Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

message: 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)
thread_title: Report example

message: I am reporting Robert Stevens for continualy reverting my edit to Macro Evolution where I simply added a pannle (don't know what their called) saying the fectuality and nutrelity is qustioned when I added a section to the talk page qustioning it. Repetedly reverts my edit putting it up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin012 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reporting [[User:Robert Stevens]]

message: 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)
replies: text: I've fixed the above. Mark83 23:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No idea what happened

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Not archiving 

message: 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 ; [[    { %c2%a1 %c2%bf  %7e%7e%7e%7e  } ;]] 12:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello, 

message: 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)
replies: text: Well, I'd be cautious if I were you William M. Connolley 09:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Following [[Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#How_to_use_article_talk_pages|talk page guidelines]]?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What to do in this case 

message: Tasc is doing a lot of reverts to restore a prod. Is that 3RR? --ElaragirlTalk|Count 16:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Question... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  an automated system? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Welsh Nationalism]] revert war 

message: 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)
thread_title: Curtis is still reverting

message: Just wondering if there's any reason why this report  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Case delay?

message: 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)
thread_title:  A mere suggestion for an improvement 

message: 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:
:
Because it's no longer necessary. The use of parser functions in templates such as  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)
thread_title: Note

message: 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)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: 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)
thread_title: BMT

message: 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)
thread_title: Suggestion

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  How is a result "no violation" if the user is blocked? 

message: Then I'll put this up here. Would still like a reply. Sciurinæ 21:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because "deleted text " == "revert" is way too harsh William M. Connolley 21:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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. 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)
thread_title:  No violation? Why? 

message: 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)
thread_title: No progress since fix

message: 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. --Ckatzchatspy 23:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thank you. For future reference, was I correct in reverting? Is there a better way to approach this? --Ckatzchatspy 17:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting advice 

message: 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)
thread_title:  3RR case 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Fill out Result block

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Tweaked example 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Necessary for newer users 

message: "Previous version reverted to ______"
I don't know which version of the article to put in. Good friend100 02:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  what does this mean 

message: 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)
thread_title:  amadscientist 

message: 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)
thread_title: Problems at [[African American]]

message: *Three-revert rule violation on June 25, 2007
. : Time reported: 21:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User: Iterator12n]] reported by [[User:CZmarlin]] (Result:)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: User talk:AGK/Sandbox/3 ~ Anthøny 19:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Self-reporting? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Not Handled 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: My post is now in the archives. It was never taken care of. Foobaz·o< 04:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, tag says "not handled". That's the end then. Misou 05:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response delay 

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

message: Wikipedia:Administrators%27_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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Anything missing in this report? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Elvis Presley

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Propose new instructions for admins

message: 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:
#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.
#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.
#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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Signatures, datestamp requirement, and the reporting format 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Note: 5RR per IDEA. Archtrain 20:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Well, I'm still not so sure that's the best course of action. One reason for 3RR is to proove the existence of consensus. If one user goes up against consensus, he'll be limited to his three reverts, while the remaining users will continue to revert. The 5RR per idea effectively nullifies that process of maintaining consensus. You Can't Review Me!!! 20:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Permit 5RR?

message: Wow, this pages goes back a couple of weeks. Anyone think it would be a good idea to get a bot in to archive complaints older than 24 hours? Ryan Postlethwaite 00:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot?