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
RyanFreisling (talk | contribs)
8,808 edits
RyanFreisling (talk | contribs)
8,808 edits
→‎[[User: 214.13.4.151]]: 3RR violator appears to be Department of Defense.
Line 829: Line 829:
**Blocked, you should probably report the bluk removal of text to [[WP:VIP]]. --[[User:Petaholmes|nixie]] 14:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
**Blocked, you should probably report the bluk removal of text to [[WP:VIP]]. --[[User:Petaholmes|nixie]] 14:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
***Done. -- [[User:RyanFreisling|RyanFreisling]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 15:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
***Done. -- [[User:RyanFreisling|RyanFreisling]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 15:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
: The user appears to be in the Department of Defense. Unsure if/how relevant, but I'm putting it on the record. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKarl_Rove&diff=19339239&oldid=19337989]
* The user appears to be in the Department of Defense. Unsure if/how relevant, but I'm putting it on the record. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKarl_Rove&diff=19339239&oldid=19337989] -- [[User:RyanFreisling|RyanFreisling]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 01:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


===[[User:Astrotrain]]===
===[[User:Astrotrain]]===

Revision as of 01:03, 22 July 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:Centauri

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

    Centauri has the curious idea that because I have been alleged to be a sockpuppet, the 3RR doesn't apply when he reverts me. This is doubly funny since he himself is a proven [1] sockpuppet of Gene Poole, whose Arbcom case in this very matter (i.e. concerning his constant self-promotion of his obscure "micronation" "Empire of Atlantium") was only abandoned because he "left". NoPuzzleStranger 02:31, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

    • This is a difficult case; a known sockpuppet of someone who was not sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee only because he "left", reverting a possible sockpuppet of someone banned from editing. I'll have to think about this, or maybe someone else can weigh in. Jayjg (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Battle of the Sockpuppets! (Well, maybe.) I suddenly envision a couple of those "Boxing Nun" handpuppets that the Archie McPhee catalog used to sell. --Calton | Talk 03:54, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment

    As far as I can see, the only real issue here is that banned editors are not permitted to edit. At all. MoPuzzleStranger is obviously the exact same person as Wik and Gzornenplatz, right down to waging edit wars that use the same faulty logic, convuluted, unwinnable arguments and paranoid rants, in the exact same articles and on the exact same subjects he was waging them on long before I even heard of Wikipedia, let alone started editing here. I mean, come on, it's not as if you need to look that far into his edit history to see the pattern.

    As to the accusation about me and Gene Poole being the same, I've already revealed on at least 3 different occasions on Wikipedia (the earliest being sometime back in January, I think), that while we are professional associates of relatively short term standing, and that - shock horror - yes, on one occasion he did actually log onto Wikipedia as me using my laptop - we are not the same person. And that can be supported by a basic IP check which no amount of ranting from NoPuzzleStranger can disprove. I'm also pretty sure there's a pretty wide difference between my contributions and his, outside our 1 or 2 areas of common interest, if anyone cares to look.

    As far as I can tell this whole song and dance routine is mostly about MoPuzzleStranger being unable to accept that not everyone agrees with his view of the world. --Centauri

    Yes, that's what you said, Centauri, but no-one believed you, because the explanation was so implausible. Your edits, along with Occam's Razor, indicated that you were most likely a Gene Poole sockpuppet. In fact, the evidence for you being a Gene Poole sockpuppet is far stronger than for NoPuzzleStranger being a Wik sockpuppet. Jayjg (talk) 03:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
    I must say that I don't find "Centauri"'s denials very convincing. The last time I compared the edits of Centauri and Gene Poole (back in March, I think -- I'd have to dig out the data), there was very little overlap, if any, in the time of the edits for both: a bunch by one, followed by a bunch by the other. Not iron-clad proof, but suspicious.
    Equally suspicious was the reaction to the sockpuppetry/double-voting accusation: "Gene Pool" claims to have been working so closely with "Centauri" that they even shared the same computer. Yet they chose to leave chatty messages on each other's Talk Pages of the form "Isn't this sockpuppetry accusation absurd, Gene?" "Why yes it is, Centauri!" If they could easily talk to each other, why this method -- unless it was merely a lame attempt to look like two people communicating with each other? --Calton | Talk 04:06, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
    You'll notice that the only editor denying that Centauri is a sockpuppet of Gene Poole is Centauri/Gene Poole; every single other editor who has looked at the issue feels they are the same editor. I wouldn't waste my time trying to get Centauri to admit he's a sockpuppet; he's not going to. As far as I can tell, he enjoys arguing with other editors. And, yes, I know they are both the same person because they have the same arguing style; not to mention this bit of strong evidence. Samboy 05:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
    Good one Samboy. I'm must be the same as Gene Poole, because I also have the 5 braincells necessary to see right through you. I notice you don't seem too keen to show people your recent efforts in provoking edit wars though. I wonder why that is? --Centauri 07:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
    Well kids, I can't really argue with such towering "logic", so I think I'll go back to editing and leave it to you to sort it out among yourselves. Wake me when Wik aka Gzornenplatz aka NoPuzzleStranger goes for the hat trick life ban. --Centauri 04:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
    Well kids, I can't really argue with such towering "logic". You should have left off the last four words there. Hint: bluster only gets you so far. --Calton | Talk 05:03, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
    I'm not the one who's desperate to prove that I'm a sockpuppet of Gene Poole. Good luck. --Centauri 05:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
    Slight syntax correction there: you should move the "not" from the first "I'm" to the second for it to make any sense. If you need any more sentence corrections, please let me know. --Calton | Talk 07:35, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
    I think your friend Samboy probably has more call for your services than I could ever muster in my wildest imaginings. I direct your attention to the first line in particular, which should probably have a health warning of some sort attached to it. Lord knows, I nearly died laughing. --Centauri 07:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:Trey Stone

    Three revert rule violation on Ronald Reagan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Trey Stone (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Ruy Lopez 06:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Some background on this user - he is in arbitration currently - [2]. Three arbitrators have proposed a temporary ban on him to edit any political articles while the outcome of the arbitration is settled (four are necessary for this temporary ban to take effect). Regarding remedies, four arbitrators have voted for a one year ban of Trey Stone editing political articles. I should also note that Trey Stone has been been blocked eight times[3] since going into arbitration on May 12th, for such things as violating 3RR, one of the reasons three of the four needed arbitrators have voted for a temporary ban so far. Another source of Trey Stone's misbehavior is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Trey Stone. Anyhow, in this particular case, Trey Stone removed this sentence from the Ronald Reagan article four times in the space of two hours: "When the kidnappers of Patty Hearst demanded the distribution of food to the poor, Reagan suggested it would be a good time for an outbreak of botulism." I and User:NoPuzzleStranger restored the sentence, but he kept deleting it. Anyhow, he violate the 3RR rule, this being the fourth or fifth time he's done so since going into arbitration (which he's been blocked four or five times since going into arbitration for doing - he's been blocked three or so times since going into arbitration for other reasons). Ruy Lopez 06:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
      • As any admin can see, the 4th "revert" is an overhaul of the first part of the domestic policy section that included the removal of the Patty Hearst deal, not a revert back to a previous version. J. Parker Stone 06:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I apologize, what I said is incorrect. What is correct is that the 1st edit was the initial removal, not a revert; the 3rd edit was a removal of the sentence in the middle of my edits overhauling the article, not a revert back to a previous version; and the 4th revert includes slight changes in text. So we have, at best, 2 reverts here. J. Parker Stone 07:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
    Blocked for 24 hours. -- Viajero | Talk 09:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

    Does any deletion of text in any context at any time constitute a revert? The first edit in question is merely a partial deletion of material which was added nearly nine months ago. --TJive 11:14, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

    As there is some question about this block and it was performed by Viajero, who has a history of conflict with Trey Stone, I'm not happy with it. I've unblocked following a review requested by Trey Stone. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
    I should note that User:TJive joined Wikipedia on March 9th of this year. The comment for his seventh edit, which was done the day after he joined, was "reverted to person that knows wtf he's talking about". I find it odd that a user here one day will know what a revert is already, and making obnoxious comments in them to boot, on his second day here, on his seventh edit. I should note that Trey Stone has a long history of using sock puppets (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Trey Stone). Besides who is possibly making these points, there are very little to them anyhow.
    The deletion of text in the first revert is a deletion of text. It is the deletion of a sentence. I don't think it matters if it is the blanking of a page, the deletion of a paragraph, a sentence or even a word.
    And when the did it start mattering when the material was added? That it was added nine months ago actually goes against Trey Stone. If I had just added it now myself, and Trey Stone reverted it, there might be a question if my insertion was "vandalism", the only acceptable reason for violating 3RR. But the text was added by another user nine months ago, and no one has considered it such up until now. Why? Because it clearly is not, and "vandalism" is the only excuse for doing so - not because he "disagrees" with it, as it says on the 3RR page. I'm really not sure where you're pulling this stuff out of. You're trying to make the text's long time presence in the page sound like a drawback, when actually it's an additional reason for the block.
    Then you're saying that violating 3RR doesn't matter if it is just one sentence. Looking over this page, I see Dcokeman was blocked for re-inserting one two word link, Cognition was blocked for reverting a sentence plus part of another sentence, and Gabrielsimon was blocked for adding three links with five words. Many users have been blocked for not only deleting a sentence, but deleting part of a sentence, even a word.
    I find it incredible how when a user who has been as abusive as Trey Stone, who has dozens of users and admins upset with his vandalism, who has been blocked (now) nine times since going into arbitration in May, that people will begin looking over the 3RR for exceptions that don't exist, and will turn something that should be held against Stone (that the material that would have to be considered "simple vandalism" has been in there for about nine months), is held as extenuating circumstances. I should note both I and NoPuzzleStranger found that that was not the case. I think there is a real double standard here - this user has raised all hell and is still running around reverting everything, yet some people look hard at the rules for any way to get him off, while other users have the rules very liberally applied to them in a draconian manner. This users history is not one so as to "assume the best" when he violates the 3RR once again. Ruy Lopez 16:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
    An account is not required for editing, commenting, or learning policy. I am no one's "sockpuppet"; kindly stick to the merits of claims rather than charging users. --TJive 19:01, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
    As for Dcokeman, Cognition, and Gabrielsimon, in all three cases there was given a previous version which they were reverting to (though in Cognition's case it does not appear to have been a strict revert). That is why I asked the question--there is no "previous version" here that he has reverted to four times because the first edit was the version he was reverting to. If my interpretation is wrong I would be glad should an administrator point out why the others are formatted and treated in this manner.
    Whether your edits (or the content itself) then constitutes vandalism is irrelevant to the issue of whether Trey Stone should be blocked. However, lapse of time has little bearing on the merit of material. --TJive 19:47, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
    i wouldn't waste your breath T, it's impossible to reason with this character. though i should note that you were completely right and i was unblocked. J. Parker Stone 03:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:Cantus & sockpuppets

    Three revert rule violation on Template:Move (edit | [[Talk:Template:Move|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).   Cantus (talk · contribs) / 200.120.183.111 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Lifeisunfair 07:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    You don't think that someone named Dmitri suddenly is interested in English language articles pertaining to Chile? Neither do I.  ;-) —Lifeisunfair 06:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
    Those are both absolutely Cantus sockpuppets and should be blocked immediately. -- Netoholic @ 06:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:Gisling and User:Muchosucko

    Look at the edit history of chop suey, there must be 10 reverts each in an hour. Blocked them both for a day. Morwen - Talk 16:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:Gisling

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

    • Previous version reverted to: [14:04 UTC, July 15 2005]
    • 1st revert: [15:24 UTC]
    • 2nd revert: [15:37 UTC]
    • 3rd revert: [15:58 UTC]
    • 4th revert: [16:01 UTC]

    Reported by: — JIP | Talk 16:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Muchosucko

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

    • Previous version reverted to: [15:20 UTC, July 15 2005]
    • 1st revert: [15:33 UTC]
    • 2nd revert: [15:39 UTC]
    • 3rd revert: [15:57 UTC]
    • 4th revert: [16:00 UTC]

    Reported by: — JIP | Talk 16:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Lapsed Pacifist

    Three revert rule violation on Military occupation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Jayjg (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Editor insists, against consensus on Talk: page, that Northern Ireland is under military occupation, and inserts this POV into the page - so far 5 different editors have reverted this view, none have supported it. Keeps making minor changes to his version (slight wording changes, or moving it around on the page) to game the 3RR. Has been invited to revert himself, but insists he was merely trying to "accomodate" his opponents, knowing full well that these minor changes do not address the fundamental issue. Jayjg (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:Theathenae

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

    Reported by: bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 18:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:Badlydrawnjeff

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

    Reported by: RyanFreisling @ 22:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • despite agreeing to accepting others' edits in good faith, user continues to revert updated, verified information before discussing on 'talk'. -- RyanFreisling @ 22:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
    • The diffs above don't show four reverts, but rather several different edits dealing with different parts of the article. I don't think this user has violated the 3RR. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 00:18, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • I thought the diffs illustrated two reverts each of near-identical changes in today's heated edit exchange - but in retrospect his reverts aren't in the spirit of a 3RR and I believe I entered this too hastily. I apologize to Badlydrawnjeff and withdraw it. Feel free to delete this. Thanks! -- RyanFreisling @ 00:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:Ultramarine

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

    • Previous version reverted to: [4]
    • 1st revert: [5]
    • 2nd revert: [6]
    • 3rd revert: [7]
    • 4th revert: [8]

    Reported by: 172 01:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: Ultramarine has serious ownership issues with this horribly written article. Even so, Trey Stone was brave enough to copyedit it. Ultramarine, whose English is poor, does not understand this; so he keeps on accusing both Trey Stone and me of "revisionism" and "censorship." The fact that someone would accuse well-known anti-Communist editor Trey Stone-- of all people-- of these things is a strong sign that he doesn't have a clue as to what is going on. His conduct on the talk page and implied personal attacks are enough reason to warrant a block. 172 01:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

    I have not violated the rule. I have added substantial new arguments in most of my edits. In contrast, 172 insists on reverting to his version which deletes many of the critical arguments. In addition, his version has an incomprehensible ending with numerous spelling errors. Ultramarine 02:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
    Ultramarine did violate the 3RR. Don't let his misleading edit summaries fool you. And the version is not mine; it's Trey Stone's. 172 02:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
    I don't particularly get what UM is babbling about in his current edit summaries, but he's continuing the uninterrupted reversions. J. Parker Stone 03:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
    I keep adding specific critique of the Communist states. Wikipedia should allow critique of a system that murdered close to 100 million people in 70 years. Ultramarine 03:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
    me and 172 have already explained this to you, i am through here. J. Parker Stone 03:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

    Ultramarine has just broken the 3RR on Democracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as well. He makes a regular habit of breaking the 3RR in order to get away with his usual POV pushing. 172 | Talk 15:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

    Again, I add new arguments. It is you who make every attempt to revert the results peer-reviewed studies that you do not like. That liberal democracy and capitalism produce good real-world results should not be deleted, even if it does not fit with Marxist theory. Ultramarine 15:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    Quit lying. I was citing Lipet and Rustow. No one has ever called them Marxists. 172 | Talk 15:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    On the contrary, I have supported my statements with the results of numerous peer-reviewed studies, including some by authors named by you. You have only insinuated that there are other studies but have refused to name any. Wikipedia should be allowed the mention the real-world benefits of liberal democracy and capitalism, even if this is contrary to Marx. Ultramarine 15:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    You are implying that I am objecting to your edits because I am a Marxist, which is a lie and an argument grounded in a personal attack. At any rate, this page is not the place to carry out this discussion. 172 | Talk 15:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    Wikipedia should mention all points of view and not endorse any of them, Ultramarine. That is our policy, and you constantly break it. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    As noted on the talk page, those attempting to delete the peer-reviewed results showing beneficial effects of capitalism are now reverting without even trying to explain the deletions. If you want to argue against the studies by many independent researchers, do your own study, do not do original research in Wikipedia. Ultramarine 16:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    We did not delete anything; merely tried to add counter-arguments which you try to either misrepresent or remove. The current state of the article [9] is ample proof of the fact that you are a POV warrior. If that section on 'poverty' is not POV, then I don't know what is. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    This was reported a couple of days ago, but I was first asked to look at it today. I've blocked him for 24 hours because he's been warned and blocked many times, and in fact continued reverting after this was reported. The times of the reverts were July 15 19:53, July 16 00:00, 00:48, 01:03, 02:50, 03:06. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:42, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

    User:67.182.157.6

    Three revert rule violation on Truth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.182.157.6 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Ancheta Wis 02:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

    I have just learned how to format the data per the custom of this noticeboard -- please advise if I can improve the presentation:

    1. Baseline between Revision as of 08:50, 10 July 2005 and 05:41, 16 July 2005, before the appearance of "dot6", an informal user name recently adopted in the last few days by anon user:67.182.157.6 on the Truth article edit cycles
    2. Reversion on 21:54, 15 July 2005
    3. Reversion on 21:46, 15 July 2005
    4. Reversion on 21:13, 15 July 2005
    5. Reversion on 20:58, 15 July 2005
    6. Reversion on 20:56, 15 July 2005
    7. Reversion on 20:36, 15 July 2005
    8. Reversion on 08:00, 15 July 2005
    9. Reversion on 07:38, 15 July 2005
    10. Reversion on 22:02, 14 July 2005
    11. Reversion on 21:40, 14 July 2005
    12. Reversion on 21:16, 14 July 2005
    13. Reversion to anon's edit as of 19:16, 14 July 2005
    14. Reversion to anon's edit as of 00:11, 13 July 2005
    15. Reversion to anon's edit as of 20:32, 12 July 2005
    16. Reversion on 16:25, 11 July 2005
    17. first appearance of user:67.182.157.6 on the Truth article -- 01:03, 11 July 2005

    Original Comments on the post:

    • Anon must have done this before. Anon seems to show knowledge of policy, as if Anon were trying to bait responses. Fortunately, the other editors are obeying the 3RR, but it was close, at least for me. The timelines of the edits are shown below. At the very least, it is trolling behavior.
    • More info: (67.182.157.6=muddyboggs@hotmail.com) has hit Village Pump, Third Opinion and the Mediation commitee ( 22:33, 14 July 2005 67.182.157.6 (→Requests for assistance) I guess that shows sincerity) about the article.
    • I am not sure how to display the data with the links, but here is a straight ASCII copy of the edit history:

    See below, including the Anon who has 13 reverts or so, and also the rest of us: 18 counts or so:

    1. (cur) (last) 21:54, 15 July 2005 67.182.157.6 (revert - "'3 is less than 4' is true" is evaluated as redundant, thus not in keeping with NPOV custom - see talk)
    2. (cur) (last) 21:46, 15 July 2005 67.182.157.6 (revert - "'3 is less than 4' is true" is evaluated as redundant, thus not in keeping with NPOV custom - see talk)
    3. (cur) (last) 21:13, 15 July 2005 67.182.157.6 (revert - "'3 is less than 4' is true" is evaluated as redundant, thus not in keeping with NPOV custom - see talk)
    4. (cur) (last) 20:58, 15 July 2005 67.182.157.6 (m)
    5. (cur) (last) 20:56, 15 July 2005 67.182.157.6 (NPOV flag deleted)
    6. (cur) (last) 20:36, 15 July 2005 67.182.157.6
    7. (cur) (last) 08:00, 15 July 2005 67.182.157.6 (m)
    8. (cur) (last) 07:38, 15 July 2005 67.182.157.6 ("'3 is less than 4' is true" deleted. It is evaluated as redundant -- Ancheta Wis 02:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC))
    9. (cur) (last) 22:02, 14 July 2005 67.182.157.6 (Address the issue of neutrality of first paragraph before vandalizing my writing again.)
    10. (cur) (last) 21:40, 14 July 2005 67.182.157.6 (revert to eliminate vandalism)
    11. (cur) (last) 21:16, 14 July 2005 67.182.157.6 (revert to eliminate vandalism)
    12. (cur) (last) 19:16, 14 July 2005 67.182.157.6 (revert to previous version to eliminate vandalism)
    13. (cur) (last) 21:47, 13 July 2005 67.182.157.6 (NPOV in introduction --)
    14. (cur) (last) 00:11, 13 July 2005 67.182.157.6 (making introduction more clear and concise)
    15. (cur) (last) 20:46, 12 July 2005 67.182.157.6 (→Other uses of "true")
    16. (cur) (last) 20:38, 12 July 2005 67.182.157.6 (editing out vandalism)
    17. (cur) (last) 20:32, 12 July 2005 67.182.157.6 (revert to eliminate vandalism by Nathan Ladd)
    18. (cur) (last) 16:25, 11 July 2005 67.182.157.6 (revert to eliminate vandalism)
    19. (cur) (last) 01:03, 11 July 2005 67.182.157.6


    1. (cur) (last) 21:50, 15 July 2005 Ancheta Wis m (rv to Revision as of 21:04, 15 July 2005 by Rhobite)
    2. (cur) (last) 21:40, 15 July 2005 Ancheta Wis m (rv)
    3. (cur) (last) 20:02, 14 July 2005 Ancheta Wis m (#2 (rv. The intro was crafted to avoid POV traps. It may help to read the archives to understand the evolution of the article.))
    4. (cur) (last) 22:07, 13 July 2005 Ancheta Wis (rv. The intro was crafted to avoid POV traps. It may help to read the archives to understand the evolution of the article.)


    1. (cur) (last) 22:11, 14 July 2005 JimWae m
    2. (cur) (last) 22:10, 14 July 2005 JimWae (→Introduction - simplify)


    1. (cur) (last) 21:04, 15 July 2005 Rhobite (Replace first paragraph (no reason given for its removal), move wiktionary link to extlinks per manual of style)
    2. (cur) (last) 22:17, 14 July 2005 Rhobite (removing introduction section header and excessive extlinks. see manual of style.)
    3. (cur) (last) 21:41, 14 July 2005 Rhobite (rv. Please respond to my style concerns on the talk page before continuing to edit.)
    4. (cur) (last) 21:27, 14 July 2005 Rhobite (revert. excessive wiktionary links seem like WP:POINT and the "it must be said..." paragraph is basically unreadable)


    1. (cur) (last) 20:44, 15 July 2005 Banno (fix interwiki link)
    2. (cur) (last) 12:40, 15 July 2005 Banno (proper link to Wiktionary; restore evaluation example)
    3. (cur) (last) 02:37, 15 July 2005 Banno (del second paragraph - see talk)
    4. (cur) (last) 00:39, 13 July 2005 Banno (revert POV intro)
    5. (cur) (last) 22:09, 12 July 2005 Banno (remove unexplained NPOV banner - please explain in talk if re-inserting)
    6. (cur) (last) 21:54, 12 July 2005 Banno (Remove POV paragraph)


    1. (cur) (last) 08:25, 12 July 2005 Malathion m (→Semantic theory of truth - Wikified)


    1. (cur) (last) 04:12, 12 July 2005 Nathan Ladd (deleted irrelevant religious passage)
    2. (cur) (last) 04:11, 12 July 2005 Nathan Ladd (NPOV tags have to be explained on the Talk page first)
    3. (cur) (last) 06:06, 11 July 2005 Nathan Ladd (revert to remove irrelevant religious doctrine and unexplained NPOV tag)


    1. (cur) (last) 08:50, 10 July 2005 Philippe Audinos (→Types of truth - Truth of Life)

    User:Guy Montag

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

    • Subsequent reverts:
    02:01, 17 July 2005
    22:42, 17 July 2005
    22:11, 18 July 2005
    01:59, 19 July 2005

    Reported by:Heraclius 02:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

    This looks accurate. Since Montag asked for (and received) a block on the other user, it seems fair to judge his own edits as well. On account of this and an excessively combative attitude [10]. I'm giving him a short block. -Willmcw 19:59, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    I have sent you a message already, but I want to make it clear that those edits are not a break with policy as they were made on two different days. Guy Montag 22:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    They appear to have been with 24 hours of each other. Please remember that even three reverts is too many. And bragging about getting another editor blocked is not conducive to collaboration, nor is telling to "F*** off". -Willmcw 22:20, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

    Guy Montag reverted the article five times in a 24-hour period, and has and has done so an additional four times since then. This individual was blocked for violating the 3RR on three prior occasions, so I feel that a one-hour block is insufficient. —Lifeisunfair 00:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


    hmmmmm - and Heraclius got a 24 hour ban - for a 3RR breach by the same admin. I thought he was treating them both the same (which would have been according to Wikipedia policy). How very revealing. I wonder how he justifies this?

    All of this type of actions sends out out a message. And the message here that being a bully, telling people to "fuck off", repeatedly breaching a 3RR and then reporting another usrs for the SAME violation - is all better than if you are (as the admin seems to described Heraclius earlier) "a jerk" because of his POV. What a shame - policy is explicitly that the 3RR rule is blind to content in so far as possible.

    His first action on the ban being lifted awas a third "revert" in 24 hours (so still "legal" but questionable) on Palestinian Terrorism so "message understood" I think.

    If the admins are unfair (or percieved to be so) then people will disrupt, troll and otherwise be "anti-social" to make a point - because they feel that they have no other recource. It really is terribly disruptive to "community".

    62.253.64.14 06:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

    Please do not use different names. It makes it harder for the rest of us to understand what you're saying. Please note that I have responded to you on my talk page, where you raised these same questions. My advice to all of these editors (including Guy Montag) is to stop complaining, stop reverting, and find a way to write encyclopedia articles. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:40, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Boothy443

    Three revert rule violation on Template:Football club infobox (edit | [[Talk:Template:Football club infobox|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Boothy443 (talk · contribs):


    User:DanP

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

    Reported by: Nandesuka 12:56, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User has been warned (and blocked) before for 3RR violations before on articles related to circumcision. Here we go again. Right now he's disagreeing substantively with other editors about whether it is appropriate to describe a photo of an uncircumcised penis as being "uncircumcised" as opposed to "human" or "unaltered." The disagreement might be reasonable, but violating the 3RR is not.Nandesuka 12:56, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
    This is plainly a false accusation. User:Nandesuka has lied about the event on 17:42, 15 July 2005 claiming it is a revert, when it is clearly not. I request an admin to look into this article and see that it was an ordinary edit -- not a revert. Nandesuka is (in bad faith I believe) attempting to represent it incorrectly. DanP 13:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
    Feel free to quibble about this all you want, but the fact is that four times in 24 hours you redacted the word "uncircumcised" from the Erection article because you don't like it. As discussed in Wikipedia:Revert: "A revert is a change or an edit made to a page that has the effect of undoing an earlier change or edit on the same page." It is clear that the four changes you made were all aimed at eliminating the word "uncircumcised." Of course the admins should look into it, and if they think I'm wrong, they should say so. But I am reporting your violation in good faith. If we accept your definition of "revert," then most egregious violations of the 3RR could be "avoided" by the reverter simply changing a word in their edit. The Reasonable Person Principle applies here, and I believe that it's evident that you are being unreasonable.Nandesuka 14:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
    Please sign your edits (you miss them a lot). It is too bad there is no scream-queen penalty for perjury and false accusation in Wikipedia. Let's be clear. The first revert you claim (17:42, 15 July 2005) was a collegial good-faith edit in the spirit of compromise with Jakew which is quite obvious in the history. In no way did I revert it to a previous version. You may claim the first introduction of any word in a work-in-progess is a "revert", but nobody else does. Rest assured, if that was a revert, then most every edit introducing any word not already in the article is one by your definition. Please tone it down and get some Wikilove. DanP 14:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
    Using the definition provided in Wikipedia:Revert, your first edit had the effect of undoing an earlier edit. That's a revert; I call 'em like I see 'em. Presumably, Jakew can speak for himself, but your description of your edits as a "compromise" certainly isn't obvious to me. In particular, the word "uncircumcised" has been attached to that article since time immemorial. The first place I can find where it is deleted (recently) is in your edit of 21:01, 13 July 2005, where you redact the word (and that is NOT part of this 3RR violation; I mention it just for context). I put the word back (misspelled), Jake corrected my spelling, and then you've been trying to redact it ever since. Where, exactly, is the compromise in your continuing to delete something that the other editors think should be there, and doing so 4 times in 24 hours? Anyway, further discussion from me on this issue isn't going to change things: I think the record speaks for itself. So if you want to have the last word, be my guest. Nandesuka 14:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
    You are plainly changing the definition of "revert". In one instance, I removed circumcision from the caption, in the other, I expanded it to all alterations of the penis. Those are entirely different edits and in no way can one be called a "revert" to the other. You are saying those are one in the same. You should try to work this out with Wikilove instead of inventing 3RR violations. I have been entirely tolerant of the pro-circumcision pure nonsense in Wikipedia so long as it presents both sides. I give up, hand it to the admins. DanP 14:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
    the pro-circumcision pure nonsense in Wikipedia
    We all have that complaint at one time or another. --TJive 06:53, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

    User:68.163.207.106

    Three revert rule violation on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.163.207.106 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Aecis 13:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC) (but updated since)

    Comments:

    User:Stirling Newberry

    Three revert rule violation on the Wikipedia Surrealism article by Stirling Newberry.

    Classicjupiter2 15:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

    Anonymous contributor 4.x in Aetherometry

    Three revert rule violation on Aetherometry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 4.232.6.35 (talk · contribs) 4.233.125.162 (talk · contribs) 4.249.18.157 (talk · contribs) 4.233.124.110 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Pjacobi 20:54, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • This is an anonymous contributor using different IPs --Pjacobi 20:54, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Whereas the other parts of edits vary, note that in all four cases the "peer-review" halfsentence was deleted. --Pjacobi 20:54, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Nightscream

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

    Reported by: SoM 21:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

    Additional:

    SoM 10:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

    • Blocked for 24 hours --khaosworks 01:25, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    This person has persistantly been reverting an entry (significantly more than 3 times in 24 hours for the last few days) against the wishes of several Wikipedians who have discussed the matter with him. His variation of the entry is poorly written and innapropriate and several members have discussed this with him in the discussion over the article. ScifiterX 14:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:J Michaels

    Three revert rule violation on Massacre at Hue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). J Michaels (talk · contribs):

    and again:

    and again:

    Reported by: GhePeU 00:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:70.146.54.128

    Three revert rule violation on Memoirs of Walter Bruce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.146.54.128 (talk · contribs):

    • Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
    • 1st revert: [11]
    • 2nd revert: [12]
    • 3rd revert: [13]
    • 4th revert: [14]

    Reported by: Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Who

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

    Who (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Netoholic @ 08:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • It was only listed as an RV in the comments, the edit was only to fix a link, as it plainly states, and you can check the history of why the link needed to be fixed. ∞Who?¿? 09:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
    • As demonstrated above, it was not merely "listed as an RV in the comments." It was a revert. It doesn't matter why you reverted, to which versions you reverted, or how well reasoned/explained your reverts were. You made four reverts to a single page in less than seven hours (none of which were self-reverts or dealt with simple vandalism), and that's a violation. —Lifeisunfair 09:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Because rather than copying and pasting the whole contents of the template to fix the link, I clicked on a previous version, yes. But this is not an edit war, I merely edited the page, to fix a link. The actual edit war was the last 3 edits, I did not try to violate 3RR in spirit, I tried to offer a solution, since I was being ignored in discussion attempts. Hence I stopped RVn because the last attempt to resolve the issue, was ignored as well, by you this time. ∞Who?¿? 09:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
    • It wouldn't have mattered if you had copied and pasted the whole contents. It still would have been a revert. You're actually attempting to defend yourself by pointing out that only your last three reverts were part of the edit war (as though that's perfectly acceptable). As I explained on your talk page (and mine), I reverted to Netoholic's version because you violated the 3RR (while hypocritically claiming that you were "trying to avoid a RV war"). —Lifeisunfair 10:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
    • In each of those rv's I made another attempt to communicate, and even informed him why I was going to revert, before I did. I would have not made a 4th edit, as the last RV was to another non-box template, to try to compromise. All attempts to communicate were ignored. As for the 1st edit, it would have mattered, I only placed RV in the edit comments. I fixed a broken wikilink, which had nothing to do with the template itself or the edit war that insued. A simple edit fix, that was not a conflict, should not be considered a revert or an edit war, even if that simple edit was within the same 24hour period. ∞Who?¿? 10:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
    • You've continually claimed that you merely typed "RV" in the edit summary, but it wasn't actually a revert. It was a revert. And the fact that you attempted to communicate is irrelevant. You also were edit warring. No, the first revert was not part of this conflict, but so what? The 3RR doesn't entitle users to three reverts per page, per day (let alone three conflict-fueled reverts). —Lifeisunfair 12:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

    Right I can sort this one out. User:Who Don't do it again. I agree you first edit doesn't count. The 3RR should be obeyed in spirit rather than to the letter. However the same interpretations apply to later reverts. You shouldn't get to three reverts even. You should discuss things on the talk page not in the edit summary box. I am not willing to block you however. We can all get a bit heated at times, but learn from this episode. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 11:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

    The spirit of the 3RR was violated, because it's supposed to provide an arbitrary cut-off point that most responsible Wikipedians should seldom (if ever) reach. It isn't intended to serve as an invitation for users to edit war, carefully tallying their reverts and stopping at exactly three per page, per day. Who deliberately set out to utilize the three reverts to which he felt entitled, and he was depending upon (and hoping to exploit) his belief that the first revert wouldn't count. —Lifeisunfair 12:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
    And the 3RR is intended to stop sterile edit wars, not an instrument of petty revenge. Just settle things and be done with it. --Calton | Talk 13:48, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
    To what "petty revenge" are you referring? —Lifeisunfair 20:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
    I must say, it's rather droll to see Lifeisunfair defending Netoholic, and admonishing people against edit wars, given this, where less than a month ago Lifeisunfair was involved in an edit war with... Netoholic. (And having look at the whole history here in detail, I agree, the first "revert" was not part of the edit war.) Nobody involved in this one looks good; y'all need to grow up. Noel (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, I was involved in a revert war with Netoholic, but:
    1. Many of Netoholic's edits were vandalism (even simple vandalism, at times) or tantamount to vandalism. That wasn't the case here.
    2. I was not alone in opposing these edits, and several other users were reverting them.
    3. I'm not perfect (and never claimed to be). I probably got carried away at times, but I didn't violate the 3RR. I also didn't defend my reverts as a means of "avoiding a revert war" — a patently ludicrous statement.
    4. The fact that I've had several recent disputes with Netoholic (and have never had one with Who) should indicate that I'm not allowing personal bias to influence my stance.
    And where in the 3RR is it indicated that all four reverts must relate to a conflict? —Lifeisunfair 20:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
    (Adressing you last comment only) It doesn't say anything in thre 3RR that all four reverts must relate to a conflict as far as I am aware. It's simply common sense that it must. The 3RR is there to prevent revert wars. Reverts that are not part of revert wars do not disrupt wikipedia, and do not need to be punished. I used my judgement in this case (which, as an admin, I am entitled to do) I judged that a simple telling off, was the most appropriate thing to do in this particular case. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
    I'm aware of the fact that punishment (or lack thereof) is entirely discretionary and determined on a case-by-case basis. I don't, however, agree that the 3RR wasn't violated (in spirit or to the letter). The first revert should count, because the 3RR isn't intended to serve as permission to edit war and revert a page three times in a 24-hour period. Who consciously tracked his revert count, exploiting his belief that the first one didn't count, and deliberately waiting until what he believed was his last revert of the day before reverting to a "compromise" version (instead of the version that a consensus clearly opposes). This is a clear-cut example of gaming the system. —Lifeisunfair 23:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
    I never said that the 3RR wasn't violated. (I never said it was either). I don't care if it was or wasn't, and am not willing to argue over it.( It's trvial) I said that what User:Who did was wrong IMO, that he shouldn't do it again.Is that not enough for you? What are you arguing for exactly. What do you hope to achieve ? (that's not a rhetorical question, I honestly to understand what you aim is) Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
    You expressed agreement with Who's claim that the "first edit doesn't count," which certainly appears to indicate a belief that the 3RR wasn't violated. Your response was appropriate overall, but I disagree with the reasoning behind it. —Lifeisunfair 00:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

    Franck Ver Stut (talk · contribs)

    4 reverts in 5 hours, on Ancient Egypt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    has been warned. reported by dab (ᛏ)

    User:SNIyer1

    Three revert rule violation on State_funeral_of_John_F._Kennedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SNIyer1 (talk · contribs):

    ALL times PST (UTC-7)

    • Previous version reverted to: [19] Revision as of 19:34, 2005 July 15 SNIyer1 (Talk | contribs) Lying in state
    • 1st revert: [20] Revision as of 12:13, 2005 July 17 SNIyer1 (Talk | contribs) Funeral
    • 2nd revert: [21] Revision as of 13:49, 2005 July 17 SNIyer1 (Talk | contribs)
    • 3rd revert: [22] Revision as of 14:57, 2005 July 17 SNIyer1 (Talk | contribs) Funeral
    • 4th revert: [23] 15:11, 2005 July 17 SNIyer1 (→Funeral)

    Reported by: JimWae 22:39, 2005 July 17 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User does not enter any edit summary, does not respond to discussion on article talk page, does not respond to discussion on his user talk page.
    • User has been inserting these SAME trite POV editorial comments that tell people how they feel for nearly a year
    • I request unlimited revert privileges to remove these additions or anything like them - at least until user responds to discussion - as without discussion they are nothing more than vandalism
    • SN has recently started responding to me after many months of not replying on article talk or his own talk page, so I'm keen not to do anything to jeopardize that progress. Regarding revert privileges, are you finding yourself having to revert more than three times a day? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:58, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've left a warning for him and a suggestion that he discuss his edits with you on the article talk page. Hope this helps. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:45, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

    Thanks, Slim. Yes, I had run out of reversions today & a few times before. I also have had to wait for him to finish some of his changes so I would not use 2 reverts for sentences in 2 separate places - remembering he does one small edit at a time. I know he sees my entries to his talk page - he has begun to either archive, delete, or even copy them from SNIyer1 to SNIyer12. It's very frustrating to have this go on for so many months without response from him, and still have to be cautious in how many times I revert his editorial schmaltz. Thanks for protecting the page, btw. --JimWae 03:59, 2005 July 18 (UTC)

    I wonder whether we should just protect all the articles in question for a couple of weeks, because this has been going on for months. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:22, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Guy Montag

    Palestinian Terrorism

    1. (cur) (last) 22:42, 17 July 2005 Guy Montag m (I am done arguing with anonymous idiots. Follow policy or you will be reverted)
    2. (cur) (last) 22:04, 17 July 2005 Heraclius (huh?)
    3. (cur) (last) 09:22, 17 July 2005 62.253.64.14 (tag removed pending outcome of RFC.)
    4. (cur) (last) 09:10, 17 July 2005 62.253.64.14 (you're right - when that much is in dispute {{totally disputed}} is a better call.)
    5. (cur) (last) 02:01, 17 July 2005 Guy Montag (like I said. State the disputed sections or leave it alone. No hit and runs)
    6. (cur) (last) 01:03, 17 July 2005 62.253.64.14 (If there aint no consensus then there must be a "Dispute" so tag is appropriate.)
    7. (cur) (last) 02:18, 16 July 2005 Guy Montag m (I am not going to tolerate blatant disregard for polic.y. Either add detailed comments in talk or stop wasting people's time with hit and run tags. It is that simple.)
    This appears to be only 3 reverts. Still too many, but not a violation. -Willmcw 05:21, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Jennet

    All five edits to User:SPUI on Special:Contributions/Jennet are the same edit, making the last four reverts (vandalism too). --SPUI (talk) 11:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

    Oh, yeh, I realise I'm complaining about being called a Fucking Idiot after I called administrators the Same Thing. What can I say? I guess I'm just a Fucking idiot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPUI. (talk • contribs)

    User 80.139.x.x

    • 1st reverted earlier removal of vanity link.
    • [24] reverted earlier trolling link.
    • [25] straight re-revert
    • [26] 4th revert.
    • [27] 5th

    User has been warned not to troll and vandalize page on one of his various ip talk pages. As can be seen, user appears over many 80.139.x.x addresses using dial in, so blocking one address will be ineffective. Stirling Newberry 20:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:Lapsed Pacifist

    Three revert rule violation on The Sword of the Prophet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Jayjg (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Keeps reverting to a version cotaining a paragraph describing Trifkovic as "a former supporter of Slobodan Milošević. He has denied the massacre of several thousand Muslims in Srebrenica" etc. As with report above, games the 3RR by making minor changes to the wording while re-inserting the paragraph. Jayjg (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

    Blocked for 24 hours. Thryduulf 01:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:Heraclius

    Clear cut breach of policy.

    Guy Montag 04:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

    Previously warned, blocked for 24 hours. -Willmcw 05:18, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    Please note the two violations above from Guy Montasg, neither of which was acted on - this was NOT an "in good faith" report of a violation. The Admins are supposed to treat both sides fairly - so both should get a ban here. .62.253.64.15 06:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, thank you. I received your email and replied. I've asked Montag about it and will block if appropriate. However if it appears that you are using this IP address to circumvent a block then that is not good either. -Willmcw 08:41, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

    User:BrandonYusufToropov or User:67.78.186.19 or User:EnviroFuck or someone else?

    At Jihad: not just violating 3RR and deliberately trying to evade it by dropping out to his IP address, but also tilting at windmills making false accusations of users being the banned user "Enviroknot."

    Also took the time to make false accusations of sockpuppetry against Zeno of Elea on the article's talk page.

    Signed: 212.247.200.185 16:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

    Can someone please do something on this, perhaps lock the Jihad page? It's silly and seeing BYT's comments on the Recent Changes list is embarassing to Wikipedia.Existentializer 16:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

    Additional: A new user named EnviroFuck has appeared and is most definitely 67.78.186.19; this user is also patently guilty of 3RR violation on the page.Existentializer 16:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

    I've locked Jihad. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    Enviro#### ain't me. [28]. I'd like an admin to check in on the anonymous edits in question. Possible? BrandonYusufToropov 17:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

    Envirowhatever is learning. This time he accuses others of sockpuppetry before they accuse him. Observe his 7th (!) edit [29]. This travesty has to stop. He must have about a dozen accounts by now. dab (ᛏ) 22:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

    Dab, I have nothing to do with this. I saw an ongoing flamewar and OBVIOUS edits by BYT, and made the reversion because I thought it was warranted as per Wikipedia policy. When you are done making false allegations, please calm down and start dealing with this rationally. I wasn't even the one who reported this, someone else did, I only posted a concurrence and added the evidence as it kept piling up. Existentializer 15:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    yeah, well, you are, of course, a sockpuppet of somebody, so why don't you just disclose your previous accounts, this case is complicated enough as it is. dab (ᛏ) 15:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    Please come back when you have calmed down.Existentializer 15:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    great, you have just convinced me of your identity. I'm not upset at all, because you will have no success. Anyway, there is an rfar headed your way, I believe, so let's just wait for that, and not jump to conclusions. dab (ᛏ) 16:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    I repeat, please calm down and cease making false accusations. It is highly unseemly for an admin, even one of your dubious stature.Existentializer 16:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:Tautvydas

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

    Reported by: --Witkacy 21:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

    I have warned user:Tautvydas as it doens't appear he's ever been warned about it. You (user:Witkacy) have also broken the 3RR on the same article, and as you demonstrated above your awareness of the rule I've blocked you for 24 hours. I have also protected the article in question, as requested by a third party at WP:RFPP


    user:Friday

    Three revert rule violation on Template:Wolf hunting controversy. Friday (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Gabrielsimon 21:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

    • Comment I believe the 4th diff shows a workaround, not a revert. I was attempting to avoid the disputed term altogether, with or without quotation marks. Yes, I know that even 3 reverts is not good, however I was making a good faith effort to work through the dispute. See Talk:Wolf hunting controversy for a history of this squabble. Friday 21:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

    response : i was dinged for four modificatipons in 24 hours, and one was totally different, so the rules catch you as well. Gabrielsimon 21:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

    • It's a workaround. There is a substantive difference in meaning between "the hunt" and "game". --khaosworks 01:22, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Kim Bruning

    Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kim Bruning (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Lifeisunfair 05:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • As an admin, this individual certainly knows better. These reverts apply to a specific section, which Kim Bruning has repeatedly removed (in its entirety). This is highly inappropriate (irrespective of the 3RR violation), as it's an ongoing formal discussion regarding the proposed undeletion of a page that Kim Bruning deleted (arguably against policy). As a result of this edit war, Snowspinner has protected the page (with understandable reluctance, given the overall ramifications of doing so). Quoth Snowspinner, "The fact that there is an edit war here baffles and appalls me..." I couldn't agree more. —Lifeisunfair 05:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:134.161.244.89

    Three revert rule violation on George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 134.161.244.89 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: BMIComp (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    AI

    Three revert rule violation on Talk:David S. Touretzky (edit | [[Talk:Talk:David S. Touretzky|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by AI (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: James F. (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:67.182.157.6

    Three revert rule violation on Truth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.182.157.6 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Rhobite 03:13, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    B0sh

    Three revert rule violation on Bosh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). B0sh (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: ∞Who?¿? 08:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • (All times given in UTC) Current Vfd consensus is in favor of disambiguation version of this article to keep. Previous rv's have been performed prior to these. ∞Who?¿? 09:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


    User: 214.13.4.151

    Three revert rule violation on Karl Rove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 214.13.4.151 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: RyanFreisling @ 14:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • This is just one example, in which the user has systematically reverted or added text more 'political' in nature to the Karl Rove article, including numerous reverts of the section above. In general, user refuses to work on 'talk' to resolve differences, and his/her edits are seriously damaging the article's integrity to protect his political POV. He has deleted this well-sourced, factual information numerous times.
    • The user appears to be in the Department of Defense. Unsure if/how relevant, but I'm putting it on the record. [36] -- RyanFreisling @ 01:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:Astrotrain

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

    Reported by: THOR 19:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • I inserted all the reversions, as well as the last four that violated the 3RR. I was prompted to the user by his reversion on a template I was working on; wherein he proved dense and uncaring to proposals and discussions on talk pages.

    User:64.95.91.23

    Three revert rule violation on Protest Warrior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 64.95.91.23 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Rhobite 19:01, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • I did revert four times as well, but I didn't realize it. I reverted myself seconds later. Rhobite 19:01, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Amin123

    Three revert rule violation on Christianity and world religions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Amin123 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Jayjg (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • On the section titles "Possible relationship with Zoroastrianism" keep removing the phrase "through Judaism", either deleting it entirely, or replacing it with "through Old Testament". Has been warned about 3RR and asked to self-revert. Jayjg (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:Existentializer

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

    Reported by: Irishpunktom\talk 23:07, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: Existentializer wants to add a piece reporting a contradiction by Nintendo. 3RR broken by User:A Link to the Past too, who wants it sourced or removed. User knows about the 3RR and has attempted to have another user blocked because of it (see above[37])--Irishpunktom\talk 23:03, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

    Report new violation

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive9&oldid=19341887"