Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:25, 22 June 2005

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

Click here to create a new report

Violations

User:BrandonYusufToropov

At Terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as BrandonYusufToropov (talk · contribs) and as 24.34.164.83 (talk · contribs)

I've blocked Brandon for 12 hours as this was his first block, but I didn't warn him first because he seemed to be gaming the system, inserting in the edit summary "3rd revert of the day" when in fact it was his fourth. Concentrating on one part of the text he was reverting to for the sake of clarity — that Eric Robert Rudolph was a "radical Christian extremist" rather than "Christian Identity follower" — the diffs are:

• Version reverted to 14:24, Jun 10, 2005
• 1st revert 01:22, Jun 11, 2005
• 2nd revert 01:39, Jun 11, 2005
• 3rd revert 12:54, Jun 11, 2005
• 4th revert 19:20, Jun 11, 2005

SlimVirgin 19:54, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Brandon and I exchanged e-mails about this, and it seems he did make a genuine mistake, not realizing that the first partial revert would count. He's also indicated that he'll think more carefully before reverting in future, so I'm unblocking him as a gesture of good faith. SlimVirgin 21:01, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

User:204.56.7.1

Three revert rule violation on Albert Einstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 204.56.7.1 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 09:33, 13 June 2005
• 2nd revert: 09:42, 13 June 2005
• 3rd revert: 09:46, 13 June 2005
• 4th revert: 09:50, 13 June 2005

Reported by: Fastfission 16:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• User has been hard-set on changing the main photo and adding an infobox. Then user adds little bits of information. So when people try to revert the large changes to the photo and the infobox, some information is at first "removed" though clearly not on purpose. User then uses this as an excuse to revert. Trying to game the system, in my assessment, has ignored many pleas to discuss these changes on the talk page before making them or reverting. --Fastfission 16:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oops, I reported her too. Anyway, I certify the above... William M. Connolley 17:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC).
• User has been reverting additional times since these were reporting -- must be up to half a dozen by now. Could somebody please block this user? They are being highly disruptive. --Fastfission 19:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• (William M. Connolley 22:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)) Plea renewed. The reverts appear quite straightforward - why is this tricky?

User:Commodore Sloat

Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs) is acting as an attack dog for BrandonYusufToropov (talk · contribs); continually reinserting personal attacks into Talk:Jihad (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in violation of Misplaced Pages policy on Remove Personal Attacks.

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8

Reported by: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.57.130.8 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• I have initiated a mediation intervention here. Let's see if that leads anywhere. Just fyi. Inter\ 19:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • User:Yuber is now serially reverting the talk page; User:Weyes seems to be assisting. Yuber is up to four reversions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.175.189.222 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:AmYisrael

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

• 1st revert: 23:29, 13 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 23:37, 13 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 23:46, 13 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 01:31, 14 Jun 2005
• 5th revert: 01:33, 14 Jun 2005

Reported by: Impi 00:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• User continues to insert POV material, despite the Talk page consensus clearly being against the addition. Also reverts and posts using the sockpuppet 69.217.125.53 Impi 00:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Warned. --W(t) 00:20, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
    • User continues to revert: 1 and 2. Impi 14:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • And again: 1 Impi 14:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Protected the page - now they'll have to "play nice". Noel (talk) 15:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the pattern of edits, it's clear that this is just a case of one editor imposing his will against consensus by quite prodigious numbers of reverts. I've given him a very serious final warning (I don't normally enforce "mere" 3RR's but this goes way beyond that in scale) and I'm asking Noel to consider lifting protection because it's in the interests of Misplaced Pages to keep our articles editable. This page has been protected for over a week in the recent past and it didn't make a ha'pporth of difference. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I opted for protection because i) it can give a longer period of peace and quiet than the mere 24 hrs of a 3RR block, ii) they are willing to use anon sock-puppets, so it's not clear that a block on the account will stop this. Also, now that I think about it, I'm not sure I completely share you concern about keeping article editable. In the early days, when content was thin, this was a concern. I think the balance may be shifting now, though, as our content gets more mature. Noel (talk) 15:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Food for thought there on content maturity. Meanwhile following your message on my talk page I've lifted protection. I've handled a few chaps like this before. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Editor returned and reverted using IP 69.217.125.53. Blocked IP and username for 6 hours for extremely disruptive edits. This goes somewhat beyond normal 3RR in scale. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Germen (I)

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

• 1st revert: 17:33, 14 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 17:45, 14 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 18:13, 14 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 21:26, 14 Jun 2005

Reported by: Axon 11:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is there any reason the above incident has been ignored? Axon 23:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At the time this was reported, this person was a new user who'd never been warned abou the 3RR. I have now warned them, so let's see what happens. Noel (talk) 20:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Yuber (I)

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

• Original edit made here by Noitall.
• Yuber 1st Reversion, but Yuber deceptively labels it as a “minor” edit
• Yuber 2nd Reversion, admits it is the same passage, but tries to claim that it is not a “reversion”
• Yuber 3rd Reversion of same passage
• Yuber 4th Reversion of same passage

Reported by: --Noitall 23:54, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Noitall, to report a 3RR violation, you need to supply the diffs and times showing each change. If you want to write it up again, I'll take a look at it. SlimVirgin 05:41, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Also, if it's a partial revert, quote the sentence/passage he keeps reverting to, or if there's more than one, just pick one of them. It makes it a lot easier for admins to trace the reversions if you do that. SlimVirgin 05:43, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

YUBER NOW IN AN EDIT WAR REGARDING CHRISTIAN VIEW OF ABRAHAM NO LESS

Even more, I tried to discuss his actions with him, see User talk:Yuber (even attempting to compliment him) and Talk:Abraham, and he still violates and reverts. He has never discussed a single item on the talk page despite multiple requests.

--Noitall 23:54, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

he's technicaly just staying within the rules.Geni 00:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I checked the diffs and there was a partial revert four times within three hours, so I've blocked him for 24 hours. First revert was to an 05:44 Jun 11 version of Anonymous Editor's. The sentence restored four times was: "All three religions regard him as the ancestor of the Jews, through Isaac, and the Arabs, through Ishmael."

• The version Yuber reverted to was a 05:44 June 11 version changed by User:Noitall at 13:21 Jun 15
• 1st revert of Noitall's edit 20:22 Jun 17
• 2nd revert 20:35 Jun 17
• 3rd revert 20:48 Jun 17
• 4th revert 23:30 Jun 17 SlimVirgin 11:00, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Note It should be noted for anyone interested that this discussion may also be relevant to an ongoing Arbitration that involves Yuber Jtkiefer 05:13, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Note This user is misusing multiple user accounts or collaborates with other Muslims like Mustafaa and BrandonYusufToporov to press their POV by reverting constantly. --Germen 14:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Germen (II)

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

• 1st revert: 14:26, 19 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 14:41, 19 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 15:10, 19 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 16:09, 19 Jun 2005
• 5th revert: 16:46, 19 Jun 2005

Reported by: Axon 16:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• This is the second breach of the 3RR by this editor, the first after their last warning #User:Germen.Axon 16:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yuber, Mustafaa (probably the same user) and Axon escape this rule by using multiple user accounts for reverting. Action against this foul play is advised. --Germen 14:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's a clear violation, and Germen was warned the last time, so I've blocked for 24 hours. SlimVirgin 14:19, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

And for the record, s/he continued reverting even after being reported. SlimVirgin 14:29, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

User:Spinboy

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

• 1st revert: 21:17 20 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 01:12 20 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 02:22 20 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 03:40 20 Jun 2005

Reported by: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.81.185 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Several attempts to neutrally report serious internal debates within this party, from credible sources summarized at Talk:Green Party of Canada, were reverted by Spinboy under several different transparent excuses. His fourth revert was marked a minor edit in bad faith, after a clear warning not to revert any further edits without discussing them and justifying his claims that they are somehow "inflammatory" or "POV" (words typically used by promoters of political parties as excuses to censor the truth about them). What's more, he self-righteously accuses those who wrote several different versions, in an attempt to satisfy his objections, of violating the three-revert rule, when none of the edits made by them were reverts. By contrast, all Spinboy's edits were actual reverts, and he's violated the rule deliberately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.81.185 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Kelly Martin 04:31, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Spinboy was unblocked 45 minutes later by Earl Andrew. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well that was that shif from Green politics to green movement in one of the reverts but still.Geni 16:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I was asked why I unblocked Mr. Spinboy. Well, I thought the policy was, if you find an administrator to unblock you, then by all means do it. Plus, Im not a big fan of the 3 revert rule, and believe that instead of blocking people, we have them go to arbritration to settle their disputes. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

that isn't wikipedia policy it is mearly wikipedia practice. As for the rest the comunity appears to want a 3 revert rule a juding by the size of this page it appears to want it inforced. Your personal feeling on the matter arre not really relivant.Geni 16:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. The optics of the situation just aren't very good when you block one party to a revert war and unblock the other. Hopefully Spinboy won't be back here again, but in future it might be best to ask for a second opinion from another admin to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Earl Andrew, you shouldn't unblock someone who's been blocked for 3RR unless there are some extenuating circumstances, such as they weren't warned or something similar. You can't simply unblock because you disagree with the policy. SlimVirgin 17:04, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Let me clarify, I unblocked him because I was asked. The rest of the stuff about my opposition to the way the 3RR is administered is just my personal feelings of the matter. I'm sorry if they aren't relavent, I just didn't want to write a one line :-D . I hope there was no conflict of interest, I don't think I've made any edits to the page in question, although dont quote me on that. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's especially unwise to unblock someone with who you appear to be pals - that raises instant charges of favouratism on the part of admins, something that is a constant (and troublesome) refrain. Noel (talk) 17:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks like some institutional memory is called for here. IP addresses starting with 142.177... are frequently used by the hard-banned user EntmootsOfTrolls, who is known for his interest in Canadian Green politics, among other things (I'm familiar with this user, and the edit summaries are very much in character). According to Jimbo Wales, edits by this user are supposed to be reverted on sight. This report should have been disregarded in the first place, although Spinboy would be well advised to request help if he doesn't know whether the three-revert rule applies. --Michael Snow 20:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked Spinboy for 23 hours and 15 minutes (since he was blocked for 45 minutes prior to the block being lifted prematurely).

"Well, I thought the policy was, if you find an administrator to unblock you, then by all means do it."

No Earl Andrew, that's not the policy. 3RR blocks should be a no brainer and shouldn't be unblocked unless they were made in error (because one of the four reverts was misreported) or, perhaps, because the violator is a newbie who didn't know the rules. Reverting a block for no reason just because you're asked to is unprofessional. AndyL 21:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unblocked. I'm puzzled as to why Spinboy was reblocked, given that this was posted immediately below my explanation of why a block is not called for in this instance. It's possible to raise the issue of the questionable basis for unblocking without punishing Spinboy for Earl Andrew's decision. --Michael Snow 22:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3RR block are pulled all the time for reasons other than admin error. The form reason is "User X contacted me and they are very sorry and have apologised and undertaken to be careful not to do it again."Geni 02:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't actually seen your post. I think perhaps my cache needed to be cleared or something. AndyL 22:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense, looks like we're clear on this then. --Michael Snow 22:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:RickK

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

• All clearly in the history

Reported by: SPUI (talk) 05:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked for 24 hours. silsor 05:53, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • This isn't a dispute about differing opinions about content, it's a dispute about the copyright status of the material. If people are violating policy by inserting copyright material, I don't see why we can't treat a 3RR "violation" the same as if you had to break the 3RR to revert vandalism. I'm not sure this article should even exists as there is an open VfU on it. I'm going to unblock until we sort this all out. Gamaliel 06:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Like it says under my user page, I won't perform the same admin action (like blocking) twice - but I don't think there's any sorting out to do. RickK flaunted the rules and received the same consequence he would have given anybody else in the same situation. silsor 06:15, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• For the record, I would like to offer my opinion. If Rick genuinely believes that content is a copyright violation, then, in my opinion, he had every right to continue reverting it as if it was vandalism. Rick went out of bounds by blocking SPUI. Rick is right: SPUI was only reverting him to antagonise him. But antagonisation isn't a blockable offence. Still, though, Silsor really jumped the gun here. I haven't known Silsor to be overly impulsive and aggresive, but he has been here. He chose not to so much as give Rick, a long-time editor in good standing, so much as a warning before blocking him for the maximum time allowed. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 06:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Blankfaze, I agree. Yet another instance of the poison of the 3RR - it is carted out way too easily and often, without demanding any type of discussion. Page protection is usually a better alternative, and one that should always be tried first before the abrubtness of a user block. Fuzheado | Talk 06:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• If a suspected copyright violation is counted as simple vandalism (which I think it could be, though that page doesn't say so) then the three-revert rule doesn't apply since it (wrongly in my opinion) states that the rule "does not apply to self-reverts or correction of simple vandalism". Rick had reasons to disbelive Coolcat's story about it not being a copyvio, so its understandable he was treating it as a continued violation of policy. That's not to say he's not wrong for protecting the page or blocking SPUI, but I don't think this is a clear-cut case of 3RR. Angela. 06:45, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • The underlying problem is whether the initial deletion was correct. There was discussion (I don't know if you could call it productive discussion) at WP:VFU. What I can't yet figure out is why the page was deleted in the first place, at WP:CP without (it would appear) first addressing Coolcat's assertion of original authorship of the copyright source. Removing copyvio material is not a violation of the 3RR, but was it really established to be copyvio? I can't tell for sure. Guettarda 06:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not like coolcat is a new user without a history. Coolcat's position was also being supported by an established user, SPUI. RickK demonstrated his unwillingness to come to agreement by blocking SPUI twice and by protecting an article he was involved in a dispute in... Normally I'd agree that we should be cautious about 3rring someone who is trying to remove something they claim is copyvio, but our obligation to assume good faith ends when its is clear that they are unwilling to communicate or comprimise. There are few to no issues that can't wait long enough for a little discussion. Gmaxwell 06:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Come now, let's just say that Coolcat and SPUI don't have the best reputations... BLANKFAZE | (что??) 20:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Ad hominem comments serve only to poison the well, do not excuse RickK, and are not helpful. -- Netoholic @ 20:23, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
          • Blankfaze's statement was not an argumentum ad hominem. Ad hominem refers to someone's argument not someone's behaviour. Discussing someone's previous bad character is entirely reasonable when discussing their current behaviour. smoddy 20:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • Coolcat has made the claim that he wrote the text (which is completely realistic considering his involvement with Turky), but rather than respond to that argument Blankfaze attacks coolcat's (and spui's) character. I'm not sure what other than argumentum ad hominem to call it. I suppose it's better than what Rickk did, as it seems he just pretended the claim was never made and reverted away. Gmaxwell 03:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I would say a block RickK for either his 3RR violation and misuse of rollback, his block war over SPUI, or his use of page protection on an article he was edit warring over. -- Netoholic @ 20:23, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
  • Only the 3RR is blockable. Unless you want the admins to do the exact same thing as RickK is accused of? Hmm, that would give a nice cull of admins... smoddy 20:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • An RfC should be created for this incident. What evidence was presented that this article contained copyvio material? Hall Monitor 20:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

      • Now open Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/RickK 3. -- Netoholic @ 21:49, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

      • It's on the article's Talk page. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• There is no need for double standards for administrators. Misplaced Pages can live without RickK for a single day. There were three other editors that RickK was reverting, not just one. Since there was clear doubt about whether there was a copyright violation, (the 3 others reverting him) he should not have violated 3RR. He should have waited, or enlisted the assistance of others, perhaps by personal contact, or alternately, by starting an RfC regarding the article. Instead, he reverted a fourth time to his own preferred version, and then protected the page, enforcing his view regarding the copyright status without consensus. This indicates a dire need for a "cooling off period" provided by a 24 hour block. I understand the concern about copyright, but the fact he was reverting three others, not just one, is indication that this wasn't simple vandalism. RickK should receive the same treatment that anyone else who is fully aware of 3RR would receive. --Unfocused 21:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • You're talking about this as if it were a dispute over POV content. It's not. He was attempting to implement policy on copyright violations. Treating it as if it were a content dispute is, well, words fail me. I'm not surprised he bailed. Who needs that sort of pseudo-bureacratic wilful obstructionism? Noel (talk) 07:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is shameful - RickK was clearly acting in good faith. That it wasn't cut and dry is clear. That discussion would have helped is clear. But erring on the side of not having the Wikimedia foundation embroiled in a lawsuit it probably can't afford is NOT something to block over - particularly when the contributor is a longstanding and respected member of the community. SPUI should be ashamed that he could think of no other method of resolving this dispute beyond requesting a block. And as for Silsor, I hope he's intending to do a lot more RC patrol than he has been, because we're going to need the help without RickK. Snowspinner 21:19, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I am not responsible for RickK leaving. That was his choice. silsor 21:27, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

You're responsible for a needless slap in the face to a good editor that drove him away. It may have been his choice to leave, but the fact remains that he left over something you did, and that something was not a good decision. Snowspinner 01:09, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Please cool off a little bit. That accusation is nearly a personal attack. As shown by the active discussion here, it is not clear that Silsor's action was a bad decision. The block for violating 3RR has been nearly automatically applied to those who know the rule; suggesting Silsor did anything wrong is ignoring that well established precedent. It is also on the verge of creating a double standard for admins. No one forced RickK to leave. It is still his choice. For one so frequently harsh, I think he just had a "thin-skinned moment" and hope he'll be back. This whole incident has an RfC opening, why not discuss it there instead? --Unfocused 01:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RickK drove himself away. I received an email from him today that says he swore he would quit Misplaced Pages if he were ever blocked. silsor 01:42, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

You can say (and think) what you like, but the fact remains that RickK left after you blocked him. Noel (talk) 07:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Under no circumstance should an administrator refrain from blocking any user only from fear that the user will leave. If the block was unjustified and wrong it will be because RickK was reverting vandalism. If there was a breach of the 3RR, a block was justified. Silsor should not be blamed for RickK's departure. That choice was fully and entirely RickK's own, and we should respect that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It's not as if RickK is the only administrator on Misplaced Pages available to revert and/or lock the page. He should have solicited third party assistance, because he was edit warring with three other editors, not just one, which in my opinion, makes it clear that there is doubt of the copyright violation status. --Unfocused 21:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Ditto my previous comments. This is not a dispute over POV in content. So the rules for dealing with such things do not apply. Noel (talk) 07:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The argument advanced here, that RickK was acting in good faith because he was trying to protect us from legal liability would only make sense if that was normally how we responded to copyright violations. But it isn't... We play copyright very fast and lose and I've recieved substantial pushback from deleting media with less reason to believe it was copyvio than the material in question. I think we do need to become a bit more agressive, but as it stands we are not at all... What we see here is a fairly typical example of RickK playing it lose with the rules out of anger, distrust, and dislike for our editors. I however do not blame RickK for this, as his actions are useful and we often thank him for them, but rather I blame all of us... for failing to continually monitor his behavior. Quite simply, Rickk should have long been used to being told to cool it and that he isn't is a huge failing on our part. Gmaxwell 03:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I however do not blame RickK for this...but rather I blame all of us... for failing to continually monitor his behavior. What I see is a fairly typical load of holier-than-thou codswallop. RickK did what copyright violation policy called for -- deleting the violating material immediately to minimize Misplaced Pages exposure to copyright infringement. CoolCat has hardly lifted a finger to dispute the violation, except to claim that he wrote the original text without offering a shred of proof. If Gmaxwell wants to dispute RickK's actions, fine, but spare everyone the passive-aggressive drive-by insults, okay? --Calton | Talk 04:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He made the claim, he was ignored by RickK. He reverted the in error removal, he was reverted. He solicited the help of other editors. I do not see what Coolcat failed to do. What proof were you expecting? There is no reason anyone should be insulted by my commentary. Gmaxwell 10:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What proof were you expecting? What Rick "ignored" was content-free handwaving. I was expecting, I dunno, maybe the teeny tiniest evidence that CoolCat actually wrote the text. Writing credit, job title, first use of text with his name attached, somthing, ANYTHING. You know, a speck of a ghost of a shred of evidence for his claim. Maybe for you the "indignant sputtering" standard is sufficient, but I prefer something a little more substantial -- hell, minimal -- especially for copyright violations. I mean, his self-contradicting I know its nothing like www.adiyamanli.org. Even if it were I know its pd statement might have been a tip-off: "Judge, I don't care what all those witnesses said, I didn't kill the guy. Besides, if I did, it was self-defense."

There is no reason anyone should be insulted by my commentary. Except for your sanctimonious tone, question-begging "gosh, we all failed him" assertion disguised as a premise, misstatement of the situation, and ignorance of the underlying issues, no, not a thing. --Calton | Talk 06:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Very well put. Noel (talk) 07:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

eh. Let me known when you actually have a material point to make against my statement rather than a bunch of rightious handwaving... and please stop pushing the weak argument that RickK's edits could possibly have reduced our copyright related liability here: The material was still just as available from Misplaced Pages as it is preserved in the history. Copyright law wouldn't look on it any differently, now a court might but they would cut us the same slack if we left it up while trying to understand coolcat's claim. Gmaxwell 12:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that the hundreds of Misplaced Pages mirrors tend to only make available the most recent version of articles. Even though reverting the page only moves the questionable content to the history, it does prevent it from being reproduced on the hundreds of other sites across the Web who make the good-faith assumption that Misplaced Pages material is all genuinely GFDL.

Whether that materially affects the legal exposure of Misplaced Pages or the mirrors is, I dare say, a secondary concern. It affects Misplaced Pages's reputation if we regularly release material of questionable provenance. It also affects the real owner of the copyright, who at least deserves our consideration even if we don't fear a lawsuit. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let's get this straight. This was a valid block for WP:3RR. If the page needed to be reverted (and this is a matter that is disputed) someone else could have done it or RickK could have waited. There is no exception in 3RR that applies here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In other words, anyone dealing with a copyvio should simply blank the page and protect it right off the bat. Then, if anyone unprotects it, they are acting outside policy. Noel (talk) 08:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think that either. I think a good summary of my opinion is that copyright disputes don't merit edit warring. Protection may play a part in this but should not be done as a matter of course. Normal editing should be enough. Rick shouldn't have edit warred. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:204.56.7.1

Three revert rule violation on Biography of Nikola Tesla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 204.56.7.1 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Reported by: William M. Connolley 17:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Anon persistently and silently removes merge notice. Note reported for 3RR vio on Albert Einstein above (by 2 users), but no action taken then.

the problem is that the first revert involves the removal of some hidden text as well.Geni 17:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

William M. Connolley had violated the 3RR, also. The Albert Einstein one was actioned on (though Connolley was not banned to my knowledge for similar actions). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.56.7.1 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

@Geni: I don't see the problem, all four diffs listed show exactly the same edit. I won't block myself as I'm party. --Pjacobi 18:25, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Note our anons characteristic impolite lack of signature (this isn't because they are a newbie: check their edit list). Geni: can you amplify your comment? I too (like Pj) don't understand it: this appears to be a completely straight 3RR vio with no mitigating circumstances whatsoever. Just like 204's previous 3RR vio on Einstein, which for no obvious reason attracted no admin response whatsoever. William M. Connolley 21:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC).

the first revert involves the removal of the hidden text "This article (which is 36 kilobytes long; 15 Jun 2005) is split from the main article (which is 34 kilobytes long; 15 Jun 2005) because of size considerations of relevant information". The editor does however have a history of breaking the 3RR and the change is not significant (it is only visible to editors) I'm going to block for 24 hours. I hope this doesn't affect to many inocent users.Geni 01:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Also, if you look at 204's contribs, they are all of a piece, ie one person, so I don't see why this should block any others. William M. Connolley 08:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC).

User:FuelWagon

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

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Reported by: Simon Dodd 20:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• User is repeatedly reverting an edit, despite lacking any relevant factual objection to the new text; IMO, this is being done in violation of NPOV, since the proposed text actually removes partisan comments rather than adds thereto. This is, in fact, his FIFTH infraction, but the previous revert falls outside of the 24 hour period required by 3RR. See article talk page for discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Dodd (talk • contribs) 20:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours even though it's a first offense, because he was warned, and also because he was abusive on the talk page. SlimVirgin 21:33, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Marvellous. Not to be pre-emptive, what happens if the user returns after the 24 hour period and reverts again?Simon Dodd 21:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Would you prefer me to ban him forever on the basis of one 3RR violation, something you yourself have just been blocked for? SlimVirgin 21:57, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Simon has e-mailed to clarify that he wasn't being sarcastic with his "Marvellous" comment, so I apologize for the above response. SlimVirgin 22:29, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

User:Simon Dodd

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

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Reported by: FuelWagon 21:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments: Page has been this way for some time. Simon Dodd comes in and wipes out a democratic opposition point of view, claiming his version represents the "facts". Some Democrats specifically opposed the Nuclear Option specifically because it would allow a Republican president to nominate a judge who can get confirmed by 50 Republican senators. Simon Dodd keeps removing the "Republican" in front of "Senators" under cries of "POV" and "facts". I don't argue that the nuclear option would change the confirmation process to require 50 Senators regardless of party affiliation, but the sentence is intended to represent the point of view of those who oppose the Nuclear option specifically because it would allow Republican-Only confirmation of judges. Simon Dodd's version erases that point of view. His version does NOT report this opposition point of view. I keep tryign to explain this on talk page but he keeps taking out this opposition point of view. I keep putting it in and he reports me for 3RR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FuelWagon (talk • contribs) 21:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Although I can't see where Simon was warned, he was warning FuelWagon, and so must have known he was also reverting. Therefore, I'm blocking him too for 24 hours. SlimVirgin 21:47, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

User:70.180.50.167

Three revert rule violation on Marriage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.180.50.167 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Reported by: John Kenneth Fisher 00:36, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Non-encylopediac, POV, and repeatedly reverted when multiple users change it back. Also, 70.180.50.167 ignored attempt to discuss it on Talk page. --John Kenneth Fisher 00:36, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I can't find what you are claiming the anon reverted to in the first listed revert.Geni 01:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, anon is reverting to http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Marriage&oldid=15436348 --John Kenneth Fisher 01:40, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

not identical. I have warned anon.Geni 00:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:214.13.4.151

Three revert rule violation on Abortion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 214.13.4.151 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:

Reported by: Tznkai 06:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• This is not the first time. These links are for the whole series of links, usually without edit summaries. Not sure if I got it exactly right, but a quick count shows atleast 4 reversions.--Tznkai 07:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note. Added 5th revert. This may not be instantly familiar with people who do not follow this article, but these are slow and partial reversions of various kinds.--Tznkai 07:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you would be streaching the defintion of complex revert a little far to claim a 3RR violation.Geni 00:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Technically this anon never reverts, but just changes content to fit their POV, making similar changes repeatedly, definately frustrating for the editors of this article, I would have blocked but the situation is not clear cut.--nixie 00:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• so perhaphs it's time to try the wikipedia disspute resolution processs.Geni 01:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is already a RfC on this users conduct, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/214.13.4.151, maybe users involved should be encouraged to take steps to mediation or arbitration.--nixie 01:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) It appears that mediation has been requested.--nixie 01:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)