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 NCdave (talk | contribs) at 08:13, 28 February 2005 (→[[User:NCdave]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
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)
1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167
1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482
483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492
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 is for any user to report potential violations of the three revert rule. Any user of Wikipedia may post here. Please feel free to leave a message or report a violation.

If you do, please sign and date all contributions, using the Wikipedia special form "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp automagically. (The page archivers really need the time information.)

To report a violation, there is a template at the bottom of the article which you should make a copy of and fill out. Here's an example of what a listing should look like:

User:BadUser

Three revert rule violation on Transhumanism. hist

Reported by: User:ReportingUser 14:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please remember that the 3RR applies to reverts after the third within a 24 hour period; it does not include self reverts, and reverts to deal with simple vandalism. Administrators will look over and discuss whether a user has truly violated the three revert rule, and take appropriate blocking action if necessary.

Just because someone has violated the three revert rule does not mean they will be blocked. It is up to the administrator's discretion whether to take action.

Quoted from Wikipedia:Three-revert rule:

The 3RR is intended as an means to stop sterile edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every twenty-four hours. If you find you have reverted more than even once in a day, it indicates there is a serious problem and you should try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, starting with the article's talk page.
If you violate the three revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours. In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally.
Chronic offenders may be subject to rulings by the Arbitration Committee.

If you find yourself reverting edits due to simple vandalism, you should list that person at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress.

Please be aware that this page isn't the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour — we aren't referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. We have a dispute resolution procedure which we recommend you follow. If you bring such disputes here, we will usually advise you to take them elsewhere, such as mediation, requests for comment, or requests for arbitration.

See also:

Violations

User:Amir1

Three revert rule violation on Bahá'u'lláh. hist

Optional: Insertion of material; Not done by the user in question.

  • 1st revert: [1]
  • 2nd revert: [2]

At this point the editor in question reverts a differen't section of text [3]

  • 3rd revert: [4]
  • 4th revert: [5]

Reported by: Geni 18:34, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Are we going for some kind of record of slowest responce time here? Geni 16:01, 21 Feb 2005
hello?Geni 22:45, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
wavesGeni 13:25, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
um ... yes ... uh ... hello? .. aaahh.. Clear case of 4 reverts within 24 hours, blocking is justified. The incident was 5 days ago, but was ignored due to a downed server and an non-functioning watchlist. I am a bit hesitant to block after 5 days, but would support it if you want to block him. -- Chris 73 Talk 04:07, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

User:Everyking

ArbCom violation on October 24. hist

ArbCom just clarified what they meant by their restriction on Everyking reverting "Ashlee Simpson-related articles", and Everyking is certainly aware of it.

Reported by: Calton 18:45, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Two points. One, Everyking would be well advised to steer clear of editing anything to do with Ashlee Simpson. Two, Carlton would be well advised to stop getting into edits wars with and goading Everyking. Both users are disrupting Wikipedia. Please, both of you, stop! jguk 19:28, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Three points. One, my name is Calton, as it plainly says in my signature: not "Carlton" and not "calt", and you would be well advised to read before responding. Two, Everyking is enjoined from any reversion at all of any Ashlee Simpson-related articles-- any of them, no matter how many hairs you, jguk, split over the meaning of the phrase -- and he had THREE bites of that apple before I reported him here. This is because of his behavior, and if there's an edit war going on, it's Everyking versus the World. Three, your posts indicate that you fundamentally misunderstand the issues involved, so you would be well advised to butt out of things you don't understand. --Calton 23:59, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
but he isn't banned from repeated editing of an article. You could argue that is is a complex revert but I don't think it is. The disputed passage has been taken out of the article now anyway Geni 23:53, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
He deleted the entry several times before the ArbCom clarification, and once that came down, he kept reverting the entry to his version of events. Yes, the last few have not been simple "click-here-to-edit-the-old-version" reverts, but reversions they've been. It boils down to Everyking having a version that satisfies him -- and only him -- and that's explicitly not allowed. Calton 23:59, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Someone else appears to have wipped it. I dislike blocking people for complexs edits and only do so if I'm really sure Geni 12:58, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Bblackmoor

Three revert rule violation on Open gaming. hist

Reported by: Axon 13:17, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User:Bblackmoor has posted a page on his blog detailing "cheat sheet" instructions[6] on how to auto-revert any changes made to page Open gaming (see Talk) (i.e. create account, create user, log in, go to this URL, click edit, copy-and-paste a comment and hit enter, etc.). I believe this is a form proxy editing[7]. All changes I make have been auto-reverted by Bblackmoor and the following random users following BBlackmoor's precise instructions (or sock puppets): User:Xxjimmyjamxx, User:Ptylersmith, User:Maglibra. If it is possible, I would like a block on all these accounts. --Axon 13:17, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Apologies for not reporting this earlier, but I was searching for some confirmation that actual wrongdoing took place and then the site went down, so this has been the earliest opportunity. --Axon 13:17, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I think people might be reluctant to block for something that happened 4 days ago, even though Wikipedia has been down/slow since then. Jayjg (talk) 20:28, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I appreciate that the delay may cause some concern. My only fear is that proxy edit reverts will restart as soon as I start editing the article. Could I just clarify that a block would have been carried out if not for the delay? --Axon 21:37, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Revert 1 is under a different login, so that would need proof of sockpuppetry first, but the other 4 edits look like reverts to me. Otherwise agree with Jayjig. -- Chris 73 Talk 22:41, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
          • "Proof of sock-puppetry" (or rather, of editing by proxy) is at the other end of that link, and was discussed at /incidents. Guettarda 22:58, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
            • User blocked for 12 hours. Using proxies to get around the three revert rule is something we seriously want to discourage. Normaly I probably would have left this.Geni 03:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Dismao

Three revert rule violation on Howard Dean. hist

Reported by: RadicalSubversiv E 03:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • New user persists in removing a perfectly acceptable external link, saying that it violates some nonexistent external links policy. Proved unresponsive to my attempts to explain policy and community practice on talk, and ignored specific warnings not to violate the 3RR. RadicalSubversiv E 03:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours. -- Chris 73 Talk 04:11, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

User:Stirling Newberry

Three revert rule violation on Global warming. hist

Reported by: Vsmith 15:12, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Reverts 1,2 &3 are labeled as such in the edit summaries.
  • Revert #4 is an unlabeled revert of different material on the same page.
  • In addition this was followed by 3 reverts by new users User:Munnin and User:WikiWarming [12] that have the appearance of being sockpuppets or in the case of Munnin at least a "get my friend to revert for me" (note the comment after the welcome on Munnin's talk page [13]). This possible instance of sockpuppetry needs to be fully investigated by admins.
the foruth revert seems to be mearly the addition of a couple of tags the differnece between it and the previus reverts is huge so I make it 3 reverts total. Sock pupet acusations should be directed towards incerdentsGeni 18:57, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Ambi & User:Aberglas

Three revert rule violation on Sydney Hilton bombing. hist

Edit war between over the addition of material. Both sides look like they need a "break", since their only edits today have been reverts of each other.

Reported by: Netoholic @ 11:08, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

Ambi

Aberglas

Comments:

  • Both blocked for 24 hours.Geni 11:32, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Ambi was unblocked by fellow Arbitrator User:David Gerard, without providing any explanation. He also failed to likewise unblock the other person. I must insist Ambi serve out the rest of the block, since it is clear-cut, and unblocking only serves to devalue the 3RR enforcement rule. -- Netoholic @ 22:47, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
  • under the rules if a block is disputed (and if a person is unblocked it clearly is) then the person can't be reblocked.Geni 23:05, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As Netoholic pointed out on IRC, I failed to unblock the other guy. Both are now unblocked.
It wasn't quite a disputed block per se - I don't dispute it was a 3RR vio. But although I like 3RR a lot, I don't tend to be a complete hardarse about the 24 hours and will almost always unblock if someone will admit they messed up, even if it's really soon after.
I do think Ambi was extremely silly to let herself be goaded into a 3RR violation, and do trust it won't happen again. There's all sorts of ways to point out a content-destroying conspiracist (my editorial opinion of the other guy's edits) without getting lured into a 3RR violation.
(Note to any revert warriors who read this and consider me a soft touch for future unblocking: if you do it again, watch me reblock so fast it'll make your keyboard spin.) - David Gerard 23:10, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Adam Carr

Three revert rule violation on Government of Australia. hist

Optional: Insertion of material 17:57, 27 Feb 2005 .

Reported by: Skyring 01:31, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments: At 09:15, 14 Feb 2005 I noted in the discussion page that I would be making edits to this article to bring it in line with recent changes to the Governor-General of Australia article, changes fully discussed and to which Adam was a party. Two weeks later at 17:01, 27 Feb 2005, in the absence of any discussion, I made those changes. I also noted that the republic article had changed to incorporate a new definition, one that included Australia. I therefore replaced the description of Australia as a constitutional monarchy inter alia with republic. Adam reverted this and made some other changes, which I thought strengthened the article and with which I did not disagree. However, as Australia is a constitutional monarchy, I left that in and added republic. Adam then reverted this, noting on the discussion page that he disagreed and would keep on reverting it. I gave a statement of my reasons, and added it back in. Adam has reached four rvs in 24 hours, and although we have discussed the change, Adam has merely reiterated his opinion, rather than provide any research or attempt to rebut the points I raised.

Straightforward 3RR. 12 hour block. BrokenSegue 01:36, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely not. The edits are that Australia is a republic. Do you want us to lose all credibility with the Australia public?!?! I'm reversing this block immediately and apologising to Adam Carr on his user page. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:42, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:NCdave

Three revert rule violation on Terri Schiavo. hist

Reported by: Rhobite 05:32, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • All times EST. NCdave accuses nearly every other editor of vandalism or sabotage. Rhobite 05:32, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
problem is that first revert is close to the boarder between reveting extream POV and vanderlism. Oh well user blocked for 24 hoursGeni 05:48, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
On second thoughts I've removed it the user appears to be pretty new and the history shows some efforts to collabirate on the article. I have warned the user and any future violations will result in a blockGeni 05:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ignorance of the three revert rule is not an excuse, especially for such an obnoxious user. There's no question that NCdave has violated the rule: He inserted all those POV links yesterday [14]. His first revert was not fixing vandalism, or even POV - the version he was reverting from was itself a revert to JYolkowski's version from 15:51, Feb 26, 2005. [15] Some quotes from NCdave on Talk:Terri Schiavo: "Many here wrongly think she has the IQ of a carrot stick. So they think that anyone who wants to prevent her death is crazy -- and SOME of those people keep vandalizing the wikipedia article, and deleting the information that doesn't match their prejudices". "Once again the supporters of finishing off poor Terri have vandalized the article". "Maybe I shouldn't be surprised that people with such hard hearts that they want to bump off a harmless handicapped woman, also are not above trashing an article to promote their POV". Rhobite 06:03, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
User behaviour is a matter for arbcom. There is a lot of preserdence for not blocking users who are ignorant of the 3RR. The user is new. There are no mentions on talki pages or edit summeries of the 3RR. If you can find any I will of course block the user.Geni 06:16, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I'm new, but I had heard of the 3RR rule. However, I got confused by the time zone difference, and undid some vandalism 47 minutes before the 24 hours was up. However, I've just now actually read the 3RR rule, and I see that there is an exception for undoing simple vandalism. In this case advocates for a particular POV keep DELETING large amounts of information from the article, including most of the references. They don't discuss it on the talk page, they just delete it. Isn't that vandalism? Here's an example, showing vandalism that I reverted. Don't you agree that this is simple vandalism, the reversion of which should fall under the exception? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terri_Schiavo&diff=10634764&oldid=10632744
As for Rhobite, well he just makes stuff up. On the discussion page I complained about these people deleting all those references, and he replied that it was because I had made "link descriptions you used were unacceptably biased ('pro-death')". But I didn't. I never put such a description on any link or reference. He just made it up. Likewise, he now says that I "accuses nearly every other editor of vandalism or sabotage." But that is an exaggeration. When people DELETE factual information, I call it vandalism, because that's what it is. But when there are disagreements over changes that are made in good faith I discuss them on the Talk page. On the other hand, I've been repeatedly accused of "vandalism" for ADDING well-supported information and references that were missing from the article. For example, the first of my 4 reverts was in response to an anonymous revert to delete this entire body of work, over four successive revisions, which I had done to improve the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terri_Schiavo&diff=10604498&oldid=10600605. That work added considerable information (including facts "favorable" to BOTH sides in this fight), corrected factual errors, and added links to many very useful references. But here's how the anonymous person described the change which undid it all: "(rv severe vandalism, should be reverted further soon)". Of course, Rhobite didn't complain about THAT person's poor manners, in calling me a vandal. NCdave 08:13, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Report new violation

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive9&oldid=10639549"