User talk:William M. Connolley/Admin 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hi. Please go here[1], the user is a chronic vandaliser who has been warned many times.Zmmz 00:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. There is a number of vandalizers: [[2]], [[3]], [[4]] regularly vandalizing my contribution to the article: [[5]]

I warned them - but it does not make them to stop vandalizing it.

User block?[edit]

Hi William. Well, it has happened again. We recently had another revert war over on the various Freemasonry related pages. It is the same problem as always... one POV agenda pushing user who ends up being yet another sock of User:Lightbringer/User:Basil Rathbone, etc. This time he is going under the sock name of User:40 Days of Lent. We ran a sock check on him, and it does check out that this is the same person. Since an arbitration banned him from editing Freemasonry related pages undsr his other sock names, could you slap an indefinite block on him under this name. He may currently be blocked for 24 hours due to a 3rrr... but that will expire shortly, if it has not already happened. If you feel you need to review the situation, look at his edit history, especially on Talk:Freemasonry paying attention to the history (another user has deleted some of his vandalism, so it is not readily apparent.) Thanks. Blueboar 22:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems fair enough; I've blocked (but next time put the sock check evidence link here so I don't have to go looking for it) William M. Connolley 22:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Question re: User Conduct RFC[edit]

The policy states that before submitting a User conduct RFC, attempts to solve the problem must be clearly made within the same 48 hour period by two or more users. Does that mean that the RFC can only deal with very recent issues within the last 48 hours, or within a given 48 hour period, or can it be extended to show a repetitive pattern if one is evident? MSJapan 23:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours? That means that *after* the RFC is listed, it needs to be certified by 2 people. It doesn't mean the dispute has to have been over the last 48. Although it would be slightly odd to file the RFC is there hadn't been any recent problems William M. Connolley 10:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Simple enough. The RFC is not re: Freemasonry, though, but for Jahbulon, because we seem to be going in circles because of one user, and it's really getting out of hand. MSJapan 16:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


Hi there, I just want to get a second opinion from an admin, so would you please look at this section[6] and see if there are any violations, like incivilty, etc. Yeah, and you definitely don`t have to warn the editor in question [Lukas]--but, I just wanted to get an idea of what is going on. Can I report this guy for harrassment? ThanksZmmz 09:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Um... do you really mean that section? I see you an InShaneee talking. Or do you mean the "response" bit? Lukas posted, tentatively. You replied; not unnaturally he took that as meaning that talk was appropriate. If you don't want his words on your talk page, remove them, don't reply to them, and certainly don't reply at length. Also Lukas, your vicious language does not lend further credibility to you. was inappropriate. William M. Connolley 10:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring only to the section, `Response`, by user Lukas. I understand what you are saying, but if you can, please re-read that section; I had asked Lukas to take his grievances to the Rfc page last week, yet, he does in fact continue to write, and accuse me of many different things, and just uses an all out abbrasive tone. But, most of the language he uses, I think warrants a report to be written up against him for incivility and/or stalking. Let me know your take on it? Thank youZmmz 10:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You might also want to look at the section that Lukas originally posted on my talk page; that is if you`re looking into this at all[7].Zmmz 10:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I've re-read the response section. What more can I say? I stand by Lukas posted, tentatively. You replied; not unnaturally he took that as meaning that talk was appropriate. If you don't want his words on your talk page, remove them, don't reply to them, and certainly don't reply at length. William M. Connolley 13:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Good, that is why I originally erased his comments, but he threatened that erasing comments from the talk page can be viewed as, get this, uncooperative behaviour. I just don`t appreciate `Lukas` using language like, disgrace to Wikipedia, none of your business[8], Please re-read every single word of what I said above, try to take it in, and then go away[9], and if you have any decency. I don`t recall using language like that with anyone since I`ve been here, so certainly we are not on the same footing. I thought a warning was warranted. Zmmz 21:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hamsacharya dan[edit]

Dear WP Admin Mr. William M. Connolley,

Dan Kogan, an ordained teacher of the Hamsa Yoga Sangh cult has been creating havoc for the past weeks by relentlessly inserting the name of his guru, his guru's book, quotes from his guru's book, and external link to their website on the following articles Kriya yoga, Mahavatar Babaji, Nath, and Adi Nath when the majority of the editors (actually all of them) who are experts on the subject agree that his guru is illegitimate, his inserts does not enrich (add anything substantial) the already existing articles, and only aims to promore the personal interest of their organization.

This person wants to turn WP into a propaganda material for a highly questionable (possibly harmful) pseudo-Hindu cult while pretending to be an impartial concerned Wikipedian who only wants to enrich it. The situation is really bad. He has just been banned but as soon as he gets unbanned he begins to relentlessly vandalize the pages with irrelevant and immaterial cult propaganda once again.

It is futile to try and protect the integrity of an article when someone like this person Hamsacharya dan, like the Energizer Bunny, keeps on reverting them and gets away with it without being taught a lesson.

To see for yourself that Hamsacharya dan is really an ordained teacher of the cult he keeps on inserting to the articles and not just a concerned Wikipedian with no alterior motive, please see the following website [List of Authorized Teachers] and scroll down a bit for Hamsacharya Dan Kogan.

Please help us. Will you help us?

Thanking you in advance,

No To Frauds 11:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

First off, your user name is not a good choice. I recommend you change it. Secondly, flinging around charges of vandalism in what looks rather like a content dispute is probably inflamatory. Thirdly, he has only edited the article in question once since the end of his block, so all the Energizer Bunny stuff is also inflammatory. Calm down, look at WP:DR William M. Connolley 13:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Hamsacharya dan[edit]

I don't know if you noticed, but the first edit made by this user after you unblocked him had a deceptive edit comment. [10] This guy doesn't seem to be able or willing to engage in discussion on talk pages. If you look at the talk page for this article, you will see that he didn't participate in a recent survey, nor in any subsequent discussion. He keeps trying to apply his changes arbitrarily, and will not discuss either before or after. TIA for you attention to this matter. —Adityanath 15:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh-hu, and no doubt you wanted to draw my attention to this [11] inappropriate edit comment too. I see plenty of discussion by HD on that page. I also see a reasonably successful attempt at mediation: I urge you to help make it work William M. Connolley 15:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I'm ignoring User:NoToFrauds. He's as much a fanatic as User:Hamsacharya dan; both parties repetitive reverts are doing more harm than good, imo. —Adityanath 16:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Weeeeeeeeeeelll if you are ignoring them both, why aren't you? Also, judging from the talk pages, NTF is a good deal more fanatic. But thats not judging by the edit contents. William M. Connolley 22:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. NTF removes everything HD does. I am more in agreement with NTF personally, but I believe HD's guru does deserve some mention in the articles involved. Unfortunately, when NTF removes HD's stuff, HD has a tendency to revert to pre-consensus material which promotes rather than informs about his guru. HD seems to want to use WP as an advertising platform. Because this advertising includes outrageous claims, others want to rebut or qualify these claims. I've advised HD that the problem would tend to go away if he simply stuck to facts, but I guess this would paint his guru as too mundane. Not sure what to do... —Adityanath 22:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You know, Aditya, the way things have been going, we've sort of turned into rivals - I think you are a bright man, and if we're to be honest, you also have a strong devotion to uphold your Gurudev Mahendranath's teachings. I admit that when I started in Wikipedia, I was a bit too brash with my changes of the Nath page - I was a novice and the policy instructions say "Be Bold!" I feel that may have initiated our ongoing conflict. I regret forming this rivalry with you, and would prefer to come to a resolution and consensus. I understand that there are some problems you have with certain of my edits that sound outlandish, and I have had problems with people distorting or deleting my edits - why don't we start over with each other, and talk about what we like and don't like about the way each other are handling this conflict and the pages we both care about - Nath, Yogiraj Gurunath, Kriya Yoga, Mahavatar Babaji. I have felt overwhelmed in the past due to additional destructive contributions by NoToFrauds, but I feel that these are dying down, and we can work together to come to consensus. I'm offering a truce, and a calm discussion. Let's start by not editing anything, but first finding a common ground and discussing our thoughts. We do have a lot in common after all. Then we can discuss how we envision these pages ending up. We may clash, but let's work towards a spirit of resolution rather than rivalry. I did this with Priyanath, and it has worked. Try me. Hamsacharya dan 06:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR Issue-Reposting[edit]

Reposting after for some reason that Hawishiwara Dan fellow deleted my message... I went to the 3RR Board but am having trouble with the format there... [trimmed]

Please list this at WP:AN3, and do your best with the formatting William M. Connolley 08:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

DarrenRay and 2006BC[edit]

Check my note on WP:ANI - Darren Ray (DarrenRay (talk · contribs)) and Ben Cass (2006BC (talk · contribs)) are different people, but they've been working in concert for months, as far as I can tell, as the phenomenon known to the vandal-hunters as the Australian Politics Vandal, under about 1 zillion usernames. They're actually different people, though this isn't clear from the checkuser as each has edited from the other's house (looks like to me) with their own and sockpuppets' usernames. I would say "block by massive admin disgust" except this has been pretty much in effect, and the only reason we have these two to hit with an AC case, etc. is because they are stupidly arrogant and operating out from under cover now. I blocked DarrenRay for a short block, but reinstated Essjay's 1 month block because there ain't no way these people are here to do good, except as a cover for doing bad - David Gerard 20:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, will reply on your page William M. Connolley 20:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for your work re: Joseph Sobran


After reading your bio I have to say it feels weird to be asking a guy with a Phd from Oxford to deal with 3RR violations...

but please see the 3RR page re: DickClarkMises, who has been violating 3RR on numerous occassions

Thanks Rogerman 06:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

You're welcome. DCM promises to be good (says he had misunderstood the rule) so I've unblocked him. Hopefully this will work out. William M. Connolley 21:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 12 hours.

Also, be so kind as to decide whether you are Purger or Purqer.

William M. Connolley 16:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind - I am Purger and not Purqer!!! So, you blocked me for a wrong reason!--Purger 18:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you, please, stop User:Zmaj from reverting en:Starcevic while not contributing to the discussion or to the article?--Purger 14:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Kolriv et al.[edit]

Thanks for joining in. I'm listing them mainly to give me an idea as to when he's about to run out of variations of "kolriv"... Not for quite a while, unfortunately. He seems to have left Encyclopedia and Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition alone for the moment, and H. James Birx has been protected against him. Perhaps this one needs to be protected for a short time too; he might lose interest and wander off somewhere else. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought it might be fun. I've blocked another one but now got bored, so I've semi'd the article instead - undo that if you disagree. Its a strange and pointless method of vandalism... William M. Connolley 21:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree; I don't understand him at all. Thanks for the help. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


Hi William. I think you have some experience with user:Netscott. Just telling you that he has violated 3rr on the Muhammad article. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

He's been reported for it, but Ruud decided against and I think he is right - if its the 100 bit, he self-reverted that out again. I agree he has 4 edits *marked* revert (which counts in his faour - I like people who admit what they are doing) William M. Connolley 21:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks like some of my earlier comments about you might have been off there William M. Connolley... good estimation of that report as well. ;-) Cheers! Netscott 23:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


Hi William, Thanks for looking into the reported 3RR situation. Can you tell me what you mean by "not obvious"... I guess I didn't understand the "Previous version" part that is required, but I thought that this initial revert of his [12] demonstrated that he removed all of the content from my initial edit. My understanding is that such "undoing of the work of another editor", in whole or in part, constitutes a revert? Thanks. Lokiloki 21:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, I guess this is what you were looking for: [13]? This shows the initial version as of 10:38, 25 March 2006, and then shows his reversion back to this on 10:43, 25 March 2006 Lokiloki 21:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I have added that reference to the 3RR page -- I believe that is what I missed out the first time? Thanks, Lokiloki 21:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


We have a problem editor on Freemasonry, Fyodor_Dos (talk · contribs), and he claims he has sourced edits when he has not, and conversely claims the rest of us tdo not source our reversions when the material is plainly visible on the talk page. I bet he is a sock of Lightbringer, and he has clearly stated his goal is to prove Freemasonry is occult and secret and hides that fact from the public, so he's definitely partisan, but maybe you could either explain the problem to him or help us mediate the issue? I'd RFM, but I've been waiting six weeks for a mediator on another issue, and as Fyodor has been 3RR blocked twice in two ays, and is going for number three, this is rapidly getting to be an untenable situation. My RFPP was also not acted upon, my RFCUs are sitting there, and I think the admins believe this is all content dispute in an article when it is clear that this is pattern vandalism and POV-pushing in spite of an ArbCom ruling. MSJapan 06:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thats the busy world of wiki, I'm afraid. I have RFCU sitting there too... I'll protect it, its seen enough reverting for a bit William M. Connolley 11:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Ido think, however, that there is a dangerous trend going on regarding the Freemasonry-related articles. Apparently SeraphimXI wanted a mediator for Jahbulon, and she stated that everyone on IRC pretty much ignored it because it was a Freemasonry article. what is happening, if one follows the trends, is that the same individual (or a small group) is really trying very hard to push certain things into the articles (usually along the lines of anti-Catholicism, Satanism, discrimination, and other negative material) without being able to source said accusations. When these are reverted for lack of support, the "Masonic editor" rants and misleading edit summaries begin. For example, Fyodor_Dos claimed he added seven sources to the article to support his edits. The diffs show otherwise, and rather than post the sources on the talk page, he decided to rant about other people's complaints and edits. This is a pattern that has been going on for over six months, it has been escalating, and when admins as a general rule (with exceptions), ignore the goings-on as a content dispute rather than a pervasive ongoing problem, it only reinforces the POV-pushers. It also requires myself and others to constantly rely on one or two admins who are aware of the details of the situation to take care of the situation, and that's not particularly fair either. Can you think of any way that the problem could be mitigated, if only by making more admins aware of what the real scope of the issue is? We've even put together a subsection on WP:LTA, but it hasn't seemed to have helped. ArbCom enforcement can't be done without RFCU, and I've had a number of AIVs removed as "content dispute complaints" (last by Jdforrester, who did not answer me when I asked him on his Talk page what to do about a situation if he removes a request and calls it a content dispute and I can show it's pattern vandalism). So I've really come to the end of the rope as far as what else can be done, as it seems that no matter where I post an issue, it gets ignored because of where it's coming from rather than what it is. MSJapan 21:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not at all sure that there is an easy answer. I went through a lot of pain on the global warming type articles before happiness ensured, sort of. People are reluctant to touch disputes over complex areas that they don't know about, *unless* there are clear conduct issues. RFCU is always going to have too many requests. So if you care enough about this to keep at it, then do so; recruiting others who are prepared to help is always the best way (have you tried a page RFC?) William M. Connolley 21:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Tried that regarding an issue, and we only got ten votes, and nothing else since the 11th. Supposedly the RFC page was vandalized (see here), and I didn't do the RFC right as a result, but the material was supposed to have been reposted (though I couldn't tell you what topic Freemasonry falls into. The other issue is that the vandalism spreads to editing other articles and then supporting edits on Freemasonry with those other edits (see here). I've also tried requesting CheckUser from ArbCom so that particular problem could be dealt with more quickly (proof could be posted so an actual admin (which wouldn't be me) could act on the objective info); I got no reply. MSJapan 21:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of objective info, Fyodor forgot to sign in before complaining on RFCU, so he's done the work for me. His IP is in the diff here and as you can see by the list of Lightbringer socks User:Lightbringer, there's a few IPS in that list that are reasonably close, and there might be a few more on WP:LTA. Is that good enough for a block? MSJapan 05:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
If I can speak up, the IP ( used by Fyodor resolves to an 'Shawcable' server in British Columbia (Canada, as I'm sure you know). Two IP's we know Lightbringer has been using ( and resolves to pretty much the same; servers owned and run by Shaw Communications Inc. While not conclusive proof - we know (per the report on WP:LTA) that Lightbringer uses open proxies - it's a strong indicator IMO that we're dealing with yet another sock here. A CheckUser result would be usefull, thought I realise that RFCU has a massive backlog. WegianWarrior 06:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
He just used the IP again, making it less likely it's a dynamicly allecated IP. It might be an open proxy, I'm not sure how to check that. WegianWarrior 08:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah. OK, I think you've established that = Fyodor, and that is probably Lightbringer. I'll block William M. Connolley 13:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


I have already left a note on the 3RR page, but thought it would be a good idea to contact you on your discussion page too. I have completely missed the point you made there thinking that you were about to block me too. Hence, the snappy comment. I suppose if I had lived by the quote from the Leviathan, this would not have happened. Once again my apologies. EurowikiJ 17:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Um no, you were right, I intended to block you. Please review your contribs to that article. But I'm just back from the pub now so I think I'll lay off any blocks until sober :-) William M. Connolley 22:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Lightbringer sock ... again[edit]

Hi William... he is back. This time on Anti-Masonry (since you locked the Freemasonry Page). Please see: here. The ISP is the same as Fyodor Dos, ( This time he goofed up and forgot to sign his comments before too much damage was done, but he is supposed to be banned from editing ANY Freemasonry page. Please slap an indefinite block on him. Sorry to keep pestering you about this, but (as MSJapan and others have said above) of all the Admins, you probably know the situation on the Freemasonry pages the best, and can recognize the trouble when it comes. Thanks Blueboar 16:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, done. Next time please... remind me of the proof that 24...98 is FD; wiki A-M etc for convenience. Thanks. William M. Connolley 16:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Will do... and thanks again. Blueboar 16:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
William, I don't have confirmation on his IP yet, but I suspect that we have yet another Lightbringer/Basil Rathbone/Fyodor Dos sock at Anti-Masonry. It is a new user going by the name User:Oregano. His edits are the same as User:JKWithers who you just banned for being a Lightbringer sock.
Here are the difs: JKWithers edits: here, and here
While Oregano just posted: this and this. Please run a user check on Oregano and see if he uses an IP address close to which was the one JKW and FD used (and close to other Lightbringer Sock IPs). Thanks Blueboar 14:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Tags and Molobo[edit]

I am not sure if I understood your comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Molobo_..._again correctly, but if you are considering banning Molobo (for 1 week??) please note that I most strongly oppose this for the reasons explained there. I don't plan to engage in a 'block war', but I'd like to ask you reconsider your block decision. I think Molobo should not be blocked for restoring the tag, and if he is blocked, all other participants of the tag war should be blocked for the same duration. Finally, blocking a valuable contributor like Molobo for one week is a big loss to Wikipedia.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Answered on 3RR page William M. Connolley 18:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
By the way, take a note that Molobo's previous block was undone on account of Piotr's vociferation on the blocking admin's talk page. He is always upset when his pet troll can revert no more. Checking the history of Piotr's wheel warring is also instructive. So I'm afraid his judgment in this case is not sound. Molobo already ousted from Wikipedia such precious editors and admins as User:Wiglaf, and he may do many more. Cheers, Ghirla -трёп- 18:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Although I don't think I need to add much to the post above (the number of personal attacks and such is almost eye watering), I'd just like to point you to User_talk:Piotrus#Block_of_User:Molobo. The truth points to itself. I'll add other comments at the 3RR if needed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I am still waiting for your reply, and it's getting late here. I respect your right to give a 24h block here for 3RR violation, but as a fellow admin I ask you to lift the block after 24h. Disruption blocks are controversial.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Replied there. 24h may actually do him good to calm down. But I cannot agree to exclude a good content creator for 7-days: I'd oppose such a long ban on Ghirla or any other content creator too. We should not let rules (especially one's interpretation of their evolution...) get in front of our main goal: creating encyclopedia.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear prokonsul, if you again liken one of the most active and prolific wikipedians to your worthless pet troll (who you try to represent as a "precious content creator") - we shall have to continue this discussion on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus. Personal attacks and campaigning on talk pages are not likely to earn additional points for the rabid anti-Ghirlandajo crusade which you solemnly launched half a year ago. Take care, Ghirla -трёп- 06:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

P: I replied on 3RR. That discussion is clogging the page: I shall move it to WP:ANI. I think you are being inconsistent: at 3RR you are arguing strongly that the rules forbid >24h blocks, even though they are often done. Here you are promoting IAR. William M. Connolley 08:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Another Lightbringer sock....[edit]

User:ALR alerted me to these diffs (the links are posted on my talk page as well):

  • [[14]] was Fyodor Dos
  • [[15]] is JKWithers

As they are the exact same IP, it's obvious that JKWithers is Fyodor (and also possible that this is not a dynamic IP). However, JKWithers made a few minor edits to a few other articles in-between his postings on Anti-Masonry, as shown by this:JKWithers (talk · contribs). I'm tempted to ask for a block now, but I'm sure the problem will show itself sooner or later, so I'll leave it up to your discretion as to what to do. MSJapan 17:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Look above you... William M. Connolley 21:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


Syberghost has violated 3RR on Ann Coulter. Please see.

take it to WP:3RR and format it properly, please William M. Connolley 21:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Your block of infinity0[edit]

I'm not wholly convinced it violates the 3RR, and the pair of them, infinity0 and RJII, have been engaged in disputes across anarchist articles. Would you be prepared to review the block? I also thought we were supposed to block both parties in a 3RR war but that guidance seems to have gone. To be honest, I think the dispute between the two of them needs arbcom to sort it out. Steve block talk 16:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll review it. No promises as to the result, though William M. Connolley 16:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've reviewed it. Inf0's block I sustain: there are 4 reverts there; this is aggravated by his behaviour on the talk page. RJII doesn't have 4 obvious reverts: some of Inf0's are RJ adding (which isn't a revert), then Inf0 removing (which is). OTOH I wouldn't have seen Inf0's as obvious without the report; so if anyone wants to take the trouble to see if RJ has 4 non-obvious reverts, then please report them. Someone involved should probably RFC this, at the least. William M. Connolley 16:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Fair play. I have to say, I always thought re-adding removed material was also a revert, but I can't find a ref for that either. I can't see 4 obvious reverts by RJII, but I'm pondering if he's disrupting the article by tendentious editing. Sometimes it'd be nice if the arbcom could be clearer in their decisions. Steve block talk 18:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Re-adding removed material is certainly a revert; but as far as I can see RJ was adding new things, which isn't (I've occaisionaly come across this as a problem: one side can add in new things, which the other side wants to revert, and the reverts are all on one side, even though in any fair sense the war is even...).
I've just read the RFA decision. I wasn't aware of that. RJ gets a stern warning, at the very least William M. Connolley 18:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Can I sugest that if a fair reading of the situation conflicts with a strict reading of the rules, then you go with the fair reading. See WP:LAWYER. "Such policies and procedures are intended to be interpreted in a common sense way which expresses the purpose of the policy or which tends toward resolution of disputes." --Barberio 16:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

What are you doing[edit]

You have blocked me for a 3 revert rule when all I did was change back to the AGREED version when some other guy kept changeing it, I see that you blocked him to so am I to asume that even if I change back to an agreed version that everyone has agreed upon I will also get blocked even when all I am doing is changeing back to the agreed version? (Deng 11:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC))

3RR doesn't recognise an "agreed version"; you got blocked for 4 reverts. The official line is, that if an article has a version agreed on by many editors, there should be no need for any one editor to go over 3 reverts. Logical, no? William M. Connolley 11:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I see but when others just give up should I also then give up? If you look at the article It has been reverted many times by many people but then I guess they just gave up but I didnt (Deng 13:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC))

If they agree on that version, you are entitled to leave a note on their talk page saying that there are problems on the page and asking them to take a look. Just don't break 3RR William M. Connolley 18:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Lightbringer back again[edit]

User:Oregano is a new single purpose account and a sock of Lightbringer. It violates circumventing policy by acting as an agent provocateur and joins immediately an edit war: . --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I posted this above... will re-post it here to make things easy:
William, I don't have confirmation on his IP yet, but I suspect that we have yet another Lightbringer/Basil Rathbone/Fyodor Dos sock at Anti-Masonry. It is a new user going by the name User:Oregano. His edits are the same as User:JKWithers who you just banned for being a Lightbringer sock.
Here are the difs: JKWithers edits: here, and here
While Oregano just posted: this and this. Please run a user check on Oregano and see if he uses an IP address close to which was the one JKW and FD used (and close to other Lightbringer Sock IPs). Thanks Blueboar 14:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar 15:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't do checkuser, you over estimate my powers. I will look at the edit patttern, though. Just have to eat my pizza... William M. Connolley 18:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Blocked William M. Connolley 18:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the block. My appologies on thinking you could do user checks... Next time (and, sadly, I know there will be a next time) I will try to contact someone who can check before I pester you for the block. Blueboar 18:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, too. Annoying non-avoidable reincarnations... --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yet another suspected sock of Lightbringer[edit]

I'm sorry to bother you about this, but you are one of the admins who knows the background for this.

A new editor popped up today, User:JeffT, and imidiatly started editing Anti-Masonry. What makes me suspicious is that his edit is naught but a revert to an edit by User:Oregano (see diff), whom you banned as a sock of User:Lightbringer two days ago.

I appriciate you taking the time to look into this. WegianWarrior 07:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

And now we have a User:ABrowne, whos only edits so far has been to revert to the aforementioned User:JeffT... I suspect it's a sock of a sock. WegianWarrior 11:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You must talk to this person[edit]

Kurt Leyman (talk · contribs)

He goes around to every ww2 article he can find and changes so much

The changes he makes are allways these he changes any Axis mention to german even when there were many axis in the specific battle

He changes the text after the word result to what ever he sees fit

He allways changes the casulties number he often rounds the off and sometimes just changes them completly without any source given what so ever

He almost never respond to the article talk page and when he does it is never to answer anything just to say he is right

Also he deletes often extremly important parts and sometimes whole sections in articles to make the article completley diffrent from what it originaly was

For example in the Winter War article he keeps on removeing the part that if the war hade gone one for just a few more day then Finland would have been destroyed.

Just look at his contributions and you will see all clear patern of destruction, so please talk to him and make him stop.

He cant just keep on with the deletion of paragraphs and changeing of numbers without any sources.

(Deng 07:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

If he breaks 3RR, report it. If you have a problem with their content edits, check WP:DR. And... English may well not be your native language, but you *must* do X is not polite William M. Connolley 09:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Your last sentance makes no sense

"but you *must* do X is not polite"

What does that mean? It makes no sense

(Deng 10:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

It means, saying to someone "you *must* do X" is... William M. Connolley 11:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahh I see, ok then would you be so kind and talk with him because what he is doing is insane, he changes numbers left and right and removes things left and right. So please talk with him. (Deng 11:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

No, sorry, I don't do that, except for areas I'm interested in. I'd check out WP:DR is I were you - maybe you want the mediation cabal? William M. Connolley 12:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you get a meditation cabal on a specific person? (Deng 14:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

Yes. Not that I've tried, but I don't see why not William M. Connolley 14:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Funky, will try, thanks (Deng 15:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC))


You're not obliged to believe me, but it's true. I thought 3RR didn't include this, and my conversation in my Talk page reveals it. I'm not using it as an excuse but I felt I had to say it. Miskin 14:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Macrakis had nothing to do with this article, and doesn't currently have any content disputes with neither of us (me or Kagan). The dispute on the article was settled long ago, so I don't know why he did this, but probably personal motives. Miskin 14:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Its hard to know the internal state of peoples minds. My answer would be, if you start reverting a lot, be sure you know the rules if you don't want to risk a block. But the staleness of the dispute saves you, as far as I'm concerned William M. Connolley 14:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

User SuperDeng[edit]

I request that you do something about the user SuperDeng. His actions are childish and his aditude doesn't help Wikipedia. He keeps editing articles I edit for personal reasons (he clearly has something agains't me), even if there is nothing wrong with the current version. At least I have provided reasons for my edits, but....well, here are some of his reasons.

"You are allways wrong as in everything you do is wrong" ( "You are allways wrong therefore anything you say or do is wrong" (

You must do something about this.

Sincerly. Kurt Leyman.

User mr j galt[edit]

Hi - I am not sure if I should report this on the Administrator notice board, but I saw your note about RonCram's revert-warring and I thought you might look at mr j galt (talk · contribs), who is revert-warring on the same page, and has even made a plea to RonCram (talk · contribs) to join him in his revert war. He reverted six edits I had made to the page, which I had explained one by one in edit summaries, and his only explanation for the revert has been "rv csloat's POV edits - please seek consensus on the talk page." He never edited this page before and has said nothing in talk on the merits of the edits; the only point he made in talk (after reverting me twice) was to complain about my blog. Then he made his third revert at 11:34pm, issuing a warning to me to obey the 3RR in his edit summary. It's clear he is gaming the 3RR -- if I revert now, at the end of three reverts each for the new day, his version will stand (though I imagine someone else will revert him). Since he's technically obeying the rule - he won't have 4 edits in a day - can he be stopped from this behavior? He just pulled something very similar over at the Larry C. Johnson page too; check the history.--csloat 07:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Asking someone to help you out is not really bad - in fact a good idea. I'm not sure what to suggest... AN/I might be your best bet. William M. Connolley 08:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi there,

Noticed you were warning Purger (talk · contribs) and Purqer (talk · contribs) to pick an alter-ego. Thought you might to to check out Purrger (talk · contribs) as well. Same name (obviously), and same editing patterns. Knee-jerk reverts and troll-calling all over the place.

Good luck!

Cheers, The Minister of War (Peace) 10:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked as sock. Thanks for letting me know William M. Connolley 11:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of Admin Powers by Connolley[edit]

As I stated at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, what I revoked was simple vandalism, therefore your revocation of my edit privileges violates the admin policy regarding 3rr revocations. As I am relatively new to wiki, please advise me on the procedure for requesting that your admin powers be revoked for very obvious abuse thereof (i.e. you were required to ascertain whether I had revoked simple vandalism as I had stated, before revoking my edit privileges.) pat8722 18:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You broke the 3RR, your edits were not simple reverions of vandalism, and William only blocked you for 8 hours, rather than 24. You should be thankful for his leniency, rather than looking to file a complaint. Guettarda 19:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether edits are vandalism or not, is not a matter of "voting", it is matter of "fact checking". I reverted a series of malicious repetitive edits by two vandals who had colluded to insert a CIRCULAR definition into the libertarian article in place of the non-circular one, therefore what I reverted was VANDALISM, and it was Conolley's duty to CHECK IT OUT before blocking me. What is the procedure to follow to request that his admin power be revoked? pat8722 22:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

What you reverted was not vandalism in the sense of WP:VAND, but a content dispute. Notice that WP:3RR is only suspended for simple vandalism. As for your question, I don't think there is a defined procedure. Your best first step, if you insist, would be to bring it up on WP:ANI, but I suspect you will be either ignored or laughed at. You can also progress down the normal conflict resolution path, starting with this discussion, then going to a WP:RFC and finally to ArbCom. ArbCom can remove admin powers. But I strongly urge you to check out your position first. Read WP:VAND, especially the types of vandalism and non-vandalism. To put it bluntly, you are wrong. --Stephan Schulz 22:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe someone is accusing you of abusing your powers. It seems like almost yesterday that I did this, and you reacted with hostility. I wonder why this pattern keeps repeating. Alienus 22:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Like I said about Arbustoo, JzG and Daycd on RFAR the other day, anyone who gets this many complaints is either very bad at their job or very good, and I think I know which. :-) --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I do, too, but we might not agree. Alienus 03:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks folks. I guess Pat has an answer now William M. Connolley 07:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for all who replied here for me while I am semi-indisposed. Pat: you have an answer (if you didn't understand it, the answer is you weren't reverting vandalism), and please be so kind as to read the message at the top of the page. I'm not sure who numbered all the paras but I didn't like it, so I've reverted way back.

How's this for neutral? "William Connelley deletes content from his talk page that proves his abuse of his admin power. The only way to find out what happened here is to read his discussion history page at '18:38, 7 April 2006 Alienus (→Abuse of Admin Powers by Connolley - incompetent)'. Connelley, as you refused to answer my questions, I will seek about wiki for whether there is a way to block you temporarily from the 3RR page, as an appropriate punishment for your abuse that power (as necessary to discourage you from continuing to damage wikipedia). I also solicit your comment at WP:VAND as that page is now edited to leave you no excuse for blocking a user who is reverting a circular definition. pat8722 14:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your change to the vandalism article: you can't change policy just to suit your editing style William M. Connolley 14:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I am very sorry that Pat reacted this way after you blocked him for the 3RR violation. You shouldn't have to take this kind of abuse, William. Rhobite 14:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Concur. This is absurd, policy is not retro fitted to reverse engineer guilt or innocence; This is William M. Connolley's talk page, not yours, and you are behaving in an uncivil manner, to the point of trolling. Are you not satisfied with your previous block, and now you want one for harassment and incivility as well? Go calm down, realize you're not being persecuted, and follow policy from now on. One puppy's position. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Under wiki rules, the way to object to an edit to an article is on the article's talk page. I did not change policy, I have just added detail as to what "nonsense" means. I am waiting for your comment there. pat8722 15:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. That's not an article, that's policy. To edit policy, first make your case on the talk page, then if your edit gains consensus support, it is implemented. Don't lecture an Admin on "wiki rules". KillerChihuahua?!? 15:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Meanwhile, I guess we can take this to the VAND talk if Pat returns there William M. Connolley 16:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR on Lutsk[edit]

First, it’s always nice to add “because” part to a ruling. Especially in such ruling as you did. A ruling that lacks understandability undermines the ruling, the authority, and the rule. And this is exactly the case.

Second, I did 4 edits on April 4 on Lutsk. The first one was original, and it does not correspond to any of the previous versions of the article. In the fourth edit I intentionally left untouched the Russian name that Kuban Kazak was pushing in to avoid further reverts. Thus, I really wonder where you count 3RR violation on my side?

Third, Kuban kazak in his all 4 edits was placing the Russian name of the city in front of the Polish name. And he was the one who did initially back in December. And I additionally pointed out (in the comments that were removed) that the pattern of bringing Russian names into Ukraine-related articles is a critical part of his intent, and not a coincidence.

(Thinking the last 24h on your ruling, the only explanation I see is that whenever I start editing from one of the previous versions (but not the latest) it’s counted as a revert. If I start editing from the latest version then it’s not a revert. If this is the case then it’s simply wrong. This is not how the 3RR is stated in this wikipedia. As it stated, article’s content matters, not a particular way of getting to the content.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Anonymous, you are free to edit anonymously rather than using an account, but if you want to revert war, you have to register. Otherwise, you cut the option for others to talk to you and unfairly excempt yourself from 3RR since you use a dynamic IP. I don't think that's your intention anyway, but please understand that anonymous revert warriors create much more annoyance with other editors than the registered ones (of course it would be best if even registered editors wouldn't revert war as well, but that's a wishful thinking only). --Irpen 18:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Irpen. Anon, please *Do not* remove other peoples words from my talk page. Thats my priviledge William M. Connolley 06:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Anon, I suppose you are the same as As Irpen says, its a lot better to get an account, otherwise talking to you is hard. As to your reverts; I stand by my ruling. If you don't want to risk a block, don't get close to 3RR. William M. Connolley 06:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you do, do it right. If you are not providing clear explanation for your rulings then you are not doing it right. Your advice "If you don't want to risk a block, don't get close to 3RR" sounds merely as an excuse for a possible wrong judgment.--Anonymous
Any further unsigned comments will be deleted. Your explanation, now and ever, was that you broke 3RR. Its up to you to understand it. If you don't understand it, stay clear of it William M. Connolley 11:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)



I just wanted to say that I do not think that Dr. Connolley has been abusing Admin powers. He seems to be a calm, clear-headed admin who works to resolve disputes and other conflicts on the encyclopedia, which I believe is the whole purpose of having administrators. Thanks.

Rogerman 19:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Rogerman -Rog


Hello. I think you should consider blocking infinity0 from the Administrator's noticeboard or unblocking me. It's not fair to me that I am not allowed to respond to his charges there. If an adminstrator falls for his accusations by giving him the benefit of the doubt because he sees I'm on probation I will blocked for no reason. I'm writing because he's posted yet again to get me blocked because he doesn't like my edits. And, what's more, he has been stalking me. And, he admitted to it.[16] I am unable to avoid him wherever I go on Wikipedia. He is clearly harrassing me. I can't complain about this harrassment and admitted stalking because you blocked me from making edits on the Noticeboard. Please reconsider. Thank you. RJII 20:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong admin. It was another admin that blocked me from posting to the Noticeboard. RJII 02:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Medical analysis of circumcision, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Alienus 02:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing to do with me, and I've said so there William M. Connolley 09:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Deuterium block[edit]

Hi William. On the WP:AN/3RR board you said you had blocked User:Deuterium for 24 hours, but you actually only blocked him for 3 hours. Did you just get the wrong drop-down when blocking? Jayjg (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops, you're right, I've corrected it (I think he gained a few mins, but close enough) William M. Connolley 19:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Jayjg (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy[edit]

Thanks, William. I've unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. I just found Wikipedia:Admins_willing_to_make_difficult_blocks#List_of_admins_willing_to_make_difficult_blocks via your talk page... good idea William M. Connolley 21:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Feel free to add your name, or not as you see fit. The anon who was reverting, (talk · contribs), doesn't seem to be blocked, by the way, because he's just posted to my talk page. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 21:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Strange block. I just noticed I was blocked from IRmep. Did you notice that Moshe actually reverted three times prior to my just editing of the lead (which SlimVirgin described as a revert, but it wasn't.) Check out these three edits: [17], [18], and[19]. I have to note that SlimVirgin is of the same ideological bent at Moshe -- I feel as if I have been targeted unfairly. I am also trying hard to push the dispute to an RfC but it is being ignored while Moshe reverts the article. I strongly feel as if I am being bullied and the article is being biased unfairly towards the ideological bent of Moshe and SlimVirgin. Anyways, it does seem unfair and I do not think I have a recourse. I feel I made a lot of decent comments on the talk page of IRmep -- I am not a vandal. -- 21:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops, my apologies - I've blocked you properly now. Sorry William M. Connolley 21:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Michael Scheuer page[edit]

Please take a look at recent edits. One editor does not want certain Scheuer quotes to be included in the article because it goes against his ideological POV. Perhaps my introduction to these comments should be changed, but instead of helping to make the article better - he just deletes the quotes, an act of pure censorship. Wikipedia readers deserve to know why Scheuer is such a controversial figure. What can I do to stop the censorship? RonCram 13:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what this is to do with me, but I'll have a look William M. Connolley 14:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
It *is* nothing to do with me. This is a content dispute about which I know nothing, sorry. WP:DR is my only suggestion William M. Connolley 14:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Bit of a reversion emergency[edit]

Hi William. Would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Northmeister? Northmeister has taken control of the page, and is continuously reverting while asking for page protection. Apparently he's willing to revert any number of times, so long as he gets the page protected on his version. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed your unprotection of the page. Please keep in mind that Northmeister's block will expire in under 2 hours. Jayjg (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Aha, yes, but have you noticed I reblocked NM to 24h? Thats what he got for 3RR; I'm going to tell CM that I've undermined his block... William M. Connolley 17:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Proto blocked him for 24 hours initially, so it seems fair. Jayjg (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

William, would you consider restoring Slrubenstein's protection? The NOR page is under attack from more than just Northmeister. There are a number of new or newish editors trying to force the page to their version to make it easier for them to add their OR to articles. If the page is protected for a few days, things might calm down. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
These include LaRouche supporters or activists, by the way i.e. Northmeister and Herschelkrustofsky. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, did I get the wrong end of the stick? I thought it was only/mostly NM. Please - don't hesitate to re-protect it if you consider that to be appropriate. My own judgement would be to give it a chance to be unprotected for a bit and see if it survives, but I don't mind being overridden. Plus, I'm off down the pub in an hour :-) William M. Connolley 18:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I would add that the original blocking admin would like it re-blocked as well. He's hesitant to do so because he doesn't want to wheel war with you. Jayjg (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah... I've left a note on SR's talk William M. Connolley 18:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for re-protecting. Steve thought he was reprotecting, but he'd only re-added the tag and then forgot to do the protection bit. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


Hey - I was waiting for your explanation on the talk page. I appreciate your note on my talk page. I do think it is still a good idea to protect the policy page for a couple of days because (1) others were involved in reverts and (2) it is even-handed. Blocking a user for 24 hours is a sort of discipline against one user, protecting the page is a way to get many participants in a dispute to cool down. So I am going to re-protect. I'd like to give it a couple of days, but if you feel that is excessive you can unprotect it tomorrow, how is that?

Thats OK... lets move the talk to the article talk to avoid more fragmenting! William M. Connolley 18:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Issued block[edit]

Dear Mr. Connolley, I appreciate you taking the initiative to ease the tensions in the wiki pages that I participate in. The last action you took by blocking only me for reverting legitimate content (backed by sources always) I don't consider a fair one. That I have violated 3RR is true, and I deserved a warning for that, even though my reverts have been based on facts that I provided through sources. But if you had to issue a block, you should have also issued one to the other party (who is very suspicious, new user, a potential sockpuppet of some other users in other talk pages). See Special:Contributions/NikX and later approved changes by the one who I suspect as being the real user of that username User:asterion. The last user is known for harrassing whoever does not agree with him. His "you are a sockpuppet of this" pointing is very frequent! Hopefully in the future you do not take sides when trying to ease tensions. Taking sides is not what adminship is about. Instead a better evaluation before block is issued should take place, like checking what other side in the dispute is doing, and issue blocks to both. Regards,Ilir pz 22:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR is about reverts, not content. I say this time and again, and so do others, and its clear enough, but still people fail to realise... hey ho, in the end a block makes things clear. Please consider WP:1RR as a general policy and your pain will be eased William M. Connolley 07:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
OK then, please, without checking the content and being mislead by the little "m"(minor edit sign) check the reverts made by user:NikX on the same day:

rev 1: [20] rev 2: [21] rev 3: [22] rev 4: [23] rev 5: [24] rev 6: [25] rev 7: [26]

As I said, he misleads with the little "m" sign, and the message he leaves behind, as if he is changing a little. In fact he is reverting to his version, and in talk pages says that "only until that version" is accepted then he will not revert. I expect that you act accordingly. ThanksIlir pz 09:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If you have a complaint about NikX, then the proper place is 3RR. As to your diffs: the first 2 are successive edits, so only count for 1 (ditto the 5th & 6th?). The third is to a different article. William M. Connolley 09:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
sorry for the 3rd, mistake. I guess edits are counted within a 24hr period, and successive or not it does not matter. Correct me if I am wrong. I filed a complaint there at proper place, but thought since you took that initiative for me, you would finish the started adminship initiative. Thanks, Ilir pz 10:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. Successive edits count as one, since they *could* have been made as one. I've now clarified this on the WP:3RR page, as it reflects how policy is actually applied. William M. Connolley 10:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Three-revert rule[edit]

Excellent idea to make this addition. I've often thought it should be made more obvious. AnnH 09:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... its gone again now, Trey Harris removed it :-( You may want to see the 3RR talk page... William M. Connolley 20:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


Im afraid your block of me is ill-founded. Please see the page history and notice that 24 hours passed between these edits, with 3 subsequent reverts, not 4. Please take action accordingly. Ksenon

I'll take this to your talk page, where you can talk without being naughty like you are here. But you're wrong. William M. Connolley 19:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: 3rr on House of Yahweh[edit]

William M. Connolley wrote:

You get a stern warning re WP:3RR on House of Yahweh. I'm pretty sure you were acting for the best, but the only exceptions to 3RR are for blatant vandalism, so please be more careful William M. Connolley 19:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Er, sorry about that. I did eventually think, "wait a sec, I've reverted too many times, I'd better stop", so I did. Unfortunately by then I'd already reverted the page into next week. I will indeed be more careful in the future – Gurch 20:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, that's good enough for me William M. Connolley 20:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Anthropology[edit]

12 minutes. That's how long it took him to revert the page again... Guettarda 20:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm impressed! Thats fast work. But this is a mystery... does he have a bot, mailing him? Does he have a "real" account to watch it from? I'm baffled! It will probably need reprotecting, sigh William M. Connolley

Persian Gulf[edit]

This page was unprotected in the middle of discussions and there's already a revert war. I'm not sure what to do at this point. AucamanTalk 05:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[edit]

I noticed that you have blocked this user in the past, however he/she is up to old tricks again. Much obliged if you could block again. Sfacets 04:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hipi Zhdripi[edit]

Thanks for semi protecting the Serbia and Montenegro article. I would appreciate any suggestions from you as an admin on what is the best action to take against User:Hipi Zhdripi. I know he is behind the IP addresses involved in the last actions for which I requested the Semi-protection. I have marked these IPs as suspected sockpuppets. He has also admitted it was Hipi Zhdripi himself in a few of the edit summaries and previously here. This certainly make him go over the 3RR limit repeatedly. The fact that he got blocked for this before seems to clarify that he is fully aware of the rule. Shall I list him in the 3RR noticeboard as User:Hipi Zhdripi or ask for a CheckUser? --Asterion 21:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

An anon admitting to be HZ isn't direct evidence -could be malice by an opponent, of course. Also blocking 172.some anons is problematic due to their being AOL proxies. Probably worth listing for checkuser, since its led to a page sprotect. Otherwise, make up a sub-page in your space (say) (or in HZ's?) listing anon's you think are him, and why; so you can refer to it in future and not lose track William M. Connolley 21:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do this tomorrow. Cheers, --Asterion 22:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Bill[edit]

Yes, your right, I went overboard. Haven't been about for awhile, guess I have to stay away for a bit longer. After almost a year of fighting with James I'm no longer rational in my dealings with him. Thanks for warring me. --DV8 2XL 22:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Just do something else for a bit... William M. Connolley 09:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

2nd Email[edit]

Just letting you know I sent you a second email. It's not urgent, but I'd appreciate your reply.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Answered. Hope thats OK William M. Connolley 09:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi William, I noticed you went through the reports at WP:AN/3RR, but you seemed to miss mine, that of User:Constantzeanu. Just wanted to inform you. —Khoikhoi 23:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

N has done this William M. Connolley 09:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


Thanks. Yeah I unblocked it because I didn't think it was enough to warrant a block. I didn't even see the 3RR vio. Good call. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty clear cut. 5 reverts in about 12 hours. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes. But on the other side CD has 4 reverts too, so I've split 24h between them as a compromise William M. Connolley 11:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I know I deserved it, so thanks for treating me fairly with that ban. Skinmeister 23:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

3rr of those IP's[edit]

Thanks for addressing that so quickly. Could you revert their most recent revert (it's not verified). I don't want them to think I'm the only one who will revert their unsourced additions.--Urthogie 20:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I won't. Its not one of my interests; I have no idea who is right! William M. Connolley 20:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I was about to tell you there was no need anymore. What I did is I edited the page with comments so even a blind man could understand how to source the statements. It's all good, thanks for helping make the project better by watching 3RR. Peace, --Urthogie 20:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Block for violation of 3RR on List of shock sites[edit]

Sir, I was only reverting Skinmeister (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)'s repetative removal of the advert tag from the page. That user has a habit of reverting changes and labeling them as vandalism without discussion simply because he disagrees with them. Currently, whether or not that article conforms to Wikipedia's policy of no advertisement/promotion is currently disputed, and the tag should remain for the time being. As he was repetatively removing it even after being warned not to, I felt that I was simply reverting vandalism, and did not think that I was violating the three-revert rule, as it does not apply to the reversion of edits that are clearly inappropriate, correct? I apologise if I have violated the rule. - Conrad Devonshire 01:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, if "I warned him, so I haven't broken 3RR" was right, no-one would break it... ditto "I felt I was reverting vandalism". Sorry, but stick to 3 reverts in future William M. Connolley 08:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

three-revert watch[edit]

Would you be so kind as to visit the history of the Billy Graham page to check the propriety of recent actions taken by an editor named Rogerman(talk)? I have noticed that you have been conscientious about blocking three-revert offenders in the past, and I am not familliar enough with the process or criteria to pursue this editor, although I strongly suspect that there is a problem. Even in the event that his actions were not to violate the rule, his thinly veiled POV activity in this case should at least constitute vandalism. Thanks. Projection70 16:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, I see no 3RR there (only 3 edits). As for the rest... talk to him; its too early fo admin intervention William M. Connolley 18:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for checking. I don't know what the technical distinction is between an edit and rv when the text to which an edit is returned is identical to the earlier edit. The user in question calls them rv in his summaries, and I would agree with him that they are, but it isn't clear. Could you advise as to the difference? Also, please note that the user has made the same rv (edit?) again since you last checked his activity. Beyond what point will admin intervention become appropriate? Projection70 02:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Projection70, going around talking behind my back is not cool. If you have a problem with my edits, why didn't you come to me directly? That would have been the appropriate step if you indeed wanted to resolve an issue rather than causing trouble. That said, I am always willing to work with anyone, no matter how many conflicts I may of had with them in the past. Please contact me if you would like to make amends and work together for a better Wikipedia. -Rog Rogerman 04:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

  • I raised my concerns about your behavior in the appropriate place, on the discussion page of the article. Indeed this was the appripriate step. When you then continued your activity instead of checking or engaging the discussion page, I checked your user talk page and realized that you have been notified of the same infractions before, as you hop from page to page to interject your POV (in the name of NPOV) regarding public figures whom you dislike. This is when I took the next appropriate step, as it became clear that your pattern needed admin attention. I was aware that you could read the user pages on which I asked for admin attention, so it was not, per se, behind your back. Projection70 05:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, let's leave Dr. Connolley alone and stay off his board. That said, let's stop arguing and work to build concensus instead. Rogerman 05:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

3RR Report[edit]

Greetings William M. Connolley, I appreciated your fair response to User:Anonymous editor's previous post about my supposed 3RR violation on Muhammad that I thought you should take a look at this report. I've reported myself as well so you may need to block me too but once you read the report then I suppose it'll be your call. Take it easy. Netscott 18:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi William. Both editors were reverting on the articles and so both should be blocked for the same times. Both users violated the 3rr. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that both editors were committing the same offence. I don't agree that gives the same block length. I applied the std rules: first offence gets you 3-12h depending on severity; multiple offences pushes you over 24h eventually. This is somewhat Hard Cheese for IPT, I agree. Just to make it worse, I've unblocked N cos he plausibly promised to be good. But I'd do the same for IPT. William M. Connolley 20:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I think you should reduce the 3rr for IPT too. Like IPT, NS was warned for this before recently and unblocked after he agreed that the reverting stop. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Having just checked, you're right, this was not N's first offence (I thought it was but must have stuffed up the log check). OK, so N should have had 24h. I'll go and talk to IPT. If you wish to change IPT's block, please feel free to, I don't object William M. Connolley 20:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR Report[edit]

Is 3RR blocks made selectively? --Andrei George 19:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they certainly are. Admins are expected to use their judgement when blocking. One factor was you: you are a "red user" yet you're clearly not new. That makes you someone trying to hide your past, which is obviously dodgy. The other factor was that I decided to protect the page, which made a block pointless (read WP:3RR) William M. Connolley 19:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Another potential Lightbringer Puppet on Freemasonry[edit]

Hi William, I think we may have yet another [[User:Lightbringer] Puppet on the Freemasonry pages. He seems fixated on proving that Freemasons supported Hitler or something like that. In any case, it forms part of his pattern to attack this section and try add a particular citation ... these edits may help you see what I mean: this edit by User:Anderson12 was made way back when - Anderson12 was subsequently banned for being a Lightbringer Sock.

Then there is this edit by User:Keystrokes - also shown to be a Lighbringer sock.

Now User:VQHernandez wants to make suspiciously similar edits: here, here, and here.

If this is not enough for a block, I will run a sock check on his IP to see if he uses something in the range (used by other Lightbringer Socks). Thanks Blueboar 23:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, well I did nothing and you didn't scream and it doesn't look too bad now... William M. Connolley 19:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR and Community Portal[edit]

Just dropping you a note to say I think you acted unwisely with regard to User:HereToHelp and the Comunity Portal. The Portal is a hot bed of recuring edit wars over format and content, and it does need someone prepaired to step in and break 3rr and protect if it's needed to maintain stablity on the page. I think HereToHelp acted correctly in this case. --Barberio 10:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Incidently, Zzzzz is now reporting your action in this as admin support for his activities. [27] I hope you will clarify to him that it was not. --Barberio 11:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I've commented on your page. I don't understand Zzzzz's comment. I don't accept your view of HtH - there was nothing urgent enough to justify breaking 3RR. William M. Connolley 14:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Since the Comunity Portal is a one of the four main navigation pages on Wikipedia, ensuring stability is always urgent. --Barberio 16:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
But the reverts in question did not threaten the functioning of the page one way or the other. Face it: *lots* of people watch that page. There is no need for anyone to 4R over it William M. Connolley 17:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree with WMC. Nandesuka 18:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, thats definitely worth something to me! William M. Connolley 18:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

On the Jews and Their Lies[edit]

Thank you for dropping by and helping Paul McCain. He is new and I'm glad you noticed that.

Would you do me a favor and review the talk page? Since I'm in direct conflict with SlimVirgin, I would appreciate an outsider's view of my arguments. I like a little objectivity to keep me honest and rational while I ponder my next posts. --CTSWyneken 21:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, will take a look. I tend to find SV very sensible, though William M. Connolley 21:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I've looked. So... clearly this is controversial for some people. It looks like there are some outliers on this (on both sides?). So I hope you and SV can continue to talk and not get distracted by the gunk. On a minor point, getting insulted by the use of "silly" is probably an over reaction... its about the mildest possible expression available. Caveat: I know no background to this. William M. Connolley 22:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


Can you please unprotect User_talk:Robsteadman. He is clearly (at least partially) active again and by protecting the page you're making it hard to contact him. Thanks. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 19:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Done William M. Connolley 19:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I've had e-mails from Rob saying this isn't him - the account has edited the Robert Steadman article which Rob knows not to do. As his account was deleted I assume there was nothing to stop someone recreating it. What happens in situations like these?
There's a question for you... the account has a long contribution history, so isn't new. Unless new accounts pick up... lets try WP:AN/I William M. Connolley 12:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The account is the same one. All that got deleted was the user page. So I see no reason to think it isn't the same person William M. Connolley 13:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought the account had been deleted and I wasn't sure if it would pick up the old edit history if recreated. If we're sure it's the same user then he has been editing his own article - what happens with that? Since Rob doesn't think it's him should the account be banned indef anyway?Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 13:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't understand. All Rob has to do is to login, and change the password if he wants to. If he can't change the password, then I'm pretty sure he can request a new one by email anyway. So yes, I or any admin can perma-block it, but why? William M. Connolley 16:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I did ask for my account to be permently deleted at the beginning of April and was told that it would be by user: Musical Linguist. It seems she didn't do this as was requested.

It seems that someone else has been editing using the account because the edits on April 20th and April 23rd are not by me... [trim - WMC]

Now, could someone now PLEASE permanently delete it. Totally. I don't want any record of my account [trim - WMC]

OK folks, I've trimmed the discussion. Now... Rob, I cannot delete the account but I can delete both the userpage and the talk page if thats what you want; or how about just protecting them as blank or with the leaving message? Deleting the account requires dev priv I think. If you really want the account completely deleted, reply so here and I'll tout the diff around AN/I or whereever to see where it might get actionned. Bear in mind that if the account gets deleted (which I'm not actually sure is possible), I'm not sure there is anything you can do to stop it being recreated by someone else. William M. Connolley 20:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't discuss this more here - please see the discussion on t:RS William M. Connolley 20:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi William. Apologies if I'm annoying you by adding more about something you don't want to discuss. I won't get huffy if you delete my post! But I thought I should let you know that Rob has been blocked, and his talk page (which he had filled with posts similar to the ones you removed from here) has been protected. The discussion (if there is any) is continuing here. Cheers. AnnH 21:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - yes I'd noticed, but I might not have. Note to everyone else: I'm out of this discussion now. No more! William M. Connolley 21:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Continuing vandalism of Kellie Everts[edit]

The vandalism of Kellie Everts by anon has been continuing. You placed a temporary ban about two weeks ago, but despite that, and repeated warnings from several users, the guy just insists on making the same changes over and over. It looks like we may require admin action once again. Thanks, fbb_fan 02:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Fairly low-level, but vandalism. I've blocked for 24h mostly for the talk page comment. William M. Connolley 19:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm guessing he'll be back, but I guess we'll worry about that later. fbb_fan 01:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Mary McCarthy[edit]

Hi -- I notice that you're an admin who has expressed concern about DaveThomas's editing of the Mary O. McCarthy article. Might I request your assistance at the Mary McCarthy article as well? Mary McCarthy is a novelist completly unrelated to current politics. DaveThomas has been repeatedly reverting the disambiguation line on this page to reflect personal bias regarding Mary O. McCarthy. I am concerned that an unrelated literature article is being dragged into a political debate that should be limited to the Mary O. McCarthy page. ~CS 15:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Um... looks fairly low level at the moment. No call for admin intervention William M. Connolley 19:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

About anon at IP[edit]

Hi -- I noticed that you blocked this anon editor for 8 hours. Would you consider reducing this block to half an hour or an hour? For reasons that I explain at WP:AN/I, I suspect that a ban of more than half an hour will be counterproductive: it won't stop this person, but will likely block good-faith editors in Belgrade, Serbia. Thanks, llywrch 21:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll copy to AN/I and reply there William M. Connolley 21:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Account deletion[edit]

Account deletions are not possible if a user has made an edit to a wikipedia article. From my knowledge of the GFDL licence conditions, *all* edits made by a contributor/author/creator have to be necessarily credited. Deletion of a username would violate this condition. Also, a contribution made under GFDL is irrevocable. To answer your next question, no, 'crats cannot delete an account. They can only rename. I hope this answers your question. For the rallying bit... Wikipedia talk:Changing username might be a good place to start with. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! Thats what I wanted to know William M. Connolley 18:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


Please take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:JedRothwell_2, and if you wish, his talk page(he keeps deleting NPA warnings). I've reverted his unsourced additions once, so prefer not to be the blocking admin. In addition, as an "insufferable, outrageous, impolite and uninvited" editor, I would prefer a second Admin support and/or be the blocking admin on this user. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks! I probably should have said in my request if you'd disagreed with my assessment that he should be blocked, I would of course have abided by that, but IMHO with 5 reverts and 20 or so personal attacks, vandalism, and edit warring, he was a likely candidate for a brief block. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Werner Herzog[edit]

There's a bit of a problem over at the Werner Herzog page concerning the ethnicity of his father. I see you've dealt with the problem before and I was hoping you could help out. Thanks.--Staple 18:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Will look, no promises William M. Connolley 18:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Looked. Not 3RR yet, nothing I can do really William M. Connolley 18:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks anyway.--Staple 21:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi William, thanks for the 3RR block of User: However, it looks as if we now have a wave of sock puppets: User:, User:, User:, all of which have reverted that page twice today, and have no other edits to their credit. I'd suggest to semi-protect the page for a week or so. What do you think? --Stephan Schulz 20:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Seems fair enough - done. William M. Connolley 20:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks again! --Stephan Schulz 20:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!--Staple 03:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I am Salvatore Basille and have worked with Werner Herzog for over 25 years in films. He has said on many times that his father was Serbian. He felt strongly about not being associated with anything Croatian because of their Fascistic past during WW2 and Nazis. Please unlock the page to correct the error currently there saying his ethnicity is Croatian - it is not. It is Serbian. Thank you. SB.

3RR warning[edit]

You gave Instantnood a warning about revert warring. [28] and he was banned for 48 hours by another admin. Note upon his return the first thing he did was head to that article to perform the same reverts. [29]. Can you page ban him from that article, per his arbcom sanction (which doesn't require 3RR, just being inappropriate or disruptive)? It's rather ridiculous that he's been attempting to make this claim about a capital city that doesn't exist for more than a year. SchmuckyTheCat 21:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Please kindly note that user:SchmuckyTheCat and user:Alanmak are not reverting only what is disputed. They revert materials unrelated to the disagreement. The Hong Kong article is not the first article they're reverting in this manner, despite being reminded, respectively, at their user talk pages. Thanks. User:Alanmak is even refusing to talk, and user:SchmuckyTheCat has kept referring to evidence that is proven invalid and unrealiable. — Instantnood 21:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Please be more cautious. You are very close to getting blocked (by me) under your arbcomm sanction from editing that page. Stick to 1RR on it and related or you will be sad William M. Connolley 21:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Please kindly spend a few seconds or so and read what they're reverting. Please also note whether the most recent ArbCom case was properly and appropriately opened was not ensured. Thank you. — Instantnood 21:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
No - I'm not going to second guess the arbcomm, thank you. Live within their judgements William M. Connolley 22:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
You may or may not agree, but please respect different views. The validity of the judgements is questioned if justice of the mechanism and its process is not adequately ensured. — Instantnood 22:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: 3RR reminder[edit]

Thanks for the reminder. But could you please kindly tell which of my edits are constituting the three reverts within a 24-hour period? Thank you. — Instantnood 21:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Examine your own edits. If you are in doubt, err on the side of caution William M. Connolley 21:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
User:SchmuckyTheCat was referring to a February 2005 version (which I couldn't recall) and calling my first edit he disagrees a revert [30]. I reverted him since he was ignoring my other edits unrelated to the disagreement (he disagrees only with City of Victoria), and that's vandalism [31] [32] [33]. I don't actually care if he were reverting only what he disagrees (i.e. City of Victoria), for the matter was already being discussed at the talk page. — Instantnood 22:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

User:SchmuckyTheCat has kept reverting everything, instead of reverting only what he disagrees [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]. As per user:Jiang [39], this kind of behaviour is " committing simple vandalism ". Please help remind him not to overdo. Thanks in advance. — Instantnood 13:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether its simple vandalism or not depends on circumstances. Don't use it as an excuse for breaking 3RR. If it really is SV, someone else will agree with you William M. Connolley 15:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely right. But since you've been handling the trouble you're in a good position to look into those edits and examine whether they are, and take neccessary action(s). — Instantnood 05:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
You're the administrator who've had handled the matter, and that was the reason why I talk to you for user:SchmuckyTheCat's problematic edits. If you're not going to and/or not interested to further deal with this case, could you please kindly refer it to someone else appropriately? Thanks in advance. — Instantnood 21:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

If its 3RR, take it to WP:3RR. If its an editing dispute, the WP:DR William M. Connolley 19:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we get a very long block[edit]

The User GODDESSY that you blocked today, shes been banned before and still made changes to her own bio with her sockpuppet.

Please read this page and then if you so feel (Please Please Please)

Just get rid of her permanently...

JuliannaRoseMauriello 22:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

3R rule[edit]

I don't understand what a "revert" is for purposes of this rule. For example, supposing that an article states "The dog is blue around the ears." and I edit that to say, "The dog is blue under the ears" is that a revert?

If someone then changes that to "The dog is blue over his ears" and I then change that to "The dog is blue over and under the ears" is that a second revert? -- Drogo Underburrow 01:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the WP:3RR talk page William M. Connolley 06:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
are you not gonna check my report, Dr. Connolley?Ilir pz 10:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)