Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive9

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

Violations

User:Maveric149

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

• First at 8:43 [1]
• Second at 12:22 [2]
• Third 13:41 [3]
• Fourth 14:21 [4]

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

It's not completely clear if those are all reverts, but if not they seem to be gaming it. He doesn't like the way it is, so he starts by changing it incrementally. Someone else reverts back. He then changes it more, and now his didn't count as a revert but the person reverting it has fewer reverts left. Is this as bad of a loophole with the 3RR as I see it as? --SPUI (talk) 00:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not really if it clear someone is gaming the rule they are likey to be blocked as if they had done more than 3 straight reverts.Geni 00:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's clear, they just aren't all reversions to the same version (with respect to what's in the bottom link of the template). Demi ^T/_C 01:05, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

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

User:JonGwynne

Three revert rule violation on Temperature record of the past 1000 years (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Note: JG is subject to a 1-revert per day limit on article related to global warming, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne. Note further that JG has had repeated 3RR bans in the past and violated this one per day limit on 20 Apr. (above). JonGwynne (talk · contribs):

• Phrase insertion: [5]
• 1st revert: [6]
• 2nd revert: [7]

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

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

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

User:Coolcat

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

• 1st revert: 17:30, 22 Apr 2005
• 2nd revert: 17:43, 22 Apr 2005
• 3rd revert: 07:58, 23 Apr 2005
• 4th revert: 08:50, 23 Apr 2005

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

Comments:

• Coolcat has been insisting on moving all the pictures in the Nanjing Massacre article to the 'Japanese atrocities' section, and has reverted the article 4 times within 24 hrs. to archieve that goal. Stereotek 07:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Update: 5th revert: 09:32, 23 Apr 2005 Stereotek 07:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Three revert rule violation on Pope Benedict XVI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 06:07, 23 Apr 2005
• 2nd revert: 05:05, 23 Apr 2005
• 3rd revert: 04:28, 23 Apr 2005
• 4th revert: 21:14, 22 Apr 2005

Reported by: MikeJ9919 08:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• A small excerpt from a revert war over the use of the title 'His Holiness'

After being listed here, User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has continued to revert to his version. Jonathunder 18:49, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

User:Jhballard

Three revert rule violation on Joan of Arc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jhballard (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: Revision as of 02:02, Apr 23, 2005 (Plus minor additions)
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 14:39, Apr 23, 2005 (Plus minor additions)
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 15:35, Apr 23, 2005
• 4th revert: Revision as of 15:55, Apr 23, 2005

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

Comments:

• User seems unable to accept that other users may have additional benefits to bring to the page. Has been reverted by at least three users. This seems to be the only page that the user edits, and therefore it is "owned".

The comment is false. I enjoy every bit of information that can be added to the page. Noisy's reverts deleted text I added, which benefits the page. I've requested for Noisy to discuss changes on the talk page many times in the past few weeks, but this entry of the 3RR is the only comment he has made on the talk page. Noisy has violated the 3RR, but I chose to try to dicuss it with him rather than block him. I've added other content to other pages; this one is just of a more active interest -- it's my family not my page. - Mr. Ballard 18:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Lantog

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

• 1st revert: 14:55
• 2nd revert: 18:44
• 3rd revert: 19:08
• 4th revert: 19:24
• 5th revert: 20:27

Reported by: AlexR 17:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Lantong maintains that the article states that John Money is part of queer theory - which the article does not. Hence he keeps removing that paragraph; in the past he also insisted of removing other bits of the article [8]. He also claims to be an "expert" on the subject (don't we know that phenomenon) and clearly voices his intention to make this article his personal property: " I cannot begin expanding, until it is settled -- if not by "consensus" than by fact ...". Seth Ilys did not want to block him, see talk page, but I disagree; given his past behaviour, he needs to see a STOP sign before things get worse.
  • I left him a warning on his talk page and on Talk:Queer theory. He has clearly violated the 3rr, but as he has at least started talking, I felt like blocking him would only escalate the situation, and so I did not. Anyone other admin, of course, may, under WP policy. - Seth Ilys 17:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I did not want to criticize Seth Ilys, I merely disagree. No offense intended. -- AlexR 18:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've offered on numerous occassions to engage AlexR in dialogue ... requesting quotes, texts, specific references to the use of a reputed "serious researcher" Dr. John Money in relation to queer theory. So far, none have been offered. AlexR has used his admin status to bully not only myself but others, see his talk page for some illustration. A good bit of my editing involved moving paragraphs from one section to another to allow more flow to the article. I admit to removing content involving Dr. Money, as well as prostitution, as none of these subjects have been made to connect to queer theory through use of any specifics. Further, as the talk discussion shows, the use of Dr. Money as a source for the article remains offensive.--Lantog 18:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not an admin. I have not bullied him, nor any other. He refuses to address any points made, instead cluttering the talk page about his seemingly infailable status as an "expert". Oh, yes, and he reverted a 5th time. -- AlexR 19:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

User:JonGwynne

Three revert rule violation on Attribution of recent climate change (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Note: JG is subject to a 1-revert per day limit on article related to global warming, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne. Note further that JG has had repeated 3RR bans in the past; and been banned just recently for a similar vio. JonGwynne (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 16:30, 22 Apr 2005 (this removes 1/2 a para)
• 2nd revert: 20:28, 22 Apr 2005 (removes the whole para, hence a revert)
• 3rd revert: 20:08, 23 Apr 2005 (same as 2, hence second revert in 24h)

Reported by: William M. Connolley 20:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

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

User:Gabrielsimon

Three revert rule violation on Vampire lifestyle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

• 1st revert: 18:25, Apr 23, 2005
• 2nd revert: 20:26, Apr 23, 2005
• 3rd revert: 20:46, Apr 23, 2005
• 4rd revert: 21:02, Apr 23, 2005

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

Comments:

• the revert at 22.26 isn't a direct revert.I'm not sure about this one Geni 03:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • None of the reverts listed occured at 22:26 (you mean 20:26?). I'm confused, it seems like an obvious 3RR violation except perhaps that Gabrielsimon thinks this is vandalism. BrokenSegue
    • 16:10, 23 Apr 2005 is also a revert
    • I don't see how he could honestly believe it's vandalism, as the text I restored was the original text and had been there for a while, it wasn't something I added to be snarky or anything. I'm sure he called it vandalism because I've been removing his vandalism to my talk page and decided to accuse me of doing what he was doing elsewhere. All the examples above are direct reverts. DreamGuy 04:38, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • no 02.26 (GMT) it the one lable 20.26 (down with time zones). there are a couple of other changes there as well as the deletion. Geni 04:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • He made a couple of changes that I reverted along with the main one, but his next act was to revert to one of his edits. The fact that he reverted to one without those other changes he also did doesn't make it any less of a revert. All of the reverts above do the same thing: go back to an earlier version where he had removed a point he disagrees with. DreamGuy 04:50, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • I know this that is why I said I was not sure I need to cheack a few things. Geni 05:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Gabrielsimon blocked for 10 hours. Geni 05:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:64.12.116.197

Three revert rule violation on Joan of Arc.

• 1st revert: 17:22, 24 Apr 2005
• 2nd revert: 18:33, 24 Apr 2005
• 3rd revert: 19:29, 24 Apr 2005
• 4th revert: 19:31, 24 Apr 2005

Reported by: Mr. Ballard 03:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• The anonymous user has failed to discuss the changes even when the page is under dispute as specifically ask for discussion. The reverts appear more as a personal attack to undo information that may benefit the page, like mere citations and other forms of popular names for Joan of Arc. I've pleaded not to revert the references section that contain the citations many times over the past week. The anonymous user tends to specifically target my changes, as well as others. The reverts, like the IJAS link, appear to be quick and without thought compared to its intended fix.
• Moved this above "Report New Violation", as per instructions --MikeJ9919 04:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Three revert rule violation on Pope Benedict XVI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 04:09, 25 Apr 2005
• 2nd revert: 03:48, 25 Apr 2005
• 3rd revert: 02:56, 25 Apr 2005
• 4th revert: 18:46, 24 Apr 2005

Reported by: MikeJ9919 04:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

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

User:Gzuckier

Three revert rule violation on Yale University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Attempting to stop editing of a section on strange homicides. Gzuckier (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 01:48, 26 Apr 2005
• 2nd revert: 01:49, 26 Apr 2005
• 3rd revert: 07:17, 25 Apr 2005
• 4th revert: 13:07, 25 Apr 2005

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

Reported by: Harro5 07:41, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• I'm only seeing 3 direct reverts. The 2nd edit takes away information which doesn't appear to be disputed, nor reverted. Inter\^Echo 09:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• HELP!!! Excuse me if this is lengthy, but it's getting out of hand and I'm wondering if I'm completely off base. On Yale University I added a section on murders of random students, the effects on Yale admissions, and how Yale handled the most recent such crime, in response to a suggestion on Talk:Yale_University#Famous on campus tragedies by User: Patrick Grey Anderson who felt it was relevant, and with explanation in Talk:Yale_University#Famous on campus tragedies of my thinking as to relevance. User:Harro5 apparently got inspired and added a similar segment to a lot of colleges which were then deleted from most of them, random murders of students by townspeople not being a big feature of life at MIT or for their admission process, for instance. See here and User talk:Harro5, as I wasn't in on it or privy to all the details.
  • On April 24:
    • anon user 4.22x.X.X deleted the entire Yale_University#Miscellany section from the Yale article, with only explanation being an edit summary Other high profile crimes - Not necessarily high profile; "significant" violates NPOV; deleted redundant material on the Jovin case, which already appears in the article on Jovin. Note: deleted entire miscellany section, not just the high profile crimes section.
    • 14:40, 24 Apr 2005 I partially restored it, deleting some of crime section in consideration of user 4.22x.X.X's "suggestions", with edit summary why it was important for yale that this not be 'random murder', i.e. the piece I did not delete as 'redundant'.
    • User:Harro5 deleted entire miscellany section again, with only edit summary For reasoning see here, said link being where it was decided not to include his edits to MIT page, with no suggestion that he or others should remove similar section from Yale.
  • On April 25:
    • 15:48, 25 Apr 2005 I restored miscellany section with edit summary wondering how deletion was supposedly somehow due to MIT's suicide rate., the target of the link which given in the edit summary of the deletion.
    • user 4.22x.X.X deleted entire miscellany section again, with only an edit summary. Removed Vandalism from User: Gzuckier. For reasoning see here, same irrelevant link as before. Note accusing me of vandalism for restoring his unilateral edit, or bilateral if you include User:Harro5
    • 21:17, 25 Apr 2005 I restored miscellany section with edit summary reverted big chop by self-appointed VandalAvenger who appears to believe that the talk:MIT article forbids the yale article mentioning bladderball. I admit to getting annoyed, being called a vandal and all, but I still don't see link to MIT suicides as great justification for deleting section on Yale bladderball, frisbee, golf course, etc. with no other discussion.
  • On April 26:
    • user 4.22x.X.X deleted more specifically high profile crimes section again, with only explanation repeat of edit summary: Removed Vandalism from User: Gzuckier. Note again accusing me of vandalism for restoring his unilateral/bilateral edit. At least the rest of the miscellany section was spared this time.
    • 03:07, 26 Apr 2005 I restored crimes section, explained thinking on User_talk:Harro5#Message_regarding_.22random_comments and in Talk:Yale University for user 4.22x.X.X.
    • user 4.22x.X.X leaves message on User talk:Harro5 complaining that I have "added no justification or argument to the discussion", have "an attitude of not wanting to discuss the issue in a serious manner" and request that User:Harro5 report me for three revert rule violation. Note 1: I have justified the section when I wrote it, on User talk:Harro5, and on Talk:Yale University; whereas User:Harro5 and user 4.22x.X.X have done nothing but post links to Talk:Massachusetts_Institute_of_Technology#Deaths_and_suicides and call me a vandal. Note 2: I took pains to NOT violate the three revert rule, and did not.
    • User:Harro5 deleted high profile crimes section again, with only edit summary rv. added gzuckier to the Three Revert Rule violators list.
    • User:Harro5 attempts to report me for three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Administrator notes that I did not make three reverts within 24 hours.
    • User:Nunh-huh (spontaneously without contact from or to me of any kind) restores section, with edit summary:there's no reason to delete this material.
• So am I totally offbase here? Gzuckier 19:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  This is not the place for this. I would suggest you put up a Request for comments on this situation. It is more appropriate there. If you want mediation, that can also be arranged. Inter\^Echo 20:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Gabrielsimon and User:DreamGuy

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

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

DreamGuy (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: [13]
• 2nd revert: [14]
• 3rd revert: [15]
• 4th revert: [16]
• 5th revert: [17]

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

Comments:

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

Gabrielsimon already has been blocked for violating the 3RR rule on the same article once before. He also has been nonstop harassing me on my talkpage for several days, for which vandalism reports and a request for assistance at the village pump have done absolutely nothing. He's completely unrepetant and has never made a change to an article I've seen yet that was not strongly biased. He should have been prevented from making any further changes a long time ago. I was taking pains to try to explain the concepts to him, but he insists upon labeling my restoration of a previous editor's additions as vandalism. I've also been trying to count reverts so as to not end up violating the three revert rule (see pass history of the page to see where I left the bad version solely for no other reason than for not getting into trouble with this policy even if it meant letting the other editor constantly get away with his biased edits) but apparently miscounted somwhere. I am getting thoroughly disgusted with Wikipedia at this point, as this person constantly harasses me and makes blatantly biased edits and nobody else seems to care or even responds to the help request or the vandal report I made. And Nickptar's claim that nobody prevented evidence on the talk page is complete nonsense. If he'd bother to read the posts from before he ever showed up on that page (or looked when i pointed them out to him) he'd see that it was already explained, but instead he just keeps asking for evidence over and over that is already there. DreamGuy 03:46, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I am sorry for being frustrated and putting my frustration in that bit above. Since then Gabrielsimon tried yet again to report *me* for vandalism, and for the edits in the revert war mentioned above of all things. Some admins have stepped in to say he was out of line and even go so far as do the reverts to the page in question above for me (but of course Gabrielsimon reverted that too, not sure how many reverts that makes it for him). I'm now feeling a bit better about the Wikipedia experience in that eventually some people show up to support me for doing what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. If you need to ban me for the screw up on the miscount of reverts earlier, feel free, it's only fair. DreamGuy 12:04, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clearly seeing the facts of the case. See my statement on Talk:Vampire lifestyle. Nickptar 14:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Report new violation

User:Marco Krohn

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

• 1st revert: 00:16, 27 Apr 2005
• 2nd revert: 09:29, 27 Apr 2005
• 3rd revert: 16:54, 27 Apr 2005
• 4th revert: 18:02, 27 Apr 2005

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