Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive9

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MagnaVox (talk | contribs) at 14:23, 3 December 2005 (→[[User:MagnaVox]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Click here to create a new report


    Example

    User:BadUser

    Three revert rule violation on Articlename (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)

    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:

    Duplicates - William M. Connolley 2 to 12

    I've removed these. See [1] if you must examine their content, and WP:ANI#User:William_M._Connolley_13 if you want to see the latest update. - brenneman(t)(c)

    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 [9]
    • Revert 9 on 22:46, November 22, 2005 207.62.70.28 [10]


    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. (Woops, forgot to sign this one. It was me who wrote it - Cowman
    Reverting once a day now may be annoying, but isn't really a war anymore. It appears the range is from LA Community College. I noticed there was only one note on any of the offending IPs talk pages -- might want to try catching the talk page shortly after the edit; this may be nothing more than a new user who doesn't understand what they should be doing. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 22:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I've started adding notes to every one of the user's talk pages that I can find, but I highly doubt any response will come out of this - what should we do if the user still persists? CowmanTalk 00:17, 27 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 2

    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: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: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: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:Eclipse McMahon

    3 revert rule violation on Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Eclipse McMahon (talk · contribs):

    I am not involved in the dispute (I came across it while going through WP:RfP). So I'll do this myself. I had missed this one besides. It was actually 5 reverts in a 24 hour period. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 01:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


    User:81.111.172.198

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

    81.111.172.198 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: User:Jfdwolff 21:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Information provided by User:Jfdwolff incorrect. User:Jfdwolff posted illegal material and it was the illegal material that was removed pending a request for a policy statement from Wikipedia regarding unlawful actions by Administrator User:Jfdwolff. Administrator Cleared as filed. should have maintained the status quo pending resolution by higher authority as Cleared as filed. admits being "in no position to pass judgment". A policy statement is still awaited. For full details please see "Regrettably Inappropriate Action from "Cleared as filed" On 05:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)" [found here [15]] .
    • It would seem inappropriate for User:Jfdwolff to seek to have a User blocked when the matter arose from correcting a very recent (and not longstanding) posting by User:Jfdwolff. User:Jfdwolff also appears ill-mannered in dealings with other Wikipedians and fails to enter into meaningful dialogue or respond properly to valid comments made by others to attempt to achieve consensus.
    • I am still waiting for an answer to the questions posed here [16] and here [17].
    81.111.172.198 14:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Asked and answered on that page, your attempts at playing amateur lawyer notwithstanding: It doesn't matter if you think you're right or that your edits are serving a higher purpose — almost everyone thinks that their edits are right or noble. Whatever your grievances, you have to settle them within the rules of Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 14:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, there is no answer provided. I do not have a grievance. The law appears to be being contravened by a Wikipedia Administrator and attempt was properly made to correct that. There is a seeming contravention of the law and Wikipedia seems to be unable to self-regulate the matter.
    • With your comment you make the point. You do not seem to have any rules about Wikipedia being used by Administrators or others acting illegally or where there is a question as to the legality of their actions or those of others. Further, it would be more appropriate to adopt a civil tone. Being insulting and rude is an inappropriate way to enter into dialogue and does little to advance your arguments. At the same time as no Wikipedia policy has been forthcoming on the matter it seems there is none. If I am wrong on that, I wait to be corrected but time is passing with no answer.
    • What is the Wikipedia policy on seeming libel for example? Is there one? There must surely be one? If there is, then why is there not a Wikipedia policy on other seeming contraventions of the law? Are the Wikipedia policies to ignore seeming illegality and to act in contempt for the laws of the states in which Wikipedia operates? If there seems to be a libel, do you just leave it up or do you take it down until the matter has been resolved? So what is the position on contraventions of data protection laws or any other law for that matter? Do you continue the seeming contravention oblivious to the laws of the rest of the world or do you act to comply and resolve the matter as to whether there is or is not a contravention?
    81.111.172.198 16:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:Reddi

    Three revert rule violation on Timeline of the Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Reddi (talk · contribs)

    Comments: I have been trying to engage Reddi on the talkpage to explain why he doesn't want this redirect. Other users on the talkpage have agreed with my edit but Reddi refuses to discuss and instead simply reverts. There is an RfC and a Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration out on him that he also refuses to respond to, apparently according to the complaint. --Joshuaschroeder 22:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:Elerner

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

    BadUser (talk · contribs):

    • Previous version reverted to: [22]
    • 1st revert: [23]
    • 2nd revert: [24]
    • 3rd revert: [25]
    • 4th revert: [26]

    Reported by: Joshuaschroeder 18:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: User has been warned about such behavior and has a current RfC about his editorial practices, but he has made it clear that he will continue to revert without regard for editorial processes here at Wikipedia. --Joshuaschroeder 18:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

    Indeed you are correct. I didn't look closely at the date stamp. --Joshuaschroeder 19:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:Shivraj Singh

    User:Shivraj Singh has voilated the 3RR rule on the page Sher Shah Suri.

    خرم Khurram 15:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:128.174.114.5 aka User:70.225.173.111 aka User:128.174.114.6 aka User:128.174.114.3

    Three revert rule violation on Plymouth-Canton Educational Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    128.174.114.5 (talk · contribs)/70.225.173.111 (talk · contribs)/128.174.114.6 (talk · contribs)

    Reported by: brenneman(t)(c) 01:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • I've left a note on this user's talk page as well s that of the person whom is serially reverting them. This is a bit odd, but looking at the page history has gone on far too long. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
    Blocked both IPs for 24 hours (as well as 67.149.77.77, who was also in violation). · Katefan0(scribble) 05:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


    user:Zen-master

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

    Zen-master (talk · contribs):

    • The consensus among other editors is that the POV tag should be removed. There has been no discussion of disputes, other than the POV tag, on the talk page. This user does not appear to be working towards consensus, but rather keeps bringing up the same objections no matter how many times they've been addressed. -Willmcw 02:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
    He came to an agreement with Neutrality. Unblocked him. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
    What is the agreement? I don't see any discussion on their talk pages. -Willmcw 08:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
    Apparently the agreement must have been that ZM should keep revert and edit warring on the page. See the page history. Carbonite | Talk 17:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    Sigh, I've only had 1 revert in the last 24 hours or so, and this incident here was more than 24 hours ago. I find it very interesting the POV pushing bot-esque gang is out in full, highly coordinated, force today. zen master T 17:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:Zero0000

    Three revert rule violation on Palestinian exodus .

    5 times in 20 hours

    • 1st revert: 12:55, 24 November 2005 [27]
    • 2nd revert: [28]
    • 3rd revert: [29]
    • 4th revert: [30]
    • 5th revert: 08:58, 25 November 2005

    [31]

    Reported by: Zeq 10:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: User is an admin. Engaged in edit wars without properexplnations of his edit on talk page.

    Reply: Zeq does not understand what a revert is. Of those 5 edits, only the 2nd, 3rd and 5th were reverts according to normal 3RR practice. Therefore I did not break the rule. Though it is not an argument I need here, the 5th edit was in my opinion reversion of vandalism since what I did was to undo Zeq's deletion of a long-standing major section of the article without a good reason. Zeq shouldn't think he can just make repeated massive deletions and be protected by the 3RR. --Zero 11:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    Reply to the reply: All these edits are reverts. (if I need to "prove" it let me know. I am sure looking at the history page of the article will make it clear. It is fairly easy to locate an edit that was added and then Zero's first revert (which he claim is not a revert) Describing my edits as 'vandalism" to justify his reverts is not the proper way to solve edit disputes. For that there is the talk page not the revert button. Zeq

    Dbachmann (talk · contribs):

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

    Reported by: User:Nixer 15:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • The User used his administrative power to block me for 48 hours, arguing with 3RR violation (which he had not right to do because of the 3RR rule, wich allowes to block users only for 24h maximum), even dispite the fact I added a new staff to the article triing to achive compromise.--Nixer 15:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Another user participated, User:Izehar just e-mailed me his apologies: "I have checked your edits on "Proto-World language" again, and they appear to not be vandalism - I apologise to you for reverting you and suggesting that you were vandalising the article. I shouldn't have got involved."--Nixer 15:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:Emir Arven

    Four times reverted Meša Selimović:

    Reported by: Nikola 14:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    I have blocked the user for 24 hours. Despite warnings, he continued to revert on Meša Selimović ([32], his fifth revert in 24 hours, and also violated the 3RR on Petar Petrović Njegoš (5 reverts [33], [34], [35], [36] , and [37] between 19:46, November 24, 2005 and 17:31, November 25, 2005). -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:Zen-master

    WP:3RR violation on Conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zen-master (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: SlimVirgin (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments

    • Zen-master has reverted the intro around 12 times since 17:50 on November 24, making complex partial reverts in an effort to game the system. However, he has slipped up a couple of times and has reverted to certain phrases four or more times. The diffs above concentrate on one of these phrases: that conspiracy theory is a "dubious narrative genre". He has also added the word "controversially" to the start of a sentence at least four times. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    • These are not straight reverts, but cleanups defending the article from attack by a highly coordinated POV pushing bot-esque gang. They do not debate in good faith and only seem to do things with some sort of POV mission in mind. Isn't it odd that a handful of highly coordinated editors show up to an article suddenly? zen master T 18:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Isn't it odd that one user believes that he's entitled to make a dozen complex reverts to an article in a 24 hour period? Carbonite | Talk 18:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
        • A reasonable response to bullying by an exponentially coordinated bad faithed gang of POV pushers. zen master T 18:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
          • zen-master, as if your dozen complex reverts wasn't bad enough, you have also engaged in an escalating series of personal attacks. The next time I see one I will block you for 24 hours, so please take care not to violate WP:NPA. Jayjg (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
            • Point out one? In my interpertation it is very suspicious that you and your POV aligned buddies all show up to the same article, at the same time, with a very high degree of coordinatation. It appears to me that you and your friends are always on some sort of POV mission as neutrality and debating in good faith are not your goals. zen master T 18:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
              • Then perhaps you should begin to assume good faith and consider that perhaps it's your goals that are out of alignment with NPOV. Carbonite | Talk 18:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
                • I did assume good faith at one time, then as I gathered more evidence and paid attention I learned from experience that assumptions can be misleading. If NPOV is in dispute the first thing we should do is signify that fact, right? Why then have you been working to deny the existence of controversy in the article? Anyone from your POV aligned gang can discuss specific issues with the changes I am making on the talk page, but you and they are mostly not doing that (very surprising given the number of people in your POV aligned gang). For example, I think the word "ostensibly" is a perfect neutral replacement for "commonly believed" but you and your POV aligned friends keep reverting it. zen master T 18:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
                  • I've blocked you for 24 hours for your continued personal attacks. Another admin who is reading this might want to block for an additional 24 hours for the 3RR violations - I note you have reverted yet again. Jayjg (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Clear 3RR violation, "ostensibly" seems to have come and so many times it must be about dizzy, setting aside any of the other changes. I don't personally care to make it "consecutive 24h terms", though, Jayjg's block will suffice (even if it's not ideally performed by an involved party). Alai 04:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:Cool Cat

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

    Reported by:

    Comments:

    • Please block this idiotic pov pusher. Indefinately if you really want as he is badly pissed. --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
      • The frst three reverts are part of a dispute as to where the redirect should point. The last one is the creation of a fork. While Cool Cat technically broke the 3RR, this is closer to reverting vandalism than revert warring. While his comments here and in his edit summary there makes suggests that he needs a break, I am not in favour of a block in this instance. Guettarda 17:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:65.95.17.92

    Three revert rule violation on Supervillain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 65.95.17.92 (talk · contribs):

    • Previous version reverted to: [38]
    • 1st revert: [39]
    • 2nd revert: [40]
    • 3rd revert: [41]
    • 4th revert: [42]

    Reported by: Turnstep 21:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: 

    Bell Canada BELLNEXXIA-11 (NET-67-68-0-0-1)
                                 67.68.0.0 - 67.71.255.255
Bell Canada BELLNEXXIA-10 (NET-65-92-0-0-1)
                                 65.92.0.0 - 65.95.255.255

    - Turnstep 03:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:Cedars

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

    • Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
    • 1st revert: [43]
    • 2nd revert: [44]
    • 3rd revert: [45]
    • 4th revert: [46]

    Reported by: Barberio 03:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Really doesnt want a {globalize} tag on this article. Was warned after the third revert. --Barberio 03:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I was just moving it to the talk page - I have stopped reverting it now and will not edit electrical engineering and talk for 24 hours (no exceptions) - was my mistake I didn't see one of the reverts (in fairness other users were reverting too). Cedars

    User:EaZyZ99

    Three revert rule violation on Penis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). EaZyZ99 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 07:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:HolyRomanEmperor

    Three revert rule violation on Oj, svijetla majska zoro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    HolyRomanEmperor (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Chris 73 | Talk 13:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: User is in conflict with User:Emir Arven, who got blocked by me for a 3RR above. During this, I explained the 3RR to HolyRomanEmperor. HolyRomanEmperor left me a warning on my userpage not to block him [47]. There is some discussion going on on user talk pages, but it is a 3RR violation nevertheless. In particular, a Serbian language claim previously removed was added again 4 times within 24 hours. Since I have blocked his Opponent Emir Arven for 24 hours for a 3RR, i blocked HolyRomanEmperor also for 24 hours (as per sysops should treat all sides equally above). Disclaimer: I have never edited the article, have no interest in this topic, and are not involved in this conflict in any way except for enforcing the 3RR. -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:Max rspct

    Three revert rule violation on September 11, 2001 attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Max rspct (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Tom Harrison (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:Wikipediatrix

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

    Wikipediatrix (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Extraordinary Machine 17:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Chaosfeary

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

    Reported by:Cberlet 21:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

    Blocked for 24 hours.--Sean|Black 21:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    Oops, I blocked him as well. I'll go tell him on the page. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    Oh, I see you've done that as well. Well, since I'm obviously not needed here, I'll go elsewhere. :-) Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:MagnaVox

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

    Reported by: —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 09:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:


    • It's amazing how Locke_Cole is never banned for constantly breaking the same rules he reports others for breaking. 14:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:80.217.152.161

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

    80.217.152.161 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Gyrofrog (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Trollderella

    Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Trollderella (talk · contribs):

    • Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
    1. [57] 18:50, November 29, 2005
    2. [58] 19:31, November 29, 2005
    3. [59] 22:46, November 29, 2005
    4. [60] 23:55, November 29, 2005
    5. [61] 00:23, November 30, 2005

    Reported by: Radiant_>|< 23:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • There is controversy over the wording of some CSDs. That is being discussed on the talk page. In the meantime, however, reverting is not helpful to the discussion.
    btw, 3rd listed violation isn't a revert, though that's still is 4 reverts in less than 24 hours. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:HunTomy

    Three revert rule violation on Treaty of Trianon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). HunTomy (talk · contribs):

    • reverted a fascist film used for extremism propaganda

    (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Vienna_Award&diff=29349424&oldid=29321409)

    User User:HunTomy :

    • makes controversial, nationalist edits in Second Vienna Award;
    • makes controversial, nationalist edits in First Vienna Award,
    • makes controversial, nationalist edits in Treaty of Trianon,
    • inserts unsupported figures for the number of romanians in Transylvania and refuses to cite sources;
    • makes controversial, nationalist and unverifiable edits (including fake figures) in Romania related articles (Treaty of Trianon, First Vienna Award)
    • routinely insults other contributors in edit summaries
    • harasses and insults contributors who disagree with his edits
    • routinely questions the good faith of contributors who disagree with, or even question, his edits

    Reported by -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 13:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC) Reported by: --Orioane 07:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

    Also sockpuppetry - 81.182.108.116 same topics, same views, while he was blocked
    • Harassment, insults
    • He said paranoids to other editors

    Reported by -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 19:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Iipmstudent9

    Three revert rule violation on The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Iipmstudent9 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Ravikiran 19:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC) Comments:

    • This is part of a long revert war that has been going on. The issue is being discussed in the talk page, but Iipmstudent9 takes the view that the views of the institute in question (IIPM) deserve precedence over the views of its critics. Incidentally, don't be misled by the conciliatory tone of the edit summaries. The same person has been threatening to get people out of their jobs here[62], here [63] and here [64]. Also note that the institute in question has been in the news for sending legal notices to critics and getting people to lose their jobs for daring to criticise it ("Drnoamchomsky" is the same person as Iipmstudent9, by Iipmstudent9's own admission - see the article talk page.) --Ravikiran 19:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • There is one more violation here 09:40, 1 December 2005. Even if you consider only the userid edits, this is th 4th one within 24 hours, else it is the 5th one. P.S. It looks like I too ended up violating 3rr, so go ahead and block me if needed. Sorry. --Ravikiran
    • Taking a look at this, I've decided not to impose a block on any parties. Both parties are aware of the disruptiveness of their actions and should come to an understanding.--Sean|Black 06:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:68.104.145.156

    Three revert rule violation on Franklin Lashley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.104.145.156 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Lakes 23:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • As you can see from the users history [66] this has been going on for a while. The current data has references, yet he fails to give any proof on his points, instead he gives insults and derogatory comments, like visible from edit: [67]. A quote from his latest edit: "It's not Dominator. Stop vandalising. Dude, haven't you noticed that I'm not gonna stop this until you leave it to what it should be!?" ([68]).
    As all these edits were quite some time ago blocking would only have to be purely punitive so I will warn and I suggest keeping an eye on him/her. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:Ghirlandajo

    Three revert rule violation on History of Belarus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: --Wojsyl (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User:Ghirlandajo repeatedly reverts edits of other editors in this article, making the progress hard to follow. There's no particular single version that the user reverts to, as he reverts different edits to suit his taste. Most of the reverts exhibit strong nationalistic bias (as can be seen from edit summaries).
    • User:Ghirlandajo is a very experienced user with thousands of edits and with a strong nationalistic bias. He is very much aware of the 3RR and of what and why he's doing. User has been earlier warned on his talk page.
      • Can you cite my single edit with a "nationalistic bias"? One the other hand, it is perfectly normal for you Polish editors to bully me any way you please. Today user:Halibutt referred to me as a "vodka pisser", and user:Space Cadet called me "stupid katsap" (i.e., "he-goat"). You Poles think that if I live miles away from EU, you have every right to call me these names. I hope other editors will help me to stop this badgering and will advise Polish editors to read Wikipedia:Civility. --Ghirlandajo 16:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Ghirlandajo please don't mislead Halibutt didn't call you any names as can be seen here: [69] He simply responded to your insulting names regarding Poles that the names you used are equal to the insult "vodka pisser". --Molobo 17:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    Sorry Molobo, I don't think "vodka pisser" and "polack" are equivalent. My Webster dictionary doesn't report that the word is perceived as offensive. I don't believe that Shakespeare, when using it, meant offense. And I've never applied the word to any Polish editor. --Ghirlandajo 17:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    Then don't do the same and say he "reinsert vulgar words into the article" when in reality there only the word "bullshit" in a comment, which readers can't read anyway. NightBeAsT 17:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • 4 recent "full reverts" have been performed within 24h period. There are more examples of his recent reverts, but I do not have the patience to search for them. The user is also commenting out others' edits in order to evade the 3RR.
      • Anyone who is patient enough to look into my edits, will see that I constantly add data, whereas you delete it. And I never made three "full reverts", contrary to your assumptions. --Ghirlandajo 16:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I apologize for the mess, but this is the result of the way he is hiding the reverts among legitimate edits. --Wojsyl (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • User Ghirlandajo also uses the reverts to reinsert vulgar words into the article[70] --Molobo 16:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
      Actually, I repeatedly admonished Wojsyl to use the talk page instead of blind reverting, as is usual with me. As Wojsyl never condescended to use the talk page, I had to insert my comments near his nationalist edits. I believe his deliberate evasion of discussions on talk pages is intended to spawn incessant revert warring, as he's been many times told before. --Ghirlandajo 17:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

    Sorry for maybe jumping to conclusions, but against the background of Halibutt's RfA this entirely disruptive and idiotic Polish-Russian revert war seems pretty much revanchistic. If one side thinks it is right, it should try to get drag in a third party rather than woo activists via the [one's own nationality]'s noticeboard. NightBeAsT 17:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

    I don't think nationality determines anybody's beliefs NB.And I a convinced of Halibutts and Piotrus neutrality and objective behaviour.--Molobo 17:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

    Just in case anybody wondered. After seing Ghirlandajo's edits to the article I did not revert a single time and instead resorted to the usage of talk page. I also thanked Molobo at his talk page for not getting involved in revert wars and instead joining the discussion. However, as I've been offended several times in a row by Ghirlandajo, I'm currently suspending my participation in the discussion on the article and will prepare a RfC or some other way of user conduct dispute process against Ghirlandajo. I've had enough and I don't want to bear his insults any more. And contrary to what people suggest, I was equally offended by being called a Polack before my failed RfA, so I doubt it is a factor here. Halibutt 19:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    Relax, I'm not gonna revise Soviet-Polish War in the nearest future. As one independent user here correctly pointed out, you and your Polish comrades have been persecuting me ever since you put a blame on me for your failed RfA. Please leave me alone. I've had enough of your attacks for today. --Vodka Pisser. 22:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

    Since I am involved in the content editing of this dispute, I cannot react to this 3RR otherwise then to ask the community to review this and act accordingly. Please also note that this is not a revert war between nationality based editors, as I sincerly doubt Ghirlandajo speaks for all or even a majority of Russian editors.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

    More reverts by Ghirlandajo: [71], [72], accompanied by personal attacks, including the threat of 'defrocking' me. I'd really appreciate if the community would step in (I have requested a mediation, but that doesn't seem to stop the revert war).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:WarriorScribe

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

    Reported by: --Jason Gastrich 20:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: Known troll is POV pushing. He wants to suppress the fact that Wife Swap has been accused of misrepresenting its participants' lives. Cited source from participant makes this claim, so it is legitimate and a mention about Wife Swap's questionable actions should be included.

    This is a revert war between Jason Gastrich and several other users. I suggest you try some further discussion or dispute resolution. A personal blog is not generally considered a reliable source. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 20:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    I understand, but if the man's name and picture are on it (and they match the name and picture of the man on Wife Swap), then can't we confirm that it is indeed the same person and the information is from him?--Jason Gastrich 21:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    Maybe the simplest thing would be to ask Reggie if he doesn't mind if his blog is used, but then you still run into the problem of POV through a blog, as opposed to a neutral evaluation of the subject matter. This is why specific personalities should be avoided, though general summaries of events, criticisms, and incidents, as related to the point that I tried to make ("Reality TV vs Reality") could remain. - WarriorScribe 21:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
      • You probably should just take a look here and then start here and read each comment by Jason Gastrich in the thread, and you will see that, while I am striving for neutrality, the changes being made by Gastrich are designed to hold up a particular individual to scrutiny and ridicule. - WarriorScribe 20:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
        • WarriorScribe (Dave Hunt) isn't striving for neutrality or else he would have written something neutral instead of reverting 4 times.--Jason Gastrich 21:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
          • In fact, I did post a fairly neutral comment under a new heading, "Reality TV vs Reality," that Gastrich removed without comment. Furthermore, Gastrich is not being entirely honest when he claims that I want to "suppress the fact that Wife Swap has been accused of misrepresenting its participants' lives." I don't want to "suppress" that, at all. I have never written that this is my intent and nothing that I have written anywhere can be shown to even imply that. Gastrich made it up, just as he makes up so many things and then pretends to call them "facts." What I am doing is challenging Gastrich's attempts to use Wikipedia to his own ends. Links already provided have demonstrated that Gastrich has a personal agenda against the "atheist" involved in this particular episode. There is no reason to get into specifics of that sort in a summary description of a TV series. There is no coincidence in the fact that there had been no editings of that particular article since November 22nd, and October 31st before that, and yet, after being involved in some heated discussion at the Infidel Guy site, Gastrich decided to "proof read" the article and insert some unflattering commentary. - WarriorScribe 21:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    I think Warrior Scribe (talk · contribs) and Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs) should be blocked for 24 hours. There is a lot of previous here from Usenet from an ongoing feud in which both parties are being very childish. — Dunc|☺ 20:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    This complaint is about reverting and suppressing the truth; not about the past and not about extra-Wiki things. If it were, I would be happy to provide a dissertation on Dave Hunt's antics. Let's keep focused on what is going on here.--Jason Gastrich 21:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    Well, I know a "Dave Hunt" and it isn't me. Still, Gastrich does get personalities confused quite frequently and his "dissertations" are simply his fantasies and distortions. I agree that they are not relevant here. - WarriorScribe 21:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    Jason, I noticed that Jareth was nice enough to warn you Jason here (at 20:41 UTC) and because of that and since you are apparently trying to draft a compromise position is why I think it would be a mistake to block at this point however I would definitely support a 24 hour block for each of you if this continues since not only are you giving plenty of leeway within WP:3RR but also edit warring is very harmful, that's just my view though and I won't get in the way if another administrator feels a block is appropriate. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    This looks like an outside fight that has spilled onto Wikipedia. My advice: Cut it out, or I'll block both of you for 24 hours. However, I'd be willing to help both parties engage in discussion, if they so wish (if not, the Mediation Cabal could help you guys out.--Sean|Black 00:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    WarriorScribe is just a big-headed bully. Now, he has reverted my contribution (which simply removed two phrases: one needless/POV and one run-on) because he perceives that he's the Wiki God and nobody can contribute after his pen leaves the paper. --Jason Gastrich 18:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    It is partially an outsider fight. However, many people from Wikipedia have started attending to Gastrich as a result of his POV pushing. For a very old example, look at the revert war at Antony Flew. Not all those in this conflict are from outside areas. Harvestdancer 16:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    A quick review of Jason Gastrich's activity on the Wife Swap article shows he's reverted there 6 times in the last 24hr. Taken with his with the disingenuousness of accusing 3rr against his opponent there, it's certainly worthy of a 24 hr block for 3rr. FeloniousMonk 18:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:ScienceApologist

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

    ScienceApologist (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: --Iantresman 23:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • I think that some of these "extensive edits" amount to a 'revert'.
    • User will not present any evidence for his edits, whereas I have provided much peer-reviewed evidence as indicated by the article talk page.
    • User recently changed his username from joshuashroeder [73] under which username he was recently subject to a temporary ban [74]
    • User 24.12.29.115 traces to Chicago, Illinois, ScienceApologist's home town.

    User:69.253.195.228

    Three revert rule violation on Mark Ames. 69.253.195.228 (talk · contribs): After removing an image from the article.

    Reported by Dsol 12:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:MagnaVox (2nd violation)

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

    Reported by: Locke Cole 03:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Dbiv

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

    Reported by: --84.68.228.215 08:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Continues to revert despite considerable opposition on the talk page. This user is and Admin and should be setting a higher example.
    Already blocked for 24 hours for this 3RR violation. For what its worth he did the same thing with five reverts in 24 hours a few days ago too. When someone pointed out that he had broken the 3RR rule, his response was to point the editor to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. [75] Wonderful behaviour for an admin. AlistairMcMillan 09:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm concerned that AlistairMcMillan has blocked David and yet was one of the people reverting against him in the content dispute. We're not allowed to block people in articles we're actively engaged in editing, so it might be best if Alistair were to unblock him and allow an uninvolved admin to deal with this. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    I've removed my block. AlistairMcMillan 10:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    Thank you, Alistair. Perhaps someone not involved could take a look at it. I've just edited the article myself, so I can't do anything either. I'm pasting below our conversation from our talk pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

    Alistair, sorry to bother you with this, but I just noticed you blocked Dbiv, even though you were involved in the content dispute. That's a violation of the blocking policy, so it might be best (for your own sake) if you were to unblock him and let an uninvolved admin handle it. Message for you about it at WP:AN/3RR#User:Dbiv. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

    If I unblock Dbiv, is there any likelihood of anything being done about his breaking of the 3RR rule twice inside a week? No offence, but I'd feel a lot more confident about following your advice if you hadn't just reverted his version, which is clearly against the consensus view on the Talk page. AlistairMcMillan 10:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    Hi again, I've only just started editing the article, so I don't know the issues or who is taking which side. All I know is that we're not allowed to block people we're having content disputes with, so regardless of the consequences, you should really unblock him, for your own sake as much as anything else. Another admin is likely to come along and reblock if it was a genuine violation (and I'm not saying I think it wasn't, only that I haven't looked at the diffs). SlimVirgin (talk) 10:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    Would you mind telling me what "for my own sake" refers to? Just curious, because he's been using similar language all morning. AlistairMcMillan 10:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    We should really have this discussion on the 3RR page, so I'm going to move the comments there. By "for your own sake," I meant that you have violated the blocking policy, which is regarded as a serious offence for an admin, particularly in the current climate, as there have been a couple of recent controversial instances of it. You'd therefore be doing yourself a favor if you were to unblock and perhaps ask an uninvolved admin to look at the situation. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    Alistair, at 10:37 you said you had removed the block, but I can't see that it's been removed, unless I have a cache problem. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    You unblocked the autoblock but not the user account. It needs to be done separately. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:RK

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

    Reported by: --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

    Additionally please revert back to version from before RK started his edits.

    • Can you please fix the above by providing diffs rather than just the changed page, as in the example at the top of this page? Also, please sign your name using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ -- SCZenz 20:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:Flavius Aetius (in concert with User:Brian Brockman)

    Three revert rule violation on Talk:Ken Mehlman (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Ken Mehlman|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Flavius Aetius (talk · contribs)

    Reported by: · Katefan0(scribble)/my ridiculous poll 20:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Flavius Aetius has repeatedly removed an entire thread of conversation between several editors on Talk:Ken Mehlman, citing as his reasoning that much of the thread was copied from a user's personal talk page. It was copied there because the discussions bore on a currently disputed topic on the Ken Mehlman page, Republicans reputed to be gay who dodge questions about their sexuality (the inclusion of such information is also a topic of dispute on Ken Mehlman). Flavius Aetius is aware of policies regarding 3RR, as he previously violated it on the article itself and, rather than reporting the error here, I placed a warning on his talk page [76] which he has since blanked [77]. · Katefan0(scribble)/my ridiculous poll 20:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    I'd encourage any admin reviewing this report to look through the talk page history; it appears Brian Brockmeyer has also violated 3RR at this point. · Katefan0(scribble)/my ridiculous poll 20:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    Thanks much Wikibofh, though I disagree that it wasn't vandalism. I'm not sure how you can have a content dispute over the blanking of a talk page thread (this was, after all, an issue of removing others' comments). Regardless, thanks. · Katefan0(scribble)/my ridiculous poll 21:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I view it as a content dispute, where whether or not the content should be there is disputed.  :) I think blanking is normally vandalism. But if you've reverted 4 or 5 times, you need to get admins involved, not continue to revert more. I'm going to keep myself cheerfully out an analysis of the content. I have informed User:Asbl of this as well (talk and email). If other admins believe I'm wrong, I will happily bow to consensus. Wikibofh 21:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:Asbl

    Has reverted over TEN times within last 24 hours after being corrected for pasting discussions that took place on a user's talk page to the talk page on the Ken Mehlman article (as these discussions took place on a user's private talk page, they do not belong on a community talk page since not all members of the community were privy to the discussion). Has shown blatant disregard for 3RR.Brian Brockmeyer 20:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

    Please note that Brian Brockmeyer has been reported above, and seems to not understand that blanking is simple vandalism. The 3RR does not apply to reverting his vandalisms. --Asbl 21:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:68.112.201.90 and User:Braaad

    Three revert rule violation on Civil Air Patrol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.112.201.90 (talk · contribs) and Braaad (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: McNeight 01:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:


    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive9&oldid=30016041"