text:
user has been warned, but keeps reverting anyway.

Blocked 8h as a first offence William M. Connolley 16:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

 * The same person made at least 4 reverts this morning in the same article. Grandmaster 05:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Waya_sahoni
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: [17:23, 15 March 2006]
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Comments: Waya_sahoni continues to remove comments and sockpuppetry allegations from multiple users. Extremely disruptive user.

Reported by: Vigilant 17:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

 * This user is a stalker and has been following me around the site merely to revert any and all of my contributions.  Most of my reverts were to correct this users vandalism.  I would like the user indefinitely blocked for stalking and harassment.  And making false sockpuppet allegations and attempting to expose another users identity is a violation of WP:NPA.  Waya sahoni 20:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

 * That's a pretty bold statement there Waya. You certainly wouldn't mind providing some cites for that WP:NPA would you? Vigilant 00:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

 * As above, only 3 reverts here as of yet. I'll warn the user to make sure we don't have any more... (ESkog)(Talk) 18:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

 * How about now? [] Vigilant 00:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Alienus
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 04:45, 15 March 2006 (The text beginning "There is a particular risk...")
 * 1st revert: 16:42, 15 March 2006
 * 2nd revert: 16:50, 15 March 2006
 * 3rd revert: 17:28, 15 March 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:12, 15 March 2006

Reported by: Nandesuka 19:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * If experience demonstrates anything, it's that you can never be too rich, too thin, or have too many emotionally-charged revert wars over articles relating to circumcision. Nandesuka 19:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 48h as multiple offender and particularly blatant well-over-3RR this time William M. Connolley 19:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, in no way did I go "well over" 3RR. Will's claim is simply false. In the most negative interpretation, I made a fourth revision. In an honest interpretation, I made two. In neither case is this "well over", so the excuse for a 48 block is just that; an excuse. I'm writing this here for the record, since I was never given a chance to address these charges when they were first made.

Also, please note that all of my "reverts" were with explanation and included messages in Talk, while there were 8 reverts against my assorted attempts to meet the constantly-shifting requirements of these editors, and many of them were without ANY explanation. In short, something is very wrong here, and it involves Jakew, Jayjg and Nandesuka.

For the record, I reject any claim that I earned this ban. Alienus 10:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Rolandaslondon
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 13:30, 15 March 2006
 * 1st revert: 21:31, 15 March 2006
 * 2nd revert: 21:47, 15 March 2006
 * 3rd revert: 22:36, 15 March 2006
 * 4th revert: 23:30, 15 March 2006

Reported by: KillerChihuahua?!? 23:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I would have blocked him myself but I reverted his last revert (he is adding unsourced speculation about subject of article.) KillerChihuahua?!? 23:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Expanding to add, this is not a content dispute. I have never edited this article before today, I learned from a post elsewhere that someone was claiming an email met WP:RS and using that to add a rumor that Ian Lee is engaged. I removed the content and posted information about sourcing on Rolandaslondon's talk page prior to noticing the 4 reverts. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Warned on his talk page. Seems to have stopped editing. Edit comments make this look like an experienced user. Maybe just a throw-away account now thrown away? William M. Connolley 15:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * thanks much! This account was first used to attempt to back up an attempt by Brucethebiggaybear to insert allegation, or confession, that Ian Lee is gay. Dropped, then brought back for the purpose of inserting allegation, or announcement, that Ian Lee is engaged, which was in turn supported by Brucethebiggaybear. I expect to see future activity, perhaps inserting allegation, or revelation, that Ian Lee is female, or an alien, or somesuch. There are several accounts making such edits, which indicates possible sockpuppetry, but to be honest I haven't had the time or the inclination to do the due diligence required to determine whether adding yet another item to the RFCU backlog is worthwhile. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Jidan
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 00:01, 16 March 2006
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Reported by: Zmmz 22:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Comments: Jidan was warned about this before in the discussion page a couple of times, but he did it [again] (sighs). This time he reverted by erasing an entire section that comes with authoritative references like that of Richard Nelson Frye from Harvard University.Zmmz 00:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have blocked the user for 36 hours per 3RR.  Voice -of- All T 01:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Kilgore Sprout
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: [23:32, 14 March 2006]
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Reported by: Vsmith 00:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The user oddly replaced the reverted content between #3 and #4 and then removed it again after I warned him of 3rr violations on his talk page. Vsmith 00:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The user has now been warned per 3RR. I only see 4 edits on talk.  Voice -of- All T 01:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

User:<IP_ADDRESS>
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 01:40, 16 March 2006
 * 1st revert: 02:44, 16 March 2006
 * 2nd revert: 02:50, 16 March 2006
 * 3rd revert: 03:03, 16 March 2006
 * 4th revert: 03:10, 16 March 2006

Reported by: —Ruud 02:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Was previously blocked for 48 hours for a 3rr vio. —Ruud 02:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Better late than never, he's blocked for a further 48 hours for 3RR. Stifle 17:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Khoikhoi
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 02:30, 15 March 2006
 * 1st revert: 07:28, 15 March 2006
 * 2nd revert: 16:29, 15 March 2006
 * 3rd revert: 17:37, 15 March 2006
 * 4th revert: 17:47, 15 March 2006

Reported by: AucamanTalk 02:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Has not been warned about this particular case, but he seems pretty familiar with Wikipedia. AucamanTalk 02:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Aucaman, I did not violate the 3RR. Those four versions are very different. I was trying to work out a compromise between you and ManiF. It would only be a 3RRvio if they were the same. --Khoikhoi 02:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

 * In fact, I believe I only made 2 reverts here. --Khoikhoi 02:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed., why is this even on 3RR...does anyone here even know what that means? We have been getting a rash of bad rfpp request too...what is going on these days? Voice -of- All T 03:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

 * See my response here. AucamanTalk 03:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Raphael1
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert: 04:11, 15 March 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:56, 15 March 2006
 * 3th revert: 00:51, 16 March 2006
 * 4th revert: 03:09, 16 March 2006
 * 5th revert: 03:29, 16 March 2006
 * 6th revert: 04:15, 16 March 2006

Reported by: Bibigon 04:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments: 6 reverts to "Presumable" within 24 hours. This user has had issues with this before in the past. Additionally, there is possible sock puppetry going on here, as a anon user showed up to do this revert himself. It was the IP's first edit, it was done with any comment or explanation, and Raphael1 has to date been the only user interested in this particular change.
 * You have provided links, not diffs. Please provide diffs in future (click History, and the radio buttons corresponding to the revert and the page immediately before it). Checking in progress. Stifle 12:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've blocked User:Raphael1 for 8 hours for first violation of 3RR. User:Nysin has made three reverts, but not a fourth, so I'm dropping him a line too. Stifle 12:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

User:<IP_ADDRESS>
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 05:40, 16 March 2006

 * 1st revert: 07:18, 16 March 2006
 * 2nd revert: 07:25, 16 March 2006
 * 3rd revert: 07:50, 16 March 2006
 * 4th revert: 08:18, 16 March 2006

Reported by: Grandmaster 06:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Then this user changed IP to <IP_ADDRESS> and continued to vandalise this page. Apparently it is the same user I reported yesterday, who was vandalising this article and making the same changes. Yesterday he was blocked for 8 hrs. Urgent attention is required. Grandmaster 06:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The page has been semi-protected by Nlu, so the issue is now moot. Stifle 12:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I was going to comment too that with IP hoppers, 3RR vios are very hard to enforce. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

User:MB
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert: 14:10, 15 March 2006
 * 2nd revert: 22:21, 15 March 2006
 * 3rd revert: 09:38, 16 March 2006
 * 4th revert: 10:20, 16 March 2006

Reported by: ManiF 10:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The user been blocked before for violation of 3RR, he insists on replacing "Shia" with "Arab" despite another user's well-documented argument on the ambiguity of Geber's ethnicity on the discussion page. --ManiF 10:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Blocked for 36 hours. It's longer than 24 because he was just blocked for 3RR less than a week ago. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

User:CltFn
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert: 20:25, 15 March 2006
 * 2nd revert: 21:25, 15 March 2006
 * 3rd revert: 07:19, 16 March 2006
 * 4th revert: 08:17, 16 March 2006

Reported by: Scaife   (Talk)   Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 14:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Keeps reverting to an edit that may be considered slanderous. Has also called me a vandal for reverting unsourced, POV material.

Blocked 24h William M. Connolley 15:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Molobo (and it goes on and on)
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert: 02:48, 16 March 2006
 * 2nd revert: 03:37, 16 March 2006
 * 3rd revert: 03:41, 16 March 2006
 * 4th revert: 14:32, 16 March 2006

Reported by: Sciurinæ 14:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments
 * 1) revert war about two categories
 * 2) recurring violations, see Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive11 for context
 * 3) latest block was a 3-day one, some days ago Sciurinæ 14:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

 * After almost 30,000 edits here, I've never met such a rabid revert warrior. Molobo seems to have made incessant revert warring the only purpose of his wikiediting. Reverting his silly and pointless, nationalist-motivated edits distracts dozens editors from doing something more useful. It's hard to say the histories of how many articles he turned into a mess. Merits a severe punishment. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Following the Splash incremental principle, I've blocked for 4 days. He also moved the page; I've moved it back William M. Connolley 15:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Realek
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 14:20, 15 March 2006
 * 1st revert: 23:35, 15 March 2006
 * 2nd revert: 01:38, 16 March 2006
 * 3rd revert: 10:05, 16 March 2006
 * 4th revert: 17:03, 16 March 2006

Reported by: Latinus 19:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User keeps removing the reference "Macedonian Greeks" and replacing it with other things. He didn't revert to exactly the same version, but he did remove the reference four times. He has been blocked for violating the 3RR on this article before. --Latinus 19:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Blocked for 36 hours. Nandesuka 21:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah. We've sort-of crossed over on this. I protected the page: it seems to have seen little but reverts all day. Ermm... (ps: I was going to wig you about Alienus's talk page but I see you're ahead of me) William M. Connolley 21:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Bitola
Three revert rule violation on. : 13:20 16 March 2006
 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert: 18:24, 16 March 2006
 * 2nd revert: 18:34, 16 March 2006
 * 3rd revert: 22:06, 16 March 2006
 * 4th revert: 00:19, 17 March 2006

Reported by:--Hectorian 01:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * The user keeps reverting the section about the name of the city,in a version which is not well sourced and creates arguments among users.--Hectorian 01:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Before making a decision, please read the discussion page of the affected article and see the history page in order to see the reason for edit war. ThanksBitola 01:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Looks like a pretty messy edit war. I'd suggest warnings all around for this since blocking a whole mess of editors won't help make the article any better and would just be detrimental, if they continue after a warning then blocks all around would probably be appropriate.  Jtkiefer T   02:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Actually, only User:Bitola violated the 3RR. --Latinus 08:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud 12:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Rgulerdem
Three revert rule violation on. :

 *
 *
 *
 *

 * This user has violated 3RR on Wikiethics in an attempt to quash a poll to determine whether there is a consensus to approve the proposal listed above or not. He has also repeatedly violated WP:OWN on the article and the talk page itself however that is an entirely seperate issue. Pegasus1138 Talk  02:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Both User:Rgulerdem and User:Pegasus1138 warned. Jtkiefer T   02:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

User User:Rgulerdem has continued to violate WP:3RR and WP:OWN;
 * reverting
 * moving around User:Pegasus1138 comments and replacing them with his own
 * starting a second poll and posting it above someone elses
 * adding new headings to confuse the polls even more
 * This isn't even including his uncivil comments which are available on other diffs. ॐ Metta Bubble puff  08:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

User has continued to move editors comments around: I have been undoing his vandalism but feel apprehensive about continuing. Please help. ॐ Metta Bubble puff  09:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * moving comments out of sight again
 * 09:02, 17 March 2006 and another revert

 * Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud 12:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * User is back as, even though he's meant to be blocked.

 * 12:47, 17 March 2006
 * 12:53, 17 March 2006

 * Semi-protected the talk page. —Ruud 13:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Page was un-semied by User:Superm401 and sockpuppet vandal of Rgulerdem returned:

Keep in mind the anon user directly admits he is Rgulerdem returned to change the poll again
 * 23:26, 17 March 2006 manipulating a poll, against express admin warning.
 * 23:51, 17 March 2006
 * 00:19, 18 March 2006 posting a notice of invalid poll date
 * 00:27, 18 March 2006 inserting comments above the existing section and branding the original as "further comments"
 * 00:30, 18 March 2006 suggesting voters must have previously voted to be eligible
 * 00:45, 18 March 2006 duplicating a false WP:OWN violating notice about the poll

I have blocked the IP (<IP_ADDRESS>) until Ruglerdem's block expires. If he finds a new IP, I'll extend the block. Superm401 - Talk 01:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Next IP is . I suggest also semipriotect on Wikipedia talk:Wikiethics talk page to stop this nonsence. KimvdLinde 06:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Appears to be shamelessly evading the block, so I've blocked that IP. William M. Connolley 09:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

WegianWarrior

 * 1st revert: 05:11, 17 March 2006
 * 2nd revert: 05:16, 17 March 2006
 * 3rd revert: 05:21, 17 March 2006
 * 4th revert: 06:02, 17 March 2006
 * 5th revert: 06:33, 17 March 2006

[reported by] 40 Days of Lent 07:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I've trimmed the talk on this - the page is long enough as it is. Since Gator has blocked WW (below) this report is now redundant William M. Connolley 16:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

User:40 Days of Lent
Three revert rule violation on.

 * Previous version reverted to: 00:16, March 17, 2006 (They aren't complete reverts but you can see a large chunk being re-inserted)
 * 1st revert: 00:49, March 17, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 01:07, March 17, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 01:16, March 17, 2006
 * 4th revert: 01:38, March 17, 2006

Reported by: Seraphim  06:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * There are NOT 4 reverts listed here, this is a false complaint. The 4th and the 3rd are for completely seperate sections I moved to talk page for further discussion. This is why I do not want to be associated with this editor, she is playing games!40 Days of Lent 07:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * In every single linked revert you re-add the content you added in the first revert which was you reverting to the version where you had added the content. If you scroll down the links you can see it plainly, the big green section on the right side.  Seraphim  07:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3rr is not about making more than three reversions on a given page it is about making more than three reversions on a specific section. Non-Masonic editors on the Freemasonry subject pages are continually Falsely accused of 3rr and many a time Admins on this page take the complainants at their word without going through the reference links provided to see if they meet 3rr violation requiements. This is part of the 'gaming' of Wikpedia Admins by Editors belonging to this Group.40 Days of Lent 07:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period." from WP:3rr. The 3rr is more then 3 reverts on an article not on a section of an article. Also you reverted the removal of content 4 times, the same exact content. That even fits your defination of 3rr.  Seraphim  07:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It Says: "Reverting, in this context, applies to undoing the actions of another editor in whole or part".
 * I never violated 3rr YOU and THEY did!40 Days of Lent 08:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You're correct, we were reverting you, however the only one of us that reverted more then 3 times is Wegian and that's why he's reported also. By re-adding the content after it was removed you were undoing the actions of the editor that removed the content.  That is why your first revert is actually the 2nd time you added the content (because you were re-adding the content after another editor removed it) Seraphim  08:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It was always for different sections I never reverted the edits of another editor 4 times, which is the 3rr rule. The rule is not about reverting in a section, it is about reverting the work of another editor in a section. Now perhaps you would care to site back to me the ruleS you broke when you blank edited my edit, did an rv with no summary, and accused me of being a sock? 40 Days of Lent 08:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * First off who are you trying to kid? Your lightbringer. A new user doesn't immediatly go after every single freemasonry page, put up old disputed edits, and know the history of all the editors on the page. Secondly since your banned from editing freemasonry related articles we don't need a reason to blank your edits. And thirdly, you re-added your sections (The masonic secrets expose sections) 4 times each time following the removal of the sections by another editor. That is a 3rr violation.  And the diffs make it super apparently so whenever an admin gets around to it they can block ya. There's really no point in continuing any form of discussion with you since the diffs speak for themselves.  So goodnight :)  Seraphim  08:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Research, Study, Contemplation. How is it YOU are so knowledgeable about these pages, and make so little in the way of editorial contributions, other than deleting all material critical of Freemasonry and 'gaming' editors who make such edits? You can make all the accusations you like "dear" but as far as I am concerned you are a Mason taking on the identity of a young woman. I don't buy it, your "editorial" record screams otherwise.40 Days of Lent 08:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Probable sockpuppet of User:Lightbringer a user who is banned from editing freemasonry related articles by arbcom, and continues to create sockpuppet armies to continue to re-add the same information it seems like twice a week. Seraphim 06:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What proof do you have to justify this allegation? What right do you have to blank delete my work with what amounts to a personal attack by accusing me of this in the edit summary? Who is to say that you are not a "sock" of one of the Masonic Editors given the contradictory nature of your advocacy?40 Days of Lent 07:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Your editing style, your outrageous attitude towards the masonic editors, your knowledge of the system, the information your attempting to re-insert, and the fact that your a user with a christian related theme, all match up with Lightbringer's Modus Operandi, also the fact that you happened to pop up right after lightbringers last sock was perma banned shows you just made a new account. Once the checkuser admin gets around to looking you up (it's been posted for 4 days) you will be gone yet again. Oh and i've been cleared of being a sock of anyone who edits the freemasonry pages by David Gerard (admin with checkuser).  My "contradictory nature" comes from the fact that I want neutral versions of the articles, so pov pushing from both sides's i'm against.  Seraphim  07:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * But "dear" every one who posts material that the Masonic Editors dislike gets accused of being this 'sock'. It is only natural to fight the accusation. Anyone who seeks to post information critical of Freemasonry is sure to familiarize themselves with the situation at this website. Your actions here today and prior are anything but your claim to be against "pov pushing by both sides". Your pattern is clear - try and take a "neutral" position but side with the Masons in the end. Your editorial contributions to the page are non-existant, you simply take part in the 'gaming' of non-masonic editors and Wikipedia admins and rules. Where is the rewrite of the Signs, Oaths, and Symbols you promised as you repeatedly deleted the material? It never happened. You previously claimed "to know nothing of Freemasonry" yet participated in the repeated deletion of material critical to Masonry. If you "know nothing of Masonry" then why are you deleting the material? So here we have an editor (you) who says she knows nothing of Freemasonry, has no interest whatsoever in Freemasonry, yet spends all her time deleting all the criticism of Freemasonry from Wikipedia and making and filing complaints against those who do. Now what were you saying that David Gerard 'proved' about you again?40 Days of Lent 08:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

User:WegianWarrior
Three revert rule violation on.

 * Previous version reverted to: 19:30, March 16, 2006
 * 1st revert: 00:11, March 17, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 00:16, March 17, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 00:21, March 17, 2006
 * 4th revert: 01:02, March 17, 2006
 * 5th revert: 01:33, March 17, 2006

Reported by: Seraphim  06:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Pretty clear 4rr violation. User should have stepped back and let the other editors revert. Seraphim 06:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * And yeah, I got carried away. Mea culpa. I guess I have to find something else to do for 24 hours. WegianWarrior 07:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Blocked for 24 hours.Gator (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Hamsacharya dan
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 21:45, 16 March 2006
 * 1st revert: 22:14, 16 March 2006
 * 2nd revert: 22:47, 16 March 2006
 * 3rd revert: 23:03, 16 March 2006
 * 4th revert: 23:59, 16 March 2006
 * 5th revert: 01:43, 17 March 2006

Reported by: Baba Louis 19:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User:Hamsacharya dan keeps removing a conflicting views section with which he does not agree. He is a true believer in the subject of the article and is guarding it against what he considers disrepect for his teacher. I believe the section is valid and can be supported, but he won't leave it in long enough for myself and others to work on it.

Blocked 24h: first offence but deliberately deceptive edit comments annoy me William M. Connolley 19:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Swedenman
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Reported by: Probert 21:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week based on 3d or 4th violation. Pretty clear cut. Very unfortunate.Gator (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Durova
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 17:17, 16 March 2006
 * 1st revert: 01:08, 17 March 2006
 * 2nd revert: 07:08, 17 March 2006
 * 3rd revert: 14:29, 17 March 2006
 * 4th revert: 20:23, 17 March 2006
 * 5th revert: 21:09, 17 March 2006

Reported by: —  Dz on at as  21:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

 * User has been warned in the past. Page was previously protected. However, Durova is the only one out of all the editors that has reverted more than once a day on this article in the last two days.
 * Looks like vandal-fighting, reverting to consensus version. Perhaps this should be directed to WP:RFPP.  Nothing to see here, move along now... Just zis Guy you know? 22:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * JzG is impartial to certain editors to make a determination on this. There is further consensus (archived on talk page) about particular edits. —  Dz on at as  22:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right, I find Durova to be a good and impartial editor. Just zis Guy you know? 23:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Gee, I just chanced across this accusation. Thanks for the vote of confidence.  Dzonatas, I could have reported you here but I didn't.  Please just provide a regular citation to a reputable source. Durova 02:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I only applaud the effort to not block. I disagreed with the "vandal" part. —  Dz on at as  17:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

User:<IP_ADDRESS> User:Parkinsons User:Japanese_historian
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Comments The 3 users listed above are one person. This user is waging a many-against-one edit war on this article. He has been arguing for weeks about an addition he wants to make, and at least 7 editors have either removed his edit or argued against it on the talk page. He is adamant and does not respond in a meaningful way to the criticisms of his edit. Lately he has started logging in under a new user name as well as his usual (varying) IP address in an attempt to circumvent the 3RR rule. Not all of his edits are "pure" reverts, as other changes have sometimes been made to the article in the interim. But he has a single section that he repeatedly insists on adding. Sometimes he does this by reverting, other times by pasting in his edit. Reported by: KarlBunker 18:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Blocked the anon for 8h as first offence - clearly over the limit. JH has amde identical reverts, but only twice I could see - what evidence is there that these are the same people? William M. Connolley 22:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

 * He's made no attempt to disguise that JH is the same person. He makes the same edit, with the same sort of comment, and he's continued an ongoing discussion in the Talk page under this name--he even signed his entry in the Talk page with the same joking name "Daffy Duck", I believe. Also note that when he comes in under an IP, the address varies: it's 88.106.232.xx. KarlBunker 12:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

 * He's back again today, now using the sockpuppet user:Emperor Hirohito
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

 * Note the identical comment and content of reverts #1 and #4 (#4 under the sockpuppet Emperor Hirohito) KarlBunker 20:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * 5th revert: KarlBunker 20:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 6th revert:  Now under the sockpuppet user:JJU754 KarlBunker 20:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 7th revert:  Now back under his current IP: user:<IP_ADDRESS> KarlBunker 20:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * 8th revert: as user:Emperor Hirohito EricR 00:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked JJU754, JH and several anons. Not sure if that will help, but we can but try. Maybe sprotect William M. Connolley 17:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

 * On reflection, KB has broken 3RR too, so gets blocked too William M. Connolley 20:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Pm_shef
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 06:24, 21:24, 14 February 2006
 * 1st revert: 01:24, 2 March 2006
 * 2nd revert: 01:48, 2 March 2006
 * 3rd revert: 01:48, 2 March 2006
 * 4th revert: 02:42, 2 March 2006
 * 5th revert: 05:37, 2 March 2006
 * 6th revert: 05:38, 2 March 2006

Reported by: HarsA 21:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Where are the reverts? Voice -of- All T 21:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Something weird here. This is HarsA's only edit. So HarsA is someones sock; presumably, Hars_Alden's. Errm... but why? William M. Connolley 22:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh hold on... this is the same report I removed a day ago since its weeks stale (I have a special interest in that kind of thing, you know :-). William M. Connolley 22:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This report is trolling. It's the same report from before by User talk:Hars Alden who can't understand what 3RR is. I checked it out before and Pm shef is adding comments not reverting. Ignore it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Vulturell
Three revert rule violation on.

 * 1st revert 23:31 March 18
 * 2nd revert 01:01 March 19
 * 3rd revert 01:05 March 19
 * 4th revert 01:15 March 19
 * 5th revert 01:48 March 19

Reported by: SlimVirgin (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

A group of eight editors recently voted to get List of British Jews in order, because many of the names on the list are poorly sourced, and are neither Jewish nor British. Vulturell was the only person to oppose this and keeps reverting our efforts. He was blocked for 3RR on this page on March 02 and has reverted four five times within two hours today (complex, partial reverts). Because he's reverting as I'm removing names, but I don't know he's reverted, I end up removing names from a version he has already put all the names back into, which means I'm completely wasting my time. I've asked him to at least wait until I signal that I've finished editing, but he refuses to do even that, which suggests to me that he's being deliberately disruptive. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * not 3rr by any defnition. Different material every time - first edit - Ben Kingsley and Sellers. Second edit - Kingsley and Sid James (that makes it twice for Kingsley). Third edit - Sohpe Okonedo. 4th edit - Okonedo, Kingsley and James (and a few unrelated others). That makes it Kingsley 3 times - at the most - and not 3rr. Vulturell 01:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Read the policy. It makes no difference whether they're different names you're restoring (and anyway, they're not): the point is that you keep reverting another editor's work, and you've now reverted even after being reported here, which makes five reverts in just over two hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As SlimVirgin points out, they don't have to be the exact same revert. Complex reverts, partial reverts, multiple reverts of different material, they all count.  Please re-read the policy, and revert yourself, before you end up getting blocked, which would be a shame. Jayjg (talk) 02:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * To SlimVirgin The reverts I did just now are past 24 hours from my revert yesterday, actually. And don't say "anyway, they're not" when I've just shown you they are different names. That's a flat-out falsehood. A "revert" is either a taking out, inserting, or changing specific material. It doesn't mean I can't edit the page in a different way that has nothing to do with the other edits. And furthermore, the exact same group of editors - SlimVirgin, JayJG and GraceNote - have been enforcing a definition of "Original Research" that is up for a lot of debate, have enforced a "Policy" that was voted on by 10 people - including the three of them, and have been agreeing with each other on the exact same issues without bothering to discuss - sometimes one of them reverts my edits without even saying anything, either to their own version or one of the others', and have been refusing sources that fulfill exactly what their "policy" demands. Also acting in bad faith - removing names and not A. placing them on discussion B. or examining the new sources provided and reverting anyway. How am I supposed to handle that? Even I have to admit that I am clearly outnumbered, as most editors who've worked on the page before - like User:Newport, User:Arniep, and User:RachelBrown have been scared off the page by these tactics. Vulturell 02:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * We're enforcing WP:V and WP:NOR, which you are flouting on this list and several others. But even if you were 100 per cent correct, you still can't violate 3RR, which is independent of the quality of the edits. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Neither User:RachelBrown nor User:Newport have been "scared off the page"; since they're the same person, and have edited it recently (e.g. ).  More to the point, discussions of Wikipedia policy are all fine for policy discussion pages, but you have unambiguously broken the 3RR policy here.  I wish you had taken the chance to revert yourself when it was offered, but it is now obvious you have contempt for the 3RR policy, and only blocking will convince you that it is serious; this is an unfortunate turn of events. Jayjg (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Blocked for 24 hrs. El_C 02:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[I've ventured to remove the rather lengthy discussion here - should have been on talk. This page gets long enough as it is - William M. Connolley 10:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)]

User:TruthInAdvertising
Three revert rule violation on REALbasic by User:TruthInAdvertising.

 * 1st revert: 08:39, 18 Mar
 * 2nd revert: 15:36, 18 Mar
 * 3rd revert: 20:14, 18 Mar
 * 4th revert: 22:51, 18 Mar

(All timestamps are PST.)

Reported by: Zetawoof 07:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User has been pushing POV on this article for five days or more now, and has attempted to place the article on AfD. Zetawoof 07:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

 * 24 hour block. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Rschen7754
On Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads - see the history. (This is SPUI, using an obvious sockpuppet as I've been blocked for supposed vandalism.) --Sockenpuppe 07:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked  Sceptr e  ( Talk  ) 13:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

User:RichFarmer
Five revisions to this version of Steven Levitt between 19:10 18 March and 18:10 19 March. . Warned after the fourth, too. Would block myself but strongly involved in the present dispute. Rd232 talk 21:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Blocked 8h for a first offence William M. Connolley 22:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Rjensen
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 13:43, 19 March 2006
 * 1st revert: 15:52, 19 March 2006
 * 2nd revert: 16:51, March 19, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 19:01, March 19, 2006
 * 4th revert: 19:49, March 19, 2006

Reported by: Skinwalker 03:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Rjensen is insisting on whitewashing unfavorable facts about Richard J. Daley from the article. He has been warned in the past for 3RR violations, and continues to unilaterally reject any edit that presents information that contradicts his view of the former mayor.   I am considering filing an RFC for the article.
 * Not a 3RR violation. Different edits each time. Use an RFC if there's a dispute about the content. Stifle 14:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Duffer1
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 10:20, 19 March 2006
 * 1st revert: 13:39, 19 March 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:05, 19 March 2006
 * 3rd revert: 09:53, 20 March 2006
 * 4th revert: 12:13, 20 March 2006

Reported by: <IP_ADDRESS> 12:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Has more reverts than just the 4 shown. Others make different edits, but he reverts everything back to the same version.
 * Blocked for ten hours. Stifle 14:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

User:DJac75
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * 1st revert: [Revision as of 05:47, 20 March 2006]
 * 2nd revert: [Revision as of 06:07, 20 March 2006]
 * 3rd revert: [Revision as of 14:47, 20 March 2006]
 * 4th revert: [Revision as of 17:19, 20 March 2006]

Reported by: TheDookieMan 17:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)TheDookieMan

'''Comments: This user has been vandalizing the Joseph Sobran and other articles. He has also made callous comments to other editors'''

Not obvious that the first revert is a revert - to what? William M. Connolley 21:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Str1977 and User:TrumpetPower!
Str1977 is waging war on Jesus-Myth and has massively broken the 3RR. Please can something be done? Robsteadman 21:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

He's still at it. See. This is exactly the sort of vandalism I've been trying to protect. I'll let somebody else deal with it this time. TrumpetPower! 23:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The article's history can be found here. Once a decision has been made, I would ask the deciding admin to post the repsonse on Mr. Steadman's talk page too so that he can see what happens here. Thanks.Gator (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

 * It is a shame that Gator, just like Musical Linguist who only warned Str1977 about 3RR when he broke it on the 15th March, has not taken action - this is almost certainly because they are "editing pals". This is a misuse of admin positions by both of these admins - not blocking someone for clear violation, twice within a week, because they are their mate. Appaling. Robsteadman 21:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

 * As I've explained to Rob, I am conflcited out of this one. I've heavily edited with Str on a related page.  When in doubt, do nothing.  A neutral uninvolved admin needs to handle this.  Nothing "APPALING" about it.  Enough of the paranoid cabal talk, Rob, it's getting very old.Gator (talk)

 * Gator is not acting against an editing pal - just the same way that Musical Linguist only warned Str1977 about 3RR when he broke the same rule on the 15th. This is misuse of admin poweers by both of them. Clear evidence of the cabal for which there is much evidence - I agree it is tired, so why not start doing genuine ediuting and not the POV pushing and misuse of admin powers that you're doing? Robsteadman 22:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems that both Str1977 and User:TrumpetPower! reverted plenty of times; the administrators might want to consider blocking both if action is deemed necessary (it looks as if both have stopped at this point). But, let me point this out... Both editors (and others) made edits during this period, but, as I count it, TrumpetPower! exceeded the limit. Both may have violated earlier in the day, but fair is fair. KHM03 (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1st revert by TrumpetPower!: 20:33, 20 March 2006 TrumpetPower!
 * 1st revert by Str1977: 20:37, 20 March 2006 Str1977
 * 2nd revert by TrumpetPower!: 20 March 2006 TrumpetPower! 20:57
 * 2nd revert by Str1977: 21:09, 20 March 2006 Str1977
 * 3rd revert by TrumpetPower!: 21:21, 20 March 2006 TrumpetPower!
 * 4th revert by TrumpetPower!: 21:30, 20 March 2006 TrumpetPower!

 * The above is not accurate - Str1977 has done many more reverts in the 24 holur pewriod - KHM03 is yet another cabal member out to protect his pal. Please look at the evidence. Str1977 broke 3RR and Gator (as well as well as Musical Linguist) took no action. Robsteadman 22:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I make the Str1977 tally of reverts to be 6 in 12 hours. Possibly slightly more. Robsteadman 22:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

 * When conflicted or in doubt, bring in a third party; don't let your friend have a free pass. If admins are allowing Str1977 to get away with 3RR violations, then I don't see how they can turn on someone like TrumpetPower! who's simply defending the article against this edit warrior. Str1977 should have gotten banned a while back, and he should get banned now, but there's too much of an appearance of partisanship to justify banning TrumpetPower! over this. Alienus 22:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree, TP was trying to proetct the page against the POV pushing, vandalism and reverts of Str1977 - it is ONLY Str1977 who should be banned - along with the TWO admins who have not taken action against one of their "edit pals". Robsteadman 22:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

 * If I have indeed exceeded the limits, I am sorry about that and will accept any chastizing for that.
 * However, I have to point out that quite in contrast to what Rob has written, it was I who made valid edits (even if they were deletions) according to the evidence provided by Trumpet, which he repeatedly reverted based on consistently misunderstanding both my point and his evidence (whether intentionally or not I cannot tell), including misrepresenting of my posts in his edit summaries.
 * Str1977 (smile back) 23:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Whichever Admin is going to deal with this issue, please check the article's history carefully, as the "reverts" may not necessarily be reverts. There was quite a bit of actual editing taking place, so an extra word of warning on this one. Thanks. -- LV (Dark Mark)  22:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I've been away from the computer for the last hour or so, so have just got back and seen this. I haven't yet looked at the alleged violations, but I would like to point out that my "warning" to Str1977 a few days ago was a joke, as Str1977 had not violated the rule. (I did count on that occasion.) I even had a wink in the section heading. Str1977 reverted vandalism four times that day: two said something like "Christians are smelly", one said "God is a cooter", and one said something like "Christ comes from Athletes rubbing in oil. Do not change this." Someone fairly new, who didn't realize that vandalism didn't count under 3RR reported Str1977 to me, thinking that I would block him, and I posted a joke (possibly in bad taste) to his talk page saying that if he put "Christians are smelly" back into the article, I would overlook his disgraceful behaviour on that occasion! Maybe I shouldn't have made that joke, but I honestly didn't think anyone would take it seriously.

 * I would also point out that Str1977 has been opposed by editors (Giovanni33, Robsteadman, etc.) who were grossly violating 3RR (meaning that they would make six or seven reverts, rather than an accidental slip into a fourth one), and his policy has generally been to point out the violation and say that he wasn't going to report it. His generosity is probably not a reason not to block him if he has violated the rule, but it's certainly something that should be noted. Anyway, that's all for the moment from someone who has just come back online. AnnH <b style="font-size:medium;">♫</b> 22:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

 * But Str1977 still broke the 3RR on March 15th - excluding any vandalism correction. And nothing was done..... Robsteadman 22:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * According to the count back then, I did in fact not break 3RR on 15 March. Str1977 (smile back) 23:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If I may put in a word or two of self-defence, most, though not all, of my reverts included additional exposition or attempts at re-wording. I don't recall Str1997 from doing anything but simply delete content. TrumpetPower! 22:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

 * As I understand the revert rule, it doesn't apply to content disputes, which is what we have here. If both of these users violated WP:3RR, both should be blocked by a neutral administrator.  KHM03 (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, for what it's worth, I just spent a couple of minutes looking through the history, and it doesn't really look like this is a 3RR violation... it looks to be more of a content dispute where Str1977 changes something and TrumpetPower changes it back (and a few others jump in here or there). It never really stays in one area of the article like a traditional 3RR. Perhaps a page protection and some talk page usage would be in order here, as this is more of a content dispute than a revert war? -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  22:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

 * STr1977 began reverting at 9 a.m. - he has clearly brokewn 3RR. Robsteadman 22:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

 * This is NOT content dispute - it is simple POV vandalism - deleting chunks for no good reason, with no discussion. Robsteadman 22:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

 * It is a content dispute and I have, AFAIK, explained my edits every time. If not it was an oversight.
 * I have to contradict KHM - content dispute is indeed subject to the 3RR rule (only vandalism isn't), and if I have broken rules in heat of this all I am sorry. But it wasn't me who provided the heat.
 * Finally, Rob, it wasn't vandalism at all - it was valid edits on content, explained every time. Str1977 (smile back) 23:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The time that he began reverting is irrelevant. It's the nature of the reverts that count.

"No discussion?" Wow! Str1977 has posted to the Jesus Myth talk page six times today.

I presume Robsteadman is referring to me when he calls for the banning of the two admins who haven't taken action against on of their "edit pals". First of all, Rob should try to allow for the fact that I wasn't around when it was reported. Secondly, I have already said elsewhere that I don't like blocking for 3RR. The only time I have ever done so was with Robsteadman himself. I had had no prior encounter with him, and I had never edited the article on which he had violated it. I prefer not to block unless someone puts in an edit summary "Johnny, that was your seventh revert", and Johhny goes right ahead and reverts an eighth time. AnnH <b style="font-size:medium;">♫</b> 23:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

 * In that case, now's your chance. Str1997 has committed the exact same revert just recently, even after posting here about his violations of 3RR. TrumpetPower! 23:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I have not made any revert or content change pages subject to this complaint since I posted here. In fact, I did consciously desist from doing that and instead flagged a section because of its content. That's not a revert. Goodday, Str1977 (smile back) 23:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC) ... Now that I have checked again, I see that the software bug has struck again. I reinstated what I accidently removed, though I still think it utterly inaccurate and think that it should go. Str1977 (smile back) 00:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Then what, pray tell, is this? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus-Myth&oldid=44727134 TrumpetPower! 00:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I see you've since reverted your own deletion of the reference to the Doecetics, introducing a typo into the article, but you didn't revert your deletion of the sub-section of Justus, which is what I believe got you reported for 3RR in the first place. TrumpetPower! 00:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * My deletion of the subsection o Justus? When did I delete the subsection on Justus after this complaint was made? I agree that it should be deleted and I have clearly given the reasons why. But right now, I have only flagged it. Your misrepresenting facts will fall back on you, TP. Str1977 (smile back) 00:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I have only ever reported 3RR three times, although I have seen many more violations. I prefer to ask people to stop, rather than catch them out. I reported only when people had been given many "second chances" and were just abusing my reluctance to report. I even told TrumpetPower on 16 March that I wasn't going to report him. I have also in the past told Alienus that he had violated the rule but that I wasn't going to report him. As far as I know, Str1977 has never reported either, although I can vouch for the fact that he has seen his opponents violating the rule.

I very much doubt if any admin will want to ban me for not blocking Str1977, as urged by Robsteadman. He has now said on his own talk page that it would make sense for me not to block an opponent, but to leave it to a neutral admin, but that I should be suspended as an admin for not blocking my friend. I have said here that I reserve the right to treat my friends with the same amount of leniency as I treat my opponents. If I have on numerous occasions told fellow editors from the opposing POV that they had violated the rule but that I'd prefer not to report them, I am certainly not going to block a friend who edits the same articles as I do. As I see it, an administrator MAY block for a 3RR violation, but is under no obligation to do so, especially if it can be resolved in a different way. I know that other admins enforce the rule more strictly. They are certainly entitled to do so. Since I have never blocked an opponent, I object strongly to any implication that I am obliged to block a friend — that is, if he has indeed broken the rule, which has yet to be established.

On the day on which Str1977 was reported to me, I checked carefully, and I can categorically say that when you remove the vandalism reverts, he was not in violation. And by "vandalism", I mean pure vandalism which matches the definition. Robsteadman's accusation of vandalism against Str1977 does not match the definition. If it did, he could report it at WP:AIV rather than here, since it seems not to be a clear case of 3RR.

I have not looked at TrumpetPower's reverts either, but based on his comments above, I would point out that it is the act of reverting or partially reverting (i.e. edit warring) that counts. It makes no difference whether or not the reverts are all to an identical version. I asked TrumpetPower to review WP:3RR a few days ago, and it is all laid out there.

This is a complicated situation, made more complicated by utterly inaccurate accusations of vandalism, a misunderstanding of a silly (on my part) joke from a few days ago, and a completely unreasonable expectation that an admin who has never blocked the 3RR massive violaters who were opposing her should block her own friends for either a non-violation or a much milder one. AnnH <b style="font-size:medium;">♫</b> 23:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree with Jkelly (below), although I may be one of the naughty ones clogging up the noticeboard. A few brief points before I go to bed, as I have now looked through the history of the article.

 * This "violation", if it was one, was not reported properly. Robsteadman had plenty of time to post long accusations of vandalism and admins protecting their pals, but did not take the time to provide diffs. Admins are busy and should not have to do the extra work to see whether or not a violation really has taken place. There is a format to follow, with links for diffs, and times of reverts.
 * KHM03 provided some help, in giving times, but his links were page versions rather than diffs.
 * Robsteadman's accusations of "vandalism" are utterly untrue. That word should not be used for edits that oppose one's own POV. He weakens his own case in making such accusations.
 * Robsteadman says that Str1977 started reverting at 9:00. I can see no evidence that the early edits were reverts. In some cases Str1977 made two edits one after the other (nobody having edited in between). I don't think they can both count as reverts, as it could be done as a full-page edit. It's complicated counting the reverts, but there were certainly not six.
 * There were some less than civil edit summaries.
 * If Str1977 violated 3RR, then TrumpetPower certainly did so as well.
 * It was unfortunate that Str1977 seemed to make another revert after he had been reported here. However, that was not intended as a revert. He made an edit, adding a tag, and the software bug undid the edit of the previous contributor when he pressed "save". In his edit summary, he made it clear that he intended to flag it, not to revert. I have seen that software bug acting like that on numerous occasions. He undid his "revert" when he realized what had happened.
 * Str1977 did not violate the rule last week, once you remove the vandalism reverts from the count. I counted carefully at the time; the reverts and non-reverts were more clear cut than today. The silly joke I made "warning" him was intended for simply for him.
 * AnnH <b style="font-size:medium;">♫</b> 02:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Much of the above is untrue and is an admin misusing theior position to prtect an edit pal. Shameful. STr1977 DID violate on the 15th MArch, take a look not just the joke but the actual breach of 3RR, and also violated yesterday - at least 6 reverts. Action should be takjen against Str1977 and the 2 admins who have acted in a manner to protect and not block their mate. Shameful. Str1977 is a POV ppusher and a regular vandal who is supported by a small cabal of "christian" editors - including the tw admins who are trying to prevent him being banned. Robsteadman 07:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Str1977#That_silly_joke_I_made - "Your friend who won't block you or her enemies" - rather not carrying out admin duties then! Robsteadman 07:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Rob there is no "admin duty" to block people who are heavily involved in editing pages that the admin edits (which is generally how one makes "friends" and "enemies" here at Wikipedia). Such decisions should be taken by uninvolved admins. There is also no "admin duty" to block anyone for 3RR. Some admins do a lot of vandalism rollback; others do a lot of closing of AfD votes. I carry admin duties that has nothing to do with 3RR blocks. You made accusations but omitted the diffs (quite a wise decision, since any admin looking at the diffs would have started off by saying, "that's not a revert, this one is reverting vandalism, this isn't a clear revert," etc). In other words, you didn't follow the proper procedure for reporting, and then you call for admins to be blocked or suspended because they don't go hunting for the evidence that you didn't provide. In future, if you find a real violation, please report it using the proper format, with times given, and with links to the diffs. Then, calmly wait for an admin to decide whether the violation really took place, and if so whether or not it should be dealt with by a block.

 * Please be aware, also, Rob, that if you keep removing User:TrumpetPower! from this improperly-formatted report, you will be in violation of 3RR, and could be blocked, though not by me, as I don't block people who edit the articles I edit.

 * I note, anyway, that Mongo decided last night to protect the Jesus Myth page as an alternative to blocking either of the two editors. AnnH <b style="font-size:medium;">♫</b> 10:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Use of this noticeboard
Hi. I would like to encourage those editors involved in this article to reconsider using this noticeboard as a forum for discussing their differences. If there has been a WP:3RR violation, and if that editor is continuing to revert back to their preferred version of the article, please use the reporting template at the top of the page and calmly request attention from an administrator. Thanks. Jkelly 00:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

User:tasc
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: []
 * 1st revert: [|22:16, March 20, 2006]
 * 2nd revert: [|14:08, March 20, 2006]
 * 3rd revert: [|18:13, March 20, 2006]
 * 4th revert: [|21:54, March 20, 2006]
 * 5th revert: [|22:16, March 20, 2006]

Reported by: OrbitOne 21:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments: tasc has been reverting this page to protect a single image three (four counting me) would rather have removed. Has failed to give clear reasons to this. Yes, I am involved, but I am pulling my hat out of the ring to avoid edit wars or personal conflicts. By all accounts, five reverts is rather excessive. *Note* Hasn't made any perfect reverts to my knowledge, but always changes back the same picture.'''
 * it's just ludicrous. You've tried to make a point by replacing image to totally strange picture. There was a discussion on talk page and you were aware of it. You haven't provided any reasons for your replacement, neither on talk page nor in edit summary. --tasc 21:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You miss the point: don't settle content disputes with revert wars William M. Connolley 22:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 8h as first offence William M. Connolley 22:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

User:<IP_ADDRESS>
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 12:33, 14 March 2006
 * 1st revert: 11:07, 20 March 2006
 * 2nd revert: 14:08, 20 March 2006
 * 3rd revert: 16:29, 20 March 2006
 * 4th revert: 16:44, 20 March 2006

Reported by: NEMT 21:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * For weeks this anonymous user has been reverting this page, and ignoring the discussion and ongoing search for sources and commentary on the talk page. Recently an agreement had been made about the wording of the final paragraph which was suitable to all involved in the discussion, however, it is still reverted by this user - without any comments on the talk page or explanation.  He/She has been repeatedly warned with appropriate templates on his/her talk page, to no avail.  The first three edits in this sequence all revert back to the same version, though the fourth revert also removes the "references" section as well. --NEMT 21:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You've both broken 3RR, so you can have 12h each William M. Connolley 22:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, that's fair. My reverts of this anon's vandalism and information removal are clearly a violation of Wiki policy, right?  --NEMT 15:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

User: Metta Bubble
Three revert rule violation on. :

1. 3RR Violations:

reverting to an earlier version per POV without discussion and consensus

reverting to an earlier version per POV without discussion and consensus

reverting to an earlier version per POV without discussion and consensus

reverting to an earlier version per POV without discussion and consensus

reverting to an earlier version per POV without discussion and consensus

reverting to an earlier version per POV without discussion and consensus

reverting to an earlier version per POV without discussion and consensus

reverting to an earlier version per POV without discussion and consensus

reverting to an earlier version per POV without discussion and consensus

In the links above reverting the page according to POV.

2. Vandalism:

deleting another editors comments

deleting another editors comments

In the links above is vandalizing another editors comments or just deleting some of them.

3. Vandalizing another editors comments:

destructing another editors comments

destructing another editors comments

In the links above is making changes on comments of another editor to change the course of discussion or change the intension of the editor.

Reported by: Resid Gulerdem 23:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Vandal vandalized, destructed and reverted continuously the discussion page Wikiethics according to POV. Uncivil comments can be found in the history page. I want an action be taken although this note is about some of the vandals earlier actions. I was not able to post for last two days.

 * This is an attempt of Resid's (yet another attempt by Resid) to deal with people he disagrees with in a dispute on Wikiethics. Please disregard lest we all be subject to blocking for disagreeing with editors who know how to make a 3RR/vandalism complaint. Pegasus1138 Talk  00:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * The claims are clear and linked above. There is no room for conspricy theories. Resid Gulerdem 01:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Here is another revert without discussion. Can anyone take care of this. started to destroy other editors edits again. Resid Gulerdem 03:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

An immediate action is required, please. Here is the vandal's anotherrevert. Resid Gulerdem 04:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone help me with this please. Vandal started again to reverting.

undiscussed revert POV

I was wondering when someone will take the issue: Here is another revert without discussion:

vandal reverting without discussion

And here is last action taken by vandal:

reverting without discussion, uncivilic comments, insult!

I am so surprised and saddened that although there is such a list of vandalisms and reverts, no action is taken by yet. Resid Gulerdem 13:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Further Comments: ॐ <strong style="color:orange;">Metta Bubble <sup style="color:red;">puff  09:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This appears to be another revenge action by who was blocked previously for 3RR and disruption, including posting a false notice about me once before. Please check with any of the following admins for clarification: ,
 * Am I doing these vandalisms and reverts for a revenge? These are clearly refers to your actions... Resid Gulerdem 13:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * This false 3RR notice is one of several that is reported in full here. ॐ <strong style="color:orange;">Metta Bubble <sup style="color:red;">puff  05:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You cannot hide your violation by blaming on me. The list above is your violations as documented. Everybody is responsible for his own mistakes. That is a rule of thumb... Resid Gulerdem 18:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Imacomp
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 19:42, March 20, 2006
 * 1st revert: 20:18, March 20, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 20:25, March 20, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 20:39, March 20, 2006
 * 4th revert: 21:07, March 20, 2006

Reported by: Seraphim  02:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User keeps re-inserting a paragraph about hitler. He was warned both in the article edit history and on his talk page. User used misleading edit summaries for the 3rd and 4th reverts, where he edited a completly unrelated section of the article, commented on that change, but still re-inserted the paragraph without mentioning it. Third rv comment was "John Coustos" and fourth was "Nice edit blueboar. We will keep it I think. Plus this edit about Knights of Pythias" Seraphim  02:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 24h: 3RR, plenty of warnings, aggraveted by incivility William M. Connolley 08:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Kingjeff and Dr31
Three revert rule violation on. and :

 * Previous version reverted to: 22:51 19 March 2006
 * 1st revert: 23:14 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2nd revert: 13:12 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3rd revert: 13:31 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 4th revert: 16:05 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Reported by: Metros232 02:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments: These users have been engaged in an edit war concerning discussion found here. The two are in disagreement as to how the format of the page should look. Kingjeff feels that it should be standard throughout the world for football articles, while Dr31 feels that the MLS should stand alone with its own style. The two have done this on other articles as well, but none were in violation of the 3RR. These are single reverts by Dr31 of Kingjeff revisions:. I am concerned that their discussion on the talk page is getting testy, that these reverts might only continue, and that this can become uncivil, as highlighted by such taunts as "you are PATHETIC" by Dr31--Metros232 02:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

User:SeraphimXI
Three revert rule violation on. :

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

Reported by: Ardenn 03:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User won't discuss edits. Ardenn 04:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * User won't discuss edits? Did you try looking at the article's talk page? Seraphim  04:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Please whatever admin deals with this, actually look at the content being presented, the reporter did not provide correct links and times because they would make it clear it's a junk report, the "previous version" he has listed is a version of the page an hr after what he has listed as "first revert". This is an invalid 3rr report, where the reporter was unable to present a previous version reverted to since he had to list it as 1st revert to get 4. I've edited the page 4 times today. In the first I made a change to a section that has been in the article for over a month (which is incorrectly labled as "first revert", there was nothing being reverted).  I then reverted back to that version 3 times and stopped to prevent a 3rr from being filed.  The reporting user (Ardenn) obviously knew there were only 3 reverts, since he filled in the "Previous version reverted to:" field with a completly unrelated diff.  The actual report should show what is listed as "First Revert" as the previous version reverted to.  Then 2nd 3rd and 4th reverts are actually revert 1,2, and 3.  3 reverts is not a 3rr vio.  Seraphim  04:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What the report should look like
 * Previous version reverted to: 19:12, March 20, 2006
 * 1st revert: 19:21, March 20, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 20:36, March 20, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 20:59, March 20, 2006
 * 4th revert: Doesn't exist. Seraphim  04:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You've broken 3RR, this is clear enough. Blocked 24h William M. Connolley 08:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh no she hasn't - sorry. Block removed William M. Connolley 08:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Rgulerdem
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: [08:31, 21 March 2006]
 * Revert 1 08:42, 21 March 2006
 * Revert 2 08:45, 21 March 2006
 * Revert 3 08:53, 21 March 2006
 * Revert 4 10:09, 21 March 2006
 * Revert 5 10:28, 21 March 2006
 * Revert 6 10:37, 21 March 2006
 * Revert 7 11:03, 21 March 2006

After 1 Hour block expiration:
 * Revert 8 12:17, 21 March 2006
 * Revert 9 13:17, 21 March 2006
 * Revert 10 14:00, 21 March 2006
 * Revert 11 14:27, 21 March 2006

Reported by: Netscott 10:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Simple clear cut case of 3RR, despite having been warned User:Rgulerdem made reverts against 3 seperate editors. Netscott 10:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * 2 additional reverts against a 4th editor. Netscott 10:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Additional revert. Netscott 11:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Blocked 1 hour to let him cool down, I'm not blocking 24 (another admin may if they see fit) as he'd then go running off yelling 'oppression'. NSL E (T+C) at 11:10 UTC (2006-03-21)

 * I would recommend at least a 24 hour block as it appears that in one hour's time an edit war will re-commence. Additionally User_talk:Rgulerdem has shown a lack of civility by referring to my edits as "vandalism" and has called me a "vandal". Netscott 11:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Sure enough, just like clock-work User:Rgulerdem has made an eighth revert... after 1 hour block expiration. Netscott 12:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * His intractability on this issus really needs at least 48 hours. Trödel  12:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 9th revert: Please note, no other editor has broken 3RR regarding this violation. Netscott 13:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 10th revert: Against a 5th editor (Trödel)... I don't think I've ever seen anyone who flagrantly violated 3RR with such impunity across such a wide swath of editors like this. Netscott 14:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 11th revert: I guess User:Rgulerdem thinks we're all 'vandalizing' his article's Policy's talk page. Funny how he has to resort to time-wasting bad-faith (and false) 3RR reports in revenge. Netscott 14:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Guettarda 14:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your adminstration Guettarda. Netscott 15:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Gleng
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 17:39, 20 March 2006
 * 1st revert: 19:28, 20 March 2006
 * 2nd revert: 19:40, 20 March 2006
 * 3rd revert: 11:49, 21 March 2006
 * 4th revert: 12:02, 21 March 2006

Reported by: Geni 12:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * 5th revert:12:23, 21 March 2006 after being informed about the 3RR on the article talk page.Geni 12:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverts incorporated constructive elements and all fully explained on Talk page. This began when Geni removed an element of text that had previously been placed on the Talk page in advance of being introduced, and was revised after comments from other editors. It did not seem reasonable to bypass this discussion, so as far as I was concerned these were reverts of vandalismGleng 13:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Nothing I did was vandalism as defined by Vandalism.Geni 13:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I accept this, not accusing Geni of lack of good faith, merely breaching etiquette in a case where text had been inserted only after discussion and review; felt that removal should equally have been discussed firstGleng 14:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Gleng blocked for 3 hours for first vio/block, but Geni may have violated 3 RR too. I'll let another more experienced admin handle that decision.Gator (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No. version created 11:21, 20 March 2006 followed by three reverts. The regualar revert of Aegeis was more than 24 hours before my third revert.Geni 17:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Netscott
Three revert rule violation on.

Here is the reverts by Netscott. Vandal is trying to kill the proposal and manipulating the sections accordingly. Here are the reverts he had recently:

reverting without discussion

reverting again without discussion

reverting again without discussion

he started reverting again his POV

another similar revert done by <IP_ADDRESS>. I am highly suspicious that this anonim user User:<IP_ADDRESS> is Netscott. I am not sure how to check it. Can anybody help me with that? Thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgulerdem (talk • contribs)

Reported by: Resid Gulerdem 13:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

He is trying to kill a proposal. It requires immediate attention. Resid Gulerdem 13:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * You have only listed 3 reverts.Geni 13:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually only 2... the first 'revert' he cites is an initial change. Netscott 13:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * He is continuously vandalizing the page. I did not report the earlier ones. These are the last three. Resid Gulerdem 13:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently Resid has me confused with someone else for I've not done any vandalizing of WikiPedia, ever! Netscott 13:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is essentially a Bad faith 'revenge' report on the part of User:Rgulerdem. Netscott 13:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a 3RR violation here by Net or Resid. Another opinion would be appreciated.Gator (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Gator, thanks... It is nice to hear natural voices here... Resid Gulerdem 18:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Looks like about 5RR by Resid (the original report was that page; its the talk page where the reverts were). Blocked 24h... oh, hold on, I've been scooped: Guettarda blocked "Rgulerdem (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (11RR vio) William M. Connolley 16:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Hold on Connolley, aren't you the person left this message on the discussion page. Hold on and slow down. You are an admin remember... Resid Gulerdem 18:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Why the people wit hviolations here repeating my name like a baby calling her dad. The documented lists above is not my violations... Resid Gulerdem 18:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Mostssa
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: [08:00, 20 March 2006]
 * 1st revert: 03:01, 21 March 2006
 * 03:05, 21 March 2006
 * 03:15, 21 March 2006 revert completed
 * 2nd revert: 16:30, 21 March 2006
 * 3rd revert: 16:50, 21 March 2006
 * 4th revert: 17:10, 21 March 2006 in progress

Reported by: EurowikiJ 18:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User:Mostssa who also broke a 3RR on March 18 has been inserting the article with hateful, unsubstantiated and POV remarks for almost a month. Sometimes he makes several successive changes to the article in order to arrive at his version. He dismisses as POV and erases any reference that is not to his liking. Also, any attempt by other contributors to reason with him is met with accusations of a cover-up and aggressive Croatian propaganda. He pours insults on those who try to stop him and labels them as fascists, anti-Serbs and vandals. He dismissed the warning not to transgress the 3RR left on the discussion page as not applicable to him. EurowikiJ 18:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud 19:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Mccready
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 09:05, 20 March 2006
 * 1st revert: 02:05, 21 March 2006
 * 2nd revert: 05:17, 21 March 2006
 * 3rd revert: 10:29, 21 March 2006
 * 4th revert: 19:30, 21 March 2006

Reported by: —Ruud 19:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Already blocked for 24 hours, but feel free to review. —Ruud 19:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

User:DJac75
Three revert rule violation on. :

... trimmed [WMC]
 * 1) (cur) (last)  04:57, 22 March 2006 DJac75 (I am quite willing to test the 3 RR rule in this instance. An edit war over a NPOV/disputed context warning seems to settle the instant
 * 2) (cur) (last) 00:38, 22 March 2006 DJac75
 * 3) (cur) (last) 21:50, 21 March 2006 DJac75
 * 4) (cur) (last) 08:25, 21 March 2006 DJac75 m
 * 5) (cur) (last) 08:24, 21 March 2006 DJac75 m
 * 6) (cur) (last) 08:24, 21 March 2006 DJac75 m
 * 7) (cur) (last) 08:23, 21 March 2006 DJac75
 * 8) (cur) (last) 08:21, 21 March 2006 DJac75 m
 * 9) (cur) (last) 08:21, 21 March 2006 DJac75
 * 10) (cur) (last) 07:24, 21 March 2006 DJac75 (rv)
 * 11) (cur) (last) 07:17, 21 March 2006 DJac75 (rv. POV vandalism)
 * 12) (cur) (last) 06:29, 21 March 2006 DJac75 (rv. "What this country is suffering from is not
 * 13) (cur) (last) 05:51, 21 March 2006 DJac75 (new para)
 * 14) (cur) (last) 17:19, 20 March 2006 DJac75 (rv. Which wiki rules would those be?)
 * 15) (cur) (last) 14:47, 20 March 2006 DJac75 (rv vandalism)

Reported by: Rogerman 06:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

Comments:

I'm not sure why this hasn't been dealt with yet. This user has violated the 3RR rule numerous times in the past few weeks.

Blocked 24h William M. Connolley 09:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

No dispute on the 3RR enforcement, but the reason that it had likely not been enforced thus far was the involvement (in that dispute) of several new user accounts that all seem to know the ropes, and seem to only edit 1 or 2 articles. Also, numerous WP:NPA violations have been noted on the part of User:CaliforniaDreamlings and User:TheDookieMan against others involved in this dispute. Those editors gave the appearance of editing in bad faith. Dick Clark 15:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI, I've just protected the page in question. · Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 15:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

User:TuzsuzDeliBekir
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert: 16:37, 22 March 2006
 * 2nd revert: 17:04, 22 March 2006
 * 3rd revert: 17:40, 22 March 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:43, 22 March 2006

Reported by: Khoikhoi 19:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User knows about 3RR because I warned him about it here. --Khoikhoi 19:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked  Sceptr e  ( Talk  ) 21:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

User:<IP_ADDRESS> & related IP's
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 01:37, 22 March 2006
 * 1st revert: 03:09, 22 March 2006
 * 2nd revert: 14:19, 22 March 2006
 * 3rd revert: 18:38, 22 March 2006
 * 4th revert: 19:12, 22 March 2006

Reported by: Aquilina 19:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The IP mentioned second is the same user - he signs as such on the Talk page here

The user is removing references to the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham from articles relating to Shaw, Crompton and his/her old school Crompton House because he doesn't want potential employers reading his CV to be put off by the mention of the neighbouring big town if they check it up in Wikipedia! (see edit summary here)

Editor was warned about WP:3RR and, but has threatened to continue reversions (see bottom of Talk:Shaw and Crompton
 * Blocked  Sceptr e  ( Talk  ) 21:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Croatian historian
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 12:31, 22 March 2006
 * 1st revert: 17:14, 22 March 2006
 * 2nd revert: 18:29, 22 March 2006
 * 3rd revert: 19:41, 22 March 2006
 * 4th revert: 19:48, 22 March 2006
 * 5th revert: 23:39, 22 March 2006

Reported by: Latinus (without prejudice - on behalf of User:PANONIAN) 00:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Fixed - what would you do without me? ;-) --Latinus 00:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[removed some personal attacks] Please fill out the report correctly, else I will not block. —Ruud 00:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC) User:Croatian historian violated 3rr here (Serbia article):
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Serbia&action=history

He reverted this page 6 times between 12:31, 22 March 2006  and 23:39, 22 March 2006. Enough data now? PANONIAN  (talk)  00:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

 * No, but Latinus did fill out the report correctly, so blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud 00:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Pegasus1138
Three revert rule violation on. :

reverting without discussion

reverting without discussion

third revert already.

forth revert. Immediate attention is required, please...

Reported by: Resid Gulerdem 23:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

This user is used to revert and vandalize the discussion page Wikiethics. He already reverted twice already in 10 minutes. I would appreciate if anybody could look at it. Resid Gulerdem 23:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

 * First link is not a revert, the diff before my first edit was moving Resid's poll down in placement on the page which I did not have any part in at all. the latter 3 difflinks are me archiving the poll and thus are the reverts so I have not broken the 3RR rule any more than Resid, nor are my edits vandalism as Resid keeps claiming because he does not agree with them. Pegasus1138 Talk  23:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That are only three reverts. —Ruud 00:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

User:<IP_ADDRESS>
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 17:06, 21 March 2006
 * 1st revert: 04:38, 22 March 2006
 * 2nd revert: 04:54, 22 March 2006
 * 3rd revert: 16:38, 22 March 2006
 * 4th revert: 20:55, 22 March 2006

Reported by: Antaeus Feldspar 23:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

 * This is not the first time this user has violated 3RR on this article; the user [User talk:<IP_ADDRESS>|has been asked]] to discuss on the talk page but refuses. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. —Ruud 00:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Metb82
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 17:06, 19 March 2006
 * 1st revert: 16:57, 22 March 2006
 * 2nd revert: 19:24, 22 March 2006
 * 3rd revert: 20:05, 22 March 2006
 * 4th revert: 23:47, 22 March 2006

Reported by: Latinus 23:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User keeps adding an image of uncertain copyright status. --Latinus 23:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. —Ruud 00:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

User:CltFn
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 14:15, 21 March 2006
 * 1st revert: 16:39, 22 March 2006
 * 2nd revert: 00:37, 23 March 2006
 * 3rd revert: 01:08, 23 March 2006
 * 4th revert: 01:37, 23 March 2006

Reported by: —Ruud 00:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Please check his block log. —Ruud 00:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

About time to go up to 48h William M. Connolley 13:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

User:DickClarkMises
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * 1) (cur) (last)  23:51, 22 March 2006 DickClarkMises (look, the replaced content isn't accurate; make your argument on the talk page, and please abide by community concensus)
 * 2) (cur) (last) 23:46, 22 March 2006 DickClarkMises (let's provide the pertinent information)
 * 3) (cur) (last) 22:58, 22 March 2006 DickClarkMises (wikify; return collaboration on Sam Francis controversy to place under Criticism heading)
 * 4) (cur) (last) 22:39, 22 March 2006 DickClarkMises (I'm attempting to defend WP:NPOV, not Lew. And I'm not a secretary, thank you very much <g>)
 * 5) (cur) (last) 22:21, 22 March 2006 DickClarkMises (rv POV-pushing by User:CaliforniaDreamlings; use the talk page please!)
 * 6) (cur) (last) 15:19, 22 March 2006 DickClarkMises (→Criticism - return answer by LRC columnist to charges by Palmer)

 * 1) (cur) (last) 22:13, 21 March 2006 DickClarkMises (rv POV deletion of pertinent material; please do not accuse me of vandalism—this is a content
 * 2) (cur) (last) 17:44, 21 March 2006 DickClarkMises (rv deletion, as per my argument on the talk page)
 * 3) (cur) (last) 20:42, 20 March 2006 DickClarkMises (rv - it doesn't matter what you've "found" it matters what a notable person has said in a verifiable source; please use the talk page to make arguments for your controversial edits)
 * 4) (cur) (last) 19:43, 20 March 2006 DickClarkMises (cite Kinsella's affiliation with LRC; this is a relevant response by an individual associated with the dispute.)
 * 5) (cur) (last) 17:43, 20 March 2006 DickClarkMises (rv - you are refusing to look at the vote that was already taken on this issue. While Voting is Evil, this should be seen as some indication of consensus on this issue; refer to talk page)
 * 6) (cur) (last) 17:21, 20 March 2006 DickClarkMises (you are incorrect; the community has spoken on Kinsella's notability; please find reference at this article's talk page)
 * 7) (cur) (last) 16:19, 20 March 2006 DickClarkMises (rv - the source cites a notable individual pertinent to this issue who claims that the criticisms are inaccurate; that's worth having here)

Reported by: Rogerman 05:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

Comments:

As can be seen above, this user has clearly violated 3RR and in fact done so on numerous occassions. Thanks, Rog

 * I would respond by noting that the reporting user is involved with me and others in a content dispute at the noted article (LewRockwell.com). I have done my best to abide by the 3RR, and I believe that my edits, if examined, will be seen to not only include reverts, but serious attempts to come to better wording, etc. The other users involved in the dispute are highly suspicious to me in that they all seem to know basic policies of Wikipedia, and yet have very few, and very concentrated edits. They have consistently refused to discuss edits on the basis of Wikipedia policies and guidelines on the article's talk page, and they seem unwilling to compromise on wording as per talk page discussions. Regards, Dick Clark 07:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I would also note this 3RR false alarm by User:Rogerman. Dick Clark 07:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 24h. William M. Connolley 13:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I never did a false alarm with regards to 3RR.

Can you please place the offending "diffs" at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR? I'd rather not block people on an article that I'm involved in. Thanks, -Will Beback 23:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Will Beback stated the reason he didn't want to do the block himself was that he deals with articles that Dick Clark also deals with. I don't buy that reason as legitamite but that's what it is, not because I was making a false alarm.

Rogerman 20:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

User:<IP_ADDRESS>
Three revert rule violation on. :
 * Previous version reverted to: 14:10, 20 March 2006
 * 1st revert: 08:30, 23 March 2006
 * 2nd revert: 08:43, 23 March 2006
 * 3rd revert: 10:43, 23 March 2006
 * 4th revert: 11:08, 23 March 2006

Reported by: Latinus 12:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * As the user behind this dynamic IP is known to change his IP when blocked (happens all the time - check the revision history) - would it be possible to get semi-protection for the article. I know that it's strictly for vandalism, but I do think that this may be a WP:IAR situation. Just because he's smart and chooses to log out, whereas we dumb users stay logged in, I don't think that this kind of thing should be encouraged. --Latinus 12:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked the IP, let me know if s/he returns. —Ruud 13:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

User:<IP_ADDRESS>
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: [02:56, 22 March 2006]
 * 1st revert: 13:51, 22 March 2006
 * 2nd revert: 18:01, 22 March 2006
 * 3rd revert: 18:06, 22 March 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:31, 22 March 2006
 * 5th revert: 19:43, 22 March 2006
 * 6th revert: 20:01, 22 March 2006
 * 7th revert: 20:15, 22 March 2006
 * 8th revert: 22:29, 22 March 2006
 * 9th revert: 23:51, 22 March 2006
 * 10th revert: 00:06, 23 March 2006
 * 11th revert: 13:07, 23 March 2006

Reported by: EurowikiJ 13:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This anonymous is adamant about inserting his POV views allegedly based on a neutral work. Although resisted by other contributors he is adamant and blatently disregards 3RR. EurowikiJ 13:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

8 hours; first offence and no warning, but lots of reverts... William M. Connolley 13:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Regulus_marzo4103
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 2006-03-18 06:47:47
 * 1st revert: 2006-03-18 19:26:02
 * 2nd revert: 2006-03-19 04:21:25
 * 3rd revert: 2006-03-20 23:16:06
 * 4th revert: 2006-03-22 04:53:15

Reported by: JACooks 14:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This user has been warned by me and other users because the changes being made to this article (and others) are inaccurate. User continues to revert.

 * You have misunderstood the rule: its 4R in *24h*. You want WP:DR if the problem is a slow revert war William M. Connolley 15:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the note, I was directed to post on this page from requests for investigation, but I appreciate the clarification.

User:Nightwing99
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 2006-03-23 11:56:21
 * 1st revert: 2006-03-23 08:19:49
 * 2nd revert: 2006-03-23 08:57:16
 * 3rd revert: 2006-03-23 10:51:53
 * 4th revert: 2006-03-23 14:25:25

Reported by: Ipstenu 20:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Nightwing99 is not reading the discussion page, nor does the poster seem to read their own discussion page, or the edit summaries OR the comments put in by D1Puck1T to not edit and please talk. I don't think Nightwing99 is a troll, but a very determined poster.

 * The previous version reverted do doesn't seem right. I see only three reverts. —Ruud 22:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The first one is a (I grant) a questionable revert (from a day or two before), but as someone else pointed out on the talk page, he's got well over 100 edits for the page in March alone, all for this ONE section, and all have been reverted back. This may just need a ban req, but this is my first time trying to sort any of this out. -- Ipstenu 03:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Pro-Lick
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 18:42, 22 March 2006
 * 1st revert: 18:54, 22 March 2006
 * 2nd revert: 01:14, 23 March 2006
 * 3rd revert: 08:46, 23 March 2006
 * 4th revert: 13:30, 23 March 2006

Reported by: RoyBoy 800 20:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I have warned Pro-Lick today that further reversions will result in a block. Pro-Lick was warned by me and about the WP:3RR. Musical Linguist has just reverted Pro-Lick's latest additions. - RoyBoy 800 20:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Blocked for 24 hours. Please be careful that you report the correct diffs next time, the 2nd one wasn't right. —Ruud 22:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

 * If the 2nd was not right, why did I get blocked? As a note to any future 3rr complaints, keep in mind there are lots of different parts on that page.  Also keep in mind that RoyBoy has a view contrary to mind and may not be the most reputable and reliable source of information regarding my edits.--Pro-Lick 23:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Williamo1
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 03:41, March 23, 2006
 * 1st revert: 12:06, March 23, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 18:07, March 23, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 19:11, March 23, 2006
 * 4th revert: 03:07, March 24, 2006

Reported by: Rob 03:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Note, the reverts aren't always going back to the exact same version. He occasional throws in an arguement (directed at editors, not readers), as to why we should leave the information in (e.g. if you love children, you'll let him keep the info). See Requests for comment/Williamo1 and particularly this talk page section for background. --Rob 03:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Blocked. —Ruud 03:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Netscott
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 02:24, March 24, 2006
 * 1st revert: 02:58, March 24, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 12:12, March 24, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 12:32, March 24, 2006
 * 4th revert: 12:52, March 24, 2006

Reported by: Irishpunktom\talk 13:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User keeps removed a Wikilink that has been included longer than he has been editing, not that that matters, and has reverted four times within 24 hours without discussing his proposal at all on the talk page. Fairly straight forward--Irishpunktom\talk 13:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * User was warned in advice of his fourth revert. --Irishpunktom\talk 13:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

 * To the admin who pursues this report, regarding the wikilink to The 100 please pay particularly close attention to the first "revert" cited by Irishpunktom... I don't dispute the last three. But the first citation is not a revert as the article's history page shows. Netscott 13:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see this section of User:Joturner's talk page as well. Also, although not directly related to this report, for a perspective on the interaction between Irishpunktom and myself over the last 24 hours please see the history of User:Crad0010's User Page. And the ensuing debate with Crad0010's corresponding response. Netscott 14:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

First revert was done by User:Joturner, so User:Netscott has only made three reverts so far. —Ruud 14:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ruud for properly researching this report. :-) Netscott 14:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Err, no, the previous version reverted to was Joturner, all four reverts were by Netscott --Irishpunktom\talk 14:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Please check the history carefully, while Netscott did remove the link, this was only done after he reinserted it himself. Self-reverts don't count towards a 3RR. So you're both at three reverts. —Ruud 14:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I would recommend that the two instances of Netscott (please see another list above) reverting should be combined into one. It seems to be that he used to revert without discussions. It is a bad habit... Resid Gulerdem 18:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

User:<IP_ADDRESS>
Three revert rule violation on. :
 * Previous version reverted to: 06:06, 23 March 2006
 * 1st revert: 17:41, 23 March 2006
 * 2nd revert: 06:10, 24 March 2006
 * 3rd revert: 12:05, 24 March 2006
 * 4th revert: 15:38, 24 March 2006

Reported by: Khoikhoi 16:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User knows about the 3RR – I warned him/her twice here and . Despite this, they continued to revert without explanation.
 * This user has also rv Ramona Amiri more then 3 times within 24hours.
 * 12:07, 24 March 2006
 * 06:38, 24 March 2006
 * 06:08, 24 March 2006
 * 17:40, 23 March 2006

Blocked 12h. Chaldean escapes by a whisker William M. Connolley 18:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

User:<IP_ADDRESS>
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

There are far more than 4 reverts, view for full list.

Reported by: ⇒   SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  17:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User continually is doubling up sections of the page: i.e. The page has all it's information, then he's reposted it all again at the bottom, and now he's attacking anyone who reverts it in edit sums. ⇒  SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  17:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't think this is quite 3RR (well it may be, but not obviously). But its clearly NPA, and the repeated doubling amounts to vandalism, so I shall award a short block to gie the anon time to think William M. Connolley 18:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

User:<IP_ADDRESS>
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Reported by: Aldux 22:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments Even if talk is ongoing on the talk page and a first compromise solution had already been proposed, and accepted by many on poth sides of the dispute, the editor has continued to revert mindlessly, sending abusive comments to other editors in the edit summaries: for example he called an editor a "Turk hater", and when told he had violated the 3RR he awnsered reverting once again. He had been informed of the 3RR before breaking it through a notice left on his talk page --Aldux 22:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Clearly warned, clearly no intention of stopping. Blocked for 24 hours.  Jkelly 22:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Humus sapiens
Three revert rule violation on Arab Israeli conflict:

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

Reported by: Lokiloki 00:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Not sure I'd call this a clear violation, Lokiloki. You were both going back and forth trying to edit the cutline in a different way each time, then he commented out the map and cutline until you both resolve the issue on talk. Perhaps you could try to find a compromise text on the talk page before editing it again. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I've left a note to that effect on the article talk page. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Okay. As some background: the issue has been debated extensively on the talk pages already -- he has rejected several compromises out of hand.  He continually reverts any addition that includes the phrase "the viability of a Palestinian state" or, barring removing just that particular phrase, he deletes the entire map.  I believe these reversions constitute a 3-revert rule violation.  At the very least, I request that editing of this page be blocked to prevent further edit warring.  Lokiloki 01:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I can't see on the talk page whether your version has any support. I'll take another look, but there doesn't seem much point in protecting now you've both stopped. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

 * For the record: although this dispute has been temporarily put on hold, I'm concerned about Lokiloki's 3RR report. First of all, Humus does not appear to have violated the 3RR; at the most I count two actual reverts.  The problem is that Lokiloki has violated the 3RR twice in the last 48 hours, the second time after being warned.  Between 10:57, 23 March 2006 and 12:42, 23 March 2006, Lokiloki reverted Arab-Israeli conflict five times:, , , ,  (For a description of Lokiloki's reverts on March 23, see the bottom of the section entitled Caption edit war).  At 13:37, 23 March, I left a friendly and polite warning on Lokiloki's talk page explaining the consequences of the 3RR.  At 20:17, 23 March, Lokiloki acknowledged the 3RR policy violation, but unfortunately, Lokiloki proceeded to violate the 3RR again, starting at 19:37, 24 March 2006 with four reverts: , , , .  I would like some kind of action to be taken. —Viriditas | Talk 10:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I believe that Viriditas' claim that my 2nd set of edits were reverts is inaccurate. In the first edit,, I added content after the 24 hour period from my first accidental 3RR (as I was unaware of the specifics of the policy).  As such, this initial addition of content presumably doesn't qualify as a "revert".  This new content was deleted by Humus.

 * In the second edit, I added the same content with a citation to validate its inclusion as per Viriditas' earlier request for cites (and assuming that Humus would stop reverting something that was cited) . Humus deleted again.  I then re-added the content after Humus deleted it twice more: after his final deletion, I did not re-add the content as I assumed that this would have been my 4th revert (but even on that point, I am unclear, as I was adding new content, namely citations, to buttress the presence of that content).  At that time, and given Humus' bellicosity, I reported his 4 reverts here.  (I do not quite see how Viriditas only counts 2 reverts for Humus, yet 4 for me, especially given that it was a back and forth edit war with only he and I.)

 * -/- Lokiloki 11:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You broke 3RR after your fourth revert in 24 hours. —Viriditas | Talk 11:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not revert 4 times in the last 24 hours, as per my explanation above. There is presumably little need for us to debate this further here, as the facts are laid out, the histories are there, and hopefully an Administrator can address your accusations, and mine.  Despite what I believe is an inaccuracy in your accusation, I do appreciate your even-handedness generally in dealing with this article: you have been a helpful and neutral complement in an otherwise divisive article.  -/-Lokiloki 11:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Your "first edit" of your second round of reverts, starting with 19:37, 24 March 2006, was to revert to the 12:42, 23 March 2006 version, in part or in whole, even though your first and second series of reverts relied on multiple primary previous versions.  In other words, a revert is still a revert... —Viriditas | Talk 12:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I still disagree with your characterization, not least because I provided additional content in the 2nd edit in the form of a citation (which you yourself had earlier requested), and not least because it is unclear to me how adding additional content is an actual "revert". Thanks, Lokiloki 12:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Your "2nd edit" of your second round of reverts, at 20:08, 24 March 2006 was a partial/complex revert ("and the viability of a Palestinian state") to your "first edit" 19:37, 24 March 2006 plus the addition of a cite. In other words, you reverted. —Viriditas | Talk 12:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. But if you follow this vaguer approach, how was it that you only found 2 reverts for Humus? Lokiloki 20:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't comprehend your disagreement. Either a revert is not a revert or it is.  From here,

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive12