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.)

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

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

Quoted from Wikipedia:Three-revert rule:

The 3RR is intended as an means to stop sterile edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every twenty-four hours. If you find you have reverted more than even once in a day, it indicates there is a serious problem and you should try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, starting with the article's talk page.

If you violate the three revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours. In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally.

Chronic offenders may be subject to rulings by the Arbitration Committee.

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

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

See also:

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

Violations

3RR violation by OneGuy

OneGuy is currently on a whitewash Islamic POV pushing mission on Aisha. He is trying to add unproven and unclaimed statements to try to soften the blow to Muhammad's image by having sex with a 9 year old girl. He was warned on his 3rd revert that one more would be a violation, but he continued. He has made 4 edits within one hour 168.209.97.34 08:18, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[[1]] [[2]] [[3]] [[4]]

3RR by Emax

I believe the last edit of User:Emax in Michal Glinski was his fourth today. He was blocked for 3RR before, thus he is aware of it. I am not sure if personal attacks should be reported heren though. --Gene s 15:46, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted 3 times, pls stop with you lyings - im awaiting an apology for this.--Emax 17:20, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

I've checked the edit history, and was only able to find 3 reverts for Feb 1, so it looks like you're right. However, edit summaries like "rv - you are a lier" are unnecessary inflammatory. Assuming he's after you isn't the way to go, and I doubt he'd apologize to someone who calls him a liar. Just point out his mistake in a friendly manner and I'm sure an apology is easier to get. Mgm|^(talk) 19:32, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

I count 4 reverts in the 24 hour period between 20:39, Feb 1, 2005 and 00:27, Feb 2, 2005: [5][6][7][8] The reverts are not 100% identical, but always reverting a certain information. I would block him myself, except i am also in a dispute with this user about similar topics. -- Chris 73 Talk 01:16, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Nice to see you Chris.. i have reverted 3 times, on 13:37, 1 Feb 2005, 14:55, 1 Feb 2005, and 15:27, 1 Feb 2005 - You cant count my changes on 11:39, 1 Feb 2005 as a revert! I have edited the article and this is not a revert - Emax (172.176.58.8 02:09, 2 Feb 2005)

Now im not only awaiting an apology from Gene, but also from you dear chris (172.176.58.8 02:12, 2 Feb 2005)

Blocked for 24hrs. --fvw* 01:29, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

Pls unblock my IP - Emax (172.176.58.8 02:12, 2 Feb 2005)

It is a revert. You added the same info again for the 4th time in 24 hours. BTW, don't use anon IP adresses for block evasion. (User:172.182.76.127,User:172.176.58.8 and User:172.182.76.177) Admins can be contacted by email in such cases. -- Chris 73 Talk 02:48, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the anon rule. Please let me take care of my own talk page, especially as you are reverting a good link into a broken link. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:00, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is a revert thats only your opinion (because you dont like me) could you show me that on 3RR? -Emax (172.180.199.158 03:46, 2 Feb 2005)

Its not! It was a simpy edit of the article! (and you know that) I have already sended an email to fvw but he did not answered. - Emax (172.179.51.254 03:01, 2 Feb 2005)

Could you show me on 3RR, the mention that editing of articles is counted as reverting? If not, why am i still banned? - Emax (172.180.199.158 03:35, 2 Feb 2005)

I counted the following 3 edits as reverts. [9], [10], [11]. His 11:39, Feb 1, 2005 doesn't seem to be a revert. IIRC there's still no official policy regarding reverting certain information over specific portions of text, so this block wasn't backed by official policy (just like previous controversial blocks). Personally, I can't see why having both the Polish and Russian version of his name in the article is such a problem. If it's in use it should be noted. I'll see if I can try some unofficial mediation between the two users in this dispute. I think we can probably let both blocks run their course and see if they've had some effects on the editors in question. Mgm|^(talk) 10:14, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

To MgM: Wikipedia:Revert is very clear about the situation: "Undoing any kind of change is a revert". Ghirlandajo added a lot of information here, some of which was reverted by Emax. Mainly the order of Mikhail Lvovich Glinsky and Michał Glińsk in the article has been reverted by Emax 4 times in 24 hours. Chris 73 Talk 11:13, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

While I don't support Emax in this case and I'd rather he joined the discussion more constructively, I'm also disappointed with behaviour of Gene s and Chris 73. Not only did they file this complain in order to push their agenda rather than cool down and wait for the outcome of the discussion, but the latter also reverted my talk page three times in order not to let Emax ask for help. Whether or not to count the 4th edit by Emax as revert, I believe he should be unblocked, especially that the matter is tricky and we can go either way here. In any law-abiding state all doubts are settled in favour of the accused. IMO Wikipedia should act the same way. Halibutt 12:33, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

It's standard procedure to revert all edits by blocked users evading blocks. If someone feels that they have been unfairly blocked, they can easily e-mail the admin concerned or another admin to request a review of the situation. Proteus (Talk) 13:37, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have twice send an email to fvw, but he ignored my emails. The controversial article says: [12] nr. 3 If possible, contact other administrators informally to be sure there are others who agree with your reasoning. The administrators' noticeboard, IRC and email are effective tools for this. Chris 73 tried to silent me.--Emax 16:00, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia:Controversial blocks applies to the blocking admin, not to the blocked user. The latter one should honor the block and use email or IRC if needed. -- Chris 73 Talk 16:19, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

No, its applies for all banned users. [13]--Emax 17:48, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

You're misreading the pages you're quoting from. Wikipedia:Controversial blocks contains instructions for admins. How you could not realise this when the step below the one you quoted begins "Place the block" is beyond me. Proteus (Talk) 18:18, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

While Emax should be punished for engaging in a rv war and breaking 3RR rule, I believe that Users Ghirlandajo and Gene s should also be warned that they should resolve their problems on the talk page and/or arbitration, and not by reverting. The fact is that they did the first change that lead to this silly rv war (aren't they all?), and working in tandem did more rv on the particular (silly...) name order case. See this for the start of the war (changing name order by Ghirlandajo). Emax stepped in and rvs, Ghirlandajo rvs, Emax rvs, Ghirlandajo calls Gene S for help: Please see how our Polish friends mutilate the page... :/ Isn't there any rule against group rvs? If Emax had called his friends to the rv war instead of doing the fourth rv, what could we do? Brrr...glad this was stopped so fast. We are now working on a compromise at Talk:Michal Glinski and hopefully this matter should be settled soon, but all 3 users who engaged in those silly rv should be punished in the same way. I think Emax should be unbanned, and a week restriction from editing this very page should be applied to everybody who participated in the rv war: Emax, Ghirlandajo and Gene s. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:00, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Seems like a fair solution to me. Halibutt 13:44, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

From my own experience, Chris 73 is a dedicated and sensitive admin who has tactfully edited on some highly controversial articles, such as Kosovo smoothing some of the nationalist and biased POV. GeneralPatton 18:30, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We are certainly not critising Chris 73. His cleaning up of mine and Halibutt talk page was a bit irritating, but this is a minor and past issue not worthy of mentioning. However, I'd like to know if we have any policies concerning group reverts (as mentioned above)? Since our primary goal is not to punish people, but prevent pages history from becoming warped by rv wars (and article from becoming confusing), I think that we must develop a related policy. If a group of users within a short period of time carries out several roughly same reverts (more then 3 reverts total), even if each of those manages to avoid breaking the 3RR, they should be all penalised as if each of them had made all those reverts. Otherwise, experienced reverters may form unofficial clubs (or create fake accounts, we already have history of using proxies in rw), thus becoming immune to 3RR and go on happily and safely vandalising history pages. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:30, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would support such a rule, although I see difficulties in formulating a clear rule. Even the rather clear 3RR is sometimes disputed ;) Chris 73 Talk 22:54, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting proposal, you should definitely draft a policy proposal and put it up for a review.GeneralPatton 23:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Jtdirl

Three revert rule violation on Pope John Paul II. hist

• 1st revert: [14]
• 2nd revert: [15]
• 3rd revert: [16]
• 4th revert: [17]
• 5th revert: [18]
• 6th revert: [19]
• 7th revert: [20]

Removal of the honorific style "His Holiness".

Consider for Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever as well.

Reported by: jguk 12:40, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see in the time it's taken me to write this User:Proteus has already blocked him! jguk 12:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. The last revert was actually made immediately after I'd warned him he was risking a block by reverting a ridiculous number of times. To be quite honest I'm amazed at such behaviour from a fellow administrator. Proteus (Talk) 12:46, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Robert Blair 3RR violation

Folks, I'd like to report a 3RR violation by User:Robert Blair. The reverts in question are partial reverts, please pay attention to certain sentences in the first paragraph of the introduction. See in particular sentences starting "Some argue that non-circumcision..." onwards. I'll give as the first link a diff of the two similar versions, and as the second a diff between the alternative version. Note also that "207.69.137.207" is known to be Blair.

1. 18:59 4 Feb substantially reverts edit made for NPOV.
2. 02:24 5 Feb substantially reverts edit/revert made for NPOV and removes disputed notice!
3. 03:53 5 Feb is almost a pure revert, undoing revert.
4. 13:24 5 Feb reverts revert and again removes the disputed notice.

The user has been warned about the 3RR on his talk page, previously. - Jakew 15:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

seems to be more than a 24 hour period, hence no 3RR unless the rules are interpreted loosely hang on a sec, the second diff is an anon IP. -- Chris 73 Talk 16:20, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

These four diffs violate the 3RR [21] [22] [23] [24], and I included one anonymous IP adress (3rd diff), since it had an almost identical revert, and it seems reasonable to believe that it is the same user. I have blocked the user for 12 hours only instead of 24, taking into account the uncertainty with the anon IP. The block and can also be seen the other way, and if another admin sees the need to unblock, please be my guest. -- Chris 73 Talk 16:40, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, as noted above, this IP block is known to be Blair's. When challenged previously about his logging in and out, Blair explained that his computer did not, for some reason, hold a login. If there's any doubt, compare 207.69.* edits in the edit history with Blair's in this or any circumcision-related article. - Jakew 16:44, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Extended block to 24 hours in view of IP adress info, also there are comments on User talk:Robert Blair that the user is also identical with the user Robert the Bruce, which is not allowed to edit circumcision related articles, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert the Bruce and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Robert the Bruce. In any case, I think a 24 hour block is OK. -- Chris 73 Talk 16:51, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Robert Blair is Robert the Bruce, due to their diametrically opposed points of view. Rhobite 20:54, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Nor me. What is the appropriate course of action when a user evades a ban, as below? - Jakew 22:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Still editing

Please be aware that the same user is still editing, despite being blocked (still as 207.69.*). See: here. Additional: as I understand Wiki's blocking system, it would appear that the user logged in and then dialled up again to get a new IP for purposes of the edit:

• 03:30, 6 Feb 2005, Chris 73 blocked #16021 (expires 03:30, 7 Feb 2005) (Autoblocked because you share an IP address with "Robert Blair". Reason "3RR and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert the Bruce".)

- Jakew 11:44, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Marcus2

Three revert rule violation on Wladislaus IV of Poland.

• 1. [25]
• 2. [26]
• 3. [27]
• 4. [28]

--Emax 00:47, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

As this user has been discussing on the talk page, I would prefer not to. I think we'll lock the page instead on this one. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For the exact reason i was blocked 3 days ago (and i also have used the talk page).--Emax 12:26, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

User:198.165.90.75

On Bahá'u'lláh

• 1st revert: [29]
• 2nd revert: [30]
• 3rd revert: [31]
• 4th revert: [32]

Blocked as an open proxy. And sign your requests please. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Darn ok thenGeni 07:41, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:JonGwynne

Three revert rule violation on Carbon dioxide. hist

• 1st revert: [33]
• 2nd revert: [34]
• 3rd revert: [35]
• 4th revert: [36]
• 5th revert: [37]
• 6th revert: [38]

Reported by: Vsmith 00:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to have been warned about the 3RR, warned on his talk page. --fvw* 00:44, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 09:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Not so. JG has had multiple warnings about the 3RR and is fully aware of the rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Crichton#JonGwynne_breaks_the_3_reverts_rule

He has added another edit in which he claims No reversion whatsoever - completely new, however, the same contested info is re-inserted. See [39] (a comparison of his edits before and following mine). Vsmith 16:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Looks very different to me [40]. Certianly different enough not to count as a striaght revertGeni 16:24, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This isn't surprising. Frick and Frack (WMC and VS) have been harrassing me both singly and in unison for quite some time now. Everything they say should be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism - something of which neither of them approve.--JonGwynne 16:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 17:11, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Supporting Vsmith: JG has indeed made a substantive revert, disguised with other material. Please can the admins check these carefully: the disputed text The actual increase in overall atmospheric CO₂ is 110 ppvm - which, by itself, represents 0.01% of the total volume of Earth's atmosphere.... Some environmentalists object to attention being drawn to the proportion of the increase because they feel it it an attempt to marginalize the increase. They prefer to point to the 40% figure, possibly because it is larger and seems much more dramatic than 0.01%. has been re-inserted in these reverts, which JG has mendaciously attempted to assert are not reverts. He has already been warned today for breaking 3RR: how many more is he going to get away with?

I think the real question is how much more censorship and vandlism are you going to be allowed to commit. Perhaps the admins will take a look at the numerous complaints of you imposing your POV on various pages here and decide that your objections are groundless.--JonGwynne 23:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The closest to this in the version it is claimed he reverting to would be "Because carbon dioxide is an atmospheric trace gas, the actual increase in the quantity of atmospheric CO₂ is 110 ppvm - or 0.01% of the total volume of Earth's atmosphere." This has been servearly bulked out. There are also a large number of text changes so I feel this goes beyond a complex revert. Geni 17:34, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 18:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)) This [41] and [42] both re-introduce the disputed text I listed.

Report new violation