Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive9: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 08:32, 1 August 2005

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.

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352
353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362
Incidents (archives, search)
1139	1140	1141	1142	1143	1144	1145	1146	1147	1148
1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
465	466	467	468	469	470	471	472	473	474
475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482	483	484
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
315	316	317	318	319	320	321	322	323	324
325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Violations

User:BernardL

Previous version reverted to: 16:40, July 20, 2005
1st revert: 10:18, July 21, 2005
2nd revert: 21:11, July 21, 2005
3rd revert: 21:27, July 21, 2005
4th revert: 21:51, July 21, 2005

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

Comments

Please note that he is removing the same passage in all reverts, even with an attempted compromise wording. Also note that he is using anonymous IPs for some reverts, whether by coincidence or in attempt to avoid block. However, he openly uses the IP account for his BernardL one, and signs comments. In regards to two IPs used here, User:69.157.232.214 and User:69.157.233.37, note that he signs his comments as BernardL and does not disassociate himself from the anons. --TJive 02:05, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

So....nothing? --TJive 11:47, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Hallo.... --TJive 00:24, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

BernardL (and the IP addresses) haven't edited Noam Chomsky since the request was made here. Since he stopped edit warring more than two days ago, there's little point in blocking. The 3RR is meant to throw cold water on edit wars in progress, not to punish afterwards.

It is also customary to warn users on their talk pages that a 3RR violation has been posted here—particularly new users who may not be familiar with the policy. (I have now done this.) I consider the matter closed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Boothy443

Previous version reverted to: 04:52, July 21, 2005
1st revert: 07:30, July 21, 2005
2nd revert: 07:46, July 21, 2005
3rd revert: 07:50, July 21, 2005
4th revert: 08:06, July 21, 2005
5th revert: 08:27, July 21, 2005

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

Comments:

I have no involvement in this, but it is has been showing up on my watchlist all day. Boothy kept trying to redirect his talk page, which was seen as hostile. --Dmcdevit·t 02:29, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think it's proper for Boothy to redirect his talk page to another page, but since he has stopped doing that I don't see any problem here. Not a blockable violation, anyway. It's his talk page, he can revert it as many times as he likes. Rhobite 03:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Gads. Poor behaviour all around here, really. Wikipedia:Sheep vote for a while incorporated a section that might be taken as an attack on Boothy443. Boothy443–instead of editing or VfDing Wikipedia:Sheep vote–redirected his User Talk page there, which led to the edit war over his redirection.

I'm not sure what point Boothy443 is trying to make. I would suggest that we cut him some slack since a) he was made fun of, and b) it's in his userspace. That said, he should be strongly cautioned not to redirect his User Talk page, as it makes it very difficult for other users to communicate with him.

I also wish that he would at least explain what point he's trying to make with his votes at WP:RFA; it might reduce some of the bad feelings that surround him. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Pastorrussell

1st revert: 09:16, 21 July 2005
2nd revert: 2:28, 21 July 2005
3rd revert: 18:48, 21 July 2005
4th revert: 21:27, 21 July 2005
5th revert: 21:57, 21 July 2005 (By 71.65.65.165, probably Pastorrussell)
6th revert: 22:15, 21 July 2005
7th revert: 22:52, 21 July 2005
8th revert: 23:08, 21 July 2005
9th revert: 23:41, 21 July 2005
10th revert: 23:50, 21 July 2005
11th revert: 00:17, 22 July 2005
12th revert: 00:28, 22 July 2005
13th revert: 09:03, 22 July 2005
14th revert: 12:08, 22 July 2005

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

Comments:

Pastorrussell has been persistently removing any dispute tag from the article. I've been holding off on reporting in the hopes that talk-page discussion would resolve the issue, but the most recent edit by Pastorrussell indicates that would be futile.

I've warned Pastorrussell and will block him if he reverts again. Gamaliel 19:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Theathenae

Comment

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

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

165.247.208.72

Although not the same IP address as 209.86.1.9, both coming from the same proxy server according to ARIN

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

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

User:67.134.82.77

Comments:

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

- Previous version reverted to: 14:12, 22 July 2005
- 1st revert: 14:51, 22 July 2005
- 2nd revert: 18:24, 22 July 2005
- 3rd revert: 19:13, 22 July 2005
- 4th revert: 19:26, 22 July 2005

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

User:Pastorrussell

Previous version reverted to: 16:06, 22 July 2005
1st revert: 17:39, 22 July 2005
2nd revert: 19:59, 22 July 2005
3rd revert: 20:10, 22 July 2005
4th revert: 20:47, 22 July 2005
5th revert: 20:51, 22 July 2005
6th revert: 21:04, 22 July 2005
7th revert: 21:37, 22 July 2005

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

Comments:

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

Blocked for 24 hours. Gamaliel 05:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Copperchair

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

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

Hi Phil, the diffs don't seem to show evidence of three or more reverts to a previous version. I've leave a note on his page about reverting anyway. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:23, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Three are marked as "revert" in the edit summary while the fourth is marked as "correcting thumbnail" (but in effect reverts content previously reverted if you see the other diffs). The policy states "do not revert any single page more than three times in any 24 hour period", and that is what Copperchair did. — Phil Welch 00:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

He'd have to be warned first before being blocked anyway, Phil, so I've done that. If he does it again, he's likely to be blocked. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:05, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

User:212.88.98.187

1st revert: [9]
2nd revert: [10]
3rd revert: [11]
4th revert: [12]
5th revert: [13]

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

Comments:

Keeps on inserting the words "The act is mainly islamic" into the Terrorism article.
- Warned. El_C 12:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Using new IP now, and is continuing to do it with his new IP of (User:212.88.98.165). --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I can no longer revert him without violating the 3rr rule, so can someone please take a look. Thanks. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I've locked to page against his version but I don't want to do that for long.Geni 16:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

added to my watchlist for what that's worth. Septentrionalis

Come on, surely this counts as vandalism? He did it ten times without trying to justify himself. – Smyth\^talk 10:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Huaiwei

1st revert: 14:22, July 23, 2005
2nd revert: 19:15, July 23, 2005
3rd revert: 07:02, July 24, 2005
4th revert: 07:35, July 24, 2005

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

Comments:

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

This isn't the place for such a debate; please aim for a more constructive one. 12 hrs so as to hasten meaningful dialogue on the talk page. El_C 12:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing it to end El C. Huaiwei brought up something which were not entirely true [16], and I was made to respond and to clarify. — Insta ntnood 12:16, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

User:69.110.184.197

1st revert: [17]
2nd revert: [18]
3rd revert: [19]
4th revert: [20]
5th revert: [21] By User:81.129.79.2 probaly a sockpuppet.
6th revert: [22]

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

Comments:

Inserts POV paragraph.

Blocked for 24 hours. El_C 11:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Homeontherange

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:-Ril- (yet again)

Revert 1: [23]
Revert 2: [24]
Revert 3: [25]
Revert 4: [26]

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

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

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

User:Heraclius

Previous version reverted to: 02:38, 19 July 2005
1st revert: 01:05, 25 July 2005
2nd revert: 01:07, 25 July 2005
3rd revert: 01:09, 25 July 2005
4th revert: 01:12, 25 July 2005

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

Comments:

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

Correct, that passage is deleted in all instances. Blocked for 24 hours. El_C 01:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Bee Hive

Previous version reverted to: 12:00, July 23, 2005
1st revert: 14:10, July 24, 2005
2nd revert: 18:51, July 24, 2005
3rd revert: 19:40, July 24, 2005
4th revert: 21:46, July 24, 2005

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

Comments:

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

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

User:TruthComission

Previous version reverted to: 21:32, 23 July 2005
1st revert: 00:01, 24 July 2005
2nd revert: 04:10, 24 July 2005
3rd revert: 19:56, 24 July 2005
4th revert: 20:10, 24 July 2005
5th revert: 20:37, 24 July 2005
6th revert: 22:00, 24 July 2005

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

Comments:

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

blocked for 24 hours.Geni 10:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Zen-master

Previous version reverted to: 21:45, 19 May 2005
1st revert: 06:29, 25 July 2005
2nd revert: 17:58, 25 July 2005
3rd revert: 18:11, 25 July 2005
4th revert: 18:54, 25 July 2005

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

Comments:

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

Blocked for 24 hours. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:22, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

- Furthermore, I have blocked jayjg for violation of the 3RR. See User_talk:Jayjg#3RR_violation Cburnett 01:15, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

I have blocked you for 3RR violation on AIDS conspiracy theories.

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

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

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

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

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

Furthermore, how can Jayjg be excluded from the 3RR for stating his side of the edit war when each edit by zen-master has been precisely the same? Zen-master says there's a dispute; jayjg says there isn't. I find your immediate unblocking of jayjg, without discussion, highly disturbing. Especially when you consider what's written above:

Administrators will look over and discuss whether a user has truly violated the three revert rule, and take appropriate blocking action if necessary.

I have left zen-master blocked and I expect you to leave jayjg blocked until discussion has taken place. Cburnett 02:03, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Cburnett, Zen-master violated 3RR, but Jayjg did not, so there's no reason the latter should stay blocked. Jayjg's fourth edit was an attempt to reach a compromise. He added the tag that Zen-master wanted (which Jayjg didn't want). He included a link to the poll on conspiracy theory, which Zen-master also wanted (and Jayjg didn't want). Jayjg modified the tag Zen-master wanted by making it clear that a consensus on the term conspiracy theory had been reached, which is accurate. It's not a revert to any previous version of the page, in whole or in part, in letter or in spirit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:16, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Accurate is a POV thing and zen-master clearly disagrees. I can't believe both of you fail to grasp this, not only conceptually, but direct evidence from zen-master reverting it. Cburnett 02:18, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

Cburnett, the 3RR rule is clear. It doesn't matter whether Jay's edit was accurate or not (that's just an added bonus). We're not allowed to revert to a previous version of the page more than three times in 24 hours, in whole or in part. The quality of the edit is irrelevant, except where it's vandalism.

You've now unblocked Zen-master, who clearly violated 3RR in this case, and who has a history of 3RR violations and of aggressive reverting, particularly over this conspiracy-theory issue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:32, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how jayjg (and slim) can logically claim that jay's edit was a "compromise" nor how it is even an accurate description. There may be some confusion over whether a majority vote equals consensus, over 10 users voted on Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory that "conspiracy theory" titled articles are a problem, this is more than enough to signify the basis of an {NPOV} dispute. And cburnett noted, as I have, on Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories or to me on irc that he read the talk page and coulnd't find an alleged consensus for the removal of the disputed header. zen master T 02:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

Dispute headers are not removed when there is simply a majority (or else they would always be removed), they are removed when there are no arguably legitimate neutrality disputes in existence. Did you catch my response to willmcw's similar holding the page "hostage" point on the talk page? That is precisely why i created the nice looking "Notice: there is a neutrality dispute involving this article's title" header, to avoid charges of "ugly" header, it looks exactly the same as a disambig notice. When you say "consensus" I think you mean "majority"? zen master T 02:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Dispute headers aren't forever, POV summaries masquerating as disambig notices are ugly. You've repeated your claim that headers are only removed when there is no "legitimate dispute", but this is clearly completely bogus, as everyone thinks their dispute is legitimate, yet individuals cannot hold pages hostage. As for consensus, yes, on Wikipedia consensus is measured by a significant majority, which this has. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The lack of discussion by the "pro" side is not evidence there is no dispute. How is headers are only removed when there is no legitimate neutrality dispute "completely bogus"? It is a de facto wikipedia policy that the {NPOV} header is only removed when there is unanimous consensus to do so, why shouldn't that extend to other dispute headers/notices? The removal of disputed headers from articles is certainly not measured by a majority on wikipedia. zen master T 03:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

Cburnett, this is the page for discussing the block, and that's what I am doing here. I was more than happy to chalk it up to error, but you have continued to both defend the block, and take other actions which are quite disturbing, given your part in this affair. Now you appear to be trying to deflect examination of all these issues. I'll certainly discuss the tag on the appropriate page (i.e. AIDS conspiracy theories), but that's not what this page is about. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

You must have missed me saying "You haven't even bothered to respond to my comments on Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories..." since you think I'm calling for a discussion on the dispute on this page when I'm clearly pointing for discussion on that talk page. Cburnett 02:46, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't had time to respond there yet; rest assured, I will in good time. And I see you're now trying to quell discussion on this page. Moreover, I note you yourself have now reverted the article page twice, and then put a modified comment at the top of the page. Should I now block you for, based on, as you put it, the "spirit" and "purpose" of the 3RR: ...the 3RR is intended as a means to stop edit wars..., since, as you've said above, your edits did not (clearly) have the intention of quelling the edit war, and your "compromise" was no compromise at all, but merely stated your side of the edit war? In my opinion at this point your actions have gone way beyond any charitable interpretation. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe if you could count. If you include mimicking your action, which so far 2-1 isn't a revert, then I'm still at 3 reverts. Cburnett 03:29, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

By that method of counting Zen-master did 5 reverts; in any event, you're edit warring, and that's what the policy is supposed to prevent. The exact number of reverts, or that they be actual reverts, obviously doesn't matter to you; it's all about the "spirit". Will you be blocking yourself now, to show consistency with your principles? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, so it can count toward zen-master and I, but not you. Stop having your cake and eating it too. It's interesting that Calton reverted an article that he's never edited and has explicitly stated that he never intends on discussing. Cburnett 03:46, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

It's generally considered that if one must resort to lying to support a position, as you have just done, that position is not worth defending. I never explicitly stated that [I] never intend on discussing. I looked at it, considered the issue settled and the version reverted to as a fair summary, and left it at that. I inserted myself because, as a general rule, I don't like bullies, which is what you're being. --Calton | Talk 04:38, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

That's your counting method, not mine Cburnett; see how silly it turns out to be? As for Calton, I can't really speak for him, but perhaps he thinks your edits are so close to vandalism that there's no need for conversation - that's usually why people revert without comment. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Even my counting doesn't put me at 4+ reverts, just you and zen-master....yet you're not banned. Again, you fail to understand what I've actually said. Cburnett 03:57, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Your counting method isn't based on actual reverts, but about enforcing the "spirit" of the rule, which is to stop edit warring, not to count exact numbers of reverts. And of course I understand it; more importantly, I understand both the inherent flaws in your unique intepretation of the 3RR, and your inconsistency in applying that interpretation to yourself. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

Not quite what I'd call a side point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:32, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Another action that violates more than the "spirit" of 3RR. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

You're out of line here, Cburnett.

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

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

Here we go, this is starting to get personal and no discussion is taking place on Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories. Sad. Very sad.

In regards to slimvirgin's points:

Only because he can't be heard. Users have been granted posting rights to there talk pages to address being blocked. He did and nothing happened. He sent 4 emails to admins trying to get discussion: including one to you SlimVirgin. Nothing happened. Clearly you, the one dealing with it wasn't paying attention to your email nor his talk page.
Blocking involves admin discretion and I exercised it on jayjg. "discretion", by definition, does not guarantee everyone will agree.
I explained this: I am assuming good faith on zen-master's part and, so far, he has upheld his promise of not editing articles.
I "chastised" (to use your word) not because he made the report, but he failed to address my points at Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories despite having viewed the page; seeing I put the tag back; and either not bothering to look at the talk page or not caring to answer me.
I have only done one revert to an anonymous user taking pot shots at me (which is all I intend on doing) and have called for Calton to join the discussion on the talk page after he reverted my compromise notice (which by your's and jayjg's isn't anything resembling a revert).

I think it could get a lot worse. Not even you are willing to address my points on Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories. It appears no one is interested in solving the problem BUT me. Cburnett 03:07, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

You appear to be the problem at this point. We're discussing that. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

Yes, I want you to comment on Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories but you won't despite being requested several times. I never said you shouldn't comment here, just that it's sad you care more about this than the actual dispute.

I also said that if you care to move it to zen's talk page so the block can be reinstated (nevermind he's kept his promise of not editing articles) then do it. But you clearly don't want to do that either...just complain about favortism. If you and zen's position were swapped, I'd do the same thing. I'm not playing favorites. Cburnett 03:07, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I comment on Talk: pages on my own schedule, not on yours. This issue is immediate, and involves apparent abuse of admin powers on your part; it's far more important than the other dispute, which has lasted 2 1/2 months now, and is merely about a dispute header. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

My abuse, eh? Interesting. Cburnett 03:29, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

And quite obvious, at this point. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Another point for your information, Cburnett: you wrote above that Zen-master needed to have access to this page to discuss his block. But blocks are normally discussed with the blocking admin by e-mail. Zen-master e-mailed me saying the fourth revert wasn't a revert. I responded that if he would explain to me why not, I would take a fresh look at it, but he didn't reply. He could also have asked me to discuss it with him on his talk page, but he didn't.

If Zen-master breaks his promise to you, and makes any edits to pages other than this one or his talk page during the blocking period, I will reinstate it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:10, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Slim, by what method did you respond to my email? I have not yetreceived anything and your post on my talk page said you'd get back to me quickly... zen master T 03:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I've just re-sent it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:23, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Zen has told me that he never received a reply. You didn't reply on his talk page (despite outright claiming in this discussion that you've been online). So this is obviously not a normal case since there's a major breakdown in communication and how things are "normally" done.

Re: re-blocking. I've stated it myself that I'd block him, so by all means block him if I don't get to it first. I have zero problems with this. Cburnett 03:16, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

There has been no breakdown of communication on my part. I blocked him and invited him to e-mail me. He did. I replied. He didn't. You then blocked Jay and unblocked zen-master without discussing any of it in advance with me.

I have resent my e-mail to zen-master. Perhaps if he responds to it, we can make some progress. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:23, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Oh, I see, it's SV's fault for allegedly not responding to someone SV blocked for reverting a page 4 times (or 5, according to your "spirit of the law" rules), but not your fault for blocking someone who did not violate 3RR at all, and then unblocking the other editor, and edit warring on his behalf. Astounding. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

LOL!! In addition to all of the above, the whole thing is now my fault?

I'm available by e-mail. Other editors have no trouble getting through to me. If zen-master received no reply, I wonder why he didn't email me again to check I'd received it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:28, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

No, you might reread what I said and realize I didn't blame "the whole thing" on you, only that I'm involved. Please read what I write, not put words in my mouth. Cburnett 03:33, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

One thing I've noticed is that I've never seen zen-master get involved in an issue that hasn't resulted in claim and counter-claim flying hysterically back and forth. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:53, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Nice job attacking my character slim, it takes two to edit war, and it takes a gang of highly organized POV pushers to deny the mention of a legitimate neutrality dispute. At this point I will point out the conflict of interest slim has on the "conspiracy theory" issue as she was the person that authored the "pro" argument over on Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory. zen master T 04:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

And that has what to do with me not blaming the "whole thing" on you? Cburnett 03:58, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I understand it the issue before the arbcom is the race and intelligence dispute? zen master T 04:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, my initial tone with Cburnett was quite friendly: ending my comments with "no hard feelings, keep up the good work"[38] and "I appreciate you're trying to do your best. Cheers."[39] It was only after Cburnett unblocked Zen-master, started edit-warring on his behalf, and insisting that I shouldn't comment here but that only Zen-master should, that things got less friendly; nevertheless exposing admin abuse is not "taking an ugly tone". In addition, if I'd brought Zen-master to WP:AN/3RR for his first four edits, nobody would have blocked him for "disrupting" or "gaming the spirit of the rule". That includes you, and Cburnett. I know this, because I've brought far more obvious cases of 3RR reversions here and been ignored, because the reverts weren't exact enough reverts; here's an example from less than a week ago:[40]. I know how 3RR is interpreted here, and it's a far cry from what you suggest. There was no 3RR violation on my part, no matter how you slice it; not as the policy is currently written and interpreted. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

How can I possibly have been "gaming the spirit" of the 3RR rule if I had no plans to revert the article tonight if you and others hadn't started removing dispute headers? It takes at least two (including groups of people) to edit war, and the impetus in this case was the illegitimate removal of neutrality dispute headers. zen master T 05:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you really serious? "I had no plans to revert, except that people disagreed with my version of the page". Sheesh. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow, jayjg, the half-truthes and specious arguments are rampant in your reply.

Being friendly is more than tacking on friendly-looking words
I didn't edit on anyone's behalf
I never said that you shouldn't comment here
In my discretion, you both violated the 3RR: I've stated this before any of the bickering here even started
You say nobody would have blocked zen-master....yet he was blocked by slimvirgin

Cburnett 14:39, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Friendly is friendly, you edit-warred for Zen-master's POV, you kept insisting that the fact that I was commenting here was a sign of something nefarious on my part, and I said Zen-master would never have been blocked after his first four edits. And he wasn't. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It may or may not be legitiamte but since it is not covered under Wikipedia:Vandalism it is not a legit exception to the 3RR. Using different dissputed tags is a fairly standard way of gameing the 3RR however it can also be a legit attempt to compramise (eg "ok I conside that there are not factual errors in the article but I still don't think it is NPOV"). In the case of zen master I feel that TitleDisputed and NPOV-title are close enogh to warrent a block. Jayjg has 3 reverts followed by a clasic edit waring technique (in a more typical POV disspute it involves creating an ultra POV version of the page that your oponent is pretty much forced to revert then you simply produce your closer to NPOV version 3 times). I think that counts as gameing the rule. As to the currently ongoing disspute can people please learn to comment stuff out?Geni 14:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean "comment stuff out"? Which stuff and where? Cburnett 14:39, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

the stuff about there being a consensus (something which appears to be questionable but no matter). Our readers don't need to know this as such it should be commented out. If you look at Bahá'u'lláh#Photograph and try and edit it you will find an example of commented out text.Geni 15:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

that policy does not superceed the 3 revert rule.Geni 15:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Is it at the same level as 3RR policy wise? If it's ok to add dispute headers when there is an in good faith neutrality dispute then someone removing them immediately after their being added or re-added would itself constitute a policy violation, correct? zen master T 16:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Insisting on "NPOV title" headers on a page for months, when you have lost (by a large margin) a vote one whether or not the title is NPOV, is not "good faith". Jayjg ^(talk) 16:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

By what policy are neutrality dispute headers added and removed from articles? If there is no clear policy for their removal then all we have to work from is the clear policy for their addition. There are three editors listed right above that agree with my complaint, and many more on the talk page historically. The Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory policy proposal was only to remove "conspiracy theory" titles (which received greater than 25% support, so there was no consensus either way by some metrics). But more importantly no where in the Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory counter proposal was it noted that was an opposite policy proposal for "conspiracy theory" to be considered perfect in every title situation going forward. A negative vote against one policy proposal does not automatically create an opposite policy, especially when not explicitly noted. After the vote we simply returned to the status quo before the policy was proposed, i.e. neutrality considerations are still used to determine titles and content on a case by case basis. Going forward, perhaps we should jointly write up a new policy proposal (and request voting) on whether or not "majority" equals "consensus" when it comes to neutrality disputes? And separately exactly what concerns do you see with merely signifying, using NPOV language, the existence of a minority view as far as presenting a controversial issue goes? For example the following simple text at the top: "Notice: a minority of editors allege the phrase 'conspiracy theory" biases the presentation of this subject, see the talk page for details"? zen master T 17:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should not be self-referential, and in particular should not list up front the views of a minority group of editors at a particular point in time, referencing an ever-changing Talk: page. That is completely non-encyclopedic. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Your statement seems to contradict the use of {NPOV} and other dispute headers generally, wikipedia is a freely accessible community encyclopedia, not just an encyclopedia. In your view what is the point of {NPOV} and other headers? it seems to me they were designed to signify the minority disputes some aspect of an article, do you agree? Currently {NPOV} headers point to an ever changing talk page everywhere they are used so I don't understand your point there, the key metric in my mind is the in good faith status of the dispute. If the point with the generic headers is to signify some sort of dispute then why not instead mention, using NPOV language, the specific details of the dispute rather than use an "ugly" header as you've noted previously? zen master T 18:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Dispute headers are intended to be temporary, not permanent article features. You are proposing a permanent header to the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

But by what policy are dispute headers removed even assuming there is a time based limitation? There is in fact no exact policy or process on removal, but there is a clear policy that headers are added if there is an in good faith dispute by the minority, and there is clearly one in this case. That is the core point of having {NPOV} headers -- you do realize they are rarely ever removed (without controversy) from an article if the article remains largely the same or continues to present the issue the same way over the course of two months or however long? Time doesn't magically make in good faith allegations of neutrality violations go away, you have to actually prove the header was added or even re-added in bad faith, that is the current policy. I am not proposing a permanent header be added, I am proposing a specific minority allegation header be added to note the exact details of the dispute to encourage discussion on the talk page to reach true 100% consensus. Do I interpret correctly you are not interested in going ahead with a community proposal to officially determine whether majority equals consensus in header dispute cases despite the numerous times you've errantly claimed such a policy already exists? FYI: the majority also doesn't get to decide time based limitations on in good faith header dispute cases either. Length of time of header placement is irrelevant if an in good faith dispute still exists. zen master T 19:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

User:67.182.157.6

Previous version reverted to: 18:57, July 15, 2005
1st revert: 03:32, July 26, 2005
2nd revert: 03:36, July 26, 2005
3rd revert: 03:56, July 26, 2005
4th revert: 04:53, July 26, 2005

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

Comments:

Note that this user was reported previously for a similar offence onRevision as of 21:34, July 16, 2005 by Ancheta Wis with no apparent result.Banno 09:21, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

67.182.157.6 is also the subject of Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#July 23, and an RfCWikipedia:Requests for comment#Miscellaneous Banno 09:21, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

User:24.224.207.234

Previous version reverted to: [44]
2nd revert: 03:34, July 26, 2005
3rd revert: 03:44, July 26, 2005
4th revert: 03:53, July 26, 2005
5th revert: 03:59, July 26, 2005
6th revert: 04:13, July 26, 2005
7th revert: 04:19, July 26, 2005
8th revert: 04:40, July 26, 2005

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

Comments:

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

User:Criztu

Edit creating version reverted to: 12:39, 24 July 2005
1st revert: 16:40, 25 July 2005
2nd revert: 20:29, 25 July 2005
3rd revert: 10:32, 26 July 2005
4th revert: 10:47, 26 July 2005

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

Comments:

Would prefer having the status quo restored and the user warned to having the user blocked. Kiss L 10:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I warned the user but someone else will have to provide any reverts.Geni 14:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not satisfied with the text of the warning, as it says "you are just about ok" while the above links show evidence of 4 reverts within a roughly 18-hour period. This, together with leaving his version of the article alone, does make it hard for me not to do a fourth revert myself. I also doubt that it achieves the goal of enforcing the 3RR next time. :(( Kiss L 14:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

There are diffences between each "revision" some of them are of about equal in size to the text being "reverted". The user does not have any past history that I know of gameing the rule. There is simply no way I can block him under the rule. As such I have no choice other than to admit that yes his just about within the rule this time around. What has happened greatly assists in inforceing the rule in future since it remove the "user wasn't warned" defence. Furthermore if the user continuse to act in there current way it will show that they are gameing the rule. If however they do not then I fail to see an issue. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith. If you want somone to decide what to do about the current version I would suggest contacting User:Mihnea Tudoreanu, User:Gubbubu and/or User:Max rspct all of whom have edited the article in the past and therfore probably have some knowage of the suject area.Geni 15:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

As stated together with the initial report, I did not and do not want the user blocked (this is because I am assuming good faith). However, according to Wikipedia:Revert, "A revert is a change or an edit made to a page that has the effect of undoing an earlier change or edit on the same page." This somewhat ambiguous definition is further clarified by the fact that "reverting to an earlier version" is referred to as "a kind of revert" only. So the user, by reverting four times within 18 hours to "The Hungarian offensive in Transylvania was repulsed by the Romanian army" in place of the previous "At the same time, the Romanians attacked from the South-East", did clearly violate the rule, and the warning should therefore have read something like "You have violated the rule, this time you are only warned, but next time you may get blocked" instead of "you are just about ok". (Mihnea Tudoreanu has, however, restored the correct version in the meantime, making all this a lot less important.) Kiss L 11:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

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

User:67.168.12.151

Previous version reverted to: 15:58, 26 July 2005
1st revert: 16:33, 26 July 2005
2nd revert: 16:35, 26 July 2005
3rd revert: 16:41, 26 July 2005
4th revert: 16:44, 26 July 2005
5th revert: 16:47, 26 July 2005
6th revert: 16:50, 26 July 2005
7th revert: 17:11, 26 July 2005

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

Comments:

User describes reversions as "rv vandalism", but this is not the case.

There are at least 4 direct reverts there and user appears to have been warned.User has been blocked for 24 hours.22:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

User:152.163.101.5

Previous version reverted to: 17:11, 27 July 2005
1st revert: 17:20, 27 July 2005
2nd revert: 17:24, 27 July 2005
3rd revert: 17:26, 27 July 2005
4th revert: 17:28, 27 July 2005
5th revert: 17:32, 27 July 2005

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

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

User:OmegaWikipedia

Previous version reverted to: 17:09, 26 July 2005
1st revert: 01:32, 27 July 2005
2nd revert: 01:32, 27 July 2005
3rd revert: 19:54, 27 July 2005
4th revert: 21:24, 27 July 2005
5th revert: 22:32, 27 July 2005

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

Comments:

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

Blocked for 24 hours. Gamaliel 22:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

User:172

1st revert: [45]
2nd revert: [46]
3rd revert: [47]
4th revert: [48]

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

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

Also, you didn't cite a "previous version"; in other words, what he is reverting to. --TJive 01:23, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd almost say that 172 was reverting vandalism. That addition was childish. Mackensen (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

These are 4 true reverts and therefore, I have blocked for 24 hours. Carbonite | Talk 01:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

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

Well, these are the four reverts listed above:

20:47 27 Jul 2005 [49] reverted to [50]
00:08 28 Jul 2005 [51] reverted to [52]
00:16 28 Jul 2005 [53] reverted to [54]
00:30 28 Jul 2005 [55] reverted to [56]

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

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

Actually that's just because he linked to the wrong "diff" page. It should be this. --TJive 02:45, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Correct. The links originally posted by Ultramarine (and appended with times by me) show the version that was reverted to. This is different from the diffs that are usually posted on this page, which show the previous version (the one that was reverted). 172's third revert was to a previous version by himself. [58]. Carbonite | Talk 03:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

We're supposed to supply diffs showing four reverts, and also a link to the version reverted i.e. five links in all. All we have above are four links, and they're not diffs. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:03, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Right, that's what I was saying. --TJive 03:05, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the original diffs are somewhat confusing, although they do serve the purpose of showing the version that was reverted to. In this case, there is no one version that was reverted to each time. However, the 3RR is based on reverts per article, not per topic within the article. The included diffs clearly show that 172 made 4 reverts within four hours, which seems like a clear case for a block to me. Carbonite | Talk 03:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've checked the history, and I don't see a violation here. There are edits at 20:47 and 21:31 on July 27, then 00:08, 00:16, and 00:30 on July 28. But they're concerned with separate sections. There's some repetition but not much, and I don't see what the previous version is that has been reverted to. Carbonite, in case I'm missing something here, could you show us the four diffs (not the links above, but the actual diffs) and the link to the previous version, please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:14, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

But they have to be reverts, so each one must be a revert to a previous version, and there have to be four of those. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:15, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I just added standard diffs to the ones that show the version that was reverted to. [59] Also note that the 3RR is per article, not per section. Carbonite | Talk 03:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, Carbonite. I know it's a pain to have to search for those things. Regarding the fourth edit/revert, 172 deleted a sentence, which so far as I can see had just been added (I could be wrong about that). By definition, a deletion will almost always be a revert to a previous version (a version that didn't have the additional sentence).

Apart from that, my worry is that, if this is a violation, it's very borderline, with different sections being edited, and the fourth revert perhaps only an edit. Is it borderline enough that you'd reconsider? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:42, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

If you (or any other admin) want to unblock, and believe this isn't a true 3RR violation, I won't be offended at all. I'm only defending my block. I always do research before blocking and I get somewhat defensive when someone makes the accusation of bad block. In addition, 172's rather confrontational e-mails to me have not helped his case one bit. I'm not going to unblock, but I also won't re-block. I'm done with this for now. Carbonite | Talk 03:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Carb, that's generous of you. I don't want to unblock without your cooperation, though, because I can see why you blocked, even though I wouldn't have done it myself. I wonder if we could find another admin who could weigh in with a view. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:56, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but....this isn't a spurious case; the page should be watched (though not protected) because it's already been through several wars. This isn't really a violation, however. --TJive 03:58, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

TJIve, it's the fourth edit/revert that's the issue, because it was the deletion of a sentence, which I would call an edit, even though it reverted to a previous version (but all deletions do, except in rare circumstances). Do you happen to know whether this sentence had been deleted before? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:20, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

There's an ambiguity here that I have not seen firmly resolved in any 3RR case that I have witnessed. The policy page doesn't seem to help. It seems to me the intent, and usual practice, of 3RR violation enforcement centers around the fact of a particular text being reverted in four edits, hence there being a "previous version reverted to". However, in this case 172 is deleting two separate instances; one deals with agriculture and famine, and the other three deal with the characterization of general repression and deaths under Stalin. If I was looking at this myself, I would say that the first edit has nothing to do with the other three and that there is a separate revert war going on within those for which another revert in the same time period would warrant a block on 172. Otherwise editing multiple instances of ostensibly bad contributions at all is being said to constitute reverts to already uncertain, indefinite material. And as of now there is not even a previous version referenced that justifies calling all of those reverts--as for what that is I do not know; the edits there are so labyrinthine as to defy brief resolution of the question. --TJive 04:45, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

172 has a history of violating the 3RR [60]. This wasn't a case of a newbie not being aware of the rule.

The reverts occurred in less than a four hour period. I'm reluctant to block if the reverts are spread over 20 hours or so, but three of these were within 22 minutes of each other.

There were additional reverts mere minutes outside of the 24 hour period, at 00:16, 27 July 2005[61] 00:09, 27 July 2005 [62], and 23:36, 26 July 2005 [63]. This shows a pattern of reverts and possible gaming of the system.

172's emails to me were confrontational ("What is your problem with me?"), rude ("Then block Agiantman and Ultramarine, or be a hypocrite") and somewhat threatening ("Otherwise, I will inform other administrators of your hypocritical application of policy.") At no point did 172 give any assurance that he would cease reverting the Stalin article if I unblocked him. Given that he had reverted the article 6 or 7 times in the previous 25 hour period, such assurances would have been very helpful.

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

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

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

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

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

User:Philwelch

1st revert: 08:52, 27 July 2005
2nd revert: 20:43, 27 July 2005
3rd revert: 23:18, 27 July 2005
4th revert: 02:23, 28 July 2005
5th revert: 02:40, 28 July 2005
6th revert: 02:43, 28 July 2005

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

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

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

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

For the record, #1 is a reversion. #2 and #3 are reversions of simple vandalism, which is not covered under the policy,. #4 is not a reversion: a reversion goes back to a previous version of the article by definition. #4 does not match that definition, because I allowed another intervening edit within the same time period to stand unaltered. The same is true of #5. As for #6, that's a self-reversion, which is also excepted from the policy.

I have attempted to rationally discuss all these content disputes with Copperchair before, but he refuses, often deleting comments from his talk page without responding to them. — Phil Welch 03:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

That's not true. I have always responded before deleting comments from my talk page. Also, I have provided proofs to back my arguments, while you have just given opinions. Check out Talk:Darth_Vader#Copperchair... and give PROOFS, not opinios.Copperchair 01:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Since you can't give more than an opinion, and are too proud to accept that you are mistaken, I request for an third-party to decide on this matter. I will hear notifications on my talk page. Copperchair 01:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Copperchair

1st revert: [70]
2nd revert: [71]
3rd revert: [72] (also characterizing my good-faith edit as "vandalism")
4th revert: [73]

Also see above his allegations against me and my previous report of his violations. — Phil Welch 03:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

In reponse to this report and the report on User:Philwelch I have protected the page from editing. Please work out your dispute on the talk page or seek some sort of mediation through RfC.--nixie 03:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Plautus satire

3RR violation on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Plautus satire reported by User:Snowspinner

1st revert [74]
2nd revert [75]
3rd revert [76]
4th revert [77]
5th revert [78]

Comment: Particularly galling is that Plautus is trying to blank an old RfC of his, insisting that there is no dispute. Which, presently, there isn't, but that's beside the point - we don't delete old RfCs. Snowspinner 05:14, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Has apparently been blocked by FCYTravis. Snowspinner 05:20, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Blocked on report from Snowspinner. FCYTravis 05:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Agiantman

made four exact reverts in about five hours

1st revert: 20:11, 27 July 2005
2nd revert: 20:32, 27 July 2005
3rd revert: 00:20, 28 July 2005
4th revert: 01:16, 28 July 2005

Reported by: Septentrionalis 20:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

Three other exact reverts, the day before: 21:17, 26 July 2005 /23:34, 26 July 2005/00:05 27 July 2005
As with #User:172, above, these are not all to the same text.
- The earliest five were part of two editors attempting to maintain an NPOV tag, against a consensus of several other editors.
- the latest two were reverts to Agiantman's previous edits, to preserve Agiantman's text for the intro. In one case, there were small intervening edits lost. This was again apparently against consensus; Golbez's edit summary in undoing Agiantman's text was: oh god how did i end up agreeing with 172. See page history.
I think Agiantman and 172 equally at fault, on opposite sides. [This refers to the actual reverts; not to the wider dispute, which should be settled elsewhere. 21:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)] What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Septentrionalis 20:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

---

I am not equally at fault, and it is an insult to me put me on the same level with this editor. Agiantman insults fellow editors who modify his changes and drags fellow editors into one circular argument after another on talk pages. When he fails to weigh his arguments and counterarguments on talk pages with evidence from sources, he simply chooses to ignore the substance of the discussion and respond with ad hominems. When disruptive editors refuse to engage in reasonable discussion on talk, the only way left to deal with them is to revert.

The following is just a sample of what Mikka, other editors, and I have had to put up with on the Stalin talk page:

Your response represents a bizarre revisionist view of history, reminiscent of Hitler apologists who deny the holocaust occurred. You refer to "the only genocide Stalin committed." The "only genocide?" As if committing genocide once was no big deal. And somehow party genocide or class genocide is a less serious form of genocide. How sick. And as for the number of Stalin's genocides, you forget the Great Terror of 1937 where he systematically exterminated his political enemies. And people here don't think it should appear prominently in the introduction. Bizarro. --Agiantman 12:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
If you don't understand my objections by this stage, I strongly encourage you to ask a friend or a parent to help explain them to you. --Agiantman 00:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
So you want a political Pro-Stalin(read:POV) definition of genocide that doesn't apply to Stalin's genocide? No wonder you didn't want the neutral Merriam-Webster definition! LOL! mikka, you are clearly too much of a Stalin fan to be editing this article.--Agiantman 03:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Is it a personal attack to refer to someone as a "Stalin fan?" LOL! (Plus, Mikka has since admitted that he has a Stalin tattoo on his posterior).--Agiantman 12:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC) [needless to say, a distortion of Mikka's comments]
Your fellow traveler, mikka, deleted those references within 5 minutes [4]. Hopefully this is not part of your criteria to become "one of Wikipedia's most respected editors." --Agiantman 12:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
It is mikka's point of view that using the terms mass murderer and/or genocide "is not an information about facts, but an emotional evaluation of these facts expressed in terms of loaded words." That is nonsense and I strongly disagree. [needless to say, another distortion of Mikka's position]
I have to laugh at 172's offer to write a neutral article. As anyone who reads the discussion history here can see, he is the ringleader in the effort to maintain a revisionist Stalin article and bully anyone who introduces mainstream material. Tauger et al are a tiny minority of Stalin revisionists and negationists but strangely they are the only sources ever mentioned by 172.
mikka says that "Pope is the greatest killer of all times and epochs, since catholics, whom he leads, killed most of Europe." Is this the reason that I should trust him on maintaining a neutral POV here? Maybe its the reason 172 refers to mikka "as one of Wikipedia's most respected editors." If this is not testament of the bizarre viewpoint of the POV bullies on this page, I don't know what is.--Agiantman 00:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC) [needless to say again, yet another distortion of Mikka's comments]
What a distortion! mikka attacks my religion with an outrageous offensive remark, and I am to blame? If any one is cruising for a Wikipedia block, it's you and mikka. (You have officially been warned.) I am unsure of what substantive points you think need to be addressed. You appear hellbent against placing responsibility on Stalin for the murder of millions of innocent people, especially in the introductory paragraph, even when it is linked to source material. Your latest reason is because authors disagree on how many millions were killed by Stalin. Am I correct? That's the substantive point I would like addressed. Waiting . . . --Agiantman 00:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC) [Mikka wasn't attacking any religion.]

I directed him to Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and Wikipedia:Civility multiple times, but the longer and longer administrators failed to enforce these polices, the ruder and more belligerent, after finding out that, despite policy, anyone can set up a soapbox here and disrupt our activities here to prove a point.

He should be blocked for the disruption and personal attacks before the reverts. 172 | Talk 20:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I've just read the first revert, and it's not a diff. We need four diffs showing four reverts, and a link to the previous version, as it says below. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:35, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the history and nothing is jumping out as being a 3RR violation. He twice reverted to the NPOV tag, once at 20:11 and again at 20:32 on July 27, and there was a previous version of that at 20:00 but I can't see him doing it another twice. There are other reverts, but unconnected. The personal attacks cited aren't bad enough to block for. We're not allowed to block for personal attacks per se. We can block for disruption, but the attacks have to be continuous for it to amount to disruption (or particularly offensive) and usually blocks for this will only apply to editors who have made few, or no, useful edits. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:47, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to sit this one out, but it does look like a 3RR violation to me. I know admins are used to seeing the diffs presented in a different manner, but these do seem to clearly show 4 reverts. I've never seen it stated that a violation must consist of four reverts all to one older version. I don't really agree with that interpretation since it leaves far too much room for abuse. Anyway, I'm not in the mood for another debate, but there's enough evidence here in my opinion. Carbonite | Talk 00:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Could someone at least warn him to pay attention to civility policies? Having administrators is useless if in practice Wikipedia content is determined by deference to the editor who can spew the worst ad hominems, not reasonable compromise based on the sources and evidence. 172 | Talk 00:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I've put a note on his talk page. It might be best to protect Stalin if the reverting continues. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:26, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Holy cow! I had no idea that I was the topic of discussion on an Administrators' noticeboard! I wish someone had given me a heads up so that I could have defended myself. (BTW, thank you to those who did defend me.) I have only been a Wikipedia editor for a few weeks and I stumbled onto the Stalin article only 2 days ago. One only has to read the full discussion on Talk:Joseph_Stalin to see what I have gone through (please don't limit yourself to the sliced and diced version that 172 supplied above). It appears that some here have a problem with my attempts to maintain an NPOV tag. It doesn't seem like it should be a revert violation to simply maintain an NPOV tag on a clearly disputed article, but I will certainly heed your warning. P.S. In reading the earlier section here, I was surprised to learn that 172 has a long history of violating the rules [79]. That should say something about his credibility. --Agiantman 01:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

There was no dispute before you came in and started talking about "genocide," after which I and several other editors explained to you why the term was not applicable. The "NPOV dispute" is generally limited to you and Ultramarine, the latter of whom seems to make a habit of dumping human rights issues into communist-related articles without paying attention to article structure or flow. The reason the NPOV dispute tag kept being removed is because the primary person disputing the text (you) was incorrect and didn't help your point on talk. It'd have been different if you'd contested the version with fact-based arguments rather than accusing me and other editors of fronting for Stalin.

There actually was an intro "dispute" between me and 172 on the intro a couple weeks ago and I was hoping to work it all out eventually on the talk page, NPOV tag not required. J. Parker Stone 03:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Amin123 / User:154.20.105.198

Previous version reverted to: 21:18, 21 July 2005
1st revert: 05:38, 29 July 2005
2nd revert: 05:46, 29 July 2005
3rd revert: 06:14, 29 July 2005
4th revert: 06:42, 29 July 2005

Reported by: Jayjg ^(talk) 15:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

Amin123, who also edits as 154.20.105.198, has, for three months now, been continually asserting that Zoroastrianism is the origin of the theology of Christianity, and has spent his entire time on Wikipedia trying to edit that belief into articles. In this article he keeps inserting a section which theoretically supports that thesis (while actually being about Zoroastrianism's alleged influence on Judaism), while simultaneously deleting a cited sentence which argues against a relationship between Christianity and Mithraism. The diffs aren't 100% identical because he edits the information in/out by hand each time, so the spacing is a bit off, and he messed up the footnotes a few times. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

tricky. Yes there are three revets there and they are all to previous versions so it is a breach but the actions look like those of someone who hasn't really go the hang of edit waring. But the user was warned so on balance a block. 12 hours.Geni 20:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

User:MANOS

Three revert rule violation on Ancient_Macedonian_language by MANOS:

Previous version reverted to: 21:21, June 29th, 2005
1st revert: 19:47, June 29, 2005
2nd revert: 20:12, June 29, 2005
3rd revert: 20:19, June 29, 2005
4th revert: 21:16, June 29, 2005

Reported by: Chronographos 19:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

That looks like one edit and 3 reverts. Also, please use proper diffs showing the version being reverted to. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

First-timer, sorry. So, the "offending" party's edits should be on the left-hand side of the diff page that generates the link? Chronographos 19:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

When you do a diff, you need to show what is being reverted to, not just that something is being changed. So, for example, your first diff should be 18:12, 29 July 2005. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

So, the diff links should show that the alleged reverter's edits are identical four times in a row? Chronographos 19:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Or close to identical, or add/remove the same piece of text, or revert to different previous versions of the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, got it, thanks! Chronographos 20:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Trying once more, hope to get it right this time:

Previous version reverted to: 21:21, June 29th, 2005
1st revert: 19:47, June 29, 2005
2nd revert: 20:12, June 29, 2005
3rd revert: 20:19, June 29, 2005
4th revert: 21:16, June 29, 2005

Comments: I wouldn't bother again, but he had the chutzpah to report me as ... a vandal 6 times for trying to protect an article largely written by Dab! Chronographos 20:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I report u once. I just modified the reason. Also if u think u are right, why don't u try to prove it in the Ancient Macedonian language talk page? I wonder why? :-P
MANOS 17:47, 29 July 2005

User:68.45.172.185

Previous version reverted to: 16:17, 29 July 2005
1st revert: 18:09, 29 July 2005
2nd revert: 18:37, 29 July 2005
3rd revert: 19:25, 29 July 2005
4th revert: 19:51, 29 July 2005

Reported by: Death phoenix 20:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

User keeps adding unverified information, insisting that Hagrid belongs to House Gryffindor. The sources this user cites do not explicitly state that. --Deathphoenix 20:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Blocked for 12 hours. Seems young. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

User:165.247.219.203

Previous version reverted to: 12:33, July 2, 2005
1st revert: 21:33, July 29, 2005
2nd revert: 14:06, July 29, 2005
3rd revert: 12:32, July 29, 2005
4th revert: 8:00, July 29, 2005

Reported by: TDC 03:55, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Range block would be appropriate as user is on proxy server.

Comments:

User is reverting simple vandalism. 165.247.219.203 06:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
User is involved in ongoing edit war, and is not reverting "simple vandalism". User also reverted an article 15 times in one day on the 21st of July. TDC 13:37, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

User:Codex Sinaiticus

Previous version of terminology reverted to: 13:20 10 May 2005
1st revert: 23:21 29 July 2005
2nd revert: 08:39 30 July 2005
3rd revert: 10:02 30 July 2005
4th revert: 11:15 30 July 2005

Reported by: ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 11:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

How is the fourth edit a revert? El_C 18:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

User:213.198.84.193, User:213.198.84.198, User:84.188.240.172

1st [80]
2nd [81]
3rd [82]
4th [83]
5th [84]
6th [85]

Reported by: --Witkacy 14:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

Actually, it goes further than that:
- 7th [86] as User:84.188.231.188
- 8th [87] as User:84.188.231.188
- 9th [88] as User:213.198.84.193
- 10th [89] as User:213.198.84.193
- 11th [90] as User:84.188.196.23

That's five more reverts in the next 24h period. Obviously the user is changing his IP in order to evade the 3RR. --Wojsyl ^(talk) 17:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Tznkai

1st revert: [91]
2nd revert: [92]
3rd revert: [93]
4th revert: [94]

[95] Mass reversion with inclusion of this passage.

Reported by: Tznkai 17:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

This is a self reporting. I believe that the WP:3RR needs to be taken seriously and I apologize for breaching it.--Tznkai 17:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Considering this is self-reporting, if you self-revert yourself now, I'll be happy to just go with a warning. El_C 17:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- Before I do so I feel compelled to be honest. As soon as the 24 hour mark passes, I will be doing that exact same reversion. If you feel that is counter productive I'll let it stand and take my lumps here.--Tznkai 17:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  - Thanks, I appreciate that, but my decision stands. Once the 24 hour period expires, it will be within your right to reinsert that version. But I am hoping that by forgoing a block, you will be able (and encouraged) to engage in consensus-building with other editors on this issue, and enter into dialogue toward compromises with the respective disputants. Goodluck. El_C 17:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  - But you mightn't need to do the same reversion. Doesn't the 3RR page say that if something really needs to be reverted, someone else will probably do it? . . . Ann Heneghan 17:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    - I admit to near fanatical protectionism over that article. I think the choice is either to do an act of Civil disobedience/vigilantism or to trust in the self healing nature of Wikipedia. I will choose the latter--Tznkai 17:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
      - Corrected - [96]--Tznkai 17:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
        Two edit conflicts (pushed myself up the line). Ann Heneghan makes a good point, which ties into my response above. El_C 17:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
        An admin recently gave excellent advice on the talk page of an article I'm interested in - if you feel you're getting too protective of a particular article, go off and edit a few different ones. That's what brought me to the page where I first came across Tznkai last night. (And apologies if I'm clogging up this notice board with comments that don't really belong here!) Ann Heneghan 18:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
        You're absolutely excused, Ann, so long as the admin in question was yours truly! El_C 18:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Zeno of Elea

Previous version reverted to: 13:44, 26 July 2005
1st revert: 14:35, 30 July 2005
2nd revert: 14:38, 30 July 2005
3rd revert: 14:44, 30 July 2005
4th revert: 14:45, 30 July 2005

Reported by: Heraclius 22:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

Zeno has added the crescent symbol back to the template 4 times and keeps claiming "consensus" despite the objection of several users.

Heraclius never warned the user about the 3rr rule, and fact is that he has never violated this specific policy before. -- Karl Meier 22:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments on his talkpage show that he is in fact aware of the 3RR. [97] I thought about that, but decided that this wasn't really a revert.Heraclius 22:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Zeno is a reasonably new user and he might, as indicated on the talkpage, have misunderstood the sometimes quite complicated rules regarding these issues. If an admin find that he has indeed violated Wikipedias rules regarding 3rr, my personal opinion is that a warning should be enough for now. -- Karl Meier 22:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Zeno's a new user? According to the edit counter he has over a thousand edits.Heraclius 22:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

His first edit was made on June 16 2005, not more than a month and a half ago. -- Karl Meier 23:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't feel that I reverted four times, as the fourth change was substantially different from the first third and was aimed at achieving a compromise. Heraclius has not given good reason for why he has spent several days deleting the cresent moon symbol and Jihad link from the Islam template. In my fourth edit I tried to compromise by leaving out the Jihad link and keeping the cresent symbol. I note that instead of discussing the subject rationally, Heraclius is only engaging in reverting and making a lot of noise about a supposed 3RR violation. Personally, I think this should either be dismissed or taken to RFC/RFA. --Zeno of Elea 22:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- First of all, template and content disputes aren't taken to RFA. Second of all, I have made no less than 4 comments on the talkpage of the template describing why the crescent shouldn't be included, so your accusation of "not discussing the subject" is false. The crescent hasn't been there for the majority of the existence of this template and you are the one who has engaged in "reverting and making a lot of noise".Heraclius 22:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  - A look at the template talk page will reveal that you have abandoned discussing the issue of the cresent symbol, despite ongoing discussion, and have stated in places that you are indifferent to whether or not the symbol is included. --Zeno of Elea 23:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    - The reason I abandoned discussing the issue with you is because we would have continued to repeat the same arguments over and over. I did us both a favor so we wouldn't waste any more time.Heraclius 23:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
      - As I see it, the only reasonable conclusion you abandoned discussions because you had no rational argument. You are clearly not interested in discussion, compromise, or good faith debate. This is why I think this should be taken to RFC or RFA. --Zeno of Elea 23:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Zeno, you seem to have misunderstood the WP:3RR policy, the fourth change had the crescent. Two choices: I can block you for 24 hours, or we can go with a warning provided you won't insert crescent moon anywhere, and do not edit the template specifically, for 24 hours. El_C 23:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- That's fair enough. It doesn't solve the cresent moon dispute, but I suppose that's not the purpose of this page. --Zeno of Elea 23:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  - Nope, it isn't, and at any rate I doubt it can be solved immediately, but it does provide you with the ability and maneuverability to bring it up with other editors (esp. hitherto uninvolved ones) and try to build consensus for or work toward a compromise to this dispute. Goodluck. El_C 23:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Halibutt

Previous version reverted to: 11:23 UTC, 30 July 2005
1st revert: 21:52 UTC, 30 July 2005]
2nd revert: 22:22 UTC, 30 July 2005
3rd revert: 10:40 UTC, 31 July 2005
4th revert: 14:42 UTC, 31 July 2005

Reported by: Gene Nygaard 15:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

This was done after Halibutt falsely accused me of violating 3RR many times, so he/she should be well aware of rule. Gene Nygaard 15:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Well, it appears you are removing a {{disptuted}} tag. I am not sure if this would not fall under vandalism. As Halibutt notes, Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute states don't remove the warning simply because the material looks reasonable: please take the time to properly verify it. Also, judging from timezones, Halibutt has reverted twice a day. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  - I will recuse myself from this. I can see both sides of the argument. I have tried to come up with a compromise which I hope both parties will be satisfied with until the naming dispute is over. May I note, however, that Gene Nygaard has broken the spirit of the 3RR but not missed out on the letter by 8 minutes. violet/riga (t) 16:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  - It has nothing to do with time zones. Halibutt has reverted four times in 16 hours and 50 minutes, which is less than 24 hours. That's the way the rule is written; it has nothing whatsoever to do with any one person's calendar day. It is explicity expressed in terms of a span of 24 hours for exactly that reason, to avoid questions of what a "day" means. Gene Nygaard 16:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, the whole fuzz was about a disputed tag, which was constantly being removed by Gene against the WP:AD rules. Interestingly enough, Gene didn't have time to provide sources on the respective talk page or even take part in the dispute, but at the same time he had a time to list me here or remove the tag over and over again... Anyway, if the community decides that WP:3RR is more important than WP:AD, then please punish me. However, I don't believe I violated the 3RR here. Oh, and last but not least, as Gene says, this all happened after I falsely accused Gene of breaking the 3RR, but also after I apologised for that. Halibu tt 16:33, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Over this 24h period Halibutt repeatedly attempted to persuade Gene Nygaard to dispute instead of revert: [98], [99], [100], all in vain. Here is the sole response he got: [101]. Judge yourself. --Wojsyl ^(talk) 17:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

There never was any dispute about any fact stated in the articla; it was entirely appropriate to remove that tag.
Don't lie about me not responding, Wojsyl. During that 24 hour period, and before then, I discussed various points many times on the talk page.

Here are the my comments subsequent to that "previous version reverted to" time above:

[102], [103], [104]], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112]

I provided more evidence to back up my points than Halibutt ever did. He/she still has yet to produce that "birth certificate", for example. Gene Nygaard 17:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Now that's a POV if I ever saw one. Hopefully violetriga new tag will stop this revert war. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

User:24.147.97.230

1st revert: [113]
2nd revert: [114]
3rd revert: [115]
4th revert: [116]

Reported by: Robert McClenon 18:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

This anonymous user persists in inserting an "interesting comment" in the middle of a tally of votes, where it is not relevant. Robert McClenon 18:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

User:MANOS

MANOS seems to be a new user. I have issued him a warning. Dab, I suggest warning him next time on his user page.

Here are the diffs.

--Tznkai 19:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

um, have you seen the amount of patience people have wasted on him already? Thanks for the diffs; there is only so much time I want to invest here. also, he was warned before, see his entry above and User_talk:Sango123. dab (ᛏ) 19:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm getting an idea[121]. Was going under WP:AGF and giving him slack assuming (s)he was about 12. If this keeps up, he can expect an RFC--Tznkai 20:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Instead of warning me, why don't u give me the evidence u have and get over with it?
MANOS

User:209.86.4.248

Previous version reverted to: 12:33, July 2, 2005
1st revert: 16:15, July 30, 2005
2nd revert: 20:09, July 30, 2005
3rd revert: 12:25, July 31, 2005
4th revert: 14:05, July 31, 2005

Reported by: TDC 20:15, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I might also add that this is this users 3rd violation in a week without any measures taken against them.

The IP appears to come from EarthLink and it's a huge range 209.86.0.0 - 209.86.255.255 and 165.247.0.0 - 165.247.255.255. I could blcok it but I wuold risk affecting a lot of inocent users. I've reverte4d and protected the page for now.Geni 08:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Vampire and Vampire fiction

I'm involved, and haven't seen any actual violations, but these two articles are seeing a lot of reversion and need an eye kept on them. In particular, one large section keeps moving back and forth between the articles. Pak aran 20:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy n moved the secion without discussioon r consensus, so a bunch of us keep putting it back, but he stubbornlly does it again. Gabrielsimon 20:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

There was extensive discussion on the talk page, but unfortunately the person who created the section said straight out he was going to undo any edit I made (including removal of images violating copyright) and did not try to justify his actions. Gabrielsimon jumped in as an editor well known for trying to undo pretty much all of my edits. The other person involved was banned as a sockpuppet of an editor who has been previous banned something like four times for sockpuppetry and edit warring and looks like he's back with yet another alias, ~~currently being investigated on the Admin noticeboard~~ already blocked. DreamGuy 21:13, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

check the edit history, there was no discussion. Gabrielsimon 21:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I've protected both pages. As the revert war was about the same section, I protected the latest version of Vampire fiction, which contains that section, and protected an earlier version of Vampire, which doesn't contain it. Let me know when you've agreed to have it in or out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:27, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

OK, so... everyone who was reverting it back when I edited it is blocked now. With two of them (or rather one person with two accounts) the block period is a full year. If we have to wait for them to agree on what to do, this could be a while... And the guy blocked for 24 hours is still in denial that he did a 3RR despite the evidence, so I doubt he'll agree with me on anything when he does get back. DreamGuy 07:34, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, was this an Enviroknot thing? So you'd like me to unlock both, is that right? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:38, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and yes, if you would. DreamGuy 07:47, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

User:Jtdirl

Previous version reverted to: 11:52, 29 July 2005
1st revert: 13:38, 31 July 2005
2nd revert: 10:09, 1 August 2005
3rd revert: 10:31, 1 August 2005
4th revert: 10:41, 1 August 2005

Reported by: Pete 00:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments: The paragraph is one in a list of discretionary powers. It only needs a few lines to describe the power and how it operates. Having two translations of the same Irish wording is superfluous in this context, though it may be appropriate in a discussion of the Irish constitution itself. This user has been warned by the ArbComm not to blindly revert valid edits. He has ignored discussion on these points, instead making abusive comments. Pete 00:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

This looks more like a case of Skyring removing something which Jtdirl has made a reasonable argument to suggest that it belongs in the article. The talk page suggests that there has been discussion. Fight it out on the talk page rather than in the article.--nixie 00:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, nixie! That's the point I've been making. My reasonable argument is that we don't need two translations of the same text in a summary of presidential powers. None of the other powers has two translations. Pete 00:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Please be more careful and try to seek outside opinion upon reaching that (arbitrary) fourth revert threshold, Jtdirl. Twenty four hours. El_C 06:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- The first revert was against an IP that later revealed itself to be Skyring. Its pretty common for editors to revert text deletions without edit summaries from IPs, thats why I didn't block.--nixie 06:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  - an IP that later revealed itself to be Skyring. You obviously haven't checked, nixie. Feel free to ask someone with sockpuppet-checking powers, because I'm definitely not guilty. Pete 06:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    - Whether the ip that introduced the edit was or was not Skyring, as per the 3RR violation of the addition, is impertinent. El_C 06:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      - Of course it's not. Reversion of vandalism isn't covered by the 3RR (and the deletion of text by an anonymous IP with no explanation other than "English" certainly seems to be vandalism to me), and so the first reversion is immune to the 3RR. The fact that Skyring later tried to explain away the vandalism (which from his past behaviour would seem most likely to be either yet another attempt to rewrite Jtdirl's contributions out of sheer spite, with no knowledge of the subject area whatsoever, or simply disagreeing with Jtdirl for the sake of it, depending on whether the IP was him or not) does not stop the first edit being vandalism. Unblocked. Proteus (Talk) 08:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
        I'm not an expert on the subject matter. It did not strike me as vandalism, however. El_C 08:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Gabrielsimon

Previous version reverted to: 17:39, July 31, 2005
1st revert: 17:58, July 31, 2005
2nd revert: 18:48, July 31, 2005
3rd revert: 19:13, July 31, 2005
4th revert: 19:30, July 31, 2005
4 1/2 revert: 19:31, July 31, 2005

Reported by: DreamGuy 01:59, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

thoise were attempts to repair the article which bad fath edits by DreamGuy were being made to, hes anb editor who doesnt listen to anyone and is overly opinionated, and likes to try to do petty things like eporting peple fasely, (like this) when he doesnt get his way. Gabrielsimon 02:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Note that last revert was split into two separate changes to add up to the same change as in earlier reverts, not quite a 5th revert, so I labeled it 4 1/2. Please be aware that Gabrielsimon is a frequent abuser of the 3RR and has had it explained to him several times, especially that simply labeling something "vandalism" when it is a POV dispute does not justify violating the 3RR. As far as I know, he has been blocked at least 8 times in the last four months for violating 3RR and had a couple of close calls on top of that. It is also significant that as part of a RfC concerning his edit warring and other conflicts, he agreed to follow a 1RR (see: [122]). Violating the 3RR under these circumstances is quite substantial. DreamGuy 01:59, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Also note that Gabriel deleted this report from the page... another editor restored it but removed some other comments in the process. Not sure if those removed comments were intentional or not. DreamGuy 05:30, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

So far, he's done it twice more. Gabriel, if you see this, stop now; you're only making things worse for yourself. Nickptar 05:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel, please try to slow down; try to seek outside opinion as soon as reverting back and fourth kicks into swing. Twenty four hours. El_C 06:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

User:63.20.67.92 / User:63.20.26.126 / User: 63.20.84.10

Previous version reverted to: 15:47, 30 July 2005
1st revert: 16:16, 31 July 2005 as User: 63.20.67.92
2nd revert: 17:42, 31 July 2005 as User: 63.20.67.92
3rd revert: 18:39, 31 July 2005 as User: 63.20.26.126
4th revert: 20:17, 31 July 2005 as User: 63.20.84.10

Reported by: Laura Scudder | Talk 03:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

User:80.4.224.6

Previous version reverted to: 09:07, August 1, 2005
1st revert: 09:09, 09:09, August 1, 2005
2nd revert: 09:10, August 1, 2005
3rd revert: 09:10, August 1, 2005
4th revert: 09:07, 09:13, August 1, 2005

Plus a further 11 reverts over the next 12 minutes.

Reported by: Banno 08:14, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

User:Nufy8

Previous version reverted to: , 09:08, August 1, 2005
1st revert: 09:12, August 1, 2005
2nd revert: 09:16, August 1, 2005
3rd revert: 09:17, August 1, 2005
4th revert: 09:18, August 1, 2005

Plus a further 6 reverts over the next 12 minutes.

Reported by: Banno 08:14, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Report new violation

@@ Line 1,056: / Line 1,056: @@
 I might also add that this is this users '''3rd violation''' in a week without any measures taken against them.
+:The IP appears to come from EarthLink and it's a huge range 209.86.0.0 - 209.86.255.255 and 165.247.0.0 - 165.247.255.255. I could blcok it but I wuold risk affecting a lot of inocent users. I've reverte4d and protected the page for now.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 08:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
-:the page where the
 ===[[Vampire]] and [[Vampire fiction]]===

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia'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:Wikipedia noticeboards