Misplaced Pages

User:TenOfAllTrades and :Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between pages - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
(Difference between pages) Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:00, 8 March 2005 editTenOfAllTrades (talk | contribs)Administrators21,283 edits Major revision of User page  Revision as of 08:59, 19 February 2007 edit Athaenara (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users54,866 editsm Steep learning curve I'm on. 1. I report. 2. Fear report will be ignored because no {{3RR}} warning. 3. I withdraw report. 4. Finally see "good idea not obligatory." 5. Reinstated report. 
Line 1: Line 1:
<center>'''Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.'''</center>
<div clear=all; style="float: right; width: 18em; padding: 0 0.5em; margin: 0 0 0.25em 0.25em; border: 1px solid black; color: inherit; background-color: #fee;; font-size: 91%; text-align: center;">
{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}
'''] if I do something stupid.'''
<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-3 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive31--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->


{{adminbacklog}}
It has come to my attention that the Talk link in my signature was nonfunctional for some time, possibly since its creation. Now that it's working, please '''tell me''' if I screw up anything else.


==Violations==
Thank you.
Please place new reports '''at the bottom'''.


===] reported by ] (Result:)===
- ''Ten, 6 March 2005''</div>
I like to keep my online personae separated from my real world existence, though I'm sure a relatively determined individual could tie the identities together.


] violation on
My undergraduate studies were in physics and chemistry; my graduate work in biology and biophysics. I try to have at least a passing acquaintance with most things scientific.
{{Article|John D. Mackay}}. {{3RRV|81.155.34.127}}:


* Previous version reverted to:
I became a Wikipedian in ] of ].
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:


* Diff of 3RR warning:
== Useful Wikilinks ==
Useful links within Misplaced Pages:


'''Comments''': You have violated ] as well. Have you filed for checkuser to confirm that it is a sock of the user you are alleging it to be? Should we block you as well? &mdash; ] ] 11:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
*]
*]
*]
*]
**]
*]
**]
**]
**]


:No, I have not: please supply the diffs.
:This User was banned last night, yet again for making personal attacks on me. They have used over 80 IP sockpuppet accounts to date. We did do a CheckUser several months ago, which confirmed that it was him, and the pattern of behaviour has continued, indeed degenerated, since then. Please review the actions of those IP addresses. CheckUser specifically says that we must use our common sense in establishing who is using multiple IP addresses. --] 11:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


::, , , . The first edit explictly says that it was a revert. Three revert-ruled breached. You should not revert-war even when you are reverting sockpuppets. I cannot take any action against the other user even if he is a sockpuppet, unless you provide evidence and are ready to get blocked yourself. &mdash; ] ] 11:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
*]
**]
**]
*]
*]
*]


:::No, that is not a 3RR: please note that , not the 17th. They are not within a 24 hour period.
:::I ''have'' provided the evidence that the IP adress did a revert to "in pawn to" 4 times in a 24 hour period: a crystal clear breach of WP:3RR. --] 11:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
::::A difference of two hours? This can be equated with ]. ] does not give you the right to keep reverting without trying to initiate discussion. Get other involved users to comment here. &mdash; ] ] 11:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


:::::If anyone is "gaming the system" it is User:Mallimak.
*]
:::::But OK, I will make a request that Admin ] (who, you will note, has also repeatedly reverted Mallimak's sockpuppet IPs) comments at this 3RR, and the Admin who blocked him last night. Anyone else you would like to get a comment from? Many, many Admins have had to deal with Mallimak's multitude of IP addresses. I am not going to waste my Saturday any further by spamming them all. --] 11:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
**]
*]
*]
*]


::::::Oh, and on your point of "trying to initiate a discussion": we have tried on literally hundreds of occasions to reason with Mallimak. But you just look through his contributions and IP contributions: does that look like someone who is open to discussion to you? --] 11:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
== Articles in progress ==
I believe that there are no finished articles on Misplaced Pages, only ones requiring less editing. Here are a few to which I have contributed substantially, some still in need of more edits than others.


I am responding both because MO posted a link to this discussion on my talk page, and in light of ''"Get other involved users to comment here"'' posted by Nick - given I was one of the reverters (on MO's talk page attacks made by the user) and someone who has followed this sitation from the start, it is probably useful I give my view. I have to say this one has gone on too long. A user who was attempting to push some sort of Orkney separatist view and running socks to do it. The user was found out, and has since, over numerous months, attempted to troll, goad and make personal attacks. To counter the "MO was gaming the system" type chatter doesn't sit with the facts - he is attempting to deal with someone who has a new IP address every day - has no interest in discussion and is now only interested in a personal attack and vendetta campaign. Hiding behind dynamically assigned IP addresses the person runs around making a fool out of the rules/policies/guidelines which all the rest of us follow. Frankly I don't know why this is allowed - I would say it is getting into the "contact his ISP" territory. The person isn't interested in discussion - if they were they would stick to their original account rather than hiding behind dynamic IP's. I can't say MO has handled the situation perfectly either, some of his actions have probably exacerbated rather than calmed the situation - that being said it doesn't excuse the blatant breaches of rules which Mallimak has consistently shown on countless occasions. Something has to be done. ] 12:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
*]
*]
*] (thermal therapy)
*]
*]
**]
**]
**]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
**] (several articles)
**]
*] (In progress to replace copyvio)
*]
*]
*]
*]


:This was going to go on Mais oui!'s talk page, but it's going here instead. MO suggested on his talk page an indefinite ban of Mallimak. Here's the problem with such a proposal as I see it:
== Structural formulae ==
:# Bans are not imposed likely. More evidence than supposedly coincidental editing patterns (a CheckUser, for a start) is needed, especially since there is the potential for a lot of collateral damage. It is somewhat unfair to block out most of wherever they might be editing from just to tackle one user.
]]]
:# Practicality. The ban would provide for no further punishment than can already be meted out for vandalism.
]]]
:# The principle of ]. MO's own behaviour is not exactly stellar, such as seemingly reverting any edit they disagree with on sight, or labelling other users as "abusive" without actually presenting any evidence (don't need to look far through the history to see accusations levelled at another user - get a RFCU done before throwing ''that'' around). There's even evidence of revert warring where the edit summaries are to the effect of "stop revert warring". It's a bit like telling someone to stop shooting at you while you unload an Uzi into their shin.
I regularly draw and contribute structural formula for organic compounds. If you have a chemistry article which needs a structural formula, feel free to drop me a note on my Talk page. (It helps if you can locate a web resource with the structure in some format.)
:# (*puts on ] hat*) At some point, someone is going to ask why it always seems to be MO on the receiving end of the "personal attacks" (given most of our long-term vandals don't discriminate), and if perhaps it's actually MO that has a problem. (*removes hat*)
:Given this has gone on for 4 months, it's probably safe to say MO is fairly deeply embroiled in it, so much so that some might consider reverting such edits to be a potential ]. If the edits really are that bad, I would suggest MO flag it up and ''let someone else deal with it''. Vandalism cannot be condoned, but there are some serious ] issues here. ] <small>] </small> 13:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I admit that I am a sock puppet, but a sock puppet out of necessity, because ] got me blocked by repeatedly accusing me of being a sock puppet of ], and the admins believed him. I am in fact ]. I just cannot stand by and watch ] be given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to continue with his behaviour. Here is a pertinent quote from my ]
: I would agree that Mais_oui does indulge in edit warring, and attacking the contributions of other users. After I had nominated a Scottish template for deletion in favour of the British one- he responded by reverting all my recent edits with the comments- "rv English Nationalist" (see for example- ). Also any attempts to engage with the user and avoid edit wars is usually met with personal abuse- eg . ] 13:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is littered with such comments about ] from independent users who are not sock puppets of some grand anti-] sock puppet master. ] 15:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It would be nice if I, ],could be unblocked and allowed to edit under my own name, but then again, on past experience, ] would simply track me and revert my every edit. Here is another relevant quotation:
:I don't wish to be drawn into the specific complaint raised by Mallimak. However, Mais oui! has also falsely accused me of sockpuppetry and now routinely reverts my edits simply because they are my edits, without any discussion or attempt to reach consensus. He is the only user against whom I have encountered these problems....Normalmouth 06:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I do wish the "] problem" would be resolved. ] 15:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be a shame to have a prolific and well informed editor such as ] driven away or "disciplined" when simply trying to protect himself and the Misplaced Pages project as a whole from the constant vandalism and sustained attacks of one particular person, the attacks against him appear to have reached the ridiculous stage, the attacker appears to behave as if they are suffering from some form of OCD. ] 17:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Dear ], I believe you are confusing victim and perpetrator here. ] is far from being a well-informed editor, he is an ardent POV pusher who does not hesitate to attack any contributors who gainsay him. For example, ] (whom ] has constantly accused me of being a sock puppet of, until the admins blocked me) initiated many well-informed Orkney-related articles, and was all set to add many more to Misplaced Pages (all to the encyclopaedia's benefit) until he fell foul of ] attacks, abuse and destructive editing. I am acquainted with "Mallimak" in true life, and I met him a few weeks ago in the Orkney Archive researching for one of his local newspaper articles. He told me that he has totally given up on Misplaced Pages, and since his experiences here advises everyone to be wary of the accuracy of its articles. This is all down to ], I am afraid. ] 22:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC) (actually ])

:: I am not keen on being quoted in this matter- I have never called for him to be banned or blocked. In anycase, these matters are not relevant to 3RR and should be continued elsewhere. ] 17:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:)===

] violation on
{{Article|Middle East Quarterly}}. {{3RRV|NYScholar}}:

* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:

* Diff of 3RR warning:

;Comments: NYScholar has made some minor changes to the version he reverts to which appears to be gaming. How minor they are becomes hard to tell because he marks all of his edits, including his reverts, this way. He been asked to stop that ] and on the article talk page .
::The user is taking advantage of the current backlog in 3RR report enforcement, and reverting yet again, while continuing to deceptively label his edits as "minor". ] 22:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:)===

] violation on
{{Article|Anne Milton}}. {{3RRV|Nssdfdsfds}}:

First time I've done this so bear with me.
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* Second Previous reversion reverted to :
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
*warned: , see ] for earlier warnings.
*response: further revert (after 24hr)

:The first revert is not the same as 2,3 and 4.
:"1st revert": I removed content that referred to an attack blog created against Anne Milton, asking Catchpole to "direct me to this consensus with a URL link? thanks". He left a message for me with the link at 21:46 , and added back the content. Having read this, I made no further edits to the page, while continuing to edit other articles that evening.

:The next day user Fys added to Catchpole's edit a link to that attack blog:

:In reverts 2, 3, and 4 left the content in that was removed in revert 1, but removed the URL that had been added by Fys.

:So there are two completely separate issues here. Issue 1, in revert 1 was mentioning the blog. Issue 2 in revert 2, 3 and 4 was including the URL of the blog. There's nothing whatsoever in common between 'revert 1' and reverts 2-4. This can easily be verified - the edit before revert 1 had no URL in it, and the edits before reverts 2-4 did. Revert 2-4 did not remove anything that was removed in revert 1, so they are not the same at all. Note that Catchpole was happy on 15/2/07 with mentioning the attack blog, but not linking to it, but following Fys' addition of the URL has decided more recently that the URL *should* go in there. These are separate issues, and responding with false allegations of breaking 3RR isn't helpful.

:Catchpole left me a warning on my talk page claiming I'd broken the 3RR. I responded pointing out that this was wrong, as although I'd made four sets of edits within 23 hours and 48 minutes, the first was different from the other three, so there was no breach. After getting my response explaining this, he has for some reason still decided to waste my time by adding this report here that I've now had to respond to. ] 18:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:Already blocked 24h)===

] violation on
{{Article|Black People}}. {{3RRV|Deeceevoice}}:

* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

* Diff of 3RR warning: . An established editor anyway with a long block history for 3RR vios.

;Comments: <!-- Optional -->
*Has already been blocked for 24. ] 03:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:24h)===

] violation on
{{Article|Pauline Hanson}}. {{3RRV|Skyring}}:

* Previous version reverted to: For eg. I can't say that there is a single version being reverted to. We've been trying to add some information for days, in different ways, and they all get reverted. This has been going on for days. Just FYI, is the source that Skyring thinks is unacceptable. And yes, he has been warned about 3RR on the talk page of the article in question. Regards, ] 21:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert: Revision as of 17:43, 18 February 2007 (edit) (undo) Skyring (Talk | contribs) (→Current Events - Remove poorly sourced and untrue rubbish again. As for the other, see Talk)
* 2nd revert: Revision as of 12:50, 18 February 2007 (edit) (undo) Skyring (Talk | contribs) m (Remove poorly-sourced, untrue material under WP:BLP. If you want to reinsert challenged material, gain a consensus first, please.)
* 3rd revert: Revision as of 12:05, 18 February 2007 (edit) (undo) Skyring (Talk | contribs) (→Attempted return to politics - She didn't attribute it to rape and pillage. This is quite untrue.)
* 4th revert: Revision as of 10:00, 18 February 2007 (edit) (undo) Skyring (Talk | contribs) (This doesn't address the problems identified with the source, and the "attributed to" construction
* 5th revert: Revision as of 09:24, 18 February 2007 (edit) (undo) Skyring (Talk | contribs) (→Quotations - remove rubbish. It's not notable, it's poorly sourced, and the quote is misleading.)
* 6th revert: Revision as of 15:17, 17 February 2007 (edit) (undo) Skyring (Talk | contribs) (→Quotations - Rewording of DNA stunt quote doesn't overcome the problems. See talk.)
**Blocked for 24 hours. ] 03:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] {Result:48 hrs)===

] violation on
{{Article|United Kingdom}}:

* 1st:
* 2nd:
* 3rd:
* 4th:
* 5th:
* 6th:

Warning about reverting re ] (user is simultaneously reverting UK and England):

This user has already been blocked several times for 3RR violations.

] 00:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
*Blocked for 48 hours. ] also violated 3RR; has been warned. ] 02:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This user is now using a ] to make the same edit ] 04:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:)===

] violation on
{{Article|Race and intelligence}}. {{3RRV|Kevin Murray}}:

* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:
* 8th revert:
* Diff of 3RR warning:

;Comments:
First 5 reverts are not identical, but all involve restoring the long table at the end of the article seen in the first revert. Four of the reverts are simple reverts: ] 05:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


===] reported by ] (Result:)===

] violation on
{{Article|Seth Swirsky}}. {{3RRV|MoeLarryAndJesus}}:

* Previous version reverted to:

* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert: (User inserted own username in this revert.)
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:

;Comments: This article and its talk page are the only pages the user has edited since registering the ID 18:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC). The user has generated incalculable disruption, incivility, POV-warring in less than 48 hours. ] was to no avail. Problem posted on ]; user misrepresented situation there (though that noticeboard guideline specifically asks that discussion remain where it began). &nbsp; ] 05:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

==Sample violation report to copy==

<pre>
===] reported by ] (Result:)===

] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{3RRV|VIOLATOR_USERNAME}}:

* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->

;Comments: <!-- Optional -->



</pre>

Note on completing a 3RR report:
* Copy the template above, the text within but not including <nowiki><pre>...</pre></nowiki>
* Replace <nowiki>http://DIFFS</nowiki> with a link to the ] and the DIFFTIME with the timestamp
* We need to know that there are at least four reverts. List them, and replace <nowiki>http://VersionLink</nowiki> with a link to the version that the first revert reverted to. If the reverts are subtle or different, please provide an explanation of why they are all reverts. Even if the reverts are straightforward, it's helpful to point out the words or sentences being reverted.
* Warnings are a good idea but not obligatory

Revision as of 08:59, 19 February 2007

Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    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.

    Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
    Click here to create a new report
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links


    This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
    Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

    Violations

    Please place new reports at the bottom.

    User:81.155.34.127 reported by User:Mais oui! (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on John D. Mackay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 81.155.34.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: You have violated WP:3RR as well. Have you filed for checkuser to confirm that it is a sock of the user you are alleging it to be? Should we block you as well? — Nearly Headless Nick 11:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

    No, I have not: please supply the diffs.
    This User was banned last night, yet again for making personal attacks on me. They have used over 80 IP sockpuppet accounts to date. We did do a CheckUser several months ago, which confirmed that it was him, and the pattern of behaviour has continued, indeed degenerated, since then. Please review the actions of those IP addresses. CheckUser specifically says that we must use our common sense in establishing who is using multiple IP addresses. --Mais oui! 11:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    , , , . The first edit explictly says that it was a revert. Three revert-ruled breached. You should not revert-war even when you are reverting sockpuppets. I cannot take any action against the other user even if he is a sockpuppet, unless you provide evidence and are ready to get blocked yourself. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    No, that is not a 3RR: please note that the first diff is at 08:12 on the 16th February, not the 17th. They are not within a 24 hour period.
    I have provided the evidence that the IP adress did a revert to "in pawn to" 4 times in a 24 hour period: a crystal clear breach of WP:3RR. --Mais oui! 11:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    A difference of two hours? This can be equated with gaming the system. WP:3RR does not give you the right to keep reverting without trying to initiate discussion. Get other involved users to comment here. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    If anyone is "gaming the system" it is User:Mallimak.
    But OK, I will make a request that Admin User:Wangi (who, you will note, has also repeatedly reverted Mallimak's sockpuppet IPs) comments at this 3RR, and the Admin who blocked him last night. Anyone else you would like to get a comment from? Many, many Admins have had to deal with Mallimak's multitude of IP addresses. I am not going to waste my Saturday any further by spamming them all. --Mais oui! 11:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    Oh, and on your point of "trying to initiate a discussion": we have tried on literally hundreds of occasions to reason with Mallimak. But you just look through his contributions and IP contributions: does that look like someone who is open to discussion to you? --Mais oui! 11:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

    I am responding both because MO posted a link to this discussion on my talk page, and in light of "Get other involved users to comment here" posted by Nick - given I was one of the reverters (on MO's talk page attacks made by the user) and someone who has followed this sitation from the start, it is probably useful I give my view. I have to say this one has gone on too long. A user who was attempting to push some sort of Orkney separatist view and running socks to do it. The user was found out, and has since, over numerous months, attempted to troll, goad and make personal attacks. To counter the "MO was gaming the system" type chatter doesn't sit with the facts - he is attempting to deal with someone who has a new IP address every day - has no interest in discussion and is now only interested in a personal attack and vendetta campaign. Hiding behind dynamically assigned IP addresses the person runs around making a fool out of the rules/policies/guidelines which all the rest of us follow. Frankly I don't know why this is allowed - I would say it is getting into the "contact his ISP" territory. The person isn't interested in discussion - if they were they would stick to their original account rather than hiding behind dynamic IP's. I can't say MO has handled the situation perfectly either, some of his actions have probably exacerbated rather than calmed the situation - that being said it doesn't excuse the blatant breaches of rules which Mallimak has consistently shown on countless occasions. Something has to be done. SFC9394 12:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

    This was going to go on Mais oui!'s talk page, but it's going here instead. MO suggested on his talk page an indefinite ban of Mallimak. Here's the problem with such a proposal as I see it:
    1. Bans are not imposed likely. More evidence than supposedly coincidental editing patterns (a CheckUser, for a start) is needed, especially since there is the potential for a lot of collateral damage. It is somewhat unfair to block out most of wherever they might be editing from just to tackle one user.
    2. Practicality. The ban would provide for no further punishment than can already be meted out for vandalism.
    3. The principle of clean hands. MO's own behaviour is not exactly stellar, such as seemingly reverting any edit they disagree with on sight, or labelling other users as "abusive" without actually presenting any evidence (don't need to look far through the history to see accusations levelled at another user - get a RFCU done before throwing that around). There's even evidence of revert warring where the edit summaries are to the effect of "stop revert warring". It's a bit like telling someone to stop shooting at you while you unload an Uzi into their shin.
    4. (*puts on devil's advocate hat*) At some point, someone is going to ask why it always seems to be MO on the receiving end of the "personal attacks" (given most of our long-term vandals don't discriminate), and if perhaps it's actually MO that has a problem. (*removes hat*)
    Given this has gone on for 4 months, it's probably safe to say MO is fairly deeply embroiled in it, so much so that some might consider reverting such edits to be a potential conflict of interest. If the edits really are that bad, I would suggest MO flag it up and let someone else deal with it. Vandalism cannot be condoned, but there are some serious WP:OWN issues here. Chris cheese whine 13:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

    I admit that I am a sock puppet, but a sock puppet out of necessity, because Mais oui! got me blocked by repeatedly accusing me of being a sock puppet of Mallimak, and the admins believed him. I am in fact Orkadian. I just cannot stand by and watch Mais oui! be given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to continue with his behaviour. Here is a pertinent quote from my user page

    I would agree that Mais_oui does indulge in edit warring, and attacking the contributions of other users. After I had nominated a Scottish template for deletion in favour of the British one- he responded by reverting all my recent edits with the comments- "rv English Nationalist" (see for example- ). Also any attempts to engage with the user and avoid edit wars is usually met with personal abuse- eg . Astrotrain 13:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages is littered with such comments about Mais oui! from independent users who are not sock puppets of some grand anti-Mais oui! sock puppet master. 81.158.167.80 15:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

    P.S. It would be nice if I, Orkadian,could be unblocked and allowed to edit under my own name, but then again, on past experience, Mais oui! would simply track me and revert my every edit. Here is another relevant quotation:

    I don't wish to be drawn into the specific complaint raised by Mallimak. However, Mais oui! has also falsely accused me of sockpuppetry and now routinely reverts my edits simply because they are my edits, without any discussion or attempt to reach consensus. He is the only user against whom I have encountered these problems....Normalmouth 06:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

    I do wish the "Mais oui! problem" would be resolved. 81.158.167.80 15:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

    It would be a shame to have a prolific and well informed editor such as Mais oui! driven away or "disciplined" when simply trying to protect himself and the Misplaced Pages project as a whole from the constant vandalism and sustained attacks of one particular person, the attacks against him appear to have reached the ridiculous stage, the attacker appears to behave as if they are suffering from some form of OCD. Fraslet 17:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

    Dear Fraslet, I believe you are confusing victim and perpetrator here. Mais oui! is far from being a well-informed editor, he is an ardent POV pusher who does not hesitate to attack any contributors who gainsay him. For example, Mallimak (whom Mais oui! has constantly accused me of being a sock puppet of, until the admins blocked me) initiated many well-informed Orkney-related articles, and was all set to add many more to Misplaced Pages (all to the encyclopaedia's benefit) until he fell foul of Mais oui!'s attacks, abuse and destructive editing. I am acquainted with "Mallimak" in true life, and I met him a few weeks ago in the Orkney Archive researching for one of his local newspaper articles. He told me that he has totally given up on Misplaced Pages, and since his experiences here advises everyone to be wary of the accuracy of its articles. This is all down to Mais oui!, I am afraid. 81.156.60.8 22:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC) (actually Orkadian)
    I am not keen on being quoted in this matter- I have never called for him to be banned or blocked. In anycase, these matters are not relevant to 3RR and should be continued elsewhere. Astrotrain 17:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

    User:NYScholar reported by User:Armon (Result:)

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

    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    Comments
    NYScholar has made some minor changes to the version he reverts to which appears to be gaming. How minor they are becomes hard to tell because he marks all of his edits, including his reverts, this way. He been asked to stop that here and on the article talk page here.
    The user is taking advantage of the current backlog in 3RR report enforcement, and reverting yet again, while continuing to deceptively label his edits as "minor". Isarig 22:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

    User:Nssdfdsfds reported by User:Catchpole (Result:)

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

    First time I've done this so bear with me.

    The first revert is not the same as 2,3 and 4.
    "1st revert": I removed content that referred to an attack blog created against Anne Milton, asking Catchpole to "direct me to this consensus with a URL link? thanks". He left a message for me with the link at 21:46 , and added back the content. Having read this, I made no further edits to the page, while continuing to edit other articles that evening.
    The next day user Fys added to Catchpole's edit a link to that attack blog:
    In reverts 2, 3, and 4 left the content in that was removed in revert 1, but removed the URL that had been added by Fys.
    So there are two completely separate issues here. Issue 1, in revert 1 was mentioning the blog. Issue 2 in revert 2, 3 and 4 was including the URL of the blog. There's nothing whatsoever in common between 'revert 1' and reverts 2-4. This can easily be verified - the edit before revert 1 had no URL in it, and the edits before reverts 2-4 did. Revert 2-4 did not remove anything that was removed in revert 1, so they are not the same at all. Note that Catchpole was happy on 15/2/07 with mentioning the attack blog, but not linking to it, but following Fys' addition of the URL has decided more recently that the URL *should* go in there. These are separate issues, and responding with false allegations of breaking 3RR isn't helpful.
    Catchpole left me a warning on my talk page claiming I'd broken the 3RR. I responded pointing out that this was wrong, as although I'd made four sets of edits within 23 hours and 48 minutes, the first was different from the other three, so there was no breach. After getting my response explaining this, he has for some reason still decided to waste my time by adding this report here that I've now had to respond to. Nssdfdsfds 18:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

    User:Deeceevoice reported by User:strothra (Result:Already blocked 24h)

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

    Comments

    User:Skyring reported by User:BenAveling (Result:24h)

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

    • Previous version reverted to: For eg. I can't say that there is a single version being reverted to. We've been trying to add some information for days, in different ways, and they all get reverted. This has been going on for days. Just FYI, is the source that Skyring thinks is unacceptable. And yes, he has been warned about 3RR on the talk page of the article in question. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    • 1st revert: Revision as of 17:43, 18 February 2007 (edit) (undo) Skyring (Talk | contribs) (→Current Events - Remove poorly sourced and untrue rubbish again. As for the other, see Talk)
    • 2nd revert: Revision as of 12:50, 18 February 2007 (edit) (undo) Skyring (Talk | contribs) m (Remove poorly-sourced, untrue material under WP:BLP. If you want to reinsert challenged material, gain a consensus first, please.)
    • 3rd revert: Revision as of 12:05, 18 February 2007 (edit) (undo) Skyring (Talk | contribs) (→Attempted return to politics - She didn't attribute it to rape and pillage. This is quite untrue.)
    • 4th revert: Revision as of 10:00, 18 February 2007 (edit) (undo) Skyring (Talk | contribs) (This doesn't address the problems identified with the source, and the "attributed to" construction
    • 5th revert: Revision as of 09:24, 18 February 2007 (edit) (undo) Skyring (Talk | contribs) (→Quotations - remove rubbish. It's not notable, it's poorly sourced, and the quote is misleading.)
    • 6th revert: Revision as of 15:17, 17 February 2007 (edit) (undo) Skyring (Talk | contribs) (→Quotations - Rewording of DNA stunt quote doesn't overcome the problems. See talk.)

    User:Somethingoranother reported by User:Gsd2000 {Result:48 hrs)

    Three-revert rule violation on United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

    Warning about reverting re England (user is simultaneously reverting UK and England):

    This user has already been blocked several times for 3RR violations.

    Gsd2000 00:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

    This user is now using a sockpuppet to make the same edit Gsd2000 04:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

    User:Kevin Murray reported by User:Ultramarine (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kevin Murray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments

    First 5 reverts are not identical, but all involve restoring the long table at the end of the article seen in the first revert. Four of the reverts are simple reverts: Ultramarine 05:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


    User:MoeLarryAndJesus reported by User:Athaenara (Result:)

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

    Comments
    This article and its talk page are the only pages the user has edited since registering the ID 18:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC). The user has generated incalculable disruption, incivility, POV-warring in less than 48 hours. Misplaced Pages:Third opinion was to no avail. Problem posted on Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts#19 February 2007; user misrepresented situation there 04:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC) (though that noticeboard guideline specifically asks that discussion remain where it began).   Athaenara 05:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

    Sample violation report to copy

    ===] reported by ] (Result:)===
] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{3RRV|VIOLATOR_USERNAME}}:
* Previous version reverted to:  
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert: 
* 2nd revert: 
* 3rd revert: 
* 4th revert: 
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning: 
-->
;Comments: <!-- Optional -->

    Note on completing a 3RR report:

    • Copy the template above, the text within but not including <pre>...</pre>
    • Replace http://DIFFS with a link to the diff and the DIFFTIME with the timestamp
    • We need to know that there are at least four reverts. List them, and replace http://VersionLink with a link to the version that the first revert reverted to. If the reverts are subtle or different, please provide an explanation of why they are all reverts. Even if the reverts are straightforward, it's helpful to point out the words or sentences being reverted.
    • Warnings are a good idea but not obligatory
    Categories: