Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

note until archive 40 3RR reports were combined with the incident archive

Aug 9th to Aug 21st

User:Guy Montag[edit]

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

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

Reported by: Heraclius 01:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


  • Combative editor who keeps adding "or shechem". Has done this 5 times.Heraclius 01:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The evidence seems to point to a more general revert war. Instead of blocking both User:Guy Montag and User:Heraclius I have opted to protect the page for a day to allow them to use the talk page to discuss their edits. -Willmcw 03:43, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Heraclius doesn't know how to discuss, he only knows one function in wikipedia, and that is the revert button. He and his IP anon internet troll friend have been vandalizing pages that have to do with the Middle East ever since they came here. Guy Montag 03:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no revert button. And you are the one who has broken the rule.Heraclius 04:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
The article talk page is open and ready for use. Talk:Nablus. -Willmcw 05:16, August 9, 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: DreamGuy 02:55, August 9, 2005 (UTC)


  • User:EliasAlucard from comments earlier today (as well as months back when I ran into other conflicts with him, which were resolved only by me taking those articles of my watch list, as he did not attempt to follow consensus or work on anything) has vowed to undo any and all edits I make on anything he contributed, regardless of value. Here he violates the 3RR while doing so on Dhampir in less than an hour. He's busy undoing other edits and writing personal attacks both earlier on this page and talk pages, such as that for the much fought over and probably never to be unprotected at this rate Vampire DreamGuy 02:55, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
This DreamGuy has issues, seriously. He is involved in revert wars all the time, non-stop. Of course, to make himself look good, he accuses everyone who is opposed to him as socketpuppets, anon users, vandalism or whatever derogatory he can come up with. Why did I revert? Because his edits are bad. He is removing perfectly legitimate knowledge from articles. He calls it fiction; something he strongly detests. Why? I don't know. To my knowledge, there's nothing wrong with having information about fiction in articles related to it, according to Wikipedia's Policy. DreamGuy should be up for a review.
EliasAlucard|Talk 05:06, 09 Aug, 2005 (UTC)
Of course what you fail to note is that: a) everyone so far I have accused of sockpuppeting has been either proven or are currently under investigation by admins for strong evidence of it, b) the reverts I get into really only happen when people announce that they won't let anyone at all edit what they wrote for any reason, which is in itself a violation of how things work here, and usually result in people such as yourself showing just how deadset you are to break policy just to preserve what you wrote c) you positively and clearly violated 3RR above for no reason. DreamGuy 03:18, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Wrong! I did not write that about Blade. It was there before me even reading that article. You have no good/valid reason whatsoever to remove the stuff you remove. Yet you do it. This is blatant vandalism.
EliasAlucard|Talk 05:26, 09 Aug, 2005 (UTC)
Reasons for removal were already given in edit comments, plus you should read Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not. DreamGuy 06:07, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

And now User:EliasAlucard has also violated 3RR on Alucard. It'd be a good idea if someone did something about him. DreamGuy 11:53, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

edit waring over a redirect? User blocked for 24 hours.Geni 12:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
He also managed to squeeze in a 3RR violation on Dracula too, but I guess he's blocked already so never mind tht one. And thanks. DreamGuy 12:31, August 9, 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: Codex Sinaiticus 15:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


  • (New Comment) - This user is still continuing to persist in applying controversial "myth" categories to pages about doctrine and theology, insisting that his view is correct and everyone who disagrees with him is incorrect. Action? Codex Sinaiticus 19:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Codex Sinaiticus is insiting that bias be allowed on wikipedia and is upset I don't agree with that.FestivalOfSouls 19:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I only add the correct subcategory, after discussion was held about that. Codex over generalizes. The tag is completely appropriate given a dictionary, or scholary definition of mythology. Codex is pushing a bias, and doesn't like that I stand against his vandalism. FestivalOfSouls 16:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • oh and the "sock puppet" was just my session cookie expiring and me making an edit anonymously, and not even attempting to hide that fact. Again, Codex is manipulating the facts. Users not only agree, and replace the categorization, but virtually all of the changes I made remain in the subcategories of mythology, ie, the changes I made are being kept. FestivalOfSouls 16:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

virgin birth was a category addition and 3 reverts, again, where is the violation? FestivalOfSouls 16:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

  • What personal attacks? And I never admitted using a sockpuppet for that purpose. Look closely, it was an anonymous edit due to an unoticed log out, which is NOT in violation of wiki policy. FestivalOfSouls 16:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The purpose of the 3RR is to encourage collaboration, instead of force. Unless there is collaboration, it's a wooden interpretation of the rule to make the same controversial change to dozens of articles, keeping track of whether you've gone over your quota. Please do not use the categories to force a perspective. Instead, work on creating and implementing an inoffensive categorization scheme that is likely to stand without constant challenge. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I am working with the existing categories. You can feel free to create new ones, or rename the current ones, but the fact will remain that using any realistic definition of mythology, these articles fit in the category. FestivalOfSouls 16:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on Opposition to cults and new religious movements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pgreenfinch (talk · contribs):

Reported by: --goethean 17:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


  • Please give actual diffs of the user in question, rather than separate reversions. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 19:29, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Done. (Hopefully.) Sorry about that. --goethean 19:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Users goethean and Zappaz[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Opposition to cults and new religious movements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Report multiple and concerted vandalisms in above mentioned article in the form of censorship of factual info. --Pgreenfinch 21:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Diffs? Evidence? Or purely a retaliation for the above report? Please complete the form. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 21:52, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Please find it below

  • Previous version reverted to: [7]
  • 1st revert: [8]
  • 2nd revert: [9]
  • 3rd revert: [10]
  • 4th revert: [11]
  • 5th revert:[12]
  • 6th revert:[13]

Reported by: --Pgreenfinch 22:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Please use diffs so we can verify the complaint. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)



Three revert rule violation on Beyond Good and Evil (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Xizer (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Nandesuka 01:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


  • I feel stupid even reporting this, frankly, but I really don't know what else to do. This silly little tempest in a teapot resulted, as near as I can tell, from Xizer feeling that the flopped Ubisoft videogame Beyond Good & Evil, which I happen to love, is more notable than Nietzsche's seminal and influential book Beyond Good and Evil. On my talk page, Xizer has indicated that the game "deserves" to be higher on the list because "the article is longer" and the game is "more artistic" than this "obscure book". In the meantime, the disambiguation page looks like garbage, the punctuation is wrong on the Nietzsche entry, and I don't want to edit it any more today because I don't want to violate 3RR. Please advise. Nandesuka 01:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • He's continuing to revert other people's changes (see above, 5th revert). Nandesuka 02:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Blocked for 24 hours. Mark1 03:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Thanks. This revert: 03:30, 10 August 2005 is User:'s very first edit. I can't prove anything, but, uh, I know where I'd place my money as to who this is if this were a wager. Nandesuka 03:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
          • I've blocked the sockpuppet too. Mark1 03:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Are those times UTC? The diffs don't seem to match the labels. --Calton | Talk 03:51, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
            • UTC-5, which I had set my display to ages ago and forgot, I think. Sorry. I'll fix that. (Update: I changed all the relevant timestamps in this log to UTC. Nandesuka 03:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The reverts continue -- same content, same edit summary style, but from a different IP (this time from Again, I can't be sure this is a sockpuppet, but can we imagine anyone else actually caring about this? Nandesuka 21:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Guy Montag[edit]

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

  • Previous version reverted to: [21]
  • 1st revert: [22]
  • 2nd revert: [23]
  • 3rd revert: [24]
  • 4th revert: [25]

Reported by: Heraclius 05:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


  • Editor keeps breaking the 3RR over and over again and is not being blocked for it. Please see above [26]Heraclius 05:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

This guy has a personal vendetta against me, so I wouldn't take his problem seriously. He has initiated only edit wars since he arrived here. Learn to use talk, because I don't deal with internet trolls.

Guy Montag 05:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

You keep breaking this rule even when you don't have support behind you. Not even Jayjg has reverted to the "or Shechem" version. You have also accused me of being 3 different anon IP's. All 3 seem to have a personal vendetta against you.Heraclius 05:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
"Not even Jayjg"? What would that mean? Jayjg (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Guy - I reverted you because I disagreed with your edit. You have to face up to the fact that sometimes you are wrong - and no amount of POV pushing or bombast will change that. 07:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for twenty-four hours, but Heraclius also violated 3RR, so must have the same cooling-down period. (I'm also suspicious of the anon's intervention, I'm afraid; that would have raised the 3RR-violation to five in 24 hours.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought the 3RR rule was "per user"? I'm certainly not either Guy or Heraclius! 22:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on Anti-Semitism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Vizcarra (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Jayjg (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


  • Pretty obvious reversions, and he even labels them as such. Continues to remove information from the section in question, in more complex reverts. Jayjg (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I've left a warning on his talk page. He's been here long enough and probably doesn't need one, but I couldn't see a sign of one anywhere, and he hasn't been blocked before, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:53, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • He's not a new user, has over 1000 edits and has been editing since October 2004. He has reverted again, and been warned, and asked to revert himself.[27] Jayjg (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • He's still doing complex reverts. The contentious sentence is These plays historically blamed the Jews for the death of Jesus in a polemical fashion, depicting a crowd of Jewish people condemning Jesus to crucifixion and a Jewish leader assuming eternal collective guilt for the crowd for the murder of Jesus, often inciting violence and pogroms against Jews.; he insists on removing it, or changing its meaning. Jayjg (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I warned him, suggested he should revert himself, and all he did was rephrase, which amounted to another partial revert. I warned him again, reverted him, and asked him not to rephrase again, but he did it minutes later (another partial revert - probably his sixth), so I've blocked him for 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:21, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually it was his 7th revert, including complex ones. Jayjg (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm not convinced the link to deicide is NPOV. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
So come discuss it on Talk:Anti-Semitism. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
This page is for reporting 3RR violations, not debating article contents. Jayjg (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Just to note, most of SlimVirgin comments are misleading.
  1. Jayjg suggested I reverted my reverts and I did, put back everything and rephrased it, which isn't a revert.
  2. SlimVirgin suggested I reverted myself and I did and I explained to her what I was doing.
  3. The "warnings" were actually happening at the same time as my reverts and rephrases.
  4. Although I've been a member since October 2004, I've been a member only since July, so barely. I did tell SlimVirgin I was unaware of this rule, but apparently she has chosen to forge this (and some other) facts.
  5. Apparently this could be a part of a pattern, where these users revert edits by others to get them to violate 3RR and avoid editing the article for NPOV (see SlimVirginjayjgJpgordon for more evidence of this)--Vizcarra 21:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • "Evidence"? That some or another vandal got annoyed by having his vandalism repeatedly reverted is hardly evidence of anything other than administrators doing what they're supposed to be doing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that is not just "some or another vandal", notice that you are calling me a vandal by saying that. But the point is that this shows a pattern of behaviour from your part and SlimVirgin's and Jpgordon. --Vizcarra 22:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I consider this evidence more compelling; a rant against me and other editors that you placed on your Talk: page and left up for 5 days: [28], and then, when you return to Wikipedia, you almost immediately revert me at an article you've never edited before. Jayjg (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Attack? What definition of "attack" are you using? Certainly, your group does get involve in the rounding up of wikipedians who don't agree with your POV and that is definitely worth discussing and sharing. A "rant", is that NPOV? --Vizcarra 22:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: N. Caligon 22:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments: This abuse has been going on for some time, and this is not the first 3RR violation or report, but no action has been taken. The semi-anonymous editor is adamant on inserting a variety of POV comments into text and on mutilating a compromise consensus text worked out with significant efforts by several editors. He has no support, and (to date) at least four different editors have removed his modifications.

I have blocked the IP for 24 hours. If this continues, I suggest you take it over to WP:RFPP for protection against editing as is the norm for most edit wars. Sasquatch 05:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


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

  • Previous version reverted to: Constantly reinserting html comments, the word contraversial, and similar invective despite warnings and discussion on talk page. Also previous reverts despite talk page disscussion.
  • 1st revert: [29]
  • 2nd revert: [30]
  • 3rd revert: [31]
  • 4th revert: [32]

Reported by: Tznkai 01:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


  • Has been warned on his talk page

[33] by myself.--Tznkai 01:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Also edits as an anon, signing as LucaviX or Lucavix
  • It's a clear violation: the previous (partial) version he reverted to was 23:10 Aug 10, and he was warned. I've blocked him for 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:03, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: Uncle G 13:05:00, 2005-08-11 (UTC)


  • I've informed the user on xyr talk page and blocked xem for 24 hours. Uncle G 13:05:00, 2005-08-11 (UTC)


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

Reported by: Uncle G 13:05:00, 2005-08-11 (UTC)


  • I've informed the user on xyr talk page and blocked xem for 24 hours. Uncle G 13:05:00, 2005-08-11 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on Say Hey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hungupguy2005 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Uncle G 13:05:00, 2005-08-11 (UTC)


  • I've informed the user on xyr talk page and blocked xem for 24 hours. Uncle G 13:05:00, 2005-08-11 (UTC)

~~~~ / User:-Ril-[edit]

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

Reported by: Noitall 20:53, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


Actually, all but 1 prior event was regarded as invalid and lifted/cancelled, and the 1 that wasn't was due to the admin involved being (self-admittedly) "high on codeine". ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh, the UninvitedCompany RFC is because UninvitedCompany is an admin with an explicitely stated extreme bias (UninvitedCompany stated he had an "extremely anti-Islamic" POV) who blocked a user who opposes said bias being pushed, for a block duration of over 24 hours, for a violation of 3RR that didn't exist (there weren't even 3 reverts in 24 hours).~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I've made the block after checking the history. I edited Noitall's summary above to better identify the edits and added a revert that was not listed, which makes this eligible for a block (the times listed are not UTC, by the way). The reverts focus on adding some text regarding the British election; the passage in question starts with the misspelling "Nethertheless", for anyone looking to identify it. --Michael Snow 21:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for cleaning up my attempt and all. --Noitall 21:47, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

User:Ta bu shi da yu[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Template:Infobox Pope (edit | [[Talk:Template:Infobox Pope|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ta bu shi da yu (talk · contribs):

  • Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
  • 1st revert: [08:24, 11 August 2005]
  • 2nd revert: [00:39, 12 August 2005]
  • 3rd revert: [00:49, 12 August 2005]
  • 4th revert: [00:52, 12 August 2005]

Reported by: FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


  • Some time ago a controversy erupted over the design of the above debate. After a full and frank discussion 8 users voted to adopt a new design. 2 opposed it. This user has been waging an edit war to change that agreed design to a variant he wants. Even those who voted against this current design have in recent months been involved in defending it from attack (their reversions, for the record, were not against this user here). I have just noticed, BTW, that the page is protected. Whether that is since the edit war where I sought to reinstate the original version against Ta's constant insertion of his chosen version, or whether it was already protected during the edit war, I do not know. If the edit war occurred involved two admins reverting a protected page I apologise. I did not notice its protection. It is not listed on the list of protected pages.
As I do not wish to break the 3RR rule the page is currently in the version designed by Ta, not the one voted on by people and adopted by consensus. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Did not realise I'd gone over the 3RR. Suggest that policy is carried out and I am blocked for 24 hours. No fear and no favour should be shown. Do suggest that the vote was done badly: I was never made aware of it because it was never announced to the wider community. 8 editors does not a "community consensus" make. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you willing to self-correct yourself and revert that back to the previous version? El_C 00:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Not really. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh. That's... not good. El_C 01:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It looks like a general revert war to me with several others involved too. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:54, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • The war involved users seeing to reinstate the page as designed on the basis of a consensus discussion and vote, and one use seeking to delete that consensus design and put in his own one unilaterally, and reverting all attempts to restore the agreed version to the page. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • So when did you inform the wider community about the vote? Seems a bit unreasonable that you held a vote and now new contributors can't change the design. 8 editors as opposed to hundreds who might be interested in infoboxes: can you see a problem here? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
      • You are free to propose such a vote, though. Jtdirl isn't binded by policy to initiate it, right? El_C 01:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Nope, but then again I'm not bound by policy to recognise the vote as I did not participate in it. It works both ways. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Right, you are not bound to recognize it, I wasn't intimating otherwise, if I had given you a different impression, I apologize. El_C 02:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The issue was mentioned on numerous pages. Those who wanted to discuss it then congregated on the talk page. There was little interest in the papal infobox, then as now. But because you didn't hear about it does not give you the right to unilaterally highjack the page, force your choice on it, ignore the appeals of others to stop, and revert to your version breaking the 3RR. And even if there was not a massive vote (though a lot more people were alerted to it — indeed a few of us did try in various ways to alert people.), there still was 8 times more support for the original page than there has been for yours. Try debating issues rather than highjacking pages next time, after you come back from your block. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that you don't know how many people want a standardised infobox - you've never asked the wider community! There are hundreds of regular contributors: off the top of my head did you ask Raul654, El C, Netoholic (who is pushing for standarised infoboxes), myself, etc etc? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Don't try to dodge the reason you are here — for breaching the 3RR rule and highjacking a page. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Ah, I'm not dodging the bloody issue. Sheesh! I concur that I should be blocked for violating the 3RR. However, the issue itself is about whether to implement the infobox style on this template - and I am now addressing this issue. You keep referring to the vote as an authority that reveals consensus. I am saying it does nothing of the sort because the wider community didn't know about it. Don't you try dodging the issue! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Just because you didn't know about a vote does not give you a right to highjack a page and engage in a wild spree of revertions to force Wikipedia to take the page you (and you alone) want. It is ironic that you complain that not enough people were aware of a vote that reached a clear consensus when you secretly, without announcing it to the community much less asking the community, highjack a page that had had a template that has been functioning for months and seen by thousands without a single complaint, dump that template and by a vote of one (you), and a decision taken by one (you), insert your own version. And then you complain about everyone else. If you had initiated a discussion on it you might have some leg to stand on, but in acting the way you did you have none whatsoever. You are like a cleric caught with his pants down preaching about the evils of sex and the joys of celibacy!!! FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
That's a pretty disgusting thing to say, and reflects worse on the one saying it than the one the comment is aimed at. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

It is calling sarcastic irony — pointing out that what you say isn't what you did. You condemned a decision taken in a vote as unrepresentative. You then unilaterally, one the basis of one vote (your own), without consultation, overuled that decision taken by a vote, and insisted on forcing your unsupported version over the one supported by everyone else. It takes a special bit of self-deception to insist that a vote is unrepresentative, but your single opinion is representative. And yes, that is just like like a cleric caught with his pants down preaching about the evils of sex and the joys of celibacy. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

TBDSY has, imo quite justified, regarded Jtdirl's one specific comment above as "disgusting and offensive - There was no need for the comment, and feel that this was a largely unprovoked personal attack" (reference to ad hominem). In my opinion, that sort of behavior of Jtdirl, which seems to be regular, is one of the main reasons why it is entirely justified to write frankly in the relevant discussion one's objective opinion of Jtdirl's there-relevant behavior and facts supporting the opinion, as well as write frankly one's objection to Jtdirl's action in question and facts supporting that objection. It could be possible that Jrdirl learns better behavior, if he is frankly reminded of his failures. The age of approximately 40 years is not necessarily too high to a person to learn from mistakes. 07:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
He did ask me (or so I think, at least — this is about the new styles, right?). I have yet had a chance to look it over, however. El_C 01:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Ya, this is correct. However, my issue is that Wikipedia:Survey guidelines was not followed with regards to the following section (which is more than reasonable):
4. The survey should be announced on Wikipedia:Current surveys. If it is a major survey, then you may also list it on Wikipedia:Announcements. Other places that you should consider listing it include Wikipedia:Requests for comment and Wikipedia:Watch.
The same would go for the History of Christianity and other pages, btw. I have been remiss in asking people to use the guidelines on these pages - after my block I will look into rerunning the vote properly. Ta bu shi da yu 01:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, well, looks like Ta Bu Shi Da Yu has already stopped edit warring and taken it to discussion. Case closed if you ask me! (If someone blocks him *now*, that'd be odd!) Kim Bruning 01:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Okay, I think this as far as the dialogue will get, for now. Twenty four hour break, TBSDY. El_C 01:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Please unblock him, Kim! I need the irony! :D El_C 01:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    You're silly. Go unblock the man yourself! :-P The objective is to resolve the conflict, not to ban people. You're addicted! Go attend a button-pushers-anonymous meeting, I'll hold one on my user talk someplace. ;-) Kim Bruning 02:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Heh, I am guilty of sillyness, yes, and absentminded, to boot! But the point, Kim, is that I offered him a chance to self-correct himself and he declined. See my comment here. My other point, was that this (heated) conversation was getting nowhere as well. El_C 02:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Ta, do not give too much of your steam to Jtdirl. After all, you honestly accepted that you had violated the 3rr rule - whereas there is above a summary of similar case where certain person skated from the deserved block by less-than-honestly inventing an explanation that the first of his reverts was, somehow, vandal-fighting and not a revert (sic!). I would hope that 3rr enforcements are denied from persons who have not accepted the consequences of their own actions.

And, there have also earlier existed certain criticisms against Jtdirl's habit of interpreting as "community consensus" something he personally desires, although the result of relevant talk (or vote) had been not disambiguous or not consensus. Arrigo 02:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, it was not my vote. I did not take any decision. Others did. I was just an ordinary voter in it like everyone else. Secondly, do you ever stop following me around writing bitchy comments? You feel like my pet dog at this stage, you spend so much time at my heals, usually trying to bite them. Thirdly, though you spend your day going from page to page writing bitchy comments and me (and about Deb) I invited you to the discussion on styles. Inviting an endless critic to a debate was hardly the act of someone trying to get a small group of like-minded people together to create some phoney community consensus. Now will you please go off and write some articles for once and stop acting like you are Lassie and I am Elizabeth Taylor. Shoo! FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I cannot regard you as Elizabeth Taylor, nor even much like her. Despite of your hearty desires (what is the thing that makes Liz as G icon???). And negative yet, although you have something common with Liz. Arrigo 02:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on Talk:Truth. (talk · contribs):

Reported by: --Nate Ladd 03:27, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

This is part of a content dispute in truth. The accused deleted some ad hominem personal attacks posted to talk:truth by some people not to keen on following the policy that says comment on content, not the contributor. (If you don't have the facts on your side, try to change the subject to the obviously despicable character of the one who does not go along with your side like a good little sheep?) Now they are trying to restore those ad hominem comments by force of numbers, That's not fair. To be fair, the minority side should get a number of reverts equal to the majority side, otherwise the majority, even if in the wrong, will always have complete control of the content of Wikipedia by force of numbers. There is a principle at stake here. -- 06:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I quote here, in their entirety, the remarks he is now claiming are "ad hominem". As you can see they are not:
The deflationary theory of truth IS discussed in the article, so they are not missing the point. They were merely assuming that you had actually read the article. (Note: It may be misleading to call the deflationary theory a "theory of truth," but that is how the terminology has developed in current philosophy. It cannot be blamed on Whittle or Schmaus.)--Nate Ladd 20:23, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. This attempt to pretend to be the aggrieved party is rather disingenuous. The issue is that .6's representation ought not be the only one present in the introduction. Banno 20:39, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Users unfamiliar with should note that this sort of dishonesty is typical of him. He also chronically cries "personal attack" whenever someone points out his bad behavior. --Nate Ladd 07:10, August 12, 2005 (UTC)


  • He is already the subject of an RfA. He has been blocked 4 times in the last week, by Rhobite, Ed Poor, Carbonite, and Sasquatch. In the last case, the block was reset because he was caught using a sock puppet to resume reverts. Since 24 hour blocks seem to have no effect on him, can an Admin please block him for longer? Would it be possible to block him until the RfA is decided?--Nate Ladd 03:27, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Objection. Ad hominem comments should not be admissible here.
See what I mean?! He's claiming that a report of his RfA and his past bad behavior is an ad hominem attack. --Nate Ladd 07:10, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
That is all just more ad hominem personal attack having no bearing on the issue here. The issue as I see it is that, to be fair, the minority side should get a number of reverts equal to the majority side (say limit both sides to three, for example), otherwise the majority will always control the content of all Wikipedia pages by force of numbers. Is that what we want for Wikipedia, tyranny of the majority, or do we want to require instead principled negotiation as the first step in dispute resolution as shown in the chart at right? -- 06:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
The RfA discusses the previous attempts at dispute resolution. It is in fact who has failed to respond to any and all attempts at negotiation and compromise. --Nate Ladd 07:10, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
That's a lie. Banno and company have been trying to control the content of several articles by force of numbers, coupled with a constant barrage of argument _ad hominem_, for weeks now, with no attempts at principled negotiation at all.-- 07:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
See what I mean?! (again) And see also the insane report he added below of a 3RR violation by "the tyrannous majority". --Nate Ladd 07:35, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
It precisely has bearing, in the same way that an existing conviction record helps a judge to levy an appropriate sentence: a first offense -- light sentence; multiple offenses -- sterner measures. --Calton | Talk 06:51, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

It's not anything like a "conviction record," and you know it. Has the accused been convicted of any infraction?? No, he has not.-- 07:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

You are being disingenuous: as one lecturing others on the meaning of ad hominem, you seem unable to grasp the simple concept of "analogy" -- or are pretending to. --Calton | Talk 08:10, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
You say, "a first offense -- light sentence; multiple offenses -- sterner measures." Has the accused ever been convicted of ANY offense at all?-- 18:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Blocked, you might also want to ask the ArbCom for further blocks as I would not like to stir up any controversy by enforcing vigilante justice. Sasquatch

1. How does your side expect to carry on any kind of decent ongoing discussion of the issues with someone you keep blocking at the drop of a hat, as though he were armed and dangerous and society had to be protected from him or something? Why do you see the accused as so dangerous he has to be blocked from editing a DISCUSSION page?? Inquiring minds would like to know. 2. How does someone who is a party to the content dispute as you are get the gall to block someone from the other side? Isn't that what any reasonable person would call dubious behavior for someone with administrative privileges?

-- 18:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC) (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet for (talk · contribs) (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DotSix) and is apparently being used to circumvent the block imposed by Sasquatch. Banno 21:02, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Will you please show your work, your conclusive proof of that allegation so that others can check your observations?
Proof isn't required, only adequate evidence; and in this case it is more than adequate.-- 22:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Why would your side want any contributor blocked from a DISCUSSION page anyway, don't you want to discuss the issues
Because you DON'T discuss. You delete other's comments. -- 22:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
with those on the other side, you want strict tyranny of the majority, rule by force of numbers?-- 21:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I think you should have taken Sasquatch's advice [[41]], rather than deleting it. Banno 21:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[[User:the tyrannous majority in talk:truth]][edit]

Three revert rule violation on talk:truth.

  • Previous version reverted to: [42]
  • 1st revert: [43]
  • 2nd revert: [44]
  • 3rd revert: [45]
  • 4th revert: [46]

Reported by: -- 07:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


That is precisely the problem. Under current policy Wikipedia is doomed to forever have it's content controlled by force of numbers (you do the math), rather than through principled negotiation, as it says it prefers, in which both sides of any dispute are fairly represented. That is an inconsistency that should be repaired.
DotSix would replace consensus with chaos. Banno 21:41, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Balderdash. Bananas is operating under the mistaken belief that consensus = tyranny of the majority. DotSix would replace Bananas' tyranny of the majority with trueconsensus decision-making "a cooperative process whereby participants try to find a solution which meets the legitimate interests of both parties, which in the context of Wikipedia usually involves appropriate mention of all points of view in an article thus improving the quality of the article."-- 02:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, this post violates Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point; and finally, DotSix is using sockpuppets to circumvent the 3RR policy on truth. This user should be permanently banned. Banno 21:41, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Any disruption (if there really is any in the long run, which I sincerely doubt) is due to your side trying to get away with controlling the content of articles by force of numbers. Give that up, if you are truly interested in peace on Wikipedia. You won't get any real lasting peace until you insure justice for the minority side. Study consensus decision-making, and give up all your argument based on logical fallacy, such as trying to get away with conflating knowledge and belief.-- 02:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on Al-Andalus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Irishpunktom (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Karl Meier 07:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


  • Blocked for 24 hours. --Michael Snow 07:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: Humus sapiens←ну? 18:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


  • The user seems to wage some kind of religious war here. Note POV summaries. Humus sapiens←ну? 18:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I call it what I see it. Just because you try to pretend like you're being neutral, doesn't mean you aren't blowing smoke up my ass. You and your friends have done this before and there is no coincidence that you're all Jewish. Why do you ethnocentrically gang up on people different than you? The Muslims or Arabs don't do it. If I have a problem with a POV Jewish or POV Muslim edit, I do not get my thuggish friends to stand by my side as you and your posse do. It is you who stalk me for editing articles that even in the slightest deal with Jews. Besides, that was not a break in the 3RR and you damn well know it. Only exact reverts are that and you are merely trying to discredit me, to be able to keep your Zionist POV written all over the Wikipedia and not have to deal with Gentiles who will stand up to your bullying. TheUnforgiven 19:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I've blocked him for one week for 3RR and for the above comment. He's been warned and blocked for these comments many times (some of them worse than above), so I'm going to leave a note on his talk page saying that next time the block will be indefinite. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:44, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
His response to my note was to leave more nonsense on his talk page, [47] so I've blocked him indefinitely. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:20, August 12, 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: Bletch 01:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Reported August 11 and removed without explanation by User:Tznkai. Given that User:Bletch had pointed out this alleged mistake of Tznkai and he still didn't do anything, perhaps he couild explain why he deleted this, perhaps here and at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tznkai, SqueakBox 01:04, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Blocked for 24 hours. User acknowedged his breakage of 3RR (via edit summary), so I don't think a warning was needed in this case. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 02:55, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

User:Zeno of Elea[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Rules of war in Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zeno of Elea (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Heraclius 02:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


  • Editor keeps removing two sourced paragraphs. He has been warned about the 3RR before by the admin El C here.
  • Blocked for 24 hours. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 02:50, August 13, 2005 (UTC)


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

This is part of an ongoing pattern of disruptive behavior by an anonymous editor known as .6 or DotSix who is the subject of an RfAr. In this case, the anonymous editor is deleting portions of the RfC that is the basis of the ArbCom case. Robert McClenon 15:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

An editor is allowed three reverts in twenty-four hours. It is only the fourth that might get an editor blocked. Dan100 (Talk) 16:33, August 13, 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on Hong Kong Police Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RageAgainstWhiteWash (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Instantnood 16:41, August 13, 2005 (UTC)


  • It think it would've been a good idea to warn the user before reporting him here. I have elected not to block as the user was probably quite unaware of the policy - I have left a warning instead. If he reverts again, he will be blocked. Dan100 (Talk) 22:00, August 13, 2005 (UTC)


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


  • You have linked the diffs incorrectly. See other 3RRs listed above to see how to do it properly. Please also tell us who you are - sign with ~~~~. Dan100 (Talk) 21:45, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • User:Zivinbudas is banned for one year. Any edit by Zivinbudas using an anonymous ip (exhibiting his trademark immature Lithuanian nationalism) may be removed by any user. [49]--Witkacy 21:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Witkacy did break the 3RR but Lithuania has been protected. I have elected to warn rather than block in this instance. Dan100 (Talk) 21:54, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • I did not broke the 3rr - reverting of blocked users is like reverting of vandalism--Witkacy 22:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree, and this is clearly what you were doing here (Bf-109 being a sock of a banned user). Dan100 (Talk) 22:32, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

User:Guy Montag[edit]

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

Reported by: 00:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


  • User been banned repeatedly before for this. Usewr refuses to discuss the issue:

"I don't cooperate with internet trolls.

Guy Montag 23:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)"

The fourth one wasn't a revert, it was a reworded compromise.

Guy Montag 00:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

No it was a reversion - you changed the wording slightly but the sentiment is EXACTLY the same. 00:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I clarified and inserted historical context while keeping your part of the edit. Finally, it is very difficult to take an anonymous IP seriously.

Guy Montag 00:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: Eclipsed 01:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


User:Guy Montag[edit]

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

Reported by: 02:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


  • Keeps reverting word "kidnapped" 02:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment on last link was "remember my advice to you when you put Mrs. Hateul on vfd? take it." - his advice at the time was "Fuck Off". 02:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I reviewd the history of the page and am unconvinced that there is a problem. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Please link to diffs, not versions. Mark1 08:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

User: DotSix (Again)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on User talk: (edit | [[Talk:User talk:|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). (talk · contribs) who cals himself "DotSix" but has not taken a username:


  • Anonymous user is the subject of an RfAr and some of the evidence against him is on his talk page. He is trying to delete it. He has already deleted warnings from Sasquatch and other administrators. This is his 5th reported (and many others not reported) violation of 3RR in the last 8 days.

Reported by: Nate Ladd 22:08, August 14, 2005 (UTC)[edit]

Four identical reverts in the past 20 minutes on Adolf Hitler, he's been reverted by three different editors and warned on his talk page. Wyss 04:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 hours to cool him down. Jayjg (talk) 04:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Here are the contribs [56], straightforward as it gets. Wyss 04:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philosophy.

  • 1st


Reported by: Gavin the Chosen 08:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


  • In attempting to do things correctly, i tried putting something about Vampire on the aforementioned RFC page, DreamGuy kept removing peices therof, seemingly in hopes of making his points more acceptable, and gaining favour, because his excuse for reverting was to remove personal attarcks, of which i had not made anyGavin the Chosen 08:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I removed personal attacks more than three times, but that's just following Wikipedia policy. And the rules of article RfCs very distinctly say to make the entries appear unbiased and neutral and avoid personal attacks, neither of which his entry there did. I simply put it the way it was supposed to be, leaving his RfC intact so others could follow the link. He needs to stop complaining when people follow the rules and start following them himself, per his RFC and RfAr under his original user name of User:Gabrielsimon. DreamGuy 08:52, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

User:Gavin the Chosen[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Vampire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gavin the Chosen (talk · contribs):

Reported by: DreamGuy 08:46, August 15, 2005 (UTC)


  • User:Gavin the Chosen is User:Gabrielsimon under a new name. User has violated 3RR something like 9 times in the last several months, had agreed to follow 1RR as part of an RFC against him, undergoing RfAr, as part of the deal for his going to a new name he was supposed to avoid contacting me, reverting my changes, etc., so he knows these actions are not allowed. He had just gotten back from a 24 hour block (I believe his third on his new name) when he reverted Vampire back to a state it was before he was blocked, undoing several editors' changes. Note that he says on the third revert that he wouldn't revert any more but then goes ahead and made the same changes he was most concerned with across two edits. 24 hour blocks are doing nothing to prevent this guy from repeating. DreamGuy 08:46, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
there i did nothingh wrong, becasue as with the one below, i RESTOREd commentw iwthout reverting, but its a two step process.Gavin the Chosen 14:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


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

[61] version being reverted to

  1. [62] Depakote 02:53
  2. [63] 07:59
  3. [64] 08:34
  4. [65] 09:58

Reported by: SchmuckyTheCat 17:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


  • This user is only editing this article. SchmuckyTheCat 17:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on Vietnam Veterans Against the War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). (talk · contribs):

Reported by: TDC 20:40, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Comments: This is a shame, because I thought (and still think) positive progress was being made on patching up the edit war by me and TDC. Hipocrite 20:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)