Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive9

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

• 1st revert: 20:41, 9 Feb 2005
• 2nd revert: 22:25, 9 Feb 2005
• 3rd revert: 22:55, 9 Feb 2005
• 4th revert: 01:33, 10 Feb 2005

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:

• Block user
• List of blocked IP addresses and usernames
• Block log

Violations

Chris 73

Szczecin hist: I clicked on the rollback link on Szczecin by mistake, hence violating the 3RR. I reverted my revert immedeately. This note is here to clarify things. While I think a block is not needed, I leave this to the digression of other admins -- Chris 73 Talk 03:54, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

If you self revert your own revert presendence says that that means the original revert did not count. Geni 04:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. If it was a mistake, it was a mistake. If the article is in the same state as before, then there is not an issue. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rollback is an admin tool provided only to quickly deal with vandalism. It is completely inappropriate to use an admin tool to assist in an editorial dispute. Use of it outside of dealing with vandalism is an abuse of that function, and also implicitely fails to fulfill the policy which states "Always explain your reverts". -- Netoholic @ 04:42, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

It may be inappropriate but it is pretty common. The line between extream/ultraminority pov and vanderlism is rather subjective so as long as an admin doesn't go over the top with it I don't care (heck even without rollback I can revert a page in under 10 seconds).Geni 11:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The line is not that subjective - vandalism is pretty well defined. In this case, it is apparent that Chris73 reverted via normal means the first few times, and then resorted to using his rollback ability to push his version though. This all may be common, but it is highly harmful and should be discouraged actively. -- Netoholic @ 16:26, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

"...It is 3 reverts per anticle not per version. Blocked for 24 hours Geni 02:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)..." quote by Geni. Chris 73 broke the 3rr per article, (mistake or not, everyone - after breaking the 3rr can say - "ups sorry it was only a mistake..") he should be banned. Its very clear that he broke the rule.--Emax 13:43, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

I am very aware of this of course. However the mistaken revert was undone within a minute. Bluntly no harm no foul. It takes me ~10 minutes to cheack out a 3RR report in full if you can correct your error in that time then I'm not going to block you (obviously if you have reverted 5 times there is zilch you can do). I admit that getting into a situation where this could happen is worrying. Looking at the edit history I suggest an RFC or mediation.Geni 14:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good grief. How about a little common sense. There was no harm done. It was an accident. The technical transgression was recognized by the person who did the revert and then self-reported. There's no need to block for this. As for using rollback for something that is not vandalism--that can be pursued through an RFC, but it is a separate matter from the 3RR. Sheesh, people seem to be more interested in the uniform application of an arbitrary (blunt force) rule than in common decency, dialog, building networks of trust, etc., etc. This page (Szczecin) is a candidate for protection (yet again) -- there doesn't appear to be any dialog going on at all among the participants in this edit war. User:Bkonrad/sig2 17:27, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that the uniform application of the rule it unwise, but historically any attempt to apply it with discretion has met with extensive complaints (see, e.g. this incident). So it's no wonder that admins who do enforcement (I won't, any more, because I've have had it with taking grief from kibitzers) fall back on applying the rule in a Procrustean fashion.

As to not using roll-back except for true vandalism, I originally took the position that it didn't provide any end result that wasn't available to non-admins, so what was the problem? However, I have since changed my mind, and feel that the minimal extra work (a couple of extra clicks) makes it worth it simply to avoid the appearance of power abuse. I keep meaning to bring this up on WP:AN, but I'm waiting until we have a quiet period (hah). Noel (talk) 15:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think WP:3RR says anywhere that a user must be blocked for breaking the rule. My impression is that in practise it is nearly always exercised with great discretion; I've seen so many exchanges on user talk pages where someone has reminded someone else of the rule, and the user has simply said thanks and promised to watch his reverts in future. Nothing more comes of it, though sometimes it does. The threat of blocking hanging over edit warriors sometimes has a good effect, making them reform their editing behavior, but sometimes it leads to gaming the system--a practise which if kept up leads quite surely to arbitration. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:JonGwynne

Three revert rule violation on Greenhouse gas. hist

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

Reported by: Vsmith 00:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments: The 1st was a substantial revert to his, User:JonGwynne, edit of 01:17, 13 Feb 2005. Reverts 2 through 4 are announced reverts. Revert 5 is a substantial revert disguised in the edit summary as Repair vandalism when in fact there was no vandalism. Vsmith 00:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"substantial" revert? That's a new one do we get a defintion?Geni 00:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I used the wrong term? - new at this. I was referring to an unannounced revert that included a few cosmetic or other minor changes designed to slip past the 3RR rule. Vsmith 01:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

complex revert seems to be the term that has gained traction. Geni 02:02, 16 Feb 2005

Regardless of the terminology, he removed this paragraph:

IPCC TAR chapter lead author (Michael Mann) considers citing "the role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas" to be "extremely misleading" as water vapor can not be controlled by humans [6]. Water vapor is a natural greenhouse gas and an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by anthropogenic gases will lead to greater evaporation of water from the tropical sea surface, which could lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere. Whether the main impact is through heating due to trapping of infrared radiation or through harder-to-determine effects through cloud changes, it is a definite part of the greenhouse gas equation even though not under direct human control.

Of course I removed it. Commondreams.org is hardly a reputable source and they weren't even the original source for the alleged quote - it came from something called the "Environmental News Service". If a reputable source for this quote can be found, then it can go back in. Until then, it is unworthy of wikipdia.

at least 4 times. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I know. I also know that User:JonGwynne has come very close to being blocked for breaking the 3RR in the past so it is quite a clear caseGeni 18:29, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 19:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Note that JG was blocked for 8 hours on 2005/02/08: [7]

Only because you lied about my alleged reversions - which, incidentally, where nothing of the sort. Too bad you have to resort to deception to get your points across William. --JonGwynne 00:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

• 1st revert: 20:41, 9 Feb 2005
• 2nd revert: 22:25, 9 Feb 2005
• 3rd revert: 22:55, 9 Feb 2005
• 4th revert: 01:33, 10 Feb 2005

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:

• Block user
• List of blocked IP addresses and usernames
• Block log

Violations

Chris 73

Szczecin hist: I clicked on the rollback link on Szczecin by mistake, hence violating the 3RR. I reverted my revert immedeately. This note is here to clarify things. While I think a block is not needed, I leave this to the digression of other admins -- Chris 73 Talk 03:54, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

If you self revert your own revert presendence says that that means the original revert did not count. Geni 04:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. If it was a mistake, it was a mistake. If the article is in the same state as before, then there is not an issue. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rollback is an admin tool provided only to quickly deal with vandalism. It is completely inappropriate to use an admin tool to assist in an editorial dispute. Use of it outside of dealing with vandalism is an abuse of that function, and also implicitely fails to fulfill the policy which states "Always explain your reverts". -- Netoholic @ 04:42, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

It may be inappropriate but it is pretty common. The line between extream/ultraminority pov and vanderlism is rather subjective so as long as an admin doesn't go over the top with it I don't care (heck even without rollback I can revert a page in under 10 seconds).Geni 11:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The line is not that subjective - vandalism is pretty well defined. In this case, it is apparent that Chris73 reverted via normal means the first few times, and then resorted to using his rollback ability to push his version though. This all may be common, but it is highly harmful and should be discouraged actively. -- Netoholic @ 16:26, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

"...It is 3 reverts per anticle not per version. Blocked for 24 hours Geni 02:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)..." quote by Geni. Chris 73 broke the 3rr per article, (mistake or not, everyone - after breaking the 3rr can say - "ups sorry it was only a mistake..") he should be banned. Its very clear that he broke the rule.--Emax 13:43, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

I am very aware of this of course. However the mistaken revert was undone within a minute. Bluntly no harm no foul. It takes me ~10 minutes to cheack out a 3RR report in full if you can correct your error in that time then I'm not going to block you (obviously if you have reverted 5 times there is zilch you can do). I admit that getting into a situation where this could happen is worrying. Looking at the edit history I suggest an RFC or mediation.Geni 14:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good grief. How about a little common sense. There was no harm done. It was an accident. The technical transgression was recognized by the person who did the revert and then self-reported. There's no need to block for this. As for using rollback for something that is not vandalism--that can be pursued through an RFC, but it is a separate matter from the 3RR. Sheesh, people seem to be more interested in the uniform application of an arbitrary (blunt force) rule than in common decency, dialog, building networks of trust, etc., etc. This page (Szczecin) is a candidate for protection (yet again) -- there doesn't appear to be any dialog going on at all among the participants in this edit war. User:Bkonrad/sig2 17:27, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that the uniform application of the rule it unwise, but historically any attempt to apply it with discretion has met with extensive complaints (see, e.g. this incident). So it's no wonder that admins who do enforcement (I won't, any more, because I've have had it with taking grief from kibitzers) fall back on applying the rule in a Procrustean fashion.

As to not using roll-back except for true vandalism, I originally took the position that it didn't provide any end result that wasn't available to non-admins, so what was the problem? However, I have since changed my mind, and feel that the minimal extra work (a couple of extra clicks) makes it worth it simply to avoid the appearance of power abuse. I keep meaning to bring this up on WP:AN, but I'm waiting until we have a quiet period (hah). Noel (talk) 15:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think WP:3RR says anywhere that a user must be blocked for breaking the rule. My impression is that in practise it is nearly always exercised with great discretion; I've seen so many exchanges on user talk pages where someone has reminded someone else of the rule, and the user has simply said thanks and promised to watch his reverts in future. Nothing more comes of it, though sometimes it does. The threat of blocking hanging over edit warriors sometimes has a good effect, making them reform their editing behavior, but sometimes it leads to gaming the system--a practise which if kept up leads quite surely to arbitration. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:JonGwynne

Three revert rule violation on Greenhouse gas. hist

• 1st revert: [8]
• 2nd revert: [9]
• 3rd revert: [10]
• 4th revert: [11]
• 5th revert: [12]

Reported by: Vsmith 00:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments: The 1st was a substantial revert to his, User:JonGwynne, edit of 01:17, 13 Feb 2005. Reverts 2 through 4 are announced reverts. Revert 5 is a substantial revert disguised in the edit summary as Repair vandalism when in fact there was no vandalism. Vsmith 00:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"substantial" revert? That's a new one do we get a defintion?Geni 00:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I used the wrong term? - new at this. I was referring to an unannounced revert that included a few cosmetic or other minor changes designed to slip past the 3RR rule. Vsmith 01:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

complex revert seems to be the term that has gained traction. Geni 02:02, 16 Feb 2005

Regardless of the terminology, he removed this paragraph:

IPCC TAR chapter lead author (Michael Mann) considers citing "the role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas" to be "extremely misleading" as water vapor can not be controlled by humans [13]. Water vapor is a natural greenhouse gas and an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by anthropogenic gases will lead to greater evaporation of water from the tropical sea surface, which could lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere. Whether the main impact is through heating due to trapping of infrared radiation or through harder-to-determine effects through cloud changes, it is a definite part of the greenhouse gas equation even though not under direct human control.

Of course I removed it. Commondreams.org is hardly a reputable source and they weren't even the original source for the alleged quote - it came from something called the "Environmental News Service". If a reputable source for this quote can be found, then it can go back in. Until then, it is unworthy of wikipdia.

at least 4 times. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I know. I also know that User:JonGwynne has come very close to being blocked for breaking the 3RR in the past so it is quite a clear caseGeni 18:29, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 19:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Note that JG was blocked for 8 hours on 2005/02/08: [14]

Only because you lied about my alleged reversions - which, incidentally, where nothing of the sort. Too bad you have to resort to deception to get your points across William. --JonGwynne 00:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:John-1107

Three revert rule violation on User:John-1107. hist

Refusal to either remove spoiler(s) or leave {{spoiler}} tag.

• 1st revert: Revision as of 00:18, Feb 16, 2005
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 00:29, Feb 16, 2005
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 04:31, Feb 16, 2005
• 4th revert: Revision as of 22:36, Feb 16, 2005

Reported by: Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:29, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Since it's a spoiler, anyone who doesn't want to know about Star Wars Episode III might want to avoid it. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:29, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Its his personal user page. I think your edits are not proper. I won't block him for reverting his own user page! -- Chris 73 Talk 01:38, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I was reading his user page, as (one might imagine) is appropriate. I happened to see a spoiler for Star Wars Episode III. This pissed me off. A lot. I have been avoiding spoilers for that movie for YEARS, and I don't appreciate being blindsided by one. I put the spoiler notice up so it wouldn't happen to other people. I suggested he might want to remove the spoiler, but as long as the spoiler was there, the warning was appropriate. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:41, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't see any comment of yours on his talk page. This should have been the first step in dispute resolution. A edit comment is IMHO not enough. In any case, I don't think a 3RR applies to his own user page. -- Chris 73 Talk 01:43, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

He began by communicating in edit comments, I didn't start it. He asked what the spoiler tag was, I explained. He set up the forum for discussion, not me. Besides, he doesn't own his user page, it's part of the Wikipedia. I wasn't editing his user page in an unreasonable manner. It's not like he was reverting vandalism. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:51, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

The only comment in the history besides yours is from an anon 128.12.178.70. This may or may not have been John-1107. The anon reverted your edits within one minute. Maybe John-1107 can clarify this question. -- Chris 73 Talk 01:56, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I assume it was because he's edited it from IP addresses before. I lack the technical means to determine this (I am not a developer). --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:59, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

well I would block for 30 minutes but there doesn't seem to be much point. No you shouldn't revert your user page more than 3 times however that last revert is one heck of a complex revert however user does not appear to be aware of the rules so I see nothing to be gained by blocking.Geni 02:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, would someone at LEAST either put the spoiler warning back or remove the spoiler!?! That's the whole point of this... --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:02, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

User:Snowspinner has blocked John-1107Geni 02:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This was a stupid 3RR war, but, frankly, it came from John being inconsiderate and disruptive, which was the reason for my block. So 48 hours for that, plus 24 for a 3RR. Snowspinner 02:19, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days for reverting his own user page? Don't you think that is excessive? If it would be my user page, I would not hesitate to revert. Also, it is not known if the anonymous IP is him, and I would be surprised if he finds a change of his user page within one minute. I strongly oppose the block. -- Chris 73 Talk 02:33, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree with this block. For one, you're not even sure the anon was John. If you were going to block anyone, block the anon (who also doesn't have the defense that he's protecting his user page).

As to whether anyone could be blocked for reverting their own page more than three times, I would say no. Our rule (no time to find the cite) is that people control their own user pages, and others should generally stay off them. (Of course, someone other than the page owner could definitely get a 3RR on such a page.)

Finally, about the spoiler: yes, I agree it's bad to have a spoiler without a warning. But I would say that the appropriate path is to take it up with the person directly first, and if they prove un-cooperative, go through the mediation/RFC process. Simplly unilaterally editing someone elses page is not kosher, until such action has received community support as the only workable alternative. Noel (talk) 13:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't suppose anyone's willing to tackle the spoiler situation? Does it count as a 4th revert from me to remove the spoiler at this point, rather than add the spoiler tag? I *really* don't want to do it anyway, at least because of how it might look. So, unless someone else is gonna do it, I'll just wait til tomorrow or something, I guess. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:21, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

What was with adding this {{spoiler}} notice one someone's user page without his permission? We allow users more freedom on their user page. Palestine-info has all kinds of pro-Palestinan links on his user page. Are you going to stick {{POV}} notice on his page? Some users even write diatribes on a topic when they can't do it in the article. We don't edit other people's user pages unless the page is a gross abuse, and there was no gross abuse in this case. OneGuy 15:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is a red herring. One would expect (unless one were remarkably stupid) to encounter POV information on a user page in general, and one called Palestine-info in particular. One would NOT expect to find a spoiler for Episode III on someone's user page in the middle of a description about some girl they like. Spoilers are different than POV speech. POV speech doesn't "hurt" anyone. Spoilers do. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:37, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

That was absolutely absurd block. He has the right to revert his own page when someone sticks a {{spoiler}} template on his user page without his permission. The person who added {{spoiler}} notice should have been blocked for vandalism, and the admin who blocked the poor guy should have been blocked for harassment OneGuy 14:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism huh? OK, sure, I add a spoiler tag to a page with spoilers, yup, clear-cut vandalism if I've ever heard any. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:37, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

If admins are allowed to arbitrarily protect their user pages, can we fault a non-admin for wanting to preserve theirs? Block Dante Alighieri for vandalism, and unblock John-1107 since reverting vandalism is not counted in 3RR. Dante didn't even make an attempt at communicating with this user on their talk page. Snowspinner is being oppressive over this, and I hope some admins out their will take steps to resolve this by unblocking this newcomer. -- Netoholic @ 15:36, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

I communicated via edit comments as that's the way that the initial revert was communicated to me. Incidently, the stated reason for Snowspinner's block wasn't this 3RR anyway, it was disruptiveness. You'd have to ask him what that means. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:37, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'm really tired of people abusing "vandalism" around here the way politicians abuse "terrorism". Vandalism is adding "your mother sucks {gross, disgusting objects}" to articles, and similar juvenilia. This is a dispute over content and policy. Noel (talk) 15:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If we were talking about something in the article space, I'd agree fully. Adding unwelcome text repeatedly to a personal User page is a different story. Call it vandalism or disruption, whatever you like. -- Netoholic @ 16:09, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

Not only was he blocked unfairly for 3rv, but he was blocked for 3 days! This was clearly absurd, bordering abuse and harassment. The user should email Jimbo and post to WikiEN-l email list [15] OneGuy 18:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Editing someone's user page in a factual and reasonable manner is not vandalism or disruptiong, and I'd suspect that anyone who claims it is has an agenda. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:37, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Editing user's page without his/her permission has been called vandalism by some admins before, and people have been blocked for this. See this example. Fvw called it vandalism. What Jakew did was minor (and he later was blocked by Fvw) compared to Dante Alighieri sticking {{spoiler}} on the user page. OneGuy 16:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm irked at other un-called for "vandalism" labels too. Wikipedia:Vandalism lays out pretty clearly what "vandalism" is, and it's clear that adding the tag was a "good-faith" (albeit very inappropriate, IMO) attempt at improvement. Noel (talk) 16:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lots of things are called vandalism... that doesn't make them vandalism. Again, I don't see how sticking a spoiler warning on a page with a spoiler is either "vandalism", "disruption", or a "big deal" in any way shape or form. Nor, frankly, has anyone offered any rationale why it is, other than these tautological arguments about "not editing another person's user page", and that happens regularly and appropriately. Note also that I didn't even remove the spoiler because I respect his right to have it on the page. I just informed others that there was a spoiler, a completely appopriate act. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:37, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

User:SS88

Three revert rule violation on Israel. hist

Note: I count User:SS-88 as an obvious sockpuppet. C.f. the 3RR: "Use of sockpuppets (multiple accounts) is not a legitimate way to avoid this limit". Lupo 13:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 10:49, 17 Feb 2005 by SS88
• 2nd revert: 11:18, 17 Feb 2005 by SS88
• 3rd revert: 12:35, 17 Feb 2005 by SS-88
• 4th revert: 12:49, 17 Feb 2005 by SS-88

67.15.16.50 was also involved in between: [16].

Reported by: Lupo 13:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oops: first diff is not a revert, but the original change. Oh well. Lupo 13:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh. I permanently blocked SS88 because I thought that was a sockpuppet account of User:SS-88. Oh well. I've blocked it now due to sock-puppetry. They can use the other account to edit with. They only need one account. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Are we positive that User:SS88 and User:SS-88 are really the same person? We have seen instances in the past (one of the CheeseDreams socks) where are similarly-named sock was someone else making trouble for them.

Anyway, I'd block the second account permanently on the grounds that it's an inappropriate (because it's confusing) user-name, which is true whether it's a real sock, or someone else's troll. Noel (talk) 13:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:JonGwynne

Three revert rule violation on Greenhouse gas. hist

Optional: Insertion of material [diff_link_here date_time_stamp_here].

• 1st revert: [17]
• 2nd revert: [18]
• 3rd revert: [19]
• 4th revert: [20]
• 5th revert: [21]

Reported by: Vsmith 16:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments: Revets occurring between 00:50, 17 Feb 2005 and 14:46, 17 Feb 2005

• The 1st was a revert to his version of 15 Feb before his previous ban.
• The 2nd was a revert of his tabulated data - summary stated "not a revert"
• The 3rd was a partial to remove paragraph which he has removed repeatedly - not labeled a revert.
• The 4th was a simple revert referred to as "Restored more accurate (and readable) version of table" - included paragraph removal also.
• The 5th was a revert to his version of the tabulated data.

Vsmith 16:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I corroborate Vsmiths complaint. I also note that JG has, rather recently, been warned (feb 7th), then banned for 8 hours (feb 8th) [22], then banned for 24 hours (feb 16th) [23]. I therefore request a longer ban this time. Also, JG has taken to labelling his reverts as "not a revert", which is extremely bad form. At no time has he shown any contrition. (William M. Connolley 17:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)).

I can't block for more than 24 hours what ever happens (under the 3RR rule anyway). Personaly I make it 3.5 revets in total (and we don't reconise partial revets). I am not going to block becuase I have just protected that page so no further editing can take place anyway I hpoe this allows you to make use of the wikipedia disspute resolution process.Geni 18:04, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I feel rather frustrated that you have protected the page, albeit on the "correct" version. The dispute resolution process has been tried and failed - see the talk page, or [Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JonGwynne]] (how about this one? [24]; or this: [25]?).

I have not protected the correct version the protected version is always the wrong version. Have you tired arbcom (I'm not sure medation is function right now).Geni 19:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Meanwhile, JG has broken the 3RR *again*: [26] (note that this one is a "complex revert" - ie the same stuff, thinly disguised) [27] [28] [29]

Head, table, bang. User blocked for 24 hours under the 3RR rule.Geni 19:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Chamaeleon

Three revert rule violation on New anti-Semitism. hist

• 13:43, 17 Feb 2005
• 13:48, 17 Feb 2005
• 15:15, 17 Feb 2005
• 15:38, 17 Feb 2005
• 16:57, 17 Feb 2005

Comments

• These are complex reverts, as the user keeps reverting and then editing the article, but using deceptive edits summaries not recognizing the reverts.
• User has been violated the 3RR before and been warned, but has treated the concept with contempt (e.g. [30]), suggested that admins who tried to ban him for this were "right-wing" and would lose their sysop privileges for abuse[31]. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it. You have a major content dispute going but the difference between susposed revisions is huge. I can see one outright revert and maybe a couple of complex reverts (if you take a really liberal defintion of that term which I don't).Geni 17:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Don't be silly J. You are the only ones reverting to a version recognised by the community as POV on VfD. Coming here is a bullying tactic. I could threaten you, but I won't descend to your level. On VfD there was a consensus to re-write the article, and I am trying to. Chamaeleon 17:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I warned you yesterday about your violations of the 3RR, and you treated the whole concept with contempt; this is the inevitable conseqeunce. And the fact that four different editors have reverted your unilateral edits should be an indication to you that your actions do not represent "consensus". Jayjg ^(talk) 18:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it will be clearer if we focus on one small section at the top of the article. He has taken the phrase

The term represents a shift in the meaning of the term anti-Semitism, to apply to an apparent rise in anti-Semitic vandalism; to claim an allegiance between anti-Semitic vandals and left-wing activists seeking Israeli compromises on the Palestinian question.

and converted it to

It is a controversial term, and opinions on it are utterly different depending on whether one's opinions are closer to Zionism or anti-Zionism (or somewhere in between).

5 times in 3 hours. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The 3RR applies to articles not sections. There is not rule that an admin can inforce against repeatedly editing against consenus (well except under the dissruption rule and I'm not planning to use that) as long as you make significant overal changes.Geni 18:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:SS88

Three revert rule violation on Israel. hist

Note: I count User:SS-88 as an obvious sockpuppet. C.f. the 3RR: "Use of sockpuppets (multiple accounts) is not a legitimate way to avoid this limit". Lupo 13:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 10:49, 17 Feb 2005 by SS88
• 2nd revert: 11:18, 17 Feb 2005 by SS88
• 3rd revert: 12:35, 17 Feb 2005 by SS-88
• 4th revert: 12:49, 17 Feb 2005 by SS-88

67.15.16.50 was also involved in between: [32].

Reported by: Lupo 13:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oops: first diff is not a revert, but the original change. Oh well. Lupo 13:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh. I permanently blocked SS88 because I thought that was a sockpuppet account of User:SS-88. Oh well. I've blocked it now due to sock-puppetry. They can use the other account to edit with. They only need one account. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Are we positive that User:SS88 and User:SS-88 are really the same person? We have seen instances in the past (one of the CheeseDreams socks) where are similarly-named sock was someone else making trouble for them.

Anyway, I'd block the second account permanently on the grounds that it's an inappropriate (because it's confusing) user-name, which is true whether it's a real sock, or someone else's troll. Noel (talk) 13:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:JonGwynne

Three revert rule violation on Greenhouse gas. hist

Optional: Insertion of material [diff_link_here date_time_stamp_here].

• 1st revert: [33]
• 2nd revert: [34]
• 3rd revert: [35]
• 4th revert: [36]
• 5th revert: [37]

Reported by: Vsmith 16:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments: Revets occurring between 00:50, 17 Feb 2005 and 14:46, 17 Feb 2005

• The 1st was a revert to his version of 15 Feb before his previous ban.
• The 2nd was a revert of his tabulated data - summary stated "not a revert"
• The 3rd was a partial to remove paragraph which he has removed repeatedly - not labeled a revert.
• The 4th was a simple revert referred to as "Restored more accurate (and readable) version of table" - included paragraph removal also.
• The 5th was a revert to his version of the tabulated data.

Vsmith 16:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I corroborate Vsmiths complaint. I also note that JG has, rather recently, been warned (feb 7th), then banned for 8 hours (feb 8th) [38], then banned for 24 hours (feb 16th) [39]. I therefore request a longer ban this time. Also, JG has taken to labelling his reverts as "not a revert", which is extremely bad form. At no time has he shown any contrition. (William M. Connolley 17:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)).

I can't block for more than 24 hours what ever happens (under the 3RR rule anyway). Personaly I make it 3.5 revets in total (and we don't reconise partial revets). I am not going to block becuase I have just protected that page so no further editing can take place anyway I hpoe this allows you to make use of the wikipedia disspute resolution process.Geni 18:04, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I feel rather frustrated that you have protected the page, albeit on the "correct" version. The dispute resolution process has been tried and failed - see the talk page, or [Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JonGwynne]] (how about this one? [40]; or this: [41]?).

I have not protected the correct version the protected version is always the wrong version. Have you tired arbcom (I'm not sure medation is function right now).Geni 19:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Meanwhile, JG has broken the 3RR *again*: [42] (note that this one is a "complex revert" - ie the same stuff, thinly disguised) [43] [44] [45]

Head, table, bang. User blocked for 24 hours under the 3RR rule.Geni 19:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Chamaeleon

Three revert rule violation on New anti-Semitism. hist

• 13:43, 17 Feb 2005
• 13:48, 17 Feb 2005
• 15:15, 17 Feb 2005
• 15:38, 17 Feb 2005
• 16:57, 17 Feb 2005

Comments

• These are complex reverts, as the user keeps reverting and then editing the article, but using deceptive edits summaries not recognizing the reverts.
• User has been violated the 3RR before and been warned, but has treated the concept with contempt (e.g. [46]), suggested that admins who tried to ban him for this were "right-wing" and would lose their sysop privileges for abuse[47]. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it. You have a major content dispute going but the difference between susposed revisions is huge. I can see one outright revert and maybe a couple of complex reverts (if you take a really liberal defintion of that term which I don't).Geni 17:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Don't be silly J. You are the only ones reverting to a version recognised by the community as POV on VfD. Coming here is a bullying tactic. I could threaten you, but I won't descend to your level. On VfD there was a consensus to re-write the article, and I am trying to. Chamaeleon 17:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I warned you yesterday about your violations of the 3RR, and you treated the whole concept with contempt; this is the inevitable conseqeunce. And the fact that four different editors have reverted your unilateral edits should be an indication to you that your actions do not represent "consensus". Jayjg ^(talk) 18:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it will be clearer if we focus on one small section at the top of the article. He has taken the phrase

The term represents a shift in the meaning of the term anti-Semitism, to apply to an apparent rise in anti-Semitic vandalism; to claim an allegiance between anti-Semitic vandals and left-wing activists seeking Israeli compromises on the Palestinian question.

and converted it to

It is a controversial term, and opinions on it are utterly different depending on whether one's opinions are closer to Zionism or anti-Zionism (or somewhere in between).

5 times in 3 hours. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The 3RR applies to articles not sections. There is not rule that an admin can inforce against repeatedly editing against consenus (well except under the dissruption rule and I'm not planning to use that) as long as you make significant overal changes.Geni 18:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)