Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive9

< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs) at 17:13, 1 November 2005 (→{{User|Fridgemagnet}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:13, 1 November 2005 by Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs) (→{{User|Fridgemagnet}})(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

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

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357
358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367
Incidents (archives, search)
1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164
1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480
481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336
337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Violations

User:72.235.86.15

72.235.86.15 (talk · contribs):

...

Reported by: Appleby 23:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

ten consecutive edits of verifiably false content by anonymous user, no discussion or comment, despite 3rr warning & reverts by 4 separate editors. Appleby 23:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Action Taken

72.235.86.15 violated the three-revert rule on this article and has been blocked from editing for 24 hours as a result. I am evaluating the page's history to see whether Appleby is also in violation of that policy. Rob Church 02:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

That also, is the case; Appleby is therefore also blocked for 24 hours. Rob Church 02:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

User:TDC

TDC (talk · contribs):

Started Revert war: 04:26, 24 October 2005

...

Reported by: Travb 03:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments: User has 12 previous boots, 10 for 3RR and revert violations:

09:59, 15 September 2005 Tony Sidaway blocked "User:TDC" with an expiry time of 48 hours (Must learn to let other people revert if it's necessary at all)
15:09, 12 September 2005 Tony Sidaway blocked "User:TDC" with an expiry time of 48 hours (Egregious disruption. Revert warring on multiple articles, 3RR, personal attacks)
20:02, 24 August 2005 Flcelloguy blocked "User:TDC" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation)
20:02, 24 August 2005 Geni blocked "User:TDC" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3 rever rule WP:3RR)
16:03, 10 July 2005 Rama blocked "User:TDC" with an expiry time of 4 days (provocative and disruptive reverts, abundently warned-)
07:52, 8 July 2005 Rama blocked "User:TDC" with an expiry time of 48 hours (disruption, deliberate provocations, WP:POINT. Duely and repeatedly warned.)
08:48, 18 May 2005 SlimVirgin blocked "User:TDC" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation at Fidel Castro)
18:59, 25 April 2005 Gamaliel blocked "User:TDC" with an expiry time of 48 hours (violation of 3RR on Pablo Nerdua, blocked multiple times for 3RR before)
22:15, 18 April 2005 Geni blocked "User:TDC" with an expiry time of 24 hours ( 3 revert rule violation)
02:47, 3 April 2005 Carbonite blocked "User:TDC" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Violation of 3RR on Anti-globalization)
12:15, 22 March 2005 Tony Sidaway blocked "User:TDC" with an expiry time of 12 hours (Refdoc's block adjusted to within that permitted by WP:3RR)
19:28, 30 January 2005 Neutrality blocked "User:TDC" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation on Iraq Liberation Act; personal attacks in edit summaries)

TDC (talk · contribs) started this current revert war which I am reporting today 4 days after starting another revert war on the same page Winter Soldier Investigation.

This happened after my request for mediation, and after my intervention to stop the first revert war between himself and 165.247.208.115, who TDC also reported here for 3RR's despite starting the revert war. This was also after a copyright violation war, also started by TDC (talk · contribs).

The page is now protected by Sasquatch (talk · contribs) because of the revert wars. This was requested by TDC (talk · contribs).

Historically on the Winter Soldier Investigation page, TDC (talk · contribs) actions, along with his friends, prompted another protection in October of 2004, August 8, 2005, and again on 25 August 2005.

TDC (talk · contribs) proudly proclaims on his user page that he has been "banned from too many chat rooms to mention" and seems intent on being booted permanently from wikipedia.

For the love of God ........... could you please give up this crusade of yours. And FYI, you did not even cite the policy correctly. You simply posted every edit I made in a 24 hour period, not the number of RV's, which if you were counting was 2. Please read before inserting foot in mouth. TDC 03:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

At the very most, I count 3 reverts. Also, the page is protected, so please discuss on the talk page. Ral315 (talk) 08:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed, not quite a 3RR violation; however the involved editors need to get over to the talk page and sort these issues out. TDC has a history of edit warring which needs to be cut short. Aim for a consensus please. Rob Church 15:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

User:24.20.181.127

24.20.181.127 (talk · contribs):

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

Reported by User:Hippolami 23:55, 25 October 2005 (EST)

Comments:

This page is being repeatedly censored by IP users. Told user to stop. Reported by User:Hippolami 23:55, 25 October 2005 (EST)

Action Taken

Technically speaking, the user didn't violate the 3RR; however he did blank the page multiple times, interfered with the editing and consensus gathering processes and made a considerable nuisance of himself around this issue, thus I feel he violated the spirit of the policy. Blocked for 24 hours. Rob Church 15:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

As a follow-up, I checked the contributions of both users apparently involved in this. Hippolami does not appear to have violated the three-revert rule. Rob Church 15:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

User:HeadleyDown

Previous version reverted to: 16:28, 25 October 2005
1st revert: 01:17, 26 October 2005
2nd revert: 10:28, 26 October 2005
3rd revert: 11:00, 26 October 2005
4th revert: 12:17, 26 October 2005

Reported by: --Comaze 15:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

The discussion page is currently being mediated, so the reversions / edits may slow down soon.

--Comaze 23:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

User:R. fiend

R. fiend (talk · contribs):

Persistent edit warring over several days in trying to force a merge where deletion failed (Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Flemington_Circle), treating reversion as a right as long as it's less than 3 per day:

I don't see an end to this without intervention. First, User:R. fiend redirected the article title to Flemington, New Jersey in keeping with some of the comments in the AfD discussion, where the information was duplicated. Flemington Circle was reverted back to a whole article after the AfD was completed with "no consensus" and the data removed from Flemington, New Jersey. User:R. fiend reverted Flemington Circle to a redirect twice more without merging the information back into Flemington, New Jersey, effectively deleting the article again. (These two are bad-faith reversions.) Each time, he was reverted. Days later, he redirected again, this time merging the information into Flemington, New Jersey with the edit summary "merge in crap". User:R. fiend stubbornly refuses to accept the "no consensus" close to the AfD and has been edit warring to press his POV ever since.

I suggest viewing this incident with the following pages open in tabs, to more easily see the timeline:

Why haven't I reported User:SPUI for edit warring as well? Because he has been editing the content of the article itself, in what appears to be ongoing good faith attempts to improve it, and his initial reverts were reversions of bad-faith redirects by User:R. fiend where no merging of information had actually taken place. These bad-faith redirects are the second and third on the list above.

Reported by: Un focused 17:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

I do think the reversion are excessive, but I don't believe that this page is the venue to discuss it. Six reverts over 16 days really can't be considered a 3RR violation, especially since the reverts have died down recently. If the dispute can't be settled on the talk page, an article RfC might be appropriate. Carbonite | Talk 17:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'm glad you commented. I posted this not to get someone punished, but to stop User:R. fiend from continuing his edit war. I do, however, view "6 over 16 days" as a violation of the spirit of 3RR that warrants a warning, given that two of the reverts were bad faith reversions with the intent of performing deletion contrary to the AfD closure. That's why I brought this here. As we know, 3RR isn't about counting within a time period, it's a tool to stop edit wars. Even now I still don't object to a merge of the data, but I don't believe User:R. fiend is acting in good faith here. If this is a place for punishments and enforcement only, rather than a suitable place for discussion of excessive reversion, then I apologize for bringing this here. I thought this would be a better forum than RfC because this has been a simple revert war. Unfocused 17:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  - This is ridiculous. The page was up for AfD, the results were 10 for deletion, 4 were happy with a merge, and only 2 voted outright to keep, without mentioning a merge. The info was merged, and I did a redirect. SPUI, who thinks "delete" means "merge" and "no conensus" means "keep as is! do not merge!" decided to undo it. So there's been reversions back and forth, in spite of the fact that just about everyone except Unfocused and SPUI (and even they claimed they were happy with merging, I guess their votes weren't terribly sincere) think the material is best in the Flemington article or in the garbage. Besides, a merge/redirect can be done by any user at any time, without an AfD, and the results of an AfD, even if there were a consensus to keep, do not prohibit it from being done. SPUI had the further audacity to remove the information of the stupid traffic circle from the Flemington article, then complain that it wasn't included there anymore. He's trolling again. -R. fiend 18:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    - Had your second and third redirects been accompanied by an actual merge of the information into the target article rather than de-facto deletion of an article per your preference without consensus, I wouldn't complain. But they did not. You redirected the article title, but didn't keep the content. You weren't actually merging, you were deleting. When you finally did get around to merging much later accompanying another later revert, you posted "merge in crap" as your edit summary, which led me to conclude that you weren't acting in good faith this whole time. I'll assume good faith again from this point forward, but please don't act in ways that clearly betray that good faith. Unfocused 19:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
      - It was SPUI who removed the info from Flemington (and then complained that it wasn't there). I didn't even notice. He was perfectly free to put it back. And a redirect without a merge is ipso facto not deletion; at no time did I use the administrator deletion powers, which is the definition of deletion, so to accuse me of deleting anything is incorrect. As for my comment, now if I had included in the edit summary "merge in lovely information generously supplied by that lovely contributor SPUI, who works day in and day out to make Misplaced Pages a better place for all", the resulting article would have been 100% the same. To call one vandalism and the other not in pretty lame. Now I'm at least glad you haven't reverted the article; I assume you're happy with the situation as it stands, as you indictaed at the AfD? As nothing is deleted, I see no reason why either you or SPUI should not be, and I hope this is settled. -R. fiend 19:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
        If you are changing an article to a redirect under the reasoning of a merge, the minimum you must do is actually merge the information or check that it's already there. Otherwise, you're just imposing your preference to delete upon the article unilaterally. Regarding the content now, I don't intent to revert it myself, but since there are several traffic circles in that municipality, I expect that if they're all merged back into the municipal article, it will probably get large enough to split off some content into separate articles... and we may be back where we started. Un focused 19:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
        Just so you know, your friend's being a dick again. -R. fiend 01:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

User:VMORO

I would like to report the breaking of the 3RR from User:VMORO on the page of Macedonians (ethnic group): , , .

He was already been reverted by several users, but he always comes back and leaves unproved facts on the talk page, which he latter claims that should be answered before he gets reverted.

This is not the first time the user keeps pushing a denial politics towards the people belonding to the modern Macedonian nation. Also, the user constantly uses a sources taken from a pro-Bulgarian web site whose only purpose is to deny the existance of separate modern Macedonian ethnicity/nation, claiming that in fact they are Bulgarians (a claim that is completely refused by the people belonding to the Macedonian ethnicity). Also, the web site he always uses as a source is hosted on a free hosting service provider (www.150m.com), a server where anyone can host any matherial he wants.

Also, he constantly refuses the article about the Macedonians (ethnic group) to include more information about the poor treatment of the Macedonian minority in Greece and Bulgaria, while that treatment is constantly criticised by every major human rights organizations present in the Balkans. Actually, the poor treatment is also confirmed in several final decisions of the European Court for Human rights. Macedonian 02:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

While his actions may or may not be in bad faith, this is not a violation of the 3RR. The 4th revert is where we take action. Ral315 (talk) 04:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

User:154.20.140.178

154.20.140.178 (talk · contribs):

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:

4th revert:

Reported by: File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 04:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

User will not discuss his edits, this has been going on for a while. File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 04:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Wiki-Facts (talk · contribs):

Previous version reverted to: 19:26, 26 Oct 2005
1st revert: 7:01, 27 Oct 2005
2nd revert: 13:15, 27 Oct 2005
3rd revert: 13:28, 27 Oct 2005
4th revert: 13:35, 27 Oct 2005

Reported by: Davidpdx 04:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

User will not listen to the consensus of the other editors. Constantly reverts, uses multiple sockpuppets to revert and is now threatening to ban us if we revert. This is getting down right crazy!!!!! Davidpdx 04:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin has protected the article in question. · Katefan0 21:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Katefan, that is not the point. This person is using the same sockpuppet to trash other articles too. If the person violated the 3RR they should get banned. Why are they getting a free pass just because the article in question is protected? I'm sorry that doesn't make sense! Davidpdx 01:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand your frustration. It may help you to know that blocks here are not really meant to be punitive. They're meant to enforce a "cooling off" period to discourage bad behavior. As far as I can tell, WikiFacts' recent reverting has only been done at Dominion of Melchizedek. Since it's protected, there is no more edit warring. That means the immediate problem has been solved for now. A block wouldn't do anything more to help achieve a consensus on that page; in fact, it could harm achieving a consensus since it would prevent WikiFacts from editing the talk page. As far as banning someone permanently, administrators don't have that power -- that's a matter for the arbcom. · Katefan0 01:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Monicasdude

Monicasdude (talk · contribs):

1st revert: 26 Oct 2005
2nd revert: 26 Oct 2005
3rd revert: 27 Oct 2005
4th revert: 27 Oct 2005

and...

Monicasdude (talk · contribs):

1st revert: 26 Oct 2005
2nd revert: 26 Oct 2005
3rd revert: 27 Oct 2005
4th revert: 27 Oct 2005

and...

Monicasdude (talk · contribs):

1st revert: 26 Oct 2005
2nd revert: 26 Oct 2005
3rd revert: 27 Oct 2005
4th revert: 27 Oct 2005

Reported by: BGC 17:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

Monicasdude has proven himself to be a hostile and obstinate editor over his last few months here and refuses to collaborate in a civilized manner. His RfC page: will bear witness to this. He has lately been maliciously reverting any page he comes across that features the "album infobox 2" template simply because he disagrees with it. It was voted for deletion some weeks ago but it never went through, and there is still no consensus on it yet, therefore it is still open to use by any user. As can plainly be seen here - especially if you research Monicasdude's contributions, he has been targeting me, my work and all these infoboxes in a stalking fashion, and often locks horns with most editors due to his difficult working habits. Further still, Monicasdude disregards any extra work that has been added onto the articles and reverts it all. Here's proof from back when I was under my old name back in July: . And it's only continued since. Indeed, he has a long history of doing so and of upsetting the progress that well-intentioned editors - like myself - are attempting. I do hope someone can take action here. It is most needed. BGC 17:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

My apologies; the violations were inadvertent. I did not keep track of time properly, and the final, objectionable edits were only a few minutes before the cutoff point. I would note that user:BGC also violated 3RR on these articles, apparently deliberately, missing the cutoff points by several hours rather than by several minutes.

User:BGC's comments about malice and stalking are false, and deliberately so. The use of albumbox 2 is controversial, and the clear majority of comments on the album project discussion page oppose its use. Whether the use of cover images under that template can qualify as "fair use" is substantially disputed, and there should be no question that the use of the template violates Misplaced Pages's existing "fair use" policy/guidelines, which declare images claimed as fair use "must not serve a purely decorative purpose" when used in Misplaced Pages articles. The use also violates the consensus standards set out in the album cover template. And, as one Jimbo Wales has pointed out recently, the unnecessary use of "fair use" images is undesireable, and should be eliminated; what might be fair use here might well also prevent GFDL-licensing of articles from being valid.

This incident is part of a long-running edit conflict that began several months ago when user:BGC, then editing as User:PetSounds, was involved in disputes over his 3RR violations, use of deliberately deceptive edit summaries, attacking newbies, and deliberate refusal to follow NPOV policy. (Not incidentally, another editor involved in those disputes was Mel Etitis, against whom user:BGC has made repeated personal attacks comparable to the comments he makes about me.) User:BGC personalizes those disputes, continues edit warring incessantly, and attempts to provoke policy violations and uncivil behavior by that edit warring. In this case, after months of trying, he has succeeding in provoking me into a marginal 3RR violation (the first time I have done so), and for that I apologize.

I would also note that user:BGC's comment that I "disregard any extra work that has been added onto the articles and revert it all" is simply false; that he provides no example of it, and that it simply demonstrates his malice. I do not simply revert the articles, in general, but cut-and-paste the undisputed infobox in place. I may have inadvertently missed minor changes in infobox information, but I do my best to preserve all changes. In contrast, user:BGC simply reverts, often if not generally removing all other changes I have made to articles, even though he does not dispute them. He has stated his personal animosity towards me (and others) on various occasions, and encouraged others to simply remove my edits as a means of "punishing" me for antagonizing him. It is also worth noting that when other editors have made the same infobox changes on the same articles where he has disputed my edits, as here, http://en.wikipedia.org/Demon_Days, user:BGC leaves those changes in place, showing that his concern is not really with the substance of the edit but with the identity of the editor -- a clear indication of bad faith action.

Edit warring is not good for Misplaced Pages, and some editors believe, reasonably and in good faith, that it is never appropriate. I would not go quite so far. As one editor who was recently subjected to an RfC recently noted, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia first and a community second. Users who intentionally deprecate the encyclopedic function damage the project as a whole. Unnecessary changes which have the potential to limit the distribution of Misplaced Pages in various forms, and expose it to potential legal liability, however unlikely some may view the prospect, are inappropriate and should be resisted. When they contradict clear guidelines and policies, as the disputed template does, they may fairly, I think, be viewed as vandalous, and should simply be removed whenever they occur.

As other users have noted in the (unjustified) RfC on Mel Etitis, the condition of Misplaced Pages's pop culture articles, particularly those on popular music, is degenerating sharply, mostly due to editors who ignore (or, worse, defy) important guidelines. I have been on the receiving end of a great deal of unpleasant action because I try to keep articles in compliance. It is, as other editors have noted, difficult to avoid responding inappropriately to repeated provocations. It will be increasingly more difficult to apply and enforce Misplaced Pages's standards if those who do not respect those standards are encouraged in their disruptive actions. Monicasdude 19:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Monicasdude has a interesting way of distorting the truth. I was forced to change my username because of his incessant staking of my work, and as a newbie, I was treated horribly by him (as have others). I've been most accomodating to most other editors here. Secondly - for a little perspective - when I was blocked as PetSounds it was as a newbie who didn't know the rules. I was also blocked in error by an admin some weeks ago, and he quickly corrected the blunder. Anyone who views Monicasdude's contributions page will note that his vandalous reverts were indeed done without regard for the rules - or acceptance of others' points of view. This new album template hasn't been vetoed at all and it is not his place to take action when no consensus has been agreed upon. It is free to use. And it will become clear that it is HE who has reverted my work over and over, solely because it's mine. Any reverts I've ever made of his so-called "work" have been unjustified and malicious reverts of mine. I don't have to encourage anyone to "antangonize" Monicasdude when an RfC - which I never started - already exists and has been endorsed by several editors. That should say something. In this particular case, his recent 3RR violations were committed on three separate articles and in all three cases, almost an hour before the cut-off point - not "a few minutes". I will note that if I am considered to have broken the 3RR, it TRULY was unintentional on my part and was only to undo the needless vandalism by Monicasdude and to preserve other people's hard work, including my own. The fact that I'm now willing to knowingly shoot myself in the foot over this situation should let any admin know how seriously I - and many other users - feel about Monicasdude's complete lack of civility in this forum. Also, the mere existence of an RfC page on Monicasdude speaks volumes over any perceived wrongdoing I may have done. User: Mel Etitis also has an RfC page on him as well , which should give a clear indication of where the antangonization is coming from. Basically Monicadude's been caught and is doing whatever he can to avoid getting his due by playing the victim and re-working Wiki-rules to suit his agenda. Facts are facts: he broke the 3RR on THREE articles. I hope to see some action on this issue. His behaviour can't go undealt with. BGC 18:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I will back User:BGC on this one. While I have not specifically looked over the 3RRs in question, I have also had revert issues with Monicasdude as of late. A few facts:

1. Monicasdude continues to state that the template Album infobox 2 is in violation of fair use. Yes, it was suggested for deletion on these grounds, but the vote was tied and many other comments simply not sure (we're not lawyers after all). An ADMINISTRATOR removed the RfD tag on the template because there was no consensus. Monicasdude continues to disregard this and is unilaterally reverting articles using these templates all the while encountering resistance by a number of editors. I have attempted to discuss this with him numerous times yet he continues to distort facts regarding the RfD which failed. I have simply stated that, until the template is actually determined to be in violation by a clear consensus, it is not his place to go around systematically reverting these.

2. As BGC pointed out, there is an RfC in progress for Monicasdude, illustrating the frustration of many editors towards his contributions and posessiveness over the Bob Dylan and related articles. While I have not specifically looked into these articles, it is important to know that many users support this RfC and have expressed frustration over this user's behavior in the past and present, including some administrators (though no action has been taken to date).

3. Monicasdude is not open to criticism and has continued to delete and censor comments by other users on his talk page which express frustration with his edits.

4. Since the RfC has not gone anywhere, and this whole template issue seems to be something new, a mediation will soon be started regarding this user. Extensive discussions with Monicasdude have done nothing to solve any of these issues.

5. The amount of time between these edits is also somewhat irrelevant because I believe Monicasdude would have continued to revert the articles in question no matter what.

I ask that you take these factors into account and look at this 3RR violation as a piece of a larger puzzle concerning what I view to be Monicasdude's bad faith edits. While obviously BGC also broke the rules, he did so in order to protect what I would consider as persistant vandalism on the part of Monicasdude. Somebody has to address this issue as it's getting out of hand and frustrating numerous editors. --Comics 02:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Since user:Comics acknowledges that my edits are motivated by "fair use" concerns, it's inappropriate to describe them as "bad faith" or "vandalism." It's not disputed that the infobox2 template is not consistent with existing Misplaced Pages guidelines concerning "fair use" in general and album cover use in particular. Users who prefer it should not unilaterally introduce it into articles while it violates the guidelines. And it is somewhere between inconsistent and downright hypocritical to claim that users who prefer the disputed infobox2 should be allowed to change the (undisputed) infobox1 to infobox2 as they choose, but users who prefer infobox1 should be barred from restoring it. This series of editing disputes would not have happened if proponents of the disputed template had not embarked on a project of replacing the existing, consensus-approved template without notice or comment. Even the proponents of the disputed template admit that there's no consensus for superseding the existing template; if they wish to use the template in creating new articles, that may be appropriate, but a small handful of users systematically replacing the existing, consensus-accepted template in what will amount to more than six thousand articles is plainly inappropriate. And, for whatever it's worth, an "ADMINISTRATOR" asked user:BGC to stop edit warring over infoboxes (with multiple editors, not just with me) when there was clearly no consensus for his preferred version; BGC has refused, and deleted the request from his talk page. Monicasdude 03:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

No, it is not your motivation behind it that I have a problem with, it's that it is solely a personal one. It is vandalism because you have unilaterally decided this, as I have stated, without proper consensus. I have noted that I personally prefer the look of infobox 2, but if it were deemed by consensus to violate fair use principles (which it has not), then I would gladly help revert all existing articles to the regular album infobox template. I have kindly asked you time and time again to stop reverting the infoboxes simply because the template is free to be used at the moment and the RfD on it failed. Therefore your grounds that it goes against fair use is a grey area. Until this issue is properly debated by people with actual detailed knowledge of fair use laws, you are acting in bad faith. -Comics 15:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

No one disputes that infobox 2 violates the applicable Misplaced Pages guidelines. You seem to have the strange idea that implementing the guidelines is bad faith. There's a consensus that infobox 1 is OK to use. There's no consensus that infobox 2 is OK to use, and substantial, well-informed opinion against it. You don't make Misplaced Pages policy by yourself, and you shouldn't demand that other users refrain from making changes -- no less repeatedly post personally abusive comments about them -- simply because you disagree with them. That's certainly not good faith. Monicasdude 20:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Hickster

Hickster (talk · contribs):

Previous version reverted to: 10:43, 27 Oct 2005
2nd revert: 22:39, 27 Oct 2005
3rd revert: 22:55, 27 Oct 2005
4th revert: 23:01, 27 Oct 2005

Reported by: David | Talk 23:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

Insists on inclusion of his own edits which go against community consensus on this article. A new user but somewhat confrontational on talk page. David | Talk 23:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Reddi AKA User: 204.56.7.1 (See involved page's histories for confirmation of identity)

Reddi (talk · contribs):

Previous version reverted to: 18:00, 27 October 2005
1st revert: 18:03, 27 October 2005
2nd revert: 18:06, 27 October 2005
3rd revert: 18:17, 27 October 2005
4th revert: 21:27, 27 October 2005

Reported by: Mr. Tibbs 01:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

Basically whats going on is Reddi is trying is to do a page move of Iraq War to Iraq war without using the page move function. This has not been voted on or discussed and messes up the page histories. He's doing the same thing to the talk pages as well. - Mr. Tibbs 01:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Timewarp and sock puppets

Timewarp (talk · contribs):

1st revert: 13:08, 27 October 200 (Using sock 66.93.100.155 (talk · contribs))
2nd revert: 14:49, 27 October 2005
3rd revert: 16:01, 27 October 2005
4th revert: 21:51, 27 October 2005
5th revert: 03:45, 28 October 2005 (using sock Alt37 (talk · contribs))
6th revert: 09:25, 28 October 2005
7th revert: 12:33, 28 October 2005

Reported by: --TimLambert 01:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

He has used two sock puppets to avoid the 3RR, but still has five reverts under Timewarp.
Violated 3RR on John Lott page a couple of days ago.
Timewarp appears to be a sockpuppet operated by John Lott to remove all criticism of Lott from the article about John Lott. --TimLambert 01:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Confirming TL's report. Even ignoring sockpuppets, the 3RR has been broken. There is an edit war on this page, its true (well how else would 3RR come up?) but Timewarp is definitely breaking the rules. William M. Connolley 11:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC).

There's evidence on his talk page that he's been warned in the past and was aware of the 3RR. Blocked for 24 hours. Guettarda 12:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

After being blocked, he has used his sock Alt37 (talk · contribs) to revert it again.

User:Smaines

Smaines (talk · contribs):

Previous version reverted to: 17:59, 27 October 2005
1st revert: 00:31, 28 October 2005
2nd revert: 00:42, 28 October 2005
3rd revert: 01:06, 28 October 2005
4th revert: 01:13, 28 October 2005
5th revert: 01:46, 28 October 2005

Reported by: Nohat 09:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

User is not being very responsive on Talk:Tea and is accusing other users of "butchering" his words, which are his "children". Nohat 09:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Can't find more than three outright reverts.Geni 11:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The rule is "....an editor must not perform more than three reversions on a single Misplaced Pages article within 24 hours of their first reversion....." (from Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule). This rule should be enforced on everyone, especially those who violate the rule despite a warning. In his last reversion, of my edit, he said in the summary "bring it". He now claims that was aimed at someone else, but anyone would revert my edit and aim his challenge at someone else is a mystery. This was clearly a deliberate, defiant violation, and had I not have been so close to the action I would have blocked him from editing. Note too that nowhere in Smaines" reply below does he mention 3RR, or try to justify his reverts, which is surely why we are here. Also, you can see below that Smaines thinks this is a petty matter. I don't think it is. Also I am deleting my entry (previously below) re this same incident. Moriori 01:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, a careful reading would have allowed you to avoid embarrassment, His actions have been so uncivil, trollish and awkward as to constitute vandalism, and I have treated them as such. Vandalism is an exception to the rule. I note also that you, Moriori, have also taken the liberty of deleting my reply to your action. -SM 01:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I need to address your red herring first. You need to actually comprehend the 3RR rules. If you thought Nohat was vandalising the article, under the rules you needed to list him on vandalism in progress. Any exception to the rules (quote) does not apply to reversions of well-established users just because you consider their edits to be "vandalism". Simple vandalism is indisputable; don't confuse it with edits which you simply disagree with. (end quote). That's what you did when you reverted five edits. Two of them were mine, not Nohat's, and none of them was vandalism anyway. Nohat may have been uncivil, but so were you. I guess as you think this 3RR listing is petty you don't need to let reality play a part in it. Moriori 02:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Reply from smaines

This is a continuation of a petty dispute, which Nohat has consistently escalated. My comment re butchery was specifically to Nohat, who has hacked up the same paragraph over a dozen times, ignoring more glaring problems in the article elsewhere. His actions have been so uncivil, trollish and awkward as to constitute vandalism, and I have treated them as such.

Contrary to the above statement, I did respond on the discussion page, but as Nohat was busy inciting others to support him in this dubious cause, my response was delayed by a few minutes by an edit conflict.

Please read,

Discussion on Moriori's user page
General edit history for tea (his edits constitute repetative reversions, even if varied slightly)
General uncivility of Nohat's edit remarks
- 2005-10-27 22:44:31 Nohat (one idea per sentence-- this is writing 101. these two ideashave nothing to do with each and have no business sharing a sentence)
- 2005-10-26 00:28:52 Nohat (revert reintroduction of muddled and needlessly complex introduction; plus describing them as less precise is not NPOV)
- 2005-10-14 12:27:49 Nohat (that was a really crappily-written intro. this is better)
Previous from Nohat

Finally, the paragraph which has driven Nohat to such lengths,

The term herbal tea usually refers to infusions of fruit or herbs containing no actual tea, such as rosehip tea or chamomile tea. Alternative terms for this are tisane or herbal infusion, both bearing an implied contrast with tea. This article is concerned exclusively with preparations and uses of the tea plant, Camellia sinensis, the Minnan word for which is the etymological origin of the English word tea.

It is the last sentence which he characterises as, "complex syntactic acrobatics". It is this last sentence he has tried eight times to chop up, apparently unable to see why it is the integral conclusion to this paragraph.

I am sorry to find myself defending so petty a matter here, and taking your time to do so. This is literally hours I could have spent doing more needed work elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. Perhaps it would have been better to simply let him have his way, however his uncivility and tenacity have given me cause to think that this would continue elsewhere even if I did so. It is not the fate of the Tea article that is worrying (at the end of the day, it doesn't matter much to me), it is the poor standard Wohat would enforce on decent writing.

If you would like to lock me out of Misplaced Pages, do so. The real question is who you actually want running around loose here.

User:Hesketh Fortescue and related sockpuppets

As Eoritwiethm (talk · contribs):

Previous version reverted to: 09:22, October 24, 2005
1st revert: 17:47, October 24, 2005
2nd revert: 17:51, October 24, 2005
3rd revert: 17:56, October 24, 2005
4th revert: 18:00, October 24, 2005
5th revert: 19:27, October 24, 2005
6th revert: 19:45, October 24, 2005
7th revert: 21:35, October 24, 2005

You get the picture. He was eventually blocked, but then the next morning a new account, Erhdfh (talk · contribs), started making the same reversions. What are the odds? (This was the account's first edit.)

1st revert: 10:47, October 25, 2005
2nd revert: 10:56, October 25, 2005
3rd revert: 11:27, October 25, 2005
4th revert: 20:30, October 25, 2005
And more.

I, as an admin, blocked this user. But then a new account (pre-existing, actually, but had only edited by reverting this article before) got into the fray. Hesketh Fortescue (talk · contribs) has already violated the 3RR, but since I've been involved in reverting, it would be inappropriate for me to block him. Could any of you fine souls keep an eye on the article?

Reported by: – Quadell 13:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

On User talk:Hesketh Fortescue, Hesketh Fortescue has now admitted to using sockpuppets to continue reverting. He has now reverted 10 times in the past 24 hours. Won't somebody please think of the children? – Quadell 15:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- I blocked Hesketh and all socks indefinitely, blocked Quadell and Reddi for a period of time (blocks removed later by myself), and protected the page. When unprotected, I would urge other administrators to treat all sockpuppets on that page with indefinite blocks, and treat all reversions by other users as simple vandalism fixes. Doing this change without consensus and then using sockpuppets to bait other users into 3RR while "avoiding" it yourself is gaming the system and about 5 other policy violations. Ral315 (talk) 06:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Bomac

Bomac (talk · contribs):

Previous version reverted to: 16:36, 26 Oct 2005
1st revert: 22:14, 26 Oct 2005
2nd revert: 13:38, 27 Oct 2005
3rd revert: 15:14, 27 Oct 2005
4th revert: 17:50, 27 Oct 2005
5th revert: 08:21, 28 Oct 2005

Reported by: --Theathenae 14:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Bomac has repeatedly violated the 3RR in the past 48 hours and resorts to abusive and offensive edit summaries.--Theathenae 14:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

- I think that it should be taken into consideration that Theathenae has violated it as well, see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Theathenae

User:ThompsJohn

Previous version reverted to:
1st revert: 15:43, 28 October 2005
2nd revert: 17:34, 28 October 2005
3rd revert: 17:55, 28 October 2005

Previous version reverted to:
4th revert: 18:05, 28 October 2005 + 18:19, 28 October 2005

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

Comments:

Please review users previous edit history. Warnings were given repeatedly on users talk page. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
This user is lying. I have only reverted three times. Also note that the edit war was started by User:Hipocrite adding an extremely POV, factually incorrect and highly abusive claim , and he has been reverted by at least 3 persons. Hipocrite is the revert warrior here, and the person who should be reported, which I hereby do. ThompsJohn 18:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Jakes18

Jakes18 (talk · contribs):

Previous version reverted to:

20:39, 2005 October 26
16:38, 2005 October 27
19:50, 2005 October 27
04:08, 2005 October 28
13:55, 2005 October 28
15:56, 2005 October 28
16:54, 2005 October 29
11:24, 2005 October 30
18:01, 2005 October 30
01:19, 2005 October 31
15:44, 2005 October 31
21:01, 2005 October 31

Reported by: Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

Jakes18, for apparently politically motivated reasons, wishes to exclude Operation Rescue from the List of terrorist organisations, despite its longstanding inclusion. In response to initial removal, I added explanatory text and numerous external citations for support. However, Jakes18 simply doesn't want it listed, regardless of citation, because of a POV he wishes to push. FWIW, the only edits Jakes18 has ever made to this article (except one other removal in August) are this identical reversion. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

- While I apologize for breaking the 3RR code (wasn't aware of it, but now am!), I believe that in order to attain NPOV, Lulu must make clear that OR is classifiable as a terrorist group, which he has failed to do (see the discussion page).

Lulu's statement about the edits I have made is patently false. At 18:03 today (10/28/2005) I made a minor correction, removing an apostrophe mark (which apparently was re-inserted). I also removed, on 08/03/2005 07:58 another POV inclusion of the Minuteman group, which was adopted onto the page. --Jakes18 20:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)Jakes18, 15:13 CDT 20:13 UTC 28 Ocotber 2005

William Connolley's parole - enforcement

User William M. Connolley is violating the parole .
See e.g. the page on "Skeptical Environmentalist" Bjorn Lomborg where he reverted the page without explaining his reasons on the talk page, although he is specifically forbidden to do so. Together with MichaelSirks, we are looking for tools to enforce the parole. Could you please help us? Thanks, --Lumidek 15:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
At least one violation of the 1 rv in 24 hours restriction took place.
- 10:24, 28 October 2005 (hist) (diff) Peat (→Peat fires - Change pic to one also showing increase. Leave text.) (top)
- 09:54, 28 October 2005 (hist) (diff) Peat (rv to WMC. Its perfectly clear from the graph that there was no such boost to explain)

— (SEWilco 17:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC))

A lack of Talk updates is also apparent in Special:Contributions&target=William+M.+Connolley. Some are rvv, but being locked up may mean someone else has to save the grandmother next door from a fire.

I may have missed some and only looked at the recent 500. — (SEWilco 17:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)) I didn't know where to report a parole violation.--MichaelSirks 19:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

This is (a) nonsense and (b) a duplicate of this from the RFA page. I've answered there. Note that MS appears to have cut-and-pasted from there: SEW did not edit this page. Note that SEWs claim of a violation of the 1RR is false, as a check on the edit will show: its not a revert. William M. Connolley 19:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC).

User:Theathenae

Violation of the 3RR on Macedonians (ethnic group):

Comment: I would also like someone to have a word with him. All he does is revert, if you check, there are no messages from him on the talk page. Nothing at all. I don't know who he thinks he is, reverting at will without an explanation.

Reported by GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) on 19:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Blocked by David Gerard earlier. Dmcdevit·t 03:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Gibraltarian

Gibraltarian (talk · contribs):

Previous version reverted to: 21:29 27 October 2005
1st revert: 07:55 28 October 2005
2nd revert: 14:10 28 October 2005
3rd revert: 19:43 28 October 2005
4th revert: 22:57 28 October 2005

Reported by: Svest 23:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

User doesn't use the talk page. I had asked the 2 parties involved in the edit warring to use the talk page but only one part explained his/her reasons. This user kept reverting. Instead he used personal attacks like Go away, X on the edit summary . He was blocked before for the same reason. Svest 23:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
This user does seem to have violated 3RR, but hasn't been sufficiently warned. I've pasted a warning on the talk page of Gibraltarian (talk · contribs). If this user reverts again within the time period, they may be blocked. --Gareth Hughes 23:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hesketh Fortescue

also his sockpupeets User:Priscilla Molesworth and User:Erhdfh and User:Gwyneth Molesworth

Hesketh Fortescue (talk · contribs):

Previous version reverted to:
1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Iraqi_insurgency&oldid=26642391 05:45, 28 October 2005
2nd revert: 09:04, 28 October 2005
3rd revert: 09:35, 28 October 2005
4th revert: 10:30, 28 October 2005
5th revert 00:14, 29 October 2005
6th revert on 00:23, 29 October 2005
7th revert on 00:26, 29 October 2005
8th revert on 00:37, 29 October 2005
9th revert on 01:10, 29 October 2005

...

Reported by: abakharev 03:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

13th revert by a sockpupeet User:Priscilla Molesworth this is her first and the only edit

Both users appear to be a sockpupeets of User:Erhdfh previously banned for the violation of the 3RR on the same edit of the same article

REX and Theathenae on FYROM Denar

Not article content, but repeated page-moves. I've protected it from moves and given both 24 hours off. The 3RR doesn't mention page moves explicity, but I submit that claiming the history of this page is not a gross violation of the spirit of 3RR would itself constitute gaming the system. We're here to build one of those "encyclopedia" things - David Gerard 13:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Zen-master

Zen-master (talk · contribs):

1st revert: 19:26 28 Oct 2005
2nd revert: 00:21, 29 Oct 2005
3rd revert: 15:31, 29 Oct 2005
4th revert: 16:51, 29 Oct 2005
5th revert: 16:55, 29 Oct 2005
6th revert: 16:59, 29 Oct 2005

Reported by: Carbonite | Talk 17:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

Zen-master has reverted changes made by several users. As they do not all revert to the same version, I have only included the diffs that Zen-master describes as being reverts in his edit summaries. There are probably additional reverts that I have not included. Carbonite | Talk 17:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

About half of the "reverts" were restoring a header that is still an acceptable thing to have at the top of an article if an in good faith dispute exists. A TfD does not set any precdent outside of a template being deleted (not to mention the fact that this TfD hasn't closed yet). zen master T 17:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there a reason why this would make you exempt from the 3RR? Carbonite | Talk 17:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Your removal of headers that are pefectly acceptable to be there is a form of simple vandalism, in my interpretation. zen master T 17:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Edit-warring is not acceptable. Per Zen-master's probation, I am banning him from this article for the time being. No block should be necessary. I recommend you read Misplaced Pages:Vandalism#What vandalism is not as well. Dmcdevit·t 17:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I stand by my interpretation that removing notices can be simple vandalism however I won't edit that article. One question, may I engage in talk page discussons on that article's talk page? zen master T 17:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I've alerted you on your talk page. Read over Misplaced Pages:Probation for the full description. Dmcdevit·t 18:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Zen master definitely reverted the article four times, even if you ignore the twoversions header. But I think enforcing the probation is the correct move. Rhobite 21:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Zoe

At Scooter Libby article.

1st Revert 04:16, 30 October 2005 Zoe (reverting SQast's "uninentional" misreading of the quote)

2nd Revert 04:25, 30 October 2005 Zoe m (Reverted edits by SQuast to last version by Zoe)

3rd Revert 04:52, 30 October 2005 Zoe (→Plame affair - That's three, SQuast)

Although Zoe incorrectly claims on my user talk page I have reverted three times, all my editing involves real additions, changes, adding links etc. Zoe's changes have been clear unthinking reverts.

That's only three. And be warned that you are indeed vey close to 3RR vio yourself, if not already there. 3RR is not an entitlement to edit war, please don't act like it is. Try our dispute resolution rather than warring. Dmcdevit·t 20:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

User:SQuast

I warned SQuast that he was close to the 3RR rule and he decided to preempt my listing him here by listing me. Funny behavior for someone who has no prior edit history on Misplaced Pages. User:Zoe| 22:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

USER:SlimVirgin

SlimVirgin (talk · contribs):

Reported by: --Vizcarra 10:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments: That's three reverts, Vizcarra, not four. SlimVirgin 10:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

True, sometimes it is hard to think of you and jayjg are two separate individuals. --Vizcarra 10:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Vizcarra, your comment would have been more accurate had you stopped after "sometimes it is hard to think". SlimVirgin 11:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

So it does happen to you? --Vizcarra 12:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

USER:Jayjg

Jayjg (talk · contribs):

Reported by: --Vizcarra 10:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

On 1st revert, he claims to "attribute claims to source", but he didn't attribute it to his own source provided. The edit war that ensued originated for his refusal from other users to attribute a qualifier to his own source.

Jayjg marked 2nd and 3rd revert as "minor changes". These may go unnoticed by those who choose to hide those changes that are indeed minor.

After the 3rd revert, Humus also reverted and Jayjg made this change, therefore in watchlists, this last revert went unnoticed as such.

This user was recently "reminded that edit-warring is harmful to Misplaced Pages's mission", he was also advised to "use Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution procedure in preference to attempting to control content through the use of reverts". See Proposed decision#Jayjg

Reported by: --Vizcarra 10:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The 3RR disallows more than three reverts, the first edit isn't a revert at all in any event, and no-one disputed the edit I made; In fact, I've reverted the article exactly twice. Please actually read WP:3RR so that you understand it in the future and no longer make these spurious and false reports. And finally, please don't act as a meatpuppet for revert-warring on articles in which you have clearly have absolutely no interest, nor any understanding of the issues or edits involved. Jayjg 10:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The first is indeed a revert, you removed broadly and added the dispute of a scholar. The 2nd and 3rd reverts had the same purpose, to down-play the weight of International law by removing "sympathetic".

Meat-puppet? Isn't that the service SlimVirgin served for you (and in several occasions before)? --Vizcarra 10:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't understand what you're talking about - the first edit simply attributed the opinion to exactly the bodies that said it - there was no previous version like it. The two actual reverts had nothing to do with that at all, but simply removed Marsden's original research regarding the citation I added. Please, again, I urge you to actually read WP:3RR, and also actually review the articles you are reverting and reporting on. Finally, I find your comments that one must "differentiate" between "objective observers" and "a descendant of Jewish refugees" who you believe must be ""sympathetic" with Jewish causes", along with your seeming sudden interest in creating lists of Jews to be disturbingly close to anti-Semitism. Jayjg 11:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

"I can't understand what you're talking about"

maybe you would understand if you focused on one topic. Now you are bringing up my "sudden" interest in Jewish topics and the List of Mexican Jews that I "created". Have you heard of red herrings? +

the first edit simply attributed the opinion to exactly the bodies that said it +

Not so simple. First of all you attributed specific sources to opinion #1 and added opinion #2 as a general opinion (when in fact your source cites only one individual) +

However, that wasn't all you did. You did not only remove "broad" as a qualifier for opinion #1. Suddenly the opinion of 1 person as equal weight with that of two international organizations. +

The two actual reverts had nothing to do with that at all +

It wasn't original research, to claim he is sympathetic, and the source about his bio where it claims that he supports Israeli causes, proves it is not original research. +

but simply removed Marsden's original research regarding the citation I added +

You could have corrected it, however you resorted in reverts. And you have been recommended to abstain from this approach. You added qualifiers to opinion #1 but refused any qualifier for opinion #2. +

Please, again, I urge you to actually read WP:3RR, and also actually review the articles you are reverting and reporting on. +

Well, since last time you "urged" me to do that (about 1 hour ago) I haven't reported any 3RR violations. So let me tell you it is not necessary to urge me again. +

Finally, I find your comments that one must "differentiate" between "objective observers" and "a descendant of Jewish refugees" who you believe must be ""sympathetic" with Jewish causes", +

being a "descendant" is the motive, being "sympathetic" is in the source that Marsden provided and I also read before he did. Since you were the one that included Stone's opinion, I assumed you at least you knew his background which has a history of supporting Israeli causes. +

along with your seeming sudden interest in creating lists of Jews +

Again, if you focused on one issue at the time you would avoid making false accusations. The list of Mexican Jews was created on July 20 of 2004, if I created it, then my interest is not sudden. And... I didn't create it, it was Udze see history (before making such claims). The list is part of List of Latin American Jews and it has been increasing since July 20 of 2004. On October 6, 2004 I moved the list to its own article as well as the list for Brazil and Argentina. These edits were qualified as "after your brilliant edits" by a Jew. +

I find your sudden interest... in creating lists of Jews... to be disturbingly close to anti-Semitism.' +

Creating lists of Jews is Anti-Semitism? There is an entire category titled Category:Lists of Jews that, by the way, I didn't create either. --Vizcarra 12:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Please don't create edited versions of my comments in order to present me as saying things that I haven't said. Given your recent disturbing stereotyping of Jews, and your editing of my comments to produce strawman misrepesentation of what I have said, I will no longer be responding. Jayjg 12:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

For the fifth time, there was no "stereotyping" of anybody. I have explained to you several times that anybody has a POV, and many have bias, and all bias must have an origin. I have a friend who has a fear of elevators, the reason for that fear is that he rode a roller coaster as a child and got really scared, the up and down movement reminds him of the childhood experience. This does not imply that everybody who rides roller-coaster develops a fear. This is not "stereotyping of roller-coaster riders". --Vizcarra 12:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Vizcarra, now you have stated that I have "strong bias" and engage in "POV-pushing" which "could have originated from the only fact that you are a Jew". I hardly know what to say when you label me as a Jew and then claim that the natural result of that is "strong bias" and "POV pushing". I think you've just crossed a line here. Jayjg 12:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstand the statement for the third time. The statement does not imply Jew -> bias. Your bias has been expressed by many other users in wikipedia. The POV pushing through reverts has been addressed before. The reason may be because you are a Jew. This does not imply that all Jews will push POVs. What I have discussed with you before is that in order to have a POV you must have a motive, anybody, that is. If I have crossed a line, please say it in simple terms, because I don't see any line being crossed. --Vizcarra 12:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

You've crossed the line, as your argument is ad hominem. --Viriditas | Talk 12:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

As I said above, given your recent disturbing stereotyping of Jews, and your editing my comments to produce strawman misrepesentations of what I have said, I will no longer be responding. Jayjg 12:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Gibraltarian

Gibraltarian (talk · contribs):

Reported by: --Ecemaml 16:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC). I'm afraid that I'm always breaking the rule, but I'm trying to point out that a consensus on NPOV should be reached in the talk page without any result (but personal attacks).

Comments:

Gibraltarian is IMHO trying to impose his own POV in controversial aspects related with Gibraltar. I'm not trying to deny his POV, but only showing also the Spanish POV (as it's how I understand the NPOV). However, Gibraltar insists on removing the position of Spain and showing Gibraltar's POV view as it were the truth (alway IMHO)--Ecemaml 16:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Both users blocked for 36 hours for multiple 3RRs. In the future, use Dispute resolution rather than edit warring. Dmcdevit·t 22:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Cherryrain

Cherryrain (talk · contribs):

Previous version reverted to: 18:46, 30 October 2005
1st revert: 19:09, 30 October 2005
2nd revert: 19:19, 30 October 2005
3rd revert: 19:23, 30 October 2005
4th revert: 19:27, 30 October 2005
5th revert: 19:30, 30 October 2005
6th revert: 19:34, 30 October 2005
7th revert: 19:39, 30 October 2005
8th revert: 19:43, 30 October 2005
9th revert: 20:02, 30 October 2005
10th revert: 20:16, 30 October 2005

Reported by: --Kurt Shaped Box 21:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

User is repeatedly adding unsourced, unverified rumors to the article against consensus and reverting edits which remove these. --Kurt Shaped Box 21:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Timewarp and sock puppet

Timewarp (talk · contribs):

1st revert: 16:47, 30 October 2005 (Using sock Alt37 (talk · contribs))
2nd revert: 02:32, 31 October 2005
3rd revert: 13:41, 31 October 2005 (Using sock Alt37 (talk · contribs))
4th revert: 16:20, 31 October 2005

Reported by: --TimLambert 11:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

Third violation of 3RR on John Lott page.
Blocked for previous violation.
Timewarp appears to be a sockpuppet operated by John Lott to remove all criticism of Lott from the article about John Lott. --TimLambert 11:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Andrew Alexander

Andrew Alexander (talk · contribs):

1st revert: 1:45, 1 Nov 2005
2nd revert: 20:59, 31 Oct 2005
3rd revert: 5:31, 31 Oct 2005
4th revert: 05:01, 31 Oct 2005

Reported by: Irpen 02:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

User repeatedly removes relevant info. User made much more removals than 4 in 24 hours with small changes to avoid 3RR on technicality. Right now he continues to revert to a mixture of his old versions. Couple of more additional reverts/removals done by anon IP sock. The article is worth being protected as per Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated_wholesale_removal_of_info_from_St._Volodymyr.27s_Cathedral. --Irpen 05:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Fridgemagnet (talk · contribs)

Three revert rule violation on Talk:Urban75:

Fridgemagnet (talk · contribs):

Previous version reverted to: 02:27, 9 Feb 2005
1st revert: 13:00, 31 October 2005
2nd revert: 14:25, 31 October 2005
3rd revert: 09:45, 1 November 2005
4th revert: 11:41, 1 November 2005

Reported by: Ernestolynch 13:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Just seems to be removing intimidating trash like this: Would the poster above, who posted from an IP address in Sydney, Australia, please reveal which anonymous username they post under on Urban75.

Please stop abusing Misplaced Pages as a noticeboard for Urban75-related affairs. Crap like that will be treated as vandalism and may be removed on sight. --Tony Sidaway 17:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Irishpunktom

Irishpunktom (talk · contribs):

Previous version reverted to: 11:26, 1 November 2005
1st revert: 13:04, 1 November 2005
2nd revert: 14:19, 1 November 2005
3rd revert: 14:46, 1 November 2005
4th revert: 15:11, 1 November 2005

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

Comments:

Irishpunktom has insisted on adding tags regarding the article being disputed regarding factual accuracy and neutrality, and has reverted the article 4 times within 24 hours to do that. The original edit by Irishpunktom was: -- Karl Meier 15:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- Check it, there is no 3RR breach --Irishpunktom\ 15:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  - Of course it's a 3rr violation. It doesn't matter that you use complex reverts. You should know that because you have been blocked for complex reverts before. -- Karl Meier 15:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    - It is not a 3RR breach, nor is it a complex revert, it is the addition of two new tgs in place of three older ones. --Irishpunktom\ 15:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    - Also, why are you trying to have me blocked rather than trying to help improve the piece? The only edits you have made to the article have been to revert me. --Irishpunktom\ 16:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
      - If you don't want to be blocked for 3rr, I suggest that you stop violating that rule. Also, to me it seems like you are only interested in that article because you don't like Zeno and you want to attack him and his contributions. I suggest that you leave him alone instead of chasing him around the whole Wiki & that you stop violating 3rr. -- Karl Meier 16:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
        Zeno reverted all the edits I made which led me to place the Tags, had he not done so there would have been no need. it seems to me that you are trying to make a point here, and you should not. The article is poorly written, right from the opening paragraph. The Summary of articles is biased and factually inaccurate. The sources used should not be used. This should have been disucussed on the talk page, not here!!--Irishpunktom\ 16:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
        Sure, of course, any issues regarding the articles should be discussed at the talkpage. What matters here is that you have violated 3rr. -- Karl Meier 16:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Report new violation

User:BadUser

BadUser (talk · contribs):

Previous version reverted to: 02:27, 9 Feb 2005
1st revert: 20:41, 9 Feb 2005
2nd revert: 22:25, 9 Feb 2005
3rd revert: 22:55, 9 Feb 2005
4th revert: 01:33, 10 Feb 2005

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

Comments:

User will not listen to the consensus of the other editors. User:ReportingUser 14:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)