Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive15

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:infinity0[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Socialism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). infinity0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: -- Vision Thing -- 19:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Comments: 4th revert happened 24 hours and 55 minutes after first revert, but this user already broke 3RR 3 times (1 2 3) in last 3 months and I think he delayed last revert on purpose to avoid breaking 3RR technically. -- Vision Thing -- 19:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Vision Thing seems to have a thing against me. In my defence, I did NOT violate 3RR, and Vision Thing's (spam) edits were reverted by other users too. -- infinity0 19:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Infinity0: it is best to show diffs containing the reverts Vision Thing did -- your response will have more weight in you handle it this way. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 19:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, here are Vision Thing's insertion and reinsertion of links: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. -- infinity0 20:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Gephart[edit]

Three revert rule violation on The Ave. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gephart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Experienced user. Reverts concern the removal of a pic which no-one else so far has had a problem with. He is assuming bad faith and has already declared his intention here to carry out a revert war until he gets his way . - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I dont exactly know if users have the option to defend themselves or were they would do it, so I, Gephart, will do it right here (if this is not the place, please direct to the appropriate area or let me know i have not chance). Although i have been using wikipedia for a little under a year, i can honestly say i never knew about the 3RR (i know for the future). I guess i have never had any trouble with other users up until today. Calgacus continued to revert what i had done without being willing to discuss the picture in question. And, as i noticed above, he posted another 3RR violation, stating "the persons unwillingness to discuss," so i know he can imagine the frustration i was feeling. I posted twice on the article talk page and once on his user page, but got no direct answer to the simple questions i asked him; he continually beat around the bush to put it. I know i violated policy is "declaring an edit war" in my last post, put that simply came out of frustration, and my intents were never genuine. Anyways, that is my side of the story.--Gephart 00:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but this edit to your own user page is quite ridiculous, shocking and disgraceful, containing falsehoods such as "Calgacus will start a mini-revert war" (actually, you, as you admit here, started it), "he intentionally ignores talk pages" (I actually responded to all your comments all the talk page) and slander "cause you to violate the 3RR rule" (you yourself did this), "intentionally" (who could you know?). I reported you here because I like to edit articles and concentrate on content, so I report all 3RRs I come across. The latter edit has discredited your attempt to convince of your own good faith. I remind you to consult WP:Assume good faith, and very much hope you don't need a block to reform your character. Thanks. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

User:JedRothwell[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Cold fusion controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JedRothwell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: KillerChihuahua?!? 14:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Note that this is the second time that Jed has gone over 3RR and he was again warned before his 4th revert: [7]. JoshuaZ 15:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

24h. Note that I have some history over this article, though it was a long time ago, so feel free to review this block if required William M. Connolley 15:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

User:71.144.93.38[edit]

Three revert rule violation on April 27 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.144.93.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

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

Reported by: Asbl 15:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: 5th revert came after I put a warning on the anon's talk page.

8h. Sorry I forgot to note that earlier William M. Connolley 22:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Manojlo[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Kosovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Manojlo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
  • 1st revert: [14]
  • 2nd revert: [15]
  • 3rd revert: [16]
  • 4th revert:[17]
  • 5th revert: [18]
  • 6th revert: [19]


Reported by: Ilir pz 19:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: If looked at Special:Contributions/Manojlo user continues to revert continuously, hiding behind the claim that "minor parts" are edited, and misleads with the Comments, but in fact he is trying to impose his POV. I put several test warnings to him, but he just kept removing them from his talk page. Action is appreciated. Thank you, Ilir pz 19:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

User:GODDESSY[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Stephanie Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). GODDESSY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comment 1-3 were the same reversion, 4 was removal of deletion tag, 5 was a partial reversion back to original version. Pretty basic edit war.--Isotope23 20:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps off topic, but the user seems to have WP:OWN issues about the article.--Isotope23 21:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
24h, for 3RR and self-biog William M. Connolley 21:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


User:207.81.122.3[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Squamish, British Columbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 207.81.122.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: TeaDrinker 00:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This seems to all be one user, but a very persistant one. He has been doing these reverts for months. He has been warned on multiple accounts previously (note that he removes warnings from talk pages), and uses many accounts.

User:Al-Andalus[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Argentina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Demographics of Argentina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Al-Andalus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: OneEuropeanHeart 03:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

My and other users reverts were in responce to those reverts done by the user now reporting this 3RR. For a background to this please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#RVs at Argentina and Demographics of Argentina and relevant Talk:. Al-Andalus 20:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User has been warned four times [36] [37] [38] [39] by three different users, refusing to discuss the issue or change his behavior. --OneEuropeanHeart 03:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 20:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. Homever, this user has started to vandalise and revert other users' contributions again. Can someone please block him again? --OneEuropeanHeart 18:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

User:211.225.70.220[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Liancourt Rocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 211.225.70.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: Endroit 12:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This user keeps reverting against consensus, to variations of East Sea (instead of Sea of Japan). A warning has been placed on the user page after the 6th revert.--Endroit 13:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems to have got bored and gone off. Warned. William M. Connolley 19:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Greier[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Aromanians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Greier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: Telex 13:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

But User:Greier is one more time challanged by you Telex. You don't speak with him on talk page first. You just report him here. --Steaua 18:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
It's not my job to babysit him - how many users is that ludicrous propaganda of his being reverted by? He knows he oughtn't continue reverting, but he does it anyway. Quite evidently (from his user talk page), many users have tried to speak with him, alas, in vain. Telex 18:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I haven't seen you try to talk with Greier...--Steaua 18:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I've seen you just reverting his work. If you complain of something go to the talk page first. This is Wikipedia...--Steaua 18:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Edit summary - after my hard work was called bullshit, he hurt my feelings. Telex 18:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, unless you're Node I don't see why you're so upset and why your feelings are hurted. That's really bulshit what you have written there. That work deserve immediatelly reverted. --Steaua 18:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User has been warned of the 3RR and has been blocked before on numerous occasions. One may also be interested in these lovely edit summaries and have a word with him about them [40], [41] and [42]. Telex 13:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with this, User:Greier was challanged by User:Telex. --Steaua 13:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
In fact, Telex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was also on Administrator's noticeboard [43] warned not to revert and to make compromise on talk page first. --Steaua 13:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Steaua for support. I know Romanians on wikipedia are on a constant... let`s call it stress, from a combined pack of Greeks, Russians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Hungarians, Ukrainians.... They all have theyr own (apparentelly contrasting) ideas on what Romanian/Aromanian/Vlach people mean, from where Romanian/Aromanians/Vlach camed from, on what Romanians/"Vlach" language means... About your propose to block me... haa hahahaha hahah haaaa haha... Greier 18:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

2006-04-28 18:54:09 Mikkalai blocked "Greier (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (WP:3RR acc. to report) which seems fair enough William M. Connolley 18:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

A russian coallition of force...russian blocking, just fine...--Steaua 19:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

User:137.186.145.102[edit]

Three revert rule violation on User talk:137.186.145.102. 137.186.145.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

[48]

Reported by: Ardenn 16:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: He violates etiquette about the talk page. Ardenn 16:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Getting into edit wars on peoples own talk pages is unproductive and offensive. William M. Connolley 18:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I concur. I've already spoken with Ardenn about how ridiculous it is to consider as vandalism a user's removal of his obviously too large signature from their talk page (the image in Ardenn's current signature is much smaller that the one he left on the talk page in question), as he left a message about vandalism over this issue prior to this report of a 3RR violation. I am absolutely certain that Ardenn understands that what he is arguing over is exceedingly unimportant, and yet he insists on making an issue out of it.  OZLAWYER  talk  20:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

User:DevoutOne[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Pope Benedict XVI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DevoutOne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):


Reported by: Dominick (TALK) 18:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Looks like this account was created only to insert links to Pope Benedict XVI in the article. I posted on talk, he replied with a template. May be a sockpuppet.

Of the pope? :-))) In that case, only 1h for now as a gentle reminder that the rules can be enforced William M. Connolley 19:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Persian Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: —Khoikhoi 23:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User has been blocked for 3RR before. —Khoikhoi 23:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The only previous time I was blocked the admin apoligized later [49]. In this case however I will admit I broke the 3RR as I forgot I rv a couple of times yesterday and could not revert myself as I had already been reverted. I apoligize.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

No action now. Warned. `'mikka (t) 01:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

User:154.20.148.186[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Werner_Herzog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 154.20.148.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: Stephan Schulz 00:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 48h. `'mikka (t) 01:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Both the first four and the second four reverts constitute a 3RR violation.
  • I warned the user after the first violation, without effect.
  • He was blocked for similar offenses previously (see his talk page). --Stephan Schulz 00:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


User:Daveinaustin[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Ann Coulter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Daveinaustin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User is repeatedly adding POV to the article and removing legitimate text, though he refuses to cite sources (not that that's relevant when investigating 3RR)
  • His submissions have been reverted by three separate editors.
  • User has been sufficiently warned, yet refuses to stop.
Are these really reverts? They look like insertions of different POV text William M. Connolley 08:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I was just about to say the same thing. Ami, can you show where he has reverted to text you had deleted, or repeatedly inserted something? SlimVirgin (talk) 08:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
No, I suppose I can't. I've only reverted one of his edits, and then one of the article's main contributors (of which I'm not) asked me to do something about him as he had refused to stop inserting POV into the article. Looking at the history it seemed to be 3RR, so I listed him here. I guess I should have looked more closely. He seems to have either given up now or gone to bed, so I guess there's no reason to take any action. If the problem persists, hopefully they'll open up an RfC--I was just trying to find a quick and temporary solution to a problem that I shouldn't have gotten involved with in the first place. Sorry for taking your time. AmiDaniel (Talk) 18:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Gene Nygaard[edit]

3RR violation on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reported by SlimVirgin (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Gene Nygaard has reverted my archiving of the talk page four times in 90 minutes, part of a pattern of disruption from him that has been going on there for days. He has been editing for some time and is familiar with the 3RR policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Um. It looks like no-one (including me) wants to step into your edit war with GN. You both know whats-what. You (both) shouldn't be edit warring over archiving a talk page. For what its worth, my preference is to archive, unless people object, in which case it can be left for a week or a month or whatever William M. Connolley 22:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
William, are you saying it's okay for him to violate 3RR because it's a talk page? If so, he'll simply keep on doing it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't you feel downright silly for having said that, then being blocked yourself for the same thing? Gene Nygaard 02:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Violating 3RR to scuttle the archiving of a page is not just lame, but disruptive. There's no legitimate excuse. Blocked for 24 hr for the 3RR vio. Any further disruption when the block expires will earn him another 24. FeloniousMonk 01:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems like SV has also violated 3RR (see below) and in this case seems to have archived discussion less than a day old. Given my experience of her removing comment she doesn't like, I am, unfortunately, not surprised. We should expect evenhandedness in applying 3RR. In fact I'll go further and say admins who violate policy should be dealt with more firmly than ordinary users. Mccready 05:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

  • She reverted herself on that long before you even made your complaint, as you well know, so this accusation is little more than trolling at this point. Also, this section is about Gene Nygaard's 3RR violation, it's not a venue for attacking people you don't like; furthermore, your continued Wikistalking of User:SlimVirgin must cease. Jayjg (talk) 05:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Have you actually read WP:CIVIL yourself, Jayjg? Why are you going off on a personal attact on an editor who is not even a subject of a notice of 3RR violation, engaging in namecalling and in an ad hominem argument unrelated to anything that editor has said here? Gene Nygaard 03:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Jay, I don't well know that at all. In any case her comments below appear to be a mea culpa. I don't suppose you'd consider apologising to me? May I remind you to be civil and not make illogical accusations? Mccready 06:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Her self-block goes above and beyond the call of duty, and just serves to highlight her acute sense of responsibility, justice and fairplay. I'd recommend not putting words in her mouth, especially considering the amount you have been harassing her. I don't suppose you'd consider desiting from your continued violations of WP:CIVIL? Jayjg (talk) 07:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Jidan[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Geber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jidan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: ManiF 12:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User:Jidan has been previously blocked for 3RR, on three occasions during the last six weeks. --ManiF 12:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

They aren't all reverts. Prodego talk 14:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • There are more than 3 reverts in the period of time. Some are just complex reverts to accomplish the same goal. Blocked for 48 hours. He should know better. Wikibofh(talk) 14:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't mean to intrude, but there is a theoretical 3RR violation (depending on how nitpicky the admin wants to be). If you check all diffs, you'll notice that he's removed the link Persians at least five times (so we have four reverts). According to the policy, partial reverts count as well. Telex 14:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't see any more then three reverts. Prodego talk 14:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
There are six reverts there. As per WP:3RR, not all the reverts have to be the same, any undoing of another editor's work counts as a revert. --ManiF 14:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It's three straight forward reverts, and then two more edits to accomplish the same thing (change to an ethnicity of Arab). Looks like a straight forward attempt at wikilawyering to me, and he should know better.

Wikibofh(talk) 14:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Hogeye[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Anarchism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hogeye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: -- infinity0 17:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This is the user's first group of edits since being banned for a month for personal attacks and disruptive editing.

There's eight now (not counting the sockpuppet edit mentioned below); for easy viewing: [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58]. The user also made other changes to the article that were reverted, but those ones were all around the same things. Four of the reversions to his edits were by myself, and I'd rather avoid making any more. Sarge Baldy 20:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

There's another one by an anon which is most likely Hogeye at [59]. Fightindaman 20:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, OK, this is getting silly. Errm... 48h? William M. Connolley 22:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Wolfkeeper[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Elo_rating_system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wolfkeeper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: Dionyseus 03:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I attemped mediation so that someone can explain to him why you cannot include unsourced and unfounded claims in the article, and for a full day the Elo_rating_system article was at peace, but apparently he has become restless because he began reverting my edits again, and worse he calls my edits vandalism, displaying lack of faith on me as an editor WP: Assume Good Faith. Dionyseus 03:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC) Furthermore he is now posting on my userpage, calling me names and insulting me, and deleted my earlier attempts to mediate with him on his userpage. Dionyseus 06:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

12h for first offence William M. Connolley 07:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Metb82[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Abdullah Öcalan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Metb82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):


Reported by: —Khoikhoi 03:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User has been blocked for 3RR before. —Khoikhoi 03:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for 48 hours. --InShaneee 00:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Lemuel Gulliver[edit]

Three revert rule violation on 2003 invasion of Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lemuel_Gulliver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: Merecat 05:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: These editor is clearly aware of what he is doing. His edit summaries state:

  • "Such an assertion needs to be made in the body of the text, attributed and explained. Not stated so baldly"
  • "This is another way it could be done"
  • "Attributed version. The simplest solution is not to include it"
  • "Quotes alone is another option"
  • He was warned on his talk page here as well as with edit summary which stated:

"rv / v Gulliver - You have reverted this 3 times already. The last 2 times were vandalism. Stop now or face 3RR and vandal report"

Here are the real diffs: revert 1, partial revert 1, attempted compromise 1, attempted compromise 2, attempted compromise 3. At that point I left the article for others to worry about. Incidentally, I don't actually like those compromises. As I argued, I believe it is best to make such a controversial assertion ("part of the War on Terrorism") in the body of the text, where it can be attributed and explained.
It is also worth noting that Merecat is refusing to enter discussion on the matter, by deleting comments on his talk page. He has also misused vandalism templates and been warned for it. He has also reverted the article three times and risks breaking the 3RR. — Gulliver 05:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Gulliver's knowledge of procedure is sufficient that he knew enough to come looking for this page. With such knowledge, he's certain to know that the place to dialog is the article talk page, not by leaving insults on my talk page. Please review the article talk page see that Gulliver is part of a small group of POV warriors, determined to delete this category from the article. Merecat 05:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

"Part of a small group of POV warriors"? Please keep conspiracy paranoia off this page. I happened across the article, noticed unattributed POV, and tried to remedy it in various ways. — Gulliver 06:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how about "one of a number of POV reverters"? Merecat 06:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

"A Wikipedian implementing NPOV policy as usual" is fine. In any case, there is no 3RR violation, and so I won't entertain you further by engaging you in unnecessary debate. The admins who manage this page have better things to read. — Gulliver 06:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


User:SlimVirgin[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

WP should be about even-handedness not sysops supporting each other without adequate research.

Reported by: Mccready 05:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

    • She reverted herself on that long before you even made your complaint, as you well know, so this accusation is little more than trolling at this point. Also, your continued Wikistalking of User:SlimVirgin must cease. Jayjg (talk) 05:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Jay am I wrong that she arhived the page 4 times within 24 hours? I don't understand what you mean by saying she reverted herself. I'm always happy to learn. Mccready 06:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't reverted four times when I reported Gene Nygaard. After he was blocked (or around the same time; I forget the sequence exactly), I went back to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources and I restored the archiving that Gene had reverted, without realizing that I was still within the 24 hour period. As soon as I realized, I reverted myself. Normally, that's enough to avoid a block for 3RR. However, as an admin, I should have been more careful, and as someone who had just reported someone else for 3RR, I should have been more careful still, so I'm going to block myself now for 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This appears noble Slim and I assume good faith, but to make it more lifelike would you agree that Gene should be able to nominate (at any time within the next 30 days) a time for you to go offline for 24 hours from the time of his nomination? Mccready 07:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Jayjg (talk) 07:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Wow, what a solution Mcready, I can obviously see how it relates to your complaint.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Let's keep this in perspective. SV was trying to archive a talk page that contained nothing more than fruitless and disruptive agitation from a chronic malcontent. Gene Nygaard's opposition to the archiving was nothing more than insisting on yet further disruption. SV was in the right to archive and Gene Nygaard was in the wrong to repeatedly revert it. In responding to Gene Nygaard's unwarranted reversions, SV's actions did not rise to the level of a block for 3RR, while Gene's certainly did. I'm fine with SV being unblocked, but not with Gene Nygaard. FeloniousMonk 15:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
It's nice to see your selective indignation at work, FeloniousMonk! What happened to "Violating 3RR to scuttle the archiving of a page is not just lame, but disruptive"?
Note also that SlimVirgin also has a history of using "archiving" of active discussion as a pretext for stifling talk page discussion. This isn't the first time she's pulled that out of her bag of tricks, nor the first time edit-war about it. It should surprise no one when such actions are not submissively acceded to. See, e.g., Talk:Pan Am Flight 103/Archive 1 and the corresponding talk page edits on those dates. Gene Nygaard 02:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
It's nice to see your selective indignation at work. Let's see: selective: "[T]ending to select; characterized by careful choice; "an exceptionally quick and selective reader"- John Mason Brown. [C]haracterized by very careful or fastidious selection; "the school was very selective in its admissions" Seems appropriate. --Calton | Talk 02:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not the only one who found SlimVirgin's actions offensive. See Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Why are 3 day old comments from active discussions in the talk archive?, and note that the originator of that section was often on the opposite side of the discussion from me. Gene Nygaard 02:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Yea I don't understand why she blocked herself in the first place.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Always have to throw in an attempt to show that you are the boss here, don't you, SV?
I notice that, unlike the sysop who blocked me, the one who blocked you gave you an opportunity to offer an explanation here first.
In a more sensible world, some other sysop would tack on an additional 24 hours for conduct unbecoming a sysop, in presuming to act as a judge in your own case.
Curiously, your self-reversion of your own fourth revert not only came a rather long 4 h 26 minutes after that reversion, but also and more tellingly, only after I had pointed out to User:FeloniousMonk by email (because he was the one who blocked me, and because I therefore could not post it here) that you had also violated 3RR. Any connection? FM never bothered to reply to me; looks mighty suspicious about him contacting you, however, and that being the real reason behind your 5th revert in 24 hours being a self-revert. Gene Nygaard 02:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please unblock Slim? Blocks are not punishments and it's clear that she understands what she did wrong and one would hope will try not to do it again. It is strangely difficult though, one notes, to do the right thing when Gene Nygaard is involved. Why is that, I wonder? Grace Note 02:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that SlimVirgin took the unusual step of acting as a judge in her own case was to make it less likely that someone would be damn fool enough to do that, and expose an inherent unfairness in the way sysops treat other sysops in this process. Gene Nygaard 03:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I suspect that you are not familiar with this policy or this one. I don't see any need to indulge you further until you are well acquainted with both. -- Grace Note.
Huh? If there is any "good faith" issue here, that possibility is giving her every benefit of the doubt. Any other explanation I could think of to try to explain acting as a judge in her own case would involve an improper abuse of power. Gene Nygaard 04:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it would help if I were more to the point. I think it would be a good thing if that is what she had in mind. I'm not assuming bad faith; that would be a good reason. You might take me to task about speculating about something I don't know for sure, but a lecture on assuming good faith is out of place. Gene Nygaard 14:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Generally if a person reverts four times in error and self-reverts their fourth revert, it isn't judged as a 3rr vio - after all, the point of the rule is preventative, not punitive. I would read the matter in the same way whether it was an established editor I liked, or a newcomer I didn't care for much. Guettarda 05:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

She self-reverted after she was caught. In fact, there was so much elapsed time that had she added something rather than deleting it, what she'd added would have been ripe for archiving by her standards. That Jayjg undid her self-reversion within minutes also hints that that may have been preplanned too, before she self-reverted. Gene Nygaard 09:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The whole situation seems kind of sad, really. I will add that if Slim is that determined to revert you, I'd think long and hard about what I am changing :). Just another star in the night T | @ | C 10:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Unlike the sysop who blocked me, the sysop who blocked SlimVirgin afforded her an opportunity to offer an explanation here before being blocked.

That favoritism is part of the procedural issue here. Gene Nygaard 13:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What? The "E-mail this user" link on your browser is busted? The {{Unblock}} tag doesn't work on your talk page? Man, you'd better ask at the Village Pump, see if anyone can help you with those tehnical issues. --Calton | Talk 13:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, one thing that is broken about the "E-mail this user" feature is that it doesn't provide a copy to the originator, nor any other log that the E-mail were sent, so that even if someone were inclined to deal with rampant speculation such as yours, whether or not the evidence could be produced would be at the whim of the recipient.
Furthermore, SlimVirgin's blocking sysop gave her an opportunity to respond here, on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, not just on her own talk page. Gene Nygaard 13:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
...rampant speculation' You're right, when you said you were unable to comment, I assumed you were actually serious instead of making stuff up. My mistake. --Calton | Talk 13:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Just my two cents: With due regards to all participants, I would like to add that we make a lot of fuss even about obvious matters. She did something which she believed to be in order, and immediately upon realizing the matter, she set the “house’ in order. Bringing the matter here is prima facie fine, but seeing the discussion above I remember these words: “a codified set of rules on an issue, so they can subvert the spirit while adhering to the letter.” (Rule number 18, Section: Laws by others on this page. In my opinion, SV had done nothing wrong to warrant a report here. --Bhadani 10:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Mycroft.Holmes[edit]

Makes reverts based on personal dislike of certain businesses, regardless of actual relevance.

User:Cpc1962[edit]

Makes requests based on biased personal opinions.

User:Lemuel Gulliver[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Jay Bennish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lemuel_Gulliver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: anon Comments:

Sorry, but it has to be more than 3 reverts within 24 hours. In this case, only 3 of the reverts are. —Khoikhoi 06:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
You wouldn't happen to be a sockpuppet, would you? Two false accusations of 3RR violation in such a short space of time! As Khoikhoi correctly notes, the first revert was not within 24 hours (it was a fortnight ago!). The edit marked as the fourth revert was an attempt at compromise. Two reverts do not a 3RR violation make. Please do not flood this page with bogus reports. — Gulliver 06:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


User:Gnetwerker[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Asian fetish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gnetwerker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: Wzhao553 07:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User continues to insert two poorly referenced sections ("Popular terminology" and "Academic terminology") and to relabel another section on Origins as my personal essay on Origins. Other editors have called for the deleted sections to go, e.g.:

If the claim that "Postcolonialists and Neomarxists have argued that the alleged commodity fetishism of Asians arises in a similar manner." can't be cited, the whole section needs to go. Gazpacho 17:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to explain my edits several times, explaining why the referenced "Origins" section should replace the "Popular terminology" and "Academic terminology" sections, but user refuses to listen, accusing me of promoting a personal agenda. The extreme irony in this situation is that I was the one who wrote 75% of the two unsourced sections, and now I want to replace my own unsourced work with sourced work. The relevant discussion can be found here:

Talk:Asian_fetish#Original_Research_in_this_article

User also has a history of violating WP:OWN, not to mention m:MPOV. More to the point, he continues to believe that, as an Asian American, I am somehow always writing with a POV and that I am intellectually incapable of striving for NPOV, and that he has become the "unofficial mediator" of the article. I have tried to reason and to assume good faith, but he refuses to reason. Personally, I think that that is somewhat racist, but that's my personal opinion. Cheers, Wzhao553 07:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Wzhao553[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Asian fetish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wzhao553 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [61]
  • 1st revert: [62] - 17:36, April 29, 2006
  • 2nd revert: [63] - 22:53, April 29, 2006
  • 3rd revert: [64] - 23:06, April 29, 2006
  • 4th revert: [65] - 00:49, April 30, 2006

Reported by: Gnetwerker 09:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: After a long period of stability on a controversial topic, User:Wzhao553, who has proclaimed that he edits "with an Asian American POV", has inserted a mjor section of original research. While this has reluctantly been retained for discussion, Wzhao wishes for it to dominate the article, and consistently reverts to his version of the article, despite edits aiming to preserve his opinion while maintaining a balance in the article. The basline version includes his edit, but not as the sole purpose of the article, yet he consistently reverts. -- Gnetwerker 09:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

User:125.172.23.237[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Developed country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 125.172.23.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs ·