Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jnc (talk | contribs) at 04:24, 17 June 2005 (Archive "User:Eyeon and User:70.177.90.39"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Click here to create a new report


    Violations

    User:67.121.95.80 / User:67.121.93.63

    [1] [2] [3] [4]

    Reported by: Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:56, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

    Comments: Anonymous user with dynamic IP address in 67.121.* block continues to revert to discredited rambling about Nehru-Stalinism in Nehru article. (Also has made numerous personal attacks and ethnic slurs on the talk page, FWIW). Unfortunately, it's not just one IP address, and user has stated on talk page that s/he intends to just redial modem to obtain different IP address, if blocked.

    There doesn't seem to have been a previous violation, and he wasn't warned, so I've put a warning on his talk page, and I see someone else has protected the page. I'll put it on my watchlist in case it starts up again. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:17, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
    This anonymous user has been at this for a long time, using a small set of IP addresses, logging in from Cisco Systems, San Jose, during working hours:
    and during other hours from Pac Bell Internet Services, San Ramon, CA (presumably at home):
    This guy knows what he's doing, and has been blocked at least once already (01:51, 6 May 2005 Jiang blocked "User:66.127.58.169" with an expiry time of next Saturday (repeated use of personal attacks, was warned)[5]), so your caution isn't really warranted. --Calton | Talk 06:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I've been watching that page for a while, and I'd reccomend letting them argue it out. It was protected for 10 days for the same revert war and now the discussion has flared up again since I unprotected it ~2 days ago. OTOH, I need to go to bed soon so if you could keep an eye on it that'd be great. -Lommer | talk 06:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I know some pretty senior people at Cisco - if need be, I can ask them to track down who this person is. Needless to say, edit warring on Wikipedia from work will get them in pretty hot water. Noel (talk) 04:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    No disrespect, but no matter how loathsome his behavior has been so far, tattling to his employers to get him into trouble strikes me as dangerously close to violating the "No legal threats" rule. I mentioned the employer only to show the geographic and time clustering of the IPs he's using (San Jose and San Ramon/working and non-working posting times). Yes, he is (IMHO) a raving frootbat, but Wikipedia has already mechanisms in place to deal with such people when they get peristent.
    P.S.: It appears that this guy went by the moniker User:LibertarianAnarchist a couple of years ago, so his act isn't new by any means. --Calton | Talk 06:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I was under the impression that Wikipedia:No legal threats applied to disputes between editors, not (as in this case) an attempt to enforce community rules. And Wikipedia's mechanisms in place have been shown to be pretty marginal when you're dealing with someone who edits as an anon, and has lots of IP addresses to draw on (see the Zivinbudas case). I also have little sympathy for disruptive editors. Noel (talk) 17:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Well, speak of the devil. Looks like Cisco's Own Hindu Nationalist, stymied from inserting his wacky "Nehru-Stalinism" bilge, has resorted to a sockpuppet (User:Legal Notice) issuing legal threats. [6].
    Maybe calling his bosses would be a good idea, now. --Calton | Talk 01:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    User:67.121.92.246 / User:Economist123 / etc.

    Three revert rule violation on Jawaharlal Nehru. User:67.121.92.246 (now User:Economist123):

    Reported by: Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:47, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

    Comments: The user who posts from a dynamic IP address in the 67.121.* block continues to revert the Nehru article to include a uniformly rejected rambling about Nehru-Stalinism. The page has been locked repeatedly to prevent this, but 67.121.* resumes the same behavior (despite frequent) warning, each time the page is unlocked. This was previously reported under the IP addresses User:67.121.95.80 / User:67.121.93.63 (same IP block, obviously same human being at issue).

    Followup: The usually anonymous user from 67.121.* rarely signs talk comments, but once in a while does as "Economist" or similar. The 9th reversion listed is by the "new user" User:Economist123. I presume this user name was added in response to Mackensen's IP block. I don't know how to tell whether some IP spoofing or proxy was also created. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:38, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
    User:Economist123 has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet created for the purpose of policy violation. Jayjg (talk) 04:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    User: 67.121.92.159 / User:67.121.95.125 / User:67.124.244.78

    Three revert rule violation on User:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters (edit | [[Talk:User:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.121.* (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:48, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

    Comments: Our same friend who has frequently violated 3RR on the Nehru page has taken to vandalizing my user page (and that of several other editors also) to include his rambling "Nehru is Stalin" screed, presumably because Nehru got locked against vandalism because of him. Unfortunately, as in the other reports, our vandal has dynamic IP addreses. They initially seemed to all fall in 67.121.*, but now at least one is from 67.124.* as well. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:53, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

    User:BrandonYusufToropov

    At Terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as BrandonYusufToropov (talk · contribs) and as 24.34.164.83 (talk · contribs)

    I've blocked Brandon for 12 hours as this was his first block, but I didn't warn him first because he seemed to be gaming the system, inserting in the edit summary "3rd revert of the day" when in fact it was his fourth. Concentrating on one part of the text he was reverting to for the sake of clarity — that Eric Robert Rudolph was a "radical Christian extremist" rather than "Christian Identity follower" — the diffs are:

    SlimVirgin (talk) 19:54, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

    Brandon and I exchanged e-mails about this, and it seems he did make a genuine mistake, not realizing that the first partial revert would count. He's also indicated that he'll think more carefully before reverting in future, so I'm unblocking him as a gesture of good faith. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:01, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

    User:204.56.7.1

    Three revert rule violation on Albert Einstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 204.56.7.1 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Fastfission 16:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User has been hard-set on changing the main photo and adding an infobox. Then user adds little bits of information. So when people try to revert the large changes to the photo and the infobox, some information is at first "removed" though clearly not on purpose. User then uses this as an excuse to revert. Trying to game the system, in my assessment, has ignored many pleas to discuss these changes on the talk page before making them or reverting. --Fastfission 16:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Oops, I reported her too. Anyway, I certify the above... William M. Connolley 17:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC).
    • User has been reverting additional times since these were reporting -- must be up to half a dozen by now. Could somebody please block this user? They are being highly disruptive. --Fastfission 19:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • (William M. Connolley 22:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)) Plea renewed. The reverts appear quite straightforward - why is this tricky?

    User:Commodore Sloat

    Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs) is acting as an attack dog for BrandonYusufToropov (talk · contribs); continually reinserting personal attacks into Talk:Jihad (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Jihad|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in violation of Wikipedia policy on Remove Personal Attacks.

    Reported by: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.57.130.8 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • I have initiated a mediation intervention here. Let's see if that leads anywhere. Just fyi. Inter\Echo 19:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    User:AmYisrael

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

    Reported by: Impi 00:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User continues to insert POV material, despite the Talk page consensus clearly being against the addition. Also reverts and posts using the sockpuppet 69.217.125.53 Impi 00:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Warned. --W(t) 00:20, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
        • User continues to revert: 1 and 2. Impi 14:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • And again: 1 Impi 14:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Protected the page - now they'll have to "play nice". Noel (talk) 15:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Looking at the pattern of edits, it's clear that this is just a case of one editor imposing his will against consensus by quite prodigious numbers of reverts. I've given him a very serious final warning (I don't normally enforce "mere" 3RR's but this goes way beyond that in scale) and I'm asking Noel to consider lifting protection because it's in the interests of Wikipedia to keep our articles editable. This page has been protected for over a week in the recent past and it didn't make a ha'pporth of difference. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • I opted for protection because i) it can give a longer period of peace and quiet than the mere 24 hrs of a 3RR block, ii) they are willing to use anon sock-puppets, so it's not clear that a block on the account will stop this. Also, now that I think about it, I'm not sure I completely share you concern about keeping article editable. In the early days, when content was thin, this was a concern. I think the balance may be shifting now, though, as our content gets more mature. Noel (talk) 15:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Food for thought there on content maturity. Meanwhile following your message on my talk page I've lifted protection. I've handled a few chaps like this before. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Editor returned and reverted using IP 69.217.125.53. Blocked IP and username for 6 hours for extremely disruptive edits. This goes somewhat beyond normal 3RR in scale. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    User:216.76.219.147

    Three revert rule violation on Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 216.76.219.147 (talk · contribs), 216.76.219.48 (talk · contribs), and 216.76.219.54 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: <>Who?¿? 01:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    It is a 3 revert rule violation but Im not sure how big the ip range is.Geni 01:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Looking at the reports, and histories, it all seems to be coming from 216.76.219.*, so the appropriate range block is 216.76.219.0/24. Noel (talk) 05:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    This is about an anon that has access to a "rotating" IP address. He has created trouble constantly in this article. The last set of numbers varies, but the first three are always the same: 216.76.219.{varying set}. We are sure that this is the same person. He has also vandalized constantly the talk page of this article. His changing IP makes it impossible to talk to him directly and very difficult to track his actions. Regards, Redux 17:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    URGENT: The anon (with the changing IP address) is now daily blanking the article's talk page [24]. On June 15, a 3RR violation could be said to have occurred (although this is clear vandalism — 3RR would not apply):
    Regards, Redux 02:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    I have blocked the entire range for 24-hours for vandalism. I can't leave a message for the user, because I have no idea which address(es) they are likely to use; each address in this range seems to have only a few edits. Noel (talk) 05:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    User:Germen

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

    Reported by: Axon 11:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Is there any reason the above incident has been ignored? Axon 23:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    User:Sandbot

    Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Introduction (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Introduction|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sandbot (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: SPUI (talk) 19:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • I understand that this is not a standard case, but the presence of a bot that can violate the 3RR is just as bad if not worse than a normal 3RR violation. Sandbot continually reinserts the text "No profanity, please." inside a comment. I have given my reasons for not including it on Wikipedia talk:Introduction. --SPUI (talk) 19:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I won't block this, and I advise any other admin to do the same. My reasons:
        1. Its task was approved on Wikipedia talk:Bots
        2. The change is wholly beneficial, and all it would take to remove the offending line is a note to AllyUnion and gaining consensus on the talk page. It's hardly urgent.
        3. I don't believe 3RR is applicable in sandboxes anyway. smoddy 20:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    "Reverts intended to perform maintenance—such as on the Introduction or the Sandbox—are likewise allowed."Geni 02:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I agree. This just goes to show how badly the Sandbot was needed and what wonderful work it's doing. --W(t) 12:04, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

    User:Emico

    Violation on Iglesia ni Cristo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    • 1st revert: [25]
    • 2nd revert: [26]
    • 3rd revert: [27]
    • 4th revert: [28] (Note: this is a diff that includes the current version, so it may not show the revert properly if additional edits follow)

    I've already blocked him, just reporting that fact here. This came to my attention because Emico requested that the article be protected on his version. When I determined that he was the only one in violation of the rule, I blocked him instead. I checked Emico's talk page to make sure he's been warned about the rule before, so he can't claim to have been unaware of it. --Michael Snow 04:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    User:Mimiian

    Three revert rule violation on China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mimiian (talk · contribs) (all times UTC-4):

    Reported by: MarkSweep 12:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:ScapegoatVandal

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

    Reported by: JFW | T@lk 16:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

    Reported by: Jayjg (talk) 19:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • I have a stake as one of the contestants, so I have not banned SV personally. He has come to the talk page ranting that his POV is NPOV and that we are strawmanning him for antisemitism and conspiracy theories. JFW | T@lk 16:29, 16 Jun 2005
    No, you are making another straw man fallacy. I hate Nazis, Judeofascists and Communists with equal gusto. I made no conspiracy and you have yet to prove how it is false and a conspiracy. Playing stupid doesn't count. ScapegoatVandal (talk · contribs) 17:14, 16 Jun 2005
      • He's also violated 3RR on Judaizers, although the 4th revert was a little trickier, as he added back the links and then commented them too, In any event, he's violated the 3RR on several articles, and resorted to a series of nasty personal attacks as well. Jayjg (talk) 18:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Ethnocentric bullying is wrong and you have violated the 3RR so many more times too, but I haven't been taking count of this part in the hypocrisy you spew. ScapegoatVandal 18:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    No individual user apart from you has violated the 3RR. This is not "ethnocentric bullying" but the removal of a highly speculative unsourced view, as explained on talk:Circumcision without insults and rants. JFW | T@lk 18:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Regardless of language, you Jews have incited it. I am frustrated that only you Jews get away with POV pushing on doubly ethnocentric and ethnoreligious bounds. I am not the only person that gets his edits to Jew topics reverted. It's all over the edit histories. You cannot disprove that you were there doing as I have said. Too bad buddy, you are way out of line and absolutely corrupt. You can't hide your trail of deception on the Wiki. Of course others have violated that rule. You're telling me that others who rv more than 3, 4, 5, 6 times probably even are not guilty of this wrongdoing? Nice spin doctoring, as I have already accused you of and it is right. Jews do this spin and get away with it. All the false politeness aka sugar coating won't save you from the flies attracted to you. [personal attack removed] ScapegoatVandal 18:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    If you think the rule is wrong, go to WT:3RR. JFW | T@lk 18:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I never said the rule was wrong. Stop playing guessing games and giving me a verdict. I said that you all exploit the rule's loopholes to push POV. ScapegoatVandal 19:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    You keep fucking with my edits over language, but I will let you remove them from these other pages if you feel like it. Just don't do that on my profile pages and we have a deal. ScapegoatVandal 19:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Blocked for 24 hours. Gamaliel 19:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Report new violation

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive9&oldid=15362712"