Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive4

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

This archive covers 14 September 2005 - 6 October 2005

User: and sockpuppet User:DKorn[edit]

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

Warning posted by LILVOKA

9th, 10th, 11th reverts, does anyone actyally read these reports? --Gorgonzilla 22:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Adding descriptions to Gorgonzilla's report for reverts 9-10

  • 9th revert: 20:34, 14 September 2005 (Describes edit in deliberately misleading fashion as "vandalism," although it is the version agreed upon by ALL other users except for him to be preferable to his POV version)

We are now up to revert 15 or so. At this rate there will be nobody left who can revert the vandalism without breaking the 3RR themselves. --Gorgonzilla 01:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

See also the following:

Reported by: Gorgonzilla 20:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


  • Poster has numerous aliases, Long John Silver, Honest Abe, Swamp Foxx, New IP, all are very clearly the same individual.
  • Poster keeps reverting to an exceptionally POV version of the article that makes claims that are clearly untrue, e.g. attempting to claim that Gov. Blanco did not make a request to the Whitehouse to declare a state of emergency. Instead insisting that the Gov. issued a press release in the hope that the WH would act on that.
  • Poster also insists on using POV phrasing, inserting 'Nagin admitted that' in clear attempt to indicate that Nagin is accepting blame for something where it is clear from the context of the quote he is not.
  • Poster keeps rewording the claim but essentially pushes the same POV. He refuses to engage in talk except to attack others as being biased.
  • Poster has used other IP addresses in the past, apparently behind a NAT,
  • has already been blocked - 22:52, 12 September 2005 Essjay blocked "User:" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Vandalism)
  • Recomend locking the articles affected Ray Nagin Kathleen Blanco as poster is almost certain to return under another sock

Additional comments by jentizzle

  • I also can attest that it appears ONE anonymous user appears under different aliases and constantly reverts the article on Ray Nagin to his own POV, which many many users in talk take issue with
  • His most ludicrous edit to date is claiming that Mayor Nagin chose not to employ schoolbuses in aiding the evacuation efforts, and supporting this claim ONLY with a photo of schoolbuses
  • He has further consistently changed the statement "Governor Blanco sent a request to Pres. Bush for federal assistance" to "Governor Blanco issued a statement in the media request that Pres. Bush..." although Blanco's press release, which supported the first statement clearly states that it includes a reprint of the actual letter, which was sent to President Bush. Furthermore, two journalistic sources are linked after Blanco's press release, which printed articles on the same day stating that the governor request federal assistance. This has been explained in talk, but the user refuses to accept any view except his own --Jentizzle 23:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Drini blocked User: for 24 hours for violating 3RR. If the block expires and his edit warring doesn't stop, it may be necessary to protect the article for a short time. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
The user has returned again with two new socks, both blocked by Hallmonitor. Suggest locking the article and watching others Able DangerKathleen Blanco that he has vandalized in the past. --Gorgonzilla 21:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Looks like Hall Monitor is, errr, monitoring. ;) The problem with protecting an article such as this one, for the moment, is that it's highly-trafficked -- that eliminates the potential for quite a few people who might want to actually make good edits. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Hopefully the vandal will take the hint, the problem has been that his constant revert warring has pretty much stalled the actual editing of the article. --Gorgonzilla 23:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The user has returned yet again under a new sockpuppet User:DKorn, he has made 6 reverts already today. Do we have to file a new 3RR or keep this open? If the user is not a sock then they have still reverted 5 times today. --Gorgonzilla 00:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Brian Brockmeyer[edit]

Three revert rule violation on University of Miami:

  • Apparenly he doesnt want people to know that a football player received his degree from a school other than the one he played football at.
  • 1st revert: [1]
  • 2nd revert: [2]
  • 3rd revert: [3]
  • 4th revert: [4]
Maybe I'm blind, but i don't see any four reverts from him that fall into a 24 hour period. However, that is gaming the system, and I have blocked him for 24 hours. In the future, please sign posts on pages like this with ~~~~ --Phroziac (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
The day after he was suspended, a new name popped up and carried on his crusade, Soldia1219. Coincidence? Maybe. Then there is Juicedpalmeiro, who also seems to only edit the same pages that Brian edits and started contibuting the first time Brian was suspended in August of 2005. Coincidece? Maybe. Seems very odd though. Now it looks like the three names are alternating to avoid the 3RR vio. I have tried repeatedly to discuss this with "Brian", on his page, but he just keeps deleting my message. AriGold 18:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: Jayjg (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


  • Continually inserting the word "controversial" to described Steven Emerson. Previously reverted the page 5 times on September 13, but was not reported in the hopes he'd see reason. Has been warned about the 3RR many times, but insists on interpeting 3RR in his own novel way. Jayjg (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Blocked for 24 hours. --Phroziac (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmmm, I guess I took a little too long writing him a note on his talk page. I thought another warning might have been fair, as he believed he was abiding by the letter of the rule (which he wasn't), but I won't unblock him. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 17:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: RyanFreisling @ 04:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


  • This user's blatantly anticollaborative and disruptive behavior, culminating so far in an active RfC, [8] has threatened me and other users, lobbed dozens of personal attacks, and is a decidedly non-productive presence, who seems more than willing to disrupt Wikipedia on his slightest whim. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, tampering with other peoples' comments is definitely a no-no and is punishable as vandalism. There is a guideline, part of WP:NPA that allows people to remove other peoples' comments if they are personal attacks, though it is quite controversial and not considered official policy. However, I must say I don't feel that the information BigDaddy777 is reverting is really a personal attack. I'm going to warn him sternly; if he does this sort of thing again please let me know. · Katefan0(scribble) 04:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I understand and I am struggling to behave in a completely appropriate manner, as he himself openly defies that requirement... -- RyanFreisling @ 04:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
User has just deleted my comments for the 5th time. How many 'breaks' does this bad faith editor get before the disruption stops? -- RyanFreisling @ 04:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I understand your frustration all too well. A nickel's worth of free advice: Give a man enough rope and he'll hang himself. · Katefan0(scribble) 04:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I hear you, but he's on the gallows, with a 5RR, and an RfC, but he keeps catching 'breaks'... -- RyanFreisling @ 05:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on Bat Ye'or (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dhimmi (talk · contribs):


  • User:Dhimmi keeps adding what he says is this woman's real name to the first sentence. She's a writer who's critical of Islam and uses a pseudonym for security reasons; plus we're anyway not certain that it's her real name. He's been reverted by several editors and has reverted 13 times today. I warned him once on his talk page at 21:00, which he acknowledged at 22:10, but he says 3RR doesn't apply to vandalism, and he reverted twice after that first warning. I warned him a second time in an edit summary, but he reverted again. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 24 hours. El_C 00:24, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


(Sorry, I am new, and have not yet learned how to do these DiffHist links. I will learn.)

  • 15 Sept. 22:06: Undid the combined actions of Kizzle and BigDaddy777 with a deletion, then made an accusation of plagiarism (an assumption of bad faith) and lectured them to "exercise some skill." You could have easily added quotes to indicate that it was a quote, or reworded it. Instead, you undid their actions.
  • 16 Sept. 2:05: Undid the actions of Paul Klenk with a deletion, accusing him of POV.
  • 16 Sept. 10:43: Undid the actions of BigDaddy777 with a deletion, accusing him of POV, and characterizing his edits as "removing content you don't like."
  • 16 Sept. 13:41 Undid the actions of BigDaddy777 with a deletion, then accused him of his "latest vandalism."
  • 16 Sept. 16:25 Undid the actions of BigDaddy777 with a deletion; her accusation? he "deleted without cause."


Ryan made five reverts to Karl Rove in just over 18 hours. At one point, I became concerned with one of her lightning speed reverts, and asked her politely to count her edits and let me know what she found; she responded to my message, but she never gave a count -- she just denied that you have ever broken 3RR.

This is her pattern: She tries to disguise her reverts by going on the offense, making unfounded accusations of vandalism, POV, plagiarism, bad faith, and lack of exercise in writing skill. I believe each of her accusations, in themselves, assume bad faith. Accusations aside, she still broke the rule. Personally, I suspect that she uses bullying to scare off editors you disagree with. See above 3RR accusation against BigDaddy, who she has been fighting with.

As a revert is undoing the actions of another editor, this is clearly what she has done in each of the five instances. It is true that undoing vandalism does not count towards a revert, but BigDaddy's edit of 13:41 on 16 Sept. was clearly a content dispute, not "vandalism," as she accused him. When I addressed her on that point and defended him against her accusation of vandalism, she ignored me.

She repeats the word "vandalism" over and over, but none of BigDaddy's edits on the page are vandalism. Several users have complained that the article is glutted with negative material that needs to be trimmed. Some of us are trimming it. This is not vandalism. It is editing.

paul klenk 03:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Here are the edits made by Ryan in the past 24 hours on the Karl Rove page that you refer to: [9][10][11][12][13]. The most recent 3 ([14][15][16]), are Ryan reverting BigDaddy's unexplained deletion of large chunks of the article. If deleting large chunks of the article isn't vandalism I don't know what is. And the last two I listed ([17][18]) Aren't even Reversions. So any way that you slice it, RyanFreisling has not broken 3RR. 04:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Dear anonymous et al, each of the five edits undo another editor's actions. Some of the actions were deletions, but editors are allowed to make deletions without invoking an edit war -- something Ryan is quick to charge others of. What you call "large chunks" are known in literary circles as "paragraphs." One or two sentences. What should we do -- delete half a sentence? Please be reasonable. paul klenk 04:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
paul, for example the 3rd "revert" cited [19] adds new sources for a section cut under the complaint it was improperly sourced. the addition of relevant new material makes this not a revert. i'll also note that the page has been protected for quite some time, so this is not an ongoing issue. Derex 04:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Both Ryan and BigDaddy777 were naughty. That's why I protected the page. Blocking either or both users now doesn't help make the article better, which is the ultimate goal. Sarcasm doesn't help either. · Katefan0(scribble) 04:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not saying Ryan was naughty -- I don't care about that. I'm saying she clearly broke the 3RR rule by making 5RR. Please address yourself to those 5RR. Since you and she have already attempted together to have BD disciplined, I would say you should stand down from this fight and let neutral parties look at her five edits which undid the actions of others. paul klenk 04:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
My answer above did in fact address your request. In my estimation, a page protection is enough in this situation. The point of the 3RR rule and a temporary block for violating it is not really to punish people, it's to encourage collaboration, enforcing a sort of "cool down" period if you will when edit warring happens. The page protection currently in place satisfies that as far as I'm concerned. I welcome opinions from other admins but I don't see mine changing. · Katefan0(scribble) 04:44, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Derex, thanks for checking in. In the instance you cite, Ryan undid Daddy's deletion. Yes, other material was added on top of it, but she still undid what he did. We are allowed to make deletions. (The page has only been protected for a few hours. These 5RR happened before it was protected.)
Ryan may not "like" others' actions, she might not "think" they are "valid" (her words) but she can wait 24 hours like everyone else, get help from others, and let editors remove data with fueling a war. I am not saying Daddy doesn't share some blame; it doesn't justify what she did. paul klenk 04:30, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
And other than the instance that Derex pointed out, Here's why the other 2 aren't reversions: in this edit [20] Ryan leaves your grammatical correction intact, [21]. If she had reverted your change, the grammar correction would have been reverted as well. In the other non-reversion edit, [22], she leaves the part added by Kizzle, [23], again if she had used the revert function that would not be there. Other than that, I think anyone is justified in reverting unexplained deletion of paragraphs as vandalism[24]. 04:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Leaving my "comma" edit doesn't make her reverting "footnote" to "part" any less of a reversion. Leaving the part added by Kizzle doesn't make what she did to Daddy's portion any less of a reversion. Unexplained deletions are not vandalism. Read the vandalism page, and the 3RR page. It does not meet the definition of vandalism, and leaving some edits while undoing others is still considered a revert. Again, the page is disputed for too many negative quotes. Removing those quotes is a content dispute, not vandalism. We are getting hung up on the word reversion. Read 3RR page again -- a reversion is undoing the edits of another. Ryan undid the actions of other editors 5 times in less than 19 hours. paul klenk 05:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is very clear on what a revert is: "A revert is to undo all changes made after a certain time in the past. The result will be that the page becomes identical to how it used to be at some previous time." [25]. However it is important to note per the 3RR page that "may include edits that mostly undo a previous edit and also add something new, page moving, admin actions such as protection, etc. Use common sense." [26]. The only example you list that would fall under the common sense clause would be the one about the comma, then again, the entire edit consisted of one word "footnote", so its hard to determine what "mostly" is in that case. And according to the vandalism page, "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia."[27]. When someone deletes paragraphs without explanation, I don't think it's unreasonable to revert it as vandalism. For instance if I walked into the Al Franken article and deleted the bit about his USO Tours, without so much as an Edit Summary tag, my edit would be reverted, and rightfully so. 05:20, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

You are so wrong here. First of all, I prefaced my actions with comments. I explained why I was doing it and gave people a chance to respond. We now have a working definition of vandalism. It is ""Any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia."

To suggest, imply or even remotely infer that this is what I was doing is flat out slander. There's just no way to sugarcoat it. I am owed an apology. I was editing out sentences that were sourced by left wing hit pieces entirely designed to denigrated Rove and then finished off with 'but no proof was ever found' disclaimer. (And I was explaining what I was doing in the Talk pages at virtually every turn.) Truth be told, I'd say LEAVING that sort of muckracking in Wik is 'compromising the integrity of the encyclopedia' so you've got it exactly backwards. I'm trying to clean up some of the despicable, unfair, unsubstantiated, false and defamatory slimey attacks on a subject. I suggest you be very careful before accusing me of page vandalism. It's a serious charge and I don't take slanderous charges lightly. You can see for yourself, that despite your unconvincing defense of her, this has backfired on Ryan not to mention resulted in her getting her hand caught in the cookie jar for multiple RR's. Big Daddy 06:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I quote: "It means undoing the actions of another editor, and may include edits that mostly undo a previous edit and also add something new". Further, what you have failed to acknowledge is the much-discussed and disputed problem of too many negative quotes on the page. BD and others have often mentioned this. It is not like he came out of a clear blue sky. Anyone paying attention to the debate on that page -- and Ryan is one of them -- knows exactly why BD was making those changes. His intentions were clear to all assuming good faith.
What people are also missing is Ryan's continued bullying, elbow-jabbing, and accusations of bad faith while making her 5RRs. She was fueling the war. She was disguising her reverts with her continued accusations. Look at the whole picture. I for one have not fallen for it. paul klenk 05:31, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Did you even read my response? I quoted the same exact sentence (Common Sense clause), and you quote it again like you're making a point. BigDaddy's intentions were no more clear in this case then it was when he deleted the bit about the USO tours joke from the Al Franken page, [28]. He did the exact same thing there: made a rant about how he's not a "liberal who, under the auspices of 'just wanting to present facts' slimes and denigrates people in their encyclopedic entry." [29] and then deleted valid content without an edit summary. He didn't "come out of the clear blue sky" though, you're right about that, he came out of something much worse, just like in the Al Franken article. 05:43, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me Mr. or Mrs. Anonymous, You are distorting what I did with Al Franken. First of all, I did not 'deleted valid content without an edit summary.' It was INVALID content and I commented before doing anything. I removed a supposed 'famous' joke that was not funny and that was not famous whatsoever. In fact, it only served to cheap shot Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. Sheesh it's not bad enough that Limbaugh and O'Reilly are mercilessly SLIMED on their own defend it when people spread that kind of stuff in articles about OTHER people. I also pointed out how ludiculous I felt it was that in my first week at Wikipedia the one thing I learned was that in the O'Reilly article...Al Franken slimes O'Reilly and in the Franken article...Al Franken slimes O'Reilly. So ANY of your comments about me are now suspect as you have mischaracterized and or flat out slandered me and my actions twice in the matter of a couple paragraphs. Ps I think this anonymous person is the user Hippocrite. Can't say with absolute undertainty, but the venomous tone and the interjecting of herself in anything Big Daddy related certainly fits Hippocrite's pattern...Big Daddy 06:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I read your response. You say, "BigDaddy's intentions were no more clear in this case..." Well, they were clear to me. Why to me and not you...? Because I was following the debate on the talk page, where he and others were repeatedly stating there was too many negative comments hat needed to be trimmed. I was paying attention, so was Ryan. She knew exactly why he made those deletions. She can't pretend otherwise. She is too clever by half. They were not out of the blue. Read and re-read the 3RR and the vandalism pages. In the context of the well-documented debate, which he and Ryan were having, the intentions behind BD's deletions were very clear. Ryan just didn't "like" them. paul klenk 05:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
The article is protected. Therefore, no block. QED. Try reading over WP:3RR again. It is not a punishment, it is there to stop an edit war from spiraling away. The edit war is over now, a block would only hinder discussion. Dmcdevit·t 04:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
I have never once mentioned a block, nor punishment. I wish to have Ryan's 5RRs reviewed by a neutral party. paul klenk 04:44, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Please, enough. If either of you would like to put any certain user's behavior up for the community to review, you should use Requests for Comment. · Katefan0(scribble) 05:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Nice try but your days of feigning neutrality while defending Ryan's reprehensible actions yet secretly chiding her to 'give me enough rope to hang myself' are over. You've been exposed...Big Daddy 06:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
I have put the behavior up for review here. This is the correct page for this type of dispute. Glossing over what Ryan did doesn't mean it didn't happen. Five times in under 19 hours she undid the edits of others, after she was asked to keep track. Just admit it. And please help me work with Ryan to ensure she doesn't do it again. I do not appreciate everyone glossing over it. It won't kill you to admit I am right. paul klenk 05:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
You are wrong. And your continued actions here are appalling. This is the place to report 3RR violations for possible administrator action. Two administrators have commented here and declined to block. It is over. Take further disputes about user behavior to RFC or a talk page. This page is not a place for prolonged discussion of that sort. Now stop. Dmcdevit·t 06:45, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
I firmly apologize for whatever it is I did that is appalling. This is the first time I have ever reported a 3RR violation. I have only been making substantive edits at WP since mid-August. I do not know all the ins and outs yet, but I promise to make an effort to learn. If my continued discussion here is "wrong" or offensive, that was absolutely not my intention. Of course, many others have seen fit to discuss their points with me here, and I have taken what I thought was my privilege in responding -- appropriately, I hope, and on point. If that was wrong, please accept my apologies. I will make no more responses on this page, and if others choose to further dispute anything I have said here, I will respond on their talk pages. Thanks for pointing out my error. paul klenk 06:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I am comfortable with the decisions made by my peers - that I did not violate 3RR. And I do not feel that I acted in any way in bad faith. Thank you. Paul - you owe me an apology for this false accusation, at least as much as you might owe the editors here one. Apologizing is one way on the Wikipedia to resolve tensions between users. -- RyanFreisling @ 09:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

It appears this simple civil gesture is beyond Paul Klenk, who, despite the facts provided by two administrators, said:
"Ryan, the apology you have demanded on the Incident page will not be forthcoming. I fully reviewed the five edits in question, carefully weighed them, reviewed the definitions of 3RR and vandalism. I then made a conclusion, and I stand behind it" [30].

-- RyanFreisling @ 15:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, I must insist that you stop suggesting that there has been some judgment rendered in your favor here. Noone has exonerated you (similarly, noone has judged you guilty). Myself and Dmcdevit have simply said that a block is not needed. If you must respond to this comment, please do it on the article's talk page. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
No problem, Katefan. For those interested, these allegations of a 3RR violation continue here -- RyanFreisling @ 20:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


all we are give peace a chance...c'mon party people, sing along. At the very least, lets all take a collective breath of fresh air, recognize that we're all here to make things better, if you do yoga, go do that for a while, if you run, go get that energy out, if you smoke, go get high and come back, but people need to chill out! Page protected, no one's getting banned/punished, lets move on to working out the kinks in the disputed passage to undo the protection rather than focus upon who violated the 3RR first. Seriously people, remember, this is the equivalent of an online discussion board. Go take a walk on the beach or call your parents if you haven't in a while or rent a comedy or play with your pets, IOW, go enjoy the real world for a while, then come back and we'll discuss the next step once the density of level-headedness increases. --kizzle 00:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

user:Arrigo equals user:[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Victoria of the United Kingdom (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Princess Victoria of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Arrigo (talk · contribs) == (talk · contribs):

NB: user:Arrigo == user:, see, for instance, this and this

Reported by: Francis Schonken 21:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


Withdrawn, see next section. Further Arrigo continued to revert the same pages


Three revert rule violation on Princess Victoria of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Arrigo (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Francis Schonken 00:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


  • Hope I got it right this time --Francis Schonken 00:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The alleged fourth revert is not the same. Apparently this is the reason why Schonken has declined to provide the diff. Besides, I regard this as removing vandalism. See the talkpage of the article. Arrigo 02:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
    • They're not completely the same, so I see that this does violate 3RR. I've blocked you for 24 hours. Also, GFDL is NOT violated, so long as a redirect is kept. Ral315 03:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Just a note in case you are unaware - Arrigo uses other identities, notably Deb 15:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I'm watching them. If he were to use him, I'd ban both accounts for an additional 24 hours, but he hasn't so far, and I doubt he will for the remainder of the block. Ral315 18:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Gorgonzilla and sockpuppet User:Aquillon[edit]

  • 1st Revert [31] 01:34, 17 September 2005 Aquillion
  • 2nd Revert [32] 17:03, 17 September 2005 Gorgonzilla (Revert, obvious sockpuppet)
  • 3rd Revert [33] 00:02, 18 September 2005 Gorgonzilla
  • 4th Revert [34] 23:41, 17 September 2005 Aquillion
  • 5th Revert [35] 00:34, 18 September 2005 Gorgonzilla
Who reported this? --Ryan Delaney talk 00:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
It appears to have been reported by an anon: [36].--chris.lawson 18:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Francis Schonken[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Victoria of the United Kingdom (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Francis Schonken (talk · contribs):

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

Reported by: Arrigo 02:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


  • Schonken created just today this page. It is essentially the same content as existed already at an older page. When realizing that, Schonken started to "protect" his own creation by removing mergeto note. Technically Schonken changes sometimes the precise content, but always makes an edit to remove the mergeto from "his own creation" page. Schonken has not bothered to participate in discussion in talkpage. Is this 3RR or is he allowed to make essentially the same edit just changing the way to try to save his own creature. Arrigo 02:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
    • A few edits seems different in their own right, removing the mergeto template but also making different edits. I count, at most, 3 reverts. If another admin wishes to block, feel free. See also the 3RR requests AGAINST Arrigo by Francis Schonken (I blocked Arrigo for 24 hours for this). Ral315 03:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The fourth edit is different. --Ryan Delaney talk 00:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: Alai 03:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


  • 8 reverts (to an anti-consensus introduced by same user) in just over 50 hours; specifically, reverts 2-5 were within 24 hours, as were 5-8. Removed a user talk page warning about the 3rr with a "vandalism" comment [42]; responded to a similar comment on article talk space with a personal attack [43] (in both cases denying any 3rr infringement). Note that some of these reverts are 'partial' in that other changes are made or preserved, but they all feature the key point in dispute (the Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland vs. the UK Coat of Arms, as used in Scotland). Alai 03:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I've examined the diffs and this seems like a pretty clear 3RR violation. I have blocked the user for 24 hours. I do suggest that you continue to try to reach some accomodation on the article's talk page. Nandesuka 03:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Dhimmi II[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Bat Ye'or (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dhimmi (talk · contribs):

He was blocked for 24 hours by User:El C for the violation I reported yesterday (see above) and when he returned from the block, started the same reverting again on the same page. The issue is that he keeps adding the author's real name to the intro, despite an on-going discussion about whether to do that. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

He's still reverting.
  • Blocked for 24 hours. Ral315 15:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on Live_at_The_Gaslight_1962 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BGC (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Monicasdude 00:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments: User:BGC is a sockpuppet/new alias for User:PetSounds, who has been previously cited for violating 3RR. [44] I have previously had nasty editing disputes with this user over his practice of using inappropriate edit summaries (as was the case with the initial reversion/deletion today), and over the application of the NPOV guideline, and he states explicitly that he is removing the links principally because they go to an external site I operate. Whatever the merits of his argument, they don't immunize him from 3RR.


Just to make it clear - I have only made THREE reverts. The first of those edits were done in good faith to improve the page, without realizing that there would be any reaction from Monicasdude, who is - by his own reputation - a hostile editor. Technically, a revert is the undoing of someone's work - which the first edit was not. It was an enhancement done for the sake of the page's improvement since information became available to add to it. I have reverted my improvements only THREE times (including the adding of song timings, credits and fixing up the infobox. I also removed self-promoting web links to Monicasdude's own unsubstantiated and unsourced web pages). This user, however, saw fit to revert my work three times and risks a fourth revert. HE needs to be watched. My initial 3RR was done as a new user who was not familiar with the rules. Now that I am, I won't make that error again - and have not here. If you need further proof of this user's complete lack of co-operation and ability to antangonize others, you need not look further than here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Monicasdude. I hope there is a resolution to this situation. Monicasdude has also seen fit to disrupt - nay, vandalize - my talk page by undoing some page-cleaning as retribution for improvements on what he - clearly - views as his own page. This is something he repeatedly does. He is a most difficult editor to work with. By the way, I am NOT a sockpuppet. I was forced to change names due to Monicasdude's relentless stalking of the articles I worked on and reverting all my work during July - which is mentioned in his lengthy "Request for Comment" page.

Thank you BGC 00:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

"Reverting doesn't only mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. It means undoing the actions of another editor, and may include edits that mostly undo a previous edit and also add something new." Four times in 12 hours, you removed the bulk of the external links section I'd previously added to the article. Even if you're right about me, there's no world-class SOB exception to the 3RR rule. Monicasdude 01:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Your previous edit to my first EDIT - not revert - was on 4 September, thus my first action on this article today can not be construed as a revert since it is 16 days apart and was primarily adding additional information, and removing your biased and self-promoting external links to YOUR OWN site (!). Therefore, it's clear to see I have made only three reverts - within the limit, and having broken no rules whatsoever. Besides, once again: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Monicasdude speaks volumes. BGC 01:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

"Reverting doesn't only mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. It means undoing the actions of another editor, and may include edits that mostly undo a previous edit and also add something new." Monicasdude 02:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

As may be evident to the administrator reading this, Monicasdude - in his own obstinate way - always has to have the last word. He also has a tendency to stretch events to suit his own purposes, since my first edit can in no way realistic way be considered a "revert". I have made my case plainly clear and I will say no more so that I can get back to constructive editing. Thanks... BGC 02:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Your first edit was a revert, by definition. The 3RR rule doesn't have an exception just because your first reversion is of an "old" edit. When your intention is to undo the actions of another editor, it's a revert. Read the policy. Monicasdude 03:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Mike Garcia[edit]

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

Reported by: Pasboudin 02:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


  • 3RR violation (versus 4 different users) and threatening to kill me.
Pasboudin, I thought I told you not to post here again (including Hypnotize) because you are a troll and the worst user ever! I've had enough of your edits and for me: I think it would be nice if you'd never come back here again! As to make things better. -- Mike Garcia | talk 02:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
As far as I can see, Pasboudin was removing well written, referenced material. I fail to see how his edits are not vandalism. I don't think anyone should be blocking michael until this point is answered. →Raul654 02:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Please, don't block me. Raul, I'm sorry, but I'm afraid he needs to be banned (again, as to make things better and straight again). The information I kept restoring is accurate. And for you, Pasboudin: there will be no hard feelings that you will be in no position to edit the Wikipedia again and realize you were vandalizing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not your own playground. And back to you Raul: This user should probably be placed in the vandal category, especially when he keeps chasing me away. You don't understand, Pasboudin does NOT know how to give up. -- Mike Garcia | talk 02:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
It seems more of a content dispute than vandalism (on either side), and Garcia did violate the 3RR; furthermore, as mentioned above, Garcia made a death threat ("I'LL KILL YOU") against the other person, which is not the sort of thing that should be tolerated here. I won't take any position on the edit dispute itself, but some of the tactics being used in it are really obnoxious. *Dan T.* 02:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree that Michael's behavior vis-à-vis the "death threat" was unacceptable (perhaps a short block for that is in order); however, I think it is being blown far, far out of proportion. It struck me as more of an angry utterance than a serious threat.
As far as labelling it a content dispute and saying both sides are equally culpable - no, sorry, it doesn't work like that. The three revert rule is not to be applied mechanically (I should know, considering that I helped write it). "Removal of well-referenced relevant material from an article is not acceptable." - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Emico. Now while I'm willing to entertain discussion that the material being removed is not relavant to the article, I'd say by-default our policy is on Michael's side here (in that reverting vandalism is not a violation of the 3rr). →Raul654 02:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I also removed Mike's paragraph - was that vandalism too? I have a valid reason for removing it, I feel that it is irrelevant to the article. I'm happy to discuss this issue with Michael, and I'm puzzled that you'd call my edits vandalism. You may want to re-read Wikipedia:Vandalism, since you seem to be interpreting it very liberally. Rhobite 03:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I thought I said pretty clearly that "Removal of well-referenced relevant material from an article is not acceptable." and that "I'm willing to entertain discussion that the material being removed is not relavant to the article". If you are removing it because it's not relavant, then my comment does not apply. →Raul654 03:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
The reason for the edit, that the material was not relevant, was pretty clear in Rhobite's edit summary ("It is completely irrelevant which album was going to be released first. Initial reports about release dates, track listings, etc. are frequently inaccurate.") I think that is why is he wondering why you were so quick to label his and my edits as "vandalism". Pasboudin 12:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Now, that's where a problem comes in. When they tried to insert a new paragraph that had the exact same information in a much less confusing way (the old paragraph was gramatically confusing), Mike Garcia STILL reverted it, even though it had the EXACT same meaning, just shorter and easier to understand. I have constantly witnessed Mike Garcia's selfish and insulting behavior. It reaches far beyond that edit war. It took two or three edit wars before this one for him to actually reference his source, not to mention that everybody I've spoken to, except for Mike Garcia, it was the first time that they had ever heard this information. Anytime any person ever tried to edit the part of the paragraph that mentioned that, Mike would jump all over them, even if they just rewrote it into a more acceptable bounds (such as changing "it was thought that Hyptnotize would be released first" to "it was thought by some that Hypnotize would be released first"). In addition, every time that anybody would try to engage Mike Garcia in an intelligent conversation, he would either ignore them or insult them. bob rulz 03:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
For more information about the things bob rulz is referencing, it would be a good idea to check out Talk:Hypnotize and Talk:Mezmerize. Mike has carried on this edit war for months while ignoring all attempts at civility, compromise, and reason. Pasboudin 12:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Oops, because both Pasboudin and Mike Garcia had posted on my talk page, I've already "actioned" on the requests before I saw this. In any case, I've blocked Mike Garcia for 48 hours for the 3RR violation. I consider it a 3RR violation because vandalism must be with "malicious intent"; Pasboudin did not have any bad intent. Hypnotize appeared to be undergoing a content dispute about whether that information should be placed in the article, rather than simple vandalism. Also, because I've warned Mike Garcia about 3RR before and have blocked him before for a clear-cut 3RR violation, combined with the death threat (which in itself isn't blockable, IMO), I've blocked him for 48 hours. If any other administrators feel I've overstepped my bounds or disagree with my decision, please let me know. As I said before, I did my actions before seeing this (as both users had posted on my talk page), and was unaware of this debate. Thanks for your understanding! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Death threats are most certainly grounds for instant and/or permanent banning. [And there's precedent for both]. I don't think this is anywhere near deserving of a permanent ban, but (as I said above) perhaps a short one is in order. →Raul654 20:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
"I'LL KILL YOU" is not a reasonable thing to say any time, any where, any place on Wikipedia, no matter what the provocation. Regardless of the merits of the 3RR violation, I would block Mike for this, if someone hasn't already beaten me to it. Nandesuka 04:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, it seems he's now using AOL IPs to edit the page... I'm going to reblock for another 48 hours. Sasquatcht|c 00:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • More threats at here as well as continued evasion. I have reblocked for 72 hours. This is getting rather out of hand... Sasquatcht|c 04:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


I am having trouble with User: he won't communicate with me, only attacks me personally through the Edit summary box when he edit:

  • Previous version reverted to:
  • 1st revert: 02:32, 15 September 2005
  • 2nd revert: 06:51, 19 September 2005
  • 3rd revert: 06:32, 22 September 2005

06:03, 19 September 2005 (ATTN: WikiDon - Do not be lazy. Examine thoroughly before reverting (and effectively vandalising) the article.)
06:18, 22 September 2005 (disambiguated Ken Barlow link. WikiDon appears to believe a British actor born in the 1930s was a professional basketball player who reached his prime in his late forties. Nice one.)
06:20, 22 September 2005 (Re-added Kenny Walker link. WikiDOn seems to think he is not worthy of having his WikiPedia entry linked anywhere. I don't think the real Kenny Walker would appreciate that.)
06:23, 22 September 2005 (Remove "How many NBA drafts do you see having the better players come out of rounds two and three?" Since when does an encyclopedia pose questions, rhetorical or otherwise? Hmm? WikiDon? You there?) 06:29, 22 September 2005 (remove mention of Walter Berry being lazy. That's an opinion. Your opinion, WikiDon, is not necessarily shared by the millions of other readers here. Don't post crap.)
06:28, 22 September 2005 (Corrected "He seemed to have a eight-grade education" because it's grammatically erroneous. WikiDon appears not to have learnt the difference between using "a" and "an". He needs to go back to school.)
06:25, 22 September 2005 (Remove "The role of any NBA draft for a team is to get to the NBA Finals, and win the NBA Finals" - No shit, Sherlock. You can say this about ANY draft. Can't you, WikiDon?)
(Re-added links for Johnny Newman and Kevin Duckworth. They were previously removed by WikiDon for reasons that only he/she/it can elaborate on.)

06:43, 22 September 2005 (What has Vinnie Johnson's finals heroics have to do with the 1986 NBA Draft?)

06:40, 22 September 2005 (Ken Barlow (born 1939) was never in the 1986 NBA Draft, WikiDon. Again, stop being a fucking idiot. I'm trying to improve the article.)
06:39, 22 September 2005 (Stop being a fucking idiot. I'm trying to improve the article.)
06:38, 22 September 2005 (WikiDon seemed to have an eight-grade education, at best. That's *AN* eight-grade education, not *A* eight-grade education. Pursue a dream, Donny.)

HELP...!!!! I am getting really pissed off at this guy. WikiDon 06:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

WikiDon, it helps to create links to the reverts in question (you don't have any links to the page in question - 1986 NBA Draft). I'm blocking the IP for 24 hours- it's a pretty open-and-shut violation (I counted 13 reverts). Let me know if this happens again- the user seems to be a problem vandal. Ral315 14:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on Vancouver Canucks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). (talk · contribs): I've tried to communicate with this anonymous user to no avail. ccwaters 17:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC) See also other recent changes to NHL team articles. I have a suspicion that User:Bestghuran is connected. Sockpuppet? ccwaters 17:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Note that 3 reverts are allowed- it's the fourth that causes a problem. I counted 3 reverts looking at the history. Therefore, I will not block this IP. Ral315 01:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Sorry about that. The issue seems to have resolved itself anyway. ccwaters 12:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: —chris.lawson (talk) 02:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


  • These are just the five most recent. The page history shows a spate of reversions earlier than the first one reported here in which I played no part.
    • Blocked for 24 hours. --fvw* 02:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on 1 BC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). (talk · contribs):

Reported by: —chris.lawson (talk) 07:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


  • Continues to revert and add awkward "BC/BCE" language to this and other articles despite 3RR warning and requests to discuss on Talk.
    • Blocked for 24 hours. They're all after you today, aren't they? --fvw* 07:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[edit]

A.K.A., article: Michael Cusack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (talk · contribs) This guy can drive you bonkers. He uses about 12 different accounts.

Reported by: WikiDon 01:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • 01:03, 25 September 2005 m
  • 03:43, 23 September 2005 Ali-oops (rv usual, daily sock-puppetry / POV)
  • 01:00, 23 September 2005 m
  • 20:10, 22 September 2005 Ali-oops m (rv usual, daily sock-puppetry / POV)
  • 18:19, 22 September 2005
  • 07:21, 21 September 2005 Ali-oops m (rv sock-puppetry / POV)
  • 02:40, 21 September 2005
  • 21:55, 20 September 2005 Ali-oops m (rv (sock) edits to version by User:Demiurge - again! Remember 3RR ..)
  • 21:34, 20 September 2005
  • 04:26, 20 September 2005 Ali-oops (rv (sock) edits to version by User:Demiurge - again! Remember 3RR ..)
  • 04:13, 20 September 2005
  • 22:21, 19 September 2005 Ali-oops (rv (sock) edits to version by User:Demiurge - again!)
  • 22:17, 19 September 2005
  • 21:40, 19 September 2005 Ali-oops (rv edits to version by User:Demiurge)
  • 21:37, 19 September 2005
  • 08:09, 17 September 2005 Demiurge (rv
  • 00:58, 17 September 2005
  • 21:04, 13 September 2005 Demiurge (rv POV)
  • 20:41, 13 September 2005
  • 17:33, 10 September 2005 Demiurge m (rv vandal)
  • 17:26, 10 September 2005
  • 17:25, 10 September 2005 Demiurge m (rv vandal)
  • 17:24, 10 September 2005
  • 17:21, 10 September 2005
  • 12:27, 8 September 2005 Demiurge (rv POV/inaccuracy; you are in violation of WP:3RR)
  • 12:18, 8 September 2005
  • 12:16, 8 September 2005
  • 12:15, 8 September 2005
  • 12:13, 8 September 2005 (Read before reverting-I have made some new changes)
  • 12:12, 8 September 2005 (Read before reverting-I have made some new changes)
  • 12:10, 8 September 2005 Demiurge (rv POV/inaccuracy)
  • 12:07, 8 September 2005
  • 12:05, 8 September 2005
  • 12:04, 8 September 2005
  • 08:14, 8 September 2005 Demiurge m (rv)
  • 02:46, 8 September 2005
  • 01:55, 8 September 2005 Drini m (Reverted edits by to last version by Demiurge)
  • 01:44, 8 September 2005
  • 08:41, 7 September 2005 Demiurge m (rv inaccuracy. stop vandalizing this article)
  • 01:59, 7 September 2005
  • 01:18, 7 September 2005 Drini m (Reverted edits by to last version by Demiurge)
  • 01:15, 7 September 2005
  • 20:16, 3 September 2005 Demiurge (rv POV/inaccuracy to last version by Ryano)
  • 18:49, 3 September 2005
  • 20:43, 2 September 2005 Ryano (rv POV and inaccuracy)
  • 20:34, 2 September 2005
  • 08:29, 31 August 2005 Demiurge (rv inaccuracy (see talk))
  • 01:37, 31 August 2005
  • 18:35, 29 August 2005 Demiurge m (rv edit by blocked user
    • I share your frustration with this user's uncooperative behaviour, but they've already been blocked for the 8th September 3RR vio. Demiurge 11:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

User: and User:[edit]

Getting close to a Three revert rule violation on Traditionalist Catholic. (talk · contribs):

  • Previous version reverted to:
  • 1st revert: [45]
  • 2nd revert: [46]
  • 3rd revert: [47]
  • 4th revert: [48]

Reported by: Dominick 02:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


  • AOL Dialup account finally made a comment the POV edits were inflammatory
  • I assume he is new here, but doesn't have an account
  • This may have been going on before I payed attention
    • The 3RR only covers more than three reverts made in a 24 hour period. --fvw* 02:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
More edits have occured, includeing a load of chain edits. I am not sure how to proceedDominick 13:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Joel Lindley[edit]

Three revert rule violation on David Cain (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Joel Lindley (talk · contribs):

On the David Cain (comics) article, two anonymous users (User: and User: keep on taking out the information that says Cain is Batgirl's biological father, which has been proven in her comic series. This isn't just fan speculation, it has been established in her series a while ago. It seems that all of the anons are used by User:Joel Lindley. All 3 IPs share similar edit histories, and are being done by the same user, using sockpuppets to circumevent the 3RR. This has gone on since August 14.

Reported by: DrBat 11:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


The Bogdanoff Affair : RBJ multiple reversions[edit]

The user registrerd as "rbj" has reverted the bogdanoff affair article at least 30 times in the last 24 hours. In spite of the contributions of many other editors, rbj wants to impose a false version of the article. It is obvious that rbj is not objective and is vandalising the page. Such a behaviour should stop.


Both parties blocked for 24 hours. (Rbj and the IP known as Igor above) Ral315 21:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


Claims that I have broken the 3RR I have not. I have just made my 3rd revert within 24hrs. Removing external links to people of no academic value. If however he revert again. Then he will have broken he 3RR. Mathew White is not a person who's name caries any weight. His arguments are limb. The majortiy of references on the net are on copies of WikiPedia. Is this person try to promote Matthew White for some reason?--Son of Paddy's Ego 21:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The article is List_of_massacres.

Homeopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

User:Aegeis and User:LeeHunter have both broken the 3 revert rule on this article.Geni 21:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Both editors blocked for 24 hours. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: Andrew pmk | Talk 23:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


  • From what I can tell he had not been warned of the 3RR. I've since warned him, so if he reverts again, he should be blocked. Jayjg (talk) 23:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on {{Article|Afrocentrism]] DreamGuy (talk · contribs):

Blocked for 24 hours. As is User:Deeceevoice since s/he has also reverted over the 3 in 24 hours. It does not matter who is right, reverting more than 3 times is wrong. Don't do it. -Splashtalk 22:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

She hadn't crossed the 3RR line when I made the complaint, SqueakBox 22:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Splash, I'm not sure this is a 3RR violation. DreamGuy added the tag for the first time (so far as I can tell) at 23:56 on Sept 26. Then he reverted to that version three times: 00:18, 20:31, and 20:55 on Sept 27. Or am I missing something? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
His first "revert" had the summary of "restoring NPOV tag". See his talk page for discussion on this. ~~ N (t/c) 00:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I think the edit summary may have been a mistake on his part, Nickptar. That edit appears to have been the first time he added the tag. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I'd prefer to do this on DreamGuy's talk page since he can respond there. But I'll take another look at that particular edit, since it's important. -Splashtalk 00:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, looks that way. I'm unblocking. Deeceevoice violated it, though. ~~ N (t/c) 00:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: O^O 22:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


  • Rivarez has reverted all my edits, be they content, spelling, or grammatical. He won't reply to my comments on the Talk page, and in his most recent edit he called me "Trollish". -O^O 22:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmm, definetly violated 3rr, blocked for 24 hours. Sasquatcht|c 22:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by FeliceR 23:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Why the sockpuppet? --fvw* 23:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Why the stupid question instead of blocking the troll who reported Rivarez for making four reverts, and once he got him blocked, made a fourth revert himself, introducing the same old kind of POV stuff into the Sealand article just when it was stable for some time? FeliceR 00:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the opinion. So, why the sockpuppet? --Calton | Talk 02:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I think they answered that, albiet unintentionally: "...instead of blocking the troll who reported Rivarez for making four reverts..." So, just out of curiosity, and with no relation to this case whatsoever, if a blocked user uses a sockpuppet to report a 3RR violation, does the report still count? --Aquillion 03:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Good point, I suppose it was a stupid question now that you mention it. It doesn't really matter if it counts as reported or not, nobody's forced to handle this case if they don't want to, nor does a 3RR vio not being reported bar admins from blocking for it. (Not that I'm saying this report shouldn't be checked out by the way, I just don't feel like it myself today. But that leaves another 500 admins so I'm sure someone will see fit to do so). --fvw* 03:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Nobody's forced—oh? In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally., so if the report is accurate (I haven't checked), whoever blocked Rivarez ought to block O^O too. —Charles P. (Mirv) 05:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
That's for cases where more than one party has violated the 3RR at the time of handling. Are you saying Sasquatch would be violating policy if he happens to be on holiday for a week and doesn't see this report? Or are you saying there's a different admin for whom it's mandatory to go handle this? If you intervene you have to be evenhanded, but no one can be forced to intervene if they don't think it useful, haven't got the time or just don't feel like it. --fvw* 05:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


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

  • Previous version reverted to:

Reported by: Gene_poole 03:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


  • Repeated reversion of new micronation/unrecognised entity infobox currently under development, accompanied by deliberately misleading edit summaries, implying that past discussion/consensus supports this. Editor has not contributed to discussion concerning new info box and has deleted multiple requests to do so from personal talk page without comment. Note that based on an analysis of editing behaviour I strongy suspect this editor to be a sockpuppet of hard-banned editor Wik, aka Gzornenplatz, aka Nopuzzlestranger.
  • Drini has blocked for 24 hours. If you reckon this is Wik, then you might prepare your evidence and call by WP:AN/I. The account did turn up just after NoPuzzleStranger's indef block, but that's really nothing more than coincidence without backing. -Splashtalk 03:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Gene Poole[edit]

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

See above. He has the nerve to complain when he himself has reverted 5 times. Maybe this time the rule will be applied equally, after it already wasn't yesterday. FRiv 03:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Please provide the necessary diffs so we can easily see where the reversions are and how many times. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 04:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
As a new editor FRiv doesn't appear to have yet learned the difference between a content edit and a revert. I've actually reverted edits by Rivarez twice in the last 24 hours. The other changes I've made involve adding content that wasn't there before, or relocating content that was already present, not reverting. --Gene_poole 04:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on Traditionalist Catholic. User:

This has been going on for a while, and the user is motivated by his PoV, and objects to the edits me and a few other users have made. The problem with his reverted article was it reflected a very narrow definition.

  • Previous version reverted to:


(last) 06:28, 29 September 2005
(last) 06:25, 29 September 2005
(last) 06:15, 29 September 2005
(last) 23:04, 28 September 2005
(last) 09:01, 28 September 2005
(last) 11:20, 27 September 2005

Reported by: Dominick 12:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


I reported this before I opened my acct. I am now Joaquin Murietta 18:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

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

  • Previous version reverted to:
  • 1st revert: [DiffLink Time]07:34, 28 September 2005
  • 2nd revert: [DiffLink Time]14:45, 28 September 2005
  • 3rd revert: [DiffLink Time]23:16, 28 September 2005
  • 4th revert: [ ]07:37, 29 September 2005

Reported by: 15:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)User: September 29, 2005

Comments: There have been four or more reverts by this user -- is this a violation of the Three-revert rule?

I recently added the section on the Genzyme Test to the Gefitinib article. User:Jfdwolff repeatedly removes a reference that I added. The reference is to a Wall Street Journal article. I included it because it was a good analysis that would be understood by patients. I also included the press release from the drug company. Jfdwolff continues to remove the Wall Street Journal link, he feels that the press release from the drug company is enough.

In the edit summary we began a dialogue of sorts. I asked him if he had read the article and he said he does not have a subscription to the Wall Street Journal.

I don't think this was a good reason on his part. Also, it is important with cancer articles to include good sources for the lay person, not just physicians like Dr. Wolff. A patient with cancer would go to the library or spend the money to read this article -- it is a good article which mentions other similar tests for current targeted therapies.

Thank you for your help.

  • Here are the edits and times and our dialogue:

*(cur) (last) 07:37, 29 September 2005 Jfdwolff m (Reverted edits by to last version by Jfdwolff)

  • (cur) (last) 04:47, 29 September 2005 (Just because Jdfwoff has not read the WSJ article is no reason to vandalize the reference!.)

*(cur) (last) 23:16, 28 September 2005 Jfdwolff m (Reverted edits by to last version by Jfdwolff)

  • (cur) (last) 22:48, 28 September 2005 (The WSJ article is a more useful resource for cancer patients than the company's press release. Patients often spend the $2.50 US to pull up the article.)

*(cur) (last) 14:45, 28 September 2005 Jfdwolff m (susceptible, and removed link (I can't read it, I've got no subscription))

  • (cur) (last) 14:12, 28 September 2005 (corrected spelling of erlotinib, Added back WSJ article (have you read it? It is the best analysis online), changed whilst to while (whilst is archaic), and)

*(cur) (last) 07:34, 28 September 2005 Jfdwolff (one link, to the press release, is plenty; also made it sound a bit more scientific by actually mentioning what the test does (is it an ELISA? flow cytometry?))

  • (cur) (last) 06:37, 28 September 2005 (→References)

After looking it over, I hardly think removing a link that most people could not access needs a 24 hour block, though I will warn the user on his/her talk page. Sasquatcht|c 21:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, but I would respectfully disagree. Cancer patients in need of treatment are highly motivated to review such articles. And the article (right now) is the best I've seen on this issue. Further, until User:Sam Spade got involved, User:jdfwolff refused to discuss this, and kept reverting. What might appear de minimus to you is more important to a newcomer.

The guy is prolific, he contributes, but he has also has a history of being rude to newcomers.

Joaquin Murietta 00:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on Afrocentrism. User:deeceevoice:

> 3 reverts in under 24 hours. User may have been blocked for 3RR earlier this week.

[49]13:24, 29 September 2005
[50]13:23, 29 September 2005
[51]13:19, 29 September 2005
[52] 13:16, 29 September 2005
[53]02:07, 29 September 2005
[54]00:51, 29 September 2005

Reported by: 15:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't see 3 reverts there. I see two isolated edits and one contiguous set of edits. -Splashtalk 15:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Are you saying these are not reverts? Some of these even include "revert" in the users description. I believe they are all reverts of actions in the previous day.

Reverting doesn't only mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. It means undoing the actions of another editor, and may include edits that mostly undo a previous edit and also add something new, page moving, admin actions such as protection, etc. Use common sense.-- 18:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm with Splash on this one, there's 2 reverts, specifically removing one paragraph, the rest are unrelated edits and this one she is even editting twice in a row... I don't think he could possibly revert herself... no block needed. Sasquatcht|c 21:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, sorry I misread. I thought splash meant there were no reverts. I don't think the user is reverting herself, she is just going through and making reverts to previous material one at a time. Please show me which you believe are the reverts and which are just edits, I'm pretty sure they are all reverts.
Well, this and this are where she is reverting content, this one doesn't really look like a revert, just restoring something I couldn't even find the removel of in page history, this looks like clean up, this combined with this one is a partial revert but seems more like cleanup than anything else. Again, usually the 3RR is applied to where one user keeps removing the same content over and over. Hope that helps. Sasquatcht|c 01:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Just as a footnote, deeceevoice is female. Sam Spade 01:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Those are all reversions.
the first two you agree on
third: user's comment: POV.Those who consider Dravidian civilization as founded by black African would disagree. is a deletion of content, that's a reversion by the definition: It means undoing the actions of another editor
fourth: user's comment: Reverted. No justification for these changes. The text is important as an illustration of the kind of "scholarship" which has prevailed over the centuries. USer himself says its reverted.
fifth: user's comment: Deleted revised text (incomplete edit). edit was not incomplete, as far as i can tell it was a complete paragraph. Anyway it was deleted, which is a reversion.
sixth: users's comment: Restored para;Wells provides DNA evidence of a close link between Veddoid blacks (Tamils/Dravidians, classified as Negroid/Australoid) and black Africans-Rashidi's global commun Restored == reversion
(preceding unsigned comment by (talk · contribs) 01:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC))
I think that the general rule for the 3RR seems to be that contiguous edits (that is, edits made immediately after one of your other edits) are treated like a single edit, and any amount of reversion made in a single edit is treated as a single revert. It doesn't make sense to punish users for spacing a controversal edit out into multiple edits, especially since breaking an edit up like that can actually make it easier for people who object to just one part or another to spot and undo it. Breaking up controversal edits is something we want to encourage, not discourage. --Aquillion 04:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on [[:

Image:Hazel O Leary fisher.jpg]] (edit | [[Talk::Image:Hazel O Leary fisher.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | [//
Image:Hazel_O_Leary_fisher.jpg& views]). Scottfisher (talk · contribs):
  • Previous version reverted to: [55]
  1. [56] 20:53, 29 September 2005
  2. [57] 22:55, 29 September 2005
  3. [58] 23:14, 29 September 2005
  4. [59]00:05, 30 September 2005

Three revert rule violation on Hazel R. O'Leary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Scottfisher (talk · contribs):

  • Previous version reverted to: [60]
  1. [61] 20:56, 29 September 2005
  2. [62] 22:55, 29 September 2005
  3. [63] 23:14, 29 September 2005
  4. [64] 00:20, 30 September 2005

Comments: - See also User_talk:Scottfisher#Hazel_O_Leary_and_other_pictures.

Reported by: Andy Mabbett 23:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why Scottdfisher could not have set the timer on his camera and then stood in front of it. How do you know he didn't? Given that I doubt you can be sure of that fact, you are touching the line by amending the licensing tag on an image. -Splashtalk 00:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Consider both Scottfisher's previous, recenty-uncovered history of scanning photographs which he does not own (and this is clearly a scanned print), and "releasing" those scans into the PD; and his failure to reply to the requests for clarification on his talk page. Andy Mabbett 00:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I blocked him for 24 for the article revert which was pretty blatant 3RR stuff. -Splashtalk 00:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on Hazel R. O'Leary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Calton | Talk 00:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


  • Not that I think much of either of the two revert warriors involved here (Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) and Scottfisher (talk · contribs)), but sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
    • Your "1st revert" was not a revert. Andy Mabbett 00:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Complete nonsense. You reverted his insertion of the picture. The rules apply you, too. --Calton | Talk 00:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The behaviour is bad on both sides. But last time I interpreted that kind of diff as a first revert, I was told by two other amins that it wasn't because that was the first time the action had been taken, and he needs to revert to it four times subsequently. Sounds to me like a 5RR, but there we go. -Splashtalk 00:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm blocking both users for violation of 3RR for 24 hours each (that's more than fair). Sasquatcht|c 00:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Clarification: The two users being User:Scottfisher and User:Pigsonthewing. Sasquatcht|c 01:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
          • I already did Scottfisher, per the above report. -Splashtalk 01:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
            • Oh, nevermind, I really should check block logs more... but I did Pigsonthewing then. Sasquatcht|c 01:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
              • Fwiw, I'm certainly ok with that, and with taking the first edit as a revert. The 3RR page sounds like it is too, particuarly the quote given a couple of reports up here. -Splashtalk 01:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: Karl Meier 13:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


  • The user has reverted the article 4 times within 24 hrs. -- Karl Meier 13:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    • That seems fairly straightforward, although all parties should quit warring. Blocked for 24 hours. -Splashtalk 14:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
      • (written before edit conflict) * Is it just me, or am I not seeing diffs? The above links take me to what appears to be diffs, but I can't see any changes. In either case, unless I am mistaken, the last three appear to be self-reverts (even though I don't see any reverting going on). No action taken. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 14:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC) (/end edit conflict) Am I missing something here?
        • Never mind, I viewed the article history. Next time, though, could you make the diffs show the revert? (Something like this) Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 14:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Yeah, the diffs confused me too, but I think it's because they link to different 'old' versions each time, when it would be much more helpful to show the successive reverts to the original version, or something similar as appropriate. But as Flcelloguy says, the article history does show the 4 reverts. -Splashtalk 14:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
            • If you see four diffs, with no changes in them, then they are obviously classic reverts - someone restoring an article to an earlier version. This kind of diff is actually the best kind of evidence to provide; you don't have to look through the various versions trying to figure out whether it was an edit or a revert. Jayjg (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments: Current event article, user insists on inserting these body-appropriate statements in intro instead of body. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: O^O 18:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


  • Sealand is undergoing modifications that, although not all editors agree with, we appear to be working in the spirit of community to come to an acceptable alternative. User:Rivarez appears to be completely opposed to this process. -O^O 18:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    • It seems that you have gotten your hands dirty as well so both of you shall be subject to the 24 hour block. Sasquatcht|c 19:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on White Horse Circle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SPUI (talk · contribs):

  • Previous version reverted to:

I don't think I can show the examples, as they have all been deleted and aren't readily visible edits (his actions are recreating the same redirect 5 times after being deleted), but they are all in the deletion history of White Horse Circle.

Reported by: R. fiend 21:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


-- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Recreating items speedy-deleted that aren't covered by the speedy deletion policy is equivalent to reverting vandalism. Since R. fiend wanted the redirects deleted, he should have gone to Wikipedia:Redirects for Deletion. Note: I have been editing the article that the redirect in question points to, so I am involved in this at that level. Unfocused 21:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

User:FRiv and User:Rivarez - both sockpuppets of User:Wik[edit]

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

Reported by: Centauri 22:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


  • FRiv and FeliceR are sockpuppets of Rivarez, who in turn is a sockpuppet of NoPuzzleStranger, who in turn is a sockpuppet of Gzornenplatz, who in turn is a sockpuppet of Wik. Rivarez has been banned 3 times in 4 days for 24 hours for revert-warring against an ongoing consensus discussion supported by at least half a dozen other editors at Sealand. The most recent ban is still in force. To short circuit this ban Rivarez has used FRiv - one of 2 sockpuppets set up several days ago specifically to complain about one of his earlier 24-hour bans, and has simply continued edit-warring at Sealand without breaking stride. When applying bans on this editor, admins should ensure that the entire family of Wik's sockpuppets are banned simultaneously, because his actions clearly show a contempt for the 3RR, and for the Wikipedia community and its processes in general. --Centauri 22:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Yet another Wik sockpuppet can now be added to the above list: FRiva. --Centauri 22:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
And yet another Wik sockpuppet to ban: FRi --Centauri 23:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
And - you guessed it! - yet another one: FRivar --Centauri 23:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
And here's another one: Crankshuick. First and only edit is a revert at Empire of Atlantium.--Centauri 00:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Note that Centauri, who complains about sockpuppets here, is himself a sockpuppet of Gene Poole. See [67], [68] where Centauri accidentally answers a question addressed to Gene Poole and then tries to quietly cover up his mistake. FRi 22:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
That horse died a long time ago. You should stop wasting your energy flogging it. --Centauri 23:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


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

  • Previous version reverted to: [69]
  • 1st revert: [70]
  • 2nd revert: [71]
  • 3rd revert: [72]
  • 4th revert: [73]

Reported by: CJK 14:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


  • There are minor changes in between the reverts, but essentially the same disputed information is being removed/added (changing "rule" to "government", "communism" to "socialism", alleged CIA operations, and a critical quote). This user has made no attempt to discuss the disputed information on the discussion page. CJK 14:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Looks like he did violate 3RR, but it's not clear to me that he is even aware of the policy to know that he's breaking it. So I have warned him. If he keeps reverting please report it here. · Katefan0(scribble) 14:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
He has deleted your warning. CJK 18:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't find it credible that Comandante didn't know about 3RR. He has been working and revertuing for months on many controversial and 3RR ridden articles, particularly this one, SqueakBox 23:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, if he's been doing it for months then he'll surely do it again. And next time we know for sure that he's been made aware. Just report it here if that happens. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on M.I.U. Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BGC (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


  • This is a specimen; he's done the same on a large number of articles; in each case he's wholesale reverting my edits, which are made in accordance with the MoS (removing duplicate Wikilinks, removing links to irrelevant articles such as seasons and months, changing hyphens to dashes, expanding abbreviations, etc. I've tried on a number of occasions to explain this, but he responds with aggression. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Was going to warn but since user has reacted to all attempts to teach him about 3RR and MOS rules with hostility I have blocked for 24 hours, hopefully he/she will take this time to read the relevant rules. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 18:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Unblocked due to irregularities in the 3RR incidents and mitigating circumstances. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 04:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on Rules of war in Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Malek1 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Karl Meier 18:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


  • The sockpuppet account has reverted the article 4 times within 24 hours. -- Karl Meier 18:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I would normally warn first, and ask that you do too. However, I see no need in this case since there is evidently something very funny going on, and a likelihood of sockpuppetry. Blocked for 24. If you think is a sock of Yuber, you should collect your evidence and post at WP:AN/I. Simply adding that tag doesn't really draw it to anyone's attention. -Splashtalk 19:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
      • For the record, it wasn't me who added the tag, and if you take a look at this guys ArbCom case he has already admittet to be using an endless amount of sockpuppets. He's already banned from editing and he's making a joke out of the whole process. -- Karl Meier 20:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: Guettarda 22:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


  • Overactive touchpad + rollback button resulted in a 4th revert. 5th revert - a self revert of my revert. Guettarda 22:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Misread edit history - looks like my self revert of my mistake was my 4th I broke the 3RR by reverting what I thought was an unintentional 3RR violation. Nonetheless, I will accept whatever judgement is made. Guettarda 23:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Nope, the fourth wasn't a self-revert - revert failed because the revert was already reverted (I knew there were 4 reverts). I'm soft-banning myself starting now. Guettarda 23:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Guettarda's numerous errors (Date of month missing, using 24 instead of 00 for midnight, posting below the Report new violation section) were all corrected by me. Whatever you make of his incoherent prose, he did revert the same section 4 times, and has a user-page history long enough to contain archives. And also no explanation was given for his fourth edit, just deliberately stating he was reverting back to his own version and calling it minor edit. And now a co-editor has arisen to revert to the same section, again with no explanation given. It's possible that all these errors are the result of good faith but disorganized efforts. It's just not likely that each and every one of them would work together to help keep his version of the page intact that he fought for in discussion while helping him to avoid the onus of administrative action used against him. I recommend a ban you think appropriate starting from the time I sign this plus the 10 minutes it took to follow and correct his zigzagging. 00:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • ROFLMAO. ~~ N (t/c) 02:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I gave myself a 12-hour soft ban. That's now expired- if it needs to be extended further, please let me know. Guettarda 13:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Since it's your first offense, a 12-hour ban should be fine. In your case, your otherwise exemplary behaviour might warrant additional clemency—next time, try contacting the blocking admin by email to see if you can get a reduced sentence. :D TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on Homosexuality in Singapore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Groyn88 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Miborovsky Namechop.jpg 08:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


  • This has been going on for a LONG time. User:Groyn88 is unresponsive and will not respond to any message. --Miborovsky Namechop.jpg 08:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Hello? Don't tell me you're scared of him.
    -- Miborovsky U|T|C|E| 01:55, 20 August 2019


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

Reported by: Theathenae 15:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


  • User:REX has been aggressively pushing an Albanian extremist agenda on Arvanites, attempting to project an Albanian identity onto this Greek people despite their ethnic self-identification as non-Albanians. Moreover, the Arvanites regard any use of the name Albanian to describe their people or their language extremely offensive, as they consider themselves quite distinct. I have attempted to accommodate this user by describing their language as being "closely related" to Albanian, but he is intransigent. He accompanies his edits with extremely offensive epithets against his opponents, such as in the 2nd revert reported above, where his edit summary reads: Revert vandalism; what next MATIA, you will ship all the Arvanites of Epirus to Auschwitz for daring call themselves Shqiptar. He has repeatedly described his many opponents as far-right extremists and neo-Nazis, but the comment above was a major escalation as it trivialised the Holocaust and its victims. This is utterly unacceptable behaviour.--Theathenae 15:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Blocked for 24 hours. -Splashtalk 15:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Crankshuick - Wik sockpuppet[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Empire of Atlantium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Crankshuick (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Centauri 02:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


  • Wik aka Rivarez sockpuppet. Rivarez and other multiple sockpuppets currently under 1-week ban for previous edit warring. See further multiple listings above. --Centauri 02:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Admins please take note that on 4 October alone Crankshuick has made FORTY SEVEN reverts between two articles: Sealand and Empire of Atlantium. This is an editor who has been banned completely from Wikipedia no less than 3 times, and who has no authority to make any further contribution to the project - let alone conducting massively contemptuous and disruptive edit wars of this nature.--Gene_poole 02:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: 06:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


  • This is the counterpart of Guettarda, who broke the rule last night. I don't understand Elee's comments that I'm always around when Big Daddy violates the 3RR rule. I think Big Daddy broke the rule when he just started out, but I wasn't around to see it. Elee is party to a pending case in Arbritation with Big Daddy and has subjected him to verbal abuse according to that case [[77]]. I think Elee needs to leave Big Daddy alone, or at least discuss his changes. That I am a sock puppet of Big Daddy (or vice versa) is a false accusation. Please do something to curb Elee's zeal. 06:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • ps Yes I wrote the previous version, but I also made it clear at 02:57, 2 October 2005 I thought the criticism section needed to be shortened [78]. 06:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Please note that this user has notnow switched to (talk · contribs) and broken the 3RR himself. Guettarda 06:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes I have not done that. I think you meant now. The two of us are not the same user (me and 67). 67 may even disagree with my decision to back Big Daddy's version of the section in this case. 67 convinced me to compromise so I came up with a compromise version, but Big Daddy and the weird attacks of CB and the silent behavior of Elee changed my mind that Elee and CB were acting in good faith. So I chose the principle of conciseness over inclusion. 06:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • pps note on 6th reversion. Big Daddy said he could use anon accounts. That is not the same as a "pledge to use sockpuppets" 07:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Hi, I'm the User who one very disgruntled user (currently under on Arb investigation) is trying to railroad. I recommend a check of my latest entry regarding sockpuppets on the Ann Coulter talk page for the reason I reverted the vandalism. As far as being the "counterpart" of Guetterda... sorry, that's not me. Judging from BigDaddy777's pledge to use sockpuppets (and his claims that he has over 100 to choose from)a little research shows that BD777 is employing at least two anonymous sockpuppets, albeit not very convincingly. [79]

Additionally, the anon user filing this report has switched to, and violated 3RR himself. Eleemosynary 07:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

    • Again, and I are not the same user and I have no control over that IP address. When I said Elee and Guettarda were counterparts, I meant they edited as a team at one point (by chance or by design I have no knowledge) that's all. I should also point out that the sweepingness of Elee's accusations (and now Guettarda's which I am about to address) is only matched by the completeness of his lack of evidence. 07:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC) [corrected by 18:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC). I am the same person as]
      • Evidence of this sockpuppet account is on the Talk Page for Ann Coulter, in BD777's own pledge to use sockpuppet accounts. It's in his/your own words. Ouch. Eleemosynary 07:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I am neither the other anon nor am I BigDaddy. I am willing to prove it via telephone to end this silliness. Second, accusing someone else of violating the 3rr does not excuse you from violating it. 07:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

For the record, if forced to guess I would think that = BigDaddy777 != Anon-67 has a similar POV as the other two, but sufficient distinction in behaviour (and a longer history here) that I think a different person is involved. I don't particularly agree with alot of his(?) changes, but he at least keeps a semblance of collaboration. Nor is Anon-67 generally as overtly hostile as the other two. Never going to be on my Xmas card list, but I have some respect for his/her effort to collaborate (though I still think that 'Alterman wants to blow up the WSJ' claim is plain silly :]). Anyway, there is currently mass chaos on everything BD777 edits... I think people need to calm down and let that pass (read: 'be smacked down hard'). Once the dust settles it will be easier to see who is and isn't operating in good faith. --CBDunkerson 13:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The dust is settled and your 'forced guess' is flat out wrong. No need to create a smokescreen to stop ANYONE from removing POV. It should be very easy for someone to verify that there are apparently now two anonymous editors who are falsely being accused of being me. There's no reason to not punish these 3rr violators NOW. They should be stopped from disrupting these editor's work. I can totally relate to them as these violators attempt the same thing with me. I would normally find it quite humorous that, in their paranoia, these violators see 'Big Daddy' behind every Door Knob. But it's not funny when it affects the integrity of Wikipedia and that's exactly what their actions do.

I propose a permanent lifetime ban on Eleemosynary and all of his sockpuppets (which, since he's falsely accused me of this practice, I'm apt to believe it's an act he's engaging in although I have no specific proof) and a ban of no less than 18 months for guetarrda for his joint participation in this act of violence against Wikipedia. A strong message must be sent that POV warriors who should and DO know better, cannot continue to gang up and harass conservative editors. Not that I've been told that these two anony editors they are harassing are conservatives, but these two are certainly trying to bring balance and that's all that's needed to cause these vandals to attack them. On a side note, I feel very sorry for anyone in Wikipedia who's mistaken for me. The sheer angst-ridden vitriol, hate and poisonous venom that's routinely spewed on me merely for trying to remove POV is just water off my back. But I hate to see anyone else subjected to this abuse. Big Daddy 14:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

And I propose looking here. Very interesting. Eleemosynary 05:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


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

  • Previous version reverted to: reversion of additions, to a wide variety of prior versions; perhaps this might be considered the baseline, but most of these reverts are partial.

Reported by: Guettarda 07:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


  • Several of these reversions involved reverting a single addition, but it still amounts to separate reversions of the page, coupled with an apparently bad-faith switch to another account. Whether this user is BigDaddy777's sockpuppet (as has been alleged) or not, is not something I am able to judge (but see this). The user has admitted to using multiple IP addresses in the past [80]. Guettarda 07:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The first three edits are commented parts of a single reversion by me, 64. So right off the bat, Guettarda is off the mark. 07:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The fourth edit is an attempted second revert by me where I included some earlier material I didn't mean to.
    • The fifth edit states that I was correcting the edit so it was still a second revert. 07:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th revert I had absolutely no control over or responsibility for. So the total for me is TWO reverts. 07:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
      • The 3rr only speaks about reverts - each of those edits reverted a part of the page. And please note that you did not include the issue of "intent" in my unintentional violation, which I reported myself, and soft-blocked myself. Regardless - there are 9 reverts so far. Guettarda 07:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
        • But it was intentional. I didn't revert anyone's changes between the two edits (4th and 5th). You made three changes and I kept all of them! So it's TWO reverts. 08:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Nine, eight, or four reverts - it's still a 3rr violation. Guettarda 08:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
        • What was that I saw out of the corner of my eye? Oh, yes it was logic flying out the window from Guettarda's accusations. I believe the reason you are stonewalling (like you did the night before last when you wouldn't give reasons for your reversions on the article and illicitly reverted [see Guettarda's entry on this noticeboard]) is because you know that your accusations are meritless and retaliatory. 20:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC) a.k.a. user:
    • These sockpuppet accounts' full-throated defense of BD777, combined with BD777's pledge to use sockpuppets when blocked, should be an interesting addition to BD777's Arbitration proceedings. Eleemosynary 07:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, I think it's ESSENTIAL that you bring these charges in. Please do. In fact, ANY contribution that you make eleemosynary is GREATLY appreciated. Big Daddy 14:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Ability to tab discussion alone should prove I'm not BigDaddy. Also, #7 above is not a revert, that material I only partially removed the redundant parts and it had been around for weeks prior. It clearly does not fulfill the definition of a reversion. I have 3 reverts total. I suggest Guetterda read that definition regarding 64's edits as well. 07:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I am ticked that this guy even has to defend himself against these IRRATIONAL PARANOID DELUSIONAL charges. Doesn't anyone know how to get to the bottom of this? And once they do, whoever is proven wrong, should be given a LIFETIME ban. Big Daddy 14:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

How is it not a revert to remove material which you previously removed and which I restored? My restoration was a revert, and your re-removal was another revert. How not? Guettarda 07:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
As the page says, A revert is to undo all changes made after a certain time in the past. The result will be that the page becomes identical to how it used to be at some previous time. #7 did not remove all changes from a past edit. I removed repeated quotes and moved the rest of it elsewhere like the comment said. That did not cover "all changes" nor did it make the article identical to any previous time. You are stretching the interpretation to make your point and muddling the issue.
Also, the "admitting using multiple IP's" you are referring to is where I pointed out I have a dynamic IP DSL account. In the past I was turning the modem off at night which caused me to get a new IP the next day. I have tried to leave it on recently to avoid precisely this confusion. I have no ability to toggle between addresses. This atmosphere of accusations, name-calling, and edit-wars certainly does not motivate me to create an account and join this community. 08:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

That is a very POWERFUL point. What he's saying confirms what I've observed. There has been allowed to exist for too long a CULTURE here that's so marginalizing to people that are merely asking for fairness, that it deters valuable new editors from even wanting to join the community. For shame, I say. For shame. Big Daddy 14:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Anon-67, the policy also says, "Reverting doesn't only mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. It means undoing the actions of another editor, and may include edits that mostly undo a previous edit and also add something new, page moving, admin actions such as protection, etc. Use common sense."
So, it does NOT just apply to changes where the page "becomes identical" to a previous version. It qualifies as a revert if the work of another editor was fully or largely removed. Period.
That said, I take no stance on who has and hasn't violated the '3 reverts' rule. It's so bad I can't even begin to keep up. Suffice it to say that the reversions are flying fast and furious and a full scale edit war IS and HAS BEEN ongoing. SOME sort of administrative action is called for, but I think these competing 'he reverted too many times', 'well he did too', 'well they are all the same person', et cetera entries on this page are just symptoms of the overall problem.
Wikipedia admin type people - a little help over here please? --CBDunkerson 14:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I take a definitive stand. The users elemonsynary and guettarda are the guilty parties. Period. I don't know precisely what happened after I went to bed last night (apparently a lot!) but I can tell you that I made several edits (always documented in the Talk Page unless I was just correcting a vandalized edit in which case I already had provided reasons for my edit.) I can't bear to look right now as I'm sure they've been vandalized, but I assure you I will be back and will continue to remove POV from this article and every other article that's been subjected to this nonsense. It might be helpful to know it has been alleged, in an act of vengence and defiance of everything Wikipedia stands for, that these abusers may have compacted to capriciously REVERSE all my edits wherever they find them irrespective of their merit. As if that weren't bad enough, they've now taken to capriciously revert the efforts of anybody who reminds them of me. Big Daddy 14:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I've had a look over all this and it seems like pretty clear sockpuppetry to me, though if any admin disagrees (or even better yet, someone with m:checkuser might be helpful), I won't object to them undoing my block. I've blocked the lot for 24 hours. --fvw* 20:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I hope this doesn't fan the flames too much, but did anyone else notice that is --fvw* 20:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Thats me (new person). I have no invlovment in all this, but noticed today that my IP address is blocked. I browse wiki's while at work sometimes. I almost always sign any edits ViperDaimao. I work internal IT for Halliburton in Houston. I dont know if the user this page is about also works here and thus we share the same IP or not. Because of this confusion, I'll probably sign up for an account when I get home tonight to help clear some of this up. (Edit: forgot to sign) --ViperDaimao64.154.26.251 22:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
OK, I just signed up this account. I repeat, I am not the IP address user making edits to the Ann Coulter page. I really dont know enough about her to edit anything. I've edited the talk page for Newt Gingrich and The Dead Zone (book), and Valerie Plame a few months ago (didnt sign that one). Furthermore, I fail to see why the IP belonging to halliburton has to do with anything discussed here, or anything whatsoever. --Viper Daimao 00:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh, extreeeeeeeeeeeeeeemely convincing. LOL! Eleemosynary 05:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I see you're amused. I really dont care if you're "convinced", but if you would do a simple google search for the IP in question you would see that it returns over 2,300 results and thus either one of two things must be true. Either that we are all telling the truth and that is a widely used proxy used my thousands of other people, OR all 2,300 or so of us are all sockpuppets. But I appreciate you maturity in this matter and in welcoming new members to this community.--Viper Daimao 01:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Fvw and others,

User BigDaddy777 has informed me that he is blocked for 24 hours, for violating 3RR.

I have some questions about this:

  1. Since he does not appear to be named in the complaint, why was he blocked?
  2. Was he blocked for other behavior besides 3RR or sock puppetry? If not:
  3. If it was for sock puppetry, what is the evidence of that, if any?
  4. Which, if any, of the edits listed on the complaint have been attributed to him, and on what evidence?
  5. I noticed one of the IPs was alleged to be from Halliburton. As BigDaddy777 seems to be a truck driver (I am double checking this), how would it be he has access to HB's corporate servers?

Thanks for taking the time to answer these questions. I have left them on Fvw's page as well.

paul klenk talk 02:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It seemed likely to me he was the sockpuppeteer behind those IPs, given his past editing behaviour and the fact that these anonymous users suddenly popped up when he needed reversions. --fvw* 02:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
"Likely..." What actual evidence in this case, based on the edits themselves? Others on that page have also violated 3RR in the past. What past behavior bears on these specific edits? Are you familiar enough with his writing style to see any correlations in style, etc.? I am, and I do not believe it is him. Further (of course) he is denying this. Are you also aware that guettarda and elee... have been egregiously and maliciously throwing around accusations and behaving extraordinarily uncivil towards him; if not, does that give you cause to rethink this? What reversions did he "need"? It seems to me you are going on an unreasonably arbitrary basis, especially since he was not listed on the complaint, and it does not appear
I would like to cordially ask you to consider unblocking him while this so-called evidence is being compiled. If, after he is unblocked, it can be proven he sock-puppeted or broke 3RR, I will allow you to block me for 24 hours (in addition to re-blocking BigDaddy777, if you so desire).
I will wait for your response. Please address my specific questions. Your last answer was extremely vague and general.
Thank you in advance for your time. paul klenk talk 02:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on [[:

Image:Hazel O Leary fisher.jpg]] (edit | [[Talk::Image:Hazel O Leary fisher.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | [//
Image:Hazel_O_Leary_fisher.jpg& views]). Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Proto t c 12:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)



Three revert rule violation on Template:WivesMuhammad (edit | [[Talk:Template:WivesMuhammad|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Irishpunktom (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Karl Meier 17:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


  • The user has reverted the template to previous versions 4 times within 24 hours. -- Karl Meier 17:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Blocked for 24 hours. Ral315 WS 20:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Silverback (talk · contribs):

Reported by: csloat 18:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


  • This is not the first time the user has violated the 3RR on this page. He constantly steamrolls this page with edits that have been refuted over and over in talk. The two edits he has specifically made here in these reversions have been refuted; he only bothers to defend one of them in talk (he ignores the arguments about the second but keeps reverting anyway) and he doesn't respond to the arguments against it. Instead, he plays dumb and keeps repeating himself. His edit summaries are also deceptive; the first revert is disguised as adding something to the page even though he knows well that he was reverting these two main changes -- see for example his revert from a few days earlier here. I do not want to have to have this article protected, but if the edit warring does not stop it may need to be. The two changes that he wants to put in the page have been discussed and he has refused to respond to the arguments against them. One of them is original research in violation of Wikipedia policy; the other one is a misleading interpretation of a quotation that already appears elsewhere on the page. He continues to misrepresent the latter change as putting the full quote in there when he knows that the quote is already in there. I think this user's conduct is a significant problem on wikipedia -- his changes should be reverted and he should be blocked for 24 hours for violating the 3RR. If his behavior continues, I will file an RfC so that more editors and administrators can evaluate his destructive behavior.--csloat 18:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The first one looks like an edit, not a revert. That means you're both at 3, so are as bad as each other. It is helpful if, when reporting 3RRs you remember to include the version being reverted and show diffs that revert to it. Otherwise, an admin has to guess which version is involved. -Splashtalk 18:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Please read my comment above -- Silverback's first edit summary was misleading; I provided an example of an earlier edit that was substantively the same to show that he was actually reverting. Another user had made some minor changes to a different section in the interim but if you compare this to this you can see his changes are fundamentally the same, making his first edit a revert. Does that make sense? Sorry if I am doing that wrong -- this is my first time complaining about this (although this user has done this before). I've been trying to address this user in talk but he refuses to engage in the discussion other than to engage in personal attacks and to assert that he has already addressed my concerns. It is very frustrating :( --csloat 19:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I count four reverts too: blocked. But in future please get some outside commentary before you get this far. --fvw* 20:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: Themindset 20:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


  • Note that this user has repeatedly vandalised both the article and the talk page. Their IP seems to resolve to the same/similar as, and this IP is going against the consensus of all other editors of this page. Needless to say, it is strongly suspected that the user at this IP may be connected with Irregardless, they have broken the 3 revert rule. Themindset 20:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, first please link to the differences... but also, I don't think there's anything close to 3RR, in fact, the user is adding information each time. Nevermind that, he just reverted 3 times, the fourth wasn't a revert but just adding a NPOV tag. Whether it is POV or not I am not qualified to comment about but there are a couple of problems, 1) you probably shouldn't have reverted the NPOV tag as the user did provide an explaination on the talk page and 2) It's probably better to edit rather than completely revert edits. Again, I'm don't know enough about to say whether it is a what it says on the page but definetly not a 3RR violation IMO. Sasquatcht|c 23:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Yiyu Shen[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Mao Zedong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yiyu Shen (talk · contribs):

Reported by: MJ(|@|C) 23:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


  • A edit war between Yiyu Shen and various other editors, as observed by a vandal tracker. User:The Great Veritas also crossed the 3 revert line, see below. MJ(|@|C) 23:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC).
  • Blocked for 24 hours. Ral315 WS 23:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

User:The Great Veritas[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Mao Zedong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The Great Veritas (talk · contribs):

Reported by: MJ(|@|C) 23:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


  • Caught in an edit war with Yiyu Shen (above)
  • Blocked for 24 hours. Ral315 WS 23:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: Greenleaf 04:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Blocked ofr 48 hours for 3RR and blanking. Sasquatcht|c 18:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Silverback (talk · contribs):

Reported by: csloat 18:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


  • This is the second time in a few days I am reporting this user for the 3RR. The reverts are basically the same as when I reported him a couple days ago. He was blocked; now that he has been unblocked he came right back to the page with the same edits. His fourth edit above is only a partial revert -- there were two main parts of the page he is reverting and he chose to only revert one the fourth time, perhaps to avoid the 3RR (I notice his edit summary calls it a "new version" but it is substantively the same as his other reverts). I proposed a vote on his edits on the talk page and he refuses to take part in the vote; he continues to steamroll his edits while ignoring the arguments against them that I (and others) make on the talk page. He simply repeats his original arguments (which have been refuted over and over) and then engages in personal attacks. I do not want to continue this war of attrition - I would like this user blocked again, and then I will seek page protection. I have tried to ask him to stop this conduct on his user:talk page to no avail.
    • By substantively the same you mean you didn't like it any better, but the first edit is not a revert, because it is a good faith change based on feedback from ryan, and the 4th is a good faith change based on feedback from Baas and Dereq. BTW, have you considered that it isimmoral of you to put someone into the 3RR block system because that system routinely blocks people for longer than 24 hours due to faulty software? Blocking someone beyond the prescribed penalty is far worse than any 3RR violation.--Silverback 01:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't know anything about the software being faulty but this is the first time I have been informed that faulty software is immoral. You seem to have been blocked for 24 hours the last time you violated the rule, not longer, since you have come back and reverted four times again just another day later. As for your claims that these are not reverts, you are nitpicking -- changing a couple words while retaining the same substantive points (which both Baas and Derex had argued against, among others) is still a revert. Of course, it's up to an administrator to decide this; I am sure both of our positions on this will be noted. Thanks for your input.--csloat 03:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
        • It is not the faulty software that is immoral, it is the admins use of that software knowing that it is faulty, and now that you know the system is faulty because admins use this software, it would be immoral for you to submit someone to the system, unless you make sure a responsible admin monitors the release, or monitor it yourself. I was blocked for an extra 7 or 8 hours last time. The first block release didn't work because for some reason that have to do it in two separate places.--Silverback 18:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on Apollo moon landing hoax accusations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Astronaught (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Joshuaschroeder 22:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

He did violate 3RR, but with all the edit warring that's gone on today between several editors you and Philip might have also. Impossible to be fair in this instance -- if one gets a block for 3RR, others should also, and then nobody would be talking. Instead, it seems to me that the best solution is to protect the page to help y'all start talking and stop reverting. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Neither Philip or I did, I gaurantee. I have been blocked before and am always very careful. Joshuaschroeder 01:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on Smithsonian (Washington Metro) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Schuminweb (talk · contribs):

23:36, 5 October 2005 Schuminweb (Substituted for better photo)
23:30, 5 October 2005 Alkivar (rv AGAIN... you do not OWN this article... another revert and I will start arbitration.)
23:24, 5 October 2005 Schuminweb (Removing photo)
22:56, 5 October 2005 Alkivar (rv, schumin this is not YOUR encyclopedia... OTHERS are allowed to contribute as well...)
20:33, 5 October 2005 Schuminweb (Removed second Smithsonian photo, since in all honesty, it's not a great photo.)
20:17, 5 October 2005 Alkivar

Reported by:  ALKIVARRadioactive.svg 05:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)



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

Reported by: CBDunkerson 11:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


  • Granted, I'm assuming these two are the same person... but that seems a safe bet given the identical sociopathy. --CBDunkerson 11:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


Anonymous User ("Shivraj") has reverted the Raput article at least three times in the last 24 hours.Tom Radulovich 15:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)