Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

For some strange reason, this was set to #Redirect Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard - I think as a result of a page move. I don't see why its a useful redirect - discussion of the recent Deuterium/Nescott problem should have been here. So I'm restoring it William M. Connolley 12:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

All the talk pages of noticeboard subpages redirect to the main noticeboard talk page. That probably makes sense for AN and ANI but not here. Thatcher131 (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Report example

This had it's own heading previously which made it easy to start a new report. Was this removed by someone intentionally to faciliate reporting in some way? (→Netscott) 18:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

I've noticed that this page often becomes excessively long (probably very difficult to load for those on dial-up). I'd propose that we agressively archive all reports with an administrative response. Any comments? alphaChimp^(talk) 08:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Perhaps we could get that Werdnabot onto it? William M. Connolley 07:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure werdnabot would work, given that we use subtitles instead of titles. alphaChimp^(talk) 18:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

...for suitable values of "aggressive". I suggest leaving handled cases up for a day or two, so that people can easily find out what happend, and to allow for a reasonable discussion perid. --Stephan Schulz 08:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure this really is an appropriate venue for "discussion". The scope of comments (IMHO) should be specifically limited to whether or not the user in question violated 3RR and the details of that violation. All too often this page deteriorates into accusations of vandalism and direct personal attacks.

That said, I'd agree that reports should remain up for about a day or so, at least long enough for them to be viewed by the reported party. alphaChimp^(talk) 18:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I just put Werdnabot on it. Let's see how this goes. I've set it to archive sections older than 3 days. Alphachimp 00:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Nothing happened. I've left a request on Voice of All's talk page to see if he's interested in getting VoABot involved. Alphachimp 14:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

How about we just don't archive at all and run it like the similar noticeboards, like RFI and PAIN. It is much easier to see what needs to be done if every item on the page is something that needs to be acted upon, and to simply remove any that have been acted upon. —Centrx→talk • 03:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No idea what happened

This process is not very intuitive. I have no idea why, when I followed the directions, my report did not appear on the main wiki project page, yet it appears in the current history? This is all quite confusing Ernham 19:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the above. Mark83 23:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Not archiving

I put this above but maybe a new section will get some attention. How about we do not archive this page, and deal with it in the manner of WP:PAIN and WP:RFI, deleting entries after a short period of time when they are complete. This is simpler to see what issues need resolving, and wastes no time picking through entries to archive them. There is little need to keep this information, if anyone searches through it anyway; problem users have a record of being blocked or a warning on their talk page. —Centrx→talk • 16:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

or WP:RFPP.... 3RR Reports could be used as evidence in arbcom proceedings. That's my only real concern. Alphachimp 16:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why one of the archive bots can't take care of archiving this for us. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

please, where can I receive advice on this dispute?:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harold_Ford%2C_Jr.&diff=83580851&oldid=83577898 >.

Thank You.

hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 12:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, can you do something about your signature, which is weird (above); and maybe play in the sandbox a bit. Second, I don't see much on the article talk page, which is the first place to go William M. Connolley 12:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Following talk page guidelines?

Quick question concerning the usage of talk pages for general conversations. Due to a big racial controversy involving Michael Richards his article's talk page has been subject to a heavy amount of non-editorial postings. Per talk page guideline #2 "keep on topic" I have been diligently removing these non-editorial conversations and warning users (mostly anon IP editors) against using the talk page for general conversations. I hadn't truly considered it but I suppose in a sense these removals could be considered reverts. Based upon the fact that I was following guidelines in removing these off topic non-editorial postings should I be wary of 3RR? In my mind off topic conversations are equivalent to vandalism. Am I wrong? (→Netscott) 02:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd be cautious if I were you William M. Connolley 09:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

What to do in this case

When an IP and a User are the same, and plays out 3RR by simply not logging in? Thanks for the answers (and yeah, I know, this should be askes somewhere else, but where?) --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 15:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

212.200.175.214 (talk · contribs) & PANONIAN (talk · contribs) see contribs. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 15:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Typically it is pretty obvious and the user can be blocked. Other options are to semi-protect the page against edit-warring IPs, or to request a checkuser. —Centrx→talk • 11:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Question...

Tasc is doing a lot of reverts to restore a prod. Is that 3RR? --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 16:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say so, and I'd put it up for AfD if the prod keeps getting removed. Will ^{(Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?)} 17:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

an automated system?

Reports are very time-consuming to fill out. Going back and forth from page history and noticeboard, copying all the diff urls as well as timestamps (that's a minimum of five diffs and five timestamps, back and forth makes that a minimum of twenty page switches). It would be more than awesome to have some kind of automated system that helps the user fill out a report. — coelacan talk — 00:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Welsh Nationalism revert war

Hello, I have never posted here, so bear with me. On this page, a disagreement towards the subject matter has caused a war with important information being added, then removed. I have done a 3RR as the other party has themselves caused 3RR removing content, but wish further assistance moderating the differences here. Thank you, Drachenfyre 19:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Curtis is still reverting

Please see [NCAHF]. He continues to insult, ignores consensus and reverts at will. Nobody can stop him. If I revert again, I will be blocked. Will someone tell me please why he is allowed to be so abusive and revert to WP:OWN despite every single editor disagreeing with him?Jance 20:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC) If I revert, I will be blocked. What can be done? Or are some WIkipedians simply allowed to continue abusing others, insulting, reverting despite 100% consensus, etc? I don't know what else to do. This editor is a menace.

He has had one warning, which was removed, by Ronz, I think out of an attempt to be conciliatory. Nobody will stop Curtis. Not one admin is talking to him about his abusiveness, continued reverts and WP:OWN. This is pathetic. Jance 20:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Case delay?

Just wondering if there's any reason why this report [1] isn't being dealt with? It's my first time to report someone so if I haven't followed proper procedure or have done something wrong, please let me know. Bastun 09:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No specially good reason; these things sometimes get lost in the murk. Asking here is a good way to remind us. 8h William M. Connolley 10:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

A mere suggestion for an improvement

I'd like to make a suggestion - wouldn't it be better if the skeleton under Sample violation report to copy is slightly changed - like this: the User:PaxEquilibrium bit changed to User:USERNAME_REPORTER. I know this isn't a big change and all, but just aesthetics - however, it is some sort of an improvement for the eyes.

Cheers and happy (a bit late though) New Year, folks!!! Let me know about t'is one. --PaxEquilibrium 20:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Note

I changed the default heading to this:

===[[User:NAME_OF_USER]] reported by [[User:YOUR_NAME]] (Result:)===

Previously it said "USERNAME_VIOLATION" could create confusion, as it would appear to refer to Wikipedia:Username policy. I replaced the three tildes with "YOUR_NAME", agreeing with Pax's comment above, and because everybody seems to ignore the "If your signature has additional fonts, please enter only your username manually" directive anyway. Finally, I removed this comment:

<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

Because it's no longer necessary. The use of parser functions in templates such as {{article}} makes this a matter of preference. In fact using spaces would be better for longer titles because most web browsers do not wrap-around on an underscore. — CharlotteWebb 23:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

I was wondering if we should switch this forum to a format similar to that used for WP:SOCK, in which an evidence page is opened for a particular user. That way, if a user commits repeated violations, it's easy to see if he's done it before and the previous evidence page can be expanded (and escalating punishments applied). It would also make it possible to put a watch on one particular 3RR case, instead of watching the page as a whole. Using templates for reports and notifications would also make the process easier. Just an idea... RJASE1 16:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

BMT

Sorry I didnt realise he had lodged a complaint. I looked at it and thought BMT had removed my comments. I did not intend on removing BMT's complaint against me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEditor20 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

How about if your 3rr report gets ignored by admins for over 2 days you get a free "get out of 3RR" card for future use? Catchpole 20:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR after warning

User 3RR'd both before and after 3RR warning—what happens next? (Seven reverts reported; user warned; three additional reverts added to report.) — Athænara ✉ 22:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Rameses reported

Can I ask someone to look over my report of Rameses, please? William M. Connolley 20:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

How is a result "no violation" if the user is blocked?

User:SlimVirgin declared my 3RR report against User:Isarig "no violation," despite that another administrator just blocked him for gaming the 3RR as a result of my report. Isarig made four verbatim reverts (inserting a lead line accusing CNN of 'liberal bias') within the same 24 hour 46 minute period, for reference. 3RR clearly sanctions blocking for trying to game the policy, and Isarig was blocked, so why has another administrator declared "no violation" on this page? Italiavivi 17:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps because it's a technicality. The user didn't violate 3RR, but they were blocked for gaming 3RR. It's quite subtle. --Deskana (Alright, on your feet soldier!) 22:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No violation? Why?

Then I'll put this up here. Would still like a reply. Sciurinæ 21:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Because "deleted text " == "revert" is way too harsh William M. Connolley 21:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

And how much time needs to have passed since the addition until its deletion is not a revert? Or what do you mean? Sciurinæ 21:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, were you strict enough, every single delete could be a revert. Unless the deletes are signigifcant in some way, I don't see why they should count William M. Connolley 21:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we agree that significant means like "direct connection to the respective edit war"? You see, I mean, wouldn't that apply here? Sciurinæ 21:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeeessss... but in that case you'd have to say exactly why William M. Connolley 22:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

In the first three reverts of Piotrus, the previously eye-catching sentences (they were pretty eye-catching, in fact, hard to overlook see) were made pretty much invisible as references. This was all that was changed. The diff-page is pretty red but the popups-diff-page shows it. Jadger reverted each. Was it really just about format? Jadger at least didn't think that. So Jadger wanted what the sentences were saying in the lead paragraph. Piotrus didn't. What I called the fourth revert didn't remove the sentences from the lead paragraph down as reference - it still removed some of the sentences. Same effect. Jadger wanted the sentences in the lead paragraph. He saw it fit to revert when they were a reference at the bottom of the page in small letters. And of course he saw it fit to revert when the sentences were even lost[2]. Directly relevant to the edit war. So it can be interpreted as four reverts, don't you think? Sciurinæ 22:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No progress since fix

I reported [problem] and received speedy feedback but haven't heard anything new since I fixed the problems... any help would be appreciated. Iansmcl 01:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Text William Connolley deleted from "3RR: William M. Connolley, reported by Zeeboid"

It says that there's a prototype "skeleton" for filing new appeals at the bottom of the talk page - there isn't. --PaxEquilibrium 21:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

--Zeeboid 14:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)== Text William Connolley deleted from "3RR: William M. Connolley, reported by Zeeboid" ==

This is the text deleted from Admin noticeboard 3RR: William M. Connolley, reported by User:zeeboid by William M. Connolley

I apologize in advance for the length of this, but for far too long has William been able to dance on the line of violation while allowing people's lack of knowledge of his own history give him pass after pass when he is called to task. This submission is actually abbreviated as I did not include scores of additional supporting documentation and justification.

Normally an objective person would conclude that the edits (as numbered above) #3 & #4 should be excluded leaving only #1, #2 and #5. (Note: Edit #5 should remain instead of #3 since it included an additional edit.) But consider a few other things and then decide if the case that there was absolute "good faith" in the edits is irrefutable, beyond a shadow or hint of doubt, as it were. That complete "good faith" is required to assume the self-revert and the undoing of the self-revert should be discounted.

The discussion is about if one or two of those reverts by an administrator in a revert war within a 12-hour span should not be counted because he self-rv and then self-rv-the-self-rv. The discussion should be about an administrator with a long history of participating in revert wars (to the point of being on parole previously) engaged in yet another revert war and using the defense of "self-reverting does not count". Obviously there is no defense in the discussion that SHOULD be discussed. For that reason those of you reading this complaint are being led to the false focus of considering ignoring 2 reverts so an admin can be relieved from sanction for violating WP:3RR. Since this defense has worked well in the past for the accussed I feel compelled to add to the discussion on these specific 5 edits which should show any reasonable and objective person why these 5 edits all constitute a violation of WP:3RR by William M. Connolley, an administrator that should know better...and espcially in light of the fact that his first RfA failed to earn a consensus with a large portion of the oppossing votes citing POV issues and being on parole for revert issues. In other words, he is fully aware of the reverting issue and has a long established pattern for being a participant in them.

I. THE REVERTS BASED ON TIMES

Look at the Times and summaries of the reverts.

1. 09:04 (rv the PS bit; also rm the audit bit - this is archiving, which is different.)
2. 14:47 (rv to WMC - the PS bit is wrong)
3. 16:03 (rv to WMC, as per talk)
4. 16:10 m (self-rv: the PS bit is stupid but needs to be talked out rather than revert-warred out)
5. 21:44 m (rv to WMC, as per further talk)

Consider that we are not talking about a 24-hour period. We are actually discussing a 12 2/3 hour period for five reverts.

The #4 edit said the purpose of the self-rv was to "talk out" the differences. William M. Connolley gave 5 hours and 34 minutes to "talk out" the issues before "rv...per further talk" with edit #5. Is 5 1/2 hours really long enough to claim a good faith effort to allow discussion? That is up to everyone else to decide I guess, but that amount of time does not let anyone even finish a work shift and be able to participate in the discussion.

Given Connolley's vast experience within Wikipedia there is no excuse for allowing only 5 1/2 hours for discussion before engaging in reverts. The only logical motivations for leaving such a short period of time for discussion is (a) believing 5 1/2 hours was sufficient, (b) performing the self-rv as a facade to circumvent WP:3RR, (c) giving the appearance of working with others for harmony in response to being asked for an explanation of revert #3 on the talk page ("please explain yourself and also please see Wikipedia's rules on Reversions Help:Reverting") Talk:Scientific_data_archiving&diff=117054988&oldid=117050443

Admittedly items (b) and (c) are not assuming good faith. Given the history (and Wikipedia's own caveat to WP:AGF, "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary.") it should be stated clearly that the 'well of Good Faith waters' is tapped dry and considering the possibility of bad faith is not a violation of any Wiki policy or guideline at this point.

So, is it really reasonable to believe that any experienced editor would believe that such a time frame is acceptable when 5 days is the norm for things like Articles for deletion? I think not. That leaves only (b) and (c) as reasonable, objective and logical conclusions for WMC's actions.

Therefore, in looking at just the times and the administrator's experience we should be able to conclude that all of the reverts should be counted AND severe sanctions should be sought.

II. THE EDITS CONSIDERING THE TALK PAGE

Look at the summaries given for each of the edits.

1. (rv the PS bit; also rm the audit bit - this is archiving, which is different.)
2. (rv to WMC - the PS bit is wrong)
3. (rv to WMC, as per talk)
4. m (self-rv: the PS bit is stupid but needs to be talked out rather than revert-warred out)
5. m (rv to WMC, as per further talk)

Notice the recurring thing, "PS bit is stupid/wrong". That is telling us the problems are regarding PS (Pseudo-science). Now look at the discussion page edits in this time frame Talk:Scientific_data_archiving&diff=117133125&oldid=116990836. The discussion between the time of edits #1 and #5 are, in summary, is a discussion between RonCram (4 edits), William M. Connolley (4), Raymond arritt (2), Zeeboid (6), myself (3), Stephan Schulz (4) and SteveWolfer (1). Total of 23 edits taking place with over 90% of those within a 5-hour span. Reading those edits one can hardly find any consensus being attempted or even reached on the issue of Pseudoscience.

That leaves some doubt regarding the motivation for rv #4 & #5 based only on the fact that there was very little, if any, support in the talk pages that would make the summaries of his edits honest.

III. THE WIKIPEDIA POLICY ON REVERTS

Why are reverts being done simply because the text is "wrong" or "stupid"? Those reverts are clear violations of Wikipedia's Revert policies.

When to revert according to policy is clearly laid out. Reverting is "primarily for fighting vandalism", not if one feels "the edit is unsatisfactory". The policy also clearly states to "not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute." Remember the summaries explaining the reverts because the prior edits were "wrong" and "stupid"? How does that rest with the following from the revert policy: "Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view." Additionally, the policy state "Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate." Finally the policy states, "Do not revert good faith edits...a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary." (emphasis added). The "firm, substantive, and objective proof" provided on the talk page 3 minutes after revert #5 is "This section appears to be in for attack reasons and is totally unbalanced. I've removed it. It needs a proper re-write before it goes back, not just a POV tag."

The reverts, each one of them on their own, are violations and should not have occurred in the first place. That a discussion about if all 5 should be counted or if 2 of them should be ignored is laughable when stood up to the "Do's and Dont's" explicitly laid out at WP:Revert.

Keep in mine a few other important quotes from WP:3RR. "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day...Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive.", "The rule does not...endorse reverting as an editing technique" and "This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system." It is easily demonstrable how William engages in such reverting persistence (and typically another person will continue the reverts after William makes his 3rd, but that is an issue to be brought forward at a later date).

So even if it is erroneously decided that 2 reverts should not be counted it does not mean William cannot face sanctions. In fact another important quote from WP:3RR is, "administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any edit warring, even if they do not exceed three reverts on a page in 24 hours." William HAS been sanctioned before, yet for some reason in the past he is given leniency. The pattern of leniency is encouraging destructive behavior and the leniency should be ended and reversed.

IV. CONCLUSION

Normally an objective person would conclude that reverts #3 & #4 should be excluded from being counted against the WP:3RR. But there are just too many aggrevating factors surrounding these 5 reverts, the corresponding Talk Page and the summaries given in the reverts. On top of that are more aggrevating factors outside of the 12 hour timeframe in question that are tied to the reverter, administrator William M. Connolley that have been given excuse with each subsequent issue.

1. William's experience and position in Wikipedia remove credibility to any claim that leaving 5 1/2 hours for "talking out differences" was reasonable or in good-faith.

2. A review (quick or thorough) leaves no doubt there was no consensus formed or hinted at on the Talk page within the 5 1/2 hour timeframe William provides for "talking out differences".

3. An honest review of even a portion of William's history will reveal a pattern of engaging in revert wars. Recently the trend is to find any rationalizations to give William a loophole to escape any repercussions. An honest review of these patterns will leave no rational conclusions of the reverts being beyond any shadow of doubt in Good Faith.

4. Each Revert was a violation of Wikipedia's policies.

5. William is an administrator that had to be nominated twice because of concerns around his demonstrated participation in edit wars, revert wars, POV issues and other harmful activities which rule out any automatic assumption of good faith in any edit.

Each revert is improper and the behavior must be halted. It is not being halted on William's own initiative and so other actions are necessary for the well-being and credibility of Wikipedia. There is no reasonable justification for excluding reverts #3 and #4 and therefore William has violated WP:3RR. William's history of engaging in edit/revert wars should be absolutely unacceptable for any editor and less tolerated by an administrator; William's history of attempting to dance at the threshhold of violation of WP:3RR is even more reason for severe sanction on this instance, consideration of long-term sanction as a user, permanent revocation of adminstrator roles and permanent disqualification from any role in the future other than editor.

If the supporting documentation presented here is not enough more is readily available.

Right. William is one of our more experienced admins. Tony is a talk radio host who maintains an off-wiki dot racetotheright dot com/GW_Stephan_Schulz attack site. He operates his account very nearly as a single purpose account, and obviously is just informed enough about Wikipedia to try Wiki-lawyering, but not to understand our culture and aims. I am certain you can draw your own conclusions.--Stephan Schulz 21:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the 3RR is to prevent edit-warring. Its enforcement is not meant, as Tony is using it, to be an end in itself, nor are editors encouraged to spend as much time rebutting a 3RR no-violation ruling as it would have taken them to edit several articles. Newyorkbrad 21:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the purpose of the 3RR is to prevent in Edit-Warring, which this Admin has many issues with in the past. William should know better, yet does this anyway. Three Strikes Rule anyone? Also, Tony is a Radio show host. I am an Electronic Medical Record Training Consultant. User:William_M._Connolley is a Climate modeller and based on his own user profile, an Environmental Activist, who's personal opinions have a heavy BIAS on the topics he alters in the Environmental areas. Stephan Schulz's inability to compare Tony's Profession with User:William_M._Connolley's profession is also an attempt to skew this away from another example of why this Admin should not be an Admin.--Zeeboid 22:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The point User:Newyorkbrad is trying to make is that this is not a venue for discussion about user conduct. That's what WP:RFC/USER is for. -/- Warren 22:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

-- Tony of Race to the Right 01:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Replies added in by --Stephan Schulz 06:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, I take it by your effort to turn the focus onto me and away from the actual issues at hand (Connolley's edits/reverts) that it is conceded Connolley's actions have been indefensible. Otherwise you would have focused on staying on the topic. Step up and be an adult..."very nearly" is a cowards way of making an accusation without having to own up to it, something I would have expected to be beneath you. Either make a charge that my account is as you "very nearly" claim or don't say anything. Providing facts about your friend's history with revert warring is not "Wiki-lawyering". I notice people throw that around when they really have no real defense because someone actually took the effort to make a coherent and solid narrative explaining something that needs rectification. Truly, I expect better from you. -- Tony of Race to the Right 03:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my point is that William's actions need no defense, least of all on WP:3RR. WP:3RR is intentionally a simple, mechanical criterion with little wiggle room either way. What you want is an RFC, but instead of doing the work and arguing in an open, hopefully neutral forum, you misuse the 3RR noticboard for your tirades. I wrote "very nearly" as I like precision. For the first 100 edits or so you have edited other fields. Since about mid-February, you have done little but disrupt the global warming related articles and stalking the editors, in particularly William. Is that accusation enough for you? Given your dot racetotheright dot com/GW_Stephan_Schulz collection of out-of-context edits that apparently somehow try to give the impression of a big conspiray, I find the request for a charge particularly ironic. Your "narrative" is neither coherent nor solid. It is full of misinterpretations, wrong assumptions (for a similar example, see "Stephan, I take it by your effort to turn the focus onto me and away from the actual issues at hand (Connolley's edits/reverts) that it is conceded Connolley's actions have been indefensible."), and tortured logic. It is not worth refuting in detail. Coming up with this crap is fast and easy, doing a solid rebuttal is a lot of work. I have better things to do. I trust the Wikipedia community to recognize your methods and to act accordingly. --Stephan Schulz 09:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The logic is not twisted (except that it points out something very valid--and how dare it not be in lock-step with what you want). Look at the order of events: Complaint made about Subject & 3RR, I post a supporting narrative with some of Subject's history (and, btw, it was not a rebuttal but was meant to be a reply to Zeeboid, but the decision was done so quickly that my submission came afterwards), you charge me with "attack page" and "very nearly SPA", never once addressing the Subject, 3RR or why (I presume) you believe the Subject's history of abuse is not relevant or accurate. Ask ANY scholar of rhetoric, anyone that knows about discourse or communication if the effort to shift the focus from the subject is because of the desire to prevent focus on what is damaging--the primary subject. You will find that nearly all of those people will have the same, as you call, tortured logic. -- Tony of Race to the Right 15:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Warren, if that is what he meant then my apologies. I wish I understood that he meant to direct me there instead at first so I could have gone there right away. Thank you.

Zeeboid, you just reminded me of something I know I read on Wikipedia and do not feel like looking for it again. Somewhere I read that it is preferred that people do not edit in fields they are professionally involved in as the tendencies to engage in POV edits is too strong. So, I understand how Connolley's profession (the person this discussion should be about) MIGHT be relevant. I do not understand how my profession has any relevance...unless the implication is that someone on the radio should be disregarded. Stephan, what exactly is your point? -- Tony of Race to the Right 03:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

So only laymen should be allowed provide content? I'm sorry, but any encyclopedia that professed that policy would be laughed out of the publisher's premises. --

On the contrary, Wikipedia welcomes experts to edit in their field of expertise. Who else should be able to write a good article on any advanced topic? You are probably thinking of WP:COI (and I fully expect you to quote it out of context or to insinuate that "the scientific community" is an organization and hence scientists should refrain from editing scientific topics). --Stephan Schulz 09:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I would have bet my house that you would act like I was wrong...and I am not going to hunt it down, so we will just say you are right. I also guarantee that if I happen upon it again you would claim I'm misquoting. Discussing anything with you is a waste of time...there is not an effort to find middle ground on content, disputes, etc...it is your way or no way and everyone else is wrong, not even the consideration that other viewpoints are viable. That is what is expected of the long-time editors--hostility to disagreement. -- Tony of Race to the Right 15:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I would think however, Stephan Schulz, Environmental Activists should not be editing Environmental articles, just as a Microsoft Employee should not be editing a Microsoft article... Conflict of intrest. William for example uses blogs and websites that he edits at for refrences, which itself is a violation of WP:COI, is it not? His own wiki page William M. Connolley is littered with refrences to sites likeRealClimate.org, a link titled The Global Warming Myth, and even a Green Party Activist site Cambs Green (to quote from the site: "Promoting Green Party events in Cambridgeshire: fundraisers, freshers fair, speakers and talks, music recitals, liaising with outside organisations and events, press & media releases.") where William is listed as: "William is the Green Party South Cambs District electoral agent." Is it too much to say that someone that is a Green Party Electorial Agent who edits Wiki Environmental Articles is a violation of WP:COI?--Zeeboid 19:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is too much to say. You are ignoring WMC's credentials and notability in this area; if you want to be treated as an equal, please produce your scientific credentials...we'll wait. While we're waiting, if you want to eliminate anyone with an interest in this topic, then any conservative/libertarian activists would also have to be denied editing rights in order to maintain NPOV. --Skyemoor 20:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Said's credentials as a petty modeler are duly noted. ~ UBeR 02:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

WMC's credentials and notability could be taken seriously if he was not a self proclaimed Environmental Activist. If it was just his Credentials and notability, I could take him seriously, but his Activism gets in the way of a NPOV on ANY Environmental article he edits on, thus should not be aloud to edit on any Environmental articles. I am not a scientist. this is no secret. However, I am also not an Environmental Activist who has many complaints on Wikipedia about a lack of an ability to maintain a NPOV. As you can plainly see by William's edit history, his self proclaimed Activism keeps him from editing with a NPOV, which results in a Wikipedia Administrator doing things like taking part in Revert Wars, like the one we are discussing here. No Activist should be aloud to edit in the topics he/she is an Activist in. This leads to issues with the POV, and deters people from taking part in Wiki, as well as giving a slanted view on what is taken for granted as being a NPOV Encyclopedic article. What would you rather have, editing Wikipedia? An Activist scientist, or a non-activist regular person editor? If it was not for WMC's Environmental Activism, issues like his Revert War that we are discussing, and many complaints about him in the past would not come up.--Zeeboid 21:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, Is someone who "stood as a Green Party of England and Wales candidate for either South Cambridgeshire District Council or Cambridgeshire County Council in the years from 2001 to 2005" capable of having NPOV? No they can not. This Admin editing on any Environmental article is a violation of WP:COI Campaigning.--Zeeboid 23:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This is so bizarre, I suspect there is a hidden camera running somewhere. So a Green Party candidate (and the Greens are more or less mainstream in Europe) cannot edit any "environmental" article (not to mention that global warming is a scientific article), but a proudly right-wing radio moderator or blogger is allowed to? What is more, in Europe - certainly in Germany - all major and most minor parties are using global warming as a campagining topic (btw, even the conservaties campaign for CO2 reductions). So I guess no-one associated with any party is allowed to edit global warming? --Stephan Schulz 01:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing bizar about it. You would expect someone who works for EXXON from not being aloud to edit global warming articles. You would expect someone from Microsoft not being able to edit many articles for technology. As you pointed out, William's profession relates to the topic in question, which lead us to look at his activism. He is a Self Proclaimed Environmental Activist. An Environmental Activist (which a Right-Wing Radio moderator or blogger is not, a Right-Wing radio moderator, I would argue is more open minded on topics of Environmentalism then someone who is an Environmental Activist) should not be alloud to edit pages that deal with the Environment because of the same BIAS that would be in place if someone who worked for Exxon wanted to edit energy pages. The WP:COI is very clear in this. After all, William has even defended links to offsite refrences/sites that he himself has written at.--Zeeboid 12:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You are refering to notoriously unreliable left-wing publications like Science (journal), I assume? --Stephan Schulz 12:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope. I am refering to An Environmental Activist violating WP:COI by editing on Environmental pages. A Wikipedia Admin should know better at that.--Zeeboid 14:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This is all very funny, but also an obvious complete waste of time. If Zeeboid expects anyone to take him seriously (obviously he doesn't, and obviously no-one does) these complaints should be raised via RFC or some appropriate forum, not here William M. Connolley 12:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, in principle, ignored in practice. Just as with my chocolate abuse ;-) --Stephan Schulz 12:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats a good idea. Thank you for helping someone who is newer to wiki then yourselves.--Zeeboid 14:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Requesting advice

Hello... sorry to disturb. I have a question about 3RR... I (well, primarily me, with the assistance of several other editors) have been dealing with an anon who is continuing to linkspam several Heroes-related pages with links to a blog site. I think that I'm not breaking 3RR by reverting the anon, along with repeated talk page warnings. However, since I've never even had to be warned before, I'd like to double-check before continuing. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. (The pages are Mr. Bennet (Heroes), Mohinder Suresh, and Sylar) Thank you in advance. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to worry anymore. The IP has been blocked for a week for edit warring. --Deskana (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. For future reference, was I correct in reverting? Is there a better way to approach this? --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR case

If there's an admin around, I'm in a discussion with an anon about some edits the anon made. They were warned for vandalism, removed the warnings claiming they were not valid, and violated the 3RR in the process. Please take a look --AW 19:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Inquery

Just curious as to why some weeks-old cases have not yet been addressed and the cases seem to be randomly chosen / skipped. Not exactly familiar with this process. Thanks. ~ UBeR 21:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It happens. If you make a report and nothing happens, you are free to put a reminder here (or on the page of a friendly admin :-). Weeks old cases are stale and will not be actionned William M. Connolley 21:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Friendly admin? Is that some sort of lame paradox? ;-) ~ UBeR 04:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Fill out Result block

Please fill out the result block when you close a case. It helps those who come after by knowing what still needs attention without having to read every case.Rlevse 14:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Tweaked example

I added some edit comments before the example, as it has been my experience that people continuously damage the master copy, file reports with less than 4 reversions, insert bad diffs or non-diffs, forget to add the diff time, forget to add the version reverted to, etc. Maybe this will make a small improvement. Crum375 18:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a timestamp to the example template. I'm not sure why the "Comment" section isn't visible in the window, but it was present in the example. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Necessary for newer users

We say that it's necessary for "newer users" to be warned about 3RR or they'll likely not be blocked. What does that mean, really? Where do we draw the line between "newer" and "not newer"? I ask because I question if it's really the right standard to have. I tend to judge on the standard of whether or not it's reasonably certain the user knows about the rule, regardless of how old the account is. I've run into accounts over a year old where I warned them about 3RR and they replied, "Oh, I didn't know." On the other hand, a user who mentions the 3RR or edit warring in edit summaries, talk page posts etc. needs no warning (again, regardless of the age of the account). Heimstern Läufer 04:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

what does this mean

"Previous version reverted to ______"

I don't know which version of the article to put in. Good friend100 02:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I am requesting an answer to my question. I hope somebody will answer it. I've only been waiting 2 weeks. Good friend100 19:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll answer yours, in hopes that someone will notice that no-one ever answered mine. Sometimes, to revert, people go back to an old version and save it over the existing one. If that's what the person you are complaining about is doing, that is the "Previous Version Reverted To." Go the history of the article in question, and click on that version. Copy the address from the address bar in your browser, and paste that in to your complaint. Kww 20:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

amadscientist

It seems like my report was ignored/skipped. I had some formatting problems the first time around, so that may have been the cause. Kww 13:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Problems at African American

I'm not sure if this qualifies as a WP:3RR violation, but there is a user on the African American page who keeps removing the text "or Black American" from the article. I have tried to engage this user in discussion on the issue to explain that this is a documented variation based on policy from the United States Census Bureau. I replaced the text that was removed last time and added the reference that is used on multiple pages to justify the variation. I'm not sure how to proceed here. CJ 01:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

User: Iterator12n reported by User:CZmarlin (Result:)

• Three-revert rule violation on June 25, 2007

Robert Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Iterator12n (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

Repeated deletion of the proper link to an article (from Bob Evans (restauranteur) to a nonexistent Bob Evans (restaurateur)) on the Robert Evans disambiguation page.

• 1st revert: [3] Revision as of 10:18, 25 June 2007
• 2nd revert:[4] Revision as of 10:18, 25 June 2007
• 3rd revert: [5] Revision as of 11:05, 25 June 2007
• 4th revert: [6] Current revision (11:19, 25 June 2007)

• I'm not sure if this will help resolve the 3RR issue, but the word is spelled "restaurateur" (not "restauranteur"). Alansohn 21:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Question?

Are either Ryan Delaney or myself violating the 3RR on this page?. WookMuff 11:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Can we get a bot to archive the noticeboard more frequently...anything with much more than 200kbs makes it really hard for me to get the pages to load.--MONGO 21:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Template

I've set up a draft template, located at User:AGK/Sandbox/3 (an example is at User:AGK/Sandbox/4). Comments are welcome.

Anthøny 21:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It's much appreciated, but both this template and the template on the project page need to be more thoroughly explained in detail. What should I put where, and where can I find it? Apologies in advance if said documentation already exists. --Roehl Sybing 15:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:AGK/Sandbox/3 ~ Anthøny 19:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Self-reporting?

I've made numerous changes in the last few hours to several Hawaii-related articles (Apology Resolution, Kingdom of Hawaii, Liliuokalani, Morgan Report, Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy, and Legal status of Hawaii). A few of them (but not more than one per article) were outright reverts; the rest were both major and minor copy edits (including typo corrections), but were done entirely in good-faith and as constructive edits to the various articles. Given that these articles are also contested in a quasi edit war with a certain editor, I wanted to check that I haven't inadvertently violated 3RR. I had thought 3RR applied only to outright "undo" edits, which few of these were, but I checked and now I am uncertain. In any case, I'm self-reporting this 1. to inquire if this is a technical violation and 2. if so, to plead that I have been acting in good faith (most of my edits were to add citations, but also to remove contentious material). In any case, I'm done for the day (down with a cold!). Thanks and aloha. Arjuna 08:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are concerned that you have violated 3RR you can revert yourself. I'm not sure an admin will necessarily look at this talk page when dealing with a subsequent report about you so you may want to watch the project page yourself. I looked at Kingdom of Hawaii and that was definitely not a 3RR violation. 3RR says that you can not undo the actions of other editors more than 3 times on any page within 24 hours. If there is not an intervening action by another editor in between your edits they all count as one. Basically 3RR is supposed to be like this. You remove some material, someone adds it, you remove it again, someone adds it again, remove it again, add it again. At that point, removing it again would be a 3RR violation. However you should avoid edit wars and work out the differences on the talk page because you may find yourself blocked sooner or later. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 11:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Not Handled

Someone inserted this into the example at the bottom of the page. I removed it because it kind of implied to me at least that an admin had already reviewed the case and decided not to do anything. I think we can all work out that no result shown means that the complaint is still open. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Response delay

I posted a 3RR violation three days ago, and it still hasn't been handled. Did i do something wrong, or is there any other reason for this? Foobaz·o< 01:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you don't understand the purpose of a 3RR block which is to stop disruptive behavior, like know-best edits. Read up on it. Misou 05:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

My post is now in the archives. It was never taken care of. Foobaz·o< 04:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, tag says "not handled". That's the end then. Misou 05:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion how to fix 3RR so that it would not be susseptible for canvassing and would actually prevent large scale editwars.

I'm starting a discussion on this matter with an essay Accusations of collaboration: 3RR hurts Wikipedia. I propose limiting reverts further to three reverts on particular the edit making socks and canvassing useless. --Alexia Death the Grey 10:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Anything missing in this report?

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Jeeny_reported_by_User:KarenAER_.28Result:_.29 I'm asking because most reports below it were processed. Thx... KarenAER 18:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for other admins, but I declined to take action because a look at the article and its talk page suggested that your own involvement in the edit war appears comparable to that of the person who was subject of the report. My other option was to block both of you. But it would be more helpful if the parties could attempt a compromise. Raymond Arritt 20:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Can please someone else look at the report and mark it as no action if no action is necessary? And my involvement in the edit war was to revert unilateral changes by Jeeny and I didnt break the 3RR rule. KarenAER 00:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Elvis Presley

User [Dreaded_Walrus] violated the 3RR on the [Elvis Presley] page in a period of less than an hour. Over a few different edits i had made.Aladdin Zane 18:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello there, You should consider posting your info about violations on the actual notice board, this page is for discussion about the board itself. Anynobody 09:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Unclean hands

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Justanother reported by User:Anynobody (Result: Warned) typifies a problem I've noticed here over the past few months. (Please understand I am not asking for anything further to be done on this case itself, I'm just using it as an example.) Someone will report another editor for violating 3RR on the same page they themselves have violated 3RR. In this case the example editor filed such a report Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:RookZERO reported by User:Justanother (Result: 1 week).

To keep this from happening in the future I propose that the form be modified slightly to include ({{3RRV}}) 3RR review links for the submitting editor in addition to the reported violator. Anynobody 09:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

For anyone seeing this, this edit by User:Jpgordon from an ongoing arbitration is relevant. AN, I am not going to discuss this further with you here so please do not address me. The diff speaks for itself. Say what you care to, but please not to me. --Justanother 19:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, this isn't specifically about you Justanother, since I've seen other editors do it too. Anynobody 00:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Is making the reporter list themselves too on {{3RRV}} a good idea?

I doubt I'm the only one to notice other editors doing this too, whether they mean to or not. It sends a very mixed signal when the editor who reports a violation gets immunity from the same offense. Anynobody 00:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a good question. On one hand, it would seem like a good idea, since both sides will be treated fairly.

Realize, though, that this may discourage one editor from reporting the other. An editor would likely not want himself blocked along with his opponent, so he will continue to edit war rather than coming here to settle things. That may make things messier, get more people blocked, and more articles locked. I do agree that the current system is unfair in that he who tattles first "wins," though. You Can't Review Me!!! 01:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, it may encourage a third person to report both of the offending parties. However, it is sometimes the case that a third party simply isn't present; ergo, two editors will simply edit war into oblivion. It's a double-edged sword. More suggestions would be nice. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point which I hadn't realized, still I imagine other editors would notice the edit warring and come forward. If I had not had any prior association with one of the editors in my example it'd be a good example of what I mean. (Isn't there an admin tool which alerts them to a page under heavy reversion?)

I don't want to scare off good faith editors. All the same it seems even more damaging to foster double standards because by the time an editor has enough experience to notice it, they may become disillusioned and leave. Perhaps the wording on the page could explain that the admin will take the situation into account? Anynobody 01:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That carries the same problem that You Can't See Me pointed out - that the reporter will see the message and simply not report. However, it is less visible than mandating that they put down themselves on {{tl|3RRV}}, and would be a suitable compromise. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming that in most cases the difference between an honest mistake and intentionally edit warring is pretty obvious. If that's correct, and we make it as emphatic as possible, it could go towards mitigating the fear factor. Anynobody 01:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Something else occurred to me, this isn't meant to require an editor reporting a violation here to be subject to a 3RR over all of their edits everywhere. However any blocks or warnings previously given for 3RR is definitely relevant as are their activities on the page they reported.

Editor X reports Editor Y for 3RR on Article 1, meanwhile Editor X has also violated 3RR on Article 1 at the same time.

This is more geared toward the 3RR veterans who really should know better, than a newbie filing a case who happens to have also violated the rule by a misperception.

Editor X is brand new.
The admin would WP:AGF and explain Editor X's mistake without taking any other action.

Editor X has been around for a reasonable amount of time, never filed a report or been the subject of one.
The admin would warn Editor X that he/she too violated the rule and explain why.

Editor X can look back on a year or more of experience, in that time he/she has filed some reports and been blocked themselves for their own violations.
The admin would block Editor X for an amount of time based on the editor's previous 3RR history.

There are obviously more possibilities, but this is what I mean when I say assuming that some cases are different than others. Anynobody 05:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

A secondary idea

In my opinion, the reporting user must admit that he or she broke 3RR and should appear sincerely sorry. So perhaps an additional restriction should be applied:

1. If the user had already broken 3RR before providing the opponent with the warning template, that user ought to change the page back to what it used to be prior to his edit and admit in an edit summary that he had breeched 3RR, as is suggested in WP:3RR. The 3RR warning should be placed on the opponent's page immediately afterwards.
2. In order to proove that he or she did not realize he or she had done so, that user should not alter the article for the duration of the 24-hour period. If not, the user might have just done that so that he or she gets the chance to tattle. This will also give the opponent the time to realize his or her own mistake and fix their mistake with WP:3RR's fix suggestion. Finally, this 24-hour period gives both users the chance to cool down and talk things over sensibly before turning to administrators for help.
3. Should the opponent revert again after the warning had been issued, continue to revert edits by other users, or otherwise be stubborn about their version of the page, only then may the initial user report here.

At any point in the edit war, either or both users may be reported by a third party who had not breeched 3RR. Similarly, this restriction should not apply at all if only one user had pushed the fourth revert and the other had not.

Those are my thoughts. So, responses? Criticism? Agreements? Expletives? You Can't Review Me!!! 02:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that an editor who realizes they too violated the rule should get the benefit of the doubt. (This is assuming the person hasn't had much experience with 3RR. Was that what you meant?)

Though I've thought about it quite a bit more and realized that there is already a system in place meant to keep this from happening. When we post here, the article where the violations are occurring is supposed to be put in a template like this: Subregion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) so that the admin reviewing the request can look at the page themselves. It's pretty easy to tell what's going on with a look at the history page. This is assumed though, since it doesn't appear to give procedures for how they should investigate these cases. (I get the feeling that some admins are only looking at the evidence presented and not looking into the situation based on some cases I've observed.)

Sorry to keep changing the focus on this. Anynobody 03:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Propose new instructions for admins

Right now the only instruction for them on this page is

Administrators: once you have dealt with a report please make a note so that other administrators don't waste time responding to it.

I think we should be a bit more specific about what's expected of those making decisions:

Administrators:
Be sure to investigate the edit history of the reported article for instances of further 3RR violations.
Once you have dealt with a report please make a note so that other administrators don't waste time responding to it.

(I'm not saying this'll stop all occurrences of people with unclean hands reporting and getting away with it themselves. At least it'll prevent some occurrences. Plus when/if an admin makes the same mistake at least that time we'll be able to say it was in the instructions.) Anynobody 06:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain changing the instructions will cause admins to heed them. Most admins who come here regularly "know" how to take care of a 3RR report and will not re-read the instructions (and therefore will not notice the change). -- tariqabjotu 03:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it most likely won't change much overnight, but as new admins are elected and old ones make mistakes it'll be there to guide them and hopefully show dividends in the long run. (Right now I couldn't in good conscience be critical of an admin who doesn't do any research, simply because nobody told them that they should.) Anynobody 03:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Signatures, datestamp requirement, and the reporting format

In light of a recent SineBot bug report, I recently considered that there should be some sort of requirement for signatures to any additions/modifications to reports for a few reasons:

1. Non-submitter diffs. Someone other than the 3RR submitter tacks on diffs to the report and explicitly doesn't sign. This could easily be done to confuse people into thinking that the bad diffs were added by the submitter and not by some random person, or simply by a good-faith editor adding more diffs.
2. Time-disjointed additions. The submitter (or someone else) adds another diff, but doesn't sign, so it's difficult to see that the timeframe in which the new diff occurred, or even if the new diff was part of the original report.
3. This page's history can get chaotic. All things considered, this page is frequently modified and sifting through diffs to find who added what and when can be a pain in the butt.

Anyway, I tentatively exempted diff additions from autosigning by the bot, but that can easily be reversed, depending on what you guys think. Personally, I would rather require any new addition of information to be signed simply for informative purposes. It might also be a consideration to change the reporting format to something less reporter-specific. After all, if there's a particular edit war in progress, it would make sense that multiple people will be reporting stuff and that contributions and replies to the original report might entail additions of information outside the scope of the original reporter's concerns.

What do you guys think? Talk amongst yourselves. :) --slakr^(talk) 06:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like it'll reduce clutter, but at the same time could make it slightly more difficult to track down who added what and when. Anynobody 07:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Right-- that's my point. If editors are required to sign and date additions to the page that could be mistaken as someone else's contributions, it would conceivably reduce issues of "who added what and when," since everyone would be required to sign everything they add. --slakr^(talk) 09:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused (sorry), but didn't you say that diff additions would be exempted from autosigning? Therefore allowing any edits which are just diffs to be posted without the bot signing for an editor who didn't.
If the idea is to help ensure editors don't sneak diffs into other editor's evidence, it seems to me that diffs should be autosigned.
If the idea is to reduce the number bot signatures, then diffs should not be autosigned. Either way would be fine with me. Anynobody 22:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I added an exemption for "diff only" additions, which is the reason I mentioned that it might only be temporary, since I wanted to come here to see what you guys thought about actually requiring signatures on diff additions and/or changing the 3rr report format so that when people who aren't the original submitter modify a 3rr report it doesn't look like the original submitter is the one adding information, but rather the person who is actually adding the information. --slakr^\ talk / 21:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there are any strong feelings about it one way or the other, since the number of comments has been rather low. I'd prefer to see the identity of anyone adding diffs. Chances are they'd be refactored once identified anyway, so the autosignatures probably won't pile up. Anynobody 07:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with users who constantly reverts to a version going against consensus

I've encountered a user that is constantly reverting Jackie Chan to a version that is not agreed by consensus. Would I be breaking the 3RR if I revert him back more than 3 times a day? I'm asking this because I don't want to get into trouble for starting a revert war. Thanks in advance.--Alasdair 06:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that his edits are not simple and obvious vandalism, yes, you would be breaking 3RR. Fortunately for you, however, if the user is going against consensus, other users will be reverting it back along with you. Since this one user is the only one who supports his version of the page, he'll push the limit before any of his opponents get close to three reverts.

Be sure to offer him the standard warning and prompt him to strive for consensus on the discussion page per WP:BRD, though. The goal isn't to force him to break the rule just so that you can block him. Consider the block to be a last resort to prevent an edit war. You Can't Review Me!!! 06:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, that editor continuously removed a sourced sentence about JC's illegitimate son (referenced by Time magazine), claiming Time is not reliable, based on rumors, etc. It's been thoroughly discussed in Talk:Jackie Chan#Son, and he's the only one who holds the viewpoint that it's not reliable. The User:DaliusButkus seemed to hang around that page, and it's almost impossible to convince him that he's intepreting WP:RS incorrectly, despite my efforts.--Alasdair 06:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Permit 5RR?

Forgive me if you strongly disagree, but has anyone considered a 5RR rule for a specific issue? This could eliminate socks because the first sock would be limited to 2RR and the second sock limited to 0RR.

For example, if some edited "Esteemed author X is an idiot and here's a citation", opposing editors could change it to "Esteemed author X is not an idiot and here's his IQ test results". 2 conspiring editors can do 6RR and outnumber one editor's 3RR. This may cause socks to be created.

With a 5RR rule for each issue, it's useless to create socks. The sockpuppet complaint board may shrink. Conflict and suspicion could also shrink. Archtrain 20:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what the difference would be here. Two users' ten reverts would still outnumber one user's five. You Can't Review Me!!! 20:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)