Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive50

User:Assault11 reported by User:Good friend100 (Result:no vio)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

• Previous version reverted to: [21]

• 1st revert: [22]
• 2nd revert: [23]
• 3rd revert: [24]

I think this user at least deserves a warning because he deletes my warnings [25] on 3RR.

I'm sure Assault is aware of 3RR, he has stopped reverting my compromise edits before the 4th revert. He simply deletes anything that he doesn't like. Good friend100 23:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Only three reverts here, need more than three for 3RR vio. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Good friend100 reported by User:Assault11 (Result:stale)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

• Previous version reverted to: [26]

• 1st revert: 00:48, June 8, 2007
• 2nd revert: 22:07, June 8, 2007
• 3rd revert: 22:12, June 8, 2007
• 4th revert: 22:16, June 8, 2007

• 5th revert: 19:46, June 8, 2007 Appears to be a 5th in the set —LactoseTI^T 19:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Good friend100 has been blocked at least 4 times for violation of the 3RR policy in the past month [27]. Assault11 01:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that I attempted to write down a compromised edit, which I believe is fair for both sides. Good friend100 02:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you cannot cooperate with others. "Tributary relations occurred on and off until the 7th century" is fair to both sides. I don't understand why everything has to be your way. Good friend100 02:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

There was never a compromise that was accepted (and that "compromise" addition is not just limited to Gaogouli). It should be noted that Good friend100 had been criticized by various other editors for his lack of understanding on the subject [28] [29]. Despite this, Good friend100 continued to revert back to his edits containing false information (e.g. tributary relations ended in 106 CE - a date he has now changed to 7th century CE, after being proved wrong). Assault11 03:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to bring the argument here. However, I would like to point out that your first edit to wikipedia clearly shows your POV manner and your unwillingness to compromise. Good friend100 19:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

As for the 3RR, this illustrates your attitude completely--I have little interest in this particular article, I don't think I've ever edited it, but you constantly use the fact that you are reverting "to the right version" as a justification for breaking 3RR. It isn't. Until you're blocked, you just keep reverting until someone forces you to take a break and cool down. —LactoseTI^T 19:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess your right, LactoseTI. We should simply leave the article alone. Good friend100 19:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't it just get unprotected? I guess they were trying to stop this edit war, but it just started up immediately after unprotection. —LactoseTI^T 19:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

LactoseTI, do you want me blocked that bad? Trying to rub in more evidence doesn't really make a difference. The point is that I got reported. As for Assault11, I believe that he is at fault to because of his obvious POV and his stubborness. Don't you think that too, Lactose, after reading his first edit (link above)? Good friend100 19:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

For any admins looking in on this - take a look at the Talk page, I've been trying to have the two editors come to a compromise. I personally have no preference on the content of their dispute, and I'm not going to comment on these 3RR violations. And while I do think both editors have been pretty insistent on their edits, I do think Good friend100 has been more compromising in the last day or two. The current text that they've just edit-warred on is already a step away from what Good friend100 would like to have. I left a note in the Talk page asking Assault11 what problems he saw with the current proposed compromise, but he has not replied yet, and instead chose to revert the text. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Avfnx reported by User:YoSoyGuapo (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on 9 June 2007

Dominican Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Avfnx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 11:08, 9 June 2007

• 1st revert: Revision as of 11:38, 9 June 2007
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 12:02, 9 June 2007
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 12:16, 9 June 2007
• 4th revert: Current revision (12:22, 9 June 2007)

comment has left statements on comments when he reverts like " 12:11, 9 June 2007 Avfnx (Talk | contribs) m (65,740 bytes) (we could do this all day, what that got do with DR)" [30]

Blocked for 24 hours, per the evidence above. -- tariqabjotu 18:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment This user has not appear to have previously been formally warned regarding 3RR. This diff shows that it is commented he might be in breach of 3RR but, and despite the edit summary, there is no mention of the possible consequences or a demand that he stop. I realise that warnings are a courtesy and editors are expected to know and abide by the rules, and that 3RR should be acted upon promptly, but I am a little concerned that User:Avfnx has been previously accused of sockpuppetry (cleared by checkuser), has had warnings for civility and personal attacks - the first of which is WP:KETTLE and the second of which I could find no evidence of in English (I cannot comment on Spanish remarks) - all levelled by individuals with whom he is in dispute with on Dominican Republic. I have a suspicion that some individuals are using admins and WP policies to conduct a campaign against this editor instead of attempting to resolve the dispute over the article in a more appropriate forum.LessHeard vanU 20:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Jakeleglarry reported by User:Calton (Result: Indef)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Peter Roskam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jakeleglarry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 07:10, June 8, 2007

• 1st revert: 18:59, June 8, 2007
• 2nd revert: 07:57, June 9, 2007
• 3rd revert: 08:30, June 9, 2007
• 4th revert: 08:41, June 9, 2007

Allegedly brand-new user, an obvious

Blocked indefinitely as a single-purpose account (and possible sockpuppet). -- tariqabjotu 15:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Ofthe1780s reported by User:Ultramarine (Result:12h)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Capitalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ofthe1780s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 23:09, 8 June 2007
• 1st revert: 23:15, 8 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 23:23, 8 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 12:58, 9 June 2007
• 4th revert: 13:10, 9 June 2007
• Diff of 3RR warning: 12:12, 9 June 2007

Also probably violation of

• Blocked for 12 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

User:TiconderogaCCB reported by User:YoSoyGuapo (Result: 48h (Ti), 24h (Yo))

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

User talk:YoSoyGuapo (edit | [[Talk:User talk:YoSoyGuapo|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TiconderogaCCB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 13:34, 9 June 2007

• 1st revert: 14:00, 9 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 14:02, 9 June 2007 TiconderogaCCB
• 3rd revert: 14:12, 9 June 2007
• 4th revert: 14:18, 9 June 2007

TiconderogaCCB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was just taken off of block for 3rr. continues to attack me personally on my talk page. I removed the attacks and he continued to attack me with "What the hell is you problem??? Do you lack any ability to reason? I have tried endlessly to engage you on discussion and talk pages, but instead you act like a 12 year old (which you quite possibly could be). Why do you continue to revert to an absurd version of the St. John's article? Did you get denied admission, are you a UConn fan" Immediately after getting offof block he goes back to the same article and does 3 more reverts [31] with the last one being 13:45, 9 June 2007 [32] . YoSoyGuapo 14:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Ticonderoga is blocked for 48h (since this is his second block) and YoSoyGuapo is blocked for 24h. -- tariqabjotu 15:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Raul654 reported by User:Isarig (Result: No violation)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

House demolition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Raul654 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: Complex revert. See belwo for details

• 1st revert: 16:44, 9 June 2007 - restores sentence "particularly an insurgency which employs
  suicide attacks" (this sentence was in this
  prev version)- labeled as a "restore" in the edit summary.
• 2nd revert: 16:49, 9 June 2007 - restores sentence "House demolition has been used in an on-again-off-again fashion by the Israeli government during the
  al-Aqsa Intifada." (this sentence was in this
  prev version)- labeled as a "restore" in the edit summary
• 3rd revert: 17:11, 9 June 2007 - restores both the above sentences, labeled as a revert in the edit summary
• 4th revert: 17:41, 9 June 2007 - as above, again restores both the above sentences, and labeled as a revert in the edit summary

The first two reverts are unrelated (two separate almost back-to-back edits restoring content Isarig has deleted as part of his on-going edit warring on that article), meaning this is actually only three reverts. Isarig, meanwhile, has been revert warring over that article for a while, to push his particular POV. Raul654 18:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

As an admin, you must surely be aware that 3rr refers to ANY 3 reverts, they do not have to be the same or related. I appreciate you honesty in admitting that both of these are in fact reverts. A break from editing this article will do you good. Isarig 18:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Holy smokes, you removed objective, factually correct content. I restored it using two edits. You continued removing it, despite multiple people on the talk page disagreeing with you. You are POV pushing on that article, and your edits have made it objectively wrong. This listing is ridiculous. Raul654 18:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

What you are describing above is a content dispute, in which you, too, have removed well sourced information in at least 2 of your reverts. "I restored it using two edits" is another way of syaing I twice reverted you. You are not above the law, no matter how long you have been editing here- 3RR applies to admins as well as to non admin editors. I duly warned you about it, you acknowledged on my talk page that you made 3 reverts, and then proceeded to revert a 4th time. There is nothing ridiculous about this listing, except the ludicrous claim, below, that there are only 3 reverts here. Isarig 23:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A 3RR violation occurs when four reverts have been made, not three. Raul is not a longtime edit warrior, so there is no reason to think he's gaming the system attempting to "max out" on the three allotted reverts. There's no violation here. -- tariqabjotu 18:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

There are 4 reverts there - count them. Isarig 23:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A long time use and admin who knows about 3RR and has been blocked for it before, but was warned nonetheless: [33]

User:Good_friend100 reported by User:LactoseTI (Result:No block / both users warned)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Liancourt Rocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Good_friend100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 20:27, May 30, 2007

• 1st revert: 19:41, June 8, 2007 (changes "physical presence" back to "controls")

• 2nd revert: 18:40, June 9, 2007 (reinserted Dokdo/Liancourt Rocks (they are the same thing) as mis-translation of Usando) undoing this change
• 3rd revert: 19:14, June 9, 2007 same effect; removes name from map (Isotakeshima) and replaces with Liancourt Rocks; again removes "For comparison," reverting to this.
• 4th revert: 19:48, June 9, 2007 again removes Isotakeshima

Editor has been blocked three times for 3RR several times in the past month. It is true that the four reverts are outside 24 hours by 7 minutes, but this is clear gamesmanship. Consider this in tandem with the other report of 3RR filed today on the same editor (6 reports or so above this one). Editor evidently doing this on multiple articles--on that one he seems to have clearly broken it, here he tried to game the system.

Ok, I edited all the articles in good faith. I changed "Takeshima" to "Liancourt Rocks" because that is the name of the article. It isn't fair to use Takeshima while blocking out Dokdo.

I don't think I have been engaging in a blatant edit war. Also, could you explain what you mean by "gamesmanship"? I feel really bad how you keep attacking me with reports and filing one that does not have 3 reverts in one day. These edits were simply to make the gallery section better. Good friend100 20:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The map actually says Takeshima on it, it's not blocking. Anyway, hitting your 3RR limit day and again, and then waiting until just outside 24 hours to make your 4th revert so as to avoid violating 3RR is not allowed. This is what I meant by gamesmanship. —LactoseTI^T 20:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't wait 24 hours to make my 4th edit. That was purely coincidence. I don't play around with the time to make reverts and edits. I don't play at that kind of a level.

And I still feel that "Takeshima" should not be used. Now I know why melonbarmonster keeps tagging you with warnings. You and other editors simply cannot take anything that you don't like. When a change you don't like is done (regardless of good faith or bad faith), you revert the edits without explanation and don't explain on the talk page of the edit warring persists. I feel that you are not treating each editor in an NPOV way. Even when Assault11 clearly is POV and makes rude comments, you don't even care. When melonbarmonster asks you to stop stalking, you simply make a sarcastic comment that he should file a report against you.

I don't feel that I am the only one at fault. There is more than just edit warring going on and if you are trying to show that I am the bad seed, then your wrong. There is enough damage done to both sides. Good friend100 20:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This page is not for the dispute to continue, it's about 3RR's. See response on your talk page, we can discuss the off topic material there. —LactoseTI^T 20:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Consider both editors to be warned. Editwarring only ends up in one of two scenarios: either you get dinged for 3RR, oir the article gets protected. If you cannot find common ground and edit the article, please follow the

dispute resolution process. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

03:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Vilerocks reported by User:A Man In Black (Result:24 hrs)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Ciel (Mega Man Zero) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Vilerocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 01:37, 9 June 2007

• 1st revert: 19:45, 9 June 2007
• 2nd revert: [34]
• 3rd revert: [35]
• 4th revert: [36]

There are probably a couple more; I can't be arsed to link them all. Doing 3RR reports is tedious.

This is after days of revert warring on the same article over a different issue. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hrs. Next time, please file the 3RR report as required, even if tedious. Do not expect admins to do the research work for you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add some extra info: Vilerocks' former account has been blocked twice before for 3RR.[37] I do not know whether or not this may affect the block, but it should be noted. - Zero1328 _Talk? 08:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I did do the research. Would it've really mattered if I linked five diffs instead of four? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Pompertown reported by User:216.21.150.44 (Result: 1 month)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Standing on the Shoulder of Giants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pompertown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 17:28, 4 June 2007

• 1st revert: 13:21, 9 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 00:48, 10 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 01:52, 10 June 2007
• 4th revert: 05:22, 10 June 2007
• 5th revert: 11:18, 10 June 2007

Comment Pompertown (talk · contribs) has already been warned several times previously for edit warring and has just returned from a 3RR block involving the same article. previous block log. User also edits anonymously under with the IP 69.117.52.248 which has also broken 3RR on multiple Oasis related articles. 216.21.150.44 12:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

1 month, user should be well aware after that many blocks that edit warring is not acceptable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Tecmobowl reported by User:John254 (Result:48h)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

• 1st revert: 15:08, 10 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 16:30, 10 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 16:43, 10 June 2007
• 4th revert: 19:03, 10 June 2007 19:05, 10 June 2007
• 5th revert: 19:17, 10 June 2007
  • Situation is a bit complex, but I can clearly see at least four reverts here, and user is clearly edit warring with multiple users. Therefore, I have blocked for 48 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Ethioboy101 reported by User:Yom (Result: 24 hrs)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

• Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eritrean-Ethiopian_War&diff=136994517&oldid=130918451 06:54, June 9, 2007 (UTC)]

• 1st revert: 09:23, June 10, 2007 (UTC)
• 2nd revert: 10:38, June 10, 2007 (UTC) (with added "(like Iran-Iraq war)" to description of outcome of war)
• 3rd revert: 19:07, June 10, 2007 (UTC)
• 4th revert: 19:33, June 10, 2007 (UTC) (reverted to this modified version, rather than just replacing outcome with "Stalemate")

See also

Blocked for 24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru reported by User:Levine2112 (Result: No block)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Chiropractic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [38]

• 1st revert: 05:21, 10 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 18:16, 10 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 20:08, 10 June 2007
• 4th revert: 21:25, 10 June 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 03:26, 7 June 2007
  • Blocked QuackGuru for 24 hours given this and another instance of edit warring that didn't result in a 3RR violation three days ago. --
    desat
    00:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    • After re-reviewing the situation, it seems QuackGuru was baited into 3RR. I've unblocked him. --
      desat
      05:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Bless sins reported by User:Prester John (Result: 36h)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

• Previous version reverted to: 02:42, 4 June 2007

• 1st revert: 04:01, 10 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 04:22, 10 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 20:09, 10 June 2007
• 4th revert: 20:41, 10 June 2007
• 5th revert: 21:21, 10 June 2007

• Keeps whitewashing various descriptions; for example, removing statements Tawana Brawley's charges were fabricated, that John Walker Lindh was a convicted terrorist, that Yvonne Ridley had been kidnapped by the Taliban, and that Mike Tyson is a convicted rapist. On the fifth revert, unfixed some wording improvements that had to be reverted again by another editor. Will no doubt claim that the 5th revert was a "self-revert", but it was a bit too late, he'd already been reverted, and merely ended up reverting some new edits. Is now using various bogus claims to excuse himself. User:Bless sins is well aware of 3RR as his block log [39] indicates he has been blocked for edit warring before, and he has reported others for 3RR on this board, as recently as this week.
  • As predicted, he's shown up pretending his reverts are not reverts. Once someone else has reverted you, it's a bit too late to claim to be "self-reverting". Jayjg ^(talk) 23:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, even if I did make four reverts, I self reverted my last revert to avoid a breach of 3rr in accordance with

The second revert is not at all a revert. Please note the difference between my alleged "Previous version reverted to" and "2nd revert". [41] The main difference is that I replaced a dead link with a better one, and also added another notable person.

Please note the difference between my alleged "Previous version reverted to" and "3rd revert". The difference is the same as above.[42]

The difference between "Previous version reverted to" and "4th revert", are even larger. In my fourth "reversion" I add two more notable persons to the list, and conduct some other minor edits.[43]

The allegation that the fifth is a revert (to be counted in 3rr) is ridiculous. That is a self-revert, as I declared in my edit summary. [44]

Thanks.Bless sins 23:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:3rr#I_have_violated_3RR._What_do_I_do.3F says "In general, this should be enough to prevent you from being blocked, although there are no guarantees." It says nothing about when it is too late to self-revert. Also, Jayjg, can you make your comments immediately below the previous comment. Thanks.Bless sins

23:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

A reasonable compromise over content will hopefully prevent the need for these Admin notices in the future.--C.Logan 00:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked for 36 hours. Whether or not the fifth diff is included, Bless sins still violated 3RR with the first four diffs. --
  desat
  00:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Spoolintsi reported by User:Karrmann (Result: No block)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Eagle Talon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Spoointsi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [45]

• 1st revert: [46]

(All reverts were the same)

Rejected - malformed report. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User:TiconderogaCCB reported by User:YoSoyGuapo (Result: 48h)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

User talk:YoSoyGuapo (edit | [[Talk:User talk:YoSoyGuapo|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TiconderogaCCB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 13:34, 9 June 2007

• 1st revert: 14:00, 9 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 14:02, 9 June 2007 TiconderogaCCB
• 3rd revert: 14:12, 9 June 2007
• 4th revert: 14:18, 9 June 2007

TiconderogaCCB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was just taken off of block for 3rr. continues to attack on my talk page. I removed the attacks and he continued to attack me with "What the hell is you problem??? Do you lack any ability to reason? I have tried endlessly to engage you on discussion and talk pages, but instead you act like a 12 year old (which you quite possibly could be). Why do you continue to revert to an absurd version of the St. John's article? Did you get denied admission, are you a UConn fan" Immediately after getting offof block he goes back to the same article and does 3 more reverts YoSoyGuapo 07:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Avfnx reported by User:64.131.204.90 (Result: 24h)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on 9 June 2007

Dominican Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Avfnx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 64.131.204.90 23:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 11:08, 9 June 2007

• 1st revert: ; Revision as of 11:41, 9 June 2007
• 2nd revert: ; Revision as of 11:51, 9 June 2007
• 3rd revert: ; Revision as of 12:11, 9 June 2007
• 4th revert: ; Revision as of 12:18, 9 June 2007
• 5th revert: Current revision (12:22, 9 June 2007)
• 6th revert:

; Current revision (14:37, 9 June 2007)

Not a new user, but user is well aware of policy violations as he has removed warnings to his talk page. [47] ; User was given an initial 3rr warning on 01:04, 21 May 2007 and continues to revert articles [48].

• Diff of 3RR warning: ; 3AAvfnx&diff=132337411&oldid=132239659 01:04, 21 May 2007

comment has left statements on comments when he reverts like " 12:11, 9 June 2007 Avfnx (Talk | contribs) m (65,740 bytes) (we could do this all day, what that got do with DR)" [49]

This has already been handled a few sections up; Avfnx was blocked for twenty-four hours. -- tariqabjotu 00:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

moved to prevent deletion. User:tariq stated that this case was already handled, but this is a totally different 3rr violation if you look at the edits.

The original case [50] dealt with money and payment. This 3rr report deals with the names of haiti being based on mountains. same article 2 different things in which edits were reverted at different intervals. YoSoyGuapo 07:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Exvicious

(Result: No block)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

The Sopranos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 3TTT5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 00:47, 11 June 2007 [51] [52]
• 2nd revert: 04:03, 11 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 04:20, 11 June 2007
• 4th revert: 04:35, 11 June 2007

Warning issued @04:35, 11 June 2007

In light of the rapid edits this article is getting, I'm not convinced a newbie would have seen the explanations for removal in the edit summary (or even know about page histories). I'll talk to the editor. If it happens again, re-report.--Chaser - T 15:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User:206.186.8.130 reported by User:Digwuren (Result: 24h)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Monument of Lihula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 206.186.8.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 2007-06-08T21:02:50

• 1st revert: 2007-06-11T12:59:47
• 2nd revert: 2007-06-11T13:17:42
• 3rd revert: 2007-06-11T13:32:39
• 4th revert: 2007-06-11T13:41:35

This anonymous user has also been trying to insert spurious Estonia-Nazi associations into Judenfrei and Mart Laar.

It looks like User:Digwuren is deleting sourced content and references. His opponents seem to think this is an attempt at "Holocaust denial". -- Petri Krohn 15:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

May the record indicate that Petri Krohn is the only one to have made such accusations -- his reference to an anonymous plural "opponents" is a lie. Furthermore, such accusations are baseless.

May the record also indicate that making baseless accusations is not a new tactic by Petri Krohn, a proud self-professed troll. See, for example, User talk:Digwuren#3RR block. Digwuren 16:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, Digwuren has a nasty habit of calling his opponents in content disputes

vandals in his edit summaries: [53], [54], [55] -- Petri Krohn

15:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Also note, that User talk:206.186.8.130 is full of vandalism warnings, when this clearly is an content dispute. If there is any vandalism here, it is most likely coming from User:Digwuren, who is removing sourced material and categories. -- Petri Krohn 15:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've also blocked Digwuren for 48h for edit warring, if not outright 3rr, on the same article (Digwuren was blocked before for 3rr).--Chaser - T 16:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Xiao t reported by User:Matt57 (Result:protected)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Islamophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Xiao t (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 21:35, 10 June 2007 (this was a revert because Kenan Malik had been added back here at 13:16, 8 June 2007)
• 2nd revert: 21:54, 10 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 02:10, 11 June 2007
• 4th revert: 17:01, 11 June 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning (for new user): 02:27, 11 June 2007
• Comments: In all of these reverts, user is removing text regarding a certain subject in the article (Kenan Malik).

In addition, this user is a possible sock puppet of an indef banned troll and so possibly not a new user (contribs show user is very familiar with editing here), the checkuser for which I have already filed and am waiting for the results. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've not looked at these diffs yet, but Matt57 recently violated 3RR on that same page and was not blocked for it, so it's the height of hypocrisy for him to report someone else. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is the 3RR report against Matt57, which unfortunately led to page protection rather than a block. Matt57 is one of the worst reverters I've seen in a long time, and in fact I recently had to take the page off my watchlist in part because trying to deal with him is too frustrating. I hope whoever looks at this report will bear that context in mind. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

In that report he claimed that the first edit was an introduction of the word "controversial." I don't understand how one introduces something that has been there in the article in many other previous reversions. Ibn Shah 22:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right; Matt's first edit on that occasion was definitely a revert. He can't be blocked for it now so long after the fact, however. Matt will have to supply a diff showing that Xiao's first edit above was a revert. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, really well. Looks who's talking? You being an administrator should show better editing behavior. You reverted 3 times in less than hour for this same article: 14:53,15:15,15:19. The fact that you are an administrator and reverted 3 times in less than 60 minutes should have rationally earned you a good block. Administrators should technically be held to higher standards that common users. You should leave better examples for other users on this website. In addition you have also personally attacked people by calling them. I dont beleive that you are a good example of an administrator here. Other users have also had problems with you (I can supply the diffs for that but this case is about Xiao t). As for my report, I do agree I cruised past the 3RR, that was an overlook on my part. Even that should not happen. One should not edit to just avoid 3RR (like you did in those 60 minutes when you reverted 3 times). That is troublesome tendentious editing. Maybe you're upset that I didnt let Mr. J. Hasan's opinions and picture (a non-notable graduate assistant) back in the Islamophobia article. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've provided the diff above which shows the first revert of Xiao t was a revert, i.e. undoing the actions of another editor. Also you should know who you are defending. This is most likely a user who was blocked indef for trolling. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You've posted all this before in multiple locations. The bottom line is that you're a bad editor, a knee-jerk reverter, and you're out to attack Islam or Muslims. You didn't "cruise past" 3RR in the report against you, you violated it. And the report above isn't an obvious 3RR violation. The diff you give as the version reverted to doesn't show the removal of the Malik passage; it shows only that it was moved, so far as I can tell. Please supply a diff showing clearly that it had been removed before. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Mind

WP:CIVIL, admin whose apparent standard for notability for grad students depends on the extent to which she shares their views. Arrow740

SlimVirgin, you really are crossing lines with me here regarding CIVIL, by calling me a knee jerk reverter and a bad editor. Do you want to be called those things too? No. Is it good to revert 3 times in less than 60 minutes like you did? No. Please dont call me a knee-jerk reverter then. Its a good thing that everything we say gets saved on this website. Regarding the first RV: As I showed, Kenan had been added back by another editor before the same day. Xiao removed it 4 times. If thats not a 3RR, what is? In any case I've fixed the proof above where Xiao had deleted the same text before and editors had restored it 2 times before. Also note that Kirbytime, the suspected puppet master of this username had been blocked multiple number of times for edit warring and 3RR. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The diff you gave appears to show the Malik material being moved, not removed or restored. Please provide a diff that actually shows its removal. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Take the mudslinging elsewhere; that's not what this noticeboard is for. This article is a bloody mess, with constant reverting warring. I've chosen to fully protect it mainly to stop myself from dishing out five or more blocks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the seventh time it's been protected since March, the 14th overall. Matt, note that if the reverting continues after this protection is lifted, I'm going to consider taking you and your friends to the ArbCom. The article's been held hostage long enough. Wikipedia's not a platform for Muslim bashing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, perhaps that was due to your reverting once every 10 minutes (14:53,15:15,15:19)? Did you forget that? Dont threaten me with ArbCom, alright? Join me there and I'll tell the committee that your revert rate is once every 10 minutes. Plus, I'll tell them that you called me a bad editor, a knee jerk-reverter and you called me and others as "anti-Islamic". All these are personal attacks. You freely violate policies or border on violations. This is your pattern. These are just the diffs that I've seen by dealing with you directly and I have seen many other editors being irrirated by you on other places and I can dig up more diffs if needed. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Stop posting about your dispute on this page; or I'll start handing out blocks for disruption. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Nagle reported by User:Jayjg (Result: 8 hours)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Jewish lobby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nagle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 06:17, 11 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 16:07, 11 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 22:28, 11 June 2007
• 4th revert: 22:46, 11 June 2007

• The first edit is a straightforward revert. Then he gets crafty; he "re-organizes" the article, moving material from Yossi Klein Halevi to the top of a section, moving material from David Aaronovitch up, and inserting headers for different countries.15:59, 11 June 2007 The subsequent 3 reverts continue to revert to this format, but each time with tiny changes to the text, so as to game the 3RR rule. He has been editing Wikipedia for a year and a half, and is well aware of the rules, which is why he is so good at trying to game them. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how crafty this is, since two of the edits are explicitly reverts in the summaries, but it is 3RRV. 8 hours. JoshuaZ 01:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:24.68.249.225 reported by User:Blueboar (Result:3 months)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Freemasonry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.68.249.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 06:54, 11 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 22:07, 11 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 23:21, 11 June 2007
• 4th revert: 23:36, 11 June 2007
• 5th revert: 23:41, 11 June 2007
• 6th revert: 23:46, 11 June 2007
• 7th revert: 23:55, 11 June 2007

Also note misleading edit summaries and attempt to hide reverts among other edits, as well as personal attacks in edit summaries... and on Talk page. This fits with the user being a sock of

User:Charles reported by User:Bryson109

(Result:no vio)

• Previous version reverted to: [56]

• 1st revert: [57]
• 2nd revert: [58]
• 3rd revert: [59]

Note:

• • Only three reverts given; need more than three for 3RR vio. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Mumun 無文andMasalai reported by 207.6.12.137

(Result:no vio)

• Previous version reverted to: [61]

• 1st revert: [62]
• 2nd revert: [63]
• 3rd revert: [64]
• 4th revert: [65]
• 5th revert: [66]
• No violation. 3RR applies per person, not per group. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Grandmaster reported by User:Hajji Piruz (Result:No violation)

Note: This is a 1rr report, not an ordinary 3rr report

Grandmaster is on a standard arbcom parole:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Grandmaster_placed_on_revert_parole

He can only make one revert per article per week. However, on the Mihranids article, he made two reverts within a two day period.

Mihranids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Grandmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 9:47 11 June 2007 (This is a revert to this version: [67])
• 2nd revert: 5:18 12 June 2007 (This is a revert to this version: [68])

As you can see above, Grandmaster has made two reverts in less than a one week period on the same article, therefore violating his parole.Hajji Piruz 05:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Take this issue to

arbitration enforcement. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C}

06:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually the edit reverts listed above are different. So it's not quite clear whether this would constitute a 1RR violation. Atabek 07:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

First one is not a revert. You cannot seriously consider addition of a couple of spaces a revert. It is ridiculous. The text was not reverted to any previous version. False report. Grandmaster 07:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• The first edit is not a revert. I see no violation, and at any rate this isn't the place for it. Kafziel ^Talk 13:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:HanzoHattori reported by User:Lft6771 (Result:12h)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

• Previous version reverted to: 08:20, 12 June 2007

• 1st revert: 07:37, 12 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 07:48, 12 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 08:00, 12 June 2007
• 4th revert: 08:20, 12 June 2007

• First revert is a partial revert, but a revert nonetheless. In light of the user's arguably good-faith attempts to expand the article, I'm sticking with only 12 hours despite block history. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Sandpiper reported by User:Folken_de_Fanel (Result: stale)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Folken_de_Fanel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 09:07, 11 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 12:01, 11 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 12:06, 11 June
• 4th revert: 08:23, 12 June 2007

• Please provide diffs rather than oldids. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, copy/pasted the wrong thing, it's all right now. Folken de Fanel 19:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I was rather hoping the middle two count as one revert taken in two stages for ease of editing, as per Note that consecutive reverts by one editor are often treated as one revert for the purposes of this rule. Similarly, I also made another revert shortly after the last one mentioned by Folken,09:28, 12 June 2007 which is also within the time period (5 minutes after, Folken is in a different time zone?). Otherwise complex reverts just get ridiculous when trying to allow for other amenments to a busy page. Sandpiper 20:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • A new technique to game the 3RR ? Do you think breaking your reverts into various parts make the acts, and intentions behind it more acceptable ? Each time you've reverted my own version, re-adding each time the same content, which is entirely different than making segmented edits which are each time different and left to the care of other users afterwards.Folken de Fanel 21:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid you are reverting my edits faster than I can make them. Are you watching my edits all the time? I didn't even realise you had changed back what I had written before I did the next bit. I see the piece I reinserted in 3 was one you took out here [69].
        • And I'm afraid you're just revert warring, reinserting each time content that you claim you've not noticed I'd reverted. Are you claiming you've some kind of supernatural powers, allowing you to mystically revert my edits without realizing it ? You should have looked a bit at your edits before coming up with excuses like "I didn't know". Of course you knew, since each one of your edits was an consious attempt to destroy my edits. Folken de Fanel 09:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Now Seriously stale. Editors still seem to be at it, so I've contacted them and asked them to leave message on my talk page in case this still needs attention.--Chaser - T 20:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Mumun_man

(Result:24h)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

• Previous version reverted to: 2007-06-12T10:24:28

• 1st revert: [70]
• 2nd revert: [71]
• 3rd revert: [72]
• 4th revert: [73]
• 5th revert: [74]

• Blocked for 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Mazarin07 reported by User:Jayjg (Result: Article protected)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Jewish lobby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mazarin07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 20:30, 11 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 09:29, 12 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 12:25, 12 June 2007
• 4th revert: 13:52, 12 June 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 09:32, 12 June 2007

• Editor has actually been reverting this article multiple times over the past 2 days, but these diffs demonstrate the issue most simply. In these edits, among other things, he consistently removes the {{Antisemitism}} template and Category:Antisemitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not quite seeing how the first diff is a revert; could you provide a version reverted to? Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • What's actually going on is a edit war with 3-4 people on each side, dating back to at least March 2007. Currently, the article is protected. This probably needs to go to dispute resolution. --John Nagle 16:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Article has been protected, so there is no point in a block. User is warned. Persisting in that kind of editing behavior will lead to blocks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Texastechfan reported by User:aznismyname2367 (Result:stale)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

WFAA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Texastechfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: Aznismyname2367 17:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 2007-06-11T19:40

Have communicated with this user about a similar occasion before. User seems not to research before making edits. Keeps deleting: "Darla Miles: General Assignment Reporter." (5 times in 24 hours).

• 1st revert: 2007-06-10T22:20
• 2nd revert: 2007-06-11T02:11
• 3rd revert: 2007-06-11T12:03
• 4th revert: 2007-06-11T14:03
• 5th revert: 2007-06-11T19:40

Admin: Correct Diffs Actually, in the past 24 hours

Aznismyname2367 has reverted the material into the article 4 times. (5 times going back beyond 24 hours).

• Indiff0 June 11 12:23 - Stale
• Indiff1 June 11 18:20
• Indiff2 June 11 19:57
• Indiff3 June 12 11:39
• Indiff4 June 12 17:52

And Texastechfan has reverted the material out of the article 3 times. (4 times going back beyond 24 hours.)

• OutDiff0 June 11 14:03 - Stale
• OutDiff1 June 11 19:40
• OutDiff2 June 12 11:32
• OutDiff3 June 12 14:28

Aznismyname2367 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) clearly violated 4RR in 24 hours.

Texastechfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has 3 reverts in 24 but is also edit warring.

I am not an admin: Clearly both editors are edit warring over this material. Both appear to be new editors and neither have warnings on their talk pages. Lsi john 18:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see anything on the talk page of the article regarding this disputed content either, but there does appear to be a primary source available for an argument allowing it [75].
  D
  ) 18:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:SqueakBox reported by User:Vintagekits

(Result:Warned both)

• 1st revert: 17:59, 12 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 18:03, 12 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 18:08, 12 June 2007
• 4th revert: 18:36, 12 June 2007