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 GrandfatherJoe (talk | contribs) at 19:24, 28 October 2005 (→‎[[User:Bomac]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Click here to create a new report


    Violations

    User:Mel Etitis

    Three revert rule violation on Because of You (Kelly Clarkson song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mel Etitis (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Winnermario 02:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • He has been reverting edits made by several users and anonymous editors, but fails to provide reasons why. This user wants a few articles to look like "his style of preference", which he keeps claiming as "NPoV".
    • Note: this issue is already being addressed by an RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mel Etitis. Coincidentally, this 3RR report was not reported until after the RfC, which listed the above diffs. Also, please note that Winnermario and Mel Etitis are involved in several edit wars with each other. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 05:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
      • The above is all true, but Mel Etitis still violated the 3RR rule. Winnermario 13:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Winnermario is right that this is a 3RR violation; I've blocked Mel Etitis for 24 hours. For what it's worth, though, I encourage Winnermario to exercise restraint in editing; revert wars are harmful to Wikipedia, and while you may not have violated 3RR necessarily, it's still not a good justification for edit wars. Ral315 WS 15:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

    I've been watching this situation closely for a week now and I strongly disagree with this block. Mel has been simply trying to tidy and conform articles to WP:MOS. For this he has been badgered and suffered many, many personal attacks from Anittas and Winnermario for over a week now. They've resisted him at every turn. He's rightly brought this to our attention at WP:AN/I#User:Winnermario and WP:AN/I#User:Anittas:_personal_attacks_.26_stalking, and others have intervened on his behalf to no avail. The two who oppose him are by any meaningful definition bullies and vandals. Mel should not be punished for resisting their abuse in good faith. I'm unblocking him as I feel this block did not take into account the intentional abuse and goading that he's faced, and so is unjustified. FeloniousMonk 15:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

    Sounds reasonable to me. FM's position is reasonable - keeping articles in link with MoS should not fall under the 3RR. On the other hand, we have failed Mel for leaving him to handle this mess alone. Guettarda 16:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    There is far, far too much of this nonsense going on with this page, not just in this instance but in what I have seen in the past. It is a simple rule. Just enforce it fairly across the board, and don't fill the page with nonsensical arguments about action which clearly does not violate the rule.
    Mel should be blocked. It's not a terribly onerous burden. But in any case, all the garbage about "he acted in good faith" or "he's been a valuable editor for a long time" or "he's merely enforcing conformity with the MoS" is totally irrelevant, whether it is for Mel Etitis or any other editor. Gene Nygaard 18:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    Note: there was some discussion of whether or not reversion of contrary to MoS edits should be considered vandalism. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 16:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    How could it possibly be? The MoS is merely a guideline. But more importantly, that wasn't even offered as an excuse by the admin doing the unblocking here.
    There is no reason that Mel Etitis can just sit back and wait for the time period to expire; if the action of others is really egregious, there ought to be several other editors who will step and do the reversions if he follows the rules himself. Gene Nygaard 18:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

    I agree. We do not want another RickK sdituation with a good admin being hounded off the site. Having looked at a number of edits in Mel's Rfc they all looked to be good and good faith edits, SqueakBox 16:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

    Thanks to FM for unblocking me, and to BMIComp, Guettarda, and Squeakbox. I found the block rather odd in the first place, as I haven't touched the article in question for two days. Unlike those reverting my edits, I've taken the issue to RfC, have been discussing the best way to reach a solution to the disagreements, and stopped reverting any of the edits. What exactly was the block supposed to achieve? My understanding was that blocks for 3RR violations were intended to give a cooling-off period in revert wars. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    My understanding was that 3RR violations were to be done similarly across the board. I did not feel that being two days old was justification for letting this slide. I don't mind that Mel was unblocked, but being a good-faith revert doesn't necessarily excuse violating 3RR, unless the edits are reverting simple vandalism, which I didn't see in the edits he made. Ral315 WS 21:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    Why has Mel Etitis been unblocked? The users who think myself and a few other editors are the vandals are completely incorrect—and even if you were correct, that does not change the matter: Mel violated the 3RR rule. He deserves to be blocked for twenty-four hours. How dare you bring in your excuses of letting him free because I or another user is being the vandal. Winnermario 15:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    Please just check Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mel Etitis and Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Mel Etitis. By the evidence given there, it is an abuse of RfC process and of AN/3RR. And if the offending faction doesn't stop right now, it should go the ArbCom. --Pjacobi 16:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

    Mel is one of the finest contributors I know yet a violation of 3RR is just that and there are no excuses. Mel is well aware of the rules and I agree that this should go to ArbCom or at least mediation. I strongly agree that there is a high probability that Mel is being stalked and this may be expected when someone makes as many edits as he does. Administrators are subject to the same rules as everyone else.--MONGO 19:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

    Thanks for the compliment. I should say that when, a while ago, I violated 3RR (inadvertently, as in this case, and in the heat of the moment), I made no protest, and accepted the fact of my mistake and the consequences. In this case, it's not just that the violation was two days old (and I was unaware of it until the block), but that I'd not touched the article since then. In other cases, it has been argued that blocking isn't a punishment – we don't have a penal system here – but an enforced cool down, and thus inappropriate when no cooling down is needed. I didn't ask to be unblocked (aside from anything else, I didn't know that I'd been blocked until I logged on and saw the unblock), but I don't feel uncomfortable about it, as the same has happened to other editors in the past, and for what I take to have been good reason. (With regard to the RfC, something of the same applies; I had been drawn into a revert war over disruptive edits, but had stopped before the RfC was called. In that case, however, there's the added point that there was no genuine attempt to resolve the matter by those bringing the RfC. But that's something to go into elsewhere.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:Instantnood

    Three revert rule violation on Economy of Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Instantnood (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Huaiwei 10:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User:Instantnood's edit made at 15:55, 7 October 2005 is a revert, as per a previous round of edits dated 15 July 2005 in which instantnood adds the above edit [1], which User:SchmuckyTheCat then removes [2]. Three months later, instantnood revisits the issue by reinstating the edit again as per the first revert listed above.--Huaiwei 10:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I made the first edit listed above after taken a look at category:economies by country, where economy articles of different countries are grouped under, together with the economy categories of different countries. — Instantnood 10:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Then that is a content dispute you failed to discuss when attempting to add this category, not in the relevant discussion page or even in the edit summary, but instead choosing to engage in revert warring. This is precisely what the 3RR is trying to guard against. If you cannot demonstrate the ability in using dicussion pages after making countless controversial edits for over ten months, then may this help to educate you on it.--Huaiwei 10:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Since Huaiwei had a past record to assert country = sovereign state, and claim that categories by country are not suitable for Hong Kong as Hong Kong is not a sovereign state (see [edit history of category:law enforcement in Hong Kong [3] and category:law enforcement in Macau [4], for example, see also [5], [6]), I thought it was the same issues that made Huaiwei reverted my edit.

        Since all similar articles on the economies of different countries are grouped under category:economies by country, I don't think there's a point to argue that the Hong Kong article need not be categorised there because of the Hong Kong category [7]. — Instantnood 11:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

        • This is a content discussion you could have discussed in the relevant talk pages, but which you chose not to. Trying to discuss them belatedly now does not in any way contravene the fact that a 3RR has been violated. The nomination clearly stays.--Huaiwei 11:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Unless it's the consensus to keep only the categories but not the articles in category:economies by country, there is no reason to take economy of Hong Kong off from there. Since there's no valid and substantiated reason to do so, repeatedly doing so can be considered vandalism. — Instantnood 12:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
        • To repeat, you are flooding this page with your content discussions which should have taken place in the relevant discussion pages, which if done before hand in the proper manner would not have resulted in a revert war, a 3RR violation, or a nomination in this page. As for that comment on vandalism, I would have though you would know better, considering you must have read MarkSweep's comment in User_talk:MarkSweep#Restoration_request. He corrected my interpretation of what vandalism actually is, so I am quite amused that you decided to commit the same error even after having read and replied to MarkSweep's clarifications.--Huaiwei 12:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Repeatingly deleting content that should stay is vandalism. — Instantnood 13:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Since that's an opinion, it's a content dispute: no rewriting of terminology, please. --Calton | Talk 13:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the comment. The first sentence at Wikipedia:vandalism reads " Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. ". Given the present arrangement of category:economies by country that articles are included, taking only one but not the other articles off from that category is a deliberate attempt to adversely affect the integrity of Wikipedia. — Instantnood 14:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Please re-read the three revert rule: "This exception does not apply to reversions of well-established users just because you consider their edits to be 'vandalism'. Simple vandalism is indisputable; don't confuse it with edits which you simply disagree with." -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 15:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:Ninio

    Violation of the Three Revert Rule on Macedonian Slavs (Revision history):

    Reported by: REX 14:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

    What does that have to do with anything? Talk about irrelevant, this is it! REX 17:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

    I have temporarily protected Macedonian Slavs due to edit warring. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 19:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

    Star Wars

    I just wanted to note that I have blocked both Philwelch (talk · contribs) and The Wookieepedian (talk · contribs) for 24 hours each do to 3RR violations to numerous to give all the diffs here. Please take a look at the page history of Star Wars to see each edit. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:Marudubshinki

    Three revert rule violation on [[8]].Marudubshinki (talk · contribs): I've told him to stop reverting my talk page, to no avail. Copperchair 03:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

    Note that all reverts were done in less than an hour. Copperchair 03:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    I'd love to know how the fourth "revert" you've noted above is a true revert.--chris.lawson 07:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:Son of Paddy's Ego

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

    Son of Paddy's Ego (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Francis Schonken 14:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC), additions up to 13:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Lets get somethings straight, you have been reverting my edits and removing messages that declare the item as NPOV. Your simply engaged in continuing the atempted bullying you started on my talk page. Actions like this are dishoest and corrupting. That your trying to cover up your own vandlism and at the same time get me sanctioned under 3RR, whilst admitting that I haven't broken 3RR, give some idea as to you motivation.--Son of Paddy's Ego 14:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    Hey Paddy, I never edited your talk page, I only pointed out that some other user (User:Sherurcij as it happens) had posted there a block warning against you, not so long ago. (History of Son of Paddy's Ego talk page) - Note that in the meanwhile you had found occasion to use abusive language against that other user, declaring that that user had "... tried to intimidate [you] by threatening an unjustified block", as you wrote on my talk page diff --Francis Schonken 14:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    Throwing around more baseless allegations. Where was the abusive language? It is you that has continued to break Wikipedias rules by removing NPOV's and the placing low accuarcy edit summaries. You just want to be able to label people terrorist with special sections to exclude your terrorist's. In fact the more I think about it you campaign to protect this cat is Terrorist in itself. Therefor carry on and you will end up in it yourself.--Son of Paddy's Ego 15:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    Still not clear whether you endorse or deny relation to any previously and/or still blocked "Paddy" user --Francis Schonken 15:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    That's because it's another bit of your mud slinging which doesn't desirve a reply. You disgust me. Have you stopped beating your wife? I suggest that some admin should block this user now for his vanadlism and offensive behaviour.--Son of Paddy's Ego 15:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    Block this vandal please, he continue to remove npov and other warnings. s well as making false allegations here.--Son of Paddy's Ego 12:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    Frank continues to remove warnings about the content of his Pet Cat. His removals are simple vandalism.--Son of Paddy's Ego 13:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

    The matter ends here. I believe that, reviewing the edit histories, both parties had complicity in pushing the 3RR limits too far. I'm not going to flog the dead horse and block on this occasion, but I urge both editors to consider that, as soon as there was any disagreement over the category's POV tag, the matter should have been taken to the talk page and discussed there until there was consensus to either lose or keep the tag. Neither editor seemed willing to give such discussion a long enough chance.

    In addition, some inappropriate comments have been made during the course of this...argument. I've warned the users about those. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 14:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

    So not only don't you not know Groucho your also ignorant about the rules regarding the revertion of simple vandlism. You are also extremely pompous.--Son of Paddy's Ego 14:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:64.12.113.182

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

    64.12.113.182 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Dominick 15:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User is a repest edit war reverter. We unfortunatly had the page locked he helped fix up the page then went to the revert war again. Before that he put in some edits like this, bad edits by anon more bad edits more bad edits which included some PoV attacks on Church officials and some comments about the inherent unfairness of the article. I is there a better solution that 3RR reports, and locking the page. Dominick 15:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, blocked, even though article is protected. Sasquatcht|c 19:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:BigDaddy777 (2nd incident)

    Three revert rule violation on Karl_Rove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BigDaddy777 (talk · contribs):

    • Previous version reverted to: 23:21 2 October 2005 edit summary: "I took out the Weaver quote cause it's unclear which "decision" he was referring to."
    • 2nd revert: 12:15 10 October 2005 edit summary: "Someone reverted this clearly explained and well-reasoned edit. That's one..."
    • 3rd revert: 12:50, 10 October 2005 edit summary: "Ryan's attempt to start a revert war and her unpersuasive name calling do not justify changing this. That's two."
    • 4th revert: 13:25, 10 October 2005 edit comment: Sorry, but removing POV and non-factual data does not = article degradation. That's a 3RR violation for the ryan/gueterrda tag team)

    Reported by: -- RyanFreisling @ 18:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • This is this user's second 3RR violation incident report in 3 weeks. Please see the first incident, on the Karl Rove article's talk page, which resulted in a temporary block being imposed on BigDaddy777. Note that BigDaddy777 is currently involved in an RfA. -- RyanFreisling @ 18:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: this user has been blocked indefinitely by User:Redwolf24 for personal attacks and 'trolling'. -- RyanFreisling @ 19:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, the is the ArbCom case, but that shouldn't give one immunity; he can always email is evidence and comments to the ArbCom who I'm sure would be willing to put them on the appropriate page. I support. --fvw* 19:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:Comandante

    Three revert rule violation on Cuba.

    User:Comandante:

    Reported by: Bletch 22:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User doesn't seem interested in using edit summaries, when other edit summaries explained why his version has been rejected Bletch 22:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    He's been warned before for this sort of thing. I will block 24 hours. While editors are encouraged to use edit summaries, you shouldn't communicate solely through them -- please make sure you are also opening a dialogue explaining why you are reverting his changes on the talk page, where everybody can work toward a compromise. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:The Wookieepedian

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

    The Wookieepedian (talk · contribs):

    • Previous version reverted to: [13]
    • 1st revert: [14]
    • 2nd revert: [15]
    • 3rd revert: [16]
    • 4th revert: [17]

    Reported by: Justin Bacon 23:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Wookieepedian did not label his 1st revert as a revert. He combined his fourth revert with some minor changes, but it's a revert nonetheless. Several efforts were made to engage him in discussion, but he first attempted to marginalize the discussion and then simply continued reverting the article. According to his own user page, The Wookieepedian was previously Adamwankenobi, who was indefinitely blocked on 9/7/2005 by Jtkiefer for "edit warring/vandalism/incivility/disruption/etc...". He seems like a good kid, with a lot of passion for the material, but as the self-appointed "keeper of the Star Wars pages" he doesn't seem interested in letting anyone else have a significant voice in the structure, form, or content of the Star Wars articles. Justin Bacon 23:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Just after posting this, I discovered that The Wookieepedian was blocked for a 3RR violation on this same page just three days ago. And was also made aware that disputes over page content are best handled by the community at the whole; that false edit summaries are a bad idea; and so forth. So, basically, three days later he's back on the same merry-go-round. Justin Bacon 23:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Blocked for 24 hours for violation of 3RR, please be advised though that you are on the edge of 3RR yourself. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Yup. Seeing it was just a revert war, I stopped fighting a losing battle. We seem to be having some success on working towards a wider consensus on the talk page. Thank you. Justin Bacon 23:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

    User:Kolokol

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

    Kolokol (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Philip Baird Shearer 20:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User will not comment on the talk page or listen to other editors. This same editor has alrady been in violation of the 3RR rule for presistently placing a template "candidate for speedy deletion" on the redirect Úbeda and having been banned for 24 hours using the sockpupet user:K010k01 to continue to place a template on the same page. I have no evidence to link them, but the behaviour is similar to that of the edit by user:NoPuzzleStranger earlier in the year on the Ubeda page. The user user:NoPuzzleStranger has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:Slevit1

    Three revert rule violation on University of Maryland Baltimore County (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Slevit1 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: -James Howard (talk/web) 22:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User will not listen to the consensus of the other editors. Replacing factual information with garbage data. -James Howard (talk/web) 22:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:203.164.184.150

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

    203.164.184.150 (talk · contribs):

    All in all I count 8 reverts in 24 hours. He also violated the 3RR back on October 9th, when he was warned by Philip Baird Shearer. He has also violated the 3RR on Weissenburg in Bayern when I warned him again. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 20:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

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

    Seconded by: Haukur Þorgeirsson 20:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
    He's currently operating under 203.164.184.210 and signs his name as 'Mark'. He's still making himself very difficult to get along with as his contributions show. He changed another user's vote on Talk:Weissenburg in Bayern but when confronted said it was a mistake. I'm all for assuming good faith so maybe it was. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 13:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    Yes that was a mistake and I was chastised for it by Stemonitis. It's my right to believe in in my views and I'm not saying you can't believe in your views. As you are not going to persuade me to your views, I'm probably not going to persuade you to mine.
    Also I've stopped reverting on Manual of Style, for reasons that I was the only one reverting and many others were objecting and reverting, even though the now removed information was I believe removed without concensus being reached. Mark 14:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: This user has also used other IP addresses and is edit warring on Weissenburg in Bayern. Susvolans ⇔ 14:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

    Mark has gradually become more and more reasonable. I retract my request for the 3RR to be applied to him. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 10:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:Kolokol Second time in 48 hours

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

    Kolokol (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Philip Baird Shearer 15:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Second time in 48 hours. So it is a rolling 3RR! Philip Baird Shearer 15:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Blocked for 24 hours. He also reverted here within the 24 hours. -Splashtalk 16:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:24.205.51.127

    Three revert rule violation on Saint Francis High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    24.205.51.127 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: 02:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Edit war of some sort. - RoyBoy 800 02:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Already blocked, for vandalism. ~~ N (t/c) 18:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:203.94.228.43

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

    203.94.228.43 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Philip Baird Shearer 15:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • There are slight variations in the body of the text as others try to find an acceptable compromise. But user:203.94.228.43 looks like a sockpupet[18] for the 3RR suspended user:Kolokol for persistent similar reverts to the the same page. When Kololol was previously 3RRed on 6 October 2005 for reverting edits to a redirected page to Ubeda a sockpupet called user:K010k01 was created. The reversion edits to this article "bare all the hallmarks" (to use an expression used by the British media and authorities about terrorist attacks) to those on the same page by user:NoPuzzleStranger a user "blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, per ruling of administrators" back in August(?) 2005.Philip Baird Shearer 15:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Blocked. ~~ N (t/c) 18:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:64.106.60.102

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

    64.106.60.102 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Joshuaschroeder 16:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Anon user has been reverting for a number of days now. Joshuaschroeder 16:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Blocked. ~~ N (t/c) 18:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


    User:Varizer, User:Miroslawa and User:212.185.62.98 at Chancellor of Germany

    All but one of last 49 edits over last two days have been an edit war with last two of above three editors trying to push through a "Greater Germany" definition (identifying current Federal chancellorship with Bismarck's imperial chancellorship), probably motivated by fringe nationalism. First editor (User:Varizer) is reverting everything back to original format, not labelling reverts so. I haven't checked every one of the 48 edits, but I have seen that each is well over 3 reverts in the last 24 hours. --- Charles Stewart 20:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

    Yowch, that's pretty ugly. Blocked the lot. --fvw* 20:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:131.107.0.80

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

    131.107.0.80 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: UtherSRG (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User will not listen to the consensus of the other editors. UtherSRG (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    • User:131.107.0.80 has become disruptive to the editing process. --JWSchmidt 17:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Added 5th & 6th reverts to list. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    • In 131.107.0.80's defense, his changes are reasonable and definitionally-based, but the other editors don't seem to want to engage in any sort of discussion other than to tell him he's wrong. Also, he's posting from a Microsoft address, so banning him would ban everyone editing from MS (including me, at the moment). 131.107.0.80 17:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Speaking as a shareholder, shouldn't you MS guys be working or something? Rhobite 18:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
        • People have engaged him in conversation extensively. Such engagement is difficult when, for instance, he suggests humans shouldn't be considered animals, let alone apes.
          • The above untruth illustrates why Marskell cannot be considered neutral. In fact, I never stated, suggested, or intimated that "humans shouldn't be considered animals, let alone apes". This is purely false, made up by Marskell to justify his reverts. I merely stated the obvious fact that humans aren't considered animals or apes by almost anyone who uses those terms, except in specialized cases. As Marskell suggests of me below, I say of him and the others; WP:POINT at best and trolls at worst. And collectively, they went far in excess of four edits.
        • At best WP:POINT at worst trolling on his part. Also, to be clear, no one else went in excess of 3 reverts. He has six in 24 hours and 9 in three days. Marskell 18:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    • These were purely restoration revisions to undo vandalism by UtherSRG, JWSchmidt, and Marskell, who have collectively and (in the cases of UtherSRG and Marskell) individually violated 3RR, as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.80 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Blocked, I see no evidence of 3RR violations by others, if you claim there are 131..., please email me links to the four diffs by one person in a twenty-four hour period that you claim are reverts. --fvw* 18:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
        • UtherSRG, JWSchmidt, and Marskell have collectively violated the spirit of the rule, as clearly outlined at the top of this page. I posted a perfectly legit edit, which one of them then reverted. When I reverted it back, they took turns reverting my edit. The extent of their "discussion" was essentially to call me a "troll" and a "vandal", utterly ignoring my (rather obvious) justification.

    User:Kolokol

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

    Kolokol (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Philip Baird Shearer 16:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • This is the third time in a week that there has been a request for Kolokol to be blocked for breaking the 3RR rule on Ubeda. Eleven minutes after the last revert by "User:203.94.228.43" (see above blocked @ 18:19, 13 October 2005 by "User:Nickptar") was reverted by "User:Lucky 6.9", User:Kolokol reverted the revert. If socketpupets are going to be used while User:Kolokol is blocked there is little point blocking that account. What are the other options when an editor of Wikipedia behaves like this? Philip Baird Shearer 16:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:Appleby

    Three revert rule violation on Kim Jong-il (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Reverted to *[20] 22.47 Oct 13.

    23.51 2nd

    Im each case Appleby has reverted the opening statement of this article by changing that Kim was ruler to him being leader. He was inmformed last night of the 3RR rule. There are 7 earlier reverts he made thast evening, these 4 are just the latest, and against a variety of editors, SqueakBox 16:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

    Blocked for 24 hours. He's made many more than 3 reverts. Hopefully he'll cool off in the next 24hrs and begin discussing things. -Splashtalk 17:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:Hottentot

    Three revert rule violation on Cuba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hottentot (talk · contribs)

    The 4th revert with the one line edit summary "your version sucks". One does wonder why one has to put up with such abuse. Ho0ttentot has over 9000 edits in 6 months and is therefore clearly not a newbie, SqueakBox 23:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

    You forgot to mention that you yourself also violated the 3RR rule. --Hottentot
    It appears that both of you (Hottentot and SqueakBox) have violated the 3RR; both are blocked for 24 hours. Remember that even if you feel a revert is wrong, don't just revert it back yourself — instead, try and discuss it. It does not matter who is "right" or "wrong" in 3RR. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 23:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


    I assure you I have not broken the 3RR. My 1st edit was not a revert, nor was my last. I counted very carefully. Hottentot did break it and with an insult, SqueakBox 23:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

    My deepest apologies; upon further investigation it turns out SqueakBox did not violate 3RR. Mea maxima culpa; he's unblocked. I apologize again. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 23:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

    Thanks for unblocking me so promptly. Much as I would like to revert the Cuba article a 4th time cos it ain't the version I want I have and will continue to refrain from doing so until tomorrow evening (if so), SqueakBox 23:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:Revolución

    Three revert rule violation on Template:Democratic Party.

    Four Reverts:

    • Those are links to revisions, not diffs. Please provide diffs showing the reversions. Remember to sign the report here, too. -Splashtalk 04:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

    Changed to diffs and signed Stirling Newberry - Bopnews 18:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

    Gorgonzilla

    Gorgonzilla (talk · contribs):

    1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Abramoff&action=history 19:11, 15 October 2005 Gorgonzilla (rv attempt to suppress relevant facts. Abramoff is indicted for stealling $30 million from a guy who was murdered)

    2nd revert:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronnie_Earle&oldid=25601139 16:47, 15 October 2005 Gorgonzilla (The indictment of the PAC chair is too relevant. RV partisan whitewash attempt.)

    3rd revert: 22:55, 9 Feb 2005

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronnie_Earle&oldid=25593467 18:52, 15 October 2005 Gorgonzilla (RV, the Abramoff connection is entirely relevant to DeLay's bias claim.)

    4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abramoff-Reed_Indian_Gambling_Scandal&oldid=25631899 03:10, 16 October 2005 Gorgonzilla (If you have a problem with the image copyvio that, not the article. Looks like the copyvio is spurious.)

    5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronnie_Earle&oldid=25593467 02:57, 16 October 2005 Gorgonzilla (RV, you have had your three LJS, stop this game or get another block)

    6th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Abramoff&oldid=25633125 03:31, 16 October 2005 Gorgonzilla (rv: vandalism)

    Reversions have to be to the same article. Also, please pay attention to the formatting for these pages -- new additions, in general, should be at the bottom of the page if you want anybody to see it. This goes for talk pages, too. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    This appears to be a pre-emptive attack knowing that I was filing an RFP: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/John_Henry This user has himself 3RR'd on this same article --Gorgonzilla 00:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:John Henry and Sockpuppets

    The above user violated the 3RR at the time he was making the above spurious complaint:

    Original edit[34]

    • 1st Revert 13:11, 15 October 2005[35]
    • 2nd [36]
    • 3rd [37]
    • 4th (as DEastman) 02:05, 16 October 2005 [38]

    --Gorgonzilla 22:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:Lightbringer

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

    Lightbringer (talk · contribs):

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert: [39]
    • 2nd revert: [40]
    • 3rd revert: [41]
    • 4th revert: [42]
    • 5th revert: [43]
    • 6th revert: [44]

    All approximately the same day.

    Reported by: --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 06:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

    Please post proper diffs; see the example below. --fvw* 06:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    Fixed. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 06:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    Thanks. Blocked. --fvw* 06:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    As is User:MSJapan. --fvw* 06:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    I don't think it's fair to block him, MSJapan was undoing Lightbringer's badness. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 06:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    We are waiting on ArbCom in relation to him, we can't help they're taking forever. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 06:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    We don't take sides in 3RR disputes unforutantly. Sasquatcht|c 07:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:Silverback

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

    Silverback (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: 172 | Talk 20:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Silverback is a revert war on his own RfC-- effectively declaring that the cosigners are not allowed to edit it now that he has made his response. 5 reverts in less than 5 hours.
    • The anon User:68.35.159.18 making one of the reverts is Silverback. He admits that fact in Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Silverback in his 15:55, 16 October 2005 posting.
      • Yes that IP is me. There is no 3RR on vandalism. 172 has been reported for vandalism of the certified text. He has had notice, on his talk page, and on the talk page of the WfC he is vandalizing. Furthermore I have discussed this on wicken-l. He has a legitimate way to make his edits yet he refuses to do it. If he really thought I was getting close to a 3RR violation, he should have warned me.--Silverback 20:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

    Silverback's reverts are related to a spurious "severe vandalism" warnings on WP:VIP in retaliation for his work on the RfC. See the discussion talk page of the RfC. [45] [46] 172 | Talk 20:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

    They are not spurious, and you showed lack of good faith by reporting this as a 3RR without disclosing the vandalism report. --Silverback 20:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    The vandalism charges are dubious. It is vandalism to modify other users' statements, your own when you are a cosigner of an RfC updating the page as new information comes in. That was explained to you by multiple people on the talk page of your RfC. The fact that our edits weren't vandalism was even explained to you on the mailing list. [47] That is my final word on this matter to you, as there's nothing else left to say. 172 | Talk 21:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    If you are editing in good faith, why won't you respect the integrity of the certified statement and respond elsewhere. Frankly, by the time the community has spoken, I think my interpretation will be upheld. There is no other way it can reasonably work.--Silverback 21:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

    Regarding Silverback's claim that the 3RR does not apply to him because he is reverting "vandalism," see: 22:08, 16 October 2005 comments by Redwolf24 Note: Silverback has added 172 to 'Severe' at Vandalism in Progress. This is abusing the system if I've ever seen it. [48] 172 | Talk 23:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


    I've been blocked by an involved admin This is **much worse** than any of Silverback's attacks earlier listed in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Silverback. Redwolf24 is obviously a completely involved, uninterested party who probably wasn't even aware of or interested in my past disputes with Silverback. There's a problem when someone can be blocked for making around a half dozen reversions on his own RfC but still case just as much disruption by attacking administrators on the mailing list. 172 | Talk 01:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:Grazon

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

    Grazon (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Rhobite 03:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Repeatedly inserts a large number of quotes from op-ed pieces and message board posts into the article. Rhobite 03:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:Nemonoman

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

    Nemonoman (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: --fvw* 05:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • A couple days late but a pretty open and shut case, especially since the user continues to do it. Blocked for 24 hours or earlier if I can discuss with the user a bit. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 06:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:203.101.50.154

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

    203.101.50.154 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: --goethean ॐ 18:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Taaoo (talk · contribs) is trying to correct POV and false statements in a section written by 203. 203 reverts any changes to "his" section. Edit war has been raging on article and Talk page for months. Several editors have tried to mediate without success. --goethean ॐ 18:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Blocked for 24 hours. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Thanks. I just realized thast 203 is probably Gurkhaboy (talk · contribs). I surmised this by getting linked to Gurkhaboy's Userpage from this Googlesearch, and then noticing that Gurkhaboy also wanted to insert questionable text into Rajput. --goethean ॐ 18:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
    • 5th revert: 13:55, 17 October 2005 --goethean ॐ 19:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Blocked new IP for 48 hours. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
    • User is breaking 48 hour block. 12— goethean ॐ 17:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:G-Man

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

    G-Man (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Andy Mabbett 21:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comment

    Dont be rediculous. The fourth "revert" was different and included a map. G-Man 21:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

    G-Man's fourth edit is a pretty clear attempt at reaching an accomodation. From the testimony of other editors here, it seems as if many other editors have had similar trouble in getting Andy to notice their attempts at compromise. 172 | Talk 22:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
    It's EXACTLY THE SAME apart from the addition of a redundant map link (duplicating that already included under the image). Andy Mabbett 00:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    It appears, though, that the map is an attempt to offer information clearing up the point in contention that manifested itself in the previous reversions. If you find that the map does not satisfactorily resolve your concerns, more effectively explaining your reasoning to him on the talk page is probably a more fruitful course of action than reporting at worst a borderline, possible 3RR. Good luck resolving the dispute. 172 | Talk 00:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    Four clear reversions to remove the same content, is not "a borderline, possible" anything. Andy Mabbett 00:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    The map might be a step in the right direction towards settling the factual dispute, but unless both sides can end the apparent personal dispute, the map will be meaningless as the revert war will continue, to which both sides seem to be equal contributors right now. I protected the page until both sides can begin to make some progress towards avoiding something like this in the future, and I've also posted this notice on Pig's RfC. Karmafist 03:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    The map is nothing of the sort; compare it with this satelite picture which I have already offered on the talk page. 3RR is 3RR; map or not. Andy Mabbett 11:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    I note with some surprise that no action has yet been taken over this 3RR breach. Does the policy not apply to admins? Andy Mabbett 12:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:CarlHewitt

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

    CarlHewitt (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: --EMS | Talk 23:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Carl Hewitt is fighting an attempt to revert this article to the version of last June. This action has the support of the other editors. (Another editor who reverted the article to Carl's version later apologized for doing so in the talk page.) --EMS | Talk 23:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I notice that this editor was not blocked. I would like to know why. He has a history of being disruptive, as can be gleaned from talk:Quantum indeterminacy. Admitedly he has not reverted again but instead has chosen to move the contested content. Even so, he did violate 3RR yesterday. --EMS | Talk 18:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:Lightbringer (again)

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

    Lightbringer (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 04:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User will not listen to the consensus of the other editors. File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 04:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I only see 3 edits. To break the 3RR rule, one must have reverted (or the equivalent) of 4 times within 24 hours. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

    Lightbringer (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 04:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Kuratowski's Ghost

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

    Kuratowski's Ghost (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Scimitar parley 16:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User is revert warring over the inclusion of the Israeli Gaza-pullout as an example of ethnic cleansing; seems unable to provide a proper reference for his claims. Please see Talk: Ethnic cleansing. As I'm one of the ones he's reverting, it seemed inappropriate to block him myself.--Scimitar parley 16:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    He definitely violated 3RR, but it's not clear to me that he knew what the ultimate consequences of such an action were. Did mikkalai's warning come before or after he had made his last reversion, or were there other attempts to warn? · Katefan0(scribble) 16:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    He's been here over a year, has over 1700 edits...and I don't think that his response suggests contrition. Guettarda 16:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    Sorry, I got stuck in a meeting. I don't know if he realized it, but his response wasn't terribly encouraging. I've seen him around, so I sort of assumed he knew and wasn't going to violate it. I should've warned him earlier.--Scimitar parley 16:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    Sorry, I got pulled away too -- pesky deadlines. He hadn't yet posted his "response" when I answered here. Given that, I have to agree with Rhobite's block.... classy. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:134.161.138.166

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

    134.161.138.166 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Codex Sinaiticus 00:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Grazon

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

    Grazon (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Rhobite 02:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • This involves two separate additions to the article, but Grazon reverted five times in total, over just a few hours. This is his second 3RR violation in three days; he was warned about the 3RR on 10/1. Rhobite 02:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Blocked for 24 hours. -Splashtalk 04:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:Zephram Stark

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

    Zephram Stark (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: --JW1805 03:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • This user is engaged in blanking a section of this page, in complete disregard for the consensus against him. This user has a history of such activity on other pages. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zephram Stark. --JW1805 03:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Blocked for 24 hours. For the record, the 4 simplest reverts I found were the most recent: [49], [50], [51], [52]. (And yes, they are diffs, they show no change because I've compared them all to the same original version. Where such diffs are available, they are the simplest kind of evidence for admins to process.) -Splashtalk 04:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:Jredmond

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

    Reported by: DES (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: User was reverting the persisnt insertions/rteversions of a PoV warrior, apparently in good faith, but he did revert 7 times in less than 48 hours. Unless the changes are considered vndalism rather than a PoV or Edit dispute, in which case I am in error here. DES (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

    First of all it's not 48 hours that matters it's 24 so even though noting a longer edit conflict helps quite a bit, giving excess diffs just makes the process of sorting through all of them much much harder. Here are the relevant ones, even though it's a bit too late to make much of a practical difference:
    Starting with 14:59, October 18, 2005 (#1) and continuing here (#2), and here (#3), and finally at 13:40, October 19, 2005 (#4). Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 02:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    The reasons i reproted it that way were 1) I think there were actually two disjoint 24 hour periods, in each of which thre was a 3RR violation; 2) the entrire series of reverts indicated the overall degree of the problem, this is IMO far worse than if there had been just 4 reverts. Would people really not to ahve that information should a simialr event occur in future? DES (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:148.85.1.102

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

    Reported by: DES (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: User persisted in inserting and reverting to a highly PoV version of a passage, and showed no inclination to discuss the matter, even after an uninvolved party tried to suggest a compromise. DES (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:Johnski User:207.47.122.10

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

    Comments: These two are the same person. If you look at comments on the talk page (both current and the one that is archived) you will see his comments are the same under his user name as they are under the IP address. User persisted in inserting and reverting to a highly PoV version of a passage, despite no there being no consensus for the version he is pushing. User refuses to properly document his sources and claims the sources in the current article are bias.

    Reported by: Davidpdx 02:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

    Can you please change them to show diffs like this? Makes our job easier. Sasquatcht|c 04:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    After investigating further, half of those aren't reverts, please read WP:3RR and understand that a revert is where they undo changes... it seems like the user is just adding some stuff that GOT reverted which is a different story. Sasquatcht|c 04:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:Hipocrite

    Upcoming Three revert rule violation on Template:Suicide.

    Hipocrite (talk · contribs):

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

    Comments: I intend to violate the 3rr rule on Template:Suicide, or on Suicide methods if it is reverted without comment. I understand this may result in a 24 hour ban. I also would argue that I am applying WP:IAR correctly, and as such I should not be banned. I would appreciate prompt notification on my talk page if I am banned, and would urge any adminstrator that believes I am in the right, or at least that I should be engaged on the talk page to unban me, at which point I will continue reverting the article/template unless I am engaged on the talk page. I apologize for wasting valuable time, but I cannot compromise here due to deeply held feelings. I am embarassed that I left the template stand without disclaimer for as long as I did - it was my belief that I had won on this issue last month. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

    You want to cite IAR as an excuse for POV edit warring? You'll have to do better than that. -Splashtalk 22:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    Like I said, I've tried to discuss in talk. The opposite end of this PoV war has not done so yet, to my knoweldge. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    I have strongly warned him on his talk page against going through with this, however it is up to him whether he takes my advice. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    I've taken your advice, obviously, given that I'm letting persistant trolls destroy what was a valuable template. Yay for "community encyclopedias." Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:Rhobite

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

    Rhobite (talk · contribs):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agnosticism&action=history

    Please post specific diffs. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    Click on the link provided and you will see four reverts in less than three hours.
    Rhobite appears to have been reverting per a temporary injunction by the ArbCom against Dotsix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), that prohibits that user from editing any pages other than their talk and Arb pages. The IPs in the history are allegedly Dotsix.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    The IPs are DotSix, who has been editing the article in violation of the injunction. The 3RR does not apply. Rhobite 22:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    As Cyberjunkie says, ALLEGEDLY DotSix. But that is just Rhobite's argument _ad hominem_ against anyone who does not agree with content posted by those on his side. --66.42.43.212 16:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
    Note, the above editor (66.42.43.212) had just blanked the RfAr page for DotSix. [53]. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 16:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
    The IP (66.42.43.212) is one of DotSix's sockpuppets. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/DotSix. --Nate Ladd 16:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

    165.247.208.115

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

    165.247.208.115 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: TDC 22:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • not that this will do any good, as this user has broken the 3RR rule on this and several other article dozens of times in the past 4 months, but I might as well document it.
    • Why is his user talk page empty? Sasquatcht|c 02:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Because (s)he get a new ip about every day (EarthLink). (s)he has been doing this for the last thirteen months, at least. In addition to revert wars, this editor has been inserting copyvio text into articls, and fighting every step of the way when people try to remove it. --Duk 14:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I get a used, not new, IP every time I log on at one of these computers. And I have been doing this for nearly five years. In addition to reverting simple vandalism for the past few months, this editor has been rewriting or removing copyvio text from articles, and fighting off Duk's ad hominem attacks, personal agenda and misrepresentation of Wiki-Policy every step of the way. 165.247.202.47 17:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    Comments in defense of 165.247.208.115

    I stumbled on the article two days ago. I have followed this argument since then at Winter Soldier Investigation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    I hope that I am doing this right posting here.

    TDC history of 3RR violations
    • With all due respect, TDC has a history of aggressively reverting back articles. He has been kicked off from posting several times in the past two months for 3RR's (check his Talk page)--at least four times, for stretches as long as 48 hours...


    TDC BEGAN this revert war by erasing large portions of the text
    TDC and Duk revert wars

    When Both TDC, 172, and Duk erased large portions of the quotes in the Winter Soldier Investigation article, by reverting to TDC's cuts, 165.247.208.115 would simply try to revert back to the original BEFORE TDC came.

    This was/is a copyvio problem. Wikipedia's policy on resolving copyright problems is to revert to the pre-copyvio version. This article has a serious problem of derivative work copyrigth violation because nobody has been serious about removing the copyvios, until now. --Duk 14:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

    --To try and solve this contention about too long of quotes, I changed the article extensively myself to try to accomadate them--adding a wikiquote page. Everyone seemed to be happy about it,165.247.208.115 (talk · contribs) agreed

    This wasn't about too long of quotes, it was about UNATRIBUTED (wikipedia requires attribution for fair use) text in the body of the article masquerading as editors GFDL contributions. It has been a recurrent problem for the last thirteen months. Every time a copyvio is removed this editor claims it's to advance a certian POV. --Duk 14:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

    This, of course, did not appease Duk and TDC. They then went on to plan B: Copyright Violation Attacks, a tactic they used recently on the VVAW wikisite.

    The simple solution is to not violate other people's copyrights. --Duk 14:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    Copyright Violation Attacks

    TDC and Duk are attempting to try the same tactic on [Winter Soldier Investigation] that they did on Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

    The simple solution is to not plagiarise, copy and violate other people's copyrights. --Duk 14:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

    22 October 2005

    They nitpick the article and find a couple of sentences which is copied from a copyrighted source, then they slap a copyright violation templated on it, erasing all the content. They did the same thing just a couple of days ago on VVAW.

    All you have to do is write with your own words :) pretty simple, huh? Just because a copyright violation is small doesn't make it ok. --Duk 14:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    Large portion of text deleted

    TDC has deleted large portions of articles on a regular basis:

    Conclusion

    165.247.208.115 (talk · contribs) has simply been fighting TDC's aggressive revisions and dirty tricks.

    TDC and Duk have contributed nothing to the article except contention and bad feelings.

    I have no interest in this article other than to remove copyright violations --Duk 14:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

    If anyone should be punished, it should be TDC, for deleting large portions of text wihtout any notice--his several 48 hour bans in the past couple of months has not changed his behavior. Travb 10:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

    See also

    comments about TDC from 165.247.208.115 (talk · contribs)

    Listen, this is about an anon who refuses to regster, is abusive and argumentative with other users, continualy breaks the 3RR rule, with a record of 14 Rv's in one 24 hour period, and above all, refuses to remove copyvio from articles. TDC 16:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
    No what this is about is an abusive ideologue who goes to controversial sites and starts fights. The administrative record is clear on this: how many times have you been banned from posting for 3RR's?
    Lets break down your "defense"
    TDC:"this is about an anon who refuses to regster"
    There is no wikipedia requirement to register.
    TDC: "is abusive and argumentative with other users"
    Who came onto the site and began to erase large sections of the text? It was not the anon, it was yourself, as you have done in many, many other cases, listed above. You started the revert war, not the anon. This is clear--you had 9 pages of text and you erased large portions of it, because of 5 sentences.
    It is clear from your past conduct that you use copyright violations as a stick to delete large portions of web pages that you do not agree with because they do not fit your own pet ideology.
    TDC:"with a record of 14 Rv's in one 24 hour period"
    And how many reverts did you and Duk have, TDC? Who started this revert war, who started to delete large portions of the text, as you have done countless times, and been repremanded severly several times. At minimum, at minimum, if anon is banned from posting, you will get banned from posting too. And based on your prior record of "convictions", and this being at least the fifth time, you should be, in the interest of justice, banned for more than 48 hours--because this is NOT your first violation, and you have NOT learned from your past punishments. In fact, as the record shows on your own talk page, you are very belligerent to the people who bar you for 48 hours.
    "refuses to remove copyvio from articles"
    You delete 9 PAGES of information because of 5 sentences, which is a clear primae facia case of the fair use doctorine, which is allowed under US copyright law. You not only do this at the winter soilder site, you do this at other sites too, including the Veteran's site. (see above). You have gotten in fights about this countless times, with countless other administrators and wikiposters. At the minimum, at the minimum, in the interest of justice, you should be banned for much more time than 48 hours.
    If you bothered to look at the original documentation, you would see its more like 3 pages of information, not 5 sentences, and I cannot help but to be amused by your complete and total lack of copywrite law knowledge. You think I should be blocked for my transgressions (it is blocked by the way, not banned), lucky for me you do not posses that authority. TDC 00:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
    I listed all 5 sentences here in a 9 page document.
    Of course you ignore the most relevant portions of my argment against you:
    • Large portion of text deleted
    • TDC BEGAN this revert war by erasing large portions of the text
    • TDC history of 3RR violations
    • Copyright Violation Attacks on other sites, including the veteran site.
    TDC wrote: "....cannot help but to be amused by your complete and total lack of copywrite law knowledge."
    Continually you attack others but you never add anything of any worth to the argument yourself, throughout the history of your reverts and aggressive deletions, people have asked you repeatedly: "tell me SPECIFICALLY what is wrong with the article" which you REAPEATEDLY ignore[54]. In this case, you are no different, you attack my understanding of copyright law, but add no substatal reason for why my understanding of copyright law is wrong. In otherwords, your attacks are empty attacks, with no content. From now on, instead of wasting my time with your empty criticisms, I will simply label them "EMPTY Argument", with a link to this paragraph.
    TDC wrote: "...by the way, not banned), lucky for me you do not posses that authority."
    My apologies for using the incorrect word, I am new to wikipedia. But thanks to you I am learning about meditation, 3RRs mediators, and arbitration.
    "You think I should be blocked for my transgressions"--I am not the only one, you have a history of wikipostes going to mediators and blocking your transactions. In fact, I think some of these past meditors who have had blocked you, and know the history of your beligerence, need to add their two cents to the discussion.
    I have learned a VERY effective tactic with jingoist such as youselfm here is goes:
    I will continue to post these questions until you answer them:
    *True or false: have you been banned several times for 3RR's?
    What was the moderators (not your) reason?
    *True or false: have you been deleted several paragraphs in the past without posting your reasons?
    *True or false, you and your friend Duk attempted to deleted the Veteran's site for "copyright violations" a couple of days before you deleted the winter soilder site?
    *True or false, after the mediator specifically asked you not to delete an entire page for "copyright violation", you deleted one of my pages [55]?

    Retracting my support and defense of 165.247.208.115

    Since this 3RR has been reported, there was another revert war between TDC and 165.247.208.115. I have had it with the childish behavior of both of these two children. Therefore, I think both should be booted. I am reporting TDC today.

    Despite agreeing with 165.247.208.115 in his views, I am retracting my support for 165.247.208.115 Travb 01:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

    Well that’s the problem, mine were not reverts, they added content and put sources to plagiarized material. And just a suggestion, will you quit filling every single page you contribute to with your nonstop complaining. TDC 02:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    Allow me to express my support for TDC in this regard. The discussion area is now mired in page after page who edited what on the article. All of that is already recorded in the edit history; please leave it there. You, Travb, have also added pages upon pages of spam expressing why TDC is a jingoist, POV warrior, revisionist, vandal, etc., much of which I agree with, but please... that would be better expressed in an RfC ... not the discussion page for a wiki-article.
    Despite agreeing with Travb in his views, I am retracting my support for Travb. 165.247.202.47 17:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    Funny. that was so funny, thanks 165.247.202.47 ---Travb 22:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


    User:Unbehagen

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

    Unbehagen (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: LeFlyman 21:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User offers no contributions to article; exclusively reverts the same section since first appearance editing article October 10; refuses to acknowledge extensive Talk page discussions. LeFlyman 21:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, the 11:38 and 11:40 edit are just 1 revert same with the 13:15 and 13:16 edits. That means there's only been 3 reverts and 2 other edits. Please understand that not every edit is a revert. However, he is at 3 reverts so if he does revert again soon, I will block. Sasquatcht|c 23:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
      • The 11:40 and 13:16 edits were separate reverts (removing or changing "Jewish" to "UN targets") -- of a specific edit by another editor, Jayjg, originally made on 17:15, 20 October 2005 ("...restore target list"). As noted on the WP:3RR rule, "Reverting... means undoing the actions of another editor" which in this case is why those two should also be considered additional reverts, as they were twice restored to Jayjg's language. Additionally, rather than bringing up such matters in Talk; user presents his/her argumentative questions in edit summaries, contrary to "Use of edit summaries in disputes" guidelines. LeFlyman 01:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
    You could always try dialog vial my talk page rather than (incorrectly) reporting me. Please follow WP policy and assume good faith. If you have a problem with my edits why not try talking to me? Unbehagen 13:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:TheDoctor10

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

    TheDoctor10 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • TheDoctor10 (talk · contribs) keeps reverting to include a speculative comment despite the consensus of other editors to the contrary. Note that on his third revert he acknowledges it is his third revert, and says he'll find "another way". On his fourth revert, he tags it with a misleading edit summary. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

    Excuse me: it wasn't a misleading summary. I added a speculative sentence (that is actually quite good) and then corrected the grammar on it. Previously it said on, now it says aboard. However, I will beat this out on the talkpages until tomorrow when my next reversion campaign starts. Khao-club members: take a look at my truce proposal on Talk:List of minor Doctor Who villains.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 07:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

    From WP:3RR:

    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, page moving, admin actions such as protection, etc. Use common sense.

    Just a clarification.—Josiah Rowe 08:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

    I've only just visited AN/3 today, and this editor whilst evidently in breach of 3RR hasn't reverted for a number of hours now. Since 3RR is supposed to prevent edit-wars rather than punish them, I'm not going to block immediately, but this report should be considered 'open' and, if he reverts again within 24 hours, there will be good reason to block. -Splashtalk 19:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

    I would also invite people to go chime in on the content dispute RfC that has been filed over the article. Look over the history and the talk page and see what you think. The more objective opinions involved, the better. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:Appleby

    Three revert rule violation on Kim Jong-il (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Appleby (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Bletch 18:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:Benapgar

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

    Benapgar (talk · contribs)

    Comments:

    Reported by: FeloniousMonk 06:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:Timewarp

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

    Timewarp (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: --TimLambert 10:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Timewarp appears to be a sockpuppet operated by John Lott to remove all criticism of Lott from the article about John Lott. --TimLambert 10:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Some of Timewarp's proposed changes would help the article. I would love to help him incorporate them, but its impossible to work on the article with the wholesale revert war going on. Would a 24 hour cooloff help? My 64 hour break helped me.Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:Anittas

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

    Reported by: Chris S. 12:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User insists on the inclusion of an outdated (written in the early 17th century) source to refer to the state of a language as it is spoken today. Cries vandalism and has threatened another user who doesn't agree with him of reporting him. Thank you. --Chris S. 12:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:139.168.157.152

    139.168.157.152 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

    No need to block for 3RR. Identity revealed as banned user Skyring. Block imposed as per arbcom ruling and all edits rolled back. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

    two users

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

    RoyBoy (talk · contribs) and ((User|68.121.149.20}} have been going at it (George W. Bush history) Reported by: AppleBoy Talk 04:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Basically, ((User|68.121.149.20}} found a source where a rapper said "Bush hates black people", and included the source, and ((User|RoyBoy}} keeps reverting it back, so far 4 reverts, and no talk about it AppleBoy Talk 04:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:82.17.179.224

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

    82.17.179.224 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Andy Mabbett 21:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User reverting, despite evidence to support the material he's removing, cited on talk page. The same user has made earlier reverts to the same version, including a very abusive edit summary Andy Mabbett 21:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    • User later made a compromise edit[60], I left a message on his talk page thanking him for the compromise and a warning about further potential 3RR violations(he had not yet recieved notice). Next time the birdwatching comments are removed without a very good reason, there will probably be blocks. Note anon user is claiming to be the guitarist for the band in question where these edits are occuring. I'm following WP:AGF and believing that he is until proven otherwise, but the shadow of doubt still is over that claim. Karmafist 02:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
      • That so-called compromise edit (made at 22:05, 24 October 2005; not "later") was part of a run of edits (5th reversion, above), which still reverted the rest of the artcile. Andy Mabbett 08:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:Anakinskywalker

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

    Anakinskywalker (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy No ads on Wikipedia. 21:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    170.215.171.13

    Blatant abusive reversions, plain to see [65] Wyss 22:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:Eoritwiethm

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

    Eoritwiethm (talk · contribs):

    Reported by abakharev 03:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:70.84.105.116

    Violation in Talk:WDMA (edit | [[Talk:talk:WDMA|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by 70.84.105.116 (talk · contribs)

    Update: The user is doing the same thing to: WDMA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Reported by Indium 03:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:AndriyK

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

    AndriyK (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Irpen 17:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

    In fact, I reverted precisely 3 (three) times. At 08:20 and 08:42 I corrected some spellings. Than after Irpen reverted me, I reverted three times at 16:46, 17:00 and 17:43. --AndriyK 18:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    A lie, 8:42 was a revert to his own October 19, 17:42 version. Also, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:AndriyK --Irpen 18:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User will not listen to the consensus of the other editors. User uses internet forums to call for more hands to circumvent 3RR. See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:AndriyK -Irpen 17:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
      User Irpen often misinforms other users and tries to presend his own opinion as "consensus".--AndriyK 18:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
      See histories of the articles he reverts to. --Irpen 19:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
      Blocked for 24 hours. It's simple: don't edit war, discuss. -Splashtalk 21:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:72.235.86.15

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

    72.235.86.15 (talk · contribs):

    ...

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

    Comments:

    • ten consecutive edits of verifiably false content by anonymous user, no discussion or comment, despite 3rr warning & reverts by 4 separate editors. Appleby 23:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

    Action Taken

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

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

    User:TDC

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

    TDC (talk · contribs):

    ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    For the love of God ........... could you please give up this crusade of yours. And FYI, you did not even cite the policy correctly. You simply posted every edit I made in a 24 hour period, not the number of RV's, which if you were counting was 2. Please read before inserting foot in mouth. TDC 03:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    • At the very most, I count 3 reverts. Also, the page is protected, so please discuss on the talk page. Ral315 (talk) 08:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Agreed, not quite a 3RR violation; however the involved editors need to get over to the talk page and sort these issues out. TDC has a history of edit warring which needs to be cut short. Aim for a consensus please. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 15:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:24.20.181.127

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

    24.20.181.127 (talk · contribs):

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

    Comments:

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


    Action Taken

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

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

    User:HeadleyDown

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

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

    Comments:

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

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

    User:R. fiend

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

    R. fiend (talk · contribs):

    I don't see an end to this without intervention. First, User:R. fiend redirected the article title to Flemington, New Jersey in keeping with some of the comments in the AfD discussion, where the information was duplicated. Flemington Circle was reverted back to a whole article after the AfD was completed with "no consensus" and the data removed from Flemington, New Jersey. User:R. fiend reverted Flemington Circle to a redirect twice more without merging the information back into Flemington, New Jersey, effectively deleting the article again. (These two are bad-faith reversions.) Each time, he was reverted. Days later, he redirected again, this time merging the information into Flemington, New Jersey with the edit summary "merge in crap". User:R. fiend stubbornly refuses to accept the "no consensus" close to the AfD and has been edit warring to press his POV ever since.
    I suggest viewing this incident with the following pages open in tabs, to more easily see the timeline:
    1. [86]
    2. [87]
    Why haven't I reported User:SPUI for edit warring as well? Because he has been editing the content of the article itself, in what appears to be ongoing good faith attempts to improve it, and his initial reverts were reversions of bad-faith redirects by User:R. fiend where no merging of information had actually taken place. These bad-faith redirects are the second and third on the list above.

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

    Comments:

    • I do think the reversion are excessive, but I don't believe that this page is the venue to discuss it. Six reverts over 16 days really can't be considered a 3RR violation, especially since the reverts have died down recently. If the dispute can't be settled on the talk page, an article RfC might be appropriate. Carbonite | Talk 17:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm glad you commented. I posted this not to get someone punished, but to stop User:R. fiend from continuing his edit war. I do, however, view "6 over 16 days" as a violation of the spirit of 3RR that warrants a warning, given that two of the reverts were bad faith reversions with the intent of performing deletion contrary to the AfD closure. That's why I brought this here. As we know, 3RR isn't about counting within a time period, it's a tool to stop edit wars. Even now I still don't object to a merge of the data, but I don't believe User:R. fiend is acting in good faith here. If this is a place for punishments and enforcement only, rather than a suitable place for discussion of excessive reversion, then I apologize for bringing this here. I thought this would be a better forum than RfC because this has been a simple revert war. Unfocused 17:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
        • This is ridiculous. The page was up for AfD, the results were 10 for deletion, 4 were happy with a merge, and only 2 voted outright to keep, without mentioning a merge. The info was merged, and I did a redirect. SPUI, who thinks "delete" means "merge" and "no conensus" means "keep as is! do not merge!" decided to undo it. So there's been reversions back and forth, in spite of the fact that just about everyone except Unfocused and SPUI (and even they claimed they were happy with merging, I guess their votes weren't terribly sincere) think the material is best in the Flemington article or in the garbage. Besides, a merge/redirect can be done by any user at any time, without an AfD, and the results of an AfD, even if there were a consensus to keep, do not prohibit it from being done. SPUI had the further audacity to remove the information of the stupid traffic circle from the Flemington article, then complain that it wasn't included there anymore. He's trolling again. -R. fiend 18:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Had your second and third redirects been accompanied by an actual merge of the information into the target article rather than de-facto deletion of an article per your preference without consensus, I wouldn't complain. But they did not. You redirected the article title, but didn't keep the content. You weren't actually merging, you were deleting. When you finally did get around to merging much later accompanying another later revert, you posted "merge in crap" as your edit summary, which led me to conclude that you weren't acting in good faith this whole time. I'll assume good faith again from this point forward, but please don't act in ways that clearly betray that good faith. Unfocused 19:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
            • It was SPUI who removed the info from Flemington (and then complained that it wasn't there). I didn't even notice. He was perfectly free to put it back. And a redirect without a merge is ipso facto not deletion; at no time did I use the administrator deletion powers, which is the definition of deletion, so to accuse me of deleting anything is incorrect. As for my comment, now if I had included in the edit summary "merge in lovely information generously supplied by that lovely contributor SPUI, who works day in and day out to make Wikipedia a better place for all", the resulting article would have been 100% the same. To call one vandalism and the other not in pretty lame. Now I'm at least glad you haven't reverted the article; I assume you're happy with the situation as it stands, as you indictaed at the AfD? As nothing is deleted, I see no reason why either you or SPUI should not be, and I hope this is settled. -R. fiend 19:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
              • If you are changing an article to a redirect under the reasoning of a merge, the minimum you must do is actually merge the information or check that it's already there. Otherwise, you're just imposing your preference to delete upon the article unilaterally. Regarding the content now, I don't intent to revert it myself, but since there are several traffic circles in that municipality, I expect that if they're all merged back into the municipal article, it will probably get large enough to split off some content into separate articles... and we may be back where we started. Unfocused 19:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
                • Just so you know, your friend's being a dick again. -R. fiend 01:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:VMORO

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

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

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

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

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

    User:154.20.140.178

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

    154.20.140.178 (talk · contribs):

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

    Comments:

    Wiki-Facts (talk · contribs):

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

    Comments:

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

    User:Monicasdude

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

    Monicasdude (talk · contribs):

    and...

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

    Monicasdude (talk · contribs):

    and...

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

    Monicasdude (talk · contribs):


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

    Comments:

    • Monicasdude has proven himself to be a hostile and obstinate editor over his last few months here and refuses to collaborate in a civilized manner. His RfC page: [92] will bear witness to this. He has lately been maliciously reverting any page he comes across that features the "album infobox 2" template simply because he disagrees with it. It was voted for deletion some weeks ago but it never went through, and there is still no consensus on it yet, therefore it is still open to use by any user. As can plainly be seen here - especially if you research Monicasdude's contributions, he has been targeting me, my work and all these infoboxes in a stalking fashion, and often locks horns with most editors due to his difficult working habits. Further still, Monicasdude disregards any extra work that has been added onto the articles and reverts it all. Here's proof from back when I was under my old name back in July: [93]. And it's only continued since. Indeed, he has a long history of doing so and of upsetting the progress that well-intentioned editors - like myself - are attempting. I do hope someone can take action here. It is most needed. BGC 17:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    My apologies; the violations were inadvertent. I did not keep track of time properly, and the final, objectionable edits were only a few minutes before the cutoff point. I would note that user:BGC also violated 3RR on these articles, apparently deliberately, missing the cutoff points by several hours rather than by several minutes.
    User:BGC's comments about malice and stalking are false, and deliberately so. The use of albumbox 2 is controversial, and the clear majority of comments on the album project discussion page oppose its use. Whether the use of cover images under that template can qualify as "fair use" is substantially disputed, and there should be no question that the use of the template violates Wikipedia's existing "fair use" policy/guidelines, which declare images claimed as fair use "must not serve a purely decorative purpose" when used in Wikipedia articles. The use also violates the consensus standards set out in the album cover template. And, as one Jimbo Wales has pointed out recently, the unnecessary use of "fair use" images is undesireable, and should be eliminated; what might be fair use here might well also prevent GFDL-licensing of articles from being valid.
    This incident is part of a long-running edit conflict that began several months ago when user:BGC, then editing as User:PetSounds, was involved in disputes over his 3RR violations, use of deliberately deceptive edit summaries, attacking newbies, and deliberate refusal to follow NPOV policy. (Not incidentally, another editor involved in those disputes was Mel Etitis, against whom user:BGC has made repeated personal attacks comparable to the comments he makes about me.) User:BGC personalizes those disputes, continues edit warring incessantly, and attempts to provoke policy violations and uncivil behavior by that edit warring. In this case, after months of trying, he has succeeding in provoking me into a marginal 3RR violation (the first time I have done so), and for that I apologize.
    I would also note that user:BGC's comment that I "disregard any extra work that has been added onto the articles and revert it all" is simply false; that he provides no example of it, and that it simply demonstrates his malice. [Please note that after I posted this response, user:BGC altered, without notice, his original comment to include a supposed example of the behavior he complained of. I encourage anyone foolhardy enough to be interested in this discussion to view that example and review the article's history, since it shows user:BGC/PetSounds' determined defiance of Wikipedia's NPOV policies.] I do not simply revert the articles, in general, but cut-and-paste the undisputed infobox in place. I may have inadvertently missed minor changes in infobox information, but I do my best to preserve all changes. In contrast, user:BGC simply reverts, often if not generally removing all other changes I have made to articles, even though he does not dispute them. He has stated his personal animosity towards me (and others) on various occasions, and encouraged others to simply remove my edits as a means of "punishing" me for antagonizing him. It is also worth noting that when other editors have made the same infobox changes on the same articles where he has disputed my edits, as here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_Days, user:BGC leaves those changes in place, showing that his concern is not really with the substance of the edit but with the identity of the editor -- a clear indication of bad faith action.
    Edit warring is not good for Wikipedia, and some editors believe, reasonably and in good faith, that it is never appropriate. I would not go quite so far. As one editor who was recently subjected to an RfC recently noted, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and a community second. Users who intentionally deprecate the encyclopedic function damage the project as a whole. Unnecessary changes which have the potential to limit the distribution of Wikipedia in various forms, and expose it to potential legal liability, however unlikely some may view the prospect, are inappropriate and should be resisted. When they contradict clear guidelines and policies, as the disputed template does, they may fairly, I think, be viewed as vandalous, and should simply be removed whenever they occur.
    As other users have noted in the (unjustified) RfC on Mel Etitis, the condition of Wikipedia's pop culture articles, particularly those on popular music, is degenerating sharply, mostly due to editors who ignore (or, worse, defy) important guidelines. I have been on the receiving end of a great deal of unpleasant action because I try to keep articles in compliance. It is, as other editors have noted, difficult to avoid responding inappropriately to repeated provocations. It will be increasingly more difficult to apply and enforce Wikipedia's standards if those who do not respect those standards are encouraged in their disruptive actions. Monicasdude 19:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    Monicasdude has a interesting way of distorting the truth. I was forced to change my username because of his incessant staking of my work, and as a newbie, I was treated horribly by him (as have others). I've been most accomodating to most other editors here. Secondly - for a little perspective - when I was blocked as PetSounds it was as a newbie who didn't know the rules. I was also blocked in error by an admin some weeks ago, and he quickly corrected the blunder. Anyone who views Monicasdude's contributions page will note that his vandalous reverts were indeed done without regard for the rules - or acceptance of others' points of view. This new album template hasn't been vetoed at all and it is not his place to take action when no consensus has been agreed upon. It is free to use. And it will become clear that it is HE who has reverted my work over and over, solely because it's mine. Any reverts I've ever made of his so-called "work" have been unjustified and malicious reverts of mine. I don't have to encourage anyone to "antangonize" Monicasdude when an RfC - which I never started - already exists and has been endorsed by several editors. That should say something. In this particular case, his recent 3RR violations were committed on three separate articles and in all three cases, almost an hour before the cut-off point - not "a few minutes". I will note that if I am considered to have broken the 3RR, it TRULY was unintentional on my part and was only to undo the needless vandalism by Monicasdude and to preserve other people's hard work, including my own. The fact that I'm now willing to knowingly shoot myself in the foot over this situation should let any admin know how seriously I - and many other users - feel about Monicasdude's complete lack of civility in this forum. Also, the mere existence of an RfC page on Monicasdude speaks volumes over any perceived wrongdoing I may have done. User: Mel Etitis also has an RfC page on him as well [94], which should give a clear indication of where the antangonization is coming from. Basically Monicadude's been caught and is doing whatever he can to avoid getting his due by playing the victim and re-working Wiki-rules to suit his agenda. Facts are facts: he broke the 3RR on THREE articles. I hope to see some action on this issue. His behaviour can't go undealt with. BGC 18:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Since user:Comics acknowledges that my edits are motivated by "fair use" concerns, it's inappropriate to describe them as "bad faith" or "vandalism." It's not disputed that the infobox2 template is not consistent with existing Wikipedia guidelines concerning "fair use" in general and album cover use in particular. Users who prefer it should not unilaterally introduce it into articles while it violates the guidelines. And it is somewhere between inconsistent and downright hypocritical to claim that users who prefer the disputed infobox2 should be allowed to change the (undisputed) infobox1 to infobox2 as they choose, but users who prefer infobox1 should be barred from restoring it. This series of editing disputes would not have happened if proponents of the disputed template had not embarked on a project of replacing the existing, consensus-approved template without notice or comment. Even the proponents of the disputed template admit that there's no consensus for superseding the existing template; if they wish to use the template in creating new articles, that may be appropriate, but a small handful of users systematically replacing the existing, consensus-accepted template in what will amount to more than six thousand articles is plainly inappropriate. And, for whatever it's worth, an "ADMINISTRATOR" asked user:BGC to stop edit warring over infoboxes (with multiple editors, not just with me) when there was clearly no consensus for his preferred version; BGC has refused, and deleted the request from his talk page. Monicasdude 03:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:Hickster

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

    Hickster (talk · contribs):

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

    Comments:

    • Insists on inclusion of his own edits which go against community consensus on this article. A new user but somewhat confrontational on talk page. David | Talk 23:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

    Reddi (talk · contribs):

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

    Comments:

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

    User:Timewarp and sock puppets

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

    Timewarp (talk · contribs):

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

    Comments:

    • He has used two sock puppets to avoid the 3RR, but still has five reverts under Timewarp.
    • Violated 3RR on John Lott page a couple of days ago.
    • Timewarp appears to be a sockpuppet operated by John Lott to remove all criticism of Lott from the article about John Lott. --TimLambert 01:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    Confirming TL's report. Even ignoring sockpuppets, the 3RR has been broken. There is an edit war on this page, its true (well how else would 3RR come up?) but Timewarp is definitely breaking the rules. William M. Connolley 11:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC).
    • There's evidence on his talk page that he's been warned in the past and was aware of the 3RR. Blocked for 24 hours. Guettarda 12:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:Smaines

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

    Smaines (talk · contribs):

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

    Comments:

    • User is not being very responsive on Talk:Tea and is accusing other users of "butchering" his words, which are his "children". Nohat 09:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    Can't find more than three outright reverts.Geni 11:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

    Reply from smaines

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

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

    Please read,

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

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

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

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

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

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

    User:Hesketh Fortescue and related sockpuppets

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

    As Eoritwiethm (talk · contribs):

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

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

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

    Comments:

    • On User talk:Hesketh Fortescue, Hesketh Fortescue has now admitted to using sockpuppets to continue reverting. He has now reverted 10 times in the past 24 hours. Won't somebody please think of the children? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 15:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:Bomac

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

    Bomac (talk · contribs):

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

    Comments:

    • User:Bomac has repeatedly violated the 3RR in the past 48 hours and resorts to abusive and offensive edit summaries.--Theathenae 14:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:ThompsJohn

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

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

    Comments:

    • Please review users previous edit history. Warnings were given repeatedly on users talk page. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    • This user is lying. I have only reverted three times. Also note that the edit war was started by User:Hipocrite adding an extremely POV, factually incorrect and highly abusive claim [97], and he has been reverted by at least 3 persons. Hipocrite is the revert warrior here, and the person who should be reported, which I hereby do. ThompsJohn 18:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

    User:Jakes18

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

    Jakes18 (talk · contribs):

    • Previous version reverted to: [98]
    1. [99]
    2. [100]
    3. [101]
    4. [102]
    5. [103]
    6. []

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

    Comments:

    • Jakes18, for apparently politically motivated reasons, wishes to exclude Operation Rescue from the List of terrorist organisations, despite its longstanding inclusion. In response to initial removal, I added explanatory text and numerous external citations for support. However, Jakes18 simply doesn't want it listed, regardless of citation, because of a POV he wishes to push. FWIW, the only edits Jakes18 has ever made to this article are this identical reversion. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


    William Connolley's parole - enforcement

    • User William M. Connolley is violating the parole [104].
    • See e.g. the page on "Skeptical Environmentalist" Bjorn Lomborg [105] where he reverted the page without explaining his reasons on the talk page, although he is specifically forbidden to do so. Together with MichaelSirks, we are looking for tools to enforce the parole. Could you please help us? Thanks, --Lumidek 15:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    • At least one violation of the 1 rv in 24 hours restriction took place.
      • 10:24, 28 October 2005 (hist) (diff) Peat (→Peat fires - Change pic to one also showing increase. Leave text.) (top) [106]
      • 09:54, 28 October 2005 (hist) (diff) Peat (rv to WMC. Its perfectly clear from the graph that there was no such boost to explain) [107]

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

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

    User:Theathenae

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

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

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

    Report new violation

    Example, copy-paste and add content to the copy but do not edit the example:


    User:BadUser

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

    BadUser (talk · contribs):

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

    Comments:

    • User will not listen to the consensus of the other editors. User:ReportingUser 14:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive9&oldid=26729992"