Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cantus (talk | contribs) at 03:12, 31 May 2005 (→‎[[User:Cantus]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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:Pibohmark@aol.com

    Three revert rule violation on Put-in-Bay,_Ohio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pibohmark%40aol.com (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Norvy 07:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User appears to continue to make anonymous reverts. Norvy 07:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    • User claims "we would greatly appreciate not have to revert our page back on a daily basis" [1] Norvy 07:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    User warned. Rama 07:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

    Edit war is continuing; anon 63.238.18.169 (talk · contribs) is using the exact same revert message as Pibohmark, so it's probably the same person. Noel (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

    Protected the page. Noel (talk) 05:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

    User:Sam Spade

    Three revert rule violation on Neofascism and religion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sam Spade (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: AndyL 10:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Blocked for 24 hours. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Unblocked after discussion on wikien-l [2] [3]: "I've unblocked, though to keep the peace I would suggest you not be the one to make it back that way again for now, but make your case on the talk page. You'll know you've made your case when someone else makes the change. (One of the points of 3RR is that not everything in the article has to be correct right now :-)" - David Gerard 11:26, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
    Could the reason for unblocking be revealed to the rest of us? No reason is given in the "discussion" (which amounts to "please unblock me", "yes"). I take it that there's no claim that he didn't revert four times, nor that he's a new user who didn't know any better. His claim, in an e-mail to me, that one of the reverts doesn't count because he meant it as a compromise seems to be the only possible reason, and I can't see that that makes any difference, especially as we're in no position to judge claims of that sort. I only know that he's been unblocked because of his crowing e-mail to me, incidentally (though his attempt to rub my nose in his Houdini-skills ([4]) would have alerted me anyway).
    Until a reason is provided, I've reinstated the block. I don't want to get into a blocking war, and I shall of course desist as soon as some ground for David Gerard's action is provided. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
    I can see no reason for removing the block, which seems perfectly reasonable, unlike User:Sam Spade' behaviour. If Mel Etitis hadn'r reinstated it, I would have. Filiocht | Blarneyman 11:41, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
    the third one isn't a revet. there is no version in the page history that is the same.Geni 11:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

    The same text was removed four times in a row; that's reverting. As has been repeated many times above, and is made clear elsewhere, the reverts don't have to be identical (otherwise anyone could revert as many times as they wanted, just my making a different extra change each time). New users often make that mistake, and that's fair enough — but seasoned campaigners can't be allowed to get away with it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

    Basically, I thought Sam would cool it if I unblocked saying the above, and he says in his next wikien-l message [5] that he will: "I am going to go way out of my way not to revert more than once every 24 hours, and to avoid this particular subject for awhile as well." Knowing how Sam edits, he blew his top this time and if he says he will cool it I assume he will. Please unblock for now, and if he does it again reblock - David Gerard 11:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

    His behaviour doesn't indicate that he's likely to cool off (see my message above); he treats your action as a victory over me. Moreover, the same could be said for the majority of people who violate 3RR — they'll "cool off", until the next time. SS is a well-known barrack-room lawyer, constantly harrassing other editors with his (sometimes odd interpretations of) policy; I don't think that it's appropriate to let him off with a grin and a wink and a "don't let me catch you doing it again, you little scamp". Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

    • David: Yes, I complimented him for making a good qualification for Italian fascism as being corportist, but I still opposed the edit, as a revert. That was not a comrpomise, it was just an immediately useful addition — which, incidentally, is no longer necessary. With the improved passage as it is now, there is no need for a corportist qualification, since it only speaks of Italin fascism as the first form of fascism, without touching on the thematic titles for the particularities of the two forms (i.e. the corportist and hitlerian/nazi kind). El_C 11:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
    • And David: I am also interested to learn your thoughts about the w-l post title: Wrongful block, and [6]. El_C 11:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I wouldn't characterise my unblock like that ... I just thought being hardarsed about it wouldn't be productive in this case. "Wrongful block" is rather too aggrieved, but I don't doubt Sam's sincerity - David Gerard 12:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
      Characterise your unblock like what, David? I am simply asking for your opinion. Also, do you mind addressing that diff? El_C 13:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Why is it that some get blocked for 24 hours, and some for a couple? There is no consisency. Either make it a hard rule that it's 24 hours unless it can be proved without doubt that you didn't break 3RR, or give up on the whole thing. This page takes up a lot of time for a lot of people. 24 hours isn't actually a long time, I'm sure the people who are blocked will survive it. I can't see that Sam was warned he was about to break the rule. The following shows how another long time user who hadn't been warned was unblocked:

    [7] *Slrubenstein's talk page shows he wasn't warned, which he probably should have been. Would anyone mind if, in light of this, I reduced the length of the block? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:36, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

    Fine by me, FWIW. James F. (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
    Ditto. El_C 23:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
    If this was a first offense, I'd agree with reducing the length of the block. Since this is Slrubenstein's 3rd block for violating the 3RR [13] [8], I'm not sure a warning is necessary. Carbonite | Talk 22:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
    I'm guessing he didn't realize he'd violated it. If he'd been warned, he'd have had a chance to revert himself and avoid the block. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:38, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

    I personally don't care if you unblock Sam, I just think the whole 3RR policy needs to be reviewed for fairness to all. --Silversmith Hewwo 14:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

    The only way to avoid this nonsense is to be honest and admit that blocking for making four reverts is a punishment. Once we admit that, we can establish the principle that everyone gets 24h no matter what. Unless we do that, there is one rule for people with admin friends, and one rule for others. We need the rule of law, not rule of cliques.
    This proposal aside, let me point out that Sam Spade made a promise not to revert, and to stay away from that article for a while. With the rule as it stands at the moment, that is sufficient to allow unblocking. Those who complain about the unblocking are being hypocritical unless they protested (as I did) against Slrubenstein's recent unblocking, which was without any such promises and indeed he immediately resumed reverting resumed his POV-pushing in the article less than 48h later, and proceded to make personal attacks). I repeat: as the policy stands, there is nothing wrong with unblocking Sam Spade (even though his reverts to Neofascism_and_religion were pretty stupid). — Chameleon 15:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
    That comaprison draws a crude parallel between the two cases. Silversmith possibly still thinks that I was unfair in my support to reduce SlR's 3RR block, but if this is the case, she is mistaken. In the case of SlR, there was a heated and pressing discussion involving many people who wished to rely on his expertise, a discussion that could —and I argue did— end up benefiting from him being unblocked and intensively tackling the material on the talk page. In the case of Sam, he was the only one challenging that passage, the only one reverting everyone else. And most of the editors in the discussion found his explantions and expertise with the material wanting. As well, we have the snide certainly. Silversmith is more than free to offer to reduce a 3RR block if she finds it would benefit Wikipedia, and admins may act on that or not. But to speak abstractly on consistency and such, well, I argue that there is such a consistency, except its geared to the benefit of Wikipedia and it isn't inflexibly rigid. If there are good grounds to unblock Sam Spade, anyone is free to present these, or if they are an admin, unblock him. This, after all, is how the wiki runs, and anyone is free to propose policy for it to run otherwise, too. El_C 15:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
    So are you are saying that his unblock wasn't due to his not being warned, but because his opinions and arguments were valuable, where as Sam's are not? In your opinion that is. It seems that the policy as it stands is too open to bias. And I don't see the "certainly" comment as snide. It isn't very fair to make assumptions like that, particularly when Sam isn't here to defend himself. --Silversmith Hewwo 16:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
    Show me diffs depicting that SlR "immediately resumed reverting," Chameleon, or please retract that. I, myself, have no knowledge of such activities on his part, and I would of course, object to these and would have re-imposed the block myself. El_C 15:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
    Whoops, Silversmith told me that and I repeated it without checking. The facts remain though. — Chameleon 16:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
    Fine, well I invite her, then, to provide diffs which depict this, or retract. El_C 16:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
    SlR did not immediately resume reverting. I apologise for suggesting he did. --Silversmith Hewwo 11:06, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

    And once again, Sam gets to side-step the rules, or at least get off with a slap on the wrist, only due to his supporter's intervention. And this after he compounds his offense with his trollish comment [9]. To the troll-enablers, Sam owes a great debt. FeloniousMonk 17:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

    Could you please state who you believe the "troll enablers" in this case are? --Silversmith Hewwo 17:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
    Any person who cares so little about the hurt caused other people by Sam's insults, contempt of policy and attempts at gaming the system to cover it all up that they aid Sam in obscuring his history thus permitting Sam another day of abuse at wikipedia... either through direct intervention or by inaction. Such editors need to be aware that they are improving neither their own image and outlook, nor the wiki community. Time and again Sam's actions have shown him to be completely refractory; his own statements show he willfully remains unaccquainted with remorse or shame. Given that, two obvious questions for those who abett Sam Spade are just what has Sam to done to justify the many opportunities he's been given, and does his squandering so many opportunities justify yet one more. FeloniousMonk 18:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

    User:Powertranz

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

    Reported by: Cantus…☎ 16:52, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Argyrosargyrou

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

    Reported by: --E.A 21:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: User continually reinstating his version against consensus of editors, his versions are insulting and POV, this is the second time i have reported him for a 3RR.

    • only three outright reverts so far. The rest are not really reverts.Geni 22:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

    This user has been at this on this article for some time now; see here. I have protected the page. Noel (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

    • I dont understand what contributes to an outright revert, but from what i see, he has reverted to his own version 6 times, despite 4 of us trying to reinstate 1 version. --E.A 12:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I looked at this, too, but held off from acting because I couldn't really make out more than three reverts (but I was feeling tired, and didn't want to rule out the possibility that I was missing something). For edits to count as the same reverts, the same text must be added or removed each time. If the editor changes to his version, but uses different language each time, the 3RR isn't violated (it's can still be annoying, and might be grounds for asking for page protection, though much depends on the circumstances). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
        • So a user can revert, but modify the text slightly and avoid a 3RR ban? I would think a revert would count as any major change from a version the majority of editors are trying to reinstate? Seems too easy to manipulate this way. --E.A 13:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • people make the mistake of thinking that from time to time. We know about complex reverts and in this case the changes appear to be too big to count as complex reverts.Geni 13:30, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

    Yes; changing the text slightly doesn't do it — but in this case I thought (as did Geni) that the edits were significantly different. Simply chaning from a certain version isn't enough — it has to be (or to include) the same change from that version. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

    Sigh - which is just another way persistent edit warriors (the kind I wish we could just ban without a whole bunch of folderol) can evade the 3RR rule. At least there's page protection... Noel (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

    User:Zivinbudas

    Three revert rule violation on Pomerania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Gdansk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), History of Pomerania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Goldap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zivinbudas (talk · contribs):

    Raported by --Witkacy 08:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

    • He only appears to have reberted 3 times on any given page.Geni 09:10, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

    History of Pomerania:

    • (cur) (last) 08:59, 29 May 2005 Zivinbudas (rv vandalism by Witkacy)
    • (cur) (last) 08:54, 29 May 2005 Witkacy (reverted edits by Zivinbudas)
    • (cur) (last) 08:52, 29 May 2005 Zivinbudas (→Baltic Pomerania - correction)* (cur) (last) 08:51, 29 May 2005 Zivinbudas (rv vandalism by Witkacy)
    • (cur) (last) 08:48, 29 May 2005 Witkacy (reverted edits by Zivinbudas)
    • (cur) (last) 08:43, 29 May 2005 Zivinbudas (rv vandalism by Vitjka)
    • (cur) (last) 08:32, 29 May 2005 Witkacy (reverted Zivinbudas)
    • (cur) (last) 08:19, 29 May 2005 Zivinbudas (Add - Baltic Pomerania (Pamarė))

    Gdansk:

    • (cur) (last) 08:53, 29 May 2005 Zivinbudas (rv vandalism by Witkacy)
    • (cur) (last) 08:47, 29 May 2005 Witkacy (reverted edits by Zivinbudas)
    • (cur) (last) 08:40, 29 May 2005 Zivinbudas (rv vandalism by Witkacy)
    • (cur) (last) 08:34, 29 May 2005 Witkacy (reverted Zivinbudas add it to alternative names)
    • (cur) (last) 08:27, 29 May 2005 Zivinbudas (Stop vandalism Vitjka, in Lithuanian is "Dancigas" as well)* (cur) (last) 08:10, 29 May 2005 Witkacy (reverted Zivinbudas)
    • (cur) (last) 08:02, 29 May 2005 Zivinbudas (Add)

    Goldap:

    • (cur) (last) 09:04, 29 May 2005 Zivinbudas (rv vandalism by Witkacy)
    • (cur) (last) 09:03, 29 May 2005 Witkacy (reverted Zivinbudas)
    • (cur) (last) 08:57, 29 May 2005 Zivinbudas (rv vandalism by Witkacy)
    • (cur) (last) 08:49, 29 May 2005 Witkacy
    • (cur) (last) 08:48, 29 May 2005 Witkacy (reverted edits by Zivinbudas)
    • (cur) (last) 08:45, 29 May 2005 Zivinbudas (rv vandalism by Vitjka)*(cur) (last) 08:40, 29 May 2005 Witkacy (reverted Zivinbudas)
    • (cur) (last) 08:36, 29 May 2005 Zivinbudas (Add, correction)

    etc. --Witkacy 09:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

    In each case an insertion followed by three reverts.Geni 09:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    The first addition is counted as a "revert".--Witkacy 09:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    no it isn't.Geni 09:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    Hmm, and what's the difference between the violation of today, and this one? --Witkacy 10:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    the example consisted of 1 insert followed by 4 reverts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geni (talk • contribs) 10:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    4th revert on Gdansk [14]
    4th revert on Goldap [15]
    5th revert on Goldap [16]
    4th revert on Pomerania [17]

    --Witkacy 22:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

    Ok, this time User:Zivinbudas unquestionably broke the 3RR rule. He is up to his 4th revert on Pomerania. See: history, original modification,revert 1, revert 2, revert 3, revert 4. Balcer 22:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

    And the fun continues, he has just done his 5th revert on Gdansk page: history, first modification, revert 1,revert 2,revert 3, revert 4, revert 5 Balcer 23:09, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

    Brazen violation of 3RR rule in progress, by User:Zivinbudas

    I suppose he knows he broke the 3RR rule, and right now is going all out until he is blocked. The latest are his edits on Podlasie Voivodship: history, original modification, revert 1, revert 2,revert 3, revert 4. Balcer 23:19, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

    • Blocked. When he's done this before he's come back in on dialup IPs - if you see these doing the same edits, note it here and we'll block the /16 again - David Gerard 23:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    He reverted now as 85.206.192.144 (talk · contribs).--Witkacy 01:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
    blocked.Geni 01:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
    It is his 4th? 5th? visit here. If anybody can tell me exactly how to range ban this persistent troll, I will. On other note, Witkacy, I commend you for reporting him so many times. Keep this up, he will get what's coming for him. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
    for range blocks see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Range_blocks but I don't know the range he is useing.Geni 02:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
    According to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive23#Zivinbudas, he was coming in from 85.206.192.0/22 (covers 85.206.192 - 85.206.195). I cleared Geni's single-address block, and placed a range block on this range. Let me know if he shows up from somewhere else, and I'll take further action. Noel (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
    There's a tiny problem: I've started an ArbCom Request on him. Now that he's blocked he won't be able to reply even if he wanted to (which I seriously doubt given his lack of cooperation with the community, but still). What can we do about it? Halibutt 06:01, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
    Hmmm. I'd say drop a short note on your RfAr informing the ArbComm (who haven't started to vote yet) that Zivin is temporrrarily indispos3d, and it will therefore be several days before a response can be expected, and asking them to please take that into consideration (e.g. maybe wait to see if Zivin does eventually have a response). (Not that I think anything Zivin can say would make a difference, frankly; the behaviour has been too far out of line). Noel (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

    I'm going to have to take down that range block; it's affecting another user (User:AndriuZ). I'll protect all the pages Zivin was warring on before I do so. Noel (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

    OK, I protected Gdansk, Goldap, History of Pomerania, Olecko, Pomerania, Podlasie, Podlasie Voivodship, Sarmatism, Siauliai, and Sudovia, which seemed to be the worst targets of his current rampage. Let us know if he picks up again, and what the targets are. Noel (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

    User:BeBop

    Three revert rule violation on User:Anthony DiPierro/warning (edit | [[Talk:User:Anthony DiPierro/warning|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BeBop (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: cesarb 15:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:83.109.158.147, aka User:83.109.133.41, etc

    Three revert rule violation on Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 83.109.158.147 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Alai 06:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Note that from talk page comments and edit summaries, these are pretty clearly the same person, despite the different IP addresses. Note also the gross misuse of the term "vandalism" (meaning roughly, they won't let me insert my blatent POV unchallenged). Alai 06:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

    User:Cantus

    Again, Cantus uses IPs (200.83.186.180, 200.83.185.117) on Template:Europe and Developed country to get around his one-revert limit. Note his previous use of 200.83.* IPs which were already determined by David Gerard to be Cantus. [18] Moreover, he now uses the obvious sockpuppet User:Pages, which he used previously when he was blocked as Cantus. Note the monobook.css identical to Cantus's. NoPuzzleStranger 02:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

    and we are going to use our disscression not to care.Geni 13:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
    Well, why is that? And how can you speak for everyone else? Would some other sysops please weigh in here. This was a clear violation of Cantus' arbcom parole, and what's more, it is a repeat offense, which should now result in the full one-week block provided by the ruling. Even without Cantus' special restrictions, the first IP reverted four times so it would have been a 3RR anyway. NoPuzzleStranger 13:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
    I zapped the IP range for a further 24 hours (this may need unblocking if there's collateral damage, but it's a /29, i.e. eight IPs total). And well spotted on Pages, who does indeed appear to be Cantus and who I have accordingly blocked as a sock - David Gerard 01:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
    Socks are not illegal per se, so you should watch out with that block. I'm obviously not admitting anything here, just giving you advice. —Cantus…☎ 03:12, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Ardavan

    Three revert rule violation on Mojahedin-e-Khalq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ardavan (talk · contribs):

    • 1st revert: [19]
    • 2nd revert: [DiffLink Time]
    • 3rd revert: [DiffLink Time]
    • 4th revert: [DiffLink Time]

    Reported by: RezaKia 15:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC) --RezaKia 15:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: Me and my friend Hanifjazayeri, both from France, are having trouble with a person calling himself Ardavan on some occassions and at other times 216.132.69.157 and at other times. I think the two are the same because they both revert to the same page content, and both speak the same, and are very offensive. In the discussion section, at one point he shows that he is clearly biased by saying to my friend I HATE YOUR GROUP, (by the way he doesn't offer any evidence that it is HIS GROUP. Later on he writes that doesn't accept abusive language, only after one of the moderators complains. (You will notice from his signature mark that he wrote that comment two days later but posted it from my friend to make it seem that the person swearing and using rude language wasn't him. My friend and I wrote a number of times that Wikipedia should not allow such people to misuse such a useful tool on the internet. But he just replies by calling us terrorists! I don't know if there is a way of stopping the user, because he just signs in with different names and the last digits of the IP automatically change when he reconnects to the internet. Is there anyway to stop the page from continuously being vandalised?

    User:Emico and sockpuppets

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

    Reported by: DJ Clayworth 19:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    While these are technically from different anons, a quick look at the history of this article will show that the text added is essentially the POV original research of User:Emico, which he reverted a few times a few days before. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Emico. DJ Clayworth 19:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


    User:Heegoop

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

    • 1st revert: [24] 00:49, 30 May 2005
    • 2nd revert: [25] 14:17, 30 May 2005
    • 3rd revert: [26] 16:16, 30 May 2005
    • 4th revert: [27] 17:37, 30 May 2005

    Reported by: Firebug 19:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Repeatedly changing "American" to "United States" on multiple articles, despite lack of consensus for this alteration. After his 3rd revert in less than 24 hours to Hasbro, I warned him on his Talk page of the 3RR of the rule and the possible consequences of violating it. [28] He performed a 4th revert anyway, despite being warned of the 3RR before this. Firebug 19:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I've blocked him for 12 hours as this seems to have been a first offense, though he did revert after you warned him; otherwise I would just have warned him myself. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:52, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Enviroknot

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

    Reported by: Yuber(talk) 21:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • This user has been identified as a sockpuppet of many other users, please see his RF:AR here. He has been reported for 3RR on some of his other accounts.Yuber(talk) 21:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Yuber has put this in in bad faith: the 1st edit and the so-called "first revert" are good-faith edits attempting to form a consensus with Mel Etitis. Yuber has already been reported on this topic for starting a revert war.Enviroknot 21:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Actually, the four reverts had the same exact wording.Yuber(talk) 22:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
          • Blocked for 24 hours. Yuber, thanks for providing the first edit as well as the first revert, which was very helpful. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:05, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
            • For anyone checking this block, the fourth diff should be 21:18, 30 May 2005. The text reverted to four times was: "Dhimmitude is also mentioned ... in Surah 9:29 of the Koran: "You shall fight back against those who do not believe in GOD, nor in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what GOD and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth - among those who received the scripture - until they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly." SlimVirgin (talk) 22:32, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
              • User:Enviroknot has complained about this block on the mailing list, claiming that User:Yuber also violated 3RR at Dhimmi by using 199.181.178.37 (talk · contribs) to make one of the reverts. I know of nothing linking Yuber to this IP address, but I've left a note for Yuber asking him to stop reverting so often on this and other pages. I've also e-mailed Enviroknot asking him to show me that he didn't revert the text cited above four times, but he hasn't responded, except with invective. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:44, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
                • The diff on the first two edits combined with the discussion page for the article paints a very different picture from what you are claiming. Good-faith edits to a page never count as reverts.
    Your comments on the mailing list like "However, I won't be responding to any further e-mails from you to the mailing list" do not help: they indicate that you are not interested in operating in the open and in good faith.
    Your comment "Partial, complex reverts count as reverts like any other. The problem with gaming the system, as you are doing, is that this kind of miscalculation is inevitable from time to time" could easily be construed as an insult itself. I have read the byplay and there is no "invective" but the quite real frustration of a persecuted user who was wrongly blocked. User:80.237.206.62
    So-called "good-faith reverts" count just as much as "bad-faith reverts", except in cases of vandalism, and edits to the talk page are irrelevant. This user account and other sockpuppets have been editing-by-revert since they arrived, and I've no idea what you mean about reading the "byplay" and finding no invective: unless you're me or Enviroknot, you're unlikely to have read all his e-mails to me. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:25, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
    There is no such thing as a "good-faith revert" with the exception of vandalism cases. There are plenty of cases of good-faith edits being misconstrued as reverts by admins who are persecuting users for some personal reason.
    I have read all the emails on the mailing list, and have checked your history and the user's history. I've also checked the Request for Arbitration that you included this user in. You appear to be in the wrong here, and I have stated so.
    Claiming that an edit made during the working out of a consensus is a "revert" is counter to Wikipedia policy on what constitutes a revert and also counter to Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith. The behavior of other admins on the mailing list recently towards new users is frightening, as it is showing a marked cliquishness and hostility towards newcomers that you epitomize. Besides calling you a rogue admin and then pointing out Wikipedia policies you have violated, what has Enviroknot said to you? I would ask the same of him but you have rendered him incapable of putting forth any responses on here for me to see, and you have already stated that you will not discuss this in good faith and in public on the mailing list.
    This block and 3RR report are in bad faith. I urge any admin who comes by to remove the block immediately. User:80.237.206.62
    Please sign your posts. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:50, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
    I note from the mailing list that Enviroknot has now been banned from there. It is remarkably striking that Wikipedia admins are more interested in hiding what they do and preventing users from reporting them than they are in following policy. User:80.237.206.62

    User:ScrewedThePooch

    Three revert rule violation on Tides of Blood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ScrewedThePooch (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Talrias (t | e | c) 23:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • I've requested page protection. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Talrias, if you want to report a 3RR violation, you need to supply the diffs showing the reversions i.e. the difference between the versions. It would also help if you could supply the link to the earlier version reverted to. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 01:35, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
        • I checked the history and it was a 3RR violation. I've given him/her a warning and reverted the page to the version it was at before the fourth revert. I'm not sure it warrants protection just yet, but I've put it on my watchlist. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:53, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

    Report new violation

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive9&oldid=14474185"