Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive9: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎[[User:151.188.16.14]]: Those diffs have been deleted
JonGwynne (talk | contribs)
2,030 edits
Line 556: Line 556:
Again, Cantus uses a sockpuppet (200.83.186.180) on [[Template:Europe]] to get around his one-revert limit. Note his previous use of 200.83.* IPs which were already determined by David Gerard to be Cantus. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive23#Cantus] [[User:NoPuzzleStranger|NoPuzzleStranger]] 23:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Again, Cantus uses a sockpuppet (200.83.186.180) on [[Template:Europe]] to get around his one-revert limit. Note his previous use of 200.83.* IPs which were already determined by David Gerard to be Cantus. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive23#Cantus] [[User:NoPuzzleStranger|NoPuzzleStranger]] 23:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


⚫
== Report new violation ==


⚫
=== [[User:William M. Connolley]] ===
⚫
<!-- <nowiki>
⚫
This is the template to report violations from now on. Make a ***COPY*** of the rest of this template ***above*** the "Report new violation" header, and fill in the fields appropriately. Do ***NOT EDIT THIS COPY***. (Irritated admins may simply revert your filing, to repair this template, if you don't do this.)
⚫
Note: "DiffLink" refers to a "diff" link from the history, not a link to a specific *version*; to get one, click the two radio-buttons on the appropriate adjacent history entries, then click on the "Compare selected versions" button, and then copy the URL of the page you are sent to, to get a DiffLink. Doing this, rather than just linking to versions, makes it much easier for an admin to look at the violation you are reporting. See the example at the top of this page if needed.
⚫
Also: It would be helpful if editors could supply a link to the version that the first revert reverted to, because it can be hard to find if you haven't been involved in editing the article, especially if it's a complex revert.


Temporary injunction violation on {{Article|Medieval Warm Period}}. {{User|William M. Connolley}}


* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Medieval_Warm_Period&diff=14273406&oldid=14121475]
⚫
=== [[User:USERNAME]] ===
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Medieval_Warm_Period&diff=14281377&oldid=14273406]


[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|ARTICLENAME}}. {{User|USERNAME}}:


Reported by: --00:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[[User:JonGwynne|JonGwynne]]
* 1st revert: [DiffLink Time]
* 2nd revert: [DiffLink Time]
* 3rd revert: [DiffLink Time]
* 4th revert: [DiffLink Time]


WMC is subject to a temporary injunction barring him from more than one revert in a 24 hour period. Furthermore, it requires each revert to be backed up on the relevant talk page. WMC has failed to do so - the whole of his supporting documentation is "I've reverted, of course." In addition, I'd like to point out that WMC has engaged in grotesque incivility - referring to another users edits as "foolishness". According to the terms of the injunction, Administrators are requested to consider these as violations of the 3RR. As they will also note, there are other examples of his refusal to abide by wikipedia rules in this area. Please ban him accordingly. --[[User:JonGwynne|JonGwynne]] 00:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Reported by: ~~~~


⚫
== Report new violation ==

⚫
<!-- <nowiki>
⚫
This is the template to report violations from now on. Make a ***COPY*** of the rest of this template ***above*** the "Report new violation" header, and fill in the fields appropriately. Do ***NOT EDIT THIS COPY***. (Irritated admins may simply revert your filing, to repair this template, if you don't do this.)
⚫
Note: "DiffLink" refers to a "diff" link from the history, not a link to a specific *version*; to get one, click the two radio-buttons on the appropriate adjacent history entries, then click on the "Compare selected versions" button, and then copy the URL of the page you are sent to, to get a DiffLink. Doing this, rather than just linking to versions, makes it much easier for an admin to look at the violation you are reporting. See the example at the top of this page if needed.
⚫
Also: It would be helpful if editors could supply a link to the version that the first revert reverted to, because it can be hard to find if you haven't been involved in editing the article, especially if it's a complex revert.


'''Comments:'''


*


Note: Please sign comments (with "~~~~") even if you are the original nominator.


</nowiki> -->
</nowiki> -->

Revision as of 00:59, 27 May 2005

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to create a new report


    Violations

    User:Trey Stone

    Three revert rule violation on Fidel Castro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Trey Stone (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Mark1 07:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • With minor variations, the version reverted to is [1]. Mark1 07:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
    • The 4th revert indicates that Trey has the incorrect belief that the 3RR only applies to identical reverts. In fact, it applies to reverts to the same article, whether they are reverts of the same or of different material. Firebug 07:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
    • It's worse then just a 3RR, I asked everyone (in a new subsection) to keep my minor fixes, making sure the first footnote was 1 and not 5, and other purely technical fixes, TDC ignored that in his revert. I respond with: PLEASE READ THE EDIT SUMMARY tdc, and Trey Stone in his next edit summary tell me to watch the language (how else can I get attention in such an edit war), and after that proceeds to revert, ignoring all my minor fixes. I point this out to him, and he fixes some of them, but the first footnote remains 5 and not 1 with his last revert (of WebLuis, who also ignored my pleas). Never would I have imagined that fixing a footnote would prove such an insurmoutable feat. El_C 08:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
    Blocked for 24 hours. Although there are minor differences, he reverted to communist state from socialist state four times. No need for a warning in this case as he's been blocked for 3RR three times in the last eight days. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:29, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

    User:KEITH

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

    Comments:

    • Not the first time here. Again for Nicaragua. Some of the edits are from anon Mexico City IP addresses, clearly identifiable as KEITH. Also blanked Slim Virginia's message on his talk page here, SqueakBox 01:15, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Repeated requests on his talk page by SqueakBox and myself for him to discuss rather than continuously re-inserting his edits have proved fruitless. Has reverted probably 20 or more times in the last few days on this article now. Worldtraveller 01:31, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

    User:Grace Note

    Three revert rule violation on Fidel Castro. Grace Note:

    Reported by: J. Parker Stone 01:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: I should think that the slight difference in the last RV (the fact that the picture has been removed) should not matter, considering I was blocked for "reverts" of a phrase while editting differently other aspects.

    Take this with a grain of salt: the user complaining states on his user page that he "dislikes Marxist apologists and will revert their biased work wherever I see it, especially if their name happens to be ..." Tannin 02:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
    This is irrelevant. And quite frankly, I don't see what's so POV about wanting to eliminate left-bias from this encyclopedia, other than that it offends certain users' sensibilities. J. Parker Stone 02:22, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
    does User:Grace Note have any history of gameing the 3RR?Geni 02:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
    excuse me? the fact is that he has reverted the intro 4 times. i have only "gamed" the 3RR in that I have tried to make compromise edits (something he has not done) only to be continually reported by POV-pushers on that article. if reverting a phrase counts as a reversion, surely this does. J. Parker Stone 02:22, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
    and I was unaware that there are shifting standards for what is a 3RR violation depending on history (there isn't supposed to be) J. Parker Stone 02:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
    Well now yopu learn (although this fact has been stated in the past. I like to be as sure as I can be that someone is gameing the rule if I'm going to block them for that. Past activity is an important pice of information.Geni 10:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
    From the look of it this is very new behaviour and looks like her first offence. Only a handful of edits till April 8, now 1333, mostly in uncontroversial subjects. Seemed to get involved in Kissinger before Castro. Must know the 3RR because of her interest in Trey Stone, SqueakBox 02:24, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Trey Stone

    Three revert rule violation on Amy Goodman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Trey Stone (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Davenbelle 10:34, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Coolcat

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

    Reported by: Stereotek 18:36, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • The user has (among other many other things) insisted on removing the cleanup tag and changing the headlines of the external links. The user has reverted the article 4 times within 24 hours in order to make these changes. The users first revert was to this version of the article: [2] Stereotek 18:36, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

    Based on these clearer diffs:

    a 3RR violation is indeed apparent. Blocked for 24 hours. -- Viajero | Talk 19:36, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

    Anon

    Three revert rule violation on Erika Steinbach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Pila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - 83.109.166.232 (talk · contribs), 83.109.180.84 (talk · contribs), 83.109.185.54 (talk · contribs), 83.109.157.171 (talk · contribs), 83.109.180.201 (talk · contribs):

    Erika Steinbach:

    Reported by: --Witkacy 04:35, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

    That that is an awfully big range to block. I could protect the page against them if their actions continue.Geni 08:35, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
    The "anon" reverted again on Erika Steinbach see: [9], 83.109.172.229 (talk · contribs), 83.109.179.168 (talk · contribs), 83.109.188.75 (talk · contribs), 83.109.147.55 (talk · contribs), 83.109.183.52 (talk · contribs), 83.109.183.84 (talk · contribs), 83.109.191.90 (talk · contribs), 83.109.140.47 (talk · contribs) --Witkacy 03:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
    Could someone protect the Erika Steinbach article, please? Thx. That user changing every 5 minutes his IP...--Witkacy 04:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

    Violation (today) of the 3rr on Erika Steinbach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    The page is now protected, but please revert to the last version. The current version is of that anon vandal.--Witkacy 05:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

    User:William M. Connolley

    Three revert rule violation on Global climate model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). William M. Connolley (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: — Cortonin | Talk 20:59, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    blocked for 24 hours.Geni 00:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

    User:Zappaz

    Three revert rule violation on List_of_self-proclaimed_deities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gmaxwell (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Gmaxwell 05:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: I was asked to check out a dispute on an article where the long standing editors were hesitant to get into an increased revert war. I reverted some formatting destroying changes, and was promptly reverted by Zappaz.

    User:ElKabong

    Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/KaintheScion (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/KaintheScion|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ElKabong (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: ElKabong is in fact KaintheScion (talk · contribs), the subject of the RfC from which he's removing evidence. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

    Blocked for 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:59, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
    ElKabong returned during his block as 66.69.141.11 (talk · contribs), edited Dhimmi, and removed the sockpuppet notice from User:KaintheScion's user page, so I've blocked the IP address for 24 hours too. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:27, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
    I'm now getting e-mails from a Cranston Snord as User:66.69.141.11 insisting that he's not KaintheScion and ElKabong, and making more abusive-admin allegations. If anyone would like to review his edits to check that the decision to block was justified, by all means feel free. It's the same editing pattern, and the IP address resolves to the same city as KaintheScion's. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:12, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
    You will be UTTERLY AMAZED to know it's Kain's DSL - David Gerard 00:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, that is a surprise. Still, his Cranston Snord e-mail didn't contain a single swear word, so he may be learning something from this process, if nothing else. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:52, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
    It was his email to me as Kain calling me a "lying son of a fascist whore" that really got me. "fascist whore"? Someone on IRC said "presumably they make the trains come on time" - David Gerard 14:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    LOL!!! He must have had more respect for me. I was only a "mentally impaired power-mad moron." SlimVirgin (talk) 14:47, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
    I have to get in on this, I haven't gotten a good oppressed-o-gram in my inbox in a while. silsor 15:56, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
    He has came back from the block, reverted KaintheScion's user page four times today. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

    User:Argyrosargyrou

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

    Reported by: --19:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)E.A

    Comments: User:Argyrosargyrou is reverting the article Cyprus dispute along his own lines, despite the best efforts of a number of editors to reinstate a netural version, he has been warned about the 3RR but is continuing regardless.

    User:Ultramarine

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

    Reported by: zen master T 21:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


    blocked for 24 hoursGeni 21:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

    User:67.150.???.???

    Three revert rule violation on Caucasian Albania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.150.38.114 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Who 21:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:SouthernComfort

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

    Reported by: violet/riga (t) 22:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • One of many articles on which this user is revert warring to push his preference of the BCE/CE system. He has avoided the 3RR on most (not checked them all) articles but has clearly broken it here. violet/riga (t) 22:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

    You think...(?) a tad inappropriate... You probably should not have been the one to protect the article either. If this is the user's 1st offence, and there are no specific objections, I am inclined to significantly reduce the block period. El_C 22:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

    I really hope you don't as I'll have to put it back to 24 hours! He has been edit warring on numerous articles, has been warned by more than one admin about the 3RR and has clearly broken it. To reduce the ban would be a clear violation of the rules. As for protecting the other article I went through the correct channels and waited for 11 hours. I then requested on IRC but still the article didn't become protected. In that time the reverts had continued and so I protected it. violet/riga (t) 08:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    This is rather worrying. You protected an article on which you'd been involved? There's nothing in policy that says that impatience is a reason for breaking the rules on this. Why didn't you simply contact another admin directly, and ask for help? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    I echo Mel's concerns, strongly. Also, I note how insistent you seem to be for the user to suffer the entire 24 hour maximum of the block, even threatning to re-block yourself (?), stating: "I really hope you don't as I'll have to put it back to 24 hours!" (and recall, I was only asking for objections and/or lack thereof for reducing the block) Sorry, I'm afraid that it dosen't inspire confidence at this time. El_C 09:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    "Inspire confidence" in what? I'm insistent that a person that has violated the 3RR be punished as per the rules, surely that's correct? As for protecting the article then I totally stand by my decision to do it, considering that I attempted to get other people to do it and got no response. violet/riga (t) 10:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    Sorry, just read that back and it sounds a little rude. I know you're not supposed to protect articles in which you're involved, but I tried to show inpartiality. Technically my involvement was only to return the article to its pre-edit war state and attempt discussions, but they continued to edit war. violet/riga (t) 10:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    It's okay. Anyway, I think you are just too involved in this. And it bothers me that you ask for the maximum block time (which isn't applied in all 3RR cases, esp. 1st offences), yet you yourself seem to have violated 1PP (I hope you're following me: WP:RFPP#Zanskar ). Was it really that urgent to protect it right then and there? (rather than post a RFPP and wait a bit longer) ? El_C 11:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    Not quite following the Zanskar bit. I posted the RFPP and waited 11 hours. Seeing as nobody was doing anything about it (I considering that it'd been going on for 5 days) I decided to step in and make sure it was done before I went to bed for the night - I didn't want to wake up and see there'd been still more pointless edit warring. violet/riga (t) 12:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    No doubt you don't follow that, both dates say 13 May, I misread one as 12. Sorry about that. My point, though, that revert-wise it dosen't seem to have been that out of control. El_C 12:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    I'm still unsure why you mention Zanskar - I've never been to that article. As for the protection, please remember that it's list of kings of Persia that I protected, which, I think, was out of hand. violet/riga (t) 12:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    WRT the maximum block. I really think he should've been blocked for the 24 hours because of the similar acitivities on many other pages and the fact that he was warned about it by myself (who opposes his tactics) and Slrubenstein (who supports his changes). violet/riga (t) 12:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    And yet you yourself engaged in this 'revert warring' that you accuse me of and defend Jguk who initiated this to begin with and has been at the forefront in POV warring. SouthernComfort 12:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    You clearly aren't bothering to look at anything I'm saying. violet/riga (t) 12:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    Oh I know exactly what you are saying and it offends me that you would ask for the maximum block and yet still continue to claim impartiality. SouthernComfort 13:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    Neither of you are impartial, and I don't think this exchange is productive at the moment. El_C 13:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    For the record, I have never claimed impartiality and have made my POV very clear. SouthernComfort 13:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    I only count three - once after Geni converted all BCE/CE to BC/AD manually, I also manually converted back to BCE/CE. SouthernComfort 22:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
    Sorry but the four shown above are all reverts. violet/riga (t) 08:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, they clearly are. So, am I gather there are no objections to reduce the block's duration...(?) El_C 08:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    No, it was an edit. A revert involves returning the text to its previous state, but this was a completely new change to the article. (In any case, something else that I should have noticed was that SouthernComfort hadn't been warned, and it seems clear that he didn't think that he'd broken the rule. There's plenty of precedent above and in the archives for giving editors a warning in such cases — though in fact even a warning would have been inappropriate in this case). I'll be more vigilant in future.
    I'm of course assuming good faith, and that the other editors involved in the edit war, including violet/riga, were also unaware that the first of the four edits wasn't a revert. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    I disagree, Mel, in relation to the diff I cited above, the first edit can and, indeed, should be counted as a revert. I am more than comfortable with leaving SC unblocked, however, I do wish to get this technical point across. El_C 09:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

    Mel, please reread From initial change 11:19, 24 May 2005, then the following edit bellow changes the dates back, it –is– a revert:

    El_C 09:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC) In order got the first one to be a revert, it must be reverting; in fact, though, it's making an initial change. That change is reverted, and the war begins. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

    Sorry but I really am at a loss as to how you've interpreted this as not being a 3RR. violet/riga (t) 10:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    Please see my bold emphasis above, Mel. El_C 10:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    I've changed it from 07:19 to 11:19 as that seems to be the actual time. The point still stands, though. Might it be a good idea to ask people to add the diff for the initial change too? Or is it assumed that we're going to check them thoroughly anyway? violet/riga (t) 10:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    Please compare the diffs - the first so-called "revert" listed is a change (go to the end of the diff), not a revert. SouthernComfort 10:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    Even if it introduced something different to the article it still reverted the BC/AD and BCE/CE bits, so it's still a revert. violet/riga (t) 11:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    Exactly. The dates were changed back in each and evry one of the four occasions, which followed 11:19, 24 May 2005. El_C 11:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    How can it be a revert if I didn't go to the history and revert to a previous version? If I had changed each section separately, as Geni had done, would that have been better, or made any difference? SouthernComfort 11:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    A "revert" doesn't refer to going to a previous version and reverting that one back, it means reverting to a previous version by any means, and that includes doing the same activity repeatedly. In other words, clicking on the edit button and replaceing BCE is the equivalent to changing it back via history. violet/riga (t) 12:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    Otherwise, 3RR would have no meaning: everyone would be reverting to their versions as many times as they wish without reverting whole revisions because they added or modified certain portions of it. For the 3RR to work, it's the insertion of the contested, previously-reverted version of something or other which is the revert (it could, of course, also amount to a whole article revision). El_C 12:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    If we want to get technical about things, then what I did was not technically a revert. I made a change along with changing the dates dating convention. At least I did it honestly, rather than going through each separate section as Geni had done (along with comments implying that she was making other edits) which is rather disingenuous. SouthernComfort 12:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    It was technically a revert, sorry. If you want me to look into your claims regarding Geni's edits which you argue were disingenuous, I'm going to need to see individual diffs. El_C 13:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    Geni's edits: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. This is what I'm talking about when I say 'disingenuous.' SouthernComfort 13:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    Sorry, I'm not seeing it. What I see is dating war edits along with other edits which are of no consequnce for our immediate purposes here as per your claims. What am I missing? El_C 13:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    Man, you're missing the disingenuity! If you can't see it, then what can I say? ;) Anyway, I was trying to make a point - i.e. that I didn't edit each separate section to remove the dating ceonventions while leaving comments implying other edits and so forth. Perhaps the lesson to be learned from this is that this sort of disingenuity (removing minor data section by section) is potentially helpful in avoiding accusations of reversion. SouthernComfort 13:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    Well, regardless of what the facts may or may not be, I'm not sure how illustrative and clear your explantion was. I suggest you submitt it to the RFAr and see if the arbitrators are able to see what is so obvious to you, I have no authority here anyway. El_C 14:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    See the diffs I provided below. After Paul Barlow's edits (made after Geni's reversion) the article returned to the previous dating convention, but with new edits made by Paul. I did not revert those edits. Instead I made new edits while changing the dating convention as well. This is an entirely new initial change since new edits were made after Geni's reversion, and those new contribs were not reverted. What would arbitration accomplish? SouthernComfort 15:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

    I'm clearly missing something here. What is claimed to be the initial change to which these four reverts are reverting? Could someone supply the diff? How far back in the History is it? If I make a change to an article, then revert to it three times, can I be found guilty of four reverts because at some time in the past my change had been made before, so that technically I'm reverting? How far back is that allowed to go? At the very least, it seems to me that this risks offending against the spirit and purpose of the 3RR. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC) Mel, in all fairness, I have supplied the pertinent diff more than once now. All 5 edits (initial plus 4 reverts) were made within a 24 hour-span. El_C 14:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

    The issue is confused because of Geni's disingenuous method of editing. It confused me as well. I make an initial edit, she removes all those edits section by section (see diffs above), thus the article returns to its previous state. Then I change the conventions back to BCE/CE as well as adding other legitimate edits. Then the out-and-out reversions begin. SouthernComfort 13:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    This was my first reversion: [21]. There were only two reverts after that. SouthernComfort 13:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    Also, after Geni's first revert, another user made edits to the article which I did not revert. His contribs remained in the article after I edited. I stand by my word of three reverts and emphatically reject the accusations. SouthernComfort 13:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    Paul Barlow's edits after Geni's reversion (which I did not revert): [22] [23] [24]. SouthernComfort 14:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

    I'm sorry but I can't see how we can make it much clearer than it's shown above! It's a blatant 3RR violation. violet/riga (t) 14:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

    Indeed, neither can I. And yet the circularity persists, somehow. El_C 14:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    I agree. It's a clear example of it. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:30, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
    Phew! For a moment there I thought I was hallucinating other people's hallucinations. El_C 14:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

    I think that Mel unblocking him after 10 hours wasn't really the right thing to do considering that there were two admins explaining that he had indeed violated the 3RR. I do think he should've served the full 24 hours. However, I'm not about to do anything about it myself. violet/riga (t) 14:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

    I've just looked at his talk page to see whether there was a warning, and it seems there wasn't. This would matter less if he's violated it elsewhere recently, or was system gaming and miscalculated, but I don't know anything about the pattern of edits. It's worrying, though, that he's still claiming this wasn't a "technical" violation, whatever that means. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:19, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
    The easiest way would be to investigate the history section [25] itself to compare the pattern of edits. SouthernComfort 15:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    I meant your recent pattern of edits overall, not just in this article. I'd be interested to know what you mean by saying this was "not technically a revert." If you do explain, please don't mention what anyone else did: all that matters is whether you reverted to a previous version more than three times within 24 hours, and you did. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:39, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
    As I have explained above, I only reverted to a previous version three times. My edits after Paul Barlow contribs [26] (made after Geni's first revert) was not a revert since his contribs remained in the article. Please see Paul Barlow's diffs above and compare with this version. Again, I did not revert to a previous version, but it is claimed that I did and they're counting that as a revert despite the obvious fact that I did not revert to an earlier version. If there are any doubts, this is WP and everything is well recorded and anyone can look at my edit history to see what I did or did not do. SouthernComfort 15:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    You reverted to BCE/CE more than three times in 24 hours, as the diffs clearly show. Why are you not counting these as reverts? SlimVirgin (talk) 15:53, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
    Because I did not revert to a previous version. If you're counting the fact that I changed the dating conventions after Paul's contribs (as well as including another unrelated edit) and counting that as a revert, then I think I have a serious misunderstanding of what reversion means, since I thought reverting only referred to clicking on the history and reverting to a previous version. I only did that three times. SouthernComfort 15:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    What you are describing is what is known as a "complex revert", or as "gaming the revert rule". You reverted to a preferred portion of a previous text, while not reverting all of it. People regularly do this in order to skirt the 3RR; if Wikipedia allowed this, then no-one would ever have to worry about the 3RR at all, since they could always make small other changes to the article so that they hadn't made reverts to exact previous version of the article. Jayjg (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    Alright, I didn't know that at all, and from what you're describing, this is official policy. At least now I've got that clarified. SouthernComfort 16:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

    First, I can now see where the first change is that I'd missed, and there was clearly a 3RR violation. My worry is that a fair number of changes, most of them unrelated, and made by a number of users, separated SouthernComfort's first introduction of the change from the set of changes in question. That's why I believed that my initial block had been too hasty, because the little revert war was sufficiently separated from that first change that it looked as though the first revert was in fact not a revert at all (as I explained above). My feeling is that this situation is at least at the edge of what the 3RR was designed to cover, but no-one seems to agree with me on that, so let it pass. Secondly, it's common practice for first offenders (especially those who received no warning (pace violet/riga), and who have violated 3RR as the result of a misunderstanding) should be let off with a warning. A ten-hour block is more than sufficient punishment. violet/riga seems to be demanding a pound of flesh here, but is clearly emotionally involved in the case (as the protection of List of kings of Persia against the rules also indicates). Could we drop this now? I made an initial mistake in not checking for warnings. I then made a second mistake in not checking the history as well as the diffs (though that that mistake was cancelled out by the first). I've apologised, and do so again. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. What do you want, blood? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

    Warnings were from me [27] regarding another article he nearly 3RR'd on and Slrubenstein [28] when he gave him tips on "dealing with problem users" (Jguk). I find the accusations of being "personally involved" quite frustrating when my entire participation on this to help resolve the issue (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Eras) with my edits being to revert to a previously accepted version and to try to work towards a compromise. I think that Jguk has been showing some POV and edit-warring too much, but it is SouthernComfort that has gone around and changed them all, kicking this situation off. He can't just carry on reverting and this violation should be used to demonstrate that. violet/riga (t) 17:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    Excuse me, but I have never violated any WP policy by going around changing dating conventions from BC/AD to BCE/CE. For you to accuse me of wrongdoing based on this is absurd, especially when there has been a distinct lack of opposition from most editors involved with these articles. This violation doesn't change anything as far as I'm concerned and I refuse to be badgered and bullied. SouthernComfort 18:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    When you say this violation doesn't change anything, you're wrong in at least one regard, because it means that several of us will be watching your edits, and if you violate 3RR again, you'll be blocked for 24 hours without warning. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:17, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
    I invite everyone to watch every single edit and reversion I make. I wasn't clear on the exact WP definition of reversion, and now that I am I won't make this one single mistake again. SouthernComfort 19:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    Better still, stop making reversions. Violet has created a page with a proposal regarding BCE/CE, so the correct thing to do is wait for the outcome of that debate, and leave things as they are in the meantime. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:36, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Bamboo

    Three revert rule violation on Yoweri Museveni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bamboo (talk · contribs) also using 81.199.23.86 (talk · contribs) as sockpuppet:

    Reported by: TreveXtalk 21:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments (moved from incorrect listing in Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress):

    This is the basis upon which Bamboo and associates will continue uploading the same article on Museveni and will ignore the attempts to censure our contribution on Museveni. (from Talk:Yoweri Museveni#comment)
      • What he means by associates is unclear as several experienced users are of the belief that he is acting alone. The edit wars result from a refusal to reference statements including claims that Yoweri Museveni suffers from bi-polar disorder and qualification of universally accepted human rights abuse information from Idi Amin ([31]). TreveXtalk 19:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

    For the record. 16:59, 24 May 2005 CryptoDerk blocked "User:Bamboo" with an expiry time of 24 hours (POV edits, sockpuppetry to revert, etc.) El_C 08:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

    User:William M. Connolley

    Temporary injunction violation on Greenhouse effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). William M. Connolley (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: — Cortonin | Talk 16:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User:William M. Connolley violated the terms of the temporary injunction with the above revert labelled "Rv, as ever". According to the terms of the injunction, a revert should be backed up with reliable sources such as peer reviewed works, yet William M. Connolley's comment on the talk page did not provide any sources (and in particular no peer reviewed sources) for any component of his revert. The arbcom has requested that administrators treat a violation of this injunction as a violation of the 3RR. — Cortonin | Talk 16:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


    User:Zen-master

    Three revert rule violation on Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zen-master (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Jayjg (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • No I'm saying I cant't see any way under the rules that removeing a disputed template counts as simple vandalism.Geni 18:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    • What Zen-master fails to note is that removing spurious disputed template headers is nowhere to be found under the definition of Wikipedia:Vandalism, and that people can't make up their own definitions for vandalism. If they could, I could make a much stronger argument that adding spurious disputed template headers to articles is vandalism. Geni, I'm not sure I understand your comment. Jayjg (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    Blocked for 24h. -- Viajero | Talk 18:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


    User:Oceanographer

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

    Reported by: Anilocra 21:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • A "pseudo-vanity" article (I assume on the author's PhD supervisor) which was copied to user space (User:Oceanographer/Uwe Kils) by Michael Snow (talk · contribs), who created a redirect to this page. The user has been warned that the content of the article may not be suitable for wikipedia, but makes reference to a discussion on notablity criteria where one user suggests that "tenured faculty at four year colleges and graduate schools" are sufficiently notable for inclusion as justification for their reverts. To be fair to them, they are new to wikipedia. Anilocra 21:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

    User:Yuber

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

    Reported by: Jayjg (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Note: He keeps reverting the phrase
      • The imposition of a jizya upon non-Muslims is mandated by to
      • The word jizyah is taken from the root jaza, which means compensation. It is unclear if the word refers to monetary compensation, although literally it does not. The word is found in
    • at the beginning of the article, and using complex reverts (e.g. 1st revert, 3rd revert) to mask this. Here is an example of an earlier revert to this wording: [32] He was blocked for doing this very thing 3 days ago, and at that time had complex reverts explained to him clearly, but he persists in doing this. Jayjg (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    I think it was maybe the wrong diff, but I checked in the history and it's clear there. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:09, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
    It's definitely a violation. I'd prefer if someone else could look at this and do the block, as I've blocked Yuber twice already for 3RR, and he'll start to think it's personal; however, if no one has within the next hour or two, I'll come back and do it. He's been warned a lot, on top of the previous blocks: I've warned him on his talk page and several times by e-mail. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:41, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
    I blocked hiem for 24 hours. --nixie 02:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    Thanks, Nixie. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:09, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Pibohmark@aol.com

    Three revert rule violation on Put-in-Bay,_Ohio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pibohmark%40aol.com (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Norvy 07:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User warned. Rama 07:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

    User:NoPuzzleStranger

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

    NoPuzzleStranger (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Halibutt 13:34, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:


    User:151.188.16.14

    Three revert rule violation on Vandalists Rule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 151.188.16.14 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Alphax τεχ 17:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

    Those diffs have been deleted. El_C 23:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

    User:Zivinbudas

    Three revert rule violation on Grand Duchy of Lithuania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zivinbudas (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Halibutt 18:59, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Same good old Zivinbudas, frequently listed here on AN:3RR and subject to current RfC, also frequently blocked in the past for violation of the 3RR... Nothing new, sadly. Halibutt 18:59, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

    User:Cantus

    Again, Cantus uses a sockpuppet (200.83.186.180) on Template:Europe to get around his one-revert limit. Note his previous use of 200.83.* IPs which were already determined by David Gerard to be Cantus. [34] NoPuzzleStranger 23:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


    User:William M. Connolley

    Temporary injunction violation on Medieval Warm Period (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). William M. Connolley (talk · contribs)


    Reported by: --00:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)JonGwynne

    WMC is subject to a temporary injunction barring him from more than one revert in a 24 hour period. Furthermore, it requires each revert to be backed up on the relevant talk page. WMC has failed to do so - the whole of his supporting documentation is "I've reverted, of course." In addition, I'd like to point out that WMC has engaged in grotesque incivility - referring to another users edits as "foolishness". According to the terms of the injunction, Administrators are requested to consider these as violations of the 3RR. As they will also note, there are other examples of his refusal to abide by wikipedia rules in this area. Please ban him accordingly. --JonGwynne 00:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


    Report new violation

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive9&oldid=14294125"