Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive1

note until archive 40 3RR reports were combined with the incident archive

Aug 9th to Aug 21st

User:Guy Montag

Three revert rule violation on Nablus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy Montag (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: [1]
• 1st revert: [2]
• 2nd revert: [3]
• 3rd revert: [4]
• 4th revert: [5]
• 5th revert: [6]

Reported by: Heraclius 01:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Combative editor who keeps adding "or shechem". Has done this 5 times.Heraclius 01:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• The evidence seems to point to a more general revert war. Instead of blocking both User:Guy Montag and User:Heraclius I have opted to protect the page for a day to allow them to use the talk page to discuss their edits. -Willmcw 03:43, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Heraclius doesn't know how to discuss, he only knows one function in wikipedia, and that is the revert button. He and his IP anon internet troll friend have been vandalizing pages that have to do with the Middle East ever since they came here. Guy Montag 03:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no revert button. And you are the one who has broken the rule.Heraclius 04:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The article talk page is open and ready for use. Talk:Nablus. -Willmcw 05:16, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

User:EliasAlucard

Three revert rule violation on Dhampir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). EliasAlucard (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 10:32, August 8, 2005
• 1st revert: 19:57, August 8, 2005
• 2nd revert: 20:24, August 8, 2005
• 3rd revert: 20:36, August 8, 2005
• 4th revert: 20:45, August 8, 2005

Reported by: DreamGuy 02:55, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• User:EliasAlucard from comments earlier today (as well as months back when I ran into other conflicts with him, which were resolved only by me taking those articles of my watch list, as he did not attempt to follow consensus or work on anything) has vowed to undo any and all edits I make on anything he contributed, regardless of value. Here he violates the 3RR while doing so on Dhampir in less than an hour. He's busy undoing other edits and writing personal attacks both earlier on this page and talk pages, such as that for the much fought over and probably never to be unprotected at this rate Vampire DreamGuy 02:55, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

This DreamGuy has issues, seriously. He is involved in revert wars all the time, non-stop. Of course, to make himself look good, he accuses everyone who is opposed to him as socketpuppets, anon users, vandalism or whatever derogatory he can come up with. Why did I revert? Because his edits are bad. He is removing perfectly legitimate knowledge from articles. He calls it fiction; something he strongly detests. Why? I don't know. To my knowledge, there's nothing wrong with having information about fiction in articles related to it, according to Wikipedia's Policy. DreamGuy should be up for a review.

EliasAlucard|Talk 05:06, 09 Aug, 2005 (UTC)

Of course what you fail to note is that: a) everyone so far I have accused of sockpuppeting has been either proven or are currently under investigation by admins for strong evidence of it, b) the reverts I get into really only happen when people announce that they won't let anyone at all edit what they wrote for any reason, which is in itself a violation of how things work here, and usually result in people such as yourself showing just how deadset you are to break policy just to preserve what you wrote c) you positively and clearly violated 3RR above for no reason. DreamGuy 03:18, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Wrong! I did not write that about Blade. It was there before me even reading that article. You have no good/valid reason whatsoever to remove the stuff you remove. Yet you do it. This is blatant vandalism.

EliasAlucard|Talk 05:26, 09 Aug, 2005 (UTC)

Reasons for removal were already given in edit comments, plus you should read Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not. DreamGuy 06:07, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

And now User:EliasAlucard has also violated 3RR on Alucard. It'd be a good idea if someone did something about him. DreamGuy 11:53, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

edit waring over a redirect? User blocked for 24 hours.Geni 12:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

He also managed to squeeze in a 3RR violation on Dracula too, but I guess he's blocked already so never mind tht one. And thanks. DreamGuy 12:31, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

User:FestivalOfSouls

Three revert rule violation on Transubstantiation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). FestivalOfSouls (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 14:23, 3 August 2005
• 1st revert: 10:44, 9 August 2005
• 2nd revert: 11:21, 9 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 11:34, 9 August 2005
• 4th revert: 11:44, 9 August 2005

Reported by: Codex Sinaiticus 15:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• (New Comment) - This user is still continuing to persist in applying controversial "myth" categories to pages about doctrine and theology, insisting that his view is correct and everyone who disagrees with him is incorrect. Action? Codex Sinaiticus 19:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Codex Sinaiticus is insiting that bias be allowed on wikipedia and is upset I don't agree with that.FestivalOfSouls 19:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• This is not User User:FestivalOfSouls' first violation of 3RR (nor last; see also: Resurrection of the dead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Virgin Birth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)). User habitually goes around articles on subjects from the Bible and Quran adding 'Mythology' tag, has been reverted and warned by numerous editors and sysops but persists in making unilateral categorization against everyone else's wishes. Also has admitted to use of a sockpuppet for this same purpose, see: User_talk:134.161.245.84. This user has furthermore made a number of personal attacks against other users' practice of religious beliefs, in express violation of wiki policy outlined at "No Personal Attacks". Codex Sinaiticus 16:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• I only add the correct subcategory, after discussion was held about that. Codex over generalizes. The tag is completely appropriate given a dictionary, or scholary definition of mythology. Codex is pushing a bias, and doesn't like that I stand against his vandalism. FestivalOfSouls 16:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• oh and the "sock puppet" was just my session cookie expiring and me making an edit anonymously, and not even attempting to hide that fact. Again, Codex is manipulating the facts. Users not only agree, and replace the categorization, but virtually all of the changes I made remain in the subcategories of mythology, ie, the changes I made are being kept. FestivalOfSouls 16:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Resurection of the dead was 2 reverts as me, one as my IP, and a content addition... where is the 4rth revert?

virgin birth was a category addition and 3 reverts, again, where is the violation? FestivalOfSouls 16:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• What personal attacks? And I never admitted using a sockpuppet for that purpose. Look closely, it was an anonymous edit due to an unoticed log out, which is NOT in violation of wiki policy. FestivalOfSouls 16:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• The purpose of the 3RR is to encourage collaboration, instead of force. Unless there is collaboration, it's a wooden interpretation of the rule to make the same controversial change to dozens of articles, keeping track of whether you've gone over your quota. Please do not use the categories to force a perspective. Instead, work on creating and implementing an inoffensive categorization scheme that is likely to stand without constant challenge. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• I am working with the existing categories. You can feel free to create new ones, or rename the current ones, but the fact will remain that using any realistic definition of mythology, these articles fit in the category. FestivalOfSouls 16:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Pgreenfinch

Three revert rule violation on Opposition to cults and new religious movements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pgreenfinch (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 14:42, 8 August 2005
• 1st revert: 15:52, 8 August 2005
• 2nd revert: 01:48, 9 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 10:52, 9 August 2005
• 4th revert: 12:13, 9 August 2005
• 5th revert: 12:36, 9 August 2005
• Update: 6th revert: 16:08, 9 August 2005

Reported by: --goethean ॐ 17:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Please give actual diffs of the user in question, rather than separate reversions. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 19:29, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Done. (Hopefully.) Sorry about that. --goethean ॐ 19:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I made a temp block. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 23:40, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Users goethean and Zappaz

Three revert rule violation on Opposition to cults and new religious movements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Report multiple and concerted vandalisms in above mentioned article in the form of censorship of factual info. --Pgreenfinch 21:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Diffs? Evidence? Or purely a retaliation for the above report? Please complete the form. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 21:52, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Please find it below

• Previous version reverted to: [7]
• 1st revert: [8]
• 2nd revert: [9]
• 3rd revert: [10]
• 4th revert: [11]
• 5th revert:[12]
• 6th revert:[13]

Reported by: --Pgreenfinch 22:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Please use diffs so we can verify the complaint. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• After looking at the edit history, I only think Zappaz violated it. And this user has already been blocked by me for his own 3RR violation above. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 23:44, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • User:Goethean only reverted 3 times [14] [15] and [16]. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 23:46, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Nevermind that, User:Zappaz only reverted 3 times too [17] [18] and [19]. I see no reason to block either user. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 23:49, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

User:Xizer

Three revert rule violation on Beyond Good and Evil (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Xizer (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: [20]
• 1st revert: 23:44, 9 August 2005
• 2nd revert: 00:18, 10 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 00:29, 10 August 2005
• 4th revert: 00:34, 10 August 2005
• Update: 5th revert: 02:37, 10 August 2005
• Update: 6th revert: 03:03, 10 August 2005
• Update: possible 7th revert: 20:33, 10 August 2005
• Update: possible 8th revert: 20:51, 10 August 2005

Reported by: Nandesuka 01:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• I feel stupid even reporting this, frankly, but I really don't know what else to do. This silly little tempest in a teapot resulted, as near as I can tell, from Xizer feeling that the flopped Ubisoft videogame Beyond Good & Evil, which I happen to love, is more notable than Nietzsche's seminal and influential book Beyond Good and Evil. On my talk page, Xizer has indicated that the game "deserves" to be higher on the list because "the article is longer" and the game is "more artistic" than this "obscure book". In the meantime, the disambiguation page looks like garbage, the punctuation is wrong on the Nietzsche entry, and I don't want to edit it any more today because I don't want to violate 3RR. Please advise. Nandesuka 01:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • He's continuing to revert other people's changes (see above, 5th revert). Nandesuka 02:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Blocked for 24 hours. Mark¹ 03:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks. This revert: 03:30, 10 August 2005 is User:68.225.57.216's very first edit. I can't prove anything, but, uh, I know where I'd place my money as to who this is if this were a wager. Nandesuka 03:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I've blocked the sockpuppet too. Mark¹ 03:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Are those times UTC? The diffs don't seem to match the labels. --Calton | Talk 03:51, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
          • UTC-5, which I had set my display to ages ago and forgot, I think. Sorry. I'll fix that. (Update: I changed all the relevant timestamps in this log to UTC. Nandesuka 03:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• The reverts continue -- same content, same edit summary style, but from a different IP (this time from 65.182.7.34). Again, I can't be sure this is a sockpuppet, but can we imagine anyone else actually caring about this? Nandesuka 21:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • ...and now he's vandalizing Beyond Good and Evil (book), Beyond Good and Evil, and the disambiguation page. Nandesuka 21:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I've blocked 65.182.7.34 for vandalism. Gamaliel 21:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Guy Montag

Three revert rule violation on Nablus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy Montag (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: [21]
• 1st revert: [22]
• 2nd revert: [23]
• 3rd revert: [24]
• 4th revert: [25]

Reported by: Heraclius 05:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Editor keeps breaking the 3RR over and over again and is not being blocked for it. Please see above [26]Heraclius 05:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

This guy has a personal vendetta against me, so I wouldn't take his problem seriously. He has initiated only edit wars since he arrived here. Learn to use talk, because I don't deal with internet trolls.

Guy Montag 05:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

You keep breaking this rule even when you don't have support behind you. Not even Jayjg has reverted to the "or Shechem" version. You have also accused me of being 3 different anon IP's. All 3 seem to have a personal vendetta against you.Heraclius 05:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

"Not even Jayjg"? What would that mean? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Guy - I reverted you because I disagreed with your edit. You have to face up to the fact that sometimes you are wrong - and no amount of POV pushing or bombast will change that. 62.252.0.6 07:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for twenty-four hours, but Heraclius also violated 3RR, so must have the same cooling-down period. (I'm also suspicious of the anon's intervention, I'm afraid; that would have raised the 3RR-violation to five in 24 hours.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought the 3RR rule was "per user"? I'm certainly not either Guy or Heraclius! 62.252.0.7 22:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Vizcarra

Three revert rule violation on Anti-Semitism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Vizcarra (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 19:02, 9 August 2005
• 1st revert: 22:23, 9 August 2005
• 2nd revert: 22:31, 9 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 00:24, 10 August 2005
• 4th revert: 16:35, 10 August 2005
• 5th revert: 19:42, 10 August 2005

Reported by: Jayjg ^(talk) 19:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Pretty obvious reversions, and he even labels them as such. Continues to remove information from the section in question, in more complex reverts. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• I've left a warning on his talk page. He's been here long enough and probably doesn't need one, but I couldn't see a sign of one anywhere, and he hasn't been blocked before, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:53, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• He's not a new user, has over 1000 edits and has been editing since October 2004. He has reverted again, and been warned, and asked to revert himself.[27] Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• He's still doing complex reverts. The contentious sentence is These plays historically blamed the Jews for the death of Jesus in a polemical fashion, depicting a crowd of Jewish people condemning Jesus to crucifixion and a Jewish leader assuming eternal collective guilt for the crowd for the murder of Jesus, often inciting violence and pogroms against Jews.; he insists on removing it, or changing its meaning. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• I warned him, suggested he should revert himself, and all he did was rephrase, which amounted to another partial revert. I warned him again, reverted him, and asked him not to rephrase again, but he did it minutes later (another partial revert - probably his sixth), so I've blocked him for 24 hours. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:21, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Actually it was his 7th revert, including complex ones. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the link to deicide is NPOV. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

So come discuss it on Talk:Anti-Semitism. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

This page is for reporting 3RR violations, not debating article contents. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to note, most of SlimVirgin comments are misleading.

1. Jayjg suggested I reverted my reverts and I did, put back everything and rephrased it, which isn't a revert.
2. SlimVirgin suggested I reverted myself and I did and I explained to her what I was doing.
3. The "warnings" were actually happening at the same time as my reverts and rephrases.
4. Although I've been a member since October 2004, I've been a member only since July, so barely. I did tell SlimVirgin I was unaware of this rule, but apparently she has chosen to forge this (and some other) facts.
5. Apparently this could be a part of a pattern, where these users revert edits by others to get them to violate 3RR and avoid editing the article for NPOV (see SlimVirginjayjgJpgordon for more evidence of this)--Vizcarra 21:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• "Evidence"? That some or another vandal got annoyed by having his vandalism repeatedly reverted is hardly evidence of anything other than administrators doing what they're supposed to be doing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that is not just "some or another vandal", notice that you are calling me a vandal by saying that. But the point is that this shows a pattern of behaviour from your part and SlimVirgin's and Jpgordon. --Vizcarra 22:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I consider this evidence more compelling; a rant against me and other editors that you placed on your Talk: page and left up for 5 days: [28], and then, when you return to Wikipedia, you almost immediately revert me at an article you've never edited before. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Attack? What definition of "attack" are you using? Certainly, your group does get involve in the rounding up of wikipedians who don't agree with your POV and that is definitely worth discussing and sharing. A "rant", is that NPOV? --Vizcarra 22:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

User:24.23.221.166

Three revert rule violation on Rob Liefeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.23.221.166 (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 19:28, 9 August 2005
• 1st revert: 21:38, 9 August 2005
• 2nd revert: 02:17, 10 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 20:43, 10 August 2005
• 4th revert: 21:26, 10 August 2005

Reported by: N. Caligon 22:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments: This abuse has been going on for some time, and this is not the first 3RR violation or report, but no action has been taken. The semi-anonymous editor is adamant on inserting a variety of POV comments into text and on mutilating a compromise consensus text worked out with significant efforts by several editors. He has no support, and (to date) at least four different editors have removed his modifications.

I have blocked the IP for 24 hours. If this continues, I suggest you take it over to WP:RFPP for protection against editing as is the norm for most edit wars. Sasquatch讲看 05:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

User:LucaviX

Three revert rule violation on Abortion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). LucaviX (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: Constantly reinserting html comments, the word contraversial, and similar invective despite warnings and discussion on talk page. Also previous reverts despite talk page disscussion.
• 1st revert: [29]
• 2nd revert: [30]
• 3rd revert: [31]
• 4th revert: [32]

Reported by: Tznkai 01:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Has been warned on his talk page

[33] by myself.--Tznkai 01:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Also edits as an anon, 65.240.164.98 signing as LucaviX or Lucavix

• I'll take a look at it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:56, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

• It's a clear violation: the previous (partial) version he reverted to was 23:10 Aug 10, and he was warned. I've blocked him for 24 hours. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:03, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

User:172.212.208.126

Three revert rule violation on Say Hey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 172.212.208.126 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 2005-08-11 08:56:02
• 2nd revert: 2005-08-11 09:02:02
• 3rd revert: 2005-08-11 09:05:08
• 4th revert: 2005-08-11 12:18:13
• 5th revert: 2005-08-11 12:23:55

Reported by: Uncle G 13:05:00, 2005-08-11 (UTC)

Comments:

• I've informed the user on xyr talk page and blocked xem for 24 hours. Uncle G 13:05:00, 2005-08-11 (UTC)

User:Ellectrika

Three revert rule violation on Say Hey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ellectrika (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 2005-08-11 09:16:01
• 2nd revert: 2005-08-11 09:12:44
• 3rd revert: 2005-08-11 09:32:12
• 4th revert: 2005-08-11 10:04:08

Reported by: Uncle G 13:05:00, 2005-08-11 (UTC)

Comments:

• I've informed the user on xyr talk page and blocked xem for 24 hours. Uncle G 13:05:00, 2005-08-11 (UTC)

User:Hungupguy2005

Three revert rule violation on Say Hey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hungupguy2005 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 2005-08-11 08:56:21
• 2nd revert: 2005-08-11 09:01:09
• 3rd revert: 2005-08-11 09:03:55
• 4th revert: 2005-08-11 09:15:06

Reported by: Uncle G 13:05:00, 2005-08-11 (UTC)

Comments:

• I've informed the user on xyr talk page and blocked xem for 24 hours. Uncle G 13:05:00, 2005-08-11 (UTC)

~~~~ / User:-Ril-

Three revert rule violation on George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). -Ril- (talk · contribs):

• Original edit that inserted the disputed text: 00:52, August 12, 2005
• 1st revert: 02:56, August 12, 2005
• 2nd revert: 03:14, August 12, 2005
• 3rd revert: 03:33, August 12, 2005
• 4th revert: 04:00, August 12, 2005

Reported by: Noitall 20:53, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• There really is not much to say. His 5th 3RR this month, 3rd 3RR on this page, and tons of trouble, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/UninvitedCompany. --Noitall 20:53, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, all but 1 prior event was regarded as invalid and lifted/cancelled, and the 1 that wasn't was due to the admin involved being (self-admittedly) "high on codeine". ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, the UninvitedCompany RFC is because UninvitedCompany is an admin with an explicitely stated extreme bias (UninvitedCompany stated he had an "extremely anti-Islamic" POV) who blocked a user who opposes said bias being pushed, for a block duration of over 24 hours, for a violation of 3RR that didn't exist (there weren't even 3 reverts in 24 hours).~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I've made the block after checking the history. I edited Noitall's summary above to better identify the edits and added a revert that was not listed, which makes this eligible for a block (the times listed are not UTC, by the way). The reverts focus on adding some text regarding the British election; the passage in question starts with the misspelling "Nethertheless", for anyone looking to identify it. --Michael Snow 21:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for cleaning up my attempt and all. --Noitall 21:47, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

User:Ta bu shi da yu

Three revert rule violation on Template:Infobox Pope (edit | [[Talk:Template:Infobox Pope|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ta bu shi da yu (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
• 1st revert: [08:24, 11 August 2005]
• 2nd revert: [00:39, 12 August 2005]
• 3rd revert: [00:49, 12 August 2005]
• 4th revert: [00:52, 12 August 2005]

Reported by: FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Some time ago a controversy erupted over the design of the above debate. After a full and frank discussion 8 users voted to adopt a new design. 2 opposed it. This user has been waging an edit war to change that agreed design to a variant he wants. Even those who voted against this current design have in recent months been involved in defending it from attack (their reversions, for the record, were not against this user here). I have just noticed, BTW, that the page is protected. Whether that is since the edit war where I sought to reinstate the original version against Ta's constant insertion of his chosen version, or whether it was already protected during the edit war, I do not know. If the edit war occurred involved two admins reverting a protected page I apologise. I did not notice its protection. It is not listed on the list of protected pages.

As I do not wish to break the 3RR rule the page is currently in the version designed by Ta, not the one voted on by people and adopted by consensus. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Did not realise I'd gone over the 3RR. Suggest that policy is carried out and I am blocked for 24 hours. No fear and no favour should be shown. Do suggest that the vote was done badly: I was never made aware of it because it was never announced to the wider community. 8 editors does not a "community consensus" make. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Are you willing to self-correct yourself and revert that back to the previous version? El_C 00:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Not really. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh. That's... not good. El_C 01:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• It looks like a general revert war to me with several others involved too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:54, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

• The war involved users seeing to reinstate the page as designed on the basis of a consensus discussion and vote, and one use seeking to delete that consensus design and put in his own one unilaterally, and reverting all attempts to restore the agreed version to the page. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • So when did you inform the wider community about the vote? Seems a bit unreasonable that you held a vote and now new contributors can't change the design. 8 editors as opposed to hundreds who might be interested in infoboxes: can you see a problem here? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • You are free to propose such a vote, though. Jtdirl isn't binded by policy to initiate it, right? El_C 01:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Nope, but then again I'm not bound by policy to recognise the vote as I did not participate in it. It works both ways. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Right, you are not bound to recognize it, I wasn't intimating otherwise, if I had given you a different impression, I apologize. El_C 02:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The issue was mentioned on numerous pages. Those who wanted to discuss it then congregated on the talk page. There was little interest in the papal infobox, then as now. But because you didn't hear about it does not give you the right to unilaterally highjack the page, force your choice on it, ignore the appeals of others to stop, and revert to your version breaking the 3RR. And even if there was not a massive vote (though a lot more people were alerted to it — indeed a few of us did try in various ways to alert people.), there still was 8 times more support for the original page than there has been for yours. Try debating issues rather than highjacking pages next time, after you come back from your block. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that you don't know how many people want a standardised infobox - you've never asked the wider community! There are hundreds of regular contributors: off the top of my head did you ask Raul654, El C, Netoholic (who is pushing for standarised infoboxes), myself, etc etc? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't try to dodge the reason you are here — for breaching the 3RR rule and highjacking a page. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I'm not dodging the bloody issue. Sheesh! I concur that I should be blocked for violating the 3RR. However, the issue itself is about whether to implement the infobox style on this template - and I am now addressing this issue. You keep referring to the vote as an authority that reveals consensus. I am saying it does nothing of the sort because the wider community didn't know about it. Don't you try dodging the issue! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Just because you didn't know about a vote does not give you a right to highjack a page and engage in a wild spree of revertions to force Wikipedia to take the page you (and you alone) want. It is ironic that you complain that not enough people were aware of a vote that reached a clear consensus when you secretly, without announcing it to the community much less asking the community, highjack a page that had had a template that has been functioning for months and seen by thousands without a single complaint, dump that template and by a vote of one (you), and a decision taken by one (you), insert your own version. And then you complain about everyone else. If you had initiated a discussion on it you might have some leg to stand on, but in acting the way you did you have none whatsoever. You are like a cleric caught with his pants down preaching about the evils of sex and the joys of celibacy!!! FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

That's a pretty disgusting thing to say, and reflects worse on the one saying it than the one the comment is aimed at. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

It is calling sarcastic irony — pointing out that what you say isn't what you did. You condemned a decision taken in a vote as unrepresentative. You then unilaterally, one the basis of one vote (your own), without consultation, overuled that decision taken by a vote, and insisted on forcing your unsupported version over the one supported by everyone else. It takes a special bit of self-deception to insist that a vote is unrepresentative, but your single opinion is representative. And yes, that is just like like a cleric caught with his pants down preaching about the evils of sex and the joys of celibacy. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

TBDSY has, imo quite justified, regarded Jtdirl's one specific comment above as "disgusting and offensive - There was no need for the comment, and feel that this was a largely unprovoked personal attack" (reference to ad hominem). In my opinion, that sort of behavior of Jtdirl, which seems to be regular, is one of the main reasons why it is entirely justified to write frankly in the relevant discussion one's objective opinion of Jtdirl's there-relevant behavior and facts supporting the opinion, as well as write frankly one's objection to Jtdirl's action in question and facts supporting that objection. It could be possible that Jrdirl learns better behavior, if he is frankly reminded of his failures. The age of approximately 40 years is not necessarily too high to a person to learn from mistakes. 217.140.193.123 07:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

He did ask me (or so I think, at least — this is about the new styles, right?). I have yet had a chance to look it over, however. El_C 01:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Ya, this is correct. However, my issue is that Wikipedia:Survey guidelines was not followed with regards to the following section (which is more than reasonable):

4. The survey should be announced on Wikipedia:Current surveys. If it is a major survey, then you may also list it on Wikipedia:Announcements. Other places that you should consider listing it include Wikipedia:Requests for comment and Wikipedia:Watch.

The same would go for the History of Christianity and other pages, btw. I have been remiss in asking people to use the guidelines on these pages - after my block I will look into rerunning the vote properly. Ta bu shi da yu 01:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, well, looks like Ta Bu Shi Da Yu has already stopped edit warring and taken it to discussion. Case closed if you ask me! (If someone blocks him *now*, that'd be odd!) Kim Bruning 01:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, I think this as far as the dialogue will get, for now. Twenty four hour break, TBSDY. El_C 01:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Please unblock him, Kim! I need the irony! :D El_C 01:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

  You're silly. Go unblock the man yourself! :-P The objective is to resolve the conflict, not to ban people. You're addicted! Go attend a button-pushers-anonymous meeting, I'll hold one on my user talk someplace. ;-) Kim Bruning 02:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Heh, I am guilty of sillyness, yes, and absentminded, to boot! But the point, Kim, is that I offered him a chance to self-correct himself and he declined. See my comment here. My other point, was that this (heated) conversation was getting nowhere as well. El_C 02:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Ta, do not give too much of your steam to Jtdirl. After all, you honestly accepted that you had violated the 3rr rule - whereas there is above a summary of similar case where certain person skated from the deserved block by less-than-honestly inventing an explanation that the first of his reverts was, somehow, vandal-fighting and not a revert (sic!). I would hope that 3rr enforcements are denied from persons who have not accepted the consequences of their own actions.

And, there have also earlier existed certain criticisms against Jtdirl's habit of interpreting as "community consensus" something he personally desires, although the result of relevant talk (or vote) had been not disambiguous or not consensus. Arrigo 02:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, it was not my vote. I did not take any decision. Others did. I was just an ordinary voter in it like everyone else. Secondly, do you ever stop following me around writing bitchy comments? You feel like my pet dog at this stage, you spend so much time at my heals, usually trying to bite them. Thirdly, though you spend your day going from page to page writing bitchy comments and me (and about Deb) I invited you to the discussion on styles. Inviting an endless critic to a debate was hardly the act of someone trying to get a small group of like-minded people together to create some phoney community consensus. Now will you please go off and write some articles for once and stop acting like you are Lassie and I am Elizabeth Taylor. Shoo! FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I cannot regard you as Elizabeth Taylor, nor even much like her. Despite of your hearty desires (what is the thing that makes Liz as G icon???). And negative yet, although you have something common with Liz. Arrigo 02:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

User:67.182.157.6

Three revert rule violation on Talk:Truth. 67.182.157.6 (talk · contribs):

• First [34]
• Second [35]
• Third [36]
• Fourth [37]
• Fifth [38]
• Sixth [39]

Reported by: --Nate Ladd 03:27, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

This is part of a content dispute in truth. The accused deleted some ad hominem personal attacks posted to talk:truth by some people not to keen on following the policy that says comment on content, not the contributor. (If you don't have the facts on your side, try to change the subject to the obviously despicable character of the one who does not go along with your side like a good little sheep?) Now they are trying to restore those ad hominem comments by force of numbers, That's not fair. To be fair, the minority side should get a number of reverts equal to the majority side, otherwise the majority, even if in the wrong, will always have complete control of the content of Wikipedia by force of numbers. There is a principle at stake here. --67.182.157.6 06:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I quote here, in their entirety, the remarks he is now claiming are "ad hominem". As you can see they are not:

The deflationary theory of truth IS discussed in the article, so they are not missing the point. They were merely assuming that you had actually read the article. (Note: It may be misleading to call the deflationary theory a "theory of truth," but that is how the terminology has developed in current philosophy. It cannot be blamed on Whittle or Schmaus.)--Nate Ladd 20:23, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. This attempt to pretend to be the aggrieved party is rather disingenuous. The issue is that .6's representation ought not be the only one present in the introduction. Banno 20:39, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Users unfamiliar with 67.182.157.6 should note that this sort of dishonesty is typical of him. He also chronically cries "personal attack" whenever someone points out his bad behavior. --Nate Ladd 07:10, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• He is already the subject of an RfA. He has been blocked 4 times in the last week, by Rhobite, Ed Poor, Carbonite, and Sasquatch. In the last case, the block was reset because he was caught using a sock puppet to resume reverts. Since 24 hour blocks seem to have no effect on him, can an Admin please block him for longer? Would it be possible to block him until the RfA is decided?--Nate Ladd 03:27, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Objection. Ad hominem comments should not be admissible here.

See what I mean?! He's claiming that a report of his RfA and his past bad behavior is an ad hominem attack. --Nate Ladd 07:10, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

That is all just more ad hominem personal attack having no bearing on the issue here. The issue as I see it is that, to be fair, the minority side should get a number of reverts equal to the majority side (say limit both sides to three, for example), otherwise the majority will always control the content of all Wikipedia pages by force of numbers. Is that what we want for Wikipedia, tyranny of the majority, or do we want to require instead principled negotiation as the first step in dispute resolution as shown in the chart at right? --67.182.157.6 06:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The RfA discusses the previous attempts at dispute resolution. It is in fact 67.182.157.6 who has failed to respond to any and all attempts at negotiation and compromise. --Nate Ladd 07:10, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

That's a lie. Banno and company have been trying to control the content of several articles by force of numbers, coupled with a constant barrage of argument _ad hominem_, for weeks now, with no attempts at principled negotiation at all.--67.182.157.6 07:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

See what I mean?! (again) And see also the insane report he added below of a 3RR violation by "the tyrannous majority". --Nate Ladd 07:35, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

It precisely has bearing, in the same way that an existing conviction record helps a judge to levy an appropriate sentence: a first offense -- light sentence; multiple offenses -- sterner measures. --Calton | Talk 06:51, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

It's not anything like a "conviction record," and you know it. Has the accused been convicted of any infraction?? No, he has not.--67.182.157.6 07:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

You are being disingenuous: as one lecturing others on the meaning of ad hominem, you seem unable to grasp the simple concept of "analogy" -- or are pretending to. --Calton | Talk 08:10, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

You say, "a first offense -- light sentence; multiple offenses -- sterner measures." Has the accused ever been convicted of ANY offense at all?--172.196.117.124 18:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Revert number 9 on Talk:Truth in just over 8 hours [40]. --Parker Whittle 06:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Blocked, you might also want to ask the ArbCom for further blocks as I would not like to stir up any controversy by enforcing vigilante justice. Sasquatch讲看

1. How does your side expect to carry on any kind of decent ongoing discussion of the issues with someone you keep blocking at the drop of a hat, as though he were armed and dangerous and society had to be protected from him or something? Why do you see the accused as so dangerous he has to be blocked from editing a DISCUSSION page?? Inquiring minds would like to know. 2. How does someone who is a party to the content dispute as you are get the gall to block someone from the other side? Isn't that what any reasonable person would call dubious behavior for someone with administrative privileges?

--172.196.117.124 18:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

172.196.117.124 (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet for 67.182.157.6 (talk · contribs) (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DotSix) and is apparently being used to circumvent the block imposed by Sasquatch. Banno 21:02, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Will you please show your work, your conclusive proof of that allegation so that others can check your observations?

Proof isn't required, only adequate evidence; and in this case it is more than adequate.--63.231.15.66 22:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Why would your side want any contributor blocked from a DISCUSSION page anyway, don't you want to discuss the issues

Because you DON'T discuss. You delete other's comments. --63.231.15.66 22:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

with those on the other side, you want strict tyranny of the majority, rule by force of numbers?--172.193.145.5 21:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you should have taken Sasquatch's advice [[41]], rather than deleting it. Banno 21:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[[User:the tyrannous majority in talk:truth]]

Three revert rule violation on talk:truth.

• Previous version reverted to: [42]
• 1st revert: [43]
• 2nd revert: [44]
• 3rd revert: [45]
• 4th revert: [46]

Reported by: --67.182.157.6 07:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• "This policy applies to each person" and "the 3RR specifically does not apply to groups.". Please review the policy on the three-revert rule. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 07:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

That is precisely the problem. Under current policy Wikipedia is doomed to forever have it's content controlled by force of numbers (you do the math), rather than through principled negotiation, as it says it prefers, in which both sides of any dispute are fairly represented. That is an inconsistency that should be repaired.

DotSix would replace consensus with chaos. Banno 21:41, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Balderdash. Bananas is operating under the mistaken belief that consensus = tyranny of the majority. DotSix would replace Bananas' tyranny of the majority with trueconsensus decision-making "a cooperative process whereby participants try to find a solution which meets the legitimate interests of both parties, which in the context of Wikipedia usually involves appropriate mention of all points of view in an article thus improving the quality of the article."--172.197.4.144 02:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, this post violates Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point; and finally, DotSix is using sockpuppets to circumvent the 3RR policy on truth. This user should be permanently banned. Banno 21:41, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Any disruption (if there really is any in the long run, which I sincerely doubt) is due to your side trying to get away with controlling the content of articles by force of numbers. Give that up, if you are truly interested in peace on Wikipedia. You won't get any real lasting peace until you insure justice for the minority side. Study consensus decision-making, and give up all your argument based on logical fallacy, such as trying to get away with conflating knowledge and belief.--172.197.4.144 02:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Irishpunktom

Three revert rule violation on Al-Andalus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Irishpunktom (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 13:14, 10 August 2005
• 1st revert: 11:33, 11 August 2005
• 2nd revert: 15:06, 11 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 16:21, 11 August 2005
• 4th revert: 23:27, 11 August 2005

Reported by: Karl Meier 07:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked for 24 hours. --Michael Snow 07:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

User:TheUnforgiven

Three revert rule violation on Aelia Capitolina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TheUnforgiven (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 04:59, 12 August 2005
• 2nd revert: 08:26, 12 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 10:09, 12 August 2005
• 4th revert: 10:25, 12 August 2005

Reported by: ←Humus sapiens←ну? 18:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• The user seems to wage some kind of religious war here. Note POV summaries. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 18:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I call it what I see it. Just because you try to pretend like you're being neutral, doesn't mean you aren't blowing smoke up my ass. You and your friends have done this before and there is no coincidence that you're all Jewish. Why do you ethnocentrically gang up on people different than you? The Muslims or Arabs don't do it. If I have a problem with a POV Jewish or POV Muslim edit, I do not get my thuggish friends to stand by my side as you and your posse do. It is you who stalk me for editing articles that even in the slightest deal with Jews. Besides, that was not a break in the 3RR and you damn well know it. Only exact reverts are that and you are merely trying to discredit me, to be able to keep your Zionist POV written all over the Wikipedia and not have to deal with Gentiles who will stand up to your bullying. TheUnforgiven 19:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked him for one week for 3RR and for the above comment. He's been warned and blocked for these comments many times (some of them worse than above), so I'm going to leave a note on his talk page saying that next time the block will be indefinite. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:44, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

His response to my note was to leave more nonsense on his talk page, [47] so I've blocked him indefinitely. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:20, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

User:Cognition

Three revert rule violation on Kim Jong-il (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Cognition (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 17:54, 9 August 2005
• 1st revert: 22:44, 10 August 2005
• 2nd revert: 22:47, 10 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 22:54, 10 August 2005
• 4th revert: 22:59, 10 August 2005

Reported by: Bletch 01:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Reported August 11 and removed without explanation by User:Tznkai. Given that User:Bletch had pointed out this alleged mistake of Tznkai and he still didn't do anything, perhaps he couild explain why he deleted this, perhaps here and at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tznkai, SqueakBox 01:04, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours. User acknowedged his breakage of 3RR (via edit summary), so I don't think a warning was needed in this case. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 02:55, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

User:Zeno of Elea

Three revert rule violation on Rules of war in Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zeno of Elea (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 11:49, 12 August 2005
• 1st revert: 21:46, 12 August 2005
• 2nd revert: 00:47, 13 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 01:32, 13 August 2005
• 4th revert: [48]

Reported by: Heraclius 02:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Editor keeps removing two sourced paragraphs. He has been warned about the 3RR before by the admin El C here.
• Blocked for 24 hours. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 02:50, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

User:207.200.116.68

Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DotSix (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DotSix|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 207.200.116.68 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FDotSix&diff=20906322&oldid=20888720

• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FDotSix&diff=20908116&oldid=20906627

• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FDotSix&diff=20908116&oldid=20906627

This is part of an ongoing pattern of disruptive behavior by an anonymous editor known as .6 or DotSix who is the subject of an RfAr. In this case, the anonymous editor is deleting portions of the RfC that is the basis of the ArbCom case. Robert McClenon 15:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

An editor is allowed three reverts in twenty-four hours. It is only the fourth that might get an editor blocked. Dan100 (Talk) 16:33, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

User:RageAgainstWhiteWash

Three revert rule violation on Hong Kong Police Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RageAgainstWhiteWash (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 14:44, August 13, 2005
• 2nd revert: 14:48, August 13, 2005
• 3rd revert: 15:25, August 13, 2005
• 4th revert: 15:28, August 13, 2005
• 5th revert: 15:30, August 13, 2005

Reported by: Instantnood 16:41, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• It think it would've been a good idea to warn the user before reporting him here. I have elected not to block as the user was probably quite unaware of the policy - I have left a warning instead. If he reverts again, he will be blocked. Dan100 (Talk) 22:00, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

User:Witkacy

Three revert rule violation on Lithuania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

• 1st revert: 14:24, August 13, 2005
• 2nd revert: 14:52, August 13, 2005
• 3rd revert: 17:24, August 13, 2005
• 4th revert: 17:52, August 13, 2005

Comments

• You have linked the diffs incorrectly. See other 3RRs listed above to see how to do it properly. Please also tell us who you are - sign with ~~~~. Dan100 (Talk) 21:45, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• User:Zivinbudas is banned for one year. Any edit by Zivinbudas using an anonymous ip (exhibiting his trademark immature Lithuanian nationalism) may be removed by any user. [49]--Witkacy 21:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Witkacy did break the 3RR but Lithuania has been protected. I have elected to warn rather than block in this instance. Dan100 (Talk) 21:54, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• I did not broke the 3rr - reverting of blocked users is like reverting of vandalism--Witkacy 22:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• I agree, and this is clearly what you were doing here (Bf-109 being a sock of a banned user). Dan100 (Talk) 22:32, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

User:Guy Montag

Three revert rule violation on Zionist Terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy Montag (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
• 1st revert: 18:59, 13 August 2005
• 2nd revert: 23:21, 13 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 23:34, 13 August 2005
• 4th revert: 00:01, 14 August 2005

Reported by: 62.252.0.7 00:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• User been banned repeatedly before for this. Usewr refuses to discuss the issue:

"I don't cooperate with internet trolls.

Guy Montag 23:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zionist_terrorism#Marketplace_bombings

The fourth one wasn't a revert, it was a reworded compromise.

Guy Montag 00:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

No it was a reversion - you changed the wording slightly but the sentiment is EXACTLY the same. 62.252.0.7 00:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I clarified and inserted historical context while keeping your part of the edit. Finally, it is very difficult to take an anonymous IP seriously.

Guy Montag 00:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

User:24.18.128.52

Three revert rule violation on Cindy Sheehan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.18.128.52 (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
• 1st revert: 03:00, 14 August 2005
• 2nd revert: 03:03, 14 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 03:07, 14 August 2005
• 4th revert: 03:09, 14 August 2005

Reported by: Eclipsed 01:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Guy Montag

Three revert rule violation on Mordechai Vanunu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy Montag (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
• 1st revert: 03:52, 13 August 2005
• 2nd revert: 18:48, 13 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 23:24, 13 August 2005
• 4th revert: 01:48, 14 August 2005

Reported by: 62.252.0.7 02:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Keeps reverting word "kidnapped" 62.252.0.7 02:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment on last link was "remember my advice to you when you put Mrs. Hateul on vfd? take it." - his advice at the time was "Fuck Off". 62.252.0.7 02:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I reviewd the history of the page and am unconvinced that there is a problem. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Please link to diffs, not versions. Mark¹ 08:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

User:67.182.157.6 DotSix (Again)

Three revert rule violation on User talk:67.182.157.6 (edit | [[Talk:User talk:67.182.157.6|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.182.157.6 (talk · contribs) who cals himself "DotSix" but has not taken a username:

• Previous version reverted to: [50]
• 1st revert: [51]
• 2nd revert: [52]
• 3rd revert: [53]
• 4th revert: [54]
• 5th revert: [55]

Comments:

• Anonymous user 67.182.157.6 is the subject of an RfAr and some of the evidence against him is on his talk page. He is trying to delete it. He has already deleted warnings from Sasquatch and other administrators. This is his 5th reported (and many others not reported) violation of 3RR in the last 8 days.

Reported by: Nate Ladd 22:08, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

207.69.137.140

Four identical reverts in the past 20 minutes on Adolf Hitler, he's been reverted by three different editors and warned on his talk page. Wyss 04:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 hours to cool him down. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Here are the contribs [56], straightforward as it gets. Wyss 04:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy

Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philosophy.

• 1st

revert:[57]

• 2nd revert:[58]
• 3rd revert:[59]
• 4th revert:[60]

Reported by: Gavin the Chosen 08:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• In attempting to do things correctly, i tried putting something about Vampire on the aforementioned RFC page, DreamGuy kept removing peices therof, seemingly in hopes of making his points more acceptable, and gaining favour, because his excuse for reverting was to remove personal attarcks, of which i had not made anyGavin the Chosen 08:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I removed personal attacks more than three times, but that's just following Wikipedia policy. And the rules of article RfCs very distinctly say to make the entries appear unbiased and neutral and avoid personal attacks, neither of which his entry there did. I simply put it the way it was supposed to be, leaving his RfC intact so others could follow the link. He needs to stop complaining when people follow the rules and start following them himself, per his RFC and RfAr under his original user name of User:Gabrielsimon. DreamGuy 08:52, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

User:Gavin the Chosen

Three revert rule violation on Vampire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gavin the Chosen (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 22:51, August 13, 2005
• 1st revert: 01:42, August 15, 2005
• 2nd revert: 01:51, August 15, 2005
• 3rd revert: 02:07, August 15, 2005
• 4th revert: 02:31, August 15, 2005 & 02:31, August 15, 2005

Reported by: DreamGuy 08:46, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• User:Gavin the Chosen is User:Gabrielsimon under a new name. User has violated 3RR something like 9 times in the last several months, had agreed to follow 1RR as part of an RFC against him, undergoing RfAr, as part of the deal for his going to a new name he was supposed to avoid contacting me, reverting my changes, etc., so he knows these actions are not allowed. He had just gotten back from a 24 hour block (I believe his third on his new name) when he reverted Vampire back to a state it was before he was blocked, undoing several editors' changes. Note that he says on the third revert that he wouldn't revert any more but then goes ahead and made the same changes he was most concerned with across two edits. 24 hour blocks are doing nothing to prevent this guy from repeating. DreamGuy 08:46, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

• I've just blocked him for 3RR at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philosophy. If this report also checks out, I'll increase it to 48 hours. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:53, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

there i did nothingh wrong, becasue as with the one below, i RESTOREd commentw iwthout reverting, but its a two step process.Gavin the Chosen 14:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Depakote

Three revert rule violation on Encyclopædia Dramatica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Depakote (talk · contribs):

[61] version being reverted to

1. [62] Depakote 02:53
2. [63] 07:59
3. [64] 08:34
4. [65] 09:58

Reported by: SchmuckyTheCat 17:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• This user is only editing this article. SchmuckyTheCat 17:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

User:64.12.116.6

Three revert rule violation on Vietnam Veterans Against the War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 64.12.116.6 (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 11:15, August 15, 2005
• 1st revert: 14:53, August 15, 2005
• 2nd revert: August 15, 2005
• 3rd revert: 15:11, August 15, 2005
• 4th revert: August 15, 2005

Reported by: TDC 20:40, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Comments: This is a shame, because I thought (and still think) positive progress was being made on patching up the edit war by me and TDC. Hipocrite 20:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Ungtss

Three revert rule violation on Creation science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ungtss (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 11:10, 15 August 2005
• 1st revert: 12:42, 15 August 2005
• 2nd revert: 13:20, 15 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 14:03, 15 August 2005
• 4th revert: 14:18, 15 August 2005

Reported by: Joshuaschroeder 21:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments: User:Ungtss is trying to reinstate a section of the article that was removed nearly a month ago to no objections after being on the talkpage for a number of days. Instead of bringing the issue to talk, he has decided to insist that the section be included.

• Please post the difference pages instead of linking directly to the version. Gamaliel 01:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy

Three revert rule violation on Uncyclopedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ElvisThePrince (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 07:08, 15 August 2005
• 1st revert: 08:03, 15 August 2005
• 2nd revert: 09:24, 15 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 11:36, 15 August 2005
• 4ht revert: 12:57, 16 August 2005
• 5th revert: 13:24, 16 August 2005
• 6th revert: 14:29, 16 August 2005

Reported by: ElvisThePrince 13:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Apolagies if I've used this wrong, I'm not claiming that the version being reverted FROM should be the final version and as far as I can tell User:DreamGuy seems a reasonable bloke apart from this but this is geting a bit silly, in addition he seems to prefer blanking then commenting in the edit summary rather than discusion and consensus on the relevant talk page. --ElvisThePrince 13:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

3RR is for more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period, the ones listed above are spread over 48 hours... there is no violation here. And it's not "blanking" -- it's removing spam from an article. Unfortunately the page seems to be watched by peoplpe who are from the site itself and making it into a huge tadah. It's sad that they will no doubt get their way there, but oh well. DreamGuy 13:59, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

lets be fair 3 reverts one day, 3 the next is still 3 reverts in 24 hours (x2) I suspect the reason it's on the watchlists from the "site itself" is the overlap between here and there also I suspect you will find a more receptive (watch) audiance if you engage in conversation and maybe act with less haste, Blanking sections is still blanking.--ElvisThePrince 14:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

3 reverts in 24 hours (x1 or x2) is not a violation of 3RR. More than three reverts in a 24 hour period is a violation. That is *4* reverts in a 24 period. That did not happen. As far as "less haste" goes, you might try starting a civil conversation yourself instead of straight reverts and filing a false 3RR report.DreamGuy 14:21, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

actually unelss you waited 24 hours bwetwen the third edit one day and the first the next, thats still 4 witghin 24. donst matter about time zones or anythibng, jus within the 24 hour period.Gavin the Chosen 14:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

There were 25+ hours before the 3rd and 4th listed changes above. But it's nice to see you finally pick up the basics of 3RR even if you don't follow them yourself. It's a little bit of progress. DreamGuy 14:39, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Withdrawn Hands up my mistake, I guess I can only count 1,2, many or something :-) I do think the comment re: civil conversation is a bit rich however!--ElvisThePrince 15:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Gavin the Chosen 2

Three revert rule violation on Vampire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gavin the Chosen (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 02:31, August 15, 2005
• 1rst revert: 04:43, August 16, 2005
• 2nd revert: 05:53, August 16, 2005
• 3rd revert: 06:20, August 16, 2005
• 4th revert: 07:17, August 16, 2005

Reported by: DreamGuy 13:59, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Once again User:Gavin the Chosen/User:Gabrielsimon just got back from a 24 hour block and went immediately to reverting articles he was edit warring on before his last two blocks. He's again playing around with tiny wording variations to try to get around the fact that he's going back to his own version (and some other edits were going on around the same time, so some of these show may other changes). I note that yesterday he was up for 48 hour block but that never happened. DreamGuy 13:59, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• See #Gavin the Chosen for previous violation. ~~ N (t/c) 14:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• I keep trying to make you stop removing my additoons without reading them. every time you do that i reinsert my edit, but i dont revert, those are first parts of two part efforts, in whoich i restore my edit in the edits site, and after that, i restpre oher users edits, which have happened after mine, im sorry, but in order to make sure ido both, i have to do it in two step ways. there is eally no violation. unless you cont DreamGuty constantly removing my work without looking at it, seemingly out of spite and hatred.Gavin the Chosen 14:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I do look at and read your edits. In this case they were the same ones you made on two previous days right before you were blocked for 24 hours two previous times... as soon as you come back you just revert it back to how it was 24 hours before and revert war over it until your next block. DreamGuy 15:00, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

and you removed THOSE without paying any bloody attention. you dont like anyone editing the articles you edit without agreeing with you. your basically soapboxing. this has to stop. f you have ruined this entire place for users that are more numerous then just me.Gavin the Chosen 15:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• And it's all but certain that User:69.195.126.19 is User:Gavin the Chosen on an IP address jumping in to revert Otherkin back to the way he had it. The IP's previous edits are exactly the same topics Gavin started out editing when he got his new name and look like they date back to before he registered the first time, and, come on, what are the odds that someone who hasn't been here since April who wrote on Canadian residential school system would suddenly show up to revert to Gabriel's version? DreamGuy 16:19, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

• I think Gavin is editing as 69.195.126.19 (talk · contribs); not only is that IP editing the exact same articles, but resolves to rogers.com, a Canadian ISP. Gabe/Gavin lives in Canada. ~~ N (t/c) 16:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

IP addresses cover like three block radiouses undedr the rogers system.Gavin the Chosen 16:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Ohhhh, so it's User:Ketrovin, the guy who admitted he lived up the block from you. But wait, that was proven to be a socpuppet of yours. Dude, a three block radius is not a defense, that pretty much guarantees that it has to be you. DreamGuy 16:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I do not reacll asking you to speak. please keep your comments to y ourself when yoyu can not be even remotely usefull.Gavin the Chosen 16:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Please be civil. There do not seem to be any edits from that IP that do not resemble you. There have been no edits from that IP between now and the time you became a user. No way it wasn't you. ~~ N (t/c) 16:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

why the hell shpould i be civil to HIM, hes AWALways ben incivil to me. ALWAYS since the first time he said anything, ALWAYS. so why the hell should i even TRY to be nice to that asshole any more?"??Gavin the Chosen 17:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Because this isn't about what he does, it's about what you do. You aren't responsible for DreamGuy's behaviour. You are responsible for yours. You'd serve your cause better by remaining calm and pointing out the reasons why DreamGuy is wrong. Vashti 17:09, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Ed has blocked Gavin for 48 hours. I've left a note on Ed's talk page regarding how to proceed as the agreements clearly aren't working. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:50, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

User:Gavin the Chosen 3

Three revert rule violation on User talk:SlimVirgin (edit | [[Talk:User talk:SlimVirgin|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gavin the Chosen (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 08:35, 16 August 2005
• 1st revert: 09:02, 16 August 2005 (misleading summary too)
• 2nd revert: 09:36, 16 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 10:11, 16 August 2005
• 4th revert: 10:34, 16 August 2005

Reported by: ~~ N (t/c) 14:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• My brain hurts. ~~ N (t/c) 14:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• theres no such thing as 3rr on talk pages.Gavin the Chosen 14:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • WP:3RR says that you are only exempt in your user space. Please leave your comments in the proper section. ~~ N (t/c) 14:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, the exemption doesn't apply to ANY talk pages, even the talk page for your own user page. The exemption only applies to your own user page. --Nate Ladd 08:19, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • This is false, as has already been explained to you. The exemption is for any page without your own user space, whether it be User: User talk: or a subpage. IT's completely irrelevant inthis case anyway as the person was already blocked for this (and returned only to be blocked again, lather, rinse, repeat). DreamGuy 16:37, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

• The relevant language is... The 3RR is generally not enforced against editors reverting changes to their own user page space, on the principle that your user space is yours (for project-related purposes). GtC can exceed 3rr as he pleases on his user page and talk pages (all in his user page space), but not on someone else's. He's been blocked 20 times in the past for 3rr. Wyss 16:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

151.203.244.213

Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 151.203.244.213 (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 17:22, 16 August 2005
• 1st revert: 17:30, 16 August 2005
• 2nd revert: 17:56, 16 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 18:03, 16 August 2005
• 4th revert: 18:10, 16 August 2005
• 5th revert: 18:16, 16 August 2005
• 6th revert: 18:21, 16 August 2005
• 7th revert: 18:29, 16 August 2005

Reported by: Sam Vimes 18:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• This user clearly has a very strange definition of vandalism - generally, it's anything that doesn't conform to his views. He doesn't want to discuss on talk, and does not comply with WP:FAITH in his edit summaries. Sam Vimes 18:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Khoisan

Three revert rule violation on Schnorrer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Khoisan (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: [66] 4 August
• 1st revert: [67] 9:44 AM reverted by Meelar
• 2nd revert: [68] 9:45 AM
• 3rd revert: [69] 10:45 AM
• 4th revert: [70] Noon
• 5th revert: [71]

Reported by: SchmuckyTheCat 19:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• This is a slow revert war going on over the last month between this user, his socks, and others who put the article on their watchlist after the sock war was put on RfC. SchmuckyTheCat 19:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • User blocked indefinately, see AN/I.--nixie 03:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Agiantman

Three revert rule violation on Ted Kennedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Agiantman (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 18:27, 15 August 2005
• 1st revert: 20:02, 15 August 2005
• 2nd revert: 21:24, 15 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 07:41, 16 August 2005
• 4th revert: 18:04, 16 August 2005

Reported by: Gamaliel 01:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

All my edits are different and do not violate the rule. --Agiantman 01:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• There is a clear consensus on the talk page that this material not be included in its present form, despite this user's misleading edit summaries.

There is no clear consensus as all can plainly see. Admin Gamaliel is engaged in an edit war and is trying to force his POV on the Ted Kennedy page. --Agiantman 01:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Save the rhetoric. It is not "my POV", it is the consensus of about ten editors. Gamaliel 01:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Let others review the discussion page and be the judge. If there is a consensus there, it is against Gamaliel's position. I am new to wiki and I don't understand how a POV warrior can be selected as an admin. Gamaliel is trying to stop any criticism of Kennedy. His POV history is well known here (I'm sure) and so I shouldn't need to elaborate.--Agiantman 02:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Gamaliel

Three revert rule violation on Ted Kennedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gamaliel:

• Previous version reverted to: 01:57, 13 August 2005
• 1st revert: 02:59, 13 August 2005
• 2nd revert: 05:18, 14 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 16:05, 14 August 2005
• 4th revert: 19:04, 15 August 2005
• 5th revert: 00:28, 16 August 2005
• 6th revert: 00:29, 16 August 2005
• 7th revert: 00:30, 16 August 2005
• 8th revert: 01:50, 16 August 2005

Reported by: --Agiantman 03:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• User Gamaliel is an admin and obviously knows the rules. As an admin, he should be held to a higher standard.--Agiantman 03:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Three sections are in disupte. The "reverts" of August 16 00:28, 00:29, and 00:30 are me manually removing each section individually. The revert of 01:50 is me reverting Agiantman's restoration of all three sections. There are no 3RR violations. I guess Agiantman's point with this invented "higher standard" is that as an admin, I shouldn't be allowed to revert at all, while he would be free to revert with impunity. Gamaliel 03:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Gamaliel: says here that "Three sections are in disupte." But look above where he says "There is a clear consensus on the talk page that this material not be included." Both statements cannot be true. I may be new to wiki, but I cannot believe this guy is an admin.--Agiantman 04:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

sorry, but you're not new to wiki, you're just a documented troll/sock - anon

• — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.138 (talk • contribs) 04:12, August 17, 2005 Wikibofh 04:34, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I can't see any violation.Geni 01:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

User:KanuniSS

Three revert rule violation on List of massacres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). KanuniSS (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 21:37, 15 August 2005
• 1st revert: 13:25, 17 August 2005
• 2nd revert: 17:12, 17 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 21:34, 17 August 2005
• 4th revert: 21:36, 17 August 2005

Reported by: Jayjg ^(talk) 22:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Keeps inserting unsourced information about various alleged massacres of Turks, and reducing the number of Armenians killed in the Armenian genocide. Has been warned of 3RR and asked to revert himself.[72] Jayjg ^(talk) 22:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

User:67.182.157.6 AKA Donald R. Alford

Three revert rule violation on Talk:67.182.157.6. 67.182.157.6 (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: [73]
• 1st revert: [74]
• 2nd revert: [75]
• 3rd revert: [76]
• 4th revert: [77]
• 5th revert: [78]

Reported by: --Nate Ladd 00:41, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• This individual is the subject of Arbitration right now. Some of the evidence against him links to this user talk page. He is repeatedly trying to hide that evidence by deleting other people's remarks from the page. He has been blocked repeatedly in the last two weeks. In the past his pattern has been to immediately resume reverting with a new IP or logging in under his username Donald R. Alford. If you are allowed to, could you block User:Donald R. Alford too?

I don't wish to seem troll'y here but dosn't WP:3RR#User_pages apply, it is HIS talk page after all? --ElvisThePrince 16:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

No. It applies to his user page, not to his user talk page. There is no exemption for talk pages. And if you about it, the reasons given for the exemption only apply to the user page. The talk page, especially for non-logged-in user is a communication channel between the user and admins and contains the record of things like warnings from admins. --Nate Ladd 17:45, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

WP:3RR#User_pages doesn't say "User page", it says "user space". The policy also exempts own's own talk page and other items in your own space. In the case being discussed here, as an anon IP he doesn't actually own the user space in question. DreamGuy 21:59, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it says "user page space". The first two nouns are being used as adjectives to modify the last. The only grammatically possible meaning this could have is "the space constituted by the user page". If this is not the intended meaning. If the exemption is meant to apply to the user talk page as well, then the policy needs to be rewritten. I'll leave that to you. But be sure that the intended meaning really is to include the talk page in the exemption. As Gamaliel and I have noted, there is a good reason for not exempting a user's talk page, especially for an anonymous user: It contains a record of the warnings he has received from admins. --Nate Ladd 01:19, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Not only is your interpretation not "the only grammatically possible meaning" your version cleary doesn't fit the end part of the sentence "on the principle that your user space is yours (for project-related purposes)". User page space are pages in your user space, not just your user page. If they only wanted to exempt the user page they'd say that and the end of the sentence would be different. DreamGuy 10:35, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the latter part of the sentence doesn't use the word "page." My point about grammar is strictly concerned with the three word phrase "user page space". English grammar does not allow this 3-noun phrase to mean what you interpret it to mean. "user page" is modifying "space", so the phrase is identifying a space that consists of one thing: a user page. If the sentence is intended to convey that the talk page is also included in the exemption, then it needs to be rewritten to say that explicitly. You stumble over this problem yourself when you say "User page space are ..." Notice how you have a singular subject but a plural verb. --Nate Ladd 11:19, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways. Either User:67.182.157.6 is Donald R. Alford or he is not. If he is, then it is his "space" to edit and revert as he chooses. If he is not, then he is being wrongly connected to another user throughout this page. Besides, unless the owner of a talk page complains, I think we can assume it was with consent anyways. This is really small potatoes. I am not sure what Donald may have done to deserve this treatment, but your charges here are pretty silly.--Agiantman 22:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)\

I'm not trying to have it any way, I'm saying that registered users' user space can be modified at will by the user. Unregistered users have IP addresses that can be shared and otherwise do not gain the same protections. DreamGuy 01:11, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

That's pretty petty. Why would you care about an anon ip address talk page when no one at that anon address has complained? Clearly you have another agenda.--Agiantman 01:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Uh, no...IPs simply do not have user space of their own, as they are not registered. I have no "agenda" when I say that. Perhaps you ought to be Assuming good faith.

He is Donald Alford. He does not deny this. He denies that he created the User:Donald Alford page. As for whether his talk page is his space, see above. I don't consider deleting evidence in an Arb Comm proceeding to be small potatoes.--Nate Ladd 01:22, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I just read one of the links to Donald's talk page: "As I predicted, Donald will not give a "Yes" or "No" answer. He knows either answer will reveal the idiocy of his ideas on belief and knowledge. --Nate Ladd 19:53, August 17, 2005 (UTC)" So Nathan Ladd is referring to Donald as an idiot, and Donald is supposed to keep that personal attck on his talk page? Come'on!--Agiantman 22:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Considering what he's called me in the last month (or for that matter just the last couple of days) I'm entitled to an "idiocy" or two of my own. But to answer your question, he he only deleted that, I wouldn't have a problem. But he is deleting the warnings he got from Admins as well as other evidence in the Arb Committee action against him. --Nate Ladd 01:20, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

• I've protected the page since it contains evidence involving in an Arbcom dispute. Gamaliel 18:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Why is it a problem for a user to revert his own talk page? I notice that admins such as Gamaliel delete negative comments from their talk pages. See User_talk:Anonip#Gamaliel and Impartial 3RR Blocking. Are there plans to block Gamaliel or protect his talk page for doing the same thing? If all Donald is doing is editing his own page, I say leave him alone.--Agiantman 22:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It is a problem when the revert has the effect of deleting evidence in the Arbcom dispute. --Nate Ladd 01:23, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

User:Sidam

Three revert rule violation on Electromagnetic induction. This user has been reverting the article to their version of the text for five days now (and has been, in turn, reverted back by many editors), but has finally crossed the "three reverts in 24 hours" threshold.

Reported by: Atlant 12:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

User:67.182.157.6 AKA Donald R. Alford THE SEQUEL: Revenge of the Donald

Three revert rule violation on page User:Donald R. Alford. (I'm not putting the Wiki formatting around the title because the revert warrior keeps redirecting it, so if you clicked on it, it wouldn't necessarily go to the page he's reverting.) 67.182.157.6 (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: [79]
• 1st revert: [80]
• 2nd revert: [81]
• 3rd revert: [82]
• 4th revert: [83]
• 5th revert: 23:18, 18 August 2005
• 6th revert: 23:52, 18 August 2005

Reported by: --Nate Ladd 21:33, August 18, 2005 (UTC) Comments:

• Because of his previous misbehavior (see the section above with the same title as this one, except the "sequel" part), this user's own talk page has been protected. Therefore, I warned him in this edit annotation: [84]
• If you are unfamiliar with this user, see again the section above as well as the ongoing Arb Comm proceedings about him where he is referred to as "DotSix".
• Also note that while the page is a user page, it is not the revert warriors user page. In fact he is insisting that it is not his.
• He also messed with this page a few minutes ago.
  • Added 5th & 6th reverts. User claims they are not him, but show up in edits by 67.182.157.6. ∞Who?¿? 00:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

User:68.35.229.38 (Sean Howard)

Three revert rule violation on Sean_Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.35.229.38 (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 18:17, 16 August 2005
• 1st revert: 12:15, 18 August 2005
• 2nd revert: 14:11, 18 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 21:29, 18 August 2005
• 4th revert: 00:32, 19 August 2005

Reported by: Spinn2 08:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments: Revisions center around the last paragraph of "Penny Arcade controversy". Insists his interpretations are the only true facts, disregards discussion to the contrary, reverts any changes that don't agree with his view on this point.

User: Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Three revert rule violation on Bob Dylan ([history]). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 22:17, 18 August 2005
• 1st revert: 05:32, 19 August 2005
• 2nd revert: 06:47, 19 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 08:01, 19 August 2005
• 4th revert: 15:13, 19 August 2005

Reported by: Monicasdude 16:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments: Underlying dispute is over whether article should declare a conclusion on the end of Dylan's "Christian period." This is an incessantly debated issue among Dylan followers, and there is no consensus. User: Lulu etc insists that a particular declaration be included (with minor variations in form), and has provided several inconsistent justifications for his point, none supported by factual references, and his responses to my pointing out undisputed factual errors have been announcements of new rationales coupled with personal abuse. Examples: "Unfortunately, while Monicasdude does seem to be fairly knowledgeable about Dylan's career, he is really obnoxious about editing... generally convinced, I suppose, that every edit of his is golden, and everyone else always wrong." "Monicasdude just continues to be endlessly obnoxious over trite things." "It sure would be a nicer place if Monicasdude would only edit articles I had no interest in ever reading or editing." "Monicasdude, please IMPROVE article rather than attempt to "take your toys and go home" (and READ the g*d sentence used." He's never provided any verifiable basis for his position, just the occasional sweeping generalization presenting easily demonstrable factual errors. User: Lulu etc has been blocked at least twice previously for 3RR violations: (1) 07:42, 23 Apr 2005, admin: Gentgeen; (2) 23:37, 16 May 2005, admin: Gentgeen. Monicasdude 17:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• After his/her 4th revert, Lulu then replaced the disputed sentence with significantly different wording. Despite the intemperate language, this seems to be a genuine attempt at compromise. Also I wonder if this edit would count as a revert, which would mean Monicasdude is in violation as well. Gamaliel 17:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't follow you. Some time ago, I deleted an edit that more or less said that Dylan had returned to becoming a practicing Jew, which everyone who commented agreed was inaccurate. That referred to Dylan's personal beliefs; the current dispute is over his public persona. Monicasdude 19:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Response: Take a look at my revisions. They represent several attempts at (slightly) different phrasing to meet Monicasdude's questions on the talk page. The older form, before Monicasdude's attempt to introduce a new POV was at [85]. The prior language was first reverted by Monicasdude at [86]. I tried to meet his questions (first overt->publicly; then late 1980s->mid-1980s; most lately a longer reworded sentence). In the last 24 hours, I've have attempted several variations on the phrasing to meet the (well, pedantic) comments of Monicasdude, but each time he just blindly reverts to his "magic" version (his always identical, no tries at variations); and specifically, since he has reverted both everything I tried and also an original change from a prior user, however many reverts I made, Monicasdude made one more.

I am baffled at how anyone could in good faith claim that he made the changes discussed as an attempt at compromise. Going from, roughly, "Dylan stopped playing explicitly Christian songs in the late 1980s" to "Dylan stopped playing explicitly Christian songs in the mid 1980s" to "Dylan stopped playing explicitly Christian songs by 1983, although a few later songs might include oblique Christian references" is simply widening the dispute, when the opposing position is that Dylan has never stopped playing explicitly Christian songs. There are no genuine factual issues. Virtually every concert Dylan has played over the last 25 years is documented; the setlists are easily accessible, and there are several online databases that can be referred to. User:Lulu offers no factual support for his claims; he doesn't dispute any of the extensive factual commentary I've placed on the talk page (and I'm going to add detailed figures in a few moments). The statistics are quite clear: on average, if you go to see Bob Dylan perform on any given night, you'll usually see him perform an explicitly Christian song. To make the repreated edits that user:Lulu has, without making any effort to offer a factual basis for his side of the dispute, is a paradigmatic example of the sort of "sterile" edit warring that the 3RR rule is supposed to prevent. Monicasdude 20:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Specifically, Monicasdude's four identical reversions are at: [87] [88] [89] [90] Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:07, 2005 August 19 (UTC)

The first edit is not a revert, unless any deletion of text is considered a revert. From the definition: "A 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." While we can argue about the application of the rule to partial reverts of particular changes, I don't think I've seen an example of a lengthy, good-faith edit addressing multiple matters being characterized as a revert simply because it deleted some existing text without replacing it. This interpretation would classify a huge number of edits as reverts, even though their intent is not to restore a pre-existing form of the article. Is there a precedent on this? Monicasdude 19:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Monicadude's first listed edit included a number of unrelated changes, which look fine. It also included the delection of the phrase about Dylan's overt/public Christianity that he had deleted several times before, after several editors restored similar language (starting with [91]). His prior reversions were slower than 4-per-day though. I don't know if the grouped changes were an effort to "sneak in" his contentious change. After the first one was corrected by me, Monicasdude launched into three more edits that did nothing except delete any variation on the majority-approved (on talk page) phrase. His changes bordered on vandalism; but the position he wants to advance is not so unrelated as to really be vandalism strictly speaking... just overzealous and arrogant editing. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:34, 2005 August 19 (UTC)

The core of the issue here is the factual accuracy of the statement in question. Based solely on what has been said here, it seems Monicasdude has factual information to back up his version. Lulu, if you have citations to back up your version or to dispute Monicasdude's version, please produce them on Talk:Bob Dylan. Gamaliel 20:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Done Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:21, 2005 August 19 (UTC)

User: Neutrality Plumber

Three revert rule violation on Propaganda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Neutrality Plumber (talk · contribs)

• Previous version reverted to: 12:31, 19 August 2005
• 1st revert: 12:48, 19 August 2005
• 2nd revert: 12:54, 19 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 13:26, 19 August 2005
• 4th revert: 17:56, 19 August 2005

Reported by: --TimPope 17:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

This is actually fixing of vandalism and you know that. And you're one to talk: Look at your 4reverts of the word "propaganda" on Polish Plumber you made yesterday before telling a partner of yours to continue so you won't get problems with 3RR, but in fact you violated it already. Now, on propaganda, your partner tracked my edits and reverted it only because it was my edit. After 3 reverts he sent you to continue. Wikipedia is not a democracy when it comes to vandalism and therefore doesn't allow vandalism coupled with a partner to circumvent the 3RR.--Neutrality Plumber

I made 3 reverts on Polish Plumber, not 4. --TimPope 17:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[92], [93], [94], [95]. Then you contacted Witkacy to continue.[96], who reverted everything on principle [97], [98] and when he found further edits of mine (like a common vandal): [99], [100], [101], then it was TimPopes time to continue so Witkacy doesn't violate the rule. If that is how wikipedia should run - a vandal who keeps undoing edits without explanation and is relieved by the next without explanation either except for a thin unconnected comment to make it look like he was trying to discuss (see talk page of propaganda- then wikipedia cannot work.--Neutrality Plumber

The third of those was not a revert, just a reorganisation of the text, and the word propaganda is there for all to see. I also add the Template: npov in that edit, so that we could discuss the changes, but you removed it. --TimPope 17:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I cannot speak for Witkacy, but I have made several attempts to dicuss edits with you on Talk: Polish Plumber, Talk: Propaganda and User talk: Neutrality Plumber, so don't call me a vandal. --TimPope 17:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel 3rr Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Agiantman 24.147.97.230 03:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course it was a revert but you partly changed (for the worse that is: the neutrality of the article was not even discussed, just the wording). If that is how you think it should work - to revert and make some stupid minor change, how should any revert war end, huh? Now get the hell back to Talk:Propaganda and try explaining that vandalistic deletion. I've stopped reverting that by the way even before you reported me. If your arguments stay as weak as they are - and I don't think you could find any better because your revert was arguably vandalistic - then you know very well what in 24 hours will happen.--Neutrality Plumber

User:Pigsonthewing

Three revert rule violation on Bill Oddie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 20.39 July 29
• 1st revert: 09.56 August 19
• 2nd revert: 11.00 August 19
• 3rd revert: 11.19 August 19
• 4th revert: 11.31 August 19

I asked him to undo his last rever, SqueakBox 18:01, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Edit 1 was not a reversion. Andy Mabbett 21:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett is Pigsonthewing. Yes it was. Mayumashu added the cat here, and you reverted it for the fiirst time here. How is that not a revert? Of course it is. With 14,000 edits under the belt Pigsonthewing musty know about 3RR. Why not undo your 4th revert. Otherwise IMO you should be blocked for 24 hours, SqueakBox 22:49, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

User:Monicasdude

Three revert rule violation on Bob Dylan Monicasdude (talk · contribs):

• [102]
• [103]
• [104]
• [105]

Can we simply close this? It is unsigned and unexplained, brought in bad faith in retaliation by an editor who has been sanctioned at least twice previously for 3RR violations and consistently fails to comply with applicable guidelines for identifying reverts. Monicasdude 01:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

It does not matter that its unsigned if the claim is legit. The fact that the user who posted it has broken 3RR doesn't mean anything either. If you broke 3RR then you broke 3RR. Redwolf24 03:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

List of movies that have been considered among the worst ever

This is less of a direct WP:3RR violation then the strong possibility of one either now, or shortly:

• [106]
• [107]
• [108]
• [109]

(Note that more then 24 hours had passed between reverts 1 and 4, but this is still a stale edit war, with a side order of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point.)

• The anon editor has been warned and I'm keeping an eye on the article. Please don't list things which aren't actually violations. Gamaliel 18:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Gavin the Chosen IV

Three revert rule violation on Otherkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gavin the Chosen (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 04:18, 19 August 2005
• 1st revert: 15:07 19 Aug
• 2nd revert: 15:21 19 Aug
• 3rd revert: 15:25 19 Aug
• 4th revert: 16:46 19 Aug

Reported by: ~~ N (t/c) 22:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• See previous 3 3RR violations by Gavin on this page. Gavin is saying he's "reverting to consensus version", but the only other 2 people who I see editing Talk:Otherkin (DreamGuy and Hipocrite) are against him. ~~ N (t/c) 22:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

you left out slimvirgin, and friday, and Vashti, those are who i derive cnsensus from, if youwould pleaes notice on the tlak page. and that violation, if it was one, was accidental.Gavin the Chosen 22:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't look far enough up. I will revert back to your version of the article. The 3RR violation stands, though. ~~ N (t/c) 22:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Compliments to SlimVirgin for her rapid response. ~~ N (t/c) 22:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome, Nickptar. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:43, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

...this happens to be his 20th block (under both usernames). Wyss 22:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Rktect on Khet

Three revert rule violation on Khet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rktect (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 14 August 2005
• 1st revert: Aug 19
• 2nd revert:

19 Aug

• 3rd revert:

19 Aug

• 4th revert:

20 Aug

Reported by - Zoe 07:53, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Actually, Rktect's edits look helpful to me and Zoe and one other user are not explaining their reverts. None of the editors of this page have made any use of the talk page. --Nate Ladd 08:21, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Please view Rktect's edits as a whole.
    • Please do. As noted above they are edits not reverts.
  • He inserts everything he apparently ever knew or made up (and a lot of what he claims he makes up, despite tons of references, most of which do not contain what he claims they contain) into every article he writes.
    • Parsing that, it would seem that Zoe is complaining about too much information here. Conversely it is given as a reason for deletion that there is too little information on the 27 pages having to deal with standards of measure which this gang (Egil, Ken, Gene, Drini and Zoe) has collectively marked for deletion in the last two weeks.
    • Ken gang marks for deletion including up to four pages at a time so that individual pages can't be voted on individually. All of them systematically delete references and wikification from pages they are voting against.
    • As a group they account for almost all the votes for deletion on all the pages they have systematically attacked.
  • He refuses to allow others to change anything he writes, he reverts everything on sight.
    • That is simply a bald faced lie. In fact, as noted above by Nathan Ladd, I was making helpful edits wikifying and adding references and Zoe, Gene and Drini were instantly reverting those improvements to remove the wikification and references.
  • Much discussion has been made on his Talk page and on the Talk pages of other people involved with him.
    • True. I have pointed out that this began with user Egil removing content from pages and marking them for deletion. When we went to mediation he then enlisted Ken, Gene and others to continue the attacks while he merely voted for deletion on pages Ken had marked vfd.
    • Edit War
    • Egil and I have a dispute which has been in mediation since Aug 5.
    • Egil systematically removes from articles or marks for deletion anything he either doesn't understand or hasn't heard of on the grounds that it is original research.
    • I have provided a large number of references to show that Egil is misinformed, none of this is original research. Furthermore, contrary to Zoe's and Egil's speculations this is not pseudo science or something I just made up.
    • What Egil lables original research is in some cases in its fifth printing and very mainstream, he just hasn't got enough background in the subject matter to have heard of it.
    • Because this is in mediation he is enjoined by the terms of the mediation from continuing his activities.
    • Consequently he has contacted Gene, Ken, Drini and others and asked them to help him continue his assault.
    • Evidence of Conspiracy
    • Egil contacted Ken, Gene, Drini, and others to organize a conspiracy resulting in the following major destruction of interesting and informative Wikipedia material

"How to handle contributions by user:69.164.70.243

I really have a hard time following up his contributions. I'm sure there may be much of value there, but I have a really hard time filtering out what is valuable, and what is, at best, original research. So I guess the easiest thing is simply to revert everything. But it is a lot of work. How do you suggest one handles this? -- Egil 14:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I take it this has to do with ancient weights and measures and the pages split off from it and medieval weights and measures. Any others? I haven't really followed that, just noticed some activity with the vague idea that eventually we'd have to go in and do some cleanup work on it. I think you hit the nail on the head, but I haven't looked in detail at many of these changes. Are most of the recent ones by this contributor? I'll watch it for a while now, and take a look at hte pages as they stand now.and see if I have any better ideas. Gene Nygaard 15:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I've given up, and posted this request: Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance#Pseudoscientific_attack. -- Egil 14:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I noticed your removal of some of this at mile, and hadn't noticed any subsequent change back. I'll look at that and see if I can help out. Gene Nygaard 15:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC) "

• Actions Against the Interests of Wikipedia
  • Egil began putting a tag on virtually every page I started
  • He falsely characterized the pages as original research.
  • He enlisted support for votes against them from people who had no knowledge of the subject matter
  • He listed as reasons the false grounds they were original research and or poorly formatted.
  • With Egil restrained by mediation
  • Ken, Gene and Drini acted as his agents
  • They acted as a group to revert every change that was made
  • They reverted the addition of references,
  • They reverted attempts to respond to discussion or add content
  • Egil claimed dis-involvement but continued to vote against the articles
  • Egil continued to stir things up with correspondence
  • Egil encouraged the people doing the vandalism.
  • Removal of references from an article that is being put up for deletion on grounds that it is original research is simply fraud.
    • The simple mass of damage they were doing began to be cited as a reason to do more damage

"So, it's not me trying to vandalize *ahem* your *ahem* entries,

I'm just following what it seems the consensus respect to this material, and that it's been considered your original research (not the references postings, but the content itself).

• You are correct that its not *ahem* just you. Unsigned comment from User:Rktect

Nice summary, Drini! Gene Nygaard 13:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC) "

Pseudoscientific metrology. Inspired by some of the last few weeks incidents, I've collected various material on Pseudoscientific metrology. I'd appreciate it if you would review it. -- Egil 12:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I've also posted this request: Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance#Pseudoscientific_attack. -- Egil 14:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

A pseudoscientific attack: that's exactly what seems to be happening here. I'll have a look at your page. Splitting Ancient weights and measures article was a good idea. I'd been thinking of doing that myself. Jimp 8Aug05

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimp"

• Ken's Contributions
• Ken's contributions in the last two weeks are mostly attempts to systematically revert or delete anything with my name on it. This includes a spurious charge of a coyright violation for having quoted from a free source and spurious charges of vandalism. Further he joins different articles together in the same vfd so they can't be tried separately. This is against procedure. Every article must be voted on separately.
• Latest | Earliest) View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500).
• 11:48, August 13, 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Copyright problems (?August 13 - passus)
• 11:46, August 13, 2005 (hist) (diff) Passus (copyvio) (top)
• 09:27, August 13, 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/3ht (?3ht and st3t - add additional article Egyptian fields to vote)
• 09:26, August 13, 2005 (hist) (diff) Egyptian fields (point to combined VfD for 3ht, St3t, and now Egyptian fields)
• 09:25, August 13, 2005 (hist) (diff) Egyptian fields (VfD)
• 09:22, August 13, 2005 (hist) (diff) m St3t (point to combined VfD for 3ht and St3t)
• 09:21, August 13, 2005 (hist) (diff) St3t (vfd)
• 09:20, August 13, 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 August 13 (3ht and st3t)
• 09:19, August 13, 2005 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/3ht (add st3t to vfd)
• 09:18, August 13, 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/3ht (3ht and St3t - delete)
• 09:16, August 13, 2005 (hist) (diff) 3ht (VfD)
• 09:01, August 13, 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 August 13 (Atur)
• 09:00, August 13, 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Atur (Atur) (top)
• 08:58, August 13, 2005 (hist) (diff) Atur (VfD) (top)
• 08:57, August 13, 2005 (hist) (diff) Eratosthenes (revert to last version by Kenwarren. Despite edit summary, last revert didn't add any references to substantiate additional claims. Please see talk page.)
• 08:49, August 13, 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/21,000 royal cubits (Agree with addition of article to VfD) (top)
• 08:46, August 13, 2005 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Egil (copyedit) (top)
• 08:45, August 13, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Egil (?100 Royal cubits)
• 08:43, August 13, 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Egil (100 Royal Cubits)
• 08:09, August 13, 2005 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:AMA FAQs (?How does one chose an advocate? - spelling: chose to choose) (top)
• 07:39, August 13, 2005 (hist) (diff) Mile (?History)
• 00:58, August 13, 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 August 13 (21,000 royal cubits)
• 00:58, August 13, 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/21,000 royal cubits (21,000 royal cubits)
• 00:56, August 13, 2005 (hist) (diff) 21,000 royal cubits (vfd) (top)
• 00:55, August 13, 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 August 13 (River journey)
• 00:55, August 13, 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/River journey (River journey)
• 00:53, August 13, 2005 (hist) (diff) River journey (vfd)
• 00:37, August 13, 2005 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Eratosthenes (?Reasoning behind revert - sign my edit)
• 00:33, August 13, 2005 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Eratosthenes (copyedit)
• 00:32, August 13, 2005 (hist) (diff) Talk:Eratosthenes (Reasoning behind revert)
• 00:21, August 13, 2005 (hist) (diff) Eratosthenes (rv to last version by FeanorStar7. Can't find any references that agree with added and changed material. See talk for example.)
• Votes for Deletion
• A total of 27 articles have been marked for deletion by Egil, and Ken since August 5th. Drini, Gene Nygaard and Zoe are among those voting against them.
• khet was an article marked for votes for deletion and being voted on.
• The five individuals named abouve have been in repeated contact
• They have worked in concert toward a common objective.
• The objective has been to act to the long range detriment of Wikipedia
• They have conspired to remove interesting and informative articles
• Their conspiricy to act to the detriment of Wikipedia should be punished
• Evidence of Group Action

Atur Another in the series of pages with content effectively identical to Itrw. Delete. Ken talk|contribs 13:00, August 13, 2005 (UTC) Delete more of Rktect original research -- < drini | ?drini > 21:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC) Delete. Not useful at all. -- Egil 22:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC) 3ht, st3t, Egyptian fields Both pages are identical to Khet. Delete. Ken talk|contribs 13:18, August 13, 2005 (UTC) Comment: added Egyptian fields. Ken talk|contribs 13:27, August 13, 2005 (UTC) the ideosyncratic spelling causes me to vote delete. Votes for deletion#3ht. Zoe 19:08, August 14, 2005 (UTC) 19:10, August 13, 2005 (UTC) Delete. Gene Nygaard 15:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC) Delete as former articles by Rktect, original research. -- < drini | ?drini > 19:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC) This isnt' an article about "Myle" (¿?) but just reposting of Rktect's already deleted content content all over again. See [1] and [2] for evidence. · Delete -- < drini | ∂drini > 01:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC). By the way Rktect is removing Vfd Notices in order to hide them. [3] -- < drini | ∂drini > 01:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC) Probably the result of an edit conflict, due to someone adding the original {{vfd}} tag while he was in the middle of adding in all those (spurious?) references --Mysidia (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC) Delete. Apparently Rktect has decided to put everything he "knows" into every article he edits, and because those changes are generally reverted on the grounds of relevance, comprehensibility, a deliberate disregard of all the rules of editing, dishonest use of minor edit tag, and various other reasons, to create a few new ones of the same thing just for good measure. Gene Nygaard

• False Charges

You have made three reverts in 24 hours. If you revert again you will have violated the Three Revert rule, and can be blocked from editing for 24 hours. I suggest you discuss the need for the excessive references on the article's Talk page and try to get consensus. Zoe 05:54, August 20, 2005 (UTC) (I was not released from Blockage until August 20 20:22)

Rktect's additions

Rktect has accused me of vandalizing his edits. So I've started collecting evidence that the consensus on his material is to be removed. Please see [25], I'd appreaciate feedback or information I'm missing. -- < drini | ∂drini > 21:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Would you consider Rktect's latest partial revert of Khet as a violation of the 3RR? Zoe 07:20, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

OK, after discussion with Drini, I have blocked Rktect for 24 hours for violating 3RR despite being warned. Zoe 07:45, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Missuse of Administrative Authority

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the 3 revert rule, despite the warning above. When you come back, please discuss your reverts on the Talk page. Zoe 07:42, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Zoe revert No.5

(cur) (last) 03:50, August 20, 2005 Zoe m (Reverted edits by Rktect to last version by Zoe) Zoe acting in concert with Gene Nygaard and Drini reverted a wickified edit with reduced subset of references and blocked rktect before a fourth revert occured there is no possible justifiable reason for this and others noted and commented that the edits by rktect were useful

• Edits are not Reverts

(cur) (last) 03:12, August 20, 2005 Rktect (wikiwiki) rktect self edit to wikify (cur) (last) 03:04, August 20, 2005 Rktect (added reduced subset of essential references) rktect edit not revert to add subset of reduced references

• Zoe revert No.4

(cur) (last) 01:53, August 20, 2005 Zoe m (Reverted edits by Rktect to last version by Zoe) Zoe acting in concert with Gene Nygaard (and Drini ?) reverted a wickified edit with references

• Rktect revert No 3.

(cur) (last) 01:35, August 20, 2005 Rktect (comments on last revert are looking for this) In an action against a vandal to replace references vandalized by Gene Nygaard rktect reverted to replace the vandalized references and wikified markup

• Zoe revert No.3

(cur) (last) 01:28, August 20, 2005 Zoe m (Reverted edits by Rktect to last version by Gene Nygaard) zoe reverted to vandalized version with all references deleted

• Rktect revert No 2.

(cur) (last) 01:25, August 20, 2005 Rktect (the references are very relevent to the page please read them and then quit vandalizing them) In an action against a vandal to replace references vandalized by Gene Nygaard rktect reverted to replace the vandalized references and wikified markup

• Gene Nygaard revert No.2

(cur) (last) 17:50, August 19, 2005 Gene Nygaard (revert, so-called "references" are admitted to have no particular connection to Khet article) The vandalism is not justified by the lie in comments Gene Nygaard deleted standard references by Gardiner, Faulkner and Loprieno discussing the khet as a unit of measure which is both a length and area and by Gillings discussing its use in calculation in the Rhind papyrus. Also deleted were standard reference works such as Kleins "The World of Measurement", contemporary references to Egyptian standards of measure being used by the Greeks in Herodotus History, Vitruvious "Ten Books of Architecture" and Normand Parallel Orders of Architecure by Cordingly just to mention a few. Gene also reverted the Drini edit to wikify

• Edit to Wikify

(cur) (last) 16:33, August 19, 2005 Drini ({cleanup}{{wikify}})

• Rktect revert No. 1

Rktect attempted to replace references removed by Drini (cur) (last) 16:11, August 19, 2005 Rktect (How about some discussion before you delete the references again)

• Drini revert No. 1

Drini deleted references no explanation of why (cur) (last) 15:22, August 19, 2005 Drini m (Reverted edits by Rktect to last version by BaronLarf)

• Normal Activity

Normal edits to wikify and add references (cur) (last) 19:31, August 14, 2005 Rktect m (cleaned up wikiwiki added references removed tags) (cur) (last) 14:02, August 13, 2005 Rktect m (cleaned up and "wikified" the first couple of paragraphs) (cur) (last) 13:52, August 13, 2005 BaronLarf ({{cleanup}}{{wikify}}) (cur) (last) 13:51, August 13, 2005 Rktect m (cur) (last) 00:03, August 13, 2005 Rktect m

• And even if he were "right", 4 reversions in less than 24 hours is still a 3RR violation. Zoe 09:29, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Everything claimed by Zoe is false. I was blocked for two days for editing a page to restore the wikification and references which she, Gene and Drinia acting together had reverted 5 times without a single note on the discussion page.
• The Effect
• removing wikification and references is fraudulent under the circumstances
• The article is presently listed in votes for deletion.
• The people vandalizing it by removing its references and wikification have voted against it.
• I have been blocked at a critical point in the process even as
• Their actions are making it appear less substantive so that it stands a better chance of being deleted than if they left it alone.
• Requested Protection
• The articles attacked by this gang of vandals should be restored to their referenced and wickified condition
• They should be protected against further vandalism
• Articles which have been voted for deletion should be undeleted on the grounds of fraud,missuse of administrative authority and false charges

Rktect 02:13, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Short answer. AS stated in the beggingin of this page:

Please also be aware that this page is not the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour — we aren't referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. We have a dispute resolution procedure which we recommend you follow. If you bring such disputes here, we will usually advise you to take them elsewhere, such as mediation, requests for comment, or requests for arbitration.

We really do mean this; this is not the page to bring up accusations of bad faith, or POV pushing. Many admins do have a modicum of intelligence, and are capable of making decisions without the help of huge complaints about the user's general behaviour. Just give us the article, the diffs, a link to the history, and as little else as possible.

And the claims about Egil rallying for a conspiracy agains him are totally unsubstantiated. This is not the plaace for further discussion of this. Thanks. -- < drini | ∂drini > 17:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• "This page is for any user to report and discuss potential violations of the three revert rule. Any user of Wikipedia may post here. Please feel free to leave a message or report a violation."

• Since you are one of the people being reported for violations and in fact you continue to vandalize and revert pages your advice doesn't carry much weight with me, sorry about that. Also, for what its worth, your claim that many admin's have a modicum of intelligence wouldn't need to be asserted if it were true. Anyone who want's to take notice of the close association between (Egil, Ken, Gene Drini and Zoe) only need observe that where one shows up the rest are sure to follow. If you don't want to be called out as a vandal don't engage in vandalism. Rktect 23:13, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I was just commenting the content of this very page. That wasn't my opinion, it was a fact stating. You could've noticed if you had read what this page is about before engagin in your rants -- < drini | ∂drini > 23:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Andries

Three revert rule violation on Prem Rawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by user:Andries -- Reported by --ZappaZ 17:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• 1st revert: [110]
• 2nd revert: [111]
• 3rd revert: [112]

• This is not a violation. Gamaliel 18:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

3 reverts ibn 24 hours is allowed although there does appear to be an edit war going on.Geni 18:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

He continues with this. He has done more than 8 reverts already. [113], [114], [115], [116] and [117]. Please help, he does not listen to reason. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:28, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

not quite eight reverts but more than 3 now. blocked for 24 hours.Geni 21:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

He continues now with an IP address of 195.182.116.135. Could you please watch it? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ 22:26, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

User:Noitall

Three revert rule violation on 2003 invasion of Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Noitall (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 00:41, 20 August 2005
• 1st revert: 12:45, 20 August 2005
• 2nd revert: 13:30, 20 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 17:07, 20 August 2005
• 4th revert: 20:25, 20 August 2005

Reported by: Christiaan 20:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• 3 outright reverts and one complex revert. hmmm.Geni 20:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

  It's just a simple revert back to the previous version isn't it (as well as being a whole sale deletion of a substantial and longstanding section of the article without discussion)? What is a "complex revert"? Christiaan 20:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

  the complex revert was the first one where he let the remove of a picture stand but still reverted the text.Geni 21:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

  Well, up to you. Looks like he might have packed up for the night anyway. Christiaan 21:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Keetoowah

Three revert rule violation on Air America Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Keetoowah (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 13:19, 19 August 2005
• 1st revert: 07:40, 20 August 2005
• 2nd revert: 14:44, 20 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 15:40, 20 August 2005
• 4th revert: 16:02, 20 August 2005

Reported by: PHenry 01:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• It would appear that Keetoowah is fighting an army of socks, which is problematic insofar as it is not possible to treat all sides equally, since blocking the socks is pointless. Since Keetoowah is discussing the edits on the article talk page, and appears to have the facts on his side, I am taking no action on the 3RR violation and instead editing the article towards a compromise version. Others, of course, may still do as they see fit. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

User:4.228.213.151

Three revert rule violation on Cindy Sheehan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 4.228.213.151 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

• Previous version reverted to: [118]
• 1st revert: [119]
• 2nd revert: [120]
• 3rd revert: [121]
• 4th revert: [122]

Reported by: GabrielF 04:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Please watch 4.228.213.151 - he has engaged in edit wars (using different IPs) over several parts of this page. Right now he wants Cindy Sheehan's membership in the democratic party included in the summary of the article and he calls everyone who removes it a vandal. He has been warned several times by different users.

These IPs seem to represent the same individual -- 4.228.90.229 -- 4.228.216.239. Badagnani 21:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

At least I can say one good thing about this anon IP, s/he is good at staying "on message"! :) Kindly block 4.228.90.229.

*1st revert: [123]

*2nd revert: [124]

*3rd revert: [125]

*4th revert: [126] Badagnani 21:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

This multiple-revert warrior is back, this time with a new IP. 4.228.216.125 Badagnani 21:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Is there possibly someone who can help at "Cindy Sheehan"? 4.228.216.125 has reached the 10+ revert stage (maybe it's more; my head is spinning). Our fingers are getting tired fixing his ill-advised "corrections" (actually the same one, over and over, though consensus is that it's a bad edit). Many thanks. Badagnani 23:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The individual now seems to be operating (making the same edits as the above IPs, many more than 3 times) under the IP 4.227.175.237. Badagnani 08:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Can we please get some help at Cindy Sheehan? We are being held hostage by the newest incarnation of the same "reverter."

*1st revert: [127]

*2nd revert: [128]

*3rd revert: [129]

*4th revert: [130]

*5th revert: [131]

*6th revert: [132]

*7th revert: [133]

*8th revert: [134]

etc. -- and there have been a lot more since the 8th one. This person is operating with impunity, so any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Badagnani 09:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

User:84.148.84.29

Three revert rule violation on Bob Dylan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 84.148.84.29 (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
• 1st revert: [135]
• 2nd revert: [136]
• 3rd revert: [137]
• 4th revert: [138]

Reported by: Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:07, 2005 August 21 (UTC)

Comments:

• User:Clair de Lune who has made all and only the same changes to this page may be a sockpuppet. S/he, however, has made changes to other pages in the two days since creating an account.

Update: Actually, I don't think Clair de Lune is the same as 84.148.84.29; the former has a brief (and somewhat uncharacteristic) history of making good, but one-shot, changes to many different pages (a large share are music related).

Same user then proceeded to revert on a different change that had been discussed on talk page (whether lead should be only one sentence, which anon wants for some reason):

• [139]
• [140]
• [141]

This is a different issue, and only three reverts in the last 24 hours (but more over the last days), but shows a pattern of reversion bordering on vandalism. I'm going to sleep, but s/he may well revert some more on the same one-sentence-lead thing. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:28, 2005 August 21 (UTC)

User:Hmib

Three revert rule violation on Shintaro Ishihara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hmib (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 00:08, 18 August 2005
• 1st revert: 03:19, 21 August 2005
• 2nd revert: 05:48, 21 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 07:12, 21 August 2005
• 4th revert: 19:31, 21 August 2005

Those links are revised by FlowerofChivalry to fix the date mismatch problem.

Reported by: Flowerofchivalry 19:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• This user has violated 3RR twice intentionally. He believes all edits he does not favor are vandalisms and has right to revert the edits outside 3RR. Flowerofchivalry 19:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• FoC, we need to see diffs showing the changes not the identical versions, and we also need a link to the previous version reverted to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:01, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I did. Thank you.--Flowerofchivalry 20:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The times and the diffs don't match. Please give a link to the version reverted to; then the earliest revert (1st revert) followed by the time and diff, then the next revert (2nd revert) etc. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:59, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Is the problem a timezone issue? (I notice that the times listed below are all out by 7 hours from the above)--ElvisThePrince 22:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not that. This diff, for example, [142] shows the current version, yet it's listed as the first revert. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:17, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

My first edit at 20:19, 20 August 2005 was not a revert. I deleted the personal attack against Ishihara which got mixed in to the bigger conflict, which was the sangokujin and apology statement issue.

My reverts from there on were to that version, without the personal attack on Ishihara.

If you look my my contribs, or the history page on Ishihara, my edits on that article were, from latest to earliest,

• 12:31, 21 August 2005
• 00:12, 21 August 2005
• 22:48, 20 August 2005
• 20:19, 20 August 2005 (which was an edit, not a revert)

not what FoC had on the complaint page. -Hmib 20:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Above Hmib's statement is false. His first edition was 00:08, 18 August 2005.

Please take a look at here [143] to see he clearly violated 3RR.

--Flowerofchivalry 20:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The first edition in which you accuse me of violating 3RR is [*20:19, 20 August 2005] and that is NOT a revert but an edit to remove the POV bias against Ishihara. -Hmib 20:49, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

For example, the phrase he was keep reverting is "but he just pointed out his ignorance about french mathematicians and his stupidity", and this is first appeared on 00:08, 18 August 2005. The other controversial point "sangokujin" is the same. By the way, use HR tag "sparingly." Nobody else use it like you.

--Flowerofchivalry 20:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

That oversight was corrected in the first edit at 20:19, 20 August 2005, the version on 18 August is not a factor in this 3RR complaint. In none of the 4 edits did that sentence ever appear. FoC is just trying to malign me with acts I've never done before. -Hmib 21:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

If FoC supplies the correct diffs showing four or more reverts, plus a link to the previous version reverted to, I'll look at the report. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:12, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, the diffs are now correct. We now need a link to the previous version reverted to, showing that the first diff is a revert and not an edit. Please read the instructions at the bottom of this page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:39, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I provided. Thank you for your instruction.--Flowerofchivalry 23:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I feel as though I'm banging my head against a wall here. You've provided a diff to your preferred version, [144] not to an earlier version Hmib was reverting to. Please supply a diff showing that his first edit was a revert, or else withdraw this report (withdraw it, but don't delete it). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:32, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin...I now understand what you mean!! I think this is correct... --Flowerofchivalry 23:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

You've just supplied the diff [145] to what you're calling his first revert at 03:19 August 21 (UTC). It can't both be his first revert and the version he's reverting to. You have to supply a link to a version Hmib reverted to before 03:19 August 21 (UTC). I normally wouldn't keep this going, but it's not the first time you've made false allegations against Hmib, so I feel we should pursue this until either you supply the evidence or withdraw the allegation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:37, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you SlimVirgin. If you need anything else to resolve this, please send me an email as I won't be checking on wikipedia for a while. Cheers. -Hmib 03:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

FoC, you've changed the diff back to the current version again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:10, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy

Three revert rule violation on Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DreamGuy (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: [14:24, 21 August 2005 DreamGuy]
• 1st revert: [14:24, 21 August 2005 DreamGuy]
• 2nd revert: [20:13, 21 August 2005 DreamGuy]
• 3rd revert: [20:52, 21 August 2005 DreamGuy]
• 4th revert: [21:01, 21 August 2005 DreamGuy]

Reported by: FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• DreamGuy has been removing a link to a main article in the article repeatedly, even though the main article contains a lot of detailed information that explains the background to a shortened summary in the Albert Victor article. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Hi, could you supply the diffs showing the changes to the versions you've given? And the 1st revert can't be the same as the previous version reverted to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:51, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

This is another false accusation... The first edit was not a revert, it was a wholly new change. Besides, his claim that I am removing a link to the main article is not true, as the main article is linked at the end... he is trying to present another article as the main article when it is a subsection of a larger article, and the section in question says straight out that the main article is in fact the link that I am leaving there as the main article. Jtdirl refuses to discuss the issue and ignores the edit comments fully explaining the issue, and has also failed to pay attention to the fact that the article he is trying to link to doesn;t exist under that name anymore. DreamGuy 21:13, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Two different articles contain information on the incident mentioned in the article. One is specifically about him on that issue. Another deals with all the rumours and myths about him as part of a larger page on myths and royalty. Both are perfectly relevant to the page. DreamGuy, who has already faced accusations of 3RR violations elsewhere, decided unilaterally that he wouldn't allow both pages be mentioned. The relevant page has been moved by someone. However it is still linked through the redirect, so the latter claim is just rubbish. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jt, for future reference, you must supply the diffs when reporting a 3RR violation, and also a link showing the previous version reverted to i.e. showing that the alleged first revert wasn't just an edit. In this case, I can see no 3RR violation by DreamGuy. However, the issue isn't worth edit-warring over. I've edited the page to say "see also" instead of "main article," I've included both links, and I've corrected the page title of the royal myths/legends one. That should solve the problem. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:49, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

User:65.95.93.182

Three revert rule violation on London, Ontario. User:65.95.93.182:

• Previous version reverted to: 22:08, 21 August 2005
• 1st revert: 22:14, 21 August 2005
• 2nd revert: 22:17, 21 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 22:18, 21 August 2005
• 4th revert: 22:19, 21 August 2005
• 5th revert: 22:21, 21 August 2005

Reported by: Fernando Rizo T/C 22:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• User repeatedly removed Bill Brady from the Notable Londoners section of the article. Fernando Rizo T/C 22:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• I have blocked the user for 24 hours as per WP:3RR. Fernando Rizo T/C 22:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)