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)

---

This is not the page for dealing with "vandalism" (please review that page for the definition of what consitutes vandalism): if you find yourself reverting edits due to simple vandalism, you should list that person at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress.

Please also be aware that this page is not 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.

We really do mean this; this is not the page to bring up accusations of bad faith, or POV pushing. Many admins do have a modicum of intelligence, and are capable of making decisions without the help of huge complaints about the user's general behaviour. Just give us the article, the diffs, a link to the history, and as little else as possible. If you feel the need to leave a comment of more than a couple of lines you are probably using the wrong channel. If you feel you have been wrongly accused, a short response is enough, since admins will check the evidence before making any block, so you should not have much to worry about.

Finally, please remember that the 3RR applies to reverts after the third within a 24 hour period; it also 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.

See also:

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

Violations

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

• 1st revert: 13:06, 2005 Feb 25 result (reverts back to a Feb 21 version)
• 2nd revert: 04:53, 2005 Feb 26 result
• 3rd revert: 05:15, 2005 Feb 26 result
• 4th revert: 05:31, 2005 Feb 26 result
• 5th revert: 06:50, 2005 Feb 26 result

Aberglas

• 1st revert: 04:45, 2005 Feb 26 result (undoes Ambi's 1st revert above)
• 2nd revert: 05:06, 2005 Feb 26 result
• 3rd revert: 05:23, 2005 Feb 26 result
• 4th revert: 05:47, 2005 Feb 26 result
• 5th revert: 12:01, 2005 Feb 26 result (somewhat complex revert)

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)

If I had known that one of the perks in being an Arbitrators was that I can break 3RR at will and enjoy a minimal punishment, I'd have run for the job. I'd like to point out that I have reported 3RR violations on this page against two Arbitrators and at least as many admins, and so far the track record is extremely poor. This policy is meaningless unless blocks are enforced without regard to Wikipedia "rank" and that they are not reversed without consulting the community here except in extreme cicumstances to keep the unblock from looking secretive. I do not like that a fellow Arbitrator of Ambi lifted this block, and I see it as clearly playing favorites. I'm just sure how else I should interpret it. -- Netoholic @ 16:55, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)

Oh, don't witter so. I would similarly remove any 3RR block if the blockee contacted me and convinced me of their understanding of the error of their ways and a commitment to strenuously avoid such things as well, and I would imagine that a great many of our fellow sysops would, too.

Ambi's status as an Arbitrator is not remotely relevent here.

James F. (talk) 21:55, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I'd like to hear some explanation or rationale for the behaviour of Ambi and David Gerard in this episode. David says he unblocked Ambi because she expressed remorse, although I don't where that was. Is an expression of remorse in general a means of becoming unblocked? Was Geni's application of the 3RR incorrect? --BM 23:23, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• In thinking about this a bit more, I'd like to make the following points:

1. In general, administrators should not second-guess the application by other administrators of rules such as the 3RR. Even if one administrator would have been more lenient than another has been, he should refrain from stepping in and altering the penalty imposed by the administrator who made the decision concerning what penalty to apply -- for example, by shortening a block or lifting it entirely. Otherwise, people will play the administrators off against each other, like kids with parents. No administrator wants to be in the position of being thought of as the one who will "fix tickets" handed out by the others: an administrator who gains a reputation for "fixing tickets" will pretty soon find himself plagued with requests to do so, and will be accused of playing favorites when he fixes some tickets and not others. Other administrators will be reluctant to impose penalties, which involves some conflict and stress, if they know their penalties will be altered or cancelled by other administrators who are more friendly towards the offenders. The whole system will be perceived by non-administrators as corrupt, with penalties determined by "who you know" rather than objective factors. If an administrator imposes a penalty, other administrators should alter that penalty only if it is incorrect under the policies and rules that have been established.
2. In this particular case, the person who had her ticket "fixed" was an Arbitrator, and the person doing the "fixing" was another Arbitrator. This was very unfortunate. Especially given the extremely legalistic procedure and style that the ArbComm has adopted, the administrators should try to maintain themselves above reproach. They are in the position of "judging" other members and potentially imposing severe penalties -- severe anyway in the Wikipedia context. If an Arbitrator so forgets herself that she violates clear rules established by the consensus of the community, she should apologize and accept the penalty imposed. Certainly, the person "fixing" the penalty should not be another Arbitrator. Otherwise, the clear message to the rest of the community is that there is one set of rules for the community and a different set of rules for the Arbitrators.
3. I don't believe that David or Ambi thought of themselves as "above" the rules of the community -- rules that they are charged with interpreting and applying fairly. But the effect in this case, almost certainly without them intending it, was undoubtedly to undermine the community consensus, the other administrators, and the trust that the community has placed in them as Arbitrators. --BM 00:20, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that I leave a note on the talk page of every person I block under the 3RR suggesting that if they feel that the block was incorrect they can appeal to another admin or contact the mailing. In the end there is always the risk that a blocking admin will make a misstake. Some form of apeal is needed.Geni 00:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Geni, that seems like a good procedure. I am not arguing that administrators should "close ranks" and not reverse an erroneous decision by a colleague. That would be as bad as "second-guessing" a colleague. I am saying that if an administrator assumes responsibility for a case and imposes a penalty, the only person who should soften or alter that penalty is the administrator who imposed it, UNLESS the penalty oversteps or misinterprets the rules. No administrator should end a block or shorten it (or extend it for that matter) simply because he would have imposed a lighter or heavier penalty than the person who actually determined the penalty. Administrators should respect each other's decisions, and if they can't, then one of the administrators involved is not suited to be an administrator. --BM 00:45, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Adam Carr

Three revert rule violation on Government of Australia. hist

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

• 1st revert: 18:41, 27 Feb 2005
• 2nd revert: 22:56, 27 Feb 2005
• 3rd revert: 23:21, 27 Feb 2005
• 4th revert: 10:26, 28 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. Skyring 01:31, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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)

I agree that Adam Carr was reverting a completely nonsensical edit (Australia is not yet a republic), but he still broke the 3RR. He should have recruited another editor to help him revert this erroneous edit. I haven't checked the edit history to see if it was Skyring who kept adding the material, but if so they should have been blocked for a 3RR violation. If they persist in adding untrue material, it will have to go to the ArbComm for more significant action, of course. Noel (talk) 14:12, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's a simple trick, isn't it? Add crud to an article and get someone blocked for removing it. I'd suggest that this is anything but a straightforward 3RR breach and applaud TBSDY for reversing it. How would one define a body politic where the enforcement of the law to the letter is seen as more important than the establishment of the truth? I've said it before, and I'll no doubt say it again; this is a bad rule. Filiocht 14:28, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Whether it is a bad rule or not, a bad rule that is consistently enforced is better than one that is only inconsistently enforced. The rule explicitly states that you may only revert more than 4 times if the edits are obvious vandalism. User:Adam Carr should have brouhgt the issue to another persons attention rather than continue the revert war on his own. If you want to remove the rule than start a poll of some sort. Also note that I did not block for the whole 24 hours. The only way you can argue that block should be removed is if you think that Skyring's edits qualify as simple vandalism, which I think it does not. BrokenSegue 21:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure how else I'd describe the repeated, willful addition of factually incorrect information - information that also pushes a particular POV. Mackensen (talk) 00:00, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest the best way forward would have been to lock the page in this case? However, I am aware that hindsight is a marvellous thing and I have signficant respect for the decision made by this administrator (even if my initial response to the block was a little strong). Admin'ing can be a tough job. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:10, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As to how to characterize the addition of the claim that Australia's a republic: this particular point is certainly a grey area, but it's also typical of the kind of edit wars we see in contentious situations. The difference here is that the truth/falsity is a little more apparent than in most of these disputes, but other than that, it's almost identical to all these others (which is also implicit in your comments about "pushing a .. POV"). I know that this whole issue of whether to be a republic or a constitutional monarchy is a very contentious one in Australia, and it may well be that the editor who's adding this claim has some genuine good-faith reason for believing it's true. It may be a grey case, but it certainly feels more like a standard content dispute than classic vandalism (which I characterize as "mindless destruction"). Noel (talk) 13:10, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The 3RR is quite clear. If you make four edits in a 24 hour period that can be characterized as "reverts" of the same article, then you have violated the rule and are subject to blocking. Reverts of persistent vandalism are not subject to the 3RR, but content disputes are not vandalism, and adding false information to an article in good faith is not vandalism. In the absense of some evidence to the contrary, one must assume good faith. The fact that someone won't listen to you does not mean they are operating in bad faith; it just means that you haven't been persuasive enough. It is no defense to the 3RR that the information being reverted is false. An administrator should not be expected to establish the truth or falsity of the text being reverted when applying the 3RR, and an editor should not suppose that he can engage in edit-warring, and that he can overstep the 3RR, because he is reverting edits that he considers false. If the information is indeed false, an editor should have no trouble to convince someone else of this and enlist his help in resolving the edit war. For example, he has the option of enlisting an administrator to protect the article in the state he regards as true, until the factual issue can be resolved on the Talk page. We could have a different 3RR than we have, one that would make an exception for reverting "false" information, as well as vandalism. We don't have that rule. Anybody who thinks we should have that rule instead of the one we actually have is free to propose it to the community and to try to gain consensus for it. Meanwhile, we have the 3RR that we have. Finally, an administrator should not reverse the decision of another administrator unless it is absolutely clear that the first administrator was incorrect and the situation is so urgent that there is no time for others to be consulted. In this case, BrokenSegue's interpretation of the 3RR was correct and even if TBSDY would have acted differently or had a different interpretation of the 3RR, he should not have undone the decision of another administrator, but should have sought community consensus on the correct course of action. The only thing more damaging to the community than edit wars is blocking wars between administrators, and they should be avoided at all costs, even more than edit wars. We are starting to see more blocking wars between administrators. If they continue, we should start to see administrators being desysopped. --BM 02:39, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see that I am being accused of adding incorrect material. Has anyone actually read the discussion? I give my reasoning and sources - Australian sovereignty resides in the people and therefore according to the Wikipedia definition (and many other definitions, such as that used by the Oxford English Dictionary), Australia is indeed a republic, despite the presence of a powerless and symbolic monarch. Adam's latest claim is to say that the Queen is the head of state, when the actual situation is that the title is not defined in any constitutional documents or High Court judgement, and the only convention cited by Adam is that the Governor-General is the effective head of state. In fact it is currently a matter of considerable debate amongst constitutional scholars, and there is no consensus. It is a contentious issue. Adam has fallen to abusing me for pointing out facts that undermine his claims and I don't find his approach to debate to be particularly productive. Skyring 08:29, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By that reasoning ("sovereignty resides in the people") the UK is a "republic" too - the English (later UK) Parliament has the power to remove the monarch and name a new one, and has had that power for centuries (see, for instance, the debate over Henry VIII's loyalty oath, which named Anne's children as his heirs - heck, they even had Charles I executed). But if you tried to claim that the UK is a republic, that would be silly. Technically, it's a constitutional monarchy, and the fact that Australia has a Governor-General is plenty of proof that the same is true there. So until the Australian Parliament formally changes things, and the G-G goes away, a CM it will technically remain - even though in practise it runs much as any republic would. Noel (talk) 12:39, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this discussion belongs on the article's talk page not here, but in the case of the UK, Parliament is sovereign, not the people. Parliament can make changes to constitutional enactments without consulting the people, which is not the case in Australia. Also the big difference is that in the UK the executive power belongs to the monarch, whereas in Australia it is explicitly given to the Governor-General. The Queen's powers are merely the remnant prerogative powers such as legation and honours. No reserve powers. Again I make the point that using the Wikipedia definition as well as that of the Macquarie and Oxford English Dictionaries (and dozens of others), Australia is a republic. Skyring 13:00, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dang! Sorry about doubling up the page. I was only editing this bit, and I wanted to change one word, which I only noticed the instant after I hit "Save", so I grabbed aholt of it before the page had finished loading, removed my word and I must have somehow been given the whole lot when I saved it again. Told me the page was 52K long, which I thought a bit strange, but didn't investigate. Skyring 10:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:NCdave

Three revert rule violation on Terri Schiavo. hist

• 1st revert: 01:08, Feb 27, 2005
• 2nd revert: 15:26, Feb 27, 2005
• 3rd revert: 23:07, Feb 27, 2005
• 4th revert: 00:21, Feb 28, 2005

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 [1]. 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. [2] 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 "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. That's all that anonymous user did: he removed all my work. Surely THAT also qualifies as "simple vandalism," which should not count toward the 3RR limit. But look how Rhobite described it to you, in his attempt to get me blocked:

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. [3]

Yes, I was undoing a revert. But the revert that I was undoing simple vandalism, and Rhobite just plain lied about it to try to get me blocked. NCdave 08:39, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, Jeebus Cripes. You're a bit paranoid, and not everyone is out to get you. If you stopped making the editing of the Terri Schiavo article a moral dilemma and just state the facts in an NPOV manner, maybe you wouldn't have been reported here. Mike H 08:41, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite is "everyone?" He's the only one who accused me of a 3RR violation (and lied to support his accusation). As for the rest of your complaint, it doesn't even make any sense to me -- I haven't made anything into any kind of dilemma. Making an accurate, NPOV article is exactly what I've been trying to do. Maybe you need some coffee. Then click on those two "compare" links and tell me whether you disagree with me that the first of them was simple vandalism, and that removing all the changes in the second of them was also simple vandalism. Since I was reverting simple vandalism, I didn't violate the 3RR.NCdave 09:48, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That claim (that you were reverting "simple vandalism") is utter, complete, absolute balderdash. You will find vandalism defined quite well on Wikipedia:Vandalism. What you are engaged in is a rancorous content over dispute, which is something quite different. Please do not abuse our intelligence by making such claims ever again. Noel (talk) 13:51, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, after reading the Wiki entry for "vandalism," I stand corrected. Since the real-life definition of vandalism is malicious destruction, I assumed that the Wiki definition would be similar, and that massive deletion of content would surely qualify. But it doesn't. Wiki's definition is something quite different.NCdave 19:08, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In POV disputes, one person's "malicious destruction" is another person's 'removal of factually incorrect propoganda', though, eh? What I found particularly trying was that the instructions at the time you added your assertion of vandalism clearly linked to the Wikipedia definition, but you seem not to have gone to check it out. (Lots of people seem to have this problem, though, which is why such claims make me rather cranky.) Noel (talk) 13:26, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Heimdal

Three revert rule violation on United Kingdom. hist

• 1st revert: 01:41, 28 Feb 2005 (PST)
• 2nd revert: 02:58, 28 Feb 2005 (PST)
• 3rd revert: 03:54, 28 Feb 2005 (PST)
• 4th revert: 04:08, 28 Feb 2005 (PST)

Reported by: Jiang 12:24, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• I would like another administrator to hand down the punishment because I am a participant of this dispute. I am being mass reverted without explanation by User:Heimdal. I made my position clear on Talk:United Kingdom#Politics. He refuses to respond, despite requests on his talk page, calling my edits "vandalism" and posting in the edit summary, "Jiang, I think you just need to accept that it's not up to you to decide how an article should look like". All my edits to that page are just being mass reverted with no further explanation. I have already warned him of this rule on his talk page after the third revert. --Jiang 12:24, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 24 hours. -- Chris 73 Talk 12:36, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

User:172

Three revert rule violation on History of Russia. hist

Optional: Insertion of material [diff_link_here date_time_stamp_here].

• 1st revert: 13:10, 27 Feb 2005
• 2nd revert: 08:59, 28 Feb 2005
• 3rd revert: 09:19, 28 Feb 2005
• 4th revert: 09:54, 28 Feb 2005
• 5th revert, not technically a revert but a compounding bad faith edit: 10:04, 28 Feb 2005

His last edit summary was also bad faith, I quote it here "replacing this with Silverback's orginal research linking migraiton laws to "captive markets" " He said "replacing", when his edit bears little resemblence to any of my edits.

Reported by: --Silverback 17:29, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Silverback, I might be missing something, but the first diff you've given seems unrelated to the later edits. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:51, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is unrelated, but it is a revert to the same identical version, and the edit reverted was not obviously vandalism. However, if you don't think this qualifies, I will defer to your judgement. --Silverback 18:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see 172 reverting "emigration was aggressively suppressed" and "captive workforce" 4 times, in the last 4 edits. Do others see this as well? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:58, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see it (this is why I normaly look at the history and compare the users versions rather than just looking at the difs which are only any use in a simple case. User blocked for 24 hoursGeni 20:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There was a mistake, so I unblocked myself. There were four edits but only three reverts. The fourth edit was a modification of the text. (I am allowed to edit the article. I wrote almost the whole damn thing, which required dozens of revisions on my own text, after all.) 172 23:37, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unblocking yourself like that is a significant protocol violation. You should have told someone else to unblock you. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:41, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

There was no mistake. Your first revet was at 20:10, 27 Feb 2005 the second at 15:59, 28 Feb 2005 the third at 16:19, 28 Feb 2005 and the fourth at 16:54, 28 Feb 2005. That is four reverts in 24 hours. I have reblocked you for Geni 01:45, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Support block, these are 4 (5) reverts. 172, please do not unblock yourself, but wait 24 hours before further editing. Below is an excerpt from the block log (which seems to show all (un)blocks three times), with 172 unblocking himself at least three four five times.

• 20:44, Feb 28, 2005 Geni blocked "User:172" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR)
• 22:42, Feb 28, 2005 172 unblocked User:172 (I did not violate the 3RR. The fourth edit was merely an alteration of the text.)
• 22:43, Feb 28, 2005 Snowspinner blocked "User:172" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Unblocking yourself is verboten.)
• 22:47, Feb 28, 2005 Snowspinner blocked "User:172" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Feel free to get somebody to look at the page history. I'm just saying, don't unblock yourself.)
• 22:49, Feb 28, 2005 172 unblocked User:172 (Well, blocking a user for no reason who did not violate the 3RR is forbidden as well. Take a look at the page history.)
• 22:54, Feb 28, 2005 Snowspinner blocked "User:172" with an expiry time of 24 hours (I don't care about the article. Get someone else to unblock you. Don't do it yourself. This is not a hard concept.)
• 23:20, Feb 28, 2005 172 unblocked User:172 (Listen, I am busy, and I have to post something on talk. Quit playing games with me. I did not break the 3RR and should not have been blocked.)
• 01:39, Mar 1, 2005 Geni blocked "User:172" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR)
• 12:03, Mar 1, 2005 172 unblocked User:172 (no violation of the 3RR)
• 12:27, Mar 1, 2005 Chris 73 blocked "User:172" with an expiry time of 24 hours (multiple admins see this as a 3RR. Please do not unblock yourself!)
• 12:41, Mar 1, 2005 172 unblocked User:172 (They did not look at the content of the last edit, just the edit summary. Now quit wasting my time. I have one reply to make on talk, then I will go away.)

Chris 73 Talk 02:01, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

• There doesn't appear to be any mistake here. The four edits listed above are all reverts. Three of them are rollbacks - clearly reverts. The fourth (11:19, Feb 28, 2005, "This article is not a random grab-bag") is easily verifiable as a revert to 172's previous version from 10:59, Feb 28, 2005. 172, I think you should look over the diffs again. Rhobite 03:39, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Do not just read the edit summary. Compare the page histories and look at the content of the edits. It was an attempt to find some middle ground. There was clearly no fourth revert. Now will you people find something better to do than focus on this pissing contest on History of Russia (like the content of the dispute)? 172 12:10, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Excessive reverts - "Sysops blocked under this provision must not unblock themselves."

• I would support anyone who would like to enforce a longer block for 172's repeated violations of this provision. If he unblock's himself again, I suggest an RFC certified by all the blocking admins. -- Netoholic @ 05:42, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

He's already got a longer block. When I reblocked him the clock was resetGeni 05:44, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Did 172 protect Global warming while he was blocked? Strangely Global warming has been protected after a Stirling Newberry revert, however, 172 does not appear on the page history, yet he appears in the protection log. Is this he? This is a reimposition of a previous protect that was never needed. Stangely 172 seems to be asking to be banned, perhaps he no longer wants to participate in wikipedia or has a sockpuppet lined up?--Silverback 07:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Admins functions are not dissabled when an admin is blocked as such they can still be used. I would suggest that any further disscussion be taken to incerdents.Geni 07:34, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

172 unblocked himself again. I blocked him again, since multiple admins see this as a 3RR, and so far nobody except 172 disputed that. -- Chris 73 Talk 12:29, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

So far no one else has bothered to exercise his responsibilities in a competent manner, that's way. Admins are also supposed to compare the page histories to examine the actual content of the edit, in order to see if it is actually a revert. This does not appear to have been done in this case. This was the fourth edit [4], an attempt to find some sort of middle ground. 172 13:00, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An update: Dbachmann has joined me in actually taking a look at the edits. See these comments on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents:

I looked into it, briefly, and it would seem that 172 was blocked for 3RRvio for edits to History of Russia. They were all reverts, but three were dealing with Napoleon and one with Stalin. So, as far as I understand, they are not four reverts, since one is unrelated with the other three. What's more, the first "revert" is not part of any edit war, but simply a factual correction of an anon edit [5]. The reoport of 3RRvio seems in bad faith to me, in the light of this. Protection of Global warming, which is pretty much unrelated with the history of Russia, is technically not a violation of the block, but blocked or unlocked, involved admins should not protect the pages themselves, but rather refer to WP:RFP. I would recommend that the page is unprotected, and if necessary relisted on RfP, after which the page can be re-protected by an uninvolved admin, if the request looks reasonable. (i.e. if a couple of people support the protection, I will protect it blindly, after waiting an unspecified time, without looking at the present version) dab (ᛏ) 11:58, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

172 13:17, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This edit [6] may or may not have been a revert, but [7], [8], [9], and [10] are four reverts within 24 hours. This is also regardless of which section was reverted. You have violated the 3RR, and should be blocked for 24 hours. Unblocking yourself is a most unappropriate action for an admin! -- Chris 73 Talk 13:21, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

look, 172 was edit-warring, and courting with the 3RR. The "may or may not have been a revert" edit is questionable, and therefore the block is arguable. Of course 172 should not unblock himself, but as long as he is only unblocking himself to state his case here (and not continuing any edit wars), he does not do much harm. The "first revert" of 20:10, 27 Feb 2005 on the other hand, that everybody keeps pointing to, is bullshit. I mean, the pointing is, not the edit itself. It is a completely unrelated, non-edit-warring, useful revert of an incorrect anon edit. If you want to argue 172's block, use the other 3.5 reverts, but not this one, otherwise your argument appears flawed and in bad faith. I will not unblock 172 because I have no wish to start a blocking war, and because I feel the four Napoleon-related edits can be argued to constitute a 3RRvio. My personal opinion is that 172 should just sit out his block, in contrition or in anger, and be back tomorrow, instead of causing further complications over at Global warming, but also that the 3RR rule is being abused as a tool for (instead of against) edit warring by the people reporting 172. dab (ᛏ) 13:51, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm a bit disappointed that so many admins fell for Silverback's trick of reporting an earlier revert of an incorrect anon edit 13:10, 27 Feb 2005 as a part of the emigration edit war. The fourth emigration-related edit was also clearly no reversion, but rather an attempt to compromise and find some middle ground. Apparently, no one has objected to my compromise; it has not been reverted or even questioned on talk so far. BTW, I have no intention to sit out anything; I make no apologies for removing original research b.s. from a featured article repeatedly. After all, if we had as many contributors ensuring quality in our history articles as we have admins frantically patrolling this page (perhaps because they get off on playing policeman?), I wouldn't have had to make all the reversions myself. It's too bad that the impulse to write useful encyclopedia articles is not as strong as the one behind the fetishization and ritualization of the Wiki rules. 172 14:33, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing in the three revert rule about factual corrections. Since your "factual corrrection" did not include a source to back it up I have no reason even to think it is such particularly since you used the roleback button rather than manualy reverting which has the advantage of allowing you to leave an edit comment (and according to the Napoléon I of France article about half a million men did go missing whst killed them I don't know but hundreads of thousands is certianly an posible loss). You don't have to make all the revisions yourself you call for help. You presumerbly know the articles there must be at least one person you can call on to help (heck if all else fails throw it at the incerdents notice board). For ther record there are 2 maybe three people who watch this board. Long delays after 3RR requests are not popular and are not fair on either side. Finaly you have repeatedly accused me of not cheacking the diffs. I did and the history and I did direct comaprisons of your versions (there were four identicle ones). I have delt with a lot of accusations. Mostly true but enough false ones to keep me on my toes. I always check please do not accuse me of doing otherwise.Geni 18:50, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was no trick, I had already come to this page before even noticing the earlier revert. I have now corrected your "compromise", somehow you misinterpreted the fact that I did not immediately leap upon the opportunity presented by your being blocked as a failure to object. Your compromise was in bad faith, and I objected to it in those very words when reporting your behavior above. I thought it would be unseemly to take advantage of your being blocked. I see my courtesy was wasted on you.--Silverback 17:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I basically agree with you 172, and you will note I did not "fall" for Silverback, but that I condemn the bad-faith reporting of this '1st revert'. I do not think however that I am fetishizing WP rules so much than pointing out that any admin unblocking himself, rightly or wrongly, is going to expose himself to criticism. dab (ᛏ) 14:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That first revert was not bad faith, I see nothing in the definition which indicates why that revert, which was not of mere vandalism, did not count. I have always held that interpretation. Are you claiming the rule allows three reverts to the same version, in "each" edit war on a page you are involved in?--Silverback 17:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I guess I should've been clearer, but I wasn't referring to you. I just wanted to avoid naming any names. Thanks for actually bothering to take a look at the edits. 172 15:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is also where you acknowledge that it was poor form to unblock yourself and that in the future you'll ask someone else to do it. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:39, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

I needed to post a note explaining why personal theories/original research should be kept out of History of Russia-- a featured article. But I was running short of time, lacking the time to wait for someone else to correct the mistake (i.e. the block on my account). Maintaining high standards on an FA is especially pressing, as impressions of Wiki's credibility will be based heavily on it, and that weighed into my decision. Even so, I now regret being in a situation in which I'd decided to unblock myself, and, seeing the unnecessary hassle now, will not do so again in the future... It's now clear enough that the fetish cult around the rules has grown stronger than the impulse behind writing good articles; in the future I will better work around that reality, or not contribute to Wikipedia at all. 172 19:54, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What is this about running out of time? Wikipedia is not a multiplayer game, it's not a time-critical affair. If something needs to be done, it'll wait until tomorrow, or most likely someone else will do it if it urgently needs to be done. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:08, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Shame on you all, for stooping to this level. A blocking war amoungst admins, phooey! I've de-sysoped the lot of you:

• Geni
• 172
• Snowspinner
• Chris 73

I'm bringing this to the board for approval, or possible de-sysopping of my own account (see where I have placed myself on report. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:47, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Probably a bit overkill, but I appreciate the noble impulse. Somebody needed to inject some commonsense into this ridiculous situation. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:08, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Rovoam

Three revert rule violation on Nagorno-Karabakh. hist

Was a Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, looked into the matter, and it seems that Rovoam violated the 3RR, removing the disputed tag (and other stuff) 4 times in 24 hours. I am not sure if the user knows the 3RR, but he should not remove a disputed tag in an edit war.

• 1st revert: 23:14, Feb 28, 2005
• 2nd revert: 17:45, Feb 28, 2005
• 3rd revert: 08:04, Feb 28, 2005
• 4th revert: 06:35, Feb 28, 2005

Reported by: Chris 73 Talk 09:24, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC) U

blocked for 24 hoursGeni 11:36, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

user uses IP adresses for block evasion (User:64.136.27.228 and User:24.24.146.206). -- Chris 73 Talk 13:11, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)