Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive9: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:12, 26 April 2005 editInter (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators6,930 edits →[]← Previous edit Revision as of 14:54, 26 April 2005 edit undoJnc (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators17,591 editsm Archiving "User:JonGwynne", "User:William M. Connolley", "User:Coolcat", "User:TonyMarvin", "200.30.222.170", "User:Kelly_Martin", "User:Jooler"Next edit →
Line 5: Line 5:
<!-- Please add new listings at the ***bottom*** of this page, just before the"Report new violation" header". --> <!-- Please add new listings at the ***bottom*** of this page, just before the"Report new violation" header". -->




=== ] ===

] violation on {{Article|Scientific opinion on climate change}}.

Note: JG is subject to a 1-revert per day limit on article related to global warming, see ]. Note further that JG has had repeated 3RR bans in the past.
{{User|JonGwynne}}:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:

Reported by: ] 20:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''

*blocked for 24 hours] 23:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

=== ] ===

] violation on {{Article|Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change}}.
{{User|William M. Connolley}}:

* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert: (this is not a revert - WMC)
* 5th revert: (this is not a revert - WMC)
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:
* 8th revert:

Reported by: ] &mdash; ] | ] 09:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''

*WMC's third 3RR violation this month. First three are virtually identical, fourth one reverts out some quotes that were recently added. ] &mdash; ] | ] 09:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
** (] 10:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)) I protest: number 4 is definitely not a revert: it removes a small amount of text, and is fully explained on the talk page. Cortonins trigger finger is too itchy.
* It removes 3 paragraphs that were just added in the edit right before yours, and a ] is defined as "a change or an edit made to a page that has the effect of undoing an earlier change or edit on the same page." If someone adds something, and then you remove it right away, then yes, that's a revert. ] &mdash; ] | ] 20:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
** (] 21:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)) It removes 3 small paras of a much larger edit, so does not constitute a revert.
* I just added revert 5, 6, and 7, to show that the part reverted out in 4 is part of a revert war. So that leaves two sets of 3RR violations, 1-4 and 3-7. Any way you cut it up, with or without edit 4, this is at least 1 or 2 violations of the 3RR. ] &mdash; ] | ] 21:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
** (] 21:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)) 5 isn't a revert either. I moves one para, removes some grossly POV alnguage from another... well, just like the edit comment says. 6 and 7 are indeed reverts, and properly marked as such, but since there aren't more than 3 in a 24h period the 3RR rule doesn't apply.
* Added revert 8. So how many are you going to pretend aren't reverts? Even the ones you bothered to label as reverts put you well over the 3RR. ] &mdash; ] | ] 22:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
** (] 22:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Numbers 4 and 5 aren't reverts. There are no 3-reverts-in-24h. Rv 8 (which is really rv 6) doesn't alter that.
* 3, 6, 7, and 8 are all marked as reverts by you, and are all in under 24 hours. ] &mdash; ] | ] 22:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
** (] 22:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Ah yes indeed. I excuse myself: the wiki clock and my system clock are 1 hour off (which I now think explains my previous bans too) so I thought I was OK with #6 (which you are calling 8). Well, I'll accept what the admins decide.

blocked for 12 hours] 04:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

=== ] ===

] violation on {{Article|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Rankings}}.
{{User|Coolcat}}:

* 1st revert:
* 1st revert:
:(1st revert in two steps)
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
Reported by: ] 10:47, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''

* This proposal to 'rank' editors has been soundly rejected; see: ].
* User will not listen to the consensus of the other editors. ] 10:47, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

*which version did he revert to with what has been listed as his first revert?] 14:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

* I was counting the number of times he removed my post re 'still rejected' and the 'Yet Another Ranking Scheme section'. The closest earlier version would seem to be (); it's closer if you consider of text, too; . &mdash;&nbsp;] 17:29, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

He has (finally) moved the page to his userspace, where he can award himself imaginary titles to his heart's content. Is this still relevant? &#8212;]]] 22:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

: I'm not really sure; the 1st revert above may not quite count. In his userspace I guess he gets to play little-tin-god over his pet Wikiproject. I note, however, that he has the VfD notice from the page. ''Bad kitty!'' &mdash;&nbsp;] 23:29, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

:: The incivilised and rude posts by ] with his "Penis Lenght Mesurement" to determine ranks is the reason I was forced to move it to my name space. Other "sarcastic" comments make the article unworkable, thank you for destroying everything. --] ] 10:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::You're welcome. (Actually the table of ranks by length wasn't mine, and I doubt I was the first to think of the comparison&mdash;I was just the first to express it.) Maybe now you'll realize how futile and misguided this ranking idea was. I can only hope. &#8212;]]] 18:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:: ] is obsesed with me, <span title="I have never been out late at night in Ft. Worth without a shirt on">approach with caution</span>, check his contributions if you dont believe me. --] ] 10:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

=== ] ===

] violation on {{Article|Ward Churchill}}.
{{User|TonyMarvin}}:

* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert: to
* 6th revert: and now starting again here:

Reported by: ] 16:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:I've looked at the diffs and this doesn't seem to be a 3RR violation, though it's clearly edit-warring. I'll keep an eye on it. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 18:04, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''

* This user refuses to accept the concensus reached by various users on the Talk page (zen-master, Kelly Martin, Grace Note, Cberlet, Rama, Viajero, a.o.) and insists on restoring his own version of the text, done in steps, with just enough variation, so that his "reverts" appear not to be technically reverts.

* Viajero and sockpuppets including Kelly Martin, Grace Note etc. have seized editorial control of the ] and in so doing have inserted unencyclopedic language, made repeated unjustified reverts. The page should probably be protected again as little real progress is being made.
** I am not a sockpuppet of Viajero. ] 18:52, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

* My attempts to cite Viajero/Grace Note (his sock puppet) for the same offense has not been successful. I don't know if that's because Viajero deleted it or because (more likely) I didn't get it right. I was only aware of this 3RR page by looking at the list of Viajero's edits. This is hardly fair, he might have pointed it out in our discussions. I have been careful not to revert because I think that deletes a whole lot of changes at once, I much prefer making individual changes. I would ask also that the Ward Churchill article be protected before it descends into anarchy. ] 16:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*It should also be noted that Viajero is reverting to a version that includes emotive and inappropriate language including "kicking off" "lambasting" and a gratuitous reference to Bill O'Reilly. I have at length discussed all changes on the Talk page and invited and encouraged and responded to debate. Viajero and sockpuppets have not. ] 16:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*In fact looking at the above links, they are not reverts at all. What is Viajero going on about ? ] 17:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

* LOL. I've been accused of many things, but this really is the first time anyone has accused me of being a sock! I'm thrilled. Look, Tony, you're not discussing things on the talk page and not being listened to. You're yelling that "O'Reilly must go" and then reverting. I disagree with Slim that you are not breaking the 3RR. I think you are. You're doing the sneaky, technical revert thing. Okay, I don't want to see you blocked, because that will just make you think that there's a conspiracy to silence you because there isn't. What I want you to do is put a list of the things that concern you on the talkpage, discuss them in good faith with the other editors involved, including their hosiery, and not get involved in a painful and protracted conflict. Look, one of the editors involved even began a process to avoid editwarring by putting the intro on the talk page and letting us fight over it there! A very good idea actually, because it leaves the article stable. Come on, Tony, you want your concerns heard so use the right road to expressing them. Revert-warring will just end in people's not hearing you at all.] 23:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

=== ] ===

] violation on {{Article|Augusto Pinochet}}.
{{User|200.30.222.170}}:

*1st revert:
*1nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*5th revert:
*6th revert:

Reported by: ] 18:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'''Comments'''
*This user has plagued the Pinochet article for quite some time now, by relentlessly injecting his/her POV. ], ], ], and I have all reverted him today. This user is already aware of the 3RR due to a mistaken block just five days ago. This user is ''possibly'' the same person as ], judging by this revert today: . -- ] 18:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:blocked for 24 hours] 23:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

=== ] ===

] violation on {{Article|Ward Churchill}}.
{{User|Kelly_Martin}}:

* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:
* 8th revert:
* 9th revert:

Reported by: ] 23:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''

* It shows nothing of the sort, and none of those editors are sockpuppets. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 23:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

* Only three of these edits are reverts and one of those is a rerevert because I reverted to the wrong version; there are therefore only two reverts within that time frame. I specifically refused to revert after the second reversion to avoid running into the 3RR; obviously there was no shortage of editors willing to revert the ongoing bad faith edits that led up to the protection. Yes, I made more than three edits to that article in a 24 hour period, but that's not what 3RR prohibits. Furthermore, 3RR (as I understand it) does not apply to reverting vandalism and other bad faith edits; I contend that ]'s edits to this article have been in the nature of bad faith edits. The reversions are clearly supported by consensus, as is evidenced by repeated reverts by multiple other editors prior to the page being protected. Finally, I have no sock puppets (unless you want to count my former user, ], which I simply stopped using because I didn't like how it was capitalized, and which has not made an edit in quite a long time; I'm not even sure what the password is anymore). I suspect (but obviously have no proof) that the sockpuppets who launched the edit war that led up to the page's reprotection belong to ], based on the content of those sockpuppet's user pages, edit comments, and talk page comments, although it's possible that the sockmaster was simply someone working in concert with ].

* I believe the reverts of Kelly Martin to be outside the guidelines permitted. It should be noted the Ward Churchill article has been subject to repeated editing wars, prompted by Kelly Martin's non-consultative style. Is there a way of investigating the connection between Kelly Martin, Viajero, Grace Note and the other users guilty of extreme POV promotion. It is their misconduct that led to the article being protected for the second time in a week! ] 23:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:The links don't show reversions of the same material. Also, for future reference, instead of writing "time" after the diff, it's helpful to include the time and date of the edit, so that admins can see over what period the edits took place. As for the sockpuppet query, I'd say it's pretty clear that these are all legitimate editors, though a sockpuppet on the other side of the edit war today meant the article had to be protected. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:28, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

:: Thanks Slim, how do I put the time in? and how do I show the reversions of the same material? I believe investigating all the sockpuppets and users acting in concert is essential for the integrity of the article. While obviously experimental in nature I would like to pursue this inquiry through. ] 23:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:::TonyMarvin, what you call extreme POV promotion, I call cleaning up POV vandalism. The article required protection because of the actions of sock puppet accounts and yourself. The talk page is for actually debating and discussing; listing the same thing over and over again to make it seem like you are interested in debate and trying to trick people into believing your extreme POV and suggestive word choices are valid doesn't count. There is near consensus that the current version is neutral, the only active discussion on the talk page is over minor items, especially when compared to the content you and the sock puppets are trying to add. ] ] 23:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::::Zen-master, be very clear. I have no sockpuppets. You have made edits in suspiciously close lock-step with Viajero, Grace Note, Kelly Martin and probably some others. Then there are vandals that seem to come and go. I am very much out on my own. I have no sockpuppets and it seems no friends in wanting a neutral article that discloses all pertinent facts. ] 23:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I want to note that the three-revert rule applies to '''pages''' not specific material. You may not revert a ''page'' three times. We should not even be arguing about that anyway. Let's try to sort our differences out by talking them out, not by quibbling over who is reverting what when and how. What does that solve? Getting each other blocked doesn't actually resolve the issue. ] 01:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

=== ] ===

] violation on {{Article|Rockall}}.
{{User|Jooler}}:

* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:

Reported by: ] 22:55, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''
''To copy and add slightly to what ] wrote on the talk page:''
Like countries argue about tiny irrelevant rocks in the middle of nowhere, Wikipedians argue about single sentence picture captions. The big deal here is whether the caption of the map should say "The designation (U.K.) is disputed" or "Ownership is disputed". I don't see why it matters but ] contends that a dispute about these brackets is something separate from dispute about ownership. Users ], ], ], and ] have all reverted Jooler's edits on this. This issue does not need to get out of hand and we should be able to resolve it without flagging the page as disputed or protecting it. I invite all the involved editors to please try and reach an agreement on this rather minor point and ask of them all to refrain from editing the caption until some sort of a agreement is reached. I would also like other Wikipedians to have their say on the issue.
:Unfortionately, this attempt to stop the continuing reverts has not been successful. ] 23:54, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

::This is unfair. I have made three attempts as using a compromising set of words but user:] keeps reverting to an unweildy set of words he is the one reverting to the same thing and he has broken the 3RR - See talk for a fuller explanation. ] 08:51, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:::In all ] reverted my edits and two others users' edits about 12 times. Is he listed here???? 15:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


=== ] === === ] ===

Revision as of 14:54, 26 April 2005

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    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.

    Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

    Click here to create a new report

    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357
    358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164
    1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
    481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links


    Violations

    User:Maveric149

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

    • First at 8:43
    • Second at 12:22
    • Third 13:41
    • Fourth 14:21

    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 /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 /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 Misplaced Pages: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:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:

    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):

    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)
    • 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):

    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):

    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):

    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 . 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 Misplaced Pages: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):

    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).

    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.

    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):

    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):

    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\ 09:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Report new violation