Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
RickK (talk | contribs)
36,836 edits
Line 379: Line 379:
: I reported [[User:Slrubenstein]] in the first place. I haven't yet read all of the above but personally I'm happy for him to be unblocked immediately. [[User:Arcturus|Arcturus]] 17:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
: I reported [[User:Slrubenstein]] in the first place. I haven't yet read all of the above but personally I'm happy for him to be unblocked immediately. [[User:Arcturus|Arcturus]] 17:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


Don't feed the trolls. RickK [[User:66.60.159.190|66.60.159.190]] 17:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Don't feed the trolls. RickK[[User:|]] 17:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


As the original blocking admin, I feel I should add my thoughts to this. When I first saw this, I was inclined to just warn. I actually got as far as SLR's talk page to do that, when I saw Dante's comment further up about a previous 3RR block. On further investigation, finding that he had previously been blocked twice for the same offence (3RR), I thought a 24 hour block was in order and appropriate. I would not have done so otherwise. Whether or not it was by community consensus, 3RR is what it says on the tin, to coin a phrase: a rule. SLR broke the rule, whether deliberately or not. I, too, obeyed the rule, which is there for a purpose. On the other hand, I have no problem with his unblocking: I would have done it myself, had SLR contacted me (which he didn't). I certainly think the RFAr is ridiculous and totally OTT. [[User:Smoddy|Smoddy]] [[User talk:Smoddy|(Rabbit and pork)]] 19:01, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
As the original blocking admin, I feel I should add my thoughts to this. When I first saw this, I was inclined to just warn. I actually got as far as SLR's talk page to do that, when I saw Dante's comment further up about a previous 3RR block. On further investigation, finding that he had previously been blocked twice for the same offence (3RR), I thought a 24 hour block was in order and appropriate. I would not have done so otherwise. Whether or not it was by community consensus, 3RR is what it says on the tin, to coin a phrase: a rule. SLR broke the rule, whether deliberately or not. I, too, obeyed the rule, which is there for a purpose. On the other hand, I have no problem with his unblocking: I would have done it myself, had SLR contacted me (which he didn't). I certainly think the RFAr is ridiculous and totally OTT. [[User:Smoddy|Smoddy]] [[User talk:Smoddy|(Rabbit and pork)]] 19:01, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:51, 9 May 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.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Click here to create a new report


    Violations

    User:Zivinbudas/ User:85.206.193.250

    He was already warned by User:BrokenSegue.

    Also on Lithuania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    --Witkacy 15:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

    This has continued. I've reverted him twice myself, so as I understand it, I can't be the one to block. He is way over 4 reverts in 24 hours, and he is accusing those who revert him of vandalism, and making mildly abusive remarks on the talk page. Witkacy also did (exactly) four reverts in under 24 hours. Frankly, if it were me, I could not bring myself to block Witkacy who, as far as I can tell is, like me, trying to fend off an uncooperative and borderline vandalistic editor whose edits show no regard for truth. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:49, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

    User:198.208.160.27

    Three revert rule violation on Clay Aiken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 198.208.160.27 (talk · contribs):

    • 1st revert: [1] 11:39 May 3
    • 2nd revert: [2] 16:16 May 3
    • 3rd revert: [3] 6:06 May 4
    • 4th revert: [4] 9:02 May 4
    • 5th revert: [5] 10:19 May 4
    • 6th revert: [6] 10:53 May 4

    Reported by: · Katefan0(scribble) 16:36, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

    • There were also earlier reverts beyond this 24 hour window and have been more since I originally reported this. Now another anon user from a different IP has apparently begun doing the same thing. (Katefan0 21:10, 4 May 2005)
      • (Update: there have been more reverts since I originally posted this, and now a new anon has started removing the same information.) · Katefan0(scribble) 21:32, May 4, 2005 (UTC)


    Comments:User 198.2808.160.27, clearly a Clay Aiken fan, has been repeatedly removing information in the article referencing speculation that Clay Aiken might be gay, despite a consensus to include that information on the article's talk page (which has been listed on RfC, that's how I got involved). I haven't seen any indication that this person has visited the talk page though -- they certainly haven't participated; I suspect they may be somewhat new given the last revert, where they added "Line removed by scanning utility". (?) Between the most recent two reverts, I left two messages on the person's talk page asking them to come to the article's discussion page to try to come to some consensus instead of just continually reverting information. My second message included a warning that they could end up having their editing privileges temporarily revoked. No response except to delete the information and again replace it with the "scanning utility" line. I am not sure that a temp block would do much good, given that it's a dynamic IP, but I thought this step should be taken before requesting the page be protected.

    Blocked. Re-report if it continues or if a new IP is used. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:39, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
    66.82.9.49 has now deleted the same info once: ([7]) and added nonsense a second time ([8]). · Katefan0(scribble) 22:52, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
    Hmmm, the first IP is registered to General Motors... this one is a Direcway IP. Anyone think we should just block this one too? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:09, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

    Six reverts and he's blocked for four hours? In any case, he's back and reverting again (12:14, 5 May 2005 - current edit), so he's immediately in violation of the 3RR. --Calton | Talk 12:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

    I figured it was a dynamic IP and a once-off vandal, so I erred on the side of caution. He's gone for 48 hours this time. I'll also leave a mention on the talk page of the IP. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:36, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
    New anons have joined the fracas. One revert so far by 24.190.195.114 ([9]) and two by 64.136.26.227 ([10], [11]). And, as Calton noted above, the original blocked anon editor has now begun reverting again. Hermione1980 has requested the page be protected at WP:RFPP. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:01, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Jguk

    Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    • 1st revert: 08:23, 2005 May 4
    • 2nd revert: 14:44, 2005 May 4
    • 3rd revert: 16:33, 2005 May 4

    Reported by: Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:05, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

    Comments: Jguk has been selectively modifying Wikipedia pages to try to influence an ongoing vote on use of style prefixes. (sorry, I'm not sure how to locate the diff links other than the datetime in the history)

    Hardly. I've been reverting inappropriate modifications by Whig that have attempted the effect Lulu describes. Anyway - as Lulu reports, I have reverted three times, not more than three times. Kind regards, jguk 21:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

    User:Tagteam213 and User:Spastika

    Three revert rule violation on List of national flags (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tagteam213 (talk · contribs) and Spastika (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Carnildo 23:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: Tagteam213 and Spastika are clearly the same user attempting to avoid the 3RR, as both are making the same edits, and the timing is so close. Note especially the edit summary on the sixth revert: "rv tagteam gang". Both are inserting Palestine into the list, against consensus on the talk page. --Carnildo 23:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

    I've blocked Spastika for 24 hours as s/he was the first to appear, and Tagteam213 indefinitely for being a sockpuppet created to violate policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:26, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
    I've permanently blocked Spastika for writing that he/she plans on continuing to post his/her own POV and doesn't care about anybody else's. An inappropriate ID anyway. RickK 23:49, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

    User:68.105.80.162

    Three revert rule violation on Alt.usenet.kooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.105.80.162 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: JRM · Talk 00:21, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Has been removing the name "Edmond Heinz Wollmann" as recipient of the "Kook of the Millennium" award. While unfortunate for mr. Wollmann, it also happens to be factually accurate, and referenced. Has gone and reverted a fourth time despite being warned not to. JRM · Talk 00:21, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

    User:67.86.77.225

    Three revert rule violation on Personal water craft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.86.77.225 (talk · contribs):

    Not blocking him myself since I've been involved in the issue, but someone should. —Morven 00:30, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

    blocked for 24. BrokenSegue 01:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

    User:Mel Etitis

    "Admin" user Mel Etitis has been part of concerted vandalism campaign to erase the Islamofascism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) topic following a failed attempt to Vote-For-Deletion.

    "Admin" user Mel Etitis has also banned ElKabong (talk · contribs) under Three_revert_rule for FIXING this vandalism, despite vandalism falling out of the restrictions of said rule.

    Abuse of Admin authority and Vandalism by an admin confirmed.

    Reported by: 129.7.35.207 16:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC) ElKabong {wrongly banned by Admin who was himself involved in "discussion" and vandalism}

    Comments:

    • Looks legit to me. Thanks for letting us know about the dispute, --SqueakBox 16:50, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

    User:129.7.35.205

    --SqueakBox 17:27, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

    For those who are a unable to figure out what's going on from this incredibly abbreviated listing, the violation is on Islamofascism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), by 129.7.35.205 (talk · contribs). The article has now been protected; I suggest we ignore this entry, and also the previous one. Noel (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

    Appears to be a sockpuppet of blocked ElKabong (talk · contribs), using a new IP to get round his block and continue edit warring Islamofascism so that it had to be protected. If so this is unacceptable even for a very new user, --SqueakBox 18:55, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Mike Garcia

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

    Reported by: Chameleon 17:10, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:


    User:Cantus

    Cantus, who is limited to one revert per 24 hours (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus vs. Guanaco#Remedies), reverted 3 times on Template:Europe.

    Reported by: NoPuzzleStranger 01:37, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


    user blocked for 24 hoursGeni 01:48, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

    I'm no fan of Cantus' tactics or attitude WRT this project, but the ArbCom ruling mentions that he may not revert "articles" more than once a day, and this Template is not an article. If we're willing to interpret the ArbCom ruling to mean that he can't revert "pages", I have quite a few more examples of him recently breaking that ruling. -- Netoholic @ 11:14, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

    The template appears in articles therefor to revert it is to revert those articles. The articles/pages isssues can be delt with when the problem appears.Geni 15:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

    User:209.191.207.147

    Three revert rule violation on Wal-Mart. User:209.191.207.147:

    Reported by: bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 09:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:


    User:Leifern

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

    Reported by: Geni 16:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Geni, I've warned him on his talk page as I feel people should be warned before being blocked. I then went to the page to revert his 4th revert, but since then someone has put forward a compromise version, so I left it. If he reverts again, I'll block him. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:33, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

    This block is an abuse of the policy: the reverts in question are of images (graphs), which can not be reworded (duh). Geni knows this full well, and is trying to silence me because he disagrees with my contributions. Jtdirl has an axe to grind, because he and I have disagreed on unrelated matters. IMHO, Geni and Jtdirl should lose admin privileges, but I'll settle for an immediate unblocking. --Leifern 01:52, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

    For some reason, User:Jtdirl blocked Leifern even though he'd made no further edits since the warning. I have therefore unblocked him. Leifern, please, no more reverting. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:54, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
    Sure, but how do you deal with deletions of images? As I said, it's not as if I can reword them? --Leifern 01:57, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

    User:KEITH and associated IPs

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

    Reported by: Worldtraveller 17:03, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • He is claiming to be 2 people, one from Canada, one from California, though is obviously a native Spanish speaker. My IP locator locates all anon IP's in Mexico City. I may have inadvertently crossed the 3RR myself by getting muddled up timewise yesterday, and have not touched the page after realising this (if I have I can only apologise), though I believe KEITH has reverted many more times as he has been up against me and worldtraveller. besides the spamming and almost certainly untrue statements combined with the terrible English makes his repeatedly putting in what he does arguably on the verge of vandalism,--SqueakBox 17:12, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
    I've warned him on his talk page. I'm not sure there's any point in blocking him right now, as the edits have stopped and he seems to have access to several IP addresses anyway; and Squeakbox, if you also violated it, I'd have to block you too. I can protect it if you like, so let me know if that would help. If he does it again, he'll be blocked. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:52, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Mir Harven

    Three revert rule violation on Greater Serbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mir Harven (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Dejvid 19:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Background: This is part of a long running edit war in which we have been on completely different wavelengths. A 3rd opinion has been requested.Dejvid 19:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

    Dejvid, judging by a glance at the history, you've violated 3RR too. I think protection would make more sense in this case so you can sort it out on talk. I've put a warning on Mir Harven's talk page, and I'll shortly be doing the same on yours. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:10, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Slrubenstein

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

    Reported by: Arcturus 20:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    See edit comments and Talk:Jesus

    Shouldn't Slrubenstein's first edit simply count as an edit, and the next three as reverts? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:06, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
    Okay, I see now. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:10, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
    I don't see. That last diff makes no sense. El_C 22:27, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
    I think he just gave the wrong diff. Here's the final one. [12] SlimVirgin (talk) 22:31, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
    Slrubenstein's talk page shows he wasn't warned, which he probably should have been. Would anyone mind if, in light of this, I reduced the length of the block? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:36, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
    Fine by me, FWIW. James F. (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
    Ditto. El_C 23:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
    If this was a first offense, I'd agree with reducing the length of the block. Since this is Slrubenstein's 3rd block for violating the 3RR [13], I'm not sure a warning is necessary. Carbonite | Talk 22:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
    I'm guessing he didn't realize he'd violated it. If he'd been warned, he'd have had a chance to revert himself and avoid the block. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:38, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
    Well perhaps he will learn to be more careful in future past experiance suggests he wont but that isn't my problemGeni 23:41, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

    I'm concerned that this is yet another bad-faith 3RR report that was not properly investigated. After reading the talk page, it appears that Slrubenstein was reverting based on talk-page consensus, while Arcturus, who reported this "violation," kept inserting the unsupported version. The dispute is, in fact, currently listed on WP:RFC. Given that, I think it's a terribly bad idea for any of the participants to be blocked. There can't be discussion if Slrubenstein is sitting out a 3RR block. Mackensen (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

    Well, I'm inclined to significantly reduce the block. Does anyone explicitly object to this? El_C 23:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
    Exactly, though strictly speaking admins are not supposed to look at content issues regarding 3RR, but I think a warning on SLR's talk page would have helped, particularly as he was upholding the consensus. Brief page proection would have made more sense in this instance. I'm going to unblock him early unless anyone explicitly objects, but I'll leave it a few more hours, as I take on board the points made above that he's been blocked before. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:57, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
    Slrubenstein's block must last for the full 24 hours. If any of his little friends unblocks him before that time, I shall complain about that abuse of admin powers. Chameleon 00:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    I've reduced the block to three hours from now, which means he'll have been blocked for six. This is twice the length of the last block he got from Geni. I'm doing this on the grounds that he's a good editor who was upholding the consensus of the talk page; he probably didn't realize he'd made a fourth revert, and because he wasn't warned, he wasn't given a chance to revert himself. If anyone strongly disagrees with me, feel free to reblock. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:15, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
    Very childish of you to reduce the block because you were told not to. Chameleon 00:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    could someone sort out all the other requests on this page? Normaly I would but I'm a bit busy and one of them I can't do anyway.Geni 00:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    This is silly. I'm going to remove the block, because it is evidently being used to punish actions rather than to prevent them re-occurring, which is vastly against the spirit of the 3RR policy, and it is obvious that prevention of further problems are best furthered at this point by encouraging the participants to discuss things.
    Chameleon: Please, complain away, do. If I'm one of SLR's "little friends", I'd hate to meet one of his less favourable aquaintances. If my actions turn out to have been "abuse", I'm more than happy to apologise for and change them, but let's see, rather than just have idle threats poised above our heads, Sword of Damocles-like? James F. (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    This is exactly why we need an effective de-adminning process. There was nothing idle about my firm warning. Chameleon 00:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    I agree with Mackensen's point, and I support James F.'s unblocking of SlR. I see no point in (and I actually find it counter-productive to) always follow the letter of that rule; I maintain that James F.'s actions followed its spirit. El_C 01:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    Hello all - I was participating in the talk page with this user and his reversions WERE a problem. I made a polite but firm suggestion to him on the talk page that he was violating the 3RR rule. I found his behavior unnecessarily combative and generally dismissive of any opinions that did not coincide with his own. Rangerdude 00:35, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    Hi, Rangerdude. Can you please point me to your "a polite but firm suggestion to him on the talk page that he was violating the 3RR rule" ? Thanks. El_C 02:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    [14] Grace Note 03:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    First, that warning from Rangerdude is timed at 20:01 and Slrubenstein made no edits to Jesus after that, so far I can see. Also, the diff for Rangerdude's comment doesn't include the warning, unless I'm missing something. [15] SlimVirgin (talk) 03:43, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
    Rangerdude inserted that warning into his 20:01 comment at 20:34, after Arcturus had reported Slrubenstein for 3RR. [16] SlimVirgin (talk) 03:48, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

    Could someone please point to the part of the policy that suggests it's okay to revert-war if you are "upholding consensus"? Slrubinstein has a history of revert-warring. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but suggesting he doesn't know what he's doing is a bit silly, frankly. And the point, El C, is that admins are evenhanded. They shouldn't give a pass to their friends. Doing so encourages some editors to feel they are "protected" and can revert to their heart's content. Surely you don't want to encourage that notion? Grace Note 03:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

    The point? The point of what, Grance Note? If you think favouratism was a factor in my position, then I think you're wrong. if you think I face the risk of leaving that impression, then so be it. While I would, in that case, attempt to answer such charges, what I refuse, however, to do is uninvolve myself administratively with people whom I have a positive collegial relationship with. Unironically, I feel that extends to you as well (that is, we have a positive collegial relationship). And for that matter, people whom I have a poor one with. As for what actually comes to my attention (I can only act on what I'm privy to), in this case, a direct request for assistance from SR, that might seem like an important factor (it is on the perception end of it), but I'm confident that it has no bearing on my objectivity here. If you disagree with that, if you think I wasn't being evenhanded, I welcome your input on any 'specific' item. Corruption is something that I oppose very strongly, but I could not give a flying seaturtle about political-correctness (which is, irnoically, one factor listed in the AD/CE debate; there, as well, I don't think it should be one – the basis should be the critical scholarship of that specific field/s). El_C 07:11, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    Well, the thing is, Slrubenstein has a history of revert-warring against POV-pushers. This isn't necessarily a good thing, but I for one look favorably on users who try to uphold consensus and who push for academic integrity (in this, I refer to the long struggle against CheeseDreams). Wikipedia isn't just an exercise in democracy, anarchy, or even (sadly) aristocracy, but an attempt to make an encyclopedia. If we fetishize policy we risk losing sight that policy was made to protect the encyclopedia, not the other way round. Mackensen (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    Thanks for your comment. I'm not asking you to "fetishise" policy, just to point out where "revert-warring against POV-pushers" (which in itself is pushing a POV, of course, we all have POVs!) is encouraged. I looked at the page. I don't actually see a "consensus". I see a majority and some dissenters. Unless you are defining "POV pusher" as someone who does not accord with the majority view -- and I sincerely hope you are not -- I don't see how Slrubenstein is excluded from the rule on reverting, professorship or otherwise. If he is pushing the majority view, he has even less reason to revert more than three times because he can be sure other editors will back him up. I'm sure Slrubenstein is a good editor, who does try to insert POVs that are supported by research, but he's inclined to get carried away. A block is a gentle reminder not to do that. Unblocking him, and the defence of his behaviour here, supports behaviour that I think should be discouraged as detrimental to making the encyclopaedia. Grace Note 04:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    Well, I read through the talk page, and my impression was that the majority had actual reasons for their position–reasons that made sense–while the dissenters were just that--dissenters. They had no justification that I could discern, they just didn't want the CE/BCE. Now, I personally don't care either way; I've used both in papers depending on how I was feeling. I mean, when the point of change is still the purported birth of Jesus a simple renaming doesn't reduce the Judeo-Christian centric nature of the calendar. That said, if a majority makes a good case for one or the other in the absence of actual policy it should be supported. Repeatedly changing the article and acting as though there's no consensus is disruptive. There's a reason the other editors would back him up. I don't find a 24-hour block, or even a 6-hour block, a gentle reminder. Rather, it moves an important participant from the debate. I'd rather see the page protected. Mackensen (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    It remains the case that a majority, however well they argue their case, does not represent a "consensus". I don't believe that either side made a particularly good case. I personally don't like CE but I wouldn't change it if I saw it. You are right that repeatedly changing the article is disruptive. It's disruptive whether you are in the majority or not, and whether you argue your case well or not. The rule against revert-warring is valuable and should be supported, not just in cases where those we don't agree with breach it. Grace Note 05:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    Rules apparently mean nothing at Wikipedia. It's who you know and who knows you. Don't call it a clique or cabal because that might violate the rule against personal attacks - unless of course you are one of the "in-crowd". Then you can violate any rules you wish because your friends will always be there to help make excuses for you, revert for you, unblock you, vote for your adminship, and generally cover for you. This isn't an encyclopedia project, it's a conspiracy of dunces. --MD2020 03:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    Hello there and welcome to Wikipedia. I see this is your second edit, thus I'll safely assume you're either a very new user or a sockpuppet. I'll be kind and assume the former. I've never been invited to join the cabal, despite being an administrator for over half a year and an editor for close to two years. It was only a few months ago that we made the 3RR enforceable by blocking, and even then it was only an option. No administrator is required to block anyone, and I know some do not on principle. In this case, several administrators looked at the matter and decided there was no point in blocking Slrubinstein (who, incidentally, has PhD and is generally not looked upon as a dunce). Wikipedia is emphatically not an experiment in anarchy; we reward those who contribute to the project. If administrators are granted more leeway than new users, and they are, it is because they have demonstrated in the eyes of the community that they can actually make themselves useful. I'm sorry if you find this system unfair, but it is what it is. If you really think the system is hopelessly corrupt, within thirty minutes of creating an account, I'd encourage you to go elsewhere, because you're obviously too pure to help us dunces write our cabal-opedia. If, on the other hand, you think we can be saved, I'd suggest that you write some articles or add to existing ones, and show by example how to be a good wikipedian. Best of luck, Mackensen (talk) 04:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    I didn't realize that a PhD (woopdie doo) gave editors the right to violate the rules of Wikipedia. Oink Oink. What next? An MD gives you the right to vandalize pages? --MD2020 04:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, I thought I was speaking with someone who has principles. Or, at least, the ability to conduct a civil conversation. Anyway, a PhD doesn't grant one the right to break the rules, no, but it does generally entitle someone to the benefit of the doubt when facts are involved. Seeing as Steve Rubinstein is an associate professor, we assume he isn't a mere dunce like some undergraduates I know. That being said, you've overlooked the point of my post. Given your newness here, I'm rather surprised that you've such a chip on your shoulder. Mackensen (talk) 04:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    Your unpunished personal attacks on me are duly noted as are your excuses for Wikipedia's cliquish bias. The two are no doubt related. --MD2020 04:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    I feel compelled to comment here as that was hardly any sort of attack: Mackensen's reply is a perfectly reasonable reply to your unreasonable provocation. We ask people on wikipedia to be polite but we don't ask them to be robots. If you wish to avoid harsh words you are going to have to avoid dishing them out. As far as following rules goes, at wikipedia we have come together to make an encyclopedia. Rules can help facilitate that goal, but they can also distract from that goal. As a community we have the good judgment to decide how to apply the rules, as we wrote the rules in the first place. Ideally we'd like those who edit in good faith to never need to be aware of any of our rules. There are certainly flaws in our procedures here, but you've picked a particularly poor example. --Gmaxwell 04:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    I think I can be forgiven for calling your previous post uncivil. In any event, if you really find my conduct so abominable, then by all means open a RfC against me. I make no apologies for my remarks or for my "excuses for Wikipedia's cliquish bias." And I doubt very much they're related, given the torrent of abuse I've endured from angry revert-warriors who disliked being reasonable. Mackensen (talk) 04:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    Never mind, I thought I was corresponding with someone possessing half a brain. --MD2020 04:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    I can't imagine what gave you that impression. Moving right along, I'd like to remind you that this page is meant for discussing the three-revert rule, not speculating on the relative mental capacities (or lack thereof) of various wikipedians. If you have a beef with me I suggest you open an RfC. That's really the best place for it. Otherwise, I'd have to ask that you return to a discussion of the dispute on Jesus, which you, thus far, have singularly failed to mention. Best, Mackensen (talk) 04:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    I was right the first time when I noted the conspiracy of dunces, which by the way was not a personal attack, it was an indictment of Wikipedia as a whole. You, on the other hand, engaged in a very personal attack on me and my integrity. "I'm sorry, I thought I was speaking with someone who has principles." So you are the violator. I am not interested in the Jesus article, I am interested in the bias that has turned this egalitarian enyclopedia project into a sordid game of inequality, bias, cliquishness, hypocrisy, and abuse of power. It's like watching a large turd circling the bowl just before the final flush.--MD2020 04:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    So, you aren't interested in contributing to articles? That strikes me as an odd position if you're joining a project whose express purpose is to create an encyclopedia. I suggest you travel over to the Village Pump if you wish to propose policy. If you trul think I've been engaging in personal attacks, I again recommend you to the RfC page. Perhaps questioning your principles went a bit far, but I was unsure of what to make of a user who complains about cliques and then mocks the person who tries to answer. This seemed to me an odd way to respond, and I could only conclude your principles were in abeyance. I apologize if this conclusion did not please you. More to the point, if your remark about a conspiracy of dunces was meant for Wikipedia is a whole then you actually just attacked several thousand users, not just a dozen or so. Either way, I'm somewhat offended, but I'd be happy to ignore it if it would help us deal with the matter at hand, which I believe is the Jesus article. Best, Mackensen (talk) 05:00, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    You're jumping to that conclusion without all the facts. I've unblocked or reduced the blocks of a few editors in the last day or so, either because they weren't warned properly or because they e-mailed me to say they'd stop the reverting or vandalism, and they were mostly editors I didn't know, not friends. You shouldn't judge people based on one isolated case. Slrubenstein almost certainly made a mistake here. He wasn't warned and therefore didn't realize, and was blocked before he had a chance to revert himself. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:57, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
    Your bias against some editors and in favor of others is quite apparent from your block log [17] and this doesn't even include the blocks authorized by your pals on your behalf. Either the rules of Wikipedia should be applied equally to all or we just accept a slippery slope where some editors are "more equal" than others. --MD2020 04:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

    MD2020, I think I speak for everyone when I say that you should quit while you still can. If you keep this up, you'll end up being blocked... and no, I am NOT an administrator, just somebody who happens to know about the rule against personal attacks upon other users. --Chanting Fox 04:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

    Why don't you feel compelled to warn Mackensen for his personal attack against me, "I'm sorry, I thought I was speaking with someone who has principles."? I was just repeating his own attacks back to him in the same vein. --MD2020 04:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

    Edit warring is edit warring. Those who profess to edit war to uphold consensus, and those who excuse them, drag the rest of us into the mud. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:11, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

    Oh, I agree, as evidenced by the way I voted during my tenure on the Arbitration Committee, but we are dealing here with consequences of edit warring and our principles as regards to how to deal with it, rather than our principles as to whether ideally we'd like to be in this situation at all. In that regard, the point is to discuss what is happening and fix it. We don't do punishment here, even for 3RR, whatever some elements seem to think.
    For the 'record', I strongly disagree with the POV that SLR was pushing which he seemed to believe was consensus - I find "CE/BCE" quite a vile thinly-disguised attempt at hiding cultural imperialism, rather than recognising it, but never mind. *sighs* Evidently I'm just another evil sysop, intent on laying waste to Wikipedia society and our social norms.
    James F. (talk) 10:11, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    I reported User:Slrubenstein in the first place. I haven't yet read all of the above but personally I'm happy for him to be unblocked immediately. Arcturus 17:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

    Don't feed the trolls. RickK 17:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

    As the original blocking admin, I feel I should add my thoughts to this. When I first saw this, I was inclined to just warn. I actually got as far as SLR's talk page to do that, when I saw Dante's comment further up about a previous 3RR block. On further investigation, finding that he had previously been blocked twice for the same offence (3RR), I thought a 24 hour block was in order and appropriate. I would not have done so otherwise. Whether or not it was by community consensus, 3RR is what it says on the tin, to coin a phrase: a rule. SLR broke the rule, whether deliberately or not. I, too, obeyed the rule, which is there for a purpose. On the other hand, I have no problem with his unblocking: I would have done it myself, had SLR contacted me (which he didn't). I certainly think the RFAr is ridiculous and totally OTT. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 19:01, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

    User:KaintheScion

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

    Reported by: Yuber(talk) 02:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

    Has reverted 4 times, he is also the new username of banned user El Kabong [22] BULLSHIT. I am not ElKabong. Stop lying, whoever introduced that edit.

    ---Ah. jpgordon, the Power-Abusing Admin. Go figure.

    YUBER has reverted the article four times as well, was already reported on Vandalism reports for trying to introduce nonfactual information into the article repeatedly.User:KaintheScion

    These two have been at it for three to four days according to the edit history of the article. Most of the edits during that time period are by either Yuber or Kain, responding to edits by the other to the article. I may not have been around as long as Yuber has, but I believe this is why they have the arbitration process. As stated above, the most recent development has been a vandalism report by Kain... a clear sign that things are getting out of hand IMHO. --Chanting Fox 02:25, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

    • Chanting Fox, I specifically warned Yuber that I would report him as well as noting in my edits when I was removing his vandalism from the page. Introducing false and inaccurate information into Wikipedia IS vandalism, and Yuber is guilty, REPEATELY both in his re-edits and in his Reversions. KaintheScion
    Yuber, the links you provided don't show the exact diffs of the reverts. However, looking at the history, it seems there's been reverting on both sides. I've warned KaintheScion, and if he reverts again, he'll be blocked. In the meantime, please thrash out the issues on the talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:27, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
    I've actually taken steps to compromise and have included almost all of his information. He has just reverted plain and simple, not to mention engaging in many personal attacks.Yuber(talk) 02:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

    I have blocked KaintheScion for 24 hours and protected the page. I have also referred the dispute to RfC.--nixie 02:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

    Peta, can I ask why you blocked KaintheScion? He made no further edits after the warning, you protected the page so he can't revert it again now anyway, and Yuber also looks as though he violated 3RR. Shouldn't we either protect or block? I don't see the point in both, as blocking for 3RR is meant to prevent revert wars and not be a punishment. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:38, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
    Given the abusive nature of KaintheScions contributions on talk pages and via email, I thought it woulld be better block him for 24 hours in addition to protecting the page so that he could cool off and come back and act like a civil editor tomorrow. --nixie 02:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    But I see you have unblocked him, have fun --nixie 02:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    I don't disagree about the abuse. I blocked him myself yesterday and was on the receiving end of it. I'm hoping that showing some good faith might get some back. Watch this space. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:11, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
    This is the second time in the same day that SlimVirgin has unblocked someone blocked by a fellow admin for a 3RR. Perhaps SlimVirgin should better try to respect the opinions of his fellow admins. Just a thought.Yuber(talk) 03:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    It's good practice to warn editors before blocking them for 3RR, especially if they're relatively new. If he does it again, he'll be blocked, don't worry. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:11, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
    He knows his way around a little too well for me to believe that he is a new editor--nixie 03:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    Funny, I warned Yuber about his vandalism before reporting him, not that it mattered to Petaholmes. Ban first, ask questions later, the motto of the admin drunk on his own power. KaintheScion
    Petaholmes was right to block you, but possibly didn't notice that I'd only just warned you, which is the reason I unblocked you. Try to settle into a more constructive editing style. No one's out to get you. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:24, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

    User:69.216.245.115 and User:69.216.246.88

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

    Reported by: Dewet 22:28, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • This user has been pushing his POV over a period of days now.

    Report new violation

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive9&oldid=13527149"