Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive37

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents: July 21, 2005 - July 31, 2005




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

Reported by: --TJive 02:05, July 22, 2005 (UTC)


Please note that he is removing the same passage in all reverts, even with an attempted compromise wording. Also note that he is using anonymous IPs for some reverts, whether by coincidence or in attempt to avoid block. However, he openly uses the IP account for his BernardL one, and signs comments. In regards to two IPs used here, User: and User:, note that he signs his comments as BernardL and does not disassociate himself from the anons. --TJive 02:05, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

have to agree with TJive here, and the user's been especially unwilling to compromise on the page. J. Parker Stone 03:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

So....nothing? --TJive 11:47, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Hallo.... --TJive 00:24, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
BernardL (and the IP addresses) haven't edited Noam Chomsky since the request was made here. Since he stopped edit warring more than two days ago, there's little point in blocking. The 3RR is meant to throw cold water on edit wars in progress, not to punish afterwards.
It is also customary to warn users on their talk pages that a 3RR violation has been posted here—particularly new users who may not be familiar with the policy. (I have now done this.) I consider the matter closed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on User_talk:Boothy443 (edit | [[Talk:User_talk:Boothy443|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Boothy443 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Dmcdevit·t 02:29, July 22, 2005 (UTC)


  • I have no involvement in this, but it is has been showing up on my watchlist all day. Boothy kept trying to redirect his talk page, which was seen as hostile. --Dmcdevit·t 02:29, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's proper for Boothy to redirect his talk page to another page, but since he has stopped doing that I don't see any problem here. Not a blockable violation, anyway. It's his talk page, he can revert it as many times as he likes. Rhobite 03:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Gads. Poor behaviour all around here, really. Wikipedia:Sheep vote for a while incorporated a section that might be taken as an attack on Boothy443. Boothy443–instead of editing or VfDing Wikipedia:Sheep vote–redirected his User Talk page there, which led to the edit war over his redirection.
I'm not sure what point Boothy443 is trying to make. I would suggest that we cut him some slack since a) he was made fun of, and b) it's in his userspace. That said, he should be strongly cautioned not to redirect his User Talk page, as it makes it very difficult for other users to communicate with him.
I also wish that he would at least explain what point he's trying to make with his votes at WP:RFA; it might reduce some of the bad feelings that surround him. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: Carnildo 07:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


  • Pastorrussell has been persistently removing any dispute tag from the article. I've been holding off on reporting in the hopes that talk-page discussion would resolve the issue, but the most recent edit by Pastorrussell indicates that would be futile.
  • I've warned Pastorrussell and will block him if he reverts again. Gamaliel 19:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on Arvanites and Arvanitic language. (History. Arvanites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Arvanitic language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Theathenae (talk · contribs):

  • Comment

He reveted more then three times without taking part of the discussion. I told him to take part of the discussion but he ignored. When I send him a message to his talk page he erased my message [1], this is also clearly a violation and trying to total ignore discussion and revert articles in his own way. He was made aware about this later that it is against policy to delate others message they send to him. User talk:MacGyverMagic gaved him a warning. Dispite that he continue to blank his talk page, [2]. A temporary or perament ban on user Theatheane for violation against the rules would be legitimate. I propose at least 24 hours. Let it be known that he was banned for 3RR rule before, [3]. --Albanau 13:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

  • There is a clear violation of the 3RR by user:Theathenae at Arvanitic language, for which I have blocked him for 24 hours. He doesn't appear to have broken the 3RR at Arvanites as he hasn't reverted to any one version or phrase more than 3 times that I can see, but this wasn't easy to judge. user:Albanau has however broken the 3RR at Arvanites (diffs on his talk page), for which I have blocked him for 24 hours. Thryduulf 14:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[edit]

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

Although not the same IP address as, both coming from the same proxy server according to ARIN

Too many reverts to count, in excess of one dozen, [4]

Reported by: TDC 17:42, July 22, 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on Rick Ross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by User: --ZappaZ Yin yang.svg 00:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


Keep in mind, you too have have violated the 3RR. As far as blocking, the 3RR policy states, In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally. You all seem to be having an edit war, and may want to try the dispute resolution process.

He doesn't seem to have reverted since being warned. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:41, July 23, 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: Carnildo 04:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


  • Pastorrussell is claiming that one version of the intro is the "consensus version", and keeps reverting to it. The other five editors prefer a different version. --Carnildo 04:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 24 hours. Gamaliel 05:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


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

  • 1st revert: [5]
  • 2nd revert: [6]
  • 3rd revert: [7]
  • 4th revert: [8] (disguised as "minor edit")

Reported by: — Phil Welch 07:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Phil, the diffs don't seem to show evidence of three or more reverts to a previous version. I've leave a note on his page about reverting anyway. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:23, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Three are marked as "revert" in the edit summary while the fourth is marked as "correcting thumbnail" (but in effect reverts content previously reverted if you see the other diffs). The policy states "do not revert any single page more than three times in any 24 hour period", and that is what Copperchair did. — Phil Welch 00:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
He'd have to be warned first before being blocked anyway, Phil, so I've done that. If he does it again, he's likely to be blocked. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:05, July 24, 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


  • Keeps on inserting the words "The act is mainly islamic" into the Terrorism article.
    • Warned. El_C 12:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I've locked to page against his version but I don't want to do that for long.Geni 16:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
added to my watchlist for what that's worth. Septentrionalis
  • Come on, surely this counts as vandalism? He did it ten times without trying to justify himself. – Smyth\talk 10:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on List of companies in the People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Huaiwei (talk · contribs):

Reported by: — Instantnood 08:16, July 24, 2005 (UTC)


  • User:Huaiwei has been insisting in his POV and changed the article accordingly, despite the disagreements have not been settled at the talk page. She/he reverted rolling back to what the list was like and was intended for before the dispute took place while discussion is in process, and she/he also reverted the application of the {{twoversions}} tag. — Instantnood 08:16, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a ridiculous nomination. Those four edits reverts instantnood cited were punctured by small edits he made, so I dont think it constitutes a continous case of reverts by both parties. Secondly, while this revert war was sparked when he attempted to add a contentious line [14], he subsequently tried to do a roll back to a "prior to the dispute"...which was way before the offending edit...and a version he prefers. That version, however, is erroneous, as it was the state of the article before it was subsequently renamed. I therefore found it neccesary to bring it back to the state which was accepted by User:Dbinder and me, but not by him.--Huaiwei 08:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
    • The notice I added is not contentious. Similar notices exist on other articles and lists on mainland China-related topics. This list should not be an exception. The discussion was not sparked off but that edit, but rather, was a continuation of previous discussions. The title of the list was changed, but the change itself has never been justified. It should not be taken as an opportunity to push a point of view to change the limits of the content of the list, claiming to be editing according to the new title. Further, the edits to the list I made were not small edits, and Huaiwei did make 4 reverts within a 24-hour period. — Instantnood 09:46, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • It is certainly contentious, and you know that full well. You added the notice out of spite and to express unhappiness that the page title was changed, so you are using that as an excuse and a cover up for your disruptive behavior. If the page title refers to the PRC, then the page should address it. The notice is only needed if this is contrary to that. Since the various editors has hence tweaked the page to better reflect its title, I do not see why this should be reverted? As a matter of fact, you are the one "limiting" the scope of the article to only refer to Mainland China, and not others. As for small edits, mind telling us what this edit [15] is for? My four reverts you refer all involve a revert of a different version, which I was forced to make because you kept trying to use the 3RR rule to manipulate the situation.--Huaiwei 10:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Your accusations are speculative. You know very well what are the similar notices I mentioned, and what articles have such notices. I was not the one to limit the scope. Please be reminded what the list was created for. — Instantnood 10:50, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
          • And ditto to your accusations against me. You know full well about the content disputes with regards to the usage of the words Mainland China, and you have had 2 arbcoms (or was it 3?) against you related to your persistent attempts in pushing your POV, of which the issues over Mainland China was one of them. I dont think you are adding them merely to follow some kind of "template" in other pages, because the entire usage of it was under dispute. By calling a PRC article a Mainland Chinese one, you are indeed limiting its scope...there is no way around that. And I dont quite understand what you mean by "Please be reminded what the list was created for."? So what was it for besides what it is for now?--Huaiwei 11:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
            • I am not pushing my POV in editing this list. Rather, I was reverting to what the list was intended for before the disputes took place, which may or may not be representing my point of view (as a matter of fact I do the same for other articles, no matter it's related to the mainland China debate or not). I do not limit its scope, but rolling back to what it was like before the dispute. The notice I added is similar to other articles.
              The ArbCom cases are irrelevant here. The first one was not opened against anybody. It was a case that a few parties were involved. The second case was a continuation of the first. It was reopened because the first case was closed without following the standard procedures, and therefore has to be reopened due to technical reasons.
              The issue here on this noticeboard remains, that is, Huaiwei made four reverts within a 24-hour period. — Instantnood 11:48, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • This isn't the place for such a debate; please aim for a more constructive one. 12 hrs so as to hasten meaningful dialogue on the talk page. El_C 12:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for bringing it to end El C. Huaiwei brought up something which were not entirely true [16], and I was made to respond and to clarify. — Instantnood 12:16, July 24, 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 08:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


  • Inserts POV paragraph.
  • Blocked for 24 hours. El_C 11:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


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

I'll also note that I may be in violation of 3RR as well.

Reported by: --gbambino 23:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Gbambino seems to have falsified the times above as they do not actually correspond to the edit history. Several of the "reversions" he notes above are not reversions but consecutive edits (unless it is gbambino's contention that I reverted myself.) If there is a penalty for making a false report, it should be applied to Gbambino. Homey 00:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

A look at the heading at the top of the right-hand column in each 'history' will reveal that the times are accurate. As for the distinction between a simple edit and a revert, the evidence speaks for itself. --gbambino 00:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

A look at the article's edit history will show that the times above do not correspond. As for the distinction between an edit and a revert, "revert 1" shows that I was the editor of both "before" and "after" versions hence it is not a reversion. Homey 00:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, while the times above are wrong and gbambino's first "revert" is not one a look at the actual history shows that I have reverted 4X in 24 hours. My apologies. I will revert to gbambino's last edit . Homey 00:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

User:-Ril- (yet again)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Bible verses (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Bible verses|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). -Ril- (talk · contribs):

Reported by: --SimonP 01:16, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Simon P has done the same. AND has removed votes and comments. AND has adjusted what it was that people had already voted for. I was merely reverting these highly inappropriate changes. ~~~~ 01:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

  • But Simon P has self-corrected his 3RR violation. Blocked for 24 hours. El_C 01:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, and I apologize for going over the limit. - SimonP 02:21, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: Jayjg (talk) 01:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


  • Last revert was a complex revert; each revert has removed sentences stating "In the Muslim-controlled Middle East, Africa and South Asia slavery and slave trade continued to flourish." and "Slavery has never been legal in Israel", along with the world "Islamic" from various section titles. Was requested to revert [27], but refuses, claiming he was using some complicated tactic to get around the 3RR.[28] Was last blocked for 3RR on July 19. Jayjg (talk) 01:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Correct, that passage is deleted in all instances. Blocked for 24 hours. El_C 01:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Bee Hive[edit]

Three revert rule violation on National Endowment for Democracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bee Hive (talk · contribs):

Reported by: TJive 02:17, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


If you look through "Bee Hive"'s contribution page you will notice that the entirety of his content consists of a package of reversions and deletions of material which I have contributed. This goes back to yesterday, before which he had done nothing. Now if you go to the contribution page of Ruy Lopez you can see the same general sets of reverts for the 22nd and before. So essentially it is simply that mass reverts are being used to attempt to confound any contributions I make by one user. However, he has clearly crossed another line here and knows better. --TJive 02:17, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Blocked permanently as a sockpuppet created for the purpose of policy violation. Jayjg (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: --Chris 04:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


  • Was originally an anonymous user who would keep on reverting then made an account calling him/herself the "Truth Comission [sic]." He continues to revert to a version that is inaccurate about actual Filipino ethnicity. The source he uses to back up his argument is from 1916. I have given him more recent sources, but he keeps pressing on. Any action would be appreciated. Thank you. --Chris 04:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • blocked for 24 hours.Geni 10:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on AIDS conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zen-master (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Jayjg (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


  • User tried to get the article title changed months ago, but was unable to, so inserted a "Title disputed" template in mid-May. Has insisted on having the template at the top of the page, and has reverted a number of different editors who have removed it, e.g. [29] [30] [31] [32]. In order to game the 3RR this time, inserted a handmade template at the top of the page on the 3rd revert - when this was re-written to reflect reality, reverted to his version, then on the fifth revert inserted a slightly different "Title disputed" template. Was warned about these attempts to game the rule, but continued to do so anyway. Jayjg (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I've unblocked Jay. I looked at other edits when I was checking Zen-master's block. What you're calling a fourth revert was not a revert to a previous version of the page, or anything like it. Jay wanted there to be no tag on the article. In tagging it and linking to the discussion (which is what Zen-master wanted), yet making it clear there had been a consensus, it seems to me that Jay came up with a compromise text.

I'm copying below what you wrote on Jay's talk page so others can check the diffs if they want do. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:25, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked you for 3RR violation on AIDS conspiracy theories.
  • [33]: deleted tag
  • [34]: deteled tag via rollback
  • [35]: deleted tag
  • [36]: modifed tag such that zen-master reverted it [37] citing it as inaccurate; this is effectively reverting by changing the content/meaning such that the opposing revert war party felt compelled to revert and is in line with the spirit of the 3RR.

Cburnett 01:13, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, SlimVirgin, you forget the purpose of the 3RR?

...the 3RR is intended as a means to stop edit wars...

Jayjg's fourth edit did not (clearly) have the intention of quelling the edit war. His "compromise" was no compromise at all: it merely stated his side of the edit war. Cburnett 01:55, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, how can Jayjg be excluded from the 3RR for stating his side of the edit war when each edit by zen-master has been precisely the same? Zen-master says there's a dispute; jayjg says there isn't. I find your immediate unblocking of jayjg, without discussion, highly disturbing. Especially when you consider what's written above:
Administrators will look over and discuss whether a user has truly violated the three revert rule, and take appropriate blocking action if necessary.
I have left zen-master blocked and I expect you to leave jayjg blocked until discussion has taken place. Cburnett 02:03, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I've already been unblocked, and commented on your talk: page; I'll reproduce it here:

Hi Cburnett. Regarding your note on my page, no-one is "compelled to revert", and there is no such policy as "being in line with the spirit of the 3RR". Moreover, I was dead set against there being any notice at the top of the page; however, when Zen Master insisted on there being a notice, I felt a reasonable compromise was to leave a notice indicating that there was a conflict, but at least an accurate one indicating the true state of affairs. I appreciate that you were only attempting to enforce policy, but it's best to enforce pre-existing policies rather than creating new ones on the fly, and especially (as happened in this case) when the facts are prone to misinterpretation. Still, no hard feelings, keep up the good work.

As I pointed out, my position is there should be no notice at the top; a compromise is a notice indicating there is a conflict, but an accurate one. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and if one could block based on the "spirit of edit wars", then one could block a person who does even one revert in a day, if it represented a revert in a longstanding edit war. Jayjg (talk) 02:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Cburnett, Zen-master violated 3RR, but Jayjg did not, so there's no reason the latter should stay blocked. Jayjg's fourth edit was an attempt to reach a compromise. He added the tag that Zen-master wanted (which Jayjg didn't want). He included a link to the poll on conspiracy theory, which Zen-master also wanted (and Jayjg didn't want). Jayjg modified the tag Zen-master wanted by making it clear that a consensus on the term conspiracy theory had been reached, which is accurate. It's not a revert to any previous version of the page, in whole or in part, in letter or in spirit. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:16, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Accurate is a POV thing and zen-master clearly disagrees. I can't believe both of you fail to grasp this, not only conceptually, but direct evidence from zen-master reverting it. Cburnett 02:18, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master's reversions of attempted compromises is his own issue, not mine, and I can't believe you fail to grasp the fact that when you start making up "spirit of the policy" rules based on dubious interpretations of evidence, you open up the rule for blocks on just about any grounds. The 3RR is fairly narrow and mechanistic precisely to avoid this sort of admin abuse. And I must say, getting involved in this dispute on your own, by blocking me and restoring Zen-master's version, is actually a far clearer violation of policy than your allegations that I violated the "spirit" of 3RR. I'm still trying to maintain the view that you made the block in good faith, but it's getting increasingly difficult. Jayjg (talk) 02:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Cburnett, the 3RR rule is clear. It doesn't matter whether Jay's edit was accurate or not (that's just an added bonus). We're not allowed to revert to a previous version of the page more than three times in 24 hours, in whole or in part. The quality of the edit is irrelevant, except where it's vandalism.
You've now unblocked Zen-master, who clearly violated 3RR in this case, and who has a history of 3RR violations and of aggressive reverting, particularly over this conspiracy-theory issue. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:32, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
I don't see how jayjg (and slim) can logically claim that jay's edit was a "compromise" nor how it is even an accurate description. There may be some confusion over whether a majority vote equals consensus, over 10 users voted on Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory that "conspiracy theory" titled articles are a problem, this is more than enough to signify the basis of an {NPOV} dispute. And cburnett noted, as I have, on Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories or to me on irc that he read the talk page and coulnd't find an alleged consensus for the removal of the disputed header. zen master T 02:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

You put the notice on the page 2 1/2 months ago, attempted to get the name changed, and could get no consensus for that. The vote was 32 to 12 in favour of keeping "conspiracy theory". You've since held the page hostage with an ugly notice on the top, despite having it removed by half a dozen editors. Notices aren't forever, and the consensus was to keep the name. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum where individual editors can permantely disfigure articles because they don't like the name and can't accept consensus. Jayjg (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Dispute headers are not removed when there is simply a majority (or else they would always be removed), they are removed when there are no arguably legitimate neutrality disputes in existence. Did you catch my response to willmcw's similar holding the page "hostage" point on the talk page? That is precisely why i created the nice looking "Notice: there is a neutrality dispute involving this article's title" header, to avoid charges of "ugly" header, it looks exactly the same as a disambig notice. When you say "consensus" I think you mean "majority"? zen master T 02:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Dispute headers aren't forever, POV summaries masquerating as disambig notices are ugly. You've repeated your claim that headers are only removed when there is no "legitimate dispute", but this is clearly completely bogus, as everyone thinks their dispute is legitimate, yet individuals cannot hold pages hostage. As for consensus, yes, on Wikipedia consensus is measured by a significant majority, which this has. Jayjg (talk) 03:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
The lack of discussion by the "pro" side is not evidence there is no dispute. How is headers are only removed when there is no legitimate neutrality dispute "completely bogus"? It is a de facto wikipedia policy that the {NPOV} header is only removed when there is unanimous consensus to do so, why shouldn't that extend to other dispute headers/notices? The removal of disputed headers from articles is certainly not measured by a majority on wikipedia. zen master T 03:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I have explained myself for blocking you, Jayjg, and restoring the tag. Perhaps instead of wasting time arguing over the merits of blocking, the dispute of the dispute be discussed instead? You haven't even bothered to respond to my comments on Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories despite clearly knowing that I have, at one point, restored his tag. You'll excuse the mirroring here: but I find your edits increasingly difficult to hold in good faith when you care more about addressing blockages instead of the dispute that led to them... Cburnett 02:34, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Cburnett, this is the page for discussing the block, and that's what I am doing here. I was more than happy to chalk it up to error, but you have continued to both defend the block, and take other actions which are quite disturbing, given your part in this affair. Now you appear to be trying to deflect examination of all these issues. I'll certainly discuss the tag on the appropriate page (i.e. AIDS conspiracy theories), but that's not what this page is about. Jayjg (talk) 02:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
You must have missed me saying "You haven't even bothered to respond to my comments on Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories..." since you think I'm calling for a discussion on the dispute on this page when I'm clearly pointing for discussion on that talk page. Cburnett 02:46, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
I haven't had time to respond there yet; rest assured, I will in good time. And I see you're now trying to quell discussion on this page. Moreover, I note you yourself have now reverted the article page twice, and then put a modified comment at the top of the page. Should I now block you for, based on, as you put it, the "spirit" and "purpose" of the 3RR: ...the 3RR is intended as a means to stop edit wars..., since, as you've said above, your edits did not (clearly) have the intention of quelling the edit war, and your "compromise" was no compromise at all, but merely stated your side of the edit war? In my opinion at this point your actions have gone way beyond any charitable interpretation. Jayjg (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Maybe if you could count. If you include mimicking your action, which so far 2-1 isn't a revert, then I'm still at 3 reverts. Cburnett 03:29, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
By that method of counting Zen-master did 5 reverts; in any event, you're edit warring, and that's what the policy is supposed to prevent. The exact number of reverts, or that they be actual reverts, obviously doesn't matter to you; it's all about the "spirit". Will you be blocking yourself now, to show consistency with your principles? Jayjg (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Ah, so it can count toward zen-master and I, but not you. Stop having your cake and eating it too. It's interesting that Calton reverted an article that he's never edited and has explicitly stated that he never intends on discussing. Cburnett 03:46, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
It's generally considered that if one must resort to lying to support a position, as you have just done, that position is not worth defending. I never explicitly stated that [I] never intend on discussing. I looked at it, considered the issue settled and the version reverted to as a fair summary, and left it at that. I inserted myself because, as a general rule, I don't like bullies, which is what you're being. --Calton | Talk 04:38, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
That's your counting method, not mine Cburnett; see how silly it turns out to be? As for Calton, I can't really speak for him, but perhaps he thinks your edits are so close to vandalism that there's no need for conversation - that's usually why people revert without comment. Jayjg (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Even my counting doesn't put me at 4+ reverts, just you and zen-master....yet you're not banned. Again, you fail to understand what I've actually said. Cburnett 03:57, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Your counting method isn't based on actual reverts, but about enforcing the "spirit" of the rule, which is to stop edit warring, not to count exact numbers of reverts. And of course I understand it; more importantly, I understand both the inherent flaws in your unique intepretation of the 3RR, and your inconsistency in applying that interpretation to yourself. Jayjg (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Side point: I have unblock zen-master so that he may comment on this page about his side. He has personally promised me to do no editing other than to respond to this dispute. Cburnett 02:23, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Not quite what I'd call a side point. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:32, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. Another action that violates more than the "spirit" of 3RR. Jayjg (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Blocking zen-master keeps him from participating in the discussion about his blockage since it is not being held on his talk page. If blocked users could respond where the request was made, here, then I wholly wouldn't have unblocked him. His promise to me continues the penalty for violating the 3RR so the punishment hasn't been stayed, only removing the censoring of defending himself where the discussion is taking place. By all means, if he edits an article for not honoring his promise to me...then block him. I'm willing to assume good faith so that he may discuss being blocked. (or this entire conversation can be moved to his talk page, where discussion will remain, and then blocked again less the time since he was blocked) Cburnett 02:49, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

You're out of line here, Cburnett.

  • You got involved in a violation report I was dealing with without discussing it with me, though if you'd checked, you'd have seen I was online.
  • You blocked an editor (and fellow admin) for a 3RR violation which the diffs show clearly he did not make.
  • Though you blocked the reporting editor for a non-existent violation, you then unblocked the other editor, who has a history of violations, blocks, and aggressive revert-warring, even though the diffs show a violation.
  • You've chastised the reporting editor for wasting time bothering with the violation report, even though it was a legitimate report.
  • You've now involved yourself in the content dispute by reverting back to your preferred version.

Could it get any worse? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:55, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Here we go, this is starting to get personal and no discussion is taking place on Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories. Sad. Very sad.
In regards to slimvirgin's points:
  • Only because he can't be heard. Users have been granted posting rights to there talk pages to address being blocked. He did and nothing happened. He sent 4 emails to admins trying to get discussion: including one to you SlimVirgin. Nothing happened. Clearly you, the one dealing with it wasn't paying attention to your email nor his talk page.
  • Blocking involves admin discretion and I exercised it on jayjg. "discretion", by definition, does not guarantee everyone will agree.
  • I explained this: I am assuming good faith on zen-master's part and, so far, he has upheld his promise of not editing articles.
  • I "chastised" (to use your word) not because he made the report, but he failed to address my points at Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories despite having viewed the page; seeing I put the tag back; and either not bothering to look at the talk page or not caring to answer me.
  • I have only done one revert to an anonymous user taking pot shots at me (which is all I intend on doing) and have called for Calton to join the discussion on the talk page after he reverted my compromise notice (which by your's and jayjg's isn't anything resembling a revert).
I think it could get a lot worse. Not even you are willing to address my points on Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories. It appears no one is interested in solving the problem BUT me. Cburnett 03:07, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
You appear to be the problem at this point. We're discussing that. Jayjg (talk) 03:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Indeed it could; Cburnett is also insisting that I not comment on the block on this page, but rather deal solely with the content issue on the other page, while simultaneously insisting that he needed to unblock Zen-master so Zen-master alone could comment on this page. The favoritism shown here is astounding. Jayjg (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I want you to comment on Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories but you won't despite being requested several times. I never said you shouldn't comment here, just that it's sad you care more about this than the actual dispute.
I also said that if you care to move it to zen's talk page so the block can be reinstated (nevermind he's kept his promise of not editing articles) then do it. But you clearly don't want to do that either...just complain about favortism. If you and zen's position were swapped, I'd do the same thing. I'm not playing favorites. Cburnett 03:07, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
I comment on Talk: pages on my own schedule, not on yours. This issue is immediate, and involves apparent abuse of admin powers on your part; it's far more important than the other dispute, which has lasted 2 1/2 months now, and is merely about a dispute header. Jayjg (talk) 03:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
My abuse, eh? Interesting. Cburnett 03:29, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
And quite obvious, at this point. Jayjg (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Another point for your information, Cburnett: you wrote above that Zen-master needed to have access to this page to discuss his block. But blocks are normally discussed with the blocking admin by e-mail. Zen-master e-mailed me saying the fourth revert wasn't a revert. I responded that if he would explain to me why not, I would take a fresh look at it, but he didn't reply. He could also have asked me to discuss it with him on his talk page, but he didn't.
If Zen-master breaks his promise to you, and makes any edits to pages other than this one or his talk page during the blocking period, I will reinstate it. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:10, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Slim, by what method did you respond to my email? I have not yetreceived anything and your post on my talk page said you'd get back to me quickly... zen master T 03:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I've just re-sent it. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:23, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Zen has told me that he never received a reply. You didn't reply on his talk page (despite outright claiming in this discussion that you've been online). So this is obviously not a normal case since there's a major breakdown in communication and how things are "normally" done.
Re: re-blocking. I've stated it myself that I'd block him, so by all means block him if I don't get to it first. I have zero problems with this. Cburnett 03:16, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
There has been no breakdown of communication on my part. I blocked him and invited him to e-mail me. He did. I replied. He didn't. You then blocked Jay and unblocked zen-master without discussing any of it in advance with me.
I have resent my e-mail to zen-master. Perhaps if he responds to it, we can make some progress. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:23, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

And still, no discussion at Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories. I'm starting to doubt if any of you actually cares to address the dispute because all evidence points that you care more about who gets blocked instead of adressing the root reason of why they were blocked: AIDS conspiracy theories. Cburnett 03:16, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Your apparent abuse of admin powers is far more pressing than a 2 1/2 month old dispute about a page header. Your consistent attempts to distract by projecting bad-faith onto others for not dealing with the less important issue are noted, and rejected for the transparent ploys that they are. Jayjg (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, SlimVirgin, you need to reread WP:3RR#I've been blocked under 3RR! What do I do? since users can email (contact) other admins. When zen-master received no reply he saught me out on IRC so, in essence, it's your own fault for not getting back to him (either email or his talk page) that I'm involved. Cburnett 03:23, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see, it's SV's fault for allegedly not responding to someone SV blocked for reverting a page 4 times (or 5, according to your "spirit of the law" rules), but not your fault for blocking someone who did not violate 3RR at all, and then unblocking the other editor, and edit warring on his behalf. Astounding. Jayjg (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
LOL!! In addition to all of the above, the whole thing is now my fault?
I'm available by e-mail. Other editors have no trouble getting through to me. If zen-master received no reply, I wonder why he didn't email me again to check I'd received it? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:28, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
No, you might reread what I said and realize I didn't blame "the whole thing" on you, only that I'm involved. Please read what I write, not put words in my mouth. Cburnett 03:33, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
One thing I've noticed is that I've never seen zen-master get involved in an issue that hasn't resulted in claim and counter-claim flying hysterically back and forth. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:53, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Nice job attacking my character slim, it takes two to edit war, and it takes a gang of highly organized POV pushers to deny the mention of a legitimate neutrality dispute. At this point I will point out the conflict of interest slim has on the "conspiracy theory" issue as she was the person that authored the "pro" argument over on Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory. zen master T 04:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
And that has what to do with me not blaming the "whole thing" on you? Cburnett 03:58, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hold it! All of you, take a fifteen minute wikibreak.

Particularly the admins among you—all of you know better than to make personal attacks, engage in block wars, assume bad faith, violate the three-revert rule, and in general engage in poor behaviour all around.

Zen-master was obviously reverting. The net result of each cited edit was to add a neutrality warning regarding the title. Regardless of the slightly different phrasing each time, his intent was clear. Even if we were to be picky about the letter of the 3RR, I would still count it as disruption—gaming the system isn't to be rewarded.

Jayjg was also reverting. Cleverly restating the template to nullify its meaning is obviously an intended revert. As an admin, he should know not to try to bend the rules that way. The ugly tone he's taking with Cburnett isn't helping; in fact it's probably inflamed things much more than necessary.

Cburnett, next time try to directly contact SlimVirgin yourself. You know that Zen-master had been participating in an edit war (you may not know he's also before the ArbCom), and it would have been courteous to drop SV a note before undoing the block.

SlimVirgin, it probably would have made sense to try to contact Cburnett before undoing Jayjg's block (my apologies if you did do so). Jayjg was engaged in naughty behaviour and shouldn't have been edit warring.

Okay, that's my Monday morning armchair quarterbacking. Flame away. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it the issue before the arbcom is the race and intelligence dispute? zen master T 04:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
TenOfAllTrades, my initial tone with Cburnett was quite friendly: ending my comments with "no hard feelings, keep up the good work"[38] and "I appreciate you're trying to do your best. Cheers."[39] It was only after Cburnett unblocked Zen-master, started edit-warring on his behalf, and insisting that I shouldn't comment here but that only Zen-master should, that things got less friendly; nevertheless exposing admin abuse is not "taking an ugly tone". In addition, if I'd brought Zen-master to WP:AN/3RR for his first four edits, nobody would have blocked him for "disrupting" or "gaming the spirit of the rule". That includes you, and Cburnett. I know this, because I've brought far more obvious cases of 3RR reversions here and been ignored, because the reverts weren't exact enough reverts; here's an example from less than a week ago:[40]. I know how 3RR is interpreted here, and it's a far cry from what you suggest. There was no 3RR violation on my part, no matter how you slice it; not as the policy is currently written and interpreted. Jayjg (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
How can I possibly have been "gaming the spirit" of the 3RR rule if I had no plans to revert the article tonight if you and others hadn't started removing dispute headers? It takes at least two (including groups of people) to edit war, and the impetus in this case was the illegitimate removal of neutrality dispute headers. zen master T 05:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Are you really serious? "I had no plans to revert, except that people disagreed with my version of the page". Sheesh. Jayjg (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Wow, jayjg, the half-truthes and specious arguments are rampant in your reply.
  • Being friendly is more than tacking on friendly-looking words
  • I didn't edit on anyone's behalf
  • I never said that you shouldn't comment here
  • In my discretion, you both violated the 3RR: I've stated this before any of the bickering here even started
  • You say nobody would have blocked zen-master....yet he was blocked by slimvirgin
Cburnett 14:39, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Friendly is friendly, you edit-warred for Zen-master's POV, you kept insisting that the fact that I was commenting here was a sign of something nefarious on my part, and I said Zen-master would never have been blocked after his first four edits. And he wasn't. Jayjg (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
It may or may not be legitiamte but since it is not covered under Wikipedia:Vandalism it is not a legit exception to the 3RR. Using different dissputed tags is a fairly standard way of gameing the 3RR however it can also be a legit attempt to compramise (eg "ok I conside that there are not factual errors in the article but I still don't think it is NPOV"). In the case of zen master I feel that TitleDisputed and NPOV-title are close enogh to warrent a block. Jayjg has 3 reverts followed by a clasic edit waring technique (in a more typical POV disspute it involves creating an ultra POV version of the page that your oponent is pretty much forced to revert then you simply produce your closer to NPOV version 3 times). I think that counts as gameing the rule. As to the currently ongoing disspute can people please learn to comment stuff out?Geni 14:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean "comment stuff out"? Which stuff and where? Cburnett 14:39, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
the stuff about there being a consensus (something which appears to be questionable but no matter). Our readers don't need to know this as such it should be commented out. If you look at Bahá'u'lláh#Photograph and try and edit it you will find an example of commented out text.Geni 15:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I have a new question, it's wikipedia policy that dispute headers are added to articles if there is an in good faith neutrality dispute. Does this policy supersede "revert" considerations? Has there been any evidence presented by the pro remove dispute header folks that there is not a good faith neutrality dispute in this case (rhetoric doesn't count)? It should also be noted that the {TitleDisputed} template was in the article for 2 months with numerous users agreeing there is a neutrality dispute:

  • May 31: Dante Alighieri re-added {TitleDisputed} [41]
  • June 1: ugen64 re-added {TitleDisputed} [42]
  • July 11 Revolucion renamed the title to Alternative origin theories [43]

Willmcw and Jayjg briefly argued that dispute headers are ugly and shouldn't be left in an article indefinitely (apparently they give no consideration for the possibility that the neutrality dispute continues) so I switched to simple text similiar to a disambig notice that describes the exact nature of the dispute, it can even be reworded to something like "Notice: a minority of editors allege the phrase 'conspiracy theory' biases the presentation of this subject, see the talk page for details". What do people think? zen master T 15:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

that policy does not superceed the 3 revert rule.Geni 15:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Is it at the same level as 3RR policy wise? If it's ok to add dispute headers when there is an in good faith neutrality dispute then someone removing them immediately after their being added or re-added would itself constitute a policy violation, correct? zen master T 16:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Insisting on "NPOV title" headers on a page for months, when you have lost (by a large margin) a vote one whether or not the title is NPOV, is not "good faith". Jayjg (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
By what policy are neutrality dispute headers added and removed from articles? If there is no clear policy for their removal then all we have to work from is the clear policy for their addition. There are three editors listed right above that agree with my complaint, and many more on the talk page historically. The Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory policy proposal was only to remove "conspiracy theory" titles (which received greater than 25% support, so there was no consensus either way by some metrics). But more importantly no where in the Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory counter proposal was it noted that was an opposite policy proposal for "conspiracy theory" to be considered perfect in every title situation going forward. A negative vote against one policy proposal does not automatically create an opposite policy, especially when not explicitly noted. After the vote we simply returned to the status quo before the policy was proposed, i.e. neutrality considerations are still used to determine titles and content on a case by case basis. Going forward, perhaps we should jointly write up a new policy proposal (and request voting) on whether or not "majority" equals "consensus" when it comes to neutrality disputes? And separately exactly what concerns do you see with merely signifying, using NPOV language, the existence of a minority view as far as presenting a controversial issue goes? For example the following simple text at the top: "Notice: a minority of editors allege the phrase 'conspiracy theory" biases the presentation of this subject, see the talk page for details"? zen master T 17:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should not be self-referential, and in particular should not list up front the views of a minority group of editors at a particular point in time, referencing an ever-changing Talk: page. That is completely non-encyclopedic. Jayjg (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Your statement seems to contradict the use of {NPOV} and other dispute headers generally, wikipedia is a freely accessible community encyclopedia, not just an encyclopedia. In your view what is the point of {NPOV} and other headers? it seems to me they were designed to signify the minority disputes some aspect of an article, do you agree? Currently {NPOV} headers point to an ever changing talk page everywhere they are used so I don't understand your point there, the key metric in my mind is the in good faith status of the dispute. If the point with the generic headers is to signify some sort of dispute then why not instead mention, using NPOV language, the specific details of the dispute rather than use an "ugly" header as you've noted previously? zen master T 18:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Dispute headers are intended to be temporary, not permanent article features. You are proposing a permanent header to the article. Jayjg (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
But by what policy are dispute headers removed even assuming there is a time based limitation? There is in fact no exact policy or process on removal, but there is a clear policy that headers are added if there is an in good faith dispute by the minority, and there is clearly one in this case. That is the core point of having {NPOV} headers -- you do realize they are rarely ever removed (without controversy) from an article if the article remains largely the same or continues to present the issue the same way over the course of two months or however long? Time doesn't magically make in good faith allegations of neutrality violations go away, you have to actually prove the header was added or even re-added in bad faith, that is the current policy. I am not proposing a permanent header be added, I am proposing a specific minority allegation header be added to note the exact details of the dispute to encourage discussion on the talk page to reach true 100% consensus. Do I interpret correctly you are not interested in going ahead with a community proposal to officially determine whether majority equals consensus in header dispute cases despite the numerous times you've errantly claimed such a policy already exists? FYI: the majority also doesn't get to decide time based limitations on in good faith header dispute cases either. Length of time of header placement is irrelevant if an in good faith dispute still exists. zen master T 19:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

If participants have finished dealing with the past (supposed) 3RR violations then further discussion of the "disputed title" should probably be moved to the article's talk page. -Willmcw 19:27, July 26, 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: Banno, 20:58, July 25, 2005 (UTC)]



Three revert rule violation on 7 July 2005 London bombings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Calton | Talk 04:46, July 26, 2005 (UTC)


  • User keeps reinserting POV, conspiracy-theory-style language casting doubt on official reports and POV assertions of authority on "globalist" website.
    • Blocked for 24 hours. Rhobite 04:56, July 26, 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: KissL 10:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


  • Would prefer having the status quo restored and the user warned to having the user blocked. KissL 10:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I warned the user but someone else will have to provide any reverts.Geni 14:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not satisfied with the text of the warning, as it says "you are just about ok" while the above links show evidence of 4 reverts within a roughly 18-hour period. This, together with leaving his version of the article alone, does make it hard for me not to do a fourth revert myself. I also doubt that it achieves the goal of enforcing the 3RR next time. :(( KissL 14:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • There are diffences between each "revision" some of them are of about equal in size to the text being "reverted". The user does not have any past history that I know of gameing the rule. There is simply no way I can block him under the rule. As such I have no choice other than to admit that yes his just about within the rule this time around. What has happened greatly assists in inforceing the rule in future since it remove the "user wasn't warned" defence. Furthermore if the user continuse to act in there current way it will show that they are gameing the rule. If however they do not then I fail to see an issue. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith. If you want somone to decide what to do about the current version I would suggest contacting User:Mihnea Tudoreanu, User:Gubbubu and/or User:Max rspct all of whom have edited the article in the past and therfore probably have some knowage of the suject area.Geni 15:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • As stated together with the initial report, I did not and do not want the user blocked (this is because I am assuming good faith). However, according to Wikipedia:Revert, "A revert is a change or an edit made to a page that has the effect of undoing an earlier change or edit on the same page." This somewhat ambiguous definition is further clarified by the fact that "reverting to an earlier version" is referred to as "a kind of revert" only. So the user, by reverting four times within 18 hours to "The Hungarian offensive in Transylvania was repulsed by the Romanian army" in place of the previous "At the same time, the Romanians attacked from the South-East", did clearly violate the rule, and the warning should therefore have read something like "You have violated the rule, this time you are only warned, but next time you may get blocked" instead of "you are just about ok". (Mihnea Tudoreanu has, however, restored the correct version in the meantime, making all this a lot less important.) KissL 11:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

the problem with the aproach you are takeing is that it pretty much modifies the 3RR to "do not edit and contiversal article more than 3 times in a 24 hour peroid" (don't belive me look at the early history of this page). If Criztu had a history of gameing the rule I would probably have viewed the above as a blockable offence. However they do not. I can't tell someone that they have broken the rules when I don't think think they have.Geni 11:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: Christopher Parham (talk) 22:02, 2005 July 26 (UTC)


  • User describes reversions as "rv vandalism", but this is not the case.
  • There are at least 4 direct reverts there and user appears to have been warned.User has been blocked for 24 hours.22:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: JamesMLane 17:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments: While I was preparing this, Rhobite blocked the user, so this notice is just in case anyone questions Rhobite's action. JamesMLane 17:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


  • I have also reverted more than three times in twenty-four hours, because I am (as discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and various Talk pages) reverting what counts simply as vandalism. This is just one sample of a great number of insistent reverts by OmegaWikipedia, involving my corrections of Wikilinks, bringing articles into MoS style (removing excess capitals from headers, etc.), and so on. He has also insisted on reverting a page move by cutting and pasting (despite my warnings and explanations), and has made a number of other related reverts of page moves involving the naming conventions (see, for example, List of number-one hits (United States) and Single certification). He has no interest in the MoS, and treats the pop-music articles as a fan-section of Wikipedia, to be treated differently from other articles, under the control of a number of fan-editors, including himself.--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 24 hours. Gamaliel 22:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on Joseph Stalin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 172 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Ultramarine 01:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments: The first edit has nothing to with the other three. If he takes out a sentence from the beginning in the same fashion as the other again he would be violating policy, in my opinion. --TJive 01:22, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Also, you didn't cite a "previous version"; in other words, what he is reverting to. --TJive 01:23, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Frankly, I'd almost say that 172 was reverting vandalism. That addition was childish. Mackensen (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
These are 4 true reverts and therefore, I have blocked for 24 hours. Carbonite | Talk 01:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not vandalism, but I fail to see this as a 3RR violation. --TJive 01:45, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Well, these are the four reverts listed above:
These links actually show the version that was reverted to. The text that 172 reverted wasn't that great, but it also wasn't simple vandalism. Carbonite | Talk 01:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The third edit listed is 172 "reverting" himself...I don't even see any text difference in the diff...this looks like a bad block. Check the third edit[57]. Ruy Lopez 02:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually that's just because he linked to the wrong "diff" page. It should be this. --TJive 02:45, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Correct. The links originally posted by Ultramarine (and appended with times by me) show the version that was reverted to. This is different from the diffs that are usually posted on this page, which show the previous version (the one that was reverted). 172's third revert was to a previous version by himself. [58]. Carbonite | Talk 03:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
We're supposed to supply diffs showing four reverts, and also a link to the version reverted i.e. five links in all. All we have above are four links, and they're not diffs. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:03, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Right, that's what I was saying. --TJive 03:05, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the original diffs are somewhat confusing, although they do serve the purpose of showing the version that was reverted to. In this case, there is no one version that was reverted to each time. However, the 3RR is based on reverts per article, not per topic within the article. The included diffs clearly show that 172 made 4 reverts within four hours, which seems like a clear case for a block to me. Carbonite | Talk 03:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've checked the history, and I don't see a violation here. There are edits at 20:47 and 21:31 on July 27, then 00:08, 00:16, and 00:30 on July 28. But they're concerned with separate sections. There's some repetition but not much, and I don't see what the previous version is that has been reverted to. Carbonite, in case I'm missing something here, could you show us the four diffs (not the links above, but the actual diffs) and the link to the previous version, please? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:14, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
But they have to be reverts, so each one must be a revert to a previous version, and there have to be four of those. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:15, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
OK, I just added standard diffs to the ones that show the version that was reverted to. [59] Also note that the 3RR is per article, not per section. Carbonite | Talk 03:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that, Carbonite. I know it's a pain to have to search for those things. Regarding the fourth edit/revert, 172 deleted a sentence, which so far as I can see had just been added (I could be wrong about that). By definition, a deletion will almost always be a revert to a previous version (a version that didn't have the additional sentence).
Apart from that, my worry is that, if this is a violation, it's very borderline, with different sections being edited, and the fourth revert perhaps only an edit. Is it borderline enough that you'd reconsider? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:42, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
If you (or any other admin) want to unblock, and believe this isn't a true 3RR violation, I won't be offended at all. I'm only defending my block. I always do research before blocking and I get somewhat defensive when someone makes the accusation of bad block. In addition, 172's rather confrontational e-mails to me have not helped his case one bit. I'm not going to unblock, but I also won't re-block. I'm done with this for now. Carbonite | Talk 03:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Carb, that's generous of you. I don't want to unblock without your cooperation, though, because I can see why you blocked, even though I wouldn't have done it myself. I wonder if we could find another admin who could weigh in with a view. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:56, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, but....this isn't a spurious case; the page should be watched (though not protected) because it's already been through several wars. This isn't really a violation, however. --TJive 03:58, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
TJIve, it's the fourth edit/revert that's the issue, because it was the deletion of a sentence, which I would call an edit, even though it reverted to a previous version (but all deletions do, except in rare circumstances). Do you happen to know whether this sentence had been deleted before? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:20, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
There's an ambiguity here that I have not seen firmly resolved in any 3RR case that I have witnessed. The policy page doesn't seem to help. It seems to me the intent, and usual practice, of 3RR violation enforcement centers around the fact of a particular text being reverted in four edits, hence there being a "previous version reverted to". However, in this case 172 is deleting two separate instances; one deals with agriculture and famine, and the other three deal with the characterization of general repression and deaths under Stalin. If I was looking at this myself, I would say that the first edit has nothing to do with the other three and that there is a separate revert war going on within those for which another revert in the same time period would warrant a block on 172. Otherwise editing multiple instances of ostensibly bad contributions at all is being said to constitute reverts to already uncertain, indefinite material. And as of now there is not even a previous version referenced that justifies calling all of those reverts--as for what that is I do not know; the edits there are so labyrinthine as to defy brief resolution of the question. --TJive 04:45, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

We're running out of page. :-) I agree. I don't block when the reverting is to different versions, because I think it becomes hard to tell reverting from editing, but the 3RR page does allow those blocks, so Carbonite has not acted inapproriately. My argument is that, if it's labyrinthine for us to work it out, it might also have confused the editor who's blocked and we should assume good faith. On the other hand, the opposite argument is that even one revert is bad, and the 3RR rule doesn't mean we're entitled to three reverts, so as soon as we have to start counting our reverts, it means the spirt of the rule is broken. There are good points on both sides here, I'd say. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:04, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Having reviewed the diffs I'd have to agree with what's been said above. If we can't tell (or agree) whether or not the 3RR has been violated then 172 probably couldn't either, and it seems to me that a block ought to be reserved for obvious and egregious edit-warring. Besides, it doesn't help the article to block on a technicality. Unblocked per above. Mackensen (talk) 10:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad this is over, but I feel it's necessary to explain my reasoning a bit more. The fact is that the 3RR was violated, both in letter and in spirit. The 3RR states Don't revert any single page more than three times within a period of 24 hours.. This is pretty simple and clear to me. It doesn't say "don't revert the same text" or "don't revert the same section". In this case, there were four true reverts (not complex or partials). It can be argued that this was "borderline" violation in the same way that travelling a few miles over the speed limit might be a borderline infraction. However, there were a few factors that led me to block (and not to unblock):

  • 172 has a history of violating the 3RR [60]. This wasn't a case of a newbie not being aware of the rule.
  • The reverts occurred in less than a four hour period. I'm reluctant to block if the reverts are spread over 20 hours or so, but three of these were within 22 minutes of each other.
  • There were additional reverts mere minutes outside of the 24 hour period, at 00:16, 27 July 2005[61] 00:09, 27 July 2005 [62], and 23:36, 26 July 2005 [63]. This shows a pattern of reverts and possible gaming of the system.
  • 172's emails to me were confrontational ("What is your problem with me?"), rude ("Then block Agiantman and Ultramarine, or be a hypocrite") and somewhat threatening ("Otherwise, I will inform other administrators of your hypocritical application of policy.") At no point did 172 give any assurance that he would cease reverting the Stalin article if I unblocked him. Given that he had reverted the article 6 or 7 times in the previous 25 hour period, such assurances would have been very helpful.

If we're going to have rules, they need to be enforced. I have no problem with Mackensen's unblocking and have no ill will toward 172. I believe I was justified in my block and I wanted to make my reasoning as transparent as possible. Carbonite | Talk 12:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the record, and it does seem to me that 172 and Agiantman were doing pretty much the same thing. (I will be filing a formal statement in this page as well.) 172 was in fact blocked for 8 hours, and has not yet begun to edit again, which suggests that he may not know. Does the guideline of evenhandedness apply here? Septentrionalis 19:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The way Carbonite is going about applying his 'if we are going to have rules, they need to be enforced' attitude is harmful to the project. The job of administrators is to protect serious editors who from disruptive editors. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a community where 'equal justice before the law' applies to both legitimate editors and illegitimate editors. Administrators have the discretion to-- and should be expected to--apply 'the rules' unevenly in the interests of the encyclopedia.

We need administrators who can see the big picture, being able to differentiate who is here working in good faith to help Wikipedia's development, and who is here on a soapbox. We need administrators who see themselves as encyclopedists, not lawyers or police officers.

Perhaps I was borderline on the 3RR according to Carbonite's interpretation of the rule; perhaps I should have been more careful. But if the administrators were serving their intended function all along, they would have blocked Agiantman (talk · contribs) for disruption (see my comments below) long before I was even in the position of having to revert his inappropriate edits, and long before we were on verge of being stuck here debating which one of my edits constituted a revert according to which legal interpretation of a particular statement. 172 | Talk 21:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: Copperchair 02:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments He uses this artile as if it were his. He doesn't let other people add stuff if he does not agree with them, rarely adding an explanation. Copperchair 02:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually I often use talk pages for explanation and discussion of edits, it is you who refuses to do so. In addition, you should have provided links to the diffs so that we could have some sort of idea what you were talking about. I do not believe that those are all reversions, although I have no way of easily telling. For that matter, neither does any admin. — Phil Welch 02:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I managed to find the diffs. For the record they are provided below: