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 Fish Supper (talk | contribs) at 22:16, 19 April 2005 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:16, 19 April 2005 by Fish Supper (talk | contribs) (→[])(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:William M. Connolley

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

    Reported by: — Cortonin | Talk 17:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • The Lindzen section, initially added by SEWilco, has been reverted out of the article four times within 24 hours. — Cortonin | Talk 17:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Removed reference to Lindzen paper online at MIT 4 times, blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation. This user needs to stop trying to gain ownership of articles on this topic, and chill out a bit. Noel (talk) 17:13, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • For the dates indicated by Cortonin above, what has actually been happening is that Cortonin keeps reverting William M. Connolley, and Connolley in turn keeps reverting Cortonin. If Connolley is guilty of a 3RR violation, therefore, Cortonin himself is equally guilty. I haven't bothered to trace the entire history of this, but this particular revert war seems to have been going on since sometime prior to 8 Apr 2005. --Sheldon Rampton 05:09, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • So, file a 3RR on them, making sure to give the diffs. I'll cheerfully block all edit warriors. Noel (talk) 12:23, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • (William M. Connolley 13:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)) I confess to the violation of the 3RR rule: my apologies. It was a mistake, of course. Somehow the software ended up banning me for 48h not 24 (I mailed Jnc but he didn't seem terribly interested). As for the "ownership" nonsense: its nonsense, just like the Lindzen 98%: if you feel like contributing to the science of the article, do please join in.
      • Let's see - within 5 minutes of receiving your email (I didn't see it immediately - I do sometimes have a life outside the Internet), I had i) checked Special:Ipblocklist to make sure that your block was not somehow still active (it wasn't in the list of active blocks, and the log entry says 17:10, 9 Apr 2005 Jnc blocked "User:William M. Connolley" with an expiry time of 24 hours); ii) found an auto-block that had been generated on another account by that block; iii) cleared that (01:26, 11 Apr 2005 Jnc unblocked User:#19934); and iv) replied to your email, giving all that information. You have a strange definition of "not .. interested". Noel (talk) 13:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • The point at issue was why the auto-block had ended up blocking me for 48h. This remains unexplained.
        • Sorry, I have no idea on that; that's a problem for the developers. You need to go over to Mediazilla, and first check whether the problem has already been reported, and if not, enter a new bug report,
          • (William M. Connolley 17:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)) OK, will do, thanks for the pointers.
          • Sure. PS: one thing you might want to check - when you go to Special:Preferences it should list your "internal ID number" - if that number is the same as the one above (#19934) that would probably we worth noting in any bug report. Noel (talk) 18:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • (William M. Connolley 19:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)) My number is not 19934 (not sure if I should tell you what it is in case its insecure to mention it...).
            • I'm not sure it's a security issue to release it (I can't think of anything one could do with it), but probably best not to. In any event, I have no use for it. The fact that the account that was auto-blocked was not yours is a bit of data which would be useful to add to the bug report, though. Noel (talk) 00:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    User:216.52.110.253 and User:Kiand

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

    216.52.110.253 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: cesarb 01:41, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Brian0918

    Three revert rule violation on Adolf Hitler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Brian0918 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: 119 22:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Brian0918 has been revert warring in a content dispute by calling the other user's edits "vandalism". I contend that the opposing user's edits do not constitue an "indisputable bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia". The users, an anon IP with slightly different IPs each time, and Brian0918 have been fighting over
      • what portrait image to use,
      • the line "what his propaganda called the Third Reich" versus "the Third Reich", and
      • the line "The military-industrial complex he fostered pulled Germany out of the post-World War I economic crisis and, at its height, controlled the greater part of Europe" versus "The military-industrial complex he fostered dominated most of Europe at its zenith."
    • This is clearly a content dispute, and Brian0918 is not correct in reverting the user four times. 119 22:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Blocked for 24 hours. Anonymous user not blocked since they edited once and then reverted only three times. silsor 23:06, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Note that I was talking with at least two other admins on IRC at the exact time that happened, and they agreed that it was vandalism. One of them protected the page (I didn't ask them to, they said it was the best option), and the other admin said he was going to block the IP range for 24 hours (though apparently he never actually did). The anon was repeatedly disconnecting and reconnecting to change his IP every couple minutes, stacking up edits (I guess in the hope that some of his changes wouldn't get rolled back). The anon also made POV additions to other controversial pages (such as Joseph Stalin) which the other admins I was talking to on IRC proceeded to revert. Also note that the version I was reverting to was the result of a consensus on the talk page and on IRC among myself and at least 3 others who cared to contribute. I left a note on the talk page for the anon to contribute but he has yet to. I didn't realize I had reverted so many times; I considered it vandalism since the user was repeatedly changing his IP. In the future I'll just ask someone to protect the page instead of reverting repeatedly, or leave a note on the talk page and wait for the anon to respond. Sorry about that. --brian0918&#153; 23:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • "Consensus" means "polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of policies and guidelines such as neutral point of view". As you just told me on IRC, you think that consensus is (quote) "whoever feels like being there at the moment". I don't think these are in line. I also disagree that being anonymous gives an editor any illegitimacy. IMO reverting in this content dispute doesn't grant you immunity from the 3RR because you discussed it with a few people, and being an administrator, you shouldn't have edit warred on the page. With regards to the user changing IPs, it was probably because you kept blocking him/her to enforce your version while calling them a "vandal". If another admin disagrees that this was a content dispute they can unblock you. silsor 23:48, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
        • He was changing his IPs before I came along. I was retroactively blocking in case he was limited to his IP choices. --brian0918&#153; 23:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I also think that as an administrator, you should be held strictly to the 3RR. silsor 23:50, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • How do the anon's three changes constitute vandalism? I do not see how the anon's choice of image, minor change of wording, and change in scope regarding the effect of his rearmament program are inherently damaging or in bad-faith. 119 23:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • It was the fact that the anon kept repeatedly changing his IP for no apparent reason that made me think of it as vandalism. Also the fact that he was reverting to an very old, non-consensus version. As for my statement on IRC about what consensus is, I wasn't being serious, and as silsor said, IRC is not Misplaced Pages. --brian0918&#153; 23:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • You're kind of side-stepping it by talking about what you thought at the time. What I am asking is, are the anon's edits vandalism, or are they not? 119 00:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • From WP:3RR, "This policy does not apply to self-reverts or correction of simple vandalism." Simple vandalism is things like page blanking and nonsense. silsor 00:10, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

    I wanted to add, for the more complete information of participants and viewers, that this edit by the anon IP(s) in question, which sparked the "war," is actually a reversion to a very old version (circa 3/19). This version was edited into the "current version" by brian0918 and saved by Wyss after much discussion on the talk page. Since then, it has remained stable until the above reversion by the anon IP(s). The "stable" version I believe to represent consensus, since it was reached by discussion on the talk page: Tony Sidaway, brian0918 and myself holding the position for the stronger wording, while Wyss expressed concerns over its POV. However, since Wyss himself saved the "stable" version identified above, and didn't continue the discussion, this is strong evidence to me that a consensus of interested parties was reached. Note: I have really only interpreted the opening paragraph, and not the photo. Demi /C 23:59, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

    I've been informed that the anonymous user's first edit was in fact a revert to March 18, so consider him/her blocked as well for the same amount of time. silsor 00:36, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

    Clarification of the Three Revert Rule and how Misplaced Pages works

    Misplaced Pages works because most people want the article to get better, and can agree to a certain extent on how that is done. While there are still a small percentage of people who want the article to get worse (more biased, or less informative), they are drowned out in the flood of good faith editing. The three revert rule exists because sometimes two (or more) people who are trying to make the article better can't decide on how to do it. Because sometimes people resort to force instead of dicussion, the 3RR is a safeguard to prevent edit-warring in place of consensus reaching. This is not disputed by anyone (that I know of). However, there are consequences of this that seem to be missed here:

    1. The number three and the time period 24 hours are arbitrary. These constants are used by the people invoking the rule to judge whether a series of reverts constitutes edit-warring. One person can revert innocently, another can re-revert almost as innoncently, but a third revert of an edit is an indication of an edit war. It is not, however, proof.
    2. The rule is not to be applied in cases where it is clear that the reverts were of bad faith editing, such as vandalism, testing, spam, and purposeful PoVication

    Now we have a jurisprudence, let us analyse the facts to see if the 3RR applies in this case. It appears to me (though I have not the time nor inclination to examine the edit history) that brian's reverts were all revertions of bad faith edits. The anonymous user who was reverted used multipled IP adresses to (re)insert PoV content, or otherwise disrupt the article. If it is considered by anyone that the anonymous user in question had a valid point in his edits, and that discussion of his views needs to be done prior to revertion of his edits, please come right out and say it, because I don't think it actually is.
    Conclusion: Brian was trying to maintain the quality of the article by reverting edits made in bad faith. He was not entering into a stale edit war with another well-intending Wikipedian. Therefore, the 3RR does not apply in this case, and brian should not be blocked. The anonymous editor ought to be blocked, but because of his wide IP range, it wouldmight not be possible without disenfranchising many other potential editors.
    Action: unblock Brian0918
    nsh 01:04, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

    I find it remarkable that in all of this, no one has yet demonstrated how this user's edits were vandalism. On the talk page, I see one section by Brian0918 in which he says 83.109.*.* "keeps readding the same content over and over without first consulting or replying on the talk page, and despite repeated reversions." That is not vandalism, Brian0918 is in no better of a position than the anon there--so exactly why is this vandalism as is being casually assumed? I also think it is careless for you to make judicial-like proclamations when you say you have not so much as examined the page history. 119 01:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • They certainly weren't vandalism. However, they were all reversions to a previous version of the article that lost important, talk-page-vetted edits by brian0918, myself and Tony Sidaway. I'm not complaining that that the 3RR was misapplied in this case: however, I believe it's incorrect to say "brian0918 is in no better of a position than the anon there." I think a better resolution of this situation would have taken into account both brian0918's violation of 3RR as well as an accurate picture of what was happening with the page content. Demi /C 04:37, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

    Brian asked me to unblock him, and I have done so, conditioned on him not editing that article for the next 24 hours. →Raul654 01:23, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

    Please see my proposed modification of the 3RR. --brian0918&#153; 01:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    User:128.95.133.213

    Three revert rule violation on John Kerry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 128.95.133.213 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Rhobite 03:16, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User was warned of the three revert rule and continued reverting. User claims "You cannot ban me because your only form of ban would be Via IP address. You should understand that an IP address can EASILY be changed. Don't start a fight. Either fill in the words in the quote you want or accept the truth. There is no POV in the edit. It is factual. You have no right to argue. Report all you like." Rhobite 03:16, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • User is now up to 13 reverts on the article. Gmaxwell 03:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps he can't be banned, but there's always the other, milder slap on the wrist for a rabid POV-pusher: protecting the version he doesn't prefer. I've done that. —Charles P.  03:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • you relise that we are really not meant to do that (not that I'm complaining).Geni 09:26, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I think it should be allowed if someone's avoiding being blocked. Mgm| 10:41, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • User vows to continue reverting the article to his preferred version, even threatening to use a bot to insert the quote he wants to add: . He has also made some vicious personal attacks on Talk:John Kerry, accusing other editors of lying and "corruption." sɪzlæk 20:11, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

    User:William M. Connolley

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

    Reported by: — Cortonin | Talk 19:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • William M. Connolley was just banned for 24 hours five days ago for 3RR violation on this same article, and he's still at it. — Cortonin | Talk 19:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Hmm, I fear that I am obliged to admit my guilt. Apologies, an accident. (William M. Connolley 19:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)).
    • blocked for 24 hoursGeni 19:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • 4 reverts in 23hr 43min makes a sinner, while 4 reverts in 25hr 50min makes a saint, huh? Y-ep. Guettarda 19:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • nope evidence of playing on the edge of the 3RR has be brought up in front of arbcom in the past and I assume it will be in future.Geni 19:52, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    User:Carlshooters/User:Johnnyio

    Three revert rule violation on Ward Churchill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Carlshooters (talk · contribs):

    Johnnyio (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Viajero 22:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • This individual is going on a POV rampage in the Ward Churchill article. It is pretty obvious that the two usernames are the same individual. Alas, providing clear diffs is difficult because many of his reverts are done in small batches, one minute apart. Three other users have reverted him tonight: undersigned, Zen-master, and Cberlet. -- Viajero 22:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    User:Wendydrag

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

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

    Reported by: --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User is editing the article in a severely biased and POV manner, has even indicated so in the talk and in edit history. Though i recognize that the user is a "noob" dialog with the user has proved frivolous and user seems to be unresponsive to not editing in a pov manner.--Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Just as an FYI, this edit looks like a ban dodging sock puppet. Compare to the last Wendydrag edit. The username of the possible sock puppet is Boothy444, an apparent emulation of Boothy443 who reported this 3RR violation. — Cortonin | Talk 06:39, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    User:Xiong

    Three revert rule violation on Misplaced Pages talk:Avoid using meta-templates hist.

    Xiong (talk · contributions):

    Reported by: Netoholic @ 06:15, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • This has got to be the strangest action I've seen. Xiong keeps "archiving" this talk page, which is full of some really recent discussion and wide-open threads. His method is to blank and give a link to the page history. This is not how talk pages are usually archived, and in this case, he is doing it in a way that doesn't make any sense. Two of us (, ) have asked that hs stop. Can someone please block him for the 3RR, and also restore the page? -- Netoholic @ 06:15, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
    Let me see if I can get him to understand how to archive properly. Noel (talk) 19:20, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    User: 200.30.222.170

    200.30.222.170 (talk · contribs) Ruopollo (talk · contribs) In Salvador Allende (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): here here here here as ruopollo here here Ruopollo does exactly the same revert as 200.30.222.170, and here and here. This guy has reverted 8 times, can someone block him --SqueakBox 17:25, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC). At this moment this character gets his way because no-one wants to stiop him from his 8RR binge. We have inaccurate text at Salvador Alende. ??? --SqueakBox 17:35, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)


    Because noone wants to block he has done another 4 reverts here, here here and here and is the current version. Can someone please block? 12 reverts should not be tolerated and is wasting the time of good editors, --SqueakBox 20:57, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)


    13th revert here. Please can someone do something to stop this ridiculous situation, --SqueakBox 21:02, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

    User: 200.30.222.170

    200.30.222.170 (talk · contribs) In Salvador Allende (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

    This user is out of control. He keeps reverting to a POV statement in the intro despite consensus from numerous other users, many of whom are concerned themselves about running afoul of the 3RR because of this individual's rampage. 11 identical reverts in one day! He needs to be stopped immediately. 63.173.114.141 21:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    I've blocked him from editing for 24 hours. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    And I've just unblocked him. ClockworkSoul told me that in fact no-one had told the anon about the 3RR, or explained what would happen if he broke it. I've explained matters both to the anon and to the editors at Talk:Salvador Allende. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


    User:Chriscf

    Three revert rule violation on User:GRider/Schoolwatch (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Chriscf (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: GRider\ 19:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • On March 25, 2004, I initiated a project called Schoolwatch within my namespace for the purpose of constructively improving the quality of school-related articles. Since that time, a small group of rogue individuals have been attempting to vindictively disrupt this improvement process in a number of ways -- Ways which include but are not limited to attempting to have the page moved , redirected, and even deleted. In the fairness of disclosure, please bare in mind that an arbitration case in my name has recently concluded, and User:Chriscf was quite vocal in bringing forth "evidence". With that said, school articles are just as valuable to the Wiki-project as any other topic, and the user in question should be dealt with as seen fit for intentionally disrupting the organic growth of Misplaced Pages and knowingly violating the three revert rule. --GRider\ 19:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • has there been a descission yet on if the 3RR applies to the user namespace?Geni 20:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Netoholic has been blocked for reverting on the wikipedia namespace, so that'd be a yes. BrokenSegue 22:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • true but if you dig through the arcives of AN/I and AN/3RR you find people repeatedly arguing that the 3RR does not apply to pages in the user namespaceGeni 22:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • This page is less a user page and more an evidence page or collaboration of some kind. It's similar to neutrality's evidence page which Netoholic messed with (and got blocked for). BrokenSegue 23:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It is in the user namespace and has not been deleted. Therefor it is a user pageGeni 14:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • That happened almost a week ago. Why are you reporting it now? Jayjg 21:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you so much for asking. As you may or may not be aware, my account was blocked from editing (7) days ago (18:23, 11 Apr 2005) for casting a vote for inclusion of a school-related article , a matter which will be addressed seperately. The 3RR was violated by Chriscf (6) days ago, less than 12 hours after my account was blocked. As far as I know, being blocked does not permit another user to vandalize pages of the blockee. --GRider\ 22:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Invalid report - this page is not an instrument of revenge. You also failed to notice this. It should also be noted that GRider's description of the page as a project for "constructively improving the quality of school-related articles" is not so much a misrepresentation as an outright lie. For a page which aims at "constructively improving the quality of school-related articles", it offers surprisingly little assistance in achieving that goal. It is nothing but a list of schools on VfD, hence it is a deletion-related page and therefore GRider has violated his ArbCom parole again. Chris talk back 00:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • This is rather spurious. GRider claims that, since it is his userspace, his schoolwatch is exempt from normal policies such as Wikiquette, NPOV and WP:POINT. Yet he does want action to be taken against another user's legitimate contributions to his page. Radiant_* 12:20, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

    User:TDC

    Three revert rule violation on COINTELPRO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    TDC (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Viajero 20:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • According to this user's Talk page, he has been given 24 hour bans for violating the 3RR three on three previous occasions: 21 March, 22 March, and 3 April. Perhaps a stiffer sanction would be in order.


    Can't find a version he has reverted to on the third revert.Geni 21:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Nice way to try and trap me with a lefty pile on, too bad I am too smart for your tomfoolery.TDC 21:45, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)


    Ok now I can this diff shows they are identical despite claims to the contry Geni 22:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Blocked for 24 hoursGeni 22:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


    User:Georgia guy & User:Gulielmus Cumrotae

    Three revert rule violation on Key (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Georgia guy (talk · contribs):

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

    Gulielmus Cumrotae (talk · contribs)

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

    Reported by: Boothy443 | comhrÚ 22:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: A silly rvert war of a term in this disamiguation. I do belive that the edits by Gulielmus Cumrotae were in good faith, and that the reversion of siad eidts by Georgia guy were not. In exmanation of both useres talk pages on the artilce their seems to be little if no dialog, though Georgia guy does accuse Gulielmus Cumrotae of vandalism, and Gulielmus Cumrotae does ask him to stop reverting his edits. Perhaps Georgia guy needs to read Misplaced Pages:Vandalism and Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith, also for all the vandalism that Georgia guy accuses that Gulielmus Cumrotae did to this article he never reported it to VIP but instead decied to engage in a edit war in which laned him here. Note: I have left mentions on both useres pages as to the reporting of this and have directed Gulielmus Cumrotae to consider a Request for Comment concering the actions of Georgia guy} if he wishes to dispute the reverts. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 22:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    both for 24 hours Geni 22:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


    User:DG/User:207.99.6.125 & User:LevelCheck

    Three revert rule violation on Worst United States President in history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    DG (talk · contribs) / 207.99.6.125 (talk · contribs) (which is a sockpuppet of DG) As 207.99.6.125

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

    As DG

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

    LevelCheck (talk · contribs)

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

    • 6th revert:

    Reported by: Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Ths is a simple POV edit war of an artile that in it's current form i belive should either be sourced or deleted. My own opinions aside, their has been no dialog between the useres on this edit war on either the talk page of the artile or either the usere pages of the parties involved. Also as fo it being vandalism, no vandalism reports were offerd by any party involved, though each accused the other of vandalism several times in the edit summaries. I also belive that DG (talk · contribs) has used a sockpuppet account of 207.99.6.125 (talk · contribs) in order to subvert the 3rr, if an admin wish to contact me on this i am more then willing to supply evidence that would corrilate ther 2 accounts are the same user. Thouh i belive that User:LevelCheck was protecting the page from POV vandalism, it would not be fair to report the incident without listing all parties involved. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


    User:Christiaan

    Three revert rule violation on Iraqi insurgency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Christiaan (talk · contribs):

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert: (May not fit within technical time limit for 3RR violation; see comments)

    Reported by: Daniel11 10:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User has past 3RR violation (see discussion of it on user's talk page, here). User has consistently skirted the 3RR violation, very much "artfully" avoiding technical violation. User is edit-warring, and has consistently been doing so. If you scroll through the article's history page, you'll see near-constant reversion by User:Christiaan. User's repeated violations have left a formerly featured article in shambles. --Daniel11 10:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


    • I feel that 22 hours is a bit beyond even the most streached spirt of the 3RRGeni 14:32, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Report new violation

    User:Slrubenstein

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

    Slrubenstein (talk · contribs):

    • 1st Revert at 20:10
    • 2nd Revert at 20:24
    • 3rd Revert at 20:26
    • 4th Revert at 20:34

    also additional reverts within the last 2 hours

    • at 19:11
    • at 18:53

    Reported by: Fish Supper 20:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Sl was reverting edits by a new user (Fish Supper) with edit summaries "Naughty", and "Mouse error". Guettarda 21:06, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • "Naughty" was referring to Sl's blanket unwarrented reversions earlier in the day which looked like they had already broken 3RR.
    • "Mouse error" was referring to Fish supper's thinking he had reverted back to the wrong version, not having realised that Slrubenstein reverted it back in the mean time.
    Fish Supper 21:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Given the BT IP address, it's hard not to suspect that this is CheeseDreams. Rhobite 21:14, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

    Possibly, but in any event Fish Supper (talk · contribs) and 81.156.92.196 (talk · contribs) are likely The Rev of Bru (talk · contribs), which would push the revert count much higher. Jayjg 21:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    I'm in east ham (london), and Im guessing the Rev of Bru is in glasgow, as thats the only place the Church of Bru (Irn Bru) really operates. Fish Supper 22:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Everyone I know is on BT, but we are going over to bulldog soon - its much cheaper. Fish Supper 21:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It is actually Fish Supper who has violated the 3RR (see below). Fish Supper accuses me of violating the 3RR. The first revert according to Fish Supper was actually when I reverted a one sentence change by Rev of Bru at 20:10). Fish Supper's first revert, on the other hand, changed the entire introduction, and I reverted this change only three times. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • No, The first revert was 18:53 as I mention above. Slrubenstein had made 6 by the time I reported this. Which is a clear violation of 3RR.
    • I believe it is relevant that I explained all my edits on the article's talk page, and Fish Supper provided no explanations for his/her revert. S/he characterizes my reverts as "unwarrented" when I provided detailed explanation for my changes. Needless to say, Fish Supper never responded to my explonation, or provided his or her own. Moreover, Fish Supper's edit summaries ("Naughty" and "Mouse Error") suggest vandalism. Clearly, Fish Supper is not concerned with the article contents, but only with reverting my work. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    I am concerned with the acts of bullies. Maybe I should concern myself with you more. Fish Supper 21:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    You are the bully. All you have ever done is delete what I have written, and you have never explained your actions, nor responded to my explanations. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    You are the bully. You started it. You reverted what 2 other people wrote, and ignored their arguments. Don't try to turn this into a slagging match. Fish Supper 22:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


    Alert

    Slrubenstein has started making personal insults against me in the edit summaries.

    User:Fish Supper

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

    Fish Supper (talk · contribs) alias 81.156.92.196 (talk · contribs):

    • 1st revert at 20:22:
    • 2nd revert at 20:24:
    • 3rd revert at 20:28:
    • 4th revert at 20:38:

    Reported by: Slrubenstein | Talk 21:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: This user came to Misplaced Pages only today, , and may be a sock-puppet or a friend of another user. At 20:22 Fish Supper reverted a number of changes I made, back to an earlier version by JimWae.

    Fish Supper accuses me of violating the 3RR. I have made more than three reversions total, today, but concerning different passages (I reverted a one sentence change by Rev of Bru at 20:10). Fish Supper's first revert changed the entire introduction, and I reverted this change only three times.

    • The 3RR rule clearly applies to reversions of a PAGE, not a portion therof. It is EXPLICIT about this. Fish Supper 21:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    I believe it is relevant that I explained all my edits on the article's talk page, and Fish Supper provided no explanations for his/her revert. Moreover, Fish Supper's edit summaries ("Naughty" and "Mouse Error" suggest vandalism. Clearly, Fish Supper is not concerned with the article contents, but only with reverting my work. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Note also the connection with User:The Rev of Bru , which would indicate even more reverts. Jayjg 22:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Note also that the Rev of Bru appears to be logged on at the same time as me, so its not really posible for us to be each other. Fish Supper 22:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Of course it is; all it requires is two browser sessions. Jayjg 22:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    How do you do that? Fish Supper 22:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Fish Supper continues to revert any edit I make to the article. If this goes on, the effect is the same as if I were blocked from the article. Since I have always provided reasons for my edits, and sources when necessary or requested, and Fish Supper never does, this amounts to harassment. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:04, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    It would be a striaght forward 3RR by Slrubenstein however you are allowed to revert banned users. CheeseDreams is currently under an abcom ban. If Fish Supper is indeed a sock then Slrubenstein's actions are legit. I will open the question on WP:AN/IGeni 22:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Slrubenstein made 4 reverts BEFORE I got involved. - at 20:10, 19:11, 18:53, 18:15 He should then be penalised for this alone, let alone the 4+ after I got involved. Fish Supper 22:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)