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 03:11, 13 July 2005 editUser2004 (talk | contribs)23,415 edits →[]: Charlie McCarthy← Previous edit Revision as of 03:24, 13 July 2005 edit undoSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits →[]: parallel-edits list - good ideaNext edit →
Line 583: Line 583:


**:The language was written to cover the difficulty of proving sockpuppets. If necessary we can pull together a list of parallel edits, etc to prove the case. Just having a Florida IP doesn't even mean one is actually ''in'' Florida. It's not that hard to set up a midpoint IP, I hear. -] 03:11, July 13, 2005 (UTC) **:The language was written to cover the difficulty of proving sockpuppets. If necessary we can pull together a list of parallel edits, etc to prove the case. Just having a Florida IP doesn't even mean one is actually ''in'' Florida. It's not that hard to set up a midpoint IP, I hear. -] 03:11, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

**::A list of parallel edits would be helpful. If you want to go ahead with that, we can share the workload, so let me know. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 03:24, July 13, 2005 (UTC)


=== ] === === ] ===

Revision as of 03:24, 13 July 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:Essjay & User:139.55.55.122

    Three revert rule violation on Star_Wars_Episode_III:_Revenge_of_the_Sith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Essjay (talk · contribs) & 139.55.55.122 (talk · contribs) <see the history on the article due to the massive amount of edit warring by these two editors.>

    Reported by: Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 9 July 2005 11:44 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Violetriga has warned them on the talk page, see here -- Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale
    • Essjay (and, it seems, one or two others) believe this to be vandalism. I do not, but have given them the benefit of the doubt for now and am discussing this with Essjay. The IP has been blocked for 12 hours. violet/riga (t) 9 July 2005 11:46 (UTC)
    • Although i don't feel that this particular case was vandalism, there is reason to believe that the anonymous user in question was the same one who repeatably vandalized the page on George W. Bush. Although that doesn't justify the edit war, it is worth noting. --Blu Aardvark 9 July 2005 11:48 (UTC)
    Based on the actions of 139.55.55.122 (talk · contribs) and 67.140.148.199 (talk · contribs), I'd say that they are one and the same. Note both vandalize Bush/Cheney, and both leave abusive edit summaries directed at Hadal (talk · contribs):
    • diff "Hadal, GET THE HELL OFF THIS PAGE!!!!!"
    • diff "Hey Hadal, its me from the Bush page,by the way, im a completeist star wars fan, lets roll."
    Both were also involved in reverting Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. They should have been blocked as abusive socks, mooting this whole question. (They jointly reverted six times before Essjay's fourth revert.) Essjay should receive a small Wikislap on the wrists for feeding the trolls and for not making a request at WP:AN/I. Telling him "Don't do that again!" should be sufficient. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 9 July 2005 14:26 (UTC)

    User:Alfrem

    Has violated the 3RR on Libertarianism. 24 hour block imposed. Numerous warnings given, we have asked several times for a temporary injunction due to the disruptive behaviour but this has not been granted by any arbitrator. It has now led to Alfrem getting blocked for 3RR violation. Regrettably, it has had to have been myself that has done this: sure to be controversial as I was "involved" in the dispute. But it is a clear violation, and so I don't feel guilty about doing it. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 14:34 (UTC)

    Don't feel guilty. He was also violating the 3RR on Template_talk:Elections, reverting a comment I wrote four times in about 8 hours. Dave (talk) July 9, 2005 15:26 (UTC)

    User:-Ril-

    Three revert rule violation on Matthew 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). -Ril- (talk · contribs):

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:
    • 7th revert:

    Reported by: SimonP 20:24, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Has done the same across every page in Category:New Testament chapters. Has so far been reverted by three different editors (including myself), but has not stopped. - SimonP 20:24, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
    Note that the above is not true. I have only made the changes on John 15, John 20, Matthew 1, Matthew 2, Matthew 3, Matthew 4, and Matthew 5. There are other articles currently in the category. ~~~~ 20:48, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

    Note that this is in order to restore an NPOV warning, which SimonP has removed.

    Also note that the other two of the "three different editors" were goaded into behaving in this manner by messages left on their talk pages by SimonP, so that he could circumvent 3RR by using proxy editors. ~~~~ 20:29, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

    I was not "goaded" into reverting the article (I'm at three times now, so that's all for now). I personally believe that the article is better at the version that SimonP also prefers, and made my own decision to revert. JYolkowski // talk 20:36, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
    So why was it that you only did so just after this edit to your talk page, where SimonP writes "I have reverted him a couple of times....perhaps if another user did..." ? ~~~~ 20:44, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Blocked for twenty-four hours (it's a pretty extensive violation, but I'm not sure whether it would be right to extend the block for that reason). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:02, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Thank you, 24 hours should enough. Theresa Knott sent him a fairly clear message that his actions were not acceptable, and since then the edit warring has mostly stopped. - SimonP 23:20, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
        • Actually his edit warring completely stopped after I spoke to him (unless I made a mistake, but I was watching his edits). He seems to have,got on with other edits on unrelated articles, and possibly doing a spot of new pages patrol. I'm not sure that a block was actually necessary at all. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:45, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

    Update- SimonP also broke the 3RR. Rather than blocking him, I've chosen to unblock -Ril-. Hopefully these two users will repay my trust in them by cesing the edit war and engaging with each other on the talk pages instead. If they don't well we can always block the pair of them later. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:213.130.117.51

    Three revert rule violation on Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 213.130.117.51 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Evil Monkey∴Hello 07:51, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Huaiwei

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

    Reported by: Instantnood 10:05, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    blocked for 24 hoursGeni 11:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:Instantnood

    Three revert rule violation on category:Hong Kong literature. Instantnood (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: --Huaiwei 10:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    209.91.172.140

    Three revert rule violation on Romath (user is presumed to be its subject).

    Reported by: David File:Arms-westminster-lb.jpg | Talk 14:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

    The editor does not appear to have been warned before being reported.Geni 14:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:Ted Wilkes

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

    Reported by: Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: The User had already drawn editors' attention to the fact that I had reverted three times, and he has been blocked for 3RR voiolations before. The diffs make it look like a revert war between the two of us, but the history will show that there four people involved. Three of them us involved in a dispute, but are prepared to compromise; each time that we do reach a compromise, Ted Wilkes sails in and deletes the whole passage. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

    Mel, was he warned about 3RR, and did he revert after being warned? SlimVirgin 17:37, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
    He warned me (actually, he mentioned to other editors on the Talk page that I was up to three edits, so was risking a violation of the rule); I don't think that it can be claimed that he was unaware of what was happening. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
    I see where you warned him, but I don't think he reverted again after that. I always have a worry with deletions, because a first delete, almost by definition, is a return to a previous version (not quite by definition: material could be deleted that had been in the article from the start), unlike a first addition, which is more likely not to be a revert. For that reason, whether the disputed edit is a deletion or an addition, I prefer to see diffs for four reverts rather than three — in the case of a deletion, diffs for 1st deletion and 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th revert. I also like to see evidence of reverting after a warning, though the warning need not have been given in relation to this article. SlimVirgin 18:14, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
    No, sorry, I'm not saying that I warned him (and as I was out of reverts, of course he didn't revert after his last one — he didn't have to); I'm saying that he had not long before said on the Talk page that I was in risk of violating the 3RR. Given that fact (as well as the fact that he's an experienced enough editor not to need warning, especially as he's been blocked for 3RR violations before), I didn't think that a warning was necessary. If I'd realised that he was in danger of a violation I'd have warned him, of course, but as I said, I wasn't the only person involved, so his violation took me by surprise. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
    I saw where you pointed out to him that he'd reverted a lot, which I'd count as a warning, and if he'd reverted again after that, I'd have blocked him. I think the ambiguity over whether the first edit should count as the first revert is another problem, and not only with this case. I've added to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader, which is the template we use at the top of this page, that users should also supply a diff showing that the first revert is a revert to a previous version, and then in addition should supply at least four diffs showing the reverts. Let me know if you think that's a good idea or problematic. SlimVirgin 20:41, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
    Well, OK — but see Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Status of warnings, where the consensus seems to be that a warning should only be demanded before a block when the offender is a first offender, or where there's some other relevant circumstance. Repeat offenders, like Ted Wilkes, shouldn't need a warning. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:Duckecho

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

    Reported by: GordonWattsDotCom 15:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: In his favor, Duck contributes well usually, and the reverts are not "technically" reverts, but sustentative edits with the intent to reverting certain material, while making minor changes, as I explain on Uncle Ed's page here at this diff's header. Even though Duck is a well-established editor, "This exception does not apply to reversions of well-established users just because you consider their edits to be "vandalism," as shown here: 3RR. However, I do not mean to suggest that the admins must arbitrarily block him. In fact, I recall that he was rightly critical of on admin whose name I'll keep secret, when this admin flew in and made edits without consensus or without making edit summary comments. (Plus duck was the one who put a link in to my court case, lol.) However, he is a part of the bigger problem here, and was the author of the proposal that went AGAINST consensus here, in which we all had agreed that Terri Schiavo would be described as "diagnosed" as PVS, not "as PVS." (Duck is an experienced editor who should've known better, and I admit that I didn't warn him in edit summaries, but I did warn him in talk here. --GordonWattsDotCom 15:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

    You'll need to supply diffs showing four or more reverts to a previous version within 24 hours. SlimVirgin 17:46, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
    I was not trying to be deceptive: I admitted above that the reverts were not "technically true" reverts because Duck did not revert to a "prior version," but, instead, manually added size-down "<sup>" and "</sup>" tags. However, he, and as is the fact, he did substantially "revise" (hence "revert") the page (by editing, instead of using revert tool) in a way that was both HARD to read (small letters), and was NOT discussed nor approved in talk. Below, he rightly points out that the "small" tags were in there in the prior version -my mistake; At least some "small" tags were, --but the "sup" tags weren't (hence he reverted some elements), and he made a small situation smaller (or a bad situation worse). As for the diff you request (and I also see you edited the title of the page to reflect your concern), all you have to do, SlimVirgin, to get the requested diff, is go to the first "revert" link in my entry here, click on it, and note the left half of the screen. It has the version before Duckecho started monkeying around with super-duper small text like he probably shouldn't have been. (I took note of your comment here, in which you asked that we "please supply a link to the version that the first revert reverted to, so that admins can see that the first revert was a revert, and not just an edit." Since I admitted it was an edit that functioned as a revert, and supplied the diffs and history, you should not have trouble locating that which you seek.--GordonWattsDotCom 21:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

    Rebuttal: This should be easy. The first diff cited was an original edit by me in which I added a new article link, reformatted an existing one, and added <sup> tags, sort of as an experiment once I saw the <small> tags already in place by a previous editor. I neither subtracted anything (except one subheading in the reformatted link—fully supportable and in compliance with all guidelines), nor reverted anything. My sole effort was principally an original edit. As can be clearly seen in the edit summary of GW's revert, "Removed non-approved pin-sized font changes with <sup> marker; I'm sure you meant well, Duck, but your experiment didn't work;Removing them only…" he removed the <sup> tags. I have yet to discern what non-approved means.

    In the second diff cited, I reverted GW's removal of the <sup> tags. I acknowledge this as Revert #1.

    In GW's revert edit summary, "Microsoft works has completed its search of the document and has made 24 replacements. The text is now large enough to be read by a person reading document…" he makes reference to 24 replacements which is six articles times two each <small> and <sup> tags times two each closing tags of each. He had removed more than I had ever inserted.

    In the third diff cited, I reverted GW's removal of both the <small> and <sup> tags. I acknowledge this as Revert #2.

    In GW's next revert edit summary, "The burden of proof is not on me, as the lack of the <small> & <sup>tags was the norm before you began edit war;REmoving tags,but not reverting to prior version…" note his description of both <small> and <sup> tags not existing before my addition ff the <sup> tags, which is clearly untrue as shown above.

    In the fourth diff cited, I reverted GW's removal of both the <small> and <sup> tags. I acknowledge this as Revert #3.

    Notwithstanding all of the non-sequitir smokescreen in the accusation, I am entitled to three revisions within a 24 hour period under the rule.

    GW clearly does not understand the difference between an affirmative original edit and a revert. GW clearly did not see that the <small> tags were in place long before I edited the subject paragraph (in fact, the existence of the <small> tags dates back more than 1000 edits, to earlier than at least 23 April as can be seen in this diff ). GW clearly does not understand the 3RR rule. Duckecho (Talk) 19:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

    A friend put it more succinctly:

    • Page edit by Duckecho: 03:52, 10 July 2005. This was an edit, in which a change that was thought to be useful was introduced for the first time.
    • Gordon disagrees, says numbers are too small, and reverts Duckecho's edit to a previous version: 05:57, July 10, 2005


    Just by way of clarification - you are not entitled to 3 reverts in 24 hours, 3 reverts is the most that is tolerated. There is an important difference. Guettarda 20:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
    I take your point, but in practical terms it is a distinction without a difference. However, I wasn't reverting as an entitlement, I was reverting as a correction to, um, muddled thinking. I'm not here to argue semantics about how a three revert rule means three reverts, so let's drop it. Duckecho (Talk) 21:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
    • ::You are correct, Guettarda: I answer SlimVirgin's question above, and I admit I made a minor mistake on the substance of what was "reverted" by using edits (instead of revert tool), but a revert nonetheless occurred four (4) times. I'm not trying to drown the duck, but he went into water too deep, and I would point that out. Thank you, Guettarda. Your point is well taken too.--GordonWattsDotCom 21:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
    Sheer and utter nonsense. By what definition of the word revert is an edit that adds, not subtracts material? In my original edit , the only thing I subtracted was a subheading in a link which I reformatted to conform to the other links. That part of the edit is not part of the dispute as I'm sure GW will acknowledge. Everything else was additional original (not previously part of the article) material. Revert does not mean add. It is de facto not a revert when nothing was removed.Duckecho (Talk) 21:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
    "Revert" means to change to a prior version -it has nothing to do with whether the end result "adds" or "subtracts" material. However, the previous version definition does not apply because you manually edited, to get around the three revert rule. Creative. Nice try! But you did not fool me. Also, chill out; don't make a mountain out of a molehill; Currently, your indiscretion is a molehill, and, in my entry above (replying to one of your points), I admitted my faux pas -and survived.--GordonWattsDotCom 22:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
    "Revert" means to change to a prior version… Exactly! Now read diff #1 which you cited as my first revert . What part did I change to a prior version?
    • All of the <sup> tags that you're so worked up about were new. They were not in a prior version, so how is that part a revert?
    • I added a missing end tag to an existing link (Kumar) It was not in a prior version, so how is that part a revert?
    • The article link (Quill) was all new. It was not in a prior version, so how is that part a revert?
    • The reformat of an existing link (Wilson) was new work. It was not in that format in a prior version, so it wasn't to change to a prior version. How is that part a revert?
    • I did delete a subtitle in the Wilson link, to make it conform to style (and the other links). But I don't see how you can say that was to change to a prior version. Is that what's causing you to claim this edit was a revert?
    That is the sum total of changes I made in that edit as can be clearly seen by the evidence you provided. Please, for the sake of mountains everywhere! Explain by what Wiki definition edit #1 was a revert. Duckecho (Talk) 22:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Duck, at this diff at 23:22, 10 July 2005, you asked me for answers, and I answered you at this diff at 01:57, 11 July 2005. You raise a point that i had not considered, because I've only been here a few months and didn't see the 3RR page's fine details. I'm recopying it here because SlimVirgin wanted clarification of whether you violated the rules: --GordonWattsDotCom 02:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

    …but the sup tags weren't , and when you changed them, it "reverted" to a different version… So let me see if I have this straight. In the version before my first edit (under discussion) there were no <sup> tags. I edited that version by adding <sup> tags (not changing them). When I did that, it "reverted" to a different version, which now even I can't understand. It appears by your definition, every edit is a reversion. That is one magic concept. Please cite this exciting, omnibus new definition so we can all be enlightened. Duckecho (Talk) 23:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

    (quoting Duck in italics) "It appears by your definition, every edit is a reversion." Bingo! You got it. "Please cite this exciting, omnibus new definition so we can all be enlightened." OK: "This can also apply to those that try to "game" the rule on a regular basis, such as by making fourth reversions just outside of the 24-hour time period, or by making complex reverts which attempt to disguise the restoration of the editor's preferred wording." Cite: 3RR#Enforcement, 4th Paragraph, 2nd Sentence. Trying to make a complex revert like you did almost fooled SlimVirgin, but thanks to your smart remark to me, I looked up the exact cite, and I shall bring this to her attention. While I don't think that you will get blocked this time, I am certain that you tried to "game the system."--GordonWattsDotCom 01:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

    Gordon, if anyone is "gaming the system", it's you. DuckEcho is a solid contributor to the article, who is always willing to discuss his edits and take others' views into account. You, on the other hand, are a one-issue editor who has pushed a certain POV entirely against consensus on many occasions, to the absolute exasperation of all who have engaged with you. I have reminded DuckEcho that he should take more care not to go anywhere near breaking the 3RR because there are those who will make that the issue and not the edits in question. I advise you too that discussing the disputed edits on the talkpage is the best way to find a solution that satisfies you both, although I recognise that your positions are very, very far apart on this article. Grace Note 03:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:Aozan

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

    Reported by: Wiglaf 17:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

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

    Comment: This user has a thorn in the side with the Armenians.--Wiglaf 17:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

    I can't see that he's been warned, so I've left a warning on his talk page. He's also written to me saying he wants his account to be deleted, so he may not be a problem for much longer. Are there no legitimate reasons for him putting the POV tag on i.e. has he given examples of actionable changes that could be made that would satisfy him? SlimVirgin 18:17, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
    see Talk:Armenian people. dab (ᛏ) 18:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
    I realized that he had not been warned and tried to unblock him immediately. However, this message was all that happened on the Blocklist: blocked #27321 (expires 19:40, 11 July 2005) (unblock) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Aozan". The reason given for Aozan's block is: "three revert rule".). I am too inexperienced in 3RR and in blocking/unblocking procedures to make any sense out of it. Well, it was only a 24 hour block and since he has declared that he leaves Misplaced Pages it does not matter much anyway.--Wiglaf 18:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
    Sorry, Wiglaf, I didn't realize you'd already blocked him. We're not meant to block where we've been involved in editing, though I don't know whether your reversions were made as an admin or an editor. To unblock, you'd need to unblock each of the autoblocks. SlimVirgin 19:27, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
    Wiglaf reverted him, so technically, he should not have blocked (although in this case it was rather straightforward that nobody except A was in violation of the 3RR). So for the record, I would support unblocking until he does one more revert, although in practice it proably doesn't make much of a difference. dab (ᛏ) 19:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
    I will try to unblock him once more.--Wiglaf 20:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
    Now, he appears to be unblocked. I'll leave the blocking to someone else next time.--Wiglaf 20:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:Irishpunktom

    Three revert rule violation on The Sword of the Prophet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Irishpunktom (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Jayjg 19:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:64.109.253.204

    Three revert rule violation on Irish American (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 64.109.253.204 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Deltabeignet 23:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User has been revert warring with Lapsed Pacifist over whether "Irish American" usually refers to Catholics. User has continued reverting after being warned, in addition to several personal attacks. (I have reverted him twice, which is more than enough for me.) Deltabeignet 23:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:Hogeye

    Three revert rule violation on Template:Anarchism (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hogeye (talk · contribs):

    Hogeye continues to break the 3RR, even after having been banned for 24 hours.

    Reported by: Kev 20:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

    Since his disruptive behaviour has not improved following the expiration of his previous (24 hour) block, and in light of his self-declared mala fides , I have given him a one-month block, which is the maximum the Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy allows in this case. -- Hadal 03:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • After his first ban Hogeye continues. He is now reverting with two anon IPs 70.178.26.242 and 208.180.155.240. The 70.178 address he has posted with before, replacing it with his name , responding to posts directed to Hogeye , and claiming to have written things written by Hogeye . Both addresses are users who make posts to articles that Hogeye frequents , , , and they both make edits identical to Hogeye that no one else makes. More telling, resolving both addresses reveals that they both originate from the same ISP, the same state, and the same town.
    • Perhaps most distressing is that he is clearly learning to be more careful in his gaming of the system, now shuffling his reverts, doing many partial reverts with superficial changes, no longer labeling his reverts, using multiple IPs, and shows no signs of ceasing his behavior despite numerous warnings and clarifications that he has subsequently deleted. Kev 20:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


    User:Zeno of Elea

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

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

    Reported by: Heraclius 03:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • This is my first doing this. Please tell me if I don't have the correct format. User:Zeno of Elea has reverted to his section on the "Treatment of prisoners of war" 4 times in the past few hours after being asked to discuss and source his section.


    62.253.64.15

    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4

    Two other users determined that this was "simple vandalism", and warned user to use the talk page. Stirling Newberry 05:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:61.129.44.201

    Three revert rule violation on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 61.129.44.201 (talk · contribs):

    Diffs as follows:

    Sorry, best I could do. Too much like hard work pasting in times etc. Check out the history for thos.

    Reported by: Grace Note 05:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:N._Caligon

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

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:
    • 7th revert:
    • 8th revert:
    • 9th revert:


    Reported by: --198.93.113.49 15:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: Three-revert rule explicitly does not apply to elimination of simple vandalism. Reversions, as noted in the edit summaries, are responses to repeated vandalism which replaces the consensus page with an unformatted, mutilated version of the text. There is no good-faith dispute regarding the substantive contents of the page; instead, this is a campaign of harassment announced on the Rob Liefeld board several days ago and encouraged by the subject of the article. I requested page protection yesterday; no response to date. If admins rule that format-wrecking is not simple vandalism, I will not treat it as such; but I think it indisputable that repeatedly and deliberately removing all graphics and links from a page and changing the text format to substantial reduce its readability is obvious vandalism. I would also note that user 198.93.113.49 is one of the vandals engaged in this effort, and that his complaint here is not brought in good faith, but is retaliation for a complaint brought against him two weeks ago by this user which resulted in his temporary banning. User 198.93.113.49 is an experienced editor and knows how to change a page without wrecking its formatting; his conduct here is demonstrably bad-faith. N. Caligon 15:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

    Caligon has reverted three different editors. If he wants to make format changes that is fine, but he is making content changes as well. If he'd stop vandalizing the page with his constant reverts someone might be able to make formating changes to the version he doesn't like. But it's hard to make any progress with him constantly violating the 3RR rule. Please ban him in accordance with policy so that formating improvemants can be made without his interference.--198.93.113.49 16:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
    I have reverted "edits" (to use the term loosely) coming from a set of anonymous users identified only by IP addresses; the "edits" consist principally of removing all formatting, links, and graphics from the page (except for a picture of the subject of the article); there are also a few textual changes in the introductory paragraphs which are either verifiably false or obvious NPOV violations, but that can't excuse the extensive vandalism. User 198.93.113.49 was temporarily banned two weeks ago for misconduct reported by me, and his response to the complaint included verifiably false and malicious complaints regarding me and at least one other user. The complaint here is simply a continuation of that harassment. N. Caligon 16:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

    Please post links to the "diff" pages which show the changes and not merely the versions themselves. Also, if this truly is a content dispute, why do you not simply post your preferred content in a properly formatted manner so no one can claim to revert on the basis of vandalism? Gamaliel 16:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

    I've protected the page until we sort things out a bit. Gamaliel 16:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

    Thank you. Here's an example of the "diff" page; there are minor variations -- some of the vandalous "edits" leave a bit more of the formatted page in place -- but they're substantively identical.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rob_Liefeld&diff=18603555&oldid=18603415

    N. Caligon 17:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

    Everytime N. Caligon gets into a dispute Gamaliel shows up to abuse his authority to protect him. Gamaliel should not be handling these disputes because he is completely biased. He once banned me from editing for a 3RR vilotaion when all I was doing waas reverting N. Caligon's vandalsim (he was constaly blanking a whole section). Now that N. Caligon is in blatant violation of the 3RR rule, gamaliel not only does not ban him, but page protects his version of the page!

    Why is a 3RR violating vandal having his violation page protected?!--198.93.113.49 17:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

    "Everytime" means once, referring to my block of 198.93... due to a clear cut 3RR violation: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive31#User:198.93.113.49. To avoid any whining about the appearance of impropriety, I will leave the resolution of the conflict at the Rob Liefeld article to another administrator. Gamaliel 17:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

    The page is still protected. How is page protecting the edits of a 3RR violater (9 reverts!) leaving the resolution for another administrator?
    Please see . Gamaliel 17:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

    In my opinion, 198.93.111.49's version is vandalism, as it removes every link from the article. Since the 3RR does not apply to reverting vandalism, I see no reason for punitive measures against N. Caligon. If there's a content dispute, please use the talk page. Carbonite | Talk 18:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

    I could edit the page to include the concensus text with proper Wiki formating if the page was not locked.

    User:Emir Arven

    Three revert rule violation on Srebrenica massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Emir Arven (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: 62.243.243.144 16:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:


    User:Alfrem

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

    • July 11: 3 Reverts
    • July 10: 2 Reverts
    • July 9: 3 Reverts
    • July 8: 2 Reverts
    • July 7: 3 Reverts

    Reported by: Malathion 17:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments


    User:Zephram Stark

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

    Reported by: BrandonYusufToropov 18:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Keeps inserting a table comparing "objective" and "subjective" versions of Terrorism at the top of the article. Has been reverted by 3 different editors, but insists that no-one has a "right" to remove his "objective" definition, they can only edit the "subjective" definition. Has been warned about 3RR several times in edit summaries and on the Talk: page. Jayjg 18:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Appears to be using IPs to revert to his version as well, e.g. 206.176.211.72 (talk · contribs) Jayjg 19:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:Flowerofchivalry

    Three revert rule violation on Nanjing Safety Zone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Flowerofchivalry (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Hmib 02:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Please note that the version Flowerofchivalry reverted to is the same as his earlier version, except with User:John Smith's's grammar corrections and my NPOV and accuracy tags. -Hmib 02:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, this is at least the third, possibly fourth time Flowerofchivalry has violated the 3RR. If I remember correctly, all the former 3RR violations were on Iris Chang, the first and second resulting in Flowerofchivalry getting warned, (twice), third resulting in page being protected, and Flowerofchivalry being warned (again). Previous 3RR logged here. -Hmib 02:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
    • In addition to that, it's the second time he's been using anonymous IP addresses as sockpuppets of sorts, in order to circumvent 3RR. I think a warning will NOT be enough this time. -Hmib 02:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Please provide diffs, not versions, as it is hard to tell what exactly he is reverting from versions. --khaosworks 04:32, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
        • Corrected. I apologise for the oversight. -Hmib 04:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
          • Clear 3RR violation. I'd block for the usual 24, but I'd probably get accused of being biased because I'm a Singaporean Chinese. Someone else will have to take this one up. --khaosworks 07:54, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

    This user, Hmib, has been doing personal attack for a long time by various ways. This silly false report is just one of them. He actually submitted the RfC last month, and despite the fact he advertised about that to his Chinese people, no person from a third party left any single comment as of now. This is one of his frame-up instigated by another extremist user, User:Markalexander100. This user also has submitted false reports, but no one has responded either. Flowerofchivalry 07:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

    FoC, have you used either or both of those IP addresses? And is Pedant still your advocate? SlimVirgin 07:55, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    I'm blocking for 24 hours. This user has been warned repeatedly about 3RR. I've looked at the RfC, and there's evidence there of sockpuppetry to get round 3RR; some of the IP addresses used before resolve to the same area as those used here, and the ones mentioned above have been used only to repeat FoC's edits. He also made another revert to the same page after learning that this 3RR report had been submitted. I'll leave a note for him that he can e-mail me if he feels this is unfair. SlimVirgin 08:24, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    Flower has created another new account, User:HarryWilson. One edit, reverting to Flower's version on this article . Mark 09:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
    I've blocked the new account indefinitely and reverted to the previous version of the page. By rights, FoC should have his block extended. The problem is I have no evidence it's him. It could be someone trying to cause him a problem, for example. I don't myself believe that, but without some indication, it's hard to proceed. With the IP addresses, I could see that they resolve to the same areas as other addresses linked to FoC, but with a user name, there's nothing. SlimVirgin 09:39, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Germen

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

    Comments:

    • Despite having been previously warned on several occasions about the 3RR (see user's talk page), Germen is reverting the VfD tag from this article and then moving the tag to the lower down the page and reverting those who move it to the top. Axon 10:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:Dbiv

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

    Comments:

    This nomination arises from my reverting vandalism by Germen who insisted on either removing the VfD tag placed on an article he was writing, or on putting the tag at the bottom of the article in contravention of deletion policy. All of the reverts were simple vandalism and none concerned the content of the article. David | Talk 11:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:Adam Carr 2

    Three revert rule violation on Kevin Rudd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Adam Carr (talk · contribs):

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

    Comments In addition to the reverts, User:Adam Carr has been engaging in personal attacks in edit summaries and ignoring pleas to join the discussion on talk, both in edit sumaries and on Talk:Kevin Rudd. Cognition 14:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:Gabrielsimon (4)

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

    Reported by: Wikibofh 14:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Blocked for 24 hours. Bratsche 19:36, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • At least the 5th 3RR violation in a month, and he gets blocked for 24 hours? That's no different than a first violation. Wikibofh
    • 22:44, 23 April 2005
    • 19:48, 14 June 2005
    • 18:22, 29 June 2005
    • 20:31, 30 June 2005
    • 18:24, 6 July 2005
    • 12:36, 12 July 2005
    This is ridiculous. Wikibofh 20:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Would it be appropriate to increase the block now? There must be a better solution. Bratsche 20:36, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Cognition 2

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

    Comments:

    • LaRouche supporter constantly changing the description of a LaRouche activist. Blocked for 3RR violation only two days ago (see above).

    Reported by: Calton | Talk 16:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

    Calton and Adam Carr refuse to discuss their edits. See User talk:Adam Carr for his statement that he will revert any of my edits without even reading them. I will revert all edits to all articles on my watchlist by the LaRouche cult "editor" Cognition, or any other recognisable LaRouche editor. I will do this until either the LaRouche cultists are banned from Misplaced Pages or I am. I don't much care which, since an encyclopaedia which allows crackpot cultists to edit its articles is not worth writing for. This report is only an attempt to game the system in order to continue getting away without discussing their reverts on talk. Cognition 16:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

    Yes but you still chose to revert four times, he didn't, SqueakBox 16:22, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    Adam Carr did on Kevin Rudd. It is hypocritical to criticize me without calling for Adam Carr to be blocked for actually initiating these revert wars. Cognition 16:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Blocked for 24 hours. The fact that someone broke the rule on another article does not allow you to break it. The fact that someone "instigated" this edit war does not allow you to break the rule. The fact that someone doesn't discuss their revert on talk does not allow you to break the rule. Gamaliel 17:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
    • User:YeahRight picke up right where User:Cognition left off, simply reverting back to Cognition's versions. Therefore I blocked that account for 18 hours, about the same amount of time left in Cognition's 3RR block, on account of disruption. -Willmcw 23:45, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Now Adam's considering whether he wants to continue editing. This happened before because of HK. I know how he feels. SlimVirgin 23:52, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • Cognition's editing pattern so closely resembles HK that I think the ArbCom's February ruling applies:
          • Herschelkrustofsky is restricted to one account for editing. All other accounts showing the same editing patterns are to be blocked indefinitely
          • If Herschelkrustofsky is discovered to have created or edited using any other account, or has edited anonymously, that account shall be blocked indefinitely and Herschelkrustofsky shall be banned for up to one week.'
          • If, in the judgement of any administrator, Herschelkrustofsky or any user who is considered a sockpuppet of Hershelkrustofsky edits any article which relates to Lyndon LaRouche or inserts material which relates to Lyndon LaRouche into any other article he may be banned for up to one week. Any ban shall reset the one-year ban on editing LaRouche related articles and the ban on inserting LaRouche material into unrelated articles. A one-week ban may be imposed for use of a sockpuppet for any purpose; such a ban shall reset both bans.
        This foolisheness has been going on long enough, Cognition has shown that his sole interest is in furthering LaRouche theories, just like HK. -Willmcw 00:09, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
        I agree about the foolishness, but the problem is that HK was in California and Cognition is in Florida, and an IP check has confirmed that. We'd have to show either the use of open proxies or that HK has moved. I think we're going to have to go back to the arbcom and ask them for a new ruling, or an extension of the old one to cover Cognition. Snowspinner's also talking on the mailing list about whether someone needs to ask the arbcom to clarify their ruling that LaRouche publications are regarded as original research. I would say that's not necessary and that we do clearly have the right to remove LaRouche material on sight from non-LaRouche articles. But we also need the right to block users who persist in adding it, though we're currently allowed to block for disruption, and I see no problem in interpreting what Cognition's doing as disruptive. SlimVirgin 02:43, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
        Californians are allowed to travel and, if they've got the right papers, they are even allowed to leave the country. I don't think that an apparent geographic change of IP in any way rules-out HK. This editor showed clear familiarity with Misplaced Pages, has several of the same editing habits, the same interests, etc. The preponderance of evidence seems to be that this editor has the same editing pattern.-Willmcw 02:57, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
        Sure, I agree about the traveling and that it could be him. I found it interesting that Cognition gave him a barnstar and shortly thereafter he cooincidentally visited his page for the first time in months, and saw it. According to the wording of the arbcom ruling — "All other accounts showing the same editing patterns are to be blocked indefinitely" — Cognition ought to be blocked indefinitely, because there's no doubt that the account shows the same editing pattern. However, I don't think that's what the arbcom intended to say: I think they meant "shows the same editing pattern and is believed to be a sockpuppet of HK." It's this last part we can't prove. SlimVirgin 03:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • The language was written to cover the difficulty of proving sockpuppets. If necessary we can pull together a list of parallel edits, etc to prove the case. Just having a Florida IP doesn't even mean one is actually in Florida. It's not that hard to set up a midpoint IP, I hear. -Willmcw 03:11, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • A list of parallel edits would be helpful. If you want to go ahead with that, we can share the workload, so let me know. SlimVirgin 03:24, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

    User:216.213.99.100

    Three revert rule violation on Washing machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 216.213.99.100 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Essjay · Talk 19:35, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User wants Washing machine to be a disambig page between the article on the laundry device and an article on an album by the same name. I personally explained the situation on the article's talk page, and left the user notes (including a note warning him of 3RR) on his talk page, which he chose to ignore. Various other users have reverted his edits.

    Reported by: Essjay · Talk 19:35, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

    • It appears that the fourth revert was done before your message was recieved on the user's talk page. Given that, and the fact that once the message of Essjay's was read, the anon user changed the article in question to its previous, non-disambiguation state, I this is more of a newbie mistake than an actual violation. Bratsche 20:02, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Dcokeman

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

    Reported by: RyanFreisling @ 01:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Simple violation of 3RR. User wants 'FahrenHYPE 9/11' included in the GWB article, or to delete 'Fahrenheit 9/11'. Regardless of the strength of his/her conviction, such reverts are excessive and anticollaborative.

    Reported by: RyanFreisling @ 01:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

      • In my opinion, Dcokeman's reverts are excessive and aren't accomplishing much, except for disruption. However, it looks like he's at 3 reverts right now. It's somewhat difficult to tell from the diffs provided (especially the first two and the previous version). In the meantime, I've warned him and will keep an eye on the situation. Carbonite | Talk 02:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Thanks Carbonite. I checked the diffs and I believe they do show four distinct identical reverts (one of which included new content) and another that was a deletion, but I'm confident with your capable administration. Thanks! -- RyanFreisling @ 02:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
          • I suspect if I dig far enough into the article's history, I might come to the same conclusion, but I'm somewhat pressed for time and it is customary to warn on a first-time offense. Still, I strongly dislike when users game the system and will not be nearly so lenient should this behavior continue. Thanks for your confidence. Carbonite | Talk 02:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

    Report new violation