Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive9 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chris 73 (talk | contribs) at 13:12, 27 November 2005 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:12, 27 November 2005 by Chris 73 (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

    Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
    Click here to create a new report
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357
    358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
    481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links


    Example

    User:BadUser

    Three revert rule violation on Articlename (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    BadUser (talk · contribs):

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

    Comments:

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

    Violations

    User:Remington and the Rattlesnakes

    Three revert rule violation on Elitism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Remington and the Rattlesnakes (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: android79 19:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User refuses to provide a source for his edits, despite numerous requests in edit summaries and on the talk page. I was asked to block him for 3RR on this same article yesterday; he has returned to make the same exact reverts today. Since I am now involved in editing the article, I am not blocking him myself. android79 19:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    • NB, this user was blocked by Hall Monitor for this violation. android79 02:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:William M. Connolley

    William M. Connolley: Six-month revert parole on certain articles violation on Kyoto Protocol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    William M. Connolley (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: SEWilco 20:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Pigsonthewing

    Three revert rule violation on User_talk:Pigsonthewing (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Locke Cole 12:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User seems to believe it's OK to remove talk from his user talk page. WP:UP doesn't seem to indicate one way or the other about user talk pages, but my feeling is that in this case it shouldn't be allowed. WP:3RR says it doesn't generally apply to user space violations, but states that there are exceptions. Locke Cole 12:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
      • IMO, Pigsonthewing is entitled to remove comments he may see as harrassment from his talk page, especially since they were not being re-added by the person who left them originally. android79 13:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I guess I don't really see the difference between a third party reverting it and the original author. Having said that, if the original author had re-added the comment, would you believe WP:3RR to be applicable? --Locke Cole 13:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
          • No. the 3RR policy is pretty clear on this. 3RR is intended to prevent edit wars on articles. Andy's talk page isn't an article. The purpose of his talk page is for communication. Obviously, since he was upset enough by Karmafist's message to remove it, the communication was received. I don't believe he's trying to cover anything up by removing it, he just didn't want it there. Repeated re-addition borders on harassment. In addition, please don't use edit summaries like rvv when the material you are reverting is clearly not vandalism. android79 18:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

    Further to the above, some of these were to remove thrid- party abuse, re-added by Locke Cole, after I'd asked him to desist (on his talk page). Andy Mabbett 15:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:69.253.195.228

    Three revert rule violation on The eXile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    69.253.195.228 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Mgreenbe 18:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:207.62.70.122

    Three revert rule violation on Latino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    207.62.70.122 (talk · contribs): 207.62.70.179 (talk · contribs): 207.62.70.213 (talk · contribs): 207.62.70.136 (talk · contribs): (All one person))

    Has constantly participated in a revert war in Latino with no discussion in the talk page. To help amend the problem, I personally tried to add a section to the article where this user could place the information on the discrepancy between the actual meaning of the word Latino and the usage in the united states, but the user only continues a revert war.

    List of reverts:

    • Revert 1
    • Revert 2
    • Revert 3
    • Revert 4
    • Revert 5
    • Revert 6
    • Revert 7

    All of the abovereverts were done on November 16th.

    • Revert 8 on 12:37, November 21
    • Revert 9 on 22:46, November 22, 2005 207.62.70.28


    Reported by Cowman 00:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments

    • Are there any admins in particular that have the ability to do this? At the moment the latino article is protected in part to stop the actions of this user, and we hope to have it unprotected so we can continue working on the article. We cannot do this, however, unless this user is blocked. Thanks in advance for any response. Cowman 20:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The user has come back to editing the wikipedia article and has been reverted again - we seriously need this person blocked, and as their ip range constantly changes it's impossible to communicate with them. (Woops, forgot to sign this one. It was me who wrote it - Cowman
    Reverting once a day now may be annoying, but isn't really a war anymore. It appears the range is from LA Community College. I noticed there was only one note on any of the offending IPs talk pages -- might want to try catching the talk page shortly after the edit; this may be nothing more than a new user who doesn't understand what they should be doing. .:.Jareth.:. 22:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I've started adding notes to every one of the user's talk pages that I can find, but I highly doubt any response will come out of this - what should we do if the user still persists? Cowman 00:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:William M. Connolley 2

    William M. Connolley: Six-month revert parole on certain articles violation on Global cooling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    William M. Connolley (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: SEWilco 05:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User has a requirement that "Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate". Violations of this order should be treated as WP:3RR violations. (SEWilco 05:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC))
    • That was nearly THREE DAYS ago. Why bring it up now, especially since it dates from BEFORE your last report on him above? --Calton | Talk 05:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Your phrasing sounds as if you're upset that nobody noticed it eariler; is there a parole officer watching? It is after the parole began, and the report format calls for one situation per report. (SEWilco 06:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC))
        • I'm not upset, you're the one doing the petty tattletaling: your reporting, done AFTER he's already been blocked for a similiar offense, is clearly a bad-faith attempt to gain some small advantage in your continuing war with Connolly. If you were sincere, you would have brought it up at the time it happened or would have let his recent block suffice, instead of keeping it up your sleeve to pull out at your convenience. As an admin said just above about a different user, This wasn't a ban, but a temporary block for 3RR/disruption. As such it's only purpose is as an "electric fence". If we can be sure that it won't continue, a block is unnecessary...
        • If you want petty revenge, you should have the guts to do it yourself instead of relying on admins to do your dirty work. --Calton | Talk 13:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
          • A block for one violation has nothing to do with another violation. There was a ruling months ago of his behavior, does it appear that it is not continuing? Which admins have been enforcing his parole? (SEWilco 03:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC))

    This appears to be petty trolling by SEW. Please view the discussion over at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Admin_enforcement_requested#William_M._Connolley.27s_parole_-_enforcement where similar tedious complaints have been rejected. William M. Connolley 13:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC).

    On the one hand, this revert by Connolley was clearly reasonable: the thing he was reverting was irredeemably POV and stupid. It was a complmetely uncontroversial revert. On the other hand, the terms of Connolley's parole are pretty clear. So William, how about next time you revert something similar you avoid the issue completely by simply dropping a note on the talk page? This would take all of 2 minutes and would make everyone's life easier. OK? Nandesuka 14:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    We seem to have a problem here. Nandesuka, after making the above comment about the letter of the law, applied a block on WMC. The problem is that #1 he didn't record that block here as would seem to be required, and #2 the block comment referred to a (Revert on Kyoto Protocol without accompanying discussion on Talk: page.) which was obviously not the case here. Thus, as Nandesuka has not followed the rules here, it would seem that his block was applied rashly and without proper consideration of the discussion here or the whole picture. I hereby request that Nandesuka unblock WMC and explain his rash behavior here. I would like comments from other admins on this case as well. Vsmith 23:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    What in the world gives you the idea that an admin blocking a user for violating his parole requires a comment here? WP:3RR indicates that this page is intended for users to bring 3RR violations to the attention of admins. It does not indicate that admins who notice 3RR violations occurring on pages they are not involved in editing may not enforce the rule. However, since you're asking, I didn't block WMC for this violation. I blocked him for a subsequent violation. That violation was for a revert on a climate-related page - Kyoto Protocol -- with no accompanying explanation on the talk page. The subtle hint that this was the case would be the block comment that said "Revert on Kyoto Protocol without accompanying discussion on talk page." Next time, you could try asking on my talk page before throwing around inaccurate observations and words like "rash". One might even describe throwing around such accusations before gathering the facts as "rash." Nandesuka 13:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

    As a random passer-by, I agree with Calton that it is unecessary to take action in this case, given that this occured previous to a violation that William was already blocked for. It does seem petty. It is, however, against the letter of William's revert requirements, which, as Nandesuka notes, shouldn't take a great deal of effort to follow. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 15:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

    WMC is aware of the terms of his parole and has chosen to ignore them when he judges they are "unreasonably burdensome". (SEWilco 16:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC))

    User:Gibraltarian

    Take 1

    Three revert rule violation on History of Gibraltar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Gibraltarian (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Ecemaml 09:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Yes, technically, it's right. But only because I'm following with additions in a different article (History of Gibraltar/temp), since it seems that Gibraltarian is allowed to verbally abuse whatever he wants, not provide a single reference and remove sourced information just because he wants (and may). --Ecemaml 18:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

    Take 1

    Three revert rule violation on History of Gibraltar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Removal of {{disputed}} template.

    Gibraltarian (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: --Ecemaml 12:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Bright888

    Three revert rule violation on Yamato (people) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Bright888 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Appleby 21:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User: 165.247.213.84

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

    165.247.213.84 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: TDC 21:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: Even though both anon editor as well as article is the subject of an RfArb, Anon continues to remove information from article as well as remove dispute header. TDC 21:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

    Less Humorous Comments: Even though TDC as well as the article are the subject of Arbitration, TDC continues to remove information from the article as well as lie about 3RR violations. Any Admin checking the above 4 Diffs will see they are not all reverts (3rd one being a simple change of tag type, for instance). Sorry that admin time had to be wasted like this. 165.247.213.84 00:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

    All you have to do is click on each link to see it is a revert to the 18:11, November 16, 2005 version of the article. You lie so poorly its amazing that anyone believes you. TDC 00:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    Any Admin checking the above 4 Diffs will see they are not all reverts (3rd one being a simple change of tag type, for instance). 165.247.213.84 02:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC

    Three revert rule violation on E. Fuller Torrey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC (talk · contribs):

    04:04, November 17, 2005

    Reported by: .:.Jareth.:. 03:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Edit warring all day, attempts to discuss and build concensous have failed; user has made more than 25 revisions to version she prefers. .:.Jareth.:. 03:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:24.55.228.56

    Three revert rule violation on E. Fuller Torrey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    24.55.228.56 (talk · contribs):

    07:20, November 17, 2005

    Reported by: .:.Jareth.:. 03:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Edit warring all day, attempts to discuss and build concensous have failed; user has made more than 11 revisions to version he prefers. .:.Jareth.:. 03:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


    User:81.153.41.72

    Three revert rule violation on List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    81.153.41.72 (talk · contribs)

    Reported by: → Ξxtreme Unction {łblah} 16:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments Page is up for AfD. User thinks that the proper way to "protest" the AfD discussion is by putting comments on the article page itself, rather than in the AfD discussion. Edit summaries suggest that 81.153.41.72 (talk · contribs) is also RachelBrown (talk · contribs).

    User:William M. Connolley 3

    William M. Connolley: Six-month revert parole on certain articles violation on Kyoto Protocol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    William M. Connolley (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: SEWilco 05:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User did not supply adequate talk page comment (user last edited Talk page 10:27, 20 October 2005). New violation on same article as above a few days ago. User has a requirement that "Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate". Violations of this order should be treated as WP:3RR violations. (SEWilco 05:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC))
      • In the first place, I already blocked him for this. In the second place, how about you take a break from running to this page first thing, and instead try to come to consensus with him and the other editors of the page? Thanks. Nandesuka 05:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
        • This is a new violation which took place on the same page. The issue here is the parole and not the page; for how many pages do you want examples of violations? I am talking with another editor on this article's Talk page, but WMC did not edit Talk at all and not even try to meet his parole requirements for Talk usage. (SEWilco 16:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC))
          • If you look at the Kyoto page, you'll see plenty of discussion (including from me), but rather little of it by SEW. The problem we're trying to sort out is the reference format; SEW has reverted multiple times with no attempt to talk. William M. Connolley 22:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC).
            • If you look at the Kyoto page history, you'll see the parole violations which here are reported. If you find other violations please report them. (SEWilco 03:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC))

    User:Dbachmann

    Three revert rule violation on Proto-Indo-European language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Dbachmann (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: --Nixer 15:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    4 reverts in 24 hours is the rule to be in violation of 3RR and this is not the place to bring it up if you have an issue with his use of admin powers, the place for that would be WP:RFC. I have placed a warning on his talk page regarding 3RR. Jtkiefer ---- 06:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
    please do not feed the trolls :) dab (ᛏ) 11:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:William M. Connolley 4

    William M. Connolley: Six-month revert parole on certain articles violation on Scientific opinion on climate change (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    William M. Connolley (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: SEWilco 04:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User did not supply adequate talk page comment. User has a requirement that "Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate". Violations of this order should be treated as WP:3RR violations. (SEWilco 04:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC))
    • In addition to the 4 violations of mandatory Talk usage, an additional parole violation took place when "2nd revert" was done less than 24 hours after "1st revert". (SEWilco 04:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC))

    This appears to be petty trolling by SEW. Please view the discussion over at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Admin_enforcement_requested#William_M._Connolley.27s_parole_-_enforcement where similar tedious complaints have been rejected. Asking for enforcement of a month-old problem seems desperate even by SEW standards.

    Note that the specific edits listed above were listed over at the arbcomm enforcement page; those requests have been implicitly rejected in that none of the arbcomm considered them even worth replying to. William M. Connolley 21:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC).

    • These postings amount to double or triple jeopardy. Regardless of whether these would have amounted to violations, they occurred prior to the two blocks. The 3RR is meant to rein in behaviour, it is not meant to punish. In addition, the ArbComm decision was meant to stop the kind of behaviour that SEW is engaging in - reverting without providing adequate explanations on Talk. Very much a case of pot calling kettle black. Guettarda 22:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
      • These postings amount to reporting events where the user violated their parole. This is not a 3RR, although violations are to be treated as such. Attacking the messenger does not change that violations took place; please search yourself for violations. (SEWilco 02:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC))
        • You are wrong there. If they are to be "treated as" 3RR violations, then they are to be treated the same as 3rr violations. "Attacking the messenger" is in place when you are on a vendetta. The arbcomm refused to acknowledge your calls for action on these same things, and you keep spamming every available forum. This is totally over the line. Guettarda 16:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:Andrew Alexander

    Three revert rule violation on Holodomor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Andrew Alexander (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Irpen 07:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    Comments:

    • User has an annoying habit to find an easy way to make sure his out-of-mainstream POV gets the prominence, by spending little time on writing but making sure his writing goes into the lead paragraphs of the articles on controversial topics. This particular case is about his fight to disrupt the lead paragraph of the Holodomor article. As per the 3RR policy clause:
    Reverting doesn't only mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. It means undoing the actions of another editor, and may include edits that mostly undo a previous edit and also add something new
    As per the clause above not only the first and the second reverts (which are 100% reverts, i.e. restorations of unaltered previous versions) but also reverts 3 and 4 count since they consist of "undoing the actions of another editor". Revert 3 restores his own version of the lead as of 05:47, November 19, 2005, and revert 4 restores his version of 03:38, November 15, 2005 while making irrelevant changes to other text. The core of the conflict is that the user insists on the term "Genocide" being used as an alternative name to the Holodomor while such an opinion is not established in the mainstream literature as pointed out to him at talk. 3rd revert consists of the moving the phrase within paragraph without change of the meaning. 4th revert again restores his original lead paragraph (thus undoing the changes of a different editor) and making an unrelated change in a totally different section. The user wants to frivolously avoid a 3RR violation while clearly breaking a 3RR spirit.
    The user have been warned in the past that he should not expect to get away with violating 3RR based on technicalities and that an important part of our policies is the spirit in which they're made. At that time, Rob Church as a courtesy gave an offender a warning that while the block is justified, it will not be applied as a courtesy. The user promptly deleted that warning from his talk and today violated the 3RR in exactly same fashion. --Irpen 07:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    Blocked for 24 hours. Jtkiefer ---- 07:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:William M. Connolley 5

    William M. Connolley: Six-month revert parole on certain articles violation on Ozone depletion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    William M. Connolley (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: SEWilco 04:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User did not supply adequate talk page comment. User has a requirement that "Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate". Violations of this order should be treated as WP:3RR violations. (SEWilco 04:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC))
    Blocked 24 hours for parole violation. Jtkiefer ---- 07:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


    User:William M. Connolley 6

    William M. Connolley: Six-month revert parole on certain articles violation on Ozone layer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    William M. Connolley (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: SEWilco 04:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User did not supply adequate talk page comment. User has a requirement that "Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate". Violations of this order should be treated as WP:3RR violations. (SEWilco 04:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC))
    Blocked 24 hours for parole violation. Jtkiefer ---- 07:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

    I'm pasting in this, from my talk page (William M. Connolley 21:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)), since I think its relevant:

    I have unblocked you since I was not aware of the full facts on the issue when I implemented the block. I apologize for any difficulty this may have caused. Jtkiefer ---- 21:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

    You fell for SEWilco's Jihad. WMC is a valuable and expert contributor. By far the majority of his edits are well-reasoned and give a reason either on talk or in the edit summary. He occasionally violates the exact terms of the parole by using the summary instead of talk, or by not repeating an argument ad infinitum. But there are no substantial problems with his behaviour at all. Moreover, he has in the last few days repeatedly been blocked for "violations" reported by SEWilco, who is, in my opinion, is misusing the system by digging for ancient examples and presenting them one by one, in effect leading to a near-permanent block of a valuable contributor. Please note I have asked to have the Arbcom case reopened and the parole removed. In the meantime, please consider carefully if you really think another block is necessary for ancient "violations". --Stephan Schulz 10:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
    Don't attack the messenger. I found violations because they exist and because I looked; are you monitoring his parole? Please help monitor his long-neglected and long-ignored parole. WMC is generally a good contributor but he also is on parole due to times when he is not. (SEWilco 15:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC))
    Don't attack the messenger? You are waging a vendetta against WMC. The arbcomm refused to act on this. Nandesuka did fall for your line and blocked WMC. These are not new violations. This is ridiculous. Guettarda 15:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
    The ArbComm banned two other users and put WMC on parole. WMC is violating his parole. These are new reports of violations of his parole. WMC has not been following the terms of his parole, please help enforce his parole terms. His edit history is available to you, although not all his reversions are labeled as such. (SEWilco 16:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC))
    Can I make an unwelcome contribution here? The diffs cited above are plainly violations of the ArbCom remedy. I do not think there is any doubt about that. There is nothing in the remedy about having to aggregate edits for this purpose, and so a 24 hour block is appropriate in each case, successively. However, I am personally reluctant to apply to such a block so long after the event. ArbCom remedies are intended to fix a problem rather than to outright punish the editor(s) causing the problems. Clearly, remedies are intended as deterrents and deterrents aren't much good if they aren't used. However, I think the balance of application here is upon recent edits rather than old ones, since the effect of any deterrent now would be solely punitive rather than remedial. If there is a diff, even a single one, from the last 24 hours (since we're supposed to treat this like the 3RR, for some mystical reason) then a block is entirely appropriate. That said, it appears Jtkiefer has already blocked for this violation, and I am not minded to lift the block early. -Splash 16:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
    The above violations (except for part of one sequence of rvs) took place after the user was recently reminded of the terms of his parole, and he chose to continue to ignore them. The ArbComm decision was his warning, which he may have obeyed for 3 weeks. (SEWilco 16:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC))
    I'm aware of that. But I still do not think that issuing extremely retroactive punitive blocks is useful, for anyone. Find something recent — like yesterday, or when WMC returns from the present block, and you'll be onto a winner. -Splash 17:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
    You forgot to mention (1) that while the other two users were banned (one from certian articles, one totally), there were findings of fact in the arbcomm case against them, but none against WMC, (2) that you escaped sanction in the case by the skin of your teeth, (3) that the ArbComm did not act on your calls before, and (4) "treated like a 3rr violation" should be interpreted literally (we don't block 2-week old 3rr violations). Guettarda 16:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
    The ArbComm issued remedies. Two users left Misplaced Pages after them, while WMC ignores his. There apparently hasn't been someone enforcing his parole, can you help? (SEWilco 16:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC))
    For the record, I did not "fall for line." I blocked WMC independently because of a recent parole violation before SEWilco posted it here. Just because SEWilco is acting like a spoiled child, in my opinion, does not mean that anyone with whom he disagrees with is automatically as pure as the driven snow. By my reading, WMC has a trivial way to avoid blocks for violating his parole: don't violate the parole. As before, I urge him to strictly comply with the terms of his parole, and simply not give SEWilco anything (legitimate) to complain about. Nandesuka 16:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
    Well, it looked like that from where you posted it. What violation did you block for then? Guettarda 16:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
    . If SEWilco reported it after the fact, that's not my problem. Nandesuka 17:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
    Is there a Misplaced Pages feature which allows reporting before the fact? (SEWilco 17:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC))

    User:William M. Connolley 7

    William M. Connolley: Six-month revert parole on certain articles violation on Bjørn Lomborg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    William M. Connolley (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: SEWilco 16:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User did not supply adequate talk page comment. User has a requirement that "Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate". Violations of this order should be treated as WP:3RR violations. (SEWilco 16:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC))
    See above discussion and this before acting rashly. Also note that this is more than two weeks old and that there is a convincing edit summary that satisfies at least me. --Stephan Schulz 16:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
    Edit summaries were discussed in the ArbComm case. Parole requires talk page comments. See edit summary of #William M. Connolley 8: "rv to Orzetto". (SEWilco 17:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC))

    User:William M. Connolley 8

    William M. Connolley: Six-month revert parole on certain articles violation on Bjørn Lomborg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    William M. Connolley (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: SEWilco 17:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User did not supply adequate talk page comment. Violation on same page as preceding #User:William M. Connolley 7 User has a requirement that "Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate". Violations of this order should be treated as WP:3RR violations. (SEWilco 17:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC))
      • May I suggest you stop spamming this page with violations that are not actually 3RR violations. I think you have demonstrated amply that there is a problem. The ideal forum appears to me to be the requests for clarification page on WP:RFAR. Thank you. ] 17:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
    • This was posted there, and the ArbComm declined to comment on it. Guettarda 17:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
      • No, there was no request for clarification. Some people ignore the meaning of "must" but have not asked for clarification of the remedy. (SEWilco 17:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC))
        • SEWilco, I'd like you to take all of these old violations — by which I mean "any violation that happened in the past, including those you haven't yet posted yet" — and wrap them up into one (singular, one, uno, une, ichi) report on this page. Posting a "new" 3RR violation for things that happened weeks ago is, in my opinion, disruptive. Please stop now. Nandesuka 18:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
          • There are so many violations I may miss some, particularly ones not labeled as rv. And it takes a while to create each entry in this format, so others may be duplicating the effort in the meantime. I also have been reporting violatiosn slowly so as to avoid flooding this page with his many violations. (SEWilco 18:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC))
    The fact that this way you may a) extend the total time of bans and b) manage to sneak things to new admins who only look at recent edits never crossed your mind? Anyways, if you think it is so important to report all "violations", its only fair that you do the work, and not burden everybody else. It should be easy to set up a temporary work page for your many collaborators...--Stephan Schulz 18:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
    How can (number of violations * 24 hours) be extended? And it is only fair for WMC to do the work. (SEWilco 18:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC))
    I very strongly hope (and believe) that you are very much in the minority if you belive that each of these so called "violations" justifies a fresh 24 hour ban. All of them together might warrant one 24 hour ban, although I would say that a polite reminder on the users talk page would be more appropriate and more effective. --Stephan Schulz 19:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
    Read William M. Connolley: Six-month revert parole on certain articles. The RfAr notified him and the banned users of his parole requirements. Above on this page are violations which took place recently after recent reminders. See the History on his Talk page to also find deleted messages, including admin notifications and complaints about edits and violations. (SEWilco 21:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC))

    SEWilco, it is quite clear to anyone reading this page that you are waging a war against WMC. What positive benefit can be gained from you pouring over each one of his edits in the last two months and deciding whether they were reverts? This is petty stalking and nothing else. The purpose of blocking someone for a 3RR violation is to prevent edit warring in the heat of the moment and to make sure the person realizes that they crossed the line. It is not supposed to be used as a punitive measure for every crime that someone committed in their history, nor for stacking all the crimes up and asking that they be treated consecutively. WMC violated his parole, and each time he does it in the future he should be blocked. Could you please stop spamming this page with the results of your crusade-inspired painstaking detective work, though? — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 21:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

    What positive benefit can be gained from banning two users and placing WMC on parole? You can read the RfAr to interpret what you think the purpose is of WMC's parole penalty. WMC was told by ArbComm where the line was and what the penalty is. Who is supposed to report violations? I am reporting violations slowly; the second report today was relevant to the preceding one. (SEWilco 23:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC))

    User:Nohat at aluminium

    Violation of Three revert rule reported by Jooler 03:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

    Blocked for 24 and left a note on the user talk page. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:Jaybee From his Castle

    Reverted Desiree Washington 4 times in the last 24 hours. PatGallacher 23:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

    Blocked for 24 hours and notified the user on his talk page. —Cleared as filed. 04:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:William M. Connolley 9

    William M. Connolley: Six-month revert parole on certain articles violation on Climate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    William M. Connolley (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: SEWilco 04:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User did not supply adequate talk page comment. User has a requirement that "Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate". Violations of this order should be treated as WP:3RR violations. (SEWilco 04:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC))
    nearly a month old. I fail to see what good a block would do.Geni 05:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    Concur. These reports of edits from weeks ago are pointless. —Cleared as filed. 05:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    I believe this falls under Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point. This purported violation is almost a month old. Stop flooding this page with ancient history - it is quite disruptive. Vsmith 05:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    This is not flooding. In Misplaced Pages action/voting pages it has been acceptable to post dozens of items a day, then repost those for which action was not taken. (SEWilco 06:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC))
    ArbComm defined the parameters for violations. Is the quantity of William M. Connolley's violations an issue separate from the violations? (SEWilco 05:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC))
    Now that it's becoming fairly established that WMC is not going to be blocked for episodes you're digging up from a month ago, why continue to disrupt this page? Seems that it'd be more worthwhile to expend your energies elsewhere. —Cleared as filed. 05:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    I look forward to your enforcement participation so I can expend my energies elsewhere. (SEWilco 06:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC))
    Oh, give it up already. You've put up nine of these, and you've gotten only two hits -- one of whom reversed himself when he figured out what you were up to. You've been rumbled, you've been warned, and you're not getting your way just because you pout. In fact, you're probably making things harder for yourself, since I suspect if Connolley actually violates this parole in the future (what? two more months left, only?), you're going to have a harder time getting any admins to take your reports seriously. --Calton | Talk 07:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    You should look at the report before implying that this is not a violation. (SEWilco 14:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC))
    You should respond to what I (and others) have actually written instead of making up things to complain about. --Calton | Talk 23:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    He actually wrote "actually violates". In what way is the reported reversion not a violation of his parole? (SEWilco 04:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC))
    You should respond to what I (and others) have actually written (using sentences, not rhetorical questions) instead of making up things to complain about. Did I use too many syllables? --Calton | Talk 04:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
    I asked you to summarize these in a single entry already. You continue to disrupt this page. I now know exactly how much credibility to ascribe to any future reports you make, oh SEWilco Who Cries Wolf. Nandesuka 23:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    I already responded that the violator should do all that effort to meet your desire, with an appropriate penalty for any entries which he misses. Which Talk page entry by William M. Connolley corresponds to the reported violation, and shows this is not a report of a violation? (SEWilco 04:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC))

    User:Eclipse McMahon

    3 revert rule violation on Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Eclipse McMahon (talk · contribs):

    I am not involved in the dispute (I came across it while going through WP:RfP). So I'll do this myself. I had missed this one besides. It was actually 5 reverts in a 24 hour period. --Woohookitty 01:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


    User:81.111.172.198

    Three revert rule violation on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Ombudsman (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    81.111.172.198 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: User:Jfdwolff 21:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Information provided by User:Jfdwolff incorrect. User:Jfdwolff posted illegal material and it was the illegal material that was removed pending a request for a policy statement from Misplaced Pages regarding unlawful actions by Administrator User:Jfdwolff. Administrator Cleared as filed. should have maintained the status quo pending resolution by higher authority as Cleared as filed. admits being "in no position to pass judgment". A policy statement is still awaited. For full details please see "Regrettably Inappropriate Action from "Cleared as filed" On 05:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)" ] .
    • It would seem inappropriate for User:Jfdwolff to seek to have a User blocked when the matter arose from correcting a very recent (and not longstanding) posting by User:Jfdwolff. User:Jfdwolff also appears ill-mannered in dealings with other Wikipedians and fails to enter into meaningful dialogue or respond properly to valid comments made by others to attempt to achieve consensus.
    • I am still waiting for an answer to the questions posed here and here .
    81.111.172.198 14:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Asked and answered on that page, your attempts at playing amateur lawyer notwithstanding: It doesn't matter if you think you're right or that your edits are serving a higher purpose — almost everyone thinks that their edits are right or noble. Whatever your grievances, you have to settle them within the rules of Misplaced Pages. --Calton | Talk 14:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, there is no answer provided. I do not have a grievance. The law appears to be being contravened by a Misplaced Pages Administrator and attempt was properly made to correct that. There is a seeming contravention of the law and Misplaced Pages seems to be unable to self-regulate the matter.
    • With your comment you make the point. You do not seem to have any rules about Misplaced Pages being used by Administrators or others acting illegally or where there is a question as to the legality of their actions or those of others. Further, it would be more appropriate to adopt a civil tone. Being insulting and rude is an inappropriate way to enter into dialogue and does little to advance your arguments. At the same time as no Misplaced Pages policy has been forthcoming on the matter it seems there is none. If I am wrong on that, I wait to be corrected but time is passing with no answer.
    • What is the Misplaced Pages policy on seeming libel for example? Is there one? There must surely be one? If there is, then why is there not a Misplaced Pages policy on other seeming contraventions of the law? Are the Misplaced Pages policies to ignore seeming illegality and to act in contempt for the laws of the states in which Misplaced Pages operates? If there seems to be a libel, do you just leave it up or do you take it down until the matter has been resolved? So what is the position on contraventions of data protection laws or any other law for that matter? Do you continue the seeming contravention oblivious to the laws of the rest of the world or do you act to comply and resolve the matter as to whether there is or is not a contravention?
    81.111.172.198 16:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:Reddi

    Three revert rule violation on Timeline of the Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Reddi (talk · contribs)

    Comments: I have been trying to engage Reddi on the talkpage to explain why he doesn't want this redirect. Other users on the talkpage have agreed with my edit but Reddi refuses to discuss and instead simply reverts. There is an RfC and a Misplaced Pages:Requests for Arbitration out on him that he also refuses to respond to, apparently according to the complaint. --Joshuaschroeder 22:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:William M. Connolley 10

    William M. Connolley: Six-month revert parole on certain articles violation on Scientific opinion on climate change (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    William M. Connolley (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: SEWilco 05:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User did not supply adequate talk page comment. User has a requirement that "Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate". Violations of this order should be treated as WP:3RR violations. (SEWilco 05:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC))
    Please also see the above discussion and the appeal to reopen the ArbCom case to discuss this parole. --Stephan Schulz 08:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
    The parole remains in effect and was in effect at the time of this violation. (SEWilco 18:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC))
    I know that, you know it, William knows it, and probably everybody who read this thread knows it. Most of these people also know that Misplaced Pages is an attempt to build a good, 💕, and not a police state. As such, the rules are just rules, and their interpretation is subject to the constraint that they further that goal. Check it on the very page you like to link to so much. I believe (and so apparently do many others) that your behaviour is not helpful, that the instances you dig up are not harmful, and that no action is necessary. Moreover, I even believe that the parole was overreaching in the first place, and I'm obviously not alone in this. Oh, and your penis is small. --Stephan Schulz 20:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

    ←Moving back to the left margin.... SEWilco: Let someone else enforce WMC's parole. There is lots of Misplaced Pages out there that can use and would welcome your tenacious attention to detail. As Stephan Schulz says, a revert from a month ago just isn't worth blocking over. We're running an encyclopedia, not the Internal Revenue Service. Stephan Schulz: While I sympathize with your frustation at SEWilco's crusade, that last comment of yours probably wasn't in good taste. Misplaced Pages does have a policy on civility; encouraging others to follow it is my personal windmill to tilt at. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

    I thought about adding this last sentence for a while. Then I remembered my favourite actor, Spencer Tracy, as Henry Drummond in Inherit the Wind. Quote: "I don't swear for the hell of it. Language is a poor enough means of communication. I think we should use all the words we've got. Besides, there are damned few words that anybody understands." I agree it's incivil. However, I also think it's necessary. I'll let it stand as a document to the limit of my patience. It won't happen often.--Stephan Schulz 21:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:Elerner

    Three revert rule violation on Plasma cosmology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    BadUser (talk · contribs):

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    Reported by: Joshuaschroeder 18:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: User has been warned about such behavior and has a current RfC about his editorial practices, but he has made it clear that he will continue to revert without regard for editorial processes here at Misplaced Pages. --Joshuaschroeder 18:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

    Indeed you are correct. I didn't look closely at the date stamp. --Joshuaschroeder 19:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:Shivraj Singh

    User:Shivraj Singh has voilated the 3RR rule on the page Sher Shah Suri.

    خرم Khurram 15:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:128.174.114.5 aka User:70.225.173.111 aka User:128.174.114.6 aka User:128.174.114.3

    Three revert rule violation on Plymouth-Canton Educational Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    128.174.114.5 (talk · contribs)/70.225.173.111 (talk · contribs)/128.174.114.6 (talk · contribs)

    Reported by: brenneman 01:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • I've left a note on this user's talk page as well s that of the person whom is serially reverting them. This is a bit odd, but looking at the page history has gone on far too long. - brenneman 01:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
    Blocked both IPs for 24 hours (as well as 67.149.77.77, who was also in violation). · Katefan0 05:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


    user:Zen-master

    Three revert rule violation on Conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Zen-master (talk · contribs):

    • The consensus among other editors is that the POV tag should be removed. There has been no discussion of disputes, other than the POV tag, on the talk page. This user does not appear to be working towards consensus, but rather keeps bringing up the same objections no matter how many times they've been addressed. -Willmcw 02:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
    He came to an agreement with Neutrality. Unblocked him. --Woohookitty 07:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
    What is the agreement? I don't see any discussion on their talk pages. -Willmcw 08:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
    Apparently the agreement must have been that ZM should keep revert and edit warring on the page. See the page history. Carbonite | Talk 17:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    Sigh, I've only had 1 revert in the last 24 hours or so, and this incident here was more than 24 hours ago. I find it very interesting the POV pushing bot-esque gang is out in full, highly coordinated, force today. zen master T 17:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:William M. Connolley 11

    William M. Connolley: Six-month revert parole on certain articles violation on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    William M. Connolley (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: SEWilco 18:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User did not supply adequate talk page comment. User has a requirement that "Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate". Violations of this order should be treated as WP:3RR violations. (SEWilco 18:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC))
    • And name one 3RR violation which has been enforced well over a month after it happened. As you've had pointed out to you time and again as you go on your attention-seeking crusade, 3RR is intended to stop edit wars which are in progress, not provide punitive measures. - SoM 20:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
      • The Arbitration Committee defined the parole requirements. See William M. Connolley: Six-month revert parole on certain articles. (SEWilco 06:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC))
        • And what they defined was: "Violations of this order should be treated as WP:3RR violations and administrators not directly involved in the dispute should act accordingly." Personally, I am doing what I'd do what I'd do with a month-old 3RR, i.e., nothing. As this seems to be a pretty general line of thinking, your continued trawling up of same really does smack of WP:POINT, and I'd like to join others in asking you to desist. If you think this mass lack of action isn't what the Arbcom intended, get a clarification that says that WMC must be banned in such circumstances. Alai 06:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    • From Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule: The admins are under no obligation to block a user for breaking the 3RR, for instance if they see that the problem has been resolved in another manner. If that was unclear, please let us know, and perhaps it can be rephrased. And if the members of ArbCom are displeased with enforcement by admins reading this page, then they, as adminstrators themselves, are perfectly free to act on their own: unsurprisingly, they haven't. This should tell SEWilco something (and I suspect it does, but I also suspect that SEWilco will keep on pretending that it doesn't). --Calton | Talk 06:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    Yup, you're under no obligation to act upon reported violations. And the ArbComm defined what a violation is, and has not altered the remedies against several users. And reports of violations are created by users. (SEWilco 07:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC))
    Arbcom defined it in terms of existing 3RR practice. That practice is to apply it to current editting disputes, not to retrospective point-scoring. If a user reported a month-old 3RR vio, s/he'd be told what you're (repeatedly) being told, which is that it serves no purpose to apply a block in such a case. If someone reported similar things 11 times running, they'd be told they were being disruptive, and to desist. You're being disruptive: desist. Alai 07:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    Yup, you're under no obligation to act upon reported violations. I'm glad you finally understand. Now perhaps you can get back to doing something productive? --Calton | Talk 13:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    I've understood that since the beginning. I also understand that 3RR violations, and apparently parole violations, are expected to be reported by users. Until recently there apparently was no group or person assigned to monitor people on parole. (SEWilco 15:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC))
    • This violation is well over one month old. Enforecment of 3RR is not designed as a punitive measure, but rather, a cooling-off period. El_C 07:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:Zero0000

    Three revert rule violation on Palestinian exodus .

    5 times in 20 hours

    • 1st revert: 12:55, 24 November 2005
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert: 08:58, 25 November 2005

    Reported by: Zeq 10:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: User is an admin. Engaged in edit wars without properexplnations of his edit on talk page.

    Reply: Zeq does not understand what a revert is. Of those 5 edits, only the 2nd, 3rd and 5th were reverts according to normal 3RR practice. Therefore I did not break the rule. Though it is not an argument I need here, the 5th edit was in my opinion reversion of vandalism since what I did was to undo Zeq's deletion of a long-standing major section of the article without a good reason. Zeq shouldn't think he can just make repeated massive deletions and be protected by the 3RR. --Zero 11:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    Reply to the reply: All these edits are reverts. (if I need to "prove" it let me know. I am sure looking at the history page of the article will make it clear. It is fairly easy to locate an edit that was added and then Zero's first revert (which he claim is not a revert) Describing my edits as 'vandalism" to justify his reverts is not the proper way to solve edit disputes. For that there is the talk page not the revert button. Zeq

    Dbachmann (talk · contribs):

    Three revert rule violation on Proto-World Language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Reported by: User:Nixer 15:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • The User used his administrative power to block me for 48 hours, arguing with 3RR violation (which he had not right to do because of the 3RR rule, wich allowes to block users only for 24h maximum), even dispite the fact I added a new staff to the article triing to achive compromise.--Nixer 15:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Another user participated, User:Izehar just e-mailed me his apologies: "I have checked your edits on "Proto-World language" again, and they appear to not be vandalism - I apologise to you for reverting you and suggesting that you were vandalising the article. I shouldn't have got involved."--Nixer 15:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:Emir Arven

    Four times reverted Meša Selimović:

    Reported by: Nikola 14:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    I have blocked the user for 24 hours. Despite warnings, he continued to revert on Meša Selimović (, his fifth revert in 24 hours, and also violated the 3RR on Petar Petrović Njegoš (5 reverts , , , , and between 19:46, November 24, 2005 and 17:31, November 25, 2005). -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:William M. Connolley 12

    William M. Connolley: Six-month revert parole on certain articles violation on Scientific opinion on climate change (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Comments:

    • User did not supply adequate talk page comment. User has a requirement that "Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate". Violations of this order should be treated as WP:3RR violations. (SEWilco 16:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC))
    You're getting perilously close to WP:POINT here, SEWilco. If there are no recent–arbitrarily, I would suggest that 'recent' is within the last three days–violations of WMC's parole, please keep them to yourself or file them in a more appropriate place. I would suggest storing them on a subpage of your user space; add them to the evidence when the WMC ArbCom case is reopened.
    For the record, we are treating them as 3RR violations—month-old 3RR violations for which a block will not serve any useful purpose. Per the WP:3RR's specifications, "...sysops may block you for up to 24 hours." Admins are not compelled to block, and we won't if it seems that the 3RR is being used to further some personal dispute. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    Please stop this, SEWilco; it's disruptive and starting to look malicious. SlimVirgin 16:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    • This was "perilously close" to disruption and point-making several reports ago. SEWilco, how many more of these do you plan on making, getting ever-more-distant in time? If you're aiming to trawl up one of of these a day back to June, I'd predict you'll end up making several admins more than a tad tetchy. I strongly urge you to preferably, stop this entirely, or if you really must get all of these off your chest, form a single consolidated list of them, please, and link to them here (if you really must), or as part of an RFC, or that seemingly-upcoming reopened RFAr. As your actions here have already been drawn to the attention of the arbcom, please reconsider before proceding with further such antique reports, after being repeatedly asked not to. Alai 01:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    I've blocked him for the 13th report, which I warned him earlier I would do. It was me who suggested that, if he finds a new violation, he should consider posting it to AN/I, as these are not 3RR violations, but parole violations, which is a bit different. But wherever he posts them, they need to be from within the last couple of days and I made that clear to him. No 13 was from the beginnning of October. SlimVirgin 06:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    I think he was reporting them in the correct place, due to the wording of the AC ruling; or at any rate, if AN/I would have been a better place, that was hardly the problem. Perhaps the "current dispute" aspect of this page should be made (more) explicit in the preamble, lest we be accused of singling out SEW unfairly. But in the (admittedly amazingly unlikely) event of someone doing the same thing with "real" 3RR reports, I think we would, and certainly should treat them similarly. Alai 18:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:Zen-master

    WP:3RR violation on Conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zen-master (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: SlimVirgin 17:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments

    • Zen-master has reverted the intro around 12 times since 17:50 on November 24, making complex partial reverts in an effort to game the system. However, he has slipped up a couple of times and has reverted to certain phrases four or more times. The diffs above concentrate on one of these phrases: that conspiracy theory is a "dubious narrative genre". He has also added the word "controversially" to the start of a sentence at least four times. SlimVirgin 17:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    • These are not straight reverts, but cleanups defending the article from attack by a highly coordinated POV pushing bot-esque gang. They do not debate in good faith and only seem to do things with some sort of POV mission in mind. Isn't it odd that a handful of highly coordinated editors show up to an article suddenly? zen master T 18:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Isn't it odd that one user believes that he's entitled to make a dozen complex reverts to an article in a 24 hour period? Carbonite | Talk 18:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
        • A reasonable response to bullying by an exponentially coordinated bad faithed gang of POV pushers. zen master T 18:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
          • zen-master, as if your dozen complex reverts wasn't bad enough, you have also engaged in an escalating series of personal attacks. The next time I see one I will block you for 24 hours, so please take care not to violate WP:NPA. Jayjg 18:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
            • Point out one? In my interpertation it is very suspicious that you and your POV aligned buddies all show up to the same article, at the same time, with a very high degree of coordinatation. It appears to me that you and your friends are always on some sort of POV mission as neutrality and debating in good faith are not your goals. zen master T 18:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
              • Then perhaps you should begin to assume good faith and consider that perhaps it's your goals that are out of alignment with NPOV. Carbonite | Talk 18:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
                • I did assume good faith at one time, then as I gathered more evidence and paid attention I learned from experience that assumptions can be misleading. If NPOV is in dispute the first thing we should do is signify that fact, right? Why then have you been working to deny the existence of controversy in the article? Anyone from your POV aligned gang can discuss specific issues with the changes I am making on the talk page, but you and they are mostly not doing that (very surprising given the number of people in your POV aligned gang). For example, I think the word "ostensibly" is a perfect neutral replacement for "commonly believed" but you and your POV aligned friends keep reverting it. zen master T 18:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
                  • I've blocked you for 24 hours for your continued personal attacks. Another admin who is reading this might want to block for an additional 24 hours for the 3RR violations - I note you have reverted yet again. Jayjg 18:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Clear 3RR violation, "ostensibly" seems to have come and so many times it must be about dizzy, setting aside any of the other changes. I don't personally care to make it "consecutive 24h terms", though, Jayjg's block will suffice (even if it's not ideally performed by an involved party). Alai 04:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:Cool Cat

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

    Reported by:

    Comments:

    • Please block this idiotic pov pusher. Indefinately if you really want as he is badly pissed. --Cool Cat 17:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
      • The frst three reverts are part of a dispute as to where the redirect should point. The last one is the creation of a fork. While Cool Cat technically broke the 3RR, this is closer to reverting vandalism than revert warring. While his comments here and in his edit summary there makes suggests that he needs a break, I am not in favour of a block in this instance. Guettarda 17:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:65.95.17.92

    Three revert rule violation on Supervillain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 65.95.17.92 (talk · contribs):

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    Reported by: Turnstep 21:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: 

    Bell Canada BELLNEXXIA-11 (NET-67-68-0-0-1)
                                 67.68.0.0 - 67.71.255.255
Bell Canada BELLNEXXIA-10 (NET-65-92-0-0-1)
                                 65.92.0.0 - 65.95.255.255

    - Turnstep 03:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:Cedars

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

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    Reported by: Barberio 03:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Really doesnt want a {globalize} tag on this article. Was warned after the third revert. --Barberio 03:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I was just moving it to the talk page - I have stopped reverting it now and will not edit electrical engineering and talk for 24 hours (no exceptions) - was my mistake I didn't see one of the reverts (in fairness other users were reverting too). Cedars

    User:EaZyZ99

    Three revert rule violation on Penis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). EaZyZ99 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: —Locke Cole 07:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:HolyRomanEmperor

    Three revert rule violation on Oj, svijetla majska zoro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    HolyRomanEmperor (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Chris 73 | Talk 13:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: User is in conflict with User:Emir Arven, who got blocked by me for a 3RR above. During this, I explained the 3RR to HolyRomanEmperor. HolyRomanEmperor left me a warning on my userpage not to block him . There is some discussion going on on user talk pages, but it is a 3RR violation nevertheless. In particular, a Serbian language claim previously removed was added again 4 times within 24 hours. Since I have blocked his Opponent Emir Arven for 24 hours for a 3RR, i blocked HolyRomanEmperor also for 24 hours (as per sysops should treat all sides equally above). Disclaimer: I have never edited the article, have no interest in this topic, and are not involved in this conflict in any way except for enforcing the 3RR. -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)