ancient "violations". --Stephan Schulz 10:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
    Don't attack the messenger. I found violations because they exist and because I looked; are you monitoring his parole? Please help monitor his long-neglected and long-ignored parole. WMC is generally a good contributor but he also is on parole due to times when he is not. (SEWilco 15:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC))
    Don't attack the messenger? You are waging a vendetta against WMC. The arbcomm refused to act on this. Nandesuka did fall for your line and blocked WMC. These are not new violations. This is ridiculous. Guettarda 15:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
    The ArbComm banned two other users and put WMC on parole. WMC is violating his parole. These are new reports of violations of his parole. WMC has not been following the terms of his parole, please help enforce his parole terms. His edit history is available to you, although not all his reversions are labeled as such. (SEWilco 16:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC))
    Can I make an unwelcome contribution here? The diffs cited above are plainly violations of the ArbCom remedy. I do not think there is any doubt about that. There is nothing in the remedy about having to aggregate edits for this purpose, and so a 24 hour block is appropriate in each case, successively. However, I am personally reluctant to apply to such a block so long after the event. ArbCom remedies are intended to fix a problem rather than to outright punish the editor(s) causing the problems. Clearly, remedies are intended as deterrents and deterrents aren't much good if they aren't used. However, I think the balance of application here is upon recent edits rather than old ones, since the effect of any deterrent now would be solely punitive rather than remedial. If there is a diff, even a single one, from the last 24 hours (since we're supposed to treat this like the 3RR, for some mystical reason) then a block is entirely appropriate. That said, it appears Jtkiefer has already blocked for this violation, and I am not minded to lift the block early. -Splashtalk 16:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
    The above violations (except for part of one sequence of rvs) took place after the user was recently reminded of the terms of his parole, and he chose to continue to ignore them. The ArbComm decision was his warning, which he may have obeyed for 3 weeks. (SEWilco 16:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC))
    I'm aware of that. But I still do not think that issuing extremely retroactive punitive blocks is useful, for anyone. Find something recent — like yesterday, or when WMC returns from the present block, and you'll be onto a winner. -Splashtalk 17:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
    You forgot to mention (1) that while the other two users were banned (one from certian articles, one totally), there were findings of fact in the arbcomm case against them, but none against WMC, (2) that you escaped sanction in the case by the skin of your teeth, (3) that the ArbComm did not act on your calls before, and (4) "treated like a 3rr violation" should be interpreted literally (we don't block 2-week old 3rr violations). Guettarda 16:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
    The ArbComm issued remedies. Two users left Wikipedia after them, while WMC ignores his. There apparently hasn't been someone enforcing his parole, can you help? (SEWilco 16:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC))
    For the record, I did not "fall for [SEWilco's] line." I blocked WMC independently because of a recent parole violation before SEWilco posted it here. Just because SEWilco is acting like a spoiled child, in my opinion, does not mean that anyone with whom he disagrees with is automatically as pure as the driven snow. By my reading, WMC has a trivial way to avoid blocks for violating his parole: don't violate the parole. As before, I urge him to strictly comply with the terms of his parole, and simply not give SEWilco anything (legitimate) to complain about. Nandesuka 16:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
    Well, it looked like that from where you posted it. What violation did you block for then? Guettarda 16:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
    [15]. If SEWilco reported it after the fact, that's not my problem. Nandesuka 17:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
    Is there a Wikipedia feature which allows reporting before the fact? (SEWilco 17:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC))

    User:William M. Connolley 7

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

    William M. Connolley (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: SEWilco 16:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User did not supply adequate talk page comment. User has a requirement that "Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate". Violations of this order should be treated as WP:3RR violations. (SEWilco 16:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC))
    See above discussion and this before acting rashly. Also note that this is more than two weeks old and that there is a convincing edit summary that satisfies at least me. --Stephan Schulz 16:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
    Edit summaries were discussed in the ArbComm case. Parole requires talk page comments. See edit summary of #William M. Connolley 8: "rv to Orzetto". (SEWilco 17:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC))

    User:William M. Connolley 8

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

    William M. Connolley (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: SEWilco 17:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User did not supply adequate talk page comment. Violation on same page as preceding #User:William M. Connolley 7 User has a requirement that "Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate". Violations of this order should be treated as WP:3RR violations. (SEWilco 17:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC))
      • May I suggest you stop spamming this page with violations that are not actually 3RR violations. I think you have demonstrated amply that there is a problem. The ideal forum appears to me to be the requests for clarification page on WP:RFAR. Thank you. [[Sam Korn]] 17:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
    • This was posted there, and the ArbComm declined to comment on it. Guettarda 17:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
      • No, there was no request for clarification. Some people ignore the meaning of "must" but have not asked for clarification of the remedy. (SEWilco 17:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC))
        • SEWilco, I'd like you to take all of these old violations — by which I mean "any violation that happened in the past, including those you haven't yet posted yet" — and wrap them up into one (singular, one, uno, une, ichi) report on this page. Posting a "new" 3RR violation for things that happened weeks ago is, in my opinion, disruptive. Please stop now. Nandesuka 18:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
          • There are so many violations I may miss some, particularly ones not labeled as rv. And it takes a while to create each entry in this format, so others may be duplicating the effort in the meantime. I also have been reporting violatiosn slowly so as to avoid flooding this page with his many violations. (SEWilco 18:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC))
    The fact that this way you may a) extend the total time of bans and b) manage to sneak things to new admins who only look at recent edits never crossed your mind? Anyways, if you think it is so important to report all "violations", its only fair that you do the work, and not burden everybody else. It should be easy to set up a temporary work page for your many collaborators...--Stephan Schulz 18:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
    How can (number of violations * 24 hours) be extended? And it is only fair for WMC to do the work. (SEWilco 18:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC))
    I very strongly hope (and believe) that you are very much in the minority if you belive that each of these so called "violations" justifies a fresh 24 hour ban. All of them together might warrant one 24 hour ban, although I would say that a polite reminder on the users talk page would be more appropriate and more effective. --Stephan Schulz 19:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
    Read William M. Connolley: Six-month revert parole on certain articles. The RfAr notified him and the banned users of his parole requirements. Above on this page are violations which took place recently after recent reminders. See the History on his Talk page to also find deleted messages, including admin notifications and complaints about edits and violations. (SEWilco 21:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC))

    SEWilco, it is quite clear to anyone reading this page that you are waging a war against WMC. What positive benefit can be gained from you pouring over each one of his edits in the last two months and deciding whether they were reverts? This is petty stalking and nothing else. The purpose of blocking someone for a 3RR violation is to prevent edit warring in the heat of the moment and to make sure the person realizes that they crossed the line. It is not supposed to be used as a punitive measure for every crime that someone committed in their history, nor for stacking all the crimes up and asking that they be treated consecutively. WMC violated his parole, and each time he does it in the future he should be blocked. Could you please stop spamming this page with the results of your crusade-inspired painstaking detective work, though? — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 21:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

    What positive benefit can be gained from banning two users and placing WMC on parole? You can read the RfAr to interpret what you think the purpose is of WMC's parole penalty. WMC was told by ArbComm where the line was and what the penalty is. Who is supposed to report violations? I am reporting violations slowly; the second report today was relevant to the preceding one. (SEWilco 23:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC))

    User:Nohat at aluminium

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

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

    User:Jaybee From his Castle

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

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

    User:William M. Connolley 9

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

    William M. Connolley (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: SEWilco 04:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User did not supply adequate talk page comment. User has a requirement that "Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate". Violations of this order should be treated as WP:3RR violations. (SEWilco 04:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC))
    nearly a month old. I fail to see what good a block would do.Geni 05:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    Concur. These reports of edits from weeks ago are pointless. —Cleared as filed. 05:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

    Report new violation

    User:BadUser

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

    BadUser (talk · contribs):

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

    Comments:

    • User will not listen to the consensus of the other editors. User:ReportingUser 14:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive9&oldid=28961917"