Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive9: Difference between revisions - 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 Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:53, 11 August 2005 editNoitall (talk | contribs)3,112 edits === <nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki> / User:-Ril-===← Previous edit Revision as of 21:03, 11 August 2005 edit undo-Ril- (talk | contribs)10,465 edits →[] / []Next edit →
Line 671: Line 671:
'''Comments:''' '''Comments:'''
* There really is not much to say. His 5th 3RR this month, 3rd 3RR on this page, and tons of trouble, see ]. --] 20:53, August 11, 2005 (UTC) * There really is not much to say. His 5th 3RR this month, 3rd 3RR on this page, and tons of trouble, see ]. --] 20:53, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
:Actually, all but 1 prior event was regarded as invalid and lifted/cancelled, and the 1 that wasn't was due to the admin involved being (self-admittedly) "high on codeine". ] ( ] | ] | ] ) 21:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


== Report new violation == == Report new violation ==

Revision as of 21:03, 11 August 2005

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 and 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)
    1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164
    1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174
    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


    Violations

    User:Wyss

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

    • 1st revert:

    19:20, August 4, 2005

    • 2nd revert:

    09:17, August 5, 2005

    • 3rd revert:

    12:26, August 5, 2005

    • Following my notice to User:Wyss on the #Talk:Elvis Presley# Personal insults I posted a notice that she had now reverted three times. User:Wyss tried to elicit help from User talk:Hoary without success then obviously elicited via e-mail User:EQuintan who made a massive edit with nothing more than the comment “Condensation” 16:25, August 5, 2005 EQuintan (condensation). This huge edit deleted most all of the things User:Wyss had reverted on their three previous reverting edits. User Wyss then did seven (7) more separate edits to restucture the page. I reverted (my third) this collaboration with User:Wyss and noted it on the Talk:Elvis Presley page advising User:EQuintan to justify the deletions done for User:Wyss.
    • 4th revert:

    18:10, August 5, 2005

    Please note that User:Wyss has a history of this type of conduct. She recently had a Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule warning from Administrator User:Mel Etitis (see User talk:Wyss) and is the subject of a Request for mediation by User:Onefortyone for similar reverting conduct. See: - Accurate contributions This is scheduled to be heard by Mediator JCarriker when his imposed truce expires tomorrow.

    Reported by: Ted Wilkes 23:17, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

    Response: I haven't broken 3rr. I haven't engaged in pesonal attacks. I've been trying to find a way to resolve a citation problem. Other editors have also been involved in reverts. I asked Hoary to have a look at the talk page, hoping he might have some constructive advice but he doesn't seem to have been editing at all since I left the message for him. Please see the Elvis Presley talk page for the details on this.
    Ted Wilkes initiated contact with me repeatedly via private email on the User:Onefortyone incident, which he was also deeply involved in (User:Onefortyone repeatedly accused us of being sockpuppets of the same user). Ted Wilkes claimed User:Onefortyone is a specific WP admin (whom he named). Ted Wilkes offered me what I interpreted as Ted Wilkes' full support in that matter, including many unsolicited "tips" on how to handle the mediation. Ted Wilkes also complimented me on what he called my "integrity." Sadly, I seem to have really pissed off Ted Wilkes over my insistance on citations for three or four specific assertions he has made in the Elvis Presley article. Wyss 02:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

    User:Stevertigo

    Three revert rule violation on Vietnam War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Stevertigo (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: User:CJK August 5, 2005

    Comments

    There was a minor edit in between. Not sure if this applies to admin. CJK 5 August 2005

    Please note this user is an administrator who is threatening to block users he disagrees with:
    POV pro-U.S. nonsense. Ive a good mind to block you for good measure. -St|eve 22:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    I admonished him for it so he threatened the same to me:
    No, of course not. Did I? But IAC, temp removing unhelpful third party commentors can be useful though. -St|eve 23:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC) --TJive 00:13, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
    Apparently he has requested page protection and wishes to revert with impunity until it is done. Note that he is fully aware of what he is doing:
    I was one of the first to support 3RR back when it was a failing proposal, and I know its merits as well as its shortcomings. It would appear that you and CJK have conspired to revert the article and to label my unreverts as violation of policy.
    --TJive 01:54, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

    CJK is cruisin' for a bruisin' too though. --TJive 02:09, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

    Eh? CJK 6 August 2005
    You've got several reverts of your own. --TJive 02:18, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
    I'm not going over. At least not 6 times over... CJK 6 August 2005

    This is still ongoing. Something needs done. --TJive 02:57, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

    That makes 11; is anyone paying attention? --TJive 03:29, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
    Now its 12... CJK 6 August 2005
    Well, User:Thryduulf protected the page -- after which, it appears, that Stevertigo went into the protected page and reverted to the version he wanted. Not quite kosher, if you ask me. --Calton | Talk 16:14, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
    User has been blocked for 24 hours.Geni 17:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

    User:Germen

    Three revert rule violation on Religious conflict and Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Germen (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 15:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comment
    I did not revert, just added new information which was subsequently vandalised by Ril. As you can see from each alleged revert, I did not destroy the text by Ril, but added references and new texts. I did remove non-relevant informatuin, like Ril's rants about the alleged crimes of Crusdader kings, which belong in another article.--Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 17:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

    Actually, you will note that each of Germen's edits listed above constitutes a revert of the passage in question. There are equally 4 reverts of other passages in the time period, but in different edits, totalling 4 reverts of the entire article between them. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 17:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

    User:-Ril-

    Three revert rule violation on Religious conflict and Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). -Ril- (talk · contribs): Reverts four times, removes 18 resources, even after I put them back again and again. I did not revert more than 2 times, unless to readd resources which were removed by Ril. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 17:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    and several others. He does not mark reverts as such and does not observe Misplaced Pages citation policy, even after repeatedly warned, both public and private.

    Doesn't count, sorry, you have to point out the version that was reverted to. Oh, those are also versions of the article, not diffs. YOU MUST SUPPLY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF DIFFS and you must specify the time of each "revert" - see the way I have formatted the listing against you, or the template below. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 17:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

    For any admin to act on this report, you'll need to include diffs of the reverts and the version(s) reverted to. Carbonite | Talk 17:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

    Ril, you need to realize that just because someone else reverts 4 times, doesn't give you the right to revert back each of those 4 times, unless it is clear vandalism, which this was not.

    prev version:

    -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 02:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    BMIComp, None of those show any diffs, they all show only zero change. You must supply evidence of actual reverting, i.e. that I reverted someone's edits. Other edits, such as re-arranging, putting in text, fixing typos, etc. do not count, and you must make it clear that the text is being reverted. If you check out what was going on, you will see that the above 6 applies to different sections, not the same one. You will note that each time, Germen reverted a section 3 times (over a span of 10 or so consecutive edits), I reverted it back 3 times, warning Germen about 3RR on the 3rd. You will note that after this warning, Germen then reverted a different section 3 times (again over a span of 10 or so edits), and again I reverted it back 3 times. No-one part of the text was reverted by either of us more than 3 times. This repeated for various parts of the text until eventually, Germen actually reverted a piece of the text for its fourth time, so I listed the 3RR violation here. Note that I list 4 reverts, not 20 or so that is actually the number of times that sections were re-changed by Germen, as it is only 4 times that any single piece of the text was reverted. If 3RR applied to reverting the page in any way whatsoever, i.e. those 6 actions actually counting as 3RR violations, then I would have listed Germen's 3RR violations much earlier (i.e. instead of my edit marked "Cleanup" at mid-day-ish). 81.156.176.160 08:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

    User talk:67.182.157.6

    User talk:67.182.157.6 is now at 6 reverts on Truth with that IP, one with the IP 172.197.72.66 and two with the IP 172.199.120.111, within a nine hour period.

    5:(cur) (last) xx:31, August 6, 2005 User talk:67.182.157.6 (Yur side has already had three reverts. That's all you get.)
    4:(cur) (last) 17:45, 6 August 2005 User talk:67.182.157.6 (Your side has already had your three reverts. That's all you get.)
    3:(cur) (last) 17:35, 6 August 2005 User talk:67.182.157.6
    2:(cur) (last) 17:34, 6 August 2005 User talk:67.182.157.6
    1:(cur) (last) 17:32, 6 August 2005 User talk:67.182.157.6
    0:(cur) (last) 20:57, 4 August 2005 DotSix' predilection shows as early as 12 July 2005
    First appearance of true dab ref by DotSix, June 22, 2005

    This evidence will go on 3RR and on the RFAr. Ancheta Wis 19:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

    Added fifth revert to Truth --BaronLarf 22:47, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

    ] / User:-Ril-

    Thirteen revert rule violation on The Bible and history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User-multi error: "~~~~" is not a valid project or language code (help).:

    1st time around

    --> Jayjg suggests change 03:50, August 5, 2005 (Historicity of Christian beliefs - better paragraph from Jesus)

    -Ril- goes right back to reverting, the latest -->the paragraph headers and much of the wording is the same, with Jayjg's edits:

    • 10th revert: 05:02, August 5, 2005 (→New Testament/Greek Bible - remove POV reinserted by Noitall)
    • 11th revert: 07:00, August 6, 2005 (re-remove POV re-re-inserted by Noitall)
    • 12th revert: 07:00, August 6, 2005 (re-remove POV re-re-inserted by Noitall)
    • 13th revert: 16:58, August 6, 2005 (re-re-remove POV re-re-reinserted by Noitall. Noitall I only have 2 prior reverts in the last 24 hours - check the history - you have 3)

    -->Finally (maybe), Mel Etitis, reverts -Ril-:20:01, August 6, 2005 (rv to better-balanced (and written) version)

    Reported by: Noitall 20:55, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

    Nevermind, -Ril- reverts some more after this 3RR was filed:

    Reported by: Noitall 23:34, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

    Noitall, edit 12=edit 11, both are claimed by you to occur at 7:00 August 6, edit 14 is 24 hours and 12 minutes later, i.e. over 24 hours, so can't count as 3RR. And anyway, it only counts as the 3rd edit since edit 10 not the 4th as edit 11=edit 12. Indeed, since edit 10 is over 48 hours ago, I could quite legitimately make a 15th right now if necessary without breaking 3RR. I strongly suggest you read the opening sentence of WP:3RR that makes clear this applies to 24 hour periods not to 2 week periods. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 23:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • This page only addresses a small part of -Ril-'s stalking and bad faith behavior (which counts possibly more than 100 bad faith actions, which could be construed as personal attacks since they were intentionally meant to cause trouble, disrupt and were for the purposes of revenge (of what, I do not know, other than personal dislike). In this entire time, he did not edit a single word, he only reverted. In this entire time, he did not edit or revert a single edit other than mine. --Noitall 20:55, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

    Noitall, 3RR applies to 24 hour periods, not reverts over several days. As you can clearly see above there is not a violation of 3RR here - read WP:3RR. This is a bad faith posting. You are discrediting yourself by posting this. Oh, and inaccurately claiming the times of the diffs you provide (check them) doesn't help your case either. Nor does listing the same edit twice - 11 and 12 are identical - they are the same edit. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 23:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

    ---->You want accuracy, here is the correct No. 11, at 06:51, August 6, 2005 . As usual, you focus on 1 of your 14 bad faith actions, rather than correcting your bad behavior. --Noitall 15:05, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

    This does not appear to be a 3RR violation. However, slow edit wars and gaming the 3RR are frowned upon. I would recommend that the disputants in this edit war seek mediation or some other dispute resolution, rather than continuing this pointless slow edit war. Kelly Martin 14:35, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • He was gaming the system not for an edit but to cause as much trouble as possible. Mediation with him has been attempted. Here is a cut and past from before:
    Wesley, please be my guest. Two other editors have tried to intercede to no avail. The problem is that -Ril- does not have an edit dispute, he has targeted me. He has done so on about 40 pages so far as he trolls my edits. I keep threatening to do an RfC, but it seems like such a waste of time and effort when I would prefer to be editing. Bottom line, ignoring for the moment his personal vendetta against me, he says "POV" about 100 times without ever once stating what is POV. Jayjg suggested a change to the edit and made it and it was fine. -Ril- even reverted that thinking that I made the edit. Wesley, if you want to stroll into -Ril-world, you are welcome to try. Note his stuborness and crazy disputes on his talk page, as we speak. In fact, I will follow whatever recommendation you make. --Noitall 05:38, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

    --Noitall 14:44, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

    This is a cut from -Ril-'s talk page:

    I am blocking you for 72 hours due to your 3RR violation on The Bible and history.

    Your fourth edit was 24 hours and nineteen21 minutes after your first. That's close enough for me, and here's why:

    • You are making sterile reverts with no discussion on the talk page and no attempt at compromise in wording.
    • You do not appear to be discussing your reverts with the other users on their talk pages or at any other location at Misplaced Pages.
    • Both the edit summaries and the timing of your reverts make it clear that you feel that 3 reverts a day is an entitlement, when it's not.
    • You appear to be engaging in sterile reverts on several other pages as well.
    • I note that you have already been blocked twice in the past month for 3RR violations and therefore I have blocked you for 72 hours rather than the customary 24 hours.

    The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

    • I believe this listing is misleading. There is no 5-day 13RR. And no set of 3 of his edits cited as evidence were within the same 24 hour period. It is true that Ril was revert-warring excessively, and that is bad, but it is not 3RR, and listing as 3RR and treating it as if it were 3RR despite the fact it's clearly not is somewhat misleading, when the issue is problematic behavior (but not violation of this particular rule). Perhaps you want to propose a change of the 3RR policy or a new rule to include a massive number of reverts over a longer period of time? --Mysidia 16:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    I blocked based on 34 reverts in 24 hours and 21 minutes, not for 13 reverts in 5 days. I believe that there is, and should be, enough elasticity in the 3RR to cover such obvious attempts to game the system. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    All the same, I would like to know... which 4 reverts were within the same 24 hour +/- 20 minute period? I assume you mean 4, since if he performed only 3 reverts in that time period, then he would not have been in violation of 3RR. Had he waited 24 hours and 21 minutes, it seems a clear demonstration that he had made a good effort to follow the 3RR policy. Reverts over 24 hours later are not what 3RR is about, the important thing about those reverts turning out to be so close to 24 hours apart is that he is not simply ignoring the rule, 3RR. There may indeed be gaming of the system attempted, he may merit blocking for a reason by some other name. Just like with other edit wars, doesn't Misplaced Pages have a dispute resolution process which would be more appropriate? --Mysidia 06:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    You are correct. There were 4 reverts, not 3. I have a list of them at User_talk:-Ril- and most of the discussion is there as well. I dislike 3RR blocks because of the mechanical nature of the rule, and only apply them when there is evidence of an ongoing problem. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

    There is now a (co-signed) RFC against UninvitedCompany as a result of his/her actions - Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/UninvitedCompany ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

    Looks like that clue-by-four was ineffective. --Calton | Talk 21:10, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Jpgordon

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

    Reported by: --Silverback 08:25, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • I've waited long enough. This is an admin, so I expected him to turn himself in, but he hasn't. This is a page he is an editor of and not a neutral observer. He also had the nerve to put a 3RR block himself on an anon user who was involved in the war, even though that user only has a total of two edits to his credit. Whatever this anon user deserves, it isn't a 3RR block, and certainly not from an admin who was a party to the dispute, who obviously beleives in the 3RR (not a given you know). Appended is the block log entry:
    15:38, August 6, 2005 Jpgordon blocked "User:81.115.31.217" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3rr)
    Note, this text was hardly causing an emergency, it is the type of text that has been accepted on many articles. There was plenty of time for others in a possibly objecting consensus to participate, or to call a neutral admin. This was not an obvious case of vandalism, although I suspect there may have been sock puppetry, or spoofing of IPs on some, but not all the edits.--Silverback 08:25, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
    Blocking this editor at this point would not serve the purpose of the 3RR as the edits are nearly 24 hours old anyway and the article is currently protected. Please note that the purpose of the 3RR is as a tripwire to stop edit warring; it is not punitive. I therefore recommend against blocking him. Kelly Martin 14:27, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
    I learn something new each time an admin violates the 3RR, this time that it is not punitive, and if the rule is violated just before the article is protected, then a block is unneeded. Apparently we need the ability to block for 3RR on only one article, so that the block does not give the false impression of being punitive, and the rule should be edited to eliminate the expression of "regret" provision, since that also suggests punitiveness. This interpretationa also has the logical hole, that if friends of the blocked individual can continue an edit war and get the page protected, then they can get their friend's blocked released. How consistently is a block released BTW, once the page has been protected? Or is this a novel interpretation?--Silverback 21:08, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
    Admins have discretion in applying the 3RR; they can refuse to block or block for less than 24 hours if the admin feels that a lesser block will be sufficient to meet the goal of the 3RR, which is to curtail an ongoing edit war. In this case, the edit war has been terminated by page protection, so there's no need to block. The conclusion that 3RR blocks are not punitive is a direct consequence of the fact that none of Misplaced Pages policy is punitive; all of our policy exists to further the end of writing an encyclopedia. Blocks are used when an editor's conduct are interfering with that goal, not because we wish to punish someone for breaking a rule. Kelly Martin 00:11, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
    I also oppose a block on this editor. He did nothing more than get a little overzealous reverting a troll who was using multiple IPs to avoid the 3RR and engaging in personal attacks against other users. Gamaliel 17:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    What's overzealous? There's no 3RR violation when reverting a 3RR-evading sockpuppet account -- and the account I blocked was so obviously a sockpuppet of the fatboy anon that there was no reason to waste any time by providing rope. I'm glad, though, that the anon finally has a champion who has the guts to establish an account; hopefully, Silverback will carefully follow the history of the fatboy dispute (most of the discussion is still on Talk:Ted Kennedy) and understand that this has more to do with appropriate Misplaced Pages behaviour than any content of the Ted Kennedy article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    For most of the reverts, the fatboy link was not the issue, and these reverts did not involve the simple vandalism exception, the text is still being discussed on its merits. Since this was not simple vandalism, and was not responded to as if it was sock puppetry, it is analogous to the police officer who starts shooting randomly during a dispute involving this own neighbors when he had plenty of time to call for backup instead. There was no necessity to violate the 3RR rule.--Silverback 21:08, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
    There was no simple vandalism involved, then, when User:Sasquatch protected the page and then added the contraversial text, yet you don't seem bent out of shape regarding violation of THAT rule. But then, it was done to get the "right" version, so presumably it's okay in this case. --Calton | Talk 21:26, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
    You have the facts wrong, he reverted to what he thought was a correct version, then protected, then reconsidered his violation of the rule and rectified that by adding the controversial text. The end result is close to a correct interpretation of the rules, although a crooked path was taken.--Silverback 21:34, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Coqsportif

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

    Reported by: SlimVirgin 14:08, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • To make this easier to follow, here's a section he kept reverting to: "A mass of previously unremarked materials collectively known as the VENONA project was declassified by the U.S. government in 1995. Among these were Army decryptions of Soviet cables which revealed there to be some number of American citizens involved in espionage on behalf of the Soviet Union."
    • Coqsportif is pretending to be a new user, but clearly isn't, and has been reported for disruption at WP:AN/I#User:Coqsportif. I've blocked him for 24 hours for the 3RR violation. SlimVirgin 14:08, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Huaiwei

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

    Reported by: User:Instantnood 14:52, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Houghone

    Three revert rule violation on Special Air Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Houghone (talk · contribs):

    Houghone (talk · contribs) aka 84.65.183.7 (talk · contribs) is clearly a reincarnation of banned vandal B1link82 (talk · contribs) (same obsession with the SAS, same fondness for profanity). An old hand at both vandalism and 3RR, having been blocked several times over as both 84.65.183.7 and B1link82. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:39, August 7, 2005 (UTC)


    User:Germen

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

    Reported by: Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • The single diffs disguise the fact that each revert is done in stages of up to eleven edits, for some reason. I've placed the article at RfC, but Germen seems disinclined to wait at the last consensus version of the page for other editors to comment (though it's true that no-one has turned up yet — outside comments would be helpful). His edits started as a simple attempt to add what he calls "Islamofascist" groups to the article, and that is clearly still his main focus. I warned him of 3RR, but he reverted again anyway.

    I was certain that I hadn't violated 3RR myself, but the history seems to show that I have; it was inadvertent, and I'd revert myself if I could, but Germen's too quick for me. Whatever happens, I'm leaving the article alone now for a day or two, as the edit-warring was getting silly, so it would be even more useful if other editors could offer an opinion at Talk:Supremacism as to the long list of groups that Germen insists on adding. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

      • Errare humanum est. Nevertheless, you repeated refusal to constructively incorporate my additions, of which several groups are qualified supremacist groups cannot be qualified as a mistake. In contrast, I did not remove any of your additions, just I added my information. My actions cannot be classified as reverts. So we have a problem: you accuse other users of breaking the 3RR rule without proof and you break this rule yourself. I suggest you familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages policy and meanwhile try to check whether your interpretatio of supremacism matches the definition in the article.--Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 18:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Mel's statement is exactly the way Wiki is supposed to work. I too have gotten caught up in edit wars (am trying to reduce them) and it seems an acknowledgement that both parties went too far and are taking a step back. I see no abusive behavior by either party here so I hope a 3RR is unnecessary on either party. --Noitall 21:16, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Mel Etitis

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

    Reported by: --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 18:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User seems to be unaware of his own indiscretions and does not motivate his reverts and edits. User refuses to motivate his rude and uncooperative deletions.

    --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 18:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

      • I agree that it is four reverts in 24 hours. I am more than hesitant to block Mel, as blocking him would have a far worse effect than not doing so. I therefore shall warn him, and remind him to be careful when reverting. Germen, it would help if you put times on your report. ] 18:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Mel Etitis is /very/ respectable and knowledgeable member of Misplaced Pages. If this nomination is found to be done in bad faith the proposer should not be left to harras people freely. Pavel Vozenilek 22:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    • My comments on issue above regarding User:Germen.--Noitall 02:30, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

    User:68.123.207.17

    Three revert rule violation on Microstate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.123.207.17 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Samboy 02:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Zeno of Elea

    Three revert rule violation on Maria_al-Qibtiyya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zeno of Elea (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Heraclius 05:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • The first revert is clearly unrelated to the next three. This is therefore not 3RR. Heraclius's accusations that I have violated 3RR before are also false, as the record demonstrates that I have never been blocked for 3RR violation. --Zeno of Elea 05:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Zeno's first revert was a revert of vandalism, from a user who wanted to delete all the content of this page and replace it with a copy/paste copyvio, from this page . The 3rr doesn't apply to vandalism, so I don't think that it has been broken. I also note that Heraclius has so far failed to explain, why he insist on adding the {{TotallyDisputed}} tag, despite Zeno's efforts on the articles talk page. -- Karl Meier 06:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

    User:NWOG

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

    Reported by: TJive 11:18, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User keeps deleting and changing the same passage of the "Politics" section. He technically violated 3RR yesterday already, but rather than report him I warned him about doing so, and this is the answer in return. --TJive 11:18, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Guy Montag

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

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:

    Reported by: Heraclius 01:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • The evidence seems to point to a more general revert war. Instead of blocking both User:Guy Montag and User:Heraclius I have opted to protect the page for a day to allow them to use the talk page to discuss their edits. -Willmcw 03:43, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

    Heraclius doesn't know how to discuss, he only knows one function in wikipedia, and that is the revert button. He and his IP anon internet troll friend have been vandalizing pages that have to do with the Middle East ever since they came here. Guy Montag 03:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

    There is no revert button. And you are the one who has broken the rule.Heraclius 04:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    The article talk page is open and ready for use. Talk:Nablus. -Willmcw 05:16, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

    User:EliasAlucard

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

    Reported by: DreamGuy 02:55, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User:EliasAlucard from comments earlier today (as well as months back when I ran into other conflicts with him, which were resolved only by me taking those articles of my watch list, as he did not attempt to follow consensus or work on anything) has vowed to undo any and all edits I make on anything he contributed, regardless of value. Here he violates the 3RR while doing so on Dhampir in less than an hour. He's busy undoing other edits and writing personal attacks both earlier on this page and talk pages, such as that for the much fought over and probably never to be unprotected at this rate Vampire DreamGuy 02:55, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
    This DreamGuy has issues, seriously. He is involved in revert wars all the time, non-stop. Of course, to make himself look good, he accuses everyone who is opposed to him as socketpuppets, anon users, vandalism or whatever derogatory he can come up with. Why did I revert? Because his edits are bad. He is removing perfectly legitimate knowledge from articles. He calls it fiction; something he strongly detests. Why? I don't know. To my knowledge, there's nothing wrong with having information about fiction in articles related to it, according to Misplaced Pages's Policy. DreamGuy should be up for a review.
    EliasAlucard|Talk 05:06, 09 Aug, 2005 (UTC)
    Of course what you fail to note is that: a) everyone so far I have accused of sockpuppeting has been either proven or are currently under investigation by admins for strong evidence of it, b) the reverts I get into really only happen when people announce that they won't let anyone at all edit what they wrote for any reason, which is in itself a violation of how things work here, and usually result in people such as yourself showing just how deadset you are to break policy just to preserve what you wrote c) you positively and clearly violated 3RR above for no reason. DreamGuy 03:18, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
    Wrong! I did not write that about Blade. It was there before me even reading that article. You have no good/valid reason whatsoever to remove the stuff you remove. Yet you do it. This is blatant vandalism.
    EliasAlucard|Talk 05:26, 09 Aug, 2005 (UTC)
    Reasons for removal were already given in edit comments, plus you should read Misplaced Pages:Vandalism#What vandalism is not. DreamGuy 06:07, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

    And now User:EliasAlucard has also violated 3RR on Alucard. It'd be a good idea if someone did something about him. DreamGuy 11:53, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

    edit waring over a redirect? User blocked for 24 hours.Geni 12:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    He also managed to squeeze in a 3RR violation on Dracula too, but I guess he's blocked already so never mind tht one. And thanks. DreamGuy 12:31, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

    User:FestivalOfSouls

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

    Reported by: Codex Sinaiticus 15:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • (New Comment) - This user is still continuing to persist in applying controversial "myth" categories to pages about doctrine and theology, insisting that his view is correct and everyone who disagrees with him is incorrect. Action? Codex Sinaiticus 19:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    Codex Sinaiticus is insiting that bias be allowed on wikipedia and is upset I don't agree with that.FestivalOfSouls 19:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I only add the correct subcategory, after discussion was held about that. Codex over generalizes. The tag is completely appropriate given a dictionary, or scholary definition of mythology. Codex is pushing a bias, and doesn't like that I stand against his vandalism. FestivalOfSouls 16:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    • oh and the "sock puppet" was just my session cookie expiring and me making an edit anonymously, and not even attempting to hide that fact. Again, Codex is manipulating the facts. Users not only agree, and replace the categorization, but virtually all of the changes I made remain in the subcategories of mythology, ie, the changes I made are being kept. FestivalOfSouls 16:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

    virgin birth was a category addition and 3 reverts, again, where is the violation? FestivalOfSouls 16:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

    • What personal attacks? And I never admitted using a sockpuppet for that purpose. Look closely, it was an anonymous edit due to an unoticed log out, which is NOT in violation of wiki policy. FestivalOfSouls 16:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The purpose of the 3RR is to encourage collaboration, instead of force. Unless there is collaboration, it's a wooden interpretation of the rule to make the same controversial change to dozens of articles, keeping track of whether you've gone over your quota. Please do not use the categories to force a perspective. Instead, work on creating and implementing an inoffensive categorization scheme that is likely to stand without constant challenge. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I am working with the existing categories. You can feel free to create new ones, or rename the current ones, but the fact will remain that using any realistic definition of mythology, these articles fit in the category. FestivalOfSouls 16:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

    User:Pgreenfinch

    Three revert rule violation on Opposition to cults and new religious movements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pgreenfinch (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: --goethean ॐ 17:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Users goethean and Zappaz

    Three revert rule violation on Opposition to cults and new religious movements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Report multiple and concerted vandalisms in above mentioned article in the form of censorship of factual info. --Pgreenfinch 21:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

    • Diffs? Evidence? Or purely a retaliation for the above report? Please complete the form. Bratsche 21:52, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

    Please find it below

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:

    Reported by: --Pgreenfinch 22:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

    Please use diffs so we can verify the complaint. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • After looking at the edit history, I only think Zappaz violated it. And this user has already been blocked by me for his own 3RR violation above. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 23:44, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Nevermind that, User:Zappaz only reverted 3 times too and . I see no reason to block either user. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 23:49, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Xizer

    Three revert rule violation on Beyond Good and Evil (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Xizer (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Nandesuka 01:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Guy Montag

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

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

    Reported by: Heraclius 05:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    This guy has a personal vendetta against me, so I wouldn't take his problem seriously. He has initiated only edit wars since he arrived here. Learn to use talk, because I don't deal with internet trolls.

    Guy Montag 05:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

    You keep breaking this rule even when you don't have support behind you. Not even Jayjg has reverted to the "or Shechem" version. You have also accused me of being 3 different anon IP's. All 3 seem to have a personal vendetta against you.Heraclius 05:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    "Not even Jayjg"? What would that mean? Jayjg 19:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    Guy - I reverted you because I disagreed with your edit. You have to face up to the fact that sometimes you are wrong - and no amount of POV pushing or bombast will change that. 62.252.0.6 07:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

    Blocked for twenty-four hours, but Heraclius also violated 3RR, so must have the same cooling-down period. (I'm also suspicious of the anon's intervention, I'm afraid; that would have raised the 3RR-violation to five in 24 hours.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

    I thought the 3RR rule was "per user"? I'm certainly not either Guy or Heraclius! 62.252.0.7 22:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

    User:Vizcarra

    Three revert rule violation on Anti-Semitism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Vizcarra (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Jayjg 19:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Pretty obvious reversions, and he even labels them as such. Continues to remove information from the section in question, in more complex reverts. Jayjg 19:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I've left a warning on his talk page. He's been here long enough and probably doesn't need one, but I couldn't see a sign of one anywhere, and he hasn't been blocked before, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt. SlimVirgin 19:53, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • He's not a new user, has over 1000 edits and has been editing since October 2004. He has reverted again, and been warned, and asked to revert himself. Jayjg 19:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • He's still doing complex reverts. The contentious sentence is These plays historically blamed the Jews for the death of Jesus in a polemical fashion, depicting a crowd of Jewish people condemning Jesus to crucifixion and a Jewish leader assuming eternal collective guilt for the crowd for the murder of Jesus, often inciting violence and pogroms against Jews.; he insists on removing it, or changing its meaning. Jayjg 20:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I warned him, suggested he should revert himself, and all he did was rephrase, which amounted to another partial revert. I warned him again, reverted him, and asked him not to rephrase again, but he did it minutes later (another partial revert - probably his sixth), so I've blocked him for 24 hours. SlimVirgin 20:21, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
    I'm not convinced the link to deicide is NPOV. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    So come discuss it on Talk:Anti-Semitism. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    This page is for reporting 3RR violations, not debating article contents. Jayjg 21:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

    User:24.23.221.166

    Three revert rule violation on Rob Liefeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.23.221.166 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: N. Caligon 22:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: This abuse has been going on for some time, and this is not the first 3RR violation or report, but no action has been taken. The semi-anonymous editor is adamant on inserting a variety of POV comments into text and on mutilating a compromise consensus text worked out with significant efforts by several editors. He has no support, and (to date) at least four different editors have removed his modifications.

    I have blocked the IP for 24 hours. If this continues, I suggest you take it over to WP:RFPP for protection against editing as is the norm for most edit wars. Sasquatch讲看 05:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

    User:LucaviX

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

    • Previous version reverted to: Constantly reinserting html comments, the word contraversial, and similar invective despite warnings and discussion on talk page. Also previous reverts despite talk page disscussion.
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    Reported by: Tznkai 01:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Has been warned on his talk page

    by myself.--Tznkai 01:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

    • Also edits as an anon, 65.240.164.98 signing as LucaviX or Lucavix
    • I'll take a look at it. SlimVirgin 01:56, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's a clear violation: the previous (partial) version he reverted to was 23:10 Aug 10, and he was warned. I've blocked him for 24 hours. SlimVirgin 02:03, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

    User:172.212.208.126

    Three revert rule violation on Say Hey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 172.212.208.126 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Uncle G 13:05:00, 2005-08-11 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • I've informed the user on xyr talk page and blocked xem for 24 hours. Uncle G 13:05:00, 2005-08-11 (UTC)

    User:Ellectrika

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

    Reported by: Uncle G 13:05:00, 2005-08-11 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • I've informed the user on xyr talk page and blocked xem for 24 hours. Uncle G 13:05:00, 2005-08-11 (UTC)

    User:Hungupguy2005

    Three revert rule violation on Say Hey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hungupguy2005 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Uncle G 13:05:00, 2005-08-11 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • I've informed the user on xyr talk page and blocked xem for 24 hours. Uncle G 13:05:00, 2005-08-11 (UTC)

    ~~~~ / User:-Ril-

    Three revert rule violation on George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). -Ril- (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Noitall 20:53, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Actually, all but 1 prior event was regarded as invalid and lifted/cancelled, and the 1 that wasn't was due to the admin involved being (self-admittedly) "high on codeine". ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

    Report new violation