Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive9

< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Duncharris (talk | contribs) at 11:04, 25 August 2005 (→[[User:Tern]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 20 years ago by Duncharris in topic Violations

    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.

    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.

    Click here to create a new report


    Violations

    Latest comment: 20 years ago60 comments26 people in discussion

    User:Tern

    Three revert rule violations on Asperger's syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tern (talk · contribs):

    First violation

    Second violation

    Third violation

    Reported by: Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • I've included IP 83.67.65.99 in with tern, because as evidenced by [1], this IS Tern, who is using that IP to try to dodge the 3RR rule --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Hi, I'm Tern. I require to report that I am being hounded by a personally vicious hate campaign whose like I have never seen on any other Wiki page's history.
    Content that originally amounted to a single sentence, that referred to facts already known outside Wikipedia, that personally attacked no one, and that is medically important on the scale that it refers to a form of child cruelty, is being targetted for suppression by an organised campaign who vandalise the page every few hours. The vandalisms are so personally malicious that they include deleting reference to the hurt children while leaving in reference to unhurt ones, and fraudulent in that they include removing the neutrality dispute label. All their arguments in discussion consist of libellous personal insults of me and exclusion of material on grounds of personal prejudice, or arguing that the issue should not be counted as mattering if they personally don't believe many people care about it (though I quoted a list of communities that do), and that neutrality matters less than this. When 1 individual being flagrantly bullied by a mob who don't care what they destroy including Wikipedia, and who are committing medical censorship and biasing a page in a way that would associate Wikipedia with child cruelty, it is common sense that the defending side can't be forced to sit passively for a day after the bullying side have pursued their illegal campaign 3 times in a few minutes or hours.
    Wikipedia must ban this hate campaign, to show the public it has effective ethics.
    Also, the use of the IP address was not an attempt to dodge the rule at all, as there was no anonymity or hiding of my identity involved, and I answered that malicious charge fully in discussion.- Tern, Aug 22.
    • Fix links to point to diffs instead of page versions - sorry about that --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Tern has been asked several times to provide citations for the information he adds to the AS page; he has been unable to provide anything substantial. (He has cited sites that feature his own writing, and quotations that bear at best a peripheral relevance to the issue -- see the Talk page.) When those who disagree have attempted to discuss the issue rationally and edit the page to a more neutral stance, he has accused them of vandalism, organized harrassment, libel, censorship, child abuse, bullying, and so on -- at length, while constantly adding his context back to the page. I have already said that he has lost perspective on this issue, and this is clearly evidenced by the multiple reverts and upset replies. I agree that he needs time to cool off. 66.235.6.229 10:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
    Added note to clarify for those new to this discussion -- I am posting here anonymously because Tern is known to retaliate via his website, posting personal information about people he has had disagreements with. For this reason I have posted under two IP addresses in this dispute, and both are stated clearly in the Asperger's Syndrome Talk page for full disclosure. 66.235.6.229 10:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I have removed my extensive picking-apart of Tern's above paragraph because, on further reviewing the relevant policies, it did not belong on this page. I have saved it, however, as I strongly suspect I'll be needing it again after Tern is unblocked; he has been nothing if not persistent and the problems with his recent edits (and even more, his recent Talk page behaviour) go far beyond violating the 3RR. 24.77.97.3 09:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Good grief... where are the "too many" administrators when you need them LOL! User is CONTINUING to revert good faith edits by others on the article. --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Right, after the period of calm, the insults have abated but are just being replaced by silence rather than the same voices talking at a more reasoned level. What to learn?

    This argument was entirely started by 1 user, 24.19.0.114, making gratuitous personal attacks on my character out of nowhere, in talk, based on which a group of users then implacably refused to discuss neutral wording and used force of numbers to pool their 3RR rights to strike every few minutes and keep totally deleting all mention of a medically relevant item. You see how the balance of power was unbalanced if a group ganging up on 1 target have stronger 3RR rights in their favour? What motive do they they have to keep to civility and reasoning instead of bullying?

    I can see the point of trying to bring some calm to the situation by trying to see if some reasoned discussion takes place while the contenders are silenced. So I actually don't contest my block provided all the opponents I had during the preceding day were blocked as well. Only they weren't. My edits were not even simple reversions but attempts to find consensual new edits incorporating others' feelings and interventions, and only the opponents' POV gets favoured by them each having a personal right to 3RR which they can pool.

    How then is Wikipedia to guard against having its ethic of neutral content destroyed by the 3RR rule working in favour of bullying campaigns and organised frequent attacks on pages? An ethical concern for the entire nature of Wikipedia and reform proposal to solve the anomaly, arises from this case. It should be circulated to the entire community from top to users, for comment, so it can be put into practice straightaway.

    Proposal, simply enact this:

    (i) the 3RR rule also to apply when different people make the same revert, exactly the same as when 1 person does. Hence a group of users all editing on the same side of an argument will be subject to the rule, collectively, on equal terms to an individual.

    (ii) When a 2-sided high-frequency edit war is happening, if a 3RR block is made it must be made simultaneously on every person on both sides who took prt during the preceding day. Admins at all levels with discretion whether to apply a 3RR block, shall not have discretion to apply one to only 1 side of such a dispute.

    (iii) Except as part of such a 2-sided parity, a reverter who does not make simple reverts to the past but writes new adaptations can't be given a 3RR block, unless - There is a constructive editorial discussion in progress, that is about content not personal attacks towards that person's side, and about factuality not an insistence on simply deleting an item on grounds of not thinking it important.

    Studying this case, do you see that without these rule changes, Wikipedia can be dragged into giving non-neutral positions with content censored by the agenda of a group who keep editing the same way? even on serious issues to do with children? On the basis of this case that has just happened, I contend that Wikipedia visibly owes to its members to make this rule adjustment. Office holders please comment.

    tern 10:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

    User:71.101.38.205

    Three revert rule violation on George Washington.

    User:71.101.38.205 has no Talk page

    User contributions

    Reported by: --JimWae 07:41, 2005 August 22 (UTC) Comments:

    • User does not respond to points made on talk page nor in edit summaries
    • User uses article talk page only to make accusations of personal agenda & to demand proof
    • When given sources, user discounts them as "atheist"
    • user does not use edit summaries


    User:203.173.156.2

    Three revert rule violation on Jedi census phemonenon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 203.173.156.2 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: — Phil Welch 08:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:



    User:Sleepnomore

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

    Reported by: --Silverback 09:30, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • There were probably several other reverts of largely the same material to different versions before this. Sleepnomore claims she was deleting personal attacks, yet continued the reversions after it was pointed out that she was also deleting material that was not personal attacks. I usually don't report 3RR rules except by admins, but this user's continued disingenuous use of a deceptive excuse, rose to the level of vandalism and complete lack of good faith.--Silverback 09:22, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • Discussions related to Sleepnomore's recent behavior can be found at these pages: [7] [8] [9] --Silverback 11:07, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
    Sleepnomore is correct that there have been too many personal attacks on this talk page. There have been multiple user conduct RfCs and one RfAr filed as a result of these personal attacks and revert wars. Apparently Sleepnomore thinks that blanking much of this history will restore peace. Trying to do this twice or even three times in a 24-hour period was a reasonable attempt. However, at this point, violating 3RR was not useful. Robert McClenon 16:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
    She reverted a lot of stuff that wasn't personal attacks, so hers was only a pseudo attempt to help, not a good faith effort. She thought she had found a revert out jail free card. Based on her sudden appearance on July 22nd in a edit war elsewhere involve an opponent with sleepy as a componenent of the name, she is suspected of being a sock puppet anyway.--Silverback 18:10, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

    User:4.227.175.237 , User: Homoneutralis, User:4.228.216.125

    and others

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

    To quote: You damn fool, I'm not the anon poster he was talking about. LOL!! I think I will notify the sysops of you obtuse stupidity. Homoneutralis 01:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
    To quote: I shudder to think how many ignorant souls like you there are on Wikipedia. Homoneutralis 02:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
    To quote: Seriously, are you still in High School? POV destroyer 22:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
    To quote: Seriously, how old are you? Homoneutralis 02:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
    To quote: You just desperate to find something un-neutral about me aren't you? It's so unbecoming. Homoneutralis 02:22, 22 August 2005
    To quote: You know exactly how you want this story portrayed, and you will call anything that runs counter to your idealogy, "POV". Please be forewarned, that I was not born yesterday, POV destroyer 17:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
    To quote: Uh-oh, now you've done it. Eleemosynary will soon be all over you calling you a biased, POV-inserting charlatan who should be blocked immediately...oh, wait, no sorry, that's only if you add anything that doesn't come from George Soros or Michael Moore. Homoneutralis 18:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC
    To quote: You'll find intellectual honesty is not a ubiquitous asset around these parts. Good luck. Homoneutralis 19:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
    To quote: Let me stop you before you make a complete fool of yourself. The fact that you don't see the POV in using terms like "Progressives" and "Patriots" should prove to the reader that you have no business trying to be a neutral point of view editor. I shudder to think how many ignorant souls like you there are on Wikipedia. Homoneutralis 02:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
    To quote: My experience with this one shows me that most of the more enthusiastic editors, that spend hours with an article are those that could be characterized as Liberal, Progressive, Leftist, whatever your favorite phrase is. Moderates and conservatives seem to have not found Wikipedia or avoid it. Homoneutralis 00:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

    Also from Homoneutralis as AKA POV Destroyer:

    To quote: I have not seen a good argument for exluding the "Fuhrer" comment. I will restore it. POV destroyer 17:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    To quote: you have selective reading skills. I think the person being personally attacked is me. POV destroyer 02:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
    To quote: The facts are making you upset Gorgon? Seriously, are you still in High School? POV destroyer 22:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
    To quote: Everytime you come on here accusing me of inserting POV you go running away with your tail between your legs when confronted by the facts. So keep it up, I'll let truth be my shield. POV destroyer 02:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

    It's a Revert Warriers Den. Contributors are asking what to do. Reported by: Kyle Andrew Brown 15:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

    User:68.77.89.152

    Three revert rule violation on DirecTV.

    He keeps adding his link to his illegal business to the article and destroying legitimate ones. See: [10]

    Reported by: michael180 16:59, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:84.68.242.172 or User:84.68.242.172 or User:MONGO

    Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 84.68.242.172 (talk · contribs)/User:84.68.242.172:

    • Previous version reverted to: [11]
    • 1st revert: [12]
    • 2nd revert: [13]
    • 3rd revert: [14]
    • 4th revert: [15]
    • 5th revert: [16]
    • 6th revers:

    [17]

    Reported by: Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:43, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • MONGO or one of a couple sockpuppets wish to prevent editors/members whom she disagrees with from making any improvements to a project page. S/he is both removing the list of all the "disapproved" editors, and reverting the project page to a version that excludes all contributions by these editors.

    The anon editor is the same dynamic IP subscriber: 

     $ nslookup 84.68.242.172
 Name:    user-4780.lns2-c11.dsl.pol.co.uk
 Address:  84.68.242.172

     & nslookup  81.79.117.98
 Name:    user-5474.l4.c3.dsl.pol.co.uk
 Address:  81.79.117.98

    I don't know how to check MONGO's IP address to make sure it's really the same though.

    Hey...I always log in and edit as MONGO...without exception. This is baseless. Just to let you know...[18] type in either IP you list and you'll see they are both from London, UK. I am in Omaha, Ne. USA.--MONGO 11:02, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Gbambino

    Reported by Astrotrain 21:17, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

    User:67.182.157.6, AKA Donald Alford

    Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DotSix/Evidence (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DotSix/Evidence|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.182.157.6 (talk · contribs):

    (User 67.182.157.6 (talk · contribs) recently edited AKA Donald Alford above to <lie deleted>, that change has been reverted and this note has been added --Mysidia (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC))

    • Previous version reverted to: [19]
    • 1st revert: [20]
    • 2nd revert: [21]
    • 3rd revert: [22]
    • 4th revert: [23]

    Reported by: Nate Ladd 00:14, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • This is this users 8th 3RR violation in the last 14 days.
    • The page he is reverting is the evidence page for the Arbcomm proceeding against him.
    • The version he is reverting to is one in which he edited another user's section of the Evidence page, in violation of the instructions of at the top of the page.
    • Because of his past bad behavior, this user's own talk page has been protected from him. I know that sounds weird but it is true. I won't try to relate the craziness that led up to that page being protected, but the point is that I can't give him a warning. But he has been blocked 7 times in the last two weeks alone mainly for 3RR so it is hardly possible that he needs a warning and certainly not possible that he deserves one.

    User:Jayjg

    Three revert rule violation on terrorism. Jayjg: Jayjg is an administrator who has broken the three revert rule. He knows the rule, because he uses it against other editors. His reverts, in this case, are to two older definitions of the article, but they are always reverts away from the same definition that editors have spent over a month and hundreds of hours coming to a consensus on in the discussion page.

    Two other characters appeared immediately after Jayjg first started reverting and reverted the same article instead of discussing it in Talk, the way the rest of us had done. When we asked Jayjg and SlimVirgin to produce a single example of their claims against the article, they refused and just kept reverting the article. We tried to work with their concerns, but they refused to be specific about their allegations.

    The definition of "terrorism" is highly volatile. Those of us who have been exhaustively working on the introduction for months have agreed to propose changes to the introduction for editing in the talk page before they are submitted to the main article. Even though we have vastly different views, we have stuck to that and it has worked well. Now Jayjg and his buddies appear, after having nothing to do with the comprehensive editing process of the article, make vague accusations, and revert it out of hand. People from all over the world have written me, thanking me for finally objectively defining the term. I tell them that, if they think it is good and true, they should say so. Even though many of them aren't editors, I have seen more support for this article, from IPs all over the globe, than I have seen for any other edit. Many of the supporters have even chastised Jayjg while fixing the article. Yet Jayjg and his two buddies keep reverting the edits. I hope you will look at the other two people in the edit history and see if they could also be Jayjg. I also ask that you put an end to this hostile-editing by blocking User:Jayjg. Without him, we have a proven equitable and effective way of editing this article without it jumping back and forth. Thank you for your consideration.

    Comments:

    • Please take a hard look at User:Jayjg's personal edit history. By in large, Jayjg doesn't create. He simply destroys. He purports himself to be an editing authority via his administrative powers, but I've never seen him help fix something that he says is broken. He simply deletes it and blocks those who fail to recognize his authority. In doing so, Jayjg has exceeded his authority as an administrator, and he has done so on dozens of occasions. I ask that his administrative powers be revoked. Thank you. --Zephram Stark 00:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I haven't looked at the diffs yet, but Zephram has spent the day revert-warring at Terrorism using sockpuppets and what looks like open proxies. The only reason he hasn't been reported for 3RR is we can't conclusively prove it's him. Furthermore, there is no consensus at all for his version, which consists entirely of original research and POV personal essays. He's being opposed on the talk page by Jayjg, Commodore Sloat, and myself, and no-one is supporting him. It's also nonsense that we've produced no arguments on talk or that Jay is using sockpuppets. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:01, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • The diffs don't show a 3RR violation. Jay deleted neologisms and original research at 16:44 Aug 22 (an edit, not a revert), then he reverted a sockpuppet at 19:39, reverted a suspected open proxy at 22:46, and reverted another open proxy at 23:14 — three reverts, not four. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:13, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Seeing as how SlimVirgin was one of the other users war-editing the definition—-reverting it back to an old definition as a sick form of punishment—-and breaking the 3RR rule herself in doing so, I think it's safe to discount everything she says. When we consider that her accused "sockpuppets" come from IPs all over the world, it's pretty easy to verify his lack of integrity in supporting Jayjg. --Zephram Stark 02:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • That's right. Anon IP addresses from all over the world just happened to converge today on Terrorism and all reverted to your preferred version. Neither Jayjg nor I violated 3RR and, FYI, I'm a she. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:13, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, jayjg, jpgordon and SlimVirgin hapen to "converge" a little too often, in the same articles and happen to coincide on POVs. It happened to me once and since they kept reverting my edits I rearned about 3RR the hard way since SlimVirgin blocked me. Others have noted that type of behavior (see/SlimVirginJayjgJpgordon). They often backup each other in their claims so in reality is a losing battle trying to get SlimVirgin to mediate in this issue, I would try to get a different admin not associated with any of the above mentioned. --Vizcarra 01:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you, I appreciate that. No need to apologize though: you couldn't have known. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:59, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

    User:64.109.248.118

    Three revert rule violation on List of ethnic groups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 64.109.248.118 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Mark1 04:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    blocked for 24 hours

    User:Irishpunktom

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

    Reported by: Jayjg (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Keep re-adding the phrase "noted for its tolerance, was a refuge for people fleeing oppression, such as Jews escaping etc.". Refused to engage in discussion on the Talk: page, or even use edit summaries for his reverts. Has been asked numerous times to revert himself [24] [25] [26]. Now, when faced with the prospect of 3RR blocking, has begun making small changes to the wording in order to "game" the 3RR rules, and has also suddenly decided that he wants to discuss the article content (though he still refuses to revert himself). Jayjg (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
      • The source of the conflict, as I understood it, was my inclusion of the Sufis, unsourced, which I have removed. Now Jayjg is changing his argument. It's hard to understand his problem when it changes. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:31, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
        • No, the source of the conflict was that you kept claiming that the country was was noted for its tolerance, and that is was a refuge for many groups, but only cited one. This has been explained several times. The problem now is that you have violated 3RR and insist on arguing article content, rather than simply reverting yourself. Jayjg (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

    141.154.249.110

    141.154.249.110 (talk · contribs)

    Reported by: Atlant 15:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

    blocked for 24 hoursGeni 00:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

    User:Gavin the Chosen 5

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

    Reported by: Hipocrite 04:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    I've dealt with this and have reverted to the pre-3RR version at Therianthropy. I'll do the same at the other one. I haven't blocked him for it this time, but if it continues, I will. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:59, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, but how exactly is giving a warning to someone who had two 3RR violations here, not to mention all the ones aove, not to mention all the previous ones before that, at all a valid response? You promised to the 30 people on his RfC that you would be personally watching over him and block him if he got out of line at all (you had claimed even if he engaged in any personal insults, which he does constantly all the time with no repercussions), and what really has happened is that you've been far more lenient to him than you would be to a brand new editor off the street, let alone someone with such a notorious history here. If you aren't going to hold up your promises and take real action you should probably step aside and let other admins take over. DreamGuy 09:45, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    This is the reason [27] I didn't block him, and I'd made that decision before I saw this report. As for personal attacks, in future, post the diffs on my talk page. I do keep an eye on him, but I don't check every single edit he makes. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:06, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    I do not understand at all how you wanting to congratulate him on getting a job is a rationale for shirking your admin duties and going against your promises to block him immediately for any further offenses in the future as discussed on his RfC. I find it difficult to believe that you don't see his personal attacks considering that he made several of them on a revenge RfAr he filed against me under false pretenses, which you are supporting him on. It's quite clear that you've taken sides and that you are not fairly disciplining Gabriel when he violates rules like you promised. Another admin needs to step in and take over. DreamGuy 13:15, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    Be a mensch, DreamGuy. And please stop attacking everyone who doesn't agree with you as being biased against you. Aggressive responses are the reason Gavin has filed an RfAr and also the reason I've posted a third-party comment. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:28, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    I am not assuming everyone is biased against me, I am assuming that an admin who makes uncivil comments towards me, has threatened to block me for the same behavior she herself regularly does (removing comments added to own's one talk page) and did actually falsely block me for a 3RR violation that wasn't a violation in her zeal to get at me is biased. Your every action shows clear bias. As I suggested a month back already, when you have a personal conflict with an editor you need to step back and let other admins deal with it. Instead you have purposefully inserted yourself into any conflict anyone has with me to take their side. There's assuming good faith and then there's seeing clear evidence of bias that simply cannot be ignored. And if you think making highly uncivil remarks is going to prove that you don't have a bias, you have another thing coming.DreamGuy 13:39, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    You see? Here you go again. You were blocked for a clear 3RR violation, and the only reason I unblocked you was that one of the reverts was against what turned out to be a sockpuppet of a banned user. I used the same judgment in your favor that I used above in Gavin's favor. I have no personal conflict with you, and I'm not taking Gavin's side against you. On the contrary, I've blocked him four times since August 11. But it's also true that you fall out with almost every editor you encounter, and so I made a comment to that effect on Gavin's RfAr, as part of what you would otherwise call not "shirking [my] admin duties." This is my last response to you, by the way. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:56, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    Pray tell, which of SlimVirgin's edits are uncivil? She certainly seems more civil than you. ~~ N (t/c) 14:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    Without getting involved in the above dispute, I concur that Gavin should be blocked. Would another admin be willing to do this? ~~ N (t/c) 13:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    I hope that no one does, Nickptar, because Ed and I agreed to keep an eye on Gavin, and there are a number of issues we take into account in deciding what to do. It's not an easy case, and while we don't want to be too soft, we don't want to be too harsh either. I had a chat today with another admin about the need for consistency in Gavin's case, and I take that on board. I'll make it clear to Gavin that yesterday was an exception and that he can't count on it happening again. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:56, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    I do think you're being too soft, and that a zero-tolerance policy is appropriate. But what the hey, maybe it'll help him if he feels less hated. Would you mind explaining your reasoning in this case, besides just wanting to give him a break? ~~ N (t/c) 14:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    He's starting a new job today, which matters a great deal to him, and these blocks upset him a lot. I therefore didn't want to upset him the night before his first day. I agree that a zero-tolerance policy is best, and I'll pursue it from now on as a general rule, but real life matters too, and in this instance, I prioritized his real life. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:09, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    Okey-dokey. ~~ N (t/c) 14:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    I'm not going to block, but for what it's worth I agree with Nickptar here. Our primary goal is creating an encyclopaedia, not mentoring people or helping them with their issues. Of course those are all useful tools for getting more and better editors, and as long as it doesn't cause problems it's the nice thing to do, but from what I'm seen the longer Gabriel/Gavin is blocked, the less wikistress and bad blood he creates, which in the long run makes wikipedia a lot better than the few good edits that he makes. If you want to mentor users that's laudable, but not at the cost of wikipedia. --fvw* 21:46, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Alibadawi

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

    Reported by: Shem(talk) 06:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Pigsonthewing

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

    Reported by: Joolz 17:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:TDC

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

    Reported by: 165.247.204.42 17:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • This user was recently warned by an Admin about violating the 3RR here. Review of her talk page and edit history indicate violating the 3RR might just be a hobby of hers. Her most recent Edit Summary taunts, "go a head do another 3RR" as if to challenge other editors to violate the 3RR as well. 165.247.204.42 17:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    3RR is fine for reverting simple vandalism, like the vandalism you have been performing on my talk page [28]. Shall we also point to your 15 RV's on day in another article [29]? TDC 18:08, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    BTW, why not just revert me again, its nok like the Admins can block you anyways. Should we begin to count the number of times you have violated the 3RR on this and other articles? We could, but unfortunately it would take half the page. TDC 18:18, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    Please don't confuse me with other editors. I am not the person editing your talk page, as anyone can tell by doing a simple IP trace. If you see editors violating the 3RR, please report them -- but it is not justification to violate the 3RR yourself. 165.247.204.42 18:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    So, are you so bold as to lie to everyone and say that you are not the same individual who reverted an article 15 times in one day, and that you are not the same user who has vandalizing my page, and that you are not the same user who has continually violated the 3RR rule on this and other pages? A simple IP trace has shown all of this. Or in your own words: Fortunately for Wikipedia, there are no restrictions on how often simple vandalism like yours may be reverted. Anyone that takes a moment can see your edits for what they are -- you aren't fooling anyone. You should take your own advice. 19:03, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    but what you were reverting does not fit under the defintion of simple vandalism. Further more of the 3 ips you listed the one who made the report came from earthlink, the vadalism came from AOL and the 15 reverts from Deutsche Telekom.Geni 19:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    I also checked the trace for you. You confuse my IP with one from AOL that originates in Virginia (an ISP I refuse to use, btw). It appears your list of admirers is growing. Stop the lies, TDC. And stop the 3RR violations while you are at it. 209.86.3.213 19:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    Actually, 2 of the users on the Hue article were involved in multiple RV, one from DT, and one from EarthLink [30], same as the anon who reported this. One [31] of the many vandals to my userpage is also an EarthLink user. TDC 19:30, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    Its nice to the the anon has broken the 3RR, again. TDC 19:53, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • I have blocked TDC for 24 hours for the 3RR violation. No one is exempt from the policy, and there seems to be no clear consensus on the article talk page. 165.247.204.42, please be careful not to violate the 3RR rule; I note that you reverted the page 3 times in less than 24 hours. A fourth revert would have made you violate the policy. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    I've blocked everyone for 24 hours reverted the page to the last version by ed poor (the last edit by someone not apprently involved in the current edit war) and protected it.Geni 20:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    I've unblocked 209.86.3.213; he has not violated 3RR. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    yes he has or do you seriously think there is no reltion between him and the other earthlink guy?
    As I asked TDC, is there a way to find out if the two IPs are linked? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    they are doing the same thing on the same article and come from the same ISP.Geni 21:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

    Gamaliel

    3RR violation at Rosemary Kennedy Page by Gamaliel. My wife is a new user, she has every right to work on this page as I do. User:Susanrd. She is alive and not a sock puppet. We share the same computer here.


    User:66.36.133.229

    Repeatedly vandalized the Hypnotize (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. He/she has refused to stop removing a sentence that says "The album was supposed to be called Mezmerize before rotating" and has been fond of claiming that it's false. It's not because there have been some reports early this year saying Mezmerize would be first before switiching sides. He/she has also nearly got me breaking the 3RR. I'm not the one who started this argument.

    His/her violations:

    Comments:

    • User would not to listen to me!

    Thanks for any help you may provide. -- Mike Garcia | talk 23:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

    That's only three reverts. --fvw* 23:25, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, but I am adding it just in-case he/she does it more than 3 times. -- Mike Garcia | talk 23:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    Hang on, hasn't Mike Garcia already violated the 3RR just now?? 66.36.133.229 23:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    No, I did not violate the 3RR yet. Just feel free answer me at talk page of Hypnotize to see how it feels if you would stop editing the article. -- Mike Garcia | talk 23:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    My mistake. I've already gone to the talk page but you're not answering me. 66.36.133.229 23:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    For what? You are the one whose being in the wrong right now and a disruption. All your bullshit is nothing but a spew of vandalism. -- Mike Garcia | talk 23:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

    User:Mike Garcia

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

    Reported by: 66.36.133.229 23:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Refuses to source his information, my deleting it "vandalism". Any help you can provide appreciated. Thanks!
      • Not a 3RR violation, there aren't 4 reverts in a single 24 hour period. Not a good situation though, could you two please try mediation or an RFC? Thanks. --fvw* 00:01, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

    User: 164.58.253.45

    Three revert rule violation on Rosemary Kennedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 164.58.253.45 (talk · contribs):

    • Also probably Susanrd (talk · contribs), who claims to be the wife of the IP and posts using the same computer. No mention of sons, daughters, neighbors, or the family dog who just happen to post from the same computer.

    Reported by: Calton | Talk 00:25, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

    Gamaliel already got it. The reverse DNS for that IP is filter1.onenet.net, and considering how quickly the Susanrd switched to it after being warned about the 3RR, could this be an open proxy? I can't find any proof of that though. --fvw* 00:31, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Chriss P.

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

    Reported by: ∞Who?¿? 05:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Report new violation

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive9&oldid=21796167"