Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive19

User:8bitJake reported by User:FRCP11 (Case No. 3) (result: 12h each)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:32 June 7
 * 1st revert: 18:32 June 7
 * 2nd revert: 18:40
 * 3rd revert: 15:28 June 8
 * 4th revert: 15:58 June 8

Reported by: FRCP11 16:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

I reported 8bitJake for multiple violations of 3RR on Henry M. Jackson, which resulted in two separate blocks. He retaliated by repeatedly reverting my edits on Christine Gregoire and Moby. Rather than getting into a revert war, I simply added a POV tag to the Gregoire article, and made a RFC for both articles; he's now removed the POV tag four times in 20 hours, as well as violated WP:NPA on the Requests for comment/Politics page. Beware that 8bitJake regularly claims "consensus" when none exists (he was in a 1:6 minority on Henry Jackson and is in a 2:3 minority on Gregoire). -- FRCP11 16:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think and 8 have both broken 3RR; so they can have 12h each William M. Connolley 19:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As a question as a third party who's been directly involved in this ongoing battle w/8BJ, how does 12 hours work for a user's 5th offense and his third in less than 10 days? Is there a formula that admins use on this?  --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There are no fixed rules. 8bit would probably have got 24h from me had he been the only violater William M. Connolley 21:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So one's past isn't taken into account? The fact that he's a serial violator means nothing in this case?  I'm puzzled. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This user keeps reverting my del on the Noam Chomsky page when I specifically put my reasons in talk, stated so much, and he's refused to discuss it. What is the point of editing if a user can continually ignore the rules and avoid punishment?

Wikipedia really needs to rethink its procedures. Because I reported this guy and he got a tiny block last week, he's been wikistalking me, systematically reverted all of my edits, and regularly personally attacking me. I followed the rules, discussed on the talk pages, and issued RFCs, no effect. When I reported him again, I got blocked; if I had just let him keep vandalizing the page, I wouldn't have been blocked. Meanwhile, this guy, who's been blocked five times now, and hasn't ever attempted compromise, gets the same penalty I do -- except he didn't waste time drafting a complaint. (8bitJake understands the effect of this arbitrary ruling, even if the administrators don't: Look at him gloat as he gets taught how to make bad-faith edits.

If Wikipedia makes its editors worse off for reporting violations, then violators are going to act with impunity. I'm certainly not going to spend time writing up one of these notices any more: I'm stunned anyone does after what I went through for doing so. Nor am I going to waste my time editing Wikipedia any more, either, because if it doesn't treat the bad-faith editors any differently than the good-faith editors, it means that this place is doomed to have the noise outweigh the signal. Gresham's Law.

I'm not going to waste two weeks going through three levels of procedure to get this guy to stop harassing me when the administrators can't even distinguish between the placement of a POV tag and a 3RR violation, and count compromise edits that add sources as counting towards 3RR violations.

So, congratulations: you chased away an educated editor who'd contributed over 2000 edits in favor of a bad-faith editor who ignores the RFC process. -- FRCP11 10:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Panairjdde reported by User:Nissi Kim (result: 3h)
Three revert rule violation on. :

Note: User:Panairjdde has several other reverts of the same issues before this 24 hour period.
 * Previous version reverted to: 08:37, 7 June 2006
 * 1st revert: 09:43, 7 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 08:54, 8 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 08:54, 8 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 12:50, 8 June 2006
 * 5th revert: 14:22, 8 June 2006

Reported by: Nissi Kim 19:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Panairjdde continues to input biased, non-NPOV, irrelevent, unsupported-uncited-unreferenced opinions. He has been told numerous times that he has put in biased, degrading material and information but repeatedly reverts the edits. I'm fairly knew to this article and upon entering the Discussion page, it seems as if he has been warned by several others in the WIki community. His original edits seem to be NPOV but has verged far from that. The exact lines and etc. can be seen discussed in the Talk page.

3h first offence William M. Connolley 19:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Envix reported by User:older ≠ wiser
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * Note there were also several reversions before the current 24hr period.
 * 1st revert: 14:58, June 8, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:05, June 8, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 15:08, June 8, 2006
 * 4th revert: 15:10, June 8, 2006
 * 5th revert: 15:17, June 8, 2006
 * 6th revert: 17:50, June 8, 2006

Second round after making a few superficial changes:
 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert: 18:36, June 8, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 18:43, June 8, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 18:47, June 8, 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:49, June 8, 2006

Reported by: older ≠ wiser 18:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User is new, and may be a DeVos campaign worker (see Talk:Dick DeVos), but in any case seems to have developed a sense of ownership over the article and their preferred version. older ≠ wiser 18:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

2006-06-08 18:59:51 Naconkantari blocked "Envix (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR on Dick DeVos) William M. Connolley 19:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Mikhail Frunze reported by User:User:Ultramarine (result: warned)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:28, 8 June 2006
 * 1st revert: 21:25, 8 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 22:18, 8 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 22:37, 8 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 22:44, 8 June 2006

Reported by: Ultramarine 23:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Four reverts to exactly the same version. Is behaving similarly on Holodomor.Ultramarine 23:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Mikhail Frunze probably uses also IP for reverted --Yakudza 01:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems to have gone away again? Warned William M. Connolley 19:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Looper5920 reported by User:217.235.205.150
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:17, 8 June 2006
 * 1st revert: 12:24, 8 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 18:34, 8 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 22:19, 8 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 22:55, 8 June 2006

Reported by: 217.235.205.150

Comments: Looper keeps reverting improvements to the article named above. From his statements on /Talk I understand that he wants the article to represent the official position of the US Military instead of facts.
 * This is not the place for content disputes, but be aware that even if Looper is blocked (since Looper did violate the 3RR), that does not represent an endorsement of your change. I would suggest you seek a consensus on the talk page before reverting it again.  Powers 01:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What, 3RR can be broken as long as it is related to a content dispute, but not if everyone agrees? What idiotic argumentation is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.209.60 (talk • contribs) 05:52 UTC, June 9, 2006
 * It's not one I made. I'm not saying 3RR can be broken, I'm saying that it doesn't mean you're right and Looper is wrong, just that Looper went too far in enforcing Looper's preferred version.  It's a moot point now, since Looper has tried a compromise, and I'm frankly not sure which of you is correct anymore.  =)  Powers 12:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

User:68.112.25.197 reported by User:cholmes75 (chit chat)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:35, June 1, 2006
 * 1st revert: 00:12, June 6, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 00:26, June 6, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 06:33, June 6, 2006

Reported by: cholmes75 (chit chat) 05:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I'm not sure if it's too late to report this, but user 68.112.25.197 engaged in a mini-edit war for the sole purpose of placing a non-fair use image into an article. He/she has already been blocked once for 3RR violations. He was also warned about 3RR again on his talk page, and as far as I can tell did it anyway. (unless I'm getting the times mixed up)

User:Objectman reported by User:Deiaemeth (result - 3hr block)
Three revert rule violation on and. :

For An Jung-geun


 * Previous version reverted to: 04:14, 9 June 2006
 * 1st revert: 04:50, 9 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 05:25, 9 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 06:30, 9 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 07:48, 9 June 2006
 * 5th revert: 08:43, 9 June 2006

For VANK


 * Previous version reverted to: 9 June 2006
 * 1st revert: 04:49, 9 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 05:24, 9 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 06:29, 9 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 07:47, 9 June 2006
 * 5th revert: 08:42, 9 June 2006

Reported by: Deiaemeth 08:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Warned numerous times for 3RR violation through user talk, article talk, and edit summary, deleted warning template off user page, keeps inserting personal POV like "Ahn Jung-geun is regarded as stupid man who killed an old guy", inserts POV templates in many articles just because the article doesn't suit his POV, etc. He has more edits that violate 3RR but i'll just list these. "only a stupid terrorist who killed a defenseless old man. " This seems very encyclopedic and NPOV. Deiaemeth 08:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

2006-06-09 14:14:56 Kcordina blocked "Objectman (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 hours (3RR on An Jung-geun) William M. Connolley 19:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

User:HOTR reported by User:Zeq Talk
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: In part it is this version 17:24, June 7, 2006 and as far as the "OR tag" User:HOTR has reverted the top section to this version: 04:40 June 9, 2006( OR tag was reinserted twice and other text reverted for total of 4  reverts in under 24 hours)


 * 1st revert: 01:19, June 9, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 02:37, June 9, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 02:46, June 9, 2006
 * 4th revert: 06:42, June 9, 2006
 * 5th revert: 12:25 June 9, 2006 (restoring fact tag)

4th and 5th revert is a repeat on this edit:

04:39 June 9, 2006

Reported by: Zeq 14:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Admin note: The edits cited above do not appear to be the same, and therefore do not constitue a breach of WP:3RR. Kcordina Talk 14:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Editor note Read the 3RR policy, especialy the words  "in whole or in part" see WP:3RR. The policy does not allow even a partial revert as defined in: Revert : "'To revert is to undo all changes made after a certain time in the past. The result will be that the page becomes identical to how it used to be at some previous time. A partial revert undoes only some of those changes.'"
 * It is clearly a violation. Zeq 14:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I am still of the opinion their behaviour does not deserve any action. To summarise the diffs you've cited:-

Revert 1 - Deleted a lot of text, added a link Revert 2 - Ditto Revert 3 - Ditto (but no link inserted) Revert 4 - Add a tag Revert 5 - Add a fact tag Final diff cited - Add two tags

So they've done 3 reversions of one type - deleting a section of text. 2 edits relating to one tag, and 2 edits relating to another tag. This has no relation to "in whole or in part" the two groups are totally unrelated - they've reverted 3 times and then stopped. If I'm reading it wrong please let me know Kcordina Talk 14:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The first 3 are clearly reverts all are the same all return a section to what it was in the initial version. Do we agree so far that the first 3 are 3 reverts. ?

Now look at this edit it adds two tags. Some other users have removed these tags and next:

Homeonethe range restored that section's tags (in reverts #4 and #5). so there was clearly a violation because there were 5 edits each of them reverted  part  of the article and the policy sais "in whole or in part" Zeq 15:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I can see where your coming from, but I, personally, interpret the rule differently. I see there as being a breach of the rule in all, or the same subsections, of an article are reverted more than three times - not simply more than three reverts on an article in total.  So in this case, there have only been up to 3 reverts of one type, hence I have chosen not to block the user, and I still think that is correct.  I have, however, made a note to the user concerned to this effect.  Perhaps a different admin will have a different view. Kcordina Talk 15:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Note from second admin: I haven't looked at the diffs to see if they really are reverts, and I'm a bit busy at the moment, but will just point out that the policy page specifically says (in bold letters in the Detail section):
 * "Note: There is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count."

I'm not involved in this, and I have no problem with whatever decision is taken by the admin who looks into it, but I think it's important for the rule to be properly understood. AnnH ♫ 16:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've looked into it and it was clearly a 3RR violation. I've issued a 24 block. Now let's discuss the  deleting this report as a "content dispute", when it's clearly a 3RR report; that's clearly disruptive and inappropriate. FeloniousMonk 16:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, the removal of this report by was inappropriate. I asked for an explanation and we need to make sure that in the future violation reports do not get sweeped under the rug. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * He deleted it twice . this is the 2nd: - a clear edit war. I also left him amessage on his talk page that he ignored. Despite all the narrowing of my ability to edit because of the probation I decided to reinstate the 3RR report although I was risking it. In any case this below is even more important:  (Zeq 20:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC))

additional offenses by same violator:
This his his 5th 3RR (4 of them on the last two weeks, 3 of which - including this one -  are on apartheid realted articles), so 24 hours seem a bit low. In fact in almost does not matter for how long will the block last, this violator edit pattern is of constant edit-wars and disruption. For example here is :::: praticipation in an edit-ring to circumvent the 3RR law. (i.e.) he disrupted Wikipedia while violating WP:Point


 * 09:34 June 8, 2006–06–08


 * 09:53 June 8, 2006–06–08


 * 10:00 June 8, 2006–06–08


 * 17:43 June 8, 2006–06–08


 * This is just the tip of the iceberg of his disruption on that article. Since Block are preventive (not punative)  I encourge you to decide based on his edit pattern  for how long he need to cool in order to prevent continuion of this edit pattern. reported by Zeq 19:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's regrettable that Zeq chose to repost a 3RR complaint after it had been rejected and removed. I think it's highly questionable that when doing so he chose to omit my response to the original complaint. That sounds a lot like "gaming the system". Homey 01:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I  did not removed Homey's comments. In fact I restored them twice. NSLE was the one that removed them together with the whole complained I was the one who tried to restore it twice. Zeq 08:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

By rejected and removed, of course you mean innappropriatly deleted without consultation from anyone, despite being a valid report of a repeat offender. Also how often do we delete reports anyways, even those that are clearly frivolous?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Improper unblocking of HOTR
Bearcat's unblocked HOTR. His unblocking summary said "disputed edit is not a clear 3RR violation; two separate issues, neither of which individually exceeded the 3RR rule, were conflated into one." Three-revert_rule specifically says (in bold even):
 * "There is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count."

Meaning his reason for unblocking HOTR was based on a flawed understanding of 3RR policy. Furthermore, WP:BLOCK clearly says "If you disagree with a block, begin by discussing it with the blocking admin. Admins should not undo each other's blocks, except in certain limited circumstances." Bearcat made no such effort; if he had followed policy there'd have been an opportunity to avoid this confusion. So, again, unblocking outside of policy. I've left notes on all the relevant user talk pages and have reinstated the remainder of HOTR's block, which is 12 hours. FeloniousMonk 02:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As I've stated on your talk page, the rule you cite was added to the 3RR policy on April 18, 2006. I can find no indication that any discussion ever took place to build consensus for this rule change; as long as I've been an administrator, the rule was that the 3RR rule applied to reversions of the same material. Until someone can point out where the new rule was discussed and approved, I do not accept that I acted outside of policy; being a Wikipedia administrator does not imbue me with some kind of responsibility to be psychic about unannounced rule changes. Bearcat 02:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It is clear in the wikipedia 3RR policy that a reversion refers to "undoing another editors work. It is irrelevant whether or not it is the same edit every single time.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It says that now. Until less than two months ago, the rule was that 3RR applied to reversions of the same material. The rule was changed within the past six weeks. Unless I somehow have a responsibility to reread the entire 3RR policy every single time a 3RR issue comes up, I'm mystified as to how I'm expected to have known that, and I still have yet to see any kind of discussion to establish a consensus for the rule change. Bearcat 03:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Even before two months ago people were being blocked for violating it as it exists now, in fact Homey has personally reported people for 3RR violations that wouldn't be blockable according to the policy that you are describing.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about the policy as written; an informal unwritten consensus followed by some administrators in some situations doesn't count as a binding policy that other administrators can be faulted for not knowing about. Bearcat 03:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The nature of wikipedia is change. Policies, just like articles, evolve. It is incumbent upon each admin to stay abreast of current policy; most have the primary policy pages on their watchlists and are active. Not being aware of the rules as they are written is no excuse. Try telling a cop that you didn't know what the speed limit was next time you're caught speeding and see how far that gets you. Amazing. FeloniousMonk 03:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Any speeding ticket on the planet could be overturned in court if it resulted from an unannounced and unposted-except-for-one-single-sign-that's-not-even-visible-from-the-road change in the long-standing speed limit on a given highway. Anybody can say "well, you had a responsibility to know the law was being changed even though the city did nothing to publicize or announce the fact", but no court in the world would hold the driver criminally culpable for not personally going to city hall to read the city council minutes every day just in case the speed limit might change unannounced. The only amazing thing about this is that you actually think it's a valid metaphor for the matter at hand. Bearcat 04:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The argument that the 3RR clarification changed the law 6 weeks ago is ridiculus claim. as is the claim that the policy as written is not clear. The policy was not changed, it was always clear. Here is a quote from 1.5 yr ago: "Reverting doesn't only mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. It means undoing the actions of another editor, and may include edits that mostly undo a previous edit and also add something new, page moving, admin actions such as protection, etc. Use common sense." Bearcat was just engage in wp:Wheel war and trying now to produce explnations for it.Zeq 03:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It most certainly was changed. Until quite recently, the rule per 3RR was that it applied to repeated reversions of the same material. Your quote does not contradict that — it defines what a reversion is, and does not claim or even imply that different edits over the course of a dispute can be added together into a single 3RR violation. And you can kindly take your assumptions about my behavioural motivations and boil them up for soup. Bearcat 03:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Bearcat, the 3RR rule has included partial, complex reverts for as long as I can recall, and in August last year, the phrase that a revert is "undoing another editor's work" was added explicitly. There's a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Three revert rule. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 04:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose your understanding of "complex revert" and mine may differ, but I understand it to mean "if it's basically the same revert, it counts even if the wording or structure of it varies", as opposed to "it doesn't count unless the wording is identical every time." My understanding of the phrase does not include "completely unrelated reverts to different sections of an article count even if neither one taken as an individual case would exceed three reverts". Bearcat 04:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's suppose you added five new paragraphs to an article and added the clean-up tag. I reverted your first paragraph. You restored it. I reverted your second paragraph. You restored it. I reverted your third. You restored. I reverted your fourth. Another editor restored. I reverted your fifth. Someone restored. I reverted the tag. Someone restored. By your definition, I might not have violated 3RR because I was reverting different material each time. But the 3RR rule does include this kind of reverting, because the intent of the policy was to stop revert warring, not just to stop restoration/deletion of the same material. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If that's the rule as it stands, I'm fine with enforcing that now. What I won't do is accept that I'm somehow at fault for having had a different understanding. The intent of a policy is less readily enforceable if the letter of the policy is ambiguous enough that a reasonably intelligent person can fail to deduce the actual intent, that's all I'm sayin'. Bearcat 05:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin, why should the edit scenario you describe above be treated any differently that reverting all the paragraphs and the tag at once? If anything, such a policy only encourages people to work on whole versions in their user space, rather than in the normal wiki way of iterative change.  Conversely, it encourages editors who dispute new versions to revert them in their entirety, rather than go through it and incrementally remove or alter the parts with which they don't agree.  The intent of the original policy, as seen in the history, was specifically to prevent version warring, or as it was once said, sterile edit warring.  See the ongoing discussion on Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule.Timothy Usher 21:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the timing would make a difference. If I were removing one paragraph after another in successive edits, and the original editor was reinserting them as I was editing and I wasn't aware that he was doing that, no admin would count that as 3RR, because as you say, it would be as though I had removed them all at once. But if an editor added several paragraphs; and if I removed one, was reverted, had some breakfast; came back and removed another, was reverted, had some lunch; came back and removed another, and so on &mdash; that would be interpreted as a 3RR violation and as disruptive, sterile editing, because I'm continually undoing another editor's work, even though, by reverting, he's telling me that he doesn't want me to undo it. If I were to remove all the material at once, I at least wouldn't be contributing to an edit war. So there is a difference in terms of attitude. It's the edit warring attitude that 3RR seeks to clamp down on. I think the mistake lies with admins who believe there is no subjective element to judging when to block for 3RR. There is, and always has been, in my view. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say there would be little problem with that kind of editing pattern. Suppose someone adds several inaccurate facts to an article,  then a reader removes them one at a time (as he comes across them), saying that that would break 3RR if they were restored in between seems ludicrous, if they weren't even more so.  Rich Farmbrough 14:31 10  June 2006 (GMT).

It's false to say that "until two months ago" different reverts did not count towards the 3RR. As long as I can remember, the 3rr has been applied to separate reverts. If you said that this had changed in the last two months in the opposite direction, I might believe you, because I haven't paid much attention recently. But most certainly has been applied to multiple reverts for as long as I have been an admin - which is almost a year. I have seen lots of people try to make the case that they were "different" reverts so the 3rr would not apply, and I have seen that argument dismissed here repeatedly. In fact, I have never seen an admin uphold that logic. Guettarda 04:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The earliest form of the 3rr (on the WP:3RR page; I realise that older versions may exist elsewhere) says Don't revert any article more than three times in the same day. It doesn't say don't revert to the same version more than three times. It says don't revert. That should be clear enough. If you follow the development of the page you will see that exceptions were added - vandalism and self-reverts. I did not find an exception added to say "this only applies to reverts to the same version". No one sought to add that clarification. I have always seen the policy applied in exactly the opposite way. William's change to the policy page was a clarification of policy, not a change of policy - he added an explanation of the way the policy was enforced - the way it was enforced long before he became an admin. There was no need to discuss it (and no attempt to revert it) precisely because it was a common sense addition which clarified the way the policy was enforced. Simple enough. Guettarda 04:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I've been an administrator for almost two years (not trying to compete, just stating how long it's been) and my understanding of the rule was always that it had to be fundamentally the same revert. And I most certainly did not pull that interpretation out of my own ass; it's exactly what was communicated to me every time I was involved in 3RR discussions up until now. Bearcat 05:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Bearcat, the misunderstanding is perhaps that you've made a small number of blocks, and most of them not for 3RR. I'm the same with the deletion policy. I tend to stay away from deletion issues and so I don't keep up with how the policy is evolving. Guettarda is right: ever since the policy has existed, admins who regularly enforce 3RR have not insisted that the reverts be to the same material. It would be far too easy to game the system were that the case, and that was never the intention of the 3RR policy. William's addition was just a clarification, not a change. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

To return to the specific issue at hand, User:HotR has now acknowledged that he was technically (and inadvertently) in violation of the 3RR policy (see his talk page for verification). The propriety of FeloniousMonk's block is no longer in contention.

I would strongly recommend that an administrator use his or her discretionary powers to lift the block, in accordance with 3RR policy (ie., If you did, you should either wait the 24 hours or email the admin who blocked you (or another admin), acknowledge your error, and ask to be unblocked). It should be obvious to all readers that this violation was not intentional, and that it resulted from a misunderstanding (perhaps understandable) of 3RR policy. I would remove the block myself, except that I was a participant in the parent discussion -- any intervention on my part, accordingly, would set a bad precedent. CJCurrie 05:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That suggestion seems somewhat unreasonable. Homey has been blocked for 3RR violations many times before, and is also an administrator, as such he is well aware of the policy. He has also been increibly pushy and tendatious with this article. It is clear that a block is warranted.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue of HOTR's block becomes less and less relevant with each passing minute. He'll be unblocked shortly whatever the outcome of this discussion.  The broader issues I've addressed on his talk page, and ought to be addressed in the appropriate forum.  In the meantime, I suggest we let the clock run down in the normal fashion.Timothy Usher 06:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note that Moshe has been a frequent rival to HotR on various discussion pages. To the latter remarks, I realize that the block will soon run out of its own accord, but as a matter of principle I don't believe that an accidental 3RR reversion should be punished with full discretionary severity. CJCurrie 06:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You are clearly trying to poison the well, whether or not I have been in conflict with homey is irrelevant.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I just want to point out that HOTR was aware of that line that says any four reverts count. See here. AnnH ♫ 07:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That HOTR was aware that any reverts count towards the 3RR is also evident from this discussion on May 29. Pecher Talk 09:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

What I was unaware of is that reinserting a removed tag, such as "Original Research" would count towards a 3RR and, frankly, it seems to me that the intent of the 3RR rule is not to prevent someone from reinserting a tag after 3 other reverts. Homey 20:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As an expiriance admin Homey is well advised to follow this guidelines:
 * WP:Point
 * "When you are in a hole the first thing is to stop digging" Zeq 03:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

1) What does putting on an OR tag have to do with "gaming the system"? 2) Zeq, given that the number of articles you are banned from has doubled in the last week or so I think you should consider taking your own advice. Homey 13:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Since most articles I am banned from are protected it does not matter i am banned from them. As for gaming the system: read the policy so you will know what not to do. Zeq 17:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that you were banned from them, does ? Nor the fact that you will continue to be banned from them once they are unprotected. Homey 17:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Princess ofCloutierland reported by User:MiamiDolphins3 (result: warnings for both)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
 * 1st revert: 30 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 31 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 1 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 1 June 2006
 * 5th revert: 2 June 2006
 * 6th revert: 5 June 2006
 * 7th revert: 6 June 2006
 * 8th revert: 8 June 2006
 * 9th revert: 9 June 2006
 * 10th revert: 9 June 2006
 * 11th revert: 04:13 9 June 2006

I would like to ask for your assistance in addressing User:Princess ofCloutierland's ongoing violation of the 3rr to the Drew Rosenhaus article. I am posting here as a last resort. The user has continued to insert a non-encyclopedic and unverified paragraph about Rosenhaus refusing to participate in some Canadian radio show because of his alleged personal opposition to seal hunting in Canada. The user has made no contributions to other articles with the exception of repeatedly inserting this bizarre paragraph to one article. I confess that I have reverted his entry several times beyond three in the hopes that he/she was just a vandal who would go away without this escalation, but that has not happened. I referenced the 3rr in my reversion edits and I warned the user about it on his/her user page in the hopes that would resolve the matter, but it didn't. I think you will agree the entry is wholly unencyclopedic, unverifiable and quite possibly untrue. But this user persists despite my best efforts to make this go away amicably. I now leave this in your good hands. Thanks for your kind assistance, and I apologize in advance for my own violation of the 3rr, but I had hoped that such an irresponsible contribution would just go away without making an issue of it. Thank you. MiamiDolphins3 15:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that you've both broken 3RR. Looking at the disputed text, I can't see it as so terrible as to be immune from 3RR. So you can both have warnings; any more breaking 3RR will get you blocked William M. Connolley 19:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

User:24.94.129.139 reported by User:MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:50, June 9, 2006
 * 1st revert: 13:56, June 9, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 14:00, June 9, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 14:09, June 9, 2006

Reported by: MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 18:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Frater FiatLux reported by User:999 (result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:54, 9 June 2006
 * 1st revert: 12:57, 9 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 13:02, 9 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 13:14, 9 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 13:26, 9 June 2006

Reported by: 999 18:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Frater FiatLux is continuing an edit war started anonymously using on, since redirected. -999 18:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

24h for persistence. Dubious about the other frater - a sock, but whose? William M. Connolley 19:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Ravi5099 reported by User:Anwar (result: 6hr, both sides)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Reported by: Anwar 20:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This is a single-purpose account to vandalise Joseph_Vijay. He is a hard-core Vijay fan who does not want any flops or negative news to be listed in the article at all. He is engaging in slow reverts daily over the past 3 weeks now.
 * Blocked for 6 hours. This was a first offense (well, first block) and the user was not warned ahead of time that he was about to violate the 3RR.  Hopefully this clears things up.  If not, longer blocks will of course be called for.  User has been notified.  --Yamla 03:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked other side for 6 hours as well, as he also violated 3RR. --Yamla 03:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Zanoni666 reported by User:999
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 11:07, 9 June 2006


 * 1st revert: 18:53, 9 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 19:01, 9 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 19:12, 9 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 19:30, 9 June 2006

Reported by: 999 01:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Please also note the uncivil edit comments. The claimed "agreement" or "moderation" does not exist. There is reason to suspect that this user is evading his block for 3RR above.  -999


 * Blocked for 24 hours. Tom Harrison Talk 03:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

User:86.42.136.115 reported by User:Angus McLellan (Talk) (result: 8h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 09:40, 10 June 2006


 * 1st revert: 12:54, 10 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 14:43, 10 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 17:22, 10 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:32, 10 June 2006

Note also the identical edit by User:86.42.158.83 (talk • contribs) using same ISP, 10:41, 10 June 2006, making the above 2nd through 5th. User is presumed sock of User:Red blaze (talk • contribs) (who in turn, I suspect, could well be sockpuppeteer User:Bluegold (talk • contribs))

User advised of 3RR 18:24, 10 June 2006

Reported by: Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

8h as first offence but warned. Dunno about the socks William M. Connolley 19:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, double post here. Angusmclellan obviously beat me to it. It is not first offence, see post below. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

User:86.42.158.83/User:86.42.136.115 reported by User:Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)
Three revert rule violation on. / :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: Revision as of 10:40, June 10, 2006
 * 1st revert: Revision as of 11:41, June 10, 2006
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 13:54, June 10, 2006
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 15:43, June 10, 2006
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 18:22, June 10, 2006
 * 5th revert: Revision as of 19:32, June 10, 2006

Reported by: Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Reverted 4 times as 86.42.136.115, and once as 86.42.158.83. The user is the sock-puppeteer User:Bluegold (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/Archive/April_2006), who unfortunately escaped a permaban for his cheating and harassing of users. The user was warned by User:Angusmclellan that he had violated 3RR (he knew fine well as he has already been in trouble here under various names), and he proceeded to continue. User is a POV-pusher, and prepared to cheat and lie to attain his ends. It's tedious that I have to report him again. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't see anything in your ref pinning bluegold to 86... William M. Connolley 22:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it is obvious that Bluegold edits as EIRCOM anons. In recent days this by User:86.42.133.140 (talk • contribs) is followed up by Bluegold here as part of a seamless conversation. As for 86.42.136.115 in particular, further details sent to WMC by email. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The edit was very simple. I just removed some POV put there by Calgacus a couple of weeks ago, and then all hell broke loose today. These guys are abusing Wikipedia by acting as meatpuppets, reverting anyone who disagrees with them. But I have the courage to stand up against them. 86.42.136.115 19:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

User: 999 reported by User:Frater FiatLux
Three revert rule violation on. : *

Previous version reverted to, if applicable:  *

1st revert: User 999 is maliciously and repeatedly editing the page of the Rosicrucian Order of A+O, his constant disproportionate, superfluous, and inordinate citations are ridiculous -in the extreme. User 999 has in fact harassed me numerous times with threatening comments to my talk page and tried to block other users so that he can remain unchecked to edit the articles in a needlessly disruptive, P.O.V. and defamatory tone. He is using the very fact myself and some other users are new to Wikipedia and are not aware of certain protocols and is exploiting this to his advantage. He has been reported for this incident to the administration of Wikipedia and is encouraged to refrain from further harassment and egregious editing.
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

User 999 is on a crusade to sabotage the Rosicrucian order of A+O article and he will not listen to the consensus of the other editors. He should be blocked for a while whilst the editors of the page gather the relevant information as User 999 is in a very unprincipled manner, trying to disrupt this process as much as possible.

Reported by: Frater FiatLux 00:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a malicious false report. None of these are reverts. I've been working together with several other editors, including User:HermeticScholar and User:Kephera975. The article is moving forward, with increasing satisfaction on the part of all the editors as evidenced on the talk page. There may have been a few temporary steps backward, but overall there is forward progress on the article. -999 (Talk) 00:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't tell from the report, but superficially these don't look like reverts. I've locked the page. Tom Harrison Talk 00:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Should I take the time to document my part in the forward progress of the article? I can provide diffs of the changes between each other editors changes. -999 (Talk) 00:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't take that trouble on my account. Tom Harrison Talk 00:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. -999 (Talk) 00:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * it is mainly interference on User 999's part, he is reverting and changing things to obstruct and be one sided. None of the other orders pages have so many footnotes, 999 is playing games and should be stopped from sabotaging and interfering with the Rosicrucian Order of A+O's article. Frater FiatLux 00:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * None of the other articles have the same amount of content. The number of citations is proportional to the amount of information. The original article User:Kephera975 and I created that you didn't like was shorter and had less citations. Also, the more controversial the claims, the more citations are needed. It is not my fault your organization makes controversial claims. For the record, the only bias I have against your organization is due to your behavior - I had no opinions one way or the other until I started researching and editing the article on the Golden Dawn tradition. I am not a member of ANY of the Orders, nor a friend of Cicero's and do not have any reason to be biased against you. I am simply trying to make sure that WP policies are adhered to, and those policies require the source of the information to be cited. -999 (Talk) 00:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Uris reported by User:Johan Elisson
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: Revision as of 00:04, 11 June 2006


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 00:07, 11 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 00:25, 11 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 00:58, 11 June 2006
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 01:03, 11 June 2006

Reported by: – Elisson • Talk 00:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:


 * User has not explicitly been warned, but has himself warned below user of 3RR. See also below report part of the same editing war. – Elisson • Talk 00:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Jooler reported by User:Johan Elisson
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: Revision as of 05:18, 10 June 2006


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 06:02, 10 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 17:00, 10 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 19:34, 10 June 2006
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 23:30, 10 June 2006

Reported by: – Elisson • Talk 00:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:


 * See also above report part of the same editing war. – Elisson • Talk 00:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

User:82.45.217.232 and User:195.93.102.35 reported by User:Hardouin
Three revert rule violation on. and

These two anonymous users have reverted each other 11 times in the space of 24 hours:
 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: Revision as of 17:12, 8 June 2006
 * 1st revert (by 195.93.102.35): Revision as of 11:18, 10 June 2006
 * 2nd revert (by 82.45.217.232): Revision as of 13:19, 10 June 2006
 * 3rd revert (by 195.93.102.35): Revision as of 13:29, 10 June 2006
 * 4th revert (by 82.45.217.232): Revision as of 13:41, 10 June 2006
 * 5th revert (by 195.93.102.35): Revision as of 14:37, 10 June 2006
 * 6th revert (by 82.45.217.232): Revision as of 17:57, 10 June 2006
 * 7th revert (by 195.93.102.35): Revision as of 18:06, 10 June 2006
 * 8th revert (by 82.45.217.232): Revision as of 21:04, 10 June 2006
 * 9th revert (by 195.93.102.35): Revision as of 23:02, 10 June 2006
 * 10th revert (by 82.45.217.232): Revision as of 23:10, 10 June 2006
 * 11th revert (by 195.93.102.35): Revision as of 00:38, 11 June 2006

Reported by: Hardouin 01:50, 11 Jun 2006 (UTC)


 * I've sprotected the page and reverted to the version that includes the reference. Tom Harrison Talk 02:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

User:BhaiSaab reported by User:Timothy Usher (result: Blocked for 24hr)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 21:22, 7 June 2006


 * 1st revert: 00:26, 11 June 2006, 00:28, 11 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 00:34, 11 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 00:39, 11 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 00:43, 11 June 2006

Comments:In his first revert, BhaiSaab removed advice to refrain from potentially divisive religious language on talk pages. Immediately after this, he restored links to openly partisan Guilds, at least one which has been the center of solicitation for religiously-motivated RfA votes and reverts, as well as relentless incivility to non-members. . In his second revert, he restored those links again. In his third and fourth reverts, he removed language I’d added to caution editors away from such guilds (rather than revert his change),. After his fourth revert, he removed dates from member signatures.

I left the following message on his talk page, asking him to self-revert, rather than be reported. He responded by saying I should feel free to report him.Timothy Usher 02:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Why is removing the dates a bad thing? I thought it would be more tidy with just the names. This report is full of POV. I would urge any administrator to review each edit and claim (such as "openly partisan guilds") before making their decision to block me. BhaiSaab talk 02:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  04:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Mythology8 reported by User:Mr. Lefty (result page protected)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * 1st revert: 15:44, June 10, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 16:24, June 10, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 19:02, June 10, 2006
 * 4th revert: 19:21, June 10, 2006
 * 5th revert: 19:36, June 10 2006
 * 6th revert: 19:53, June 10 2006

User:Eiorgiomugini reported by User:Lemuel Gulliver (result 24 hours)
Three revert rule violation on by :


 * 1) 18:30, 9 June 2006 (revert)
 * 2) 06:21, 10 June 2006 (revert)
 * 3) 09:05, 10 June 2006 (revert)
 * 4) 15:58, 10 June 2006 (compromise (3 successive edits))
 * 5) 05:07, 11 June 2006 (partial revert)
 * 6) 05:22, 11 June 2006 (revert)
 * 7) 05:31, 11 June 2006 (revert)
 * 8) 05:47, 11 June 2006 (revert)
 * 9) 06:22, 11 June 2006 (revert)

Here we have five reverts in just under 24 hours from a problem user who has been blocked three time before. He won't listen despite lengthy discussion on my talk page, and has even added a bogus 3RR report to this page. — Gulliver ✉ 04:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Updated comment: If we start at the second one, we can see that he made a full seven reverts in a period of 24h and 60 seconds. Even if we discount the partial revert and the one that came seconds too late, that is still five completely unambiguous and blatant reverts. Only four are needed for a 24h block. Eiorgiomugini has expressed no remorse or willingness to stop reverting. He was blocked for this but then unblocked. He should remain blocked for the full 24 hours. Gulliver 61.69.254.188 10:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

For your information I removed your info not by reverting it. Eiorgiomugini 04:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You have not to do exact reverts, just going back and forth is bad ebough. And this is far more than just 4 reverts per person. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Kim, that is nonsense. The user in question made five exact reverts.  I know that it gives you a warm feeling of neutrality and even-handedness when you copy and paste the same comments to both me and Eiorgiomugini, but it should occur to you that rule-violators and non-rule-violators ought not to be treated in the same way.  Gulliver 61.69.254.188 10:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I'm had not made myself clearer for you, I had only reverted twice within 24 hours at here and here, the rest are merely removing your unsourced claims. Eiorgiomugini 11:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe I have determined the source of your bizarre claim to have made only two reverts despite the diffs. I think that the problem is that you are under the weird impression that it is only a "revert" if you go to the history page, click on an old version, click edit, and click save. By that way of thinking, if you just edit the current version of the page in such a way that it becomes identical to a previous version, you have not reverted.


 * It's either that, or you believe that a revert doesn't count towards the 3RR if it "removes unsourced claims" or is otherwise a "good edit". Unfortunately for you, that is not the case. Gulliver 61.69.254.188 11:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Now, what's wrong with removing unsourced and suspicious claims? All users are encouraged to remove any unsourced or poorly sourced information. Eiorgiomugini 11:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with reverts that aim at removing unsourced and suspicious claims? Nothing at all.  As long as you don't do it more than three times in 24 hours.  Have you read any policy at all? Gulliver 61.69.254.188 11:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

And why don't you show me one. You seem to had not awared to include Cantonese pronunciation, given in IPA on pages that's not related to the article.Eiorgiomugini 11:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * One what? A policy?  Certainly: see WP:3RR.  Gulliver 61.69.254.188 11:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It said nothing about the situation we're having here, all I can said I reverted only twice, this is of cos not counting the removing edits. Eiorgiomugini 11:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Why does this not count "the removing edits"?? What basis in policy does that have??  Look, I give up.  Your command of English is not sufficient for us to have a dialogue.  You have clearly not understood anything I have written.  你说英文说得太不好，我也说中文说得太不好，所以咱们不会议论.  End of discussion.   Gulliver 61.69.254.188 12:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, what is so hard to get, I said I reverted only twice, and the rest were merely removing your claims on the article, partly because you had added your own original research with personal assumptions and opinions into the article, I believe there must be more than just claims in the sources that how Disney gained their "Fa". Why should readers take an advice from a nobody, who can't even wrote a proper simple Chinese sensible sentence. Further, if you could did it with a proper citations, I wouldn't had done so. I asked for your basis in policy that you mentioned "as long as you don't do it more than three times in 24 hours", that's all. Eiorgiomugini 14:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There are way too many gap in the link for the time and date that he had provided, just take a look at this one 09:05, 10 June 2006 (revert). Which was supposed to be Revision as of 04:21, 10 June 2006 and Revision as of 07:05, 10 June 2006. It seem that he had been reconstructing his own history by editing a difflink and time that suited for his propaganda. Eiorgiomugini 11:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The diffs don't lie. It's not possible for me to fabricate them.  Gulliver 61.69.254.188 11:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Lemuel Gulliver Reported by Eiorgiomugini (result 24 hours)
Three revert rule violation on by :

This the user who refused to listen for his addition. Eiorgiomugini 04:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1st revert: 01:38, 11 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 03:19, 11 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 03:28, 11 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 03:39, 11 June 2006
 * 5th revert: 04:15, 11 June 2006
 * Eiorgio, none of those are reverts. Click on them and see.  — Gulliver ✉  04:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You have not to do exact reverts, just going back and forth is bad ebough. And this is far more than just 4 reverts per person. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It is three reverts. And you are wrong about "going back and forth" to find a compromise.  It is not prohibited.  Please apologise for blocking me.  Gulliver 61.69.254.188 10:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are the actual diffs:
 * 1) 01:59, 10 June 2006 (revert)
 * 2) 07:43, 10 June 2006 (revert)
 * 3) 15:17, 10 June 2006 (compromise)
 * 4) 03:38, 11 June 2006 (compromise)
 * 5) 05:19, 11 June 2006 (revert)
 * 6) 05:28, 11 June 2006 (compromise)
 * 7) 05:39, 11 June 2006 (revert)
 * 8) 06:15, 11 June 2006 (compromise)

As you can see, this is a period of two days, and no more than three reverts in any 24h period. All the compromises make important changes that bring my version closer to the other user's one. Gulliver 61.69.254.188 10:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

User:SynergeticMaggot reported by User:Frater FiatLux (result no violation)
Three revert rule violation on. : *

Previous version reverted to, if applicable:  *

1st revert: Users SynergeticMaggot and user 999 are in cahoots and are vandalising pages that hold erroneous citied information. The have made no effort to verify their sources in the talk page. I have made a comprehensive entry to the talk page and have cited completely verifiable in print sources. Maggot is reverting the article back to the incorrect, biased P.O.V. non-verifiable article. The proof that both users are in cahoots is here: [] under Golden Dawn at the bottom of the page.
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

They’re both avoiding the 3 revert rule because they’re editing the article in tandem.

It is because of all this that I have posted this up to see if anything can be done about these users. Frater FiatLux 04:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: For the record, I was merely reverting back to someone elses version of the article in question. The article had citations, and was changed to a different version with no citations what so ever. Also, Frater FiatLux never addressed the issue on the talk page first. Thank you. Zos 04:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes I did the evidence is in the talk page for the article, stop lying. Frater FiatLux 09:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No violation, both have three reverts. Please provide diff's next time. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Lemuel Gulliver Reported by Eiorgiomugini
Three revert rule violation on by :


 * 1st revert: 09:26, 11 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 09:31, 11 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 09:33, 11 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 09:37, 11 June 2006
 * 5th revert: 09:37, 11 June 2006

This user remove parts my comments under his user page, while I suggested to remove it all since I'm obviously not welcomed to his page. Eiorgiomugini 09:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Eiorgiomugini reported by User:Lemuel Gulliver
Three revert rule violation on by
 * 1) 11:28, 11 June 2006
 * 2) 11:32, 11 June 2006
 * 3) 11:34, 11 June 2006
 * 4) 11:38, 11 June 2006
 * 5) 11:46, 11 June 2006
 * 6) 11:49, 11 June 2006

As can be seen in the above diffs, the problem user has made six exact reverts within twenty minutes. Before that, there were also several partial reverts, but I won't bother with the diff because the diffs above are already so damning.

I reverted him back each time, but as the policy states, "The 3RR is generally not enforced against editors reverting changes to their own user page space (this includes associated talk pages and subpages), on the principle that [...] your user space is ‘yours’" The only exceptions relate to the removal of sockpuppet notices and warning notices still in effect, which does not apply here. See WP:3RR. I was simply reverting my own user talk page in response to the trolling of a user who has already violated the 3RR today and should still be banned. I let him edit my page for a long time before I eventually decided enough was enough.

As my IP is blocked due to a technical error, I request that someone move the above 3RR report to WP:AN3. I also request that Eiorgiomugini be banned from editing for at least the full 24 hours. — Gulliver <big style="font-family: 'Arial Unicode MS';">✉ 10:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Imacomp reported by User:ALR (result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 10 Jun 2307


 * 1st revert: 11 Jun 1218
 * 2nd revert: 11 Jun 1301
 * 3rd revert: 11 Jun 1318
 * 4th revert: 11 Jun 1325

24h: 3 marked rvs + one deceptive edit summary William M. Connolley 13:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Tabacco using User:68.195.155.141 reported by User:Morphh (result: 8h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 22:00, 10 June 2006


 * 1st revert: 22:15, 10 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 22:57, 10 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 23:25, 10 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 09:20, 11 June 2006


 * Comment: I've posted to the users talk, the article Talk page, created a poll, and have tried to edit using a temporary picture until the dispute is resolved. Morphh 15:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well thats 4R by the anon - 8h. Nothing to clearly tie it to tabacco? William M. Connolley 18:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you look at the post prior to the four reverts you'll see he made his first change logged in. He also posted the issue on his talk page at the same time. Morphh 21:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

User:ER MD reported by User:Rick Norwood (result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on Conservatism and American Conservatism. : Instance #1, Conservatism


 * (cur) (last) 16:02, 11 June 2006 ER MD (→Criticism Of Conservatism - see discussion)
 * (cur) (last) 15:58, 11 June 2006 Rick Norwood (rv Three instances of blanking in one 24 hour period. One more and I will report you.)
 * (cur) (last) 15:47, 11 June 2006 ER MD (→Criticism Of Conservatism - thats three)
 * (cur) (last) 15:43, 11 June 2006 Rick Norwood (rv That's two.)
 * (cur) (last) 15:05, 11 June 2006 ER MD (→Criticism Of Conservatism - original research)
 * (cur) (last) 13:55, 11 June 2006 Rick Norwood (rv "Wikipedia will represent all points of view.")
 * (cur) (last) 20:46, 10 June 2006 ER MD (→Criticism Of Conservatism - see discussion--3 weeks of continued reverts and disputes makes this section not likely viable for the long-term (save yourself some time, section will never be stable))
 * (cur) (last) 14:30, 10 June 2006 Rick Norwood (→Criticism Of Conservatism - Organize, replace the general with the specific, footnote everything, remove all reference to modern concervatism.)

Instance #2, American Conservatism


 * (cur) (last) 16:01, 11 June 2006 ER MD (→Criticisms - 3 reverts--read discussion)
 * (cur) (last) 15:59, 11 June 2006 Rick Norwood (rv Three instances of blanking in one 24 hour period. Once more and I will report you.)
 * (cur) (last) 15:48, 11 June 2006 ER MD (→Talk Radio - please--this is a side issue)
 * (cur) (last) 15:47, 11 June 2006 ER MD (→Criticisms - thats three)
 * (cur) (last) 15:42, 11 June 2006 Rick Norwood (rv That's two.)
 * (cur) (last) 15:34, 11 June 2006 ER MD (→Talk Radio - the whole talk radio is a side issue, bloggins is a side issue, mentioning conservative magazines would be a side issue. Doesn't belong here.)
 * (cur) (last) 14:58, 11 June 2006 ER MD (→Criticisms - again soapbox)
 * (cur) (last) 14:18, 11 June 2006 Rick Norwood m (→Fiscal conservatism - add capital letter, expand ambiguous "Bush", add links)

Comments:

Many people have worked for a long time to get the Conservatism and American Conservatism sections NPOV. Liberals and conservatives alike have worked, assuming good will, and I think the pages were in fairly good shape. One thing we agreed upon was that the main articles should present a positive picture of conservatism, and any criticsm should be relegated to short sections at the end of the articles.

I have tried very hard to work with ER MD, and with Scribner who also frequently blanks anything he considers critical of conservatism, for several weeks now, doing repeated rewrites in answer to their objections, but the more I rewrite, the more they blank.

Technically, ER MD has avoided reverting, by blanking instead of reverting, but this is still an attempt to remove from the articles referenced views he disagrees with. So, having exhausted all other options, it is with great reluctance that I come here for outside help. Rick Norwood 16:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Poorly formatted but appears valid. 24h. Seems to be a lot of reverting on thos pages. Have you tried WP:DR? William M. Connolley 18:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Dollarfifty reported by User:Celldea (no violation)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: | 06:52 11 june 2006
 * 1st revert: | 07:00 11 june 2006
 * 2nd revert: | 15:27 11 june 2006
 * 3rd revert: | 15:36 11 june 2006
 * 4th revert: | 16:02 11 june 2006
 * 5th revert: | 16:39 11 june 2006

Comments:
 * Comment: I have created a new comments on article page. And I have posted to the article talk page. However, Dollarfifty was deleted comments without discussion. It is not NPOV. I think that Dollarfifty is not read comment. Because, dollarfifty do the other article.--Celldea 17:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You are confused. DF only has 3 edits to the page. You are listing your reverts as well has DF's William M. Connolley 18:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Jeremygbyrne reported by User:Timothy Usher (result:24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 00:14, 11 June 2006
 * 1st revert: 10:36, 11 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 11:17, 11 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 11:27, 11 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 14:54, 11 June 2006

Comments: Four reverts in just over four hours. He’s well aware of the three-revert rule, and has been warned before after having violated it on this article. All four reverts cast arbitrary doubt upon the statement about Aisha’s age. The first uses the re-adds the wording of the previous version of 00:14, 11 June 2006, where the claim from Hadith is hedged by “...although other sources indicate that she was older.” The second through fourth reintroduce wording found in the previous version of 16:56, 3 June 2006, where “according to hadith was...” is replaced with the unattributed “may have been as young as.”  Despite his edit summary of his third revert, there are no Hadith contradicting this claim; these changes were successively overturned by four different editors.Timothy Usher 20:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 24 hour block. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

User:JMAX555 reported by User:Frater FiatLux (result: no violation)
Three revert rule violation on. : *

Previous version reverted to, if applicable:

These edits are a violation by user JMAX555 as he has performed egregious changes, to major parts of the article without discussing his changes in the talk section. JMAX555 has reverted back and made 4 changes to a version of the article all in the space of 30 mins that promotes his political agenda in current trademark litigation.

Reported by: Frater FiatLux 22:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Doesn 't look like 3RR from this history, and for some odd reason your diffs don't work for me William M. Connolley 07:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Southland26 reported by User:Dcflyer (Result: Warning given, further reverts should earn a block)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 21:47, 10 June 2006


 * 1st revert: 14:20, 11 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:47, 11 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 17:32, 11 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 21:36, 11 June 2006
 * 5th revert: 22:09, 11 June 2006

Comments: User continues to add the same personal analysis, in violation of NPOV as well. --Dcflyer 03:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

User:SPUI reported by User:B.Wind
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable:


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

Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable:


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

Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable:


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

Comment: SPUI has been in a revert war with me on several fronts. He also violated 3RR on State Road 500A (Florida) and Florida State Road 500A in repeatedly reverting my attempted merge with U.S. Route 192. B.Wind 07:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Blah. It's all reverting unsourced information (that I believe to be incorrect - he has given no reliable sources that state that the Rickenbacker Causeway is State Road 913), merges that don't make sense (the present SR 500A has nothing to do with US 192), and pointless (possibly vandalism) removals of sourced, correct information (the fact that SR 909 was never US 1). --SPUI (T - C) 07:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there a "Because I'm RIGHT, Damnit!" exception clause to the 3RR I'm not aware of? --Calton | Talk 07:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes - it's called WP:ENC. --SPUI (T - C) 08:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is. SPUI may often move and well war more than your average user, but I don't see anything wrong with what he did. In fact, I'll revert that stuff to if it is put back in. Please write in an encyclopedic tone. Words like "amazingly" very clearly are against policy, full stop. Voice -of- All  08:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nooooo, it's something called a "content dispute" -- something not explicitly mentioned as an exception to the 3RR. But if you don't mind, maybe you could point out the section of the 3RR that explicitly mentions WP:ENC? Or the "SPUI Gets to Do Whatever He Likes" provision, maybe? --Calton | Talk 08:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, SPUI - and the admins looking at this all will make up their own decisions on the appropriateness of this - your belief is irrelevant to WP:3RR. Regarding the SR 909, there was no purpose for that assertion which was unsupported by your reference, which, by the way, was retained as it made the point that the road in question was the original Dixie Highway. The other two articles listed above - and two others (State Road 913 (Florida) and Rickenbacker Causeway) have abundant references with collectively established the current configuration of SR 913. You have been asked repeatedly for non-self-conflicting references supporting your contention and decided to go on a different tack, first by removing the references, now by claiming the "unsourced" references don't add up and reasserting that, failing that, your belief that you are "right" overrides all. This still does not excuse WP:3RR and WP:AGF. B.Wind 08:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Now for the second article, its not so obvious, so I may have to block SPUI for that, but I wan't to be clear about the first article diffs. Voice -of- All  08:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The 1927 map DOES NOT show that SR 909 was the original Dixie Highway. It shows SR 909 and present US 1, and shows US 1 on its present alignment.
 * As for SR 913, you have yet to give a source from FDOT - the people that actually designate the State Roads. You've given sources from commercially-made maps; you've given sources from the FHP, but nothing from the only source that exists for an unsigned State Road. --SPUI (T - C) 08:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I count twelve references total, including three from FDOT as "Official Transportation Maps." But this is still irrelevant to the 3RR issue, and there is still no non-conflicting evidence to the contrary. B.Wind 08:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have blocked both users for 24 hours per WP:3RR (SPUI) and long term revert warring with useless, uncontructive summaries ("rv"), and for using "rvv" as a revert summary involving non-vandalism repeatedly (B. Wind). The revert war on Waterways_forming_and_crossings_of_the_Atlantic_Intracoastal_Waterway shows a severe lacking of ability to WP:AGF or use WP:DR.  Voice -of- All  08:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Jon Awbrey reported by User:GeePriest
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 23:02, 10 June 2006


 * 1st revert: 05:44, 12 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 05:54, 12 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 06:37, 12 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 06:42, 12 June 2006


 * I have warned the user per WP:3RR.  Voice -of- All  08:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
JA: There is some kind of problem with the initial link given above. It should be this one:


 * Revision as of 23:02, 10 June 2006

JA: User:Voice of All (VOA) posted the following notice on User Talk:Jon Awbrey: Regarding reversions made on June 12 2006 to Philosophy of mathematics

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.  Voice -of- All  08:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

JA: Just got in from travelling, so I will discuss this situation tomorrow. Jon Awbrey 02:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

JA: I subsequently posted the following message on User Talk:Voice of All: Revert War at Philosophy of Mathematics

JA: Dear VOA, If you check the edit history and the old WQA's, you will see that I had until yesterday been voluntarily observing a zero revert policy and repeatedly begging for community help with User:JJL's practice of automatically mass deleting my contributions. So, thanks a lot for all your help. Insert here. Traveling for a few days, so radio slience until then. Jon Awbrey 12:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

JA: I fully sympathize with fact that WP Admins are an overworked and no doubt sleep-deprived bunch, but let me just suggest a few of the things that WP Admins might think to check before acting on a report of this type.


 * I do not know if Admins routinely review the edit history links that they post in these actions, but let's now examine the instigating edit of the revert war that ensued, namely, this one:


 * User:JJL, 05:39, 12 June 2006 "Perennial questions - rm self-indulgent babble".

JA: It is clear from this that the initial edit by User:JJL, accompanied by a derisive statement in the edit line, consisted in the mass unjustified deletion of an entire section of the article. I stipulate to the fact that it was inadvisable of me to indulge in repeated reverts, but it was late (1:45 AM) where I was, I was no doubt just a bit sleep-deprived, and JJL's edit line was not just false but inflammatory. All of my subsequent reverts were to the same point, simply attempting to remedy what I personally consider to be a type of vandalism, whether anybody else calls it that or not, namely, the mass unjustified deletion of good faith and fully cited text. Jon Awbrey 13:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

JA: User:JJL's habitual practice of automatically reverting or deleting any contribution that JJL did not personally authorize, and the personal attacks that JJL resorted to whenever challenged about this conduct, have been the subject of my repeated entreaties on the WQA noticeboard, as shown here:


 * User:Jon Awbrey, Wikiquette Alerts 21 May 2006

21 May 2006


 * Desperately seeking constructive guidance at Philosophy of mathematics beginning here on the proper use of {Verify} and {Drmmt} tags, what to do about a user who automatically reverts or deletes new material before beginning his own edits, proper application of WP:VERIFY, WP:ATTACK, etc. 15:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Addendum. I thought that a modus vivendi had been reached, but apparently not.  One user continues to act as the self-appointed judge and jury of every contribution, but mostly just executioner.  Some guidance, please.  Thanks, 20:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Update. Reference point.  Continuing personal attacks.  Nobody who knows my efforts in WP is justified in charging me with trolling or vandalism.  Please, help.  11:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

JA: Needless to say, since no hint of moderation from the WP community came in answer to these pleas, the very same practices by JJL continue unmoderated to the present day. Jon Awbrey 15:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

JA: Another thing that WP Admins might think to check, besides the dossier of the defendant so thoroughly put on exhibit above, would of course be the dossier of the other user or users involved a revert war, and also the dossier of the accuser, in this case, User:GeePriest. Having done so, a wide-awake WP Admin might well ask: "What sort of Ostensible Newbie is to be found on the second day of his tenure in WP reporting other editors on Adminstrative Noticeboards?  It's time for my lunch, so I will leave you for a while to contemplate your most likely hypothesis.  Jon Awbrey 15:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

JA: I will forego further comment on some of the above issues pending a promised investigation of Puppet Attacks on a number of related pages. But there is one further sticking point that I would like to set the record straight about.

JA: The notice that User:Voice of All posted here and on my talk page is carefully worded, of course, and I realize that it comes from using a standard boiler-plate, but it implicates User:Voice of All in a misleading insinuation, at least, one that an unfamiliar reader passing by my talk page might be misled by. Specifically, the charge that I "Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly" might lead people to think that I have no respect for other editors' work, when the fact is that all I did was to revert the mass unjustified deletion of article content. Thank you, Jon Awbrey 18:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

JA: By way of clarification, I am not suggesting that JJL was engaging in puppeteering, merely that the entry of a 2-day old bona fide newbie on this noticeboard seems to be an event of rather low probability. I have been collecting data on this problem at the following location: Talk:Charles_Peirce. Thanks, Jon Awbrey 21:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Jackp reported by User:JPD (talk)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: Repeated additions of the same sentence, sometimes with other additions as well. While not always technically reverts, this general behaviour has been going on for quite some time.


 * 1st revert: 04:24, 12 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 05:25, 12 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 10:34, 12 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 10:54, 12 June 2006

user has been warned by beneaththelandslide JPD (talk) 11:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've re-warned. As he's been editing the talk page, I'm hesitant to assume bad faith. Certainly if he continues he should be blocked for ignoring multiple warnings. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk   (RFC)  15:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why general good faith is an excuse for breaking the 3RR. Jack has been told many times about NPOV, etc, and it is disappointing that he hasnt' understood, but the specific issue here is the repeated (at least 5 times this morning) reverting of editors removing his inappropriate addition, after having been warned for it days earlier. Asking why it was removed on the talk page, and then ignoring the answers, hardly justifies the extra reverts. JPD (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There isn't an excuse for violating the 3RR. However, blocking isn't an automatic punishment. Even still, I feel it is appropriate in this case, but I consider myself involved (I've reverted him) and won't institute a block myself. The fact is, Jack has been consistently warned about his editing manner for a period of more then two weeks, but persists regardless. I think one can genuinely cast doubt on his motivations - he's become essentially disruptive.--cj | talk 16:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Rick Norwood reported by User:michael talk (24hrs)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable:


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

Acts as if others are solely in error by their reverting throughout this debacle. I have been involved directly with the argument so please take this into account when considering what to do. michael talk 13:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem here is blanking of a section titled Criticism of Conservatism. The editors of the article Conservatism, liberals and conservatives working together toward NPOV, agreed that the article should present a positive description of conservatism, with any criticisms of conservatism relegated to a short section at the end of the article.  User:ER MD, User:Scribner, and User:Beneaththelandslide repeatedly blank this section, saying that it is POV and OR.  Numerous attempts at a compromise have been rejected.  Reluctantly, because in all my time on Wikipedia I have never before been unable to work out a reasonable compromise, I reported ER MD for repeated blanking, and he was blocked for 24 hours by administrator User:William M. Connolley.  He is back today and still blanking.  All of my reverts listed above were reverts of blanking.  I have requested that the Cabal arbitrate this issue. Rick Norwood 13:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Admin comment:That is 24hrs for 3RR. As to the blank and unblank, they are POv disputes, just for readers' interest, not vandalism.

User:Frater FiatLux reported by User:999 (Talk)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 15:59, 11 June 2006


 * 1st revert: 17:46, 11 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 06:27, 12 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 07:16, 12 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 07:51, 12 June 2006
 * 5th revert: 07:56 12 June 2006
 * 6th revert: 08:26 12 June 2006
 * 7th revert: 08:41 12 June 2006

Reported by: 999 (Talk) 13:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * is pursuing edit wars in several articles. I believe he is also edit warring on The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. using socks and . Both Frater FiatLux  and Zanoni666  have been recently blocked for 24h for recent 3RR violations on various Golden Dawn articles. Frater FiatLux is admittedly a member of an Order being sued by The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. and clearly has an axe to grind. -999 (Talk) 13:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Frater FiatLux:999 is incorrect please see the below for a full explanation: Full Immediate protection needed.

A full scale editing war has broken out on this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dawn_tradition#The_Hermetic_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn_.28Inc..29

They’re reverting the article incessantly, and arguing over whose order is at top of the links section, furthermore, there is also an editing war being perpetuated rampantly about a non- traditional Golden Dawn order being included in the links section. The article is being edited and reverted now, every couple of minutes.

Help! Can someone please lock this article to stop this vandalism, so that the other editors and myself can work this out. Please lock this article to stop these new, unscrupulous users frivolously editing the links in this article. Please lock the article immediately, so that myself and the established editors on the Golden Dawn article can stop this rampant editing war.

User 999, Zos, JMAX555 and senergeticmaggot are making false claims that I am using a so-called sock puppet, I vehemently disapprove of this, and I can state categorically that I am not using a sock-puppet. I am willing to send my IP address into a Wikipedia admin so that they can verify that these other new users, that are frequently editing the page are not operative via my IP address.

User 999 is creating schism and false intrigues against me they should he should rightfully receive a warning or a 24 hour block ,so that myself and other established editors of the Golden Dawn article can put a stop to this edit war. Please lock this page immediately to stop further abuse and editing wars.

A moderator has already blocked new users to the article; however, this is not the problem. It is not new users that are causing the disruptions, it is established users: 999, Zos, synergetic maggot and JMAX555. The article needs to be immediately fully protected as the aforementioned users are on one side of a current trademark litigation case and I am on the other. Their trying to get me blocked to that they can vandalise the article to their own biased political agenda. The aforementioned users have in fact had me innocently blocked a few days ago and then vandalised the article to You need to intervene more seriously and put a permanent block on the article, as these problems won’t go away until you take action against the aforementioned users.

These aforementioned users have instigated a full-scale edit war and the problem isn’t due to vandalism by new users. Take a look at the Rosicrucian Order of A+O page that was locked due to these aforementioned users creating an edit war, and now this has spilled over on the main Golden Dawn article.

These users are conspirators and are attempting to get me blocked so that they can go unchecked in an edit war to change the article in a defamatory tone, in an attempt to promote their political agenda over the other orders entries.

Here’s the link to show the aforementioned users last editing war that has now spilled over onto the main Golden Dawn article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermetic_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn_%28Rosicrucian_Order_of_A%2BO%29

Frater FiatLux 21:04, 11 June

Furthermore: There's a full scale edit and revert war broken out on this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermetic_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn

This edit war has spilled over from the Rosicrucian order of A+O, onto the main article now and has been reverted back on forth now incessantly. An administrator had already banned new users from editing the article, as there were a suspicion of myself using sock puppets, which I vehemently disapprove of. I have never used sock puppets and I am will to send my IP address to any Wikipedia Admin, so that they can see that the new users that edited the article were not operative from my IP address.

It is user JMAX, 999, Zos, and synergeticmaggot, that are reverting the article back to their own biased political agenda, and it is these users that are working as a team to avoid the three revert ruling

An administrator blocked new users from editing the article last night, however, its not new users that is the problem, its the aforementioned established users that are perpetuating this edit/revert war by trying to promote their own political agenda.

More footnotes and citations were added last night to the article but JMAX reverted the article back 4 times to his version that promotes his biased political agenda, in current trademark litigation.

This page needs to be fully blocked, immediately, so that we can sort this out, otherwise this edit war is only going to get worse, and the reverting will continue. The only way the edit/revert war will cease over this, is if the page is fully locked and then users JMAX555, 999, Zos and synergetic maggot that edit and revert the article back in sequences to avoid the three revert ruling can stop. This is the only way a compromise will happen.

All the aforementioned users are conspirators in this edit/revert war and have a strategy to keep reverting and editing the main article as, they tried to do with the Rosicrucian Order of A+O page that had to be fully locked a couple of days ago. So the problem isn’t new users editing the page, its established users editing and reverting the page back to their own biased political agenda. These aforementioned users are also working, as a team to keep reverting these articles back and are exploiting the fact that some users are new to wikipedia, like myself.

I have made a request over at the page protection page, however the edit/revert war was just beginning to start; now it’s in full swing. Please protect this page with immediate effect so that we can stop this edit and revert war, and sort this out properly. Otherwise today this edit/revert war will continue to escalate and get ugly.

Frater FiatLux 13:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I think I good long block of User:Frater FiatLux will stop the war. My observation is that all other editors besides FFL and his socks are willing to discuss and compromise. -999 (Talk) 13:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked Frater FiatLux for twenty-four hours. Tom Harrison Talk 13:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I blocked several of the suspected socks yesterday. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 13:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Rick Norwood reported by User:Scribner
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable:


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

User Norwood refuses to approach topic in NPOV, several editors have attempted resolution. Scribner 14:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that this has previously been reported above. The problem is blanking. All of the reverts listed above are reverts of blanking. I reported the blanking to administrator User:William M. Connolley. I have requested that the Cabal arbitrate this issue. Rick Norwood 13:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Maddyfan reported by User:Extraordinary Machine
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 15:08, 9 June 2006


 * 1st revert: 10:46, 11 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 10:58, 11 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 11:47, 11 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 22:31, 11 June 2006

Comments: Note that the last revert was by, but a quick comparison between Special:Contributions/68.46.186.126 and Special:Contributions/Maddyfan will show that it is simply Maddyfan editing from an IP address. Maddyfan removed the 3RR warnings from his/her talk page, and on Talk:Christina Aguilera said "STOP VANDALIZING! We will boot your butt right out of here!", which suggests that (s)he has a problem abiding by the WP:OWN policy (as well as WP:NPOV and WP:CITE, but you can read more about that on the article's talk page and his/her pre-blanked talk page). Extraordinary Machine 18:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Another blanket revert from the IP . With all due respect, why hasn't there been a block placed on the IP and/or Maddyfan? It's obviously the same editor as Maddyfan, who continues to refuse to discuss the matter ("You come here first, discuss and WE will decide what to do" is his/her latest comment on the talk page) even though I provided a full explanation for my edits. Extraordinary Machine 10:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Two more, this time by Maddyfan ( and ). He/she's also accusing me of violating the 3RR, when I haven't. Extraordinary Machine 11:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And now the IP address has removed maintenance tags that I placed on the article, again without explanation. Maddyfan is deliberately making it impossible for me to to anything to this article (one of his/her blanket reverts even rolled back my fixing of a blatant error in a date). (S)he's now reverted me a total of seven times in the past three days, and has made no effort to discuss the matter amicably. Extraordinary Machine 16:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've protected the page, as it is not clear that blocking will resolve things efficiently. Jkelly 16:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

User:84.234.215.241 reported by User:Liftarn
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 15:44, 12 June 2006


 * 1st revert: 18:09, 12 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 18:20, 12 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 18:21, 12 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:22, 12 June 2006

Comments: 84.234.215.241 is a suspected sock puppet of The Middle East Conflict Man. // Liftarn 18:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... 2006-06-12 18:24:51 Ixfd64 blocked "84.234.215.241 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (persistent vandalism) but oddly 2006-05-23 10:00:07 Essjay blocked "84.234.215.241 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 month (Checkuserblock)... so 84 should still be blocked, according to that William M. Connolley 18:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

User:200.161.6.47 reported by User:TheRealFennShysa
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable:


 * 1st revert: 14:45, June 12, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 14:54, June 12, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 15:14, June 12, 2006
 * 4th revert: 15:25, June 12, 2006
 * 5th revert: 15:27, June 12, 2006
 * 6th revert: 15:32, June 12, 2006

Comments:
 * Anonymous user (editing from two very similar IP addresses) continually reverts to inaccurate and unsourced info, never leaves edit summary, refuses to discuss edits. TheRealFennShysa 20:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ummm... is there any special reason why you think you are immune to 3RR yourself? 3h each in an effort to cool you off William M. Connolley 21:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

User:71.134.204.155, User:71.134.240.208, User:Keepitneutral reported by User:Shell babelfish
Three revert rule violation on. , :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable:
 * IPs reverting to 09:57, June 11, 2006
 * Keepitneutral reverting to 21:09, June 12, 2006

IPs are tag team reverting: Keepitneutral:
 * 1st revert: Revision as of 23:28, June 12, 2006
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 23:42, June 12, 2006
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 23:45, June 12, 2006
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 01:59, June 13, 2006
 * 1st revert: Revision as of 23:38, June 12, 2006
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 23:43, June 12, 2006
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 23:46, June 12, 2006
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 00:11, June 13, 2006

Comments: Sorry guys, this one's messy. I'd block myself, but I've been involved since a ticket to OTRS led me to try to fix the verifiability and sourcing problems with the article. Currently its an edit war with the IPs on one side and Keepitneutral on the other. A short cattle-prod might help them to understand this method isn't going to work. Thanks! Shell babelfish 02:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * While I wrote this, 71.134.240.208 started vandalising the article as well. Shell babelfish 02:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

User:AvgJoe reported by User:Kevin_b_er (result: 3h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:49, June 12, 2006
 * 1st revert: 18:06, June 12, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 19:52, June 12, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 20:29, June 12, 2006
 * 4th revert: 01:06, June 13, 2006

Reported by: Kevin_b_er 02:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Article set to a particular version then there's 4 reversions back to that version all within a 24hr period. That's a 3RR I think. Sorry if it not.  Editor doesn't appear to be in agreement with a couple of other editors, and seems to have a personal, irate, viewpoint driving their reverts. Kevin_b_er 02:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

3h. Please warn in future William M. Connolley 07:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

User:59.22.251.156 reported by User:Daniel Case
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 19: June 11, 2006


 * 1st revert: 23:44 June 12, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 23:45 June 12, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 23:46 June 12, 2006
 * 4th revert: 23:47 June 12, 2006

Reported by: Daniel Case 03:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Ongoing sockpuppet POV vandalism. See earlier report on this one (by vandal) above using different IP. User:Dollarfifty is reverting these reverts this time. This has been going on for some time.

Article is now sprotected William M. Connolley 07:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Empress Myeongseong
2006-06-13 18:14:04 Nihonjoe blocked "Objectman (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (Second block for 3RR, very well aware of this policy and has been warned multiple times) William M. Connolley 18:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Appleby reported by User:Objectman
Three revert rule violation on .:


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:30, 13 June
 * 1st revert: 17:34
 * 2nd revert: 17:40
 * 3rd revert: 17:46

Reported by: Objectman 17:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Dollarfifty reported by User:Objectman
Three revert rule violation on .:


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:54, 13 June
 * 1st revert: 14:21
 * 2nd revert: 14:46
 * 3rd revert: 14:53
 * 4th revert: 14:57

Reported by: Objectman 15:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * please see User:Objectman and User:Celldea's history, sockpuppetry and uncited pov at various korea-related articles (Comfort women, Japanese-Korean relations, Shimane prefecture, An Jung-geun, Rusk documents that have led to some semiprotections). there is an extensive sockpuppetry 3rr problem at many articles involving objectman/celldea's puppets. see also  ,

Appleby 17:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not sockpappet.Objectman 17:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Narco reported by User:Bob
Three revert rule violation on .:


 * Previous version reverted to: Narco
 * 1st revert: 13:22, 12 June
 * 2nd revert: 13:32, 12 June
 * 3rd revert: 13:37, 12 June
 * 4th revert: 13:46, 12 June

Reported by: --Bob 22:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I standardised the article according to WP:MOS so that one version was used throughout, this user kept on reverting those edits. This article passed the WP:FA using only British English, and as the major contributor to this article, I have tried to keep the language constant. This user is undermining these efforts. --Bob 22:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm confused by this. You seem to have swapped to US Eng now? William M. Connolley 18:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It seemed to be the only way to cease the constant edits and have a consistent language format. If you can't beat the village idiots, might as well make it so that their edits do the least disruption. --Bob 19:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Appleby reported by User:172.215.251.42 (result: no block; rvv)
Three revert rule violation on .:


 * Previous version reverted to: Appleby
 * 1st revert: 05:46, 12 June
 * 2nd revert: 06:17, 12 June
 * 3rd revert: 06:33, 12 June
 * 4th revert: 06:45, 12 June
 * 5th revert: 06:57, 12 June

Reported by: 172.215.251.42 07:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * this article has suffered from a series of anonymous vandals that keep inserting a "stupid terrorist" comment without any sources, despite numerous requests. it doesn't appear to be a serious content dispute but clearly malicious sockpuppet vandalism. the article probably needs sprotection if it continues. Appleby 00:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Another IP is continuing this. See here. Daniel Case 05:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * please see Appleby 18:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

2006-06-13 04:50:44 Alex Bakharev m (Protected An Jung-geun: edit warring from IPs and sockpuppets so no block. Plus Appleby appears to be correct William M. Connolley 19:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Imacomp reported by User:999 (Talk) (result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 05:08, 13 June 2006V

Comments: is also blanking warnings from his talk page. -999 (Talk) 18:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1st revert: 12:03, 13 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 12:44, 13 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 13:01, 13 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 13:11, 13 June 2006
 * 5th revert: 13:22, 13 June 2006
 * 6th revert: 13:36, 13 June 2006
 * I'd also like to point out that this is not the first time this as happened. Imacomp has been reported above for almost the same reason. Zos 18:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, he's removed a recent 3RR block notice and many warnings from his talk page . -999 (Talk) 18:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 19:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Anon! reported by User:David Ruben Talk (result: 3 not 4)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 16:01, 12 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 07:30, 13 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 14:20, 13 June 2006

Comments:
 * 1) New user who has repeated inserted lists of yahoo groups as external links that 2 other editors and myself have deleted.
 * 2) Also similar reinsertion of uncited claims as to illegal (in UK anyway) obtaining of medication without prescription to further this fetish, with personal options as to what dosages are then taken. I had modified this down (rather than entire deletion as previous editor had) with this edit, placing (citation needed) tags on aspects that, assumiung good faith, could probably be verified. I wrote a fuller explanation on Talk:Milk fetishism covering issues as to verifying statements (e.g. on the pumps) and needing to cite sources for the use of herbal products listed.
 * 3) Other than a comment that groups are permitted as links on 'External links', the other aspects of what wikipedia articles should not be ("how to guide" and "giving medical advice") and the citation-request tags have again been ignored with Anon! latest revert. David Ruben Talk 18:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats 3 not 4 William M. Connolley 18:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

User:69.182.30.200 reported by User:iMeowbot~Meow (result: 8h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime


 * 1st revert 10:54
 * 2nd revert 11:30
 * 3rd revert: 11:53
 * 4th revert: 13:21
 * 5th revert: 13:38
 * 6th revert: 13:50
 * 7th revert: 14:57

(times -0400 2006-06-13)

Comments: It's all about inserting a comment that Connecticut is somehow not a part of New England (see diffs).

User has been warned on both user talk:69.182.30.200 and talk:New England.

addendum: This is possibly the same user as who is now making identical reversions: --iMeowbot~Meow 19:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 15:09
 * 15:20

Will try block; probably not useful as will change IP... you're very clever for a bot William M. Connolley 19:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Tabacco using User:68.195.155.141 reported by User:Morphh (result: 1 week)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 22:00, 10 June 2006


 * 1st revert: 22:15, 10 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 22:57, 10 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 23:25, 10 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 09:20, 11 June 2006

Recieved 8h by William M. Connolley


 * 5th revert: 13:00, 13 June 2006
 * 6th revert: 13:35, 13 June 2006
 * 7th revert: 14:50, 13 June 2006
 * 8th revert: 15:49, 13 June 2006


 * Comment: I've posted to the users talk, the article Talk page, created a poll which consensus says to leave it, and have tried to edit using a temporary picture until the dispute is resolved. The Anon is Tabacco - If you look at the post prior to the first four reverts you'll see he made his first change logged in. You'll also see he posted to his talk page under anon. as well as describing his intent on his talk.  He also uses a lot of personal attacks in conversation. Morphh 20:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I've blocked the anon for a week, since it does nothing but revert William M. Connolley 21:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

User:81.39.131.184 reported by User:Daishokaioshin
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to if applicable: VersionTime
 * 1st revert: 19:56, 13 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 20:03, 13 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 20:12, 13 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 20:50, 13 June 2006


 * Comments: The user has reverted far more times than the ones listed, but it is too late at night for me to be listing them all right now. This user also keeps removing comments on the talk page for the article, for no reason. The user has been informed that this is considered vandalism, and continues to revert repeatedly on the talk page and the main article, ignoring all edit comments from other users that indicate he or she should stop. The edits to the main article are speculation, unneeded, and a concensus has been reached by other users that this information does not belong in the article, and yet the user continues to revert to his or her own version. Daishokaioshin 06:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments: I don't know how much good blocking the user will do now, since they have changed IP addresses to User:81.39.131.88. If you can block based just based on the first three sets of numbers, that would be great. Daishokaioshin 06:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments: The user is using the name "User:Ace Class Shadow" when signing messages, but also used the name User:CovenantD at one point to make it appear as though he was a different user. He isn't logged on, to prevent being blocked, probably, and is just using an IP, that seems to change regularly. If he could be blocked via those account names... Daishokaioshin 20:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Sarastro777 reported by User:Humus sapiens (Result: 24hr)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 04:46, 13 June 2006


 * 1st revert: 20:07, 12 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 21:38, 12 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 09:40, 13 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 14:02, 13 June 2006
 * 5th revert: 14:09, 13 June 2006

Comments: Blocked for 24 hours. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  22:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Wiki-star reported by User:3bulletproof16 (result: 48h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 15:08, June 12, 2006 12:09, June 13, 2006


 * 1st revert: 15:49, June 12, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:57, June 12, 2006
 * 3rh revert: 11:39, June 13, 2006
 * 4th revert: 16:29, June 13, 2006
 * 5th revert: 16:35, June 13, 2006
 * 6th revert: 16:40, June 13, 2006
 * 7th revert: 16:46, June 13, 2006
 * 8th revert: 16:59, June 13, 2006
 * 9th revert: 17:06, June 13, 2006
 * 10th revert: 17:34, June 13, 2006
 * 11th revert: 17:39, June 13, 2006
 * 12th revert: 17:45, June 13, 2006
 * 13th revert: 17:51, June 13, 2006

Comments: Wiki-star seems to have claimed ownership of the article as he reverts to his previous versions claiming that he cares "greatly about this article, and will be damned if i let another voilator ruin such a wonderful article". Voice of Treason, Isopropyl, Daishokaioshin, Onikage725, Zarbon, and I have all made attempts to discuss this issue with him but to no avail.
 * Comments: I've kept my head above water on this one, but Wiki-star may have the most terminal case of WP:OWN I've ever seen. He has a long history of being confrontational with other users on edit summaries and talk pages for himself and the articles he edits, and ignores/plays off revert warnings and discussions, even calling to be banned at one point. Aside from the constant rollbacks (while telling others they must persuade him after consensus had previously been met), Wiki's also deleted large portions from the original talk page that didn't show him the best of lights or he himself did not agree with. If blocked, this will be the THIRD time doing so on Buu and Majin Buu, and the second in as many weeks. Papacha 23:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments: Wiki has some serious control issues with the Buu article and refuses to allow changes if they aren't to his personal liking. Looking at the history page today alone (13th June) he's used a personal grudge to repeatedly edit parts of the article.Darkwarriorblake 00:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments: Wiki-star isn't even attempting to talk to other users anymore. He's just mindlessly reverting things over and over, because it's his way or no way. He has requested to be permanently banned more than once now, and I see no reason why he shouldn't be obliged, if he is going to continue his vandalism. He needs to be stopped; preferably soon. Daishokaioshin 01:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments: I'm not quite sure what he thinks we are doing. I believe that it is mostly myself, Daishokaioshin, bulletproof and maybe another 2 members who are making changes but I've not seen any change for the worse nor has anyone else as none of the changes have had massive edits apart from by Wiki-star.  These changes have been made not only for aesthetic and sensical presentation but to bring the article into a similar format as the articles on Goku and Vegeta.  Wiki is refusing to listen to reason and thinks we are all out to hurt Wikipedia so I don't think he will stop of his own volition within his lifetime. Darkwarriorblake 01:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments: I would suggest that everyone stop editing until an admin weighs in on the matter and the "disaster" Wiki's brought upon himself and the article blows over. It's senseless, as Wiki's made it clear he's beyond consensus and will repeatedly revert; it just gums up the page history. Also, all who continually revert (regardless of purpose other than to clear out vandalism) are at risk of breaking WP:3RR themselves. Be a better person and let it lie for now. Papacha 02:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments: Papacha is right. We cannot allow ourselves to stoop to wiki-star's level. Let wiki-star go down on his own and not break the three revert rule ourselves. Just sit back and wait until the administrators take care of this conflict.-3bulletproof16 02:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments: Honestly, it's the attitude that gets me. I mean, I've been known to get snarky under duress, I'll admit, but at least I have the presence to apologize when called on it. Wiki-star's confrontational attitude has escalated from blatant disregard to the deletion of comments he doesn't approve of on talk pages and swearing at other contributors. It's insulting and honestly, any reader interested in the subject will lose respect for the integrity of the article or it's contributors if they read this nonsense on the talk page. Onikage725 04:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-star 19:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wiki-star: Let me make something painfully clear for you, because it is obvious you all think that you can overpower and own me. I am a contributor, and according to this site, all contributors have 100% say in the way an article should be shown. You all are telling me and other contributors that the maximum pictures within the article should be 7, no excuses. Who do you all think you are telling us this? If we (or preferably i) believe that the Buu article requires more than 7, you all are not going to be an obstacle in improving the article. People have been adding useless information, and deleting valuable information that serves much purpose within the article. I realize that i am becoming extremely infamous within the Buu article, and as a result should explain my actions. I have countlessly told you all why i am doing this. I believe the Buu article has great potential to be a perfect article, this is why i care about the article. I have always explain my actions within the talk page. Whom-so-ever does not understand, or Whom-so-ever does no like it, i give them a 2nd chance to understand why i am doing this. If they still refuse to understand, then they become apart of my ignore list. They serve absolutely no purpose towards my contributions if they fail to have empathy towards another contributor. The first time i signed up for Wikipedia, i made a goal. And i will keep that goal. I am not stopping anyone from improving the Buu article. However, i will stop you from deleting or adding information that does not suit the article. Have a great day ladies and gentlemen!


 * Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. If eight or so Wikipedians disagree with your edits, and after continuous consensus, rollbacks, discussion and blocks those edits are *still* going on, chances are something's malfunctioned at the junction. Papacha 20:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please list diffs not versions; and don't list quite so many William M. Connolley 06:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Done and done. Cropped repeated "minor" reverts and linked to differences. Feel free to excise or pick & choose from the rest. Papacha 07:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Soooo... have we gotten lost in the shuffle? Papacha 19:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

From the outside, edit warring over a cartoon looks so silly. Anyway, 48h William M. Connolley 20:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ugh, don't say that. Militant otaku will storm WP:AN3's doors belly-achin' on how "It's not a cartoon, IT'S ANIME~!!". Gosh.


 * So, to sum up our sordid lil' disussion: yeah, I cry. v_v Papacha 20:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess I should say... In the words of Wiki-star(not exactly but close enough), "justice is served". --3bulletproof16 01:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

User:72.65.68.229 reported by User:RevolverOcelotX (result: 3h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 21:48, 13 June 2006


 * 1st revert: 21:55, 13 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 22:15, 13 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 22:25, 13 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 22:38, 13 June 2006

Comments: User:72.65.68.229 keeps reverting to his version on the talk page of 2008 Summer Olympics and broke the 3RR where he places his comments in between other users's comments. User:72.65.68.229 has been warned by still reverts to his version where User:72.65.68.229 retroactively inserted them in between other user's comment which decreases readability and confuses the reader. He keep reverting even after he has been repeatedly warned about this. User:72.65.68.229 has also been edit warring and disruptive on the 2008 Summer Olympics article and other articles which has led to it being protected. --RevolverOcelotX 23:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Admins, please see this ANI note. He claims to be "moving" my comments but repeatedly has removed essential indentions of quotes and even deleted my comments, which constitutes vandalism.  He has been revert warring on the 2008 Summer Olympics article and has decided to disrupt the talk page as well.  This is a bad case of WP:POINT.  72.65.68.229 23:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually if you look at the diff, you would see that I have not deleted any of User:72.65.68.229's comments. I have only moved User:72.65.68.229's comments to the end of the section where they belong because he retroactively places them between other user's comments to make it appear he sucessfully "refuted" them which is disruptive and confuses the reader. I have removed the one so-called "essential indentions of your quotes" because it confuses the reader into thinking that is somebody elses unsigned comment. User:72.65.68.229's constant reverting is highly disruptive to the article and other users have complained about User:72.65.68.229's revert warring. User:72.65.68.229 has clearly broken the 3RR. --RevolverOcelotX 23:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The above is a deliberate lie. He deleted my message on this very matter (at the bottom) in the process of his disruptive tweaking.  Look at his phrasing.  He is referring to the standard practice of quoting with indentions as "so-called"; in other words, he's declaring a right to interfere with however I quote, respond, or otherwise edit and interact with talk articles now.  Again, WP:POINT.  72.65.68.229 23:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * User:72.65.68.229, if you actually read the diffs, you would actually see that none of your comments are deleted. They are moved chronologically to the end of the section for better readability, better attribution, and to avoid confusing the reader. The standard practice of quoting is with quotes or italics, not indentations. User:72.65.68.229's indentations make it seem as if somebody else wrote that "unsigned" comment. User:72.65.68.229's revert warring first on the actual article, then on the talk page of the article is highly disruptive to the talk page and he has clearly broken the 3RR. --RevolverOcelotX 23:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Tell me what happened to the bottom paragraph in this edit. You deleted it.  Stop lying.  Also, you do not have any ability to tell me how I should or should not use quotes.  Indentions are allowed on Wikipedia and it is a matter of preference, not policy.  WP:POINT.  72.65.68.229 23:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I did not delete that paragraph. You had placed that comment there retroactively while you were reverting the talk page. I was about to put the paragraph back in after I reverted your disruptive mass reversions, but you put the paragraph back in yourself during your mass reversions, so now thats irrelevant to this matter. And according to talk page guidelines, indentions are for another person's comment, not for you to make it seem as if you have more "support". I don't know why User:72.65.68.229 keep reverting to the disruptive version and now the fact remains User:72.65.68.229 did break the 3RR and should be blocked for doing so.--RevolverOcelotX 00:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

3h

User:24.57.68.108 (result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on.


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:25, 6 June 2006
 * 1st revert: 20:35, 6 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 20:37, 6 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 03:44, 7 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 19:21, 7 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 19:21, 7 June 2006


 * 5th revert: 21:13, 8 June 2006
 * 6th revert: 17:31, 11 June 2006
 * 7th revert: 01:36, 12 June 2006
 * 8th revert: 22:53, 12 June 2006
 * 9th revert: 00:03, 13 June 2006
 * 10th revert: 22:25, 13 June 2006

Reported by: User:Tomservo3000 23:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User insists on adding their personal website to the links section, despite consensus among other editors that it does not belong. User:Tomservo3000 23:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 07:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Shervink reported by User:Khoikhoi
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 15:13, 12 June 2006
 * 1st revert: 11:31, 13 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 11:36, 13 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 13:35, 13 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 14:43, 13 June 2006
 * 5th revert: 16:05, 13 June 2006
 * 6th revert: 16:21, 13 June 2006
 * 7th revert (damn!): 23:38, 13 June 2006

Comments: User has been here since September, long enough to know what the 3RR is, plus the fact that someone told him about it here. &mdash; Khoikhoi 00:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * admin comment They are basically isomorphisms, as the only difference is the use of the word "bahai faith" rather than "bahai". The content is the same. In regards to WP:IAR, I think this is a block as the content is completely isomorphic otherwise.24 hrs.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Deepblue06 reported by User: John Smith's (result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on.


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:41, 12 Jun 2006
 * 1st revert: 21:34, 13 Jun 2006
 * 2nd revert: 00:22, 14 Jun 2006
 * 3rd revert: 01:16, 14 Jun 2006
 * 4th revert: 04:31, 14 Jun 2006
 * 4th revert: 04:31, 14 Jun 2006

Comments: First revert had a negligable difference if any (perhaps a space removed).

Deepblue has been rving to have material inserted, even when this has been widely discussed on the talk page. He won't listen and is pushing his POV. He has also been warned in the past by other users, who offered not to report him if he stopped rving - please see Blue's talk page. John Smith&#39;s 10:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 16:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Subhash_bose reported by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise (result: no block)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 16:59, 11 June


 * 1st revert: 13:38, 14 June
 * 2nd revert: 14:36, 14 June
 * 3rd revert: 15:05, 14 June
 * 4th revert: 15:31, 14 June

Comments: Revert-warring on his own talk page, removing legitimate NPA warnings by User:Dbachmann, for edits such as and. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't report people for editing their own talk page William M. Connolley 16:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised. WP:3RR says: "Another exception is the repeated removals of valid warnings still in effect from user talk pages. The 3RR rule may be enforced in these situations." Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Although it's bad form, it's legitamate. The user page clause in there is more for warnings such as sockpuppet notices and the vaious {test} templates. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk   (RFC)  19:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Purger reported by User:Ante Perkovic
Three revert rule violation on. Violated by a user:Purger and his sock-puppets:
 * (claiming that is not user:Purger, but Zmaj prooved the opposite)
 * (one-time IP account, the same behaviour pattern as Purger, which is quite unique):
 * (one-time IP account, the same behaviour pattern as Purger, which is quite unique):


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:54, 12 June 2006


 * 1st revert: 12:49, 12 June 2006 by Purger
 * 2nd revert: 12:52, 12 June 2006 by Purger
 * 3rd revert: 15:01, 12 June 2006 by 64.18.16.251
 * 4th revert: 16:41, 12 June 2006 by 64.18.16.251
 * 5th revert: 23:18, 12 June 2006 by 4.249.126.210
 * 6th revert: 13:15, 13 June 2006 by 64.18.16.251

Comments:

Since this is an exotic mix of WP:3RR violation, WP:SOCK and WP:POINT (to be discussed later, one thing at a time), this user is reported here: Requests for checkuser/Case/Purger.

--Ante Perkovic 16:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

2006-06-13 15:56:46 Dijxtra (protected) so no block William M. Connolley 20:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Frater FiatLux reported by User:Ehheh (result: 48h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 13:10, 13 June 2006


 * 1st revert: 15:52, 13 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 16:14, 13 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 15:40, 14 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 15:52, 14 June 2006

Comments: User was blocked for 3RR as part of the same dispute on the 9th and again on the 12th. Ehheh 20:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Can have 48h this time William M. Connolley 20:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Opuaut reported by User:999 (Talk)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 15:14, 13 June 2006


 * 1st revert: 15:23, 13 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:57, 13 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 18:57, 13 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 15:28, 14 June 2006

Comments:
 * is a suspected sockpuppet of and regularly starts reverting as soon as Frater FiatLux is blocked. -999 (Talk) 20:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Just out of 3RR timelimit of 24 hours. I suspect that was intentional. Blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of User:Frater FiatLux. I have increased User:Frater FiatLux's block to 72 hours for block evasion. I suggest you post on WP:ANI to push for a community ban. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 20:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:SeizureDog reported by User:<span style="font-family:Georgia,arial">Vic Vipr TC
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 15:05, June 11 2006


 * 1st revert: 12:34, 12 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 22:26, 13 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 23:04, 14 June 2006

Comments: Fair use image dispute, content does not comply with WP:FUC. User has been informed and instructed by admin User:Ed_g2s as well. <span style="font-family:Georgia,arial">Vic Vipr TC 02:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

3 not 4 William M. Connolley 06:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * also, only one per day, if those dates are correct. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Touth reported by User:LGagnon (result: 12h each)
Three revert rule violation on. (:

15:29, June 13, 2006
 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert: 08:58, June 14, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:33, June 14, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 16:37, June 14, 2006
 * 4th revert: 20:03, June 14, 2006
 * 5th revert: 23:04, June 14, 2006

Reported by: LGagnon 03:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User will not listen to the consensus of the other editors. Also vandalized the talk page. -- LGagnon 03:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You've both broken 3RR. 12h each. And the talk page blanking could be justified as removing personal attacks William M. Connolley 06:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Lord Loxley reported by User:TharkunColl
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime


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

Comments: User:Lord Loxley has introduced blatant POV additions to this article based on his dubious racial theories, and for the past few days has been reverting all attempts to remove it by other editors (who had previously reached a consensus). He has resorted to foul-mouthed personal attacks on those who disagree with him, and has placed unjustified warning notices on other editors' pages. TharkunColl 07:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

User:207.200.116.136 reported by User:- Glen Stoll e ry
Three revert rule violation on. :


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

User:TigranTheGreat reported by User:Grandmaster (result: no block)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable:


 * 1st revert: 11:06, 15 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 11:12, 15 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 11:16, 15 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 11:30, 15 June 2006

Comments: This user returned to Wiki after a period of absence and reverted the article to his old edit. Grandmaster 07:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats definitely 3R. Not convinced that the 1st is a revert, though William M. Connolley 13:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * He should be warned but that's it, considering his clean record he might not even be aware of the 3RR rule.--Eupator 13:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * How about this one? With minor variation, it’s the same thing. And check his contribs, almost nothing but edit warring over the intro of that article, after a few month of break he's back. Grandmaster 13:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, that leaves Az in there. No block, unless he reverts again William M. Connolley 14:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

While the matter is resolved, I should mention that my 1st edit had nothing to do with a prior version--it was a modification of a later version (to make it more NPOV). User Grandmaster immediately started a revert war without even attempting discussion. This user indiscriminately reverts every edit attempted by me, and consistently ignores calls for discussion. --TigranTheGreat 20:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Rjensen reported by User:ScribnerScribner 08:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC) (result: 24h each)
Three revert rule violation on. 


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable:


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

Comments: Rjensen refuses to talk with other editors concerning this issue. His contribution is POV loaded. This guy acts as though he owns the article and has rights to all content. Scribner 08:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well thats easy: both you and he have broken 3RR, so you can have 24h each William M. Connolley 13:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

User:24.3.248.20 reported by Steelbeard1:Steelbeard1 (no block)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime


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

Comments:

No. Reverts have to be non-contiguous. And you forgot to date them William M. Connolley 21:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Neurobio reported by User:Angus McLellan (Talk) (result: 12h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 03:31, 14 June 2006


 * 1st revert: 22:50, 14 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 23:43, 14 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 11:37, 15 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 15:42, 15 June 2006

12 hours for first offence William M. Connolley 16:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Etemad reported by User:Kashk (result: 3h)
Three revert rule violation on.


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable:


 * 1st revert: 21:51, 14 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 02:35, 15 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 18:28, 15 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:34, 15 June 2006

Comments: User pretty much joined the Wikipedia I think to edit this article, possibly a sock puppet. Instead of providing references he says "go read the book" "follow the link", "search google". Warned about 3RR here but he removed it from his talk page. --K a s h Talk 18:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

3h first offence William M. Connolley 19:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

User:C. Darrow reported by User:Ira-welkin (result: 3h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 17:31

Continual reverts based on shifting and meaningless reasons! He has literally erased the same two paragraphs at least five times at this point --Ira-welkin 19:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked CD for 3h for 3RR. Please don't leave fake block messages on peoples talk pages William M. Connolley 19:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Will314159 reported by User:Elizmr 23:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC) (result:no block)
Three revert rule violation on Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole.


 * First revert:


 * Second revert:


 * Third revert:

(please forgive me if this is not in exactly the right format--I've never done this before)Elizmr 23:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Format is fine. The problem is that the rule states that no one can go beyond 3 reverts. 3 reverts are ok. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

User:70.48.250.225 reported by User:Derex
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * 1st revert: 09:38, 15 June 2006
 * 2st revert: 15:17, 15 June 2006
 * 3nd revert: 15:19, 15 June 2006
 * 4rd revert: 21:05, 15 June 2006
 * 5th revert: 04:09, 16 June 2006

User:Netscott reported by User:Timothy Usher
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous versions reverted to (complex series of reverts): 09:48, 16 June 2006, 09:56, 16 June 2006, 11:09, 16 June 2006


 * 1st revert: 09:56, 16 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 10:45, 16 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 11:04, 16 June 2006, 11:06, 16 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 11:28, 16 June 2006

Comments: Netscott has been moving comments to WP:ANI, including my own, in a complex series of reverts. Whatever reason he might have for this, he’s not felt it necessary to explain it on talk or to respond to inquiries. One effect has been to seperate my comment from the comment by Bishonen to which it responded. These changes and reverts thereto took place included these steps:

1) Moved Blnguyn "Original blocker" comment and my "compare" response thereto up the page.09:48, 16 June 2006 2) Re-Moved Blnguyn "Original blocker" comment and my "compare" response thereto down the page; moved Blnguyn "Hello everybody" and Bishonen "FairNBalanced" comments up the page. Moved Killer Chihuahua’s "I have removed" comment and Pecher’s "It’s entirely inappropriate" comment thereto up the page.09:56, 16 June 2006 3) Re-Moved Blnguyn "Original blocker" comment and my "compare" response thereto down the page; Re-moved Blnguyn "Hello everybody" and Bishonen "FairNBalanced" comments up the page.10:45, 16 June 2006 4) Re-Moved Blnguyn "Original blocker" comment and my "compare" response thereto down the page; duplicated Blnguyn "Hello everybody" and Bishonen "FairNBalanced" comments where he’d previously placed them.11:04, 16 June 2006 5) Re-Moved Killer Chihuahua’s "I have removed" comment and Pecher’s "It’s entirely inappropriate" comment thereto up the page.11:06, 16 June 2006 6) Added "This commentary is out of place" text 11:09, 16 June 2006 7) Re-added "This commentary is out of place" text 11:28, 16 June 2006

This is plainly disruptive. Netscott has been blocked three times for 3RR and once for disruption in the past three months. I’d posted this message to his talk page, but received no response.Timothy Usher 12:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Constructing a 3RR out of that is WP:POINT Agathoclea 12:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My goal is to be able to restore my comments to their intended place, without Netscott's disruptive disclaimers, and without myself violating policy. His aggressive editting has left me with no options.  If that's all that comes out of this, that's fine with me.


 * Also see recent discussions on Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule, where its been reestablished and reemphasized that complex reverts count towards 3RR, as do even unrelated reverts (none of the above is unrelated).Timothy Usher 13:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not a WP:3RR case, not least because it applies solely to moving text within a discusison. There are always options, one of which is to discuss your problems with him on Talk. Now please stop being foolish. Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy you know? 13:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As shown, I posted on his talk page, but received no response.


 * I'm sorry you think this foolish. If someone could just revert these changes, that'd be great.  I just don't want to break the rules myself.Timothy Usher 13:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Were my editorial comments that unclear? Foolish is an appropriate word in this case. Even User:Bishonen had the following to say: relative to the illogical placement of his previous comments. Netscott 22:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Netscott, there were comments to Bishonen's post, which you left stranded. And when you finally kept then joined, you insisted on the insertion of an obnoxious in-text commentary blaming me for things being out of place, when all I'd asked you to do was not to seperate comments from the posts to which they responded.Timothy Usher 06:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Kertenkelebek reported by User:Bertilvidet
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime


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

Comments:Very disruptive edit, changing the article into a redirect to the title the editor prefers. I have made the user aware of 3RR and urged him to seek consensus before making such major edits. Bertilvidet 14:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see a "prev reverted to" which makes #1 not a revert William M. Connolley 14:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, maybe I misunderstood the rule. However, despite more warnings, the user made now another revert Bertilvidet 14:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And again . The continous edits and moves have left the whole affair in a horrible mess. Bertilvidet 15:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocked for a day. I would have otherwise just applied a 5-minute block to get the user's attention, but the user seems to have performed his final move and logged out, so I believe a longer block is warranted. - Mike Rosoft 16:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Dimadick reported by User:Maed (result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 08:57, 16 June 2006


 * 1st revert: 11:38, 16 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 12:55, 16 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 13:44, 16 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 14:40, 16 June 2006
 * 5th revert: 14:48, 16 June 2006

Comments:

Dimadick created today a page about the same person, and is persistently trying to change the older page as a redirect. He broke 3RR rule, whatever are merits of the dispute itself. Maed 15:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

24h

User:Kertenkelebek reported by siafu
Repeated page moves on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable:


 * 1st revert: 07:38, 16 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 07:59, 16 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 08:48, 16 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 09:39, 16 June 2006
 * 5th revert: 10:28, 16 June 2006
 * 6th revert: 10:34, 16 June 2006

Comments:

Multiple users have been restoring the page; only Kertenkelebek is violating 3RR. User was warned on the article talk page after 4 reverts, with a link to WP:3RR, but it doesn't seem to have had any effect. siafu 15:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

2006-06-16 16:24:50 Mike Rosoft blocked "Kertenkelebek (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (WP:3RR violation - persistent moving of Kemal Ataturk without consensus) William M. Connolley 20:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Panairjdde reported by User:Batman2005
User has 3 times now in the last hour removed true, verifiable information from United States men's national soccer team. Stating that, in his pov, the information is meaningless.
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * My points:
 * The first was not a revert, but my contribution after a long talk I started in Talk:United States men's national soccer team;
 * User Batman keeps on ignoring my points in talk page and reverting, adding meaningless information.--Panairjdde 16:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, your point of view, which is not allowed here at wikipedia. The adding of verifiable information as I have done, is however allowed.  You reverted 3 times.  Please see also  as this user has a history of trolling and pov vandalism. Additionally, this user thinks that by disagreeing I am ignoring his points, when each time I have spoken to his points in my responses.Batman2005 16:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever. There are currently only 3 alleged reverts, thus no violation of 3RR yet. 3RR does not care who of you is right or wrong on the content, just that you do not revert more than 3 times. Please don't. You might want to ask for a Third opinion to resolve this.  --Stephan Schulz 16:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I asked, but no one offered it, and Batman kept pushing his position, while I opened a discussion to settle the matter. Whe I felt that Batman was not seriously trying to understand my position, I got bold and corrected the article.--Panairjdde 16:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a third opinion on the page, one that goes against Panairjdde so of course he thinks that person is also ignorant or something and won't concede. Batman2005 16:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Third opinion is a formal way of asking for a neutral third opinion. I don't see either of your user names or a request pertaining to the page in question there. And please keep a perspective. Maybe try to edit something else for a day or two to allow for a cool-off. The world will not end because of some strings (or the lack of same) on a soccer page.--Stephan Schulz 16:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Mr Schulz, I accept your suggestion and will ignore that article in the future, as well as Mr. Batman. Notice, however, that in this way the matter is settled according to the user that screams and cries louder, and I think that this is a loss for WP. Best regards.--Panairjdde 16:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Too much work to let it waste because of some "users".--Panairjdde 23:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "because of some 'users.'" Yet another juvenile and immature comment from Panairjdde because he can't accept consensus on a page that goes against what he wants. Batman2005 17:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

User: 195.93.21.7 reported by User:Bucsrsafe
this user has made 5 edits in one day on the steve nash article. i have reverted them as i see fit, but request some kind of intervention to stop him changing the article repeatedly. thanks. --Bucsrsafe 19:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

,

Three revert rule violation on.


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:00, 16 June 2006
 * 1st revert: 17:33, 16 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 18:06, 16 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 18:16, 16 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:48, 16 June 2006
 * 5th revert: 19:23, 16 June 2006
 * 6th revert: 19:42, 16 June 2006
 * 6th revert: 19:42, 16 June 2006

Reported by: Maximusveritas 20:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * I added a properly formatted report above. User is still reverting after multiple warnings and requests to discuss issue on the Talk page. - Maximusveritas 20:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the proper report. The anon gets the most I can, 15 mins. Also I've semi'd the page. B gets 3 hours William M. Connolley 20:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Mais oui! reported by User:Owain (talk) (restul: 24h each)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 13:49, 14 June 2006
 * 1st revert: 19:11, 16 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 20:11, 16 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 20:15, 16 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 20:24, 16 June 2006

Comments: This is one example of edit stalking that has occurred today. Other examples exist at: Owain (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brynmawr&curid=556346&action=history
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East_Riding_of_Yorkshire&curid=153612&action=history
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Scotland_counties&action=history
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bangor%2C_Wales&action=history
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marches&action=history
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Owain/archive3&curid=4214825&action=history


 * For information: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. --Mais oui! 19:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This is stupid. You've both boken 3RR, you can both have 24h William M. Connolley 20:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Keepitneutral reported by User:WoodenBuddha (result: 8h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 02:12, 16 June 2006


 * 1st revert: 15:11, 16 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:32, 16 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 15:38, 16 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 17:05, 16 June 2006
 * 5th revert: 18:49, 16 June 2006
 * 6th revert: 18:49, 16 June 2006

Comments: User was asked numerous times to look at 3RR. There are several other users trying to stop this user removing any criticism from the company mentioned, as can be seen by the edit history. WoodenBuddha 20:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

8h for first offence. Too lenient? Maybe... William M. Connolley 20:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Randalllord reported by User:Levine2112
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 21:00, 16 June 2006


 * 1st revert: 20:24, 16 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 20:48, 16 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 20:57, 16 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 20:57, 16 June 2006
 * 5th revert: 21:16, 16 June 2006
 * 6th revert: 21:24, 16 June 2006
 * 7th revert: 21:30, 16 June 2006
 * 8th revert: 21:47, 16 June 2006
 * 9th revert: 21:48, 16 June 2006

Comments: User was asked numerous times to look at 3RR. He was welcomed on the discussion page and on his user page. There is another users trying to stop this user, as can be seen by the edit history. Levine2112 21:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Another user has pointed out to me that I have in fact violated the 3RR by reverting all of Randalllord's attempts to insert a link to his forum. I apologize. I will desist now. Levine2112 21:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Andries reported by User:SSS108 talk-email
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 21:16, 16 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 21:19, 16 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 21:42, 16 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 21:50, 16 June 2006
 * SSS108 gave his consent for my first revert, see talk:Sathya Sai Baba by stating "yes, you did make an unmotivated deletion here [3] You deleted without motivation the contradicting claims about Shiva Shakti incarnations of Shirdi Sai Baba and Prema Sai Baba. Andries 21:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)" "That was on the June 11th 2006. Not today, as implied by your edit summary. You can re-add it if you like. SSS108 talk-email 21:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)".


 * So that make the nr. of reverts that he disagrees with three which is the same nr. as he made. Andries 22:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

In the revert Andries is talking about, he not only readded the information I mentioned, he also reverted the attribution (which was the prime cause for the reverts to being with): Reference. Therefore, this revert was two reverts in one. So Andries still broke the 3 Revert Rule. SSS108 talk-email 23:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I removed the attribution of a fact that you opposed only three times. Andries 06:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you reverted the attribution discussion 3 times plus your original revert from an edit made 5 days prior. 3 + 1 = 4. SSS108 talk-email 14:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Deathrocker reported by User: Agent Blightsoot
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * 1st revert: 16:25, 16 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 18:56, 16 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 19:12, 16 June 2006;
 * 4th revert: 20:21, 16 June 2006;

Time report made: 00:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The user claims the first revert involving genres in the summary box are because the user shouldn't change the article because they're apparently banned (I have no way to verify this). Second, I create an in depth reason why the genre in the summary box should contain only one genre (For different reasons to this apparent banned user). Third, the reversion of a separate non-anon user who reverted to the consensus edition that I created (A consensus created by a WP:FAC vote). Fourth, more accusations of banned users.

Banned user ad hominems or not, this is a clear content dispute where the Deathrocker has reverted multiple times against consensus using any excuse he can get, without discussing in depth the changes on the talk page. Whether he's right or wrong in his reversion, I need and request administrative intervention in this affair. This is not the first time the user has apparently breached WP:3RR.

PS - I've just found out User:Deathrocker is limited to one reversion per day by the arbitration committee - (Well....proposed reversion of once per day. meh)


 * Proposed.... not limited to yet, please get your facts straight first before reporting such things, much appreciated. (User:Blightsoot - 'I cleverly covered myself there by saying "Well....proposed" in my comment')


 * The WP:3RR was not violated, and was respected by myself. The anon who's message I removed twice was previously found to be Leyasu a user who is not only indeffinetly banned from editing Iron Maiden (check the talkpage of that article its at the top) but is also currently banned for 3 months,. Recently Leyasu has had several sock puppets including anonymous IP's blocked by admins user: Tony Sidaway and user: Idont Havaname, no violation was breached, as it states in WP:3RR clearly that removing edits by blocked users who are evading a block with anons or socks to edit, is an exception and isn't counted towards 3RR. To quote WP:3RR]
 * "For the purposes of counting reverts, these are excluded:


 * removing posts made by a banned or blocked user"


 * Blightsoot stepped in and decided to paint himself into Leyasu's corner, in which later he removed sourced info. Concenus was held by myself on the talkpage, as User:156.34.142.158 agreed with my version on the talkpage of the article along with Zee who was the one removing the banned users edits in the first place. . Despite the fact that I had concencus in regards to the genre debate and had sourced my edit. . Blightsoot claimed that although nobody was voicing support for his version (apart froma  blocked user) that because the article went through WP:FAC he had consenus, regardless of the fact that the WP:FAC was to do with the article becoming featured not a genre debate at all.


 * The second link which Blightshoot claims to be a revert, isn't a revert at all, It imploments elements of two entirely different versions, not a revert. I don't know if Blightshoot has the ability to count, but altogether (excludings removals of blocked users edits per WP:3RR) only one actual revert was made by myself in 24 hours on that article, and it was this one, of his version.


 * Hope that clears my name :). - Deathrocker 22:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't. See my response here -Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Deathrocker. Not only do you not have a consensus on the talk page, you obviously are unsure what a revert is.


 * I'm also in a different corner to the banned User:Leyasu as he wants to make changes to the genre box for other reasons.  Agent Blightsoot 13:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The link the user provided above shows evidence with diffs that I had 3-0 concensus on the article.

Regardless, this is not a "conensus discussion section". I've provided undeniable evidence with diffs, as to how the WP:3RR wasn't violated and how it was in acordance to policy stated in WP:3RR.

I only reverted the article a count of "once" in the 24 hours this relates to. Such is further shown in the link the user provided with apropriate diffs; the user should accept this and move on. - Deathrocker 14:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

User:70.105.20.28 reported by User:WCityMike
Three revert rule violation on.


 * 1st revert: 00:43, June 17, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 01:03, June 17, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 01:05, June 17, 2006
 * 4th revert: 01:11, June 17, 2006
 * 4th revert: 01:11, June 17, 2006

Time report made: &mdash; Mike &bull; 01:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User continues to add unsourced and unverifiable crystal-ball information to article in question. &mdash; Mike &bull; 01:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * User is ignoring warnings, and continuing to revert edits to include his speculation of unverified claims. Jtrost (T | C | #) 15:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

User:CNC reported by User:Isotope23
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime


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

Time report made: 03:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:User:CNC actually made 7 reversions, but I've only listed 6. I warned the user after #3. Reversion is to a version that not wikified, in some cases is a cut and paste from other articles, and (the reason I reverted in the first place) comprises copyrighted material from external sites (see Talk page). I made a good faith attempt to contact the user to inform them of the copyvio and verifiability problems with their edits, but they simply continued to revert without comment.

User:218.218.130.129 reported by User:Dollarfifty (result: 8h)
WP:3RR violation of. : See user history. His only edits so far are five identical reverts to this article.

Time report made: 05:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

See also edit history and whois for. Dollarfifty 06:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

8h first offence William M. Connolley 11:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Grandmaster reported by User:TigranTheGreat (result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 07:22, June 15, 2006 (re Introduction section) and 20:31, June 15, 2006 (re Adding a "totally disputed" tag)


 * 1st revert: 12:44, June 16, 2006 (reversion in Intro)
 * 2nd revert: 20:23, June 16, 2006 (reversion in Intro)
 * 3rd revert: 21:52, June 16, 2006 (reversion in Intro)
 * 4th revert: 07:34, June 17, 2006 (re-adding the disputed tag)

Time report made: 09:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User:Grandmaster keeps reverting others by either restoring a POV introduction or by re-adding a "disputed tag." He continuously refuses to discuss and uses reverts as a first resort. Please note that he has already been warned about reaching his 3rd revert (see the edit summary here: )--TigranTheGreat 09:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 11:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Stanley011 reported by User:Sysrpl (result: 12h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 04:48, 17 June 2006 (re Franken book controversy section)


 * 1st revert: 05:35, 17 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 13:48, 17 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 14:14, 17 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 14:35, 17 June 2006

Time report made: 16:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: One User:Stanley011 keeps re-editing the same section section over and over and in a 24 hour period adding point of view. Three different editors had had to remove his edits more than four times in the past 24 hours. In our discussion he was warned of the WP:3RR twice here. He should slow down his continuous edits of the section, and be issued a warning. Near the time of this writing, one of his last edit comments was that he was going to keep reverting.

12h William M. Connolley 19:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

User:SteveLo reported by User:Koavf (result: 12h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 16:15, June 16, 2006

Time report made: 18:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This one seems fair enough... 12h William M. Connolley 19:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Morrocan Wall
First does not appear to be a revert William M. Connolley 19:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * They are still both at three. I just noticed myself. Withdrawn. gidonb 19:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

User:82.92.94.108 reported by User:Panairjdde
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 15:10, 17 June 2006


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 15:17, 17 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 16:11, 17 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 19:02, 17 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 00:04, 18 June 2006

Time report made: 22:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: If User:82.92.94.108 and User:82.168.59.236 are the same (as it coulb be, given the reverts and edits they share), he is already been warned several times and already banned.


 * I made the block on the other half of this dispute, so I will give the IP equal punishment. Please try and discuss the issue on relevant talk pages, preferably on the article talk page and said user's talk page. 3h. Ian Manka Talk to me! 00:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

user:Zer0faults reported by User:Añoranza
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 23:49, 17 June 2006


 * 1st revert: 00:34, 18 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 02:11, 18 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 02:17, 18 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 02:31, 18 June 2006

Time report made: 03:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Comments: Other side of the conflict 152.163.100.202 and 172.148.254.250 possibly sockpuppets. Añoranza 03:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Both are and have been banned, article has been semiprotected to reflect the user was a vandal. Reverting vandalism is not breaking 3RR Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents & Administrators%27_noticeboard. -- zero faults   ' '' 03:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how it's 1 in the morning, for both of us, let's just call the issue closed, true to my word, I really don't care about the content of the article, I just wanted someone who wasn't you invloved, otherwise you surely don't think a little sprotect would have stopped me?--152.163.101.12 04:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, only you used the V word, certianly if it was vandalism, Naconkantari probably would have said so, instead, I quote "harassment/WP:3RR"--152.163.101.12 04:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * oh and of course evading a block.. as I am doing now, night, night everyone--152.163.101.12 04:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I rest my case with this users comments. -- zero faults   ' '' 04:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * While evading a block is vandalism, what got reverted by Zer0faults four times was a content dispute, where three others supported what Zer0faults opposed: Talk:United_States_war_in_Afghanistan Thus, he did not revert vandalism but broke 3RR. Añoranza 04:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Kirill Lokshin says the article should be expanded, this user did not take your side. You would see that in the clarification of their point. Other then that its you and one other user. Do not try to blur the issue. -- zero faults   ' '' 04:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Añoranza reported by User:Ecophreek
Three revert rule violation on. :

* Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 09:24, 17 June 2006


 * 1st revert: 13:50, 17 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 22:20, 17 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 23:54, 17 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 05:21, 18 June 2006
 * 5th revert: 05:45, 18 June 2006
 * 6th revert: 05:59, 18 June 2006

Time report made: 06:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I'm assuming in this case that 24 hours goes from 13:50, 17 June 2006 to 13:50, 18 June 2006. Is this correct? Actually, it's two dif reverts... two diff sections, so it doesn't apply, gets real hard to tell with this user as they game the system real well. &larr; ΣcoPhreek  <sub style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #3C6">contribs <sup style="text-decoration:none; position: relative; left: -30px; font-variant: small-caps; color: #396">talk  &rarr; 07:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Questionfromjapan reported by User:Dollarfifty
WP:3RR violation at. Time report made: Dollarfifty
 * 7 reverts in 24 hours, the last one soon after a warning on his talk page. Dollarfifty 10:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I(Questionfromjapan) changed my expression according to comments. I mean, I did not revert.-Questionfromjapan 10:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Dollarfifty, try actually following the report format. We can't do anything if we can't actually see the reverts due to malformed reports. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 10:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Dollarfifty reported by User:Questionfromjapan
Three revert rule violation on .:

09:54, 18 June 2006]
 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert: 05:28, 17 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 12:26, 17 June 2006
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert: 09:31, 18 June 2006
 * 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japan&diff=59252731&oldid=59252540

Comments: I'm modifying my expression according to suggestions. However, Mr/s Dollarfifty repeated to revert without any comments. And he ignored the introduction to discussion page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Questionfromjapan (talk • contribs)


 * The diffs given do not fall within a 24-hour period. HenryFlower 10:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * He put the same info back 4 times in a 24 hours period, not to mentions did it several more times out of that. THe block stands. pschemp | talk 05:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Hakamia reported by User:Yanksox (talk)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: Article has been edited by me


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

Time report made: 14:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Most important edit is this, the user came immedially of a block to revert. I request an admin monitor his actions, please. His edits seem to revert to an earlier and adds opinions of displeasure of what is posted despite fact that article is sourced. Yanksox (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You're in luck: 2006-06-18 16:05:11 Crzrussian blocked "Hakamia (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (for repeated revert wars, offensive emails to multiple users, and posting Goebbels' speech directed to me, I hereby award you a one-week block) William M. Connolley 18:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

User:88.112.40.162 reported by User:Xinit (result: 8h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 05:49 18 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 06:02 18 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 08:11
 * 4th revert: 08:16

Time report made: 15:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Editor at this IP address may be acting on the behalf of User:172.209.222.166 with linkspamming during mediation.

I've blocked for 8h; not sure if this will do any good re the other anons William M. Connolley 18:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Frater FiatLux reported by User:999 (Talk)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 08:31, 18 June 2006 - reverted additions/corrections by User:SynergeticMaggot
 * 2nd revert: 10:41, 18 June 2006 - reverted corrections by User:Baba Louis
 * 3rd revert: 11:07, 18 June 2006 - reverted my restoration of User:Baba Louis's corrections
 * 4th revert: 11:24, 18 June 2006 - reverted my second restoration of User:Baba Louis's corrections

Time report made: 16:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * will not allow other users to correct his incorrect listing of User:SynergeticMaggot, who he keeps listing as Zos (which is simply SM's signature). He has been blocked three times previously for edit warring in the articles referenced in this Mediation Request. He has been told that his next block would be for a week, yet he persists in reverting. -999 (Talk) 16:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Users have repeatedly edited the mediation file which breaks mediation rules by adding comment other than agree or disagree. I have made many announcements about this on the all their talk pages and make copious notes and requests in the article: Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn discussion pages and an explanation of why I requested mediation.

It is myself attempting to file for mediation and myself that is trying to build a consensus. 999 and other users of his faction keep reverting the mediation against mediation rules and I have to revert the article back the version that was agreed on by myself and the mediator. If I am improperly blocked I will not be able to finish the mediation file as the mediator has requested me to. I have contacted the mediator involved in this

User 999 shows by putting me up to be blocked that he is not in favour of building a consensus or sorting this out properly and in a dignified or civil manner.

User 999 has also made non-civil and has clearly shown that he is only interested in more trouble and not building a coherent consensus by the comments he leaves on my personal discussion page. Please take note of the comments in my talk page where user 999 taunts me saying “that’s four reverts see you in a week” this only confirms he is not interested in the mediation I have filed for or sorting this out properly. Blocking me is wrong thing to do at this point, please my points made for medaition at the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn discussion pages and an explanation of why I requested mediation.

I also requested help with 999 and other reverting the mediation file on the admin board this morning. This just goes to show that 999 carn’t help but revert articles.

Frater FiatLux 16:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I am a member of the Mediation Committee, and am a disinterested party, not having had any contact with any of the editors involved in this request. I have just edited the relevant page in order to try and resolve this conflict. I would ask that this user does not get a ban, as this was not a typical 3RR, but a misunderstanding of the rules relating to RfM entries, and I hope, now that I have edited this request that there should be no further problems. --Wisd e n17 16:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

A mediator has just got in touch with me and has corrected all of the edits on the mediation page. Please see my personal discussion page for his reply to me. He is watching the mediation and if any body changes it he will be wrtiting to them. He has further given me advise on the matter.Frater FiatLux 16:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Important:The mediator that contacted me has left a message at the end of these entries.Frater FiatLux 16:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - I disagree. This user continues to believe he is entitled to revert war simply because he is convinced he is right. He has also tried to stack the Mediation by leaving out involved parties. This user still needs to learn that he cannot simply revert and shout at others in his edit comments rather than discussing with others and understanding what they are doing and why. I think he should be blocked as he is fully aware of the 3RR rule. The mediation can wait a week, there is nothing seriously wrong with the articles... -999 (Talk) 16:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Reply to above Comment The edits on the RfM page seem to have come out of a misunderstanding of the right of the other involved parties to edit the request (i.e. that this user thought that they could not edit the request, bar putting their agreement or disagreement). The User has clearly reverted correct changes to the RfM, which I have pointed out (e.g. User:Zos). The question of involved parties should be left until the mediation really, as it is no good simply one person adding then another removing parties. If you cannot agree on whether to involve that user, than add then discuss it as the first point of the mediation. I would still suggest a 3RR would do more harm than good in this circumstance. The reverts came out of a misunderstanding of the nature of the how to use the page. I have asked both Frater FiatLux and 999 to stop editing the RfM page, and if further changes are needed then to leave it to a member of the Committee to do so, to try and avoid further conflict. --Wisd e n17 17:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Pasio User:69.140.240.211 reported by User:SchmuckyTheCat
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime


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

Time report made: 17:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Pasio & the IP are the same. Blanking/vandalism counts for reverts, right?


 * Why are they the same? Mind you, if this is really vandalism, it belogs elsewhere William M. Connolley 17:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Max_rspct reported by User:RJII (outcome: time served (31 hours))
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 15:01, 18 June 2006


 * 1st revert: 15:26, 18 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 16:40, 18 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 17:34, 18 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:01, 18 June 2006

Time report made: 18:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This is particularly egregious because he's blanking out an entire large section. RJII 18:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thats 4 identical edits, but its not clear that the first is a revert, as you've cunningly failed to fill in the previous version link William M. Connolley 18:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There. I filled in the previous version link. I simply forgot. Don't accuse me of being "cunning" here. Assume good faith. RJII 18:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying now. The first is not a revert. It's a deletion. That's just a mistake on my part. Regardless, 4 deletions of an entire section is very disruptive. RJII 18:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that they were 4 in a row. Considering the circumstances I think I was using restraint. The article has mainly been written by evangelical libertarians who..just don't understand the NPOV policy. I was not using pop-ups and avidly trying to explain to these guys how right-libertarian links and dictionary definitions cannot be used to fill/dominate the entire article. This is the reason I cut it so close without realising. Check the reverts of these guys on there! More of a blog than article.I have a clean record. Don't bar me over this one please chappie. --  max rspct  leave a message  22:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There were actually five reverts in this 24 hour period. This isn't "cutting it close," this is blatant. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 22:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a paragraph deletion. It's obvious what's going on. And Oooh. They're out to get me! --  max rspct  leave a message  23:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read WP:3RR. "Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word. Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting."


 * "Note: There is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count." --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 23:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

So one cannot touch the article when even it is being decimated and ignored by others who don't want to touch it! It is hottest of the hot. I am a fastidious monk looking at my record compared to those of the regular political article editors. --  max rspct  leave a message  00:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am marking this one as time served. I blocked this editor for 24 hours and then extended the block by another seven hours because the editor attempted to evade the block.  As the block occurred at the same time as a 3RR block would have occurred, I think it is okay to say this one is time served.  --Yamla 22:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Publicola reported by User:Pecher Talk
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 08:49, June 17, 2006


 * 1st revert: 19:22, June 17, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 20:43, June 17, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 21:26, June 17, 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:55, June 18, 2006

Time report made: 19:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The 2nd and 3rd revert, the user was not only reverting an unitentional blanking of parts of the article by User:Tickle me, but also reintroducing the same edits as in other reverts to the other parts of the article. The user apparently knows about the 3RR because they claim to have accumulated more than 5,000 edits under another username (see userpage). Pecher Talk 19:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The 2nd and 3rd were reverting admitted "accidental" simple vandalism -- I reverted to the most recent version of the whole unvandalized article, which was either my version or a version of another editor with whom I agreed. I don't think Pecher's complaint is made in good faith; he is trying to use the 3RR process to exclude my participation. Publicola 20:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As explained above, Publicola was not just restoring blanked parts of the article, but also restoring their edits to the other parts of the article. An assumption of bad faith is not a good addition to a 3RR violation. Pecher Talk 20:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is absurd. One editor replaces my version with an old version half deleted, and I revert it to the immediately previous good version, and Pecher thinks that counts as a 3RR-qualified revert because the previous version just happens to be mine or one closer to mine than the half-deleted article I'm replacing? Absurd!  There is no assumption here, as this complaint is plainly made in bad faith.  As someone who reports 3RR violations as much as Pecher does, he should obviously know better, beyond any reasonable doubt. Publicola 20:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * For your edit not to count as a revert, you should have just restored the blanked sections without re-adding your POV elsewhere. It is obvious that tickle me wanted to revert you, but accidentally blanked parts of the article; your reverting Tickle me was thus obviously a revert. Pecher Talk 20:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You are just making stuff up. Where do you find documentation of your opinion here? Restored the blanked sections from where?  It is not my job to clean up after Tickle me's inability to revert without deleting half the article.  Tickle me admits his attempts to revert were vandalism, not actual reverts.  Therfore my correction to the last previous good version, no matter whose they are, were reverting simple vandalism, and thus exempt. Publicola 21:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia." Tickle me's edits were done in good faith; it was an accident that they blanked some sections, so they were not vandalism per the respective policy. Your arguments are clear by now, so please stop flooding this page with endless comments. Pecher Talk 21:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It might have been an accident, but it was done twice, and the second time it was done after the mass deletion had been pointed out to Tickle me, both on his talk page and in the article summary -- there is no way he could have missed that. How could anyone have been able to determine that was done in good faith, accidentally?  Publicola 21:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Tickle me admitted to doing so accidentally on talk. It's ridiculous to accuse a user with a long history of positive contriburions of simple vandalism. Pecher Talk 21:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Cigor reported by User:Tēlex
Three revert rule violation on and. :

Macedonism

 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 14:55, 18 June 2006


 * 1st revert: 16:17, 18 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 17:52, 18 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 19:08, 18 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 19:42, 18 June 2006
 * 5th revert: 20:17, 18 June 2006
 * 7th revert: 21:32, 18 June 2006

Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia
Time report made: 19:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Previous version reverted to: 10:08, 18 June 2006
 * 1st revert: 14:00, 18 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 14:51, 18 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 15:00, 18 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 21:30, 18 June 2006

Comments: User was warned of the 3RR. He keeps reverting to his version of the following text:
 * although may appear in certain non-English dictionaries, which is according to mainly Bulgarians a political idea prevalent in the Republic of Macedonia, former...

Users have tried compromising with him: various different proposals have been made, yet he only reverts to that version. Note, a major reorganization of the page was done, so it may not appear clearly from the diffs. --Tēlex 19:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The user has been warned.   /FunkyFly.talk _   02:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Pasio reported by User:BorgQueen (result: 12h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable:


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

Time report made: 20:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The user appears to simply blank contents he/she does not like, even when some of them are properly referenced. --BorgQueen 20:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if this is now better than the prev, or I'm just looking more closely, but OK. 12h William M. Connolley 21:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

User:SirDiplomat reported by User:Mantanmoreland
Three revert rule violation on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable:

Comments: Brand new editor makes four reverts within his first 12 minutes on Wikipedia. Moving strongly out of the starting gate.--Mantanmoreland 20:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Time report made: 20:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Not obviously 4 reverts... William M. Connolley 21:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The first revert was removal of a sourced statement by Ali Khamenei, so it qualifies as a revert. The third revert was a removal of a category that has been a subject of intense dispute and peristent removals and re-insertions; again a revert. The other two were previously reverted reinsertions of titles, like "Dr." and "Supreme Leader". Pecher Talk 21:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Correct, and this editor also went on the Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad talk page and Iranian Wikipedians' notice board to make wild charges of "propaganda" and "character assassination." . All this in his first 20 minutes on Wikipedia! Look at his contributions. Amazing.--Mantanmoreland 23:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Greier reported by User:Khoikhoi (result: 72 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 19:34, 18 June 2006
 * 1st revert: 19:34, 18 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 19:40, 18 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 19:43, 18 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 20:16, 18 June 2006

Time report made: 20:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * The last time this user was blocked was for 1 month, due to the fact that it was his "8th unique block for 3RR and incivility"&mdash;he was unblocked just 2 days ago. &mdash; Khoikhoi 20:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * William M. Connolley blocked "Greier (contribs)" with an expiry time of 72 hours (3rr on Orhei) --PinchasC |  £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  21:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Pecher reported by User:Publicola (Result: no 3rr violation)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 10:28, June 14, 2006


 * 1st revert: 01:58, June 17, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 03:26, June 18, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 12:42, June 18, 2006
 * 4th revert: 14:03, June 18, 2006

Time report made: 21:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Blatant. Note that Pecher had immediately before accused me of a 3RR violation above, while I was reverting admitted simple vandalism by a third party who deleted half of the other article in question. Publicola 21:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The first revert is more than 24 hours before the second one. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  21:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I missed that; withdrawn. Publicola 21:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

User:IronDuke reported by User:Anomicene
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 22:01, 16 Jun - VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 19:13 17 Jun -
 * 2nd revert: 20:10 17 Jun -
 * 3rd revert: 20:22 18 Jun -
 * 4th revert: 21:06 18 Jun -

Time report made: 21:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: While the last reverts were slsightly outside the 24-hour window, this is a clear case. User:IronDuke is reverting without discussion everything I post (and has been doing so for anon users before). -- Anomicene 21:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Anomicene has been tagged as a sockpuppeteer by SlimVirgin (see Gomi-no-sensei). The sock was being used to harass me. Recently, a new army of anonymous socks have emerged to harass me on Mike Hawash and to stalk me to other pages as well, necessitating the sprotection of that and other pages. Immediately after this, Anomicene arrived and started reverting my edits. Jayjg is aware of the harassment and has been handling the situation. IronDuke  00:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Without conceding the validity of the basic claim, it is not my understanding that a historical accusation that another user was a sockpuppet in any way allows routine and thoughtless reversions. -- Anomicene 20:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Anomicene, could I request that you stay away from pages IronDuke is editing? He has been harassed, stalked, someone attempted to post his personal details, and someone created attack accounts based on his user name. You're connected in some way to the person or people who were doing that. There were allegations of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, but for Wikipedia's purposes, they're both as bad, so it would be very helpful, and would be a sign of your good faith, if you could simply stay away from pages that you see IronDuke is editing. Could you agree to try that? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

User:69.149.67.47 reported by User:David L Rattigan
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime


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

Time report made: 22:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: If you check the user's history and talk page, you will see there have been several other reverts within the past few hours, and a total lack of co-operation (and near-hysterical personal attacks) when I tried to address the problem. The user clearly wants to remove all negative comment and criticism on this page and other related pages, such as Jesse Duplantis and Word of Faith movement. David L Rattigan 22:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * An almost identical pattern of reverting the exact same sections took place before this user by a different ISP. David L Rattigan 22:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And it continues... David L Rattigan 07:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And now it's legal threats. Please someone stop this person. David L Rattigan 07:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Two days later and s/he's at it again on Kenneth Copeland. David L Rattigan 14:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Goodthings reported by User:— Coelacan | talk (result: 8h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 20:28, 17 June 2006


 * 1st revert: 02:20, 18 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 08:38, 18 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 17:15, 18 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 17:45, 18 June 2006
 * 5th revert: 17:46, 18 June 2006
 * 6th revert: 18:07, 18 June 2006

Time report made: 23:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This is a new user, whose edits have been almost entirely focused on this article. User was made aware of 3RR and then warned several times, see edit summaries at and, as well as comments left by myself and User:Appleby at user's talk page.

8h William M. Connolley 06:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Ste4k reported by User:Sdedeo (tips) (result: 12h + 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. Ste4k (talk • contribs • [ page moves ] • block user • [ block log ]) :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime


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

Time report made: 23:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * User has made a number of further reversions since this report. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 05:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

12h William M. Connolley 06:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * User now appears to be editing as 69.229.149.19. Posted an edit to Talk:Curse in the exact same style as Ste4k. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 09:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Another 24h William M. Connolley 20:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Settersr reported by User:Sdedeo (tips) (result: warned)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime


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

Time report made: 23:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Appears to have stopped after your warning; no further action William M. Connolley 20:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Wjhonson reported by User:999 (Talk)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 19:53, 17 June 2006 - restored disputed section removed to talk page and removed unsourced tag
 * 2nd revert: 23:55, 17 June 2006 - restored disputed section properly removed to talk page, again
 * 3rd revert: 17:38, 18 June 2006 - reverts request for citations to previous unacceptible citations
 * 4th revert: 18:59, 18 June 2006- again restores disputed section removed to talk page for discussion.
 * 5th revert: 11:58, 19 June 2006

Time report made: 00:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: refuses to provide adequate citations for accusations of pederasty. I removed the section to the talk page and explained the need for the citation of reputable sources, but user refuses to enter into a reasonable discussion about what sources are adequate and prefers to revert article. -999 (Talk) 00:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

2-5 are all reverts, but not in 24h. Is 1 a revert? We don't know, cos you failed to fill in the prev version, despite the pretty clear instructions I so carefully added and that you have so carefully ignored :-( William M. Connolley 20:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User:70.48.250.87 reported by User:&mdash;chair lunch dinner&trade; (talk) (result: 8h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:08, 17 June 2006


 * 1st revert: 18:03, 18 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 21:27, 18 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 22:29, 18 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 00:47, 19 June 2006

Time report made: 06:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Continuously reinserts POV material, and employs personal attacks on the article's talk page. This user's edits have been reverted by several different users.

8h. Mind you, I don't know why *you* keep re-inserting the semi tag William M. Connolley 06:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought the article was semi-protected, but I discovered that a regular user inserted the tag, mistakenly believing it would protect the page. That would explain why the anon user was still able to edit. Sorry, my mistake! &mdash;chair lunch dinner&trade; (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Lancsalot reported by User:Mais oui!
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * 1st revert: 18:03, 17 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 14:40, 18 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 14:53, 18 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 15:30, 18 June 2006

Reported by: --Mais oui! 09:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Many reverts of this article were to revert a banned user. This counts as reverting vandalism, and not towards 3RR. Owain (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The banned user in question is - all edits by such users can be automatically reverted as simple vandalism.  No registered users have expressed any complaint about Lancsalot's edits on either the talk pages of the user or the article. Aquilina 13:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Publicola reported by User:Pecher Talk (Result: 24 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 18:47, June 18, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 20:58, June 18, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 09:10, June 19, 2006
 * 4th revert: 11:44, June 19, 2006

Time report made: 12:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The first three reverts were reinsertions of original research into the article first inserted 07:38, June 18, 2006; the fourth revert was a reinsertion of the totallydisputed tag first added 21:40, June 18, 2006. The first and fourth reverts were done from an anonymous account in the range 71.132... The proof that the anonymous IPs are indeed Publicola comes from their pattern of editing (essentially a repetition of Publicola's edits), and especially from this edit. Pecher Talk 12:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  12:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Lancsalot reported by User:Mais oui! (2nd occurance on same article)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * 1st revert: 08:44, 19 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 08:55, 19 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 09:57, 19 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 10:22, 19 June 2006

Time report made: --Mais oui! 13:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Previous report is two items above this one, at: Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR. --Mais oui! 13:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The 1st is reverting the edits of a banned user which does not qualify for 3RR. I suggest you stop wasting admin time on this.  Lancsalot 16:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to trust you on this banned user bit, but can I strongly suggest that if you're reverting with that excuse, you put good links to the evidence on the article talk page in future William M. Connolley 19:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Adeladel reported by User:Peter G Werner (result: warning)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * 1st revert: 17:05, 19 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 17:09, 19 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 17:18, 19 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 17:21, 19 June 2006

Time report made: 17:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Was warned (thanks) and has since stopped; will leave it at that; come back if it recurrs William M. Connolley 19:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good - at the time I reported it, there was an active revert war going on and I didn't think my warning would amount to anything. Peter G Werner 01:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Mrsanitazier reported by User:Starionwolf
Three revert rule violation on. : * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 2006-06-19 00:30:19 Time report made: 23:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1st revert: 19:33:57
 * 2nd revert: 19:33:57
 * 3rd revert: 19:42:14
 * 4th revert: 23:28:40
 * 5th revert: 2006-06-20 00:05:22

Comments: User repetedly deletes text without explanation. He is not discussing his edits on the talk page after another editor and I tried to contact him. I did warn him for 3RR. Please give me some advice.

Advice: remember to stay within 3RR yourself. This time, I decide that MrS's edits amount to vandalism, so you get off. 24h for him William M. Connolley 07:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand. Thanks for the advice.  Cheers.  --Starionwolf 18:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)--

User:LBakraceski reported by User:FunkyFly (result: indefinite block)
"Accession of the Republic of Macedonia to the European Union

Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 20:10, 18 June 2006
 * 1st revert: 17:21, 19 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 17:53, 19 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 20:08, 19 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 20:15, 19 June 2006
 * 5th revert: 08:46, 20 June 2006
 * 6th revert: 13:59, 20 June 2006
 * 7th revert: 14:31, 20 June 2006
 * 8th revert: 14:40, 20 June 2006
 * 9th revert 14:51, 20 June 2006
 * 10th revert 14:57, 20 June 2006

Time report made: 00:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Was warned. His first one. Dont be too harsh.   /FunkyFly.talk _   00:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please pay exception to the legal threats, WP:OWN issues (don't edit my article) etc in this lovely comment . People have tried reasoning with him, but he won't listen and continues revert warring even though he's been told on his talk page that he's violated the 3RR. --Tēlex 14:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Bear in mind what he's removing is sourced factual info. --Tēlex 14:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just for notice, he made a legal threat. Yanksox (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Editor has been blocked for 24 hours, will be looking into threats. pschemp | talk 15:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's a clear legal threat. Editor blocked indef per WP:NLT. pschemp | talk 15:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User:SpinyNorman 4
3RR violation on by


 * Version reverted to: 22:35 June 17
 * 1st revert 00:23 June 20
 * 2nd revert 04:29 June 20
 * 3rd revert 04:49 June 20
 * 4th revert 05:06 June 20

Reported by SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 06:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment

SpinyNorman keeps trying to add to the first sentence of Rod Coronado that he is an eco-terrorist. He insists that this must be in the first sentence, or else that Coronado also can't be called an animal-rights activist who engaged in direct action. The reverts above show him either adding "eco-terrorist" or removing "animal rights activist."

Spiny makes a habit of turning up at animal-rights related articles and engaging in multiple reverts for a week or so, disappearing for a few weeks, then turning up again to do the same. He's been doing it since December, and has caused havoc on some articles, reverting irrationally against multiple editors, against policy, and against authoritative sources. I can see from his talk page that he appears to be doing it elsewhere too, although I'm only familar with his animal-rights editing.

He's been warned about 3RR many times and blocked three times for it in the last four weeks. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 06:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 48 for being a chronic offender. FeloniousMonk 03:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Soman reported by User:Constanz
3RR violation on by


 * 1st revert 16:10, June 19, 2006


 * 2nd revert 16:26, June 19, 2006


 * 3rd revert 19:28, June 19, 2006


 * 4th revert 20:52, June 19, 2006

Time report made: 08:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 5th revert 09:17, June 20, 2006

Comment Paragraph beginning with The executive editor of Ny Dag, Gustav Johansson (also a long term Communist MP) concluded... has been 4 times reverted -- moved from main text into footnote. Before displacing the passage, the same user had removed the passage from text altogether, 3 times.

Reported by --Constanz - Talk 08:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've protected the page. Let me or another admin know when you can get on together... William M. Connolley 13:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm... we're together on the page all the time!--Constanz - Talk 14:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User:213.122.56.221/User:81.131.8.200 reported by User:Jhamez84
Three revert rule violation on. /.


 * 1st revert: 23:14, 19 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 23:25, 19 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 23:39, 19 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 12:02, 20 June 2006

Time report made: 12:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This user (it is a single user using dynamic IP rolling as identified by the edit pattern and his message here) has caused many months of problems. His agenda is to remove mentions of Oldham from the page with preference to an ancient and dissused land division (most probably because of the inter-racial problems and high ethnic minority population associated with Oldham rather than Lancashire).

His edits go against the formulation identified in the Naming conventions (places), but his demands, editing and trolling are becoming increasingly sophisticated and offensive, and so also go against Civil and Vandalism. These edits mentioned above also wipe out a number of other encyclopedic entries, such as images.

He has no static home page, but was warned (again) here about the 3RR.

Additionally, this user often circumvents blocking and warnings due to his multiple IP addresses, if an admin could contact me about how to better deal with this user, I would be very grateful. Jhamez84 12:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've tried sprotecting the article for a bit... William M. Connolley 13:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Jhamez84 14:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Development: The sprotection it seems has led to both the user registering and inflamed the level of vandalism, making this simillar edit (15:07, 20 June 2006). Could an admin leave a message on the user's and article's talk pages, and actually block them, or take some kind of bold action? Thanks, Jhamez84 16:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Ulritz reported by User:Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to 11:39, 19 June 2006
 * 1st revert: 22:12, 19 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 23:18, 19 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 11:40, 20 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 14:54, 20 June 2006

Time report made: 15:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Editor is well-aware of the Three-revert rule, having gamed it on other articles recently: for example, reverting 4 times in 24 hours and 3 minutes: Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours. Nandesuka 15:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Davkal reported by User:KarlBunker (result: 8h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 18:08, 19 June 2006


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

Time report made: 18:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see #3 as a revert; but the sock is probable, so OK: 8h William M. Connolley 18:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Donnchadh reported by User:Demiurge
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to 13:20, 20 June 2006
 * 1st revert: 13:53, 20 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:48, 20 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 16:37, 20 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 19:12, 20 June 2006

Time report made: 18:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Warned at . Demiurge 18:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind, user seems to have been blocked anyway for a related personal attack. No further action required. Demiurge 19:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User:General Tojo reported by User:PaulWicks
Three revert rule violation on Parkinson's disease. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable:


 * 1st revert: 08:30, 20 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:42, 20 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 16:09, 20 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 17:57, 20 June 2006
 * 5th revert: 18:52, 20 June 2006

Time report made: 18:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Since the 24th of March, user General Tojo (AKA Viartis AKA 1966) has been making edits on Parkinson's disease. Looking at the history (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parkinson%27s_disease&limit=500&action=history) you can see that he has a tendency to revert other people's contributions. His own contributions have focussed on one rather technical area of Parkinson's disease which is probably not all that relevant for an encyclopedia and which contains extensive linking to his own website (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AParkinson%27s_disease&diff=56466108&oldid=56404867#Vanity_links.3F). On June 19th I started a major overhaul of the article in order to cut down on its length in accordance with WP:SIZE and WP:SS. This has involved chunking out major sections of the article to new articles such as Striatonigral degeneration, Parkinson's disease mimics, Non-motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease, and Motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease. These all need work to build them into a cohesive picture. However every time I blink the PD article seems to be getting reverted, often whilst I am halfway through editing. I would appreciate it greatly if you guys would take a look and make your own assessment.


 * warned at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:General_Tojo

Many thanks. --PaulWicks 18:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please provide *diffs* not versions. Thanks William M. Connolley 19:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, didn't know how to do. There's been a 5th revert and a statement that he'll revert everything I write on the talk page. He's also been deleting bits of the talk page which he doesn't like.--PaulWicks 20:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User:TJive (repeat offender) at Norm Coleman (reported by User:Yeago)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norm_Coleman&diff=59563778&oldid=59563564

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norm_Coleman&diff=59612417&oldid=59569563

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norm_Coleman&diff=59678056&oldid=59665293

Thanks,  Yeago 20:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Why was I not informed of this? I enjoy the occasional bad joke.  --TJive 00:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Informed of your own violation of 3RR? Isn't committing it warning enough?Yeago 08:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like three reverts. So? Mackensen (talk) 11:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So...3 reverts on an article in 24 hours... isn't that uhm... I'm sorry am I taking crazy pills?Yeago 17:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Mackensen is trying to make clear that the 3RR is broken by making four reverts in a 24-hour time span. See WP:3RR. Discussion is going on on the talk page, which, I trust, will encourage everyone to leave the reverts at home for now. (In case it's not clear, that was a warning.) JRM · Talk 18:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Eiorgiomugini reported by User:JWB (result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to 08:02, 19 June 2006
 * 1st revert: 15:16, 19 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 17:29, 19 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 17:40, 19 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 10:02, 20 June 2006
 * 5th revert: 13:05, 20 June 2006
 * 6th revert: 13:29, 20 June 2006

Time report made: 20:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Previous 3RR blocks

User has refused to discuss on talk page

24h William M. Connolley 21:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User:JWB reported by User:Eiorgiomugini (result: 12h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to 00:17, 20 June 2006
 * 1st revert: 00:36, 20 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 01:06, 20 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 18:43, 20 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 20:26, 20 June 2006
 * 5th revert: 20:45, 20 June 2006

Comments: 3RR violation, lack of gounds on the article.

Eiorgiomugini 21:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

'Reverts' listed here are reversions of Eiorgiomugini's reverts listed in previous section --JWB 21:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I see no reasons here why I should been blocked and not him, this user JWB here had also violated the 3RR rules as shown from the history, he had give no ground on his claims for the article other than some nationalistic website. -- User:Eiorgiomugini


 * 3rd Party Comment - although I don't agree with the accuracy of the ideas JWB presents, there is nothing wrong with his presentation. They are stated not as fact, but as one possible theory among many, in a NPOV manner and they are backed up by sources that hold to that theory.  On the other hand, User:Eiorgiomugini's edits introduce Original Research and POV.  He constantly reverts JWB's edits (which have been the status quo for a while now) in Bad Faith, not discussing on the talk page even when invited to do so.  It is my opinion that User:Eiorgiomugini is in the wrong in this case.--WilliamThweatt 22:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess this needs ot be dealt with on textual grounds; so its a pretty clear vio. Since its reporeted by someone evading a ban, only 12h William M. Connolley 08:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * More discussion of textual grounds at User talk:JWB --JWB 21:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Kdbuffalo reported by User:The Crow
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * 1st revert: 19:11
 * 2nd revert: 21:17
 * 3rd revert: 16:44

Time report made: 22:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Missed a 4th revert in 24 hours by only 2 minutes.
 * User blanks his talk page on a regular basis to remove warnings and complaints from other users.
 * User has history of edit warring on biblical scientific foreknowledge and engages only infrequently in talk page.


 * List the fourth revert here. Please include dates. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 22:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not the only page which Kdbuffalo constantly edit wars over some passage. Unfortunately he avoids the 3RR 24-hr policy yet consistently makes the same edits over and over again.  One such example is the Christian apologetics page.  His user talk page history also shows an abuse of sockpuppets (and my guess is also logging out occasionally to employ an IP edit), all in effort to avoid the letter (but not the intent) of the 3RR policy. ju66l3r 23:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User:72.1.195.5 reported by User:JereKrischel
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable:


 * 1st revert: 15:14
 * 2nd revert: 15:26
 * 3rd revert: 15:32
 * 4th revert: 15:36

Time report made: 22:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Trying to calm things down and discuss edits on the talk page, but a war started. Please change to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._Philippe_Rushton&oldid=59705239, then protect the article from anon edits so we can work on things, thanks! --JereKrischel 22:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. I guess this was only to be expected. A group of Rushton's supporters have arrived in order spread his disproven theory that blacks are more psychopathic, promiscuous, mentally ill, and so on. Ultramarine 22:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Page is now protected William M. Connolley 07:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

User:JD_UK reported by User:Ste4k
Three revert rule violation on .:


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 17:37
 * 2nd revert: 18:54
 * 3rd revert: 22:14
 * 4th revert: 22:46
 * 5th revert: 00:25
 * 6th revert: 08:03
 * 7th revert: 08:04
 * 8th revert: 08:05
 * 9th revert: 08:06
 * 10th revert: 10:00

Time report made: 00:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: reversion at 22:14 was a continuation of those done at 18:54
 * User is still reverting edits he doesn't like, on other pages. -- 9  cds (talk) 10:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * They aren't edits I don't like, they are edits that potentially mess up the layout of the page. Try discussing things properly before making changes, then you might, just might, get less conflict.  -- JD talkemail 10:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I am adding more instances of your reverts, however, up above. Ste4k 14:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * By specifying that you do not like the normal Wikipedia layout you are expressing indirectly that you do not like her edits, just as she said. Your accusation that she has not been discussing properly is unfounded. I would prefer not to have any edit wars, nor would it be favorable for anyone if you are temporarily banned. I suggest that the page be frozen until until the disputes be worked out so that we can all edit happily elsewhere during the interim.

I've protected the page until you guys comne to an agreement. I am tired of playing babysitter here. -- Pilot| guy  15:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)