Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:11, 13 June 2006

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

Update this page

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353
354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363
Incidents (archives, search)
1144	1145	1146	1147	1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153
1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
466	467	468	469	470	471	472	473	474	475
476	477	478	479	480	481	482	483	484	485
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
318	319	320	321	322	323	324	325	326	327
328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Violations

User:Dollarfifty reported by User:Objectman

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

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

User:Narco reported by User:Bob

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

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

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

User:Appleby reported by User:172.215.251.42

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

Reported by: 172.215.251.42 07:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

User:8bitJake reported by User:FRCP11 (Case No. 3) (result: 12h each)

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

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

Comments:

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

I think FRCP11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 8 have both broken 3RR; so they can have 12h each William M. Connolley 19:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a question as a third party who's been directly involved in this ongoing battle w/8BJ, how does 12 hours work for a user's 5th offense and his third in less than 10 days? Is there a formula that admins use on this? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are no fixed rules. 8bit would probably have got 24h from me had he been the only violater William M. Connolley 21:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So one's past isn't taken into account? The fact that he's a serial violator means nothing in this case? I'm puzzled. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

User:Panairjdde reported by User:Nissi Kim (result: 3h)

Previous version reverted to: 08:37, 7 June 2006

Note: User:Panairjdde has several other reverts of the same issues before this 24 hour period.

1st revert: 09:43, 7 June 2006
2nd revert: 08:54, 8 June 2006
3rd revert: 08:54, 8 June 2006
4th revert: 12:50, 8 June 2006
5th revert: 14:22, 8 June 2006

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

Comments:

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

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

User:Envix reported by User:older ≠ wiser

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

Second round after making a few superficial changes:

Previous version reverted to: [2]
1st revert: 18:36, June 8, 2006
2nd revert: 18:43, June 8, 2006
3rd revert: 18:47, June 8, 2006
4th revert: 18:49, June 8, 2006

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

Comments:

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

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

User:Mikhail Frunze reported by User:User:Ultramarine (result: warned)

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

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

Comments:

Four reverts to exactly the same version. Is behaving similarly on Holodomor.Ultramarine 23:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Mikhail Frunze probably uses also IP 69.111.8.1 (talk · contribs) for reverted --Yakudza 01:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Looper5920 reported by User:217.235.205.150

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

Reported by: 217.235.205.150

Comments: Looper keeps reverting improvements to the article named above. From his statements on /Talk I understand that he wants the article to represent the official position of the US Military instead of facts.

This is not the place for content disputes, but be aware that even if Looper is blocked (since Looper did violate the 3RR), that does not represent an endorsement of your change. I would suggest you seek a consensus on the talk page before reverting it again. Powers 01:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What, 3RR can be broken as long as it is related to a content dispute, but not if everyone agrees? What idiotic argumentation is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.209.60 (talk • contribs) 05:52 UTC, June 9, 2006 (UTC)

It's not one I made. I'm not saying 3RR can be broken, I'm saying that it doesn't mean you're right and Looper is wrong, just that Looper went too far in enforcing Looper's preferred version. It's a moot point now, since Looper has tried a compromise, and I'm frankly not sure which of you is correct anymore. =) Powers 12:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:68.112.25.197 reported by User:cholmes75 (chit chat)

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

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

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

User:Objectman reported by User:Deiaemeth (result - 3hr block)

For An Jung-geun

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

For VANK

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

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

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

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

User:Homeontherange reported by User:Zeq ^Talk

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

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

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

04:39 June 9, 2006

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

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

Editor note Read the 3RR policy, especialy the words "in whole or in part" see WP:3RR. The policy does not allow even a partial revert as defined in: Wikipedia:Revert :

"To revert is to undo all changes made after a certain time in the past. The result will be that the page becomes identical to how it used to be at some previous time. A partial revert undoes only some of those changes."

It is clearly a violation. Zeq 14:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Now look at this edit [3] it adds two tags. Some other users have removed these tags and next:

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

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

Note from second admin: I haven't looked at the diffs to see if they really are reverts, and I'm a bit busy at the moment, but will just point out that the policy page specifically says (in bold letters in the Detail section):

"Note: There is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count."

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

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

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

He deleted it twice . this is the 2nd: [4] - a clear edit war. I also left him amessage on his talk page that he ignored. Despite all the narrowing of my ability to edit because of the probation I decided to reinstate the 3RR report although I was risking it. In any case this below is even more important: (Zeq 20:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

additional offenses by same violator: Homeontherange (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

09:34 June 8, 2006–06–08

09:53 June 8, 2006–06–08

10:00 June 8, 2006–06–08

17:43 June 8, 2006–06–08

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

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

I did not removed Homey's comments. In fact I restored them twice[5]. NSLE was the one that removed them together with the whole complained I was the one who tried to restore it twice. Zeq 08:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Improper unblocking of Homeonetherange

Bearcat's unblocked Homeontherange. His unblocking summary said "disputed edit is not a clear 3RR violation; two separate issues, neither of which individually exceeded the 3RR rule, were conflated into one." Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule specifically says (in bold even):

"There is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That suggestion seems somewhat unreasonable. Homey has been blocked for 3RR violations many times before, and is also an administrator, as such he is well aware of the policy. He has also been increibly pushy and tendatious with this article. It is clear that a block is warranted.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of Homeontherange's block becomes less and less relevant with each passing minute. He'll be unblocked shortly whatever the outcome of this discussion. The broader issues I've addressed on his talk page[6], and ought to be addressed in the appropriate forum. In the meantime, I suggest we let the clock run down in the normal fashion.Timothy Usher 06:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

As an expiriance admin Homey is well advised to follow this guidelines:

WP:Point#Gaming_the_system
"When you are in a hole the first thing is to stop digging" Zeq 03:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

User:Princess ofCloutierland reported by User:MiamiDolphins3 (result: warnings for both)

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

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

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

User:24.94.129.139 reported by User:MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib)

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

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

User:Frater FiatLux reported by User:999 (result: 24h)

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

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

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

User:Ravi5099 reported by User:Anwar (result: 6hr, both sides)

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [7]
1st revert: [8]
2nd revert: [9]
3rd revert: [10]
4th revert: [11]

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

Comments: This is a single-purpose account to vandalise Joseph_Vijay. He is a hard-core Vijay fan who does not want any flops or negative news to be listed in the article at all. He is engaging in slow reverts daily over the past 3 weeks now.

Blocked for 6 hours. This was a first offense (well, first block) and the user was not warned ahead of time that he was about to violate the 3RR. Hopefully this clears things up. If not, longer blocks will of course be called for. User has been notified. --Yamla 03:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked other side for 6 hours as well, as he also violated 3RR. --Yamla 03:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zanoni666 reported by User:999

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 11:07, 9 June 2006
1st revert: 18:53, 9 June 2006
2nd revert: 19:01, 9 June 2006
3rd revert: 19:12, 9 June 2006
4th revert: 19:30, 9 June 2006

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

Comments:

Please also note the uncivil edit comments. The claimed "agreement" or "moderation" does not exist. There is reason to suspect that this user is Frater_FiatLux (talk · contribs) evading his block for 3RR above. [12] -999

Blocked for 24 hours. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:86.42.136.115 reported by User:Angus McLellan (Talk) (result: 8h)

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 09:40, 10 June 2006
1st revert: 12:54, 10 June 2006
2nd revert: 14:43, 10 June 2006
3rd revert: 17:22, 10 June 2006
4th revert: 18:32, 10 June 2006

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

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

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

8h as first offence but warned. Dunno about the socks William M. Connolley 19:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, double post here. Angusmclellan obviously beat me to it. It is not first offence, see post below. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:86.42.158.83/User:86.42.136.115 reported by User:**Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)**

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

User: 999 reported by User:Frater FiatLux

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [13] *

1st revert: [14]

2nd revert: [15]
3rd revert: [16]
4th revert: [17]

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

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

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

This is a malicious false report. None of these are reverts. I've been working together with several other editors, including User:HermeticScholar and User:Kephera975. The article is moving forward, with increasing satisfaction on the part of all the editors as evidenced on the talk page. There may have been a few temporary steps backward, but overall there is forward progress on the article. -999 (Talk) 00:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell from the report, but superficially these don't look like reverts. I've locked the page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Should I take the time to document my part in the forward progress of the article? I can provide diffs of the changes between each other editors changes. -999 (Talk) 00:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take that trouble on my account. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. -999 (Talk) 00:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it is mainly interference on User 999's part, he is reverting and changing things to obstruct and be one sided. None of the other orders pages have so many footnotes, 999 is playing games and should be stopped from sabotaging and interfering with the Rosicrucian Order of A+O's article. Frater FiatLux 00:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the other articles have the same amount of content. The number of citations is proportional to the amount of information. The original article User:Kephera975 and I created that you didn't like was shorter and had less citations. Also, the more controversial the claims, the more citations are needed. It is not my fault your organization makes controversial claims. For the record, the only bias I have against your organization is due to your behavior - I had no opinions one way or the other until I started researching and editing the article on the Golden Dawn tradition. I am not a member of ANY of the Orders, nor a friend of Cicero's and do not have any reason to be biased against you. I am simply trying to make sure that WP policies are adhered to, and those policies require the source of the information to be cited. -999 (Talk) 00:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Uris reported by User:Johan Elisson

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: Revision as of 00:04, 11 June 2006
1st revert: Revision as of 00:07, 11 June 2006
2nd revert: Revision as of 00:25, 11 June 2006
3rd revert: Revision as of 00:58, 11 June 2006
4th revert: Revision as of 01:03, 11 June 2006

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

Comments:

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

User:Jooler reported by User:Johan Elisson

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: Revision as of 05:18, 10 June 2006
1st revert: Revision as of 06:02, 10 June 2006
2nd revert: Revision as of 17:00, 10 June 2006
3rd revert: Revision as of 19:34, 10 June 2006
4th revert: Revision as of 23:30, 10 June 2006

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

Comments:

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

User:82.45.217.232 and User:195.93.102.35 reported by User:Hardouin

These two anonymous users have reverted each other 11 times in the space of 24 hours:

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: Revision as of 17:12, 8 June 2006
1st revert (by 195.93.102.35): Revision as of 11:18, 10 June 2006
2nd revert (by 82.45.217.232): Revision as of 13:19, 10 June 2006
3rd revert (by 195.93.102.35): Revision as of 13:29, 10 June 2006
4th revert (by 82.45.217.232): Revision as of 13:41, 10 June 2006
5th revert (by 195.93.102.35): Revision as of 14:37, 10 June 2006
6th revert (by 82.45.217.232): Revision as of 17:57, 10 June 2006
7th revert (by 195.93.102.35): Revision as of 18:06, 10 June 2006
8th revert (by 82.45.217.232): Revision as of 21:04, 10 June 2006
9th revert (by 195.93.102.35): Revision as of 23:02, 10 June 2006
10th revert (by 82.45.217.232): Revision as of 23:10, 10 June 2006
11th revert (by 195.93.102.35): Revision as of 00:38, 11 June 2006

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

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

User:BhaiSaab reported by User:Timothy Usher (result: Blocked for 24hr)

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

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

Comments:In his first revert, BhaiSaab removed advice to refrain from potentially divisive religious language on talk pages[18]. Immediately after this, he restored links to openly partisan Guilds, at least one which has been the center of solicitation for religiously-motivated RfA votes and reverts, as well as relentless incivility to non-members. [19]. In his second revert, he restored those links again[20]. In his third and fourth reverts, he removed language I’d added to caution editors away from such guilds (rather than revert his change) [21], [22]. After his fourth revert, he removed dates from member signatures[23].

I left the following message on his talk page, asking him to self-revert, rather than be reported[24]. He responded by saying I should feel free to report him[25].Timothy Usher 02:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is removing the dates a bad thing? I thought it would be more tidy with just the names. This report is full of POV. I would urge any administrator to review each edit and claim (such as "openly partisan guilds") before making their decision to block me. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mythology8 reported by User:Mr. Lefty (result page protected)

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

User:Eiorgiomugini reported by User:Lemuel Gulliver (result 24 hours)

18:30, 9 June 2006 (revert)
06:21, 10 June 2006 (revert)
09:05, 10 June 2006 (revert)
15:58, 10 June 2006 (compromise (3 successive edits))
05:07, 11 June 2006 (partial revert)
05:22, 11 June 2006 (revert)
05:31, 11 June 2006 (revert)
05:47, 11 June 2006 (revert)
06:22, 11 June 2006 (revert)

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

For your information I removed your info not by reverting it. Eiorgiomugini 04:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have not to do exact reverts, just going back and forth is bad ebough. And this is far more than just 4 reverts per person. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kim, that is nonsense. The user in question made five exact reverts. I know that it gives you a warm feeling of neutrality and even-handedness when you copy and paste the same comments to both me and Eiorgiomugini, but it should occur to you that rule-violators and non-rule-violators ought not to be treated in the same way. Gulliver 61.69.254.188 10:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm had not made myself clearer for you, I had only reverted twice within 24 hours at here and here, the rest are merely removing your unsourced claims. Eiorgiomugini 11:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have determined the source of your bizarre claim to have made only two reverts despite the diffs. I think that the problem is that you are under the weird impression that it is only a "revert" if you go to the history page, click on an old version, click edit, and click save. By that way of thinking, if you just edit the current version of the page in such a way that it becomes identical to a previous version, you have not reverted.

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

Now, what's wrong with removing unsourced and suspicious claims? All users are encouraged to remove any unsourced or poorly sourced information. Eiorgiomugini 11:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with reverts that aim at removing unsourced and suspicious claims? Nothing at all. As long as you don't do it more than three times in 24 hours. Have you read any policy at all? Gulliver 61.69.254.188 11:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And why don't you show me one. You seem to had not awared to include Cantonese pronunciation, given in IPA on pages that's not related to the article.Eiorgiomugini 11:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One what? A policy? Certainly: see WP:3RR. Gulliver 61.69.254.188 11:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It said nothing about the situation we're having here, all I can said I reverted only twice, this is of cos not counting the removing edits. Eiorgiomugini 11:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this not count "the removing edits"?? What basis in policy does that have?? Look, I give up. Your command of English is not sufficient for us to have a dialogue. You have clearly not understood anything I have written. 你说英文说得太不好，我也说中文说得太不好，所以咱们不会议论。 End of discussion. Gulliver 61.69.254.188 12:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

User:Lemuel Gulliver Reported by Eiorgiomugini (result 24 hours)

1st revert: 01:38, 11 June 2006
2nd revert: 03:19, 11 June 2006
3rd revert: 03:28, 11 June 2006
4th revert: 03:39, 11 June 2006
5th revert: 04:15, 11 June 2006

This the user who refused to listen for his addition. Eiorgiomugini 04:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eiorgio, none of those are reverts. Click on them and see. — Gulliver ✉ 04:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have not to do exact reverts, just going back and forth is bad ebough. And this is far more than just 4 reverts per person. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is three reverts. And you are wrong about "going back and forth" to find a compromise. It is not prohibited. Please apologise for blocking me. Gulliver 61.69.254.188 10:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the actual diffs:

01:59, 10 June 2006 (revert)
07:43, 10 June 2006 (revert)
15:17, 10 June 2006 (compromise)
03:38, 11 June 2006 (compromise)
05:19, 11 June 2006 (revert)
05:28, 11 June 2006 (compromise)
05:39, 11 June 2006 (revert)
06:15, 11 June 2006 (compromise)

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

User:SynergeticMaggot reported by User:Frater FiatLux (result no violation)

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [26] *

1st revert: [27]

2nd revert: [28]
3rd revert: [29]
4th revert: [30]

Users SynergeticMaggot and user 999 are in cahoots and are vandalising pages that hold erroneous citied information. The have made no effort to verify their sources in the talk page. I have made a comprehensive entry to the talk page and have cited completely verifiable in print sources. Maggot is reverting the article back to the incorrect, biased P.O.V. non-verifiable article. The proof that both users are in cahoots is here: [[31]] under Golden Dawn at the bottom of the page.

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

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

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

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

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

User:Lemuel Gulliver Reported by Eiorgiomugini

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

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

User:Eiorgiomugini reported by User:Lemuel Gulliver

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

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

As my IP is blocked due to a technical error, I request that someone move the above 3RR report to WP:AN3. I also request that Eiorgiomugini be banned from editing for at least the full 24 hours. — Gulliver ✉ 10:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Imacomp reported by User:ALR (result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: 10 Jun 2307
1st revert: 11 Jun 1218
2nd revert: 11 Jun 1301
3rd revert: 11 Jun 1318
4th revert: 11 Jun 1325

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

User:Tabacco using User:68.195.155.141 reported by User:Morphh (result: 8h)

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

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

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

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

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

User:ER MD reported by User:Rick Norwood (result: 24h)

Three revert rule violation on Conservatism and American Conservatism. ER MD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Instance #1, Conservatism

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

Instance #2, American Conservatism

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

User:Dollarfifty reported by User:Celldea (no violation)

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

Comments:

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

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

User:Jeremygbyrne reported by User:Timothy Usher (result:24h)

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

Comments: Four reverts in just over four hours. He’s well aware of the three-revert rule, and has been warned before after having violated it on this article[32]. All four reverts cast arbitrary doubt upon the statement about Aisha’s age. The first uses the re-adds the wording of the previous version of 00:14, 11 June 2006, where the claim from Hadith is hedged by “...although other sources indicate that she was older.” The second through fourth reintroduce wording found in the previous version of 16:56, 3 June 2006, where “according to hadith was...” is replaced with the unattributed “may have been as young as.” Despite his edit summary of his third revert, there are no Hadith contradicting this claim; these changes were successively overturned by four different editors.Timothy Usher 20:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24 hour block. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:JMAX555 reported by User:Frater FiatLux (result: no violation)

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [33]

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

1st revert: [34]
2nd revert: [35]
3rd revert: [36]
4th revert: [37]

Reported by: Frater FiatLux 22:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Southland26 reported by User:Dcflyer (Result: Warning given, further reverts should earn a block)

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

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

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

User:SPUI reported by User:B.Wind

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [38]
1st revert: [39]
2nd revert: [40]
3rd revert: [41]
4th revert: [42]

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [43]
1st revert: [44]
2nd revert: [45]
3rd revert: [46]
4th revert: [47]

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [48]
1st revert: [49]
2nd revert: [50]
3rd revert: [51]
4th revert: [52]

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

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

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

Yes - it's called WP:ENC. --SPUI (T - C) 08:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

On the contrary, SPUI - and the admins looking at this all will make up their own decisions on the appropriateness of this - your belief is irrelevant to WP:3RR. Regarding the SR 909, there was no purpose for that assertion which was unsupported by your reference, which, by the way, was retained as it made the point that the road in question was the original Dixie Highway. The other two articles listed above - and two others (State Road 913 (Florida) and Rickenbacker Causeway) have abundant references with collectively established the current configuration of SR 913. You have been asked repeatedly for non-self-conflicting references supporting your contention and decided to go on a different tack, first by removing the references, now by claiming the "unsourced" references don't add up and reasserting that, failing that, your belief that you are "right" overrides all. This still does not excuse WP:3RR and WP:AGF. B.Wind 08:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now for the second article, its not so obvious, so I may have to block SPUI for that, but I wan't to be clear about the first article diffs.Voice-of-All 08:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 1927 map DOES NOT show that SR 909 was the original Dixie Highway. It shows SR 909 and present US 1, and shows US 1 on its present alignment.

As for SR 913, you have yet to give a source from FDOT - the people that actually designate the State Roads. You've given sources from commercially-made maps; you've given sources from the FHP, but nothing from the only source that exists for an unsigned State Road. --SPUI (T - C) 08:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I count twelve references total, including three from FDOT as "Official Transportation Maps." But this is still irrelevant to the 3RR issue, and there is still no non-conflicting evidence to the contrary. B.Wind 08:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Jon Awbrey reported by User:GeePriest

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 23:02, 10 June 2006
1st revert: 05:44, 12 June 2006
2nd revert: 05:54, 12 June 2006
3rd revert: 06:37, 12 June 2006
4th revert: 06:42, 12 June 2006

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

User:Jackp reported by User:JPD (talk)

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: Repeated additions of the same sentence, sometimes with other additions as well. While not always technically reverts, this general behaviour has been going on for quite some time.
1st revert: 04:24, 12 June 2006
2nd revert: 05:25, 12 June 2006
3rd revert: 10:34, 12 June 2006
4th revert: 10:54, 12 June 2006

user has been warned by beneaththelandslide JPD (talk) 11:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-warned. As he's been editing the talk page, I'm hesitant to assume bad faith. Certainly if he continues he should be blocked for ignoring multiple warnings. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 15:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why general good faith is an excuse for breaking the 3RR. Jack has been told many times about NPOV, etc, and it is disappointing that he hasnt' understood, but the specific issue here is the repeated (at least 5 times this morning) reverting of editors removing his inappropriate addition, after having been warned for it days earlier. Asking why it was removed on the talk page, and then ignoring the answers, hardly justifies the extra reverts. JPD (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't an excuse for violating the 3RR. However, blocking isn't an automatic punishment. Even still, I feel it is appropriate in this case, but I consider myself involved (I've reverted him) and won't institute a block myself. The fact is, Jack has been consistently warned about his editing manner for a period of more then two weeks, but persists regardless. I think one can genuinely cast doubt on his motivations - he's become essentially disruptive.--cj | talk 16:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rick Norwood reported by User:michael ^talk

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [53]

1st revert: [54]
2nd revert: [55]
3rd revert: [56]
4th revert: [57]
5th revert: [58]
6th revert: [59]

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

The problem here is blanking of a section titled Criticism of Conservatism. The editors of the article Conservatism, liberals and conservatives working together toward NPOV, agreed that the article should present a positive description of conservatism, with any criticisms of conservatism relegated to a short section at the end of the article. User:ER MD, User:Scribner, and User:Beneaththelandslide repeatedly blank this section, saying that it is POV and OR. Numerous attempts at a compromise have been rejected. Reluctantly, because in all my time on Wikipedia I have never before been unable to work out a reasonable compromise, I reported ER MD for repeated blanking, and he was blocked for 24 hours by administrator User:William M. Connolley. He is back today and still blanking. All of my reverts listed above were reverts of blanking. I have requested that the Cabal arbitrate this issue. Rick Norwood 13:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Frater FiatLux reported by User:999 (Talk)

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 15:59, 11 June 2006
1st revert: 17:46, 11 June 2006
2nd revert: 06:27, 12 June 2006
3rd revert: 07:16, 12 June 2006
4th revert: 07:51, 12 June 2006
5th revert: 07:56 12 June 2006
6th revert: 08:26 12 June 2006
7th revert: 08:41 12 June 2006

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

Comments:

Frater_FiatLux (talk · contribs) is pursuing edit wars in several articles. I believe he is also edit warring on The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. using socks Esoteric770 (talk · contribs) and Zanoni666 (talk · contribs). Both Frater FiatLux [60] and Zanoni666 [61] have been recently blocked for 24h for recent 3RR violations on various Golden Dawn articles. Frater FiatLux is admittedly a member of an Order being sued by The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. and clearly has an axe to grind. -999 (Talk) 13:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frater FiatLux 21:04, 11 June

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I blocked several of the suspected socks yesterday. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 13:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rick Norwood reported by User:Scribner

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [62]

1st revert: [63]
2nd revert: [64]
3rd revert: [65]
4th revert: [66]
5th revert: [67]
6th revert: [68]

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

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

User:Maddyfan reported by User:Extraordinary Machine

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 15:08, 9 June 2006
1st revert: 10:46, 11 June 2006
2nd revert: 10:58, 11 June 2006
3rd revert: 11:47, 11 June 2006
4th revert: 22:31, 11 June 2006

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

Another blanket revert from the IP ([69]). With all due respect, why hasn't there been a block placed on the IP and/or Maddyfan? It's obviously the same editor as Maddyfan, who continues to refuse to discuss the matter ("You come here first, discuss and WE will decide what to do" is his/her latest comment on the talk page) even though I provided a full explanation for my edits. Extraordinary Machine 10:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two more, this time by Maddyfan ([70] and [71]). He/she's also accusing me of violating the 3RR, when I haven't. Extraordinary Machine 11:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:84.234.215.241 reported by User:Liftarn

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 15:44, 12 June 2006
1st revert: 18:09, 12 June 2006
2nd revert: 18:20, 12 June 2006
3rd revert: 18:21, 12 June 2006
4th revert: 18:22, 12 June 2006

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

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

User:200.161.6.47 reported by User:TheRealFennShysa

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [72]
1st revert: 14:45, June 12, 2006
2nd revert: 14:54, June 12, 2006
3rd revert: 15:14, June 12, 2006
4th revert: 15:25, June 12, 2006
5th revert: 15:27, June 12, 2006
6th revert: 15:32, June 12, 2006

Comments:

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

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

User:71.134.204.155, User:71.134.240.208, User:Keepitneutral reported by User:Shell ^babelfish

Previous version reverted to, if applicable:

IPs reverting to 09:57, June 11, 2006
Keepitneutral reverting to 21:09, June 12, 2006

IPs are tag team reverting:

1st revert: Revision as of 23:28, June 12, 2006
2nd revert: Revision as of 23:42, June 12, 2006
3rd revert: Revision as of 23:45, June 12, 2006
4th revert: Revision as of 01:59, June 13, 2006

Keepitneutral:

1st revert: Revision as of 23:38, June 12, 2006
2nd revert: Revision as of 23:43, June 12, 2006
3rd revert: Revision as of 23:46, June 12, 2006
4th revert: Revision as of 00:11, June 13, 2006

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

While I wrote this, 71.134.240.208 started vandalising the article as well. Shell ^babelfish 02:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:AvgJoe reported by User:Kevin_b_er (result: 3h)

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

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

Comments:

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

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

User:59.22.251.156 reported by User:Daniel Case

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 19: June 11, 2006
1st revert: 23:44 June 12, 2006
2nd revert: 23:45 June 12, 2006
3rd revert: 23:46 June 12, 2006
4th revert: 23:47 June 12, 2006

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

Comments:

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

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

Example


===[[User:VIOLATOR-USERNAME]] reported by User:~~~===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|USER NAME}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

* Previous version reverted to, if applicable:  [http://VersionLink VersionTime]
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert: [http://DiffLink DiffTime]
* 2nd revert: [http://DiffLink DiffTime]
* 3rd revert: [http://DiffLink DiffTime]
* 4th revert: [http://DiffLink DiffTime]











'''Comments:'''
<!-- This is an *example*! Do not leave your report here - place it ABOVE the header"!!-->

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 ==Violations==
 <!-- Please add new listings at the ***BOTTOM*** of this page, just before the "Report new violation" header". -->
+===[[User:Dollarfifty]] reported by User:[[User:Objectman|Objectman]]===
+[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Empress Myeongseong}}.{{3RRV|Dollarfifty}}:
+* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Empress_Myeongseong&oldid=58390764 13:54, 13 June] <!-- ALWAYS FILL IN THIS FIELD! -->
+* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Empress_Myeongseong&oldid=58394727  14:21]
+* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Empress_Myeongseong&oldid=58398221 14:46]
+* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Empress_Myeongseong&oldid=58399440 14:53]
+* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Empress_Myeongseong&oldid=58399993 14:57]
+Reported by: [[User:Objectman|Objectman]] 15:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 ===[[User:Narco]] reported by User:[[User:Grcampbell|Bob]]===

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Revision as of 15:11, 13 June 2006

Violations

User:Dollarfifty reported by User:Objectman

User:Narco reported by User:Bob

User:Appleby reported by User:172.215.251.42

User:8bitJake reported by User:FRCP11 (Case No. 3) (result: 12h each)

User:Panairjdde reported by User:Nissi Kim (result: 3h)

User:Envix reported by User:older ≠ wiser

User:Mikhail Frunze reported by User:User:Ultramarine (result: warned)

User:Looper5920 reported by User:217.235.205.150

User:68.112.25.197 reported by User:cholmes75 (chit chat)

User:Objectman reported by User:Deiaemeth (result - 3hr block)

User:Homeontherange reported by User:Zeq Talk

additional offenses by same violator: Homeontherange (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Improper unblocking of Homeonetherange

User:Princess ofCloutierland reported by User:MiamiDolphins3 (result: warnings for both)

User:24.94.129.139 reported by User:MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib)

User:Frater FiatLux reported by User:999 (result: 24h)

User:Ravi5099 reported by User:Anwar (result: 6hr, both sides)

User:Zanoni666 reported by User:999

User:86.42.136.115 reported by User:Angus McLellan (Talk) (result: 8h)

User:86.42.158.83/User:86.42.136.115 reported by User:Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)

User: 999 reported by User:Frater FiatLux

User:Uris reported by User:Johan Elisson

User:Jooler reported by User:Johan Elisson

User:82.45.217.232 and User:195.93.102.35 reported by User:Hardouin

User:BhaiSaab reported by User:Timothy Usher (result: Blocked for 24hr)

User:Mythology8 reported by User:Mr. Lefty (result page protected)

User:Eiorgiomugini reported by User:Lemuel Gulliver (result 24 hours)

User:Lemuel Gulliver Reported by Eiorgiomugini (result 24 hours)

User:SynergeticMaggot reported by User:Frater FiatLux (result no violation)

User:Lemuel Gulliver Reported by Eiorgiomugini

User:Eiorgiomugini reported by User:Lemuel Gulliver

User:Imacomp reported by User:ALR (result: 24h)

User:Tabacco using User:68.195.155.141 reported by User:Morphh (result: 8h)

User:ER MD reported by User:Rick Norwood (result: 24h)

User:Dollarfifty reported by User:Celldea (no violation)

User:Jeremygbyrne reported by User:Timothy Usher (result:24h)

User:JMAX555 reported by User:Frater FiatLux (result: no violation)

User:Southland26 reported by User:Dcflyer (Result: Warning given, further reverts should earn a block)

User:SPUI reported by User:B.Wind

User:Jon Awbrey reported by User:GeePriest

User:Jackp reported by User:JPD (talk)

User:Rick Norwood reported by User:michael talk

User:Frater FiatLux reported by User:999 (Talk)

User:Rick Norwood reported by User:Scribner

User:Maddyfan reported by User:Extraordinary Machine

User:84.234.215.241 reported by User:Liftarn

User:200.161.6.47 reported by User:TheRealFennShysa

User:71.134.204.155, User:71.134.240.208, User:Keepitneutral reported by User:Shell babelfish

User:AvgJoe reported by User:Kevin_b_er (result: 3h)

User:59.22.251.156 reported by User:Daniel Case

Example

User:Homeontherange reported by User:Zeq ^Talk

User:86.42.158.83/User:86.42.136.115 reported by User:**Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)**

User:Rick Norwood reported by User:michael ^talk

User:71.134.204.155, User:71.134.240.208, User:Keepitneutral reported by User:Shell ^babelfish