Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive9: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:34, 24 July 2005 editPinchasC (talk | contribs)8,782 edits 69.110.184.197← Previous edit Revision as of 08:56, 24 July 2005 edit undoHuaiwei (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users44,504 edits →[]Next edit →
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 667: Line 667:
'''Comments:''' '''Comments:'''
*] has been insisting in his POV and changed the article accordingly, despite the disagreements have not been settled at the ]. She/he reverted rolling back to what the list was like and was intended for before the dispute took place while discussion is in process, and she/he also reverted the application of the {{tl|twoversions}} tag. &mdash; ]] 08:16, July 24, 2005 (UTC) *] has been insisting in his POV and changed the article accordingly, despite the disagreements have not been settled at the ]. She/he reverted rolling back to what the list was like and was intended for before the dispute took place while discussion is in process, and she/he also reverted the application of the {{tl|twoversions}} tag. &mdash; ]] 08:16, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
*This is a ridiculous nomination. Those four edits reverts instantnood cited were punctured by small edits he made, so I dont think it constitutes a continous case of reverts by both parties. Secondly, while this revert war was sparked when he attempted to add a contentious line , he subsequently tried to do a roll back to a "prior to the dispute"...which was way before the offending edit...and a version he prefers. That version, however, is erroneous, as it was the state of the article before it was subsequently renamed. I therefore found it neccesary to bring it back to the state which was accepted by ] and me, but not by him.--] 08:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
* *

*
===]=== ===]===
] violation on {{Article|Noahide Laws}}. {{User|69.110.184.197}}: ] violation on {{Article|Noahide Laws}}. {{User|69.110.184.197}}:

Revision as of 08:56, 24 July 2005

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
    Click here to create a new report
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167
    1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links


    Violations

    User:Ultramarine

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

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

    Reported by: 172 01:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: Ultramarine has serious ownership issues with this horribly written article. Even so, Trey Stone was brave enough to copyedit it. Ultramarine, whose English is poor, does not understand this; so he keeps on accusing both Trey Stone and me of "revisionism" and "censorship." The fact that someone would accuse well-known anti-Communist editor Trey Stone-- of all people-- of these things is a strong sign that he doesn't have a clue as to what is going on. His conduct on the talk page and implied personal attacks are enough reason to warrant a block. 172 01:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

    I have not violated the rule. I have added substantial new arguments in most of my edits. In contrast, 172 insists on reverting to his version which deletes many of the critical arguments. In addition, his version has an incomprehensible ending with numerous spelling errors. Ultramarine 02:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
    Ultramarine did violate the 3RR. Don't let his misleading edit summaries fool you. And the version is not mine; it's Trey Stone's. 172 02:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
    I don't particularly get what UM is babbling about in his current edit summaries, but he's continuing the uninterrupted reversions. J. Parker Stone 03:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
    I keep adding specific critique of the Communist states. Misplaced Pages should allow critique of a system that murdered close to 100 million people in 70 years. Ultramarine 03:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
    me and 172 have already explained this to you, i am through here. J. Parker Stone 03:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

    Ultramarine has just broken the 3RR on Democracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as well. He makes a regular habit of breaking the 3RR in order to get away with his usual POV pushing. 172 | Talk 15:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

    Again, I add new arguments. It is you who make every attempt to revert the results peer-reviewed studies that you do not like. That liberal democracy and capitalism produce good real-world results should not be deleted, even if it does not fit with Marxist theory. Ultramarine 15:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    Quit lying. I was citing Lipet and Rustow. No one has ever called them Marxists. 172 | Talk 15:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    On the contrary, I have supported my statements with the results of numerous peer-reviewed studies, including some by authors named by you. You have only insinuated that there are other studies but have refused to name any. Misplaced Pages should be allowed the mention the real-world benefits of liberal democracy and capitalism, even if this is contrary to Marx. Ultramarine 15:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    You are implying that I am objecting to your edits because I am a Marxist, which is a lie and an argument grounded in a personal attack. At any rate, this page is not the place to carry out this discussion. 172 | Talk 15:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages should mention all points of view and not endorse any of them, Ultramarine. That is our policy, and you constantly break it. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    As noted on the talk page, those attempting to delete the peer-reviewed results showing beneficial effects of capitalism are now reverting without even trying to explain the deletions. If you want to argue against the studies by many independent researchers, do your own study, do not do original research in Misplaced Pages. Ultramarine 16:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    We did not delete anything; merely tried to add counter-arguments which you try to either misrepresent or remove. The current state of the article is ample proof of the fact that you are a POV warrior. If that section on 'poverty' is not POV, then I don't know what is. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    This was reported a couple of days ago, but I was first asked to look at it today. I've blocked him for 24 hours because he's been warned and blocked many times, and in fact continued reverting after this was reported. The times of the reverts were July 15 19:53, July 16 00:00, 00:48, 01:03, 02:50, 03:06. SlimVirgin 01:42, July 20, 2005 (UTC)


    User:Guy Montag

    Three revert rule violation on Palestinian terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy Montag (talk · contribs):

    • Subsequent reverts:
    02:01, 17 July 2005
    22:42, 17 July 2005
    22:11, 18 July 2005
    01:59, 19 July 2005

    Reported by:Heraclius 02:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

    This looks accurate. Since Montag asked for (and received) a block on the other user, it seems fair to judge his own edits as well. On account of this and an excessively combative attitude . I'm giving him a short block. -Willmcw 19:59, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    I have sent you a message already, but I want to make it clear that those edits are not a break with policy as they were made on two different days. Guy Montag 22:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    They appear to have been with 24 hours of each other. Please remember that even three reverts is too many. And bragging about getting another editor blocked is not conducive to collaboration, nor is telling to "F*** off". -Willmcw 22:20, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

    Guy Montag reverted the article five times in a 24-hour period, and has and has done so an additional four times since then. This individual was blocked for violating the 3RR on three prior occasions, so I feel that a one-hour block is insufficient. —Lifeisunfair 00:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


    hmmmmm - and Heraclius got a 24 hour ban - for a 3RR breach by the same admin. I thought he was treating them both the same (which would have been according to Misplaced Pages policy). How very revealing. I wonder how he justifies this?

    All of this type of actions sends out out a message. And the message here that being a bully, telling people to "fuck off", repeatedly breaching a 3RR and then reporting another usrs for the SAME violation - is all better than if you are (as the admin seems to described Heraclius earlier) "a jerk" because of his POV. What a shame - policy is explicitly that the 3RR rule is blind to content in so far as possible.

    His first action on the ban being lifted awas a third "revert" in 24 hours (so still "legal" but questionable) on Palestinian Terrorism so "message understood" I think.

    If the admins are unfair (or percieved to be so) then people will disrupt, troll and otherwise be "anti-social" to make a point - because they feel that they have no other recource. It really is terribly disruptive to "community".

    62.253.64.14 06:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

    Please do not use different names. It makes it harder for the rest of us to understand what you're saying. Please note that I have responded to you on my talk page, where you raised these same questions. My advice to all of these editors (including Guy Montag) is to stop complaining, stop reverting, and find a way to write encyclopedia articles. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:40, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Boothy443

    Three revert rule violation on Template:Football club infobox (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Boothy443 (talk · contribs):


    User:68.163.207.106

    Three revert rule violation on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.163.207.106 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Aecis 13:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC) (but updated since)

    Comments:

    User:Stirling Newberry

    Three revert rule violation on the Misplaced Pages Surrealism article by Stirling Newberry.

    Classicjupiter2 15:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

    Anonymous contributor 4.x in Aetherometry

    Three revert rule violation on Aetherometry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 4.232.6.35 (talk · contribs) 4.233.125.162 (talk · contribs) 4.249.18.157 (talk · contribs) 4.233.124.110 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Pjacobi 20:54, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • This is an anonymous contributor using different IPs --Pjacobi 20:54, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Whereas the other parts of edits vary, note that in all four cases the "peer-review" halfsentence was deleted. --Pjacobi 20:54, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

    User:J Michaels

    Three revert rule violation on Massacre at Hue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). J Michaels (talk · contribs):

    and again:

    and again:

    Reported by: GhePeU 00:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:70.146.54.128

    Three revert rule violation on Memoirs of Walter Bruce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.146.54.128 (talk · contribs):

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

    Reported by: Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Franck Ver Stut (talk · contribs)

    4 reverts in 5 hours, on Ancient Egypt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    has been warned. reported by dab (ᛏ)

    User:Guy Montag

    Palestinian Terrorism

    1. (cur) (last) 22:42, 17 July 2005 Guy Montag m (I am done arguing with anonymous idiots. Follow policy or you will be reverted)
    2. (cur) (last) 22:04, 17 July 2005 Heraclius (huh?)
    3. (cur) (last) 09:22, 17 July 2005 62.253.64.14 (tag removed pending outcome of RFC.)
    4. (cur) (last) 09:10, 17 July 2005 62.253.64.14 (you're right - when that much is in dispute {{totally disputed}} is a better call.)
    5. (cur) (last) 02:01, 17 July 2005 Guy Montag (like I said. State the disputed sections or leave it alone. No hit and runs)
    6. (cur) (last) 01:03, 17 July 2005 62.253.64.14 (If there aint no consensus then there must be a "Dispute" so tag is appropriate.)
    7. (cur) (last) 02:18, 16 July 2005 Guy Montag m (I am not going to tolerate blatant disregard for polic.y. Either add detailed comments in talk or stop wasting people's time with hit and run tags. It is that simple.)
    This appears to be only 3 reverts. Still too many, but not a violation. -Willmcw 05:21, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Jennet

    All five edits to User:SPUI on Special:Contributions/Jennet are the same edit, making the last four reverts (vandalism too). --SPUI (talk) 11:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

    Oh, yeh, I realise I'm complaining about being called a Fucking Idiot after I called administrators the Same Thing. What can I say? I guess I'm just a Fucking idiot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPUI. (talk • contribs)

    User:Lapsed Pacifist

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

    Reported by: Jayjg 00:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Keeps reverting to a version cotaining a paragraph describing Trifkovic as "a former supporter of Slobodan Milošević. He has denied the massacre of several thousand Muslims in Srebrenica" etc. As with report above, games the 3RR by making minor changes to the wording while re-inserting the paragraph. Jayjg 00:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

    Blocked for 24 hours. Thryduulf 01:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:Heraclius

    Clear cut breach of policy.

    Guy Montag 04:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

    Previously warned, blocked for 24 hours. -Willmcw 05:18, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    Please note the two violations above from Guy Montasg, neither of which was acted on - this was NOT an "in good faith" report of a violation. The Admins are supposed to treat both sides fairly - so both should get a ban here. .62.253.64.15 06:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, thank you. I received your email and replied. I've asked Montag about it and will block if appropriate. However if it appears that you are using this IP address to circumvent a block then that is not good either. -Willmcw 08:41, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

    User:BrandonYusufToropov or User:67.78.186.19 or User:EnviroFuck or someone else?

    At Jihad: not just violating 3RR and deliberately trying to evade it by dropping out to his IP address, but also tilting at windmills making false accusations of users being the banned user "Enviroknot."

    Also took the time to make false accusations of sockpuppetry against Zeno of Elea on the article's talk page.

    Signed: 212.247.200.185 16:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

    Can someone please do something on this, perhaps lock the Jihad page? It's silly and seeing BYT's comments on the Recent Changes list is embarassing to Misplaced Pages.Existentializer 16:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

    Additional: A new user named EnviroFuck has appeared and is most definitely 67.78.186.19; this user is also patently guilty of 3RR violation on the page.Existentializer 16:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

    I've locked Jihad. SlimVirgin 16:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    Enviro#### ain't me. . I'd like an admin to check in on the anonymous edits in question. Possible? BrandonYusufToropov 17:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

    Envirowhatever is learning. This time he accuses others of sockpuppetry before they accuse him. Observe his 7th (!) edit . This travesty has to stop. He must have about a dozen accounts by now. dab (ᛏ) 22:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

    Dab, I have nothing to do with this. I saw an ongoing flamewar and OBVIOUS edits by BYT, and made the reversion because I thought it was warranted as per Misplaced Pages policy. When you are done making false allegations, please calm down and start dealing with this rationally. I wasn't even the one who reported this, someone else did, I only posted a concurrence and added the evidence as it kept piling up. Existentializer 15:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    yeah, well, you are, of course, a sockpuppet of somebody, so why don't you just disclose your previous accounts, this case is complicated enough as it is. dab (ᛏ) 15:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    Please come back when you have calmed down.Existentializer 15:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    great, you have just convinced me of your identity. I'm not upset at all, because you will have no success. Anyway, there is an rfar headed your way, I believe, so let's just wait for that, and not jump to conclusions. dab (ᛏ) 16:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    I repeat, please calm down and cease making false accusations. It is highly unseemly for an admin, even one of your dubious stature.Existentializer 16:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:Tautvydas

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

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

    Reported by: --Witkacy 21:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

    I have warned user:Tautvydas as it doens't appear he's ever been warned about it. You (user:Witkacy) have also broken the 3RR on the same article, and as you demonstrated above your awareness of the rule I've blocked you for 24 hours. I have also protected the article in question, as requested by a third party at WP:RFPP


    user:Friday

    Three revert rule violation on Template:Wolf hunting controversy. Friday (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Gabrielsimon 21:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

    • Comment I believe the 4th diff shows a workaround, not a revert. I was attempting to avoid the disputed term altogether, with or without quotation marks. Yes, I know that even 3 reverts is not good, however I was making a good faith effort to work through the dispute. See Talk:Wolf hunting controversy for a history of this squabble. Friday 21:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

    response : i was dinged for four modificatipons in 24 hours, and one was totally different, so the rules catch you as well. Gabrielsimon 21:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

    • It's a workaround. There is a substantive difference in meaning between "the hunt" and "game". --khaosworks 01:22, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Kim Bruning

    Three revert rule violation on Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kim Bruning (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Lifeisunfair 05:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • As an admin, this individual certainly knows better. These reverts apply to a specific section, which Kim Bruning has repeatedly removed (in its entirety). This is highly inappropriate (irrespective of the 3RR violation), as it's an ongoing formal discussion regarding the proposed undeletion of a page that Kim Bruning deleted (arguably against policy). As a result of this edit war, Snowspinner has protected the page (with understandable reluctance, given the overall ramifications of doing so). Quoth Snowspinner, "The fact that there is an edit war here baffles and appalls me..." I couldn't agree more. —Lifeisunfair 05:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:134.161.244.89

    Three revert rule violation on George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 134.161.244.89 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: BMIComp (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    AI

    Three revert rule violation on Talk:David S. Touretzky (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by AI (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: James F. (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:67.182.157.6

    Three revert rule violation on Truth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.182.157.6 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Rhobite 03:13, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    B0sh

    Three revert rule violation on Bosh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). B0sh (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: ∞Who?¿? 08:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • (All times given in UTC) Current Vfd consensus is in favor of disambiguation version of this article to keep. Previous rv's have been performed prior to these. ∞Who?¿? 09:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


    User: 214.13.4.151

    Three revert rule violation on Karl Rove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 214.13.4.151 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: RyanFreisling @ 14:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • This is just one example, in which the user has systematically reverted or added text more 'political' in nature to the Karl Rove article, including numerous reverts of the section above. In general, user refuses to work on 'talk' to resolve differences, and his/her edits are seriously damaging the article's integrity to protect his political POV. He has deleted this well-sourced, factual information numerous times.
    • The user appears to be in the Department of Defense. Unsure if/how relevant, but I'm putting it on the record. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:Astrotrain

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

    Reported by: THOR 19:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • I inserted all the reversions, as well as the last four that violated the 3RR. I was prompted to the user by his reversion on a template I was working on; wherein he proved dense and uncaring to proposals and discussions on talk pages.

    User:64.95.91.23

    Three revert rule violation on Protest Warrior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 64.95.91.23 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Rhobite 19:01, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • I did revert four times as well, but I didn't realize it. I reverted myself seconds later. Rhobite 19:01, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Amin123

    Three revert rule violation on Christianity and world religions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Amin123 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Jayjg 21:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • On the section titles "Possible relationship with Zoroastrianism" keep removing the phrase "through Judaism", either deleting it entirely, or replacing it with "through Old Testament". Has been warned about 3RR and asked to self-revert. Jayjg 21:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:Existentializer

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

    Reported by: Irishpunktom\ 23:07, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: Existentializer wants to add a piece reporting a contradiction by Nintendo. 3RR broken by User:A Link to the Past too, who wants it sourced or removed. User knows about the 3RR and has attempted to have another user blocked because of it (see above)--Irishpunktom\ 23:03, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

    User:BernardL

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

    Reported by: --TJive 02:05, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments

    Please note that he is removing the same passage in all reverts, even with an attempted compromise wording. Also note that he is using anonymous IPs for some reverts, whether by coincidence or in attempt to avoid block. However, he openly uses the IP account for his BernardL one, and signs comments. In regards to two IPs used here, User:69.157.232.214 and User:69.157.233.37, note that he signs his comments as BernardL and does not disassociate himself from the anons. --TJive 02:05, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

    have to agree with TJive here, and the user's been especially unwilling to compromise on the page. J. Parker Stone 03:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

    So....nothing? --TJive 11:47, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
    Hallo.... --TJive 00:24, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
    BernardL (and the IP addresses) haven't edited Noam Chomsky since the request was made here. Since he stopped edit warring more than two days ago, there's little point in blocking. The 3RR is meant to throw cold water on edit wars in progress, not to punish afterwards.
    It is also customary to warn users on their talk pages that a 3RR violation has been posted here—particularly new users who may not be familiar with the policy. (I have now done this.) I consider the matter closed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:Boothy443

    Three revert rule violation on User_talk:Boothy443 (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Boothy443 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Dmcdevit·t 02:29, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • I have no involvement in this, but it is has been showing up on my watchlist all day. Boothy kept trying to redirect his talk page, which was seen as hostile. --Dmcdevit·t 02:29, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't think it's proper for Boothy to redirect his talk page to another page, but since he has stopped doing that I don't see any problem here. Not a blockable violation, anyway. It's his talk page, he can revert it as many times as he likes. Rhobite 03:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
    Gads. Poor behaviour all around here, really. Misplaced Pages:Sheep vote for a while incorporated a section that might be taken as an attack on Boothy443. Boothy443–instead of editing or VfDing Misplaced Pages:Sheep vote–redirected his User Talk page there, which led to the edit war over his redirection.
    I'm not sure what point Boothy443 is trying to make. I would suggest that we cut him some slack since a) he was made fun of, and b) it's in his userspace. That said, he should be strongly cautioned not to redirect his User Talk page, as it makes it very difficult for other users to communicate with him.
    I also wish that he would at least explain what point he's trying to make with his votes at WP:RFA; it might reduce some of the bad feelings that surround him. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:Pastorrussell

    Three revert rule violation on Charles Taze Russell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pastorrussell (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Carnildo 07:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Pastorrussell has been persistently removing any dispute tag from the article. I've been holding off on reporting in the hopes that talk-page discussion would resolve the issue, but the most recent edit by Pastorrussell indicates that would be futile.

    User:Theathenae

    Three revert rule violation on Arvanites and Arvanitic language. (History. Arvanites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Arvanitic language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Theathenae (talk · contribs):

    • Comment

    He reveted more then three times without taking part of the discussion. I told him to take part of the discussion but he ignored. When I send him a message to his talk page he erased my message , this is also clearly a violation and trying to total ignore discussion and revert articles in his own way. He was made aware about this later that it is against policy to delate others message they send to him. User talk:MacGyverMagic gaved him a warning. Dispite that he continue to blank his talk page, . A temporary or perament ban on user Theatheane for violation against the rules would be legitimate. I propose at least 24 hours. Let it be known that he was banned for 3RR rule before, . --Albanau 13:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

    165.247.208.72

    Three revert rule violation on Massacre at Hue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 165.247.208.72 (talk · contribs):

    Although not the same IP address as 209.86.1.9, both coming from the same proxy server according to ARIN

    Too many reverts to count, in excess of one dozen,

    Reported by: TDC 17:42, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

    User:67.134.82.77

    Three revert rule violation on Rick Ross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by User:67.134.82.77. --ZappaZ File:Yin yang.png 00:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Keep in mind, you too have have violated the 3RR. As far as blocking, the 3RR policy states, In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally. You all seem to be having an edit war, and may want to try the dispute resolution process.

    He doesn't seem to have reverted since being warned. SlimVirgin 01:41, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Pastorrussell

    Three revert rule violation on Charles Taze Russell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pastorrussell (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Carnildo 04:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Pastorrussell is claiming that one version of the intro is the "consensus version", and keeps reverting to it. The other five editors prefer a different version. --Carnildo 04:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:Copperchair

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

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert: (disguised as "minor edit")

    Reported by: — Phil Welch 07:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

    Hi Phil, the diffs don't seem to show evidence of three or more reverts to a previous version. I've leave a note on his page about reverting anyway. SlimVirgin 23:23, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
    Three are marked as "revert" in the edit summary while the fourth is marked as "correcting thumbnail" (but in effect reverts content previously reverted if you see the other diffs). The policy states "do not revert any single page more than three times in any 24 hour period", and that is what Copperchair did. — Phil Welch 00:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
    He'd have to be warned first before being blocked anyway, Phil, so I've done that. If he does it again, he's likely to be blocked. SlimVirgin 00:05, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

    User:212.88.98.187

    Three revert rule violation on Terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 212.88.98.187 (talk · contribs):

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

    Reported by: Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    added to my watchlist for what that's worth. Septentrionalis

    User:Huaiwei

    Three revert rule violation on List of companies in the People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Huaiwei (talk · contribs):

    • 1st revert: 14:22, July 23, 2005
    • 2nd revert: 19:15, July 23, 2005
    • 3rd revert: 07:02, July 24, 2005
    • 4th revert: 07:35, July 24, 2005

    Reported by: — Instantnood 08:16, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User:Huaiwei has been insisting in his POV and changed the article accordingly, despite the disagreements have not been settled at the talk page. She/he reverted rolling back to what the list was like and was intended for before the dispute took place while discussion is in process, and she/he also reverted the application of the {{twoversions}} tag. — Instantnood 08:16, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • This is a ridiculous nomination. Those four edits reverts instantnood cited were punctured by small edits he made, so I dont think it constitutes a continous case of reverts by both parties. Secondly, while this revert war was sparked when he attempted to add a contentious line , he subsequently tried to do a roll back to a "prior to the dispute"...which was way before the offending edit...and a version he prefers. That version, however, is erroneous, as it was the state of the article before it was subsequently renamed. I therefore found it neccesary to bring it back to the state which was accepted by User:Dbinder and me, but not by him.--Huaiwei 08:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

    User:69.110.184.197

    Three revert rule violation on Noahide Laws (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.110.184.197 (talk · contribs):


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert: By User:81.129.79.2 probaly a sockpuppet.
    • 6th revert:

    Reported by: Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 08:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Inserts POV paragraph.


    Report new violation

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive9: Difference between revisions Add topic