Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 919: Line 919:


: 3h, first offence, no warnings, why do people never ever bother read the top of this page :-( [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 15:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
: 3h, first offence, no warnings, why do people never ever bother read the top of this page :-( [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 15:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:ADITYANATH]]===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|YOGIRAJ GURUNATH SIDDHANATH}}. {{3RRV|ADITYANATH}}:

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yogiraj_Gurunath_Siddhanath&oldid=45885053 Revision as of 18:26, 28 March 2006]
* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yogiraj_Gurunath_Siddhanath&diff=prev&oldid=45942162 Revision as of 01:40, 29 March 2006]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yogiraj_Gurunath_Siddhanath&diff=prev&oldid=45943351 Revision as of 01:49, 29 March 2006]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yogiraj_Gurunath_Siddhanath&diff=prev&oldid=45994719 Revision as of 10:59, 29 March 2006]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yogiraj_Gurunath_Siddhanath&diff=prev&oldid=45995080 Revision as of 11:03, 29 March 2006]
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yogiraj_Gurunath_Siddhanath&diff=prev&oldid=45995365 Revision as of 11:07, 29 March 2006]
*6th revert : [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yogiraj_Gurunath_Siddhanath&diff=45995414&oldid=45995365 Revision as of 11:07, 29 March 2006]

Reported by: [[User:Hamsacharya dan|Hamsacharya dan]] 18:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

'''This user is incessantly adding in original research and claiming it as verfiable, and when new edits are added that don't fit with, or contradict his interpretation of claims, he makes a battery of wholesale reversions, modifications and deletions in a way that normally attempts to avoid 3RR. This time it is clear as day.'''



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

Revision as of 18:26, 29 March 2006

    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.

    Click here to create a new report



    Violations

    User:-Inanna-

    Three revert rule violation on Turkmen people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). -Inanna- (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Khoikhoi 22:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Dates are diffrent as you can see...Inanna 22:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It's still in 24 hours. --Khoikhoi 22:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I guess you cannot reckon.26 comes after than 25...Inanna 22:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Without actually looking at the diffs, if they are correct then technically Khoikoi is right, -Inanna- shouldn't have made a fourth revert until 22:24 (a difference of a few minutes), 26 March 2006. If I were an admin however I would look at this in a balanced way and not split hairs like that. Netscott 00:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Blocked for 48 hours. —Ruud 01:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tbeatty

    WP:3RR violation on Union of Concerned Scientists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Tbeatty (talk · contribs) whose entire history from date of registration to current, seems to exclusively revolve around creating, and defending "liberal bias" sections in any article he doesn't like very much, nothing to make me think he'll back off in any way--205.188.116.70 01:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud 02:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Unless I'm looking at this incorrectly, the first "revert" appears to be adding new information that isn't in what is listed as the "original version". I'm going to unblock. Gamaliel 23:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:205.188.117.10

    See above but look at the page. I've added sourced content, not labels. The anon user just deletes the new, sourced information.—This unsigned comment was added by Tbeatty (talk • contribs) .

    • Yes, real maturity, I'm not going over 3 reverts anyway, thanks for the sockpuppet comments, who exaclty am I pretending to be? I guess I'm a sock of an unregistered user, how sneaky of me--205.188.116.70 02:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 15 minutes as it an AOL IP. But you're not allowed to edit for 24 hours anyway. —Ruud 02:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Khashayar Karimi

    Three revert rule violation on Kurdish people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Khashayar Karimi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: AucamanTalk 05:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: Has done 4 reverts in less than 2 hrs. Has been here long enough to know about 3RR and revert warring. AucamanTalk 05:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Those are clearly not all reverts, I was trying to protect the article while calling admins (because two users were trying to vandalise the page by removing sources and not participating in the talk) --Kash 05:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: That doesn't look like 4 reverts to me, they are different edits. User:Khashayar Karimi is adding an authoritative source that was removed without any explanation on talk, in two of those edits. --ManiF 05:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverts are reverts. I don't agree with his additions to the first line of the article. I asked him for an explanation in the talk, but instead he's been reverting repeatedly. The fact that he's even denying revert-warring doesn't make him look any better. AucamanTalk 05:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't change the story. I was always present on the talk page. --Kash 05:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverting means undoing the actions of another editor, it is in no way limited to reverting to the same version. Khashayar Karimi undid Aucaman's edit's four times. Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud 12:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ManiF

    Three revert rule violation on Iranian peoples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ManiF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: AucamanTalk 07:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: Yet another revert-warrrrrrior. Just violated 3RRRRR. (Sorry I seem to be stutterrrring.) This one actually labels his reverts as reverts, so it should be more straight-forwarrrrd. AucamanTalk 07:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The fourth one is not a revert. SouthernComfort 07:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: Aucaman, I'd appricite it if you didn't label me a "revert-warrrrrrior" or any such names, please check WP:CIVIL. My fourth edit is not a revert. Furthermore, if you look at my fourth edit, you'd see that User:Xebat was disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, by adding an absurd amount of tags to the article (borderline vandalism) contrary to the consensus on talk. --ManiF 07:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the fourth was removing vandalism, in my opinion - wayyyy too many tags. They were completely unnecessary. --Khoikhoi 07:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's part of the dispute. The page has been protected because people don't agree on the dispute tags. AucamanTalk 07:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding four different tags (two of them unnecessary) to an article just for the sake of doing it is vandalism. --Khoikhoi 07:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not if the person was already participating in the talks. His name appears more than any other name. I'm told the word vandalism should only be used for clear cases of vandalism. The article is clearly disputed (in fact it's even protected now), but users such as User:ManiF have been constantly taking off the disputed tags. AucamanTalk 08:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, perhaps his first three reverts wern't justified enough, but his fourth edit was removing vandalism, and in this case I see the adding of a ridiculous number of inappropriate tags to the article to be a pretty obvious violation of WP:POINT, and was definately justified. --Khoikhoi 08:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not for you to decide. If it was vandalism it should have been reported. This was part of a larger revert war. The user was clearly frustrated because people have been taking off the dispute tag without any agreement. This is a clear case of revert-waring. User:Khoikhoi, you are also a big player in this dispute, so I'd appreciate if you stop leaving unnecessary comments here. Let the admins deal with this and stop (subjectively) calling people's edits vandalism. AucamanTalk 08:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that "he was frustrated" is not an excuse for adding an excessive amount of tags to an article. The reason why I requested to protect the article is because of such disruptive behavior. I have a right to my opinion and I personally feel that his edits were vandalism. --Khoikhoi 08:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fourth revert was not reverting simple vandalism, further more you could have decided to leave at least one tag in place. Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud 13:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SouthernComfort

    Three revert rule violation on Iranian peoples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SouthernComfort (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: AucamanTalk 07:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: Yet anotherr one. This one has done it at least 6 times (see the history page for more), but these are the obvious reverts. Can someone please attend to these before they get trolled? AucamanTalk 07:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, but again the 4th one is not a revert. Also please see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. SouthernComfort 07:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the fourth is removing vandalism, just as in ManiF's case. --Khoikhoi 08:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Update

    It's not vandalism if the person was already participating in the talks and finds the content of the article disputable. His name appears more than any other name in talks and he's obviously concerned about the accuracy of the article. The word vandalism should only be used for clear cases of vandalism. The article is clearly disputed (in fact it's even protected now), but users such as User:SouthernComfort have been constantly taking off the disputed tags. I also didn't include some of the other reverts (this and this). Are these vandalisms too? It would be unfair if he gets away with all this. AucamanTalk 08:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Those are not reverts (and sources had been provided). Your accusatory tone is also not acceptable - please see WP:CIVIL. SouthernComfort 08:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fourth revert was not reverting simple vandalism, further more you could have decided to leave at least one tag in place. Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud 13:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Xebat (formerly User:Diyako)

    Three revert rule violation on Iranian peoples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Xebat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Khoikhoi 08:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud 12:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Leotardo

    Three revert rule violation on Simon Strelchik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Leotardo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Samaritan 08:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: User:Pm shef has posted three 3RR warning templates on User talk:Leotardo and in edit summaries, as Leotardo continued to repeatedly and tenditiously revert edits by Pm shef, User:Bearcat and myself. Leotardo's relevant interest here is substituting the real title of a newspaper article in external links, Kadis seeks re-election in largest Jewish riding, first for a problematically generic name of hir own, then for that article's photo caption, which sie claims is the title. Leotardo disputes violating 3RR, perhaps not having read Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Detail, wherein "Reverting, in this context, applies to undoing the actions of another editor in whole or part, not necessarily taking a previous version from history and editing that." Samaritan 08:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note that user also refuses to listen to consensus (s/he's also begun reverting two unelected city council candidates who were previously merged by AFD consensus into a single article on the election as a whole), and has repeatedly accused the three of us most involved in repairing this dispute of committing vandalism (as if reverting a bad edit were any such thing) or entirely non-existent POV violations despite the fact that no political opinions have been involved whatsoever. This editor seems to pay just enough attention to the rules to twist them in service of his own agenda, while entirely missing what they actually mean. Bearcat 08:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Tricky one, but there were at least 5 reverts. Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud 12:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Goodandevil

    Three revert rule violation on Partial-birth abortion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Goodandevil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Alienus 09:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: They refused to go to Talk, initially. After multiple reversions from multiple editors, they went to Talk, then ignored a clear consensus. They were informed about the 3RR violation and chose to continue. I consider this very much an open-and-shut case. Alienus 09:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional Comments by Musical Linguist: First three reverts seem to be clear reverts. The fourth may or may not be a revert. Certainly, it's not a revert to the previous Goodandevil version. I'm not saying that it isn't a revert, but without extensive examination, I can't see whether it's just an edit or an edit which incorporates a partial revert. The fifth is an edit which reinserts "common" and "descriptive term", which Alienus had removed in his own fifth revert, though Alienus spaced his reverts outside of 24 hours. (Hey, if I had done four reverts, I wouldn't be showing myself at this page to report another person's violations; I'd be keeping very quiet and hoping that no admin would examine the history of that article. Nobody would have seen your violation if you hadn't made your report here, Alienus.) The "common" and "descriptive" can be seen by examining side by side Alienus's revert of Goodandevil [1] and Goodandevil's edit-incorporating-a-revert of Alienus's version.[2] Anyway, I'm not going to block, as I have experience with both editors, but I would point out that if one is blocked, the other must be also. I'll report Alienus in a new section. AnnH ♫ 11:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    And just a quick comment on Alienus's comments. I don't know if Goodandevil refused to go to talk, or if he ignored a clear consensus. I do know, having looked, that "After multiple reversions from multiple editors" is false. He has recently been reverted five times by Alienus (to be reported below) and once by Severa.[3] His edit was edited, but not reverted by Lyrl.[4] One of Alienus's reverts was done with popups (although two administrators have asked Alienus not to use popup reverting for non vandalism edits) outside of that period.[5] AnnH ♫ 11:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have struck out some of my comments, with apologies. While looking for the diffs, I found that Alienus did indeed manage to space his edits outside of the twenty-four period. I was misled because I knew that Alienus was reporting Goodandevil for violating 3RR in a 24-hour period, and I knew that Alienus was the main person reverting him. I didn't look closely enough at the times. Sorry. Anyway, these are not 3RR violations, but are evidence that an edit war is going on:
    Also, Goodandevil has posted fifteen times to the discussion page in the last twenty-four hours. I haven't looked at his posts, and since some come in close succession, some may be just correction of typos rather than engaging in dialogue. But he is certainly discussing. However, it does seem that the his final "revert" was a partial revert, whether or not the "fourth" one was. AnnH ♫ 12:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hours. Fourth revert was not a revert, but the fifth was. —Ruud 12:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Aucaman

    Three revert rule violation on Iranian peoples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Aucaman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Khoikhoi 09:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • All I have to say is that it's a good thing you're not a admin or we would have a very interesting interpretation of the word "revert". Let's start with the first one. Which version am I reverting to? AucamanTalk 09:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: On Iranian peoples, there are eleven reversions of others' edits by User:Aucaman within 5 hours. ([6], [7], [8], [9] [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. [15], and [16]) --ManiF 09:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, 1st (2nd) 2nd 3rd followed by adding disputed or related tags several times. Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud 13:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:61.58.53.139

    Three revert rule violation on Christian terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 61.58.53.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: JJay 14:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • Anon POV Pusher is edit warring with three other editors. Keeps trying to add Adolf Hitler and Nazism etc to intro on Christian Terrorism -- JJay 14:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud 14:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Matcreg

    Three revert rule violation on Nicolaus Copernicus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Matcreg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Sciurinæ 15:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked... 8h. Unless you can provide more on the socks stuff William M. Connolley 15:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    New revert within the 24h span under the guise of deleting only vandalism and being a minor edit. Sciurinæ 12:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sigh. 24h William M. Connolley 12:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Purger

    Three revert rule violation on Ante Starčević (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Purger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: EurowikiJ 16:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Both you and Purger (I assume Purqer = Purger; I've indef-blocked Purqer) have broken 3RR, so I shall block you both. You both know about the rule... have 12h each William M. Connolley 16:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Excuse me!?! What do you mean by "both you have broken 3RR"? Kindly re-check the history page!!! (EurowikiJ)

    William, I am so sorry for the previous comment. I completely missed your point thinking that you were intent on blocking me. It took me awhile to realize that the reported user was using two ALMOST identical user-names. Once again, my apologies. EurowikiJ 17:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You have most certainly broken 3RR. Unfortunately due to my incompetence I seem to have failed to have blocked you, sorry about that. Also you get some credit for marking all your reverts as such. Treat this as a warning I guess :-)

    Note to other admins: there is Purger and Purqer. Purger denies being Purqer. They made the same reverts. I've indef blocked Purqer.

    William M. Connolley 22:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have been looking at the history page and for some reason I cannot find more than 3 reverts of mine. I may be, of course, missing something.

    EurowikiJ 22:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TuzsuzDeliBekir 2

    Three revert rule violation on Adana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TuzsuzDeliBekir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Khoikhoi 18:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    85.1.89.101

    Three revert rule violation on Armenian Genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 85.1.89.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: --Hectorian 18:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    The user is aware of the 3RR cause i informed him/her here [17].This user has been removing info from the article and personally attacking other users, such as here [18], and also vandalising the article as seen in his/her edits.--Hectorian 18:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    One more revert that he/she has made, the 5th so far 18:09, 27 March 2006 --Hectorian 18:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    86.140.253.251

    Three revert rule violation on Celtic Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 86.140.253.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    • Previous version reverted to: [19]
    • 1st revert: [20]
    • 2nd revert:[21]
    • 3rd revert: [22]

    Reported by: Bmpower 20:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: Clear 3rr violation. User should have added to discussion page as asked. Bmpower 20:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nrcprm2026

    Three revert rule violation on Capital punishment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nrcprm2026 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Reported by FWBOarticle 20:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments A typical true believer. I also advice him in tak page to self revert to avoid sanction. Not sure if he saw my advice or not. Given the state of his profile page, I'm quite sure he is aware of the rule. Nothing happened so I'm reporting. FWBOarticle 20:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. Nrcprm2026 upped his rever to 6th even after his violation has been pointed out. FWBOarticle
    Thank you. I am not Darkildor, 208.54.15.1, or FWBOarticle for that matter, so I'm not sure why I was accused of their reverts. --James S. 21:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please do not remove the bias dispute tag until the dispute is resolved. --James S. 21:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    ?

    I do not understand what it meant by "but include differences, not old versions". It either I misunderstand 3rr or I misunderstand how to present violation of 3rr.

    James taging is essentially the same. Near identical text content. While people who revert his tag either simply delete his tag or replace it with NPOV dispute tag, he always revert it back to the same thing. Is it enough to evade 3rr simply by making slight alteration in revet? In such case, 3rr would be so easy to evade that it would be meaningless. FWBOarticle

    User:Samaritan

    Three revert rule violation on SimonStrelchik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Samaritan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    And more recently:

    Reported by: Poche1 20:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:: Samaritan continues to violate the 3RR rule with these 2 sets of reverts, the first being 6 reverts in 22 hours, the second being 4 reverts in 14 hours. Samaritan disputes violating 3RR, perhaps not having read Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Detail, wherein "Reverting, in this context, applies to undoing the actions of another editor in whole or part, not necessarily taking a previous version from history and editing that." As well, he continues to add content which violates the NPOV.

    3RR quite explicitly does not apply to reverting vandalism, and the complainant is a sockpuppet of a user with a longstanding habit of twisting the rules to get around the fact that he actually doesn't have a leg to stand on regarding the merit of his edits. I can't agree that this was appropriate. And furthermore, regarding the block notice that was placed on Samaritan's user talk page, he has in no way failed to discuss the changes in a civil manner — he, I, User:pm_shef and User:Ohnoitsjamie have all attempted repeatedly to engage a fair and rational discussion of the issue, but User:Leotardo has failed to respond to that. Bearcat 22:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my comment in the next section for why this does not qualify as reverting vandalism. However, given the circumstances 18 hours was excessive and I have now lifted the block on Samaritan. Stifle 00:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I own up to violating 3RR over one twenty-four hour period in the past, because my understanding of the rule wasn't complete, but this allegation was wrongful. I've tried to set out why User talk:Samaritan#My side of the story, if anybody is interested. My block is over now, so don't worry about any practical import. I just want the record to be complete, and to defend any good name I might happen to have. Samaritan 04:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ohnoitsjamie

    Three revert rule violation on Elliott Frankl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Poche1 20:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:: Ohnoitsjamie continues to revert the article changes and redirect the page because in his opinion, "consensus has been reached."

    Note Poche1 is almost for sure a sockpuppet, Ohnoitsjamie is in the right here, consensus HAS been reached. pm_shef 21:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I didn't realize that I had violated 3RR, as there were three articles that were being reverted to a pre-consensus version, first by User:Leotardo, then by User:Poche1, whom I suspect is a sockpuppet of blocked-user User:Leotardo. After the last reversion, I stated that I'd be happy to take the articles back to afd (which we'd been trying to avoid before) if the original consensus was disputed. Poche1 placed a warning on my talk page after my last reversion of any of the articles. I have not touched any of them since.OhNoitsJamieTalk 21:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ohnoitsjamie has been blocked for three hours for a first offense of 3RR. Poche1 has been blocked for 18 hours, and Ruud has already got to Leotardo before me. Anything else? Stifle 21:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    3RR quite explicitly does not apply to reverting vandalism, and the complainant is a sockpuppet of a user with a longstanding habit of twisting the rules to get around the fact that he actually doesn't have a leg to stand on regarding the merit of his edits. I can't agree that this was appropriate. And furthermore, regarding the block notice that was placed on Jamie's user talk page, he has in no way failed to discuss the changes in a civil manner — he, I, User:pm_shef and User:Samaritan have all attempted repeatedly to engage a fair and rational discussion of the issue, but User:Leotardo has failed to respond to that. Bearcat 22:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to say that seeing a trusted editor being blocked on the accusations of an obvious sock (which has not even edited the talk page of the article in question!) is more than a bit disturbing to me. Simple checking shows that User:Ohnoitsjamie was reverting vandalism (pretty simple vandalism in my opinion) that was in opposition to consensus. The listing here was done in obvious bad faith by the suspected sock, and as such I think an apology from the blocking admin is in order. This may sound harsh, but we all make mistakes. It is unfair to brand a good editor with such an offence. Even if he is unblocked now, remember that for those of us not yet admins, such a stain is quite horrifying and requires explanation. pschemp | talk 20:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:24.136.10.10

    Three revert rule violation on September 11, 2001 attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.136.10.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Golbez 23:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: The IP first reverted his changes to the table twice. Then he made another edit, changing the number in the intro. Then he made two edits in a row, changing the table and the intro, thus registering four reverts in toto. I have reverted him four times as well, so I submit myself for judgment as well, though my final revert was to revert his 3RR-violation. --Golbez 23:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pmanderson

    Three revert rule violation on Liberal democracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pmanderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Reported by: Ultramarine 23:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: The arbcom has warned him previously for sterile revert warring.[23] Attempts of hide the reverts by some minor differences in words in some of them, but each time reverting the edits of three other editors. Shown differently:

    [24]
    [25]
    [26]
    [27]
    [28]

    Response: The underlying issue here is the inclusion of a map representing one reasonable, but disputable, set of opinions on "Which are the present liberal democracies?". See Talk:liberal democracy#Map and the section above it.

    • Three of these are different attempts to word a disclaimer on the caption, in the hope that some phrasing will reach consensus. The first one is the bolding of a preexisting disclaimer.
    • One of these, the one of 19:15, removes the map altogether.
    • One (at 23:07) adjusts the accompanying text, but not the caption, and does nothing to the map.

    What 3RR violation? Septentrionalis 00:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that Ultramarine has quoted an arbcom ruling that applies equally to both of us. Since Ultramarine has made three efforts at sterile defense of his preferred text, this would appear disingenuous. Septentrionalis 00:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not broken the 3RR rule by continually reverting the edits of three different editors during a few hours. Ultramarine 00:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The arbcom ruling prohibits sterile reversions. This is Ultramarine's record today:

    • Previous version reverted to: 17:44, 27 March 2006
    • 1st revert: 18;40
    • 2nd partial revert: 18:45
    • 3rd revert, full revert to number 2: 19:00
    • deletion of sourced material 19:29
    • Insertion of unacknowledged cut and paste from article 20:33
      • article from which taken [29]

    Septentrionalis 00:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Simply false and incorrect. Also, this is not the place to discuss a content dispute, but your repeated reverts of several other editors. Ultramarine 01:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Which of the above diffs do you deny? Septentrionalis
    Again, this is not the place to discuss your attempts to hide the benefits of democracy and supporting studies and measurements. Regarding reverts, I reverted only once, 18:40. I and the other editors have not broken 3RR like you have. Ultramarine 01:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No 3RR violation, but definitely an ArbCom violation, so you're both blocked for an hour and a half , a suitably lame block for a suitably lame revert war imo. Use WP:AE for future problems of this kind. Stifle 13:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Caiqian, User:Sumple and/or User:FWBOarticle

    Three revert rule violation on Nanking Massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Caiqian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Sumple (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and/or FWBOarticle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Depends on where one start counting the revert

    Reported by: FWBOarticle 23:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:My understanding is that 3rr favour status quo because 3rd revert suppose to end up in the original state. On this understanding, I did not count the initial revert to a month old version to be the first revert. However, I have stated both version of count as a part of good faith edit. And warned anyone who revert that they may violate 3rr. Sumple nor Caiqian do not seems to care. I have reported myself to be fair. Because the revert is wholesale, it is difficult to respond except by another wholesale revert. I'm not sure whether adding small modification every time one revert is enough to avoid 3rrv. If so, I would have done the same but essentially the whole sale revert could continue indefintely. FWBOarticle 23:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • You have provided old versions, not diffs. It is very hard to find the exact violation without diffs, and I have not been able to find any 3RR violation here. Another admin please review this. Stifle 13:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:200.118.111.122

    Three revert rule violation on Persian Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 200.118.111.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [30] 21:52, 27 March 2006
    • 1st revert: [31] 00:18, 28 March 2006
    • 2nd revert: [32] 00:18, 28 March 2006
    • 3rd revert: [33] 200.118.111.122
    • 4th revert: [34] 200.118.111.122

    reported by- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked 72 hours. Third such block at this unique IP, and appears to be related to similar behavior elsewhere. It appears this individual has violated the rule several times. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:217.76.144.121

    Three revert rule violation on Jehovah's Witnesses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 217.76.144.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Lucy 23:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: The editor continues to make the same addition to the opening paragraph whilst refusing to participate in any discussion regarding the issue on the talk page.

    User:Dr. Imbeau

    Three revert rule violation on Dental amalgam controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dr. Imbeau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Jersyko·talk 02:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: User has been notified on his/her talk page as well as in an edit summary on the article itself to be careful to adhere to 3RR. Made his/her fifth reversion in defiance of warning. The user's only edits are to this article.

    Vary's final warning on this user's talk page appears to have deterred the behavior from continuing. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Perspicacious

    Three revert rule violation on Seventh-day Adventist Church. Perspicacious (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [35]
    • 1st revert: [36]
    • 2nd revert: [37]
    • 3rd revert: [38]
    • 4th revert: [39]

    Reported by: Fermion 03:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: This is not the first time this user has violated 3RR on this page. If you count suspected sock puppets, such as User talk:216.119.158.207 then User:Perspicacious has violated by more than just four edits.

    User:Moveapage

    Three revert rule violation on Taiwan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Moveapage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Jiang 06:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Blocked 24 hours. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:EurowikiJ

    Three revert rule violation on Ante Starcevic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). EurowikiJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    he was warned about this, but despite broke the 3RR Also violated 3RR at Tourism in Croatia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). EurowikiJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    and again:

    Also made 4 reverts in a bit more than 24 hours in [40]

    Comments: He is well aware of the rule, makes complaints himself. In fact, he seems to game the 3RR. He was supposed to be banned, apparently has avoided ban for 3RR by a mistake of an administrator [41] shortly after this, he breaks 3RR again on two articles, and games it on third [42]. Has engaged in revert wars for weeks. Maayaa 09:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Am I missing something or are you just being silly? I most certainly did not break 3RR on Ante Starcevic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Tourism in Croatia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which, besides, is evident from the above logs. EurowikiJ 10:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You were warned, and were supposed to be banned, and you still game the system on several articles and clearly make more than 4 edits in the same 24 h period on at least two articles, and makes even more edits and breaches in just a bit more than 24 h. You also seem to resort to personal attacks. I didn't check, but there are maybe more violations by the same user. Maayaa 10:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I obviously misunderstood the rule thinking that it applies to a particular day as a 24 hour period as opposed to any 24 hour period. However, I received no warning. EurowikiJ 10:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You have been warned, you knew about the rule. And gaming the system is considered worse vandalism. If you are honest about not being informed, revert the articles back, and you might avoid the ban, as self reverts are not counted. But it is up to the administrators - you are reverting heavily and in fact people are complaining about you and some other editors. Maayaa 10:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, dont you consider it a bit strange to brag that you have not been warned while you in fact reported people here several times, and were warned explicitly on this very page and still, you couldnt refrain for editing that same article one more time, even when admin told you he was going to ban you. Maayaa 10:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. If it is OK with the administrator I will self-revert and refrain from editing in 24 hours. After all, I play by the rules without resorting to creating sock-puppets. I am sure you know what I am talking about. EurowikiJ 10:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI Had I known about the rule applying to any 24 hour period, I would have made many more reports on this page. But this is a useful lesson too. EurowikiJ 10:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reverted to previous versions on both articles. EurowikiJ 10:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Good, glad you choose to be civil. In fact, you might consider discussing the issue with your opponents, as revert wars lead to nowhere. work with them towards some compromise, as is suggested by wikipedia policies - there are talk pages for resolving disputes. Maayaa 10:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I also think you should use this opportunity to gloat because I assure you that this is the last time I made this mistake. EurowikiJ 10:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mistake is to engage in revert wars, but you seem not to understand it. Perhaps you can read a bit more about rules and advices carefully, because 3RR is just a guideline to limit edit wars, not an invitation to game the system. Maayaa 11:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others. The fact that users may be blocked for excessive reverting does not imply that they will be blocked. Equally, reverting fewer than four times may result in a block depending on context Maayaa


    I feel I should warn that an anonymous IP has reverted both articles back to my version. For all I know this may be foul play. In any case it has nothing to do with me. EurowikiJ 12:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Three revert rule violation on Crompton House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 200.27.187.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Jhamez84 13:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: This user has been most stubborn and persistent in altering known facts. I as well as other members have been most displeased and incresingly frustrated in his behaviour. The problem stems from a location. It is not a disputed territory, but he wishes to remove the mention of the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham from the Crompton House page (which was his school) and also the Shaw and Crompton page, most probably due to the so-called stigma attached to it's large south asian popultaion and past racial rioting. The user has been blocked before, (see {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:213.122.143.43_.26_related_IP.27s] ). He places an outdated/discontinued (legally and otherwise) version of geography on the article which directly contradicts the Wikipedia policy of the offical naming conventions (see [43] for the evidence that the member is indeed vandalising).

    There are also further problems, I have asked for semi-protection for these pages but it wasn't granted and he refuses to accept consensus, constantly altering pages with no knownledge of how to properly format an article, and against the wishes of the members involved. To circumvent his previous blocking he is using non-static IP address (dynamic IP rolling) and admits as such here [44]. He has no static home page with which to formally warn him, his IP addresses are seemingly limitless and really need some support from and authoritative member to step in on the articles forsaid! His other known IP addresses are 213.122.74.210, 213.122.128.186, 81.131.22.118, 213.122.33.211, 213.122.72.151, 213.122.87.239, 81.131.68.146, 213.122.125.60, 81.131.64.166, 201.31.253.132 etc etc etc! I would appreciate a blanket block on him (if indeed possible) and be eternally grateful for some support on the articles. Thank you Jhamez84 13:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • He's been warned by you, and I'm inclined to leave it at that for now. In future when making 3RR reports please provide diffs and not old versions, as the latter are much harder to verify. Stifle 13:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    With regard to that, having explained the wider problems I have been faced, and subsequent lack of support, I am most disapointed with that decision. The vandal is question has clearly broken wikpedia rules but is now not being challenged or disciplined in the slightest. I have warned him 'numerous times but he won't listen to me as I am involved and states that I am a known vandal (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crompton_House&oldid=45748636]. I think that to consider my own warning a deterant to him is a very weak decision. I urge you to reconsider. Jhamez84 14:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I've posted a message on his talk page saying that I endorse the 3RR warning. Stifle 11:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:80.90.38.96

    Three revert rule violation on Phaistos Disc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 80.90.38.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Latinus 16:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • This anon has been here for quite some time. The article in question was semi-protected earler (see #User:80.90.39.149) because this user has a dynamic IP and kept evading the 3RR blocks. User:Splash unprotected the article last night and the anon retuned this morning, made a few personal attacks against me and User:LukasPietsch and continued reverting. Someone please do something. Semi-protection again would be nice - it may even force him to ceate an account and be accountable like the rest of us. --Latinus 16:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 48 hours for second offense. Also blocked otehr IP for same time and will semiprotect.Gator (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RonCram

    Three revert rule violation on Operation_Iraqi_Freedom_Documents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RonCram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: User:RyanFreisling @ 17:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: RonCram, who has made numerous edits around the 'Iraqi Freedom Documents' representing claims as fact without citations of factual sources (he insteads cites allegations), has violated 3RR in his multi-front edit war. Instead of responding to the content at issue, he has continually reverted, claiming his edits are substantiated in talk - while no updated sources or substantiation is provided. Separate from the content dispute, the combative revert warring needs to stop.

    OK, 24h William M. Connolley 19:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pro-Lick

    Three revert rule violation on Abortion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pro-Lick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: RoyBoy 800 18:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: I'd like the block to be extended to 48 hours this time; as the user has continually engaged in WikiLawyering and edit warring. I should also note I've had extensive reverts and encounters with the user recently. But I think it would be fair to say, the user on balance has been disruptive and combative. - RoyBoy 800 18:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The "reverts" if looked into will reveal that RoyBoy is gaming. I've been editing different sections on that page, and the last revert restored an edit made by another edtior which I didn't even entirely agree with.--Pro-Lick 19:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm unsure that matters; and I am hardly "gaming" as I've listed the diffs for an admin to check for themselves. The diffs are required to ensure fair application of the rule; your interpretation of policy notwithstanding; also reverting to "an edit by another editor" is gaming as the purpose was to revert back to your edits. - RoyBoy 800 19:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as the diffs are checked, there won't be a 3RR. And your nuisance 3RRs should be considered reason for a block in and of themselves. .--Pro-Lick 19:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just so I can be clear on this, a block of whom? RoyBoy? - RoyBoy 800 19:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't see #2 as a revert. But the other 3 are William M. Connolley 19:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Understood. I would maintain edit 2 though was POV and innaccurate; as Brind did not create the ABC link. Here is an alternative to #2, which I will call #5. - RoyBoy 800 22:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional Comments from Musical Linguist I agree that the second revert was probably not a revert, though it's sometimes hard to be sure with partial reverts. However, the "5th revert" is a revert, as it's yet another attempt to remove the word "death", which Pro-Lick has been doing ever since he arrived at that article. See [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52] (with abusive edit summary), [53], [54], and [55]. That's eleven removals of the word death in less than two days. And it went on and on after that, between 3RR blocks.

    In addition to the removal of "death", the edit which RoyBoy calls the "5th revert" (above) is also a revert to this edit, which Pro-Lick made three days ago. Please check it out.

    He also tries to "game the system" by adding things which have the same purpose, but which are technically not reverts to a previous version. See [56], [57], [58]. The last of those grossly misrepresents something I said on the talk page, and is almost certainly trying to make a point. It has the effect of a revert, and would have brought him over the 3RR on that day, if he hadn't changed "virus" to "bacteria".

    He has been highly disruptive, regularly posting irrelevant and disrespectful links to the talk page [59], deleting other editors' comments from his own talk page [60], and either violating 3RR or simply reverting and reverting in violation of consensus, but placing reverts just outside of the 24-hour period. AnnH ♫ 00:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 48 hours. —Ruud 01:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ahwaz

    Three revert rule violation on Gulf War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ahwaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: ManiF 20:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: Clear case of 3rr violation by user Ahwaz on Gulf War. Furthermore, the user Ahwaz has broken 3RR numerous times over the last two weeks on other articles such as Arabs of Khuzestan. --ManiF 20:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud 00:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:172.202.220.213

    Three revert rule violation on Strabane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 172.202.220.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Demiurge 22:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud 00:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Haham hanuka

    Original submission [61]

    Reverts: (All 28.03.2006 GMT)

    1. [62] 16:02
    2. [63] 19.09
    3. [64] 20:04
    4. [65] 20:20 with the editsummary (rv - this is violation of 3RR)
    5. [66] 21:03

    Reported by: Agathoclea 22:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud 00:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg

    Original submission [67]

    Reverts: (All 29.03.2006 GMT)

    1. [68]
    2. [69]
    3. [70]
    4. [71]

    Comments

    Seems immature and disrespectful (see Talk:Persian Jews), but is editing in an encyclopedic spirit, if not form.

    Reported by: black thorn of brethil 02:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The last edit is not a revert as I changed it to make it more acceptable as the discussion the talk page shows. Also Black thorn repeatedly added material not supported by any source other than his own thoughts on the matter, as can also be seen on the talk page. However after I was warned I decided against making any more reverts just in case.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:24.54.90.231

    Three revert rule violation on Cobra Video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.54.90.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    This IP address was banned previously for reverts without justification, and is back at it as soon as the ban was lifted. I'm including SchmuckyTheCat's comments regarding this user for posterity.

    Please ban 24.54.90.231 permanently given the long history.

    Natoma 05:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • This IP address is at like, 10RR on this page just today and this is recurring vandalism. Just take a look at the contribs. Please block 4-evah, you'll be loved.
    Reported by: SchmuckyTheCat 06:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments:I didn't bother showing 4 diffs, the IP contribs are only on that and one other article and clearly show a fixation with vandalizing (removing sourced information) from the page.

    User:ScienceApologist

    Three revert rule violation on Plasma cosmology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Elerner 06:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Its *c*osmology... argh. I'm somewhat involved with SA so won't do anything; however it looks to me as though Iantresman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should be examined, too William M. Connolley 16:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jim_Butler

    Massive violation during edit dispute on Acupuncture

    [[72]]

    Mccready 11:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Molobo ... again

    Three revert rule violation on German Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Molobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Reported by: Chris 73 | Talk 13:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: Molobo is a well known revert warrior, having been blocked for a 3RR about 9 times before, 4 times alone in this month. See also above for 3RR accusation on Otto Bismarck-- Chris 73 | Talk 13:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No 3RR, simply restored a tag for disputed section. Remember that removing tags is considered vandalism. Removing simple vandalism isn't 3RR.--Molobo 13:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don' think removing a tag is simple vandalism, but I leave this up to another admin to decide -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Also you are mistaken as they are two different contents here that have been related.. Had I restored tag over 3 times or info over 3times I agree that could be considered violation of 3RR however this isn't the case. Also you are mistaken-I was blocked on 3 times for 3RR, one of which was sadly for restoration of my comments on discussion page that were being deleted and which sadly is considered 3RR also. --Molobo 13:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You reverted content three times, then added a tag, and reverte the tag removal two times, hence 5 reverts. The number of reverts is per page, not per paragraph or disputed text. YOU of all people should know that, you do know that, and yet you try to get away with this excuse every time again. -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the text that I believe states that removing tags is vandalism. In this case the tag was removed without any comment to my statement on proper discussion page where I explained why the tag was added: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism Improper use of dispute tags. Dispute tags are important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that the dispute is settled. --Molobo 13:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC) The number of reverts is per page, not per paragraph or disputed text. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3RR For the purposes of counting reverts, these are excluded:[reply]

    • self-reverts
    • correction of simple vandalism

    Removing a tag without any explanation and without adressing the issue on discussion page seemed to me like simple vandalism. --Molobo 13:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear pan Molobo, the things you do may be classified as tag vandalism. I believe we need a separate policy on those who, without contributing anything helpful, add tons of tags on any article they cast their eyes on. Please stop vandalizing existing articles and write some new ones at last. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm rather sick of people trying to pretend that they are reverting "simple vandalism" as an excuse for their edit warring. Molobo has form and get 1 week for this William M. Connolley 15:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I always thought that removing a dispute (or similar) tag without providing an explanation for one's action, or when the issue is actively disputed at the article's talk page, is vandalism and can be reverted as many times as necessary. Those tags serve an important purpose, and those who remove them before the issues are resolved are simply pushing their POV and censoring all critique of it (no matter if deserved or not). I believe that in this particluar case Molobo is innocent, and it is his opponents, who removed the tag, who should be punnished. I most vehemntly oppose this block.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm surprized that your previous wheel warring - when you repeatedly unblocked Molobo after he violated 3RR - did not learn you anything. Actually, such disruptive editors as Molobo who are permanently one revert away from violating 3RR on scores of articles should be blocked for three reverts only. That their trolling is particularly nasty is no excuse for looking down on them. Unfortunately, Molobo has become such a problem and threat to the Wikicommunity only because he is encouraged by such Polish editors as Piotrus who joins his rabid reverting more often then not. Just a few days ago, Molobo was unblocked on Piotr's petition and instantly proceeded to turn dozens articles into a mess. Enough is enough. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    Molobo didn't quote the whole section. Wikipedia:Vandalism goes on saying "Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus." I fail to see that just because a very small proportion somewhere in a unimportant place deserves a totally dispute tag on German Empire, only because Molobo noticed he was not about to "win" the edit war. There was no dispute on the talk page and the text he quickly posted was only to justify the tag. Sciurinæ 17:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, inappropriately adding "disputed tags" is also vandalism and users are required to explain why they added it - marking the articles that one just doesn't agree with is not enough. I do think that this block is excessive though - I thought the maximum bar is 24 hours (WP:3RR: sysops may block for up to 24 hours) and while sysops are entitled to exercise their discretion in imposing longer blocks, in my opinion they should be reported to WP:ANI. While a longer block may have been deserved in Molobo's case, purely due to the fact that he's been revert warring on so many articles and evidently causing much disruption (and having been blocked so many times before), this is also taking into account the fact that it takes two or more to revert war. We could have reasonably expected Molobo to realise that more users are reverting against him than for him, IMO that is a sufficient reason for him to give up and discuss on the article's talk page or on the talk page of the user in question. I think the block should be shortened but not to something less than 24 hours. --Latinus 17:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Latinus, I'm afraid you are deluded here. You have not enough experience with Molobo if you expect him to give up reverting by his own volition. What will he do then? Is there any other purpose for his edits other than revert warring? He is always one revert away from 3RR on scores of articles. To a disinterested observer, he seems like a reverting bot run by Piotrus and Halibutt in order to spread their nationalist propaganda. --Ghirla -трёп- 18:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's just like in real life: if you break the law, you're punished. If you do it again, the punishment increases. It worked somehow in Space Cadet's case (if Space Cadet really is not a number of other accounts). Molobo is not an autist but a university student so his being a "vigilante" as he puts it can become a matter of the past if he realises it is not the way he'd better be walking. I think it becomes more and more obvious that the only solution is the ArbCom. Until then conventional methods will solve it. Sciurinæ 18:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Since I blocked I'd better defend my action. I don't think removing tags can be called reverting vandalism (note: it currently says so explicitly in the 3RR header, but only cos I just inserted it; if you consider that disputable, remove it and we'll talk it over). The 1 week was what Inshaneee (sp?) gave then removed; it appeared to me to be the natural progression. I would consider a shorter block; especially if you consider this a bit doubtful. The 24h limit is long dead, though - check the logs. Also note that I removed another Molobo report from this page as now-irrelevant - if anyone is thinking of unblocking, best to check that out. And finally - he current state of his talk page doesn't exactly inspire confidence in his NPOV state William M. Connolley 18:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. Furthermore, if Molobo breaks 3RR again, the block should be extended to one month. Currently, half a dozen editors have to stop adding new stuff to Wikipedia in order to revert Molobo's pointless reverts, usually encouraged by Piotrus. All things considered, he is the worst troll to haunt Eastern Europe-related topics since Bonaparte was permabanned earlier this year. --Ghirla -трёп- 18:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Zanyar

    Three revert rule violation on Kurdish people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zanyar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: ManiF 15:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: In breach of 3RR, the user also looks like a sock-puppet to evade 3RR. --ManiF 15:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    3h, first offence, no warnings, why do people never ever bother read the top of this page :-( William M. Connolley 15:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ADITYANATH

    Three revert rule violation on YOGIRAJ GURUNATH SIDDHANATH (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ADITYANATH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Hamsacharya dan 18:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This user is incessantly adding in original research and claiming it as verfiable, and when new edits are added that don't fit with, or contradict his interpretation of claims, he makes a battery of wholesale reversions, modifications and deletions in a way that normally attempts to avoid 3RR. This time it is clear as day.


    Report new violation

    Place new reports ABOVE this header, using the template below. Do not edit the template itself. See the example at the top of the page for full details. Take the time to do the job right to get the quickest responses. From the article's History page, use diffs (links labelled "last"), not versions, and the "compare versions" button to clearly highlight the changes between versions of the article and show what has been reverted. 


    
===[[User:USERNAME]]===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|ARTICLENAME}}. {{3RRV|USERNAME}}:

* Previous version reverted to: [Link Time] <!-- ALWAYS FILL IN THIS FIELD! -->
* 1st revert: [DiffLink Time]
* 2nd revert: [DiffLink Time]
* 3rd revert: [DiffLink Time]
* 4th revert: [DiffLink Time]

Reported by: ~~~~

'''Comments:'''


<!-- This is an *example*! Do not leave your report here - place it ABOVE the header"!!-->
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=46041598"