Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive19

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:8bitJake reported by User:FRCP11 (Case No. 3) (result: 12h each)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Christine Gregoire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 8bitJake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: FRCP11 16:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

I reported 8bitJake for multiple violations of 3RR on Henry M. Jackson, which resulted in two separate blocks. He retaliated by repeatedly reverting my edits on Christine Gregoire and Moby. Rather than getting into a revert war, I simply added a POV tag to the Gregoire article, and made a RFC for both articles; he's now removed the POV tag four times in 20 hours, as well as violated WP:NPA on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics page. Beware that 8bitJake regularly claims "consensus" when none exists (he was in a 1:6 minority on Henry Jackson and is in a 2:3 minority on Gregoire). -- FRCP11 16:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think FRCP11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and 8 have both broken 3RR; so they can have 12h each William M. Connolley 19:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As a question as a third party who's been directly involved in this ongoing battle w/8BJ, how does 12 hours work for a user's 5th offense and his third in less than 10 days? Is there a formula that admins use on this? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
There are no fixed rules. 8bit would probably have got 24h from me had he been the only violater William M. Connolley 21:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
So one's past isn't taken into account? The fact that he's a serial violator means nothing in this case? I'm puzzled. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
This user keeps reverting my del on the Noam Chomsky page when I specifically put my reasons in talk, stated so much, and he's refused to discuss it. What is the point of editing if a user can continually ignore the rules and avoid punishment?

Wikipedia really needs to rethink its procedures. Because I reported this guy and he got a tiny block last week, he's been wikistalking me, systematically reverted all of my edits, and regularly personally attacking me. I followed the rules, discussed on the talk pages, and issued RFCs, no effect. When I reported him again, I got blocked; if I had just let him keep vandalizing the page, I wouldn't have been blocked. Meanwhile, this guy, who's been blocked five times now, and hasn't ever attempted compromise, gets the same penalty I do -- except he didn't waste time drafting a complaint. (8bitJake understands the effect of this arbitrary ruling, even if the administrators don't: Look at him gloat as he gets taught how to make bad-faith edits.

If Wikipedia makes its editors worse off for reporting violations, then violators are going to act with impunity. I'm certainly not going to spend time writing up one of these notices any more: I'm stunned anyone does after what I went through for doing so. Nor am I going to waste my time editing Wikipedia any more, either, because if it doesn't treat the bad-faith editors any differently than the good-faith editors, it means that this place is doomed to have the noise outweigh the signal. Gresham's Law.

I'm not going to waste two weeks going through three levels of procedure to get this guy to stop harassing me when the administrators can't even distinguish between the placement of a POV tag and a 3RR violation, and count compromise edits that add sources as counting towards 3RR violations.

So, congratulations: you chased away an educated editor who'd contributed over 2000 edits in favor of a bad-faith editor who ignores the RFC process. -- FRCP11 10:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Panairjdde reported by User:Nissi Kim (result: 3h)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on South Korea national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). USER NAME (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Note: User:Panairjdde has several other reverts of the same issues before this 24 hour period.

Reported by: Nissi Kim 19:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Panairjdde continues to input biased, non-NPOV, irrelevent, unsupported-uncited-unreferenced opinions. He has been told numerous times that he has put in biased, degrading material and information but repeatedly reverts the edits. I'm fairly knew to this article and upon entering the Discussion page, it seems as if he has been warned by several others in the WIki community. His original edits seem to be NPOV but has verged far from that. The exact lines and etc. can be seen discussed in the Talk page.

3h first offence William M. Connolley 19:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Envix reported by User:olderwiser[edit]

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

Second round after making a few superficial changes:


Reported by: olderwiser 18:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User is new, and may be a DeVos campaign worker (see Talk:Dick DeVos), but in any case seems to have developed a sense of ownership over the article and their preferred version. olderwiser 18:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

2006-06-08 18:59:51 Naconkantari blocked "Envix (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR on Dick DeVos) William M. Connolley 19:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Mikhail Frunze reported by User:User:Ultramarine (result: warned)[edit]

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

Reported by: Ultramarine 23:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Seems to have gone away again? Warned William M. Connolley 19:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Looper5920 reported by User:217.235.205.150[edit]

Three revert rule violation on 1st Battalion 4th Marines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Looper5920 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: 217.235.205.150

Comments: Looper keeps reverting improvements to the article named above. From his statements on /Talk I understand that he wants the article to represent the official position of the US Military instead of facts.

This is not the place for content disputes, but be aware that even if Looper is blocked (since Looper did violate the 3RR), that does not represent an endorsement of your change. I would suggest you seek a consensus on the talk page before reverting it again. Powers 01:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
What, 3RR can be broken as long as it is related to a content dispute, but not if everyone agrees? What idiotic argumentation is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.209.60 (talkcontribs) 05:52 UTC, June 9, 2006
It's not one I made. I'm not saying 3RR can be broken, I'm saying that it doesn't mean you're right and Looper is wrong, just that Looper went too far in enforcing Looper's preferred version. It's a moot point now, since Looper has tried a compromise, and I'm frankly not sure which of you is correct anymore. =) Powers 12:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

User:68.112.25.197 reported by User:cholmes75 (chit chat)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Dave Sullivan (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.112.25.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: cholmes75 (chit chat) 05:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I'm not sure if it's too late to report this, but user 68.112.25.197 engaged in a mini-edit war for the sole purpose of placing a non-fair use image into an article. He/she has already been blocked once for 3RR violations. He was also warned about 3RR again on his talk page, and as far as I can tell did it anyway. (unless I'm getting the times mixed up)


User:Objectman reported by User:Deiaemeth (result - 3hr block)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on VANK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and An Jung-geun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Objectman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

For An Jung-geun

For VANK

Reported by: Deiaemeth 08:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Warned numerous times for 3RR violation through user talk, article talk, and edit summary, deleted warning template off user page, keeps inserting personal POV like "Ahn Jung-geun is regarded as stupid man who killed an old guy", inserts POV templates in many articles just because the article doesn't suit his POV, etc. He has more edits that violate 3RR but i'll just list these. "only a stupid terrorist who killed a defenseless old man. " This seems very encyclopedic and NPOV. Deiaemeth 08:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

2006-06-09 14:14:56 Kcordina blocked "Objectman (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 hours (3RR on An Jung-geun) William M. Connolley 19:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

User:HOTR reported by User:Zeq Talk[edit]

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

  • Previous version reverted to: In part it is this version 17:24, June 7, 2006 and as far as the "OR tag" User:HOTR has reverted the top section to this version: 04:40 June 9, 2006( OR tag was reinserted twice and other text reverted for total of 4 reverts in under 24 hours)

4th and 5th revert is a repeat on this edit:

04:39 June 9, 2006

Reported by: Zeq 14:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Admin note: The edits cited above do not appear to be the same, and therefore do not constitue a breach of WP:3RR. Kcordina Talk 14:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Editor note Read the 3RR policy, especialy the words "in whole or in part" see WP:3RR. The policy does not allow even a partial revert as defined in: Wikipedia:Revert :

"To revert is to undo all changes made after a certain time in the past. The result will be that the page becomes identical to how it used to be at some previous time. A partial revert undoes only some of those changes."

It is clearly a violation. Zeq 14:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I am still of the opinion their behaviour does not deserve any action. To summarise the diffs you've cited:-

Revert 1 - Deleted a lot of text, added a link
Revert 2 - Ditto
Revert 3 - Ditto (but no link inserted)
Revert 4 - Add a tag
Revert 5 - Add a fact tag
Final diff cited - Add two tags

So they've done 3 reversions of one type - deleting a section of text. 2 edits relating to one tag, and 2 edits relating to another tag. This has no relation to "in whole or in part" the two groups are totally unrelated - they've reverted 3 times and then stopped. If I'm reading it wrong please let me know Kcordina Talk 14:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The first 3 are clearly reverts all are the same all return a section to what it was in the initial version. Do we agree so far that the first 3 are 3 reverts. ?


Now look at this edit [3] it adds two tags. Some other users have removed these tags and next:

Homeonethe range restored that section's tags (in reverts #4 and #5). so there was clearly a violation because there were 5 edits each of them reverted part of the article and the policy sais "in whole or in part" Zeq 15:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I can see where your coming from, but I, personally, interpret the rule differently. I see there as being a breach of the rule in all, or the same subsections, of an article are reverted more than three times - not simply more than three reverts on an article in total. So in this case, there have only been up to 3 reverts of one type, hence I have chosen not to block the user, and I still think that is correct. I have, however, made a note to the user concerned to this effect. Perhaps a different admin will have a different view. Kcordina Talk 15:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Note from second admin: I haven't looked at the diffs to see if they really are reverts, and I'm a bit busy at the moment, but will just point out that the policy page specifically says (in bold letters in the Detail section):

"Note: There is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count."

I'm not involved in this, and I have no problem with whatever decision is taken by the admin who looks into it, but I think it's important for the rule to be properly understood. AnnH 16:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've looked into it and it was clearly a 3RR violation. I've issued a 24 block. Now let's discuss the deleting this report as a "content dispute", when it's clearly a 3RR report; that's clearly disruptive and inappropriate. FeloniousMonk 16:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, the removal of this report by NSLE (talk · contribs) was inappropriate. I asked for an explanation and we need to make sure that in the future violation reports do not get sweeped under the rug. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
He deleted it twice . this is the 2nd: [4] - a clear edit war. I also left him amessage on his talk page that he ignored. Despite all the narrowing of my ability to edit because of the probation I decided to reinstate the 3RR report although I was risking it. In any case this below is even more important: (Zeq 20:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC))

additional offenses by same violator: HOTR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)[edit]

This his his 5th 3RR (4 of them on the last two weeks, 3 of which - including this one - are on apartheid realted articles) , so 24 hours seem a bit low. In fact in almost does not matter for how long will the block last, this violator edit pattern is of constant edit-wars and disruption. For example here is ::::HOTR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) praticipation in an edit-ring to circumvent the 3RR law. (i.e.) he disrupted Wikipedia while violating WP:Point#Gaming_the_system

This is just the tip of the iceberg of his disruption on that article. Since Block are preventive (not punative) I encourge you to decide based on his edit pattern for how long he need to cool in order to prevent continuion of this edit pattern. reported by Zeq 19:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's regrettable that Zeq chose to repost a 3RR complaint after it had been rejected and removed. I think it's highly questionable that when doing so he chose to omit my response to the original complaint. That sounds a lot like "gaming the system". Homey 01:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not removed Homey's comments. In fact I restored them twice[5]. NSLE was the one that removed them together with the whole complained I was the one who tried to restore it twice. Zeq 08:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

By rejected and removed, of course you mean innappropriatly deleted without consultation from anyone, despite being a valid report of a repeat offender. Also how often do we delete reports anyways, even those that are clearly frivolous?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Improper unblocking of HOTR[edit]

Bearcat's unblocked HOTR. His unblocking summary said "disputed edit is not a clear 3RR violation; two separate issues, neither of which individually exceeded the 3RR rule, were conflated into one." Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule specifically says (in bold even):

"There is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count."

Meaning his reason for unblocking HOTR was based on a flawed understanding of 3RR policy. Furthermore, WP:BLOCK clearly says "If you disagree with a block, begin by discussing it with the blocking admin. Admins should not undo each other's blocks, except in certain limited circumstances." Bearcat made no such effort; if he had followed policy there'd have been an opportunity to avoid this confusion. So, again, unblocking outside of policy. I've left notes on all the relevant user talk pages and have reinstated the remainder of HOTR's block, which is 12 hours. FeloniousMonk 02:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

As I've stated on your talk page, the rule you cite was added to the 3RR policy on April 18, 2006. I can find no indication that any discussion ever took place to build consensus for this rule change; as long as I've been an administrator, the rule was that the 3RR rule applied to reversions of the same material. Until someone can point out where the new rule was discussed and approved, I do not accept that I acted outside of policy; being a Wikipedia administrator does not imbue me with some kind of responsibility to be psychic about unannounced rule changes. Bearcat 02:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
It is clear in the wikipedia 3RR policy that a reversion refers to "undoing another editors work. It is irrelevant whether or not it is the same edit every single time.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
It says that now. Until less than two months ago, the rule was that 3RR applied to reversions of the same material. The rule was changed within the past six weeks. Unless I somehow have a responsibility to reread the entire 3RR policy every single time a 3RR issue comes up, I'm mystified as to how I'm expected to have known that, and I still have yet to see any kind of discussion to establish a consensus for the rule change. Bearcat 03:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Even before two months ago people were being blocked for violating it as it exists now, in fact Homey has personally reported people for 3RR violations that wouldn't be blockable according to the policy that you are describing.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm talking about the policy as written; an informal unwritten consensus followed by some administrators in some situations doesn't count as a binding policy that other administrators can be faulted for not knowing about. Bearcat 03:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The nature of wikipedia is change. Policies, just like articles, evolve. It is incumbent upon each admin to stay abreast of current policy; most have the primary policy pages on their watchlists and are active. Not being aware of the rules as they are written is no excuse. Try telling a cop that you didn't know what the speed limit was next time you're caught speeding and see how far that gets you. Amazing. FeloniousMonk 03:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Any speeding ticket on the planet could be overturned in court if it resulted from an unannounced and unposted-except-for-one-single-sign-that's-not-even-visible-from-the-road change in the long-standing speed limit on a given highway. Anybody can say "well, you had a responsibility to know the law was being changed even though the city did nothing to publicize or announce the fact", but no court in the world would hold the driver criminally culpable for not personally going to city hall to read the city council minutes every day just in case the speed limit might change unannounced. The only amazing thing about this is that you actually think it's a valid metaphor for the matter at hand. Bearcat 04:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The argument that the 3RR clarification changed the law 6 weeks ago is ridiculus claim. as is the claim that the policy as written is not clear. The policy was not changed, it was always clear. Here is a quote from 1.5 yr ago: "Reverting doesn't only mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. It means undoing the actions of another editor, and may include edits that mostly undo a previous edit and also add something new, page moving, admin actions such as protection, etc. Use common sense." Bearcat was just engage in wp:Wheel war and trying now to produce explnations for it.Zeq 03:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
It most certainly was changed. Until quite recently, the rule per 3RR was that it applied to repeated reversions of the same material. Your quote does not contradict that — it defines what a reversion is, and does not claim or even imply that different edits over the course of a dispute can be added together into a single 3RR violation. And you can kindly take your assumptions about my behavioural motivations and boil them up for soup. Bearcat 03:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Bearcat, the 3RR rule has included partial, complex reverts for as long as I can recall, and in August last year, the phrase that a revert is "undoing another editor's work" was added explicitly. There's a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Three revert rule. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 04:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I suppose your understanding of "complex revert" and mine may differ, but I understand it to mean "if it's basically the same revert, it counts even if the wording or structure of it varies", as opposed to "it doesn't count unless the wording is identical every time." My understanding of the phrase does not include "completely unrelated reverts to different sections of an article count even if neither one taken as an individual case would exceed three reverts". Bearcat 04:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Let's suppose you added five new paragraphs to an article and added the clean-up tag. I reverted your first paragraph. You restored it. I reverted your second paragraph. You restored it. I reverted your third. You restored. I reverted your fourth. Another editor restored. I reverted your fifth. Someone restored. I reverted the tag. Someone restored. By your definition, I might not have violated 3RR because I was reverting different material each time. But the 3RR rule does include this kind of reverting, because the intent of the policy was to stop revert warring, not just to stop restoration/deletion of the same material. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
If that's the rule as it stands, I'm fine with enforcing that now. What I won't do is accept that I'm somehow at fault for having had a different understanding. The intent of a policy is less readily enforceable if the letter of the policy is ambiguous enough that a reasonably intelligent person can fail to deduce the actual intent, that's all I'm sayin'. Bearcat 05:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, why should the edit scenario you describe above be treated any differently that reverting all the paragraphs and the tag at once? If anything, such a policy only encourages people to work on whole versions in their user space, rather than in the normal wiki way of iterative change. Conversely, it encourages editors who dispute new versions to revert them in their entirety, rather than go through it and incrementally remove or alter the parts with which they don't agree. The intent of the original policy, as seen in the history, was specifically to prevent version warring, or as it was once said, sterile edit warring. See the ongoing discussion on Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule.Timothy Usher 21:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, the timing would make a difference. If I were removing one paragraph after another in successive edits, and the original editor was reinserting them as I was editing and I wasn't aware that he was doing that, no admin would count that as 3RR, because as you say, it would be as though I had removed them all at once. But if an editor added several paragraphs; and if I removed one, was reverted, had some breakfast; came back and removed another, was reverted, had some lunch; came back and removed another, and so on — that would be interpreted as a 3RR violation and as disruptive, sterile editing, because I'm continually undoing another editor's work, even though, by reverting, he's telling me that he doesn't want me to undo it. If I were to remove all the material at once, I at least wouldn't be contributing to an edit war. So there is a difference in terms of attitude. It's the edit warring attitude that 3RR seeks to clamp down on. I think the mistake lies with admins who believe there is no subjective element to judging when to block for 3RR. There is, and always has been, in my view. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I would say there would be little problem with that kind of editing pattern. Suppose someone adds several inaccurate facts to an article, then a reader removes them one at a time (as he comes across them), saying that that would break 3RR if they were restored in between seems ludicrous, if they weren't even more so. Rich Farmbrough 14:31 10 June 2006 (GMT).

It's false to say that "until two months ago" different reverts did not count towards the 3RR. As long as I can remember, the 3rr has been applied to separate reverts. If you said that this had changed in the last two months in the opposite direction, I might believe you, because I haven't paid much attention recently. But most certainly has been applied to multiple reverts for as long as I have been an admin - which is almost a year. I have seen lots of people try to make the case that they were "different" reverts so the 3rr would not apply, and I have seen that argument dismissed here repeatedly. In fact, I have never seen an admin uphold that logic. Guettarda 04:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The earliest form of the 3rr (on the WP:3RR page; I realise that older versions may exist elsewhere) says Don't revert any article more than three times in the same day. It doesn't say don't revert to the same version more than three times. It says don't revert. That should be clear enough. If you follow the development of the page you will see that exceptions were added - vandalism and self-reverts. I did not find an exception added to say "this only applies to reverts to the same version". No one sought to add that clarification. I have always seen the policy applied in exactly the opposite way. William's change to the policy page was a clarification of policy, not a change of policy - he added an explanation of the way the policy was enforced - the way it was enforced long before he became an admin. There was no need to discuss it (and no attempt to revert it) precisely because it was a common sense addition which clarified the way the policy was enforced. Simple enough. Guettarda 04:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've been an administrator for almost two years (not trying to compete, just stating how long it's been) and my understanding of the rule was always that it had to be fundamentally the same revert. And I most certainly did not pull that interpretation out of my own ass; it's exactly what was communicated to me every time I was involved in 3RR discussions up until now. Bearcat 05:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Bearcat, the misunderstanding is perhaps that you've made a small number of blocks, and most of them not for 3RR. I'm the same with the deletion policy. I tend to stay away from deletion issues and so I don't keep up with how the policy is evolving. Guettarda is right: ever since the policy has existed, admins who regularly enforce 3RR have not insisted that the reverts be to the same material. It would be far too easy to game the system were that the case, and that was never the intention of the 3RR policy. William's addition was just a clarification, not a change. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

To return to the specific issue at hand, User:HotR has now acknowledged that he was technically (and inadvertently) in violation of the 3RR policy (see his talk page for verification). The propriety of FeloniousMonk's block is no longer in contention.

I would strongly recommend that an administrator use his or her discretionary powers to lift the block, in accordance with 3RR policy (ie., If you did, you should either wait the 24 hours or email the admin who blocked you (or another admin), acknowledge your error, and ask to be unblocked). It should be obvious to all readers that this violation was not intentional, and that it resulted from a misunderstanding (perhaps understandable) of 3RR policy. I would remove the block myself, except that I was a participant in the parent discussion -- any intervention on my part, accordingly, would set a bad precedent. CJCurrie 05:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That suggestion seems somewhat unreasonable. Homey has been blocked for 3RR violations many times before, and is also an administrator, as such he is well aware of the policy. He has also been increibly pushy and tendatious with this article. It is clear that a block is warranted.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue of HOTR's block becomes less and less relevant with each passing minute. He'll be unblocked shortly whatever the outcome of this discussion. The broader issues I've addressed on his talk page[6], and ought to be addressed in the appropriate forum. In the meantime, I suggest we let the clock run down in the normal fashion.Timothy Usher 06:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note that Moshe has been a frequent rival to HotR on various discussion pages. To the latter remarks, I realize that the block will soon run out of its own accord, but as a matter of principle I don't believe that an accidental 3RR reversion should be punished with full discretionary severity. CJCurrie 06:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You are clearly trying to poison the well, whether or not I have been in conflict with homey is irrelevant.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I just want to point out that HOTR was aware of that line that says any four reverts count. See here. AnnH 07:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That HOTR was aware that any reverts count towards the 3RR is also evident from this discussion on May 29. Pecher Talk 09:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

What I was unaware of is that reinserting a removed tag, such as "Original Research" would count towards a 3RR and, frankly, it seems to me that the intent of the 3RR rule is not to prevent someone from reinserting a tag after 3 other reverts. Homey 20:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

As an expiriance admin Homey is well advised to follow this guidelines:
  1. WP:Point#Gaming_the_system
  2. "When you are in a hole the first thing is to stop digging" Zeq 03:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

1) What does putting on an OR tag have to do with "gaming the system"? 2) Zeq, given that the number of articles you are banned from has doubled in the last week or so I think you should consider taking your own advice. Homey 13:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Since most articles I am banned from are protected it does not matter i am banned from them. As for gaming the system: read the policy so you will know what not to do. Zeq 17:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that you were banned from them, does ? Nor the fact that you will continue to be banned from them once they are unprotected. Homey 17:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Princess ofCloutierland reported by User:MiamiDolphins3 (result: warnings for both)[edit]

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

I would like to ask for your assistance in addressing User:Princess ofCloutierland's ongoing violation of the 3rr to the Drew Rosenhaus article. I am posting here as a last resort. The user has continued to insert a non-encyclopedic and unverified paragraph about Rosenhaus refusing to participate in some Canadian radio show because of his alleged personal opposition to seal hunting in Canada. The user has made no contributions to other articles with the exception of repeatedly inserting this bizarre paragraph to one article. I confess that I have reverted his entry several times beyond three in the hopes that he/she was just a vandal who would go away without this escalation, but that has not happened. I referenced the 3rr in my reversion edits and I warned the user about it on his/her user page in the hopes that would resolve the matter, but it didn't. I think you will agree the entry is wholly unencyclopedic, unverifiable and quite possibly untrue. But this user persists despite my best efforts to make this go away amicably. I now leave this in your good hands. Thanks for your kind assistance, and I apologize in advance for my own violation of the 3rr, but I had hoped that such an irresponsible contribution would just go away without making an issue of it. Thank you. MiamiDolphins3 15:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that you've both broken 3RR. Looking at the disputed text, I can't see it as so terrible as to be immune from 3RR. So you can both have warnings; any more breaking 3RR will get you blocked William M. Connolley 19:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

User:24.94.129.139 reported by User:MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Purgatory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.94.129.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 18:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Frater FiatLux reported by User:999 (result: 24h)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Frater_FiatLux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: 999 18:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Frater FiatLux is continuing an edit war started anonymously using 84.71.159.105 (talk · contribs) on Golden Dawn tradition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), since redirected. -999 18:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

24h for persistence. Dubious about the other frater - a sock, but whose? William M. Connolley 19:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Ravi5099 reported by User:Anwar (result: 6hr, both sides)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Joseph_Vijay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ravi5099 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [7]
  • 1st revert: [8]
  • 2nd revert: [9]
  • 3rd revert: [10]
  • 4th revert: [11]

Reported by: Anwar 20:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This is a single-purpose account to vandalise Joseph_Vijay. He is a hard-core Vijay fan who does not want any flops or negative news to be listed in the article at all. He is engaging in slow reverts daily over the past 3 weeks now.

Blocked for 6 hours. This was a first offense (well, first block) and the user was not warned ahead of time that he was about to violate the 3RR. Hopefully this clears things up. If not, longer blocks will of course be called for. User has been notified. --Yamla 03:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Blocked other side for 6 hours as well, as he also violated 3RR. --Yamla 03:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Zanoni666 reported by User:999[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Rosicrucian Order of A+O) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zanoni666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: 999 01:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Please also note the uncivil edit comments. The claimed "agreement" or "moderation" does not exist. There is reason to suspect that this user is Frater_FiatLux (talk · contribs) evading his block for 3RR above. [12] -999
Blocked for 24 hours. Tom Harrison Talk 03:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

User:86.42.136.115 reported by User:Angus McLellan (Talk) (result: 8h)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Harp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 86.42.136.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Note also the identical edit by 86.42.158.83 (talkcontribs) using same ISP, 10:41, 10 June 2006, making the above 2nd through 5th. User is presumed sock of Red blaze (talkcontribs) (who in turn, I suspect, could well be sockpuppeteer Bluegold (talkcontribs))

User advised of 3RR 18:24, 10 June 2006

Reported by: Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

8h as first offence but warned. Dunno about the socks William M. Connolley 19:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops, double post here. Angusmclellan obviously beat me to it. It is not first offence, see post below. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

User:86.42.158.83/User:86.42.136.115 reported by User:Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Harp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 86.42.158.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)/86.42.136.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) :

Reported by: Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Reverted 4 times as 86.42.136.115, and once as 86.42.158.83. The user is the sock-puppeteer User:Bluegold (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/Archive/April_2006), who unfortunately escaped a permaban for his cheating and harassing of users. The user was warned by User:Angusmclellan that he had violated 3RR (he knew fine well as he has already been in trouble here under various names), and he proceeded to continue. User is a POV-pusher, and prepared to cheat and lie to attain his ends. It's tedious that I have to report him again. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't see anything in your ref pinning bluegold to 86... William M. Connolley 22:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, it is obvious that Bluegold edits as EIRCOM anons. In recent days this by 86.42.133.140 (talkcontribs) is followed up by Bluegold here as part of a seamless conversation. As for 86.42.136.115 in particular, further details sent to WMC by email. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The edit was very simple. I just removed some POV put there by Calgacus a couple of weeks ago, and then all hell broke loose today. These guys are abusing Wikipedia by acting as meatpuppets, reverting anyone who disagrees with them. But I have the courage to stand up against them. 86.42.136.115 19:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


User: 999 reported by User:Frater FiatLux[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Rosicrucian Order of A+O) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): *

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [13] *

1st revert: [14]

User 999 is maliciously and repeatedly editing the page of the Rosicrucian Order of A+O, his constant disproportionate, superfluous, and inordinate citations are ridiculous -in the extreme. User 999 has in fact harassed me numerous times with threatening comments to my talk page and tried to block other users so that he can remain unchecked to edit the articles in a needlessly disruptive, P.O.V. and defamatory tone. He is using the very fact myself and some other users are new to Wikipedia and are not aware of certain protocols and is exploiting this to his advantage. He has been reported for this incident to the administration of Wikipedia and is encouraged to refrain from further harassment and egregious editing.

User 999 is on a crusade to sabotage the Rosicrucian order of A+O article and he will not listen to the consensus of the other editors. He should be blocked for a while whilst the editors of the page gather the relevant information as User 999 is in a very unprincipled manner, trying to disrupt this process as much as possible.

Reported by: Frater FiatLux 00:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a malicious false report. None of these are reverts. I've been working together with several other editors, including User:HermeticScholar and User:Kephera975. The article is moving forward, with increasing satisfaction on the part of all the editors as evidenced on the talk page. There may have been a few temporary steps backward, but overall there is forward progress on the article. -999 (Talk) 00:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I can't tell from the report, but superficially these don't look like reverts. I've locked the page. Tom Harrison Talk 00:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Should I take the time to document my part in the forward progress of the article? I can provide diffs of the changes between each other editors changes. -999 (Talk) 00:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't take that trouble on my account. Tom Harrison Talk 00:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. -999 (Talk) 00:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
it is mainly interference on User 999's part, he is reverting and changing things to obstruct and be one sided. None of the other orders pages have so many footnotes, 999 is playing games and should be stopped from sabotaging and interfering with the Rosicrucian Order of A+O's article. Frater FiatLux 00:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
None of the other articles have the same amount of content. The number of citations is proportional to the amount of information. The original article User:Kephera975 and I created that you didn't like was shorter and had less citations. Also, the more controversial the claims, the more citations are needed. It is not my fault your organization makes controversial claims. For the record, the only bias I have against your organization is due to your behavior - I had no opinions one way or the other until I started researching and editing the article on the Golden Dawn tradition. I am not a member of ANY of the Orders, nor a friend of Cicero's and do not have any reason to be biased against you. I am simply trying to make sure that WP policies are adhered to, and those policies require the source of the information to be cited. -999 (Talk) 00:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Uris reported by User:Johan Elisson[edit]

Three revert rule violation on United States men's national soccer team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Uris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: – Elisson Talk 00:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User has not explicitly been warned, but has himself warned below user of 3RR. See also below report part of the same editing war. – Elisson Talk 00:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Jooler reported by User:Johan Elisson[edit]

Three revert rule violation on United States men's national soccer team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jooler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by: – Elisson Talk 00:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

  • See also above report part of the same editing war. – Elisson Talk 00:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

User:82.45.217.232 and User:195.93.102.35 reported by User:Hardouin[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Economy of Paris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 82.45.217.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and 195.93.102.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

These two anonymous users have reverted each other 11 times in the space of 24 hours:

Reported by: Hardouin 01:50, 11 Jun 2006 (UTC)

I've sprotected the page and reverted to the version that includes the reference. Tom Harrison Talk 02:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

User:BhaiSaab reported by User:Timothy Usher (result: Blocked for 24hr)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BhaiSaab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments:In his first revert, BhaiSaab removed advice to refrain from potentially divisive religious language on talk pages[18]. Immediately after this, he restored links to openly partisan Guilds, at least one which has been the center of solicitation for religiously-motivated RfA votes and reverts, as well as relentless incivility to non-members. [19]. In his second revert, he restored those links again[20]. In his third and fourth reverts, he removed language I’d added to caution editors away from such guilds (rather than revert his change) [21], [22]. After his fourth revert, he removed dates from member signatures[23].

I left the following message on his talk page, asking him to self-revert, rather than be reported[24]. He responded by saying I should feel free to report him[25].Timothy Usher 02:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is removing the dates a bad thing? I thought it would be more tidy with just the names. This report is full of POV. I would urge any administrator to review each edit and claim (such as "openly partisan guilds") before making their decision to block me. BhaiSaab talk 02:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Mythology8 reported by User:Mr. Lefty (result page protected)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on John_Murtha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links |