Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive9: Difference between revisions - 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.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:51, 30 April 2005 editZen-master (talk | contribs)5,220 edits →Ultramarine: fixed evidence link (4th revert link was comparing to current)← Previous edit Revision as of 11:31, 30 April 2005 edit undoJnc (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators17,600 editsm Archiving "User:JonGwynne" (twice), "User:Coolcat", "User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters" (twice), "User:Jhballard", "User:Lantog", "User:Gabrielsimon", "User:64.12.116.197", "User:Gzuckier"Next edit →
Line 28: Line 28:


While I still think a better discussion would have been facilitated by a different approach (one not involving repeated reversions) it certainly isn't my intention to conduct a prosecution here. Cheers to you! ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 00:58, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC) While I still think a better discussion would have been facilitated by a different approach (one not involving repeated reversions) it certainly isn't my intention to conduct a prosecution here. Cheers to you! ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 00:58, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

=== ] ===

] violation on {{Article|Temperature record of the past 1000 years}}.

Note: JG is subject to a 1-revert per day limit on article related to global warming, see ]. Note further that JG has had repeated 3RR bans in the past and violated this one per day limit on 20 Apr. (above).
{{User|JonGwynne}}:

* Phrase insertion:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:

Reported by: ] 01:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''
The first was his original change in which he added the phrase '' indirectly reconstructed'' to the image caption. The reverts are not labeled as such, but are indeed reverts as he continues to ''game the system'' with small repeated edit changes. ] 01:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::You're wrong. Unlike you, I label my reverts as such.--] 20:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

JonGwynne requested I look at this and I have unblocked him. This is really a stretch of both the 3RR and the ArbCom. On the ArbCom side, limiting him to one revert a day may be reasonable up to a point; but the decision is incredibly broad: ''any'' article dealing with global warming for an indefinite period. Even murderers typically are let out someday.

To his actions: I saw someone making a sincere effort to explain his insertion and look for a wording that met the objections to his insertion. The different insertions, complained of as reverts, were not, IMO.

To the substance: I find it quite reasonable to have the single word "reconstructed" in the caption. A caption is supposed to be descriptive yet concise. When you show a chart of such detail, it is important to let readers (like me) know that we are looked at assumed and not actual data. The fact that the data is a reconstruction is not insignificant. -- ] | ] 02:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:I think you have added this to the wrong block] 03:01, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::Why? Where should it go? -- ] | ] 03:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:::on the one nearest the bottem (the third). I'm not sure he was even blocked for this one.] 03:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::Ah, I see. Well, sorry about that. Maybe if a user has several actions going at once, there could be a way to list them all in the same block? -- ] | ] 03:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:::they are not going on at once. There are five days between this report and the latest one] 03:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

=== ] ===

] violation on {{Article|Nanjing Massacre}}.
{{User|Coolcat}}:

* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

Reported by: ] 07:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''

* Coolcat has been insisting on moving all the pictures in the Nanjing Massacre article to the 'Japanese atrocities' section, and has reverted the article 4 times within 24 hrs. to archieve that goal. ] 07:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
** Update: 5th revert: ] 07:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*'''Blocked''' for 18 hours. ] 07:50, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
**Looking at the page history, Stereotek, you also reverted 4 times in 24 hours, marking each edit summary with "rv". You're '''blocked''' for the same amount of time. ] 08:03, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

=== ] ===

] violation on {{Article|Pope Benedict XVI}}.
{{User|Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters}}:

* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

Reported by: ] 08:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''

*A small excerpt from a revert war over the use of the title 'His Holiness'
:After being listed here, ] has continued to revert to his version. ] 18:49, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

=== ] ===

] violation on {{Article|Joan of Arc}}.
{{User|Jhballard}}:

* 1st revert: (Plus minor additions)
* 2nd revert: (Plus minor additions)
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

Reported by: ] | ] 16:18, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''

*User seems unable to accept that other users may have additional benefits to bring to the page. Has been reverted by at least three users. This seems to be the only page that the user edits, and therefore it is "owned".
:The comment is false. I enjoy every bit of information that can be added to the page. Noisy's reverts deleted text I added, which benefits the page. I've requested for Noisy to discuss changes on the talk page many times in the past few weeks, but this entry of the 3RR is the only comment he has made on the talk page. Noisy has violated the 3RR, but I chose to try to dicuss it with him rather than block him. I've added other content to other pages; this one is just of a more active interest -- it's my family not my page. - ] 18:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

=== ] ===

] violation on {{Article|Queer theory}}.
{{User|Lantog}}:

* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* '''5th revert:
Reported by: ] 17:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''
* Lantong maintains that the article states that John Money is part of queer theory - which the article does not. Hence he keeps removing that paragraph; in the past he also insisted of removing other bits of the article . He also claims to be an "expert" on the subject (don't we know that phenomenon) and clearly voices his intention to make this article his personal property: " I cannot begin expanding, until it is settled -- if not by "consensus" than by fact ...". Seth Ilys did not want to block him, see talk page, but I disagree; given his past behaviour, he needs to see a STOP sign before things get worse.
**I left him a warning on his talk page and on ]. He has clearly violated the 3rr, but as he has at least started talking, I felt like blocking him would only escalate the situation, and so I did not. Anyone other admin, of course, may, under WP policy. - ] 17:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
***I did not want to criticize Seth Ilys, I merely disagree. No offense intended. -- ] 18:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've offered on numerous occassions to engage AlexR in dialogue ... requesting quotes, texts, specific references to the use of a reputed "serious researcher" Dr. John Money in relation to queer theory. So far, none have been offered. AlexR has used his admin status to bully not only myself but others, see his talk page for some illustration. A good bit of my editing involved moving paragraphs from one section to another to allow more flow to the article. I admit to removing content involving Dr. Money, as well as prostitution, as none of these subjects have been made to connect to queer theory through use of any specifics. Further, as the talk discussion shows, the use of Dr. Money as a source for the article remains offensive.--] 18:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:I am not an admin. I have not bullied him, nor any other. He refuses to address any points made, instead cluttering the talk page about his seemingly infailable status as an "expert". Oh, yes, and he reverted a 5th time. -- ] 19:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:: Lantog has been blocked for 24 hours for violation of the 3RR rule. ] 20:07, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

=== ] ===

] violation on {{Article|Attribution of recent climate change}}.

Note: JG is subject to a 1-revert per day limit on article related to global warming, see ]. Note further that JG has had repeated 3RR bans in the past; and been banned just recently for a similar vio.
{{User|JonGwynne}}:

* 1st revert: (this removes 1/2 a para)
* 2nd revert: (removes the whole para, hence a revert)
* 3rd revert: (same as 2, hence second revert in 24h)

Reported by: ] 20:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''

*Partial removeal is not the same as complete removal of a paragraph] 03:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

=== ] ===

] violation on {{Article|Vampire lifestyle}}.

* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4rd revert:

Reported by: ] 03:12, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''

*the revert at 22.26 isn't a direct revert.I'm not sure about this one ] 03:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
**None of the reverts listed occured at 22:26 (you mean 20:26?). I'm confused, it seems like an obvious 3RR violation except perhaps that Gabrielsimon thinks this is vandalism. ]]
*** is also a revert
***I don't see how he could honestly believe it's vandalism, as the text I restored was the original text and had been there for a while, it wasn't something I added to be snarky or anything. I'm sure he called it vandalism because I've been removing his vandalism to my talk page and decided to accuse me of doing what he was doing elsewhere. All the examples above are direct reverts. ] 04:38, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
**no 02.26 (GMT) it the one lable 20.26 (down with time zones). there are a couple of other changes there as well as the deletion. ] 04:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
***He made a couple of changes that I reverted along with the main one, but his next act was to revert to one of his edits. The fact that he reverted to one without those other changes he also did doesn't make it any less of a revert. All of the reverts above do the same thing: go back to an earlier version where he had removed a point he disagrees with. ] 04:50, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
****I know this that is why I said I was not sure I need to cheack a few things. ] 05:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

] blocked for 10 hours. ] 05:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

=== ] ===

] violation on ].

* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

Reported by: ] 03:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''

* The anonymous user has failed to discuss the changes even when the page is under dispute as specifically ask for discussion. The reverts appear more as a personal attack to undo information that may benefit the page, like mere citations and other forms of popular names for Joan of Arc. I've pleaded not to revert the references section that contain the citations many times over the past week. The anonymous user tends to specifically target my changes, as well as others. The reverts, like the IJAS link, appear to be and compared to its intended .
*Moved this above "Report New Violation", as per instructions --] 04:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

=== ] ===

] violation on {{Article|Pope Benedict XVI}}.
{{User|Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters}}:

* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

Reported by: ] 04:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''

*Another apparent revert war, this time over Benedict's membership in the Hitler Youth. This is the second apparent 3RR violation by Lulu on the same article.

=== ] ===

] violation on {{Article|Yale University}}. Attempting to stop editing of a section on strange homicides.
{{User|Gzuckier}}:

* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

This comes on top of numerous previous reverts, and is threatening to start a revert war bigger than the current one.

Reported by: ] 07:41, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''
* I'm only seeing 3 direct reverts. The 2nd takes away information which doesn't appear to be disputed, nor reverted. ]\<sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 09:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*'''HELP!!!''' Excuse me if this is lengthy, but it's getting out of hand and I'm wondering if I'm completely off base. On ] I added a section on murders of random students, the effects on Yale admissions, and how Yale handled the most recent such crime, '''in response to a suggestion on ]''' by ] who felt it was relevant, and with explanation in ] of my thinking as to relevance. ] apparently got inspired and added a similar segment to a lot of colleges which were then deleted from most of them, random murders of students by townspeople not being a big feature of life at MIT or for their admission process, for instance. See ] and ], as I wasn't in on it or privy to all the details.
**On April 24:
***anon user 4.22x.X.X deleted the entire ] section from the Yale article, with only explanation being an edit summary ''Other high profile crimes - Not necessarily high profile; "significant" violates NPOV; deleted redundant material on the Jovin case, which already appears in the article on Jovin.'' Note: '''deleted entire miscellany section''', not just the high profile crimes section.
*** 14:40, 24 Apr 2005 I partially restored it, deleting some of crime section in consideration of user 4.22x.X.X's "suggestions", with edit summary ''why it was important for yale that this not be 'random murder''', i.e. the piece I did not delete as 'redundant'.
***] '''deleted entire miscellany section again''', with only edit summary ''For reasoning see ]'', said link being where it was decided not to include his edits to MIT page, with no suggestion that he or others should remove similar section from Yale.
**On April 25:
*** 15:48, 25 Apr 2005 I restored miscellany section with edit summary wondering how deletion was ''supposedly somehow due to MIT's suicide rate.'', the target of the link which given in the edit summary of the deletion.
***user 4.22x.X.X '''deleted entire miscellany section again''', with only an edit summary. ''Removed Vandalism from User: Gzuckier. For reasoning see ]'', same irrelevant link as before. Note '''accusing me of vandalism''' for restoring his unilateral edit, or bilateral if you include ]
*** 21:17, 25 Apr 2005 I restored miscellany section with edit summary ''reverted big chop by self-appointed VandalAvenger who appears to believe that the talk:MIT article forbids the yale article mentioning bladderball.'' I admit to getting annoyed, being called a vandal and all, but I still don't see link to MIT suicides as great justification for deleting section on Yale bladderball, frisbee, golf course, etc. with no other discussion.
**On April 26:
***user 4.22x.X.X deleted more specifically high profile crimes section again, with only explanation repeat of edit summary: ''Removed Vandalism from User: Gzuckier''. Note again '''accusing me of vandalism''' for restoring his unilateral/bilateral edit. At least the rest of the miscellany section was spared this time.
***03:07, 26 Apr 2005 I restored crimes section, explained thinking on ] and in ] for user 4.22x.X.X.
***user 4.22x.X.X leaves message on ] complaining that I have "added no justification or argument to the discussion", have "an attitude of not wanting to discuss the issue in a serious manner" and request that ] report me for ''three revert rule violation''. Note 1: I have justified the section when I wrote it, on ], and on ]; whereas ] and user 4.22x.X.X have done nothing but post links to ] and call me a vandal. Note 2: I took pains to '''NOT''' violate the three revert rule, and did not.
***] deleted high profile crimes section again, with only edit summary ''rv. added gzuckier to the Three Revert Rule violators list.''
***] attempts to report me for ''three revert rule violation'' on ''Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR''. Administrator notes that I did not make three reverts within 24 hours.
***] (spontaneously without contact from or to me of any kind) restores section, with edit summary:''there's no reason to delete this material.''
*So am I totally offbase here? ] 19:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*: This is not the place for this. I would suggest you put up a ] on this situation. It is more appropriate there. If you want mediation, that can also be arranged. ]\<sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 20:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


=== ] and ] === === ] and ] ===

Revision as of 11:31, 30 April 2005

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)
    1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166
    1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176
    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


    Violations

    User:Maveric149

    Three revert rule violation on Template:Spoken Misplaced Pages. Mav keeps either reverting to a version of the template without the [[Misplaced Pages: link or reverting to a version in which it's external:

    • First at 8:43 (to the version without the link )
    • Second at 12:22 (to the version with an external link )
    • Third 13:41 (to the version without the link )
    • Fourth 14:21 (to the version with an external link )

    Each time, Mav has commented on the talk page, but has not waited for input from others before carrying out the changes. There is no clear consensus on the talk page for his version. Demi /C 23:52, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

    It's not completely clear if those are all reverts, but if not they seem to be gaming it. He doesn't like the way it is, so he starts by changing it incrementally. Someone else reverts back. He then changes it more, and now his didn't count as a revert but the person reverting it has fewer reverts left. Is this as bad of a loophole with the 3RR as I see it as? --SPUI (talk) 00:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Not really if it clear someone is gaming the rule they are likey to be blocked as if they had done more than 3 straight reverts.Geni 00:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    In my opinion, it's clear, they just aren't all reversions to the same version (with respect to what's in the bottom link of the template). Demi /C 01:05, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

    Ah, I missed how the second one was a revert. For reference, the others are first third fourth; it appears that the only changes between these revisions were added by others along the way, making them all partial reverts. Looks like a pretty clear 3RR vio now. --SPUI (talk) 01:39, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Since there's been no action on this notice, I thought additional clarification might be useful. To that end, I've provided links to the version being reverted to as well as the reverts. Demi /C 03:00, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

    OK - this is absurd. I'm happy with the compromise and there is no longer any edit war. Everybody has cooled down, so why would there need to be a timeout for anyone at this point? Rules are made for reasons - blindly following them for their own sake is.... well you put in your own adjective. --mav 22:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    While I still think a better discussion would have been facilitated by a different approach (one not involving repeated reversions) it certainly isn't my intention to conduct a prosecution here. Cheers to you! Demi /C 00:58, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

    User:Gabrielsimon and User:DreamGuy

    Three revert rule violation on Vampire Lifestyle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Gabrielsimon (talk · contribs):

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    DreamGuy (talk · contribs):

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:

    Reported by: Nickptar 02:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    This is a revert war about whether "poor social skills" as a trait of self-described vampires is ascribed by said self-described vampires themselves or by "detractors and critics" (and more recently, whether anyone ascribes it at all). Gabrielsimon provides no justification other than NPOV (although, in all the ways in which the statement's been presented, it's been clearly presented as an opinion), and DreamGuy offers no justification other than Gabrielsimon's motive - neither side has presented evidence despite an invitation to do so on the article's Talk page. (Although in DreamGuy's defense, he didn't add the sentence that's being re-re-reverted.) I think it will soon be time for some proper dispute resolution. For now, hopefully a short block will set both these guys a little straighter.

    Gabrielsimon already has been blocked for violating the 3RR rule on the same article once before. He also has been nonstop harassing me on my talkpage for several days, for which vandalism reports and a request for assistance at the village pump have done absolutely nothing. He's completely unrepetant and has never made a change to an article I've seen yet that was not strongly biased. He should have been prevented from making any further changes a long time ago. I was taking pains to try to explain the concepts to him, but he insists upon labeling my restoration of a previous editor's additions as vandalism. I've also been trying to count reverts so as to not end up violating the three revert rule (see pass history of the page to see where I left the bad version solely for no other reason than for not getting into trouble with this policy even if it meant letting the other editor constantly get away with his biased edits) but apparently miscounted somwhere. I am getting thoroughly disgusted with Misplaced Pages at this point, as this person constantly harasses me and makes blatantly biased edits and nobody else seems to care or even responds to the help request or the vandal report I made. And Nickptar's claim that nobody prevented evidence on the talk page is complete nonsense. If he'd bother to read the posts from before he ever showed up on that page (or looked when i pointed them out to him) he'd see that it was already explained, but instead he just keeps asking for evidence over and over that is already there. DreamGuy 03:46, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
    Alright, I am sorry for being frustrated and putting my frustration in that bit above. Since then Gabrielsimon tried yet again to report *me* for vandalism, and for the edits in the revert war mentioned above of all things. Some admins have stepped in to say he was out of line and even go so far as do the reverts to the page in question above for me (but of course Gabrielsimon reverted that too, not sure how many reverts that makes it for him). I'm now feeling a bit better about the Misplaced Pages experience in that eventually some people show up to support me for doing what Misplaced Pages is supposed to be about. If you need to ban me for the screw up on the miscount of reverts earlier, feel free, it's only fair. DreamGuy 12:04, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
    Sorry, I wasn't clearly seeing the facts of the case. See my statement on Talk:Vampire lifestyle. Nickptar 14:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    User:Marco Krohn

    Three revert rule violation on Scientific consensus. User:Marco Krohn:

    Reported by: --18:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)JonGwynne

    • Both parties appear guilty of 3RR violations; I count at least four reverts by User:JonGwynne in the past 24 hours. Kelly Martin 18:42, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
    On further inspection this appears not to be the case, although I think User:JonGwynne is walking the line here, especially in light of his history. Kelly Martin 18:57, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC) (updated 19:54, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC))

    User:JonGwynne

    One revert rule violation on Scientific consensus. User:JonGwynne

    Sorry, I initially did not want to do this, but since Jon started with the above here we go again. User JonGwynne is known for his reverts and edit wars and is under parole. According to the ArbCom ruling Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/JonGwynne#Final_decision he "is limited to one revert per 24 hour period on articles related to global warming; violations shall be interpreted as violations of the three revert rule."

    Yes, but this article isn't related to global warming. If this was a mistake on your part, I'll accept your apology. If you did it deliberately then shame on you.--JonGwynne 06:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:

    JonGwynne now changed his strategy and makes small revert-like edits to circumvent the 1RR. If you look into the version history you see that his edits are reverted not only by me, but also by Vsmith, by WMC and even by Cortonin.

    • - Cortonin reverting JG
    • - Vsmith reverting JG
    • - WMC reverting JG
    • for examples where "Marco Krohn" reverts the edits of JG please see above :-)


    Both users blocked fror 24 hours.Geni 01:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Geni, please be more careful in the future. My 1-revert restriction is for articles on global warming only and "Scientific consensus" doesn't really qualify.--JonGwynne 06:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    User:Joshuaschroeder

    4 reverts against two users on Theistic realism within last 24 hours.

    left by Ungtss 00:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


    blocked for 24 hoursGeni 01:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    User:Ungtss

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

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    Reported by: Vsmith 01:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Note 3rd revert has edit comment 128.192.124.90 (ungtss on an ip ... noting that schroeder has not justified his deletions with anything more than "his reasoning doesn't make sense," which is certainly no justification to delete the material.) The only other contribution from that IP is to the talk here and has Ungtss' style. If this was not Ungtss then we have a different serious problem needing investigating, and if so, my apologies to Ungtss. Vsmith 01:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • In what you have labled as the first revert what version was reverted to?Geni 01:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Hmm.. appears that 1st one wasn't a simple revert after all - the edit summary and context in the edit war there misled me, I guess. My apologies. Vsmith 02:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    could someone do us a favor here and find the most simular recent version?Geni 04:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Three days and 6 edits prior. here is the diff between the last edit i made before today, and the first edit today. Not a revert. A good number of his edits were retained. Ungtss 05:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    User:50Stars

    Three revert rule violation on List of national flags (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 50Stars (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Xiaopo ℑ 05:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)Xiaopo

    Comments:

    can't find 4 striaght revisionsGeni 22:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    User:Ghostintheshell and User:Researcher99

    1. 22:32, 28 Apr 2005
    2. 23:51, 28 Apr 2005
    3. 01:25, 29 Apr 2005
    4. 01:54, 29 Apr 2005
    5. 02:01, 29 Apr 2005
    6. 02:16, 29 Apr 2005
    7. 02:31, 29 Apr 2005
    8. 03:00, 29 Apr 2005
    9. after I, User:Trödel, commented Both of you are guilty of violating WP:3RR please leave article alone for a day, calm down and try again on talk first 03:26, 29 Apr 2005 with comment Rv - I am only guilty of attempting to NPOV Researcher99's original section
    1. 23:25, 28 Apr 2005
    2. 01:39, 29 Apr 2005
    3. 01:59, 29 Apr 2005
    4. 02:10, 29 Apr 2005
    5. 02:23, 29 Apr 2005
    6. 02:53, 29 Apr 2005

    This may not be all - see the full history: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Polygamy&action=history. I have proposed that edits take place on talk and be agreed before further edits. - Thx User:Trödel 03:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


    Both Users blocked for 24 hoursGeni 23:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Big Hurt

    Big Hurt (talk · contribs), reverted his spam 4 times at Abortion. an admin previously protected the page, and only unprotected on the condition that big Hurt would not spam this link in. I cannot remove it because i have already reverted it 3 times. can someone pleasse do so? He appears to know about the 3RR rule from his edit summary where he falsely accuses me of vandalism, --SqueakBox 02:11, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

    Kelly Martin have reverted this link. I didnt check it myself, but any external links of that nature should go in the External Links section. Inter\ 10:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Curps

    Three revert rule violation on The Matrix. Curps (talk · contribs) reverted on four occasions within a 24 hour period:

    Reported by: AndyL 03:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • why the 4 day delay in reporting this?Geni 23:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    The final two "reverts" were necessary to undo AndyL's wrongful action: he reverted this article after he himself protected it. I had first tried the alternative (leaving his revert intact but merely unprotecting the article), but when he insisted on reprotecting it, the only other alternative was to restore HIS original version (the one he applied protection to).

    I believe my actions were entirely justified: there are exceptions to 3RR when it is necessary to undo a wrongful action. Reverting vandalism is one such case, and I assert that undoing AndyL's violation of protection policy ("Do not edit or revert a temporarily protected page", which is precisely what he did) was another such case.

    AndyL's action was particularly egregious because page protection was not necessary, the revert was against interim consensus, and his subsequent talk page comments reveal a hotly partisan motivation. Thus, in combination, the revert-and-protect was a serious abuse of admin power. This is the subject of an RfC against him by User:Philwelch and User:TheGrza.

    The RfC appears somewhat incomplete at the moment; I intend to add my comments to it this weekend to better document what happened. The case has also been discussed at Talk:The_Matrix#MIM_review. -- Curps 01:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Since there are two RFCs over this issue I feel it is not a matter for the three revert rule. As such I am not going to block and would recomend against other admins blocking.Geni 02:41, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Ultramarine

    Three revert rule violation on Future energy development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ultramarine (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: zen master T 05:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    number 4 isn't quite a revertGeni 00:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    I fixed the 4th revert link, was comparing with current. zen master T 05:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    66.194.40.3

    Three revert rule violation on Timothy McVeigh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 66.194.40.3 (talk · contribs):

    And will probably go on, because he is falsely claiming to be exempt from 3rr because he labels other people's changes as vandalism... when the "vandalism" is the default way the article has been for a long time as agreed upon by consensus of all other editors.

    • Please also note that after my first revert today he left a message on my talk page claiming that my revert of his violated policy and that he would block me. When I did not trust him and left a reply there and his talk page pointing out that I wouldn't fall for that, he left a second message claiming that he had blocked me and that I would not be able to make edits. He started making same false claims on the next editor who was reverting them.

    Reported by: DreamGuy 11:13, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

    • I've blocked him for 24h. I guess he'll be back after that, though... Note that anon has been reverted by many other editors over the last days. He is quite Misplaced Pages-savvy, knows of the 3RR and uses edit comments for communication. Definitely not a newbie. Lupo 11:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    blocked for 24 hours. dab (ᛏ) 11:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Looks like he just reset his internet connection and is immediately back as User:66.194.152.87. He is extremely savvy and tenacious. DreamGuy 11:41, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Gabrielsimon

    5 reverts in less than two hours in Timothy_McVeigh

    1st:
    2nd:
    3rd:
    4th:
    5th: (current)
    66.194.152.87 11:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    • Looks like User:66.194.152.87 is the same as User:66.194.40.3 who got blocked on the same article. Gabriel was reverting to a concensus version which had been there for ages. Anon made no attempt at discussion even when asked. Mgm| 11:56, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
      • Nope. I am his brother, he called me after he was blocked to report Gabrielsimon. Despite the fact that the POV term of ¨terrorist¨ has been there for ages, it does not mean it is not POV. Also, Gabrielsimon made no attempt to take it to discussion page as well. 66.194.152.87 12:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Actually, those were not all reverts... one of them tried to change to "convicted of terrorism" instead of just "terrorist" exactly like the anon user requested, so to label it a revert is simply a lie. Also Gabrielsimon originally reverted to remove terrorist completely and then changed his mind and made it include terrorist (not "convicted of terrorist")... that doesn;t really count as a revert either if he was reverting himself. DreamGuy 12:33, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

    User:DreamGuy

    4 reverts in 3 hours in Timothy_McVeigh

    1st:
    2nd:
    3rd:
    4th: (current)

    Rules are rules. They also apply to DreamGuy and Gabrialsimon.

    66.194.152.87 12:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    • Removing factual info from an article can be construed as vandalism. Reverts to remove vandalism don't fall under that rule. Mgm| 12:27, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
    It is not a fact that McVeigh is a terrorist. It is a fact that he was convinced of terrorism in the US court, however. There is a difference. Would you also allow Mandela to be called a terrorist even though he has been convicted of terrorist activities?? Please see Misplaced Pages:Words_to_avoid which clearly says that words such as ¨terrorist¨ should not be used without it claiming whom is making the claim. My brother used to use the word matry to describe them but he stopped because it was POV. You can not have it both ways.

    The fact is that he violated the 3RR believing he was right, just as my brother did. It is unfair for you to be selective on when you apply wikipedia rules and when you do not. 66.194.152.87 12:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    You should really read that page (Misplaced Pages:Words_to_avoid), because it doesn't say what you think it says. DreamGuy 12:42, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

    Either way, the last one listed above was not a revert, it was new changes. And the person complaining is obviously a sockpuppet of the previously banned user. DreamGuy 12:33, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

    It was a revert with a different edit summary. Compare your current version with the one that was reverted to by you earlier. If you want to play that game you can see that several of the ¨reverts¨ my brother did were also new changes, as other parts of the article further down were changed as well. Again, you can not have it both ways.

    66.194.152.87 12:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    It was not a revert with a different edit summary, it made several distinct changes... the photo was moved so that the person looking to the right would be facig the article instead of off the page, correct comma usage was added to the date, and the improperly vague term "American" (which can mean anyone in the western hemisphere) was modified to specify the United States. You are either deliberately lying or not even bothering to look yourself. DreamGuy 12:42, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
    Oh, you forgot something. You accidently re-added ¨domestic terrorist¨ which was the phrase that caused all of the reverts in the first place. You can not do a revert, add a few other unrelated changes, and expect it not to count as a revert. You are in the wrong and you know it. But do not worry, the admins here do not really seem to care when people like you violate the rules, it seems. Lupo sure can down hard and quick earlier on my brother but now it seems you can flout the rules as you feel fit.
    The double standards by the admins here are totally unfair. The admins fail to apply the rules evenly and justly. They will twist their views on the rules depending on to whom they are talking to. One minute the use of martyr is POV and my brother caved in. But the use of terrorism, as it is in the article, is definatly POV and is allowed to stay. The admins further allow their users to violate the 3RR who brute force their POV.

    66.194.152.87 12:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    You are one to talk about the rules considering that you admit you showed up solely to do the dirty work of a banned user. Whether you are in fact the same person (which you obviously are, based upon your experience with the way things work here, a newbie with only one edit under his belt would not know to file a 3rr right away) or someone working at his bidding the result is the same: You are knowingly violating a 24 hour ban, and a ban that could probably be a lot longer than that because it was excessive violations of the 3rr AND impersonating an admin.
    But, hey, I had an accidental screw up of the 3rr listed above that they were nice and gave me a warning on, and if this one here in some way counts as an accidental violation somehow (which I don't see, as I made substantial changes, but you want to believe it so whatever) then I already used up my one warning and should be blocked. What's the first offense of violating 3RR run someone (I saw wasn't it 3 minutes for the Cat revert war, some small number of hours for others)? Admins, feel free to hit me with it. I can go reflect on how bad it was accidentally revert a highly biased edit that a consensus of several editors previously agreed should not be there which was only there at that time because someone decided to weasel out of his 24 hour block. DreamGuy 13:09, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)


    since DreamGuy admits to breaking the 3RR accidentially, I will block him together with 66.194.152.87. I'm sorry DreamGuy, of course you were only reverting a pov pusher, but that doesn't exempt you from the 3RR. You might just have waited for five minutes for another editor to revert anon. Anon is up to 7 reverts now, including one revert he did evading his original block, so his block will be longer this time. Anon: sit out your block: you are blocked from editing, as a person, not as an IP number. If you come back under other IP's, we'll just deal out increasingly longer blocks dab (ᛏ) 13:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    66.194.152.87, it is improper for you to bait users into 3RR situations just so you can prove a point. Kingturtle 02:57, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    User:Andries

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

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    Reported by: Zappaz 21:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    that last one appears to be a self revert.Geni 00:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Report new violation