Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:64.95.38.193[edit]

  • 3rr of his User page, this editor has been identified as a sock puppet and keeps removing their sock puppet tag. You will see the 3RR on their User page history. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 11:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

User:-Inanna-[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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)

Comments:

  • User has been blocked several times for breaking the 3RR. --Khoikhoi 22:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

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

User:Tbeatty[edit]

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)

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

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)
  • Fair enough, it seems that you're right about that first edit--152.163.101.12 03:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

User:205.188.117.10[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) .

  • 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)
  • The only thing sneakier than that would be, oh, I don't know, making unsigned personal attacks against your accuser?--205.188.116.70 02:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

Kashk[edit]

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

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

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)

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) --User:Kashk 05:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

  • But it looks like things have settled down and I also agree with the current version of the article. --User:Kashk 05:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: That doesn't look like 4 reverts to me, they are different edits. Kashk 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)

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)
Don't change the story. I was always present on the talk page. --User:Kashk 05:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

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

User:ManiF[edit]

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

User:SouthernComfort[edit]

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

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

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)

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)
Yeah, the fourth is removing vandalism, just as in ManiF's case. --Khoikhoi 08:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Update[edit]

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)

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)

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)

User:Xebat (formerly User:Diyako)[edit]

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

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

Comments:

  • User knows about 3RR because he told me here that he is "afraid of it". --Khoikhoi 08:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

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

User:Leotardo[edit]

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

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

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)

  • 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)

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

User:Goodandevil[edit]

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

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

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)

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)

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)
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)

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

User:Aucaman[edit]

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

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

Comments:

  • User reverted 11 times within 5 hours, about 8 of them are tag-adding. --Khoikhoi 09:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)

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)

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)


User:61.58.53.139[edit]

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 · edit filter log · block user · block log):

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

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)

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

User:Matcreg[edit]

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

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

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

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)

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

User:Purger[edit]

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

User:TuzsuzDeliBekir 2[edit]

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

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

Comments:

  • User has been blocked several times for breaking the 3RR. --Khoikhoi 18:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 48 hours, fourth 3RR block. Stifle 21:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

85.1.89.101[edit]

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 · edit filter log · block user · block log):

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

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)

  • Blocked for 12 hours for 3RR first violation. Stifle 21:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

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


86.140.253.251[edit]

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 · edit 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)

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

  • Three reverts only, no violation here. Stifle 21:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, please provide differences, not oldid versions, when reporting 3RR problems. Thanks. Stifle 21:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Nrcprm2026[edit]

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

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

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)

P.S. Nrcprm2026 upped his rever to 6th even after his violation has been pointed out. FWBOarticle
  • No violation detected. If I'm missing something, please post again here, but include differences, not old versions. Stifle 21:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
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)

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

?[edit]

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[edit]

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

And more recently:

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

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.

  • Well, you've both violated the 3RR, so you can both have 18 hour blocks. We're nothing if not equal here at WP:AN3. Stifle 21:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
    • The only person who was failing to follow any consensus in the matter was User:Leotardo/User:Poche1, but since Samaritan and Jamie are both unblocked now anyway, I guess I'll have to leave it at that. Bearcat 01:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)

User:Ohnoitsjamie[edit]

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

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

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)
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)
  • 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)
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)
  • The 3RR does not apply to simple vandalism, i.e. reverting page blanking, nonsense, etc. It applies normally to people who don't follow consensus, see the heading "Stubbornness" under "What vandalism is not" on WP:-(. Stifle 00:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The only person who was failing to follow any consensus in the matter was User:Leotardo/User:Poche1, but since Samaritan and Jamie are both unblocked now anyway, I guess I'll have to leave it at that. Bearcat 01:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

User:24.136.10.10[edit]

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 · edit filter log · block user · block log):

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

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)

  • I've blocked the IP for 12 hours for 3RR. I only see three reverts from Golbez. Stifle 00:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson[edit]

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


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

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
  • 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)

User:Caiqian, User:Sumple and/or User:FWBOarticle[edit]

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

Depends on where one start counting the revert

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

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)

  • 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)

User:200.118.111.122[edit]

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 · edit 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)

  • 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)

User:217.76.144.121[edit]

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 · edit filter log · block user · block log):

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

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 was already blocked 24 hours by Dustimagic. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Dr. Imbeau[edit]

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

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

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)

User:Perspicacious[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Seventh-day Adventist Church. Perspicacious (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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)

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.

  • Second infringement, he should know better. Blocked for 24 hours. Stifle 13:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Err... scratch that, Lbmixpro got there already. Stifle 13:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Moveapage[edit]

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

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

Comments:

  • repeatedly inserting disputed phrase "island nation", among other mass reverts. not first violation by this user.--Jiang 06:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Blocked 24 hours. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

User:EurowikiJ[