Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive9 - Misplaced Pages

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Witkacy (talk | contribs) at 04:22, 24 May 2005 (reverted vandalism by anon). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:22, 24 May 2005 by Witkacy (talk | contribs) (reverted vandalism by anon)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles 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:Zivinbudas

    Three revert rule violation on Indo-European Languages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zivinbudas (talk · contribs):

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

    Reported by: AJD 15:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • blocked for 12 hours the final revert is lsightly complex but since it is olny move the postion of something in a list i've decided to blockGeni 10:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

    User:Trey Stone

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

    Also a partial revert at: 05:41, 15 May 2005

    Reported by: Viajero 12:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:85.206.194.120, User:85.206.193.46

    Three revert rule violation on Indo-European languages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 85.206.194.120 (talk · contribs) and similar IPs ( http://takas.lt/ range):

    Reported by: dab (ᛏ) 14:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • I find myself edit-warring a little bit, this lovely May Sunday: After two blocks for 3RRvios, User:Zivinbudas decided to go back into anonymity and is now re-dialling after every third revert. Rather too obvious to evade the 3RR, I'd say, so a little reminder that we're not entirely stupid may be in order. dab (ᛏ) 14:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
      I've put a few hours' block on the /16 - David Gerard 15:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
      I guess the block has expired, since he's back and reverting yet again . AJD 06:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
      Short blocks as needed then. Note that a /16 is a significant address space and the blocking admin should make sure they're available to unblock in case of collateral damage - David Gerard 08:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
      he's still at it, and seems most unwilling to learn. As he appears to be restricted to 85.206.193 and .194, a 10 bit block should suffice, i.e. 85.206.192.0/10. That way, collateral damage will be minimized, and longer blocks should be possible. For now, I take it upon myself to block Zivinbudas for 24h, and the /10 range for 8 hours. dab (ᛏ) 10:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
      I'm getting "invalid IP range" for 85.206.192.0/10. Should that be 85.206.192.0/22? please advise, I don't want to block half the internet by mistake :) dab (ᛏ) 11:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
      He's at it again from a new IP address.--Wiglaf 11:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
      I gave the /16 range another 4 hours for now. He'll get tired of this. dab (ᛏ) 13:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
      Back again, this time at 85.206.194.13 and possibly 85.206.208.64. AJD 19:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
      EEK, YES!! /10 is a 22-bit range! /22 is a 10-bit range. Use range blocks with great care! - David Gerard 00:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
      thanks :) luckily, some smart developer seems to have built in a safeguard. I'll try the /22 on him if he persists. dab (ᛏ) 12:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

    Yes he is. I can't help but wonder whether he's User:Zivinbudas having logged out, but I can't prove it. (Apparently that's common knowledge.) Anyway:

    New 24 hour period begins:

    Is there any way we can have his reversions considered vandalism so that we can keep undoing them without violating the 3RR ourselves? --Angr/comhrá 10:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

    I suppose any user that should be blocked becaus of 3RR, but cannot because of considerations of collateral damage (IP ranges) can be rolled back with impunity. dab (ᛏ) 12:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
    anyway, I tried the /22 10-bit range block on him now, for 24 hours. I also recommended he open an rfc against me and others who keep reverting him. I suppose even the dimmest of editors realize at some point that stubborn reverting gets them nowhere. dab (ᛏ) 12:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

    New set of reverts:

    Is there any point in tracking him anymore?--Wiglaf 10:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

    Logged in again as User:Zivinbudas, he's violated it at Vilnius University too:

    There is an RfC about him going on. --Angr/comhrá 11:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

    Warned by dab and myself on the 19th of May. If he doesn't get the hint, I suppose that this will mean that he needs some time to cool down imposed on him. Rama 12:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

    User:Trey Stone

    Three revert rule violation on Fidel Castro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Trey Stone (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Mark 07:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • With minor variations, the version reverted to is . Mark 07:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
    • The 4th revert indicates that Trey has the incorrect belief that the 3RR only applies to identical reverts. In fact, it applies to reverts to the same article, whether they are reverts of the same or of different material. Firebug 07:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
    • It's worse then just a 3RR, I asked everyone (in a new subsection) to keep my minor fixes, making sure the first footnote was 1 and not 5, and other purely technical fixes, TDC ignored that in his revert. I respond with: PLEASE READ THE EDIT SUMMARY tdc, and Trey Stone in his next edit summary tell me to watch the language (how else can I get attention in such an edit war), and after that proceeds to revert, ignoring all my minor fixes. I point this out to him, and he fixes some of them, but the first footnote remains 5 and not 1 with his last revert (of WebLuis, who also ignored my pleas). Never would I have imagined that fixing a footnote would prove such an insurmoutable feat. El_C 08:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
    Blocked for 24 hours. Although there are minor differences, he reverted to communist state from socialist state four times. No need for a warning in this case as he's been blocked for 3RR three times in the last eight days. SlimVirgin 08:29, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

    Zivinbudas

    Vilnius University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); Zivinbudas (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: --Witkacy 13:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Blocked for 24. I'm really tired of these repeat 3RR violators; they seem to think they have a "right" to revert. I personally consider getting into repeated edit wars to be disruption, and am very tempted to hand out the penalty allowed for same. Noel (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

    He reverted again the Vilnius University article (anon IP) 85.206.192.203 (talk · contribs) --Witkacy 17:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

    OK, so I placed a range block on 85.206.192.0/22 (covers 85.206.192 - 85.206.195) for 24 hours, since this user seems to be able to use just about any address in that range (see filings above). Noel (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    IPs appear to come from Lithuanian Telecom.Geni 18:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

    This is not the first time this user (or his anon proxies) are here (atm he has another entry still not archived here), they have also visited Vandalism in Progress at least once. I had to deal with him for over a month or many pages (see Talk:Vilnus and Talk:Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for just a few examples. I have suggested and I propose again the implementation of a range ban. I have yet to see a good anon editing from this range, and a month or two ban could, perhaps, get us finally rid of this troll. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

    Re: archived previous encounters with this person: try Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive20#User:Zivinbudas/ User:85.206.193.250 and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive20#User:Zivinbudas, his anon ids and his false POV edits (archived at 17:08, 11 May 2005 and 18:32, 11 May 2005, respectively.) Upping the duration of the blocks is certainly something I will not argue against! There is a report (see above) of them coming in from another range - if you detect such, let us know, and we can block that too. Noel (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    he's got an rfc on his hands now (but refuses to comment). I consider myself party to this dispute, but refusing to reply to your rfc, but happily continue revert-warring instead in my view is far enough out of line to be considered disruption. We'll need to take him to the arbcom, eventually, to get an official ruling, but I don't think we should be requested to be sheepishly indulgent of such behaviour, so I would think it only fair if you invoke the disruption clause. dab (ᛏ) 07:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

    New 3RR violation by Zavinbudas Vilnius region (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); Zivinbudas (talk · contribs):

    • 1 -
    • 2 -
    • 3 -
    • 4 -
    • 5 -

    Reported by: --Witkacy 22:03, 20 May 2005

    3RR violation on Vilnius University as anon IP --Witkacy 08:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

    User:Mike Garcia

    Three revert rule violation on Misplaced Pages:Missing Wikipedians (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mike Garcia (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Kingturtle 21:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

    I agree: Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:33, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

    I recommend that Mike Garcia be blocked for 24 hours. I am requesting that an admin who is not involved in this article investigate Mike's actions. Kingturtle 21:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    I can only find 3 outright revertsGeni 21:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    Really? Every one of those edits by Mike involves the addition of a specific set of users to the list... --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:46, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
    probably but there were enough changes by other people wich he left in to keep him donw to three straight reverts.Geni 10:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

    As an uninvolved admin, I've gone ahead and blocked him for 24 hours. →Raul654 21:45, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

    You are allowed to make 3 reverts.Geni 19:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

    He made more than 3. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:17, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Heimdal

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

    Reported by: Jiang 19:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:24.253.120.206

    Three revert rule violation on Magneto (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.253.120.206 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: SoM 00:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:DrBat

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


    Reported by: SoM 00:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:KEITH

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

    Comments:

    • Not the first time here. Again for Nicaragua. Some of the edits are from anon Mexico City IP addresses, clearly identifiable as KEITH. Also blanked Slim Virginia's message on his talk page here, SqueakBox 01:15, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Repeated requests on his talk page by SqueakBox and myself for him to discuss rather than continuously re-inserting his edits have proved fruitless. Has reverted probably 20 or more times in the last few days on this article now. Worldtraveller 01:31, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

    User:Grace Note

    Three revert rule violation on Fidel Castro. Grace Note:

    Reported by: J. Parker Stone 01:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: I should think that the slight difference in the last RV (the fact that the picture has been removed) should not matter, considering I was blocked for "reverts" of a phrase while editting differently other aspects.

    Take this with a grain of salt: the user complaining states on his user page that he "dislikes Marxist apologists and will revert their biased work wherever I see it, especially if their name happens to be ..." Tannin 02:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
    This is irrelevant. And quite frankly, I don't see what's so POV about wanting to eliminate left-bias from this encyclopedia, other than that it offends certain users' sensibilities. J. Parker Stone 02:22, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
    does User:Grace Note have any history of gameing the 3RR?Geni 02:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
    excuse me? the fact is that he has reverted the intro 4 times. i have only "gamed" the 3RR in that I have tried to make compromise edits (something he has not done) only to be continually reported by POV-pushers on that article. if reverting a phrase counts as a reversion, surely this does. J. Parker Stone 02:22, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
    and I was unaware that there are shifting standards for what is a 3RR violation depending on history (there isn't supposed to be) J. Parker Stone 02:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
    Well now yopu learn (although this fact has been stated in the past. I like to be as sure as I can be that someone is gameing the rule if I'm going to block them for that. Past activity is an important pice of information.Geni 10:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
    From the look of it this is very new behaviour and looks like her first offence. Only a handful of edits till April 8, now 1333, mostly in uncontroversial subjects. Seemed to get involved in Kissinger before Castro. Must know the 3RR because of her interest in Trey Stone, SqueakBox 02:24, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Trey Stone

    Three revert rule violation on Amy Goodman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Trey Stone (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Davenbelle 10:34, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Coolcat

    Three revert rule violation on Kurdistan Workers Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Coolcat (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Stereotek 18:36, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • The user has (among other many other things) insisted on removing the cleanup tag and changing the headlines of the external links. The user has reverted the article 4 times within 24 hours in order to make these changes. The users first revert was to this version of the article: Stereotek 18:36, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

    Based on these clearer diffs:

    a 3RR violation is indeed apparent. Blocked for 24 hours. -- Viajero | Talk 19:36, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

    Anon

    Three revert rule violation on Erika Steinbach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Pila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - 83.109.166.232 (talk · contribs), 83.109.180.84 (talk · contribs), 83.109.185.54 (talk · contribs), 83.109.157.171 (talk · contribs), 83.109.180.201 (talk · contribs):

    Erika Steinbach:

    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6

    Reported by: --Witkacy 04:35, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

    That that is an awfully big range to block. I could protect the page against them if their actions continue.Geni 08:35, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
    The "anon" reverted again on Erika Steinbach see: , 83.109.172.229 (talk · contribs), 83.109.179.168 (talk · contribs), 83.109.188.75 (talk · contribs), 83.109.147.55 (talk · contribs), 83.109.183.52 (talk · contribs), 83.109.183.84 (talk · contribs) --Witkacy 03:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
    Could someone protect the Erika Steinbach article, please? Thx.--Witkacy 04:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

    User:William M. Connolley

    Three revert rule violation on Global climate model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). William M. Connolley (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: — Cortonin | Talk 20:59, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    blocked for 24 hours.Geni 00:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

    User:Zappaz

    Three revert rule violation on List_of_self-proclaimed_deities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gmaxwell (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Gmaxwell 05:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: I was asked to check out a dispute on an article where the long standing editors were hesitant to get into an increased revert war. I reverted some formatting destroying changes, and was promptly reverted by Zappaz.

    User:ElKabong

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

    Reported by: Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: ElKabong is in fact KaintheScion (talk · contribs), the subject of the RfC from which he's removing evidence. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

    Blocked for 24 hours. SlimVirgin 16:59, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
    ElKabong returned during his block as 66.69.141.11 (talk · contribs), edited Dhimmi, and removed the sockpuppet notice from User:KaintheScion's user page, so I've blocked the IP address for 24 hours too. SlimVirgin 00:27, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
    I'm now getting e-mails from a Cranston Snord as User:66.69.141.11 insisting that he's not KaintheScion and ElKabong, and making more abusive-admin allegations. If anyone would like to review his edits to check that the decision to block was justified, by all means feel free. It's the same editing pattern, and the IP address resolves to the same city as KaintheScion's. SlimVirgin 01:12, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Argyrosargyrou

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

    Reported by: --19:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)E.A

    Comments: User:Argyrosargyrou is reverting the article Cyprus dispute along his own lines, despite the best efforts of a number of editors to reinstate a netural version, he has been warned about the 3RR but is continuing regardless.

    User:Ultramarine

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

    Reported by: zen master T 21:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


    blocked for 24 hoursGeni 21:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

    User:67.150.???.???

    Three revert rule violation on Caucasian Albania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.150.38.114 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Who 21:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Report new violation