User:RyanFreisling/bro

=vandal rhetorician=



User:bro aka User:172.148.137.250 aka User:172.154.204.2 aka User:172.135.239.51 aka User:172.149.162.30 aka User:172.152.87.228 etc.
Egregious, willful and ongoing Three revert rule violation on. aka aka  aka  aka  (there are dozens more)

Reverted to 20:11, 25 August 2005

1st revert: 21:29, 25 August 2005

2nd revert: 21:46, 25 August 2005

3rd revert: 21:53, 25 August 2005

4th revert: 22:04, 25 August 2005

5th revert: 23:07, 25 August 2005

6th revert: 23:44, 25 August 2005 edit comment: "whos trying to get around 3rr? certainly not I, I will continue to remove the section for reasons provided"

7th revert: 00:03, 26 August 2005 edit comment: "providing reasons does not get around 3rr, and I never claimed they did. What they do do, is make me right, especially when they stand unanswered."

8th revert: 00:23, 26 August 2005 edit comment: "rv, well, at least now some random people flock in"

9th revert: 00:38, 26 August 2005

10th revert: 00:48, 26 August 2005 edit comment: "I think the most humorous aspect of this has to be that -I- gave reasons for my edit, while none of these others have...oh well"

11th revert: 01:00 26 August 2005

12th revert: 01:22 26 August 2005

13th revert: 02:06, 26 August 2005

14th revert: 02:57 26 August 2005
 * Reported by: RyanFreisling @ 03:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * This user, who steadfastly refuses to create an account, uses multiple IP's per hour, and has a history of aggressive trolling of the Talk:2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities page under dozens of IP addresses has today violated the 3RR on that article's page... instead of resolving the issues, this user repeatedly blanked content he finds objectionable, in a classic example of bad faith.
 * It is worth mentioning that he has until recently refused to participate as an editor on articles of a 'controversial nature':
 * "If you are asking me to cite links for this or that, I tried to make it clear that I was unwilling to edit this (and other equally controversial topics) and to offer suggestions to those that -are-." -bro 172.139.207.115 6 July 2005 09:19 (UTC)
 * " I've relegated myself to talk for any controversial article, thats just the reality and it will stay that way." -bro 172.150.234.103 02:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Apparently, his policy has changed - and this 3RR violation represents his second verifiable substantive contribution to the article. An inauspicious start, to be sure. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * A bit of circumstantial evidence. Anon-AOL user 'bro' last accessed the article August 9, after which there was no activity on the page until this user appeared on August 18 and picked up a number of issues 'bro' was discussing (palast, commondreams, etc.) . Bro has thus far not re-appeared. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, a quick readthrough of the talk page shows that this "bro" first commented on July 5th. My first comment there was August 5th. Sheesh, getting my date wrong is at least understandable, but "bro" even signs his comments with that name, and you were even in discussion with him on that.  172.152.87.228 08:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

This seems to be a good summary of what I am dealing with, I am not any user named bro, I never made the statements quoted. Misattribution, ignoring whats said seems to be this users MO. 172.161.129.54 03:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to your opinion, I will let the admins decide if the content I added warranted your repeated blanking without good faith attempts to discuss. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yet, you are not entitled to misattribute quotes. And yes, they can do what they wish.  The obvious lack of response to the reasons given in the edit summaries say more than I need to. 172.157.101.186 03:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Since you constantly change IP's, you could as equally claim that your last two posts were by separate users... insisting you are not the same user as 'bro' (a claim I find highly dubious) is one thing - but your 3RR vio (all under the same IP) speaks for itself. Your comments in edit summaries do not constitute an attempt to discuss - you deleted the content outright before making any attempt. That's not the wiki way. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yet another example of this user's operating procedure. I did not dispute the reverts.  And, yes, I am every anon dialup user that uses AOL and edits wikipedia, every single one.  My edit summaries and your lack of response stand on their own, I need not say more. 172.149.162.30 03:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * And avoiding accountability is yours. Create an account and take responsibility for your reverts and your behavior alike. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * An account is not required, and I do not wish to make one. Pretty simple. 172.149.162.30 03:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

My two cents: I haven't had any dealings with someone who identified themself as "bro," so I can't be sure if anon-AOL is the same person. I am pretty confident that at least the two latest versions (viz. 172.149.162.30 and 172.154.204.2) are the same person. I further suspect that the user does not create an account specifically to avoid accountability. Creating an account would certainly be a good-faith gesture that anon-AOL wants to resolve things amicably. LizardWizard 04:57, August 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, those two IP's were me. 172.149.162.30 05:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * At this point, LizardWizard and I have both used our 3 reverts for the day in dealing with this ongoing, bad faith 3RR violation. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I have violated the rule. But the bad faith is in your actions by reverting without responding to the reasons provided. 172.149.162.30 05:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Outright deletion (especially of new, cited content) is bad faith. You should leave the content in, and discuss in talk. You do not have unilateral right to remove content eight (and counting) times, though 2 other editors at least want it in, without discussing it first on 'talk'. Your edit comments claimed the source was not noteworthy, and the piece not reflective of the section - both of which we can discuss on 'talk' before you decide in violation of the rules to continually blank those sections outright. For what it is worth, I find both those claims spurious.


 * Good faith for you (once your coming block expires) would begin at creating an account to demonstrate your desire for accountability, and then working out the issues on Talk BEFORE you blank them over and over. I would welcome it, but I admit I am skeptical that you will do so. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Outright deletion (especially of new, cited content) is bad faith. This is, of course, wrong.  You do not have unilateral right to remove content  This too, is of course, wrong. both of which we can discuss on talk  Which you haven't done.  The rest is ad hom, and par for the course.


 * I'll say it clearly one last time. 10 repeated outright deletions of new, cited content, without discussing it FIRST on talk is bad faith on the part of the deleter. That's you. And there is zero ad hominem in my post. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, sure, one last time. I've given my reasons, yet you, have not.  Thus, bad faith is again, in your actions. 172.149.162.30 05:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * There are no valid reasons for breaking 3RR. And I have indeed given my response. Your edit comments do not nearly suffice to justify the original deletion, nor the 10 that have followed. Enjoy your upcoming wiki vacation. -- RyanFreisling @ 06:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Sigh, the reasons I mentioned above, are in reference to those that you continue to ignore. If they do not "suffice to justify" it, then say why, you have not. 172.152.87.228 07:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 3RR. Except for User:bro since there is no such user. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 11:29, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Least you did the effort...but he/she logs back in after a minute and presto, new IP. Unless, and that would be ridiculous, you block the entire range.--MONGO 11:32, August 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * As the AOL anon user himself says:
 * As I am sure you know, blocking those IPs is rather useless. But, carry on. 172.138.13.214 18:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It remains to be seen if this user takes responsibility for this post, which in my opinion directly validates the underlying concern - that the user is intentionally hiding behind the anonymity provided by AOL dialup in order to disrupt this part of the Wikipedia. -- RyanFreisling @ 18:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Inded, twas I. And it is a simple statement of fact, though I understand you don't much like those... 172.148.137.72 22:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)