Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive5

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

4 October25 October 2005

Noticeboard archives

User:Mel Etitis[edit]

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Instantnood[edit]

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

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

Comments:

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

      Since all similar articles on the economies of different countries are grouped under category:economies by country, I don't think there's a point to argue that the Hong Kong article need not be categorised there because of the Hong Kong category [6]. — Instantnood 11:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

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

User:Ninio[edit]

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

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

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

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

Star Wars[edit]

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

User:Marudubshinki[edit]

Three revert rule violation on [[7]].Marudubshinki (talk · contribs): I've told him to stop reverting my talk page, to no avail. Copperchair 03:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

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

User:Son of Paddy's Ego[edit]

Three revert rule violation on [[:

category:terrorists]] (edit | [[Talk::category:terrorists|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?pages=
category:terrorists&project=en.wikipedia.org views]).

Son of Paddy's Ego (talk · contribs):

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

User:64.12.113.182[edit]

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

64.12.113.182 (talk · contribs):

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

Comments:

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

User:BigDaddy777 (2nd incident)[edit]

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

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

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

Comments:

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

User:Comandante[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Cuba.

User:Comandante:

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

Comments:

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

User:The Wookieepedian[edit]

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

The Wookieepedian (talk · contribs):

  • Previous version reverted to: [12]
  • 1st revert: [13]
  • 2nd revert: [14]
  • 3rd revert: [15]
  • 4th revert: [16]

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

Comments:

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

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

User:Kolokol[edit]

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

Kolokol (talk · contribs):

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

Comments:

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

User:Slevit1[edit]

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

Slevit1 (talk · contribs):

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

Comments:

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

User:203.164.184.150[edit]

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

203.164.184.150 (talk · contribs):

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

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

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

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

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

User:Kolokol Second time in 48 hours[edit]

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

Kolokol (talk · contribs):

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

Comments:

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

User:24.205.51.127[edit]

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

24.205.51.127 (talk · contribs):

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

Comments:

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

User:203.94.228.43[edit]

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

203.94.228.43 (talk · contribs):

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

Comments:

  • There are slight variations in the body of the text as others try to find an acceptable compromise. But user:203.94.228.43 looks like a sockpupet[17] for the 3RR suspended user:Kolokol for persistent similar reverts to the the same page. When Kololol was previously 3RRed on 6 October 2005 for reverting edits to a redirected page to Ubeda a sockpupet called user:K010k01 was created. The reversion edits to this article "bare all the hallmarks" (to use an expression used by the British media and authorities about terrorist attacks) to those on the same page by user:NoPuzzleStranger a user "blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, per ruling of administrators" back in August(?) 2005.Philip Baird Shearer 15:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Blocked. ~~ N (t/c) 18:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

User:64.106.60.102[edit]

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

64.106.60.102 (talk · contribs):

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

Comments:

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


User:Varizer, User:Miroslawa and User:212.185.62.98 at Chancellor of Germany[edit]

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

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

User:131.107.0.80[edit]

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

131.107.0.80 (talk · contribs):

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

Comments:

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

User:Kolokol[edit]

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

Kolokol (talk · contribs):

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

Comments:

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

User:Appleby[edit]

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

Reverted to *[19] 22.47 Oct 13.

23.51 2nd

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

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

User:Hottentot[edit]

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

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

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


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

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

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

User:Revolución[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Template:Democratic Party.

Four Reverts:

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

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

Gorgonzilla[edit]

Gorgonzilla (talk · contribs):

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

2nd revert:

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

3rd revert: 22:55, 9 Feb 2005

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

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

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

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

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

User:John Henry and Sockpuppets[edit]

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

Original edit[33]

  • 1st Revert 13:11, 15 October 2005[34]
  • 2nd [35]
  • 3rd [36]
  • 4th (as DEastman) 02:05, 16 October 2005 [37]

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

User:Lightbringer[edit]

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

Lightbringer (talk · contribs):

  • Previous version reverted to:
  • 1st revert: [38]
  • 2nd revert: [39]
  • 3rd revert: [40]
  • 4th revert: [41]
  • 5th revert: [42]
  • 6th revert: [43]

All approximately the same day.

Reported by: --20px Spinboy 06:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Please post proper diffs; see the example below. --fvw* 06:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Fixed. --20px Spinboy 06:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Blocked. --fvw* 06:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
As is User:MSJapan. --fvw* 06:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it's fair to block him, MSJapan was undoing Lightbringer's badness. --20px Spinboy 06:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
We are waiting on ArbCom in relation to him, we can't help they're taking forever. --20px Spinboy 06:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
We don't take sides in 3RR disputes unforutantly. Sasquatcht|c 07:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Silverback[edit]

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

Silverback (talk · contribs):

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

Comments:

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

Silverback's reverts are related to a spurious "severe vandalism" warnings on WP:VIP in retaliation for his work on the RfC. See the discussion talk page of the RfC. [44] [45] 172 | Talk 20:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

They are not spurious, and you showed lack of good faith by reporting this as a 3RR without disclosing the vandalism report. --Silverback 20:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
The vandalism charges are dubious. It is vandalism to modify other users' statements, your own when you are a cosigner of an RfC updating the page as new information comes in. That was explained to you by multiple people on the talk page of your RfC. The fact that our edits weren't vandalism was even explained to you on the mailing list. [46] That is my final word on this matter to you, as there's nothing else left to say. 172 | Talk 21:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
If you are editing in good faith, why won't you respect the integrity of the certified statement and respond elsewhere. Frankly, by the time the community has spoken, I think my interpretation will be upheld. There is no other way it can reasonably work.--Silverback 21:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Silverback's claim that the 3RR does not apply to him because he is reverting "vandalism," see: 22:08, 16 October 2005 comments by Redwolf24 Note: Silverback has added 172 to 'Severe' at Vandalism in Progress. This is abusing the system if I've ever seen it. [47] 172 | Talk 23:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


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

User:Grazon[edit]

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

Grazon (talk · contribs):

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

Comments:

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

User:Nemonoman[edit]

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

Nemonoman (talk · contribs):

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

Comments:

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

User:203.101.50.154[edit]

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

203.101.50.154 (talk · contribs):

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

Comments:

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

User:G-Man[edit]

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

G-Man (talk · contribs):

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

Comment

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

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

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

User:CarlHewitt[edit]

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

CarlHewitt (talk · contribs):

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

Comments:

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

User:Lightbringer (again)[edit]

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

Lightbringer (talk · contribs):

Reported by: 20px Spinboy 04:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User will not listen to the consensus of the other editors. 20px Spinboy 04:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I only see 3 edits. To break the 3RR rule, one must have reverted (or the equivalent) of 4 times within 24 hours. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

Lightbringer (talk · contribs):

Reported by: 20px Spinboy 04:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User will not listen to the consensus of the other editors. 20px Spinboy 04:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Looks like more than 24 hours. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Kuratowski's Ghost[edit]

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

Kuratowski's Ghost (talk · contribs):

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

Comments:

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

User:134.161.138.166[edit]

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

134.161.138.166 (talk · contribs):

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

Comments:

User:Grazon[edit]

Three revert rule violation on