Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive44

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Emokid200618 reported by User:Gdo01 (Result:blocked indef for other reasons)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Emokid200618 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):


Comments

This user has been blocked multiple times before with incrementing values. The last block was 72 hours. The user has also stated here that the user does not care about violating 3RR. Recommend a longer block or an indefinite one. Gdo01 21:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Please provide diffs for reverts, not oldids. Heimstern Läufer 21:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This editor has since been blocked indefinitely for evading a block with sockpuppets.--Chaser - T 09:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User:melonbarmonster reported by User:LactoseTI (Result:48h)[edit]

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

Comments

Blocked for violating 3RR before. All reverts include some insistence about the ship being "ironclad." Some of the reverts were actually vandalism (removing cited sources). After leaving a note on his page, incivil [[1]]. User removed cited statements (after removed the citations) with misleading summaries (saying they were "vandalism") [[2]]

Not sure whether it's appropriate to add back the reference myself (he does not like references which don't support his ideas), but at this point I guess it's obvious that he's not interested in article quality, so would just be an edit war anyway. —LactoseTIT 22:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There's simply no 3rr. Furthermore, Lactose has already admitted that I didn't delete his references on my talk page. In spite of his admission he's again falsely claiming this accusation again. If you look at the talk page and history of this wiki-article, you'll see that Lactose has continually made disruptive edits and reverts rather than participating in the talk page and engaging in progressive and responsive edits as I have done. This 3rr report is simply vindictive and further disruptive behavior by Lactose.melonbarmonster 22:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you misunderstood something--I never said you didn't remove the references (look at the diff's). Reporting someone for edit-warring and reverting 4 times is not vindictive. (I wish I had realized your reverts didn't stem from lack of knowledge but lack of desire to move forward earlier, unfortunately it took until your 4th revert for me to realize it.) —LactoseTIT 23:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turtle_ship&diff=122326394&oldid=122325406melonbarmonster 23:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Somewhat complex case, but it does appear to me that all the edits given above are in fact reverts, and it's clear melonbarmonster is edit warring. Blocking for 48 hours due to repeat offense. Other admins: review if necessary, complex cases can always use another set of eyes. Heimstern Läufer 02:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User:ElKevbo reported by User:arla364 (Result:no vio)[edit]

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

User:ElKevbo was blanking the article on Capella University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as well as making [personal attacks] on others. Instead of discussing his concerns on the [talk page] he instead improperly used his position as a Wikipedia editor to block others who were reporting his vandalism.

User:ElKevbo was even [warned by another editor] that his whitewashing and blanking were innappropriate.

It also must be noted that User:ElKevbo was following the advice of another user User:Pizzaman0000 and [Pizzaman6233] who has been warned multiple times for engaging in [personal attacks].

Finally, it must be noted that the user User:ElKevbo blocked was rightfully persuing the proper channels to resolve the conflict which User:ElKevbo escalated. For example, in addition to the [Capella talk page], the situation was reported on the [incident board].Arla364 22:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm filing an RFCU. This editor's only two edits are on this page and they are very similar to the editor whose 3RR violation led to him or her being blocked a few hours ago. --ElKevbo 22:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This is absurd. Only two reverts given; not even an effort to make this look like a real 3RR report. And coming from an account clearly created solely to make this report. Please don't waste our time with this. Heimstern Läufer 02:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Groovyman reported by User:Goodnightmush (Result:no block)[edit]

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

Comments
He has been around for 2 months, I don't know if that means he is still a "new user" or not. I changed the version he kept putting back about two (and a half) times, incorporating some of what he wanted in. Twice more his version was changed by (several) other users. Please note that, although I have edited the page 3 times in last day, once was just to revert vandalism. I'm not requesting a block specifically, just some kind of intervention, as I'm afraid to put back the collaboration of several users and ip's for fear of violating 3RR myself. GoodnightmushTalk 23:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • No block for now: user not warned until after most recent revert. If it continues, please update this report. Heimstern Läufer 02:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User: LactoseTI reported by User:Melonbarmonster (Result:no vio)[edit]

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

Comment: reinserted comment about controversy

Comment: reinserts comment about Admiral Yi’s war diary

Comment: reinsertion of comment about Japanese ship.

Three-revert rule violation on Troy, Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). LactoseTI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comment: reinserted vandalism, “the only gay person in troy, and is known for not being able to walk in a straight line, and is madly in love with * 5th revert: 23:58, 12 April 2007 Comment: Second revert in the same minute, reinserted vandalism,

Comment: Deleted text, melonbarmonster 01:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at... The Troy, Michigan was related to me removing spam, not adding it (although one tripped up with the script and I re-added some unintentionally, which I immediately corrected--that happens in the fight against spam).
You replaced one vandalism for another.melonbarmonster 01:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The script goes back to the previous revert. In verifying nothing went wrong, I realized there was a chain of vandalism there and reverted back to the most recent, cleanest version I could find. Though I don't really see a need to explain, I'm sure any admin who looks at this will realize immediately what you're trying to do here. —LactoseTIT 01:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Besides that, 3RR applies to one article at a time, and reverts together in a single block don't even count at all... or you'd be guilty of about 15 reverts instead of 4. You are allowed 3 reverts, not 4. —LactoseTIT 01:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The 3RR rule is an electric fence.melonbarmonster 01:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • No violation. 3RR applies only to the same article. Heimstern Läufer 02:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Neoelitism reported by User:Yummifruitbat (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on M/S Sea Diamond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Neoelitism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)/142.157.201.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):


Comments
142.157.201.134 and Neoelitism are quite clearly one and the same individual (see their respective contribs).

24 hours, obviously the same editor. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Ahwaz reported by User:Mardavich (Result:1 month)[edit]

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

Comments
User:Ahwaz has been blocked for 3RR, incivility, and sockpupetry 16 times by now, in less than a year. [5] He's just returned to editing after a 1-month block for edit-waring [6], yet he's resumed edit-waring and broken 3RR again, even after he was explicitly told the last time he was blocked, that he was very close to being blocked indefinitely if he doesn't improve his behavior.[7] --Mardavich 02:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User:70.113.114.144 reported by User:Buddhipriya (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on The Argumentative Indian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.113.114.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • Previous version (before edit war): [8]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [15]

Comments: Edit war by a Hindu nationalist IP user, who is also relying on a blog to support his POV pushing. Another editor has tried to be reasonable with him on the talk page without success. Buddhipriya 04:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Gun Powder Ma reported by User:Eiorgiomugini (Result:FP is watching)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Four Great Inventions of ancient China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):


Comments
A total of 6th revert, clearly had violated the 3RR rules. Funny things is that that guy even made a report on other while received without any result. When a reporter himself had violated the 3RR rules he should had blocked as well. Eiorgiomugini 10:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Those are edits. They aren't all reverting back to the same version of the article - at least not the one you've cited. Result: no violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waggers (talkcontribs) 12:47, 13 April 2007
Unfortunately those ain't just edits as you can see, an editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted for your info. That's how three-revert rule appiled from Wikipedia:3RR. Eiorgiomugini 16:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there no respone from any of the admins. Is that mean I should made another troll report on this. Regards Eiorgiomugini 18:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC) ===User:Francis Tyers reported by User:Baristarim (Result:)===

Three-revert rule violation on Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Francis Tyers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):


Comments

Established user, very well knows about 3RR - been warned here anyways. Baristarim 12:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've taken both users to task and will watch the situation. In fact, Baristarim was in violation of 3RR himself. I'd say we can handle this without blocks for the moment. Fut.Perf. 13:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I've agreed to not edit article/template space for the duration of this day. - Francis Tyers · 13:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I stroke the report. I generally don't bring things to 3RR, but I really don't like scorched redirects (I have had bad memories :)) Baristarim 13:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Netscott reported by User:Radiant! (Result:24 hrs)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Straw polls (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Straw polls|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Netscott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):


Comments
This user has previously been blocked for 3RR [21].
The user objects to all content on Wikipedia:Straw polls that does not match his opinion, calling it "soapboxing" [22] or "propaganda" [23], and requests that other people cease editing the page [24].
Other recent revert warring by this user on Wikipedia:Resolving disputes (note talk page) and m:Polling is evil (note this warning). See also this thread on WP:AN last week, in particular this remark by User:Cryptic.
>Radiant< 13:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. This user is attempting to game this 3RR system by fabricating reverts (note the level of detail he's gone into to justify that the diffs he's provided are reverts). This user himself has a long history of violating 3RR. He himself just recently evaded a block for 3RR violation and has previously done so as well: 3RR vio 2, 3RR vio 3. I admit that edit warring is wrong and that both Radiant! and I have been engaging in it. If I am to be blocked for that then I would recommend that User:Radiant! be blocked as well. (Netscott) 14:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Also please note that both User:Radiant! and I have engaged in volumious discussions at Wikipedia_talk:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion, Wikipedia talk:Straw polls and Wikipedia_talk:Resolving_disputes#Disputed_section as we attempt to resolve this ongoing dispute about Wikipedia guidelines properly reflecting Wikipedia practice surrounding polling. (Netscott) 14:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow, guys. Uncool. Two experienced editors like you should have been able to talk this out long before it got to 3RR. Tough call. It's going to take some looking into, and I'd appreciate another admin's opinion on this. Kafziel Talk 14:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
It looks like netscott was trying to game the system. I would expect him to be very aware of the WP:3RR and as an administrator, be held to a higher standard. I personally think an appropriate WP:3RR block is in order here. If it had been any other editor, they most likley would have been blocked. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Somewhat confused by this comment, as Netscott is not, and has never been, an administrator. Orderinchaos 04:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually Crislk02 if we want to talk about gaming the system, I would recommend reviewing User:Radiant!'s behavior illustrated in this report. (Netscott) 14:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Well neither of us is editing on these pages currently. Probably a better solution would be for Wikipedia:Straw polls to be protected and for us to engage in mediation because this dispute has revolved around us. I hate to admit it but this has even carried over to Meta where Radiant! reverted four times yesterday: rv 1, rv 2, rv 3, rv 4. (Netscott) 14:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Decision: I am very unhappy about this, but I have blocked Netscott for 24 hours. I have also protected the page (I'm sure it's the "wrong version") and although I know Radiant! can still edit it, I implore him not to. It was a pretty tough call not to block both editors, so please don't prove me wrong. I definitely suggest you guys find better mediation than 3RR. Kafziel Talk 15:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
As an uninvolved admin I'm a little concerned by this block - 2 of these edits are clearly not reverts (one is simply commenting out a single line while the other is a one-line content edit). I think this decision should be reviewed, although it was taken in complete good faith by the blocking admin and they handled the above exchange extremely well. It stands *regardless* that users should seek far more appropriate ways of dealing with conflict - both of the users involved have a long history of positive contributions to the encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos 04:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:131.193.9.108 reported by User:Michaelbusch (Result:24 hrs)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on N. R. Narayana Murthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

  • Diff of 3RR warning: 21:27
Comments
There has been edit-warring about Murthy's actions regarding the playing of the Indian nation anthem during a recent visit of President Kalam to Infosys. I had attempted to move this to a discussion on the article's talk page, but 131.193.9.108 has been repeatedly adding back a version that blatantly violates WP:NPOV and perhaps Wikipedia:No personal attacks and ignoring warnings. I am afraid, however, that I may myself have violated WP:3RR in removing this material. I request Administrator evaluation of my own actions, as well as a block of 131.193.9.108. Michaelbusch 21:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
    • I have blocked the IP for 24 hours several hours ago because of edit waring since the IP was presistant and refused to discuss the changes, but I would also like to see your side of the story on why this section shouldn't be in the article and how it is not NPOV and vandalism. Since you have called yourself out and stepped out of the edit war after the last time the IP placed the section in, I don't see a point in blocking you as that would be punitive and pointless at this point. I will, however, suggest using caution when reverting another user's edits without discussing it with them on their talk page, this way you can see why they keep adding it into the article and get their side of the story and prevent further conflict. Darthgriz98 00:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Jiffypopmetaltop reported by User:IronDuke (Result:No violation)[edit]

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

  • Previous version reverted to:

05:44, 26 March 2007


Comments
The edits here all involve removing or altering bits user has objected to in the past. IronDuke 02:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not seeing a clear intent to edit war here, most of these edits are pretty different. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

With respect, if you checked a little further into the history of the article, you would see a great deal of edit-warring and blind-reverting. Also, when you say "most of these edits are pretty different," I hope you are aware that this is entirely irrelevant to the question of violating 3RR. IronDuke 15:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
This is crazy. I am fixing references, removing unsourced material (wp:blp) and trying to improve this article. Anything I remove is unsourced or written in a pov manner. I probably reformatted 12 or 13 references today. Not to mention removing vandalism. I swear that I am acting in the best of faith and by the book.Jiffypopmetaltop 06:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Jiffy, much of what you are doing on the page (recently) is good. However, the good is interspersed with the not-so-good. IronDuke 15:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
All of the edits above are completely legit. Jiffypopmetaltop 06:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Maestro25 reported by User:TJ Spyke (Result:article protected)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on WWE No Mercy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Maestro25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments
User is intent on starting an edit war over a very trivial issue (he keeps removing the "-" is Fatal Four-Way match). He is ignoring the evidence presented on both the talk page of the article and at WP:PW. I have shown that WWE uses both "Fatal Four Way" and "Fatal Four-Way", that third party sources use both (but mainly use the dash), that the dash makes it grammatically correct, and that using the dash has been the de facto standard for as long as I can remember in PPV articles here at WP. Since I have a feeling he will just continue the reerting (he stopped yesterday after he reached 3 reverts), I decided to report him here. I feel silly about such a trivial issue, but he insists on changing the standard used here even though no one agrees with him. TJ Spyke 01:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Article protected by AuburnPilot. Please discuss rather than revert warring, and I'm referring to everyone here. Heimstern Läufer 06:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    • He still violated 3RR. He won't discuss the issue. He will only say that since WWE doesn't use the dash, neither should we (even though I pointed out to him that WWE sometimes uses it and sometimes doesn't). TJ Spyke 10:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Lovelight reported by User:Rx StrangeLove (Result:1 week)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Template:911ct (edit | [[Talk:Template:911ct|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lovelight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Not all reverts are listed here. Still at it:

Comments
Lovelight again, been blocked for these actions before. S/he's singlehandedly trying to force a name change on this template, along with adding a bunch of names to the supporters list this time. It just goes on and on. As you can see it's been happening all day. RxS 05:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Rarely have I seen this much revert warring in so short a time. 1 week, taking into account previous violations. Heimstern Läufer 06:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


User:Biophys reported by User:Vlad fedorov (Result: Warning)[edit]

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

  • Previous version reverted to: [35] 21:03, 2 February 2007
  • 1st revert: [36] 14:21, 13 April 2007
  • 2nd revert: [37] 14:35, 13 April 2007
  • 3rd revert: [38] 05:44, 14 April 2007
  • 4th revert: [39] 14:12, 12 April 2007


  • Diff of 3RR warning: diff 14:46, 13 April 2007

I have warned him diff. Vlad fedorov 06:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

For BLP concerns see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov#Outside_view_by_Alex_Bakharev - outside view of Alex Bakharev and here Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10 Boris Stomakhin. Vlad fedorov 06:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments
Biophys claims that the article is protected, although protection term has elapsed. He perfectly knows what is WP:3RR since I was blocked once because of dispute with him.Vlad fedorov 06:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Neither one of you has violated 3RR yet, but you're both pushing it. Please complete your mediation case and come to an agreement, no one's going to get what they want through edit warring. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Gun Powder Ma reported by User:Eiorgiomugini (Result: no action)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Four Great Inventions of ancient China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

No action. Reverts are 5 days old. 3RR is designed to stop ongoing reverts. Resubmit if reverts recommence.Rlevse 14:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


User:Iranzulqarnain reported by User:Arcayne (Result:48 hours)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Template:300 (film). Example User (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [44]

Though the user was warned along with the welcome template by Slowking Man, the user continued to revert. When Slowking Man inquired about the reverts on the offemder's page, Iranzulqarnain responded by accusing Slowking of "helping racist in the world", and then posted a similar remark on the oh-so-calm 300 Discussion Page.

Block 48 hours, clear 3RR vio.Rlevse 14:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:88.113.167.176 reported by User:ST47 (Result:no vio)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on User talk:88.113.167.176 (edit | [[Talk:User talk:88.113.167.176|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Example User (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

No vio, wiki policy is that you can revert your own talk page. I myself learned this the hard way.Rlevse 14:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User: Codex Sinaiticus reported by User:Orangemarlin (Result:24h)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Noah’s Ark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Example User (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments
Editor is engaged in an edit war over an NPOV tag. There is no consensus for such a tag, and it has been reverted by several editors. He claims he has support of one other editor, but that support is tepid. He has done further reverts and is disruptive. He has also deleted the warning on his talk page.
Yet another crusader in our midst. 24h. yandman 17:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Rm uk reported by Isarig (Result: No violation)[edit]

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

Not a new user, has been warned about 3RR before: [45][46]

Comments

Don't really see a 3RR violation here, it looks like the edits are pretty different, and part of an attempt on talk to find compromise wording. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:R9tgokunks reported by User:Tulkolahten (Result: 1 week)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Kraj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). R9tgokunks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments

This users was warned several times by several editors and by administrator that his edits about etymology are unsourced, but he continues. He is alos edit warring on several articles like Alsace. He was blocked for an unbeknownst to him, disruptive edit, for one week. -- User:Tulkolahten 13:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I was warned once, and i have listened to the warning, and stopped all editing on the concerned articles:

R9t, I've given RCS a strict civility warning because he's really been attacking you rather badly. But you are now well over 3RR on the Kraj article. I won't block you myself, because I was myself reverting you, but I warn you to please stop all contentious edits now, or I'll report you and you'll most certainly get blocked for another long period.

--Fut.Perf. 19:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will stop on those pages, I have stopped reverting. But people are strange... they are vandalizing it but calling me a vandal when i RE-add the information they removed...

--Hrödberäht(gespräch) 20:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

  • 1st revert: I reverted vandalism by Tulkolahten (talk · contribs) as he had removed content, which was content I added, and the reason was misleading:

    rv, get out with poor etymology here

, but really, it was probably reverted because he didn't like it personally.

  • 2nd revert: Again reverted vandalism by Tulkolahten (talk · contribs) he removed content, which was content I added, and the reason was because he didn't like it personally, and added a misleading edit summary,

    rv nonsense, that guy don't know what Czech language is

along with a personal attack making it seem like i didnt known what the Czech language even was.

..."that guy don't know what Czech language is"

. In truth, I didn't say anything about the Czech language, so i am confused as to why he would add something irrelevant while continuing his reversions.

  • 3rd revert: Was not a revert. i re-worded information, and re added that information back to the article.
  • 4th revert: I reverted vandalism by RCS (talk · contribs) he removed content, which was content I added, and reverted due to a misleading edit summary,

    rv vandalism

. I was actually the one who re-added the vandalized information that was removed by RCS and Tulkolahten. and he had a misleading, and a copy, of an edit summary already done, for the purpose of makeing me seem stupid and like an ill-informed vandal.

{{User|R9tgokunks}}, listen to what Future Perfect said, it makes perfect sense

. actually Future Perfect said :

partial rv, please don't add unsourced etymologies.

and i did not add any etymologies back to the article but apparently RCS thinks i was adding unsourced etymologies again.

  • 5th revert: Again I reverted vandalism by Tulkolahten (talk · contribs) as he had removed content, which was content I added, and the reason was misleading:

    rv vandalism

, but really, it was probably reverted because he didn't like it personally, and he was actually the one removing the information... and instead claimed myself, the one who added the information, was a vandal. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 21:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

One week, long history of edit wars. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:R9tgokunks reported by User:John254 (Result:1 week)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Alsace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). R9tgokunks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

John254 19:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments
I was warned once, and i have listened to the warning, and stopped all editing on the concerned articles:

R9t, I've given RCS a strict civility warning because he's really been attacking you rather badly. But you are now well over 3RR on the Kraj article. I won't block you myself, because I was myself reverting you, but I warn you to please stop all contentious edits now, or I'll report you and you'll most certainly get blocked for another long period.

--Fut.Perf. 19:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will stop on those pages, I have stopped reverting. But people are strange... they are vandalizing it but calling me a vandal when i RE-add the information they removed...

--Hrödberäht(gespräch) 20:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

First, of all, most of the reverting was centered around the History table i made on that page, and other users kept changing words that they did not like personally.

  • 1st revert: I dont think this one matters to the report? But still, the reason was that I was reverting due to the POV inserted by Paris75000. He also kept changing "Reverted" to "Back" which was bad grammar, and it seems he is doing it intentionally to make me angry. It also had bad grammar and had weasel words ... "totally", "only")
  • 2nd revert: Further reverting due to the POV inserted by Paris75000. He continued to keep changing "Reverted" to "Back" which was bad grammar, and it seems he is doing it intentionally to make me angry.It also had bad grammar and had weasel words ... "totally", "only")
  • 3rd revert: Reverted due to the personal attacks against me...:

it is Argentoratum, you bloody fool, now stop putting wrong infos in the article !

  • 4th revert: Tried to compromise the situation by removing the table i made. I thought that the problem could cease to exist if i removed it.
  • 5th revert: Was not a revert...it was a removal of what User:Paris75000 again added his own opinions, and added a second category for the same era in which Alsace was ruled by France, which was for the reason that he wanted to show another line consisting of Alsace being French-ruled. I Also reverted bad grammar: "Alsace totaly under control to France" and had weasel words "totaly"[sic], " [[French language only") -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 20:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Already blocked 1 week for vio reported above. Heimstern Läufer 22:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


User:Raul654 reported by User:UBeR (Result: 12h block)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Raul654 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments
  • Would another uninvolved admin consider looking at this, too? My first reading is to think this report is valid, yet I'm rather hesitant to believe that an arbitrator would have really violated 3RR. I'll have another check, too. Heimstern Läufer 22:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Believe it or not, arbitrators are human, too, and should not be held to a different standard than mere editors. If this is a 3RR violation, you should block, after all, we know there is no admin cabal Isarig 22:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know, but I want to be sure this is correct. Requesting another set of eyes. Heimstern Läufer 23:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I add, that Raul has been repeatedly uncivil on this page and related pages. He is upset and it shows. --Blue Tie 23:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
That revert was totally unrelated to the other reverts. Also his comments were justified. Count Iblis 01:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've got to agree with Heimstern here, I see a pretty clear 3RR violation as well. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it. Some of the rv's he's doing almost contradict. Combine with the incivility and he might need to cool down... The question becomes who's going to block him?--Wizardman 23:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to ask Raul654 to respond to the report here. If a violation is found then we should consider a ban from editing the particular article for a period of time, as opposed to a full-fledged block which would prevent him from performing his other responsibilities. Newyorkbrad 23:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, sounds like the most reasonable solution. Heimstern Läufer 23:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to defend the subject of the report, or his conduct, but isn't it about time we pensioned off the Three Revert Rule in favor of declaring edit warring to be generally blockable behavior? --Tony Sidaway 23:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

And instead of just admins/arbitrators/crats having the priviledge of avoiding a block, maybe all users would just be given a ban on the article in question. That would be fair too, wouldn't it? --Blue Tie 23:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it would, yes. It's a remedy I've used several times before and should become more widespread. But that's a discussion for another page, most likely. Newyorkbrad 23:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that everyone should either be treated equally or admins should be held to a higher standard. But also think the current policy is a bit rough. For everyone's interest, I have suggested a change [here].

Nothing personal against Raul654 - I've edited the Yom Kippur War article with him and found him to be a very fair-minded editor there - but the admin behavior here is a disgrace. There should be no double standard for admins/arbitrators and mere editors - yet here you are, quaking in your boots and not daring to block a fellow admin {"The question becomes who's going to block him?"), and inventing "creative" solutions that run contrary to WP policy in order to avoid doing the obvious and required deed. Isarig 23:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, "cabal" behavior would be if everyone here were simply to say "Huh? I don't see a problem, nothing to see here, move along." However, unusual circumstances do merit discussion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. cabal behavior is fellow admins all agreeing that a clear violation has occurred, but instead of blocking the violator (which some of you are clearly afraid to do), you invent a solution ("why don't we just ban him from that one article) which a mere editor would not be granted. You claim there is some 'unusual circumstances' here- but the only "unusual" thing as far as I can see is that the violator is a fellow admin. Isarig 23:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, people might have also been inclined to take into account this sort of thing. Newyorkbrad 01:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


How abotu a short block (12-24 hours at most), just to let him cool down? Shouldn't harm his other responsibilities too much.--Wizardman 23:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That's probably where I would lean right now. Heimstern Läufer 23:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't look like Raul is on, so if there's no objections I'll block him in a few minutes.--Wizardman 23:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Just for measure the 1st revert isn't one - it gets self-reverted immediatly afterwards. (not that it really matters) --Kim D. Petersen 23:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually it is. The self revert was only partial. Part of the original revert remained. As I see it. --Blue Tie 23:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
That's largely academic in any case, even one partial self-revert doesn't take away the edit warring and incivility. Given that there does seem to be a pretty clear consensus, I'm willing to place the block. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I blocked him. I only did it for 12 hours so that it doesn't take away too much from other responsibilities. Can someone leave a messag on his talkpage? I have to go else I'd do it. Case semi-closed though.--Wizardman 23:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I left the note. I'm open to suggestions if it should be better worded. Heimstern Läufer 23:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I like how no-one bothered to wait for his response. Really encouraging, that. – Steel 00:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think he should be unblocked. We usually only block people for disruptive edits. Sometimes there can be a 50-50 split where both sides are guilty of edit warring. In this case, however, the reverts were made to protect an edit that has wide support from the editors (there are only a few editors who want to hide the fact that in the scientific community the skeptics on global warming have almost no support).

Another factor to consider here is that he may have forgotten count the reverts he made on April 13 when he edited on April 14. This mistake is easily made (I made exactly such a mistake too recently and I wasn't blocked for that). Then he would not have considered the first edit on April 14 as a revert and he would only have counted his reverts starting from the second revert he made on April 14. Count Iblis 01:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. As an admin, I've violated the 3RR and been blocked for it, no questions asked. We should all be responsible for our actions and if we break a clear and unambiguous rule, we should suffer the same consequences as anyone else. The point of the 3RR is that it doesn't matter who's right or who's wrong - if you've degenerated into stale revert-warring, you just need to stop. FCYTravis 06:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Side note to this 3RR Report. I notice that UBeR also reported a personal attack in one of those links, in violation of WP:NPA - as someone who is interested in keeping the peace round here, I have just removed a statement from Talk:Global Warming made by UBeR, which I considered to be a personal attack on Raul654's integrity. The statement "Raul654 likes to spin things his way" suggests to me that UBeR is accusing Raul of bias, which I consider a breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Thor Malmjursson 04:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Edit: Following contact from User:Blue Tie - I have struck part of that statement and redact the accusation completely. However, I will leave the piece about the attack by UBeR sincce that does still apply - just not that UBeR reported the personal attack here. Thor Malmjursson 10:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
To comment upon the side note, the first time I recall seeing UBeR was at this investigation which followed with this and this. I offer no defense of Raul654 - if he violated 3RR he deserves the block. DurovaCharge! 06:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

IMO, this is a harmful block that will serve nothing but alienating the best Wikipedian that we have here (no offense to other good Wikipedians.) When same people speak about blocks being preventative rather than punitive at one time or about "fair treatment for all" at another, choosing which of the two more suites the action they prefer, it is revolting.

When it has been repeatedly discussed and shown that so called "cool-off blocks" of established users always have the opposite effect, it amazes me that some still proposes the "cool-off" blocks.

Also, Tony's proposal of abandoning a 3RR formally and leaving this to the arbitrariness of certain eagerly blocking admins should not be even considered. Having 3RR as an electric fence does not prevent admins from blocking for general edit warring (usually just under 3RR for days) if the warring becomes a significant disruption. But having a clear rule of what is not allowed helps the fairness in that it greatly reduces arbitrariness from blocking.

At the same time, the block should only be made to stop an edit war. I believe a message to Raul that he is community banned from the article for 24-hr would have achieved just that without aggravating him for no reason. Blocks are the last resort and with users like Raul I can't imagine the need to resort to the last resorts.

My message is not that some are "more equal" than the others. My message is that there must be clarity between the goals and the actions. The goals of the revert-warring blocks is to stop revert wars. If this could be done without blocks, it should be done without blocks. Collateral damage from blocks of these kind is huge. The more committed the user is, the worse is his perception of being blocked. Still block all right when necessary, but I fail to see the necessity here and see a great deal of potential harm. --Irpen 07:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, he was edit warring, so by your statement that this is the only good reason to block, he should be blocked. But by wikipedia standards, edit warring or not, 3rr is a bright line test. That might be changeable, but for now it is what it is. If your solution of banning rather than blocking is good for him though, it should be good for all on wikipedia without regard to position. I would never want to see a system where admins, arbitrators and others are given gentle treatment while other users are blocked. That would not fly with me.
I would also add, that when a person of his position and authority start posting on the boards in uncivil ways, then their value on the project goes way down even if heretofore they have added value. It should not be winked at. --Blue Tie 07:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, article-banning rather than blocking is a good idea for any editor known for the rich history of content creation and known to be reasonable overall to expect him to heed to such ban. This is not about position but about content writing. I don't care if the user is an admin (or even an arbitrator.) I care about writing and reputation. There are plenty of reputable non-admins and there are plenty of disreputable admins. Additionally, experienced users with a distinguished history likely know what they are doing. So, maybe there is a reason why the violated the technical rule (sockings, copyvio, etc). It's worth to ask. Nothing would happen if the necessary block is instituted 2-3 hours later. --Irpen 07:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Equal treatmeant requires that he be blocked. Hardly the first admin blocked under the 3RR unlikely to be the last.Geni 11:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No, equal treatment requires that he should be treated just like everyone else, but that does not imply that he should be blocked, see e.g. here Count Iblis 13:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Blocks should not be normal. However, 3RR violation does get as close to automatic as anything except dirty word account names. It's not such a big deal, though, and should not be seen as a sign of much of anything. Loads of folks run afoul of 3RR at one point or another, so let's not allow this to become the knot in the stomach or cause celebre, eh? Geogre 17:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Psantora reported by User:Miaers (Result: Stale)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on University of Wisconsin System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Psantora (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments
Repeatedly messing up the images and deleting useful comments. Didn't stop after discussion. Miaers 02:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment As I'm sure an admin will notice, the first "revert" is anything but; it's an editor making useful edits. Miaers himself then violated 3RR and was blocked for two weeks. Cheers, PaddyM 03:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

As long as it is more than 3, it is a violation. I was blocked even for removing copyvio images. Miaers 03:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

    • 3RR blocks are meant to be preventative. As this report is about two weeks old, a block now could only be punitive. No action. Heimstern Läufer 06:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no rule on the time lag for violation. He was not reported 2 weeks ago because I was wrongly blocked 2 weeks ago. I don't think User:Psantora has realized he had violated 3RR. He needs to be blocked for the violation to prevent hime from any violation in the future. Miaers 13:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Heimstern is correct.Rlevse 14:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

PaddyM alerted me to this 3RR violation report... Here are some relevant links in my defense: Miaers' 3RR violation report and discussion on Miaers' talk page after repeated accusations of my violation of 3RR while he was blocked for 2 weeks. As PaddyM pointed out, the first "revert" that Miaers links to is my first contribution to the article (with completely original contributions). It is not a "revert" by any stretch of the imagination. This accusation is the first post Miaers made since coming off his two week block and has been attacking me on administrators' talk pages. In addition, he has removed (again) the dialog concerning these edits from the talk page of the article in question. I would appreciate it if someone could keep an eye on Miaers and prevent him from continuing to slander my contributions to Wikipedia. PaulC/T+ 19:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You first revert reverted the original contents. You violated 3RR. As for the discussion, it happened in your talk page. It should be there. I consider it a personal attack to put it on the system article talk page. Miaers 20:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone clarify whether the first revert counts in 3RR? I don't think it is reasonable to let someone damages the article 4 times without being blocked while the one who restores back get blocked. Miaers 22:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Lovelight reported by User:Mivonks (Result:Already blocked)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Template:911ct. User:Lovelight :

8-rr violation:


Comments: Already blocked for one week. Heimstern Läufer 23:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)